Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Musk Blasts Trump's Agenda Bill, Catching Officials Off Guard; State Dept. Revokes Visas For Family Of Boulder Attack Suspect; Newark Mayor Sues Prosecutor Alina Habba For Defamation. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired June 03, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Perfect. Thank you very much.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: There you go. You can--
COOPER: Yes, my kids will love this.
ENTEN: There you go.
COOPER: Yes, Harry.
ENTEN: I also have a--
COOPER: Wow. Look at that.
ENTEN: I have a cake for you.
COOPER: Wow. Did you bake that?
ENTEN: Bake the cake.
COOPER: Thank you, Harry Enten.
ENTEN: And in case you're wondering?
COOPER: OK.
ENTEN: I also have a pie for you as well.
COOPER: Wow. Look at that. That looks like that crack pie.
ENTEN: So--
COOPER: Thank you so much.
ENTEN: --on behalf of everyone here, Anderson--
COOPER: Oh, well--
ENTEN: --Happy birthday--
COOPER: All right.
ENTEN: --my dear friend. COOPER: Thank you, Harry Enten. Thank you, everybody. Appreciate it.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Tonight, new reporting on how White House officials were caught off guard, after Elon Musk unleashed on President Trump's signature bill.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, Elon Musk, the man who spent more than $290 million to help put Donald Trump back in the White House, is now calling his signature policy bill a, quote, Disgusting abomination.
It's a long way from what we witnessed in the Oval Office, just about a 100 hours ago, when Trump and Musk were heaping praise on one another, on Elon's last day in the federal government.
Now, cut to this. Quote, "I'm sorry," Musk posted today, "But I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it."
But he didn't stop there. Musk also added, it will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion, and burden American citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt. He continued, Congress is making America bankrupt. And in November next year, we will fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.
You notice there, he doesn't ever actually mention the President directly.
And I was told by White House sources today, that this very public broadside, caught officials there by surprise.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: White House officials were not expecting Elon Musk to come out swinging against President Trump's so-called big, beautiful bill. But he made his criticism quite public, on Tuesday, actually, in the middle of the White House press briefing, when he came out and called it a disgusting abomination, called it massive, and said it was filled with pork.
Now, Republican senators might not have put it quite like that. But some of them have also expressed concerns with estimates that say that this bill, if passed as it is today, as it came to the Senate from the House, would add trillions of dollars to the federal deficit.
The White House says those estimates, and those Republican senators who have voiced concerns about that, are blatantly wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: In a sign of just how quickly things can change, here in Washington, Democrats, like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, are now saying that they agree with Elon Musk.
While, on the other side, nearly four months after he said that Musk had, quote, Cracked the code on government spending, Speaker Mike Johnson is suggesting that Elon's opposition here is driven actually by his own business interests.
The President's orbit today was highlighting to me how this bill would get rid of the $7,500 tax credit for new electric cars, and also eliminate that clean energy credit that helped boost Tesla's bottom line in the first quarter. Both of those things that helped Musk, I should note, were passed by Democrats, under President Biden.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): But With all due respect, my friend, Elon, is terribly wrong about the one big, beautiful bill.
I know that the EV mandate, very important to him, that is going away because the government should not be subsidizing these things. It's part of the Green New Deal. And I know that has an effect on his business, and I lament that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: In the past, Musk has advocated for getting rid of all credits and subsidies, I should note.
But he's far from alone in the criticism of this massive spending bill. In the words of Republican senator, Chuck Grassley, he said, quote, There's probably 53 Republican senators who'd like to see some changes.
This is where I should note that there are a total of 53 Republican senators.
I asked the White House press secretary, earlier today, about some of this criticism.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: You said recently that it is, quote, Blatantly wrong to say that it adds to the deficit. You essentially said that an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office and other scorekeepers, you believe, are wrong.
But Republicans, like Ron Johnson and Rand Paul, disagree. They are saying that it will add to the deficit. That is their concern. Is the White House's position that those two Republican senators are, quote, Blatantly wrong?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It is. Those senators, it's not news that they disagree with this president on policy. And the President has vocally called them out for it, and for their -- not having their facts together.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Now, when it comes to having their facts together, the White House clearly disagrees with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and its preliminary estimate that this big, beautiful bill would add $3.8 trillion to the national debt. But they are not the only ones who have projected this.
[21:05:00]
The Tax Foundation says it will add $2.56 trillion. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates $2.79 trillion. And the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget puts the number at $3.1 trillion.
My lead source tonight is the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey, who is known in Congress as a strong fiscal conservative. Maybe he's happy he's not on the Hill right now.
Sir, I think people might look at this, and say, Which is it? Is it a big, beautiful bill? Or is it a disgusting abomination, as Elon Musk puts it?
