Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Hosts Zelenskyy, Vowing To End Ukraine War; John Bolton Pleads Not Guilty In Classified Docs Case; Just In: Trump Asks The Supreme Court To Clear Way For National Guard Deployment In Chicago Area. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired October 17, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:04]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Our thanks to Max Foster for that update from the U.K. an important note for you. Weve just learned that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has departed the White House. These are images of Zelenskyy leaving the oval office.
The meeting was held in the cabinet roo m. It lasted over two hours. The crux of it whether President Trump will send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, we'll keep following this story on "THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT," which starts right now.
PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA on this Friday. Kasie Hunt is off. I'm Pamela Brown.
And right now at the White House, a key meeting just wrapped as President Donald Trump pushes for an end to Russia's war on Ukraine.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy making his third trip to the White House this year as he tries to convince President Trump that the way to force Russia to the negotiating table is to give more weapons to Ukraine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: President Trump has a big chance now to finish this war, and President Trump is really showed for the world that he can manage ceasefire in Middle East. And that's why I hope that he will do this. And we will also have such big success for Ukraine. It's a big chance, and I hope that President Trump can manage it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: The tone of this afternoons meeting, notably more positive than the Oval Office argument you might recall when we saw during Zelenskyy's first visit in February, President Trump today said that Zelenskyy will not join him when he meets Russian President Vladimir Putin in Hungary in the coming weeks. But fresh off a ceasefire in Gaza, Trump projected confidence that after more than three and a half years of war, Putin is ready for peace.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that President Putin wants to end the war, or I wouldn't be talking this way. I think he wants to end the war. I spoke to him yesterday for 2-1/2 hours. We went through a lot of details. He wants to get it ended. I think that President Zelenskyy wants to get it ended.
Now, we have to get it done. I think we have a good chance. I think President Zelenskyy wants it done. And I think President Putin wants it done. Now all they have to do is get along a little bit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: All right. Let's get off the sidelines and go into THE ARENA.
My panel is here along with CNN's senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.
Kristen, let's kick it off with you. We saw Zelenskyy just a moment ago leave the White House. What are you hearing about how those talks went today?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're still trying to get some answers here. We know that it seems unlikely that he's going to get what he came here for. On Sunday of last week, President Trump was almost threatening Putin that he was going to give these Tomahawk missiles to Zelensky.
But after their two-hour phone call between Trump and Putin, it seems less and less likely. President Trump was asked a number of times directly whether or not he was going to give those long-range missiles to Ukraine. And he danced around the topic. He said he hoped the war would end without using those missiles. At one point, he said that the U.S. needed those missiles as well.
And he had told me the day before that, of course, Russian President Vladimir Putin asked not to give those tomahawk missiles over. So, it appears that was part of their conversation as well. Now, when it came to this meeting in Hungary, here's what President Trump had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I would say most likely it's going to be a double meeting. It will be a double meeting, but we will have the President Zelensky in touch. There's a lot of bad blood with the two presidents, and I'm not speaking out of turn when I say it. It's very, very difficult situation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: So, he says double meeting there. It appears that he's talking about a bilateral meeting with just him and Russian President Vladimir Putin. But instead, of course, used the term double meeting, which is not one we hear very often, led to some confusion.
But one thing to note here is that if it is just in fact what we believe it to be, which is Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Trump, what makes this any different than the meeting that we saw in Alaska? And President Trump tried to say that Alaska set the groundwork for this meeting. But remember what he wanted out of Alaska. He wanted a cease ceasefire and if not a ceasefire, a sit down between Zelenskyy and Putin, neither of which happened.
And when he continued to say over and over again that he believed Putin wanted peace and an end to the war, when he was asked why he believes that now, he couldn't really answer the question. And in fact, at one point he admitted that perhaps he was being strung along by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
BROWN: All right. Kristen Holmes, live for us from the White House. Thanks so much.
And let's go now to CNN chief global affairs correspondent Matthew Chance in Moscow.
Matthew, I know Moscow is watching this meeting very closely. How is the Kremlin reacting?
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, they're watching it very closely. Undoubtedly, but they're not reacting to it in public. Privately, though I suspect they've been watching these events unfold. Watching this performance in front of the media in the White House with a degree of satisfaction.
I mean, look, I mean, President Trump made it pretty clear that Zelensky was not going to walk out of this meeting with Tomahawk cruise missiles. And for the most part, that's one of the reasons why President Putin staged what was effectively a 2-1/2 hour intervention last night, calling President Trump, basically explaining to him from the Russian point of view that cruise missiles, Tomahawks would not have a major effect on the battlefield, but they would be seen as an escalation. They would damage the relationship between Washington and Moscow, something that they know President Trump, you know, cares a great deal about. And so, there's that aspect they'll be pleased with.
