Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Loses Major Legal Challenge Over Mail-In Ballots; Trump Calls Democratic Socialists "Biggest Threat" To U.S.; Trump Brushes Off Housing Bill, Dismisses It As "A Yawn." Aired 9-10p ET
Aired June 29, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Soon after Trump began his second term, according to the authors of "Regime Change," Trump told staffers that Harp was the only one who loved him, as much as his wife and kids. All of you will go off and make money, Trump said, She'll never leave me.
Randi Kaye. CNN. Palm Beach County, Florida.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Tonight. President Trump's voting loss at the Supreme Court only fueling his fixation on that election bill, setting up a potentially major clash with Republicans in Congress.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, even as President Trump is celebrating a major expansion of presidential power, sources say that he is also deeply frustrated over the loss that the Supreme Court dealt him today, particularly on an issue that has animated the President for years. That would be mail-in voting.
Today, the justices, including those that he appointed to that court, rejected his push to stop state election officials from counting mail- in ballots that arrive after Election Day. It's a decision that even the President acknowledged today is a, quote, "Tremendous loss."
It's also tonight only fueling his fixation, as he has been trying to force Republicans, on Capitol Hill, to pass his bill that would overhaul federal elections as, he put it this way, It is now more important than ever to pass the SAVE America Act.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well because of the mail-in ballot ruling, which was a little bit surprising, gives people more time to vote illegally, let's say. But the SAVE Act is even more important.
The only people that would vote against that are people that are going to cheat in an election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Of course, there's no evidence of widespread fraud when it comes to mail-in ballots. The President himself has cast his vote by mail before.
But none of that has stopped him from railing against it for years, despite Republicans who very much wish he would not. His very real problem right now, though, is that there is little appetite for his voting bill on Capitol Hill. It simply does not have enough Republican votes to pass as it stands right now.
Now, that could change, and it's a dynamic, though, right now that doesn't seem to be changing in the immediate future, and has all but frozen the Republican agenda on Capitol Hill.
In the House tonight, we're seeing the Speaker, Mike Johnson, say that he will now try to pass it as part of an annual defense spending bill. But the Republican leader in the Senate already warned to Politico previously, that could actually end up sinking the defense bill.
None of that seems to matter to the President, who made quite clear today inside the Oval Office, he's not interested in signing any other legislation, no, not even that bill to bring down housing costs, until his election bill is passed first.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: Will you sign that housing bill?
TRUMP: I have not -- it hasn't been sent to me yet. It's coming, I understand, and then I'll make -- then I'll make a--
REPORTER: Will you--
TRUMP: Here's what I would like to sign. Much more than a bill that -- big deal. It's a yawn. Some people say it's wonderful. To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: A lot of Republicans voted for that bill.
This comes tonight as several of the President's allies are so furious about that ruling from the Supreme Court on mail-in ballots, they're going after Justice Amy Coney Barrett for siding with the court's liberal justices.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, FORMER TRUMP AIDE: Coney Barrett, and that crowd, man, she was a lovely pick. Did anybody do any due diligence here? I know it was quite, behind the scenes, it was quite contentious before. But the right to life crowd, hey, did you do your due diligence? Are you happy with what you got?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, it wasn't all bad news for President Trump out of the Supreme Court today.
Tonight, he is applauding what he is calling the, quote, "Greatest Increase in Presidential Power in the last 100 years," after the court ruled that the President can fire the leaders of independent agencies for any reason or for no reason at all, throwing out a precedent that actually dates back nearly a century that was designed to insulate those agencies from political influence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: The Supreme Court just affirmed your right to fire the heads of independent agencies. Should we expect more firings as a result of this ruling?
TRUMP: No, you know -- I don't think so. It gives me the right, and not me, it gives a president the right to do what the president should have the right to do. And it's very interesting, it's a big ruling.
But it bestows additional powers, or maybe the same power on the president. The president has the right to do this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:05:00]
COLLINS: Now, there was also another major setback, though, for the President, when it came to this. The Supreme Court drawing the line at one agency in particular. That would be the Federal Reserve. The justices ruled in a separate but still related case that he actually can't fire the Fed governor, Lisa Cook, at least not for now, preserving the independence of the Central Bank for the time being. Right now, though, this case is far from over.
Lisa Cook's attorney is going to join me live in just a moment here.
After the majority said that the President's post, announcing Cook's firing last year was, quote, Insufficient, and that federal law did require Trump to give her adequate due process.
