Return to Transcripts main page

State of the Union

Interview With Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA); Interview With Rep. Riley Moore (R-WV); Interview With Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA); Interview With Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL). Aired 9-10a ET

Aired June 29, 2025 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:36]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST (voice-over): Holiday scramble. President Trump pushes his agenda through a roadblock.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The yeas are 51. The nays are 49. The motion is agreed to.

TAPPER: But it's not over yet.

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): The House will not be jammed by anything.

TAPPER: As Trump amps up the pressure, can he keep worried Republicans in line?

Senator Katie Britt is here next.

Plus, balance of power. The Supreme Court expands Trump's powers.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They have made it very simple.

TAPPER: While Democrats try and fail to check the president. Now a brewing fight over sharing U.S. intelligence with Congress, as Trump warns he might not be finished with Iran. Top Intelligence Committee Democrat Mark Warner joins us live.

And earthquake, a jolt to the Democratic Party.

ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: For too long politicians have pretended that we're spectators to that crisis of affordability. We're actually actors.

TAPPER: What fueled Zohran Mamdani's success in New York? And what does it mean for the Democratic Party nationally? Our political panel weighs in.

(END VIDEOTAPE) TAPPER: Hello. I'm Jake Tapper in Washington, where the state of our union is watching the sausage get made, a dramatic weekend in Washington, as senators pull all-nighters and strike last-minute side deals, and President Trump works to strong-arm members of his own party into backing his jam-packed signature legislation.

Overnight, the Senate voted to start discussion on the so-called -- quote -- "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which extends Trump's tax cuts and reduces federal spending on social safety net programs, among a host of other policy goals. And now Republican senators must decide whether to vote yes or risk the president's public wrath.

Overnight, Trump attacked both GOP holdouts from last night's vote, North Carolina's Thom Tillis, who says he's worried that his state cannot handle the cuts to Medicaid, and Kentucky's Rand Paul, who objects to raising the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, the president flexing his political muscle there after what may be empirically the best week of his presidency so far, a sweeping Supreme Court victory expanding his powers, the Dow at a record high, cease-fires between Israel and Iran and in Rwanda.

And now President Trump is focusing on his allies on Capitol Hill, where he hopes for another win. This morning, Democrats have forced the reading by the clerks of the entire 940-page behemoth bill, the original text of which only officially dropped Friday night, shortly before midnight.

Quote: "I know damn well the Republicans haven't read the bill," Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said, "so we're going to make them."

Joining us now, Republican, Senator Katie Britt of Alabama, who just spoke with President Trump yesterday.

Thanks so much for being here, Senator Britt. Good to see you.

SEN. KATIE BRITT (R-AL): Good to see you.

TAPPER: So your colleague Senator Murphy of Connecticut, a Democrat, just tweeted: "The 940-page bill that kicks 16 million Americans off their health care to fund a giant tax cut for the rich," referring to this," and not a single Republican senator has read it."

That's a big line of attack from the Democrats.

BRITT: That's absolutely not truthful. And you have got one right here that has.

Look, Speaker Mike Johnson said about 85 percent of this bill is the House bill. We have been working on this, Jake, since September, tirelessly thinking about what we would do when we took control. We have had over 50, 51 meetings about this. These different provisions that have been put out, as they have been put out, we have been reading. We have been talking. We have been figuring out how we can make them best for the American people.

Because, at the end of the day, we know we have to deliver results. President Trump ran on this. He said we are going to change America for the better. We're going to make sure that hardworking people can keep more of their money. We're going to make sure that we have secure borders, not just now, but for generations to come. We're going to make sure that we have a strong national defense, so that our war fighter is the best trained, equipped and ready across the planet.

We're going to unleash American energy. And we're going to make sure that people who have been unseen are seen. We want to make sure that these programs are available for the people who need them. And we want to make sure that people who are working know that we see them and that they have a greater opportunity to achieve the American dream. And that's what this bill does.

TAPPER: So, this bill, when do you expect the final vote to be, and will it pass?

BRITT: Yes, so, right now, obviously, you see Senator Schumer having the entire bill read. So clerks actually have to do that, for the people who are watching this. So they're doing that all through the night.

And then they will be doing that probably for -- I think they're about halfway through now. So we're looking, if the current pace continues, probably finishing about 3:00. After that, Jake, we will move into debate. Democrats will have 10 hours. Republicans will have 10 if they so choose.