I think they'll also be pretty satisfied with the idea that that Trump seems very sure indeed, that President Putin wants a deal, wants to end the war, wants to talk about peace. You know, kind of holding out the prospect of a peace agreement or engagement about peace has proved to be a very effective strategy for the Kremlin in the past. It means that they can essentially delay increased U.S. military action, support of Ukraine, supplies of weapons and things like that.
And so, I think they're pretty happy with it. But as Kristen was saying it's very difficult to see what has changed in this. What will have changed in the meeting that's coming up in two weeks or so from now in Budapest, that summit between Trump and Putin, from the summit in August in Alaska. I was in that room. I saw how President Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin and got virtually nothing in return. There's been a few things changed. The military pressure on the battlefield on Russia has been stepped up. The economic pressure has increased perhaps a little bit as well. But publicly at least, Putin has made no suggestion that he's prepared
to compromise on his core military objectives. And so there's a real possibility that nothing's changed at all. And we'll be back where we were back in August at the end of the Budapest summit.
BROWN: All right. We're going to dive into that a little bit further. Matthew Chance, thank you so much.
I want to bring in former NATO supreme allied commander, General Wesley Clark, and Ambassador Richard Haass. He served in the George W. Bush administration.
And also, I want to point out on the left side of your screen, you'll see our arena text chain. That's where we're sharing additional analysis from a few of our top reporters, and contributors.
General Clark, I want to just pick up what we were just talking about, and that is this upcoming meeting. At some point in the future between President Trump and President Putin.
As noted after the meeting in Alaska, you only saw more aggression from Russia and Ukraine. What could come out of this potential meeting in Budapest?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK, FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: I don't think much is likely to come out of it. I think it's part of the threefold strategy that Mr. Putin has, which is attack on the ground, demoralize Ukraine through deep strikes and the population, and then use diplomacy to stall assistance to Ukraine. Here -- he's doing it right here on the Tomahawk missiles. And buy time for his military to work.
But, Pamela, the real issue is this. If president Putin stops a war, wants to stop the war, just stop the war. All he has to do is stop. He's the one who's refused to ceasefire.
This is not like Israel and Hamas. This is much different. This is a war of choice undertaken by Mr. Putin. He could stop it at any time.
Now, would Ukraine be willing to concede the permanent occupation of those territories as a legal issue and a political issue? But it's not a military issue. All Putin has to do is stop. And if he wants to war, the war to stop, stop it. And that's what I hope President Trump will tell him.
BROWN: And you heard President Trump say that he thinks that Putin wants peace.
Ambassador Haass, have you seen any signals of that?
AMBASSADOR RICHARD HAASS, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, everybody in history always says they want peace. The real question is on what terms.
So, whether President Putin, quote/unquote, wants peace is essentially irrelevant. The question is, is he willing to accept peace where he doesn't achieve all of his goals?
The answer is no, which is why he continues after three and a half years of this phase of the war, to continue to prosecute it, against the grain -- against Ukraine. Look, there's something that's painfully familiar about all this, where the United States gets closer to the point where it's going to, yet again, enter a slightly different phase of its support for Ukraine. Not that Tomahawk missiles, a number of a handful of them, would be a game changer, but it would make some difference.
General Clark would speak to it with great authority, which also symbolically important and once again, were pulling back, if you will, from the brink at the request of Vladimir Putin. We've seen this movie before, and I wish I could -- I wish I could say this time it's going to be different, but there's absolutely no reason to believe it's going to be different.
[16:10:01]
And that's what's so frustrating about American policy. President Trump is right to want peace. He's right to press for it. But his own policy is undermining his own goal because he's not putting enough pressure on Vladimir Putin, who continues to believe that time is on his side.
We need to persuade Putin that time is not on his side, that more war will not give him more results. But once again, delaying American support for Ukraine has the opposite effect.
BROWN: So then, General Clark, do you think that president Trump should have committed to giving Ukraine those Tomahawk missiles as a way to put pressure on Russia? That, of course, is the argument that President Zelenskyy was making. What do you think?
CLARK: I'm not a big fan of the Tomahawk missiles. I think that they won't make a decisive difference in the war. It is, as Richard said, it's a political move. If you give them 100 missiles, it may take three months before they're over there and ready to go.
