Return to Transcripts main page

The Source with Kaitlan Collins

Blanche On Lawmakers Threatening DOJ: "Bring It On"; President Unveils New "Trump Class" Fleet Of Battleships; "60 Minutes" Story Shelved By Bari Weiss Streamed In Canada And Instantly Spread Across The Web. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired December 22, 2025 - 21:00   ET

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: I mean, if that doesn't get you excited for New Year's, I don't know what will.

You can watch the entire conversation right now at CNN.com/NYELIVE.

The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump responds to the fallout over his Justice Department's failure to release all the Epstein files.

I'm Kasie Hunt in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.

Tonight, the Justice Department is fiercely denying accusations of an Epstein coverup. It has been nearly four days, since Friday's legally- required deadline for the DOJ to release all the Epstein files. But what we've seen so far has been a delayed and heavy-handed redaction process that the DOJ insists is meant to protect victims.

But tonight, exclusive new reporting raises questions about the DOJ's process. CNN's MJ Lee found that the name of one anonymous Jane Doe Epstein survivor was left unredacted, appearing multiple times throughout the files that were released. That Jane Doe survivor alerted DOJ officials over the weekend. But on our last check, her name still appears throughout the release files.

It comes as sources tell CNN tonight that lawyers inside the DOJ headquarters are still scrambling to correct redaction errors, while still working through thousands of additional documents that remain unreleased tonight, well past the deadline.

Tonight, President Trump expressed dismay over the reputational damage that people photographed with Epstein might suffer, including Bill Clinton, who was in several photographs that were released by the DOJ on Friday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I know there are a lot of people that are angry about all of the pictures of other people, you know? But I think it's terrible.

Look, I don't like the -- I like Bill Clinton. I've always gotten along with Bill Clinton. I've been nice to him. He's been nice to me. We've always gotten along. Respect him. I hate to see photos come out of him. But this is what the Democrats, mostly Democrats, and a couple of bad Republicans, are asking for.

But no, I don't like the pictures of Bill Clinton being shown. I don't like the pictures of other people being shown. I think it's a terrible thing. I think Bill Clinton is a big boy. He can handle it. But you probably have pictures being exposed of other people that innocently met Jeffrey Epstein, years ago, many years ago.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Of course, President Trump, himself, under intense political pressure, signed the bill into law, forcing the release of those photos and many more.

But a spokesperson for Clinton tonight, accusing the DOJ of selectively releasing information, while shielding other individuals from scrutiny.

Clinton's spokesperson said this, quote, What the Department of Justice has released so far, and the manner in which it did so, makes one thing clear: someone or something is being protected. We do not know whom, what, or why. But we do know this: We need no such protection. Accordingly, we call on President Trump to direct Attorney General Pam Bondi to immediately release any remaining materials referring to, mentioning, or containing a photograph of Bill Clinton.

Those materials, just a fraction of what the DOJ still has in its possession tonight, and the bipartisan authors of the law ordering their release, demanding consequences.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): The quickest way, and I think most expeditious way to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi.

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): And we're building a bipartisan coalition, and it would fine Pam Bondi for every day that she's not releasing these documents.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: But the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, remains defiant.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Bring it on. We are doing everything we're supposed to be doing to comply with this statute. And Congressman Massie and these other congressmen that are coming out, speaking negatively about Director Patel, and the Attorney General, have no idea what they're talking about.

The idea that Attorney General Bondi would ever let a single piece of paper go out of this department that contains victim information is something they know we won't do. And the fact that they're threatening to impeach her for protecting victims is a reflection of where their head's at.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:05:00]

HUNT: My lead source tonight is Democratic congresswoman, Adelita Grijalva of Arizona. She provided that crucial final signature that was needed to force a vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which, of course, is forcing DOJ to release its files on Jeffrey Epstein.

Congresswoman, thanks very much for being here.

Do you think what we're seeing here, the partial release of these files, represents a coverup?

REP. ADELITA GRIJALVA (D-AZ): Absolutely. I do.

The Trump administration has had more than 300 days, a full month since Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, to prepare for the release of these files. And when we see them portioned out, Phase One, why don't we have access to all of it?

And this idea that they are selectively choosing things that are going to be more salacious, and obviously letting names of survivors through whatever filtering process they have, is very concerning. Very concerning.

And I'm glad that we've -- the Democrats had -- and both Massie and Khanna have been very outspoken about the fact that A.G. Pam Bondi is in content of Congress' order.

