Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
White House Appears to Change A.I. Bot Answers After Contradicting Trump; Hegseth Cutting a Fifth of U.S. Military Leadership Amid War; GOP Senators Sound Alarm on Lack of Action on Affordability; Blanche Defends Himself for Speaking at Rallies. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired September 30, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: 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. That's good. It probably will make the President mad, but it is telling the truth.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SALEM RADIO HOST: 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 --
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK POST: 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.
SCOTT MACFARLANE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, MEIDAS TOUCH NETWORK: 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Tonight, is Pete Hegseth draining the military of experience?
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I call it accountability and long overdue.
You can't change a culture with the same people who enabled it.
PHILLIP: During a war, why a fifth of military leadership is getting cut? Plus, as the economy grew at a faster pace than expected, Republicans sound the alarm on high prices.
SEN. LISA ANN MURKOWSKI (R), ALASKA: Why are we voting on protecting college sports? What does that have to do with affordability?
PHILLIP: Also, the attorney general defends speaking at political rallies.
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm not in any way violating any rule or law.
PHILLIP: And turns out Jerome Powell did not break the law with renovations at the Fed as Donald Trump brags about his.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'm thrilled to welcome you to the great White House where I spend a lot of time fixing it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Keith Boykin, Lauren Wright, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, and Scott MacFarlane. Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
Hour number two. Thank you very much for joining us. Tonight, seven months into a war with no clear end in sight, Pete Hegseth is announcing that the U.S. military will cut 20 percent of its top generals and admirals. Speaking to junior and noncommissioned officers at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Hegseth reiterated his vision for the military in a 'State of the Force' address.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: Twenty percent reduction across the board. Now, the media calls that a purge. I call it accountability and long overdue. We are no longer the woke department or the weak department. Simple translation of that, no fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals, just warriors.
The ideological clowns are out. The patriotic cowboys are in with testosterone testing on top.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: A partisan group of -- a bipartisan group of lawmakers is raising concerns about those cuts that he talked about. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN HOEVEN (R), NORTH DAKOTA: I think we need to take a hard look at it and whatever is done there. And I'm not sure exactly where we're going to go with this. We need to look at it, and we need to be careful. It needs to be done right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R), NORTH CAROLINA: I've done reductions in force. I've done management reviews before. There's a right way and a wrong way to do it. And quite honestly, Hegseth hasn't impressed me with his ability to go about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BEN RAY LUJAN (R), NEW MEXICO: His announcement will make America less safe and will make us less prepared.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Before we open it up to the table here, once again, we invite you at home to join the debate. Go to cnn.com/abby. Weigh in there. We'll get to some of your comments as we go throughout the show.
Those lines from Hegseth at the top there almost sound like an SNL skit except that they are real from the head of the Pentagon. And I do think it is actually what concerns some of the lawmakers and some of the retired military folks who talk about this. It's not just the number, it's the targeting of certain groups of people based on whatever his ideology is.
[23:04:59]
LAUREN A. WRIGHT, POLITICAL SCIENTIST, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Well, the number is entirely different from the groups of people. Now, look, I'm someone who happens to think if you're willing to die for the United States of America, I don't really care what you look like or what you do. I'm not a military readiness expert, but that's just what I believe.
These numbers, the 20 percent cuts, are below exactly what the Obama administration proposed in 2017, which was 22 percent cuts in military leadership. Democrats at the time called it fiscally responsible. Biden cut 9.8 percent of military leadership in a very similar fashion. Democrats were not up in arms about that. So, I would just ask, where are the cuts supposed to come from that Democrats are calling for the last 50 years if not from perhaps a top, heavy roles --
PHILLIP: Well, you're saying it's in a similar fashion, but I think that is the issue. Let me play -- this is --
WRIGHT: No, it's similar.
PHILLIP: No, I'm -- what do you mean by similar? Because you're saying that it's being done the same way. There's no evidence of that.
WRIGHT: No, there is evidence of that.
PHILLIP: Of what?
WRIGHT: It's a goal of a percentage cut --
PHILLIP: Yes, but how are they determining who is going to be --
WRIGHT: -- that the Obama administration actually followed through on. They did a top-level cut, admirals and generals, 10 percent to start in 2017 --
PHILLIP: Yes, but who determines who are the --
WRIGHT: -- then they pushed for an extra 11 percent.
PHILLIP: I'm not talking about just the percentage. I'm talking about the individuals. Who gets -- who is in the 10 percent? How do they determine that? That's why I'm saying it -- I don't know that you can say that it's being done the same way.
WRIGHT: It's usually one- to four-star-ranked generals that are being paid usually on average of $200,000 to $300,000 a year.
PHILLIP: And how are they chosen?
WRIGHT: It's a huge savings.
PHILLIP: How are they chosen?
WRIGHT: I don't know.
PHILLIP: Well, that's what I'm saying. You don't know.
(LAUGHTER)
You're saying that it's being --
WRIGHT: But we don't know in the Obama administration.
PHILLIP: You're saying that it's being done the same way.
WRIGHT: Yes.
PHILLIP: I'm suggesting that you don't actually know.
WRIGHT: Do you know how it was done in the Obama administration? PHILLIP: You don't actually know that it's being done the same way. The reason I'm bringing this up --
WRIGHT: I'm saying it's not a controversial number.
