Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Met With National Security Officials Today On Iran; Trump Defends "Anti-Weaponization Fund" Amid Bipartisan Fury; Colbert Bids Farewell To "Late Show" In Star-Studded Finale. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired May 22, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KALINA SILVERMAN, AUTHOR, "BIG TALK," CREATOR, @MAKEBIGTALK: I like the idea that Big Talk can be a passport to pretty much anyone in the world. I ask the same questions to an 8-year-old, to a 98-year-old, to someone who has just come out of prison, to someone I've met on the street.
I ask people questions like, What are you proud of in life, or What's been the darkest time of your life, and how'd you get through it. What do you want to do before you die was the very first Big Talk question I ever asked. And these questions are really simple.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: What would you want to do before you die?
SILVERMAN: What do you want to do before you die?
COOPER: Yes.
SILVERMAN: And the questions are really simple and open-ended, so people are able to reveal who they truly are, and as much as they want to. And sometimes, people are a little taken aback, but then you just -- almost, you see their shoulders kind of drop, and they get to just pop.
COOPER: Well, congratulations on the book. And I mean, I'm a huge fan of what you're doing, Kalina. Thank you.
SILVERMAN: I'm a huge fan of you too. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Well, that's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE" starts now.
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: I'm Elex Michaelson, in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
We begin with breaking news tonight. The President is at the White House right now, where a source tells CNN he met with top national security officials today about a path forward on Iran. We're told he's been presented with options for restarting military action.
It's notable that Trump is starting the holiday weekend in Washington because, his plan until this afternoon had been to go to his Bedminster, New Jersey golf club after a rally in New York.
At that rally, he gave supporters an update on the war. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: They're not going to ever have a nuclear weapon.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: They're never going to have a nuclear weapon. And will have that over with soon. It will be over with soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAELSON: President Trump also explained why he's missing his son, Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding in the Bahamas this weekend, posting, quote, "I feel it is important for me to remain in Washington, D.C., at the White House during this important period of time."
Day after saying this in the Oval Office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm in the midst -- I said, you know, this is not good timing for me. I have a thing called Iran and other things.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAELSON: Now, at the start of this week, the President set the timeline for restarting attacks at a matter of days.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I was asked by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and some others, if we could put it off for two or three days, a short period of time because, they think that they are getting very close to making a deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAELSON: Now, whatever happens next in the war, Trump will be without his spy chief. Tulsi Gabbard is leaving her job as Director of National Intelligence. In a resignation letter hand-delivered to the President today, she cites her husband's battle with quote, "An extremely rare form of bone cancer." She'll leave her post at the end of June.
Sources say over the last few weeks, rumors swirled in the White House that Gabbard was planning to leave. But as of two weeks ago, we're told she was denying that.
Gabbard's tenure has been defined in part by her contradictory positions on major national security issues, most notably on Iran. And to understand just how long she opposed any war with Iran, you have to scroll her X feed. For years, she's posted tweet after tweet arguing strongly against military action. Messages like, No war with Iran, War with Iran would make Iraq-Afghanistan wars seem like a picnic, and Trump's short-sighted foreign policy is bringing us to the brink of war with Iran.
CNN's Kevin Liptak is at the White House tonight to start things off.
Kevin, first off, what are we hearing when it comes to the President's thinking on Iran?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, I'm told that the President has not made a decision, despite that meeting that he held earlier today with top members of his national security team.
But clearly, he is now confronting another crossroads when it comes to this conflict. I don't think that there is much appetite for continuing this war any longer than it has already gone. Remember, we're already now past the six-week mark that he originally said it would last. It's obviously caused an enormous amount of political backlash for his party.
But at the same time, I don't think the President, at this point, can yet credibly claim that all of the objectives that he set out at the beginning of this conflict have been met. You know, Iran's nuclear capabilities remain untouched, it's rebuilding some of its missile capabilities as well. And so, he has, I think, a decision to make here, and some of the impulses, I think, are sort of crosswise with each other.
Now, the diplomacy is continuing apace. You had a Qatari delegation in Tehran today. You also have the Pakistanis continuing to mediate back and forth. You heard today from Marco Rubio, saying that there was quote, Some progress made, on making a deal.
You heard somewhat more pessimistic viewpoint from the Iranians, the Foreign Ministry saying, late today, that they're quote, Not close to reaching a deal.
[21:05:00]
Now, the President, as you said, will be here all weekend. He's ready to meet with his national security team, sort of at a moment's notice. I think it's evident that he will continue sort of mulling all of this.
But we are now within the timeframe that he set for himself to reach a decision. He said, when he held off on an attack, last weekend, that he would give Iran until, quote, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, maybe early next week, to come up to him with a deal that he could sign off on.
So we're within that timeframe. Whether the President keeps that deadline or blows past it, as he has done so many times before, I think now is the open question.
