Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Supreme Court Rules Trump's Signature Tariffs Are Illegal; Source: Trump Raged At Courts During Governors' Meeting After Supreme Court Tariff Ruling; U.K. Government Considers Removing Andrew From Royal Line Of Succession Following Arrest Amid Epstein Files Fallout. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired February 20, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:01]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: That's right, because if Punch is there for us, we kind of have to be there for Punch, right?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Yeah. We also have to eat up some, like 10 seconds.

KEILAR: More monkey.

No. "THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.

Thanks for joining us.

(MUSIC)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hey, everyone, I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's great to have you with us on this Friday. We made it to Friday, I think.

Right now, President Donald Trump is livid after the Supreme Court handed him a massive defeat, ruling this morning he violated the law when he enacted his so-called Liberation Day tariffs. The future of the president's signature economic policy and one of his favorite diplomatic or perhaps diplomatic tools now in doubt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The court said that I'm not allowed to charge even $1. I can't charge $1. Cant charge $1. But I am allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with that same country. In other words, I can destroy the trade. I can destroy the country.

I'm even allowed to impose a foreign country destroying embargo. I can embargo. I can do anything I want, but I can't charge $1, because that's not what it says, and that's not the way it even reads. I can do anything I want to do to them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: The six-three ruling saw two of the justices that Trump appointed joined the courts liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts, in finding that the president had improperly relied on emergency powers to enact the import taxes. Roberts writing this in the majority opinion, quote, "Emergency powers, after all, tend to kindle emergencies, and as the framers understood, emergencies can afford a pretext for usurpation of the congressional power." How's that for vocabulary? End quote.

The president called a news conference to react, and he vowed to enact new tariffs under separate authorities to say that he was a little upset with Roberts and particularly the other justices that he appointed who ruled against him maybe understating the case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country. They also are a frankly disgrace to our nation, those justices. They're just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats. And not that this should have anything at all to do with it, they're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It's my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Quite an accusation there.

Let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here, along with CNN's Kristen Holmes. She is at the White House for us.

Kristen, you have reporting that the president was shall we say, angry well before he appeared at that podium.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, well, before. And even if you look to last night when he was in Georgia, he started talking about how the Supreme Court was taking too long. He sounded angry then. And then he was angry when he learned of this ruling.

Now, remember, some of President Trump's orbit had been preparing for this ruling, for the fact that it would be deemed illegal by the Supreme Court. However, President Trump, it didn't stop him from becoming increasingly agitated. I was told that he was passed a note during this governors meeting that he at that point called it a disgrace, that he muttered profanities and eventually ended up ending the meeting early.

There was a Q&A session because he told the governors he had to go craft a response to this ruling. He was incredibly angry behind closed doors.

And, Kasie, and one of the things to keep in mind here is the fact that President Trump, this is really the core of not just his economic agenda, but also his foreign policy agenda. He has used these tariffs as leverage. He has relied on these tariffs, and he clearly felt personally betrayed, particularly by these justices that he appointed to the bench, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch.

Here's what he said when he was asked about whether or not the justices were still going to be invited to a State of the Union Address next week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Mr. President, the Supreme Court justices who ruled against this policy, striking it down, are they still invited to your State of the Union next week? And will you speak with them?

TRUMP: Yeah, yeah, they are invited, barely, barely. Three are happily invited. No, no, they're barely -- they're barely invited. Honestly, I couldn't care less if they come.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: He wouldn't say directly whether or not he regretted appointing Barrett or Gorsuch, but at one point he said it was an embarrassment to their families that they rule this way. Now, of course, we saw President Trump immediately invoke these alternatives he's putting in place this 10 percent global tariff.

He says he has alternatives. He actually tried to spin this into saying that this made him more powerful. But despite the fact that those were the words coming out of his mouth, it was very clear that he was incredibly angry. And in particular at these justices who he felt like should have been ruling in his favor.

And just really quickly, one of the things he said about Kavanaugh, who he also appointed, who wrote a dissent to this, he said that his stock was rising and that he was really proud of him. I mean, he clearly views this as a personal attack on him, that these justices ruled this way.

HUNT: All right. Kristen Holmes for us at the White House -- Kristen, thank you very much for that reporting.

My panel is here in THE ARENA, CNN political analyst, investigative reporter for "The New York Times," David Fahrenthold; CNN legal analyst, Elliot Williams; former Biden White House communications director Kate Bedingfield; Republican strategist Brad Todd; of course, both CNN political commentators.