I would assume Democrats take all 10 of their hours. Republicans may take a few to continue to make the case for this great -- this great piece of legislation. And then, after that, we will start voting. So I will actually be in the chair tonight.

[09:05:08]

TAPPER: Oh, wow.

BRITT: I am signed between 11:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. So, if anyone is bored or needs an opportunity to put themselves to sleep...

TAPPER: C-SPAN 2.

BRITT: C-SPAN 2.

TAPPER: Yes.

BRITT: But I would imagine, if it currently tracks, that's likely when we will start voting on amendments. And amendments will come from both sides, Jake.

And, actually, it is -- there is no limit to how many people can bring. So I think you will see some fruitful debate on the floor. And we will see what we ultimately end up with.

TAPPER: Probably a vote on Monday, you think?

BRITT: I would think so. TAPPER: So there is some criticism of what's in this bill from

Republicans too, not just from Democrats.

As you know, Alaska Senator Murkowski only voted to proceed with debate after Senate leaders exempted Alaska from key Medicaid and food stamp provisions in the bill. North Carolina's Thom Tillis voted no because he said he's worried about the Medicaid provision adjustments. Cuts will cost his state tens of billions of dollars.

Missouri's Josh Hawley voted for it, but is trying to delay some of the Medicaid provisions. And he says that the GOP -- quote -- "can't be cutting health care for working people and for poor people in order to constantly give special tax treatment to corporations."

That's a lot of pushback from within your own party.

BRITT: Look, I would absolutely agree with that. And that's exactly what we're trying to achieve. We want hardworking Americans to keep more of their taxpayer dollars. And we also want to make sure that these programs are alive and well for the people that they were intended for.

I mean, if you think about it, Jake, the entitlement spending in this nation is absolutely out of control. You can rewind back to the 1960s, when actual mandatory spending, which is what these entitlements are, only made up about a third of federal spending. Now, if you take that, plus the interest on our debt, it's about 73 percent of what we spend.

We are spending at a rate that we cannot continue. And, ultimately, that means that these programs would one day be insolvent for the very people that need them. We're trying to make structural reforms that make these programs stronger and make them be able to actually last and be there for the people who need that assistance.

We want these to be -- we want them to be safety nets, not hammocks that people stay in...

TAPPER: Yes.

BRITT: ... but getting people on their feet so that they can achieve the American dream. That's what they were intended for. And, Jake, that's what we have an obligation to do, is preserve them for the very people who they were meant to serve.

TAPPER: Well, let's talk about them in terms of your constituents, because there are about 760,000 Alabamans who rely on Medicaid.

BRITT: SNAP.

TAPPER: The bill will also cut federal funding for food stamps. It will require states to kick in more and shift a lot of that cost to Alabama, and that's more than 750,000 Alabamans who rely on what we're going to call food stamps, including 330,000 children.

So are you guaranteeing that these changes that you are voting for Monday presumably will not hurt recipients in Alabama of Medicaid, of food stamps or SNAP for those who are citizens and for those who truly need it and deserve it?

BRITT: Absolutely.

So, when you look at Medicaid, children -- obviously, we have the Children's Health Insurance Program. So children are absolutely not touched by this. Same thing when it comes to SNAP benefits. So we have made sure that that is taken off the table. What you're talking about is able-bodied, working-aged Americans without dependents on home, having them work, train, volunteer in some capacity 20 hours a week in order to receive those government benefits.

This goes back to Bill Clinton era politics, when you know that being a part of something bigger than yourselves, helping to contribute is ultimately what we need to do. And it's -- actually, the American people agree with us on this.

But when you look at what's happening in Alabama specifically, you think about what you mentioned with regards to SNAP. What we're doing on that is ensuring that states have some skin in the game. If you have an error rate that is down below 6 percent, which Alabama is about a percentage point a little bit over that above that, we will have time, we have several years to make sure that we get that percentage point down.

And I have every faith and belief that we will. We have got to make sure that these overpayments, underpayments that are happening -- we have seen it in our own state, where people's benefits are being stolen from other states -- that that stuff stops.

If states -- obviously, under the Biden administration, we stopped that accountability during -- for the SNAP program. Reinstituting it and ensuring that states have some skin in the game will ultimately help us be able to deliver these resources and services that these people so desperately need.

TAPPER: Yes, I mean, I have heard your fellow Senator Tuberville talk about he's worried that your state can't afford it. Your state can't afford to pick up the slack.

