Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip

Sen. Darline Graham (R-SC) To Win Runoff Despite Qualification Concerns; Trade War Spirals As Canada Retaliates and Trump Trolls; Hakeem Jeffries Defends Himself Following A Top-Secret Meeting With Trump's Son-In-Law Kushner; Looking Back At "I Will Always Love You" As Original Singer And Country Icon Dolly Parton Dies. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired August 25, 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)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, the results are in. Carolina decides whether Lindsey Graham's sister gets to compete for a full term, despite questions about her qualifications.

SEN. DARLINE GRAHAM (R-SC): I'm not that informed on national security.

PHILLIP: Plus, the trade war spirals out of control. Canada retaliates as the bluster and trolling sinks into the deep end.

MELANIE JOLY, CANADIAN MINISTER OF INDUSTRY: We'll always call it Lake Ontario, period.

PHILLIP: Also --

JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: These people are a pack of felons and traitors, and you do not meet with them.

PHILLIP: -- after liberals rip the House minority leader for meeting with Jared Kushner, Hakeem Jeffries defends himself.

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): No one is going to get a pass.

PHILLIP: And the administration threatens to East Wing the Kennedy Center, as in demolish a national landmark, unless Trump gets his way.

Live at the table, Jason Rantz, Adrienne Elrod, Horace Cooper, Xochitl Hinojosa, and Lauren A. Wright.

Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York. We begin with breaking news in South Carolina, and the battle for the late Senator Lindsey Graham's seat. CNN projects that his sister, Darline Graham, will defeat Congressman Ralph Norman to win the Republican nomination for the state's special primary runoff.

Now, Graham's victory is also a major win for President Trump, who endorsed her for the full Senate term before she was even announcing plans that she would run. He also actively rallied for her while his super PAC poured money into her campaign.

Now, all of that, despite this stumble Graham made on the debate stage just days ahead of today's runoff.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are Taiwan and the South China Sea national security issues for the United States? And if so, why or how?

GRAHAM: I'm just going to be honest here. I'm not on national security that -- I'm not that informed on national security, so -- but I do support the military. I'm not a polished politician up here. I'm -- national security is not my thing, not my area of expertise, but I do support the military.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: So, tonight, a big win for President Trump in a race that he really kind of went all-in on. And, in fact, his super PAC spent you know, I think it was $800,000 on this race. It was a huge amount of money for the state of South Carolina because they were concerned that maybe she wouldn't make it, especially after that gaffe.

JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: Yes, I mean, y- you look at the two, they're clearly going to vote Republican ten out of ten or nine times out of ten, and that was the concern for Donald Trump with Ralph Norman. He comes from, you know, the Freedom Caucus-style of thinking around the budget.

And this is a president, if you're dealing with a Senate where you only have a few, you know, people in power, you don't want to have to risk that. And so I think Graham is someone that can easily be seen as a guaranteed ally of the president pretty much no matter what.

He obviously also had a lot of, you know, support for the family. Lindsey Graham was a key ally of the president. And I think that he felt that kind of loyalty to the sister. And, you know, we saw the gaffe. Gaffe didn't really matter in the end because -- and she got very lucky on this. She's extremely likable, and no one right now in South Carolina is talking about China. And if that were not the case, that probably would have sunk her campaign.

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, they will be talking about it now because what happens is because now that she won, the DSCC and Democrats feel like they actually have a chance with Annie Andrews. Her being a pediatrician, her being a mom, this is something that they're going to use against her.

I think at the end of the day, Donald Trump has put himself in the situation where he puts the loyalty test and the loyalty towards him in front of everything else, and that ends up giving the Republican Party bad candidates.

RANTZ: Well, the voters don't like her.

ADRIENNE ELROD, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER AND SENIOR SPOKESPERSON, HARRIS 2024 CAMPAIGN: Don't spend too much. Don't spend too much on that Senate race.

HINOJOSA: Look at Paxton. Look at Paxton. Look at South Carolina. These are places that now Republicans have to defend. They now have to -- Republicans have to defend it --

RANTZ: I don't think they're going to be defending South Carolina.

HINOJOSA: -- just because Donald Trump cares about loyalty.

RANTZ: How much money do you think should be put in from the Democrats into South Carolina?

HINOJOSA: I don't know. Can she fundraise? I don't know. He already had to put $800,000 in there. That could've been used for Pat Paxton. That could've been used for --

RANTZ: This is a safer seat now than it was with Ralph Norman.

