Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Taps A Leader Of His Retribution Tour As Acting Intel Director; Now: Secy Mullin Faces First Senate Hearing As DHS Chief; Soon: Blanche Testifies Before House As $1.88B Fund Put On Pause; Sources: Democratic Rep. Jimmy Gomez Facing House Ethics Probe Over Sexual Misconduct Claims. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired June 02, 2026 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Available jobs jumped to an estimated 7.62 million positions at the end of April. The data could indicate the U.S. labor market is not only stabilizing but expanding.

And a newly discovered Dr. Seuss book is hitting the shelves 35 years after the death of the beloved author and illustrator. "Sing the 50 United States" goes on sale today. The original manuscript and cover sketch turned up in the archives of the University of California San Diego's library earlier this year. The CEO of Dr. Seuss Enterprises said in a statement the discovery was like finding a time capsule of his imagination.

And a new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

A hard sell, President Trump's pick to be the acting leader of the nation's intelligence community is facing tough questions about his qualifications. Lawmakers from both parties skeptical that Bill Pulte is the right person for the job.

And a CNN exclusive, sources telling CNN about an ethics investigation into another lawmaker over allegations of sexual misconduct. And months of campaigning come down to this. It's primary day for candidates from New Jersey all the way to California. We'll look at the races that are coming down to the wire as we follow these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

We begin this hour with a controversial pick. President Trump is appointing longtime ally Bill Pulte as acting director of National Intelligence. The federal housing official has no known experience in National Intelligence and has used his office repeatedly to go after the President's perceived political foes. A short time ago, the administrator for the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Mehmet Oz, held a White House briefing where he was asked about Pulte's qualifications. Here's what Dr. Oz said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. MEHMET OZ, U.S. CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR: Bill is a great guy. I know him socially. I've not worked with him in his current job and -- but -- I do trust the President's judgment. He is a very sharp and quick study of people, their emotional abilities, and their ability to persevere in the face of hardship. So, I have confidence in his decision.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just back to the question about Bill Pulte, congressional statute says any appointee for the position of the director of National Intelligence shall have extensive national security expertise. What extensive national security expertise does he have?

OZ: Ma'am, you're asking me a question that's not in my lane. I'm so focused on making sure Americans are healthy that I have not been looking at what other agencies ...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Pulte will step in for outgoing director Tulsi Gabbard, who's leaving the post at the end of the month following her husband's cancer diagnosis, making her the latest high-profile cabinet official to depart during Trump's second term. CNN's Kristen Holmes is live at the White House for us.

Kristen, what more are you hearing about Bill Pulte and -- and why the President picked him?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, first of all, I mean, it is rather crazy that Dr. Oz came out to speak on behalf of the White House. He was the voice of the administration for today and said he didn't even know the news about Pulte being appointed to this really big position before he started getting questions about it in the briefing room. I think he might -- might have to take some lessons or get some lessons from Karoline on preparing for those briefings, because this was the single most important question that all of us in the room had at this time for this White House. And we haven't heard from the White House on any kind of details as to what his qualification are to be the head of the DNI.

Now, what I have been told by a number of people close to Pulte, close to President Trump, they say that President Trump doesn't care that he doesn't have this intelligence experience, this intelligence background. Instead, President Trump wanted someone who was a loyalist. They called Bill somebody who moves fast and breaks things. That's the kind of person he is. And that's what President Trump wanted in this office. He wants him to investigate the 2020 election. He wants him to prioritize President Trump's agenda. And that includes taking on President Trump's perceived enemies.

I mean, Pulte was behind some of the most eye-popping pursuits that the Department of Justice made into President Trump's political enemies. That includes referring a number of people, including Letitia James, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Fani Willis, to the Department of Justice for investigation into mortgage fraud. Only one of those resulted in charges against James, but they were later dropped by a federal judge.

But he has shown President Trump that he is loyal to him and that he is willing to do whatever it takes to try and fulfill President Trump's wishes. And I'm told that that's why President Trump chose him.

SANCHEZ: Kristen Holmes, thank you so much for that report from the White House. Brianna?

KEILAR: Happening now on Capitol Hill, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin is facing his former Senate colleagues for the first time since he was confirmed in March. He's there to answer questions about his agency's budget, at least that's what it's supposed to be about.

[15:05:05]

But his testimony is happening amid a string of controversial decisions, including on immigration enforcement. And moments ago, Mullin, in his opening statements, fired back at recent criticism.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Your reckless tone is getting people hurt, and it's got to stop. The fact that CBP and ICE hasn't been funded now for a historical amount of time is absolutely appalling. It should never happen. But yet we're playing political games.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: With us now is former ICE acting director under President Obama, John Sandweg.