BRITT: What we can afford to do is get it right. And so if you think about moving that percentage rate down, right now, states have no incentive to actually get it right, to do the numbers, to check them.

And if you think about that, nobody across the country wants a state to be able to freeload. You ultimately have some states that have over a 60 percent error rate in this. We have got to get it right, because we have to preserve these programs. If you go back to this entitlement spending, we want it to be there for the people who need it most.

[09:10:04]

The rate in which we're spending now, there's no way that it will be. And so we're ensuring that states have some skin in the game and there's some accountability for them actually making sure that those payments go to the people who need them. TAPPER: So there's a slew of polling about this bill, as I'm sure you

know, Pew, Kaiser, Quinnipiac, "Washington Post," FOX, all of it suggesting that this legislation right here is not popular with the American people.

Senator Tillis reportedly warned Republicans that you could face major losses in the midterm elections because of what's in this bill. He compared it to the backlash Democrats faced after passing Obamacare. And former first buddy Elon Musk called this bill -- quote -- "political suicide for the Republican Party."

If Republicans lose the House or the Senate or both over this legislation, will it be worth it?

BRITT: Look, the reforms in this bill are necessary. And the deliver -- we're going to deliver actual solutions to the American people.

And I am excited about that. And I think, when the American people actually get to see this in fruition, they absolutely are going to be too. I mean, you think about the things we're doing, like securing the border, not just now, we won't always have a President Trump who immediately came in and got border crossings down to basically zero, I mean, if you think about where we are there versus the influx under the Biden administration.

If you think about where we have been in our national defense, not only has President Trump reinvigorated our armed services, we have seen recruiting rates go through the roof. You look at what he's been able to achieve just in the last two weeks. People know that we need to make sure our war fighters are the best-trained, equipped and ready across the planet. This bill does that.

This bill does no tax on tips. It does no tax on overtimes. Real hardworking Americans are going to see results of this. And one thing that we haven't talked enough about is childcare. The childcare provisions in this piece of legislation, I was the tip of the spear on that.

We have actually not updated those since 19, I think it's '86, with regards to DCAP, so under Reagan. And then you move forward when it comes to the other two provisions of childcare, the tax structure. We haven't done that since 2001.

Look, the affordability and accessibility of childcare is challenging for parents and hardworking Americans across the board. Because of this piece of legislation, they're going to be able to keep more of their heart on Monday and businesses large and small are going to be empowered to be a part of the solution.

So, these are real, tangible things that Americans are going to see and they're going to like what they see when this goes into effect.

TAPPER: On the policy and the politics, one thing that I don't know what happened to it was, there was a time when President Trump and his supporters like Steve Bannon were talking about maybe keeping the tax cuts for everybody except for people who are rich. And by rich, I mean making more than a million a year. Here's what

Trump and Bannon had to say about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I actually think it's good politics to do it where richer people give up -- and it's a very small -- it's like a point -- but they give it up to benefit people on the lower end.

STEVE BANNON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: The current system we have is not sustainable. It's just not. We're kidding ourselves. You have to go to an alternative. I think the alternative is budget cuts and it has to be tax increases on the wealthy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Whatever happened to that idea? That, I think -- I mean, not that I'm here to give tips to you, but that would make this bill more popular.

BRITT: Well, I think that...

TAPPER: And also more financially responsible.

BRITT: Well, if you look at, like, back over the last several years, obviously, Democrats have had two bites at the apple when it comes to reconciliation, and at neither time did they touch that.

It's because they understand that, when you're looking for job growth and you're looking to actually build the economy, they know that the TCJA worked. And so us being able to continue to make sure that we're creating opportunity for Americans coast to coast, the numbers showed themselves, that the economy began moving, the numbers that we had seen previously from OMB were put to shame.

And President Trump's previous TCJA actually made significant strides in that direction as far as moving the economy coast to coast. And if that hadn't up in the case, then you know that Democrats, in their two bites at the Apple with regards to reconciliation, would have taken care of that.

TAPPER: Alabama Senator Katie Britt, thank you for being here bright and early. Appreciate it.

BRITT: Thank you.

TAPPER: Are Republicans about to hand Democrats a playbook to beat them in the midterms?

Plus, the president's brewing fight with top Democratic intelligence leaders. Senator Mark Warner joins me on all that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:18:43]

TAPPER: Welcome back to the STATE OF THE UNION. I'm Jake Tapper.