MICHAELSON: And we know that the military action in Iran, to begin with, and the military action in Venezuela, were both ordered late on a Friday night. We'll see if that happens again tonight.
Kevin Liptak, at the White House, thank you for that.
We want to bring in now:
CNN National Security Analyst, former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner.
Also, CNN Political and National Security Analyst, David Sanger, who is also The New York Times White House and National Security Correspondent.
David, you've got a lot of sources as well. What are you hearing in terms of where the President's head is right now?
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WH & NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUTHOR, "NEW COLD WARS": I don't think, at this point, Elex, he's made a decision to actually go and reopen the conflict. But he sounds like he's close to it because, communicating with Iran has been very difficult, and I think that the administration has got a false concept of the kind of deal it can strike.
You know, I spent a lot of time covering the 2015 nuclear accord that was reached with the Obama administration. It took two years to negotiate, for a reason. These are long and complicated deals. And if you're going to do them right, you're going to understand what the inspection regime is. You're going to understand what happens to each facility.
I think the President is kind of hoping for, like, a one-page memorandum of understanding. I'm not sure what that's exactly worth at this point.
MICHAELSON: And Beth, Kevin just mentioned the fact that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been in Geneva.
Here's what he had to say about negotiations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: We await word on those conversations that are ongoing. There's been some slight progress. I don't want to exaggerate it, but there's been a little bit of movement, and that's good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAELSON: So, Beth, we know that the President said he was giving allies in the region two or three days to make progress on peace talk. That was back on Monday. Now we're at Friday. What's your sense of where things stand going into the weekend? BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Well, look, I think that nothing has really changed, in that we face a dilemma as a nation, right, and that President Trump has no good options and really no clear path for making progress. And so, I think this is why he hasn't made a decision, is because it's really hard, it's really hard to make a decision right now because, you know, if you go to war, go back to war again, is it actually going to make things better.
And I think we also have to get back to this, like, basic premise that war is designed to achieve political ends. And so, what are we trying to achieve here? And, in fact, I think if we go back to war, if we go back to bombing, it actually makes getting an agreement with these people more difficult.
So, you know, this is the lack of trust between the two parties is still there, and so this dilemma. And in fact, the tea leaves are really hard for us to read because, it is up to one person, and President Trump will make that decision, and it's very difficult to know when or where, how that will happen.
MICHAELSON: David, we know in the past, one person who was against the idea of war with Iran was Tulsi Gabbard, who is now leaving her job as DNI. How do you see her legacy in that job, and what has been her role in this war that for years she argued against?
SANGER: Let's start with the second, Elex. As far as we can tell, she was pretty well frozen out of most of these discussions. That also went back to the Venezuela operation when there were -- later pictures surfaced that she was on vacation in Hawaii when the large Situation Room meetings were happening on the Venezuela attack.
But in the Iran case, her views were well-known. She was not a player in these major decisions. The CIA director, John Ratcliffe, who was the Director of National Intelligence at the end of President Trump's first term, seemed to play a much larger role in both the intelligence side of this, and to some degree as a carrier of diplomatic messages as well, back through the security services.
So, I'm not sure -- you know, it's very tragic that she's got to leave this--
MICHAELSON: Yes.
[21:10:00]
SANGER: --to help out her husband in what sounds like a pretty hard fight. But I'm not sure that it's going to make a lot of difference in these specific debates.
One thing on Beth's very good point about what this bombing would accomplish. The hard question that we've not heard anyone in the administration answer is how a resumption of the open conflict would turn out a different result than the first rounds did?
MICHAELSON: Yes. SANGER: And why do they think that now the Iranians would change their minds?
MICHAELSON: That is -- that is a good question, and that's one that we will be asking the White House.
Beth. David. Thank you both for joining us and sharing your perspectives.
And we're sending our love to Tulsi Gabbard and her family as they battle this health crisis together.
Up next. Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, at the center of a firestorm over that $1.8 billion fund. We're learning new details about his heated meeting with senators yesterday, with one calling it, One of the roughest meetings I've seen in my entire time in the Senate. And that's coming from a top Republican.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MICHAELSON: Tonight, President Trump is bucking bipartisan fury and defending his controversial $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund. Took to Truth Social today, writing, quote, "I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just announced Anti-Weaponization Fund to go forward... Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE!"
That very same fund has sparked a Republican revolt against the White House, with GOP senators packing up and leaving Washington. They're unwilling to deal with the politically toxic chance that the fund could compensate violent January 6th rioters.
Sources tell CNN the administration has no plans to make any changes to that fund, despite the sharp GOP blowback, acting Attorney General and Trump's former personal attorney, Todd Blanche, faced yesterday on Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): There were fireworks at an epic level. And I got to say, it's one of the roughest meetings I've seen in my entire time in the -- in the Senate. Uh, there were a lot of Republican Senators who were just pissed.
