Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

U.S. Senate Debate President Trump's Spending Bill; Sen. Tillis Announces Retirement; Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) is Interviewed About President Trump's Agenda Bill in the Senate and the Limiting of Classified Information; Prime Minister Netanyahu Says Opportunities Opened to Free Gaza Hostages; Jury to Begin Deliberating on Sean "Diddy" Combs's Trial; Hundreds Protest "Alligator Alcatraz" in Florida Everglades. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired June 29, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: -- a Fareed Zakaria special. And thank you so much for joining me today. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. The "Newsroom" continues with Omar Jimenez right now.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT & HOST: Welcome to the "CNN Newsroom" everyone. I'm Omar Jimenez in New York. Jessica Dean has the day off. We are following breaking news this hour on the Senate floor. The formal debate is underway over President Donald Trump's massive policy bill and could go late into the night.

Republican leaders are pushing to get a final version of the bill to Trump's desk by July 4, but they want stronger support from Republican holdouts who still want changes. Now it was late last night, Senate Republicans actually cleared their first big hurdle in what became a dramatic procedural vote. That one squeaked through just 51 to 49.

Only two Republicans voted against that measure, Senators Rand Paul and Tom Tillis. CNN correspondent Julia Benbrook joins us now from Capitol Hill. So, Julia, can you just update us on the latest happening right now on the hill? Where do we stand in this process?

JULIA BENBROOK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, a lot has happened, and there is still a long way to go. Senate Republicans passed a major hurdle when it comes to President Donald Trump's massive agenda package. They passed that procedural vote last night. And as you mentioned, only two Republicans, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Tom Tillis of North Carolina, voted against advancing it.

But there are several GOP lawmakers who have been voicing concerns about this massive piece of legislation throughout the process. It is a multitrillion dollar package that would lower federal taxes. It would boost spending on the military and on border security, and it would downsize some of those government safety net programs like Medicaid.

So as Republicans got this through that procedural vote late last night, Democrats then worked to use a delay tactic. They had the clerks read this entire bill. It's 940 pages out loud. That took about 16 hours. In fact, by our count, it was 15 hours and 55 minutes in total. They've been moved into the formal debate process, and both Democrats and Republicans will have up to 10 hours for that. We expect Democrats to use most of that time. Republicans may use a little bit less of it.

After that, we move into vote-a-rama, and that is an open ended series of votes on amendments. Some of those focused on political messaging, while others are more substantial. After all that takes place, the senate can then just focus on final passage of the bill, but it's not over then. All eyes then turn to the House where House Speaker Mike Johnson has been warning that any significant changes, and there have been some changes, could really make it hard for that to pass again.

His chamber passed their version very narrowly and really walks a fine line with how all of this goes as they work toward a self-imposed July 4 deadline to get this to the president's desk for a signature.

JIMENEZ: And, Julia, you know, amid all of this, North Carolina Republican Senator Tom Tillis, now saying he's not going to run again just a day after voting against advancing this legislation and a day after President Trump essentially threatened to primary Senator Tillis. Can you just talk about the significance of the timing here, and do we have any more insight into what went into that decision?

BENBROOK: Well, Tillis said in a statement that this was not a hard decision, and he emphasized that he doesn't want to spend more time with his family, but he also said this. In that statement, he wrote, quote, "In Washington over the last few years, it's become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species."

Tillis had been voicing concerns specifically about any changes to Medicaid and what that would do for his constituents. And as he opposed advancing this bill, Trump took to social media multiple times to criticize him, saying that he was making a big mistake and that the president would even be willing to meet with people who would primary Tillis.

And, Omar, important to keep in mind here, North Carolina is, of course, a very important battleground state. This will be a closely watched race as Republicans try and maintain their majority in that chamber.

JIMENEZ: Julia Benbrook, I'm sure we'll be talking to you again very soon. Thank you for the reporting. I want to turn over to White House now where CNN's Kevin Liptak has been tracking the president's latest push to get his agenda over the finish line. And, Kevin, the president has been quick to both praise or blast Republicans on social media depending on their vote. What has he been saying throughout this process?

[17:5:01]

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHIT HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah. I think it's clear the president views this bill as a test of Republicans loyalty. And in fact, the White House said explicitly that in its messaging to Capitol Hill last night as Republicans were weighing whether to vote on this procedural measure saying that Trump was committed to keeping his promises that he made on the campaign trail last year and that failure to pass this bill would be, quote, "the ultimate betrayal."