HUNT: The Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, did argue that there are pieces of these, of this law, that are in tension with each other, that the deadline in the statute doesn't allow them to also follow the statutory requirement to protect victims, because it takes so much work.

Do you see tension there?

GRIJALVA: I don't. Again, Trump made the promise, when he was running for office, that on day one these files would be released. He's had 300 days to do it. And here we are, still waiting.

And I think that the Transparency Act that was passed that didn't -- if Trump really wanted this information out there, it wouldn't have required an act of Congress to do it. But you can protect and should protect the identities of survivors. That's critical and essential. But it is inexcusable for this administration to continue to drag their feet.

HUNT: The Clinton camp -- Bill Clinton's spokesman said, a little bit more. I'm going to give you a little bit more of the statement. We've read part of it. But he says, We need no such protection. we call on President Trump to

direct Attorney General Pam Bondi to immediately release any remaining materials referring to, mentioning, or containing a photograph of Bill Clinton.

Do you believe that the Justice Department is doing this on purpose, that they are selectively releasing files?

GRIJALVA: Absolutely. Absolutely. And we can see that from they're -- my understanding is 15 different incidents, where Trump was mentioned and a picture was out of him. And then all of a sudden, the next day, once it's called out, it disappears, and then it keeps coming back.

So, I think that part of their redaction process is very selective, and it is very clear that the goal was to put Clinton out on blast, and anyone else that might have had mention there.

But I think it's very telling that when you do a search for Trump's name, nothing comes up.

HUNT: Do you believe that Donald Trump did something, that these files show that Donald Trump did something that was not legal?

GRIJALVA: The DOJ has provided little to no transparency, making it impossible to rule out any of these politically-motivated disclosures. And so, I do believe that the DOJ is being selective. I'm saying that the secrecy of this administration raises serious questions, including the possibility of political interference and protecting of the President and his allies.

HUNT: You mentioned your colleague, Congressman Ro Khanna, who, of course, has been working with Thomas Massie, to try to hold Pam Bondi in contempt. Would you support going farther than contempt? Would you support potentially trying to impeach Pam Bondi over this?

GRIJALVA: The facts suggest that she is interfering. And Congress passed a law, almost unanimously, in both chambers, and it required the DOJ to release all of the files except where it needed to protect victims. So, not only did the DOJ not comply with the law, but they're actively defying it.

HUNT: Was it a mistake not to include a clearer enforcement mechanism in this law, because there is no stated penalty for failure to comply in the statute as it's written?

GRIJALVA: I think that with this administration, everything has to be written out explicitly. Because if there is any way to obstruct, this administration has shown that they're going to do it.

[21:10:00]

And I don't think there's so many situations where I've heard members of Congress and others say, Well, this has never happened before. Like, in any administration, we've never seen anything like this. But with this administration, it's a consistent issue. And so, at the bare minimum, A.G. Bondi should have outlined -- put out an outline and a timeline of the full release of the files, an explanation for the delay and a general description of what materials are being withheld. And we haven't even received that.

HUNT: All right. Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva, thanks very much for spending some time with us tonight. I really appreciate it.

GRIJALVA: Thank you for your attention to this issue.

HUNT: All right, I want to bring in now:

CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig.

And former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tom Dupree.

It's wonderful to see both of you.

Elie, I want to start with you.

Do you see tension the way that Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, has outlined, between the statutory requirement to redact and protect victims, and the deadline that Congress put -- gave to the DOJ for this?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Sure. Why not do both?

I mean, DOJ is a massive organization, 110,000 employees, $44 billion annual budget. And Todd Blanche is saying, Well, we could only do one or the other. We could only either meet the 30-day requirement or protect victims.

You could have done both, if you really cared to.

And this rollout, Kasie, in general, has been a mess. I mean, first of all, it's late. And the problem with it being late isn't so much that we all and the public have to wait. It's the fact that, right now, we don't know what we have. We don't know if what we've seen is 10 percent, 50 percent, 80 percent of the total files. So that's issue number one.

Issue number two, and the Congresswoman alluded to this, the way the redactions have been done is completely inconsistent, internally. Sometimes, there's a single name sort of taken out of or blacked out of a long paragraph. Other times, there's 100-plus page documents that are redacted in their entirety. And I think when you have that kind of inconsistency, it undermines public confidence.