PAT TOOMEY, (R) FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Yes, I don't think it's either one, Kaitlan. It's the result of a legislative process.
First of all, it's often characterized as a spending bill. It's mostly not spending. It's mostly extending the 2017 tax reform. Which brings me to the next point, which is when we talk about adding to the deficit, adding to it from what point, what is the increase? Implies a base level. And the base level that gives you these huge numbers is the assumption that we're going to let all of the lower taxes from 2017 expire, and we're going to have a big tax increase on all Americans.
The 2017 tax reform, as you may recall, lowered taxes on everybody. And proportionally, the biggest cuts in taxes were for lower- and middle-income workers. So, nobody ever thought that that's all going to go away, and we're going to have a huge tax increase on all those people. So, I think these comparisons to the assumption that this big, huge tax increase was ever going to happen is badly flawed.
Look, I think the right policy here is extend the expiring provisions of the 2017 tax reform. In 2024, we are on track for federal tax revenue to be about 17.1 -- 17.2 percent of GDP. The 50-year average is 17.3. It's not as though we've suddenly just stopped collecting taxes. The problem we have with our budget is we spend way too much.
My biggest criticism of this bill is it doesn't take really meaningful steps, the important steps we need, to curb the weight -- rate of growth of Medicaid. It could also do that with respect to Medicare. Doesn't even do anything to Medicare.
COLLINS: Yes.
TOOMEY: But really, we haven't dealt with our budget situation until we curb the rate of growth of the entitlement programs.
COLLINS: Yes. And, of course, Republicans who voted for the tax cuts, when Trump was in office the last time, did so knowing that they'd expire, and that this moment -- this moment would come.
TOOMEY: Yes.
COLLINS: But when it comes to what you are hearing, not just from Elon Musk, but Rand Paul and Ron Johnson, about the real concern about it adding to the deficit. Do you think that Elon Musk has a point here, and that they have a point here, in terms of what it will do, if they do pass it, as it is today?
TOOMEY: Well, so a couple of things.
First of all, I think Ron Johnson and Rand Paul have a very good point that more should be done to curb spending, because that is the problem. Spending has gone to 24 percent of our economy at the federal level, never mind what the states do. It's a huge increase from where it was not terribly long ago. So, that's the real problem that we need to be addressing.
By the way, back in 2017, I was there. I was part of the guy -- one of the guys, designing this tax reform. And it was projected that revenue would crater, if we passed the bill. And in fact, revenue grew. It's a fact. You can look it up. There's revenue to the federal government grew, after the tax reform, in part because economic growth was so strong. So, at least extending those pro-growth features, I think, is just really, really important. What we've got to get our hands around is the rate of growth of spending.
COLLINS: Yes. And, I think, when you talk about the different projections here that we're looking at, when Manu Raju asked Senator Lankford, earlier today about the projection, he said, Welcome to the math of Washington, D.C., basically disputing the impact that this bill would have.
But I think some voters might say, If the party can't agree on how to do the math here, how do we trust that they're saying that this is what this is going to look like, in the end?
TOOMEY: Look, it's been very transparent. You might not agree with it. But the budget process is very transparent. Everybody can read it. It's been reported on.
The Republicans decided that they will use, as the baseline, the current policy that we've been living under for the last eight years, not the assumption that taxes were suddenly going to increase dramatically. You can disagree with that decision. But it's completely transparent. I think -- and I think it's a reasonable -- a reasonable decision.
COLLINS: Do you think this is going to get done by the Fourth of July, when you look at what the opposition is from, there's people like Josh Hawley who don't like the changes to Medicaid that are in here, and other senators that have those concerns, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul. I mean, you know these people. Do you think this is going to--
TOOMEY: Yes, yes.
COLLINS: --going to get this over the line?
[21:10:00]
TOOMEY: Timing is very hard to predict. I really wouldn't want to speculate on that. But I would -- I do think that this will get done. It'll be difficult. It'll take a while. It'll be painful. And it won't be beautiful. But I do think it will get done.
There's too much at stake, and Republicans do not want to deliver to the American people, like the biggest tax increase in many decades, if not ever. And that's what will happen if nothing passes. That's what the Democrats are really supporting. Just go ahead and raise taxes on everybody. Republicans aren't going to do that. So, I think we'll get something out of this process.
COLLINS: Yes, that's what the White House is betting on.
I want to ask you. I was watching an interview you did, a few months before -- or a little bit before the election. You said, you believed that President Trump was serious about tariffs, and that he wasn't just trying to use it as some kind of negotiating tactic--
TOOMEY: Yes.
COLLINS: --like a lot of people might have thought, even though he has basically held these views on tariffs for decades.
