Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Slams Continued Focus On Epstein; Victims Demand Unsealing Of Epstein Files And Transcripts; Trump's Energy Agenda Fuels Sweeping Changes To U.S. Climate Policy; Trump Suggests Vance Is Likely Heir Apparent To MAGA; Report: Trump Has No Plan To Mandate IVF Coverage. Aired 4p-5p ET
Aired August 10, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: I mean, those are some pretty extraordinary pictures.
Remember the remarkable life of John F. Kennedy, Jr. and his lasting legacy on the new CNN Original Series, "AMERICAN PRINCE JFK JR." It's premiering tonight, 9:00 p.m. right here on CNN.
And thank you so much for joining me today. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. "THE SOURCE" weekend edition is next.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: It's been a busy week at the White House from the continued Epstein fallout to a potential summit with President Vladimir Putin.
I'm Kaitlan Collins and this is a special weekend edition of THE SOURCE.
This week, as President Trump's top aides continue to strategize a path forward when it comes to the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein fallout, the president himself is making crystal clear what he thinks is the best option. Moving on.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Look, the whole thing is a hoax. It's put out by the Democrats because we've had the most successful six months in the history of our country. And that's just a way of trying to divert attention to something that's total bullshit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The president calling it total BS as we are hearing directly now from Jeffrey Epstein's accusers and their allies who say it's anything but in their view. In fact, at least three have now used the term cover-up to describe what they fear is happening. They weren't consulted about the number two at the Justice Department meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell, and don't yet know what she told the deputy attorney general in that conversation.
For his part, the president says he doesn't know either.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Mr. President, have you been briefed on what Ghislaine Maxwell told Todd Blanche?
TRUMP: No, I haven't. I have not.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you know about whether you came up in the conversation or not?
TRUMP: I don't -- I know Todd is a very respected person all over the country, all over the world, legally. So I don't know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The victims and their families also were not given a heads up that she was being moved to a minimum security prison camp, which is an unusual move given a convicted sex trafficker like Ghislaine Maxwell is would require a waiver for such a move. They're increasingly unhappy, the victims and their families, that they are being shut out of the room they feel like on a lot of these decisions, including what my colleagues were told was supposed to be a meeting involving the vice president, the White House chief of staff, the attorney general, the deputy attorney general and the FBI director.
Just the fact that Pam Bondi and Kash Patel were set to be at the same dinner table is itself notable, given that relationship fell apart when the FBI director and his number two, Dan Bongino, were upset at Bondi over the handling of the Epstein files. They made that clear in a blowup that happened with Pam Bondi in the West Wing when Bongino then after that skipped work and even contemplated quitting from his job.
Bondi's memo essentially shut down the conspiracy theories about Epstein that Patel, Bongino and others had perpetuated for years.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: Put on your big boy pants. And let us know who the pedophiles are.
GLENN BECK, BLAZE MEDIA CEO: So who has Jeffrey Epstein's
PATEL: Black book?
BECK: Black book.
PATEL: FBI.
BECK: But who? That is, I mean --
PATEL: That's under direct control of the director of the FBI.
DAN BONGINO, DEPUTY FBI DIRECTOR: What the hell are they hiding with Jeffrey Epstein? Why do they want to make this Jeffrey Epstein story go away so bad? I'm not letting it go ever. Ever.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: The victims and their families say they're not going to let it go either.
My lead source on this tonight and more is "The New York Times" White House correspondent, Maggie Haberman, who is the author of "Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America."
Maggie, it's great to have you here tonight. I just wonder what you are hearing and what you made about such intense reaction among the idea, the notion that there would even be a high level conversation about what to do about how they've handled the Epstein saga here.
MAGGIE HABERMAN, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes, so, Kaitlan, I'm not sure that this was supposed to be a dinner or if this was supposed to be just, you know, a gathering to try to get Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, who, as you noted earlier, don't like each other, on the same page or at least, you know, in a better place together.
What I do know is that there has been a consistent effort to try to turn the page on the Epstein saga over the last week and a half, and it has dug deeper and deeper. Now, I think they do have a sense of what they are likely to do going forward. I think we are going to see some of Ghislaine Maxwell's interview, or maybe hear some of her interview with Todd Blanche. It's not clear to me how much it will be.
