Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Sources: Top Trump Officials To Gather Tomorrow At VP's Residence To Coordinate Epstein Strategy; Trump's Energy Agenda Fuels Sweeping Changes To U.S. Climate Policy; Trump Suggests Vance Is Likely Heir Apparent To MAGA. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired August 05, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Submersible experts were critical of Rush's approach to building Titan, saying its construction was not founded in tested science.
JASON NEUBAUER, DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS & ANALYSIS, U.S. COAST GUARD: I think it was very serious. The fact that the vessel was operated, in our opinion, illegally, you know, with paying passengers, with no certification, no even registration for the vessel itself, I really haven't seen that before.
CARROLL (voice-over): Jason Carroll. CNN. New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: And the news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: New reporting, breaking this hour, as top Trump officials are set to meet tomorrow, to talk about their Jeffrey Epstein strategy. What our CNN team is learning tonight.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
As we come on the air, here tonight, our team at CNN has new reporting about how top Trump administration officials are set to gather tomorrow, at Vice President JD Vance's official residence, here in Washington, where sources tell us the administration's handling of the Epstein case, as well as the need to present a unified front on that issue, will be the main focus of a dinner.
We've also learned which top Trump officials are expected to attend. A lot more on that, and our new reporting from our CNN team, in just a few moments.
And that's a dinner, I should note, that is coming as we're learning tonight that the Justice Department's new interview, with Jeffrey Epstein's infamous accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, is on tape.
At this hour, as his own top law enforcement officials are trying to figure out what to do with that tape, and that interview, President Trump is defending the sit-down overall, while also distancing himself from it. That includes the decision to move Ghislaine Maxwell to a minimum-security prison, following her sit-down with the Deputy Attorney General, which I questioned the President about today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Two questions for you. One, did you -- were you aware of and did you personally approve the prison transfer for Ghislaine Maxwell that your Justice Department--
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I didn't know about it at all, no. I read about it just like you did.
COLLINS: And do you believe that she's a credible voice?
TRUMP: It's not a very uncommon thing, I--
COLLINS: Do you believe that she's credible to be listening to? Your Deputy Attorney General sat down with her recently.
TRUMP: Well, he's, let me tell you. He's a very talented man. His name is Todd Blanche. He's a very legitimate person, very high. I just said very highly thought of person, respected by everybody.
And I didn't talk to him about it. But I will tell you that whatever he asked would be totally appropriate. And it's not an uncommon thing to do that. And I think he probably wants to make sure that, you know, people that should not be involved or aren't involved are not hurt by something that would be very, very unfortunate, very unfair to a lot of people.
But I will say this. Todd Blanche is one of the most highly respected people you'll ever meet. So I know this. I didn't discuss it with him. But anything he talked about with her, or the fact that he did that, not unusual, number one and, most importantly, is something that would be totally aboveboard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: There are a few things, though, that are unusual. Experts tell us that Ghislaine Maxwell would have been required to get a special waiver to be transferred to what is called and known as Club Fed. And it is certainly not every day that the number two person in charge at the Justice Department conducts an interview like this himself.
All of this is coming as CNN has learned, the Trump administration is considering releasing a transcript of that interview, between Todd Blanche and Ghislaine Maxwell, which lasted for about nine hours, over two days.
And this new reporting tonight comes as Maxwell herself is moving to stop the President's go-to move, in an attempt to calm the outrage among his supporters.
Her attorney is asking court to block the release of the Epstein grand jury transcripts, writing in a filing to the Southern District of New York today, quote, "Jeffrey Epstein is dead. Ghislaine Maxwell is not. Whatever interest the public may have in Epstein, that interest cannot justify a broad intrusion into grand jury secrecy in a case where the defendant is alive, her legal options are viable, and her due process rights remain."
I should note, this comes as Maxwell is currently appealing her case to the Supreme Court, and Republicans are continuing to hear appeals, like this one, at town halls, back home tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why are you covering up the Epstein files?
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
REP. MIKE FLOOD (R-NE): Let's be very clear.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
FLOOD: At the next pro forma session of the Congress, you'll find my name as a sponsor on a resolution, from the House Rules Committee, to release the Epstein files, to protect the victims and not revictimize them again.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:05:00]
COLLINS: Just to emphasize. That happened in Nebraska.
And even some of the President's allies in Congress are not waiting for the recess to be over, for the court process to shake out. The Republican-led House Oversight Committee today issued nearly a dozen subpoenas, demanding all Epstein-related documents, and some of those subpoenas are demanding cooperation from a slew of high-profile names you'll recognize. Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bill Barr, James Comey, Merrick Garland, Robert Mueller, Jeff Sessions. You get the picture.