John, this cut started late this hearing, so it's only just been underway for a short period of time. What are you looking for? What do these senators need to accomplish? What does Mullin need to accomplish?

JOHN SANDWEG, FORMER ICE ACTING DIRECTOR UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, Brianne, it's going to be interesting. I thought during his confirmation hearing, he shows some real signs of bipartisanship, a commitment to try to lower the temperature at ICE, get ICE and immigration enforcement back to a more professional level, focus more on those criminal targets rather than these kind of big overt shows of force we saw under the Noem administration.

Recently though, there's been a little bit of controversy. We've had these protests outbreak about detention at Delaney Hall up in New Jersey. I felt like some of the rhetoric has gotten a little bit more politicized. So, it'll be interesting to me to see today whether we continue down this path of kind of bipartisan, lower the temperature or getting back a little bit more to that confrontational rhetoric.

KEILAR: And on that note, Mullin -- or -- or on that note, I should say that since he is testifying amid this New Jersey incident and these protests that we're watching, the state is suing the private operator of this facility. The protests are happening about conditions inside the facility. We heard Senator Chris Murphy bring up the fact that the expected next acting ICE director actually formerly worked for this private company that operates this facility. What questions does that raise for you? What do they need to get to the bottom of there?

SANDWEG: You know, Brianna, I think -- I think this is a real test for -- for Secretary Mullin. This is not a problem that's limited to New Jersey. There are signs that we -- remember, we've had a rapid expansion of immigration detention. This administration has really doubled down on it. We've seen beds, you know, the number of people in detention go from about 30,000 in the last year of the Biden administration to over 70,000 in January of this year.

That puts the system under strain. But remember also we've seen policies where this administration's policy is everybody's detained to the maximum extent possible. That includes people with chronic medical conditions, older people. So, you add that up, you have new facilities brought on, you have a rapid expansion, and you're seeing signs that this system nationwide is under strain. By that I mean deaths are up. Deaths in detention are at record levels last year. They're going up even more. Looks like they're on pace to go up even more this year.

There's a lot of reporting that ICE is struggling to provide medical care. And historically, Brianna, when I worked with ICE, both the DHS and the -- and the ICE itself, ICE didn't want to detain those people who had those chronic medical conditions because it's hard. It's hard to provide them the care they need.

So, again, I think New Jersey in many ways is a microcosm for what's going on nationwide. And I'm very interested to see what Secretary Mullin is going to do about that. There's some simple things he could do. Restore some common-sense discretion to the field offices so they can release individuals who have those chronic medical conditions so that they can see their own doctors.

And none of this is soft on enforcement. These people stay in deportation proceedings. They just do it where they can see their own doctor. It'll be interesting to see how this story develops over the next month or two and whether changes are made writ large, not just in New Jersey.

KEILAR: Mullin's also called repeatedly for cutting CBP at airports in sanctuary cities and states that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and possibly stopping the processing of international travelers altogether. That's all -- I see you kind of smirking as I bring up that concept, because the idea of it even happening is hard to believe, right? There's two Trump officials who say ...

SANDWEG: Yes.

KEILAR: ... there actually are not imminent plans for that. But like I said, Mullin, it's not like he just mentioned this off the cuff once. He said it a bunch. Tell us your thoughts on this.

SANDWEG: I struggle on this one, Brianna, for a couple of reasons. One is I get he's frustrated about sanctuary policies and you're kind of new to the immigration. There are some of these sanctuary policies, you know, a lot of it is just political theater. But there's some of these that are -- that go too far, right? There's some jurisdictions that won't hand over, you know, convicted murderers to ICE, even when they're undocumented and they have a series of violent felony conviction, okay.

But the problem is there's no nexus to the actual ports of entry at the airport. And secondly, is when you look at these sanctuary cities, the cities the administration has identified, it's your biggest international hubs for both passengers and cargo. You know, Newark, JFK, Chicago, O'Hare, LAX, cities like that.

And finally, let -- yanking back CBP inspectors there is just going to cause chaos throughout the system.

[15:10:03]

We've seen what happens when there's weather shutdowns in JFK, how they can reverberate throughout the country, causing people to delay flights. This wouldn't have as big of an impact, but would have a similar impact. You know, this -- the idea here, just that we're going to pull back CBP and punish New York City for sanctuary policies, you're really punishing the entirety of the country, causing a lot of unnecessary chaos. And again, there's just no connection between what happens in those ports of entry and these sanctuary policies.

KEILAR: We have to remember, it's not just Democrats who are having issues right now with DHS, right? Because you have some Republicans who are actually holding up immigration enforcement funding because they're opposed to that anti-weaponization fund. They know this is a big priority for the administration. And so, they aren't going along with it while they have their objections to that fund.

