Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Won't Say If $1.8 Billion Fund Is Dead; House Votes To Limit Trump's War Powers In Remarkable Rebuke; Votes Still Being Counted In Race For CA Gov. & L.A. Mayor. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired June 03, 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]
ANDY COHEN, AMERICAN TV SHOW HOST: --Anderson, I cannot wait for our summer ball drop on July 3rd.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Me too.
COHEN: And you know what?
COOPER: What time is it at?
COHEN: It starts at 8 o'clock, I believe.
COOPER: OK.
COHEN: Until about 12 something.
COOPER: Good.
COHEN: And we're going to be there. It's going to be awesome. And -- yes.
COOPER: All right. Well--
COHEN: Happy birthday.
COOPER: Thank you very much, Andy.
COHEN: You're the best.
COOPER: Thank you.
COHEN: A little warm.
COOPER: That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: And good evening.
What President Trump told me in the Oval Office today has only intensified what seems to be shaping up to be a pretty big intraparty fight between Republicans on Capitol Hill, despite the best efforts, this week, of the President's acting Attorney General. As you're about to hear in his answer here, the President seemed clearly irritated, when he was asked earlier today, why his administration says it is not moving forward with that $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, as they have called it.
And just to note, as you're about to listen to this, this first exchange actually occurred before I had yet to ask the President a question.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REAGAN REESE, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE DAILY CALLER: Can you explain why you decided to drop the Anti-Weaponization Fund?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So, I love it. I think it's so important. People were -- this is a victim right here, but not only a victim, he was also a student of it.
What happened to great people, great American people, the way they were victimized, the way they were savaged. You have suicides, they killed themselves. They went bankrupt.
They were weaponized by the Biden administration by a bunch of thugs, including Obama people, and like nobody's probably ever been. I mean, I can think of maybe two instances in this country where they've had it to somewhere that extent. I'm not even sure if it was so much. They were put in jail for long periods of time. They were accused of things that never happened. They had prosecutors that were radical lunatics. And their lives were destroyed.
And frankly, we had a lawsuit that against us on the -- you know, on the weaponization with a judge. A radical left judge ruled against it. And we'll see how that all works out. But a radical left judge ruled against it.
But these people, their lives have been destroyed, their families have been destroyed, many of them. Not just -- I'm not just talking about a few people. Many of them. I'm one of them. I -- look, they raided my house, Mar-a-Lago. That never happened. Nobody ever thought of anything like that. It turned out that it was a total fake, everything about it was fake and corrupt. We have all the information.
You know, the good advantage to sitting here is we can get information that you wouldn't get by, see what we have and what we are going to be showing over the coming weeks and months, you're not even going to believe. Some of you will believe it, like CNN will believe it because they knew what was going on, they're crooked as hell. Yes.
CNN is a very corrupt organization, but -- with a corrupt reporter standing right there. Never smiles, she never -- a young, beautiful woman. Never smiles. I never see a smile on her face. I see her standing there with hatred in her eyes, like, she has hatred because we have borders. Because we have a strong military. Because we cut our taxes. Because we do things that everybody wanted, and that we win our election in a massive landslide. We won 87 percent of the counties in this country, nobody has ever heard of a thing like that, and that's because we're doing the right job.
And we took a detour down to Iran because, we can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon. Under any circumstances. We can't let that happen.
So, the reporters should be happy. They shouldn't be unhappy. They should be very happy--
REPORTER: Mr. President--
TRUMP: Because you know what we're doing? We're saving our country.
COLLINS: Excuse me, Mr. President. Just to clarify on what you were asked earlier. Is the $1.8 billion DOJ fund dead, or is it on hold?
TRUMP: It's -- I'd have to ask the lawyers. I don't know. I know one thing. The weaponization--
COLLINS: But what's your decision on it?
TRUMP: Are you talking about the weaponization fund?
COLLINS: Yes, what's your decision on it?
TRUMP: The weaponization fund, as far as I'm concerned, was a beautiful thing. It was something I was -- I didn't make it, but I was -- I heard that, I thought that was the greatest thing because, people like you have abused our people so badly. The fake news, like CNN, like The New York Times, and like others, have abused our people--
COLLINS: Well Republicans were critical of it, Mr. President--
TRUMP: Wait a minute. Be quiet.
COLLINS: --on Capitol Hill.
TRUMP: --have abused our people so badly, and you should be ashamed of yourself. You used to be a conservative.
She was a conservative from Alabama. Can you believe it? But CNN--
COLLINS: I'm still from Alabama, sir.
[21:05:00]
TRUMP: --in particular, CNN does such false reporting. But now they have new ownership, so maybe it will straighten it out, I doubt it, but it's hard to straighten garbage out. But CNN has abused, and others have, abused so badly. People, these are people that are great people that were destroyed. Their families have been destroyed. Many suicides. They committed suicide.