And then if you launch them one at a time -- the Ukrainians have a long-range missile that's got about the same size warhead. Maybe it's not as sophisticated in terms of missing, penetrating through air defenses, but it's a political gesture. So, if President Trump doesn't want to give the Tomahawks, fine. I'll give something else, more ATACMS, more 155 artillery ammunition, announced more Bradley fighting vehicles. Put us manufacturing in there to assist the Ukrainians.
There's a lot of things. And of course, sanctions. But the big thing is military pressure. And if that's what brought Putin to the table, why not put it on? If president Trump thinks maybe it did bring Putin in, but fine, do it.
BROWN: I want to watch a little bit more of the meeting today. This is a moment when President Trump was asked about whether Ukraine could retake land Russia currently occupies. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: A few weeks ago in New York, when you two met, you said that you think Ukraine could ultimately take back all the territory, that it's lost so far. Do you still think that's the case, or do you think they'll have to be some sort of --
TRUMP: You never know. You know, war is very interesting. You never know, do you? You just never know. With war, war and peace. But you never know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: What do you think about that answer, Ambassador Haass? And do you think it's realistic militarily for Ukraine to retake, for instance, the Donbas?
HAASS: Well, in principle, the president's right in war and peace and everything. You never know. But I don't think it's realistic to base American policy or Ukraine's policy on the idea that they are going to be able to physically and militarily liberate the lands in the east, much less Crimea. That's why I thought the president had it about right in the run up to his Alaska meeting, where he was trying to get a ceasefire in place, that would stop the war, stop the carnage, would keep open the possibility of diplomacy one day, perhaps bringing back some type of -- some compromise.
But I think it's not realistic to hope that Ukraine is going to be able to militarily liberate what you really can do militarily is deny Russia any advance and bring the costs of the war much more to Russia. Ukraine has been quite effective at striking Russian energy sites. And so forth, which the Russian economy depends on. I think that's realistic.
The idea of military force, if you will, is not to liberate all the land here, however desirable might that that might be, but rather to set up a situation where diplomacy has a much better chance of achieving.
BROWN: All right, Ambassador Richard Haass, General Wesley Clark, thank you both.
And I also want to thank THE ARENA text chain. My panel is here. We're going to stand by. We're going to talk very soon.
But coming up in THE ARENA, what's next for John Bolton after his first court appearance on federal charges and why the recent Signalgate controversy is now a part of that case.
Plus, thousands of anti-Trump protests happening across the country this weekend. Activists say it's a lawful exercise of the First Amendment, but Republicans say otherwise.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: They're going to descend on our Capitol for their much anticipated so-called No Kings rally. We refer to it by its more accurate description, the hate America rally. Okay?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:18:38]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. Bolton, how are you feeling?
REPORTER: Hey, Mike --
REPORTER: -- the conspiracy to defraud the country. Where's Abbe Lowell? What are you doing, sir? Feel pretty good?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: That was former national security advisor John Bolton leaving federal court this morning without answering questions from reporters, as you saw right there.
He pleaded not guilty to 18 charges relating to unlawful mishandling of classified information. The Trump adviser turned adversaries arraignment lasted less than 20 minutes, and the judge told Bolton that he faces up to 10 years in prison if he's convicted.
My panel is here in THE ARENA, national political reporter from "Axios", Alex Thompson, CNN political director and Washington bureau chief David Chalian, CNN global affairs commentator Sabrina Singh, and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton.
And we are also joined by CNN's senior justice correspondent Evan Perez.
All right, Evan, you were inside that courtroom today for the arraignment. Bring us inside.
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. Pamela, John Bolton was very subdued. You know, we used to seeing him -- seeing him here in the green room. And obviously, he's always very friendly to reporters. I tried to talk to him when he got to the courthouse, and he was all business.
And obviously, these are very serious charges that he's facing. And you mentioned the amount of time that he could receive if he is convicted of all these 18 counts.
[16:20:00]
And he was very respectful to the judge, obviously, in responding. Yes, sir. Yes, I do. And -- but one of the interesting things about this case is, is the -- is the political aspect of this, obviously. And you've heard obviously from, from Bolton's attorneys and from him -- his own statement yesterday that he believes he's being targeted selectively by the Trump administration because of his criticism of the president.
And there is something that I think a lot of us, I think, really noticed in this indictment yesterday, there was a reference begins on page 19 of the 26 page indictment, where prosecutors mentioned that Bolton himself, in media interviews, criticized Pete Hegseth and other national security officials in the Trump administration for their use of Signal to discuss an ongoing military operation in Yemen.