First off, how much of a difference does that money really make for ICE and CBP? And what does Mullin need to achieve today when he is no doubt questioned about that?

SANDWEG: You know, Brianna, I think in a normal environment, it makes a dramatic difference. But remember, ICE was funded and CBP with record amounts of money in the Big, Beautiful Bill. And they're being able to continue their operations, continue to expand their operations with that funding.

So, look, I -- you know, I suspect at some point the Republicans are going to, you know, it sounds like maybe the administration is backing off the fund. I'm not an expert on that. But of course, I think part of the goal here is to get funding for DHS in a way that will allow them to go forward and eliminate or weaken the ability of a future potential Democrat -- Congress, rather, to provide that oversight on ICE.

But I guess I would say in the near term right now, it's not impacting the operations because of that Big, Beautiful Bill money. And remember, Brianna, this -- this isn't just funding current ICE operations. The administration has big plans for ICE. I mean, they're doubling the size of the number of agents, as we talked about, rapidly increasing the number of detention beds and increasing the size of the border patrol and CBPOs across the country. So, I mean, they're building an immigration enforcement apparatus that

will be like anything we haven't seen before. And that work continues to go on because of that funding, even in this kind of shutdown environment we're in.

KEILAR: Yes, we're looking for some details on exactly how they're backing off that fund. So, we'll see about that. John Sandweg, thank you so much. Really appreciate your expertise.

Still to come, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is also facing lawmakers on the Hill today. It is a busy day up there. And this is coming after DOJ paused President Trump's controversial anti- weaponization fund.

Plus, a CNN exclusive, the House Ethics Committee, launching an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against a Democratic congressman.

Then later, six states are holding primaries, including California. So, what should we expect from the wild race for California's next governor? We have that and much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:17:01]

SANCHEZ: Just minutes from now, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche will face lawmakers on Capitol Hill, he's going before the House Appropriations Committee just one day after the Trump administration signaled it had plans to back off its $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund.

KEILAR: It's Republicans who have also been opposed to this, right? Both in public and private, they have slammed the fun -- fund which was ostensibly meant to compensate people who believe they were wronged by the Justice Department. But critics have said it amounts to a slush fund to pay out Trump's allies. Let's talk about what's ahead with CNN Legal Analyst Elliot Williams, who helped lead the Justice Department as a deputy assistant attorney general.

All right. I mean, Democrats are opposed to this. Some Republicans are ...

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

KEILAR: ... opposed to this. So, much that they're holding up immigration, yes, issues on the Hill for this. What does Blanche need to answer for here?

WILLIAMS: Everything, in effect. Now, look, this is an appropriations oversight hearing. Every cabinet official goes up and speaks to the Appropriations Committee at least once a year. I help prepare attorneys general for this all the time.

Some of it's routine. They need to talk about, you know, how do you pay money to keep the lights on in the building. But some of it is really oversight. And are you spending our money effectively in a manner that -- in a manner that we as Congress provided you. So, there are a lot of questions here. One, in terms of just the straight up dollars and cents. Where were you planning on finding this $1.8 billion? Two, did you consult Congress? Three, did you consult anybody? Four, what are you doing, man? So, all of these questions at the ...

KEILAR: What are you doing, man?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Answer for everything.

WILLIAMS: Answer for everything, yeah.

SANCHEZ: That's a great answer. I do want to be clear, the indication that the White House is going to back off of this fund is coming from folks on Capitol Hill. The White House itself has stayed quiet on this. Is there perhaps a ...

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SANCHEZ: ... an avenue for them to revive it or how -- how would the White House make clear ...

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SANCHEZ: ... that they're not doing it?

WILLIAMS: It's really an open question, because all they've said is that we are going to adhere to the judge's order, which is that the judge, in effect, cause -- called for a temporary pause of it, which is the bare minimum that any legal entity ought to do. They can either choose to appeal it or follow what the judge had done.

That's all they've said now. They haven't said that this is dead or dormant. And so, the thing that I'm really looking for in this hearing is, how critical will Republican members of Congress be in public with the Deputy Attorney General (INAUDIBLE) with the Acting Attorney General? Are they going to push them on this? Are they going to, you know, behind closed doors, take a different posture than they might? Who knows how this is going to go today?

KEILAR: And the IRS part of this. We have to remember, there's this IRS audit kind of inoculation ...

WILLIAMS: Yes.

KEILAR: ... part of this agreement where the IRS would not look into Trump or his family members or associated entities for past tax issues.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

KEILAR: I mean, what a lovely get out of jail free card. I would like one. I would like to give them to all of you. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

KEILAR: Those terms were actually and notably added to this agreement after the fact. This was a day afterward and it was signed by Blanche himself.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

KEILAR: So, what questions would you ask him?