Almost every, every Republican senator was there. So, my guess is there were probably 45 senators in the room. At least half of them were blasting the Attorney General.
People were, the entire meeting, they were screaming at the acting Attorney General.
(END VIDEO CLIP) MICHAELSON: My next guest says, that anger has presented an opportunity for Democrats, arguing that the party should quote, "Impeach Todd Blanche." With the thin Republican majorities, Democrats could plausibly force a trial of the acting Attorney General over the Anti-Weaponization Fund.
My source tonight is the author of that piece, and the mind behind the "Very Serious" podcast and newsletter. Josh Barro, welcome to THE SOURCE.
JOSH BARRO, FOUNDER, "VERY SERIOUS" NEWSLETTER, HOST, "VERY SERIOUS" PODCAST: Thank you, Elex.
MICHAELSON: So, what is your case for impeachment?
BARRO: Well, so what they're doing here is flagrantly illegal. The Constitution says that Congress has to appropriate funds for the President to spend them. And they never authorized this.
There's a law that authorizes the federal government to pay judgments if it's sued in court and loses, or if it settles in a bona fide lawsuit. That doesn't allow the President to sit across the table from himself and quote-unquote, Settle, and then award himself $1.8 billion to hand out, as he sees fit, to whatever allies of his, including criminals who rioted at the Capitol. This is not -- this is not authorized by law.
And the President's former personal attorney, who has ended up running the Justice Department, which is itself an outrage, that someone with that direct personal relationship with the President, having been his personal advocate, is now in this position. Congress never allowed this, and they can stand up against it through an impeachment.
And so, obviously, you know, Democrats are in the minority. But any individual member of the House of Representatives can force an impeachment vote. It's a privileged resolution. And normally, there would be no Republican support.
But as you described, there, Republicans on both sides of Capitol Hill are so outraged about this that it is plausible that Democrats could peel off a few Republicans to vote for that impeachment in the House.
And then they would have to proceed with a trial in the Senate, where, as Ted Cruz describes there, you have like -- something like two dozen Senate Republicans who are absolutely furious about this. Let's see what they have to say about it in a trial of Todd Blanche over this effort to steal almost $2 billion from the taxpayer.
MICHAELSON: But in the end, do you think that he's removed from office? Do you think that there's the votes for that?
BARRO: I think a removal is unlikely, although I would like to see how many Republicans might vote for the removal. But what I -- what I would really like to see is this aired out in the Congress because, again, he's done an end run around the legislative process that should have authorized this sort of thing. You have Republicans who are going to have to stand for election in November and have to defend the fact that they've allowed a President to do this. Or they can show that they're going to stand up against it through an effort to remove the Attorney General who is -- who is presiding over this.
I mean, unfortunately, no. I think probably in the end you won't end up with a removal.
MICHAELSON: So--
BARRO: But this is the toolset that Congress has available to itself.
[21:20:00]
MICHAELSON: So, if he's not going to be removed in the end, would Democrats be better off trying to peel off Republicans to fight back against the Anti-Weaponization Fund, to maybe find -- force a bipartisan vote on that, if the Senate is that frustrated on that, focus on that, instead of the very political move of impeaching Todd Blanche, which is only going to infuriate the White House.
BARRO: I think that they can -- they can do both, and I think that they will do both. I mean, you have this -- you have this spending bill that the Senate has been tied up in knots over.
But ultimately, I mean, again, you know, they're not seeking congressional authorization for this. They're claiming that it's already authorized under this existing law that creates the Judgment Fund. So, in their view, they don't need Congress' approval, and whatever happens in that process is not going to stop the White House and the and the Justice Department from proceeding on this.
So, yes, I would -- I would like to see them take efforts in the process of writing that spending bill to put some sort of guardrails on this. But again, it's already illegal, so the Congress passing a new law that says this is illegal doesn't make it more illegal than it already was, and it's likely that the President will veto something that is put up before him if it imposes restrictions that he opposes.
But yes, I think they should take both of those tracks.
MICHAELSON: Josh Barro. You can read more about his perspective in Substack. Thanks so much for sharing your perspective.
BARRO: Thank you, Elex.
MICHAELSON: Want to bring in my political sources.
Conservative legal and political strategist, Katie Zacharia, on the right.
And host of "The Damage Report" on The Young Turks Network, John Iadarola on the left.
Great to see both of you. Welcome. JOHN IADAROLA, HOST, "THE DAMAGE REPORT": Thank you.
MICHAELSON: John, is this good way, good strategy for Democrats, the idea of impeachment?
IADAROLA: I agree with Josh that it should be aired out in public, and it is possible that this is the sort of thing, especially involving the J6ers, that could potentially break through. And I think it's wildly unconstitutional, illegal. As a patriotic American, it makes me sick that they would do this.
