Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
DOJ Seeking To Unseal Epstein Investigation Docs That Only Contain Testimony From A Detective And FBI Agent; Kamala Harris Will Not Run For California Governor In 2026; "Project 2025" Architect Paul Dans Challenges Sen. Graham In SC. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired July 30, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --he really was beloved there.
Sharon Osbourne, his wife of more than four decades, was surrounded by her children, and other close family members, as she acknowledged the outpouring of love for her husband.
Ozzy Osbourne died last week at the age of 76.
That's all for us. I'll see you, tomorrow morning, at 7 o'clock Eastern, alongside Kate Bolduan, for "CNN NEWS CENTRAL."
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, what the Justice Department says is in the Epstein grand jury statements and documents that likely won't satisfy the MAGA base.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, there are new indications that the White House's plan to extricate the President from the Jeffrey Epstein controversy might be starting to crack.
The Justice Department told a federal judge that the grand jury transcripts, it's asking to unseal, include testimony from just two witnesses. And both of those witnesses were law enforcement officials. No direct testimony from the victims themselves, no client list, as it's been called.
And the revelations about this grand jury, and what it's going to potentially come out, come because a federal judge in New York was asking the government to supply more specific details, before he makes a ruling on whether or not this information should even be disclosed.
If it is released, will testimony from two law enforcement officials be enough to satisfy the President's base? That remains to be seen tonight.
But it comes, as the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, says the President is doing everything he can to ensure maximum transparency.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I'm pushing for, aggressively, for the full release of everything that is possible. And by the way, so is the President. He has said the same thing. We're using every mechanism within our power to do that, and to do it as quickly as possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Of course, for the Speaker himself, a reminder that he essentially shut down the House, rather than take a vote, that would force the release of the Epstein files. And the Speaker says the President is aggressively pushing himself, urging every mechanism within his power, when it comes to these documents.
But other than those grand jury materials, the Justice Department does have the power to release nearly everything else, with redactions, to protect the victims who are in those documents.
The President for his half on -- after mishearing a question today that was initially about the Russia investigation, keep in mind, instead answered about Jeffrey Epstein, and repeated his stance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, I want everything to be shown. You know, as long as it's fair and reasonable, I think it will be shown, and it should be shown. And I think he feels that way, and I think Pam feels that way.
But it's got to be, you know, it's got to be stuff that really doesn't hurt people unfairly, because you have so many people involved. And if they can do that in a fair way, I think it's great. I think it's really great.
It's -- the whole thing is a scam. It's a scam set up by the Democrats, and they love talking about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Democrats were definitely talking about it today. The Democrats, on the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, invoked a rarely-used law to request that the Justice Department provide them with the Epstein-related files by mid-August.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Our request covers all documents, files, evidence and other materials in possession of the DOJ, the FBI related to the case of United States versus Jeffrey Epstein.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And tonight, my colleague, Paula Reid, is reporting via a source familiar with the thinking inside the Justice Department, that the Department is not expected to comply with that demand that you heard there from Senator Schumer. That could tee up a legal clash between Senate Democrats and the Trump administration, which would prolong even further the story that the President very clearly wants to go away.
My White House insiders are here tonight. Along with CNN Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig, also joining us back.
And Alex Isenstadt, when you look at this, and in terms of how the White House is handling this, what they're looking for. I mean, what have you heard from officials, especially, if this grand jury testimony is only going to include, potentially just hearing from two law enforcement officials.
ALEX ISENSTADT, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER, AXIOS: Yes, it's pretty clear the White House is going to have to do more to quell the uproar. And you have members of Congress, senators, who are going to be back at home, in August, hearing from constituents. They're very amped up about this.
The Republican base is very amped up about this. You have majorities, in polling, show majorities of Trump voters want more information released. And so, you're going to see pressure on the White House, for members of Congress, to release more information. And it's likely, it seems likely, the White House didn't have to do more to release information. The question is, is what is enough?
[21:05:00]
COLLINS: Yes, and when it comes to what is enough, I mean, the White House does not seem to yet have an answer to that question.
I mean, I did think it was notable to hear how the President answered that today. It was about this allegation about burn bags and the Russia investigation documents, and instead it turned into his stance on the release of these files.
MICHAEL SCHERER, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: The Washington Post had a poll, this week, that showed more than 80 percent of MAGA Republicans want all the files released.
And so, when you hear the Speaker say, Everything, or you hear the President say, I think everything should get out? They're not really talking about everything. If they were talking about everything, they wouldn't have put out the have put out the memo, weeks ago, in which Pam Bondi said, We have hundreds of gigabytes of data, we have physical evidence, and we're not releasing any of it. I mean, that was the--
COLLINS: Any of it.
SCHERER: Any of it. Yes, that was the FBI statement, It's closed, there's no more perpetrators, there's no more information. And now they've -- they focused everybody on to this grand jury conversation.