We're also joined by former Trump attorney, Bill Brennan.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.

Elliot Williams, let me start with you just on the -- the president seems to think this is a violation of the Constitution. Did he, like, miss the separation of powers part in the constitution? Because, you know, there's that.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, yeah. He very well may have. Let's be clear, every court to have looked at this issue along the way has been unequivocal that the president overstepped his, his constitutional authority in implementing these tariffs.

Now, that's not to say that tariffs are bad policy. That's not to say that it's a good idea or a bad idea, or that he should have done it or should not have. The simple fact is that implementing tariffs in the manner in which the president did under the law, IEEPA, violated the law. And that's a widely held view by various levels of the federal judiciary.

Now, there are certainly are avenues for the president to proceed with putting in additional tariffs should he wish. But they are far more limited than what he implemented before. With sort of by tweet suggesting that he was implementing massive tariffs on other countries.

So, yes, there's a process for going forward in the future but no one within the sound of my voice should be shocked by what they saw from the Supreme Court today. Even a conservative Supreme Court.

HUNT: Bill Brennan, the president was in this meeting with the governors who are here for the National Governors Association when this happened. As you heard Kristen report there, he departed the meeting. The words, apparently, were "those effing courts". You know, obviously he is frustrated that the courts are deciding things that he doesn't like.

How -- what's your reaction to that?

WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Kristen, thanks for having me.

By the way, Elliot. Great book, great book you wrote.

The president wears his emotions on his sleeve. He certainly, you know where you stand with him. And that can change from moment to moment, but my prediction is, once he calms down and the temper cools, he'll think pragmatically and, you know, this doesn't eviscerate all tariffs. This pretty much guts IEEPA, which are tariffs imposed after a president declares a national emergency caused by a foreign threat or foreign country under the 1997 IEEAP act.

But the president still has other avenues. The Trade Act of 1974, specifically Section 301, and 201, allow him vast authority to impose tariffs, some of the tariffs that were imposed are kind of exempt -- aluminum, steel, things like that. So they'll stay in place.

And then there was a Kennedy administration act of -- the Trade Act of 1962, which gives authority. So, I think he'll just look at the landscape pick up the pieces that he can still rule on. And, you know, Kasie, when we look back at Supreme Court, the judicial branch and executive branch, disagreements feuds, if you will you know, way back when there was a dispute involving Indian territory in the Supreme Court issued an opinion that I believe it was President Jackson didn't like.

And he said, well, Marshall issued his order. Let's see it get enforced. And, you know we need this reliance upon the separate branches separate in that we've got the legislative, judicial and executive. But we need this reliance and cooperation between the three. And I'm sure that will continue. The president, in the final analysis, is usually pragmatic.

HUNT: I wouldn't disagree with the word pragmatic as being a word that that applies to President Trump.

I mean, Brad Todd, big picture, you work to get Republicans elected for a living.

[16:10:00]

Is this good for America and is it good for them?

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think there's going to be a happy hour breakout in most Republican campaign offices today. It's Friday and the sun is shining in Washington. And so I think you'll have a happy hour.

You know, there's no country song that says sometimes you thank God for unanswered prayers. And this is a case where the president might should thank God for unanswered prayers. He still has tariff authority in Section 122 and Section 301. And if he wants for -- when he believes manufacturers in America have been wronged, the others, when he thinks we have a bad trade deficit with the country. So, he has the ability to do that.

What those two sections don't let him do is keep turning the knob every day and it's that unpredictability that has driven Republicans crazy. Most Republicans support his desire to sort of bring other countries to heel on trade and make them drop their barriers to ours. What I would call the Scott Bessent approach, if you will.

And so that -- that has a lot of support and he will be forced to go through that methodical approach now.

KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But it is true that as a domestic political matter, tariffs have been kind of an albatross for Trump. I mean, they all -- the public polling at the beginning of this year shows that people -- a majority of people believe that tariffs have been bad for the economy and made the economy worse. I think it's like 30 percent say -- only 30 percent say it's made the economy better.

So, you know, for as Democrats look toward the midterms, I think there are a couple of messaging options for them here. But you know, continuing to drive on the fact that the impact of these tariffs has already been felt has been baked in, in with small businesses, with supply chains. I mean, this will continue to be a --

HUNT: I have to pay FedEx 80 bucks.

BEDINGFIELD: See, there you go, there you go. See?

(LAUGHTER)

BEDINGFIELD: You know, it continues to be a live issue. And I think Democrats should keep driving that, you know?