President Trump has accused her of mortgage fraud, which she has repeatedly denied. And now, the Chief Justice says that she is, quote, "Entitled to some explanation of the evidence at issue, some avenue for a response, and a deadline by which a response would be due."
The President tonight, on his behalf, is promising to take appropriate action immediately to get her off of the Board.
And his Housing director, Bill Pulte, who is also right now serving as the acting Director of National Intelligence, responded this way, saying, quote, "I believe Lisa Cook will be indicted for mortgage fraud." Given that, my lead source tonight is Lisa Cook's attorney, Abbe Lowell.
And thank you for being here.
We'll talk about what Bill Pulte said. But just on this ruling from the Supreme Court, generally, what was Lisa Cook's reaction?
ABBE LOWELL, ATTORNEY FOR FEDERAL RESERVE GOVERNOR LISA COOK: She was gratified, grateful, relieved, but more important, dedicated to do what she's been doing since the President tried to fire her, which is being both a hardworking, competent, and caring Federal Reserve Board governor, which now is how many, nine or 10 months since the President said he fired her, and he didn't.
And so, Americans are better off for both her being there and the court today again reclaim -- proclaiming that the Federal Reserve Board is different and its independence is paramount.
COLLINS: When the President says he's going to take appropriate action against her, what do you expect that that's going to look like?
LOWELL: I mean, again, it took him what, 10 minutes to act like kids I know who lose a baseball game, and then say they actually won.
What I think will happen will be that he better be very careful in reading what the Supreme Court said. He didn't say -- they didn't say, you can do whatever you want.
They laid down ground rules, two sets of ground rules. They said that this issue of cause, the requirement to take somebody off the Federal Reserve Board, doesn't mean whatever he says it means, and it has background in history and law that will raise the bar for him to saying that even if Dr. Cook did something like checking the wrong box on a mortgage form, that will not satisfy the cause.
And the second thing they said was this due process that you're supposed to get as an American, let alone whether you're Federal Reserve Board, mean something too, and set out what that would be if this case were to proceed down again.
COLLINS: They also, though, left a lot of ambiguity in it, and seem to say that there is a way that the President can lawfully fire her. I mean, do you think that that's ultimately going to be how this ends?
LOWELL: I think a President of the United States can, under the law and the Supreme Court's decision today, fire a Federal Reserve Board governor, notwithstanding the independence and its special status, as the court affirmed, if the President, number one, finds what is cause to do so in a way that a court would recognize, which is not what has ever happened in this case, and two, did it in the right procedural way, which is also something that he didn't do.
Will he try? That's what Donald Trump does. Will he succeed? Not if people take the Supreme Court's decision seriously. COLLINS: You just said -- you said this idea of maybe potentially checking the wrong box. I think in court filings, it's been described as potential clerical errors. I mean, Bill Pulte is saying she's going to be indicted. Do you think that there is enough there for her to be indicted here?
LOWELL: Well, what I know is this: Bill Pulte doesn't decide that, and what we've learned in the last year and a half is that this administration is somehow able to basically mislead or misdirect or do things to get indictments where they don't belong. I also, as you know, advise Attorney General Letitia James. They not only got one indictment, which was dismissed, then they tried two other times.
And what is really stunning for people to remember is that for one of the first times in my experience, grand juries are rejecting when prosecutors with political motives are coming to them and saying, Indict somebody, when these grand jurors know that there's no basis to do so.
COLLINS: So, do you think she will be indicted?
LOWELL: I don't have any view -- let me put it this way. Do I think that there's grounds to indict her? No. Do I think that any real prosecutor in America would present it? No. Do I think in a different era this could even be something that you and I would talk about? No. Do I think somebody that takes whatever John -- Donald Trump does and doesn't, whether it used to be Alina Habba in New Jersey, or Lindsey Halligan in Virginia, will try to do something that he says? It's quite possible. But you know what? As in those other cases, they won't succeed.
COLLINS: OK. So, it is possible, and we'll see what that looks like.
[21:10:00]
One thing that the court ruled today was that the firing, in terms of doing it on social media was not sufficient, that she should have her avenue to respond. But they didn't really lay out what exactly that could look like. I mean, does that concern you that there wasn't more -- more clarity, basically, in terms of where this could go for her?
LOWELL: So, everybody has to also remember the sort of unusual procedural posture that we're in. This case, we got an injunction in the district court, so that we could flesh out things like what does due process mean, what does cause mean. The government, the administration sought an emergency appeal to the Court of Appeals and was denied. Then went to the Supreme Court, which strung it out for the last however many months.