ELROD: Well, but they're still having to put money, to Xochitl's point, into South Carolina, and I think you're starting to look at states like Arkansas, my home state, where the, Hallie Shoffner is three points up on Tom Cotton in the latest Arkansas poll.

[22:05:07]

I mean, the RNC --

RANTZ: Do you believe that poll?

ELROD: And, yes, I do, because I know the pollster who conducted it.

(CROSSTALKS)

ELROD: Absolutely, I believe that poll. Okay. Now, do I think it's maybe -- I think it is still going to be a very tough race for Hallie Shoffner, but the point that we're trying to make here is in Southern states have been strong Republican strongholds for a long time. Trump is seeing his candidacy being more weak. And also, to your -- the candidate, the Democratic candidate in South Carolina is a very strong, popular candidate.

RANTZ: Like Amy McGrath.

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: Just tonight in her -- she gave a acceptance speech tonight, Darline Graham really -- she put this whole thing on Donald Trump. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GRAHAM: I want to thank President Trump for all of his support and his endorsement. Mr. President, Lindsey truly loved you and viewed you as one of his closest friends. I appreciate that bond and appreciate all that you've done for our country. Our victory would not have been possible without you, and we are truly grateful.

South Carolina is truly Trump country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: She's probably right that she wouldn't be there were it not for Donald Trump, which I do think raises the same question that Xochitl is asking. Are Republicans going to have to take her over the finish line another time?

LAUREN A. WRIGHT, POLITICAL SCIENTIST, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Yes, because I do think it was an inexcusable response in a Senate debate. I would say that about any candidate right or left. And she will be easier to beat than Ralph Norman, but she's still going to take it away. I really don't think she's going to have a problem.

I really think in South Carolina, it's one of the few states where Trump's endorsement means a lot. You want those eyeballs, you want the dollars, and they're going to come in for her. There's also an emotional attachment that South Carolinians have to the family, and there is, whether we like it or not, a big political tradition in this country of family members getting into Congress, you know?

PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, there is, but it doesn't mean that people like it. If they --

WRIGHT: Well, they're clearly not bothered enough.

PHILLIP: I feel like this is -- they're in this moment, right -- yes. I mean, but this is a moment in which I feel like a lot of these things are being challenged, people who are too old to be in their seats, people who are getting Congressional seats or Senate seats because of their family members.

A lot of those things are being called into question, and Annie Andrews, that she's making this a huge part of it. She says, no appointment, endorsement, or family connection entitles anyone to six years in the United States Senate. This seat belongs to the people of South Carolina.

And if anything, Darline Graham has demonstrated that she is not prepared for the job. I mean, she said so herself. I mean, in a world in -- again, in a world in which Republicans have been making the argument that everything should be based on merit, how do they justify this?

HORACE COOPER, CHAIRMAN, PROJECT 21: I can't say it much better than what Jason said. One, it's a tight Senate, and you actually don't need a questionable vote at a very, very tight point, and that's part of the reason for the endorsement. I encourage all of the people of California and the state of New York, send all your money that you've got to South Carolina to support the Democrat.

RANTZ: They're in debt. They don't have money.

COOPER: I mean the big donors. Just send it there because it's not going to make a difference.

PHILLIP: You didn't answer my question about whether or not this -- this is the antithesis of a meritocracy, and that seems to really just put the hypocrisy issue on the table.

COOPER: Try to make that point in a state where we're talking about a competitive race.

PHILLIP: So, you can see that it's an issue?

COOPER: I agreed with Jason. I didn't like the answer that she gave, but I recognize the political reality. In that particular state, she is going to be popular, she is going to succeed, and she is going to actually study up when she gets into the United States Senate and work well.

ELROD: She's already in the Senate.

WRIGHT: Something with her to watch is Trump might end up regretting this pick later on. I mean, she has a social services background. She has a big heart for a lot of types of issues that Republicans are not normally keen to spend a lot of money on without at least checking first. And so there is a possibility that, you know, we're sort of undercounting her when she might develop some independent streak as a legislature.

And Ralph Norman might've been a better pick even though he was there raising his hand against the big, beautiful bill.

PHILLIP: Maybe, but she also could just be -- I think she's a MAGA loyalist who frankly does not know a lot about the public policy that she is going to be in charge of.

[22:10:01]

HINOJOSA: Well, that makes her a wild card.