But when you look at your old job, are you surprised that Congress has not stood up to the President more, on tariffs, since it is technically their job to regulate trade?
TOOMEY: Yes, you know, and I was disappointed back when -- in Trump's first administration, I led a bipartisan effort to insist that if the President wants to invoke Section 232, for instance, and other provisions in law to raise tariffs, it had to be approved by Congress.
Because, as you correctly observe, the Constitution is very clear about this. Tariffs are the responsibility of Congress. So, I would like to see Congress assert its -- Rand Paul has been calling this out for some time now.
I think the baseline should be, if the President wants to impose tariffs on another country, he can propose it. He's got to take it to Congress. He should get an expedited vote, up or down, without delay. But it should ultimately be in the hands of Congress. That's where the Constitution assigns the responsibility.
COLLINS: Former senator, Pat Toomey, great to have you tonight. Thanks for joining us.
TOOMEY: Thanks for having me.
COLLINS: My White House insiders are also here.
Zolan Kanno-Youngs of The New York Times.
Jasmine Wright of NOTUS.
And Laura Barron-Lopez of PBS News Hour.
Zolan, can we just talk about, and take for a minute, that Musk tweet, just to remind everyone, it came down in the middle of the White House press briefing today.
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes.
COLLINS: Like truly, as Karoline Leavitt was taking questions, on this bill, he posted in the middle of that, and just basically went off on it.
KANNO-YOUNGS: It just -- it's emblematic. The fact that it came out during the White House press briefing is more emblematic of how inopportune timing this is, for the White House, right now. That this had passed the House, met a deadline -- self-imposed deadline by Speaker Johnson, but now it's going to the Senate. And really, at this point in President Trump's first term, this is now the priority, to get this bill passed.
Now you have somebody come out and, I mean, you know, just absolutely attack it, assault it, for its merit, say it's far too big. And also, pretty much, say that -- indicate that he would -- that any Republican that would support this should lose their job.
JASMINE WRIGHT, POLITICS REPORTER, NOTUS: Yes.
KANNO-YOUNGS: This is coming from the same guy that also spent millions of dollars, in this past election, that has the power to also sway primaries in a way as well.
I do think it's a little bit ironic also, that Elon Musk did criticize House Republicans for this bill, when also, he is instrumental in the makeup of this House, and this Congress. He spent $20 million in this past election on House races, right? So now, you have him criticizing this bill. But it does not come at an ideal time for the White House.
COLLINS: Yes. I think the question is also, is the White House genuinely worried that this is going to hurt their efforts, as they're trying to woo some of those lawmakers? I mean, Rand Paul, and Elon Musk, and everyone, and Thomas Massie from the House, who was a no, on this--
WRIGHT: Yes.
COLLINS: --they're all in agreement in terms of what this looks like, and saying no, to it.
WRIGHT: Yes. I mean, one thing that the senators, Republican senators, have been in agreement of is that this bill will change. What they haven't had consensus about is how it will change and by how much. And so, the question is whether or not this tweet, or a series of tweets, really, from Elon Musk, throws that lack of consensus even more out of whack. I just think that, when I've been talking to White House officials, over these last week and a half, when Donald Trump has had a couple of days out of the camera, doing down days at the White House, I've been asking them, What has he been doing?
And they've been very clear that he's been calling senators, something, again, that they weren't saying during the House process, making it clear that he's putting in the sweat equity, and really trying to get folks to corral to his side, and get something passed by that July 4th deadline.
So, even if the White House is not necessarily afraid that Elon Musk is going to derail this process, in the end, it's certainly not ideal, it's certainly not opportune, and it also does not swim in the direction that they want all Republicans to swim in, which is towards Donald Trump.
[21:15:00]
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWS HOUR: Yes. I mean, the margins are so thin, and that's the issue, which is that a tweet like -- tweet -- series of tweets like this, from Elon Musk, could embolden those fiscal conservatives, the ones who are not happy with this, adding to the deficit.
What's interesting is that, as they talk about and vent about the fact, that this bill adds to the deficit, they aren't necessarily raising -- talking about tax revenue, and talking about the tax cuts, which even conservative economists will say, tax cuts like that add to the deficit. And they don't want to talk about defense spending.
So those are two of the biggest areas that if they actually wanted to talk about cutting spending, they could potentially do it. Instead, they are focused on Medicaid, the cuts to Medicaid, and they are saying that they want to potentially change other parts of the bill.
COLLINS: Yes.
BARRON-LOPEZ: So, if you lose a few of the fiscal conservatives, who are you going to gain? Because the margins are so thin.
COLLINS: Yes, and also, I mean just the fact that Musk is saying nothing about Trump directly, that -- and Trump has not responded so far from what we've seen on Truth Social. He hasn't even commented on Elon Musk saying this, or, coming out, and what Trump has been touting.