We always knew that there had to be some further litigation about this. And the Supreme Court didn't send it back to the district court without some instructions. Both on the issue of due process and on the issue of what is cause, we have some principles and some guidelines that are embedded in that case that we can use very well when we get there.
COLLINS: OK. We will see how that shakes out.
Abbe Lowell, thank you for joining us tonight. Appreciate your time.
LOWELL: We'll talk again when that happens.
COLLINS: Yes, we certainly will.
We also have tonight new reaction coming, as I spoke about these cases, from the former Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. The Supreme Court ruled today that she can be fired by the President without cause. That's Rebecca Slaughter, who you've seen here on the show before.
Tonight, she warned on CNN what she thinks this decision could mean for all Americans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REBECCA KELLY SLAUGHTER, FORMER FTC COMMISSIONER: For working people who depend on agencies like the FTC and the other independent agencies, the Supreme Court has said, No, we will not have that independent check. You will not be watchdogs anymore. You will be lapdogs.
But for the Fed, which has some responsibility for Wall Street, the Supreme Court has said, OK, but you can stay as a watchdog.
And I think that that's really problematic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My legal sources are here tonight, including:
CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig.
And CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst, Joan Biskupic.
And it's great to have both of you here tonight.
Elie, in terms of what Rebecca Slaughter was saying there. I do think some people might be looking at this and saying, Why is the court treating this differently than the Federal Reserve?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY, FORMER STATE & FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: So, the net-net of today is that the President can now fire the members of any of these agencies for whatever reason he wants, no reason at all, except the Fed. The Fed is different.
Now, the stated constitutional reason is, well, it has a different structure. It was created by Congress, it's funded by Congress in a different way than those other agencies.
But the real underlying rationale is similarly -- similar to what we just heard. And Justice Kavanaugh actually talks about this in his opinion. He basically says, If we allow the president to interfere with the Fed, it could roil financial markets, worldwide global markets, and we don't want that.
Now, that's not really a legal rationale. That's more of a policy rationale. But I think that's largely what was pushing today's opinion.
COLLINS: Yes.
I mean, Joan, when you look at this, what does today mean for presidential power in your view? Because we saw Justice Sotomayor responding in her dissent, saying that she thinks that it basically extends it quite a bit.
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Absolutely. In fact, when you step back from today, today is a very big day for Donald Trump, and for presidential power going forward. In fact, this ruling, as you noted, reverses nearly a century of precedent. And this is one that, as you know, Chief Justice John Roberts has been working on for decades to get to this point.
And it means all these regulatory agencies that oversee things like consumer protection, fraud, nuclear energy, every -- so many public health and safety matters that independent regulators have been in charge of for decades and decades, it means that the people that run those agencies will now be susceptible to presidential pressure, and that was exactly what Congress didn't want.
What people are forgetting is that the court has actually curtailed congressional power in this ruling, not just, not just enhanced the president's, and not just in some ways hobbled these regulators, but taken away authority of Congress. Because it's Congress' statutes that gave the heads of these agencies the power.
So, you know, and interestingly, I just want to add, remember, Amy Coney Barrett was on this opinion. Amy Coney Barrett, who was criticized just a few minutes ago by Steve Bannon, she has been with the majority to enhance presidential power at almost every step.
COLLINS: Yes. Well, and also, I mean, speaking of -- Congress has done a pretty good job itself, rolling back its own power here.
But Elie, on the mail-in ballots and the voting, that's what the President was the most focused on today, coming out of his moment inside the Oval Office. When it comes to that, and their ruling here, and then his push to get this bill passed in D.C., I mean, it's only fueling him.
HONIG: Yes.
COLLINS: But that doesn't mean it's going to happen
HONIG: Yes, I wonder to what extent he's trying to use this loss on the mail-in ballots case for political opportunistic reasons.
But this ruling is actually a good reminder of the way elections are supposed to work. States get to choose time, place, and manner, unless Congress legislates, which they can. [21:15:00]
And the question, the argument that Trump and his people were making is, Well when Congress created Election Day in November, that meant that everything has to end on Election Day, and you can't extend it afterwards for receipt of ballots. And the court said that's -- but that's just not what it means. You're reading too much into the creation of Election Day. And so this -- we go back to the states, and the states prevail.
So, definitely a setback for Trump, and doesn't surprise me that he's trying to go on the internet and say, Now you have to pass SAVE America Act.
I don't know that those two are connected necessarily, but it's leverage.