And they use that essentially to show that Bolton himself was aware of the implications of using an unsecure platform to discuss very sensitive information. But one of the things about that is its interesting. It was almost like it was not a necessary thing for prosecutors to include in this -- in this indictment, Pamela.
But it is not the last time we're likely to hear about this, because we know that the defense wants to make this issue the issue of selective prosecution, part of their defense. And I suspect that this Signalgate controversy is going to become part of the talking points going forward.
This is a case that's not going to try for some time because of the national security information that is involved in the case -- Pamela.
BROWN: So, you're saying that basically the defense would then argue, look at this. You're making your own case, how this is selective prosecution because you're acknowledging that classified information was mishandled in this other -- this other way basically?
PEREZ: Yeah, absolutely. And we know prosecutors at DOJ, we know FBI officials inside the FBI have been very concerned that they've not been asked or allowed to investigate the Signalgate issue because they know that this -- there were national security information that was being shared on an insecure matter. As a matter of fact, the reference in the -- in the indictment says in an interview, Bolton discussed the damage to national security by using a non-governmental communication channel. That is the words of prosecutors from the Maryland U.S. attorney's office in that indictment against Bolton.
BROWN: We'll see how the defense uses that against their own case.
Evan Perez, thank you so much.
Let's bring in my panel now to discuss. Actually, I want to start with you, Sabrina, to get your thoughts on that tactic, the prosecutors, including the Signalgate as a way to show, oh, John Bolton knew everything you know about how to manage classified information, but also it kind of gives an opening to defense to say he's being selectively prosecuted.
SABRINA SINGH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: You know, I think it's interesting that they brought in Signalgate and John Bolton and someone that worked in the national security space. We all know clearly, like when you put classified information, especially about a detailed operation that Pete Hegseth did in that Signalgate chat, John Bolton rightfully called it out. But now you're seeing it sort of backfire on him in this case because he knows how to handle classified information.
And this is clearly a credible case. It was brought by a career prosecutor. So now, it's in the hands of the justice system. But I think what's important here too, is, you know, the justice system or the DOJ has not been able to investigate Pete Hegseth.
So there's a different sort of justice for friends of Donald Trump and his so-called enemies. And that's what I think John Bolton is trying to tease out here, is that I'm being unfairly targeted, which I don't know if that's necessarily the case. I mean, this was a case that started under the Biden administration. But Pete Hegseth has not faced any consequences.
BROWN: It started 2021.
It's interesting, though, Shermichael, because "The Wall Street Journal's" editorial board released this op-ed this morning saying, quote, "there's little doubt that the underlying motivation for this prosecution is retribution." And you can't just look at this, you know, in a vacuum. You have to look at the other indictments, too. You have James Comey, Letitia James, those, of course, are different cases.
And that distinction has been made by our legal analysts. But do you think that those other indictments essentially could weaken this case? And the words that Donald Trump has used himself to target John Bolton?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, I think those two cases are set aside. I see them as being disparate from this case. Again, as you noted, this began under the previous administration. Now, look, it's fair for Bolton to make the case that, hey, I'm not being protected like the secretary of defense because I'm not a friend or a supporter of the president.
Okay, I'll entertain that. But that's an odious comparison in my opinion. He broke the law. John Bolton has been in politics for, what, 40 years? I'm 35. That's longer than I've been alive.
There isn't a person who should know better than most individuals how to handle classified information. I had a top-secret clearance when I was briefly in the government. They are very precise and strict on what you can and cannot do. And if I look at what, 26 I believe when I got my TS, John Bolton absolutely should have known better if I did at 26 years old.
[16:25:01]
So, there's no excuse for this.
BROWN: All right. I want to listen to the sound from Congressman Jamie Raskin and then talk on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): It seems like retention of classified documents is the go-to charge for people who had once worked for Donald Trump, who have fallen out of favor with him, and, you know, apparently, they're sloppy practices generally in the government that might affect a lot of people, including Donald Trump himself. So, you know, it's hard to know what to say about this other than there is no way that had Bolton not broken with Donald Trump, he would be facing these charges today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: What do you think, Alex? Do you think that he would be facing this charge if he was still friendly with Trump?
ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I mean, John Bolton's lawyers are clearly making the argument that Jamie Raskin is and they're basically saying, you know, that and they are trying to use the, you know, the chaos in the U.S. attorney general's office, in the U.S. attorney's office in Virginia with James Comey into shame. They're trying to leverage that in order to make, you know, make a sympathetic case in this case.