Republican senators appear to be moving closer to passing President Trump's domestic policy bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. What are the political implications for Democrats?

My next guest is Democratic Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia Mark Warner.

Senator Warner, thanks so much for being here.

So, right now, Chuck Schumer has forced the clerks to read the entire text of this legislation on the floor of the Senate. The final vote seems to be -- likely to be tomorrow. Republican leaders seem pretty confident it's going to pass. You said Democrats were going to fight this tooth and nail to stop it. It does not look like Democrats are going to succeed.

How effective would you say your party has been?

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): Well, I think we have been effective at getting what's in this God-awful bill out into the public.

It's why the public, when they know about the bill, are about 2-1 opposed to it. I mean, if you think about it from just a big, big picture, this bill will kick about 16 million Americans off of health care.

TAPPER: Well, the Republicans say it's going to kick undocumented immigrants off of health care?

WARNER: So, there's -- let's take the independent referees.

TAPPER: OK.

WARNER: The independent referees, CBO, and others, 16 million Americans. That comes through cuts in Medicaid. And those folks who then buy health insurance through what's called the marketplace, they're going to have their rates go up $800, $900 a month.

[09:20:05]

Frankly, that's going to ripple effect to all of us who have traditional health care as well. End of the day, this will mean we will go back in terms of the total number of uninsured to where we were before Obamacare. We will about double the percentage, in Virginia, about 7 percent unemployed. We will go up to 15, 16, 17 percent.

Is that really where we want to head? It cuts 200,000 in my state folks off food aid. Do you really think school breakfasts, school lunches -- it even cuts assistance to food banks. On top of that, they do some financial that, frankly, would never pass a business test, where they are passing on costs from, like on the SNAP program, from the feds to the states.

My state are going to have to absorb about $350 million a year in additional costs with -- even with those cuts in place. And that didn't even touch the fact of the clean energy jobs. And the fact of the matter is, what this does, and the baseline is all these cuts, all this cutback on health care, to provide the wealthiest in our country a disproportionate share of tax cuts, that just doesn't seem fair.

And the more we can get that out, I think this will be a political albatross.

TAPPER: So -- well, I have two questions on that.

But the first one is, the White House says that, because of the extension of the Trump tax cuts in this legislation, the -- there will be an increase in the take-home pay of a typical Virginia family anywhere between $8,000 and $14,000 a year. Won't that be good for the citizens of your state?

WARNER: What -- I can show you other data that shows that, if you're at minimum wage, you will see your costs go up about 53 percent based upon not only the health care cost -- cuts, but also the Earned Income Tax Rate, the EITC, make it much more difficult for folks.

I think the overwhelming amount of data shows that, on this one, this is tax cuts for the wealthiest to end up cutting health care, plain and simple. You can put any lipstick you want on this pig, but it's still a pig.

TAPPER: So I just asked Senator Katie Britt about whatever happened to Trump and Bannon and others talking about letting the tax cuts on those who make more than a million a year expire. And she said, you probably heard her, Democrats had two bites of the apple to get rid of that, they didn't touch it.

And that combined with the fact that somehow Trump is the one who came up with no tax on tips, which you would think that would be something that Democrats would have come up with, but, no, Donald Trump is about to sign no tax on tips into the law, not the Democratic Party.

(CROSSTALK)

WARNER: Well, Jake, you know what? My good friend Katie Britt and a lot of my other Republican friends are going to have a chance tonight to actually vote on whether we should let the tax cuts expire on the wealthiest of Americans, and could we take that money and put it back in not doing these brutal cuts?

TAPPER: But why didn't Democrats do it when you had the chance?

WARNER: Well, we probably should have, but there was never a full-on assault.

At this point, what has happened is, you have got these tax cuts out there to kick 16 million Americans off of health insurance. Democrats would have never proposed that, and beyond the little -- hundreds of thousands in my state, millions across the country, on food assistance.

TAPPER: Yes.

WARNER: And, again, this is not a -- this -- I got no problem with people who do well being rewarded well, but this goes against any American's basic sense of fairness.

TAPPER: I have a lot on that, more -- a lot more on that.

But you're also the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and there were these major strikes against Iran eight days ago. And the head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog said, I think today or yesterday, that the U.S. strikes on Iran actually fell short of causing total and complete damage to Iran's nuclear program.

President Trump has said and Secretary Hegseth has said that the nuclear program of Iran is completely obliterated. You received a classified briefing. You are the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Without disclosing anything, you're not allowed to, who's telling the truth?