It's not clear to me if that's all that we will hear from the administration in terms of the files, but they have clearly gone down a path that they are going to have to put more information out. I just don't know what that does when there are victims, as you note, who are -- I mean, sure, it will let them say, look, we put things out and maybe they will just stop answering questions about it.
[16:05:09]
But one of the people keeping it alive, as we know, was President Trump and victims who suffered and who are ostensibly the people that everyone involved in this is concerned about, saying they want files released and so forth are very upset.
COLLINS: You know, we had Jasmine Crockett here, a Democrat. She's the second Democrat in charge on House Oversight or in line at House Oversight. And one point that she made was, you know, if this transcript of what was said between Ghislaine Maxwell and Todd Blanche does come out, that is actually not even what the MAGA base really considers to be the Epstein files. I mean, this is something that just happened.
The Epstein files is a whole trove of documents before that conversation with Ghislaine Maxwell. So I guess one question is also if even if they do put out part of that or audio, if that will be seen as sufficient in MAGA's eyes.
HABERMAN: Right. That's the -- that's the $64 million question on all of this is what exactly would set the bar and at what point would people who, you know, support the president or have in the past, but now think that he's involved in an alleged cover up? At what point are they going to say, oh, actually, you know, we have been shown that this, you know, here's documentation that backs up what, you know, the president is saying about whether who's in the files or who might not be in the files and so forth and so on. I don't know when we reach that point. I just know we're not there yet.
COLLINS: What do you make of Trump's denials that he says he doesn't know what Todd Blanche and Ghislaine Maxwell discussed. He also said he was not aware of Ghislaine Maxwell being moved, which, you know, is a pretty high level move for the Justice Department to undertake without telling him beforehand. It kind of actually surprised me when he said he didn't know.
HABERMAN: Yes, I mean, it's -- I was surprised by it is for all of the reasons you just said. It's certainly possible, but it's hard to believe, given how closely this DOJ has been working with this White House. And how many tabs people are being kept on activities that are happening related to this investigation. It would be a little hard to see Ghislaine Maxwell getting moved to this much lesser security prison facility without the president of the United States knowing.
COLLINS: You know, to the soundbite that we heard at the beginning of the show of Dan Bongino, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi talking about the Epstein documents and what they were going to release, given it was these senior officials who, you know, were helped -- helping in planting the seeds about the -- there being a cover up regarding Jeffrey Epstein, do you think they've realized how far it's boomeranged that now some of the victims and accusers and survivors are saying these same people are now also guilty of a cover-up?
HABERMAN: Oh, I think they're very well aware that this has become problematic for them. I think that's been part of the issue for the last couple of weeks. You know, Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, you know, Pam Bondi did talk about the Epstein files, but Todd Blanche certainly did not make his career talking about Epstein files. This has now engulfed all of them. But, you know, Dan Bongino and Kash Patel built up credibility with the base and built up followings talking about this, as you just showed.
So I think they're very well aware of it. I just don't know what it means for the future. You know, if no one in the administration is going to acknowledge the victims, which we really haven't heard them do so far, Kaitlan, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any instance where they've spent a ton of time talking about that other than that we don't want to release certain information that could hurt victims, but they haven't said much about the victims who are speaking out against this.
If they keep ignoring it, then I'm assuming they believe it will go away and maybe it will. But I don't think these women are going to stay quiet.
COLLINS: Yes, it certainly doesn't seem that way.
Maggie Haberman, as always, it's great to have your excellent insight and reporting here with us. HABERMAN: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Also here, my political, White House and legal sources all together on this one because it is necessary.
I just wonder, what are the two of you make of how all of this has played out as our political minds?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, look, I think you got to calibrate your message and control the narrative here. I mean, we know what the problem is. I'm looking at this from two different sides. You don't want to give my friends on the left an opportunity to keep hammering this home every opportunity they can, because they've been struggling for months now trying to figure out what their message should be to sort of coalesce their base.
