Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Trump's $1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund Faces Bipartisan Criticism; Trump Adviser Files First Known Claim to $1.8 Billion Fund; Sen. Curtis & Kelly Urge Americans to Disagree Better; Utah Residents Protest Massive A.I. Data Center Project. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired May 20, 2026 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:00]

ALEX GANGITANO, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, POLITICO: -- much more than we saw Speaker Johnson and Vice President Vance yesterday at the White House briefing room, also went more of a Johnson approach, saying we're not quite sure exactly how these will be targeted out. I think everyone is trying to make sense of this thing that it is important to note, slipped in on these IRS settlement documents last minute. It was on yesterday. We saw this one-page document just signed by Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, about this compensation fund.

No one from the IRS was on it. So it's -- we're unclear how much, you know, this was kind of a last minute getting this in and this was at a direct -- or if it was at a direct order of the president. Because everyone seems a little caught off guard here.

It's interesting, though, as you mentioned, that Leader Thune actually came out and said, I'm not a fan of this because we haven't seen other Republicans wanting to separate themselves from this.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT AND ANCHOR OF 'INSIDE POLITICS': So you have the police officers now starting to challenge this. And then, they are --

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: We should note, one of them is also a candidate for Congress. Yeah.

(LAUGH)

BASH: Oh, one of them is a candidate for Congress, again, Harry Dunn. On the other, obviously, he was never -- would never run for Congress had he not felt emboldened by what happened to him and to other officers on January 6th.

Then you are also seeing -- we are seeing, our colleague, Paula Reid has reporting about Michael Caputo, who is the first Republican that we know of to say publicly that he is going to try to get money from this fund. And he actually reposted CNN's story about it. And he said a phrase in Latin, which translates to, "He who sleeps, loses." David?

CHALIAN: So he wanted to be first in line.

(LAUGH) CHALIAN: This whole scenario, and I do think it'll be really interesting, because I think one of the questions that a lot of legal scholars have had about this is like, who's going to have standing to challenge this in a court? Is there a role here for a court to play? Is there a role here for Congress to play?

I know these are Justice Department funds, but is there any kind of legislative action? I think there are a lot of questions about how this will actually work, and if there are any levers to stop it. But I think broadly, Dana, I think this gets back to our first conversation that we had on the show, which is this notion of misplaced priorities.

This to me falls into that bucket. I think a lot of Americans, especially swing voter Americans, will look at this and just be like, what is this about? It just doesn't pass a smell test or make a ton of sense, I think, broadly. And it just seems like it's not focused on the right things.

BASH: It's taxpayer dollars.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah, yeah. It's a --

BASH: A lot of them.

HENDERSON: Yeah. And listen, Republicans can say, oh, we don't really know what it's about, who's going to be eligible. Democrats are smartly sort of rushing into that gap and saying, this is about January 6ers, right, who stormed the Capitol, sometimes defecated on the Capitol.

There was a news there threatening to hang Mike Pence. And those are the people that are eligible to get this $1.8 billion slush fund, right? It's a slush fund for President Trump, his friends and allies. And so, again, it just seems terrible politically.

And no wonder Republicans are saying, oh, we have no idea. What are you talking about? I'm not sure what you mean.

BASH: Yeah. All right. Don't go anywhere, because coming up, two Senators from different parties united on the same mission to show Americans that it is possible to disagree better. They'll join me right here on set after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:37:53]

BASH: Welcome back to "Inside Politics." I'm joined here in the studio by two Senators, one Republican, one Democrat, who are working together. Their partisanship is part partnership, forgive me, is about bipartisanship and it's part of the "Disagree Better Initiative," a nonpartisan rallying cry founded by Republican Governor, Spencer Cox of Utah. Joining me now are Republican Senator, John Curtis of Utah, and Democratic Senator, Mark Kelly of Arizona. Thank you very much for being here.

That was a Freudian slip.

(LAUGH)

SEN. JOHN CURTIS, (R-UT) FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: But actually not too off track. You're right.