But there are bigger issues, like you had two judges in two different jurisdictions approve search warrants for this case. There are some issues, but I think there's also -- if we zoom out a little bit, you know, retaining classified documents has now been at the center of a lot of very politically fraught cases. Hillary Clinton, the email server.
BROWN: Let's ask David about that. Yeah.
THOMPSON: Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, Joe Biden and his garage.
You know, there is actually a larger debate of what is and is not classified.
BROWN: And Pence, yeah, Vice President Pence. I got my list right here. I mean, so, so many just in the last few years. And you have to wonder how that's going to factor in.
And David, also, if you take a step back -- I mean, I remember during the first term when John Bolton went into the White House for his first meeting to talk with Trump about becoming national security advisor, I remember when he then got the job and it was a big deal. And now this turn of events, it's really --
DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: It was a big deal. It was also a bit of a head scratcher because the two of them were never.
BROWN: It was. I remember that at the time.
CHALIAN: Like they never really saw the world the same way. It was an odd pick for Donald Trump at the time.
BROWN: Right, right.
CHALIAN: You know, so I don't think there was ever a really warm, simpatico relationship between Donald Trump and John Bolton. But obviously in the last three weeks, two of these three indictments are people that served in government that Donald Trump fired in his first term. Right? And so, I think we are wise to separate these cases out from a legal perspective.
But two things can be true at the same time. This can be political retribution and appropriately sort of combined with those other cases, as well as it can and must be from a legal perspective, separated out, that this may be a more substantial case, and there may be -- and again, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but there may be a more successful road for a prosecution here.
BROWN: Yeah. And he does. He has maintained his innocence. He pleaded not guilty today.
All right. Thank you, everyone. Stand by.
Coming up in THE ARENA, back to our top story with a key lawmaker. Congressman Ro Khanna is here live as the White House weighs, giving Ukraine a major new weapon in its fight against Russia.
Plus, who exactly was President Trump talking about that prompted him to say this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: He doesn't want to fuck around with the United States. Thank you, everybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:32:42]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They're a very dangerous weapon. And it could mean big, you know, escalation. It could mean a lot of bad things can happen.
Tomahawks are a big deal. But one thing I have to say, we want Tomahawks also. We don't want to be giving away things that we need to protect our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: President Trump remains undecided on sending Ukraine Tomahawk missiles, a weapon at the top of President Zelenskyy's wish list. The cruise missiles could be a game changer in this war. They're striking range of more than 1,000 miles would put Moscow within reach. And a threat that could bring President Putin to the negotiating table.
Congressman Ro Khanna is in THE ARENA now for more.
So, thank you so much for your time today.
In your view, should the U.S. give Tomahawks to Ukraine? REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): I actually agree with President Trump's
caution. That was also President Biden's caution. I have supported every weapons package to Ukraine. I will continue to support that. But we need to really pause before giving weapons that could go deep into Russian territory and risking escalation. So, I am actually supportive in this case of the president's judicious approach.
BROWN: Putin has ramped up attacks on Ukraine, as you know, since President Trump came back to office. Should Trump give Zelenskyy what he wants, though? I mean, how do you think that would change Putin's behavior? Because at this point, nothing's been changing. In fact, at the last meeting in Alaska, he only ramped up the attacks.
KHANNA: Well, I think we need a consistent message. We don't need Vice President Vance dressing down Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. I think if we have a consistent view that we're going to support Ukraine, we're going to provide them with the military assistance that we have been, and we're going to be working with Europeans to do that. That is what's going to bring Putin to the negotiating table.
I don't think we have to risk an escalation into a war deep into Russian territory to do that. And by the way, these Tomahawk missiles cost $2.5 billion each. I certainly am not sure that the Europeans or the Americans are going to be able to subsidize them, putting aside the risk.
BROWN: Yeah. And President Trump, for his part, did acknowledge that the U.S. also needs a stockpile of those weapons.
[16:35:03]
So, at the end of that bilateral, President Trump was asked about Venezuelan President Maduro offering natural resources in mediation. I want to play Trump's response to that and then get your reaction.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: He has offered everything. He's offered everything. You're right. You know why? Because he doesn't want to fuck around with the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Some very strong language there from the president. What do you think?
KHANNA: I'm less concerned about his language and more concerned about his actions. I mean, why is he ordering covert action for regime change in Venezuela? We just had the American people vote against regime change, against the deep state. The American people do not want regime change wars. They want us focused on spending money here at home, on dealing with the rising prices of groceries.