But you also have to satisfy the president's most ardent supporters somewhat, and I say somewhat because I would argue you can give them enough, release something and then move beyond this. Yes, you're going to some people off, Kaitlan, I would tell the president, that's OK. You're not going to lose the base. They're going to stick with you. We need to focus on the economy.
We got to start getting ready for midterms next year, which again, Democrats are starting to have conversations about what their messaging, what their targeting is going to be like specifically for those independent voters. We've got some vulnerable R's on the House side. I want to make sure we protect those folks. We got to get beyond this as quickly as possible.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I think I would recommend focusing on the victims here, which there have been some terrible things that happened to these people.
[16:10:07]
And if you center the victims and actually listen to them, maybe not listen to Democrats, or your most ardent supporters, but the people who have been most directly impacted, I think you can solve a solution or find a solution to this problem. I also, though, don't have much sympathy for this administration because this is, besides the awful things that the perpetrators did, this is of their own making.
They spun up this conspiracy theory, and so now they're having to reap what they sow, and they are going to have to feed the beast. I mean, Democrats are not keeping this. The clips that Kaitlan played at the beginning of the show were not Dems. They were his deputy director and director of the FBI. Those are as Republicans and MAGA as they come. So this is not a Dem thing. This is a Republicans' making and they're not even centering the victims in it.
COLLINS: Yes. And there's not that much longer in recess before they're all back here in Washington. And we saw Nebraska, this is being brought up in town halls there with Mike Flood, the congressman there.
ALLISON: South Carolina.
SINGLETON: Ashley said something interesting. She said listen to the victims. Now, I wonder as a strategist, do Democrats then begin to target some of those suburban women who slightly moved back over to the Republican side last November? Do they start targeting them with the message of some of these victims going into midterms next year? Then you raise the question is, where will this register on the litany of other things going into midterms next year?
I'm not exactly sure, it's a problem now, will it be a problem six, seven months from now? I don't know.
ALLISON: I mean.
COLLINS: Elie Honig, you're also with us. When Maggie was saying that her reporting shows they are considering maybe releasing part of that transcript, part of the audio of the conversation that the deputy attorney general had with Ghislaine Maxwell, one, you know, how do you go about a 10-hour -- looking at a 10-hour conversation, deciding what to release? And two, whether or not that's going to be sufficient for their -- for the base?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, first of all, This is exactly part of the dilemma that DOJ has created for itself. I think to Shermichael's earlier point, I don't think anything short of releasing the entire 10 hours is going to satisfy the MAGA base, or liberals for that matter. I don't think you're going to be able to say, here's some excerpts, everybody, and people to be satisfied.
To the broader question here, Kaitlan, though, there's a really important tell. The very fact that they're even considering releasing any of the Ghislaine Maxwell testimony that she gave to Todd Blanche that tells you that DOJ is not and never has been serious about actually indicting anybody based on Ghislaine Maxwell's testimony. Because if you were going to bring an indictment based on any witness's testimony, the last thing you would do would be to blast it out publicly.
That would reveal your targets, it would reveal your investigative methods, it would undermine your witness. And I know that Todd Blanche knows that because we were both trained and raised in the same office, the SDNY at the same time. So all of this tells me they are not and never have been serious about actually indicting anyone else.
COLLINS: But, Elie --
HONIG: This is more for show.
COLLINS: Can you explain to me how that works? I mean, the DOJ just decides we're going to sit down with someone who has already been convicted and is being held, and we're going to speak to her for 10 hours? I mean, is that a typical legal process to just interview someone and then just publish the transcript and then it doesn't actually result in anything if that is what happens here?
HONIG: Right. It's a great question. So the way this would work, and I've been in situations actually where I've taken people like Ghislaine -- not like Ghislaine Maxwell, but in her position who have already been sentenced and built cases off them. But the way you do that is you go meet with the person in prison, you get all the information they have, you build up a case file, you corroborate what that person has to say. Then you go indict your cases.