COLLINS: Joan, what about the E. Jean Carroll case, and the idea that the President now has to pay her, I believe, 5 million more dollars following--
BISKUPIC: Right. In this case.
COLLINS: --the Supreme Court today.
BISKUPIC: This was one, just so everybody knows, the Supreme Court didn't actually issue a ruling. It's just that he had come up there with an appeal of that $5 million judgment, and the court declined it without any kind of recorded vote or their opinion--
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: Did that surprise you?
BISKUPIC: No because, the court actually rejects most of the cases that come up there. And remember, this was a -- you know, this was a jury verdict. This had been going on for a long time. And it would have been unusual for the court to have second-guessed what happened in the lower courts on this one. So, I thought that was a pretty predictable denial. So, it's the end of that one. There are other -- there's another E. Jean Carroll case that could eventually be appealed up to the justices.
So, this was -- this was a case that, frankly, the Supreme Court could have acted on months ago. It had been sitting up there for a while and it delivered it today, which I think is what's given a lot of people a mixed picture of what they did for or against Trump. But mostly, they served him today.
COLLINS: OK. And tomorrow is the final day.
BISKUPIC: Right.
COLLINS: We still have birthright citizenship--
BISKUPIC: Right. Birthright citizenship is still pending. Two cases involving trans women who want to play on women's sports teams in states, Idaho and West Virginia that ban trans women on sports teams. And then a campaign finance case. So, the big one is the birthright citizenship one--
HONIG: Yes.
BISKUPIC: --that I think Elie and I both agree that, that one, Donald Trump, will not win.
HONIG: I feel better when I agree with Joan. I do agree.
COLLINS: We all do.
HONIG: And I think -- I think a bottom line of this term, when it ends tomorrow, is that Donald Trump has tried a 1,000 different ways to expand his presidential power, and he's lost a lot, right? He lost tariffs. He's, you know -- he'll probably lose birthright tomorrow.
BISKUPIC: Yes.
HONIG: But he also is going to win a bunch, right? He won the big decision today on governing the agencies. He won the big immigration decisions, last week.
And so, the net-net of this all is, if you take a 1,000 shots and you only make eight of them, you're still making a lot of shots, and you're still going to -- we're going to end up with a much more powerful presidency as a result.
BISKUPIC: Right.
COLLINS: Yes, but he thinks he should get a 1,000.
HONIG: He should win them all, yes.
COLLINS: 1,000 to 1,000.
HONIG: Yes.
COLLINS: Elie Honig. Joan Biskupic. We might be back here tomorrow night, in 24 hours from now, following tomorrow's final decisions in the Supreme Court. We'll be following that closely here on CNN tomorrow.
Up next for us tonight. After Democratic Socialist candidates had been racking up a string of primary victories, the President is warning of this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think it's the biggest threat to our nation there is, maybe since our founding. That includes World War I, World War II, September 11th.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, after a string of decisive wins by Democratic Socialists, and with the midterms less than five months away from tonight, President Trump has been sharpening his attack on what he describes as an existential threat to the country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think it's a big threat to our nation, actually. Because it's not socialism. It's really communism. They use the word social democrat because it sounds so nice, but it's really communism you're talking about. I think it's the biggest threat to our nation there is, maybe since our founding. That includes World War I, World War II, September 11th, it includes the Pearl Harbor attack. I think this is the biggest threat to our nation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, moderate Democrats aren't going that far, but they do seem worried about the President basically repeating that sentiment, over and over, for the next four months. 15 of the House Democrats, led by New York Congressman Tom Suozzi, actually wrote a letter that was titled, Promise to America, in which they say at one point, quote, "We are capitalist, not socialist."
Tomorrow night, in Colorado, there will be another test when a Democratic Socialist is on the ballot, seeking to unseat a sitting House Democrat.
Still, as he's been facing questions after that string of victories in New York, the House Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries, says he believes it's not the Democrats who are too extreme.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Are you concerned about the perception that your party may be viewed as too extreme?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): No, we're going to win because, you know, Democrats are actually focused on trying to make life better for the American people, and it's the reason why we've been winning elections since January of 2025, and now for the last 18 months have won every meaningful election in this country. And so, the voters have clearly concluded that Democrats aren't too extreme.
Republicans are too extreme because they are the ones who have consistently been losing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My Democratic source tonight is Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, and the Chair of the Progressive Caucus. I just first want to ask you to respond to what President Trump said. His quote was, They use the word social democrat because it sounds so nice, but it's really communism you're talking about.