Grand jury conversation is, infinitesimal fraction, and it's also the part that is hardest to get out, because you need a judge's permission to put out the grand jury transcript. They have these documents in their -- in their possession, right now, and they've made no move to put them out.
COLLINS: Yes, and Elie, speaking of this being up to a judge here. I mean, the Justice Department memo says that the two witnesses in this proceeding are the same FBI agent from the Epstein grand jury proceedings, and a detective with the NYPD who was a Task Force officer with the FBI's Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force. That was during the Maxwell grand jury proceedings.
I think some people might look at that and say, I'm not sure if that's enough.
But my other question is, does a judge see the MAGA backlash and say, Well, that's going to make me release this information? Or are they hesitant to do so?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: A judge should not care at all about MAGA backlash or any media or political backlash.
And Kaitlan, to the question that has been raised, how could there be only two witnesses here? I think normal people are asking that exact question. The answer is, because this is how we Feds, I'm a former Fed, indict cases.
The grand jury rules are very generous. They say that, We don't have to actually call any witnesses, any firsthand witnesses or victims. Instead, what we do, in the vast majority of cases, what it looks like they did here, you call your FBI agent who's been working the case. He or she gives a broad summary to the grand jury, and you walk out of there with an indictment.
And I think to further manage expectations, if we do see these transcripts, unclear what a judge is going to do, I think people are going to think they're complete duds.
First of all, I expect, having done this myself, they're just going to track the indictments. Maybe put a little more meat on the bones. But that's generally how you do it.
The other thing is, we are almost certainly not going to learn from these transcripts about any other wrongdoers. I went back and looked at the indictments today. Neither of them, the Maxwell or the Epstein indictment, mentions any co-conspirator, specifically by name, or even generically, Co-conspirator 1, 2, 3.
So, I think if these come out, and it's not clear they will, they're going to be very disappointing and not very enlightening.
COLLINS: Well, and with the information that the Deputy Attorney General ostensibly got, during his nine to 10 hours with Ghislaine Maxwell, last week, I mean, what options does the DOJ have for that information? HONIG: So, that's also a great question. I think we will learn the substance of what Ghislaine Maxwell told Todd Blanche. Now, ordinarily, by the way, you would never publicize that, as a prosecutor. You just sat down with a very sensitive witness. However, I think it's clear Todd Blanche went in there for a reason. I'm sure he had a good sense of what she was going to say beforehand.
Usually, again, normally, you would have an FBI agent there, taking notes, who would write up what we call a 302, which is a summary. It could be that DOJ releases that 302. It could be, DOJ releases some sort of statement. It could be someday, Ghislaine Maxwell is actually subpoenaed and immunized and has to testify.
But I don't doubt, I think we absolutely will learn, at least Todd Blanche's account of what was said in that room someday.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, and Alex, the Senate Democrats are now getting involved in this.
Obviously, Mike Johnson was saying he's done everything. I think Thomas Massie would disagree with that, since they got sent home early, basically for summer recess, to avoid taking a vote on it.
But Senate Democrats are now getting involved in this. It's this arcane 1928 rule, I believe, that came about--
ISENSTADT: Yes.
COLLINS: --and because of corruption in the administration back then. But I think the question is, even if this is just a legal fight, I mean, it's going to keep it in the headlines.
ISENSTADT: Yes, and, that's the idea, right? For the first time, it feels like Democrats have Trump a little bit on defense here, right?
COLLINS: On probably the least expected front ever.
ISENSTADT: Yes, and -- and Trump is struggling to get out of this, and Democrats have had a hard time finding a message, effectively, this year, to use against the White House. And finally, they have traction on something, in part because they're having -- they're getting help from people on the other side of the aisle who are unhappy with the White House.
But you're right. Democrats want to keep this going, and they want to diminish enthusiasm that Republicans have, heading into the midterm elections. So, there's really nothing to lose for them by putting this out there.
COLLINS: Yes, we heard from the Majority Leader, John Thune, saying, this is going to result in a protracted legal fight.
[21:10:00]
I mean, and we have pushed back on the Democrats who have come on the show to say, Well, you didn't -- you could have done this under President Biden, and this was -- there was not a clamoring for this back then.
SCHERER: They're really enjoying this moment. And I think -- I don't think you can look at what Schumer did today and not say it's political. It's clearly what it is. But they are tapping into a real anger in the country. And again, it's going to come down to, do the American people trust the leaders of the Justice Department to tell them what's happening.
They've already said, the leaders of Justice Department have already said, There's nothing here to see. You don't need to see anything more. No one else did anything wrong. There's no blackmail. There was nothing there.
The American people are clearly saying, That was not enough. We want to see more.