But notably among that list, there is no subpoena for Alex Acosta. This was, of course, you remember, the U.S. attorney who worked out what was described as a sweetheart deal for Jeffrey Epstein, years before Acosta became President Trump's Secretary of Labor, and then subsequently resigned when a scandal over the Epstein files happened, the last time Trump was in office.
My congressional source to start us off tonight is the second highest- ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett of Texas is here.
And it's great to have you on set with us.
When it came to what the President told me today, that he was not personally aware of the Ghislaine Maxwell prison transfer, do you believe that?
REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): I don't think that there's a lot that the President is personally aware of. So him being clueless is on brand.
But in this particular set of circumstances, where he is personally looking out for himself, I absolutely believe that he was knowledgeable about this. I'm sure that this didn't happen behind his back.
And clearly, he is not complaining about it. That's one thing that he didn't do. He didn't say, I'm the Commander-in-Chief, and somehow they did this, and they did not notify me. He did not seem like he was upset. So, in my opinion, he probably did know about it.
COLLINS: And what did you make of his description of the conversation that the Deputy Attorney General had with Ghislaine Maxwell, saying that, essentially, he doesn't want people to get hurt by the release of the materials.
CROCKETT: Again, he is concerned about himself. We know for a fact that he is in the Epstein files. And personally, I don't think it's a big secret that that's the reason that they wanted to coverup. It's the reason that the House had to flee D.C. As they're talking about the Texas Democrats that are standing for democracy. They decided to flee D.C., trying to avoid the Epstein files, and hoping that the base would forget about it when we come back at the beginning of September.
What they did not anticipate is that while they may have the numbers, it is the Democrats that always have the brains, and they did not anticipate that this particular Oversight Subcommittee would actually be able to get the subpoenas necessary. They voted in a bipartisan way, and that was before we actually left. It's just that Comer is just now signing off.
COLLINS: Yes, and on those subpoenas, does that include, do you know, the transcript or audio recording of Todd Blanche's interview with Ghislaine Maxwell?
CROCKETT: It should not. Because, in my opinion, this was an issue that they voted on prior to the creation of that.
COLLINS: OK.
CROCKETT: So, it's hard for you to say, Give me something that doesn't exist at that time.
Now, considering the fact that Comer took a little while before he actually issued the subpoena for the files, then that may ultimately end up being included, because by the time he did the issuance of it, he may have said, Give me every single thing. But at the time that the motion was voted on, that was something that hadn't even been created. COLLINS: Do you want that to become public, the transcript?
CROCKETT: I think that Congress needs all the files, period, and then we can go from there.
Do I trust Todd Blanche? Definitely don't trust him on the way that the President trusts him. In fact, he talked about how great he was. But the last time that I checked, he actually lost that case for the President in New York. So, there were definitely a group of jurors that did not believe that he was this great, incredible attorney that was to be trusted.
COLLINS: Speaking of attorneys. You were previously a public defender.
CROCKETT: Yes.
COLLINS: And when it comes to Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney fighting the release of the grand jury materials, do you think that that is the right position, that those grand jury materials should not be released?
CROCKETT: I absolutely agree, actually.
COLLINS: Wow.
CROCKETT: As a former criminal defense attorney, and ultimately, as someone who really does believe in foundational things around our democracy, as well as our criminal justice system, the secrecy of the grand jury process is something that is pivotal to our criminal justice system.
And while everything is falling apart around us, I absolutely believe that the judges are making the right decision. This is something that's gone up in front of a judge before, and the judge said, No. Because that is the law.
And I do think that there is a greater risk, to a lot of people, not just the victims, but those that participated in the grand jury, if those files are to be released.
[21:10:00]
COLLINS: And we've heard from these victims, these survivors. Some of them have been writing letters to the courts, condemning the Justice Department's request to unseal this testimony, which you said that you agree it shouldn't be unsealed. One of them wrote, in part, I am not some pawn in your political warfare. What you have done and continue to do is eating at me day after day as you help to perpetuate this story indefinitely.
But would a full public congressional hearing also have the same outcome and effect on these victims, do you believe?
CROCKETT: Not necessarily. Just depends on how we go about it.
I mean, again, the grand jury process is a little different, and it was -- it's a lot different in a lot of different ways. And so, saying that No, you don't get the grand jury, but saying Yes, you can have the files? Ultimately, think about the cases down in Georgia. We know that that special grand jury that they pulled together, ultimately they made recommendations of, I don't know, how many people should be indicted, but ultimately that's not where the state decided to go.
So, their case files that they actually had for the cases looked a little different than the wide breadth that they had, as it relates to the grand jury. So, some of these people may have said, Hey, listen, I will supply this information for this part of the process. But ultimately, they may have decided that they didn't want to go forward on different parts of it.
As well as, you know that when it comes to Trump, people tend to have targets on their backs. And even some of those investigators that were involved, we see how he's treated those over at the DOJ that were involved in investigating him. So, some of those people may not have ultimately been involved in the overall case, and I just don't think that it's worth the risk.