People that went there to -- with love, they went there with love. You know, when I made that speech earlier in the day, tremendous crowd. I hate to say because they'll say, Oh, I was wrong on the number. But I believe it's the largest crowd I've ever spoken to, by -- by twice, the biggest crowd, I think, bigger than the inaugurations, bigger than anything. And there was so much love and friendship, it was the most amazing thing. People were crying.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Attacks aside, the news there is the President defending this $1.8 billion fund, while pushing questions about whether or not the door is permanently shut on it to the -- off to the attorneys in his administration. He himself never said whether or not it could potentially move forward.
The fact that the administration has not done so, and hasn't done so in writing, despite the fund being actually announced in writing, has not gone far enough for some Republican members of Congress, who are now issuing fresh calls to officially kill the fund themselves. In fact, the unprecedented use of taxpayer money has become so politically toxic that sources say, many in the GOP were glad to see the issue taken off the table by Todd Blanche, or so they thought.
A brief reminder of what we heard from the acting Attorney General on Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: Look, we're not moving forward with the fund.
We are not moving forward with the fund. Period.
We are not moving forward with the fund.
REP. GRACE MENG (D-NY): Not moving forward ever?
BLANCHE: Correct.
We're not moving forward with the fund.
We're not moving forward with the fund.
We're not moving forward with the fund.
We're not moving forward with the fund.
MENG: OK.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, before the President's answers today, inside the Oval Office, we heard from the Senate Majority Leader, John Thune, who sounded upbeat and optimistic.
About an hour, actually, before the President spoke to reporters today, the Senate had voted to move forward on a critical first step on immigration funding for his enforcement and crackdown. It had been held up over this exact controversy. And it's perhaps the last major legislative win that the President will get, before the midterm elections, which are exactly five months from today. But what the President told me today will now seem to hang over a marathon voting session that is set to start tomorrow. Republican leaders have been spending the night, trying to call members who refuse to back that plan or vote for it, until they know for sure, that this $1.8 billion fund from the DOJ is dead.
Just listen to two Republican senators today before you heard the President crack that door back open.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I think even DOJ knows that this was a bad idea. And what we need to do is provide finality.
We got to either eliminate it, streamline it, guardrail it. It can't go in its current form. And if that's the only choice we should have, we should eradicate it.
SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): In general, I support what Senator Tillis is trying to do to make sure that the weaponization fund is not just mostly dead, that it's truly dead.
I want to make sure it's not mostly dead. I want to make sure it's completely dead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Our CNN Anchor and our Chief Congressional Correspondent, Manu Raju, joins me now.
And obviously, not having this in writing or not, they don't seem to think, these Republicans, which was the point of our questioning to the President today, they don't seem to think the administration has been definitive enough.
MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and look, this is just another example where Republicans want to pull their hair out on Capitol Hill. A perfectly-laid plan, so they thought, until Trump comes out and says something out and completely cuts their legs from underneath them.
I mean, remember, right before Memorial Day, before the Memorial Day recess, when Congress left town for a week, they were going to pass $70 billion in new funding for related immigration enforcement priorities for this President.
And then they dropped this $1.8 billion weaponization fund. That blew everything up because Republicans wanted to rein it in. They didn't know how to rein it in, and they knew if they added language to this bill, it would completely derail its chances of becoming law because Trump would ultimately veto it.
So, then Blanche says what he says. John Thune is happy. They can move forward with this bill. And now he says to you, and making very clear that he's not on the same page as Todd Blanche. And now this vote, critical vote, is happening tomorrow over this bill. I just want you to listen to what some of these members told me today, when I asked them about the President making it very clear that in his mind this is not a dead issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: The President said that today--
REP. BRIAN FITZPATRICK (R-PA): Yes.
RAJU: --he would not rule out this fund moving forward again. So does that--
FITZPATRICK: Well, I am. I'm ruling it out.
RAJU: --does that mean that you're going to still push ahead and try to kill--
FITZPATRICK: Well, of course.
But to answer your question about the weaponization fund, this issue is not dead, it's not over. We have to fix the law. I feel very strongly about that.
RAJU: Should he say the weaponization fund is dead?
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Should I say--
RAJU: Should he say?
[21:10:00]
JOHNSON: I think you heard from the acting Attorney General yesterday.
RAJU: Does that concern you, despite what Todd Blanche said yesterday?
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): It's kind of surprising based on what Todd Blanche said yesterday.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: And that's really the question here, and the concern that a lot of Republicans have. Because you listen to what the President said. If he had said what Todd Blanche said, then it would have been very easy to vote against some of these amendments tomorrow when they come to the Senate floor. But now that the President is keeping it over there open, it's going to put a lot of pressure on some of these key swing votes.
