Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
DHS Chief Threatens Election Officials With Prison Time; Trump Blames China For Election Data Compromise, Xi Visit Still On; U.S. Launches New Strikes On Iran For Seventh Consecutive Night; ICE Under Scrutiny After Recent Deadly Encounters; Donald Trump Threatens To Slap Tariffs Over The Ongoing Canadian Wildfires. After Aired 10-11p ET
Aired July 17, 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, a warning from Markwayne Mullin for state election officials if they don't follow DHS orders on election security.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Those individuals can also be held accountable by fines, by penalties, prison time.
SIDNER: Plus, U.S. strikes in Iran intensify and so does the rhetoric. A top Iranian official warning of a full-scale retaliation. What's the president's endgame here?
Also, more questions around the fatal ICE shooting investigation in Houston.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're not getting any communication back and forth from them.
SIDNER: And stop smoking. Trump lashing out at Canada for the haze choking Americans.
DEREK VAN DAM, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Unhealthy to hazardous air has been pouring into the East Coast and the Midwest.
SIDNER: How he's threatening to punish our neighbors to the north for their wildfires.
Live from the Food Network, Nayyera Haq, Jason Rantz, Xochitl Hinojosa, and Noah Rothman for a special summer Friday's edition of NewsNight.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SIDNER (on camera): I'm Sara Sidner with a special edition of NewsNight. This summer, we're taking the show on some field trips, and there's our audience, spending our Fridays here at the Food Network's Test Kitchen in New York, our sister company. We have a fabulous chef serving friends of the show, and she has a special treat for us at the end of the night. We wish you were here to share it with us, but we can make that happen at some point.
But, first, will Donald Trump investigate a crisis around the midterms? The president set the table last night, and today his administration announced it is taking action, a crucial step towards his goal to overhaul American elections.
In Trump's primetime address last night, he claimed the nation's election security falls catastrophically short, and that his purpose was not to weaken confidence. His remarks lacked relevant evidence, however. Most of the information revealed was already previously known, and ultimately none of it suggests that previous elections were directly affected by fraud or foreign interference.
And on the heels of Trump's address, today, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, had this chilling warning for state election officials.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MULLIN: The states have to do their part. I will tell you, if the states that choose not to participate with the state program and they choose not to participate in securing the elections, we will make sure that we make those states a priority.
If the election officials, once we gave them the information they need to secure their elections, and they chose not to, then those individuals can also be held accountable by fines, by penalties, and even, depending on how far it goes, prison time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: All right. Before we open it up here at the table, we invite you at home to join the debate. Head to cnn.com/abby and weigh in. We'll get to some of your comments throughout this show.
All right, now to the table. I'm going to start with you, Noah. You are fresh today. We're going to have a delicious meal. But we are sort of hearing some of this very stark language coming out of the White House. Now, we're hearing from Markwayne Mullin that not only could states be fined, but there could actually be consequences where someone loses their freedom and is imprisoned if they break the rules that the Trump administration has set forth.
What are your thoughts on this? Is this putting us in a position where they're really starting to make the American people think that our elections are in grave danger when there is no evidence, that not a single election has been overturned or affected greatly by anything like a great amount of fraud?
NOAH ROTHMAN, SENIOR WRITER, NATIONAL REVIEW: It seems to me there are two separate issues here that you've raised. One, the SAVE Act, and Markwayne Mullin's warnings. We'll get to that in a second. The first issue is what the president alleged last night, and if you listen to his speech, he didn't allege election-altering fraud. He never said that. What he said was that China is engaged in activities that undermine the integrity of our election, foreign election interference.
That's not hard to believe. In 2017, the Equifax hack, China accessed 150 -- 45, I'm sorry, million social security numbers.
[22:05:00]
Joe Biden to Xi's face in 2023 said no election interference. Apparently that didn't take because Tony Blinken subsequently in 2024 said, we've seen indications of influence and interference, and that's unacceptable to us.
The second is Markwayne Mullin trying to muscle in the SAVE Act here, and that was what the president's approach was last night, where he said, we need to pass the SAVE Act. He said the SAVE Act program, as though it's law, it's not law. It's not law because the Republican Party in the Senate can't support this bill, in part because of federalist objections, that the states control elections and it's the state's province.
So, if you try to put somebody in jail for observing something that's not law, I think you're not going to go very far in court. But that's separate from the issue of election interference, which is real.
NAYYERA HAQ, ASSISTANT DEAN, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY'S MAXWELL SCHOOL: And that's not a new tactic by Trump, right, to challenge what is deeply settled law and frankly originalist interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution has as a state power, election -- running local elections. It also has as a guaranteed right the birthright citizenship.