But also, the fact that Trump being Trump is going to inevitably kind of continue to turn on this. He's going to try to pivot to other authorities. He's going to complain repeatedly about how the Supreme Court justices have embarrassed their families, what he's doing in all of that is talking about tariffs that are fundamentally --

TODD: But he should move to civility. He should move to stability.

BEDINGFIELD: Yeah.

WILLIAMS: Just one more one more quick thing though, you know, and to the quote that we put up of the president of I could wipe these countries out. I could do anything, but I can't impose tariffs on them. Can you believe that the Supreme Court said that? That is such a ridiculous statement for president of the United States to make.

In the United States, you can kill a deer, but you can't kill a person because the law says so. The mere -- no, but I'm dead serious, though. The mere fact that there's an incongruity in what you can do to another country does not mean that the Supreme Court has done something improper, and the president is just irresponsible for him to say that.

DAVID FAHRENTHOLD, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think the biggest impact were going to see is not on the prices people pay, because he will try to find ways to increase that, but it will be on foreign policy. Theres been so many instances Greenland -- look at -- trying to stop Mexico from ship oil -- shipping oil to Venezuela where this ability that he conjured for himself to say, you get a tariff right now, you know, you make me mad to get more of a tariff tomorrow.

That ability, that sort of nimbleness is gone. And I think that tool in foreign policy, which is relied on so heavily, will really have a lot of impacts now that it's not there.

HUNT: Yeah, I spent the last weekend in Germany when there were a number of world leaders and this is definitely a fulcrum, you know, that is driving a significant sort of departure or really a break between Americans and our European allies.

One thing I do want to just kind of remind everyone of is, you know why the president might be so frustrated about this. And, you know, again, he's proven the word that Bill used was pragmatic. He's also been fairly flexible in his own kind of policy beliefs and views over the many decades that he has spent, spent in public and political life. Tariffs are not one of them.

Let's watch where this all you know, it may have started before this particular video clip, but the earliest one that we have here is from 1987. Watch

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You can call it a tax. You can call it whatever you want to call it. But those countries should be paying us major billions of dollars.

Now, I say you put a 25 percent tax on everything that's made in China.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's a tariff.

TRUMP: Absolutely. And you know what? And then the free --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Trade war.

TRUMP: That's right.

Our leaders don't understand the game. We could turn off that spigot by charging them tax until they behave properly.

We have to use our power of tariffs and taxes.

Every time we had a problem, we just said, that's okay, don't worry about it. We'll put the tariffs on. And they said, okay fine, that's okay, we'll sign.

To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff. And it's my favorite word.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: I mean, Bill Brennan, that's nearly four decades of this. How do you explain it? Why is he so obsessed with this?

BRENNAN: Well, I think it goes back to his origins as a businessman, you know? Some of our presidents have been politicians their whole career. One was an actor. Some didn't really have real jobs.

He was a businessman. And if you look at his approach, Kasie, not just in those four decades of comments, but look at how he talks about NATO. Hey, this country's not pitching in. That country is not pitching in.

I think he looks at it like a business agreement.

[16:15:01]

And if -- you know, the other businesses, in this case, countries aren't carrying their fair share. It bothers him.

You know, I heard somebody on the panel mention a FedEx bill. My daughter just -- she got a Christmas gift, and she got a bill from FedEx. I'm sorry I can't see you from --

HUNT: You're good.

BRENNAN: She got a bill from FedEx. This this this opinion will have far reaching tentacles because we, the people have already been on tv today saying they're fighting for their refunds.

What do you do for all the companies that want refunds? But they pass these tariffs along to the consumers. Then, they're double dipping.

I mean, I think this thing is going to have to be settled at some point because the financial impact is just unmanageable.

HUNT: You agree?

WILLIAMS: I 100 percent agree with Bill here. It is going to be -- Kavanaugh. Winked at this in his dissent, saying that whatever solution is going to come is going to be unworkable. I would assume that companies are going to sue. In the federal courts or the court of international trade to get this money back.

But you're talking about years of litigation which, number one, small businesses can't do to the same extent that FedEx can. Number two, some of those --

HUNT: FedEx is probably going to get my $80 back, and I'm never going to see it again. But, you know?

WILLIAMS: But, yeah, don't get that extra Orioles mug or whatever else. But -- no. Maybe get some. You know.