PHILLIP: Former Major General Randy Manner talked about this. He also agreed that the cut in and of itself is not the problem here. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAJ. GEN. RANDY MANNER, RETIRED MAJOR GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: The concept of reducing the number of admirals and generals is a good one. The problem is that the secretary of defense has already proven that he's trying to purge the military, already fired 80 people, 80 generals and admirals. And because of their gender, because they're not white like him or because they were associated with General Milley or others, incredibly competent generals, he's getting rid of them.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN LEAD WASHINGTON ANCHOR: Do you have any concerns about now being the right time to cut senior military positions given the fact that the U.S. is engaged in an active war with Iran?
MANNER: This is just unbelievable, and it's sophomoric. This incompetent secretary of defense is actually dealing with not the profitability of a corporation, but is instead playing Russian roulette with the security of the United States. This is extremely dangerous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: He has a track record of purging people not based on their performance, not based on what they know, not based on what skills they bring. He has purged people who were in the middle of reforming the military in some really key important ways when it came to drones, etcetera. That's part of the reason there is bipartisan concern about this, and not to mention has purged Black officers, women officers in disproportionate numbers.
WRIGHT: But we don't know that's what he's doing this time, to be fair. I hope he's not. I share the concern.
PHILLIP: OK. Well, we know that that is what he has done up until this point.
WRIGHT: We have no evidence that's what he's doing.
KEITH BOYKIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE AIDE, AUTHOR: I'm one who has long believed that the military is bloated. I think that there's a need to make cuts. And so, I don't necessarily have a problem with a 20 percent reduction as long as it is done the right way.
I don't trust Pete Hegseth to do it the right way. One of the reasons I don't trust him to do it the right way is because of the history of what we just saw before. The fact that Black officers and women officers have been the first -- who we often said were the last hired, first fired, who were really ones who were being disproportionately affected by the cuts.
Secondly, those comments that he made at the top of the hour. Those were outrageously offensive comments, the idea that you're going to make all these statements about you don't want these weirdos and people who are fat and people who don't fit in your political perspectives.
He talks about we don't want any more ideological clowns. Pete Hegseth is the ideological clown. He's waging a culture war at the Pentagon instead of doing the job of what the defense secretary is supposed to do, to protect the country. He's not concerned about this. He's more concerned about doing Donald Trump's bidding. I think that's disgusting, that he's even able to get away with that. That's the reason we can't trust him to make those cuts.
JENNINGS: So, there seems to be some agreement that there is bureaucratic bloat at the Pentagon, bipartisan agreement. I interviewed him last year, and he was talking about the fact that we needed fewer top-heavy commands and more beefing up of the middle level war fighter positions.
[23:10:02]
It seems like he's moving on that. So, that's a good thing. We've had massive force reductions since the end of the Cold War, but we haven't seen corresponding reductions at the top layer. So, I think the policy is actually correct.
What I'm hearing from the retired major general that we played and from Keith and others, they just hate Pete Hegseth. So, whether he decided to reduce the force at the top levels of the Pentagon or whether he decided to change the lunch menu in the mess, you would be upset about it because you hate and don't trust Pete Hegseth.
That's a political question which we sort out in elections. And the commander-in-chief and the civilian-led army appointed Pete Hegseth to run it, and that's the policy they are pursuing. You can run against it in 2028. That's a legitimate political debate. But, right now, the duly-elected commander-in-chief and his duly-appointed secretary of war are making policy decisions because of an election that the American people held two years ago.
BOYKIN: Pete Hegseth hates people like me. That's the problem. It's not that I hate him. Pete Hegseth has a record, a history of saying inflammatory things directed at people like me.
My family is from the military. My great grandfather served in the Harlem Hellfighters in World War I, in the 1900s, early 1900s. And I know that Pete Hegseth doesn't even understand the history of the military that he's supposed to be running.
The fact that Harry Truman in 1948 signed an executive order to desegregate the armed forces, that history is about making sure the military was the place where the best people could rise to the top, not what -- who cared about what they look like. We didn't care about that. We cared about could they or they are competent to do the job. Pete Hegseth doesn't understand it because he's busy raising this stupid culture war that has nothing to do with the readiness of the military.
JENNINGS: Just to be clear, Pete Hegseth did serve in the military, and he's highly-decorated. He served overseas in defense of our country. So, to say he doesn't understand how the military works --
BOYKIN: I don't care --
JENNINGS: He served on the front lines of our wars.
BOYKIN: I don't care that he served or not served. The question is, what did he learn in his service? Clearly, he didn't understand the values of the American military and the American government. In our system, in our military, the military is supposed to be representative of the American people. It's not supposed to be some sort of political experiment for the right-wing government to decide that we're going to get rid of Black people and women because we don't like them.
JENNINGS: I don't think --
PHILLIP: One of the other big things that --
BOYKIN: That's what Donald Trump is doing.
PHILLIP: -- he announced today was this Office of Religious Affairs. And again, as with a lot of things that Pete Hegseth does, it's not just the what, it's the how. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: Today, at my direction, I'm establishing the Office of Religious Affairs. Starting today and for secretaries of war after me, the Office of Religious Affairs will report straight to the top.
As Psalm 33:12 extols us, blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. We're placing spiritual health at the same level as physical health. Our department is, you might say, putting on the full armor of God, because while we wage physical war, we all know the real battle is spiritual. God is good, evil is not, and America's military must understand the difference.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, we're doing religious wars now, I guess.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, JOURNALIST FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: For a lot of my career, I covered conflicts, and I'm very familiar with the U.S. military. Chaplains are very commonly used in the military and it is a core part of what the military does, also because they are there to sort of give last rites, to give spiritual support.