BASH: I know, which is exactly why this is like news that you guys are working together. I have a lot of questions on Disagree Better. I do want to start with some news of day, as we say, Senator Curtis, starting with you.

The president endorsed Ken Paxton over your colleague, Senator John Cornyn, in the Republican primary runoff. That's going to happen next week in Texas. He successfully backed a Republican challenger to another one of your Senate colleagues, Bill Cassidy. He's making clear he's going to take out anyone in your party who disagrees with him or crosses him. Are you comfortable with that?

CURTIS: I don't think anybody should be surprised that a president is going to weigh in on races. I think there's a lot of us that would prefer that that effort was spent on the general election and getting Republicans there. In the cases that you mentioned, I've had a chance to serve with both Bill Cassidy and John Cornyn. They're amazing Senators and very, very good men. And I can tell you who I'm supporting.

BASH: And it is?

CURTIS: Oh, clearly John Cornyn, right?

BASH: Yeah.

CURTIS: And would have supported Bill Cassidy. Now that's no longer an option. But John Cornyn is a great colleague and would be lucky to have him back.

BASH: The loyalty test, as you know, probably far better than I in the Republican Party, is one man. It's Donald Trump. And I've had some of your colleagues say that to me. It's not necessarily country or conservatism or to our constituents. We have to show our loyalty to the president.

CURTIS: You know, I think what gets missed is there's this assumption that that's a 100 percent truism.

[12:40:00]

And I would point out, president has asked us to break the filibuster almost every day, and we haven't. President has asked to change blue slips and we haven't. President has asked --

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: Isn't that part of why he's trying to push Cornyn out of the way, to send you a message?

CURTIS: But that's one person. I'm just telling you, generally, there's -- I'm not going to argue that there's not a lot of doing what the president wants. You see that with any president. What I'm going to tell you is what's totally missed is the number of pushbacks that are actually there.

BASH: Senator Kelly, you are both here to talk about bipartisanship. Senator Cornyn is a very conservative Republican but he, like your colleague here, has worked across the aisle on some pretty big issues like guns which is something that's near and dear to your heart.

SEN. MARK KELLY, (D-AZ): Right. Well, yeah, it is and just a comment on the first question. I think every other president has, you know, realizes that our country functions better when there isn't this idea that you have to back the president on every single issue. I mean whether it was George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, they would give room within their party, saying, hey, I know you're going to have to, you know, be counter to my position on this thing and this thing and maybe this thing. But in general, we'll try to you know move together on the most important issues.

Donald Trump doesn't provide that space. He, you know, it's often his way or the highway and we're seeing that play out in these primaries. And because of that, I mean we wind up in a situation in Texas where Democratic candidate, Talarico has a real opportunity to win in Texas. It might -- that might be the race that changes the balance of power.

BASH: One more question, then we are going to talk about bipartisanship.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: But it's still not healthy for our democracy.

BASH: OK. Well, one more question and we're going to move on Senator Curtis.

The idea of a $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund that the president set up this week. Senate Majority Leader, John Thune, said he's not a big fan of a compensation fund for the president's allies. Are you?

CURTIS: I will tell you my first reaction was this doesn't pass the smell test. Now, that said, I'm willing to learn more about it and its intent, but I suspect you might find this might be one area where you might find a lot of bipartisan questioning of whether or not this is a good idea.

BASH: So will you try to block it?

CURTIS: I mentioned to you, I have to know more about what it is, but my initial reaction is, look, from all outward appearances, this doesn't pass the smell test. BASH: You are a purple state Democrat, so one of the things I'm sure you hear about is that there's bipartisan disgust with both parties right now, here in Washington especially. And in your case, as a Democrat even from some Democratic voters, polls kind of across the board show that. What are you both doing together, there's an example, what are you both doing together to try to change the sentiment that people have of both parties? And I'll ask you just about your party since you're the Democrat.