That said, there's an opportunity cost to focusing on this over some issues that are already proven to be dragging on Donald Trump's numbers. The war in Iran, gas prices, the Epstein scandal. Like, if you are focusing on this, you're not focusing on those things. There's a chance that this could break through. Or it could be one of those things that, to us, is super-relevant, but could be a little bit abstract to regular people.
MICHAELSON: Your thoughts?
KATIE ZACHARIA, LEGAL AND POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Well, I take first issue with the GOP senators and Senator Cruz. I would have loved to see that outrage to Merrick Garland during the Biden era, when they were ravaging President Trump's home, and I saw none of that outrage or polling--
MICHAELSON: Well, they weren't big fans of Merrick Garland, were they?
ZACHARIA: But they were, you know, torching him--
MICHAELSON: Yes.
ZACHARIA: --like they said they were, to acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche.
Look, there is precedent. Obama had a precedent. It's called Keepseagle. It was a $760 million fund, and it was people who had grievances against the federal government.
President Trump and his family are not receiving any money from this. They are -- they have put their hands up. This is for other people who have claims, and there are many already that have stepped up to the plate. This isn't a payout to his family, as he said. This is a payout to people who have been -- that their justice system has been weaponized against them.
MICHAELSON: You think that folks involved with January 6th deserve a payout from the federal government?
ZACHARIA: If they were targeted -- and I think there is a delineation on violent offenders and people that were targeted just for being at the Capitol. There are people that were there that were not violent, that were targeted, their businesses were targeted, and then they either were imprisoned or fined, and I think they had a hard time getting out from under that. They should be able to receive compensation if there wasn't due process on, Were you violent? How did you participate in this?
Now, if you were violent and you did something at the Capitol that needs evaluation? Sure. But this is a huge difference, and they're taking one small group of people and casting a big net around everyone, and I think that really undermines the fact that there was a weaponized judicial system under Biden, and it needs to be addressed.
MICHAELSON: Is this a good use of $2 billion of taxpayer money?
IADAROLA: It's better than more ballrooms, I suppose. But no, no, it's a terrible use.
And people keep throwing the $2 billion around. There's nothing in the document that says it's limited to $1.8 billion. It could be whatever they want it to be, and they could change their mind over time. There's a lot that's being colloquially thrown around that doesn't actually bear out in the document. It's not actually a settlement, it's not actually for $1.8 billion.
There's going to be effectively no oversight whatsoever. Even if there is an audit, then Todd Blanche can -- he appoints the person who does the audit. He can veto the audit if he wants to. This is one of the most transparent and corrupt acts that I've seen. And in this presidency, that's actually a difficult standard.
MICHAELSON: You're shaking your head.
ZACHARIA: Well, that's -- that's not correct. There are five people that review the cases. The President can, yes, that he can fire them, but they have to be hired the same way. And there's a lot of oversight going on in this. And it's not $2 billion. It's not $1.8 billion. It is a restricted fund. It's $1.776 billion. And--
MICHAELSON: OK.
IADAROLA: That isn't in actual document. That's just a thing they've set.
ZACHARIA: And -- and any funds after 2028 that are not used will be reverted back to the federal government, unlike Biden's term, where $300 million went to NGOs that didn't even apply for their grievances. So this is -- there is a big difference, and there will be oversight, and I think acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, will make sure of that.
[21:25:00]
MICHAELSON: Another big story that seems to be breaking tonight is the war with Iran, and this debate that seems to be happening, within the President's Cabinet, of whether to move forward with more military action. We have seen that this military action has been deeply unpopular for the American public. Do you think it potentially is worth it to start up the war with Iran again?
ZACHARIA: Well, I -- look, we have no visibility on the documents, and the see -- you know that he is able to see to make these types of decisions. If you're reading the tea leaves. He's spoken with all of the world, you know, the leaders in the surrounding region, Saudi, UAE, Qatar.
What I -- what I'm really noticing is this restriction on the Taiwan weapon deal, and what kind of pressure China is going to put on Iran here. Now, what that says to me is he's looking for avenues to put pressure on Iran rather than engage in further war. And if you have these surrounding countries that are able to help do that and leverage this, I think we can arrive somewhere.
MICHAELSON: Yes.
ZACHARIA: Now, is it a good idea? I can't definitively answer that because, the President has all the decision--
MICHAELSON: You think the war is going well?
ZACHARIA: Look, the President is dealing with a regime that wants to build a nuclear weapon. And I think we can all agree the world will not be safer if Iran has a nuclear weapon. Is it unpopular? Yes. But sometimes, doing the hard thing is very unpopular.
MICHAELSON: John.
IADAROLA: Yes, I think it's wildly unpopular. I think both of the way that it's been persecuted, the way that it was messaged around, and also that it directly contradicts basically everything that Donald Trump was saying when he campaigned. I think that's why not just people are frustrated, but particularly Independents who crossed over to Trump in 2024, and plenty of Republicans, especially younger Republicans, that absolutely despise this war.