You already heard Thom Tillis and Bill Cassidy, that's two Republicans. Can they get two more? Probably. Susan Collins, in a very difficult race, will have a very hard time voting against an amendment backed by Thom Tillis and Bill Cassidy to rein this in, as will the others, like Lisa Murkowski, who has been critical. Mitch McConnell also been critical. But the one big thing to watch for tomorrow is that because of the peculiarities of the Senate's rules, it's possible some of these may have to require 60 votes to be adopted in the 53-47 Senate. It's unlikely to get 60 votes, but it's possible these -- some of these could be adopted by a simple majority.
And if it's 51 votes, that's where it can be very difficult for the President. Some of these measures could get adopted and ultimately end up, and put the President in a difficult spot where he faces, has to decide, whether to sign a bill that includes some of these provisions. Because even in the House, you heard Brian Fitzpatrick there, telling me tonight, he's going to push for this in the House, with that narrow Republican majority in the House, perhaps they can get that language out of there, putting the President in a difficult position, all by his own making.
COLLINS: Yes.
Manu Raju, we'll see what happens on the Hill tomorrow. I know you'll be talking to all of them, and we'll be watching that reporting here.
My congressional source tonight is also Republican Congressman Mike Lawler of New York.
Congressman, do you think it's definitive enough, what you've heard from the White House, and from the President himself, on the future of this fund?
REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Well, I listened intently to both acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, as well as the President, and also my own conversations with the Speaker and many of my colleagues. And from my knowledge and understanding, the fund is dead.
I understand the President's feelings about it. I understand his perspective. Certainly, he feels very strongly about the weaponization of the Department of Justice and the FBI against him, both during the lead up to his first term and during the Biden administration. And so, he has very strong feelings, and understandably so.
But I also think there are legitimate concerns about this type of fund and how it would be appropriated, how people would be applying to it. And for instance, somebody who committed an act of violence on January 6th, and assaulted a police officer, absolutely should never see one penny.
And so, from my vantage point, if somebody has a legal claim against the government, if somebody feels that the government was overzealous in their actions against them, there is a legal process for that, and that has been time in memoriam, and they can avail themselves of that process.
So, from my standpoint, this fund shouldn't move forward. The acting Attorney General made that clear, yesterday, in his testimony. I understand the President's perspective, and he went into great detail about why he feels the way he does. But I do think, from the standpoint of Congress, obviously, there is concern about the way this fund would have been allocated and certainly operated. And I think, as I said, there's a legal process for people to undertake if they feel they have a legal claim against the government.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, Trump said, I love it, it's so important, it's a beautiful thing.
He never said, It's dead, and it's not moving forward.
LAWLER: But he also didn't say that it was moving forward. And I think the acting Attorney General made clear--
COLLINS: But is that enough for you, I guess?
LAWLER: The acting Attorney General made clear that it is not. The Speaker made clear, this morning, in conference, that it is not. And I take them at their word for it.
COLLINS: Even though -- I mean, Todd Blanche is the acting Attorney General, he hasn't even been formally put in that role.
LAWLER: Sure, but in this moment he is acting and has the authority, and he has said that it is not moving forward.
And again, you're parsing some of the President's words here. The fact is, he did not say it was moving forward. He said why he believed it was the right thing.
COLLINS: But he didn't say it wasn't is my point.
LAWLER: He said why he believed it was the right thing, and said he deferred to the attorneys. The attorneys testified yesterday that it is not moving forward, and the Speaker informed the House members, this morning, it is not moving forward.
[21:15:00]
COLLINS: You know, the fund itself was announced from the Justice Department. As you noted, there's already a legal venue if you think that you have been wrongly prosecuted by the federal government, by the Justice Department, to pursue. But when they announced this, they did so in writing.
Would you feel more comfortable if they could just put it in writing that it's not moving forward?
LAWLER: Sure, I think that would satisfy a number of my colleagues and probably you in the media. But again, I think the bottom line is there's not the support for it within Congress. And ultimately, there is a legal process that exists, and people should avail themselves of that process if they feel that they have been victim of a weaponized government.
There's no question, by the way, that weaponization did occur under the Biden administration. You had the Department of Justice calling parents, domestic terrorists, for simply attending a school board meeting. So, there's no question that people were targeted by the Biden administration, and they should avail themselves of the legal process.
COLLINS: Hunter Biden might agree with you. He was prosecuted, of course, by his dad's own Justice Department.
The one part is Todd Blanche said yesterday that the fund's not moving forward--
LAWLER: Yes, for crimes -- for crimes that he -- for crimes that he committed, Kaitlan. He -- the Justice Department was not weaponized against Hunter Biden.