And I don't think that we should twist the law. Even if I am on the side of kind of like full transparency, at the end of the day, I'm a lawyer first, and I want to make sure that we preserve what grand juries are supposed to be, which is secret.
COLLINS: Yes, I think that's an important distinction that you're making there, when we're hearing some people in your party argue the opposite.
And speaking of your party and control of Congress. Obviously, we're watching this massive fight play out in Texas. You were actually a State Rep, the last time we saw--
CROCKETT: Yes.
COLLINS: --Democrats in Texas leave.
CROCKETT: Yes.
COLLINS: That was over voting rights legislation that was--
CROCKETT: Yes.
COLLINS: --that was being put into place there, that Democrats disagreed with.
They left the state to protest what would happen -- what was happening. But ultimately, that did get passed, and Republicans were able to get that across the line. Don't you believe that's going to be the same outcome in this situation?
CROCKETT: Not necessarily, but only time will tell.
COLLINS: Why not?
CROCKETT: And first of all, when we go back to what happened in 2021, a lot of people forget how bad that bill was. And ultimately what passed was a bad bill. I'm not going to sugarcoat that.
But they were specifically going after Souls to the Polls. And when we decided to shine a light on that, that actually came out of that. And so, we were able to get rid of some of the bad stuff that ultimately would have been in that bill. So, we did some good.
Now, ultimately, as it relates to this map, we're talking about a tight timeline. Texas has one of the earliest, if not the earliest, primary. I actually have to file for reelection, starting in November. So, I believe the timeline is that we have to know our lines by maybe October.
So the time is ticking, and it's ticking away really fast. That is why you see the Attorney General, as well as the Governor, getting very aggressive, because you can't just change the lines, and you can't change the primary without the Democrats being there and providing a quorum. So, it kind of depends.
And there are two chambers. And over 20 years ago, or approximately 20 years ago, when there was a break in the quorum, it was the Senate. They technically have the numbers, right now, in the Texas Senate to also break quorum.
COLLINS: So, do you believe that ultimately, that they will be able to be successful here in delaying this, at least for their past--
CROCKETT: We will -- we will--
COLLINS: Will Democrats be able to staying upstate (ph) that long, basically?
CROCKETT: We will see. We will see. I don't have a crystal ball, but I am saying that at least we know that it's not an indefinite amount of time, unlike what we were dealing with, with the voting bill, because he kept saying, I'll call special session after special session.
They don't really care what happens, so long as Donald Trump doesn't have a check for the second half of his term. And if they run out of time, then that's a problem for them.
COLLINS: You talked about that voting bill being changed by Democrats leaving. Is there a compromise in this redistricting that they want to do that do you believe would be at least more palatable for Democrats?
CROCKETT: I don't think so. I'll be perfectly honest. I've been engaged in litigation since 2021, over the current lines, because they're problematic as they are. They just made them even worse.
COLLINS: Yes, well, on that case actually, this is an interesting point, because you're a plaintiff in that 2021--
CROCKETT: I am.
COLLINS: --2021 case.
If you win, what is to stop Texas Republicans from just passing the map that they're trying to pass right now, over that map?
CROCKETT: Yes, so it's interesting, because I think the court is actually delaying their decision, because we actually engaged in the trial. We just got done with the trial. And literally, about two and a half, three weeks later, it was the DOJ that was sending this letter down, in which the state was taking a completely different opinion.
For the last four years, they said, No, these are great maps. They're race-neutral. Don't do anything to change them. We want to keep them.
And then all of a sudden, they said, Never mind, we want to change the maps, they're terrible, and they're wrong.
[21:15:00]
And they're citing this case that came out in 2024 from the Fifth Circuit. But the reality is that we just went through the trial, and that wasn't even but a month ago, and the state still had the same position.
So, they are twisting themselves into a pretzel to appease this wannabe Hitler that we have in the White House. But I think he's actually creating a bigger problem. I think people now, first of all, understand what gerrymandering looks like, and why it's so problematic.
I think people are finally waking up to the fact that Texas is a majority-minority state. So, when we say that it's not really a red state, but we just are a voter-suppressed, voter-apathy and under- invested state, people now are starting to understand that, especially when the only way that he could get these seats was by depressing the voices of black and brown people, in this majority-minority state. So, I think this is going to backfire in a historic way. I am really excited that--
COLLINS: Would you support a national ban on gerrymandering?
CROCKETT: I would. I would.
COLLINS: So, if it came up, you'd vote for that?
CROCKETT: I would -- I would absolutely support a national ban on gerrymandering--
COLLINS: You--
CROCKETT: --because I believe in fairness.
COLLINS: You and the President often talk about one another. He actually brought you up in an interview, this morning. I want everyone to listen to that.