[21:25:00]
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): I mean, he is ridiculous, but the reason he's using communism is because he knows socialism is really popular. So, he's trying to turn this into communism, when he knows that the ideas that social democrats are running on, that progressives are running on, universal health care, universal child care, making sure that people get paid higher wages, those are incredibly popular.
So, he's trying to attach an ideology to it, a label that isn't correct because he knows that at the end of the day, these folks are going to make sure that his wealthy billionaire buddies pay their fair share of taxes and that it benefits working people.
COLLINS: But there are House Democrats who seem worried about this as well. Tom Suozzi said, quote, "We are capitalist, not socialist." Excuse me.
What do you think these wins mean for the Tom Suozzis, the more moderate establishment Democrats of your party?
JAYAPAL: Well, look, I think we're always told as progressives that we're a big tent party, that there has to be room for people who don't agree with progressives a 100 percent of the time. That's got to be true the other way as well. If we are a big tent party, we have to have both sides of the big tent included, and I think there are going to be issues where we don't agree a 100 percent of the time.
But I think what Leader Jeffries said is right. We are focused on making life better for the American people, and Democratic voters across the country are choosing people that they think will stand up and fight for working people.
COLLINS: But Democratic Socialists used to be more of a fringe part of your party. Do you think that is changing now? Do you think it is becoming more of the mainstream of the Democratic Party?
JAYAPAL: I think very much so, in certain places across the country, where I think you have voters who are saying, Look, this system, whatever ideology you want to ascribe to it, but a system, where the wealthiest get wealthier and wealth gets hoarded at the very top, doesn't work for working people.
And so, if you want to call that socialism? I'll be in for something that changes that. If you want to call it progressives? I'll be in for something that changes that. If you want to call it moderate Democrats who are going to stand up to billionaires? I'll be in for that as well. I mean, I think you can -- it doesn't have to be defined by a particular ideology. It has to be defined by what you are willing to stand up and fight for.
COLLINS: On the issues and what this looks like. We've spoken to several Democrats who have said that these progressive candidates, to actually put into place the policies that they're running on, and what they're pushing, are going to need broader support to make that change happen.
Here's what a few Democrats have said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JOSH SHAPIRO (D-PA): I think what is important are the people who are making a lot of noise, who are engaging in these performative politics, have to now figure out how to deliver results. It's one thing to speak in platitudes during a campaign. It's a whole other thing to actually deliver for people who are genuinely hurting.
REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): In our system, you can't do anything, you can do jack, when you don't have a majority.
So, my hope is, for these members who have been newly nominated to be the Democratic candidates, likely to be members of Congress is, Be bold, be bold. But remember that boldness without the action that gets you a congressional majority, through places like Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, is worth nothing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do they have a point?
JAYAPAL: This was always something that was leveled with me when I was Chair of the Progressive Caucus. I'm Chair Emerita now of the Progressive Caucus. And I would always say, progressives know how to govern. We have bold ideas, and we create winning coalitions. That's what we did when we passed Build Back Better in the House, and we held out, and we fought for something that we thought people deserved.
And I think that at the end of the day, the people who are saying -- I find it really insulting to say that Democratic Socialists are just being -- making noise, and that they don't know anything about--
COLLINS: I mean, Josh Shapiro called it performative politics.
JAYAPAL: Performative politics. I mean, I think you have to ask, why is it that we've lost so many Democratic voters in these races where Democratic Socialists are winning, where progressives are winning, even in very tough swing states. It's because they are bringing voters back who actually see somebody who's willing to stand up and fight for them. That's not performative politics.
I think people are sick and tired of the old establishment politics that too many Democrats were part of moving forward, and they're ready for something bolder, and they're willing to stand up and elect people who they believe are going to fight for them. At the end of the day, we got to respect the voters, and if the voters -- the voters are the Democratic Party. They are the ones who elect these candidates--
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: So you believe Governor Shapiro is wrong?
JAYAPAL: I think he was wrong. And I think that there are a lot of very disrespectful comments that are coming from some parts of the Democratic Party that are dismissing the voters who elected these individuals.
Why is it that every time a moderate wins an election, people are like, That's the new blueprint for the Democratic Party. But if a progressive or a Democratic Socialist wins, Oh, the whole party is falling to hell in a handbasket.
[21:30:00]
I think we've got to rethink that, and we've got to recognize that people are angry because, they have seen this country, over a decade, move to actually prioritize the wealthiest who are buying elections, not working people.