And so, now you're going to have a process in which they're going to put out more information. But the American people are still going to not believe that -- that what's been put out is there. And so, Democrats will be able to continue to make hay about it. And if they regain control of the House, in a couple of years, they're going to have new levers to actually put some of this information out.
COLLINS: Yes, all right. Thanks to everyone for that.
Also joining us tonight is Maggie Haberman, who is the White House Correspondent for The New York Times, and the Author of "Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America."
And Maggie, I wonder if you're hearing what I'm hearing from White House officials in terms of just, even just Trump allies, a surprise that they have not been able to get a handle on this, that this is now over a month in the making of something that has been dogging the President.
And they typically are pretty good at pushing back, or changing the subject, or having a narrative here, and have struggled to do so with this.
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUTHOR, "CONFIDENCE MAN": Yes, Kaitlan, look, what I'm hearing is fatigue, frankly, on the part of White House officials, and people close to the President, who are not in the administration. But not just fatigue with Democrats talking about it, or podcasters talking about it, or Joe Rogan talking about it. The President himself keeps talking about it.
As you noted earlier on the show, he answered a question, now maybe he didn't hear the question, about Russia investigation documents, earlier today, by talking about Jeffrey Epstein.
He provided on Air Force One, yesterday, on his way back from the -- from Europe, new information that had not been heard before. He has been telling a specific story, about a break with Jeffrey Epstein, for many, many years, and now he started talking about how Jeffrey Epstein, quote-unquote, Stole workers who were extremely young women, at least in one case, from his employ at Mar-a-Lago. So that is helping keep this alive too.
COLLINS: Well, and in terms of what he has been saying about this, over what he was asked today, what we asked him, last night, what he said yesterday. I just want to play that for people, so they can hear the President, in his own words, on this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: He took people that worked for me, and I told him don't do it anymore, and he did it, and I said, stay the hell out of here.
COLLINS: Mr. President, you said earlier that Jeffrey Epstein was stealing young women. You said Jeffrey Epstein was stealing young women from your spa. Did that raise alarm bells for you?
TRUMP: Be quiet.
COLLINS: Did that raise alarm bells for you?
REPORTER: Mr. President, what do you think Epstein was stealing those women for?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It is notable to see -- I mean, obviously he has the prerogative to answer whatever questions he wants or not answer them.
HABERMAN: Sure.
COLLINS: But it is notable when he engages on Air Force One, and he's telling these stories about his history with him, and then not answering the follow-ups about what exactly happened.
HABERMAN: Look, I think that he can't find a way to stop talking about it, and also doesn't want to keep talking about it.
I will say, Kaitlan, the word, Stole, is going to land very poorly with a lot of women, and certainly a lot of women who were victims of Jeffrey Epstein. And so, I'm not sure how, again, providing new information in his own voice, unsolicited, about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, I don't know how this calms this down.
COLLINS: And what do you make of this revelation about the grand jury testimony only having two witnesses in it, and they're both law enforcement officials?
And I think what the MAGA base is expecting, and what has been built up here, is this highly, you know, high-profile client list, all of these details. That does not seem, from what Elie just laid out there, to be what would be in here.
HABERMAN: It's -- we always knew it wasn't going to be in there, Kaitlan. We always knew this was going to be a fraction of any evidence.
And to be clear, we don't know that there is a client list. This client list idea was generated, I believe, by allies of the President. It may not be there.
But it is worth remembering that the administration put out files related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and there were people's Social Security numbers that inadvertently went out, leaving people whose Social Security numbers went out because, as we were told, these went out fast because the President wanted transparency. He does have the ability to put these out.
And your point is correct. Democrats are, you know, they were fully able to put this out themselves, if they were so interested in this topic when President Biden was in office.
But it is President Trump's advisers and allies who have also kept this going.
COLLINS: Well and on the transparency note, this is something the White House always touts. They say they're the most transparent. We hear it pretty much at every press briefing.
HABERMAN: Yes.
[21:15:00]
COLLINS: The President himself has said it, and they talk about the access that people get to the President. I mean, that's a fair point in terms of him answering questions.
HABERMAN: It's true.
COLLINS: But I do wonder how it sits with the MAGA base, if they've promised transparency, and then they don't end up releasing what they told them they'd release?
HABERMAN: Right, look, I mean, again, this isn't -- this is primarily a self-inflicted story, and a self-inflicted wound, that they are dealing with, and they are struggling to get out of it.
It is absolutely true that President Trump, especially by comparison to President Biden, is more accessible. But that has not much to do with whether they're releasing information that they themselves set the bar for.
COLLINS: What do you make of the handling of the Ghislaine Maxwell aspect of this in terms of, yesterday, she's offering to testify to Congress, but with all these caveats, including immunity. And just the White House's view of the Justice Department's sit-down with her, and where that could ultimately end up.
