Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Becerra, Hilton Face Off in CNN's California Governor Debate; Paxton Privately Complains That Trump Convention Hurt Him; Trump on His Political Struggles, Poor Job of Promotion. Leaked Tape Reveals Ken Paxton's Admission to the RNC Midterm Convention Hurts Republicans; Sen. Jim Justice Speaks Against ICE Raids; White House Website Underwent Tweaks to A.I. Chatbots when Answering Sensitive Questions. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired September 30, 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 ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, live at the table, Scott Jennings, Keith Boykin, Lydia Moynihan, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, and Scott MacFarlane.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York. You've been watching a fiery debate between Democrat Javier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton. Both men are making their pitch to replace Gavin Newsom as governor of California. And we're going to analyze what we just heard.
But, first, before we open it up to the table here, we invite you at home to join our debate. Head to cnn.com/abby. Weigh in there. We'll get to some of your comments throughout the show.
Scott Jennings, what was your read on how that debate went for the two candidates?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I wasn't surprised at the way they tackled it. I mean, California's one of the rare sort of political experiments in America where the experiment in the lab has been running for so long, there's no real mystery in how it's going to turn out. Democrats have been in charge for a very long time, and if Xavier Becerra wins, you know exactly what he's going to do. He's going to do precisely what Democrats have been doing. And if you're happy with homelessness, and you're happy with the cost of living, and you're happy with the taxes, and you're happy with the shadow welfare system that pays illegal aliens hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, that's what you'll get.
And if you want to do something different, Steve Hilton presented that tonight. I don't know if any minds were changed, but I think the contours of this debate and this choice are pretty well-established. Democrats are running the state. The state kind of sucks. There is a different alternative, but can he overcome the national political environment?
PHILLIP: That's kind of a pessimistic view, it seems. Is that right?
JENNINGS: Pessimistic in it -- well, yes, I'm very pessimistic.
PHILLIP: (INAUDIBLE) but you don't think that there's going to be something, you know, a surprise upset here?
JENNINGS: I mean, look, California's a beautiful place with a lot of promise, and my view as a Republican is it's been run into the ground by Democrats. They're holding it back. And they've had 16 years to do something about it. That was the argument Hilton made.
Now, again, does he have the capacity to change their mind?
PHILLIP: But the national political environment, that's maybe too strong. All right, Keith?
KEITH BOYKIN, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE AIDE: First of all, I thought it was just honorable and a good and a smart move in some ways for Xavier Becerra just to debate in the first place because he didn't have to do it. Much to Scott's point, he's ahead in the polls. Everybody expects him to win. So, to just be on stage, there's nothing for him to gain by being there. The only advantage could come to Steve Hilton.
Secondly, I thought that Xavier Becerra did a good job of connecting Steve Hilton to Donald Trump, which is the defining issue. Xavier Becerra is Donald Trump's candidate, and he said that several times, made that point on issue after issue.
But I think the defining point in the debate was the question of immigration. When Xavier Becerra said to Steve Hilton, you want immigrants who look like you, meaning people from England, to come to this country, but you don't want immigrants who look like me, people whose parents came from Mexico, to come to this country.
[22:05:03]
And I think that just exposed the hypocrisy of the Trump immigration policy, the racism of the Trump immigration policy, and the ICE raids that Xavier Becerra opposes, that Steve Hilton would continue. I think that issue alone is enough to be damaging and devastating.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You're both wrong.
PHILLIP: Oh, sorry, go ahead.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Because, look, yes, both of these gentlemen have points that they made. First of all, I thought the debate was a little tepid in the sense that Xavier Becerra's not known as a fiery talker. I thought he was pretty mid in this debate. I don't think he really was able to sell perhaps what the accomplishments have been of the Democrats in the way that you hear perhaps a Gavin Newsom do it. Listen, the numbers you can also give for California, if I was going to have to make the argument, that it is the largest economy in the United States by any state. It is the incubator for so much of our industry, that our entire sort of national economy relies on, A.I., et cetera, in Silicon Valley.
And so, you know, what I would say about this is Xavier Becerra did not, I think, make the case very strongly. On the other side, Steve Hilton, all he could say was, hey, you might not like this guy. They've been in charge for a long time, but you know what? We need a change. But it wasn't a terribly convincing argument in the sense of what it is that he would bring to the table.
And so, you know, both of these men, I think, have run a pretty lackluster campaign. And I think you see that reflected in California. There isn't a lot of enthusiasm about this governor's race.
SCOTT MACFARLANE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, MEIDASTOUCH NETWORK: I do not share Scott's pessimistic view of California. I agree with you that it's beautiful. I do not agree with you that it sucks. It's the most -- diverse state in the nation. It is America in one state, factories, farms, big cities, small towns, it's got everything, also has some particularly expensive prices, which is something these two had to get after. Diesel is out of control.
The most expensive fill-up in America took place this week in Long Beach. A truck driver paid $8.44 a gallon for diesel, cost him $1,300 for two tanks over one weekend. That's all coming downstream to the rest of the country.
About how they laid out their specifics tonight, they were pressed a bit. I don't think they did lay out specifics of how they're going to get healthcare to more people, how they're going to lower these prices. And these two nominees have been getting tagged left and rights by people who vote and people who run local media for not giving specifics. They're both out there speaking in broad brushes. One's used to speaking on broad brushes on Fox News. The other one's used to speaking in broad brushes from his state post. I'm not sure how granular they got. Voters do want that, Abby.