But this also comes as the White House is sending up a package, known as rescissions, to Capitol Hill, which basically means, Here's what DOGE did, that we want you to make real, make formal. Except, DOGE claims it saved tens of billions of dollars, I think, a $170 billion. They're only sending $9 billion up to the Hill to them.
And I asked Russ Vought about that, at the White House, earlier today. This is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Why you're not sending all of the DOGE cuts up to Capitol Hill?
RUSSELL VOUGHT, OMB DIRECTOR: Yes, I've been pretty clear about it. I want to make sure that they pass, and--
COLLINS: But why can't you send all of them and get all of them to pass?
VOUGHT: Because I want to make sure that they -- you take the first tranche, and see if it passes. The wider you do, in terms of a package, the harder it is to pass. And if it doesn't pass, this is the real world, and we will lose flexibility that we have, to use executive tools, to find other ways to make the DOGE cuts permanent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I wonder how Elon Musk hears that.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Absolutely.
And that also seems to indicate some concern, as well, on the part of the White House, of even the chance of getting some of these cuts passed as well. I think it's important to note, a lot of that would be cuts to foreign aid. It's also cuts to PEPFAR as well, which has helped combat AIDS around the world. You've already seen Susan Collins come out and push back against that.
So, I think it indicates some concern, on the White House, of Congress' ability to pass that. But also you're not -- if you're Elon Musk, and you've been trying to defend this process of DOGE, of cutting the government, you're not going to like that answer.
BARRON-LOPEZ: The translation is also that if Congress doesn't pass these cuts, then those cuts aren't permanent. Then essentially--
COLLINS: They all get refunded, essentially.
BARRON-LOPEZ: They all get refunded. They're all reversed. And so, Elon Musk's entire work of DOGE essentially goes away, because these lawsuits are not going to go away, and a lot of the cuts have been paused because of the lawsuit.
WRIGHT: And it calls into question what DOGE does without Elon Musk, right? They no longer have their leader. They no longer have the person that can just call up Donald Trump, and say, Push these things through, give my blessing -- give your blessing to these cuts that I want to do, even though they're going to be controversial. And so, if they're not getting them made permanent in the House, and they're facing injunctions in the courts, why go forward with it?
COLLINS: Yes, and maybe they don't want to vote on it and put their name on it. We'll see.
Great to have all of your reporting, here tonight. Up next, tonight. We do have breaking new details this hour that are just coming into the source, about that horrific antisemitic attack that happened in Boulder, as the community is still reeling tonight from the violence. My next source is the New England Patriots owner, Robert Kraft, who also founded the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: We have some breaking news this hour, as the visas for the family of the man, who was charged in Sunday's antisemitic attack, in Boulder, Colorado have now been revoked by the State Department.
On X tonight, the White House posted this update with, quote, "The wife and five children of illegal alien Mohamed Soliman... have been captured and are now in ICE custody for expedited removal." They added in all-caps, quote, "THEY COULD BE DEPORTED AS EARLY AS TONIGHT."
CNN's Priscilla Alvarez is my source on these developments tonight.
And Priscilla, obviously, this had been something you had reported earlier, about his family being taken into custody. What do we know about this right now, where this stands?
PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this has been fast-moving, over the course of the day. Because, earlier, we had learned that they had been taken into custody. They, being the wife and the five children. Now we are learning that they are putting -- being put on a pathway to deportation.
So, what does this really look like? Well, it depends on how they came in. And what we're learning is that they came in through visas, because the State Department is revoking those visas.
And the reason that that's important, Kaitlan, is because of the way that the deportation proceedings are going to continue, moving forward. If you entered on a visa, you would have to go before an immigration judge. Now, they can move pretty quickly to deport someone, over the course of their immigration hearings.
But generally, the expedited removal that the White House is talking about. Well, if you are admissible to the United States, you were legally allowed to enter, as appears to be the case with this family, then they wouldn't be on those fast-track deportation proceedings. So, you can see how it's going to get a little complicated here, for the administration, as they try to move through this process, quite quickly. And that's exactly what the White House is saying, in their post, by noting that they could be deported as early as tonight.
The other tricky thing with this is how it intersects with the investigation. So, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, earlier today, said that they were going to investigate, quote, To what extent his family knew about this horrific attack.
[21:25:00] So clearly, the Department of Homeland Security is trying to get more information, from the family, as to what they knew, anything more that they can share about their husband, and father. But certainly, as all of this is happening, they are clearly being put on these -- on a pathway to be deported -- to be deported, quite quickly.
COLLINS: Yes. OK. Priscilla Alvarez, keep us updated with what's happening there, and those updates.