HABERMAN: Look, there is not unanimity of thought on how to handle any of this. The idea was that this would be, you know, We're going to the source, and we're trying to get information.
Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer, David Markus, is widely seen as a very good lawyer, in Florida, in particular, and so he is trying to get the best deal for his client. But whether this is actually going to settle anything down, I think, is pretty unclear right now. There are a number of White House officials who would just like all of this to stop, and who did not love the move of going to Ghislaine Maxwell.
COLLINS: Yes, I think -- I've heard from some who say, Why are we not talking about the economic news? Why is this not breaking through more, and instead this is?
HABERMAN: That's right.
COLLINS: Does it stand out to you that Trump has not ruled out--
HABERMAN: That's right.
COLLINS: --pardoning her?
HABERMAN: Yes, it stands out because I think that he is open to pardoning her, and I think he's open to giving her a grant of clemency of some kind.
Now, you could see some of the President's allies, trying to suggest that Ghislaine Maxwell is a victim. I think that the Trump Justice Department of his first term, I think, would not have seen it that way. Certainly, the Biden Justice Department didn't.
It's unclear to me how much the President's base would tolerate in terms of a clemency grant to her. There are a lot of women, who have ended up in trafficking -- sex trafficking situations, who indeed, you know, they're -- these are complicated cases, but I'm not sure how much sympathy there would be. And we've heard a lot of Republican lawmakers say they don't think it's a good idea.
COLLINS: Yes. Maggie Haberman, everyone else, great reporting. Thanks for joining us.
Up next here. The former Vice President Kamala Harris just made a major decision about her own political future and what it means for the Democratic Party. David Axelrod and my insiders are going to join us next.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, there is growing speculation about former Vice President Kamala Harris' political future, and whether or not she has her eyes on 2028, after she announced today that one race she will not be entering next year is for Governor of California.
Harris said today, quote, "For now, my leadership - and public service - will not be in elected office. I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans." As for those plans, a source who spoke with Harris, tells CNN, that in the aftermath of her loss to President Trump, part of what Harris wants to do is help Democrats in the midterms, next year, and that she felt that she could have the biggest impact from leading from the outside.
My sources tonight are:
Edward-Isaac Dovere, CNN's Senior Political Reporter.
Kristen Soltis Anderson, Republican strategist and pollster.
And the David Axelrod, former senior adviser to President Obama.
And Axe, I just wonder what you make of this statement, if you were surprised by what Harris decided.
DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: I wasn't particularly surprised by it. When I saw it, I thought of something that my old pal, James Carville, once said, which is, Running for president is like sex, you don't just do it once and forget about it. Kamala Harris has run for president twice, in 2020. And in 2024, she came within a point and a half of the presidency. And running for Governor of California, as powerful a position as it is, would be a step back. So, it wasn't surprising to me.
And it's clear that you read her statement that she is setting herself up to run. And Kaitlan, she will begin as the polling leader in any race for president, just by tint of having been the nominee, the last time. But a lot of Democrats want to turn the page on all of that and look forward. And so, it's not going to be easy for her. But it wouldn't have been a slam-dunk in a governor's race, either, and losing a governor's race would have been the end of her political career.
COLLINS: Yes, I think that's a good point in terms of the calculation here.
And when you talk to people around her, as they were making this decision, and you did a lot of reporting on this today with our colleagues, what was their sense of what she weighed in this moment? Was it what Axe laid out there?
EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yes, look, she weighed whether she wanted to do the job.
The job of Governor of California is a big job with a lot to it. But it's also going to be really tough job, especially in the years ahead. They're going to be a lot of state budget cuts, things that Gavin Newsom has already been doing in his last year and a half on the job.
And it meant that she was going to have to prove herself, also on the campaign trail, in making sure that she was making nice with every union, or every interest group in California, to show that she wasn't just treating it as a fallback option. That was not what was appealing to her.
And the people that I talked to who talked to her in the last couple of days, that she was coming to this final decision, said that she is not for sure running for president. She may not run for president.
[21:25:00]
She asked aides, in the last couple of weeks, to put together memos with options for a Political Action Committee, which would support other candidates, for a 501(c)(4) that she might start that would be about building up democratic institutions, small-d democratic institutions, and also just maybe working on issues that would get her out there, be sort of listening to people--
COLLINS: Yes.
DOVERE: --but not in a political sense.
That said, one of the memos also was a potential calendar of southern state stops that would be about teasing a presidential run.
COLLINS: Well, and I think the question is, as Axe points out, if she entered in this into this field, she might have a polling bump. But what does her popularity look like with Democrats right now? Because, based on where we look right now, 2028 is going to be a very crowded field on both sides of the aisle.
KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST & POLLSTER: The problem Kamala Harris is going to have is going to have is that the 2024 election is one that Democrats would rather forget. They don't really want to relive it again.