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK POST: I mean, if I was a Californian, I would be very eager for change. Yes, there's still a lot of impressive statistics about California, but it's going in all of the wrong directions. So, yes, they are a very important economy, but all of the wealth is leaving.
You saw about a trillion dollars that left this past year in anticipation of a wealth tax. We're seeing this sort of leftist fever dream where all of these insane policies, giving people free syringes. I saw a headline in the City Journal today saying 25 percent of San Francisco convicted pedophiles, rapists, and sex offenders live in government-funded housing.
So, we're seeing all of these absurd policies and yes, it is impacting affordability. Rentals are the second highest in the nation, electricity, the second highest in the nation, gas prices, the first highest. So, it's interesting that these voters are seemingly, the, the polls would suggest, rejecting Hilton because you look at the polling and 37 percent of people care about fighting Donald Trump.
PHILLIP: So, two things. One, it is interesting that Becerra reiterated he doesn't support that wealth tax. That's extremely controversial. But to Lulu's point about the lackluster nature of this debate and Becerra's overall performance, which, frankly, may not matter because the environment is what it is, this moment actually where Steve Hilton brings up Democrats' own objections to Becerra, the ones who worked with him in the White House, was, frankly, wild. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE HILTON (R), CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: In every government job you've had according to your Democrat colleagues, the ones who worked with you, like Susan Rice, who worked with you side by side when you were in the Biden cabinet, she described you as an idiot. She called you bitch-ass. Why did Susan Rice, a respected political leader, call you an idiot?
XAVIER BECERRA (D), CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Since when do I have to respond to politicians? I'm running for governor of California. I'm looking for the vote of California voters, not some politician in Washington, D.C.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I don't even know what to say. Not on my bingo card to hear that at a debate. However, it almost kind of underscores the fact that were it not the other candidate in this race basically flaming out because of a scandal, Xavier Becerra might not be there.
[22:10:13]
And were it not for an environment, in which Republicans are facing potentially a blue wave, this could be a more competitive seat.
BOYKIN: Well, it could -- that was wild. First of all, that moment was, unpredictable. But I think he actually handled it well under the circumstances by deflecting to the fact that he doesn't take answers from politicians.
MOYNIHAN: Come on.
BOYKIN: But, no, I honestly --
MOYNIHAN: He was one of those Washington politicians.
BOYKIN: I mean, I honestly did because I think most people don't know who Susan Rice is.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think that's true.
BOYKIN: I do, because I've worked with her.
PHILLIP: And I wouldn't describe her as a politician necessarily, but --
BOYKIN: But the fact that he did was actually --
JENNINGS: But a respected person.
BOYKIN: The fact that he did was actually kind of a deft political move on his part.
But having said that, I think the big opportunity that he missed for me was that I think Steve Hilton kept trying to label him as being a part of the establishment. You've been in charge all this time. You've done this. You've done this.
And I think the one thing he should have done if I were him, I would've separated myself because I'm not the governor of California. I've never been the governor of California. I'm running for that office. I was a secretary of Health and Human Services. I was a congressman. I was an attorney general. But I have never been the governor. So, I am not the person responsible for making those decisions. I think he should've done a little bit better job of emphasizing that.
But I think most voters in California already know that, and the ones who don't, it doesn't really matter anyway because California's a Democratic state, and he's more than likely going to win.
PHILLIP: One thing that Hilton did bring up a lot was, you know, Becerra giving California's current leadership an A-plus in how they've managed things. Part of the problem -- I know you defended California earlier, Scott, but part of the problem is that Californians aren't happy with how California has been run. They don't like a lot of the things that Scott points out or that Lydia points out. And maybe they're not willing to vote for a Republican, but the idea that you gloss over that seems like a mistake.
MACFARLANE: I think that you may be painting too narrow a painting here. I think there's an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment wave across the country. I don't think anybody's happy with their government right now. I don't think Californians are uniquely positioned as I don't really like my state leaders. I think this is about to become an election where everybody expresses their displeasure with their leadership.
That notwithstanding, if he's going to distance himself from the governor of California by name and the others in the establishment, does he risk turning off their bases and those who do politically subscribe to Gavin Newsom?
And I want to add this point because I don't think it's incidental. There are down-ballot concerns from this debate. Democrats are keen on flipping about a half dozen Republican-held U.S. House seats in California. How Xavier Becerra performs is going to have some impact potentially on the closeness of those races.
BOYKIN: I don't think it's going to have any impact at all. I think this debate will have zero impact on those down-ballot races. Those are --
MACFARLANE: Distancing himself from Newsom would have an impact, do you think?
BOYKIN: I don't know. Those races are about what's going on in the national environment. The one thing you said that's exactly right, is this is an anti-incumbent sentiment mood in the country right now. That's the reason why I think he should've done a little bit more in terms of pushing himself away from the incumbents with the movement, what's going on in the country.
At best, Becerra is like Chance the Gardener here. I mean, that's the most charitable read of how he got here. At worst, he is the most incompetent member of the most incompetent administration who somehow finds himself about to be elected to one of the most important offices in the country, which, as you point out, the biggest economy is California.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: What do you mean by Chance the Gardener?