A witness of Sunday's horrific attack described to CNN, what he saw that day, and also why he wanted to speak out about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AARON BROOKS, COLORADO ATTACK WITNESS: I don't want to just move on.
I want to make sure that the truth is told, you know? I want to make sure that people know clearly this was an antisemitic attack. I was here. I heard what he said. I heard him clearly say, You're burning my people, or, You burnt my people.
I immediately saw this guy standing here, the guy here, smoke here, blood over here. Smoke coming, literally coming from a human being.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Just awful to hear.
My next source tonight is Patriots' Chairman and CEO, Robert Kraft, who founded the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism.
And it's great to have you here, sir.
I think a lot of people are used to seeing you in, obviously, a much different capacity. But what this moment has done, and what happened in Boulder, has just highlighted a scary pattern that we are seeing, in the last few months, in the United States. I mean, one of the victims here was a Holocaust survivor.
And I wonder what went through your mind, when you heard that another attack on Jewish Americans had happened?
ROBERT KRAFT, CHAIRMAN & CEO, NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS, CEO, THE KRAFT GROUP, FOUNDER, FOUNDATION TO COMBAT ANTISEMITISM: Well, Kaitlan, it's a pleasure to be with you.
And I'll just tell you that there's been three events that have happened that have really shook -- shook me up. What happened to Governor Shapiro in Pennsylvania. What happened, out in D.C., with a couple of young people who were just employees of the embassy in Washington. And then what happened yesterday in Boulder and -- or a couple days ago.
And people are afraid to call it what it really is. That gentleman you just had on, he called it antisemitism right from the start. And I'm very concerned that our political leaders, and other people in the news area, don't report it as blatant antisemitism. And we've let this go on, and it's happened at college campuses now for quite a long time. And we need people to speak up, and call it for what it is.
COLLINS: You started the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism in 2019, after the Tree of Life synagogue attack. That was the deadliest attack on Jews, in American history. I think people might find themselves, tonight, wondering, What should happen next here? What does this look like in a moment like this one? And I wonder what you've heard from people about this.
KRAFT: Well, I'll tell you, wherever I go in America now, people come up to me on the street, and say, I'm scared, I'm afraid to speak out on what my background is. And they thank me for doing it.
And we started this foundation. We saw Charlottesville, in 2017. And then the Tree of Life, in 2018. And in 2019, we got an award, where we had a million dollars, and wanted to find some group we could give it to that was making a difference. And we found out -- found that most groups, we investigated, were either confrontational or academic.
And we wanted to do something that could educate the 80 percent of Americans, who are good people, who just don't understand what's happening. And we are data-driven. We interview substantial number of people, every 90 days, and we try to create ads to get the good Americans to speak up, and be counted.
And because, you know the Jewish people are the canary in the coal mine. The Jew -- the hatred starts there, but it multiplies into every other area. And this, the foundation we started, was because I saw what went on in Germany in the 30s, and I didn't want America to be--
COLLINS: Yes.
KRAFT: --like the 40s in Germany, and.
COLLINS: You're wearing this blue pin, tonight, as you're talking about this, and the work that you've done, and what you think needs to happen, going forward. What can you tell us about that pin?
[21:30:00]
KRAFT: Well, this pin is a symbol of unity and solidarity, sisterhood, brotherhood, all people, arm in arm. One of the leading bankers in America wears it every day. We have a number of sports celebrities, people in Hollywood. We're told, close to 5 million people are doing it.
And we want it to be a symbol, for everyone, who wants to stop the hatred that is going on against so many different groups. And anyone who might like a free Blue Square, just reach out to us, at fcas.org. We're happy to send a free Blue Square to anyone. And I believe, five to 10 years from now, this symbol will be so important, for people who want unity in this country.
COLLINS: Yes, it's a beautiful message.
Robert Kraft, it's great to have your voice on this. Thank you so much for joining us, here on THE SOURCE, tonight.
KRAFT: Thank you for having me.
COLLINS: Absolutely.
Up next. We're going to get a check-in here, in Washington. My bipartisan congressional sources are here, one Republican, one Democrat. What do they have to say about the remarkable back-and-forth today, as some Republicans are now acknowledging, they didn't fully read that bill that they voted on, before doing so.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As President Trump is working the phones, and calling Republicans, and urging them to pass what he is calling the big, beautiful bill. We're learning tonight that some House Republicans who voted for it may not have actually read all of it.
Georgia congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor Greene, wants the Senate to remove a provision in the bill, that yes, she voted for, that would restrict states from regulating artificial intelligence, arguing that it violates states' rights, and saying, quote, "Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279... I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there."