I think that Donald Trump should find some way to wind it down. I think that if blowing Iran up was going to solve the problem, it would have solved the problem the last times that we decimated them and sent all their ships to the bottom of the sea. We've done this before. It didn't get them to fold. Maybe he'll make a case for how this is going to be different, but I haven't heard anything. I don't expect to.
MICHAELSON: Why do you think this is going to be different?
ZACHARIA: Well, I want to highlight that President Trump, in his first term, had sanctioned Iran, and he pulled out of the nuclear deal, and he was able to really pull back. And Hezbollah was defunded, Hamas was running out of money, and we didn't -- and then October 7th happens, when Biden rescinds all of these programs, all of the sanctions that President Trump had. So here we are, four -- five years later, having to fix problems that President Trump was on the path to fixing.
So, yes, ex post facto, it's not fun to have to go in and say, Look, you can't build a nuclear weapon. We were on the way to doing that. Biden didn't continue that. So, I think it's absolutely necessary for President Trump to continue to say what he did say, which is--
MICHAELSON: Yes.
ZACHARIA: --You may not have a nuclear weapon.
MICHAELSON: Last sentence to you. Is this Biden's fault?
IADAROLA: Why not? Sure. I wasn't a huge fan of Biden. Put that on him.
MICHAELSON: OK, there you go. I guess we found something you guys agreed on.
John. Katie. Great to see both of you. Have a great weekend. We appreciate it.
Up next. I sat down and talked with Spencer Pratt about his unconventional run for L.A. mayor. What he told me about why he's getting so many people's attention across the country, and his surprising choice for his political role model.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MICHAELSON: Right now, voting is underway here in California in the California primaries. The last day to vote is June 2nd.
And by now, you probably heard how a Republican is shaking up the race for mayor in deep-blue Los Angeles. Spencer Pratt, former reality TV star, has generated national buzz through his frank approach, laying out the city's challenges, and perhaps more notably, his aggressive social media campaign.
That includes reposting AI-generated videos from his supporters, like this one, portraying Pratt as Batman, going up against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, and her former supporter, City Councilmember Nithya Raman, also a Democrat, in fact, a Democratic Socialist.
I sat down with Pratt this week and asked him about his extraordinary reach.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SPENCER PRATT, LOS ANGELES MAYORAL CANDIDATE, AMERICAN TV PERSONALITY: Why I'm resonating is because people have eyeballs. I'm saying what people--
MICHAELSON: Well I -- yes.
PRATT: --I'm saying what people feel and they see.
MICHAELSON: Let's talk more about that.
PRATT: Yes.
MICHAELSON: Because, this campaign is probably the most watched campaign in the country. Your videos and people reacting it -- to them is like hundreds of millions of views all around the world. Why do you think that is? PRATT: The truth. I keep saying, everyone is sick of lying politicians, on both sides. I'm not saying -- politicians, let's put them in a box.
MICHAELSON: Yes.
PRATT: People do not trust politicians anymore. They know I'm not a politician. They know if they didn't burn my house down, I wouldn't be running for mayor.
MICHAELSON: Who is your political role model?
PRATT: Jesus Christ.
MICHAELSON: OK. I mean, that's -- yes, that's your--
PRATT: He's -- he was -- a politician. He had--
MICHAELSON: Yes.
PRATT: --you know, he had to go in and speak--
MICHAELSON: Are there any modern politicians that you're especially--
PRATT: No. I'm -- no.
MICHAELSON: --studying or drawn to?
PRATT: No.
MICHAELSON: No.
PRATT: I'm not a politician.
MICHAELSON: Yes.
PRATT: I don't want to be a politician.
MICHAELSON: Yes.
PRATT: I want to be a fighter for the people.
MICHAELSON: But you've mentioned, though, that--
PRATT: Obama -- yes, I'm most similar to Obama.
MICHAELSON: What is one word that separates you from your competitors?
PRATT: Truth.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MICHAELSON: Joining me now is Politico's California Bureau Chief, Melanie Mason.
Welcome. Good to see you. [21:35:00]
So, just a note, a couple things on that. He says Obama because, he says he's a community advocate, the way that Obama was a community organizer, and he became a community advocate after he lost his home in the Palisades fire, and he blames a lot of the Democratic, what he calls, mismanagement for that whole situation.
You see some shades of Trump 2015, 2016 in what's happening here.
MELANIE MASON, CALIFORNIA BUREAU CHIEF, POLITICO, CO-AUTHOR, POLITICO'S CALIFORNIA PLAYBOOK: Yes, I mean the way people are talking about Pratt right now is not as a politician. I mean, he says he's not a politician. It's a phenomenon. I mean, it feels almost more like a social phenomenon that people who are not necessarily very interested in politics are engaging because, they're seeing these videos, they're seeing him not sound like a politician.