HUNT: Tom Dupree, we have CNN reporting from inside the Justice Department tonight. Our team writes this. Quote, Inside the Justice Department headquarters, lawyers are still scrambling to correct mistakes made in redacting files and working through thousands more documents that still aren't available.

And our MJ Lee reported that there's at least one woman whose name appears throughout. It's still on the website.

What does that tell you about the process?

I think he may not be able to hear me.

Elie, can I put that question to you?

HONIG: Yes, sure. I think it goes further to the point that I was just making, Kasie, that this is chaotic within the Justice Department. They're scrambling. They're already three, four days past the deadline. The instructions, the operating instructions, seem to vary, depending on who's been assigned this. So, this was rolled out in a very haphazard way, and I think it's causing people, genuinely, to question this.

Another problem I see here, Kasie, by the way, is that Todd Blanche has said that, We are withholding, what we call, deliberative process documents. Meaning, our internal memos, our prosecution memos, our internal evaluation of cases.

But the law itself actually says, Subsection 7, DOJ does have to release exactly those documents.

So yet again, you see DOJ sending mixed messages and really not complying with either the letter or the spirit of the law.

HUNT: Elie, can we talk about the Clintons for a second? Because this fairly remarkable, lengthy statement came out from Bill Clinton's office today, asking them to put out everything, put all of it out into the open.

Do you think that's something that DOJ is capable of doing based on what you've seen from this so far?

HONIG: I'm not about to vouch for DOJ's competency at this point.

But I did find the statement from the Clinton camp to be fairly unconvincing. I mean, OK, if they want to see other documents come out? Fine. I want to see how that -- what those documents are going to say about the photographs we all saw of Bill Clinton, Ghislaine Maxwell, and a woman whose identity is blacked out, in a pool, at a night -- at the night. I mean, what is Bill Clinton going to say about that?

We've all seen the photograph of Bill Clinton in a hot tub with, again, a woman whose identity was blacked out, and saying, Well, DOJ is covering, suggesting DOJ is covering for Trump. Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know that for sure. But I don't find that at all even beginning to address the many serious questions that have arisen around Bill Clinton here. No evidence specifically he committed a crime, but he can't hide from what's in those photos.

HUNT: Elie, one big question we were asking, as we were waiting for these files to come out, was how much we were going to see of the investigation, the first Epstein investigation, essentially, the one that resulted in that sweetheart deal-- HONIG: Right.

HUNT: --with Alex Acosta, in charge of it. Versus what happened -- what we may have learned from the investigate -- the subsequent investigation that led to the conviction, imprisonment of Jeffrey Epstein.

What is your sense of, in particular, as it applies to Clinton, how much of what went on with Clinton is actually in that earlier part of like -- of the Epstein saga, where there is potentially plausible deniability, and how much of it isn't? Or do we have no idea?

[21:15:00]

HONIG: See, this is exactly the problem with the way DOJ has given us these files. They're completely out of context. Take those photos we were just talking about of Bill Clinton. We don't know exactly where they were taken. Very importantly, we don't know where they were taken.

And the timing is so important here, Kasie. Because, to me, there's a really key cutoff that happens in 2007, 2008. That's when Jeffrey Epstein is being prosecuted in Florida by the Feds. He gets this ridiculously inexcusably soft plea deal. But at that point, he does plead to a Florida State level charge of soliciting a minor for prostitution.

So, people who are still cavorting with Jeffrey Epstein after that, after 2007, 2008, I think, have a very different set of questions to answer, than people who cut him off before 2007, 2008.

HUNT: I think Tom Dupree has returned to the living.

Tom, these redactions are, we can kind of show you what they look like, right? And I'm interested to know, from your perspective and with all of your experience.

I mean, there are just pages and pages that are black, right? They're rolling by on the screen right now. It's, I think if you're a layperson, it's hard to see how that represents the release of a document. And then on the other side, you see clearly, a different approach taken by potentially different attorneys. We have no way of knowing.

What do you make of this?

TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Right. Well, Kasie, when you see all of these documents, page after page of redaction after redaction, the last thing in the world you think is, This is transparency.

And look, this is one of the exceedingly rare occasions in America, in 2025, where Congress spoke with virtually a unanimous voice and said, The American people want to see these documents. They want transparency. And what we've seen so far from the Justice Department is the opposite of transparency. We have seen page after page, where you can't make head or tail of what's on it. You see documents that raise your suspicions. But then, of course, a critical name or critical words are redacted with a black line.