RANTZ: That is a fair point. And the issue is this was all brought up during the special election, and the voters still clearly decided --

HINOJOSA: In a Republican primary.

RANTZ: Yes, in a deeply Republican state.

HINOJOSA: I understand, but the dynamics this cycle are very different with approval --

COOPER: Not in South Carolina. RANTZ: Yes, not in South Carolina and not in Oklahoma.

HINOJOSA: But the approval rating of the president is quite low, and there are opportunities now in states that there have never been opportunities before because Donald Trump does not focus on cost of living and the issues that people care about, and picks terrible candidates that opens up the door --

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: Adrienne, I mean, I've been hearing more and more from Democrats about the South.

ELROD: Yes. And the feeling that a lot of these candidates in places like Arkansas and elsewhere in a big wave, if there is a big wave could be brought across the finish line for a lot of different reasons, including that there are a lot of black voters in the South who are affected by a lot of things that the Trump administration has done, so on and so forth.

I'm not saying that's what's going to happen with Darline Graham, but I think the broader question is, is this a moment for Republicans to write off the South as just like safe and red?

ELROD: I mean, they shouldn't. If they are, that's to their own detriment. I mean, the bottom line is, Abby, to your point, there are black voters who are extremely frustrated with the Supreme Court and its continuing deterioration of the Voting Rights Act. There are farmers in the South who are seeing their livelihoods go away.

It's one of the reasons why Hallie Shoffner has been so effective in Arkansas, because he's from a farming family. Her family went bankrupt. One in four farming families in Arkansas have gone bankrupt. We're seeing that across the South.

Now, again, do I think in places like Arkansas that a Democrat is going to win? It's going to be hard. But at the end of the day, if you can -- if you make a dent in Trump's numbers, if even Democrats can sort of siphon the margins off a little bit, it's going to look much better for us in 2028.

WRIGHT: But why are black voters voting at higher rates than ever before right now if the Voting Rights Act is being undermined?

ELROD: Because black voters are very frustrated at Republicans for their --

(CROSSTALKS)

ELROD: Black voters are not frustrated with Democrats right now.

RANTZ: Really? Because the rise of the DSA has turned off a lot of black voters. That has been the case across the board, and that's what both the polling --

ELROD: Do you have data right here to prove it? RANTZ: You're suggesting that black voters are leaning into the DSA candidates?

ELROD: I'm suggesting that black voters are incredibly frustrated with Donald Trump right now, and all the issues that Xochitl mentioned, the cost of living.

RANTZ: Donald Trump's not running. And I know it is a smart strategy, right, obviously, to make this about Donald Trump. They should. I would if I were a Democrat as well. But we have heard for how many election cycles now that the South is going to be overrun by the Democrat voters, that we're going to lose Texas. We've been hearing that for a very long time.

COOPER: Yes, we have.

PHILLIP: That's not really what's been --

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: Hold on. Texas is a different situation.

RANTZ: But not just -- but Amy McGrath was a case. Stacey Abrams in Georgia, we've heard this.

PHILLIP: Those are different situations. But don't forget, there are two Democratic senators in the state of Georgia right now, okay? That is the South. And one of them, who's running in this cycle, is perhaps running away with that race. It is a competitive Senate race and the Republican is not that close, according to the polls as of right now.

So, look, I -- but candidates matter. You're talking about the DSA. She's talking about candidates who have nothing to do with the DSA. That's one of the problems.

RANTZ: But the party has embraced the DSA.

HINOJOSA: No, but the party has not.

RANTZ: Yes, they have.

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: But, guys, this is politics. We're not -- I mean, I think the goal for Republicans is certainly going to be to paint with a broad brush, but the candidates are the candidates, right? And the candidates in these states are who they are, and they are supposed to be, if Democrats do their jobs right, right for their state.

In Florida, there was a DSA-endorsed candidate, who was a black woman, who was a state legislator, who won the primary there, and she won it with black votes. So, it just --

RANTZ: And the state has been written off by every single pollster, every single pollster. I mean, but that's the reality. Because of what she stands for, it's a little bit different. PHILLIP: That's not because of her. It's because the state more broadly is trending to Republicans.

RANTZ: Yes, but you don't think a more moderate Democrat --

PHILLIP: My point is that your argument that black voters are completely not looking at candidates just because they might be associated with the DSA?

RANTZ: No. I'm saying -- that's not what I'm saying.

PHILLIP: Not totally borne out by the evidence that we have.