And that is exactly what we heard about Trump, and what I think, especially in his early run in 2015. People weren't really interested in what plans he had. They were just interested in sort of the feelings that he was channeling, tapping into a lot of the frustrations, and I think that's exactly what Pratt is doing right now, with a lot of showmanship, again, much like President Trump.
MICHAELSON: The difference is President Trump was running around the country. Spencer Pratt just running here in Los Angeles. And there are so many comments on all of his videos that he posts. But many of them are, I wish I was living in L.A., so I could vote for you.
This is a non-partisan race, which means it does not say Democrat or Republican on the ballot. Yet, Democrats make up about two-thirds of voters here in Southern California, 13 percent Republicans.
And there was an AI-generated video that one of Pratt's fans put out that Spencer Pratt shared out, to sort of get at what he sees as his base, moms who are Democrats. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did someone mention Spencer Pratt?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh. Because I'm actually voting for him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, so are we.
I just don't know if we can say that too loud over here.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Say, what? Spencer Pratt? He's got my vote.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAELSON: He says this whole thing is about safety, and moms are his base.
MASON: And again, let's talk about a parallel to 2015 and 2016. What were we talking about then? Are there hidden Trump voters?
And now, what Pratt is looking for are hidden Pratt voters. And I think he is making the argument that there are registered Democrats out there who are frustrated with the state of the city, who are looking for radical change, and so maybe they will overlook some of the partisan associations. And he is a registered Republican. Even if it's not going to have an R behind his name on the ballot. But if the frustration is high enough, I think that he thinks that maybe these hidden Pratt voters could be enough to push him over the edge.
I think, again, the problem with him, as you pointed out, when there's 13 percent registered Republicans in the city, that's going to have to be a lot of hidden Democrats that are secretly backing Pratt to push him over the edge.
MICHAELSON: So, there's also an interesting dynamic in the way that we do elections here in Los Angeles is that, that it's not necessarily the top two advance. If somebody gets 50-percent-plus-1 on June 2nd, they're the mayor.
And so, what Pratt told me is he thinks he's going to get there. He says all these folks are not being polled, the people that support him, and that his best shot at winning is right now because, Karen Bass, the mayor, has not really attacked him that much.
MASON: She has, if anything, I think, gone much easier on him than she has on Nithya Raman, who is her fellow progressive.
In fact, when I interviewed her earlier this week, and I sort of served up for her, the comments that President Trump made about Pratt, that he was very MAGA? She didn't take the bait, she was not interested in commenting on that, and I think that that is very interesting.
It seems like she and her supporters have made this calculated decision that if they get into a runoff, she'd much rather run against Pratt because, then she's hoping that the partisan leanings will kick in. But there's a little bit of a risk to that right now--
MICHAELSON: Yes.
MASON: --because, she's not actually making an argument against Pratt. And so Pratt, right now, is able to get his message out there without there being a lot of counter-message about sort of what he would actually do as mayor, what the -- sort of what the reality of his governments would look like. We're not hearing any of that from Mayor Bass' team right now.
MICHAELSON: And I asked Mayor Bass about, Are you potentially underestimating Spencer Pratt, the way that Hillary Clinton underestimated Donald Trump.
She says, I'm not underestimating him. I don't take anything for granted.
But that is why this June 2nd is Pratt's best opportunity when he doesn't have the negative ads coming at him. And that -- we know the election in the fall is going to be a lot more partisan. It's going to be talking about the midterms, Congress, President Trump. So, this is his chance, and he thinks he's going to shock the world.
Hard to tell, right?
MASON: I mean, the truth is, is he's got the buzz. He has the buzz online. I will say that when we're -- I mean, when I'm out in Los Angeles, I'm sure you have this experience too, I hear people talking about Spencer Pratt--
MICHAELSON: All the time.
[21:40:00]
MASON: --in a way that I think non-political people wouldn't really be talking about a mayor's race.
But I guess the question is, is are there very vocal Pratt supporters, people who are sort of proud to be supporting him, and so therefore they're over-represented in sort of what we see as the mood right now? Or are there these hidden Pratt supporters? I mean, I think that that is the dynamic that us political reporters, are really trying to wrap our minds around right now.
MICHAELSON: Yes.
MASON: And I think until we see the results of June 2nd, we're not really going to know.
MICHAELSON: It's going to be fascinating.
Melanie, thank you so much. We can read your work in the California Politico Playbook every day.
Up next. Stephen Colbert takes his last bow as the "Late Show" comes to a historic end. My entertainment source has more on the comedian and media mogul replacing him. That's next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN COLBERT, AMERICAN COMEDIAN AND WRITER: Now, a lot of people been asking me what I plan to do after tonight, and the answer is drugs. But--
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:45:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLBERT: On night one of "The Colbert Report" back in the day, I said, Anyone can read the news to you, I promise to feel the news at you.