I'm hopeful that the Justice Department will take a second look at this, will go back, look at the redactions, and say, Did these documents really need to be redacted in the interest of protecting the victims? That's what's got to be front and center here, protecting victims, but at the same time ensuring the greatest amount of transparency possible. And so far, what we've seen doesn't meet that standard.

HUNT: All right.

Elie. Tom. Thank you both very much for spending some time with us tonight. Really appreciate it.

All right. Coming up next here.

Inside the fight to define MAGA, the search for its heir apparent.

And the new details on why the new head of CBS News abruptly pulled a planned "60 Minutes" report.

Plus, President Trump unveiling a new class of battleships? He is naming the fleet after himself and helping with the design.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The U.S. Navy will lead the design of these ships along with me, because I'm a very aesthetic person.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: Tonight, we are seeing deepening fractures within the Republican Party, after days of MAGA infighting at Turning Point's annual AmericaFest convention.

Prominent conservative speakers fought over who is and isn't MAGA, prompting the Vice President, JD Vance, to close with this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JD VANCE (R), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: President Trump did not build the greatest coalition in politics by running his supporters through endless, self-defeating purity tests.

I didn't bring a list of conservatives to denounce or to de-platform.

I know some of you are discouraged by the infighting over any number of issues. Don't be discouraged.

Wouldn't you rather lead a movement of free thinkers who sometimes disagree than a bunch of drones who take their orders from George Soros?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Vance argued that the conservative movement should be open to everyone, as long as they, quote, Love America.

He also stopped short of calling out the most extreme figures of his party, including white nationalist Holocaust denier, Nick Fuentes, who recently had a friendly sit-down with Tucker Carlson, and it was that interview that set off this war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEN SHAPIRO, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: The conservative movement is also in danger from charlatans who claim to speak in the name of principle but actually traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty.

STEVE BANNON, FORMER TRUMP WH CHIEF STRATEGIST: Let's face it. Ben -- Ben Shapiro is the farthest thing from MAGA.

Ben Shapiro is like a cancer, and that cancer spreads.

VIVEK RAMASWAMY (R) OHIO GOV. CANDIDATE: If you believe, and you will forgive me for giving you an exact quote from our online commentator, Nick Fuentes, if you believe that Hitler was pretty (bleep) cool, you have no place in the future of the conservative movement.

(CHEERING)

(APPLAUSE)

TUCKER CARLSON, CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL HOST: To hear calls for, like, de-platforming and denouncing people at a Charlie Kirk event -- I'm like, what? This is hilarious.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. My political sources tonight.

Former Republican Congresswoman, Barbara Comstock.

Former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, Marc Short.

And Democratic strategist, Paul Begala.

And Marc Short, let me start with you.

Because, I mean, these divides that were on display, at this Turning Point conference, were incredibly personal, incredibly emotional, and also really underscored the antisemitism that does exist on the right. What did you take away? MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well, Kasie, I think that President Trump did a phenomenal job, in his first campaign and first administration, of rallying conservatives in basically creating a unique coalition that brought in a lot of blue- collar workers into our party.

But I feel like the second administration is more around a personality. And I think that, that when that happens, and I think, as Ben Shapiro commented, it gives rise to a lot of grifters and charlatans.

[21:25:00]

And I think that, you know, whereas the first administration was consistently conservative on foreign policy, and President Trump campaigned in 2018 talking about how Obama sent blankets and he sent Javelin missiles to Ukraine. And yet, now seems to adopt Russian talking points.

Where, you had limited tariffs targeted toward China. Now, it's universal tariffs. And conservative organizations that once championed free trade are now basically walking in lockstep with that.

Where you have basically condoning of antisemitism from some organizations, are at least allowing it on the right.

And when you -- when you hear, in all respect to Vice President Vance, talk about even condemning those groups associated with George Soros. George Soros' Foundation has funded some of the very groups that are supporting JD Vance's industrial policy.

And so, I think what you've seen is a drift-away from the traditional conservative policies that I think held that coalition together in the first administration. And so, yes, it's going to splinter, because many of those policies are now no longer being followed. And instead, there's more of a support for personality instead of those consistent conservative principles.