RANTZ: I'm saying if you lose a small percentage, either choosing not to vote or voting for the Republican or maybe someone who's more moderate, that does matter in these tight races.

PHILLIP: I totally agree.

RANTZ: That's all I'm suggesting.

WRIGHT: The evidence we have -- I know the evidence we have. The evidence we have is consistently since 2020, black voters have moved away from the Democratic Party and toward the Republican Party. They have -- they are becoming more conservative and still has every other working-class voter and non-college educated. Well, not now.

RANTZ: But that matters in small --

PHILLIP: But hold on a second.

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: No, this is important. The numbers that you're talking about are very small.

[22:15:00]

And if you look at the polling, as we sit here today, that has completely reversed. It has reversed for black voters.

WRIGHT: That's not true.

PHILLIP: It has reversed for Latino voters. It is true. Look at the polling. It has reversed.

WRIGHT: I'm talking about election results.

PHILLIP: President Trump has lost significant ground among black voters and Latino voters. And let's talk about election results, special election results around the country.

WRIGHT: Yes, Kamala Harris lost non-college educated voters by 15 percent.

PHILLIP: Democrats have been very successful in special elections in this last year in terms of cycles.

So, again, like I agree that there's a risk here, a significant risk for Democrats in nominating candidates who are wrong for their states and wrong for their districts. However, this could be a wave election that is not good for Republicans, and that might matter more.

COOPER: Okay. I don't disagree with that observation broadly, that this could be an election. It is likely to be less favorable for the Republicans than for the Democrats. Observation number one, in the two races you cited, those candidates are better fits for the state than the typical Democrat that is running. But they're not going to win those two states. Arkansas and South Carolina are over.

What should have been done is getting candidates like them in a place like Wisconsin, in a place like Texas, in a place where Michigan and Maine. That's how you use the wave.

Second point, real quick, real quick, and that is that the Urban League put out their position that this administration has pushed back the status of black Americans. I recently wrote a piece in Newsmax where I walk through with data showing how black Americans are not persuaded by this idea, and that are in fact very much upset.

PHILLIP: Last time you brought this up on the show, Horace, I pointed out correctly that under Trump, in his second term, black unemployment has gone up and not down. And so you can make the case about the persuasion.

COOPER: We can correct that now. The trend line since January is that it is dropping.

PHILLIP: Since January of this year?

COOPER: Of this year, it's dropping.

PHILLIP: Oh, what about since Trump came into office?

COOPER: No, I said --

PHILLIP: You can't just pick arbitrary numbers, Horace. The black unemployment is up compared to before Donald Trump was in office.

COOPER: Abby, it's helpful when you're heading into the election if you're getting more jobs --

PHILLIP: You talked about it the last time. You brought it up again. I just want to make sure that you are aware that when black people look at the economic situation that they are in right now, they see hundreds of thousands of black women who are now no longer in the workforce, and an unemployment rate that has gone up in the time that Donald Trump was president. So, that's important, too.

Next for us, the trade war between the United States and one of its closest allies is spiraling out of control. Why Canada thinks that it has the upper hand in this battle, and the bluster to prove it.

Plus, one thing America could agree on, it's Dolly Parton.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:20:00]

PHILLIP: Tonight, in the escalating trade war between the United States and Canada, the gloves are officially off, and Canada is refusing to back down. This morning, Donald Trump announced that the United States was considering renaming Lake Ontario to Lake America. He posted an image of the map with the original name crossed out and the new words spelled out in gold.

Canada's minister of industry is having none of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOLY: We'll always call it Lake Ontario, period.

I really think that while all these shenanigans are happening, we'll just be smart, and we'll be strategic, and we'll fight back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: After threatening to increase tariffs on Canadian cars, trucks, automotive parts, and steel to 50 percent beginning on January 1st, 2027, Trump has ramped up the insults today, declaring Canada entitled and unreasonable. Trump said that Canada has been ripping off the U.S. for decades, arguing Canadian trade practices have driven U.S. companies out of business.

Now, you'll recall that Trump negotiated the USMCA. That's the current agreement that governs trade between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Here is him celebrating that deal back in 2020.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: The USMCA is the fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law. It's the best agreement we've ever made, and we have others coming.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: How quickly we forget, apparently.

Lauren, how does the president justify picking this particular fight at the worst possible moment, even if you just look at it from the perspective of Republicans?