Last week, we heard from Republican congressman, Mike Flood of Nebraska, who said he was shocked and -- shocked a crowd, when he admitted that he had not read portions of the President's bill before voting to pass it.
Also tonight, we're hearing from Republican, Scott Perry, who was sharing Elon Musk's sentiments of this bill, saying that he wished he had a nickel for every time that the Freedom Caucus sounded the alarm, and nobody listened. Perry did not mention there in that tweet that in fact, he also voted yes, on this bill, which passed by a 215-214 margin, with one present vote.
My congressional sources tonight are:
Republican congressman, Tony Gonzales of Texas.
And Democratic congressman, Ro Khanna of California.
Did both of you read this bill? I mean, it was quite lengthy. It was 1,100-ish or so pages, I guess, I should note here.
REP. TONY GONZALES (R-TX): Yes, and what I'd say is, there's not one bill, I think I've ever voted for, that I've agreed a 100 percent with. Every bill either doesn't go far enough or doesn't go far enough -- or goes too far. So, it's not uncommon for members, to not agree with a bill that they voted for.
COLLINS: But what did you make of what Scott Perry was saying tonight, in terms of saying, If I had a nickel for every time that this was a complaint. But then he did vote yes, on it. It wasn't really someone who was, you know -- I mean, they were in the part of the group that was talking to the White House. But they did eventually vote yes, on this.
GONZALES: It's politics. I think a lot of times you have people that are going to say one thing and do another. I mean, that's literally Politics 101.
What I'd like to see is, I like to see people stand up and push back against some of the really terrible things, and make sure a final product, whatever comes out, is indeed that big, beautiful bill that we're all waiting for.
COLLINS: How did Democrats see this? I mean, we're watching a lot of them come out and praise Elon Musk today, now that he's criticizing it, which is not what we've heard from Democrats over the last six months or so.
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Well, first of all, good for Marjorie Taylor Greene. Because I did actually point out this provision that it would -- this bill has a moratorium for 10 years on any state and -- having any regulation on AI, to protect truck drivers' jobs, to protect kids from social media. It was one of the worst provisions. Some of us did talk about it. And I'm glad that she's now speaking about it, because it's a horrible position -- provision, we need to get it out.
Now, look, Elon Musk -- this isn't politics. You've got Jamie Dimon, you've got Ray Dalio, saying that this bill is going to add $3.8 trillion to the deficit. I've known Elon for 15 years. He cares about the deficits. He really wanted to lower them, because of the bond markets, because of the interest rates, and this does the exact opposite. And they're sounding the alarm. And the bond markets are sounding the alarm. Ray Dalio is saying, Be very afraid with the bond markets.
COLLINS: I mean, what are your thoughts on that? And also, actually, what I'm most interested in is Speaker Mike Johnson, and something that is coming out of the White House tonight, too, I should note, saying, basically he's just opposed to this because it goes against his business interests with the electric vehicle credits.
GONZALES: I think Elon is spot-on. I think, and his ability to point out, he should always push back against government bureaucracy. And I love the fact that he's willing to do that, and I hope he never changes. I think when we think of the Constitution, we, the people, we should all be doing that.
Once again, democracy is the worst form of government other than all the other ones, right? It's what Winston Churchill said. So, I think it's important for us to always question, for our political leaders, to always question and make sure, once again, that final product, that gets delivered is, in fact, the talking points that both sides are doing.
[21:40:00] At the end of the day, people want more money in their pockets. They want to feel safe. Why was it -- why was President Trump elected? He was elected because this country was headed down the wrong track. He wanted to put the economy back on track. He's doing that. To keep people safe. The border is secure.
COLLINS: Yes, but do you--
GONZALES: All these things are working.
COLLINS: You say Elon Musk is on point. But do you agree with him that it's an -- a Disgusting abomination, as he put it today?
GONZALES: I agree that there is not one vote I've ever taken that I've said, Yes, that is a perfect bill.
COLLINS: But those aren't the same things.
GONZALES: No, they aren't. No, they aren't. My job isn't to go and -- my job is to vote yes or no. I get three options, when I put that card in the -- in the -- on the House floor. Yes, no, or maybe, right? You can't do maybe. So it's either yes or no. And you make the best product you possibly can. I want more people to push and make sure that final product is indeed delivered for everyone.
KHANNA: Let me -- let me tell you, reconstructive. I heard the earlier interview with Senator Toomey, and he was saying, Oh, we need to extend these tax cuts for the middle-class and the working-class.
How about this? If you extend those tax cuts, for the middle-class and working class, let's just take them away for the billionaires in my district, for the very wealthy. We'd save over $1 trillion on that deficit. That would be a first step.