COLLINS: Our colleagues over at KFILE found that one of the candidates who won in New York, last week, Darializa Avila Chevalier, she's running in New York 13, I believe.
JAYAPAL: Yes.
COLLINS: She repeated sympathetic references to communism, Marxist ideology, Soviet figures like Vladimir Lenin.
Do you believe that complicates the argument in favor of these candidates who are Democratic Socialists?
JAYAPAL: I think Darializa Avila Chevalier ran a campaign that convinced the voters of her district that she would stand up and fight for them. Whatever labels you want to attach to it, whatever she said, I believe that we've got to understand that big tent means big tent, and voters have to be respected.
And so, are there going to be disagreements about language she may have used? And I'm not sure when that language was used. The campaign that I saw was very much about what working people want and deserve, and I think that that's really the moment we're in. People feel so devastated by housing prices, by the lack of child care, by the lack of health care, and they want something better. And we should be bold about doing it, not attacking the voters or the candidates who won elections in Democratic primaries.
COLLINS: Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, Chair Emerita of the Progressive Caucus.
JAYAPAL: Thanks.
COLLINS: Thank you for joining us tonight.
JAYAPAL: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Appreciate your time. Up next. Congress has now sent that housing affordability bill to the President's desk. Republicans, Democrats, they all want him to sign it. But will he sign it? We'll tell you what he told reporters today.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump is hitting the snooze button on Speaker Johnson's 10-day countdown to either sign a major housing bipartisan bill or have it just become law without his signature.
This is only a few days, after the President abruptly canceled that signing ceremony that he was supposed to do for the Housing Act, on Capitol Hill, last week. It was a move that even caught Republican leadership off guard, as he demanded an all-or-nothing push to pass his bill to overhaul federal elections first.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MASON: What are your plans for the housing bill, Mr. President? Are you--
TRUMP: I don't know. I think it's so unimportant by compared to -- by compared to the SAVE America Act. I think the SAVE America Act is exactly what it says, it's saving America from crooked elections.
And the housing bill is a bill that can get approved. They worked on it long and hard. It's very bipartisan. That means the Democrats like it, and it gets -- maybe even -- it's probably maybe more that way, they're getting things that I wouldn't necessarily agree to.
MASON: But will you sign that housing bill--
TRUMP: I have not -- it hasn't been sent to me yet. It's coming, I understand, and then I'll make -- then I'll make a--
REPORTER: Will you--
TRUMP: Here's what I would like to sign. Much more than a bill that -- big deal. It's a yawn. Some people say it's wonderful. To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Some revealing comments there from the President to Jeff Mason.
It comes as a source tells CNN tonight that he is unlikely to sign the bill, but he's likely not going to veto it either. Instead, our source tells us he'll likely allow it to become law automatically once that 10-day countdown is up.
Of course, as everything with the White House, anything can change, and we're following it all very closely, as well as my political sources who are joining me here tonight, including: The former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, Karen Finney.
And the former Arizona Senator, Republican, and former Ambassador Jeff Flake.
Ambassador Flake, when you hear the President say it's bipartisan, so that means Democrats like it, and he didn't seem very enthusiastic about signing this bill that his White House, his own press secretary, was touting as historic. What did you make of those comments today?
JEFF FLAKE, FORMER U.S. SENATOR (R-AZ), FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY: Well, I think Republicans can and should tout it in the elections to come, but it's going to make it a little more difficult when the President describes it as a yawner. But yes, it'll become law, and Republicans will tout it, and the President will likely tout it later. But this just makes it more difficult for the Republicans.
COLLINS: Karen, how do you think Democrats should be handling this?
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, CLINTON 2016 CAMPAIGN: I think they should be touting it once its passed.
But also I would, no matter which of the party committees that I was part of, I would take that clip, along with the clips of him saying he doesn't care about inflation, I think there's several others where it's pretty clear he doesn't care about various issues that people are struggling with, I would just put that on a loop and play it over and over and over again, and push Republican candidates to be asked, How do you feel about the fact that the President does not seem to care? Because they've really failed to hold him accountable in so many ways.
COLLINS: Obviously, Ambassador, you're also deeply familiar with how Senate Republicans work, how they think.
Trump is going after the ones who have said they're not interested in the SAVE America Act.
FLAKE: Right.
COLLINS: They don't think it's what the country needs.
Bill Cassidy, of course, who Trump has made sure is not going to be in Congress much longer.
FLAKE: Right.