WARNER: Well, first of all, our military did an extraordinary job to launch these strikes, not even have the Iranians fire back. And, clearly, nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

The problem here is that the president, before any data came back in on the night of the strikes, says totally obliterated.

TAPPER: Right.

WARNER: Well, you have no information.

TAPPER: Right.

WARNER: So, if that's the standard, I think it would put our military, his Cabinet in a really untenable position, because what you can have is, you could have the program itself set back away...

TAPPER: Sure.

WARNER: ... which appears the destruction -- and I wish it would be totally obliterated. I hope -- I wish the president was right.

But when you went after the facilities, but we didn't even go after the enriched uranium at Isfahan, and the fact that they have some additional capabilities elsewhere around, the idea that Iran could potentially rush to a single bomb or two that could be delivered...

[09:25:05]

TAPPER: Right.

WARNER: ... maybe not on a missile, but in the back seat or trunk of a car, we have to be aware of that.

My concern when the president says totally obliterated is, does he lull the American people and the world, for that matter, into a sense of, well, that problem's taken care of, when, frankly...

TAPPER: But what did the briefing tell you? What did the briefing tell you?

WARNER: The only way we're going to know -- and, again, I will give credit to some of the briefers for saying this -- the only way we're going to know is when we get inspectors back on the ground. And to get inspectors back on the ground is going to require diplomacy.

TAPPER: So I want to play with what Defense Secretary Hegseth said when asked whether Iran had moved any of that enriched uranium prior to the strikes. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: I'm not aware of any intelligence that I have reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be, moved or otherwise.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: If that's true, it's great if -- I mean, he's suggesting that Iranians did not move any of the enriched uranium before the strikes. Is it true?

WARNER: I'm not going to comment on classified information, but I will say this.

Remember that most of the enriched uranium was at the facility at Isfahan.

TAPPER: Right.

WARNER: They didn't even use the bunker-buster bombs there because it was buried so deep, it could not have been penetrated, it could not have been taken care of.

So I don't even think, although I don't have a lot of credibility with Pete Hegseth, that anybody that says that all of the enriched uranium, close to 800-plus pounds, that that has all been taken out.

TAPPER: OK.

So we still don't know the degree of the damage. But let me just ask you this. As a basic just calling balls and strikes here, isn't the world safer today because of these strikes than it was nine days ago?

WARNER: If we don't end up seeing Iran attacking us through cyber or through proxies, if the peace...

TAPPER: But they were doing that to begin with.

WARNER: If the cease-fire stays between Israel and Iran, and Iran's program is set back for whatever period of time...

TAPPER: I just mean as of today. I'm not saying you're saying this for the rest of your life and whatever. But as of today, we don't know what's going to happen tomorrow, but, as of today, isn't the world safer?

WARNER: I am glad that these capabilities have been cut back. Do we know what Iran's next step is going to be? Do we -- are we going to be saying the same thing if Iran now tries to race to a bomb in the trunk of a car because we don't have any inspectors on the ground?

Are we going to be -- say that as well if Iran launches major cyberattacks against us, when this administration has literally cut half of the folks who do cybersecurity at the federal government level? So I think it's too early to tell.

TAPPER: OK.

WARNER: Am I glad to see some of the capabilities taken out? Absolutely.

TAPPER: Senator Mark Warner, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee from the great Commonwealth of Virginia, thank you so much. Appreciate your being here.

Well, they did warn you. President Trump has another looming problem. What happens when the bill that senators just changed goes back to the House of Representatives? Two members of the House are going to join on our political panel next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:32:30]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): Mr. President, we have before us today a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver legislation to create a safer, stronger, and more prosperous America.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): They will not only doom their own communities. They will doom their political fortunes, their own political fortunes, and have no one to blame but themselves.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: And welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.

We could be just hours away from Republican senators passing their version of President Trump's policy bill. How will it play with Americans and how will it play with the president's base?

My panel is with me now.

Let me start with the Republican elected official at the table, Congressman Riley Moore of West Virginia.

Are you worried at all at the changes being made to the bill in the Senate in terms of whether or not it will be able to get through the House once it goes back to the House?

REP. RILEY MOORE (R-WV): No, we have been in consistent conversations with the Senate on this bill. And as you just heard in your two previous guests, this is 85 percent of what was in the House bill, Senator Katie Britt said, 85 percent.