And even though, in my data, most Democrats don't hold Kamala Harris solely or even primarily responsible for the debacle that was 2024, it's still a reminder that she was perhaps not the most talented political athlete, that she still has some of those positions from her past, especially if she had run for governor again, this time, trying to win a Democratic primary. Do you just relive all of that, I've got to pander to my progressive base? Stuff that made it so hard for her in 2024.
COLLINS: Yes, which caught up with her in 2024.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: Yes.
DOVERE: Yes, and she is going to have to relive some of it. She's got a book coming out in a couple months, and there's going to be a book tour.
And one of the things that I talked to people, who have been dealing with it -- with her, is that she really struggled with what she was going to say about Joe Biden, about regrets about the campaign, how much she was going to be revealing, how much she was going to give people what they want, in terms of the mea culpa, or saying things about Joe Biden that maybe -- that people assume she saw behind-the- scenes, whether or not she actually did. COLLINS: Yes.
DOVERE: And that's -- that's going to be part of what -- part of what the fall will hold anyway. And now, it will be in that way, but without her being running for governor at the same time.
COLLINS: Yes, and if she's doing that, Axe, while focusing on the 2026 midterms, and what this is going to look like, and how she can help Democrats.
I mean, this comes as we're hearing from Republicans, in Texas, putting out their first draft of the new congressional map that proposes these new district lines. It could flip five Democrat seats, next year. That would be a mid-decade redistricting.
I mean, it's not going to be an easy midterms, necessarily, in terms of what this is looking at, as you're hearing these other threats for redistricting as well.
AXELROD: Yes, well, it's going to be a Battle Royale. Obviously, the President is eager not to have a chamber of Congress looking over his shoulder. He doesn't want that accountability, and he'll do whatever he can, to try and stop this.
This is an extraordinary thing to ask a state. I mean, the Texans didn't come up with this idea. The President called the Governor and said, I want you to do this. And they're doing it. And they're doing it because they have a three-vote margin in the House. Very, very slim. History suggests that they'll lose more seats than that, the incumbent party usually does. So, they're trying to stack the deck.
What they're also going to do is potentially launch an arms race in terms of redistricting. Governor Newsom in California, who also is likely running for President, has suggested that he's going to take the steps necessary to try and redistrict California. And it's more difficult there because they have a different system there that would require the voters to change the system before 2026, but -- and you see some rumblings in New York.
There will be a big push, among Democrats, not to simply allow Texas to do what it's doing, without some comparable action in states where Democrats think they can pick up states.
So once again, Donald Trump is shattering a democratic norm, democratic small-d, that's going to be hard to reassemble after 2026, if Texas moves forward.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, if Texas moves forward, these other states, and we do see this arms race.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, is this just the new normal?
SOLTIS ANDERSON: Well, the reason we're having this conversation at all is because Donald Trump, for better or worse, I mean, he did really well with Latino voters in Texas, to where, in 2016, Hillary Clinton wins 61 percent of the Latino vote in that state.
You fast forward eight years, Donald Trump is winning them by, I believe, double-digits. It's just extraordinary. And so, that real sea change in the politics of not just Texas, but Latino voters across the country, is what's making that possible.
And in states like California, New York, Illinois, some of these states that have been making this noise, they're already also gerrymandered beyond recognition. I mean, a state like California, Kamala Harris won 58 percent of the vote in that state, but Democrats hold 82 percent of the congressional seats there. You have kind of the same dynamic in Illinois, same dynamic in New York. So, can they squeeze a few more seats out? Possibly. But those states are already pretty gerrymandered--
COLLINS: Yes.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: --in favor of the Democrats.
COLLINS: And definitely sounds like they're going to try.
Great to have all of you here.
[21:30:00]
Up next for us here. Speaking of seats and what that's going to look like. The architect of Project 2025 is now running for office, challenging one of President Trump's biggest allies. We're going to speak to him about his race, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Paul Dans may not be a household name, but he is the architect of the plan that Democrats used as a rallying cry, during the 2024 election. And of course, you've likely heard of that, Project 2025.
[21:35:00]
You saw President Trump distance himself from the conservative playbook, during the election. But a CNN review, earlier this year, found that a lot of the actions he's taken, since he retook the White House, aligned with the goals that were actually laid out in Project 2025.
Now, its author, Paul Dans, has announced a primary challenge to longtime Trump ally, and South Carolina Republican, Senator Lindsey Graham.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL DANS, (R) SC SENATE CANDIDATE, CHALLENGING SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, "PROJECT 2025" ARCHITECT: You are a 70-year-old, childless warmonger with no stake in this country's future.
(CHEERING) (APPLAUSE)
DANS: Our kids deserve better, and that's why I'm here.