But this is how Trump operates. He tries to create fear about something that we have understood and accepted as part of how we operate as Americans. And then he doubles down on that, and it's usually to distract from something. So, we're going to talk about the Iran war. Trump is clearly underwater in the midterm elections.
So, this is his chance and is the way that he doubles down on messages from six years ago that election fraud, this fear, and I'm sure they're going to throw in some, you know, fear about migrants any minute now if that hadn't been the key message of the speech. But those are that's -- it's part of what he does when he feels that he's losing control.
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: But do we agree that China is trying to interfere with our elections? Do we agree that there are people who are registered to vote who should not be registered to vote? That is a generally settled position that Democrats have held in the past, and I'm assuming they currently hold now.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And Marco Rubio held it too.
RANTZ: And so what we can do is look at this and say, we should do everything we can, everything we can that's legal, to remove them from any roster, any voter roll. That's really simple. It's apolitical. It's something that today Markwayne Mullin, his -- even in the clip that you played, he wasn't saying, if you don't follow us, we're going to throw you in jail. What he said very clearly is, we're giving you the information that you have people on your voter rolls who are there illegally and you're choosing not to do anything with that, and you end up breaking the law, there are going to be consequences, and there should be consequences for people who break the law.
HINOJOSA: I mean, Democrats have been sounding the alarm on potential election interference for quite some time. There was a report that came out that detailed this about Russia. We didn't necessarily hear a lot about that from the president. There is China. We always knew those threats were happening. They were trying to interfere in the last election as well. And Donald Trump, of course, doesn't have problems with the 2024 election because he won.
So, this is ironic to me that Donald Trump only cares about elections where he is likely going to lose. And this is not about election security in Donald Trump's head. If Donald Trump cared about election security, he would've come out after the 2016 election, where there was clear influence from the Russians, and he would've given a speech about it. But instead, he said that Russia, Russia, Russia, it was all a hoax. He constantly --
RANTZ: The collusion part. The collusion part.
HINOJOSA: He constantly talked about that. It was a hoax. And it was not. But, anyway --
RANTZ: The collusion piece?
HINOJOSA: There were six different -- there were --
RANTZ: Russia was involved in trying to alter the -- like that -- but the whole idea that there was some conspiracy that the Trump administration, that was what was being sold.
SIDNER: It was -- they were -- Russia was essentially trying to influence the election, not only in 2016, but elections after that for Donald Trump. And Donald Trump will not recognize that, and he continues to say that it is fake news.
This is not about any of these elections. This is about Donald Trump terrified that he is going to lose the 2026 election, and he is starting to lay the groundwork to challenge it, whether that is through sending the National Guard out, whether that is putting ICE at polling locations, whether that is pressuring election officials to not certify the results of the election, and whether that is even potentially pressuring Mike Johnson to not seat the new Congress. And this should alarm everybody.
ROTHMAN: That hypothetical is very alarming. It's just as alarming as the theory that Postmaster DeJoy was moving post boxes in 2020 in order to effect preemptive election interference. We have tons of evidence that Donald Trump reacts to elections he doesn't like and tries to delegitimize the results after the fact.
HAQ: Let's not forget January 6th. ROTHMAN: We have almost -- I mean, let me finish the thought. We have almost -- and it's very dangerous, and we should withdraw all toleration for that sort of thing. I lost that argument within the Republican Party, but I still believe it. But we have almost no evidence to suggest that the president proactively attempts to interfere in elections.
[22:10:00]
It is something that Democrats consistently bring up and it has not redounded to Democrats' benefits politically.
HINOJOSA: It's -- I mean -- well, what I will say about this --
ROTHMAN: Our foreign adversaries are -- they go after both parties.
HINOJOSA: It's not just foreign adversaries. The person who tried to interfere in the 2020 election the most was Donald Trump. That was the person who tried to stop the certification --
ROTHMAN: I mean, he ran for president.
HINOJOSA: I understand, but he was indicted. He was indicted over this.
HAQ: Have we forgotten he was literally indicted in Georgia, and, conveniently, he's now throwing shade at the Georgia senators when that is literally the state where he called up the secretary of state and said, find me 11,000 ballots. You need to find them now.
Republican, who was under so much pressure by Donald Trump to try to win that state --
ROTHMAN: That's a really good point. That illustrates my point because. Before this speech, everybody was anticipating the president would jump out and delegitimize the election of these Georgia senators, and he didn't do that.
And everybody who ran in front of that narrative now has egg on their face, and they pretend they don't. They pretend none of us heard that. We all heard it.