JENNINGS: From the movie, Being There. I mean, just, you know, accidentally sort of wound up in this position. And do you -- if you're in California, do you want to accidentally have a governor who has never really been all that successful at the things he's done? Not by Republican standards, but by the Democrats who have worked with him, as Hilton pointed out. Talk to the Biden people. We've had them on this show, the Biden people who have said he was incompetent. He was the laziest, whatever it is they said about the guy, and now he's going to be the governor of a very important state. I agree. It's an important state.
MOYNIHAN: It's also --
BOYKIN: He was elected by the people of the state of California.
MOYNIHAN: It's also interesting that we always talk about Trump is losing people because of the affordability issue, and it's all about the economy and the prices. And California is an economy that's imploding. Again, they've had a net outflow of people recently. This is why federalism is great, because you can see the impact of the various policies when you enact them, and we're seeing all of these left-wing policies enacted. And affordability is a disaster there right now.
PHILLIP: I think that might be a bit of an overstatement.
MOYNIHAN: It's interesting that that isn't moving people in the same way that.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think you're also quoting things from like 2021 and 2022. But what I will say, what's interesting to me about all of this is that this is the argument that is going to be made against Gavin Newsom should he run for president. So, insofar as it is interesting nationally, it is interesting because this is the case that will be made precisely by people defter than Mr. Hilton against Gavin Newsom.
PHILLIP: Gavin Newsom was like the invisible character who was not in the room.
[22:15:00]
GARCIA-NAVARRO: 100 percent.
PHILLIP: He's really -- he was the third person on the debate stage.
Let me just read this viewer remark that just came in. I voted Democrat my whole life and hope the Democrats win California, but Hilton did have a point about education. Why is the reading level so low? What, if anything, have the Democrats done to correct this?
MACFARLANE: I didn't get much from Xavier Becerra's response to the question about how to improve education, especially among young people. I think he was being supportive of teachers, but it seemed equivocating to me, and a little bit mushier.
But they both had statements about A.I. that landed, and Steve Hilton's was about A.I. in schools. Let's get rid of it in schools. There's no need for that front-facing A.I. tool for children, which could account for children being less able to, you know, read. And Xavier Becerra saying, of course, we need tighter restrictions on A.I. development.
That jumped out at me, Abby, because they do seem to be meeting voters where they are. There is widespread apprehension, if not fear, of these A.I. tools, and I think there was some mixed messages coming from the White House this week when the A.I. giants were side by side with Trump, and he said, this is good, laissez-faire-style. Let's just let them roll.
PHILLIP: It feels like actually that question speaks to a missed opportunity the Republicans had in the last, you know, 15 months of this second Trump term, where there are things that have made Americans in parts of the country dissatisfied with Democrats.
One of them was crime. Another one was immigration. One, un- under the radar one, is education and the failure to improve education by just throwing money at the problem. So, you know, for in this moment, it may not matter that Xavier Becerra did not have the strongest answer on that, maybe neither of them did, but it speaks to something that's a little bit underneath the surface that perhaps Democrats need to get a handle on in the years to come.
BOYKIN: Well, I think education is an issue that typically has been a strong point for Democrats regardless of the state because the only offer that Republicans have is privatizing or what they call now school choice. But they have no solutions for public schools in America at the secondary and primary level.
And when it comes to the college level, they're making it harder for people to go to college. They're taking away student loans and grants for people to do so. And when it comes to graduate level, Trump is making it even more difficult because he's restricting the people who have access to that. Not to mention the way that Trump is taking away student loan deferment, student loan repayment options. JENNINGS: Can I just rebut that on education for a moment? The most improving state in America when it comes to test scores is Mississippi, run by a Republican. And they have better test scores in Mississippi for minority children than they do in California right now.
So, to say that Republicans have no answers is false. What they did in Mississippi is they went back to basics. They put phonics back in the classroom. I mean, they do have answers. The states that have adopted those solutions have seen test scores go up.
PHILLIP: I'll let you respond to that, Keith.
BOYKIN: Well, I just think with some states like Mississippi have farther to go, so they were starting from the bottom. A lot of these other states have not had to go so far because they are actually doing -- they have actually been historically doing better.
But there are a lot of states like Mississippi and southern states that have large black populations that have been underfunded. The schools have been underfunded in those states, largely because of the way we fund our school system through the local school taxes.
PHILLIP: But don't you think there's something to be learned from what they were able to accomplish because the gains have been for minority students?
BOYKIN: Absolutely, there is something to be learned. And I think the problem is that when the -- especially with the issue of education, I'm a former teacher myself, but the problem is that both sides are kind of stuck in their positions, and nobody really wants to move. I think we need to be focused on what's in the best interest of the students and the schools, and not what's in the best interest of one party or another.
PHILLIP: Another viewer question, when confront -- or, excuse me, I'm sorry. Let me just play this sound about election integrity. This is an exchange about basically the integrity of our elections, which President Trump has cast doubt on elections, specifically in California. Here's Steve Hilton.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILTON: We just had Karen Bass, the mayor of L.A., saying, we don't need an election for governor because the Democrat is going to win. And that is the attitude we get from these people who've been in charge of our state for 16 years, and they think that they can just do whatever they want, get whatever bad results, the highest taxes in the country for the worst results, taking everybody for granted, taking their votes for granted.