COLLINS: Well, wait, wait, hold on. January 6th people, you're saying they didn't commit those crimes? Well they're on camera.
LAWLER: I know--
COLLINS: They did commit the crimes.
LAWLER: Wait. Kaitlan, respectfully, respectfully, I've always said January 6th was wrong.
COLLINS: I know.
LAWLER: I've always said that anybody that committed an act of violence on January 6th should be prosecuted.
You threw Hunter Biden into the mix, trying to conflate all these things. Hunter Biden committed multiple crimes, including tax evasion, and had illegal possession of a gun. That's why he was prosecuted.
COLLINS: Yes, and the January 6th people were prosecuted because they rioted at the Capitol--
LAWLER: Right.
COLLINS: --and violated. I'm just saying that--
LAWLER: Right. And those -- and those that -- those that violently--
COLLINS: --I'm just saying that wouldn't the argument of weaponization--
LAWLER: --those that violently acted on January 6th and assaulted police officers, in my opinion, were rightly prosecuted.
COLLINS: Yes.
LAWLER: There are others that were prosecuted on January 6th that should not have been, and that is an individual case-by-case basis.
COLLINS: Can I ask you. The fund, as Todd Blanche said, is not moving forward. Do you support the fact that the addendum to that whole agreement that says the IRS can't audit the President or his family for past tax issues, that still stands. Are you OK with that?
LAWLER: Look, there was no question that the IRS, there was a situation there where there was an illegal leak of the President's tax returns, and he filed a claim, which he certainly has the right to do when the government is weaponized against him.
From that vantage point of looking back at his tax -- taxes from years or decades back. No, I don't have a problem with that standing.
COLLINS: But the person who leaked them went to jail. I mean, does that warrant immunity from--
LAWLER: Right. They committed -- they committed -- they--
COLLINS: --for audits or investigations for the President and his family?
LAWLER: Well, number one, they committed a crime, right? So they were prosecuted.
COLLINS: Yes.
LAWLER: Number two, the President has been audited routinely for years and decades. So, he was previously audited on many of these tax returns that now they would no longer be able to audit.
COLLINS: Right. But that's the point I'm saying. So, you're OK with him having immunity for those past audits?
LAWLER: Yes, well--
COLLINS: Because every president gets audited pretty much.
LAWLER: Yes, but he -- they were previously -- they were previously audited, and they didn't find anything. So obviously, there's nothing really to review, going backwards, and the fact is--
COLLINS: I don't think we -- I don't think we know if that's true though--
LAWLER: The fact is--
COLLINS: --that they didn't find anything.
LAWLER: Well, you certainly don't -- you certainly don't know that they did. And the fact is, if they did, the Biden administration, as we saw, would have tried to prosecute him on that if there was something there.
With that being said, the IRS clearly did wrong when they released his tax returns in an illegal leak. And so, this is part of a settlement. I don't have a problem with that.
COLLINS: OK.
LAWLER: The fact is, the President had a legal claim.
COLLINS: Congressman Mike Lawler, thank you for joining us tonight.
LAWLER: Thank you.
COLLINS: My next source tonight is Andrew Weissmann, who is the former lead prosecutor on the former Special Counsel, Robert Mueller's team. He is also the author of the new book that is now out.
Thank you, Andrew Weissmann, for joining us. It's great to have you here.
What is your sense, I mean, just from what you've heard today from the President, what you heard from the acting Attorney General, of what the administration is doing with this fund. Do you think they're dropping it? Or do you think they're dropping it because of the political blowback on Capitol Hill, and maybe waiting until it passes?
[21:20:00]
ANDREW WEISSMANN, FORMER LEAD PROSECUTOR, ROBERT MUELLER'S SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL, FBI, AUTHOR, "LIAR'S KINGDOM": Well, I don't know if they're going to sort of pull a fast one, and just wait for the vote on the immigration bill, and then change their mind.
But it is worth noting, and remembering, what's the reason for the fund. Why was it created? It's because Donald Trump brought a $10 billion personal claim against the government. And as he said, he's on both sides of that issue. And then we're supposed to believe that the settlement of $1.776 billion of his personal claim just vanished overnight to zero. And so, he's now going to get $0.
And I think, to me, that that suggests that this really was never about a true settlement of a legitimate claim. And rather, what the judge in the case is looking into is whether it's really a fraud on the court, whether this was a sort of fictitious lawsuit brought to give it a veneer of legitimacy, to make it seem like this is a quote- unquote, Settlement, when it really was just a way to get access by the Department of Justice to the judgment fund of $1.776 billion for this so-called settlement.
COLLINS: I mentioned to the Congressman that Todd Blanche is not formally the attorney general yet. He's still serving and in an acting capacity.
WEISSMANN: Right.