And you see the pressure that the president is under to get this measure passed. It really does contain the entirety of his domestic agenda, whether it's immigration enforcement, whether it's expanding these tax cuts that he had passed during his first term in office. And so it all sort of combines into this intense pressure cooker that the president has placed on Republicans to get in line, and the vast majority of them have done just that.

But you see in his criticism of the senators who voted against this bill, what could potentially be in store to other Republicans who may be questioning whether they can vote on the final product. Tom Tillis is an example. The president saying that he could potentially support a primary challenger to Tillis going forward. Obviously, Tillis, ultimately making the decision that he doesn't necessarily want to be part of this loyalty challenge that the president has set up.

And so I think you hear the different sides of the debate here. Clearly, the president still has his work cut out for him, and he was on Fox News this morning talking about some of those political challenges. Listen to some of how he framed it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Let's see. We're cutting, yeah, $1.7 trillion. Think of it. I think I just saw the number a little while ago, $1.7 trillion. But we can grow our country so much more than that, and we're not going to have to do -- you also have to get elected. You know? When you do cutting, you have to be a little bit careful because people don't like necessarily cutting if they get used to something. And what I want to do is do it through growth. We're going to have growth like we've never seen before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIPTAK: So you hear the president giving voice to some of those political concerns saying that you have to be concerned and careful about what you're cutting. That at the end of the day is exactly why Tom Tillis voted against this bill. The challenge that the president faces is that you have Republicans on the other side of this debate who are concerned that this bill doesn't cut enough, that it spends too much, that it adds too much to the deficit.

The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, saying today that this could add $3,3 trillion to the national debt. And in fact, just in the last couple of hours, the House Freedom Caucus, which is that group of ultra conservatives on the other side of Capitol Hill, putting out a tweet saying that they're concerned about those deficit figures, saying that it's vastly more than the bill that they voted for already in the House. And remember, once the Senate passes its version of this bill, it will have to go back to the House for passage there, and the president will need those conservative members to get on board. And so you see this lining up all of these obstacles that the president will have to face. He has set this very ambitious deadline. He wants it on his desk by Friday, but certainly you can expect all of this arm twisting by the president to continue until he sees it here at the White House.

JIMENEZ: Alright. And as Kevin Liptak's been speaking, we've been showing senators in Congress that are currently reading through this bill at various points as we go through this debate portion of the bill. Kevin Liptak, really appreciate the reporting. Joining me now is Democratic congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi. And congressman, look, the Senate's bill is expected, as we just heard from Kevin, It is expected to raise a deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion, even more than the House version of the bill. From where you sit, what are your biggest concerns with the changes coming out of the Senate, and do you expect it to pass?

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): Well, every time I've thought that the Republicans aren't going to vote for this horrible bill, I've been proven wrong. They call it the big, beautiful bill. I call it the large, lousy law, and one of the biggest reasons is because of its cuts to Medicaid and social safety net. This Senate version cuts at least $1 trillion from Medicaid and the CBO says that more than 11 million Americans are going to go without health insurance.

But it also cuts food stamps or SNAP benefits as well as educational benefits. As a child of food stamps and public housing myself, this is a personal issue to me. When Trump came to Capitol Hill, he said don't F around with Medicaid, but that's exactly what they're doing in the Senate and soon in the House. And I think that it goes totally contrary to the interest of the American people as well as its constituents of all those people who are going to vote for it on the other side.

[17:10:00]

JIMENEZ: And, you know, as you mentioned, the CBO estimates legislation would leave, around 12 million more people uninsured within the next decade. And there are several Republicans including even Senator Josh Hawley who was not happy with the cuts to Medicaid. But I guess as I listen to you, we spoke to Senator Amy Klobuchar yesterday. Do Democrats have any power in swaying some of these Republicans whether it's Senator Hawley, Senator Murkowski, those who actually seem to have real concerns about making deep cuts to benefits like Medicaid?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think the most important thing is we got to shine a light on the harm that, you know, this bill does to average ordinary people, including in their states, and then hold them accountable. They can either choose Trump or they can choose their constituents. Trump says that failing to vote for the bill would be the ultimate betrayal of him, but voting for the bill would be the ultimate betrayal of their constituents. And so we've got to make that absolutely clear, and make sure that voters and the public know how these senators and then members of the House stand on this particular bill.