WRIGHT: No, I really don't understand this. I mean, look, if you're a real conservative, I don't know how you can defend these tariffs. I mean, everyone from Milton Friedman to Reagan, to every serious economist on the right side of the aisle really abhors tariffs, and it's just such a self-own besides that. I mean, this is our closest trading partner.

[22:25:00] The steel tariffs make no sense. He's invoking a national security issue, which is why the Supreme Court decision doesn't apply here. But our steel industry is seven times what they have. I mean, I don't understand, I don't understand the economics, I don't understand the politics.

It is a sheer miracle that the economy is performing as well as it is right now. It is only because productivity is so high with American ingenuity and A.I. that it is keeping inflation at bay, you know? It is the reason why unemployment is -- you know, it's one-tenth of a percentage point higher than what Biden had, but it's basically the same. Inflation's one point higher than what Biden had. You know, we have economic metrics that should be so much better, and Trump is just shooting himself in the foot.

PHILLIP: I mean, it's a good point that it's almost like it's masking how bad this could have been --

WRIGHT: Yes, that's exactly right.

PHILLIP: -- had we not had basically A.I. driving one sector of the economy all the way up, and everybody else is just sort of stagnating.

But to the question of why is Trump doing this, there's a part of me that thinks that this has to do with just his obsession with Canada as not being part of the United States. The White House had a press release today and they said, President Trump said it best, quote, Canada is easily the most difficult and unreasonable. They feel entitled, but they are not a state and will be entitled no longer.

They are not a state. They're a country. They're a sovereign nation. I don't understand why Trump doesn't understand that.

COOPER: Orange man bad? Is that what we're hearing right now? Again, I will repeat that there are broader issues at stake. Have we heard of Elbridge Colby? He is the undersecretary of war at the Department of War for policy, and he has been leading since January the effort to force Canada to increase their military actions.

PHILLIP: How's that going for Elbridge Colby, Horace?

COOPER: And I have brought --

PHILLIP: How's that going for them? Canadians right now are dug in. 76 percent say that Canada did the right thing by refusing the terms that the Trump administration put on the table and ending negotiations. 69 percent said that Mark Carney showed strength by refusing to accept Trump's terms. He is hardening the back. If Canada is an opponent in this, he's hardening the back of his opponents in this conflict.

But the reality is that Canada should not be an opponent. Canada is an ally of the United States.

HINOJOSA: Canada's not only an ally, and at a time when costs are going up and all that people care about is the economy, is this move will likely make costs go up even more for Americans. And you've seen the auto industry. They have said that this is terrible for the industry already as it is. And so it seems like at every move, I'm sorry to the Republicans at this table, but it does seem like Donald Trump is trying to sabotage the midterm elections.

I kept on saying that a few months ago, but every day we get closer to the midterms, he does something to hurt the economy. He does something to put us in a position that we are less safe. Every single turning point between now and the election, he is making it worse for America.

COOPER: It is hard.

HINOJOSA: And it's hard to be a Republican right now.

RANTZ: I do think it is worth mentioning, there are two separate angles, I think, to this. The timing, I agree with you, I don't understand specifically, outside of maybe the thinking is, I'm standing up for the United States, I'm going up against Canada, and it's going to rile up my base, and they're going to come -- I don't think that's a very good strategy, but it's a strategy.

But the reality is, specifically on dairy and even on wine, these are not issues that just started with Donald Trump. These have been issues that have plagued the Biden administration, Trump 1, and the Obama administration, especially around dairy and the special treatment that the E.U. is getting. So, I do think there are valid issues.

Now, we can disagree on how we're doing it.

HINOJOSA: The trade war with Canada? The trade war with Canada happened under other administrations? It's been happening -- this trade war has been happening under Donald Trump.

RANTZ: So, you're dismissing the fact that we have been arguing with them with -- on dairy for decades?

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: Why can't we just negotiate like rational, normal people?

RANTZ: Well, they were negotiating like rational, normal people.

PHILLIP: Why can't they negotiate like rational, normal people? Why does everything always have to devolve into some sort of one-upmanship standoff that ultimately hurts both sides and hurts the United States? I mean, look, The Wall Street Journal editorial board said Trump is probably not serious. No doubt he understands that a 50 percent tariff would hurt U.S. automakers more than it would hurt Canada.