Now, to me, one of the things that's a huge improvement in the Senate bill is the green energy tax credits. It's actually more aggressive than what we had done in the House.

TAPPER: You mean taking them out.

MOORE: Yes, taking them out. It's more aggressive. It's not shovel in the ground, as we had in the House bill. If, it's not an operation, it's over. And that is great for my state of West Virginia. We're an energy state. We're a traditional fossil fuel energy state. That is a good thing.

So, for me, I think there are a lot of improvements in this Senate bill. And, obviously, they have been negotiating on SALT. I'm not a SALT state, so -- but that's been a constant conversation they have been having that seems to be trending in a positive direction.

TAPPER: Congressman Chris Deluzio, second-term Democrat from the Pittsburgh area, I'm sure you object to the policy of this bill. And we just heard Mark Warner make a good case for that. And I'm sure you will make a case for it too against the bill.

But what about the politics of it? Do you think this provides Democrats with an opening? Because, as of now -- and I have no idea what's going to look like in two Novembers from now, but, as of now, it's not a popular bill.

REP. CHRIS DELUZIO (D-PA): Nor should it be, right?

This is a bill that's going to take health care away from, in Pennsylvania, half-a-million people, more than 20,000 in my district, to pay for tax giveaways to the ultra-rich, while jacking up the debt to the tune of $4 trillion. That's bad policy and it's bad politics.

This is happening while we still have rising costs. We saw the GDP shrink in the first quarter. So, if I'm Mr. Moore and the Republicans here, what are you doing? Don't go down this path. But, if you do, we're going to pound you at the polls.

[09:35:04]

TAPPER: Speaking of pounding, Senator Tillis voted against proceeding. And he's probably going to vote against the bill too because he's concerned about the Medicaid cuts, Rand Paul also because he's concerned about raising the debt ceiling by $5 trillion.

President Trump, as is his wont, takes the TRUTH Social. On Tillis, he says: "Looks like Senator Thom Tillis, as usual, wants to tell the nation that he's giving them a 68 percent tax increase, as opposed to the biggest tax cut in American history. Thom Tillis is making a big mistake for America."

For Rand Paul, he says: "What's wrong with this guy?"

And it's not just talk, we should note, because he said the similar thing when Tom Massie from the House, a Republican from Kentucky, who pretty much votes against every budget bill there is because he's a deficit hawk, this is -- what we're showing right now, these are -- Trump allies are now running ads against Massie. They're going to challenge him.

How serious should Republicans take these threats, you think?

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Listen, John Thune's been working around the clock to get this built through, and I think he's going to get it through the Senate. And this is not what he's trying to wake up to, is the president of the United States threatening to potentially primary one of his most vulnerable senators, in Thom Tillis.

Thom Tillis, you can't risk losing. Thomas Massie, by the way, is safe. He's beloved in his district. But he's also doing what Massie is going to do, and he actually relishes this kind of a fight. But the balance of power in the Senate could run through North Carolina. And Thom Tillis has a very uphill battle there.

And he's somebody who, by the way, has voted with Donald Trump 90 percent of the time. So I would imagine, similar to when I worked for Donald Trump, there are people around him saying, listen, have it out. Say what you think. But it's not worth engaging in actually priming someone who can win, who's going to need to create a little bit of distance from you, by the way, when it comes down to a general election, because losing Thom Tillis is not a win for Donald Trump's agenda.

TAPPER: How much do you think Democrats are going to take advantage of the criticism of the bill that we're hearing from the Tom Massies and Rand Pauls when it comes to the deficit and the Josh Hawleys and Thom Tillises when it comes to the Medicaid cuts?

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, they are.

So, on Thom Tillis, if he is primaried, Donald Trump has a history of picking bad candidates, especially in North Carolina.

FARAH GRIFFIN: Exactly.

ALLISON: So bring it on.

Democrats should use this, because it's not just taking advantage politically. It -- this bill is going to hurt people. It's going to hurt Democrats. It's going to hurt Republicans. The thing that Democrats are going to have to do, though, in the midterms is some of the impact is a little bit delayed.

And so they're going to have to connect the dots of what is on that paper that might be passed into law to actually the impact of human beings. It's not just health care. It's veterans. Last election, we lost young people. We know young people care about the climate. Rolling back green energy tax credits, that can activate different parts of our coalition that were a little static less election cycle.