That's why he's not trying to earn anybody's vote. That's why he hasn't been campaigning in this election. They take you for granted.
And I just want to ask every Californian, aren't you tired of that? It's time to try something different.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And just before that, in the face of all of President Trump's comments and all of that, he said he does have faith in California's elections. I mean, he's on that stage because he got second place in a runoff.
[22:20:03]
So -- but is he right that Californians, the Democrats take for granted, that there's really not a competitive race in that state?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Any state with a super majority has that problem. I mean, California in that sense is not unique. You've seen that in Republican-led states. I personally think it's enormously problematic in this country that we have so many states with supermajorities. I believe democracy requires contested visions, debates, new ideas infusing it. So, you know, you're not going to count me as a super fan of the way that California has gone.
That said, this isn't going to be the election where that changes because we have a federal government that is so deeply, deeply unpopular in Donald Trump. If this were an election where Democrats were there and prices were this high, you might have the argument that Steve Hilton's making resonate more, but I don't think this is the election, because everything has become so nationalized, right?
I mean, if you heard the debate here, yes, they were talking about local issues, but the lack of specificity, which you rightly pointed out, is because everything is sort of mumbo jumbo nationalized, right? It's -- everything's about ICE and Trump, and et cetera, et cetera.
PHILLIP: Yes, exactly. Every other word is whatever the buzzword is for each party.
All right, next for us, a Republican candidate is caught on tape criticizing the president's convention as Trump gives a new diagnosis for his political problems.
Plus, a Republican senator from West Virginia is now speaking out against the president's deportations, including illegal immigrants.
This is CNN's special live coverage.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:25:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, who is to blame for the Republican Party's political headwinds going into November's elections? Well, it depends on who you ask. Ken Paxton, the GOP nominee for Texas Senate, was caught on tape telling donors behind closed doors how he really feels about Donald Trump's recent midterm convention.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you feel like he's a little bit of a drag?
KEN PAXTON (R), TEXAS SENATE CANDIDATE: So, to be honest with you, the numbers -- when we did that in convention, it dropped our numbers. Everybody's numbers dropped. Right now, yes, not good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Trump told reporters that he hadn't heard Paxton's comments and was instead quick to repeatedly point the finger elsewhere.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I'm going out -- because nobody's selling it. I'm doing -- we're doing an extremely poor job of promotion and an extremely great job of running the country.
There's no economy like this economy, and the only thing we don't have is good public relations. We don't seem to be able to get the word across that we have more people working than ever before. We have the best job numbers than ever before, and we don't get the word across, and that's because the press doesn't want us to get the word across.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Or it could be all the many other things that the president spends his time talking about on a regular basis. One of the concerns about this convention, which, by the way, was held in Texas, was that it was going to be coming at the worst possible time. It was going to be focused on things that people did not want to hear about, namely the President Donald Trump.
And that's why a lot of Republicans skipped it. But Ken Paxton couldn't really skip it. So, I mean, does he have a point?
MOYNIHAN: I mean, it's not surprising to me to see in politics the blame game already starting. So, obviously, Paxton isn't super thrilled with some of the polling. We see that race is a lot tighter than Republicans would like it to be. So, again, not surprising that we see politicians trying to point blame ahead of that.
Look, I think it's a mixed bag. You know, obviously Trump has extremely loyal voters who don't turn out sometimes. So, I think Trump can really help candidates in that regard, and that's been an issue for some Republicans.
At the same time, does that alienate people who are a bit more centrist? Possibly, which is why we're seeing a lot of candidates try and become more moderate in their messaging as they head into the midterm. I think the other thing that we keep hearing from Republican strategists as well is they don't want the bad polls to impact turnout.
And I think they're pointing to even, believe it was Medium Strategies that predicted falsely Francesca Hong was up by 20 points, and it turns out that was a social experiment. So, I think they are really telling people, get out there and vote. Don't just accept the bad polls. And it's not over until it's over, you know? I still have a lifetime in politics.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, I think part of the problem of that convention was that President Trump went up there and kind of trashed Ken Paxton on stage. I mean, I think that was maybe why his poll numbers might have slipped. I mean, it was sort of like --
JENNINGS: Lulu, I think that was endearing tail snapping, absolutely.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Was that what it was? Was that what it was? I'm not sure it's what it was.
I mean, it basically was like, yes, he's corrupt, yes, he's not good- looking, yes, he's not a great campaigner. But you know what?
JENNINGS: What else would you call that? That's tail snapping.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: So, you know, I mean, I think that might have been the problem.
PHILLIP: The president also seemed kind of defensive about this convention in general. Here's what he said. This was right after he was asked about Paxton.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: There is a report that Ken Paxton was complaining about your midterm convention, and he felt like it hurt him. What's your reaction to that?
TRUMP: Well, I haven't heard that, but I can tell you that the convention was amazing.
This was a national convention, a midterm convention, never been done before. And we went directly against the NFL. It was just the timing worked out that way, and we had 107 million versus 25 million views.
So, I think the convention, I would imagine they do it again often.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, definitely not true what he said there.