HAQ: Well, because the idea that he was going to attack Warnock and Ossoff, who are deeply popular, who are doing the work for their communities, at a time when he, again, just picked up the phone, when he picked up the phone and said, hey, Lindsey Graham's sister, she should be the next senator, right? The idea of him delegitimizing the senators, that didn't hold for even 12 hours. That's why he pivoted.
(CROSSTALKS)
SIDNER: Let me ask a question about this. Because when you start talking about elections, and one of the things that he talks a lot about is, I don't want to see any more mail-in voting, that's one the big points that he would like to stop, except for a few exceptions, those can -- that people can actually use mail-in voting. Are you worried -- as Republicans, are you worried that's going to also affect Republican voters where there are whole states that they use mail-in voting, which means everybody gets affected, not just Democrats, but Republicans as well?
RANTZ: Yes I come from a state that is 100 percent mail-in voting. I'm from Washington State. I embrace mail-in voting. I think there's a difference between a state that has done it for a very long time and states during COVID that just decided to do it. I don't think that those two are equal. But I do think it should be embraced. I think we're not going back to a time in which we don't have that.
SIDNER: But, wait, why don't you think those two are equal? I mean, the state secretary -- the secretaries of state are very serious about elections. We all know that. I think we can agree that they take this very seriously. So, why is it any different if a state's been doing it for a long time, or if a state's just starting to do it?
RANTZ: Because I've talked to secretaries of state, including the former one from Washington, who used to work for the Biden administration, who took a very simple position of, it took us a little bit of time before we made it as secure as humanly possible. It doesn't just happen overnight. They perfected it, in their view, after years and years and years, not just being done over the course of a few months ahead of a presidential election.
SIDNER: But we're six years out from 2020. We're six years out. We're beyond that.
RANTZ: Yes. I'm saying the initial pushback was due to that. I don't think we should be pushing back on mail-in voting. I also don't think we should pretend that there's nothing we can do to make sure that everything is as secure as possible. And if we have anyone who is not eligible to vote, and we find them on voter rolls, we should all be able to simply say, without any controversy, we should remove them.
HAQ: The idea that we're so focused on rolls as opposed to, like, the voter rolls and who may be on there versus who is actually showing up and exercising the right to vote, right? There is a list, but then there's people who show up.
And there's no evidence that people are showing up and pretending to be dead. There's no evidence that illegal immigrants are showing up and trying to vote. We're talking about communities where local officials are neighbors, they are elders, they are the ones they recognize, they are identifying people, like voting in so many communities is almost a joyous activity.
And what Trump is introducing into this is militarization. He is introducing fear. He is limiting access to the ballot for people who should be legitimately and constitutionally allowed to vote. So, the entire election conversation --
ROTHMAN: Wouldn't you say that would be disenfranchisement, unconstitutional disenfranchisement?
HAQ: Yes, and that -- ROTHMAN: They should bring impeachment charges around that, very serious charge.
HAQ: Well, I mean, the last two impeachment charges didn't stick either. So, you know, there's not a great record of Trump --
ROTHMAN: That's the obstacle, if this is so cut and dry.
HAQ: The obstacle is that Trump has had a majority in Congress and people willing to do a lot of the dirty work. I mean, literally, January 6th was an effort to interrupt --
ROTHMAN: So, you would bring the -- you would bring the --
HAQ: January 6th was an effort to interrupt the acceptance of the election, and potentially hanging of the vice president, right? So, we completely forget that this was all --
ROTHMAN: All those things are bad, but that has nothing to do with the charge that he's disenfranchising legitimate voters.
HAQ: -- that has kept every -- that it has everything to do -- that has everything to do with the fact that Trump has created an environment and a dynamic that that is the lens of looking through voting. And that is the only lens now that Trump and his administration are looking at, as opposed to what anybody rational who works and lives in a community, is like this is not the problem we have right now.
The problem we have right now is household prices. We have student loan issues.
[22:15:00]
We have access issues. We have a war in Iran that nobody, even Congress, has voted on. But, again, Trump is excellent at creating fear and red herrings to distract the American public.
RANTZ: Are you scared to vote?
HAQ: If there are --
RANTZ: Are you scared to vote, you personally?
HAQ: If there are armed police, if there are armed groups, yes, it is scary for people to vote.
RANTZ: Are you scared to vote?
HAQ: There is a history of voter intimidation in our country.
RANTZ: So, the answer is no, you're not scared to vote?
HAQ: Okay. So, as a Muslim woman with brown skin and a Black family, absolutely, Trump has created an intimidating environment for me, and my family. If you needed to hear that to -- RANTZ: No. I'm asking you if you're scared to vote. Because I don't think that that is --
HINOJOSA: I'm telling you, yes, there is fear.
ROTHMAN: A majority of Democrats didn't think that in 2018.