(CROSSTALK)

BRENNAN: Kasie, Elliot's right nobody likes a mooch, you know? These other countries that -- that's why IEEPA came into play. And the Trade Act of '74 under Nixon/Ford. Because, you know, we're carrying the laboring order and people are just there, you know, eating at the buffet on our dime.

Nobody likes a mooch. And I think the president feels that way about a lot of these countries.

HUNT: Yeah.

BRENNAN: No. Again, I wouldn't frame it as colorfully as Bill, but no, its moreover okay, so companies sue. Are people now going to be able to go back to companies to ask for something in return? Now, that's an extreme point.

But there is now a world of lawsuits that cannot be one big class action that need -- that's probably going to play out in the courts over several years.

BEDINGFIELD: By the way, just quickly the optics of big companies who are dealing with a lot of public ire generally right now in this moment of rising populism, you know, recouping this money and not handing it off to customers is going to be another log in the fire and fueling anger towards Trump about this economy.

TODD: He has to be very disciplined. He can reclaim this. There are over a dozen Democrats who've endorsed strong tariffs on China. He should go take their bill and ask them to pass it right now. He should reclaim the agenda because Americans will support that.

HUNT: It's a good reminder that this is -- this is an issue that really does, you know, it reminds you that Donald Trump used to be a Democrat, and it really does cut both ways.

Bill Brennan, thank you very much for your time, sir. Always appreciate having you. The rest of our panel --

BRENNAN: Thank you.

HUNT: -- of course, is going to stand by.

Coming up here in THE ARENA, we're going to have much more on this.

We have Mr. Wonderful, the man himself, Kevin O'Leary, will be here.

Plus, the latest on the investigation into former Prince Andrew as the estate of Jeffrey Epstein reaches a settlement with survivors of his abuse.

And then I'll be joined by a bipartisan pair of governors, Utah's Spencer Cox and Colorado's Jared Polis. They were at that breakfast meeting with President Trump when he found out about the Supreme Court's landmark ruling against his tariffs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Now, the court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our country to destroy foreign countries. But a much more powerful right than many people ever thought we even had. But not the right to charge a fee. How crazy is that?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:22:58]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT BESSENT, TREASURY SECRETARY: To be clear, today was a loss for the American people because by taking away President Trump's instantaneous leverage using the IEEPA authority, the American people have suffered a significant setback. The Supreme Court has taken away the president's leverage. But in a way, they have made the leverage that he has more draconian.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. We are continuing to follow the fallout from the Supreme Court's stunning decision to strike down President Trump's signature tariff policy.

But the president and his advisers say he has many options to enact different tariffs. Joining us now to discuss the shark tank investor himself, Kevin O'Leary, Mr. Wonderful.

Sir, always great to see you.

So, this has got to be a pretty big day in your world. What has the reaction been?

KEVIN O'LEARY, "SHARK TANK" INVESTOR: It's not a great day for me. We were humming along nicely until this morning.

Here's what's happening on the ground. I know you've been talking about the politics and the policy, but let's talk about a business making $100 million in sales. It might have paid out $5 million in the last 14 months on these tariffs. And they're in my portfolio.

I got phone calls from our customers, from our lenders because we borrowed against our line of credit and from our shareholders that we reduced distributions on during this period, waiting to settle on the tariffs. They all want their money back.

Now to be compliant, what am I supposed to do? I don't even know what -- how this is going to get filed. It's going to be with Treasury, not the IRS, I assume.

I'm going -- so I'm going to try and get a meeting with staff -- as best as staffers when I get to the State of the Union next week to see if they can give me some guidance, because my heads getting squeezed from the top and the bottom to be compliant.

And every business in America is going through this right now. There are people that want their money back within the distribution shareholder and lender system. And for me, and I'll tell you right now, you're the first to hear it. I'm setting up a resource called wondertrust.com hiring, if not hundreds, thousands of accountants and lawyers because I don't know how else to be compliant.

[16:25:03]

And I'm going to use them with my companies or just -- what else are we supposed to do? Because everybody wants their money back. And I wish -- I don't know what the policy is going to be on that. It's not a great afternoon for me, to be honest with you.

HUNT: Do you feel like you even know who is in charge of deciding what you're supposed to do?

O'LEARY: Well, from the business perspective -- and remember, I keep telling everybody this, the five to 500 employees, the $100 million companies I'm talking about, we employ 50 plus percent of everybody in America. We are the backbone of the economy. We just need to know the rules. You just have to tell us. We're happy to abide by the rules.