And here we have a president giving $20 billion to Argentina. And now talking about getting us into a war in Venezuela, while we have record inflation and housing prices going up. BROWN: And the White House has not been explicit that they're doing
this for regime change, they say they're going after these drug cartels. But do you view it as the U.S. going to war with Venezuela?
KHANNA: Certainly. That's what all the reporting looks like. I mean, they are engaged in covert actions, by their own admission. It's not just strikes on these ships with potential drug cartels. I mean, they're talking about action within Venezuela. They're talking about strikes within Venezuela.
When is this country going to learn after 20 years in Afghanistan, after Iraq, after Libya, after Yemen? The American people are tired of overseas wars. They're tired of our jobs going offshore. And where do they want us to focus is to spend money here at home to bring down grocery prices, to bring down housing prices, to bring down childcare costs, to create jobs in America.
BROWN: I want to get your response to what the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, has said about the Democratic base, saying, quote, "The Democrat Party's elected officials absolutely cater to pro-Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens and violent criminals."
As you know, all week, Republicans have been labeling tomorrows plan nationwide No Kings protests against the Trump administration as a hate America rally. I want to play some of what they said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. TOM EMMER (R-MN): We call it the hate America rally because you'll see the hate for America all over this thing when they show up.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: It's all the pro-Hamas wing and the, you know, the antifa people, they're all coming out.
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): There's considerable evidence that George Soros and his network is behind funding these rallies.
SCOTT BESSENT, TREASURY SECRETARY: The farthest left, the hardest core, the most unhinged in the Democratic Party, which is, you know, a big title and No Kings equal, no paychecks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: And we should note that there -- there is no evidence that antifa is actively involved or organizing these protests at this point. How should Democrats be pushing back against this rhetoric?
KHANNA: These are patriots who are coming out. They are standing up as citizens for our Constitution. They're standing up for the First Amendment and freedom of speech saying, you can't just make comedy illegal. They're standing up to say, you can't have a masked ICE agents ripping away kids from their families.
But you know what is sad to me is I have never denigrated ordinary Americans who voted for Donald Trump. I have said that we need to treat our fellow citizens with respect. I've actually gone into communities that have overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump and tried to engage in dialogue.
I was just on with Benny Johnson, who's a prominent podcaster for Donald Trump. What we need is less insulting in this country. What we need is less denigration of people who may not vote for us, and we need to start dealing with some kind of respect and civility for our fellow Americans who are patriots. And that's what I think this country deeply wants.
BROWN: All right. Congressman Ro Khanna, thank you so much.
KHANNA: Thank you.
BROWN: Up next, some breaking news just coming in from the Supreme Court on a case that Trump administration is asking the justices to consider.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:43:31]
BROWN: The breaking news here into CNN on a new case the Trump administration is now asking the Supreme Court to take up.
Our CNN Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic joins us now.
What do we know, Joan?
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Good to see you, Pamela.
And this is just into the Supreme Court from the Trump administration trying to be able to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago. Youve seen many, many pictures of the scene there. And the Trump administration has come to try to lift a lower court order that has blocked the deployment of the guard in Chicago.
A U.S. district court judge had agreed that the guard could be there but could not be deployed because, she said, the judge wrote that the Trump administration was equating, you know, lawful protests with some sort of violence and obstruction. And she said the guard at this point was not required to be there and had just temporarily just, you know, put a pause on this.
The Trump administration appealed to an intermediate court, covering the Illinois and other states in that region and lost there. And now, it's coming to the Supreme Court saying that the lower court judge's order should be lifted because that ruling impinges on the executive power of the administration to, you know, control the military there to have authority in these kinds of situations.
And, Pamela, the Trump administration paints a really grim, dire picture of what's going on in Chicago, describing this harrowing, pre- planned ambush on many of the guard.
[16:45:11] They say in their filing, federal agents are forced to desperately scramble to protect themselves and federal property, allocating resources away from their -- for law enforcement mission to conduct protective operations. Instead, they -- it -- they paint such a picture of urgency that's in very sharp contrast to what the lower court judge in Illinois had seen.
And whatever the Supreme Court does with this emergency appeal could probably set the ground rules for what's going to happen in other cities, because, as you know, President Trump has been trying to deploy the guard in other Democratic led cities, saying that its necessary because of terrible conditions there on the ground. All part of his anti-immigration agenda, Pamela.
BROWN: Yeah, like in Portland.
All right. Joan Biskupic --
BISKUPIC: Yeah.
BROWN: -- thank you so much.
BISKUPIC: Thank you.