(LAUGHTER)
COLBERT: And I realized pretty soon in this job that our job over here was different. We were here to feel the news with you. And I don't know about you, but I sure have felt it.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAELSON: "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" went out on a literal high note last night. Ratings show it was the most watched weeknight episode of his 11-year run. Series finale was filled with celebrity guests like Bryan Cranston, Ryan Reynolds, and the final guest Paul McCartney, as well as Colbert's late-night counterparts.
Colbert didn't mention President Trump at all, which is notable, given that fans and critics pointed to White House pressure for CBS' decision to cancel the show. The company insists, it was only a financial move.
But the President has celebrated Colbert's exit in multiple posts online, including this AI-generated video he just posted, depicting himself tossing Colbert into a dumpster on his stage and then dancing to the YMCA.
Trump also warned other Late Night hosts of a similar fate, calling this quote, Beginning of the End ... Others, of even less talent, to soon follow. May they all Rest in Peace.
My entertainment source tonight is Emmy Award-winning journalist, Segun Oduolowu.
Welcome to THE SOURCE, Segun.
So, this idea of the motivation was purely financial.
SEGUN ODUOLOWU, EMMY AWARD-WINNING JOURNALIST & MEDIA ANALYST: Yes.
MICHAELSON: What do you make of that video?
ODUOLOWU: I mean, don't look over there at the President throwing him into a dumpster.
Look, the numbers don't lie. The Late Night -- the "Late Show" was losing money, and it was losing money because the model was broken. But the numbers also say that it was the number one rated show for nine straight years. I'm a journalist, not that great at math, but can't be any better than number one.
Stephen Colbert also said that CBS never approached him about streamlining the show or making cuts or changing anything. And two years ago, they seemed really happy for him to sign a five-year contract when the President was a different person. But under this new regime, now he's persona non grata.
So, wherever you want to look at the numbers. Look, Jay-Z says, Men lie, women lie, numbers don't lie. I guess whichever set of numbers you have can tell you which man or woman in the room is lying about Colbert.
MICHAELSON: Right. From a numbers perspective, the idea of what they're replacing this with will be cheaper for CBS. Byron Allen is literally buying the time slot.
ODUOLOWU: Yes.
MICHAELSON: So CBS cannot lose because he is paying them to run his program, Comics Unleashed, which is produced much, much, much cheaper than Colbert's show.
Byron Allen was on with my colleague Victor Blackwell, last night, as he was filling in for Laura Coates. Here's some of what Byron Allen said about why his show will not be political.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BYRON ALLEN, TAKING OVER COLBERT'S CBS TIME SLOT: I think there's a place for that, political humor, and there's, you can go get that from Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel and Bill Maher and John Oliver and Seth Meyers. If you want political humor, go get it. That is not what we're doing here.
And I think, you know, there's a huge audience out there that appreciates the fact we're not doing political humor. We don't care. We don't care who you vote for, what's going on. We're just here to make you laugh.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAELSON: I mean, the old-school Late Night model was to try to keep it down the middle. Jay Leno talked about that often--
ODUOLOWU: Sure.
MICHAELSON: --to try to appeal to everybody in the country. In more recent years, it's gotten way more on one side or the other.
ODUOLOWU: Look, I'm not going to disagree with Byron Allen in the sense that that is black excellence, and I love what Byron Allen has been able to create.
And he's 100 percent correct. Look, there's a lane if you want to do political humor. And if that's not his lane, he has made a mint not doing it. If he can afford the time, and do kind of conveyor-belt TV, where they can shoot a lot of episodes, he can do it for the cheap, and he can, again, afford to pay for -- pay for the space? Have at it.
My fear is that that's what Late Night television will become. MICHAELSON: Yes.
ODUOLOWU: That it will become pay for play.
Look, you're living proof. Late Night television is great if you have the right host.
MICHAELSON: Yes.
ODUOLOWU: If you have the right talent in place, it can work, it can be smart, it can be funny, and you can choose your spots.
I don't think CBS made the right move here in getting rid of Colbert the way they did. It feels as if they had a golden goose that was number one, and it's coming off just winning an Emmy--
MICHAELSON: Yes.
ODUOLOWU: --and they killed the goose to see if it was made of gold while it was laying you golden eggs.
Adjust the format, not throw it all the way out.
MICHAELSON: Interesting to see if this stays as their decision in the next administration.
ODUOLOWU: Yes, we shall see.
MICHAELSON: We'll see.
ODUOLOWU: Yes. Yes.
MICHAELSON: Segun--
[21:50:00]
ODUOLOWU: But Late Night's not Dead, not with Elex Michaelson, no.
MICHAELSON: OK -- there we go. Look at that.