JIMENEZ: And on that note, I want to ask really quickly about Republican Senator Tom Tillis because he abruptly announced he's not going to be running for reelection right after he voted not to move forward, or not to move forward with supporting this vote. And it came just hours after President Trump essentially threatened to primary him on social media. What do you make of that? Does it suggest anything about President Trump's grasp on GOP lawmakers? I just wonder how you viewed what we saw play out.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Oh, Trump has a total lock on the party and Tillis did this because, as I said, you could either choose Trump or choose your constituents. I'm hoping that Tillis in signaling his retirement is going to have the freedom to vote against this bill and maybe get a couple others to do so as well. But, yes, I think that he said he's, you know, he wants to spend more time with his family, but I think he also wants to spend more time with his conscience and I think that you can't vote for this bill in good conscience.

JIMENEZ: I want to switch gears really quickly while I have you because you're also a member of the House Intelligence Committee and CNN has new reporting on an effort by House Republican leadership to come up with new ways to restrict the classified information that lawmakers receive. And this comes after the White House indicated it'll limit intelligence sharing. I see you shaking your head. What concerns you so much about this and what is your reaction to this actually unfolding here?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Look, I wrote a letter the other day to the White House pointing that the law requires that classified information and information about the intelligence community be shared with Congress. This, by the way, is a law that was put in place after secret assassinations, secret wars, domestic surveillance by the intelligence community had happened, and the American people learned about it and said no more.

And so they required the executive branch to share with Congress classified information and information to do oversight of the executive branch. So when they fail or they refuse to provide this type of information, basically, bad things happen. Where there's no accountability, bad things happen. And that's what's going to happen here if they don't share this information. And we in Congress must insist on getting that information so we can make sure that this executive branch doesn't run amok.

JIMENEZ: And on this type of information, I was looking at some new reporting from "The Washington Post" on an intercepted call by the U.S. government on Iranian officials saying the Iranians were, quote, "heard saying Trump strike on Iran proves less devastating than expected" and reports the administration is calling that intelligence, quote, "insignificant." Have you received any intel on how this strike actually, or I guess the level of devastation their strike may have caused it? And what do you make of that report? KRISHNAMOORTHI: I have received that information through multiple what they call products or documents provided by the intelligence community. I can't get into it -- into that classified information. But what I can say is that the intelligence community doesn't have answers about how to account for hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium or secret components or even undeclared sites. Definitely facilities above ground were severely damaged. There's no question about it.

But to say that the nuclear program was obliterated is way too broad. It's an overstatement. It's misguided. Look, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That just can't happen.

[17:15:00]

And so now we have to get to the bargaining table and negotiate this peacefully because we know a military solution is insufficient. We tried it, and here we are, wanting to go back to the negotiating table with the Iranians right now.

JIMENEZ: And this comes as we're hearing from the head of the International Atomic Energy --

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Right.

JIMENEZ: -- Agency that that restarting enriching uranium could happen, again in, quote, "a matter, of months." Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, I got to leave it there, but really appreciate the time. Thanks for being here.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you, sir.

JIMENEZ: Of course. Alright. Meanwhile, Israel's prime minister says there are new opportunities to free the remaining Israeli hostages in Gaza. We're going to tell you how it's connected to Israel's strikes in Iran. You're in the "CNN newsroom." Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:20:00]

JIMENEZ: Welcome back, everyone. I want to update you on Russia ramping up its aerial attacks on Ukraine. Overnight, launching nearly 500 drones and 60 missiles towards six different regions of Ukraine according to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. By CNN's tally, last night's attack was one of Russia's largest ever aerial assault in terms of weapons deployed. Zelenskyy is pleading with Western allies to provide further aerial assistance.

And while attending the NATO summit, President Trump said he was considering making Patriot missile systems available to Ukraine, but stressed they are in high demand and are currently being supplied to Israel as well.

