Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Defends His Economic Policies Amid Wide Voter Disapproval; Larry Summers Quits Harvard After Epstein Revelations; DOJ: "Currently Reviewing" Apparently Missing Epstein Files. Aired 4- 5p ET
Aired February 25, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: -- he's outing himself, letting everybody know that it was him, but also that he's okay
[16:00:05]
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: Yeah. We'll see what happens.
Jackie Wattles, really appreciate it.
And appreciate you all for sticking around.
Good to see you, too
HILL: Always a pleasure, my friend.
JIMENEZ: THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. I'm Kasie Hunt. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Wednesday.
Right now, President Donald Trump preparing to take his midterm message on the road while doubling down on one of the uglier moments from last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: That is why I'm also asking you to end deadly sanctuary cities that protect the criminals and enact serious penalties for public officials --
REP. ILHAN OMAR (D-MN): You have killed Americans! You have killed Americans!
TRUMP: -- who blocked the removal of criminal aliens, in many cases, drug lords, murderers all over our country. They're blocking the removal of these people out of our country. And you should be ashamed of yourself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The president there clashing with Democratic Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib as Omar shouted, you saw her there, accusing him of killing Americans.
Today, the president escalating that fight. President Trump claiming that they, quote, "screamed uncontrollably", end quote, and "had the bulging, bloodshot eyes of crazy people, lunatics, mentally deranged and sick who frankly look like they should be institutionalized," end quote. There's a lot going on there.
The president added this, quote, "We should send them back from where they came as fast as possible." Even more there, end quote.
The clash coming amid the longest State of the Union in American history, an address that Trump ever the showman, punctuated with made for TV moments.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Our country is winning again. In fact, we're winning so much that we really don't know what to do about it. You're going to win bigger than ever. And to prove that point, to prove that point, here with us tonight is a group of winners who just made the entire nation proud. The men's gold medal Olympic hockey team. Come on in.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: And of course, they all come down into the -- that's the press gallery that you're looking at where reporters sit and watch the speech. So, from this moment where he introduced the gold medal winning men's Olympic hockey team to this one, where he reunited a little girl with the Coast Guard swimmer who saved her life in the Texas floods, to awarding the medal of honor to a 100-year-old Navy veteran. This one was really touching.
There were unifying moments last night. The president could easily be celebrating underscoring these moments today. But if you look at this afternoon's Truth Social attack on Omar and Tlaib, you can clearly see that he is leaning into the partisanship, into the division, and relying on a playbook that at this point feels quite familiar.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You caused that problem. You caused that problem.
They knew their statements were a lie. They knew it. They knew their statements were a dirty, rotten lie.
You should be ashamed of yourself, not standing up. You should be ashamed of yourself.
The only way they can get elected is to cheat.
These people are crazy. I'm telling you, they're crazy.
Boy, oh, boy. We're lucky we have a country -- with people like this. Democrats are destroying our country. But we've stopped it just in the nick of time, didn't we?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.
We're also joined by CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.
Kristen, let me start with you. You know, the president gives the longest State of the Union in the history of the country. Does it make a sound in November?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I mean, that's the big question, right? And likely no. But for a lot of these Republicans who are going to be on the ballot, maybe that's good enough. Remember, Republicans I was talking to yesterday were incredibly wary that President Trump was going to step on his own messaging about affordability and the economy, which for all intents and purposes, he did not do last night. Remember, I was told yesterday by one official within the White House who said the speech was going to be on the offensive because that's all President Trump knows how to do.
But when you actually look at him following through with that teleprompter, he was pretty much on script throughout the entire speech. That is a win for both President Trump and for Republicans overall, who were again worried that he would step on his messaging and their messaging when it comes to the polls so this idea that does it play in November? Do people even remember it in November? One, they'll probably remember some of the highlights. As you noted there, the USA hockey team coming in, he warded one of them, I believe the Medal of Freedom during that. But in addition to that, the idea that they don't remember that might be a win for some of these Republicans.
[16:05:00]
HUNT: Right. It didn't go so off script that we're still talking about that in a way that hurts Republicans who are on the ballot in November.
Kristen Holmes, thank you very much for that reporting. Really appreciate it.