COLLINS: A source tells my colleague, Kristen Holmes, tonight, that the President is expected to nominate him soon, potentially as soon as tonight. We'll see if that happens.
What do you expect to happen there if Todd Blanche does become the next attorney general?
WEISSMANN: Well, I think it would be a very interesting confirmation hearing because, there's sort of two big issues that I think would be raised with him.
One is this issue, and the idea of what was the negotiation. In other words, this is supposed to be a private lawsuit brought by the President for something that happened to him personally. And what kind of adversity was there? In other words, why did the Department of Justice and the IRS not defend this case against the President's personal claim in the way they have defended very, very similar cases? That's sort of issue one.
And then obviously issue two, which has really not been the subject of much discussion lately, is the fact that the Department of Justice is out of compliance with the Epstein Transparency Act because, there's still millions of documents that have not been turned over, and the position of the acting Attorney General is that there are exceptions to that law that you really can't find in the law itself.
And so, I think those two issues would be substantial questions that people would have in his confirmation hearing.
COLLINS: Yes, and as I mentioned, your new book. This is something you wrote, and I want to quote from it. You said, It is a crime to lie to shareholders. It is a crime to lie to Congress. But it is not a crime to lie to the public. Lies of that sort are not even subject to civil liability or regulation.
When you're arguing, that you don't think that should be the case. What determination did you come to in your book?
WEISSMANN: I came to the determination that, unlike other countries, like England, Brazil, France, we have a system where if you lie to Congress, that is a crime, but if Congress lies to you, it is not, and that there is a reason that we're seeing politicians say things to us that we know are not true.
In your last conversation, you pointed out, How can you say that the people on January 6th are victims when we saw the crimes ourselves? We heard from another clip that you played of the President, and putting aside his spurious attacks on you, he was claiming that there was victimization of the people on January 6th. But we saw with our own eyes what happened that day. And those people had due process.
And I should just mention, there is a law, that was pointed out by the Congressman, that Congress has said, If you are a victim, you can file for a claim in court. You know what you need to get money in court? You need to show that you won -- one, you won your court case, not lost it, and that the case was frivolous. Here, what the administration wants to do is give money to people, in spite of the fact that Congress has already said, To get money you have to actually have won your criminal case and show that it was frivolous.
So, we're seeing examples of people who are saying things that are false to us, and we are not subjecting any of that to either civil or criminal liability.
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: Andrew Weissmann, it's great to have you on the show. So, thank you for being able to join us. And the new book is "Liar's Kingdom," and it is available now. WEISSMANN: Thank you.
COLLINS: Thank you.
Up next here for us on THE SOURCE. President Trump is insisting there is still a ceasefire in place in the war with Iran. His definition of what that meant, and how it comes on the heels of for the first time the House voted to limit his war powers. Republicans actually joined Democrats in that remarkable rebuke.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: We do have some breaking news tonight in what is a remarkable bipartisan rebuke of the President, with the House voting to end the war in Iran. Now, that doesn't mean it's going to happen.
[21:30:00]
But here's what happened. Four Republicans crossed party lines today to pass what is known as a War Powers Resolution that would direct the President to keep U.S. troops from active hostilities with Iran, unless he gets congressional approval.
Early this morning, it came as Iranian missiles and drones were hitting Kuwait's international airport, killing one person and hurting more than 60 other people. That's according to government officials and their tallies. And it comes as Tehran says it's also targeting a U.S. base in Bahrain, as well as a vessel near the Strait of Hormuz.
But the President today, as he was asked about whether or not this ceasefire is still in place, said yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. President, given Iran's attacks on Kuwait, this latest attack on Kuwait, is the ceasefire with Iran still on?
TRUMP: Well, you know, there's a reason for everything, and we hit them pretty hard the night before, and actually the last night.
Some people would say they were slightly provoked because we took the strong action for a different reason, so they were reciprocating.
REPORTER: How do you define ceasefire?
TRUMP: Pretty much the way it is. It's a different part of the world. You know, I'd say in that part of the world, ceasefire is when you're shooting in a more moderate manner.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is David Sanger, who is The New York Times' White House and National Security Correspondent.
And David, great to have you here. I want to ask you about that comment. But on this War Powers vote from the House tonight. You know, the House had delayed it as long as they could because Republican leaders, I think, knew this vote was coming. How do you think the White House is seeing this?
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE & NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUTHOR, "NEW COLD WARS": Well, Kaitlan, they had to see this coming. Their support was crumbling.
If you talk to members of Congress, Republican members of Congress, behind the scenes, they dislike the war for all the same reasons that you see in polls, that Americans are concerned about gas prices, but also concerned about how the President has conducted this war with no congressional approval at all, and ran right by the 60-day deadline. So, it was only a matter of time before that crumbling became obvious.