And turning to Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be signaling a shift in Israel's war with Hamas tonight saying, quote, "opportunities have opened up" following Israel's military operations in Iran, including the possibility of bringing home the remaining hostages still being held in Gaza. CNN's Nic Robertson is following developments. I mean, Nic, is this a significant shift in Netanyahu's end goals for the war here?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: It certainly sounds as if his framing the war in Gaza differently. As part of these opportunities that have opened up following the victory in Iran as he describes it. It's firstly, he said, getting the hostages out of Gaza. This is fascinating use of language by the prime minister because previously, when talking about Gaza, he said the way to get the hostages home is defeat Hamas. So it's been defeat Hamas first, get the hostages home.

Now, he's saying, firstly, get the hostages. He's actually saying rescue the hostages, which the hostage families are saying, look, we welcome the change in tone. We welcome the prioritizing of the hostages. It's not so much a rescue as a release as part of what the hostage families are hoping for, which is a comprehensive agreement. All 50 hostages, the 20 plus or so that are that are living as part of that number, and the end of the war pulling the army out of Gaza. That's what they're hoping for.

So, the prime minister's framing things more in line with what the hostage families are hoping for, more in line potentially. We don't know if this is ultimately the direction is going in in ending the war in Gaza. The other thing that's been interesting about the way the prime minister has been framing the situation in Gaza, the government today said that they no longer consider some of those kibbutz around Gaza that were overrun by Hamas on October 7th, which have largely been not repopulated with the communities that were once living there.

The government's saying they no longer consider the area a security risk to which the families from those communities are saying, well, if that's the case, the hostages that are still being held, get them home. This must mean an end to the war. So it's sort of a reframing of where we are, but where ultimately the prime minister is going with this isn't clear. He's had a high level meeting with very close cabinet and advisory officials today. (Inaudible) is having another one on Monday, another meeting on Monday.

But it does, as you say, potentially point to, maybe the prime minister succumbing to a bit of the pressure from President Donald Trump who on social media has talked about today saying, get the deal done in Gaza, get the hostages back. So maybe the Prime Minister Netanyahu shaping his language to be more in line with President Trump. But again, the end position, we don't know that yet very much.

JIMENEZ: Nic Robertson, appreciate the reporting as always. Thank you. And tonight on CNN, following U.S. strikes on three of Iran's nuclear sites, Fareed Zakaria looks at the fragile relations right now between the two countries. An encore presentation of United States versus Iran, a Fareed Zakaria special airs at 10:00 p.m. eastern.

Also, 12 jurors will begin deliberations tomorrow in the Sean Combs trial, but how difficult will it be to reach a decision? We'll talk about it coming up here in the "CNN Newsroom."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:25:00]

JIMENEZ: Welcome back, everyone. Jury deliberations in the criminal sex trafficking trial of Sean Combs are set to get underway tomorrow. In closing arguments, the defense said the prosecution exaggerated its case against Combs and didn't show evidence of criminal enterprise. Meanwhile, the prosecution argued the defense team was victim blaming. Combs has pleaded not guilty to charges including sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy. He could face up to life in prison if convicted.

I want to bring in criminal defense attorney David Oscar Marcus who joins me now. So just from an analytical standpoint, how do you feel the prosecution and defense did in laying out their evidence? I mean, do you think there are any key pieces of evidence or testimony that will be especially crucial to the jury as they -- once they get into deliberations?

DAVID OSCAR MARKUS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATORNEY: Sure. Thanks, Omar. So, you know, in a long trial like this, the science shows that jurors make up their minds really early, like, after opening statements.

[17:30:02]

So, the question is how important are closings? In a case like this, they're really important because the jury has not heard what the definition of RICO is, how it plays -- how the evidence plays into these charges. So, they've heard seven weeks of testimony, but they really haven't heard, like, what is RICO? How is this playing into it? So, the lawyers got a chance to do that.

I will say this, I mean, the jurors, after seven weeks, probably wanted much shorter closings to hear all day from the prosecutor on Thursday and all day on Friday from the defense lawyer. I mean, that's tough for any jurors, let alone jurors in this day and age who -- we call them the TikTok jurors who want really quick snippets of information. It's hard to pay attention for that long. So, I'm sure they're ready to get back there and start deliberating.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And I guess, you know, this may be a hard question to ask because it's ultimately up to the jury. But do you think, as just as an observer, do you think one side had a stronger case over the other, especially in terms of how they presented it?