However, they're not just Christians, right, or from any particular denomination. There are also those who are there from other faiths to provide that service. It is a spiritual service as opposed to a denominational or Christian service. I think that is the worrying trend here.
There is, again, supposed to be an idea that the military occupies a space in which it does not matter what you look like, it does not matter what God you do or do not pray for to. You are there to serve your country, and that has been actually incredibly sacred.
I have seen it on the front lines, I have seen soldiers die in front of me, and I have seen what chaplains do. And the idea that you are now trying to have this become a holy war goes against everything that I have seen the U.S. military do on the front lines.
PHILLIP: That's the thing. You know, there is -- there are so many service members of faith, of all kinds of different faiths, right? And it would be one thing if he said, we are going to do exactly that, we're going to have this office report up to me, and he left it there. But he included his personal faith as the guiding principle for it, which is what gives away, you know, the game here.
[23:15:03]
I think Hegseth thinks that he is being slick with some of this stuff, but it's out there in the open. He wants his view of it. He brought his, you know, far-right pastor to the Pentagon to do a service. That's the problem. It's not the idea of faith in the military which, as Lulu very eloquently pointed out, is a part of the fabric of the United States military.
MACFARLANE: And also, just a shout-out to the law enforcement chaplains as well doing incredible work for no pay in their free time. Scott is right. There's going to be a referendum on this in 2028. We can litigate this then. But --
PHILLIP: It could be sooner because --
MACFARLANE: It's going to be this year.
PHILLIP: They might actually -- I mean, look, there was an attempt to impeach Hegseth --
MACFARLANE: That's why the U.S. House is gone.
PHILLIP: -- a couple weeks ago.
MACFARLANE: Because they don't want to stand for a vote on impeachment.
PHILLIP: It could be a lot sooner. He barely got through the Senate. So, yes --
MACFARLANE: And there's also -- being on the campaign trail, I was in Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, and en route to Ohio, not seeing those front-line Republicans getting behind Pete Hegseth or using Pete Hegseth in his position as a surrogate. And Democrats are making a lot of pay criticizing Pete Hegseth. They think the public is on their side, that the public is turning against whatever Pete Hegseth is offering. That's what either their research is showing them, their door-knocking is showing them, but they believe America is splitting with what they just saw today.
WRIGHT: I also don't like Pete Hegseth. Let me just go on the record. He would not have been my first choice. But neither one of these ideas, either streamlining the relationship between military members, chaplains, and him nor the across-the-board cuts, are controversial or unprecedented.
PHILLIP: Well, that's I --
WRIGHT: Utterly unprecedented.
PHILLIP: Hold on. That's exactly why --
WRIGHT: That's what he said. I'm saying the policies are not.
PHILLIP: Right. I made that exact point. The policy in and of itself, if he leaves it at that, it's probably fine. But he doesn't leave it at that, Lauren. I mean, he goes much further, and that's what makes it controversial.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And the biggest concern is Christian nationalism. Can we just say the word here? I mean, what this is all feeding into is this idea that what we will have is a sort of theocratic government in which there is no separation between church and state, and that the church is the church defined by whatever Pete Hegseth's personal religious beliefs are. That, I don't think, should be the defining characteristic of what the U.S. policy represents.
PHILLIP: Certainly not at a time when we are at war with a theocratic regime in Iran. I mean, the whole idea that we are going to put up one theocratic vision for a war up against another is not actually what America is about on the world stage. We don't go to war because of religion. We go to war for American values. And Pete Hegseth, he is saying the opposite of that.
JENNINGS: Well, I disagree with that characterization. I just wanted to second to something that Lula said.
COATES: What characterization?
JENNINGS: He's not proposing Christian nationalism.
COATES: We go to war for God and the church and Christianity?
JENNINGS: He's not proposing that a church run the U.S. military. That's not what he's proposing at all.
PHILLIP: That's not what I said.
JENNINGS: From the beginning of the country, from George Washington on down, you've had commanders-in-chief and military leaders pray to God --
PHILLIP: Yes, but we didn't go to war.
JENNINGS: -- for success in battle and protection for the troops.
PHILLIP: But we did not go to war on the premise that we were a part of a holy crusade. That is not how we have gone to war. Scott, you know that.
JENNINGS: I agree, and I'm saying we're not at war right now because of that, although we are at war with radical Islamic terrorism.
PHILLIP: But Pete Hegseth has described it that way.
JENNINGS: I disagree with that characterization.
PHILLIP: He has. I mean, he actually has.
JENNINGS: He's appealing to his faith, which is what military and civilian government leaders have done since the beginning of the country I did just want to second to something Lula said, though, about the fabric of our faith being tied in with the U.S. military. I went to France this summer and visited the military battlefields at Normandy and at the Meuse-Argonne, which is actually the biggest military site. I watched volunteers change out crosses for Stars of David because they had painstakingly gone back through the records to make sure that every soldier in those cemeteries was buried under the correct marker of their faith.
And so, when Lula talks about the chaplains and the work that goes into making sure that soldiers and their families are respected in their faith wishes, to me, that speaks to exactly the role that faith plays in our soldiers that go off to fight these battles. I was incredibly moved by that. I think it is part of who we are as Americans for 250 years.