RANTZ: Yes, and that's my point is that --
ROTHMAN: Or 2022, or 2020.
RANTZ: -- we've seen an increase of voter participation despite the fact that we're being told that all of these things are happening at the ballot box.
ROTHMAN: That may be your experience, but that's not the majority experience based on the voting results.
HAQ: You are -- people voting in numbers is a sign of their resilience. The black community's ability to continually turn out to vote ever since they were granted the right to vote, despite poll taxes, intimidation, and violence is about resilience. That's not an example that the Trump operation wants --
ROTHMAN: There's a whole a lot of reasons why people vote, why they don't vote. People don't vote because they're satisfied, not because they're intimidated. I mean, you don't -- we can't know what every individual motive is, and to make a generalization is just wild speculation.
HAQ: People vote because they participate and believe that participating in election is valuable, right? So, intimidating that is a problem. Now, if you guys feel, as you white guys feel very comfortable with other white guys standing with assault weapons at a --
RANTZ: I'm a Jew who lives in a country that the Democratic Party turned its entire back on us.
HAQ: -- polling station, that's great. Like, okay, I'm glad that you feel comfortable.
ROTHMAN: If you had armed groups within a certain range of a poll --
HAQ: Voter intimidation has a long history in the Republican Party.
ROTHMAN: You're engaging in unconstitutional practices.
HAQ: Absolutely.
ROTHMAN: A very serious allegation.
HAQ: Absolutely.
ROTHMAN: I hope you pursue them all the way through impeachment --
HAQ: Yes, there are several --
ROTHMAN: -- because I don't think it's going to be effective.
HAQ: My dear, if you are denying the history of voter intimidation in the United States right now, that is a complete alternate reality. There is voter --
ROTHMAN: And you're changing the subject to grand cosmic conditions.
HAQ: Noah, there is voter intimidation in counties around the country. The Department of Justice has recognized this for many years since the Civil Rights Act, period, full stop.
ROTHMAN: Yes, and that's on the books. And if you're alleging a violation of that, I do hope you prosecute it, because that would be very serious. I haven't heard substantiation of that claim.
HAQ: There have been several voter intimidation cases brought at the state level. You just might not be aware.
SIDNER: All right, we're going to stop it there.
Next, the seventh consecutive night of U.S. strikes in Iran, and an Iranian official issues a warning, saying the U.S. is risking a, quote, full-scale offensive. What does that mean, and what's the president's endgame with this war?
Plus, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullen says he's turning the heat up on the streets when it comes to ICE operations.
And in Houston, there are some new questions about the investigation of the fatal shooting there. Those stories are ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
SIDNER: Tonight, the U.S. launching a new wave of airstrikes against Iran, marking seven straight days of strikes. U.S Central Command releasing these videos of those strikes. It comes after Tehran fired what appeared to be its largest round of attacks since peace talks collapsed, targeting U.S. allies, including Qatar, Kuwait, and Jordan.
A top Iranian military adviser warned the U.S. could face a full-scale offensive in the coming days if its barrage continues throughout the weekend, claiming that no political border will be secure against that offensive.
Iran also says the U.S. launched deadly strikes on key bridges, railways, and power lines. CNN could not independently verify Iran's claims. If true, that could be the precursor to the U.S. seizing the Strait of Hormuz from Tehran.
But the White House has maintained that the military does not strike civilian infrastructure, which would be illegal under international law. Nayyera, I'm going to start with you. We are back into a full-scale offensive that's happening here, and it's gone on for a while. Iran seems to -- has a new, I don't know, power in that it has figured out the Strait of Hormuz is now more powerful right now than its nuclear program.
What do you see happening in the end here as we are trading back and forth and ultimately to the whole table? Do you think eventually this is actually going to degrade Iran's power? Because other nations are starting to figure out how to get oil out of the strait and away from the strait, and starting to build infrastructure elsewhere.
HAQ: Well, that's because other countries, and even the United States, have to look for alternative measures. That's the point. That's just the reality, economic reality we're all facing. But Iran has been consistently resilient. This is part of why presidents from George Bush through until Trump, have opted against striking Iran directly, because Iran is not a regime that cares about how much a people suffer.
So, you can win battles, you can destroy cities. You're not, at this moment, winning the war, right? What does victory look like has not only not been declared or understood for this Trump administration but it's created a dynamic where Iran is able to attack U.S. assets, attack U.S. allies, using cheap drones, and the United States is losing multi-million dollar fighter jets, Tomahawk missiles.
It is the weirdest asymmetrical war, when, typically, asymmetrical war would be about, you know, different resources or different spheres of influence, and this is, wow, literally they are defending their land.