HUNT: Barbara Comstock, do you see what we saw on that stage as presenting a reality that a traditional Republican could get behind? I mean, one of the things that we heard from that stage was Donald Trump Jr. saying, It's not the Republican Party anymore. It's the America First Party. It's the Make America Great Again Party.

BARBARA COMSTOCK, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (R-VA): No, I don't think it's any of those things.

Listen, the antisemitism, and the racism, the sexism, the isolationism, the nationalism, it is all coming full bloom. And Trump has created these monsters who are now eating their own. I mean, in the first term, you had people like Mike Pence, the Vice President, and others, who contained some of the, you know, some of Donald Trump's isms that are now all out in the open. And this is Donald Trump in full bloom now. And now it's -- we're seeing it as it is.

And now, because of the antisemitism, you have people, like Ben Shapiro and others, coming out. Mark Levin wasn't there, but he's been very upset about it.

But everyone's been putting up with the sexism from the beginning. Now you even have people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, and even Laura Loomer saying, Hey, what about this racism and everything? This isn't good for the party.

Well, it's always been there, and Donald Trump has always been a sexist. He just doesn't have people around him anymore that curtail it.

And so -- and now you also have his tariffs and his terrible economy now that are horrible. So now you have, you know, he's 31 percent on the economy, and he is doing a terrible job there.

And you have JD Vance fully embracing the racism, the sexism, the isolationism and the nationalism, telling everyone that, We're a Christian nation, and that is, you know, he wants his wife to get on board with that too.

It's an ugly, ugly picture that is turning off a vast amount of the country. And I will point out, he never has won a majority. He was always under 50 percent. And now he is well down in the 30s. And that is because people are seeing what this movement is really about, and it's a very ugly, ugly version of what they think America is.

And fortunately, most of America does not think this is what we are, and it isn't what they want to be. And that's why you saw, already this year, elections have rejected it overwhelmingly, here in Virginia, in New Jersey, double digits, saying, No, that is not what we are.

HUNT: Paul Begala, speaking of JD Vance, right? And not to totally disagree with Marc Short. But one of the things that has held the coalition together is Donald Trump's personality, right? When he's not on the ballot, Republicans have struggled to bring out that working- class coalition.

And I'm interested in the idea that part of what we saw on that stage is a splintering, in the face of trying to figure out a succession plan for Donald Trump. And JD Vance, clearly, is the heir apparent. He was endorsed there. When you -- we did some polling here at CNN. He kind of comes out on top, certainly ahead of other potential contenders.

But is simply anointing him -- you're the Democrat on the panel. You've had -- you've done some anointing lately. How did that go? And would you recommend it to the Republicans?

PAUL BEGALA, CONSULTANT AND FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: Right. I would not. That's a good point, Kasie.

[21:30:00]

First, I'm violating the old Napoleonic Maxim. Never interrupt your opponent when he's busy destroying himself. I've never agreed with Barbara and Marc more, because they're right, and they're principled people. We disagree about policies, but they're principled people.

With JD -- look, first off, it's so preposterous for him to say, Well, Donald Trump doesn't have purity tests.

Really? Really? Ask Mike Pence. Ask Mitch McConnell. Ask Marjorie Taylor Greene. He demands absolute fealty, absolute purity, to his personality. And I think Barbara's right, it's a cult of personality now.

Does JD have that personality to be able to hold this together? Is that a trick question? Are you kidding? JD has been vaccinated against personality. I mean, he is so dull, the FDA has approved his speeches as a form of anesthetic. There's not a chance he can hold this thing together, not a chance in a world.

So, I'm just loving it. It is like -- it's like, remember the Ascent of Man chart? I know, I'm a liberal. I believe in evolution. It's like, you took that chart and you put them all in a steel cage death match. And neanderthal, Oh, look, they just drop-kicked Cro-Magnon. And, Oh, look, Homo erectus just body-slammed Australopithecus. It's just, I'm just loving it. And I guess I should just shut up and enjoy it.

HUNT: OK. Marc Short, I think is itching to jump in.

Marc.

SHORT: Well, I'm often entertained by Paul. But look, I think the--

BEGALA: I love Marc.

SHORT: I love you too, Paul.

I think that JD has had a pretty meteoric rise, politically, from where he came to down being Vice President of the United States. I think he's very talented on the stump, and I think he's very talented in defending President Trump's policies.

But Kasie, I think the challenge is going to be that, basically, you now have Republicans embracing state-owned enterprises. You have Republicans embracing the most protectionist policies that labor unions would blush about. And I think that if that creates more and more job uncertainty in the economy, because you see unemployment rates go up? That's going to create a problem.