MARKUS: Well, it's really interesting. In -- in a lot of ways, it's like two shifts passing in the night. The -- the prosecution made Diddy out to be, made Combs out to be a really bad guy and proved that he was a bad guy, a domestic abuser and so on. The defense on the other hand saying, but -- but that's not RICO and -- and here's why it -- it doesn't satisfy the definition of RICO, of a federal criminal case. So, in a lot of ways, they're talking past each other. The prosecution is hoping the jury will focus on how bad a guy that he is, and the defense is focusing on let's -- let's look at the definitions here, let's be really analytical about what RICO is. I think the defense has a good chance to walk on the top count, on the RICO count. I think it's going to be tough to walk on everything in this case to be found not guilty of -- of everything.

And so, you know, we'll see what the jury does. I -- I will say it's the most excruciating part for a lawyer on either side. I -- I'm a defense lawyer, of course, but when the jury is out, you can't think of a more excruciating part of this long trial. You pace, you pull your hair out, you think of the case you should have done. It's really, really difficult to -- to wait for that verdict.

JIMENEZ: Yeah. I mean, it's out of your hands at that point. It is in -- it is in their hands, and that's a stage we will soon be entering.

You know, one of the big questions whenever you get a -- a trial like this where you -- where you have a defendant who's -- who's very well- known is whether they will actually testify in their own defense. Combs decided not to testify in his own defense this time.

But just as a criminal defense attorney, what are those conversations like when you have a defendant who may want to testify, and why do you think, in this case, maybe it wasn't the best move for him to do so?

MARKUS: Well, you know, one of the only decisions a defendant gets to make, they can call, the shot is whether to testify. So, if they say they're testifying, you can try to talk them out of it, but that's up to them. In this case, the judge asked Combs if he wanted to testify at the end of the day, and he said he was following his lawyer's advice not to.

And that was probably the right decision in this case because they would have been able to go back through the prosecution over all those texts, over all those videos, and it just would have been too much to -- to stand up to all that.

So, I think the defense made the right call in -- in not putting him on the stand. You know, a lot of this is going to come down to the credibility of the lawyers in their closing argument.

It's interesting because both sides had so many lawyers. You don't usually see one or two lawyers per side. This case had six, seven, eight lawyers per side. And -- and so, it's hard to build up that trust with the jury over the course of a trial when you're just one of eight lawyers who -- who's getting to speak.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, we've been talking about jury deliberations. Obviously, that -- that is a -- a key portion of this. But -- but for those lawyers like yourself, reporters who are watching as well, the judge's instructions to the jury before those deliberations are usually pretty critical. There's just a lot -- a lot of times, a lot of fighting over what is included in those definitions, how those definitions are read to the jury. What will they -- those definitions include this time, and why are they so important?

MARKUS: So, they're going to be, like, 80 pages of instructions. It's going to take the judge about an hour to read them to the jury. And it's complicated, especially in a RICO case. You know, of course, in a murder case, like Karen Read, the question is, did they do it or not? And -- and the defense was SODDI, some other dude did it.

In this case, the defense is focused on the definitions of those instructions. And so, there was a lot of fighting. The defense had an appellate special, so jury instruction specialist arguing that to the judge to get the instructions tailored in a way that they could make the arguments.

And so, you know, it's very critical to have those -- both sides focused on them in their closing argument about the definitions of RICO, and you're likely to see some jury questions because those instructions are confusing.

And so, when you get those jury questions, don't read too much into them because we've gotten those jury questions before, and it's hard to make heads or tails of what they're asking. You're going to have to wait until the verdict, probably towards the end of the week, I would guess.

[17:35:02]

JIMENEZ: Yeah. Eighty plus pages. The question is going to come in somewhere. Even -- even as reporters, we usually have questions. But that's why we call you. David Oscar, Markus, really appreciate the time and perspective. Thanks for being here.

MARKUS: Thanks, Omar. Thanks.

JIMENEZ: All right. Everyone, coming up, can you imagine a prison surrounded by alligators and invasive Burmese pythons? We're going to tell you who it's being built for and who's protesting, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Welcome back, everyone. Hundreds of people are protesting an immigrant detention center being built in the swampy Everglades of Florida that is being called Alligator Alcatraz.

The area around the detention center is, as you might imagine, teeming with alligators and invasive Burmese pythons, and the harsh outdoor prison is meant for people detained in president Trump's crackdown on undocumented migrants.