KELLY: Well, we're trying to speak to issues that really matter to the American people, you know, their personal economy, so the costs of things, their health care, their safety. Focus on the issues that matter, but also do it in a way where we can find common ground where we can show that this place can actually function.

When John and I can get together on a piece of legislation that we know benefits the country and we can work together on it. There'll be things that we disagree on, but on a lot of things, we have some agreement and then try to demonstrate to folks back home that this, at times, this place can function somewhat normally.

CURTIS: I'll tell you what, we've been on a stage together in front of a town hall. We have walked together. We've -- this a bill that we have together, the Algorithm Accountability Act is a major swing at the institution that's damaging our youth so much. I think if you were giving us both the time, we'd be able to spend a whole hour talking about the positive good things that happen with colleagues across the aisle and I think that's one of our biggest regrets, is so much is focused on the times when we actually don't get along.

BASH: Yeah and I mean, I was honored to be with you at that town hall, one of the town halls that you did back in your home state of Utah, and it was a very long discussion about it. Real quick, before we go to break so, we're going to talk more about this in the next segment. The algorithm piece of legislation that you just mentioned, you've been working on that for many, many months. Can you just quickly describe it and say, has it gotten any traction?

KELLY: Well, this was actually John's idea. I was -- I've been thinking about this for a while, like how do we how do we actually legislate on an algorithm. It seems like a hard thing to do. I've been, you know, working with my staff to try to figure it out and then John came to me with an idea and the idea is pretty simple.

[12:45:00]

If a social media company applies an algorithm to a piece of content and then there is some negative outcome because of that, let's say a kid winds up in the hospital, or there's a suicide, or carjacking and somebody is seriously injured or killed, if that algorithm is applied to the content, you can draw a direct line to then what happened, there would be a private right of action. So that encourages the social media companies to be careful what you apply the algorithm to.

BASH: And how is it going? Have you gotten other Senators on?

(CROSSTALK)

CURTIS: Yeah. Well, let me just point out on this, this is not about the freedom of speech.

BASH: Right.

CURTIS: You can say whatever you want, but it's saying if there's consequences, you have a responsibility for that. Look, the question about whether it's gaining traction, of course, it is. But we're taking a pretty big swing. This is David and Goliath, right, if we're honest, right? And I think it's the first time that we've said, particularly on a bipartisan basis, look, the emperor has no clothes.

There's so much good that comes from social media. I think we would both say that. But to say it's 100 percent good and that we can't fix it and do better is where we're coming from.

BASH: And is your leadership interested in bringing it up?

CURTIS: So, as you know, everything in the Senate takes a long time.

BASH: Yeah.

(LAUGH)

CURTIS: And so, I wish we both could say, yep, we're going to get a vote on it tomorrow.

KELLY: Yeah.

CURTIS: But I can tell you, we're both committed to it.

KELLY: Yeah.

BASH: OK. Don't go anywhere. We're going to take a quick break. Much more with these two Senators, including a first look at a new call to action. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:50:59]

BASH: We're back with Senators John Curtis and Mark Kelly, lawmakers from different parties who are teaming up to encourage Americans to disagree better. Today, they're releasing a brand new public service announcement and we have a sneak preview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CURTIS: The real fight isn't left versus right.

KELLY: The real fight is not giving into division.

CURTIS: Because while we're busy shouting at each other, nothing is getting built.

KELLY: So shut your phone off for a few minutes. Step outside, help somebody.

CURTIS: Listen to what they have to say, even if you don't like it.

KELLY: Treat them like a person who wants the best for this country, even if they have a different idea of how to get there.

CURTIS: To disagree is human.

KELLY: But to disagree better is American.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: That's a terrific public service announcement. It actually gives you like -- makes you feel the feels, you know, because we don't see that enough.

KELLY: And I think people take the wrong example from Washington, because they see the disagreement. They don't see when we come together to accomplish things and work together.

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: Well, you don't -- in fairness, you don't show it very much.

KELLY: Well, it's also not covered.