And only after the cases are indicted do you turn the information over, by the way, not to the general public, but to the defense lawyer, as you're required to do. So that's the way you would do this if you were serious about making cases. What they're doing here is for show. It's for the public. It's for appearance.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, Jeff, on that front, in terms of what this looks like, the other -- we do know that the administration is trying to figure out what they're doing here. Even if they were denying that there was a meeting, a dinner focused on this, because one consideration that we reported was under discussion was having the deputy attorney general do something like Joe Rogan's podcast, something that obviously is a massive reach directly to their base, who's been quite angry about how they've handled the Jeffrey Epstein situation and has criticized them for it. That's also a question of what that looks like.
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Yes, absolutely. I mean, one of President Trump's superpowers as a public figure before he was in office and since he's been in office, has been the ability to distract, get people to move on from stories, to deny. And that just hasn't worked with the Jeffrey Epstein piece, certainly to his chagrin. So studying from a White House perspective and a communications perspective, how do we do this?
How do we get this story to move on? It makes good political sense, but it is -- there are so many more things there. The things that you two were just acknowledging as well. There are political risks here that go beyond just his base.
COLLINS: If you're the comms staff and this is your Justice Department, watching this play out, would either of you recommend a Joe Rogan appearance?
[16:15:03]
SINGLETON: I would, I think you -- I think you have to move on. I think you're going to look at a trusted source that many Republicans would trust, those who are completely in the president's corner and even those who are like, OK, I want to know a little bit more. I don't know if I trust Ghislaine Maxwell. What's going on here? You watch the interview of Todd Blanche comes across as credible and believable, then people say, OK, we got everything we need, it's time to move on.
They got to figure this out and they haven't quite put their thumb on the scale yet to tip this into their direction or their favor.
ALLISON: No. No. No.
COLLINS: Elie -- SINGLETON: So what do you say, Ash? What do you say?
ALLISON: No. Because you have to do a risk analysis. Right?
SINGLETON: OK. Sure.
ALLISON: And the question is, why don't you release the files? They have yet to be able to answer that question, and they're not going to be able to answer it properly on Joe Rogan. And Joe Rogan is going to want to continue to press the issue so that he doesn't lose viewers. Like there's a risk, like Joe Rogan can't look like a soft person in this moment.
COLLINS: And he has a base, too.
ALLISON: And he has a base, right? That is a cash cow. So he's not going to let -- give Todd Blanche a pass. He has no loyalty to Todd Blanche.
SINGLETON: Certainly if you and I were in that position, we would prep Todd Blanche. We would prepare for those tough questions. Right?
ALLISION: Yes. And if the answer is still going to be everything they've been saying the same, I say thanks, but no thanks. I mean --
SINGLETON: Well, maybe they'll drop something new.
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: Look at what Thomas Massie -- Thomas Massie posted this today. Posted this basically saying, you know, we're criticizing Democrats for leaving Texas. I think we have a picture of this meme. And then put Mike Johnson in there saying, Republicans leaving D.C. to protect the Epstein files.
I mean, Elie, you're laughing. What are your thoughts?
HONIG: Well, I'm watching two brilliant political minds go at it. And, Sherm, you know I love you, but I'm with Ashley on this one. You say you're going to prep -- you're going to prep Todd Blanche. Shermichael, how are you going to prep Todd Blanche for this question, Shermichael? OK, when Joe Rogan looks at him and goes, Todd Blanche, you just spent 10 hours face to face with Ghislaine Maxwell. Did you find her believable and credible and honest? What do you -- what is he going to say to that? If he says, yes, forget it. He loses all standing. If he says no, then why did you do this? And why are you trying to foist this on us?
ALLISON: Right.
HONIG: How do you prep him for that?
ALLISON: And why not release the files?
SINGLETON: Can I can I respond to my dear friend Elie?
COLLINS: Yes, you may. You may.
SINGLETON: So, Elie, I would say we took the opportunity to sit with her to see if there was anything else that we didn't previously know, that we could learn to the point that you said, maybe we can corroborate some of her statements with other individuals who were involved, engaged at the time. And we'll check some of those things out. That doesn't necessarily mean that you have to trust the individual, but you should certainly verify their statements.