MACFARLANE: It's not even close to true.
PHILLIP: Not even close. Not even close. The NFL had 25 million viewers for that game. His speech reached about 3 million viewers.
[22:30:00]
This is the kind of thing he cares about. But, again, that convention and what it was for why he insisted on it, was at such odds with what Republicans who are actually running these races said that they wanted and needed in these final weeks leading up to the midterms. SCOTT MACFARLANE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, MEDIASTOUCH NETWORK;
I say with confidence, we know we're in the midterm elections when the President's blaming the P.R. team and the P.R. efforts for troubles, because that's an age-old tradition that predates Trump. Ratings have always been a preoccupation of the President.
Let me just try to figure out what he was trying to say there. I think he's conflating views on a social media video with prime-time live television audiences. Those are not comparable T.V. far outweighed at the convention.
There were a number of battleground Republicans with whom I spoke who said they didn't want to be there, not just because they didn't want to be juxtaposed next to Trump at this moment in time, but because they want to be looking like they're tending to parochial issues. They want to be in their hometowns getting after the crises of the moment.
They don't want to be in some theatrical presentation in Dallas. I don't think that event was what the President hoped it would be, in part because I think it was lightly attended by his own party's frontline candidates, the ones who needed the help.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, HOST OF "THE SCOTT JENNINGS SHOW" ON SALEM RADIO, AUTHOR, "REVOLUTION OF COMMON SENSE", AND FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I was there, I saw a lot of our candidates there, a lot of frontline candidates got up and made speeches. It brought a lot of donors and a lot of attention to Texas, which Ken Paxton needs. I hate to report to Ken Paxton, but you need all the help you can get, including Donald Trump and Donald Trump's larger organization right now and his Republican party is spending a metric ton of money to try to drag him across the line.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yes, yes, and just to that, just really quick to that point. I mean, so far in 2026, $400 million has been spent in this Texas race by both sides, but the vast majority of that is on the Republican side. That's compared to $55 million in the last race that people thought was competitive, Beto O'Rourke versus Ted Cruz. But it's interesting. I mean, again, you can blame this on sour grapes from Ken Paxton, but here's an analysis by Aaron Blake today.
"Major polling aggregators, including Nate Silver, FiftyPlusOne, all show that, if anything, Democrats have gotten the bump since the midterm convention. They both show the Democrats expanded their margin on the generic ballot by at least two points since September 9th. Three other polls, CNN, NBC News, Fox News, all showed no change from previous polling, which also suggests that the convention was a waste."
So then Trump turns around and doubles down with a bunch of political ads paid for by American taxpayers that praise him, essentially, that center him more than anything else.
KEITH BOYKIN, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE A.I.DE, AND AUTHOR, "WHY DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE ABOUT RACE?": You can't stop reminding people that he is the candidate who is on the ballot, even though he's not on the ballot, which is a huge mistake that nobody would make. It's a J.V. mistake.
I don't agree with Scott that this was a good thing for Ken Paxton or for the Republican Party for exactly the reason that we saw in the polls from Nate Silver and others. It actually hurt the Republican Party. The numbers went down after the convention, Ken Paxton's numbers went down after the convention.
That's the reason why he's complaining right now. There's this blame game going on. The rats are fleeing the ship right now because they know that Donald Trump is toxic.
That's the reason why Donald Trump is going to Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas and places like that. Why should a Republican candidate be doing that, a Republican President be doing that?
And I disagree with Scott, too, when he says that the fact they're whatever ton of money is a good thing. That's a horrible thing for the Republican Party to be spending tons of money in Texas in a midterm election. That's a sign of failure.
PHILLIP: Yes, $300 million in Texas?
JENNINGS: Well, look --
PHILLIP: I mean, and they're probably going to have to start spending in Florida, too. Florida should be safe from Democratic hands, and it's not.
JENNINGS: We are where we are at the end of September, and you have two choices. You can either spend the money necessary to win a state that you ought to win, or you can let it flounder and letting it flounder is simply not an option here.
Look, the polling is in low single digits, very low single digits. Ken Paxton has an excellent chance to win. And he needs Donald Trump's help, and he needs Donald Trump's voters to do that.
And mostly, they need Donald Trump and the Republican Party's resources because he obviously isn't the fundraiser that Talarico is in this race. So for a lot of reasons, I was not happy with this comment today from Ken Paxton, even if he thinks he was being honest. Sometimes keep it to yourself and say we're grateful for everyone's support.
PHILLIP: But I am curious. I mean, honestly, was the convention worth it for Republicans?
JENNINGS: Well, the Republican Party thinks so. They think they got a lot of online.
I was there. Look, a lot of the candidates that are running in individual House races and people you've never heard of got a chance to get up on a big stage, and many of them rose to the occasion and gave great speeches.
[22:35:00]
There were tons of donors down there. Donors were gathered and told, here's what we need your help for. Here's where your money needs to go.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, "NEW YORK TIMES" JOURNALIST, AND HOST OF "THE INTERVIEW": You might say this word, which is donor, donor. And I know that means a lot. I know that means a lot to the political class.
But the point is that to the voter, what you are seeing in the wake of this is Democratic candidates saying, like, I'm here campaigning for you while that guy is down in Dallas with the donors swatting around. I'm just telling you what the reason why that we've seen poll numbers drop.