Rafael Romo joins us now. So, Rafael, what -- what do we know about this facility and the protests against them? RAFAEL ROMO, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, plenty of people who are not happy about this proposal, but it is there and it is actually happening. We couldn't believe it ourselves at first, but it's happening, Omar. And the first detainees are reportedly set to arrive at the facility as early as Tuesday, according to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier calls it Alligator Alcatraz, as you mentioned, and says the overall site is 39 square miles and it would hold more than a thousand people.

It has been erected on a little use airstrip in the Everglades and it would cost $450 million a year to run, according to DHS official. The state can request reimbursement for costs from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Florida State officials say the migrant detention facility will be, in their words, efficient and low cost because mother nature will provide much of the security.

That suggests, Omar, that they're counting on alligators and pythons, not to mention the oppressive heat, to deter the migrants who would be held there from trying to escape.

And it seems the federal government agrees. Take a look at this. The Department of Homeland Security published an A.I. photo on X that shows several alligators wearing ICE hats outside of what appears to be a jail, a post considered deeply offensive by immigrant rights groups and others.

We reached out to DHS, and they acknowledged the post is legitimate. A crowd of protesters descended on the site this weekend to say no to the detention facility, arguing that not only it violates the rights of migrants but also endangers wildlife.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TALBERT CYPRESS, CHAIRMAN, MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA: We've sounded a lot -- the alarm on this because the Everglades is a lifeline for the state of Florida, and we're not just protecting it for ourselves but for each and every citizen that lives in Florida. And any kind of, you know, impact that is felt in everybody is going to be felt by everybody.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMO: And Omar, in spite of these objections, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis last week floated the idea of building another immigration detention center in his state as part of the state's aggressive push to support the federal government's crackdown on legal immigration -- illegal, I should say, immigration.

The second proposed site is located at a Florida National Guard training center known as Camp Blanding, above 30 miles southwest of Jacksonville. Omar?

JIMENEZ: Thank you for bringing us that reporting, Rafael, all A.I. images included. Really appreciate it. All right, meanwhile, one of the world's best footballers taking on his old team, Lionel Messi versus PSG, and wasn't even close. You're in the "CNN Newsroom." We'll bring you the details.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Welcome back, everyone. We are keeping a close eye on Capitol Hill where right now. As you can see, I believe that's Senator Patty Murray of Washington. Right now, Senate lawmakers are taking part in an hours-long debate as Republicans attempt to pass the president's so-called big, beautiful bill.

The mega policy bill is facing some hurdles, though. Several Republican lawmakers not satisfied with some of the changes in the bill. But the question is, how do the American people feel about it?

That's why we've got our CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten here to run the numbers. All right, Harry, how do Americans feel about the big, beautiful bill?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Yeah. If we're talking about adjectives, how about they think it's awful, they think it's horrible, and to quote our colleague, Charles Barkley, terrible, terrible, terrible.

What are we talking about here? Well, let's take a look at the net favorable rating on the big, beautiful bill. I don't just got one poll for you, Omar. I got five of them. And the net favorable rating: Minus 19 points, Washington Post; minus 20 points, Pew Research Center; Fox, minus 21; Quinnipiac University, minus 26; KFF, minus 29.

You don't have to be a mathematical genius to know that when the net favorable rating of your bill is somewhere between minus 19 and minus 29 points, that it is not a positive bill, as viewed by the American public. The American public at this particular point hate, hate, hate the big, beautiful bill. As far as they're concerned, it's not a big, beautiful bill, it's a big, bad bill.

JIMENEZ: I always appreciate when you hold back, Harry.

ENTEN: I know. I try.

JIMENEZ: As people have learned more about the bill -- I mean, obviously, we're -- we're still in these stages working out individual pieces and we'll see where this ends up.

[17:50:00]

But as people have learned about it, has it gotten -- has that popularity changed at all when -- once they get more details?

ENTEN: No, no, Omar. You know, we have Quinnipiac University. They hated it in early June when the net favorable rating was minus 26 points. And look at where we are in late June. It's the same, minus 26 points. The more they learn about this bill, they hate it just as much.

I've been going through the historical books and trying to find a piece of legislation that looks more likely than not to pass and seeing if there is one as unpopular as the big, beautiful bill. And the bottom line is, Omar, I can't find one. This one is in the history books and for all of the wrong reasons as far as the American public is concerned.

JIMENEZ: So, why is this bill so unpopular?