So it's not going to look the same way in every district and every Senate race, but it will be used again for Republicans, for sure.

TAPPER: Congressman...

MOORE: To be clear, though, President Trump ran on this.

TAPPER: Yes.

MOORE: President Trump ran on repealing these green energy tax credits. And just to kind of put this into context why it's so important, we have this terawatt challenge out there as it relates to generating enough power to be able to compete in A.I.

This is an arms race. It's the new nuclear arms race, and it's us or China that's going to win. China certainly understands the stakes that are involved here. That's why you see them building a new coal-fired power plant every month. And over here, we can't get a pipeline built in 14 years, like the Mountain Valley Pipeline through West Virginia.

TAPPER: I understand you're with him on the energy stuff, but you represent West Virginia. Are you not concerned about the Medicaid and SNAP cuts?

MOORE: Anybody who needs to have Medicaid and has Medicaid currently is not going to lose Medicaid. We have work requirements in there, which vast people around this country certainly support that. That makes sense to me.

Taking illegal immigrants off Medicaid, which they shouldn't have anyway, and 11 states offer that, absolutely, they should not have Medicaid. Yes, that's the right thing to do. And the people that need to have Medicaid, particularly the traditional population, which it's not even touching at all, that's not part of this at all, no one's going to lose Medicaid who currently needs Medicaid.

TAPPER: Josh Hawley doesn't think that.

DELUZIO: No. And Josh Hawley's right about this. This is going to kick people off of Medicaid and health care they have earned.

And, by the way, what the president campaigned on, I don't remember him campaigning on passing the biggest job-killing bill in the history of this country, which is what the building trades have said. These are the boilermakers, the ironworkers, the steamfitters. That's how they view this bill, as a job killer.

I think it's crazy to get on this path and, again, to pay for tax giveaways to the richest, most powerful people. They should be listening to Steve Bannon, of all people, saying raise taxes on millionaires to get our fiscal house in order.

MOORE: A tax giveaway, but all you're doing is literally extending the current tax environment that we're living in, right?

Now, on top of that, though, there's a lot of pro-family tax policies in this, such as extending -- expanding the child tax credit. That is a good thing. These savings accounts, the Trump savings accounts, those are a good thing too. Cutting taxes on overtime, on tips, the roll-off on Social Security income is going to affect 400,000 people in my state.

ALLISON: Can I just say one thing about work requirements? They don't work. We know -- it's a good line. It's a good messaging line. But work requirements don't work.

The senator just in Alabama, they have work requirements in that state, and it didn't actually save money. It didn't. It just is actually expanding the bureaucracy and making it harder. So, there's this application that people who are on Medicaid because it's a -- there's a stigma that it's only for poor people, that they don't -- poor people don't want to work.

[09:40:14]

They do want to work. They're some of the hardest people -- working people in this country. So these work requirements are not actually going to save us money. It actually will cost...

(CROSSTALK)

MOORE: But it's not just work requirements. They can volunteer their time or they can be looking for a job or doing education.

TAPPER: Let's just take a quick break. Coming -- because I also want to talk about another huge political development, a political earthquake in New York City. Did Zohran Mamdani just show Democrats how to win again, or did he do something else?

We will discuss. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:45:17]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAMDANI: We have won because New Yorkers have stood up for a city they can afford, where the mayor will use their power to reject Donald Trump's fascism and to govern our city as a model for the Democratic Party, a party where we fight for working people with no apology.

(CHEERING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION; 33-year-old Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani's seismic win in New York's mayoral primary stunned Democratic leaders. Will they embrace Mamdani as a model for the party, or will they run from him? My panel's back with me.

Alyssa, I will start with you, because you live right outside New York City and you work in New York City. What do you make of this? Obviously, Cuomo was a dud, but, beyond that, what do you make of the phenomenon of Mamdani?

FARAH GRIFFIN: I have never been happier to live in Westchester now and have left the city.

But, listen, Mamdani was smart to run on the cost of living. That is a universal issue. That's what Donald Trump ran on. It's what propelled him to victory, but he doesn't have the solutions. Democrats should take the lesson from him of talk about pocketbook issues, but this is a guy who is so deeply underqualified, he's going to be running to oversee a $2 trillion economy.

The city of New York is comparable to South Korea, Italy. This is a job-creating city. And what he's proposing on the corporate tax rate, Texas, Georgia, Florida, they should be expecting companies to be fleeing New York City if he is elected in the general election because of his policies.