CROCKETT: Of course he did.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: I mean, when you have low IQ people like Crockett, I wonder if she's any relationship to the late great Davy Crockett, who was a great, great, a great gentleman. I wonder if she's got any relationship to Davy Crockett, the great old Davy Crockett. But you have this woman Crockett. Very low IQ person. Somebody said the other day she's one of the leaders of the party. I said, You got to be kidding.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Davy Crockett did die at the Alamo in 1836. But I wonder, what is your reaction to what the President said about you.
CROCKETT: Listen, he has nothing of substance to contribute when it comes to critiquing me. There's a lot that I talk about. For instance, we've just had an entire conversation about gerrymandering, and redistricting, and why it's bad.
And instead of him being able to elaborate on the fact that I'm unable to make a cogent argument, or something like that, and then back into his argument that I'm low IQ? He just knows how to throw that insult. But it's a common insult when it comes to people of color. He just threw the same exact insult as Charlamagne tha God.
And so, I want people to see him and understand who he is. This is a person that has a problem with people of color, period. I don't care how many black MAGA out there with their hats. I want to be clear, when we look at who it is that he's kicking out of this country, is people of color.
When we look at who he always disrespects and says that they are low IQ, even though, when you look at his Cabinet? This has to be the most incompetent Cabinet we have ever had in the history of this country. When we're talking about people that literally have the ability to drop bombs, or order that bombs be dropped, or make recommendations that bombs be dropped, and they literally don't know how to get the Signal chat right.
So, we're talking about low IQ individuals. But so long as they say that this guy is their guy, and usually, if they work for a certain news network? That's the only qualification that's necessary.
I've got news for the President. I am not going anywhere. No matter how many squiggly lines they draw in the State of Texas, I will be back, and I will be on his behind, and making sure the real accountability that the American people are demanding, whether they're Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, that it is had, when the Democrats take control of this House in the midterms.
COLLINS: Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, great to have you. Thanks for your time tonight.
CROCKETT: Good to be with you.
COLLINS: Up next here for us. We have more on that new reporting that I mentioned, from our CNN team, on the Justice Department's recording of its interview with Ghislaine Maxwell. What sources are saying about if that transcript will be released in a meeting, to talk about how to handle the Epstein saga.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: We have some breaking news this hour, as sources are telling CNN that top Trump administration officials are going to meet tomorrow night, at the Vice President's residence, where we are told that the main focus is going to be the administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, as well as the need to present a unified front.
That meeting is going to include White House Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles. The Vice President, of course, JD Vance. Attorney General Pam Bondi. FBI Director Kash Patel. And the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, who recently sat down with Ghislaine Maxwell.
CNN reported earlier, that the administration is weighing whether or not to release an audio recording, or a transcript, of that interview that he did with Maxwell, last month.
And tonight, sources say that there have also been internal discussions about what exactly Blanche's next step could be, including holding a press conference, or doing a high-profile interview, possibly with someone like Joe Rogan. Though, I should note, those conversations are still preliminary, based on our understanding.
My sources tonight are CNN's Paula Reid, and Elie Honig.
And Paula, on this reporting, can you just tell us what more you're hearing about what this is going to look like tomorrow, and really what the goal is here?
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I think one of the big things that is shining through, from this meeting, is obviously, they're trying to present a united front.
But it's also clear, based on this reporting, that Todd Blanche is now considered the better potential spokesman to help them get out of what is easily one of the biggest controversies President Trump has ever faced, where he hasn't been able to change the conversation.
The Attorney General, Pam Bondi, while she is a very experienced public servant, spent decades as a prosecutor, she has really made some significant missteps in the handling of the Epstein files, backtracking on her promise of transparency.
So, I think the most notable thing is here, they're trying to present a united front. But the person they might put out is not the Attorney General. It's the Deputy Attorney General.
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: Well, I mean, and on that. Kash Patel is going to be there. So is Pam Bondi. REID: Yes.
COLLINS: Obviously, they've worked together, over the last few weeks. But, I mean, there was some pretty big rift between the FBI and the DOJ over this very matter.
REID: Yes, it's a family. And like all families, right, they're trying to put forward a united front. But we know behind-the-scenes, there has been a lot of tension.
And again, multiple sources I've spoken with, over the past month or so, say there is frustration with how the Attorney General made promises, that people familiar with the files knew would be hard to follow through on. And this was all coming months after that infamous binder incident, where she promised new materials, and those binders, to influencers at the White House. They opened them and said, This is all stuff we already knew. So, at this point, she is the focus of a lot of frustration.
But they're trying to help the President through this controversy by coming up with new ideas.
COLLINS: Elie Honig, what do you make of, one, the idea of this kind of strategy session, but also the fact that we could see the Deputy Attorney General going on Joe Rogan's podcast.