June 9th, 2026, will be Independence Day for South Carolina.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
DANS: We are going to retire Lindsey Graham once and for all.
(APPLAUSE)
DANS: As my favorite president would say, Lindsey, you're fired.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Responding to Dans' challenge, Senator Graham says that he will have a, quote, Spirited debate with any challengers. And when asked if he's confident that President Trump -- he'll keep President Trump's backing of him, Graham told CNN, quote, "I don't think. I know."
My source tonight is South Carolina Senate candidate, Paul Dans.
And it's great to have you here.
Obviously, you're going to be running as the underdog. Lindsey Graham has faced a bunch of challenges -- challengers before. Why do you think this time will be different?
DANS: Well, this time we're going to vet Lindsey Graham.
And Lindsey Graham, to be sure, has nothing to do with South Carolina values. He is all about endless war, endless spending, endless government. Back home in South Carolina, we are about God, family and country. But Lindsey has long since detached from that. He is the epicenter of the swamp. He's the very reason that MAGA came into existence.
COLLINS: But when you've said before that -- and you're running for this, and why you're running -- that he's not sufficiently loyal to Trump? I think some people might be watching and saying, I don't know, I think Lindsey Graham is pretty loyal to Trump.
DANS: Well, you should just go back to this very seat, 2017. He probably came in here 10 or 15 times, always berating the President, questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election, peddling the Russia hoax. And he tried to flip.
This past Sunday, he was -- he was all Ums and Ahs, when he was showing those clips, and said, Now Lindsey, you shed your skin and you're back to so-called MAGA thing. The bottom line is he can't be trusted, he is a scorpion, and the President needs a new golfing buddy. COLLINS: The President is already backing him. He's given him his total endorsement. He just posted a picture of them golfing, actually, the other day, for Lindsey Graham's birthday, I believe.
And the person who ran Trump's campaign, Chris LaCivita, is helping advise Lindsey Graham on this. We asked them for a statement about your run, and Chris LaCivita said that you parachuted yourself into the State of South Carolina, in direct opposition to President Trump's longtime friend and ally in the Senate, Lindsey Graham. Like everything Paul Dans starts, this too will end prematurely.
What's your response to him?
DANS: Well, look, the Graham campaign got knocked off their block today, and they are just fumbling around. That's what we call in South Carolina, a bunch of foolishness.
We moved there eight years ago. We got married there, 20 years ago. And what brought me to South Carolina? I fell in love with a beautiful southern girl. I came to the state, for all the right reasons, a woman, my mother-in-law, you know? We had four kids. Actually, this was two kids ago. I know it's hard for Lindsey to measure time by kids, but that's how us, dads, do it.
And we wanted. We came -- we could have lived anywhere in the United States, but we came for the family, for the values, in South Carolina.
COLLINS: You keep bringing up his -- the fact that he does not have children. You called him childless, in your launch, and said that he has no stake in the future of the United States.
DANS: Yes.
COLLINS: I think some people might hear that and say, Just because you don't have kids doesn't mean you're not invested in the future of the United States.
DANS: Well, if you're wanting to send other people's kids off to war, to send boots on the ground in Iran? You better know what you're doing to other people's families.
People have spent a lifetime nurturing, raising, loving their family. And to cavalierly say, Let's finish it, after you started two endless wars already, three really, and your Senate record is poxed with $30 trillion in debt? Each of these foreign wars not only breaks families apart, and we end up in the exact same place where we started, but it makes this--
COLLINS: But I think you can criticize his stance on intervention, and what the United States' role is on the -- on the world stage. But saying, You don't have a decision, or You can't make a -- have a position on U.S. foreign policy, because you don't have kids?
DANS: Well, if you're--
COLLINS: It's going to raise a lot of eyebrows. [21:40:00]
DANS: Well, you know we -- on Sunday mornings, in South Carolina, we go to the church. We don't come in here and talk about the next country America should bomb. But that's what Lindsey does.
And look, the bill that everyone pays, why can't the younger generation get ahead? They need a piece of the rock. But this foreign adventurism, where we spend trillions of dollars abroad? That's paid by our kids, their future kids.
Every month, when you get your credit card statement, and you're being charged 20 percent interest? That's because the United States government is borrowing money and crowding out private lenders. Those private lenders are charging you 20 percent, you'll never get ahead.
This crushing inflation at the supermarket? That's Lindsey Graham. That's what he did with all this spending. He's the Budget Chairman after all.
COLLINS: I mean, he was a senator. I mean, he wasn't in charge -- he wasn't President of the United States. He wasn't the Senate Majority Leader.
DANS: No, he was the handmaiden to Joe Biden. He was the rat who went in and made sure Joe Biden got things done. He's always been the intermediary. He loaded the judiciary with Biden's picks, and they're the very ones stopping the Trump agenda.