ENTEN: Why is this bill so unpopular? Well, I think Republicans would argue that this bill is supposed to help out the American people and their family. But the American people disagree with that idea.

All right, Trump's policies and your family, help or hurt, the big, beautiful bill, just 23% say help. How about 49%? Forty-nine percent say hurt. Look, that's a 26 difference in the direction of hurt. Compare that to Trump's first term agenda where the plurality said it helped their family. At 44% compared to 31% who said hurt.

So, the American people elected Trump to help them and their families, but they see the big, beautiful bill as one that, on the whole, hurts their families.

JIMENEZ: All right. Helpful perspective as we work through the individual details of where the Senate negotiations are. I want to shift gears here in New York, Zohran Mamdani specifically, because you and I spoke after he had a really shocking win in many circles in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary this week. But as I understand, are you getting new data on how exactly he did it?

ENTEN: Yeah, we are. We're getting some new data. You know, according to "The New York Times," you know, we knew that Mamdani was going to do better among young voters, but we didn't realize what percentage of the electorate, how much more of them would show up.

And oh, my goodness gracious. There was a surge right through the roof. New York City Democratic primary turnout, age 18 to 24. You go to 2021. It was less than 50,000. Look at where the preliminary numbers right now suggest. More than a 100,000 voters age 18 to 24 turned out.

When that's Mamdani's best group and they turned out in record numbers, not a big surprise that he did so much better than a lot of the polling data indicated.

JIMENEZ: And that's always a coveted demographic. The question though is, can you actually mobilize that group?

ENTEN: And he did.

JIMENEZ: He seems -- yeah, it seems that's exactly what he did. So, I guess that leads right into my next question. What should Democrats nationally take away from this Mamdani win here?

ENTEN: What should they take away is that the party leaders, Democrats who say they want to replace their party leaders, look at this. Sixty-two percent nationally say yes compared to just 24% who say no. That line is up with the idea that Democrats view their own members of Congress, their own leaders in Congress, record low approval rating.

Democrats right now are out for blood. They want to take out their party leaders, and you saw that with Andrew Cuomo going, adios, amigos, goodbye, see you later in New York this past Tuesday.

JIMENEZ: And we'll see. If -- if we've heard the last of him in this race, sounds like we might have a little independent showdown when it comes time to -- for the election later this year. Harry, before you go --

ENTEN: Yes.

JIMENEZ: Before you go, there's a photo going around of your recent grocery run. Can we -- can we bring that up? Because -- yeah. You have -- what is -- first of all, what is this selection and -- and why do you have so much? What is going on here?

ENTEN: Okay. So, the selection is Fanta Orange, A&W cream soda zero sugar, some IBC root beer. We have right here in terms of zero sugar that's diet.

JIMENEZ: Okay.

ENTEN: And the bottom line is when you go to the suburbs, Omar, you got to load up. And when you're on T.V., you have a figure that you have to maintain, so you always go in the zero sugar, zero calorie selection. I like things that taste great, but also are slimming on the body.

JIMENEZ: I -- look. When it comes to strategy, there is no one who does it like you. I just feel like I have never seen that selection with that much in that mass and that quantity. I guess I should have never counted you out, Harry Enten.

ENTEN: I got over 120 cans of soda this week, and this doesn't even have the three 12 packs of mug root beer zero sugar that I purchased later on.

JIMENEZ: Okay. The next time I need a root beer or cream soda, zero sugar, I'm coming to find you.

ENTEN: That's me.

JIMENEZ: Harry Enten, appreciate it as always.

ENTEN: See you later, buddy.

JIMENEZ: See you. All right, as we've been talking about, right now on the Senate floor, a marathon debate session underway for Trump's agenda bill. Could the GOP get it over the finish line tonight? I'm going to talk to Oklahoma Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin about that and more next. You're in the "CNN Newsroom."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Welcome to the "CNN Newsroom," everyone. I'm Omar Jimenez in New York. Jessica Dean has the day off. Happening right now, lawmakers inched closer to voting on Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill, also known as big, beautiful bill. And after a marathon 15 hours of Senate clerks reading the entire 940-page bill, the formal floor debate started a short time ago.

[18:00:00]

We can expect a long night ahead on the Senate floor. It was a long night last night as well. But here's a little bit of how the process is going to go. It could take up to 20 hours to get through the debate portion.