[22:25:09]
The regime is intact. It is, in some ways, even stronger because it's a tighter unit. It is younger now. It is more motivated. They have main character revenge energy at this point. And the people of Iran continue to suffer.
So, this is part of the challenge. We've seen this quagmire before. I experienced it when I was in the Pentagon and the State Department as a diplomat, and that is the quagmire of a ground war in the Middle East and Asia.
SIDNER: Noah, are you worried that when you're looking at what's happening since we are back at it again? And this is always going to be complicated, and I think everyone, if you look at history, knew that would be the case. When you look at this, are we in a quagmire? Are you worried about a very long, drawn-out war, or do you think there is some chance that there is going to be a peace negotiation that starts again because of all of these strikes?
ROTHMAN: Oh, I think there will be a peace negotiation that starts again. I don't know what drawn out means. I don't know what the timescale is on this. I'm pleased to see the president resume high- tempo combat operations. Tonight is the seventh night of hundreds of sorties that we're flying on a daily basis. And the Iranian regime saying, well, you just do this one more time and we're going to execute this regional attack strategy, whatcha waiting on? If they had the capability, they'd execute it.
One of the things that we've been doing is interdicting these missile sites, drone capabilities, what have you, interfering with their capacity to execute offensive operations. One of the fears, I think, was that Iran, with the resumption of hostilities, would execute big strikes on desalinization plants, energy infrastructure, oil infrastructure around the Gulf, bring everything back to zero, enforce this, make the market negotiate on Iran's behalf. If it could do that, it would do that. It's lost a lot of that capability. We're gradually taking it away in the Strait, which is the final linchpin.
We're not talking about the nuclear program anymore. You want to talk about how much damage we've absorbed? A $500 billion nuclear program is no more. That's a generational investment that can't just be recouped tomorrow.
We've lost, out of F-15s, a couple of drones, but there is no comparison between the damage.
HAQ: Three F-15s and there is nothing -- no evidence to indicate that the nuclear program has been demolished. The Fordow attack, there was actually no evidence that it resulted in the eliminating Iran's capability to come back with a nuclear weapon.
ROTHMAN: There's an absurd amount of evidence for this.
HAQ: And in fact, there's an --
ROTHMAN: If you know anything about cascading centrifuges, you don't just reassemble them.
HAQ: My friend, I worked in the United Nations under this in the U.S. government as a diplomat --
ROTHMAN: Which is why I know you know what I'm talking about.
HAQ: -- on the Iran nuclear deal. And so I understand the intricacies, and I also understand intimately what happened when Trump unilaterally pulled out of that. The deal collapsed. And then come around this time in this round of negotiation, it's not even a deal. He signed a memorandum of understanding that gave away the farm to Iran in terms of assets and money, and there was not a single thing --
ROTHMAN: So, you're happy that collapsed?
HAQ: And there's not a single thing in there that said anything about Iran's nuclear program. So, I agree with you. The Iran nuclear program is not even a talking point anymore.
ROTHMAN: Because it's in ruins.
(CROSSTALKS)
HAQ: Their highly enriched uranium was likely moved out to Russia because the United States did not actually have eyes on the ground, and any follow-through plan.
Here's a challenge that we've had with Donald Trump.
ROTHMAN: No, wait a minute. You said the HEU was moved to Russia and you just praised the JCPOA? That's what the JCPOA did.
HAQ: Are you going to allow me to finish a sentence tonight?
SIDNER: Go ahead and finish your sentence.
ROTHMAN: I'm just clarifying your point.
HAQ: Are you going to allow me to finish a sentence? Thank you.
So, we do not have evidence that Iran's nuclear program has been destroyed or eliminated.
The thinking, the research, and the capabilities are still intact. Trump has actually not been following that line of thinking either in all of the targeted attacks, in any of the discussions that -- nuclear is not on the table right now, right? So, what is the endgame for the Trump administration?
What we heard it was not to do forever wars, and that the closer that we got to the midterm elections, all sorts of Republicans and Trump administration officials said, oh, no, this will be done in two days. This will be done in a week. It is not only not done, it has resumed.
So, the high tempo combat operations have serious implications not only for the American economy, but for our men and women who are operating now in the Middle East on war footing with a war that has not actively been approved by the American public or Congress.
HINOJOSA: Well, we were also told that this would last a few weeks.
HAQ: Yes.
HINOJOSA: When I suggested, and other, others suggested, that this could last leading up to the midterm elections, Republicans would tell us, there is no way that Trump would let us get that far. This is all about the nuclear program. He first told us he obliterated it. He did not obliterate it. He has lied to us every step of the way. Prices have gone up because of it. And now we're in a situation where this is heading to a forever war.