But you can understand the pressure point now, if $150 billion has to go back, the people that paid it want it back, it would have been better on a practical basis to have not done this I think, but it's history. It's water under the bridge now.

HUNT: For the president not to have done it, or for the Supreme Court not to have struck it down?

O'LEARY: No, no, the Supreme Court, they've caused a nightmare here. They called it a mess themselves. What am I supposed to do next? HUNT: So do you think in the big picture, fewer tariffs are going to be better for the world? Because I understand you're talking about this specific situation, but do you think reining in the president preventing this from happening again under some other president in the future will prevent more of these types of messes?

O'LEARY: No, it was just these tariffs posed as a penalty. Theres nothing wrong with reciprocal tariffs. If a country adds a 10 percent VAT tax and we don't call it VAT tax in the U.S., we'll just do a 10 percent tariff. There's nothing wrong with that.

That's the stable tariff negotiation that's gone on forever. But you've got situations where punitive tariffs were used during this period. The Supreme Court looked at and ruled on. You know this morning and said, no, you can't do that. That's a tax. And Congress wasn't consulted.

But no one ever thinks about the small business guy that's running a business. Where does he sit in this now? He's -- he has to somehow go get this back from Treasury, the $150 billion and distribute it to the people that paid it or he won't be compliant.

And I think that's what I -- I wish the Supreme Court had called me. I know this sounds ridiculous and before they ruled on this, because I would have said to them, wait a second, wait a second. This isn't going to help the people that employ half, the half the people in America. This is not going to be easy this is an additional cost on us. This is a major compliance cost

HUNT: So, question for you. In my case, which I was talking about earlier on the show right. I bought something from a small company, small business overseas. FedEx charged me about 80 bucks for it, right? I get a bill from them after it comes in the mail, right?

Should I get that money back from FedEx?

O'LEARY: Well, you know what? The practical reality is, when you're a small business and you have, you know 20 percent of your customers do 80 percent of your business, they have already called us today and said we expect you to be our advocate and to get back our money. We expect you to be the fulcrum, the nexus, the center of how you're going to do this, or our relationship will be tainted with you.

HUNT: Right --

O'LEARY: And so, we don't want that. We like our customers.

HUNT: And you don't understand yet what the law is going to say, right? Like I guess my question is, you know, how much do we or don't we know about, like, does the government owe FedEx that money? And then does FedEx owe me that money, or does FedEx not owe me that money? I mean, I share your confusion.

O'LEARY: Yeah, don't worry. I'm very fortunate. I get to meet with everybody on the Hill. I'm going there on Tuesday. I'll get everybody the answers they need -- HUNT: Right.

O'LEARY: -- because I have no choice but to find out.

I mean, that's the bottom line. There is confusion, but I can tell you, the people that paid this on the supply chain, on the way in and on the way out to the customer. And by the way, many companies did not actually -- they ate the cost themselves. They absorbed the five million out of -- out of the 100.

They've never distributed to their customers. And now they have to communicate saying, look, I don't owe you anything because I never charged you for it. And so that's the -- small business about relationships between customers and the company and its reputation and so, you know, that's really what we face here. But you can -- listen, I'm putting all the information out to the public on wondertrust.com.

I will get the answers. I'm an advocate for small business. We're in a bit of -- a little bit of a poo-poo situation, a poo-poo storm right now.

HUNT: That's -- it's a very, I think, polite way to say or relatively polite way to say what, you know, most politicians don't seem to be afraid of saying in public anymore, even though he used to not be allowed to. Kevin O'Leary, thank you. Maybe come back after you talk to all those members at the state of the union. Let us know what you find out.

O'LEARY: Thank you. Thank you very much.

[16:30:01]

HUNT: All right. See you soon.

Coming up next here in THE ARENA, these effing courts. A source tells CNN that was President Trump's response to being informed the Supreme Court had ruled against his signature tariff policy. I'm going to be joined by two men who were in the room when it happened.

Ahead, Governor Spencer Cox of Utah and Governor Jared Polis of Colorado. I'll ask them what they heard and why only one of them was not invited to tomorrow night's black tie White House dinner.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: Boy do we wish we'd had a camera in the room for President Trump's remarks today during his White House breakfast with the nation's governors, because that is where the president received the news of the Supreme Court ruling that struck down his tariffs, to which he responded at one point by criticizing, quote, "these effing courts", end quote.

[16:35:12]

That breakfast, of course, also the subject of recent controversy after the president initially only extended invitations to Republican governors. Two Democratic Governors Jared Polis and Wes Moore remain excluded from a dinner the White House is also hosting tomorrow night.

