Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Trump Tries To Change Subject As Lawmakers Demand More Disclosure; Bipartisan Calls Grow For Transparency On Epstein Files; CBS Poll: 89 Percent Of Americans Want DOJ To Release Epstein Files; Harvard Fights To Restore $2B+ In Funds Frozen By Trump; Texas GOP Moving To Redraw Congressional Maps This Week. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired July 21, 2025 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR, INSIDE POLITICS: Today on Inside Politics, look over here. President Trump is playing distraction chess, fighting social media with dozens of posts about former President Obama. Washington commanders and even a head spinning video of a woman tossing a snake. But can any of it redirect the spotlight from the Jeffrey Epstein saga.

Plus, a federal judge is hearing arguments in Harvard's effort to reverse the White House's decision to block more than $2 billion in federal funding. CNN is inside the courtroom to bring you all the developments.

And from little Marco to indispensable Marco, we have new reporting on how Secretary of State Rubio has become one of the most powerful people in President Trump's inner circle and his strategy to stay there.

I'm Manu Raju in for Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines in Inside Politics.

President Trump is one of our most online presidents ever. And he spent the weekend on Truth Social amplifying all sorts of posts, including on a familiar conspiracy, no, not the Jeffrey Epstein files. And that's the story, of course, that has driven the news for weeks. But much safer political train for his base.

There was the Russia investigation former President Barack Obama and alleging corruption in that White House. Is it a strategy or just the president's weekend musings? Well, we have CNN's Kristen Holmes here to break that down for us. So, Kristen, what were you hearing from inside the White House this weekend?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Manu. I think it's somewhere in the middle there, somewhere between an actual strategy and the president's musings. We know that President Trump wants to talk about literally anything else other than Jeffrey Epstein. You kind of saw that today and throughout the weekend, as he posted on almost every topic imaginable, cashless bail, Adam Schiff, at one point touting Mark Levin's book.

He posted memes of Democrats in jumpsuits, a rant about a Wall Street Journal article not related to Jeffrey Epstein, but instead one that indicated that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had told him not to fire Jerome Powell. That seemed to very much get under his skin, saying he's the one who tells his team what to do, not the other way around.

And then, of course, as you mentioned this entire rant, multiple posts about the Washington commanders, threatening not to make a deal on their new stadium unless they went back to the Washington Redskins. This is a little bit of a different turn of what we have seen from the end of the week. We had seen, really several weeks of the White House and President Trump completely on the defensive. President Trump is not good on the defensive.

But when this Wall Street Journal story came out at the end of the week that alleged this birthday letter with him coming out against that story with him filing a lawsuit, the White House felt like they were on the offensive. And of course, as we know, he ordered the attorney general to unseal that grand jury testimony.

But there are still questions about what more he can do? And those questions are coming from his MAGA base and his loyalists. And I can tell you that a few of his allies have even asked me, if I can get a question to the president in a briefing or to the press secretary or shout a question at him about why he's not doing more.

So, this might have tied some of these people over for the short term, but there are a lot of questions still, because there's a really overarching belief that there's not going to be that much information in that grand jury testimony. So now people are wondering and they're starting to push for more information. So, you know, long story, short, Manu, this story is not going away.

RAJU: Yeah. As much as the president wants to, it suddenly won't. And thank you so much. Kristen Holmes live for us in the White House. And I'm joined in the room by a terrific group of reporters, Leigh Ann Caldwell of Puck, Jasmine Wright of NOTUS, and Semafor's Dave Weigel. Nice to see you all.

So, Leigh Ann, you foreshadowed this, actually in a story a couple weeks ago. He said, most of the nearly dozen Republicans I spoke to about Epstein over the past few days predicted that Trump would do something dramatic to shift national focus from the subject, employing his reliable tactic of changing the narrative to benefit himself.

[12:05:00]

The question though, is that, is this situation different because those Republicans, they're the ones who have been demanding it. They've been -- they've been pushing for more release for years, months, weeks, and they were disappointed by what the Justice Department and Trump ultimately did.

LEIGH ANN CALDWELL, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, PUCK: Yeah. There's this string of the Republican Party, the MAGA base really, who is very anti-establishment, and part of the reason they support Donald Trump is because Donald Trump was going to be the person to break all of that and tell the truth and to break the deep state, essentially. And that's why they're not satisfied with what is happening right now.