And it was interesting that the House leadership could not, you know, keep this thing put back together in one piece any longer, and they basically had to call the vote that they didn't want to hold, that they pulled before, and they lost it, just like they thought they would. And my guess is, if it happens again, they'll probably lose it by a larger margin.
COLLINS: The President's definition of a ceasefire. What did that say to you today?
SANGER: Well, it's not certainly the classic vision of what a ceasefire is. A ceasefire means the firing ceases. Now, have there been ceasefire violations around the world in times past? Absolutely. But if you were sitting in the Kuwait airport, in the past 24 hours, and you saw those drones hit, and the place go up in flames. It probably didn't seem like much of a ceasefire.
And the President has got an elastic definition here, and he's got to because, he's in a position right now where the official line of the administration is that the ceasefire is still on. And if that ever came off, then he'd have to go back into military normal combat operations. And he clearly doesn't want to go do that, and the Iranians sense it.
COLLINS: Yes, he certainly doesn't seem to want to do that.
And the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, was echoing that today, in terms of, of what we're actually seeing on the ground. He defended his position that he stated yesterday, that the war is over, and this is how he put it today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. SARA JACOBS (D-CA): OK, fine. We're taking you at your word. The war is over. Who won?
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, first of all, you're not taking me at my word. It's a fact. We're no longer conducting sustained strikes inside of Iran to degrade their military because Epic Fury is over.
We defined victory, we defined victory, as destroying their defense industrial base, significantly reducing the number of missile launchers that they possess, significantly reducing their stockpile of drones, and we achieved all of those, in addition to destroying what they had left of an air force, and wiping out their entire conventional navy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do your sources say the war is over?
SANGER: Well, war certainly doesn't look like it's over, if they've got these exchanges going back and forth, if the Strait is still closed, which was a result of the war, wasn't a cause of the war.
But what struck me the most about Secretary Rubio's statement there was his description of what their objectives were. He's back to doing what the President was doing, which is saying, All of these objectives are military. How many missiles did we destroy? Whether their navy has gone. He's absolutely right about that. But that wasn't their objective when they started the war.
The objective was to stop the nuclear program, to eliminate or limit the missile program, to stop their support for proxies, and to allow the Iranian people to rise up and take over a weakened government. That's not my list. That's the President's list on February 28th, when he came out and announced that this was beginning.
[21:35:00]
And they're very sensitive on this point. I asked the President about this on Air Force One, coming back from China. He erupted a bit at me on that topic. It's come up repeatedly since, and they are -- they are moving the goalposts here about what it was that the objectives of the war were going to be.
COLLINS: Yes, I believe you were accused of treason, in asking that question.
SANGER: I -- that may have been, yes.
COLLINS: David Sanger, great reporting, as always. Thank you for joining us tonight.
SANGER: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next here for us. As the President is in the middle of negotiating an end to the Iran war. One of his renovation projects in Washington is complete.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:40:00]
COLLINS: Before he started taking questions from reporters inside the Oval Office earlier, President Trump spent several minutes touting one of his personal priorities of late. That is, the current renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Have a big day today because this is, as you probably have been watching.
Today, it gets completed, the pool gets completed at 4 o'clock, and the water will start to flow in.
These are -- they just had this done. I'm getting a first glimpse, but that's your size compared -- so those are compared to -- those are among the tallest buildings in the world.
So, I'm very proud of it. Maybe I shouldn't say that before it opens. Maybe I'll open it and it'll leak like a sieve, but it's not going to, you know--
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: I'm very good at building things and constructing things.
You're going to have the Reflecting Pool opened within hours, I mean, literally within hours. The water starts pouring in tonight. It's going to be beautiful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: This evening, CNN's crew captured workers putting the final touches on the Reflecting Pool, where the Interior Secretary, Doug Burgum, was on site before sharing online that water will be flowing in the Reflecting Pool shortly.
My political sources are here tonight, including:
Former Obama campaign adviser, Ameshia Cross.
And Republican strategist, Shermichael Singleton.
Shermichael, how do you think Americans see this in terms of time, money, effort, all that good stuff?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Ah, timing -- probably isn't the best. The money aspect, cost of living, I get why my friends on the other side keep hammering that point home.
But I do think there is an argument to make about beautifying the nation's capital. I'm reminded of a book from one of my favorite conservative philosophers, Sir Roger Scruton, he's no longer alive, titled "The aesthetic understanding." And in that book, he writes about how beautifying a city essentially leads to understanding, and it leads to a sense of cohesion and belonging.
And so, in that conservative philosophical case, I think this is a good thing. But politically, I get why some people may say, Is this the best time?
COLLINS: Ameshia?
AMESHIA CROSS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Yes, I mean, the timing couldn't be worse. We're talking about people who can't afford the cost of housing.