Now, joining us in THE ARENA, two people who attended the breakfast, Colorado's Democratic governor, Jared Polis, and Utah's Republican Governor Spencer Cox.

Welcome to both of you. I'm very grateful to have you.

Governor Polis, I do want to start with you just because, of course, you did decide to go to this meeting at the White House this morning after the invitation was extended. But you remain excluded from the dinner that is still set to be held. What's your theory as to why the president doesn't want you at the White House for that event?

GOV. JARED POLIS (D), COLORADO: Well, first of all, I always will show up for the people of Colorado to advocate where I have the opportunity to do that whether I agree or disagree with an administration.

I don't know what's going on in the president's head, but I don't want these antics and chaos to distract from the fact that 41 governors came together over a three-day period working through tough, challenging issues. We have a lot more in common thoughtful discussions around health care, around immigration around federalism, and the role of states. Often when you're going around the room with governors, you don't even know whether a Republican or Democratic governor said it.

There's just a lot of us facing the same issues in the states and focused on solutions that make a positive difference in the lives of people.

HUNT: Well, and of course, the two of you from different parties sitting here today in the same, you know, studio van, which we very much appreciate.

And, Governor Cox, you have of course, reputation for this as well, you know alongside both being western governors, I imagine probably also helps. You've recently been working specifically on an education related measure together. Can you tell me a little bit about that and why it worked in a climate that is as divisive as the one we're living in now?

GOV. SPENCER COX (R), UTAH: Well, we're very fortunate to be able to work together as governors. We have to get things done. And that includes Republicans and Democrats.

Look, we -- we -- we're the laboratories of democracy. This was intended by the founders that the 50 states would work and figure things out, and we would steal ideas from each other, and we find lots of bipartisan issues to work on together. One of them happens to be around education and education choice, making sure families have the resources they need for the education that is right for their children.

The federal government, President Trump deserves a tremendous amount of credit working with congress as part of the Big, Beautiful Bill that came out. They have these tax credits that families can apply for now in states where they choose this.

We happen to be a red state and a blue state, a Republican and a Democrat, who both have opted into this program to give up to $1,700 in tax credits to our families for things like tutoring, for resources for children with disabilities and for tuition if the family decides to go that direction.

HUNT: So, this again an example with the two of you talking about this in an era where it feels a lot different. And, Governor Polis, I want to play an ad that is getting some attention. It's from an Illinois Senate candidate Juliana Stratton. I want to ask you about it the other side. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VDIEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump. Vote Juliana.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump. Vote Juliana.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Trump. Vote Juliana.

JULIANA STRATTON (D), ILLINOIS SENATE CANDIDATE: They said it's not me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT : Governor, is that -- does that ad line up with your politics and your views?

POLIS: Well, it was hard to honestly catch exactly what was going on but I think we need to focus on what unifies us rather than what divides us and I -- frankly, I think that candidates to speak to that, whether it's for mayor, whether it's governor or Congress, president of the United States. There's a big opening for that right now, because I think people are tired of these petty conflicts, controversy for the sake of controversy, where we where our tribe, as Republicans and Democrats, rather than our proud badge as Americans and focus on what brings us together.

HUNT: One question I have kind of on that score, and this is an issue that has gotten a lot of focus in recent days. There's a trial. Mark Zuckerberg was on the stand being deposed around this question of whether social media harms kids.

And, Governor Cox, I was at an event that you attended where you called specifically for the United States to restrict the use of social media for kids under 16 years old, and this seems to be becoming an issue that's going to be a major test in the presidential race. I'm interested to hear you explain why you're in this position.

And then, Governor Polis, I'd also like to hear from you about where you stand on it.

[16:40:03]

But Governor Cox, please? COX: Yeah. Thank you.

Again, we talked about bipartisan work and finding common ground. This is one area where we actually have some disagreement. Governor Polis and I disagree on this issue. For me, the data is really clear that social media and cell phone addiction has become a true problem for, especially for our young people, by the way for our older people as well. But it's causing lots of problems in classrooms.

We -- we are one of the states, about 25 or 26 states now that have banned phones in classrooms, red states and blue states. So, we found some ability to work together on this issue, but I just feel very passionately we have seen a significant increase in anxiety depression and self-harm amongst our youth. Again, cell phone addiction is a real thing. Parents are trapped. They're trying -- they're trying to find ways to do this better.