BOYKIN: That's a nice speech and all, I appreciate that, but that's not what Pete Hegseth is doing. Pete Hegseth is using a particular religion and weaponizing that religion against those who disbelieve.
[23:19:58]
He's using that against -- if you're a Muslim, if you're an atheist, if you're Hindu or maybe even Jewish, Pete Hegseth isn't talking to you. He's talking to Christians, to Christian Americans who he thinks deserve to be in the United States Armed Forces. That's inappropriate for the secretary of defense to do that. That's what's so alarming about this.
Yes, you can talk about your faith. People have done that in our country. Defense secretaries, presidents, others have done that, and nobody has a problem with that. But to use your faith as a cudgel, as a weapon to attack people and to try to separate yourself from others, is offensive to what America is all about.
PHILLIP: All right. We'll leave it there. Next for us, despite the economy growing faster than expected, Republican senators are sounding the alarm on the affordability issue. Plus, the attorney general defends speaking at political rallies. We'll debate what he said, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, two new headlines about the state of the economy. The GDP growth is 2.2 percent in the second quarter. That's higher than what was expected, and it was largely driven by A.I. spending.
[23:25:00]
Also, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge rose less than experts thought it would, but it still remained high, and that could possibly delay another interest rate hike until after the midterms. But personal spending is outpacing income growth. That suggests Americans are dipping into their savings to make ends meet in this moment.
And despite President Trump repeatedly saying that America is in this golden age, 72 percent of Americans say that the condition of the economy is poor. More and more Republicans on the campaign trail are breaking with the president over high prices that are caused largely by the Iran war. Now, some Senate Republicans are sounding the alarm as well. Frustrated lawmakers, they haven't addressed the affordability issue. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R), MISSOURI: Right now, working people in my state, you know, they need some help. And I think you look back to the State of the Union. The president put out all of these proposals. I just named a couple of them. What of those has Congress enacted? None.
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You guys control Congress.
HAWLEY: Exactly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MURKOWSKI: There was a bit of confusion about this whole -- why are we voting on protecting college sports. What does that have to do with affordability of anything in Alaska? We're continuing to see escalating costs when it comes to oil, fuel, diesel, fertilizer because of the war in Iran. We haven't seen much action from the administration in terms of addressing that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And as a quick reminder, Congress is leaving D.C. for the next five weeks and won't be back until after the midterms. They're leaving because they've got a campaign, and they've got a campaign in an environment in which the macroeconomic numbers might look one way, but their personal economy looks another way. When the White House seemingly ignores that, that doesn't seem to help Republicans. So, how should they be adjusting their message in this moment?
JENNINGS: Well, it's not incorrect for the White House and the administration to point out that the economy is actually what Trump said it was going to be in Bessent 2. They said it was going to boom in 2026. That's exactly what's happening. We have growth. We have businesses investing in expansion. We have people finding jobs. I mean, we have all sorts of indicators showing us that this economy is, in fact, red hot. So, they should be talking about that.
But that doesn't cover up what the day-to-day affordability questions are of the American people, and you have to address those issues as well. You know, you can have a debate about which party would make it better. I mean, most of the price increases that people are mad about happened under Democratic rule. Democrats all voted against tax cuts just last summer, and most Democrats have said they would repeal those tax cuts if they were handed power. So, there's a debate to be had here on a couple of fronts, but you cannot deny the economic indicators.
Trump and Bessent said, follow us, and this economy will boom. Private payrolls are expanding. Government payrolls are shrinking. The economy is on fire. And the way you get out of some of these things is growth, and that's what we have right now.
BOYKIN: He promised he would eliminate the national debt some time ago. We have $40 trillion in debt. He promised that he was going to keep us out of all these wars. We have now $38 billion spent on this war. He promised he was going to help make homes more affordable. We're paying seven percent mortgages right now. He says he's going to keep gas prices lower, $6.50 a gallon for diesel, $4.50 for regular unleaded.
This is a guy who continued to make promises to the American people about the economy that he hasn't fulfilled. So, yes, if the Republicans want to go to the midterms and say everything is great and rosy, good luck with that message in November.
WRIGHT: But what solutions to those problems do Democrats have?
BOYKIN: One thing is you don't start a war with a country that didn't attack us.
WRIGHT: OK. So, it's all saying undo what Trump did.
BOYKIN: Trump is the president of the United States. He started a war with Iran that has caused the gas prices to go up to $6.50 a gallon for diesel, $4.50 for regular unleaded. You can't blame Biden and Obama for the gas prices under Donald Trump.
WRIGHT: I'm with you on the prices.
JENNINGS: I could blame Democrats for environmental regulations that drive --
BOYKIN: Donald Trump is responsible for the $6.50 a gallon diesel and $4.50 a gallon regular unleaded gas prices. WRIGHT: I'll tell you exactly how bad it is. If oil stays at $120 a barrel, we're going to lose like a point and a half GDP growth. That's the worst-case scenario. I think because of the tariffs, we've lost a point of GDP growth. I agree with you on Trump policies making things worse. I'm asking what Democrats would do to lower prices.
BOYKIN: Well, I think one of the things that Democrats talked about is, first of all, you have to make sure that you make things more affordable, you have to --
WRIGHT: How? How do you make things more affordable?
BOYKIN: One of the things you do is you make sure the housing is more affordable.