SINGLETON: Yes.
CROSS: We're talking about people who can't afford the price of food. We're talking about people who can't afford gas and childcare.
We always knew that Trump was Bob the Builder, essentially. This is a guy who built his career off of literally being someone who not only managed buildings but wanted to go down in history as someone who created some of the most beautiful facades this country had ever seen.
With that being said, he's trying to take that into the White House. His job is not the beautification of Washington, D.C. His job is leader of the free world. And right now, that is tanking very quickly. Just check his approval ratings.
COLLINS: Well, we talked about something that doesn't really happen here, which is pretty big push back on Capitol Hill, on the President. And now it's happened with the President's $1.8 billion DOJ fund. It's happened with the War Powers vote that happened tonight. And also, the Senate stripped the ballroom funding that the President wanted out of that bill that they are working on today. I mean, the White House is blaming the Senate parliamentarian.
But in terms of that, I mean, those are three things the President cares about, where Republicans are saying, No.
SINGLETON: Yes, sure. I think the priority of the Republican leadership right now is to focus on the midterms, and they're looking at the same internal and external polling as everyone else, and it does present some challenges and hurdles for my party on the House side, and some select Senate races across the country.
And so, we want to draw a contrast to our friends on the other side about cost of living, affordability, and that sort of traditional conservative message of less government, more entrepreneurship, supporting businesses, et cetera.
It's kind of difficult to make that case when you're giving opportunities to folks on the left to say, Yes, that sounds good, but you're not focused on any of those things legislatively. So, I think many senators, leadership looked at it and said, The isn't the timing. Let's get back to the kitchen table issues that will bode well for some of our candidates who are up for re-election.
COLLINS: Do you think Democrats are taking that moment and running with it enough? I mean, you look at polling. It's bad for Republicans.
SINGLETON: Yes.
COLLINS: It's not great for Democrats either.
CROSS: Yes, I think that there are some strong Democratic candidates. The Democratic Party as a whole does have severe hurdles to overcome, not only in terms of image, but also in terms of fundraising, and quite a few other things. There are still folks calling for the ousting of the DNC chair, for instance.
But beyond that, the President has given the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates more than what they need to run away with the midterm elections. I think that the answer to whether or not that's going to last in 2028 is still yet to be seen.
But the midterms are going to be in effect not only a rebuke of Donald Trump, but also, and I think more specifically, the cost of living crisis. This is a president who refuses to address it, refuses to acknowledge it, says that it doesn't really matter, and quite frankly, he doesn't even care about Republicans' performance in the midterms.
SINGLETON: Perhaps on -- perhaps on the House side. But I think there's a chance that we could actually win back control in the Senate, thanks to your guy in Maine.
[21:45:00]
COLLINS: Can I ask one other thought on, and as we're talking about this, the UFC Claw, as they call it, that is being built on the South Lawn? I actually took a picture of it today as we were going into the Oval Office, just so you can see what it looks like from the backside of the White House. I believe we have that picture.
This is something that the President is now saying may be kept up permanently -- maybe not permanently, but he said past the UFC fight in terms of, of what this looks like. He is comparing it to the Eiffel Tower, when it was initially put up. It was not supposed to be there for a long time. People were not happy. Obviously, it's still there.
Does that look like the Eiffel Tower, to you, Shermichael?
SINGLETON: Yes, I don't foresee that. I think the President was just saying whatever was on his mind in the moment.
Like, I'm biased here, I'm a big UFC fan. Ameshia and I were talking about this. I think this was great. I know a lot of guys who are excited about this. But this is a temporary thing. You have a good fight, it's publicized, I think a lot of people will tune in, and then the structure comes down.
COLLINS: Well--
CROSS: Yes, I think a certain demographic of America is going to pay attention, but for the most part -- I mean, we're talking about America's 250th anniversary. This is a pretty wild thing to have as a showcase, anyway. It has nothing to do with the origins of this nation, nor does it have anything to do with the celebration of the history of who we are and how we got here. More importantly, the facade is quite frankly atrocious. COLLINS: Ameshia. Shermichael. Great to have you both here tonight. We'll see what it looks like next time you're both on.
Up next. The votes are still being counted tonight in California. We're going to bring you the latest, as a Republican may be on the ballot for governor in November. Plus, the reality star, Spencer Pratt, he is still in the race for Los Angeles mayor right now. As we're still waiting on more votes to come in. My next source is actually another former reality star, now running for Congress.
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Nearly 24 hours since polls closed in California, many of the state's primary races are still too close to call tonight.
In the governor's race, the Republican in that race, Steve Hilton, who is the former Fox News host, who's been backed by President Trump, and the Democrat Xavier Becerra, who is a former official on President Biden's cabinet and also a former California Attorney General, they both appear to be poised to face off this November.