And if conservative organizations aren't speaking out, aren't speaking out in defense of the traditional values of defense of life, and basically all walking lockstep with now having the most pro-abortion HHS Secretary in American history? Walking lockstep on basically full protectionist trade policy, walking in lockstep on a foreign policy that wants to give Ukraine over to Russia? Then I think the conservative movement is going to need a lot of healing. I think that's the challenge we face, right now, as a larger conservative body.

HUNT: All right. Marc. Barbara. Paul. Always lovely to speak with all of you.

Paul, it's going to -- you're -- it's going to stick with me. Your metaphors. Thank you.

BEGALA: Well.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here.

BEGALA: Merry Christmas.

HUNT: There is the gilded Oval Office, the Trump Gold Card. And now, the Golden Fleet. President Trump unveiled a new class of battleships today. He's naming it after himself.

My congressional source weighs in, next.

[21:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: Today, President Trump announced that the Navy will build new battleships to create a so-called Golden Fleet. The new vessels are being called Trump Class battleships. They are expected to be longer and larger than the Navy's World War II-era versions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: So, the battleships are going to be armed just in terms of guns and missiles at the highest level. They'll also have hypersonic weapons, many hypersonic weapons, state-of-the-art electric rail guns, and even the high-powered lasers that you've been starting to read about. We have lasers where you aim the laser at a target, and it just wipes it out.

The U.S. Navy will lead the design of these ships along with me, because I'm a very aesthetic person.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: The President says the U.S. will start with two ships with the goal of building up to 25. It comes, of course, as Trump has deployed dozens of U.S. military assets, including Navy warships, in the Caribbean, amid an escalating feud with Venezuela's leader.

Want to bring in my Republican source tonight. Congressman Carlos Gimenez of Florida. He serves on both the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees.

Congressman, very grateful to have you on this show tonight.

The President previously told military members, at Quantico this year, this. Quote, I don't like some of the ships you're doing aesthetically. They say, Oh, it's stealth. I say, It's not stealth. An ugly ship is not necessary in order to say you're stealth.

Now, one of the renderings for the new ship shows Trump's image on the ship itself. What do you make of Trump's interest in being involved in the design for these ships?

REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ (R-FL): Look, the only thing I care about is that we develop the most lethal surface combatant in the world, because we need it. Right now, China can now produce this, like 250 to one, and they already have the largest Navy in the world. They're the number one adversary. We've got to get to it. And so, we need to have and build a new classes of ships that are going to be up to the task of the new threats that are emerging every single day.

And so, again, I don't care what they're called. I only want, I want them to be lethal, and I want us to build them as fast as we can, because we're falling way behind.

HUNT: Do we have the capability to, again, whatever you call them, to build these ships? Because our capacity to build ships has been declining in recent decades.

GIMENEZ: That's correct, and that's one of the things that we were doing in the House Armed Services Committee, is emphasizing that we need to step up our ship-building capability here in the United States, because we have fallen way, way behind.

[21:40:00]

And for too long, we've allowed these capabilities to go offshore, especially to China. So, look, when I -- when I tell you that they can now build this 250 to one. For every large ship that we build in the United States, China can build 250. We're not going to catch up to them. But what we need to do is make sure that the ships we build are highly lethal and able to combat the growing Chinese threat.

And so, we need to get to it. We need to start building them. And if it's a new class of battleship, then so be it, with new weapons, space-age weapons. There won't be the big guns. That will be something else. And we need to start building, and we need to start building that capability right here in the United States.

HUNT: I want to ask you about Venezuela. We learned that the Trump administration was pursuing or that -- the United States is pursuing another vessel near Venezuela. The President was asked about this, this afternoon. I want to show you -- share with you what he said, and we'll talk about it. Take a look.

GIMENEZ: Yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Are you able to share what became of that tanker? Was the U.S. able to seize it?

TRUMP: No, it's moving along, and we'll end up getting it. Yes, we're actually pursuing it. Can you imagine?

REPORTER: (inaudible) seize it yet?

TRUMP: Because it came from the wrong location, it came out of Venezuela.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Are you supportive of what the administration is doing here with these tankers, and how do you understand the purpose of what they're doing?