BROWN: Meantime, the gloves were off in the first of two New York City mayoral debates.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NYC MAYORAL CANDIDATE: If you think that there's no difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party? Then that's the candidate for you. If you think it's time to have a Democratic Party that actually stands up to Donald Trump and his billionaire backers --
(CROSSTALK)
ANDREW CUOMO (D), NYC MAYORAL CANDIDATE: You're not a Democrat, right? You're not a Democrat. You're a Democratic socialist.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: With less than three weeks until Election Day, Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani is currently leading by double digits in the polls. But as proven by Mamdani himself in the primary, anything is possible at the ballot box. The candidates had no problem getting their personal attacks in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: He has never had a job on his resume. It says he interned for his mother. This is not a job for a first-timer. Any day you could have a hurricane, you have, God forbid, a 9/11, a health pandemic. If you don't know what you're doing, people could die.
MAMDANI: And if we have a health pandemic, then why would New Yorkers turn back to the governor who sent seniors to their deaths in nursing homes? That's the kind of experience that's on offer here today. What I don't have an experience, I make up for in integrity and what you don't have in integrity, you could never make up for in experience.
CUOMO: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Wow. My panel and THE ARENA text chain is back with us.
What did you make about some of those zingers there? And who won last night's debate, David?
CHALIAN: Well, I don't think the debate fundamentally changed the structure of the race, which is a race that Mamdani has a significant lead in right now, though I do think Cuomo seized the opportunity to try and highlight some of the things he's been doing on the campaign trail, but obviously to a broader audience you know, bringing up Mamdani's record on Israel, bringing up his past comments about policing and crime. That was all important for Cuomo to get out there.
But here's the thing that did surprise me the most about the debate. And you got it right there with that clip. A lot of frontrunners go into a debate and they're like, do no harm. And they kind of are cautious and sit back a little bit.
Mamdani did not do that last night. He was out to also eradicate Cuomo as a viable choice. And so even with that lead, I thought it was intriguing, his strategy and approach was to actually be on the aggressive as well. Cuomo needed to do that. Mamdani chose to do that because I think he thinks, his argument against Cuomo is fundamental to the message that he is trying to portray to the broader public.
BROWN: So, Shermichael, do you think Cuomo did enough to close the gap?
SINGLETON: No, I think David is 100 percent correct. I think it's going to be Mamdani. He's incredibly talented. As a Republican, I certainly don't agree with many of his positions. But there is something to be said about the arguments that he's making to New Yorkers that is palatable.
I am concerned about some of his presentations on economics. I'm concerned about the idea of the role of government as it pertains to sort of level setting for people who have economically struggled. I think there's a different way to go about certain things, but that message is resonating.
And if you're Cuomo, can -- folks in New York know who Cuomo is? And there's some real concern about his past misgivings or some concern about some of the things he did as governor. And he didn't, in my opinion, effectively address those things aggressively enough. Mamdani did. He showcased strength.
And even if you're a New Yorker, you're curious and maybe say, I don't disagree with him. You watch that and say, this is a guy who will fight for me, and that moves the needle for voters.
BROWN: What do you think?
SINGH: I think what Democrats want to see is a fighter, and Mamdani is giving them that. You know, you're seeing these protests around the country. You're going to see people assemble on the streets, probably on Saturday.
Mamdani is galvanizing a part of the base that wants to see the fight taken to this White House. And he's doing it effectively. And you saw in that debate stage just he remained cool and calm. And yes, you know, Cuomo was able to get a few jabs in on his inexperience.
But I think at the end of the day, like Michael was saying, New Yorkers know who Andrew Cuomo is. I mean, he has high name ID, and they're like, this isn't the guy for us. Not only because we don't believe he's going to take the fight to Trump.
[16:50:02]
But we want someone that's fresh and new. And I think Mamdani is giving the party that.
I don't agree with all of his policy positions. I think they're going to be really hard to implement. But he's given us, I think, the party something to rally around.
THOMPSON: At the moment, everyone said it. Start getting ready to say Mayor Mamdani.
SINGLETON: Yeah.
THOMPSON: And it is going to roil both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The Trump administration has made clear that they are willing to use the purse strings to use every single tool at their disposal in order to try to, quote, punish New York, essentially for electing this man, that Donald Trump, who I think sees a useful foil. But Donald Trump also has a lot of friends still in New York that do not like Mr. Mamdani.
And you know, I think there is going to be -- you're going to see a rally with AOC and Bernie this Sunday night with Mamdani to try to introduce the more canvasing. Really try to, like, rack up the score. But what's going to be interesting is in New Jersey and in Virginia, you have Democrats that are not Mamdani. They are much more moderate.