And then add to that when he has refused to walk away from some of the most dangerous slogans that have sparked antisemitism in this country when he's had the opportunity to denounce them. We have a huge Jewish population in the city of New York, one of the biggest populations in the entire country. While I think he's on a glide path to get elected, I think he's incredibly dangerous for the city of New York.

TAPPER: So Bernie Sanders tweeted: "Democratic Party leaders, you have talked for six months about the need to create political excitement to get working class and young people involved in the political process. That's exactly what Zohran did. Get behind him."

Waleed Shahid said: "Zohran cracked the code so many Democrats are searching for it, laser focus on affordability, scroll-stopping videos and blend Obama's happy warrior with Bernie's populist anger. Democrats say they want to modernize. This is a playbook."

What do you think, Congressman?

DELUZIO: Jake, it will shock you that not many of my constituents in Western Pennsylvania care that much about the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City.

But I think there are lessons from this race and any others, right? If you're a candidate who is laser-focused on bringing down costs, you're hitting the right notes. That's what people are most concerned about. We still have rising inflation in this country. President Trump promised on day one to bring down cost. That hasn't happened. The economy shrank in the first quarter.

If I'm sitting in the Oval Office or I'm sitting in the majority, and I'm not, I'd be very worried about that. I'd be very worried that you're not responding to the fundamental problem that people have in this country that life is too expensive.

TAPPER: So, Democratic strategist Rebecca Katz, who worked on the campaigns of both John Fetterman and Ruben Gallego, said -- quote -- "The party establishment's impulse to stifle and ignore some of its most exciting, emerging voices isn't limited to progressives. Take Chris Deluzio in Pennsylvania or Pat Ryan in New York. While decidedly more moderate than Mr. Mamdani, both congressmen campaigned last fall on bringing down costs for people in their swing districts and taking on huge corporations and billionaires, a strategy Mr. Ryan described as patriotic populism."

I'm sure that you think Zohran Mamdani is too extreme, but, aside from that, is there not something here for Republicans to worry about in terms of the populism kind of being wrenched back from Donald Trump?

MOORE: No, I don't think so.

And thank you for the outset in recognizing he's a socialist, because he absolutely is one. He's talking about government-run grocery stores, free transportation, jacking up tax prices. If you live in West Palm Beach, Florida, your property value's about to skyrocket likely.

To me, this is a gift to the Republican Party, because this guy's going to be a lightning rod that they're going to have to distance themselves from in the upcoming election cycle. Now, what I think happened here is what you saw with Clinton, Obama, flashback to that primary, is that the establishment was just trying to roll over and get what they want and push an unpopular person, such as Cuomo, back into politics.

And they just rejected it. They keep running this same kind of playbook. And I think that's what it has more to do with.

TAPPER: What do you think of Zohran Mamdani?

ALLISON: I actually agree with that point, is that...

TAPPER: About Cuomo.

ALLISON: Cuomo, right?

TAPPER: Yes.

ALLISON: I think that two things happened.

I think that there was an effective and aggressive no to Cuomo campaign, which opened for whoever was in that primary to find their lane. And Mamdani was the one who found his lane and is now the Democratic nominee.

[09:50:03]

Democrats, when people win our primaries, support them. Help him govern. Don't turn your back on them. What is good in New York City probably is not going to fly in Youngstown, Ohio, where I'm from. But we can -- we are the big tent party. At least we used to be. So there's enough space for all of us.

Don't let him become mayor and then just turn your back on him. Help him govern. I am disappointed that more Democrats haven't -- there are some things that he says that I find problematic. But Donald Trump is our president, and a lot of people support him. And he said a lot of things are problematic too.

So we can find our way around things and hold people accountable while still supporting them to be good mayors.

TAPPER: Great panel. Thanks, one and all, for being here.

Crowds turned out this weekend to honor the slain Minnesota lawmaker and her husband, as well as their loyal dog.

That story is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:55:28]

TAPPER: Murdered Minnesota state lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were laid to rest this weekend, leaving behind two children.

Earlier, the couple had laid in state alongside their golden retriever, Gilbert, who was also shot in this horrible, politically motivated attack at the Hortmans' doorsteps. We are told Gilbert was a good boy.

We are sending our thoughts to the Hortman family and their friends. What a horrible, horrible thing. May their memories be a blessing.

Thank you for spending your Sunday morning with us.

"FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" starts next.

_