This is going to be something that it will be an issue in the presidential election. There is no plan to end it. And whoever is running for president is going to have to end up cleaning this up because we have an -- it's amateur hour at the White House and with Donald Trump, and he doesn't understand why he got in this in the first place and how to get out of it.
[22:30:09]
And this should be concerning to everybody. People are hurting every single day, whether it is gas prices, whether it is prices at the grocery store, all of these things. He promised us no forever wars, He promised us to lower prices and he hasn't done either of those.
And so, I think that going into the midterm election, Republicans should be very nervous. But not only that, they should be nervous heading into 2028 because the two Republicans that they are likely going to put forward are J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio, who have both been involved in this terrible war.
And so, this is a big stain on Donald Trump's presidency and his legacy and I don't know when or ever if he's going to realize that.
SIDNER: We will have to wait and see how this all plays out but there are some serious consequences happening right now both to Iran and to the U.S. and world economy. We will be watching this of course.
All right, the Harris County District Attorney says DHS is not cooperating with his office on the fatal ice shooting in Houston. How that's fueling calls for more transparency in ICE operations, that is next. We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Tonight, after two fatal encounters at the hands of ICE officers this week and pause to traffic stops that lasted about 24 hours, the Homeland Security Secretary says ICE is just getting started.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, U.S. SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Let me clarify, when I say turn down the temperature, when I turn down the temperature with you guys, we're turning up the heat on the streets. We're out there working harder than we ever have because we've empowered our law enforcement to do their job.
What I'm trying to do is remove us from the headlines every single day. But everybody will be held accountable, I don't pick and choose which laws I'm going to enforce, I enforce our nation's laws. That means I'll enforce it with our own agency, and I'll force it with the criminals on the streets.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: One of those incidents happened in Houston, and the Harris County District Attorney's Office is conducting its own investigation into the shooting of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo. He spoke to CNN's Erin Burnett tonight, and he says the DHS is not collaborating with his investigators.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN TEARE, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS DISTRICT ATTORNEY: They're effectively a black box. We're not getting any communication back and forth from them. We're 11 days out from this tragedy and we still don't even have the name of the person that shot Mr. Salgado.
We don't have a single name of any of the agents that were involved in this pursuit in this mistaken takedown of the vehicle. These are critical pieces that every day that goes by that someone hasn't talked to the person that discharged the shot and the other agents, we're losing evidence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: We have seen the same thing happen in other cases where cities are asking for something, Minneapolis in particular, they are not getting cooperation with DHS. You know, DHS and the Trump administration has complained about sanctuary cities not cooperating with them. You have this situation here. What do you make of this particular situation in Houston?
HINOJOSA: Well, whenever you have an incident like this that happens, you should always have state and local law enforcement coordinating with federal law enforcement. And whether it is who takes the lead on an investigation, you don't want to step on each other's toes, there is some sort of agreement about who goes first, who goes second, etc.
The problem with this is that in instances like we saw in Minneapolis and now what we're seeing in Harris County is that the locals are having to take the lead on the investigation because the federal government will not investigate the ICE officers in both of these instances and in Maine who conducted shootings of, in Minneapolis, Americans and in these two other places, people who were not supposed to be targeted in the first place.
And there is reporting that they admitted that those people were not their targets. And so it makes it, it's very difficult for state and local law enforcement.
They don't have any other resources, they have to conduct the investigations on themselves, not even having the name of the ICE officer. They were trying to also deport, and especially in the case in Houston, they were trying to deport the witnesses and people who were around that would be critical evidence to figuring out exactly what happened since they weren't necessarily wearing body cameras.
And that is law enforcement malpractice. Regardless of what happens, you don't try to deport or ask people to self-deport when they have critical evidence about a crime or about a shooting that has happened in the United States.
And so to me, this sounds like the federal law enforcement is playing politics with shootings and with tragedies across our country and especially putting out information before they know anything and anything like that.
Ideally what would happen is Congress would conduct oversight on the FBI and ICE and to bring the ICE officers to the Hill whether it is in a closed-door matter or whether it is public testimony, but you also have Republicans who don't have a spine and won't do that.
[22:40:04]
And so, I think one thing that will happen is these states will move forward with their investigations. Hopefully, they can get more information to conduct prosecutions. But at the same time, Democrats, when they take hold of Congress, will need to get some of this oversight.
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST AND AUTHOR, "WHAT'S KILLING AMERICA": But Democrats are talking about getting rid of ICE. It's hard, I think, to want to work with them.
HINOJOSA: That is not the universal --
RANTZ: The loudest voices within the party are saying they want to abolish ICE.
HINOJOSA: I will say that is not the universal --
SIDNER: There are some very loud voices in the party saying that, but it is not the majority of the party saying that they want to completely get rid of ICE.