JENNINGS: Okay, let me give you a rudimentary education on how this works.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Please, Scott. Tell me.
JENNINGS: In a midterm election, you have to raise and spend a ton of money to communicate with the voters that you speak of.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: No, I had no idea.
JENNINGS: The candidates had to get the money, and then they make the ads, and then they communicate. That's how it works.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Let me give you a rudimentary thing on voters and how they think. They want their candidates to be in their communities, talking to them.
JENNINGS: Okay, so what I'm hearing you say is, well, no, no, this is a good point.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And I think that when -- don't, yes, I mean, Scott, you know as well as anyone that when candidates have to leave the campaign trail to go fundraise --
JENNINGS: Yes, listen.
PHILLIP: -- that's not a good thing. That is a problem.
JENNINGS: So you think it's a problem when, say, Talarico is in New York or California, or any other Democratic candidate has to go bend the knee to George Soros or whoever else? Because they do it every week. They do it all the time.
MACFARLANE: Not visibly on a stage.
(CROSSTALK) JENNINGS: And by the way, Paxton didn't even have to leave Texas. That's his home state.
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But I didn't see whoever the grand poobah of the Democratic Party is right now, if there really isn't one, having a giant festival, putting it on TV, and giving speeches about it.
JENNINGS: You're complaining about candidates leaving states in business. They leave it all every week.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I'm not complaining. I'm not complaining.
JENNINGS: They spent all their time in New York, at Martha's Vineyard, in California.
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: What I'm saying is the Democrats have been able to capitalize on that? I'm trying to explain why Democrats got a bump and Republicans didn't.
PHILLIP: Well, look, it might also be as simple as two nights of speeches from one of the most historically unpopular Presidents in American history is not a great idea for the party that is facing an anti-incumbent environment, anti-establishment environment. That is also basic politics.
Why center the person who has the approval rating in the low 30s and who has high disapprovals on virtually every issue that is important to voters? That's basic politics, too.
JENNINGS: He's been at the center of that.
PHILLIP: It's basic political malpractice.
BOYKIN: You are exactly right. And Scott knows you're exactly right. But Scott can't say that.
Because if Scott were giving this advice to anybody except for Donald Trump, Scott is a very smart political strategist.
He knows exactly what you're saying is right. But he can't say that to Donald Trump because nobody can tell Donald Trump the truth.
JENNINGS: I agree with one thing Keith said. One of the things he said is true.
BOYKIN: What's that?
JENNINGS: I'm a smart political strategist.
PHILLIP: All right, next for us, we are hearing tonight that President Trump is angry with his DHS chief over talk of softening ICE arrests. And it comes as a Republican senator from West Virginia criticizes deportations.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: He's a staunch Trump ally from a state nowhere near the border. But tonight, West Virginia Senator Jim Justice is calling out the President's immigration agenda.
In an interview Tuesday with Politico, Senator Justice joined a growing number of Republicans criticizing ICE's mass deportations that are impacting rural communities. As ranchers across the nation raise concerns that the arrests are devastating their industry, Justice, who serves on the Senate Agriculture Committee, urged the administration to reconsider.
Quote, "You're dragging people away that have lived on your street corner for 15 years. And I don't know that we need to be doing that stuff," Justice said. "With all that's going on, we probably got to step back from it and say, maybe we're doing something wrong here or there," he continued to say.
Now, today, Justice backtracked his comments, clarifying in a social media post that he supports Trump's immigration agenda, full stop.
Now, Justice argued that his words were being twisted to score political points. But you heard them there for yourself, so you be the judge. And he is not the only one.
Lydia, this is one of those issues that seems to be not just backfiring among the American public, but also a lot of Republicans in red states who are feeling the meatpacking industry effects, who are feeling the agriculture effects, the housing effects. It's becoming a problem.
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, "NEW YORK POST": So we want illegal immigrants to stop cheap labor? Is that what you're suggesting?
PHILLIP: I don't know. Ask Jim Justice.
MOYNIHAN: Well, he clearly backtracked from his comments for a reason. So he's in his midst. Look --
PHILLIP: He made the comments, and then he says, "I support the President."
MOYNIHAN: He said his words are being twisted.
PHILLIP: You tell me which one of those you want. People can take it for what it is, but yes.
MOYNIHAN: People voted for mass deportations. And look, obviously, the midterms of the referendum on where people want to see the country headed. But what is clear is the border is completely secure, that's an issue that people care deeply about.
The securest it's been in 50 years. And on the immigration issue, this is what Trump was elected to do.
So look, I mean, you're always going to find one person in a vast party to be critical and then try and backtrack.
PHILLIP: Here's another person. Here's Senator Roger Marshall, this was when ICE was raiding in Kansas, of all places.
He issues a social media post the night that this is happening, saying that ICE needs to coordinate with local law enforcement. He says he's closely following what was happening in southwest Kansas at the time, because it was roiling those communities. He is not the only one.
Down in Florida, you had a Republican congresswoman put out a whole ad telling Trump he's gone too far.
[22:45:06]
The President is hearing this, and he's hearing it from inside his party. He's hearing it from outside of his party.
JENNINGS: Well, first of all, I think the vast majority of Republicans support the President's immigration agenda, whether it's on deportations or on how he secured the border. That's number one.