And so there is going to be this debate over what does Mamdani mean for the future of the Democratic Party, but then also look at Virginia and New Jersey to also be part of that debate.
BROWN: Yeah. And actually, I wanted to go to you on this. How much does Mamdani represent the Democratic Party right now, in your view, David?
CHALIAN: Well, he certainly represents he's capturing the imagination and energizing the base of the party in New York, which is a six to one Democratic city. New York City does not look like battleground districts that will determine control of Congress in '26. Does not look like battleground states that will determine control of who wins the presidency in 2028.
But that doesn't mean that Mamdani isn't going to try to stake a claim on having authorship over a Democratic Party's future. He said this week at an event in Manhattan on Monday night, he said that he's won the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. He was not just talking about in New York City.
So, I do think it is going to be interesting because there are these different models, these more moderate national security female candidates running for governor in Virginia, New Jersey. I think there's going to be a debate as the results come in on election night in just a few weeks, Pamela, about which path forward the Democratic Party is going to pursue, because you're going to have different options available.
THOMPSON: And some Democrats, some Democrats are saying, oh, he only won because of his focus on affordability. And he won in spite of some of his left-wing views. And there are some people that also believe that his left-wing views are at least operating as an outsider outside of the party. That's what actually galvanized people that are dissatisfied with the Democratic Party. And that debate is going to continue after election.
SINGLETON: And I hope Mamdani actually does become the future of the Democratic Party. And if I were advising President Trump, I actually would not go after him. I would draw the contrast. And a distinction between this is what the Democratic Party represents versus what the Republican Party represents. Capitalism, pro-growth. A lot of people in this country don't necessarily want the inability to be, to gain wealth, to become rich. They just want it to be more accessible.
And I think Republicans can argue we want to give more access to the capitals of success, to the American people, versus having a government-controlled, government ran version of that. I think the average American would say we reject that overwhelmingly. So don't go after him, Mr. President. Let's utilize this as an example. I think that's good for Republicans.
BROWN: And you mentioned the Virginia race as well. The candidates for Virginia's attorney general debated last night. And the Democrat in that race, Jay Jones, is under pressure after these violent text messages that he sent in 2022 that resurfaced. Obviously, this was a big focus at the debate.
I just want to play what he said about the messages let me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAY JONES (D), VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Let me be very clear: I am ashamed. I am embarrassed, and I'm sorry. I am sorry to Speaker Gilbert. I'm sorry to his family. I'm sorry to my family. And I'm sorry to every single Virginian.
I cannot take back what I said, but you have my word that I will always be accountable for my mistakes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Is that statement enough, Sabrina?
SINGH: I mean, it was a pretty forceful apology. I think he's taking ownership at the end of the day. I mean, it's up to the voters if that's enough. Of course, those messages are just -- they're absolutely horrific. You're also seeing text messages coming out on the Republican side that that group text thread of pretty disgusting messages as well.
It's -- I mean, you like this is the -- it's a problem. And I think he took responsibility and apologized. Ultimately, it's going to be up to the voters to decide. And of course, you know, the governor's race there will hit these messages. Will that impact the governor's race? I don't think so.
But I think part of this is you have to take ownership for your words. He did that. Now let's talk about the policy issues.
And at the end of the day, there are two candidates that stand on very different sides of the policy. And, you know, I think voters will have to make that choice.
SINGLETON: I would just say quickly, the difference is Republicans have called for those individuals to lose their positions. The Republican Party --
BROWN: Except for J.D. Vance.
SINGLETON: That's a fair point. But the Republican Party of New York, they're --
BROWN: That's the vice president. They're completely restructuring the entire chapter there. Republicans have condemned this.
I haven't seen a single Democrat say, you know what, Mr. Jay Jones, you should withdraw from this race.
[16:55:02]
They have not done that because they care more about winning.
I get the politics of it. But Republicans, if this were reverse oh, my God, the outrage would be beyond ten.
BROWN: So, you think that J.D. Vance, the vice president, should condemn those.
SINGLETON: Oh, of course, I think the vice president should have condemned that. I would have condemned it. I get the vice presidents point of saying, look, Democrats aren't condemning Jay Jones, so why should we fall into this trap? I get that, but I think we got to be at a higher, higher core.
BROWN: All right. I want to thank our friends in THE ARENA text chain.
The rest of my panel, stand by. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Well, thank you for being here with us this hour in THE ARENA. And thank you to my panel for being here as well.
Bianna Golodryga is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Have a great show, Bianna.