GIMENEZ: Well, the purpose is, these are sanctioned tankers. They're sanctioned. It's sanctioned oil. And so, it's illegal. And so, we have the right to intervene, and also to capture those tankers, and then divert them to one of our ports. I mean, we did that, we had that same exercise, some years ago, against Iran, when we actually sanctioned their oil, and we cut off their income.

And so, Iran, for a long time, wasn't able to support Hamas, Hezbollah, until the Biden administration allowed Iran to start selling its oil again, and they started weaponizing Hamas and Hezbollah, and then we got -- we got the chaos in the Middle East that we have today.

And so, I'm fine with the President intercepting and diverting that oil back to the United States, and also capturing those tankers and seizing those tankers, because that is sanctioned oil and it's illegal to sell on the open market.

HUNT: What do you understand as the Trump administration's ultimate goal with the Venezuelan regime?

GIMENEZ: I believe that the ultimate goal of the Trump administration is for Nicolas Maduro to leave. I mean, it's been stated for a number of times. He is the illegitimate ruler of a narco-terrorist state. He is the head of the Cartel de los Soles, which has been labeled a narco-terrorist organization.

And so, yes, we would like Venezuela to -- the reins of power to be given to the really, truly, freely-elected, democratically-elected, government-in-waiting, Edmundo Gonzalez, and Maria Corina Machado who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize. That would be my druthers. That's what I'd like to see.

But I'm pretty sure that the President also wants to see Nicolas Maduro and his regime leave, because of the harm they have caused to America, to American citizens, and also the fact that they harbor our greatest enemies. China, Russia, North Korea, Hamas, Iran, are all in Venezuela, and they are our greatest adversaries. And so, there's more to it than just narco-terrorism. There's also the security of the United States and its people that come to mind.

HUNT: Would you support using force on land in Venezuela, as the President has foreshadowed, in order to accomplish that goal.

GIMENEZ: Well, I think that what he's trying to -- when he says he wants to use force, is to disrupt the narco-terrorists and the drug trafficking that happens through Venezuelan--

HUNT: On land, he said. GIMENEZ: Yes, well, because, you know, a lot of it happens through land. And so, what Venezuela is, is actually the shipper of drugs. They don't produce as many drugs as, let's say, Colombia and other parts of South America. But actually, they are--

HUNT: But would you support those operations?

GIMENEZ: To disrupt the shipment of drugs into the United States, especially drugs that later on, when it's laced with fentanyl, are killing thousands of us? Yes. Because the number one job of any government is to protect its citizens.

We have been woefully inadequate and failed in our efforts to protect American citizens. We had five -- 500,000 to a million Americans have died of overdose in the last five, six years, you know? And so, that's not -- that's not us doing our job.

And so, now the President is taking more direct action to make sure that that doesn't happen, to reduce the drug deaths that we've had in America over the last five or six years. And so, I think that that's the number one job of any government. And like I said before, we failed in our duty, in the past, and I think the President is trying to rectify that with these new policies.

HUNT: All right.

Congressman Carlos Gimenez, thanks very much for spending some time with us tonight. Appreciate it.

GIMENEZ: It's my pleasure.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here. What sources inside CBS News are saying about the move to pull a "60 Minutes" story and how some people are able to watch it tonight.

[21:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: Tonight, CNN is hearing from sources inside CBS News, after their newly-installed Editor-in-Chief shelved a story that was set to air on "60 Minutes," last night.

Just hours before the Sunday broadcast, Bari Weiss pulled a report about Venezuelan men deported by the Trump administration and sent to a notorious maximum security prison in El Salvador.

Here's how it unfolded. According to two CBS News sources, Weiss first screened the segment, Thursday night, and had some notes for the producers.

[21:50:00]

Come Friday, staff believed the story was ready to go and gave their PR team the go-ahead to promote it.

But on Saturday morning, Weiss came back with concerns about the lack of a response from the Trump administration.

And by Sunday, just hours before airtime, one of the sources says the piece was cut from the broadcast.

But tonight, we're learning some people have now seen the story after it was posted online.

My source tonight, CNN Chief Media Analyst, Brian Stelter.

Brian, great to see you.

How did this happen?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: This is pretty incredible. This report about the prisoners was so ready to go, last Friday, that CBS shipped it off to one of its affiliates, a Canadian network called Global TV. This happens all the time in television. Taped programming gets shared with affiliates.