As you well know, we see on Capitol Hill a bipartisan resolution that is being pushed. I haven't checked since a couple hours ago, but 10 Republicans have already signed on to that. And you know, all Democrats are expected to sign on to it too. So that is very much a majority of House members.

But we're seeing the precedence kind of an anatomy of his public relations strategy that he's used over and over again, which is to distract, to attack, to deflect, and also to blame other people. We saw that essentially in his Truth Social post screeds last night and we'll see if it works this time.

RAJU: Yeah. There were quite a bit of screeds, if you will, on Truth Social. Just a handful of them going after the California Democrat hit one of his nemeses on the Hill, Adam Schiff calls saying that he's in big trouble for some allegations, suggesting that he may have committed a crime, of course, Schiff denies that.

Then showing mug shots of Obama officials in all, from Samantha Power to Barack Obama, including -- saying Barack Hussein Obama, and then the -- what Kristen mentioned too about pressuring the Washington commanders to change their name back to the Washington Redskins.

Jasmine, you cover the White House. What are you hearing from how the president views where he is on this story at this moment?

JASMINE WRIGHT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NOTUS: Well, President Trump said it publicly on Saturday on Truth Social. He said even if the court gave full and unwavering approval of all these documents, people would still not be happy. Now he said Democrats would still not be happy, but the reality is that his base is still not going to be happy. No matter what they put out, particularly because what is in those grand jury testimonies is kind of a limited scope of everything that the White House could release.

I think that it's kind of twofold here, though. I think that for once in the last really three weeks, the White House feels at least at a decent place that they're able to manage some of the onslaught of these questions, particularly because of that Wall Street Journal story, making sure that the media is now the biggest foe and accusing Trump of doing something when they don't believe that he has.

And so, one person told me that everyone is aligned and on the way forward, and they said it with the grin, which has not been on the faces of White House officials for the last two weeks. But then I think that they are recognizing that there is an existential question of how far can this go, and whether or not they'll really be able to wrap their arms around it, as people continue to ask more and more questions. And I think that extent that outstanding question is what potentially has people not concerned, but a little, you know, if he -- RAJU: Part of his strategy, clearly, is to try to get his base back on his side, which is why he went after the Wall Street Journal the way that he did. They launched that lawsuit again after that story, $20 billion or so, asking for damages in that case but he could be deposed in that case. Trump, if this does go to court, you could get me deposed and potentially we could learn even more about Trump's relationship with Epstein.

DAVID WEIGEL, POLITICS REPORTER, SEMAFOR: Yes. That is the difference between this and other stories that moved out of the news cycle when Trump wanted him to move out the news cycle. He has that power, but there is organic interest in the Jeffrey Epstein story that bigger than a lot of people who are covering politics appreciated until the last three weeks.

And with Democrats, he's dealing with a different alignment of Democrats on this question. He ran in 2016 against Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein too, at least their photos them together. And there is an old generation of Democrats who are not as ready to get into the fray on this, and to say, release everything, let the chips fall.

I think there are some Republicans who still believe Democrats think that way. The younger Democrat -- generation of Democrats don't have that connection. They are not worried about any of them or their colleagues being on these. They find this to be a really hooky, interesting way to say, their party is for the elite and we're not. So, dealing with Democrats who are not going to drop this. We're going to worry and pull their collar and pivot in our story. That's not going to happen here.

RAJU: Yeah. And it's interesting looking at the polls. There been multiple polls now showing that how the American public views this issue. This from CBS just yesterday, should DOJ release all the information on Epstein? 89 percent say yes. I mean that you rarely see that in polls in this era of polarized politics.

[12:10:00]

And you ask about how Republicans feel about this, whether they're satisfied without Trump has held done this well. They've handled it well. Just 50 percent of Republicans, 49 percent say they're dissatisfied. I mean it, typically Trump is at 90 percent or so among Republicans, no matter what the issue is here, 50 percent.

CALDWELL: Well, it's interesting, because the Republican operative texted me a poll last week that said, look, he's still at 90 percent among his base. He wasn't asking about this specifically, but this moment in time, and that's what Republicans are hoping is maintained that his party is still behind him, regardless of this issue.