[22:30:00]

Ford Motor Company CEO Jim Farley said last year that Trump's 25 percent emergency tariffs on Canada and Mexico would blow a hole in the United States' auto industry, and he was right. Regardless of whether Mr. Trump walks back from the tariff cliff, his whipsaw threats add uncertainty that chills investment. As is often the case, Trump is his own worst enemy on trade."

Okay, look, again, there is a rational way to negotiate over dairy and wine with Canada or whoever else. Threats that Trump ultimately knows he has to back down on don't make any sense, and you know that, Jason.

JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST, AND AUTHOR, "WHAT'S KILLING AMERICA: INSIDE THE RADICAL LEFT'S TRAGIC DESTRUCTION OF OUR CITIES": I'm not suggesting that this was handled the right way. I'm simply saying there are actual issues that when we have these conversations, folks on the left completely dismiss and act as if they don't exist.

PHILLIP: That's not true.

RANTZ: Has anyone said that at all during this entire debate?

PHILLIP: The way that Trump is handling it is the issue. Nobody is saying, don't negotiate with Canada over trade. Presidents have been negotiating with our allies for decades, that's been happening.

But how Trump is doing it is the only issue at play here, because he has chosen to do it in a way that is the most accountable.

HORACE COOPER, PROJECT21 CHAIRMAN: For ten years, under the Obama administration, under the Trump administration, under the Biden administration, we have demanded that they increase their defense spending.

PHILLIP: Hold on a second.

COOPER: This is the reason why the tariffs are in effect.

PHILLIP: Horace, Donald Trump, don't forget, Donald Trump sat down with Canada and Mexico and he renegotiated the deal that he now is claiming is the worst deal ever. What is he talking about?

COOPER: This is his rhetoric and everybody knows his rhetoric. That's why I brought five new stories that are both from Canada and from America, outlining over a six-month period that the actual dispute is a demand that they increase their defense spending.

PHILLIP: You've got to tell me how this is working for the administration.

COOPER: It blew up because Canada refused in private meetings.

PHILLIP: I want to understand. Okay, you're telling me what their strategy is. I'm asking you, is it working?

COOPER: It blew up because they wouldn't do it in private.

PHILLIP: Is it working?

COOPER: And by the way, there's a Five-I program where all English- speaking countries participate in intelligence. This is the next thing that's going to blow up because it's serious.

PHILLIP: Let me ask you again, is it working?

COOPER: You keep trying to rephrase what's going on. We're in a serious point of national security jeopardy.

PHILLIP: You're claiming that this is a brilliant negotiating strategy to get Canada to increase their defense spending, and I'm asking you, what's the proof that we're getting closer to the outcome that the administration wants?

COOPER: I wouldn't say that either. What I said is, this actual conflict is over their defense spending, which they refuse to compromise on.

PHILLIP: Horace, you don't have to just defend it indefinitely. You could just let it go.

COOPER: As could you when I present you with the actual facts.

PHILLIP: No, I'm just saying, you're sitting here and you're trying to argue that, oh, this is the real issue, but we're looking at the situation and everybody is asking, so what are we getting out of it? We're just getting higher prices for Americans? How does that work?

LAUREN A. WRIGHT, LECTURER IN POLITICS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: We have a leg to stand on with some of the economic plans, and there are serious problems with what's going on on the other side of the aisle, but if you have this tariff nonsense, then you can't defend anything.

ADRIENNE ELROD, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER AND SPOKESPERSON, HARRIS 2024 CAMPAIGN: Abby, we are less than 70 days away from the midterms. The timing makes no sense. The rationale makes no sense, and Canada is totally playing Donald Trump.

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER DNC SPOKESPERSON, AND FORMER DOJ PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIRECTOR: She's like, I know.

PHILLIP: We'll leave it there.

Next for us, Hakeem Jeffries is doing damage control tonight. The meeting with Jared Kushner has now brought bipartisan backlash, so was it worth it?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIP: Tonight, Hakeem Jeffries is on the defense after he privately met with President Trump's son-in-law and close advisor, Jared Kushner. The backlash has been bipartisan, with some Republicans claiming the move acknowledges the likelihood of Democrats taking over the House in November.

But Democrats are calling out the House minority leader for meeting with someone who doesn't have an official role in government and someone who many of them on the left say should be investigated for his dealings in the Middle East. Jeffries tells CNN that he's still committed to holding the Trump administration accountable.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: It was just a high-level, topical conversation, particularly focused on affordability, as well as the housing bill that was recently passed and enacted into law as a foundation for the type of thing that perhaps can be built upon moving forward. Nobody's getting the pass, because we're determined to make sure, beginning on day one, that we hold every single member of the Trump cartel accountable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[22:40:07]

PHILLIP: Xochitl, I have to be honest, this is a little surprising, how much backlash this has produced among the left. It seems kind of like an overreaction, but I don't know, what do you think?