Look, this isn't politics. You've got people on the right, on the left, saying that we cannot support the kind of deficit spending. They're exploding the deficit for tax breaks for the various wealthiest.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, and that's the real question is, when does it get to the tipping point, if you keep adding to the deficit? I mean, typically, this happens in times of war, or severe economic downturn. That's not happening, right now. So, what happens if you do add to this? And it's not just the Congressional Budget Office. There are real concerns from people about what this could mean.
GONZALES: Am I in the Twilight Zone? I'm hearing Democrats talk about the deficit. Where was this four years ago? Where was this the last four years when--
KHANNA: We--
GONZALES: --Biden was burning cash as fast as he could to prevent against COVID?
Look, I agree. I think we need to tackle the deficit. I think that's an important issue. We need to go line by line, and determine where are our taxpayer dollars going. We also need to grow the economy. And putting more money in our pockets, not in Washington, D.C., should be the priority.
And we should question, just like Elon is doing, question every line item. What DOGE has done, I think, is incredible. And I think it's important for Congress to codify a lot of these cuts, as they identify them (ph).
COLLINS: So, why is the White House only sending 9 -- I don't -- no one can really explain. I mean, Russ Vought did try this earlier. But why they're only sending $9 billion? Would you -- are you fully prepared to vote on an all of $175 billion that DOGE says it cut, if the White House send it up to the Capitol?
GONZALES: What I want is -- yes. What I want to see is I want to see the Appropriations Committee get back to appropriating. It is our -- I sit on the Appropriations Committee. We are the original DOGE Committee.
It is our job to literally go line by line and determine, what do you do here? Do you need more money? Because they're programs that are working, right? We shouldn't cut programs, pull the rug out from programs that work. We should add to that. And the programs that don't work should go away. That's why we were elected. That's what we should be debating and discussing.
A lot of times, the politics gets in the way. But I'd like to see the Appropriations Committee not just go in there, and hit yes, and say, It's a wonderful thing, but actually do the work.
KHANNA: Look, I just think we need the facts. We have a debt deficit, right now, that's 7 percent our GDP. This will take the deficit to 8 to 8.5 percent of GDP, in peacetime. We haven't had that.
The average deficits for the last 50 years have been 4 percent, and it's to fund tax breaks for the very, very wealthy. And if you just -- 83 percent of the tax breaks are going to the richest folks. The billionaires in my district don't need it. With $14 trillion, they're going to do AI, they're going to do just fine. Let's get the fiscal house in order.
GONZALES: Yes.
KHANNA: And I hope the Senate is going to make some changes.
COLLINS: We'll see--
GONZALES: I'd say this, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: --what the Senate does.
GONZALES: Look, while we're talking about this, there's fires, there's hurricanes, there's droughts, there's screwworms out in West -- out in Mexico that are on the way to knock out the beef industry. There are a lot of issues that Congress should be tackling. We're not tackling all the important ones.
COLLINS: Well so, I mean, I think people might say that, Why are you doing something else? I mean, you're two members of Congress right here.
GONZALES: Yes, and we're--
COLLINS: You're not tackling the issues that you think are important. Why not?
GONZALES: I think we are doing that. And I think in our committees, we're doing that. We're bringing it to light on it. And it's important to continue to do that.
And, like I said, Who's talking about screwworms? They are -- they will, once it hit -- once this parasite hits the United States, and you can't get beef. They'll talk about cyber, once a cyber intrusion hits, and all of a sudden you can't get gas at the gas line.
COLLINS: Congressmen, great to have you both.
GONZALES: Thanks.
COLLINS: We love to have people from both sides of the aisle.
Here tonight, also up next. It was this arrest that happened outside that ICE detention center, we covered here, led the Mayor of Newark today to sue a former top Trump attorney. Mayor Ras Baraka is my source tonight.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the Democratic mayor of New Jersey's largest city is suing the state's top federal prosecutor, who also happens to be President Trump's former personal attorney.
Newark Mayor, Ras Baraka, claims that Alina Habba targeted him with, quote, Malicious prosecution, after he was arrested outside a federal immigration detention center, last month.
That day, the Mayor, who was running for governor, I should note, joined three House Democrats, to visit Newark's controversial immigration facility, for an oversight tour. Their visit ultimately turned into a total frenzy of pushing, shoving, between federal officials, lawmakers, and protesters.
[21:50:00]
You can see Mayor Baraka here. He's wearing the red tie and the brown coat. In the middle of the scrum, his arms are being held behind his back, by federal officials, as they were placing him under arrest. That arrest led to a trespassing charge, which the interim U.S. Attorney, Habba, abruptly dropped just two weeks later. Now, Baraka's lawsuit accuses Habba of a false arrest, and a violation of his constitutional rights, and defamation.