Number two, I think it's always been true, and we've talked about it here before. There is some tension on policy inside the Republican coalition.
You have people who are very hardline. They want all deportations all the time, no questions asked, no criteria. And then you do have agriculture interests and some other business interests that have a difference of opinion.
It seems maybe that Senator Justice was responding to some of those folks, because as you referenced, he is on the Senate Agriculture Committee. I think as it relates to Republican enthusiasm for the election, going soft on immigration and criticizing the President over it in a red state, not a great idea, in my opinion. If you want Republicans to show up and turn out seemingly giving oxygen to Democratic arguments against Donald Trump on immigration, I don't personally believe is the way to do it.
PHILLIP: Immigration right now, Trump has a 61 percent disapproval rating on immigration. That's pretty darn high.
BOYKIN: And he's seen a 56 point drop among working class Hispanics on that issue, which is a tremendous loss for him, because that was a group that he was doing very well with in 2024.
Now we're seeing a big turnaround. So it's not just the Hispanic community, and it's not just this one person, Jim Justice in West Virginia. You mentioned Roger Marshall in Kansas. I don't know if you mentioned Salazar in Florida, Monica De La Cruz in Texas, Paul LePage in Maine. Yes, people all across the country, Republicans are concerned. And the reason why is not just because they're betraying Donald Trump, it's because they're hearing it from ranchers who are MAGA supporters.
They're hearing it from farmers who are MAGA supporters, they're hearing it from business people, they're hearing it from their own people in the Republican Party, they're saying we're fed up with this because you're taking away our workers. You're causing labor shortages, you're causing price increases, you're causing all kinds of problems on top of the gas hike prices and the tariff issues.
You, Mr. President, have betrayed us. So I don't think that the people who were upset about immigration are betraying the President. I think the President has betrayed his own people.
PHILLIP: So Scott, Markwayne Mullin, who used to be in Congress, is now running DHS. And the reason I bring that up is because I think his time in Congress is informing how he sees this immigration issue.
CNN reported today that sources told CNN that Mullin privately supports shifting away from what officials call collateral arrests, meaning people who may be in the vicinity of an operation or with a person on law enforcement's radar.
Now, while sources suggest there's no indication Mullin is at risk of losing his job, the episode, which is when they briefly over this weekend seemed to send out a message that they were going to stop these collateral arrests, that episode ignited concerns among DHS officials that Mullin is not in line with the President. The President personally pulled back that guidance.
Mullin, though, understands what happened earlier this year in December and in January in Minnesota and how damaging that was to Republicans. He's been trying to quiet this down. And the President wants to ramp it up.
It seems to me that's not just out of step with the two of them personally, but with what Republicans need from an electoral perspective in these last few weeks.
MACFARLANE: No doubt Mullin sees these numbers that the President is 61 percent on the disapproval ledger for how he's handling immigration, which means it is bleeding into red states, not just blue states. This is getting more pervasive, and it's patasticizing around the country for the President.
And it's not just Roger Marshall. Both Kansas Republican senators had something to say about ICE enforcement in Kansas. And it's not just Jim Justice.
It is spreading among the Republican conference. There's one political backstory that's important, though, when we talk about Jim Justice. Jim Justice, according to my reporting in West Virginia, is very keen on running for governor again. And there's a Republican governor in West Virginia, Patrick Morrissey, who sees this coming. And I think the cleanup that Jim Justice did today may speak to his future ambitions of returning as governor of West Virginia for a third term. He had to leave because of term limits the first time.
PHILLIP: That's fascinating.
At the end of the day, though, this immigration issue is going to continue to dog the President. And he actually had some comments today. He described this, actually, interestingly, as one of the hardest things that he's had to do as President. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 25 million people walked across the border into our country. And many of those people were not people that you would want in this country.
And frankly, it's the hardest job that I've had. The hardest job, because they'll say you're too tough or you're too soft.
Get tougher, get softer. No matter what you do, it's always tough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:50:09]
PHILLIP: And I just want to a couple of caveats there. That number that he gave is not accurate.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Wildly inaccurate.
PHILLIP: Wildly inaccurate. But secondly, I don't think he's just talking about the border. Because actually, of all the things that he's done, the border was probably the easiest thing.
The thing that has been hard is the interior enforcement and the tug of war internally and externally about how they go about it.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Immigration is the most divisive issue in America, simply because it is about what we want when we think about what America is.
And it is something that has not been able to be. There hasn't been immigration reform, there hasn't been legislation on immigration for an enormous amount of time. And I think part of the problem here --
And I think the President is right. There are people in his government, in his caucus, Stephen Miller and others, who want absolutely everyone to be expelled.
And there are other Republicans. If you think about the Reagan Republicans. I mean, what did Ronald Reagan do?
He actually provided amnesty for a whole bunch of people who had come into the country legally. There is an enormous variety of views on the issue of immigration, but there is no serious attempt to actually deal with our immigration system.
How are we going to actually have people in this country who are here legitimately, who are working, who contribute to the communities that are here? How are we going to -- if you want to kick them out, fine, but America needs workers. How are you going to bring them back in a way that's okay?