And that network, Global TV, streamed the report on its app today, which caught the attention of some Canadian viewers, some of whom just held up their phones and started recording the report on their phones, right off the TV sets, before they could share it on Reddit, and Bluesky, and X, and other sites. So now, the report by Sharyn Alfonsi has gone viral.

It reminds me of what my late mentor David Carr once wrote in The New York Times. He said, Information not only wants to be free. It's consumers are cunning, they're connected, and they will always find a workaround.

And that's what's happened in this case, Kasie.

HUNT: Pretty remarkable. And yes, in this day and age, it can be very difficult to keep things close to the vest.

So the correspondent who reported this story, Sharyn Alfonsi, she wrote in a memo that it was -- this story was screened--

STELTER: Right.

HUNT: --five times in total, and that both CBS lawyers and Standards and Practices had cleared the story. She says that it was factually correct.

STELTER: Right.

HUNT: What else have we learned from her about what happened?

STELTER: Yes. And now there's this ongoing dispute inside CBS about how the requests for comment happened, whether government officials responded to those requests for comment. There's a little bit of a she-said-she-said situation going on.

But Alfonsi was very wise to write this memo, to memorialize what happened, probably knowing it was going to leak out into public view, so there was a record of what happened. She called this corporate censorship by Paramount, and she said that her team did try to get comment from Trump officials.

And here's the key quote. She said, Their refusal to be interviewed is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story. If the administration's refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a 'kill switch' for any reporting they find inconvenient.

HUNT: And Brian, the backdrop for all of this, of course, CBS' parent company, Paramount, is currently trying to buy Warner Bros. Discovery. It's obviously the parent company of us here at CNN.

We did hear from the Committee for the First Amendment on this question. How does this play in?

STELTER: Yes, that's right. This is the newly-reconstituted Committee for the First Amendment, led by Jane Fonda and others in Hollywood. They said the situation at CBS is, quote, Beyond concerning, and they raised the following question about the merger drama here.

They said, quote, Is Paramount, once again, kowtowing to appease the president, as its owner seeks administration approval to further expand his media empire with a hostile takeover of WBD?

That's certainly a question that some inside CBS are asking as well.

Earlier today, Oracle billionaire, Larry Ellison, who is helping to finance this takeover, this hostile takeover bid, he agreed to personally guarantee and backstop the bid. That's something the WBD had been suggesting Ellison was reluctant to do.

So, there's this ongoing tug of war we've been covering, between Netflix and Paramount, over the Warner Bros. Discovery assets. But it's relevant in this case, because we're talking about who's going to own CNN in the future. And certainly, if CNN is acquired by Paramount, Bari Weiss would likely play a role in that newsroom operation.

All of this, of course, is about President Trump, right? Because Trump has complained about "60 Minutes" recently. He's griped about the Ellisons as the owners. And he has said he'll be personally involved in any merger. Whether it's the Netflix deal, or the Paramount takeover bid, Trump has said he'll be personally involved. And that means CBS News coverage is really under a microscope right now.

Because Trump, you know, he's very good at perceiving where he has leverage, right? He knows pressure points. He knows how to apply that pressure, and he might be doing that in this particular case, we don't know.

HUNT: All right.

Brian Stelter, thank you very much for spending some time with us tonight. Really appreciate it.

STELTER: Thanks. HUNT: All right. Up next here. President Trump defending the latest move as he eyeballs Greenland, after he made one official across the Atlantic, furious.

[21:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: Tonight, President Trump is defending his surprise pick for Special Envoy to Greenland. The sitting governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Louisiana, the Louisiana Purchase. He said I'm governor of Louisiana, and he said I would love -- I didn't call him. He called me. He's very proactive. He's a great guy. He's a deal guy. He's a deal-maker type guy.

We need it for national security. We have to have it. And he wanted to lead the charge. So, we're making him, Marco, today, a Special Envoy--

MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: Yes.

TRUMP: --to Greenland. Greenland is a big deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So, while the President congratulated Governor Landry for the new role. Denmark was, quote, "Deeply upset" by the news, as the President continued his push to annex the territory.

As for the man the President tapped for the job, Governor Landry had a message for people in his state, worried he was leaving them and his governorship behind. He says, quote, "I'm not going anywhere."

So we wanted to clear that up. All right. Thank you so much for joining us this evening.

"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.

[22:00:00]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST, CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP: Tonight.

Grifters, charlatans, moral imbecility.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: I watched it. I laughed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)