WRIGHT: Again.
BOYKIN: Donald Trump would not sign the housing bill just a few months ago because -
JENNINGS: It's law. It's law.
BOYKIN: He wouldn't sign it. Donald Trump wouldn't sign the housing bill. That doesn't help the argument.
[23:30:00]
First of all, you make sure that people have a higher take-home income. That helps for people. You don't get that when the president's party is against the ideas of actually raising incomes. They've been opposed to that for a long time. You have to take steps.
JENNINGS: Incomes are rising, Keith. Take-home pay is rising.
BOYKIN: Take-home pay --
JENNINGS: It has never been a better time to be a non-college- educated worker in America. Income is rising.
BOYKIN: Tell that to the American workers who are paying more for their prices. Beef prices are at record highs now.
JENNINGS: You said Republicans were against rising incomes. I'm just saying the data shows --
BOYKIN: I didn't say they were against rising incomes. I said they were helping to raise incomes because they were opposed to the minimum wage increase. The minimum wage has been flat at $7.25.
JENNINGS: She asked you a simple question. What bill would the Democrats pass?
WRIGHT: I want to know the mechanics of the lower prices and the cheaper housing. And the answer, I think, is there's not much there.
BOYKIN: Several things. I've said one of the bills they passed was the housing bill, which was passed over the objection of the president of the United States. One of the issues that we've been talking about for a long time is how do you make the gas prices lower. You do that by getting out of this war, which people have been talking about. That's one of the big issues that people are talking about. You don't put on these tariffs that are making workers and consumers pay more for their goods. Those are three substantive things that would help.
JENNINGS: Would you build an oil refinery? Would you build an oil refinery?
BOYKIN: Oil refineries aren't going to reduce the cost of gasoline right now.
JENNINGS: But they do. That's how we make more --
WRIGHT: Sounds like it's tax and spend. It's tax and spend. That has been the Democrats' answer for the last 50 years.
PHILLIP: Look --
WRIGHT: They need some new proposals.
PHILLIP: One of the interesting things about this moment is that even if you're right, maybe you are right, voters now increasingly trust Democrats on the economy over Trump.
One of the biggest issues, Lulu, is this disconnect between this A.I.- fueled economy and what people are experiencing. The consumption and A.I. CapEx, according to Heather Long at Navy Federal Credit Union, their chief economist, is what's driving this economy. The A.I. boom has pushed the economy in 2025 and 2026 from OK to strong.
All right, you saw the president this week flanked by all these guys who are driving that A.I. economy. Politics is about the numbers, but it's also about whether people think you're on their side. And I wonder if people look at that and they say, is he really on our side or is he on their side?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: The problem that President Trump has with the A.I. economy, and I do think that that is actually an accurate description, is that first of all, the reason that he is all in on A.I. is because it is helping to fuel the economy. But the flip side of that message is, oh, and it's going to take all your jobs.
And so, if you look at college grads, if you look at young people, they are really struggling to find employment. If you look at older Americans, specifically women, specifically people of color, they are struggling to hold on to their jobs if they lose them. And so, there are big pockets of American society that are left out of this economy. Now, that has always been true, the American economy has always been unequal, but we are in a decidedly very unequal phase.
And, of course, the Democrats, their proposal have been about taxing the very wealthy, and you can debate that. And Republicans have a different sort of idea that basically the economy will lift all boats if it just gets heated up enough. Frankly, neither of those have really helped regular people get ahead. I think if you look at anyone's credit card bills, people are living off of credit now.
These are the indicators that actually are very worrying because people are getting into debt just to be able to afford the basics, and that, eventually, is going to come and bite the economy writ large, and it's going to stop people spending.
MACFARLANE: Fourteen-year low in consumer confidence. I don't think consumers really trust this A.I. top-heavy economic growth we're seeing. It doesn't mean it's a bad thing that there's economic growth coming from the A.I. sector, but I don't think people feel it.
There's another crisis that's forming. It speaks to your point about taxing and spending. I understand that criticism. There's a crisis at the nation's food banks, fueled by three things. Food prices are soaring. Obviously, that makes life harder. Well, people need the food donations, and the food donations are harder to procure. The diesel crisis makes it harder to transport the food, so they're taking it on the chin that way.
Third thing is the cuts that are coming, effective in the coming days, to nutritional assistance programs and to Medicaid. Now, I think Democrats would make the argument we may not be able to make the food more affordable but, perhaps, we can use some of our resources towards nutritional assistance for families to make this less painful for them rather than perhaps --
JENNINGS: I'm with you on the diesel. By the way, for my left-of- center friends at the table, does anybody here support building a single oil refinery so we can actually increase diesel supply?
[23:35:02]
Because it doesn't just come out of the ground and go right into the trucks. It has to be refined. We've seen a reduction in refining capacity here because that's what Democrats have wanted. We've also seen it impacted by Russia-Ukraine. Would anybody here support building a single oil refinery to make more diesel?
MACFARLANE: Is some of the consideration as to where you do it domestically or whether you do it domestically at all?
JENNINGS: I'm talking about in the United States. What a policymaker would do? If you were, say, governor of California or if you were governor of anything, would you say, you know what, we could help out the world if we got on top of building an oil refinery?
PHILLIP: Let me just ask the question.
JENNINGS: Does anybody say yes?
PHILLIP: Right in this moment, even if we built a diesel refinery tomorrow, that's not really what has caused diesel prices to skyrocket in the last three months.