None of these issues are actually debated in a way that is serious. And instead, what we have is an enormous amount of money being given to ICE, people who get put out on the streets with very little training, and they have led to clashes, deaths, and all sorts of things that have riled the community.
And so what you have seen, not just among Latinos, but among many people, is that they do not feel that this is okay, that this has not been handled in the right way.
And there are no serious attempts. And I will add the Democrats here, by anyone to really address the root causes, because it is such a toxic issue.
PHILLIP: Yes, and also it's a potent issue. It's useful politically.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: It is.
PHILLIP: Maybe for both parties, but particularly for Republicans in elections to have the issue be alive. And that's why we're sitting here, because there have been opportunities in the past. They weren't taken because it was too toxic to make a deal, which is sad for the American public.
Next for us, the White House's new A.I.-powered website just got a tune-up on day one. You will no longer get answers to some of the more sensitive questions. We'll debate that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: The White House's new A.I.-powered website launched yesterday apparently needed a tune-up for telling the truth.
Initially, America.gov answered one of the President's least favorite questions correctly. When asked if there was widespread election fraud in 2020 yesterday, the answer was no, and that Joe Biden won. But earlier today, it said that it couldn't answer those types of questions.
Now we just looked, and it seems to be back to Joe Biden winning. This is actually an interesting exercise in what A.I. is and what it isn't. I think part of it is that A.I. can be whatever you want it to be. It can tell you the truth. It can say, we can't answer political questions, sorry. And the White House is learning that the hard way, depending on how you program it.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes, it's choose your own adventure. It's pretty funny, considering that this has been obviously one of Donald Trump's main talking points, and he was touting this as this wonderful advancement. It is, in this case, actually saying a true thing, which is that obviously Joe Biden did win the election.
It's embarrassing for him, but in this case, A.I. is not wrong.
MOYNIHAN: I think it's embarrassing. Look, I think this is a huge win for the President. This is one of the most impressive things that we've seen from government in quite some time. You have the smartest people in Silicon Valley making A.I. accessible to people.
The goal is to be able to get a passport online. That's a huge advancement for a government where the IRS can really only be reached by trying to send them a letter. I mean, this is an incredible advancement, and something that should be celebrated and I think, if anything, the bottom line is we should be glad that these resources are accessible for people, and that the chatbot isn't being overly political.
Can we just give him a win? Can we just celebrate one accomplishment that we have for America?
PHILLIP: I think people just want the chatbot to consistently tell them facts.
MOYNIYHAN: I don't know. Why would you be going to the chatbot to ask that? You're supposed to go to ask about the parks, and filing taxes, and all kinds of things.
MACFARLANE: We've got dozens of Trump judicial nominees not answering the question, who won the 2020 election? They give this humiliating, tired statement of, Joe Biden was certified as the 2020 election winner.
BOYKIN: No, it's not.
MACFARLANE: At least A.I. has the ability to say what actually happened versus judicial nominees, and Trump appointees in front of the Senate who deny reality, and deny what we all saw with our own eyes.
BOYKIN: This is America.gov. This is the official website of the United States of America.
MOYNIHAN: A very pretty one.
BOYKIN: You should be able to get honest, reliable answers.
Now, I saw the report from Daniel Dale from CNN earlier today that he got different answers. I checked yesterday, and I checked today. I got the exact same answers, so I did not see the inconsistency.
But having said that, I still feel that there is reason for concern with people like Donald Trump and the Trump administration making these decisions, because I don't have a great deal --
MOYNIHAN: -- deal of information about how to apply for a job.
BOYKIN: Again, you keep minimizing what this site is about. All the information about the United States government is accessible.
Census information, data about Presidential elections, it's all there. And I think it does a disservice when we have a President who has a history of manipulating the truth. And so it causes people to have lack of trust and faith in the system.
And I think that's the biggest danger here. It's not just about the system, it's not just about this website. It's about Donald Trump consistently undermining the credibility of the ISIS government.
MOYNIHAN: It actually is about the website that's making resources accessible to people.
PHILLIP: I think it's good that the website tells the truth about whatever the question is, and particularly something as simple as who won the last election.
[23:00:09]
That's good. It probably will make the President mad, but it is telling the truth.
JENNINGS: Well, if you ask it, it links to what's in the National Archives. So it's accessing what's already available in the government. I just typed in how to get a passport and how to file my taxes, and it laid out in very user-friendly terms exactly how to do both things.
I suspect that's how most people interact with the federal government. So it sounds like a win to me.
PHILLIP: Yes, I mean, look, I think what they're trying to do to consolidate services in one place and make it easier for people to access them, that is a good thing.
One caveat, this website is not fully up and running. I think some of this is aspirational. They haven't actually put it --
MOYNIHAN: Better than healthcare.gov.
PHILLIP: I mean, one of the things is that they link back to resources in previous government websites. I like the aspiration, though, and I think that, yes, in the 21st century, the government should work a little bit better on the technology side.
MACFARLANE: It needs to work because they have, in the administration, gutted the staffing of the IRS, the Social Security Administration. PHILLIP: There's nobody there to answer the phones.
MACFARLANE: There's nobody to answer these questions whether A.I. replacing live bodies is a good thing. That's an open question, I think.
PHILLIP: All right, everyone, stick around. We are doing a special two hours. Let's roll the open.