COLLINS: I think Joe Biden might push back on the idea that Lindsey Graham was -- was--
DANS: Well, I wish he could push back. I don't know if he has the mental stability to do that.
COLLINS: But can I -- but can I ask you? You are selling yourself as a, and pitching yourself to voters, as a huge advocate of President Trump's. You just called him your favorite president there, in your launch speech.
DANS: Yes.
COLLINS: Your website has a picture of you standing next to him.
What is your relationship with President Trump?
DANS: Well, I've been a Trump fan since the jump. And when I say the jump, I'm not talking about 2016. I wanted to run in 2012.
Hey, I even go back to the Trump Shuttle and Studio 54. Not that I went to Studio 54, but I remember the date. My family grew up in New York. They had nothing, and they were immigrants. And people like Trump were the sign that we could get past the malaise. Ultimately, that city crumbled and--
COLLINS: But directly, what is your relationship with him? DANS: Well, I'm -- I was his -- one of his most effective appointees in 2000 -- in 2020 timeframe in the first administration. I -- I am a servant in the vineyards. That's what I do. I toil. I don't take credit for it. But everything they're doing today, to be clear, not everything, but meant -- much of that is reflected in the work that I led at Project 2025.
COLLINS: But do you -- do you have a personal relationship with him?
DANS: I don't know him that well. I've met him on several occasions.
COLLINS: And when--
DANS: That was in Mar-a-Lago.
COLLINS: Project 2025 is a big, obviously, stamp of yours. It's something that was a point of criticism, about a year ago for you, actually, and led to the separation with The Heritage Foundation, where you used to work. Now, obviously, we've seen the White House actually follow a lot of it.
If you win, if you run and you win this long shot, which I should note, you are an underdog? Do you have a version of Project 2025, that you want to enact in the Senate?
DANS: Well, he needs champions, President Trump, in the Senate. The headwaters of the swamp are the United States Senate, and he does not have -- he has to be sure several senators that help, but not a majority that are going to do this work.
And Project 2025, what we did there was we made the centerpiece to deconstruct the administrative state, and that's what his teams have been moving out on. And I'm very proud of the 1,000 people that I helped lead, through the auspices of The Heritage Foundation, to make sure President Trump could roll out, day one. And he did it, with gusto.
COLLINS: You're very in touch with the MAGA base, with that Project 2025 and what that looked like.
Obviously, we've seen this major push and criticism, over how Republicans in Washington have handled the Epstein files, and what that has looked like. I want you to listen to what Senator Lindsey Graham said about this, the other day.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN WELKER, MODERATOR, "MEET THE PRESS," NBC NEWS: Do you think that the Jeffrey Epstein files should be released in full, Senator?
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Yes, I like what the Speaker said. I'm on board with Speaker Johnson to release as much as you can, protecting victims the best you can.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do you agree with that?
DANS: No, they need to just release them all. At this stage -- you know, I'm an attorney, and I've been in these sort of litigations for tens of years. But at this stage -- the public sent President Trump to, in part, to a second term, because of the promise of being transparent and disclosing. And his administration should just simply release the documents, just rip the band aid off and get it done with, move on to saving the country like he is.
COLLINS: Do you think his administration is failing on that promise so far?
DANS: Well, there were some missteps, sure, when they rolled out the phase one and didn't have a phase two. But they have done so many good things. It's this -- you're kind of finding fault with the thing that they slipped up on, and I think they just need to move on.
COLLINS: It's not me. It's the MAGA base.
DANS: Agreed. Agreed.
COLLINS: Paul Dans, thanks so much for your time tonight. Great to have you.
DANS: Thank you, Kaitlan.
[21:45:00]
COLLINS: Up next here for us. Canada has just joined the United Kingdom and France, in saying it will recognize a Palestinian state in the coming months. This, as the hunger situation in Gaza is growing more dire. My next source is trying to help families there on the ground.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:50:00]
COLLINS: Today, Canada announced it will recognize a Palestinian state, come September, after France and the United Kingdom announced similar intentions, as a way to pressure Israel into agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza, and ending the humanitarian crisis that's been unfolding.
This comes as Gaza's health ministry says at least 60 people were killed and hundreds injured, after Israeli forces reportedly fired near an aid site.
A warning, that the images you're about to see are disturbing, where you can see dozens of lifeless bodies strewn across the ground.
The IDF responded and said it was not aware of any casualties, and they told CNN, and I'm quoting the IDF here, Israeli troops fired warning shots in the area, not directed at the gathering, in response to a threat posed to them. My next guest is working to provide humanitarian relief in Gaza. Hani Almadhoun is the Senior Director of Philanthropy at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency USA, and also the Co-founder of the Gaza Soup Kitchen.
And it's great to have you back here on THE SOURCE.