Which, for people who don't listen to Joe Rogan's podcast, he's talked about this a lot, and has actually been critical of how the administration has handled the Epstein fallout, after he spoke to people like Kash Patel, on his podcast, about what could come out as a result of that.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: So, Kaitlan, first of all, if Todd Blanche does go on Joe Rogan's podcast, that would certainly be a first for DOJ.
And let me suggest a couple questions that Todd Blanche might need to answer in that context, from Joe Rogan, or if he holds a press conference, from you and Paula Reid.
First of all, Did you, Todd Blanche, authorize the move of Ghislaine Maxwell from a low to a minimum security prison?
Second of all, You, Todd Blanche, met face-to-face with Ghislaine Maxwell. Do you personally find her believable, honest and credible?
Third, Will you, Todd Blanche, go to a federal judge and file what we call a Rule 35, asking to reduce Ghislaine Maxwell's sentence?
Fourth, Will you, Todd Blanche, and DOJ, ever indict anyone based on the information Ghislaine Maxwell gave you?
And finally, I think he should be asked, Will you release the non- grand jury materials which are in your unilateral control?
So Joe Rogan, feel free to use that. You guys can use it wherever you want.
Now, as to your other question. What's remarkable to me about your reporting, Kaitlan, is it is a reminder that the wall of independence that has existed, between DOJ and the White House, going back 50 years, between both parties? That is just gone.
The fact that you have a strategy session, between leading officials in the White House, the Vice President, the Chief of Staff, and the leaders of DOJ and the FBI, about, How do we deal with this political mess? Shows me that that wall has just been completely eviscerated. DOJ has been entirely politicized.
COLLINS: Yes, and I should note, this is excellent reporting from Alayna Treene, and Paula, and our colleagues, and others.
But Elie, on that front. The President said today, he did not know beforehand, that Ghislaine Maxwell is being transferred. Did you find that believable, that a decision that major would not be run by the President?
HONIG: I have my doubts. Let's just say that.
And I'll add to that, Kaitlan, that a move like that, it's almost impossible that Ghislaine Maxwell just happened, by coincidence, to be moved to a better facility a week or so after she met with Todd Blanche. You would need specific authorization. You would need a waiver, because Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence, because she is a convicted child sex offender.
And if the suggestion that I think the President seemed to be making to you today was, Well, it just happens in the usual course of business? No, it does not. I'm highly dubious of that.
COLLINS: You're highly dubious of it.
Paula, what about you?
REID: Yes, no way. In covering this Justice Department, I can tell you, nothing happens without the White House's approval. Even it'd -- just go all the way up to President Trump, specifically. Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, and the rest of the leaders at DOJ, they operate with the approval of White House officials. There's no way this happened without the White House knowing. That just that -- this is not true.
COLLINS: Yes, it was a notable answer.
Paula Reid, great reporting.
Elie Honig, love your analysis and your suggestions. We'll make sure Joe Rogan sees them. Thank you so much.
My next guest is one of the hundreds of women who survived Jeffrey Epstein's abuse, I should note, on a serious note.
Jess Michaels was living in New York, and working as a professional dancer in the early 90s, when she says that Epstein raped her when she was 22-years-old. She's now an advocate for survivors, and also the Founder of 3Joannes, a resource for sexual assault first aid. And she joins me now.
And it's so great to have you here.
Because I understand that you never met Ghislaine Maxwell, which I think is an important point as we talk about kind of what the next steps are for the Justice Department. But I just wonder, with your experience and what happened, what it is like for you to watch all of this playing out, in the way that it is here, in Washington.
JESS MICHAELS, JEFFREY EPSTEIN SURVIVOR, FOUNDER, 3JOANNES: So firstly, Kaitlan, I just want to say thank you so much for having me on, for inviting a survivor's perspective. That has not -- this is not something that is happening nearly enough.
[21:30:00]
What is most excruciating to me, besides all of the physical symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder that are being revisited by not just Epstein survivors, but every survivor out there right now, that feels unsafe because of what's happening.
What I think is really important to note, and this is only my opinion, is I'm seeing the normalization and decriminalization of sexual assault, rape, and pedophilia, and sex trafficking. That's how it feels.
COLLINS: And is that because of how people are treating Ghislaine Maxwell? Or just what do you attribute that to?
MICHAELS: I attribute it to the election of someone that has 28 accusers and is an adjudicated rapist. The Cabinet members that all have accusations against them, and no one is batting an eye, no one is flinched, no one has done anything about it or said anything about it. It's just been accepted.
It's been weird being desensitized to the idea that sexual assault is not that big of a deal. It is the lack of an investigation into these Epstein files. There are survivors that have been giving -- sharing their story for decades, sharing what happened. They did all the right things. They approached the authorities that they were supposed to approach, and it has been ignored over and over and over again.