Meanwhile, in the mayoral race in Los Angeles, the current mayor, Karen Bass, has advanced to the runoff in November. But it's too early to tell who she is going to be facing, between the progressive challenger in that race, Nithya Raman, and the Republican Spencer Pratt, who is a political outsider and a former reality TV star.
My source tonight is also a former reality TV star who is seeking public office. Luke Gulbranson from Bravo's "Summer House" is a Democratic congressional candidate for Minnesota.
And it's great to have you back here on THE SOURCE, this time, in person, as you're in Washington.
LUKE GULBRANSON, (D) CANDIDATE FOR MINNESOTA'S 8TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, FORMER REALITY TV STAR: Yes.
COLLINS: On Spencer Pratt. I mean, he has kind of taken the political world by storm, at least with his ads. He gets criticized most often for being a reality star. Why do you think he's resonating with some voters in L.A.?
GULBRANSON: Well, I think, it's obvious, I think people are fed up, right? And the reality star thing, people like to throw that around. But people are fed up. And I would say, anybody that wants to roll up their sleeves, whether they are on reality TV or swing a hammer, if they want to make a difference, they should.
COLLINS: Do you believe it's an unfair thing? I mean, people obviously note it because it's an accurate form of description for a lot of people. But I mean, as we've seen, the politics of former reality stars can run the gamut, and they can have very different approaches to what they think should change, whether that's in Washington or, in Spencer Pratt's case, in Los Angeles. GULBRANSON: Yes, I mean, you know, I -- I think when you look at reality television and you look at what's happening in D.C., the big difference there is that reality television is entertainment for people to watch.
And what's happening in D.C. currently with Congress and our elected officials is it's affecting -- the decisions they make and the things they're doing are affecting the lives of the people that they represent, and that's the problem. That's why I'm running, and that's why Spencer is running.
COLLINS: Yes, what has it been like for you since you've been in Washington, I mean, seeing--
GULBRANSON: Yes.
COLLINS: --seeing Congress up close?
GULBRANSON: Yes, I mean, listen, it's a special place. There's an energy, right, to it. It's been a treat being here. Obviously, I've been meeting with some people and walking around the Hill, and there's a lot of energy. I haven't seen any of the UFC stuff or anything that's been set up. Thank God.
You know we have real-life problems, and people across the 8th district, where I'm running, that are worried about their health care and being laid off, and the cost of living, and $4.50 for gas. But our President is worried about UFC fights and spending money on a reckless war, $40 billion on a reckless war.
COLLINS: One thing the President gets asked a lot is, is about the concerns that Republicans, who are running, you know, some of them against you, have about what gas prices are, the effects of the Iran war, the impact it's having on people. I mean, how do you -- and sometimes, those Republicans seem to think that it's not registering with the White House, the real concern that voters have.
We talked about gas prices the last time you were on. I mean, what has happened in the weeks since then?
GULBRANSON: Well, I think what's interesting is that, while we're in a reckless war, while we're having UFC fights at the White House, and we're spending all this money, while we've made cuts to health care, you know, Pete Stauber is nowhere, his independent voice that he ran on in 2018 is nowhere to be found.
[21:55:00]
And the people across the 8th district are starting to see that, and they understand that, and they're sick of paying the gas prices, at $4.50 a gallon. It's a big district. I mean, I go around on the campaign trail, and I drive a truck, and I can tell you that it's not cheap putting gas in that thing to get around either.
COLLINS: Yes.
Luke Gulbranson, thank you for being here tonight.
GULBRANSON: Thanks for having me.
COLLINS: Great to have you.
And we'll be right back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: You can now see television's biggest actors right here on CNN in a brand-new season of Variety's "Actors on Actors."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNIFER ANISTON, AMERICAN ACTRESS: Because I'm thinking these are movie stars that are coming into our sitcom.
LISA KUDROW, AMERICAN ACTRESS: Yes.
ANISTON: And they would be so nervous, and I was really -- that was -- I was so surprised by that.
KUDROW: Me too.
ANISTON: Because the audience -- they were afraid of the audience?
KUDROW: Well because, what's the tone?
ANISTON: Right.
KUDROW: It's not theater. It's for TV.
ANISTON: Yes.
KUDROW: It's not a movie. What the hell is this?
ANISTON: What is this?
KUDROW: And it's a good question.
ANISTON: It's a great question.
[22:00:00]
KUDROW: And I remember, someone asked one time, and everyone was like, Well, like, Didn't know how to explain. And I said, Oh, just talk louder, same intention, just, just louder.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Variety's "Actors on Actors" is now streaming on the CNN app with new episodes dropping daily at 09:00 a.m. Eastern.
Thanks so much for joining us here on THE SOURCE tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