I do want to ask you about the trust in ICE, the trust in from the public when they see some of these disparate stories that they're hearing from some of these cases and hearing from local authorities who are like we always do an investigation whether it is our police officers or anyone that is in our jurisdiction we do an investigation if someone is shot and killed it is the absolute norm for police to do that in any aspect all the way up to the federal government, all the way down to your local sheriff's department. Are you worried about trust being undermined here?
RANTZ: No, I think this is a result of the federal government not believing that local officials are going to be able to look at this honestly. We've had lots of folks who have said that we should just be throwing ICE agents in jail simply for being ICE agents.
SIDNER: But not local police have not said that. The local D.A.s have not.
RANTZ: Local politicians who end up appointing the police chiefs in local agencies have said that. And I do think that's a problem.
And instead calling that out but instead of calling that out what we're hearing again the loudest voices from the Democratic party your point, I think, is valid is the majority of the Democrats holding this position?
No, but they're awfully silent when it comes to the people in their party and the base who are demanding that we throw all these people in jail and called them murderers before you know any information while being completely silent on the fact that in these two cases, the people who were shot were allegedly fleeing. And in the case in Texas, fleeing two times.
HINOJOSA: And there is very clear federal policy that was put in place when I was at the Justice Department that you do not use force whenever someone is fleeing unless someone's life is in danger. But this is why you need an investigation. And this is the problem.
Maybe you don't -- maybe there are people who don't trust local officials to do the investigation. Ideally, the FBI and the Justice Department would open an investigation right away the way they always do when there is a police-involved shooting, and especially when there is a federal police-involved shooting.
And they should be taking the lead, but they won't. And that is why local law enforcement are put in the position where they're having to conduct an investigation because the federal government won't do their job, why?
NOAH ROTHMAN, SENIOR WRITER "NATIONAL REVIEW": All of that is extremely valid, and it's not something you can just simply dismiss. But when it comes to the question of trust, the Trump administration has a lot of leeway from the public based on the Biden administration's record that the public still remembers and resents and is reminded of consistently with these DSA types.
We had a poll on CBS, May, well after the confrontations in Minneapolis. Who do you trust more today on immigration? Democrats, 34 percent. Trump and Republicans, 38 percent.
SIDNER: All right, next, the President is ripping the neighbors to the north for the smoke from the wildfires that millions of Americans have been choking on. He says he will add it to their tariff bill. We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Tonight as dangerous wildfire smoke blankets major U.S. cities and more than 100 million people in 18 states and D.C. are under air quality alerts, Donald Trump is blaming Canada for the hazy skies and unhealthy air.
On "Truth" Social, Trump said he would hold Canada responsible and call Prime Minister Mark Carney to find out what they're going to do about it. Trump argued Canada's wildfire response is willful negligence and the cost of the pollution should be added to the tariffs that Canada is already paying. Noah, to you first.
Look, California has had, I have covered them, and we have seen the devastation, some huge wildfires that has poured smoke potentially into Mexico and even into Canada as well, along with other states like Oregon and Colorado. So, I'm curious how this would even happen. I mean, do you agree with this idea?
ROTHMAN: Okay, listen, I'm not a forestry expert, so a lot of this is speculative. However, there is a management story to be told here. It's a much bigger story as far as I understand it in California, where controlled burns and machine management actually is something that can mitigate these fires and it's something that is negligent, that the state is negligent in doing.
The boreal is a little different, it's vast. It is wilderness, it is difficult to manage like that and a lot of these fires are burning out of control, which is not to say that there is no federal response, Canadian federal response as well as a provincial federal response in the form of getting more water bombers, for example, which Ontario just did a couple of months ago, suggesting that they weren't 100 percent or last month, 100 percent prepared for this.
Nevertheless, it's tough to blame the entire Canadian civic compact for the boreal lighting up on fire every 10 years or so because that's kind of what it's supposed to do.
[22:50:02]
RANTZ: It's the correct diagnosis, but it's the wrong prescription. The President is right to call out Canadian officials. They have not taken this seriously enough.
We are suffering as a direct result of it, and I think a lot of Americans are really upset about it, and we should be calling out the folks who are responsible with at least the goal of shining a spotlight on what the actual issue is.
And it does appear to be about a lack of forest management, but also they don't have across Canada one central agency like we have FEMA to go ahead and at least help in cases like this. So we're not going to collect anything off of it. It's kind of a stunt from the President, but I appreciate why he's doing it.
SIDNER: Look, there's frustration, but I want to talk a little bit about California just having lived there and covered these fires because some of those fires started in federal lands. That is not the state's issue. That is the Fed's issue.