JENNINGS: It's a big part of it.
PHILLIP: No, not in the last -- I mean, the refineries we have today are probably the refineries that we had a few months ago.
JENNINGS: Well, it's also Russia-Ukraine.
PHILLIP: Exactly. That's my point. My point is that --
JENNINGS: Domestic refining capacity would be good, right?
PHILLIP: Scott, is our refining capacity the same today as it was a few months ago when diesel was cheaper?
JENNINGS: Our refining capacity has been reduced over the last 20 years.
PHILLIP: OK. Did you hear my question?
JENNINGS: I think we're shutting down the refinery right now, if I'm not mistaken.
PHILLIP: Is our refining capacity today what it was a few months ago? Yes. The answer is yes.
JENNINGS: I mean, probably roughly, but I'm looking at it over 20 years. We've reduced refining capacity.
PHILLIP: So, the point is that's not really -- that's not really what's causing it.
JENNINGS: So, your answer is no, no more refining?
PHILLIP: I didn't say anything about that. I'm just saying that's not what's causing the problem that we're in right now.
JENNINGS: Refining capacity is causing diesel prices to be high.
PHILLIP: No, it is not.
JENNINGS: Abby, honestly --
PHILLIP: Scott, the diesel prices --
BOYKIN: Oil is traded on global market.
PHILLIP: -- doubling in the last few months has not been caused by refineries going offline.
JENNINGS: We don't have refining capacity. It has been massively reduced.
PHILLIP: That is just not true.
JENNINGS: Every major economist will tell you this is true.
PHILLIP: Scott, let me ask you a fourth time. Is our refining capacity today what it was a few months ago?
JENNINGS: I don't really know. I assume it's roughly the same. PHILLIP: So then how can you claim that our lack of refining capacity has caused --
JENNINGS: Global refining has been reduced mostly because of Russia and Ukraine.
PHILLIP: Scott, you can just let go of the bad argument. It is not --
JENNINGS: You could let go of the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.
PHILLIP: You just acknowledged --
JENNINGS: I mean, we have had massive reductions in refining in this world.
PHILLIP: You just acknowledged that there are global forces --
JENNINGS: Russia and Ukraine alone have taken refineries offline.
PHILLIP: You just acknowledged that there are global forces driving the rise of diesel prices. It's not something that was impacted by a lack of refineries in the last three months. It's just a false argument.
JENNINGS: I'm asking, if in the United States, we refined more, would we be less impacted by international events?
PHILLIP: Hold on. Even if we built a refinery tomorrow, these are global markets, oil and gas are global markets, we are going to be impacted. Maybe to a slightly lesser degree, but they are global markets. And that's why how we conduct ourselves on the world stage, the war in Iran, the war in Ukraine, these things actually matter, and that's actually why people are pissed off, because they don't believe that President Trump's leadership on those issues --
JENNINGS: So only one take on refineries.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: It's a silly argument. It's not even true. It's a silly argument. It's not even true that the rise in diesel prices was driven by a lack of refineries. That is not the reason.
JENNINGS: Are you arguing that the Russian-Ukraine war hasn't knocked offline a bunch of refineries? That's where a lot of it comes from.
PHILLIP: Scott --
JENNINGS: It's absolutely true.
PHILLIP: Scott, the last six months?
JENNINGS: During the course of this war. And, by the way, if Ukraine has pressed further into Russia, they have absolutely hit refineries. PHILLIP: Scott, are you talking about domestic refineries? You are arguing that a lack of domestic refineries led to a rise in the oil and gas.
JENNINGS: I'm saying we absolutely don't have enough refining capacity. We should build more refineries.
BOYKIN: Those are two separate issues.
WRIGHT: Yes, exactly.
PHILLIP: What you're saying is not true.
WRIGHT: It's long-term and short-term.
PHILLIP: Yes.
JENNINGS: You're arguing about six months. I'm arguing that Democrats have argued against --
PHILLIP: I'm arguing about what people are experiencing right now.
JENNINGS: -- domestic energy forever. And now, you want me to trust them on gas prices?
PHILLIP: I'm arguing about what people are experiencing right now. Eight months ago, diesel prices were not at this level. And Americans are mad because today, they are dramatically higher. That's why they're upset.
BOYKIN: I think it's bigger than just the diesel prices, which are at a record high, by the way. It's a whole combination of issues. I think you were mentioning something about the global market. You were mentioning something about A.I. and the data centers. What people see when they look at the president is they see somebody who's obsessed with building a ballroom, who's obsessed with the reflecting pool. They don't see somebody who's focused on their issues.
And then when you have him come and bring a bunch of billionaires and one trillionaire into the White House and to tell people just suck it up if you lose your job, when people are clearly against data centers and he's encouraging more and more of them, I don't care if it is economically wise to do either of these things. It's clearly not politically wise for him to do that. I don't think it's economically wise either.
[23:40:00]
I think it's best to have a president who actually cares about what the American people are concerned about.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, should the attorney general and his cabinet members be speaking at campaign rallies? Todd Blanche defends himself on that point. We'll debate that, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PHILLIP: Attorney General Todd Blanche is defending his appearances at recent political events. Earlier this month, Blanche delivered remarks at the Republican midterm convention. He also spoke at campaign rallies for GOP candidates in North Carolina and New York. But as Blanche blurs this line between politics and policy, he says he's not doing anything wrong.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLANCHE: I'm not in any way violating any rule or law. I go and I talk about how great it is that we're bringing crime down, that how great it is the great things this president is doing. If Democrats want me to come and speak at their rally, they can just give me a call. I am allowed to go and support administrative priorities in my personal capacity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Scott MacFarlane, you've covered DOJ for a long time. What do you make of this?