HINOJOSA: I do think it is an overreaction, and I think it was similar to, you know, we've seen that the Democratic base wants our leaders to fight, and they want to see a fight against Donald Trump. The reality is that Hakeem Jeffries has been doing that, and I think that when I first read this article, the first thing I thought is, wow, this sucks for Mike Johnson.

Jared Kushner is going to Hakeem Jeffries, knowing that he is likely going to be the next speaker, and trying to get in his good graces to maybe, I don't know, not be investigated. He's trying to pull the Trump playbook, which is in Washington, D.C., the way that things work now, is that you go see the boss and try to convince them not to investigate them. That is not what Hakeem Jeffries is going to do here.

RANTZ: But is he lying in that interview?

HINOJOSA: I have no idea what happened. I don't think he is lying. But I think he's trying to make friends, because he knows that he's going to need something out of Hakeem Jeffries.

RANTZ: Is Hakeem Jeffries something at some point?

HINOJOSA: Jared Kushner is part of the White House, whether people like it or not. And I think that this was just an admission that he is going to be speaker, and they are going to need him. But what Hakeem Jeffries is doing -- Hakeem Jeffries said, yes, he's talking about the economy.

They're going to need him to get stuff done. Whether it's investigations, yes, if I were Jared Kushner, I'd be sucking up to Hakeem Jeffries, even though he's not going to do anything about it.

RANTZ: He wasn't sucking up. But that's the point. You meet with people on the other side, and this happens all the time

behind the scenes. It usually doesn't get public. They all work together for the most part.

Because you still have the White House. You still have Trump there. He's not going anywhere, despite what Democrats want to have happen.

So you're going to still have to work.

Sure, but the reality is, the House is going to go to the Democrats. The question is, how much of a lead will they have?

They're still going to have to work together. I don't think they're going to take the Senate. So you're going to have to have that.

I found it so ironic. You know, this whole show is based on sitting together with people with whom we disagree and talk through things. And the left, at least the base, like the podcasters, are very upset about that.

I find that odd. While at the same time, the Democrat talking point, for the last several months, we have a huge tent. This is the big tent party.

Come bring us your guys with the Nazi tattoos and Hassan Piker. But the second you sit down with Jared Kushner --

COOPER: -- that's way too far.

WRIGHT: I thought it was a weak response on Jeffrey's part. I wanted him to go full Dianne Feinstein. "Shut up. We want to win."

And we're going to win. And guess what? You have to work with everyone. You talk to 100 people to get one thing done.

PHILLIP: What would the point of that be? I mean, they are trying to win. I think Jeffries --

WRIGHT: They're not. They're losing national elections to feel like they're good people. It's a total self-immolation that we're witnessing.

PHILLIP: What he was doing in that interview there was basically saying, I hear you. We are going to investigate these people.

That's the point of that, what he was trying to say.

ELROD: Exactly, that's exactly what he was saying. And look, a couple of things.

Number one, I do think it's a little frustrating, frankly, as a Democrat, that some on the left, and not just on the left, some Democrats across the board, are criticizing Jeffries for doing this, when a majority of the American people want to see bipartisanship. That's one of the reasons why a divided government is so popular. So my biggest takeaway, first of all, was exactly Xochitl's reaction there. Obviously, Kushner and the White House believed that he would be the next speaker.

Secondly, we want there to be a communication there. Third, there has been a history between Leader Jeffries and Jared Kushner in passing a major criminal justice reform bill in the first Trump administration.

So I think it's overreaction from a lot of Democrats. Everyone needs to take a chill pill and channel that reaction and that frustration into winning back some Democratic seats in the midterms.

PHILLIP: It was interesting because, I mean, Zohran Mamdani, not only did he go to the Oval Office and talk to Trump, they've spoken on the phone, he's called them up about projects in New York that he wants Trump to approve. And not a word from anyone on the left about that.

Mehdi Hassan, in one of the many, I think, social media wars about this topic that popped up today, he said, "Meeting secretly with a person you need to be investigating to find common ground is not the same as meeting publicly with a person you have no power to hold to account. If you don't understand the respective roles and powers of the Mayor of New York and the Speaker of the House, I don't know what else to say to you."