I want to talk about the work you're doing. But also, I just want people to know, this is deeply personal for you as well, and that you have a lot of family that you've lost and also that still live there.
HANI ALMADHOUN, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF PHILANTHROPY, UNRWA USA: Yes, thank you for having me.
I want to remind you, the last time we spoke, I had three siblings. That's more than a year ago. Israel have killed two of my siblings, and they're civilians, they're fathers, they're workers, they have no history of affiliation with anything.
But despite the pain, my parents continue to show up for their community, by serving soup, and I continue to show up for the community, in my role, and I'm here to honor their memory.
COLLINS: And how does that -- I mean, just to think of that personal tragedy and what you personally have gone through. So many people have experienced that as well, with what's happening in Gaza, just on this devastating scale. And then, now to see the moment that we're in, where Israel has started airdropping aid into Gaza. There have been calls for much more aid to go in there.
What is the latest that you've seen, in terms of what's working and what's not?
ALMADHOUN: Well, the worst part is actually the lies and the misinformation, where we've seen bodies, I've seen them. We know some of these people who were killed. They're real people, they're people who are desperate for food, and they end up in a body bag. They go to get bags of flour, and they end up being dead. It is hard.
Look, airdrops make the headlines. They don't make the impact. This is the reality. This is just a show. Makes a cool film. You put the flag of your country. But at the end of the day, it's really -- it's a very welcome move. We're thankful that people care enough to bring food, but it's not enough.
We understand we need 600 trucks. No country in the world has the capacity to airdrop 600 trucks on Gaza. And remember, 88 percent of Gaza is controlled by Israel. It's militarized. Where do you airdrop food that does not hurt Palestinians? Some people have drowned in the sea, trying to retrieve some of these food parcels.
There is a solution that exists. But unfortunately, the Israelis do not want to go there, because they've made up a lie, and they kept repeating it, the degree where they believe it, where -- they want you to believe, the U.N. is the bad actors, and they're the ones who are slowing the aid, which is a complete fabrication. COLLINS: Well, and they have talked about Hamas stealing this aid, and using it and not giving it to the people, who so desperately need it, or giving it to people who are aligned with Hamas, but not to people who aren't, or who are fighting them.
The Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Yechiel Leiter, was on with Wolf Blitzer, and he was questioning him at length about this. I want you to listen to what the Ambassador had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YECHIEL LEITER, ISRAELI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: I would refer you to the U.N. website, the U.N. website itself, which says that in the month of June, 2,134 trucks were sent into Gaza. Only 260 arrived at their destination. That means 90 percent was diverted by Hamas. You want to blame us for that too?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That statistic includes interceptions by hungry people, I should note. But what is your response to the Ambassador?
ALMADHOUN: Well, I hope the Ambassador, his family, never have to see their kids fade away like we see in Gaza. More than 20,000 kids went to the hospital, since April, with acute malnourishment. This is real people. 3,000 of them need medical care constantly, and some of them are irreversible conditions.
They would like to blame the U.N. They would like to blame Hamas. The reality is people are starved in Gaza. They've been bombing Gaza for 22 months now. Why are they still -- why are they still using Hamas as an excuse?
This is -- this is heartless. America should never stand for this. Real people are being hurt, and we're supporting this, whether it's with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, or the Israeli army theatrical production.
COLLINS: Hani, great to have you. Thank you for coming on and joining us tonight.
ALMADHOUN: Thank you for having me.
COLLINS: Up next here for us on THE SOURCE. The President lashed out at a Republican senator, typically a huge allies of his -- ally of his, for supporting a stock trading ban that also affects lawmakers, and the President, and the Vice President.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: President Trump is lashing out at a key ally of his, Republican senator, Josh Hawley of Missouri, after a Senate committee passed a bill that would ban stock trading by members of Congress, and the President, and the Vice President. Hawley has been working on this effort for years. He had initially named it the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments, an acronym meant to jab at Nancy Pelosi, who has faced scrutiny for her own family's stock trades.
But Hawley was the only Republican vote to advance this measure, even though it included a carve-out for President Trump. And Hawley initially said that the President backed his bill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): The President just endorsed it.
He got asked directly about this bill, Senator Hawley's bill, da-da- da-da-da, and he said, I like it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: That did not last long, because shortly after Hawley said that, the President wrote this: I don't think real Republicans want to see their President, who has had unprecedented success, TARGETED, because of the "whims" of a second-tier Senator named Josh Hawley.
In just the last hour, Hawley responded to that post.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HAWLEY: I think that the President, a number of people who are opposed to banning stock trading had said to the President that he would be covered by the bill, he'd have to sell Mar-a-Lago, and sell assets. Not the case at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Trump and JD Vance would be exempted. It remains to be seen whether or not this gets on the Senate floor. I should also note, it has been renamed the HONEST Act.
Thanks for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