But we have this collective action problem and several countries now are banning social media for kids under the age of 16. I'm a big believer that that would be better for our kids. Again, the book, "The Anxious Generation", I think everybody should read it. Jonathan Haidt has all the details on why this is so important right now.

HUNT: So, Governor Polis, where are you on this issue and why?

POLIS: Yeah, this is a great example of an issue that's not partisan and Spencer and I frankly disagree on. First of all, where do we agree on social media harm kids? Absolutely. Can it also connect kids and help kids? Absolutely.

But I think we should leave that up to the parents. I'm all for parental controls. If kids under 16 or under 14 shouldn't be using social media, it should be the parents that decide that not the government.

HUNT: Governor Polis and I'll start with you on this, but then Governor Cox, you as well.

I mean, you're here clearly wanting to send the message that we as Americans should be able to find common ground its clear from that ad I showed, right that the incentives right now are not that, right? People are playing to the bases in their parties to say, to try to divide us, and they are using that, and that is getting more attention and more traction than, frankly, what you all are selling.

Now I -- you know, I've covered congress for a long time I'm very interested in how this kind of thing comes back to the center of American life. But, Governor Polis, I'm curious what you think the role of the algorithm -- of social media is in creating an environment where it's incredibly difficult to get people excited about the fact that you're working across the aisle?

Don't -- do you think that the tech companies that the phones in our hands that the social media that were all being fed is making it harder for you to do what you're trying to do right here? POLIS: You know, first of all, culturally, it's a pendulum. It will

swing back. Absolutely right now it is on that extreme of division. I think it's already. There's a movement afoot with so many people to tune out of divisive rhetoric. I think that's starting to gather steam.

With regard to social media algorithms. They're feeding your innate desire to consume media. So, again, I think we also need to look in the mirror and examine ourselves. And we all should look at our media consumption habits, understand where we're getting news from, how we're doing it.

The algorithms, when you click on something, make similar content, more likely to occur and again, if there's a hunger out there, which I believe there is, for better content and thoughtful content and objectively accurate content, we need to make sure that the market mechanisms seize that opportunity and provide that content to people.

HUNT: Governor Cox, very brief response?

COX: Yeah. Look, I think the algorithms are a significant problem. They're being very intentional. They're using science against us. The machines are smarter than we are.

They're addicting our brains to it. I have to say I deleted social media on my phone two months ago. I'm two months sober. It's been the best thing that happened. A healthier relationship with my wife.

I'm reading more. I'm writing more. I'm proud to be off social media. And everybody would be better if they did. That went out and touched grass, looked at the beautiful sky and got to know their neighbors.

HUNT: Well, I hope you write a book about that. And I you know, maybe I'll try it -- I don't know, my job will let me try it, but it might be actually really nice.

Governor Spencer Cox and Jared Polis, thank you both very much for your time really appreciate both of you. I hope you'll both come back.

COX: Thank you.

POLIS: Thank you.

HUNT: All right ahead here in THE ARENA, we're going to take you live to London, where the government is considering a new law that would prevent former Prince Andrew from ever getting near the throne, a move that hasn't been made in almost 100 years.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:49:03]

HUNT: Right now, the British monarchy continues to grapple with the fallout from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's arrest and release on Thursday. U.K. police tell CNN their search of one of his former homes likely to last through Monday, while London's Metropolitan Police are contacting former and serving royal protection officers for Andrew for any information they might be relevant to their investigation.

And in parliament, lawmakers are considering legislation to remove the former prince from the line of royal succession. He is currently eighth in line to the throne. At this point, no charges have been filed as authorities continue to investigate his past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

CNN royal correspondent Max Foster joins us now.

Max, how would it work to remove Andrew from the line of succession?

MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, there's a reason the government has been trying to avoid it because it is a huge process. And they have said repeatedly, even when going back to the time when he lost his titles, they're not going to spare parliamentary time for this because it is huge.

[16:45:04]

You have to introduce a bill. It goes through the ten layers of the British parliament and debate and committees and votes. Both houses of course.

And then even when they approve that, it doesn't become law until they repeat it in 14 other parliaments, in the countries where the king is head of state. So, we're talking Australia, Canada, Tuvalu, Jamaica. There are lots of different parliaments where the king is sovereign as well. So, they have to take up parliamentary time in those places.

But it's got to the point now where the prime minister, the government, is now saying they are going to consider it because the very idea of Andrew getting anywhere near the throne currently is so toxic. They just want to deal with it even though it will come at some cost, because there are other bills they won't be able to work on.