RANTZ: Does he think there's no secret meetings going on ever? This is a cheap shot. It's stupid, it's meant to talk to a very specific part of the base.

[22:45:00]

Again, it's the pod bros who get upset with these kinds of things who call the other side Nazi fascists. And the reality is, even when some of the politicians do that, they're doing it for show, they do still have working relationships with these people. And a perfect example of that was Lindsey Graham, who was very well-liked across the board despite his political beliefs.

COOPER: It looks like there's only about eight or nine seats on the House side that are going to make the difference between control. I believe that the redistricting that happened earlier has favored the Republicans more than the Democrats. But I could be wrong.

Here's the point, I have no idea of why the two met. The Minority Leader said he was asked and he heard a briefing. Why does that have to follow, oh, well, we believe that they're going to take over the House?

HINOJOSA: Because why else would Jared Kushner want to meet with Hakeem Jeffries because he has a power?

RANTZ: That's also not necessarily true. They sometimes do need to bring some Democrats over with some of the Republican leaders.

PHILLIP: I think it's naive to think that Jared Kushner is just meeting with Hakeem Jeffries just to kick it. They're not, no. The last time they worked together was in the first Trump administration on the First Step Act. They're talking because Jared Kushner understands what is coming. And Jared Kushner, by the way, understands that the investigations are coming.

And so it's not just about, oh, how do we, you know, lower, you know, grocery prices. I think he's trying to feel out Jeffries to find out how bad this is going to get.

RANTZ: But Jeffries knows that if that's solely what this was about. Let's go with that for a moment. Then Jeffries knows that he's smart enough.

So he's either -- so then he's lying.

PHILLIP: Wait, I don't understand why you're saying he's lying.

RANTZ: Yes, exactly. He denied that that was the reason for this meeting.

PHILLIP: I mean, there are other parts of the interview where he talked about the broad -- like broadly what they are, what he's trying to say. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

And we can hold people to.

RANTZ: But he's not saying that this was the purpose of that meeting. In fact, quite the opposite.

HINOJOSA: If Jared Kushner went to Hakeem Jeffries and said, I would like to have a meeting with you because I don't want you to investigate me. And there was an admission of guilt.

That is the most idiotic thing that Jared Kushner could do. And he would absolutely leak it.

But the reality is that Jared Kushner went in to try to have a relationship and build a relationship with Hakeem Jeffries, whether it is about potential investigations moving forward. I'm not done. Or whether that is passing policy for the because the ultimate reality is that Hakeem Jeffries will be speaker.

PHILLIP: We have to go.

Next for us, a tribute to Dolly Parton, including the story behind her most famous song.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(VIDEO PLAYING)

PHILLIP: Before it famously became Whitney's song, it was Dolly's. And tonight, as America celebrates the country star's life, one piece of her legacy is the story behind that bestselling song, one of the greatest love ballads ever written.

Dolly earned $10 million in royalties from Whitney's cover for "The Bodyguard" soundtrack, and she donated much of it to build an office complex in a black neighborhood in Nashville. And that is Dolly Parton in a nutshell, a musical icon using her genius first to entertain the world and then using her success to unapologetically help the world, from educating her employees to providing hundreds of millions of free books to children, including my own daughter, whose bookshelf is filled with books from Dolly's imagination library.

Half a decade ago, in a time as divided as this one, the "New York Times" asked, is there anything we could all agree on? They concluded that yes, it's Dolly Parton.

And when it comes to her most famous song, Dolly could even turn a breakup into magic, as she told Ken Burns in the documentary "Country Music."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DOLLY PARTON, COUNTRY MUSIC SINGER: He was going to sue me, he was going to do this, he was going to do that. And so I went home, I thought, he's not going to listen to me, because I've said it over and over.

And so I thought, do what you do best, just write a song. So I wrote the song, took it back in the next day, and I said, "Porter, sit down, I've got something I have to sing to you."

So I sang it, and he was sitting at his desk, and he was crying. He said, "That's the best thing you ever wrote." "Okay, you can go, but only if I can produce that record."

And he did, and the rest is history.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Released a few months after she left, it would go on to become Dolly Parton's best-selling song.

(DOLLY PARTON PERFORMING)

[22:55:00]

(DOLLY PARTON PERFORMING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Dolly, we will always love you. Thank you for watching. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)