[15:20:03]

WILLIAMS: Well, again, what role did you have in the crafting of this provision? Now, what's remarkable about this whole case is that a federal judge has already taken issue with the terms of the settlement. She does not believe that this settlement was entered in good faith. She questions how the lawsuit was filed in the first place. They, you know, the filed the suit, didn't file any motions or papers with her, then immediately settled the case.

And that when a judge takes such issue with how the parties have behaved, is raising questions and suggesting that they were dishonest with her. That's a big problem. So, I think people can ask today, you know, were your folks honest with the court? Do you believe that your folks are going to get sanctioned or have questions about their law licenses because of what a federal judge is saying right now? All can come up.

SANCHEZ: Some of those seeking compensation have not given up. Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio told PBS that he believes, quote, "even if this fund is killed in courts or at a congressional level, the President will find a way they can just settle the tort claims and lawsuits." That has no judicial review or congressional oversight.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Does it work that way?

WILLIAMS: It does not work that way.

SANCHEZ: Okay.

WILLIAMS: And this -- and -- and Boris, this is the madness of this fund. It had no standards as to who was entitled to it or not. They had a throwaway line in the fact sheet about it saying, well, Democrats can apply, too. Didn't say who was going to get funds, how they'd get funds, how they'd be selected. And that has left an open door to folks like Enrique Tarrio to say, well, you know, they're just trying to help me out and they will figure out a way to make it work.

So, everything about this was a mess. People are free to follow the President, support the President, whatever else. But this is both legally or simultaneously legally suspect, politically suspect, but also just doesn't have support of the very body that Todd Blanche is going to testify in front of today.

So, they have problems from all directions. It's just not good for the Justice Department, no matter what you think of him or the President.

SANCHEZ: We'll see how Todd Blanche answers those questions. Remember last time when he spoke to lawmakers in private, they left town without ...

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SANCHEZ: ... taking votes. So, we'll see how it goes. Elliot Williams ...

WILLIAMS: Of course.

SANCHEZ: ... thank you so much.

Coming up, exclusive CNN reporting on a new investigation into sexual misconduct by another member of Congress. We have the details in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:26:53]

KEILAR: Now to a CNN exclusive. CNN exclusive. Sources say the House Ethics Committee is investigating Democratic Congressman Jimmy Gomez of California over allegations of sexual misconduct. Let's go to CNN's Annie Grayer, who is on the Hill.

Annie, tell us what's happening here.

ANNIE GRAYER, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Brianna, this started because we're told from sources that the Ethics Committee was reaching out to individuals following a New York Post story from earlier this year that alleged that Gomez was seen kissing the staffer of another member at a backyard party back in 2023. A Gomez spokesperson at the time said that the New York Post story was not true and that the alleged kiss didn't happen.

What we're told from sources is that in the Ethics Committee's process of reaching out to individuals, they've come across an -- other allegations of sexual misconduct that they're now investigating. And in response to our reporting, I received a lengthy statement from Congressman Gomez detailing that while he's made mistakes in his life, he has never broken the law or violated any House ethics rules. He also vowed to cooperate with any investigation that the House Ethics Committee may be pursuing.

And I'm going to read for you a part of Congressman Gomez's statement now, where he says, quote, "Years ago, I made personal mistakes outside my marriage that have caused real pain to my wife and family. Although my actions were consensual in nature and haven't violated the law or House ethics rules, that doesn't diminish the impact that these mistakes have made on those I care about the most." And later he goes on to say, "I take full responsibility and have committed myself to working through the pain privately with my wife and family. I am deeply sorry for the pain and embarrassment that I brought into our lives." So, this -- the -- the fact that the Ethics Committee is investigating

this Democratic Congressman Gomez, which we were first to report, is -- it just shows how quickly the Ethics Committee is trying to work and respond to allegations that it comes across.

KEILAR: This investigation, Annie, comes on the heels of the resignations of two lawmakers, Congressman Eric Swalwell and Tony Gonzales, amid allegations of sexual misconduct with staffers. How's Congress working to police itself?

GRAYER: Well, Brianna, Congress is in the middle of a reckoning right now about how it polices its members and the behavior of lawmakers. And Gomez isn't the only lawmaker under investigation right now. Republican Congressman Chuck Edwards is also under investigation for separate allegations of sexual harassment. So, lawmakers are very focused on this issue of how to better police itself and its members. And we've heard from a number of women and sources in a separate story out today about how difficult the current process is and why so many women choose not to come forward.

KEILAR: All right. Annie Grayer live for us on the Hill. Thank you.

Ahead, it is primary election day in six states across the country. The critical races that could help shape the midterms next.

[15:29:52]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)