And one of the things that I see happening, you know, everyone is listening right now, because it's about Epstein, and this world of powerful people and wealth. And yet, this is exactly what happens on the local level, on the state level, in our country, every single day. Only 10 percent of cases are actually prosecuted, and only 2.5 percent end up in jail. So, what we're seeing is that play out on the highest level, in our country.
COLLINS: Yes, and I should just note there, given your reference to the President, that was -- he was found liable for sexual assault. He's obviously denied that. We watched that all play out in court, as they're still fighting the decision there. But on this front, overall, I do agree, and your point about having survivors on. That's why we had Virginia Giuffre's family here, last week as well, to speak about her experience and what she went through.
MICHAELS: Yes.
COLLINS: Because I do think that is a forgotten perspective in a lot of this, as we talk about subpoenas and--
MICHAELS: Yes.
COLLINS: --and the fight that's happening in courts, is what we've also heard from survivors.
So Jess Michaels, I want to say thank you for coming on and joining us tonight.
MICHAELS: Thank you so much for having me.
COLLINS: Up next here. When it comes to what we're tracking in Washington, there has been overwhelming scientific evidence, but there's a new report from the Department of Energy that says sea levels are not rising faster than normal, and that carbon dioxide could help plants grow. As some scientists are criticizing the report, saying it's cherry-picked data. We're going to speak to the Energy Secretary about it, next.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the United States is undergoing one of its most significant shifts in climate policy, in order to align with President Trump's energy agenda.
In recent weeks, we have seen the Trump administration move to scrap environmental restrictions on power plant pollution, shuttering key facilities that have measured greenhouse gases in the air for decades, and also now requiring all wind and solar energy projects on federal land to be personally approved by the Interior Secretary, Doug Burgum.
The administration's social media accounts have also been pushing the President's energy goals that he talked about, extensively, on the campaign trail, including this post from the Department of Energy, supporting Trump's mission to boost power from coal. It shows a glimmering lump of coal and describes the fossil fuel as an icon, a legend, and the moment.
My source tonight leads the Energy Department under President Trump. U.S. Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright.
And it's great to have you here.
I think some people might see that social media post. Obviously, it's attempting to be humorous. Does that mean we're going to see a new wave, though, of coal-powered plants? What is this going to look like, I think, in terms of what this looks like going forward?
CHRIS WRIGHT, SECRETARY OF ENERGY: Yes, we haven't seen a coal plant built in the United States in 15 years. And today, the economics of a new plant don't compete with a new natural gas plant. So, I don't think you're going to see a wave of new plants built.
But you're going to see a cessation of all the closing of our existing coal plants. That's just driving electricity price up and making our grid less stable. So, coal is by far the biggest source of electricity around the planet, and will be for decades to come. Natural gas is second. In the U.S., they're reversed. But, yes, we want to -- we will stop the closure of these coal plants.
COLLINS: And so, we have this new report sitting here that has come out from your department. It's basically backing up what the President talked about so much on the campaign trail, in terms of what his energy policy was going to look like, and what he wanted to do, but also undo that President Biden and others had done, when it comes to rolling back climate regulations. It argues that more carbon dioxide in the air is good for plant growth, that sea levels are not accelerating.
When it comes to the authors of this report, some people have raised questions about their findings. How did you personally select these authors? Why did you pick them?
WRIGHT: Oh, I've been in the climate debate and discussion for over 20 years. So, I know, certainly, a lot of people in that world.
[21:40:00]
And I just made a list of who do I think are the true, honest scientists. They follow the data and the facts, where they lead them. They don't have a political agenda or a desired policy or a desired thing. They're just on as scientists. There's plenty of those. But I made a list of about a dozen of them that I thought were very senior and very well-respected. I called the top five, and everyone said, Yes, thank you.
COLLINS: OK. So, you personally called them up and said, The five of you have been chosen to author this report?
WRIGHT: Absolutely.
COLLINS: Because when it comes to those, there's some of them that have been cited in this. They write in the opening of it, in terms of how this worked, and the process here, The group began working in early April with a May 28 deadline to deliver a draft for internal [Department] review. The short timeline and the technical nature of the material meant that we could not comprehensively review all topics.
If it's this important and it's reshaping energy and climate policy, should there be that tight of a timeline, or should they have had more time to do a comprehensive review? WRIGHT: Oh, these are authors who have been commenting and writing on climate change for decades. So, what we wanted them to write was not, Start the science anew, but just summarize, what do we know? What have been the conclusions of people studying, gathering data on climate change? The five of them worked together great.
And it's also an opening. It's an opening. We want to have a real debate and discussion about climate change, and get away from the cancel-culture Orwellian, If you don't say the thing that approved Climate Church says you're silenced. That just crushed science. That just crushed progress.
So no, this is open for public comment now. There will be responses to those public comments. We'll probably have public events, here in D.C., this fall. We want to have an honest dialog with the American people about climate change.