My source tonight is the Newark mayor himself, Ras Baraka.
And it's great to have you here, sir.
Some people may look at this, and say, If the charge was dropped, what made you sue Alina Habba now?
MAYOR RAS BARAKA, (D) NEWARK, NEW JERSEY: Well, obviously, we had to get through the first part of that, which was to make sure that these charges were dismissed. And they were.
After that, I think that they should at least had the decency to apologize, to write a letter, to say that this was unfounded, and they shouldn't have arrested me in the first place. Especially, after all of the things they said on TV. Right after that, the things that they've tweeted -- they tweeted, while I was being arrested. I think that they owe me, and the people of Newark, an apology.
COLLINS: And we haven't seen Alina Habba respond to this, since you filed. She must have gotten wind of your lawsuit coming, because she posted, last night, and said, My advice to the mayor - feel free to join me in prioritizing violent crime and public safety. Far better use of time for the great citizens of New Jersey.
Do you expect that you'll get that apology?
BARAKA: I don't know. I hope so.
And I actually agree with her, right there. We should be spending our time. That's what I told her, when she first came to the state, to be the U.S. attorney -- interim U.S. attorney, that we should be doing that. Not talking about the governor, or the attorney general, or the senator, or making up statements about Newark.
That, you know, our efforts in Newark, with all of the U.S. attorneys that have been there, both Republican and Democrat, have been stellar. Our relationships have been great. We reduced violence in the city by 61 percent, by the help of the, you know, our federal partners.
This is the first time that we have this kind of ongoing dispute. We don't ask each other who we voted for, for president, when we need help, reducing violence and crime in our city. This has turned into a MAGA show here in the State of New Jersey, and this needs to stop. It's unwarranted, and it's a distraction.
COLLINS: And when it comes to all of this, and people look at this. We had you on the last time, right after you had been arrested, and people were talking about that. The lawsuit was filed a week before the Democratic primary. You are running for governor in that.
I wonder what you would say to someone, who's watching this tonight, and wants to know if there was a political calculation in the filing of this lawsuit from you.
BARAKA: Well, my lawyers filed the lawsuit at the time that they thought it was necessary to file it. I didn't have any say-so, on when it was going to be filed, or what day it was going to be filed on.
And ultimately, bad comes with the good. I mean, people jump out on me on the street, these kind of wild, right individuals who say, why am I defending criminals and murderers? A woman chased my car. We've gotten death threats in the city. And so, this isn't -- hasn't been all peaches and cream. Because we're doing what we're doing.
I mean, the city -- this -- the country is deeply divided on this issue, and so is the state. And so, while you do get praise, you also get some folks who don't like what's happening, and are very aggressive with it.
COLLINS: Yes. Mayor, please keep us updated on what happens next here, and if any other lawsuits that you plan to file, and we'll have you back very soon.
Thank you so much, Mayor Ras Baraka. Appreciate your time tonight.
BARAKA: Thanks for having me.
COLLINS: Up next. The Knicks finally made it to the Eastern Conference Finals, but they just fired their head coach. Why, and why now?
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Finally tonight, three things that you may have missed.
Earlier today, I asked the White House about a story that we've been following, very closely, here on THE SOURCE.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: On immigration, the other day that the Homeland Security Secretary said, and I'm quoting her now, that, an illegal alien threatened to assassinate President Trump and highlighted his arrest. A man has now admitted to framing him, saying that he wrote the letter that the DHS Secretary, Kristi Noem, posted online.
Last I checked, before I came into the room, that post was still up from DHS. Does the White House expect them to issue a clarification, or a correction, on that front?
LEAVITT: We can ask the Department of Homeland Security and get back to you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: When CNN asked for an update, the Department of Homeland Security sent us the same comment that it shared at the beginning of all of this, stating that the investigation into the threat is ongoing, and quote, "Over the course of the investigation," the migrant was determined to be in the country illegally and that he had a criminal record. He will remain in custody. Also tonight, three days into Pride Month, the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, has ordered the U.S. Navy to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, named after the gay rights icon who once served as a diving officer during the Korean War. Milk was one of the first out-gay politicians elected to office, here in the United States. But now, after just three and a half years in the service, Hegseth is taking the rare step to give that ship a new name.
[22:00:00]
And if you're quiet enough tonight, you might still hear a Knicks fan heart shattering into a million pieces, after they have just fired their head coach, Tom Thibodeau, after a 51-season win and a playoff run that had the streets of New York City in an orange and blue Bing Bong-fueled hysteria for the last few weeks.
No word yet on who the team is going to tap, to pick up those pieces. But there is a big question tonight about how do you justify firing the coach who won four playoff series, in three years, when the Knicks had only won a single playoff series in the prior 22.
Thanks so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