[23:45:00]
MACFARLANE: I covered Attorney General Todd Blanche. He is not breaking a rule or a statute. I don't think anybody is accusing him of breaking a rule or a statute. I think that's a strawman argument he's making.
He's breaking generations of political independence that has been built slowly and steadily by the Department of Justice, where you don't have attorneys general giving campaign speeches because it can make you look like a political actor, at least give you that optic. And what does that do? It damages the trustworthiness of the agency, including its prosecutors, with things like, you know, grand jurors, trial jurors, judges. You look like a political actor. You want to avoid those optics.
WRIGHT: I totally agree with you. Would you say the same about Eric Holder?
MACFARLANE: So, the accusation Todd Blanche has made is that the Biden administration Department of Justice was weaponized. He made that argument in recent days, too. I didn't see Merrick Garland on a campaign trail. I did see Todd Blanche celebrating the pardons of cop beaters from January 6th, saying he was part of supporting those pardons. I've seen Todd Blanche stand as a matador, watching January 6th defendants line up for taxpayer-funded payouts. So, I think the tool of being a weaponized Department of Justice is one he's wielding while he's accusing others of doing the same.
WRIGHT: This bothers me, when Todd Blanche does it. I think it's dumb, and people don't like him. I don't think it politically -- like, he's not useful at any rally to any candidate. But it also bothered me when Eric Holder gave very partisan speeches at the National Action Network, at Al Sharpton's organization.
BOYKIN: Has it turned it down?
WRIGHT: Yes, every single year. The content of the speeches --
PHILLIP: That's not a campaign event.
BOYKIN: He's speaking to a civil rights organization.
WRIGHT: The content of the speeches was highly partisan.
PHILLIP: Hold on. It's actually a complete apples and oranges situation.
WRIGHT: It's not a political campaign event.
PHILLIP: Yes, it's not a political campaign.
WRIGHT: Yes, but I think that that was the president that is relevant, and I thought it was bad --
PHILLIP: I mean, I don't think that -- I actually don't think that's the president. The president is not attorneys general speaking at, like, ideologically aligned groups, which I think does happen.
WRIGHT: But they don't. They generally don't. No, they don't.
PHILLIP: No, I think it does happen. I mean, it just depends on what you describe as an ideologically-aligned group.
WRIGHT: It was.
PHILLIP: It might depend on your definition of that. But the National Action Network is a civil rights organization, so you could argue.
WRIGHT: They literally paid an FEC fine for donating to Al Sharpton's 2004 presidential campaign. They are a highly-partisan organization.
BOYKIN: Pam Bondi accepted $25,000 donation from Donald Trump.
WRIGHT: Not good. Not good.
PHILLIP: Hold on. Lauren -- OK. Let's just be honest. I mean, 2004, they paid the fine. It is Al Sharpton's organization. So, yes, that was wrong. They paid the fine for doing it. But you can see the argument if you're an attorney general speaking in front of a civil rights organization. That's different from a campaign rally. It's different from a political event. It's different from campaigning for particular candidates. That's the difference.
BOYKIN: It completely is. And he spoke at the midterm convention, I think, right?
PHILLIP: Yes.
BOYKIN: That's extraordinary. Now, he's offering himself to go speak at different campaign events for candidates who are running for office currently. Meanwhile, his Justice Department is responsible for potentially investigating these people, if they should come out for charges or something like that.
I was in Washington, D.C. a few weeks ago. I just saw this for the first time. I drove by the Justice Department. I saw that huge banner of Donald Trump, the convicted criminal, on the Justice Department building.
MACFARLANE: With a spotlight emanating up to it from the ground.
BOYKIN: Shocking that the man who was convicted of a crime tried to overthrow our government and now is the president of the United States overseeing investigations, telling the prosecutors who they should prosecute and who they should not prosecute, has this picture up there. I've never seen anything like this.
And the problem is -- you're right, no president and attorney general should ever have this relationship, whether it's Eric Holder or anybody. I don't think Eric Holder ever did that. But the problem with Donald Trump is that he consistently blurs the lines, and he has people around him who are willing to consistently blur the lines.
The reason why we don't have trust in the government on anything is because Donald Trump creates the seeds of distrust in everything he does. If he would just depoliticize the government for once, then maybe we could actually restore faith in our country.
WRIGHT: Then how did he get elected in 2024 after two impeachments, disgraced after he tried to stay in office after losing the 2020 election?
BOYKIN: How he got elected --
WRIGHT: People were so mad at the ineptness of Biden and the Democrats that they put that guy back in, and that should be very telling.
BOYKIN: I'm not going to comment on how he got elected, but I can tell you this, though. Right now, he's the most unpopular president in modern American history.
WRIGHT: Yes. I agree.
BOYKIN: Because they see what a mistake he was.
PHILLIP: So, one of the other -- the reason that Todd Blanche is speaking today is because he was going after some judges that he claimed were essentially engaging in misconduct.