COLLINS: But if it's open for public comments. I mean, the EPA is already using this to change its policy. It's citing this report.
And some people have criticized the report, saying the information was cherry-picked by people who had already predetermined, what they wanted to say in this report. What would you say to them?
WRIGHT: Oh, absolutely not. The report references the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports over a 100 times. This report actually isn't radical or anything out of the conventional lines. It's just the media and the popular world never reads the actual details of climate change. This is really a summary of what do we know from the data. Now, saying all that in one place, amazingly, is like controversial today.
COLLINS: But is it just the media? Because there's some climate scientists whose work was quoted in this report, by the people that you handpicked, who say, their work is misrepresented. And one of them said, the Data points are picked to suit their narratives and exclude the vast majority of the scientific literature that does not.
WRIGHT: I think that's an unfair assessment. But of course, look, people are very territorial--
COLLINS: Even though it's someone who's quoted in the report, his work is quoted in the report?
WRIGHT: Ah, you know, I don't know that particular author or something -- something like that. But if some data set is taken from some author and his conclusions are different from the data set? Well, that's the process of science. Thanks -- I appreciate him or her, commenting on that and engaging in the dialog. But am I comfortable that this is a reasonable overview of what we know in climate change? I'm quite comfortable with that.
COLLINS: And you believe that this is the best and truest assessment of that that you could find so far?
WRIGHT: I think so. Absolutely. It'll be improved, as we get feedback and comments from others, and we'll continue to elaborate on it.
COLLINS: Well, I was curious, because it contradicts the conclusions from the Fifth and Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessments that you obviously disagree with. But the Fourth one was produced under the last Trump administration. So why would they have been wrong then, and that justifies this report now?
WRIGHT: I don't know the answer to that.
COLLINS: What's the discrepancy there?
WRIGHT: But I think it was released early on in the Trump administration. It was not prepared during the Trump administration. But that -- our National Climate Assessment reports in the United States, and that's something we're going to look at those again, they have been, in the past, when I have reviewed them, not fair assessments of the data.
They have been more politically-driven to hype up a real issue, but an issue that's just nowhere near the world's greatest challenge. Nobody who's a credible economist or scientist believes it is, except a few activists and alarmists, and that's the kind of stuff that gets in political reports.
COLLINS: But that Fourth report was done in 2018. I mean, Trump had been in office for over a year at that point, I mean.
WRIGHT: Yes. Again, I read that report then.
But look, the data is the data. So whether the data was presented in a slanted thing, or most stuff was left out, like, no one talks that CO2 is a fertilizer and that makes the planet greener. That's just nuts. Everyone knows that. They learned that in elementary school science. But too many climate reports just take out stuff that make this not look like it's alarming. At least politicians do that.
COLLINS: But if this was done in 2018, in the first Trump term, do you believe it was slanted then, and that they cherry-picked the data then?
[21:45:00]
WRIGHT: Well, it certainly wasn't a reasonable representation of broad climate science at that time. I think the Trump admin -- my guess is the Trump administration did (ph) meaningfully engage in a climate change report that was done by people that were career employees at the government.
And if you're a sober, honest scientist, you don't -- you don't come on the news, you don't get the headlines. The alarmist ones that make the claims that are on the extreme ends of things? They're the only ones that appear in the news, and they tend to be the most aggressive ones.
COLLINS: The one thing you mentioned was the National Climate Assessments, and that they're referenced here throughout this report. It does reference them. But the Trump administration has taken them down off of the federal websites. So basically, if you go in and click on the link, it goes to a dead link, because there is no website there.
Why remove those National Climate Assessments from the federal government websites?
WRIGHT: Because we're reviewing them, and we will come out with updated reports on those and with comments on those--
COLLINS: But you cite them in this report.
WRIGHT: --as part of this continued climate data.
COLLINS: So you can see why that's confusing?
WRIGHT: Yes, I don't know why they're taken down. They're easy to find anywhere. If anybody can't find the National Climate Assessment report, they just got to Google a little better.
COLLINS: So you're reviewing them, and then will put them back up, or?
WRIGHT: I'm sure they were taken down, because as you read them, the conclusions, they weren't fair in broad-based assessments of climate change.
And I think that -- there's a lot of things, in my department. You heard the thing about natural gas. We did this study to see if LNG exports were good for the country. There was a different report that was written before the one you heard about, that was buried. When you get into departments, and look at stuff that's there, and you find stuff that's objectionable? You want to fix it.
COLLINS: Secretary Chris Wright, thank you for your time tonight, and coming on to talk about the report.
WRIGHT: Thanks for having me. Look forward to doing more of the same.
COLLINS: Appreciate your time.
Up next here. The President was asked today, does he believe that Vice President JD Vance will be his successor for MAGA, come 2028? A telling answer. We'll let you hear it, next.