COLLINS: Up next here, another story that we've been tracking closely out of the White House, Jeffrey Epstein survivor and accuser Annie Farmer is going to join me. Her warning and what she has to say to the White House about how all of this is playing out as we're getting new reporting about a meeting that happened between the attorney general, the FBI director, and others where the Epstein situation and what to do came up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:22:11]
COLLINS: CNN has now learned that a meeting between the Attorney General Pam Bondi, the FBI director Kash Patel, the Vice President JD Vance, and others did happen at the White House, with a source telling CNN that they discussed a number of topics, including the Jeffrey Epstein case and the administration's next steps on that matter.
As we've sought to emphasize here, a group that feels like they are missing from the administration's conversations are the survivors of the abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
My source is the survivor Annie Farmer. Maxwell recruited her and groomed her when she was just 16 years old, and she testified at Maxwell's 2021 trial that both Maxwell and Epstein had abused her. And Annie joins me now, along with her attorney. Jennifer Freeman, is back with us.
And I'm very grateful to have both of you here, because, Annie, I do think this is something that is missing from a lot of the conversation about subpoenas or witnesses or Congress. And, you know, just for everyone to remember, you testified at Maxwell's trial. You were actually the only survivor to do so by your full name. Others did so by pseudonyms understandably. And I just, you know, one, I want to say thank you for being willing to come back and talk about it.
But secondly, I wonder what you want people to know who are at home, who are watching all of this play out with Ghislaine Maxwell?
ANNIE FARMER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL ACCUSER: Well, first, I just want to say thank you so much for having me here. And also for the coverage you've been doing centering survivors because I agree that that's something that hasn't been done nearly enough in these last few weeks. I think that, you know, one thing, I think it's important people understand is that this chaotic process that's been unfolding has a real cost for survivors. You know, a central part of trauma is a feeling of a lack of control
and that has certainly been triggered here. And I think has a lot of us feeling, you know, very uneasy, really exhausted by this process. And we are learning things just like everybody else, mostly, you know, through the news, through, you know, texts from friends. You know, we have not been given any kind of a heads up about things that are happening that are, you know, directly related to us.
These meetings, you know, even this, you know, prison transfer was something I expected we would learn about, you know, prior to learning about it in the news. And unfortunately, that's not how it has unfolded.
COLLINS: Yes. When you find out that Ghislaine Maxwell is being moved, which we really haven't been told why or who signed off on that, from this prison in Florida to a lower security federal camp in Texas, I wonder what goes through your mind when you hear that.
FARMER: You know, honestly, just even learning that the DOJ would be meeting with her was extremely disturbing.
[16:25:00]
This is someone who has been convicted of sex trafficking, you know, by a jury. She not only procured girls and young women for Epstein, but she also participated in the abuse of minors. And, you know, to hear that they are meeting with her and considering involving her in the investigation after she has been, you know, been a perjurer, you know, it's just -- it was very confusing and disturbing.
And so, you know, the rumors that followed about a possible commutation or pardon, very upsetting. And then -- and then with this prison transfer, you know, I think it again feels like she is getting preferential treatment. That sounds like something that's unprecedented. And it's really worrying to us about what might be coming next.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, one of the things she was accused of lying about involved you and, you know, at trial, just everyone remembers your mom actually testified that when you went to the ranch in New Mexico in 1996, that Jeffrey Epstein had promised your mom you were going on a retreat and that there were dozens of other girls who were going to be there, that Ghislaine Maxwell was his wife.
And then you got there and you were the only one. I believe it's what your mom testified at trial. And so I just think maybe that is part of this that, you know, we've heard some people describing Ghislaine Maxwell. I should note people who are on the far-right describing Ghislaine Maxwell as the victim here.
FARMER: Yes, I have seen that as well. I think this attempt to sort of rehab her image in order to potentially, you know, make a -- some sort of commutation more palatable. But I've actually felt, you know, really appreciative of the public's response to that. It feels like that campaign is not working. People recognize that she's a predator, not a victim. And I think that any additional lessening of sentence or negotiation will really be met with a lot of outrage and seen as a, you know, a sign of some guilt.
COLLINS: If the president is not ruling it out, a pardon, and just he just emphasizes that he has the ability to do so, I wonder what you would want to say to him about even considering that.