HUNT: Right. Well, I mean and he's pretty far down, eighth in line to the throne. There are a number of people ahead of him.

But I want to put up, Kate Bedingfield, I'm going to give this one to you because this picture is just quite something. And it was on the front page of "The Sun" which is, of course, the most widely read tabloids. It's everywhere in the U.K. and it says, "Now he's sweating."

Okay. Now that's a reference to an interview he did with the BBC where he claimed that -- well, Virginia Giuffre and the girls he was with could not have had their stories straight because he couldn't sweat at that particular moment in time. I mean, it is a really difficult and uncomfortable clip to watch.

What does it say, this look on his face about where we are?

BEDINGFIELD: Well, I mean, look, a pictures worth a thousand words, right? That photo right there is probably one of the most damaging public photos to somebody's long-term reputation that maybe exists in modern media. I mean, we could -- we could probably do a painful retrospective for a lot of people but, I mean, that's really about as bad as it gets.

You can see the well-deserved shame. You can see the fear, and you can see somebody who has been absolutely eliminated from a position that he held in society. I mean, this is somebody who has been through his own actions, rightly I would say absolutely devastated.

And that photo, I mean, that's the -- that's the power of mass communication right there. That photo is the image of devastation.

WILLIAMS: Well, I would just say also to add to that, Kate, the royals, their image is so scripted and curated. Going back, quite frankly, millennia at this point, they have a very complicit press that does tremendous, goes through tremendous efforts to make them look regal.

He lost that there, was that for the rest of his life.

HUNT: David, why do you think it is that were getting this kind of reaction from the U.K. and its institutions, and there's not really a similar situation going on here in the U.S.?

FAHRENTHOLD: Well, I don't think we can fall all over ourselves applauding the U.K. and Prince Andrews connections to Epstein have been known for a decade, right? The allegations by Virginia Giuffre about Prince Andrew have been known for a long time so this reckoning has been a long time coming, even there. But I do think --

HUNT: It took these files to get us.

FAHRENTHOLD: To finally bring out some of the people had known for a long time, but and there has been reckoning here for some figures in corporate America, you know, it's hard to sort of find an exact parallel because it's not like there was somebody high up in our government who was that close to Epstein relatively recently. It was that clear.

That said, you know, President Trump's long association with Epstein a little bit before the period covering these Epstein files has been something that has continued to dog him I just think the fact that we haven't arrested President Trump or he hasn't stepped down, doesn't mean there hasn't been accountability or won't be accountability for him.

HUNT: Right. Well, and I look, I do think we should be clear like President Trump, there is nothing around him that is anywhere close to what was suggested or previously known about Andrew. The same you know, Bill Clinton as well, right? Like, we have to be very careful and specific when we talk about what these allegations are.

But one thing that President Trump did say, brad, is that this the arrest of Andrew was sad. Why did he say that?

TODD: Good question. You've got me there. You know I -- Randy Andy was always the nickname he had. To me, I wonder how many people knew -- that was the nickname of 40 years ago. I wonder how many people knew bad things about Prince Andrew, the former Prince Andrew, that didn't say it way back then. Why did it take these files for that to happen? He didn't just begin to be a bad actor.

WILLIAMS: The royals, the royals --

HUNT: Hold on, I want to put that to Max, because, Max, I mean, you've covered this family. I mean, is it plausible that Prince Charles didn't know or excuse me, King Charles?

FOSTER: You know, it's a family firm and it's quite political. Each member of the family has their own office and their own set up, and it is quite separate. And you do get some political, you know, tension between the palisades which isn't normal in most families.

I mean, you know, there's a big age gap between Andrew and Charles.

[16:55:01]

They weren't close growing up. They've got very different points of view on the world.

I just think -- I think it's quite likely that he didn't know. But the queen probably should have known because she was running the firm at the time.

HUNT: All right. Max Foster, always grateful to you, sir. Thank you very much for being here on this story.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. Thanks very much for my panel. Really appreciate all of you being here.

Thanks to you at home for watching as well.

Now, don't forget, you can watch much more of THE ARENA tomorrow. THE ARENA SATURDAY airs at noon Eastern right here on CNN. We'd really love to you do join us. You can also stream THE ARENA live or catch up whenever you want in the CNN app. Just go ahead and scan that QR code below.

But in the meantime, Jake Tapper is standing by for THE LEAD.

Hi, Jake. Happy Friday.