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump gave his biggest hint yet at who he thinks could be his successor to the MAGA movement that has redefined the Republican Party in his image.
With just 1,189 days to go, until the election in 2028, for everybody who's counting, here's what the President said today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Do you agree that the heir apparent to MAGA is JD Vance?
TRUMP: Well, I think most likely, in all fairness. He's the Vice President. I think Marco is also somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form. I also think we have incredible people, some of the people on the stage right here. So it's too early, obviously, to talk about it. But certainly he's doing a great job, and he would be probably favored at this point.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My deeply-sourced White House insider is here. Semafor's Shelby Talcott.
And Shelby, obviously, I think to hear that answer was pretty revealing from President Trump, actually, today.
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Yes, it was the closest he's come yet to sort of giving us an idea of who he thinks is going to carry on the MAGA movement after he leaves office.
He didn't exactly endorse him, which I don't think is as surprising, right? Donald Trump especially likes to sort of leave things be and see where everybody ends up. He likes to see people fight it out.
But it was notable that he said, it's likely going to be Vance, right? This is his Vice President. This is somebody who is sort of the obvious pick, almost.
COLLINS: Yes, and he was saying Marco Rubio could be his running mate. He also seemed to say maybe some other people on the stage that had been, you know, Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi, a few others that had been up there. Susie Wiles, earlier in the day, could also potentially be on that tick -- or running in that field of what that could look like.
TALCOTT: Yes, and it's interesting. I've talked to administration officials. I thought Donald Trump's comment about Marco Rubio, potentially running with JD Vance, was really notable, because over the past--
COLLINS: I'm sure Marco Rubio did too.
TALCOTT: Right? But over the past few months, that's been mentioned by administration officials behind-the-scenes. Their thinking is that's the most obvious ticket to them in this very moment. They both are very well-liked inside the administration. Donald Trump thinks they're both doing a good job. So, it's notable that he said that, because his team has been saying that quietly for a few months.
COLLINS: Yes, and obviously questions about, if Trump weighs in on that 2028 primary, he could be pretty decisive.
The other thing we saw about that was -- that happened at the White House, this morning, raised a lot of alarm, but then people were watching, was, the President actually came out on the roof of the White House today. You can see this here. (VIDEO - PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP TAKES MORNING WALK ON WHITE HOUSE ROOF)
COLLINS: He was essentially inspecting it with other officials. I should note, one of the people who's up there with him is the person who is the architect of the ballroom that they are building, what that is going to look like. It's raised questions about, whether or not he has other changes in mind for the White House.
TALCOTT: Yes, he was presumably surveying this ballroom that he's making, he's developing, which is supposed to be done in several years. He has also, of course, redone the Rose Garden.
He really, I think, in talking to people close to him, wants to make his mark on this administration, not just policy-wise, but clearly physically, right? He touts himself as being this builder from New York. His team talks about that a lot. And so, you're seeing how this time around, he's making permanent changes, that no matter what happens when he leaves the Oval Office, they're going to remain.
COLLINS: Yes, whoever it is in 2028 will have a 90,000-square-foot ballroom.
TALCOTT: True.
COLLINS: Shelby Talcott, great to have you. Thanks for being here.
Up next. We have a CNN Exclusive for you, as an attorney for Sean "Diddy" Combs is now sitting down for her first interview since that major verdict came out. What she had to say about talking to the White House about a potential pardon.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As we close tonight's show, three things that you might have missed today.
The U.S. National Park Service is bringing back the statue of Confederate military officer, Albert Pike, that was toppled and vandalized during Black Lives Matter protests, in June of 2020. The statue's return to Washington, D.C., is part of President Trump's executive order that is aimed at, quote, Making the District of Columbia safe and beautiful. The National Park Service says it plans to repair the statue with the goal of reinstalling it by October.
Also tonight, the National Weather Service has been given the green light to refill hundreds of positions that were eliminated during DOGE cuts, earlier this year. An official with NOAA says the Weather Service has been reauthorized to rehire 450 meteorologists, hydrologists, and radar technicians. This is all coming after those catastrophic floods we saw happen in Central Texas, that raised alarms over disaster preparedness, around the United States, during peak hurricane season. And also, finally, before we go, a member of Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team told my colleague, Elizabeth Wagmeister, they have approached the administration about a possible pardon.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICOLE WESTMORELAND, ATTORNEY FOR SEAN "DIDDY" COMBS: It's my understanding that we've reached out and had conversations, in reference to a pardon.
I think that Mr. Combs is a very hopeful person, and I believe that he remains hopeful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Combs was found not guilty, last month, of the most serious charges against him. He does still face sentencing, in October, for transportation to engage in prostitution.
And you can catch more of that exclusive interview. You don't want to miss it. It's coming up on "LAURA COATES LIVE," tonight at a 11:00 p.m. Eastern.
Thanks for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT" starts now.