[21:40:00]
COLLINS: Cassidy himself responded today, and said, It's irresponsible to postpone signing the Housing bill due to the SAVE Act. We need to start delivering relief to people for the high cost of housing ASAP.
Is that something you think is going to hurt the White House? Do you think they'll come to rue the day that they -- that they didn't take a moment like this to have a win on something that Americans really do need help on?
FLAKE: Yes, I think it does play into the narrative, as Karen said, that the President just doesn't care. He's stated as much that he doesn't care about what the American people think, he's concerned about the war, or whatever, and that plays into the narrative that I'm sure the Democrats will exploit.
As for Republicans, you know, there's not much he can do now to hurt Republicans who are up for re-election, that he's already defeated those in the primary, he was going to defeat. And so, I don't think that this pressure now on the SAVE America Act is going to amount to much. So, I think he's just about spent what he can on this.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean he's obviously made clear he wants that passed.
FLAKE: Right.
COLLINS: I think the question is, Karen, what's going to happen going forward, if he doesn't. I mean, he seems to be on a collision course with John Thune in the Senate over this.
FINNEY: Yes, although, you know, Kaitlan, since the beginning of the DOGE-ing of America, we talked about the fact that there would come a time when the Republicans in Congress, who were facing the people in an election in the midterms, they would basically be on a collision course with the President because he is doing everything he can to avoid being held accountable.
FLAKE: Yes.
FINNEY: That's why he wants the SAVE Act. That's why he had a tantrum again today about mail-in voting. And so, I think what this bodes for the rest of his -- this term is more of the same sort of bad behavior, irascible and sort of disalignment of interests for Republicans.
He may have a grip on the Republican primary voters. But I think it's pretty clear, he doesn't seem to care about doing anything that could help Republicans actually win their elections to be able to -- you know, they can't go back home and, for example, run on the war in Iran. The housing bill was kind of one of their best chances.
And so, I think Democrats need to continue to press that political advantage, as well as trying to do everything they can to prevent just more bad acts from this President.
COLLINS: I mean, and also Ambassador, so much of this is it's not just optics. Because the President made a lot of promises about affordability and cost of living on the campaign trail.
FLAKE: Right.
COLLINS: I mean, they were his chief promises to voters, and it was a reason why voters, in large turns, said they wanted him back in office. And as he's saying -- you know, totally dismissive of the housing bill, as he was today to Jeff Mason. Also, it comes as he's saying this public golf course near the National Mall, it's going to shut down for renovations.
FLAKE: Yes.
COLLINS: It's just obviously one of the latest projects that he has spent a lot of time on here in Washington. He was actually physically at the course yesterday, checking it out.
Tonight, he's just posted a new addition to the White House over on the South Lawn. It's a golden eagle that is on the facade of the White House. This is the President--
FLAKE: Yes.
COLLINS: --the picture the President posted, saying that's the gift to America on the White House for the 250th anniversary of America.
Do you worry about the optics that Republicans have to face when so much of his focus is on stuff like that?
FLAKE: You bet. You bet. Whenever he's talking about Reflecting Pool, or golf courses, or particularly the war, it's just a reminder to Republicans, and swing voters in particular, that he really hasn't done what he's said he would do on affordability. That he hasn't taken down inflation, people are still having a hard time making ends meet. And these are just reminders again and again and again.
And then when you fail to trumpet a housing bill that actually could make some difference? Then that just is another reminder.
So, yes, it's a big problem for Republicans.
COLLINS: Karen, what do you think of the eagle?
FINNEY: Oh, it's gaudy and disgusting, like so many of the additions that the -- I mean, having -- you know, being a caretaker of the White House, when I worked in the first lady's office, it's really hard to see something like that, and just sort of defacing the beautiful White House, which was perfectly beautiful as it was, quite frankly. So, it's disturbing.
And I think, as the Ambassador said, the cost of things like this, the fact that he's more focused on -- his attention on that, than the fact that people are losing their health care because of the big ugly bill, that kids are losing SNAP benefits. I mean, what are you doing to help the American people, Mr. President?
FLAKE: Yes.
COLLINS: Karen Finney. Ambassador Jeff Flake. It's always great to have both of you here. So, thank you for joining us tonight.
FLAKE: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next. Speaking of the war in Iran. We've got new details on what's going on, a conflict between the Trump administration and its own top intelligence agencies. A demand that is also sending shockwaves to the CIA and the FBI.
My national security source will join me after this.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, The New York Times is reporting that there is a fight brewing inside our intelligence agencies, as the Trump administration is now demanding that officials build a master list of spies.