Now, electorally, you know, Trump's not on the ballot in 2026. Republicans, I talk to think that there is not going to be a Jeffrey Epstein bump for Democrats in the midterm elections, but there is some concern about Trump's brand being diminished. And if that is, and perhaps around the margins, around the edges, that impacts turnout and motivation for Republican voters in the midterm.

RAJU: The question is to -- you mentioned that there could be a vote in the House. We'll see how that happens. There's this effort to try to circumvent the Republican leadership force a vote in the House that's led by Congressman Thomas Massie. There are 11 co-sponsors on his bill, Republicans' co-sponsors. But they have to sign into a separate effort to actually force a vote in the House, and about four Republicans would be needed to sign on with all Democrats to get there.

There's going to be a major pressure campaign from Trump over those members to not sign on to his petition to force a vote. How do you see that playing out?

WEIGEL: He has a very good record in the White House and saying, stop caring so much about this. There are not many who are that vulnerable to voters if they go home and they don't release these documents. If this is smothered, they know, though, it gives Democrats an issue they're very happy to campaign on.

And the current distraction, not to overuse that word in this segment, but of attacking the Wall Street Journal and saying, well, the real -- the real -- this is -- you really get on our side because the media is trying to take down Trump over this. That's going to be very compelling for a lot of members, not for the Tom Massie's of the world because they're used to that.

They're used to being told to get it -- get in line that we have a new enemy now. They don't separate. And the narrative for years with Epstein was also Trump is not going to be in these, don't worry about it. Then these Republicans signing on. Don't think they're going to be part of releasing bad information about Donald Trump. They don't know why he's not releasing it.

RAJU: Yeah. I have some -- I have some predictions on who on that list might fold. I won't say that publicly at the moment. We'll see if that ultimately happens. All right, coming up. America's oldest university is taking on the White House in court today with billions of dollars of federal funding on the line. What's the highlights? After a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJU: Just moments ago, a crucial hearing wrapped in a Boston courthouse. As Harvard fights back against the Trump administration for blocking more than $2 billion in federal funding. The administration argues the freeze is justified, accusing the University of failing to address antisemitism on campus, but Harvard claims the government is violating its first amendment rights.

Now this case could have major implications for countless other institutions targeted by the White House. CNN's Betsy Klein was inside the courtroom and just walked out of that courtroom. So, Betsy, tell us what happened inside there, and was it clear at all which side might have an advantage?

BETSY KLEIN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah. Well, Manu, this case has really amounted to a flash point in this fight of academic freedom, federal funding and campus oversight, and it is something that the Trump administration believes is a winning political issue. But U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, moments ago, heard arguments from Harvard University lawyers, as well as one lawyer from the -- for the Trump administration Department of Justice.

The Trump administration back in April froze over $2 billion in federal research funding for about 950 projects at Harvard University. They say that this is about combating antisemitism on campus in the aftermath of October 7. Harvard argued that it is, quote, a blatant and unrepentant violation of their First Amendment rights.

They also argued that this violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and that it was an arbitrary and capricious cut, and that was -- it was untethered to the actual threat of antisemitism on campus. We heard from Department of Justice lawyer Michael Belchik. He is himself a Harvard law and undergraduate alumnus, and he said that this was really a contract dispute.

He said that Harvard had -- did not read the fine print, and that the federal government had the right to terminate their contract if they believed that Harvard wasn't living up to their policy priorities of combating antisemitism burrows. The judge pressed the Department of Justice repeatedly. She said she is Jewish and American. And she said, Harvard, of course, has made missteps on antisemitism, but they have taken action.

She asked, quote, what is the relationship between cutting funding for cancer research to combating antisemitism? She said, you're not taking away grants from labs that have been antisemitism. But cutting off funding in a way one could argue hurts Americans and Jews, to which the Department of Justice Trump administration lawyer said, he vehemently disagrees.

[12:20:00]

He said that he believes combating antisemitism is an administration priority, and they have the right to cut that funding. But a major theme here was urgency. Harvard wants this resolved before those funding cuts go into effect in September. The judge said she would do her best to do that quickly.