[23:49:59]
So, these judges had spoken out about judicial independence. They had spoken out about DOJ violating their court orders. I want to play what he said about that idea, that DOJ hasn't been following the orders of the court. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BLANCHE: I'm allowed to get really fired up when, for example, judges in Minnesota complain about us violating court orders. But the reason why that we are -- quote -- "violating court orders" is because these judges are violating Supreme Court law, OK, and allowing these cases to be filed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, he's acknowledging that they are violating the court orders. I mean, why does he get to decide which courts he listens to and which courts he doesn't?
JENNINGS: Well, he would say we're listening to Supreme Court and that these individual federal district judges aren't following Supreme Court. I mean, that would be their argument, and that's why I assume he's out making speeches.
I think this question of him campaigning is interesting. You know, back during the Bush years when I worked there, we actually didn't have the A.G. or any of the war cabinet go out and do anything political. So, DOD, Department of Homeland Security, secretary of state, we segregated them from any political activity.
You know, the thing about this Trump administration, though, is one of their best arguments, and I think one of their best accomplishments, is the historic 100-year drop in crime. And who better to tell the American people about that than the attorney general? We have crime at all time, 100-year lows, violent crime.
BOYKIN: We have convicted criminal, president of the United States.
JENNINGS: We have violent crime at 100-year lows. And so -- we have some success stories out there, say the city of Memphis, Tennessee, where the feds, the state and the locals, Republicans and Democrats, have worked together to effectively clean up downtown Memphis and make it so you can walk around again.
So, part of what he would be doing out there, whether it's at a campaign event or anything else, is telling the American people, here are the policies that led to these drops in violent crime, and we wouldn't want to reduce those.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But why is he doing it at campaign events? I mean, he has the podium. He could speak to the American people at any time. He could sit down with journalists like me at any time. There's an offer. But, you know, there are many ways to impart that information, and I agree it is totally within the remit to be able to do that. I think, again, the question is where is he doing it, how is he doing it, and for whom is he doing it.
PHILLIP: Also, I have a question for you, Scott. I mean, you acknowledged that under Bush, this wasn't permitted by internal policy. And historically, secretaries of state, secretaries of defense, attorneys general, stay off the campaign trail. Why was that for Bush, and why should it go away now? JENNINGS: Well, in our case, I mean, I think we were at war, and we were fighting a global war on terror. I think the decision was made that you didn't want the optics necessarily of those people going out and doing any political events when you wanted them, you know, spending all their time on the war. That's why I've seen Hegseth actually out doing a couple of campaign events.
PHILLIP: We're at war now, too.
JENNINGS: And I would not have deployed him. I know he went to a couple of things in his personal capacity, and I think maybe he had a personal relationship with one of them, but we are at war. We have troops in theater. That one, to me, I wouldn't have done.
Blanche, I'm more 50-50 on. But I love the idea of the law enforcement chief of the United States here, Todd Blanche, telling the American people how we achieved all these crime reductions.
PHILLIP: But why does he have to tell them that in a political context? To Lulu's point, you could easily just -- yes. I mean, actually, every A.G. does that. They have their priorities, they have things they want to tout, they talk to reporters about it.
MACFARLANE: Let's stipulate it's even a politically neutral speech he's giving at a campaign event. There's a problem going on. They are getting rejected in their cases by grand jurors over and over again. That is unheard of. There's a potential case being viewed as a political actor, and the department has lost some trust with grand juries. Not just in the District of Columbia. It has been happening in other communities across the country, too.
PHILLIP: This is why, when I raise that issue about defying court orders and this conflict with the judiciary that's got glossed over, that's a big deal. That is also not something that AGs typically do. They don't go to war against the court because their people have to go into those courtrooms every day and argue cases before judges who hold the fate of their cases in their hands. It actually seems to put the men and women of DOJ in a bad spot, to be honest.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: We've seen that, as you mentioned, over and over again. I think, you know, more broadly, there is this question of just the independence of the Department of Justice, which has always been not written down in any rule book, but certainly something that has been pretty sacrosanct for precisely the reasons that I think we all understand, that because they are the chief law enforcement officer, they might have to prosecute all sorts of different people, people from your own party, people from another party, people who are criminals.
[23:55:00]
You know, it doesn't matter. They are really part of the fabric of law and justice. And so, they need to hold a position that is not part of the partisan scrum.
JENNINGS: But they are appointed by an elected political actor, and they are confirmed by elected political actors.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But that's the same argument.
JENNINGS: And they do exist in the president's cabinet.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes, but that's the same -- this is -- you know that this is part of the huge debate that's happening now, but that's the same issue at the Fed, right? You can appoint people. It's the same thing at the Supreme Court.
JENNINGS: Oh, no. The DOJ and the Fed are two very different things.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: The principle is the same, that yes, you can appoint them, but once they get into that position, they are supposed to be outside of the pressure of politics.
MACFARLANE: They didn't build this independence because they're Boy Scouts. They built this independence because it helps them have leverage with juries and judges and to be viewed as fair arbiters in courtrooms. That's what erodes when they become political actors, whether they intend to be or not.
WRIGHT: And there are 115,000 people at DOJ who mostly are sincerely committed to law enforcement.
MACFARLANE: That's right.
PHILLIP: All right. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight" tonight. You can stream my show live or watch on-demand any time with an "All Access" subscription. Scan that Q.R. code at the bottom of your screen or go to cnn.com/watch to learn more. The news continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