[21:50:00]
The Times reports that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is leading this effort. Right now, that is run by Bill Pulte, who I mentioned is right now working as the acting Director of the National Intelligence, while also still doing his Housing job.
This comes, as intelligence officials are reportedly being told to, quote, "Turn over the names of all foreign espionage targets, including suspected spies and potential recruits, to create a master list that some officials fear will be misused or compromise operations."
Right now, sources tell The Times that senior FBI and CIA officials have resisted these demands.
And when asked for comment, an FBI spokesperson told The Times that the Bureau is working with other intelligence agencies to do what they said was, quote, Open the books for the American people, as part of a broader push for transparency.
The CIA did not comment.
An official from Bill Pulte's office said it was simply following a directive from Trump's first term to improve intelligence sharing.
My source tonight knows all about that. Beth Sanner was the former Deputy Director of National Intelligence.
Your thoughts on a master spy list?
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: What could go wrong? You know, master list with all the crown jewels in it that you're trying to hide from your adversaries. So, I mean, it's a little insane, Kaitlan. That's my--
COLLINS: I mean, like on a scale of one to 10, where are you putting it?
SANNER: I think it's -- I think there are two things. What's broken? There are already coordination mechanisms run by FBI, and there's already NCSC, the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, puts out a strategic prioritization list of counterintelligence threats. But I think that the idea is -- I have three things. One is very boring -- authorities, who gave -- you know, who died and put you in charge, right? Like, the ODNI does not have the authority to do operations or law enforcement. They do have coordination.
But then you get to the security thing, right? So, here, you have secrets that are so secret that they're not just like on the computer in the FBI or the CIA. These are behind walls. They are in special rooms. They are on computers that sometimes don't even have internet access -- or don't have internet -- but don't even have access to the high side, to other parts of the system. And to the idea you would put this together, you could blow an FBI law enforcement case because, ODNI would get their fingers in it. You could blow an opportunity to recruit some of these people.
And then the third thing is like all of this gets down to trust. And I know it sounds kind of funny because people think about CIA and our motto, it's like, you know, Trust no one. But actually, you can't do anything in the spy world without trust.
And what's clearly missing right now is that FBI and CIA don't trust ODNI, and I think it's pretty obvious when you have Pulte comes in, what is his first thing, the first people he fires? Gabbard people. There's not even trust among loyalists. There is no trust.
COLLINS: That's a good point, actually, in terms of -- not actually. Because it's not surprising you make good points every time we have you on. But in terms of, it always seems to be the loyalists versus the career officials. But to your point, and there was bad blood between Bill Pulte and Tulsi Gabbard. It's that the Pulte people don't trust the Gabbard people, basically, even though those are Trump's own people, they had put in at ODNI--
SANNER: Totally. There's no reason to trust ODNI right now. I mean, they have put in people who have an agenda, which has been clearly articulated by the President.
COLLINS: So, why do you think they're doing this?
SANNER: Because--
COLLINS: They say it's for transparency.
SANNER: Yes, I know, I -- it raises some questions, like, how could you -- how could you weaponize this? You know, who is in the United States as spies that maybe you might be not wanting to be on spy lists? Are there Russians on that list? Are there Chinese? Do you want to control it in some way? I don't know.
There're also corporations. This kind of foreign threat thing isn't just about espionage. It's about hackers. It's about organized crime. It's about Chinese companies that are trying to steal secrets. I don't know, it's a little mysterious to me, and it's worrisome because I don't -- I'm no different than CIA and FBI on this one.
COLLINS: Yes. Beth Sanner, thanks for the warning, I guess. Great to have you, as always.
Up next. It is time for Source Code. We give you the number at the center of a story in the news. Can you figure out what that story is? Tonight's Source Code is 747. We're back in a moment with the answer.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight's source code is 747. Yes because, that is the model of the two aging baby blue Boeings that have flown American presidents, Democrat and Republican, across the globe as Air Force One for more than 40 years.
[22:00:00]
But come Wednesday, sources now tell CNN, that the luxury Boeing 747- 800 jet, the one that was donated by the Qatari government, and then subsequently modified by the U.S. military amid national security concerns, will now become Air Force One for the first time.
CNN is told, that new Qatari jet will make its inaugural presidential trip, when the President heads to North Dakota for an America 250 celebration on Wednesday. We will tell you how that goes. We will be watching it closely.
Thanks for joining us here tonight on THE SOURCE.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