RAJU: All right. Betsy Klein, outside the courthouse in Boston, thank you so much for that report. My excellent panel is back. So just to remind viewers about the number of actions the White House has taken against Harvard, not only the $2 billion in federal funding. They're pushing for specific policy changes, restricting international student enrollment, challenging its tax-exempt status, investigating handling of campus protests among that.

Now, it's very clear the politics of this, Trump wants see -- they see this as a great winning fight, riles up the base goes after an elite institution like Harvard. But it also has major implications for academic freedom, academic independence, which is why this is such a significant case.

WRIGHT: I mean, it's massively significant. And I think on one hand, the White House has been really message discipline that they want Harvard University, along with other universities that they put pressure on to submit to several things that they view as not just upholding their fight against antisemitism, but obviously giving the White House more of a view into how they're selecting people, particularly international students and all of that.

But I think that also the White House is using Harvard as an example of what it looks like when an institution pushes back. When an institution pushes back against the White House, who is applying all of this pressure to basically bend it to its will. This is what they're going to face.

They're going to face massive cuts in funding. They're going to face a really protracted legal fight. They're going to face consistent messaging against them to the point where they eventually have to cave, and any movement by Harvard is going to be viewed by this White House as a cave.

And so, obviously, they are really waiting to see what the outcome is from this judge. This is something that the White House is incredibly tapped into because they know that it's not just successful with their base, but it's going to help them when it comes to these ideas of expanding power and making sure that these entities submit to them.

RAJU: Yeah. And as Betsy reported there, the judge sounded skeptical, at least in part because she's saying, well, look, what is freezing funding for cancer research have to do with combating antisemitism. So, if the Trump administration loses, though, they're going to try to go to the Supreme Court and fight this and they may be successful. Who knows?

CALDWELL: I mean, the Supreme Court has given the president a lot of wins so far, but Betsy's reporting what the judge said was super fascinating, and some insight into how the judge is thinking about this. And we'll say -- we'll see how it goes. But one thing that is also very concerning to lots of people is that administrations change.

And if every single administration invokes their world view and these demands on administrations, it's these universities who are having to go back and forth and to respond to what the government ideology is, which is ultimately very difficult and perhaps not a very effective way to run a university and research institutions.

RAJU: Yeah. We'll see ultimately what happens. There's significant case of news in there from inside the courtroom. More from us, coming up next. Texas Republicans, they want to change their district maps to tilt the races for Congress in their direction. So, Democrats say, it's time to fight fire with fire. Exclusively reporting, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJU: The Texas legislature begins a special session today with a key priority for national Republicans, that's redrawing congressional districts to help elect five more Republicans in next year's midterms. Typically, that happens at the beginning of a decade to reflect a new census. But Texas GOP Congressman Troy Nehls explained it this way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need to make sure we keep the House. We got to keep the House

REP. TROY NEHLS (R-TX): I think we keep the House anyway, but I support the idea of raising

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, just five more. You know, we get five, let's get five.

NEHLS: You know, I'm not (inaudible) try to get six.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Many Democrats have long been in favor of a redistricting overhaul, taking the map making away from the politicians, but now Democrats say they need to fight fire with fire. Here's what House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Some members of your delegation, Democrats who want New York to change the maps, try to add seats, democratic seats in New York. Would you support that effort in your state?

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Let me just simply say the maps in New York are not as fair as they could be. What we're committed to doing as Democrats in New York, in California, in New Jersey across the country, is make sure that the congressional maps are as fair as possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: All right. My excellent panel is back. I mean, this is major ramifications for the midterms and beyond. And typically, these fights happened at the beginning of a decade, reflecting new demographics, reflecting the populations, but now it's redistricting, rights are often such pure, raw politics at its core. And in this case, the implications are significant, but there are also major risks for both parties.

WEIGEL: There are more risks for Democrats, probably, and Jeffrey is jumping in this -- into this so quickly, was fascinating, because Democrats argument here has been, we are the party of fair maps. He used the word fair. But what that means in states is that Democrats are the party that would often support a non-partisan redistricting commission, as they did in California, as they did in Michigan.

They would take themselves off the board with the expectation, one, those maps would be easier to protect in a tough year, which they mostly have been. And two, we're going to be the party the Democrats that doesn't rig maps.