Segun Oduolowu, one of our regular guests on "THE STORY IS," which airs late nights here on CNN.
Up next. Behind the scenes in Washington with Kaitlan Collins, host of THE SOURCE. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:55:00]
MICHAELSON: As we wrap things up here in Los Angeles, let's give you a behind the scenes look at Kaitlan in Washington this week. A week that includes a politically toxic compensation fund, Republican revolt, and a presidential foe defeated at the polls.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) TRUMP: The last thing they're thinking about is nuclear. Now they have to put it down in writing.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Monday, May 18.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: We were getting ready to do a very major attack tomorrow. I've put it off for a little while.
We've had very big discussions with Iran.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: The Justice Department has confirmed it is going to create a $1.776 billion fund to pay people who claim they were unfairly targeted by the Biden administration.
The Justice Department calls it the Anti- Weaponization Fund. What would you call it?
SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): I would call it one more day in the worst presidency in American history.
We cannot allow this to become the norm in America.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Tuesday, May 19.
TRUMP: You see the black fencing.
Thomas Massie is a terrible congressman. He's been a terrible congressman from day one.
I don't think he's a Republican.
I think he's actually a Dumbocrat.
COLLINS: You previously told me that anyone who assaulted a police officer on January 6th should go to prison. So, why not rule out giving them taxpayer-funded money?
JD VANCE (R), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I don't rule things out categorically when I know nothing about a person's individual circumstances.
We're not making commitments to give anybody money. We're just making commitments to look at things case-by-case.
COLLINS: Do you believe that Americans' financial situations should be taken into consideration, when you're making decisions, as an administration, about the war?
VANCE: He allegedly said that he didn't care about Americans' financial situations. He never said that.
When he is negotiating with the Iranians, he's focused on the national security objectives that he's trying to achieve. Thank you all. Good to see you.
COLLINS: The President is feeling quite emboldened about his power here and his endorsement authority in these races. I've covered the President for a long time. There are very few races that he has been so personally invested in as making sure that Thomas Massie cannot return to Washington.
How are we?
As we come on the air right now, the President has just scored a major victory in his revenge tour. That's because a top target of his fury, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, has just lost his primary race to his Trump-endorsed opponent.
What do you make of his loss tonight, and what's to come, potentially?
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Thomas is a good friend. So, I'm saddened just on a personal level.
He put his career at risk to pass the most popular and consequential bipartisan legislation in the Epstein Transparency Act, probably in modern history.
And he lost his seat because, he stood up against the Iran war.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Wednesday, May 20.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why do you have a microphone with you?
COLLINS: Khalil (ph), I have some breaking news for you. You are being awarded the 2025 Jerry Thompson Award.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh my god, no. No. Seriously?
COLLINS: I swear to god.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wow.
COLLINS: And do you know what the Jerry Thompson Award is for?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. You know, those guys were like the big-time guys that I always looked up to.
COLLINS: Congrats.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm honored. I'm honored. Thank you. Thank you.
TRUMP: If I say, Oh, let's look at this one or that one. They say, Weaponization, Weaponization.
What they did in terms of weaponization will never be allowed to happen in this country again.
We think that anybody involved in that process should partake. And you're talking about peanuts compared to the value. COLLINS: Tonight, CNN presses acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche on why the administration won't rule out taxpayer-funded payouts for those who assaulted cops on January 6th.
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: The commissioners have a bunch of factors they have to consider, expenses, how much money they want, what the claimant did.
President Trump, this Department of Justice, does not stand for assaulting law enforcement.
The kind of fake outrage at this because, there's a handful of folks who might apply -- by the way, nobody's received money.
COLLINS: Do you agree with the acting Attorney General there, that this is how Americans want their taxpayer dollars to be spent?
REP. BRIAN FITZPATRICK (R-PA): Over half of Americans that are living paycheck to paycheck, that's got to be at the forefront of every single House and Senate member's mind.
For that and many other reasons, I am completely objecting to this, and I'm going to do everything I can to fight it.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Thursday, May 21.
REPORTER: Are you losing control of the Senate -- Senate Republicans?
TRUMP: I don't know. I really don't know. I can tell you, I only do what's right.
COLLINS: How would your bill stop the President and the Justice Department from doing what they're trying to do here?
[22:00:00]
REP. TOM SUOZZI (D-NY): It's a very simple one-paragraph bill, and it just says, You can't do this.
There's a reason we have checks and balances.
Presidents or their administrations. Sometimes, they do things that are really dumb.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MICHAELSON: Hope Kaitlan is enjoying a well-deserved night-off after all that work.
Thank you for joining us tonight for THE SOURCE.
I'll be back later for my regular show, "THE STORY IS," which airs every weeknight at Midnight Eastern right here on CNN, 09:00 p.m. out here on the West Coast.
Thanks for being with us. "CNN NEWSNIGHT" starts right now.