FARMER: Yes, I just would want him to know it would be devastating for the victims of Epstein and Maxwell. I mean, this was the one person who was held accountable for these crimes, and she was held accountable for her crimes, not for someone else's, but for the ones that she committed. And I think there's many other ways for him to move forward with this. That would actually be indicative of him not being involved, that would not involve her, right, releasing more information as people are clamoring for. I think anything that involves her participation would be seen as a sign of guilt.
COLLINS: And, Jennifer, you're with us here as well. When you just watch how all of this is playing out, do you -- do you get the sense that the administration is listening or that Republicans, as they're fighting for this or fighting about this, I should say, that they're listening to stories like Annie's when they're -- when they're listening to all of this?
JENNIFER FREEMAN, ATTORNEY FOR EPSTEIN VICTIMS: I'm afraid not, which is really upsetting to other survivors. Obviously, Annie has spoken beautifully, but many others have told me how upsetting this is. It feels like a betrayal. It feels atrocious to them and it's hard to stomach.
COLLINS: Annie, I mean, one comment that we heard from the president yesterday was, you know, this is being pushed by the Democrats, that it's a hoax, that it's BS. As someone who lived it and experienced it, and as a survivor, I wonder what you make of that.
FARMER: It's offensive. It's -- this is not a hoax. You know, there have been so many people that have come forward and shared their stories. I hate that it has been politicized the way it has because I think we lose sight of the bigger picture in that. And, you know, I think this is really about people using their power to harm others. And that is not a political issue. I think people on both sides care about the safety of children.
And, I really, yes, I really hope that Trump understands that a message is being sent beyond just the individuals involved in this case to the wider community about how we, you know, about the seriousness of these types of crimes.
COLLINS: And, Annie, where do you -- where do you personally come down on the calls to release everything? Do you -- do you agree with that?
FARMER: Yes, I am definitely supportive of more transparency in this case. You know, my sister has filed this lawsuit in order to have more information released as to why her 1996 FBI report, why nothing was done. Right? That's something that has been so upsetting for us to know how many people were harmed that didn't need to be if there had been more follow-up at that time. And a piece of this case that hasn't gotten a lot of attention is the fact that, you know, when she was assaulted, there were also photos that were stolen from her. [16:30:05]
She was an artist. She was a figurative artist, and she took photos of myself and my sister -- partially nude photos to work from, as a lot of artists do.
But those photos were stolen by Maxwell and Epstein, and we've never been told. Even though we know that photos have been found, we've never been told where our photos are part of that. We would like to know, of course, if that is the case. And I think that's the kind of thing, you know, transparency might bring more information for people involved.
COLLINS: Yes. Well -- and when you ask those questions, does anyone answer? What kind of response do you get?
FARMER: So far, there hasn't been a lot of official response, you know, to our queries, you know, even in this -- you know, I reached out to the prosecutors who you know, brought -- you know, who got the guilty verdict for Maxwell, saying, you know, what's going on. And, you know, they knew so little because they have not been involved in this process.
So, I wrote a letter to Deputy Attorney General Blanche saying, you know, these are my concerns about what's happening. And there has not been a response. So, you know, we -- I know speaking with other survivors in this case, that even though so many politicians are talking about this, I don't think anyone has actually been contacted by anyone.
COLLINS: So, you reached out to the attorney -- deputy attorney general, and you haven't heard back?
FARMER: Yes.
COLLINS: Well, Jennifer Freeman, Annie Farmer. Annie -- Jennifer, I spoke with you last night, and thank you again for your time. And I just want to reemphasize, I'm really grateful for you being willing to come on and talk about this and have such an important conversation. So, thank you.
FARMER: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next, despite overwhelming scientific evidence, a new report -- new report by the Department of Energy claims that sea levels are rising faster than normal and that carbon dioxide could actually help plants grow. Scientists say that report is cherry- picking data. We're going to speak to the energy secretary about how they put it together. Next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:36:43]
COLLINS: The U.S. is undergoing one of its most significant shifts in climate policy in order to align with President Trump's energy agenda. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has moved to scrap environmental restrictions on power plant pollution, shutter key facilities that have measured greenhouse gases in our air for decades and will now force 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 are also pushing Trump's energy goals, including this post from the Department of Energy supporting Trump's mission to boost power from coal. It shows a glimmering lump of it, describing the fossil fuel as an icon, a legend, and the moment. My source leads the energy department under President Trump, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright.