CURTIS: Yeah, I'm going to argue with that, too, because --

BASH: OK, go ahead. Go ahead.

CURTIS: Imagine how frustrating it is when we do something well together and you can't even find it in a newspaper, right? And yet, we disagree and it's going to be all over the front page.

BASH: Go for it. Give me an example.

KELLY: But I also get that the -- you know, the controversial stuff --

BASH: Yeah.

KELLY: -- gets more eyeballs, keeps eyeballs. News media is in a business. But it would be better if when we do come together on things that we highlight it like this.

BASH: Yeah.

CURTIS: Yeah.

KELLY: So thank you for doing this.

CURTIS: I will give you an example.

BASH: Yes, please.

CURTIS: This year, we passed more appropriation bills than we have done in decades on a bipartisan basis. You don't hear a thing about that. What you hear about is the five percent of the budget we didn't disagree on. That's what you hear incessantly.

BASH: Yeah.

CURTIS: But we actually did an amazing job of budgeting this year, holding costs in line, working on a bipartisan basis on 95 percent of the budget.

BASH: I have to say -- you -- I want to move on to one of the issues that, obviously, is big that you can come together on, which is A.I.

But I do want to tell you that you're in a unique position because there are a lot of lawmakers who do work together in a bipartisan way and they don't like to talk about it because --

(LAUGH)

BASH: -- because they're afraid of a challenge from within their party.

CURTIS: Yeah.

BASH: You are (inaudible).

CURTIS: I'll shout it from the housetops. Yeah.

BASH: Yeah, exactly.

KELLY: And that also happens a lot more in the House when you gerrymander districts.

BASH: That is very true. A.I., there's a big situation in your home state --

CURTIS: Yeah, it is.

BASH: And that's putting it mildly, which is that there is a data center that has been approved, at least initially, to power A.I., that people are not so sure about. Some people are very upset about it. And it's because what we've seen across the country is that data centers tend to increase energy costs for the people who live in and around it.

Is this -- it's now patchwork. Is this something that you think you can work together on, on national levels for federal legislation?

CURTIS: Yeah, absolutely. Because it doesn't have to be this way, right? We're going to build A.I. facilities, and I think we all want them here in the United States. Well, let's build them right. And I'm more than happy to lean on my colleague, who is introducing a legislation to give us some ideas. And I think people back home are craving for, let's do this right.

KELLY: And I think communities absolutely should get a say. If they do not want a data center there, then they can build a support. It should go somewhere else. There are ways that we can promote an agreement between communities and data center companies and A.I. companies if we do it early.

So I've got legislation where if they sign a, what we call, Community Development Agreement, they get first-of-the-line access to grant programs and land and permitting and technical assistance.

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: (Inaudible) to you?

KELLY: I mean, it is the things that --

BASH: Yeah.

KELLY: -- and it helps the community.

BASH: Can we make a bipartisan deal right here?

CURTIS: We're going to run back to the office and we're going to look at this bill.

KELLY: I'm going to send it over to you.

[12:55:00]

CURTIS: But I would tell you this whole concept of like, what really needs to happen is the communities need to be involved in this and they need to have the facts to make a good decision. And so often, these are coming in, in a way where there's a lack of trust, where the facts may be good but they don't trust them, right? And so setting that up early, making sure that they're pulled in early, I think, is really critical not just for the constituents, but for the data centers themselves.

KELLY: And then we got to build the infrastructure. We got to make sure we have the power and the water, physical infrastructure, and the, you know, connect to the grid. Takes a lot of power.

BASH: Yeah.

KELLY: We can build it. We could do hard things in this country, we're actually pretty good at it.

BASH: All right. I like that we just started another bipartisan --

(LAUGH)

BASH: -- piece of legislation right here. Thank you both for coming in.

CURTIS: It is great to be with you. Thank you.

KELLY: Thank you, Dana.

BASH: It really is terrific to have you. Thank you for joining "Inside Politics" today. "CNN News Central" starts after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)