And they didn't, you know, if you follow that argument, you could say, well, why didn't they take care of it? This is something that's happened over and over again. They're getting worse.
And when you look at what the Trump administration has done, they have gutted agencies studying things like wildfire risks, groups that analyze health effects of wildfire smoke, and the U.S. Forest Service has lost quite a bit of money, which, you know, oversees millions of acres of forest, which sometimes catch fire.
So I guess, how do you explain that when you're attacking Canada, but we've got our own problems here, and the Trump administration has not helped deal with that problem.
RANTZ: Washington state gutted millions of dollars for forest management just last year and they focus instead on talking about climate change which I think is real.
HINOJOSA: Do you believe in climate change? RANTZ: Yes, but that's not the reason why we're having these kinds of
issues when they're man-made fires that aren't actually cleared out. So I think both sides have done some cuts and I think sometimes some of the cuts is just because we don't need to continuously study the exact same thing over where we actually know some of the answers and we can reallocate some of those funding.
ROTHMAN: California forestry management, I mean, it would be an impossible stretch to blame California's very regular fires on the federal government. I mean, you talk to any Californian and they won't tell you that. We've been having debates over this at the county level in Los Angeles, for example, or elsewhere outside the state for the better part of two decades.
And there is a mismanagement part of that equation. It's been acknowledged even by Gavin Newsom that we need to do a better job, be more proactively doing prescribed burns and machine management to suggest that the whole problem is on the federal government.
SIDNER: No, I wouldn't suggest it was on the federal government, but the federal government has had some issues there as well, and you do not hear him blaming his own government for it. You only hear him blaming the states, and in this case, Canada.
ROTHMAN: I don't think I've ever heard Donald Trump blame his federal government for anything.
NAYYERA HAQ, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SENIOR DIRECTOR UNDER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: One of the challenges we're seeing though, right, and this is why I asked about climate change and the acceptance, right, and how quickly it's like, well, people will accept the science, but they'll pivot to all these other challenges that have not adapted for the realities of extreme weather and climate change, right?
This is not just an American problem or Canadian problem as we know because the wildfires that are up there are now giving a smog down here in the United States is by all facts and data and its own admission over multiple administrations, Democratic and Republican, the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter competing with China for that.
And so, there is a sense of what we are now part of a global community that Donald Trump has actively rejected when it comes to the management of natural resources and the challenges of extreme weather.
SIDNER: We are going to have to deal with that. Ultimately, we're all going to have to deal with this and maybe solutions.
ROTHMAN: Part of believing in climate change is engineering our way out of the problem, and it's not just limiting greenhouse gas emissions. It is building infrastructure that can withstand a change in climate and the nature of that which means prescribed burns which means machine management --
RANTZ: Clearing out (inaudible) is a part of that.
ROTHMAN: Right.
HINOJOSA: All right, that's in tantrums, it's not going to solve this and that's what's happening here.
SIDNER: Solutions can be made but both Democrats and Republicans have to do it together.
All right, next, we will read some of your feedback plus we'll find out what Chef Ginevra has been cooking for us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Food Network Executive Chef, Ginevra Iverson is here to tell us about the plates that you will look at these plates. Oh my gosh. Okay, this is gochujang?
GINEVRA IVERSON, EXECUTIVE CHEF, FOOD NETWORK: Yes.
SIDNER: From Korea. This is Korean barbecue.
IVERSON: Yes, but it's St. Louis style pork ribs. So, kind of a little bit of mashup. It's featured in our June-July issue of Food Network Magazine. All the dishes that you're having tonight are. But it's a spicy gochujang pork rib, it's a feature of all kinds of spicy different grilled meats for summer and hopefully you'll enjoy them.
SIDNER: All right, what else is on display? I mean obviously there's cornbread.
IVERSON: Yes, there's a piece of cornbread, you have a pimento cheese macaroni salad, an herby potato salad and then pickled watermelon rind with green beans, wax beans, and black eyed peas.
SIDNER: This looks amazing. Oh wait, scan the Q.R. code it's right there down on the screen for the spicy gochujang pork ribs recipe and get to cooking.
Now, we've got to get to some viewer feedback. Thank you for this, I'm dying to eat this. Where it's cnn.com/abby.
[23:00:04]
The states, okay, this is one of them. The states run their elections, not the federal government. A point being made there by one of the viewers who has been listening to this debate over state elections and people in the states getting potentially find or worse if they don't follow all of the laws that the Trump administration is very focusing on.
All right. I think we're done here because we're hungry. Thank you so much for watching "NewsNight." Tomorrow morning, be sure to catch "Table for Five" at 7 and 10 A.M. Eastern here on CNN. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