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 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 what 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: Well, I've been in the climate debate and discussion for over 20 years, so I know certainly a lot of people in that world. And I just made a list of who 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 a scientist.
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.
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, you know, when it comes to those, there are 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 kind of a timeline, or should they have had more time to do a comprehensive review?
WRIGHT: Well, 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 and 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, you know, if you don't say the thing that proved 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 DC this fall. We want to have an honest dialogue 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, you know, what they wanted to say in this report. What would you say to them?
WRIGHT: Absolutely not. This -- the report references the intergovernmental panel on Climate Change reports over a hundred 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 a -- that's an unfair assessment. But of course, look, people are very territorial --
COLLINS: Even though someone who's quoted in the report -- his work is quoted in the report?
WRIGHT: I -- you know, I don't know that particular author or 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. Thank -- 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 will 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 the -- justifies this report now?
WRIGHT: You know, I don't know the answer to that.
COLLINS: What's the discrepancy?
WRIGHT: But I think it was released early on in the Trump administration. It was not prepared during the Trump administration. But 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, I -- but look, the data is the data. So, whether you know, 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 it 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 -- do you believe it was slanted then and that they cherry-picked the data then?
WRIGHT: Well, it certainly wasn't a reasonable representation of broad climate science at that time. I think the Trump -- my guess is the Trump administration didn't meaningfully engage in a climate change report that was done by, you know, 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 as part of this continued climate data.
COLLINS: But you cite them in this report. 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 -- there's a lot of things. In my department, you know, 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.
[16:45:24]
COLLINS: Secretary Chris Wright, thank you for your time tonight, and for coming on to talk about the report.
WRIGHT: Thanks for having me. Look forward to doing more of the same.
COLLINS: This week, President Trump was asked, is Vice President JD Vance going to be his successor in 2028? It was a telling answer. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:50:21]
COLLINS: With some one thousand days until Election Day 2028, for those who are counting, President Trump this week gave his biggest hint yet at who he thinks is the successor to a MAGA movement that has redefined the Republican Party in his image.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you agree that the heir apparent to MAGA is JD Vance?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: 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.
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 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 ticket -- or running in that field of what that could look like.
TALCOTT: Yes, you know. 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 --
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, you know, if Trump weighs in on that 2028 primary, he could be pretty decisive. The other thing we saw, the president actually came out on the roof of the White House. You can see this here. 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, you know, 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.
Donald Trump called himself "The father of IVF" out on the campaign trail. But not only has his administration done little to deliver on those promises, it may not even be on the agenda. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:58:42]
COLLINS: This week, the Washington Post reported President Trump is walking away from a key campaign pledge to make IVF free, or to at least have insurers cover it, despite what he had promised on the campaign trail multiple times.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Under the Trump administration, your government will pay for or your insurance company will be mandated to pay for all costs associated with IVF treatment. We're going to government is going to pay for IVF when people need the treatment, when they want the treatment, when they want to go in with the fertilization.
The father --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You don't hear that every day.
TRUMP: I'm the father of IVF. I'm the father of IVF.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: More than six months into his term, Trump, who said he was the father of IVF, and his administration have not publicly proposed any new federal aid to make IVF free or even more affordable. The only action that Trump has taken on this front was that executive order he signed back in February to develop policy recommendations to expand access to IVF, something his supporters in Congress touted this way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. KATIE BRITT (R-AL): Once again, this is promises made, promises kept from President Trump and his strong leadership on this important issue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Maybe not exactly. White House officials are now reportedly blaming their inaction on the fact that Trump can't legally do this on his own and would need Congress to piss -- to pass a law. Republicans have a majority in Washington, of course, and the president has successfully gotten them to pass other legislation. In response to this new reporting, the White House says, "President Trump pledged to expand access to fertility treatments for Americans who are struggling to start families. The administration is committed like none before to using its authorities to deliver on this pledge.
Thanks so much for joining us. The news continues right here on CNN.