My panel is here in THE ARENA. Former Republican senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake; the host of "The Chuck Toddcast", Chuck Todd; CNN political commentator, former DNC senior adviser, communications director Xochitl Hinojosa; and CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
Chuck Todd, what were your -- what is your big picture takeaway here? I mean, he obviously did talk about the economy a little bit in the beginning, but otherwise it was the playbook that Trump has deployed pretty frequently, right, when he's on his heels, which he is in the polling, which is to attack.
CHUCK TODD, HOST OF "THE CHUCK TODDCAST": Look, I thought there were three paths that I thought he might take, right? One was sort of what I called the Festivus path, right, the airing of grievances where that could have been -- where he might have gone after fellow Republicans, Supreme Court justices. He didn't take that path.
And he could have done sort of the Bill Clinton path of the '90s. I feel your pain. It's not there yet, but we're getting there. You know, sort of buying time, but trying to do a reset.
But you kind of know that's not him, right? In some ways this was -- let's, you know, I don't want to -- he's been getting erosion in his base, right?
HUNT: Yeah.
TODD: Epstein files, how Venezuela has gone. There's a little bit of crankiness about Iran.
HUNT: From the '90s down into the '80s.
TODD: Right. You know, it's small stuff.
HUNT: Yeah.
TODD: And you know, what I thought was interesting was sort of like, look he's not popular right now. So have a -- have an event. I don't know if this was even a speech. It felt like a series of social -- made for social media moments.
But showcase people that are more popular than you, right? Showcase some medal of honor winners, showcase the U.S. men's hockey team. Reflective glory is sort of more of his comfort zone.
So, look, if I were an elected Republican this morning, my guess is I'm hearing from the people I touch on and they're like oh, I'm -- that was a good speech. You know? I'm glad he did it.
There's -- I don't think it did a thing with independents. Might even have turned off some independents. But ultimately, when you actually look at it, it's really a do no harm speech because he didn't make things harder for his fellow Republicans.
HUNT: Senator, you concur?
JEFF FLAKE (R), FORMER ARIZONA SENATOR: I sat through 18 of those, and all of them were too long. Even the shorter ones. Usually, they're written by the agencies who want their little program addressed.
TODD: all the longest speeches now are Trump, Clinton, Trump.
FLAKE: Yeah.
TODD: Trump, Clinton. I'm not saying something. I'm just saying. SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, we have all
their voters now, Chuck. So, it's only stands to reason we should have their speech like that.
FLAKE: But I was there for the Joe Wilson "You lie!" moment.
HUNT: Yes, I was there for that, too. Yeah, almost quaint.
FLAKE: And now as a president saying, you know, you lie. But I couldn't help but think these rarely move the needle one way or the other, but if I were a Republican in a swing district who that is full of people worried about the economy and affordability, I would think --you had one job. You had one job is just to express a little sympathy and a little empathy for those who are on hard times, rather than say we've solved it, we won. We conquered mission accomplished. And that's going to be difficult.
HUNT: Well, one comparison, of course, that people have made is to former President Joe Biden, right, who, of course, spent much of his term trying to use good economic numbers to convince Americans that things were actually better than their own budgets, their own pocketbooks made them feel.
We noticed last night that actually what President Trump brought to the table on some of these economic issues, let's just say it resembled what President Biden brought to the table. We'll show you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: I inherited an economy that's on the brink. Now, our economy is literally the envy of the world.
TRUMP: A short time ago, we were a dead country. Now we are the hottest country anywhere in the world, the hottest.
BIDEN: Fifteen million new jobs in just three years, a record, a record. Unemployment at 50-year lows.
TRUMP: More Americans are working today than at any time in the history of our country. Think about that. Any time in the history of our country.
BIDEN: I want a cap. Prescription drug costs at $2,000 a year for everyone.
TRUMP: I'm also ending the wildly inflated cost of prescription drugs like has never happened before.
BIDEN: For millions of renters, we're cracking down on big landlords who use antitrust law -- using antitrust -- who break antitrust laws by price fixing and driving up rents.
TRUMP: We want homes for people, not for corporations. Corporations are doing just fine.
(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: I mean, Scott Jennings, can you tell the difference?
JENNINGS: Yeah, one tells the truth and one lies his ass off. I mean, look --
HUNT: They both said the same thing.
JENNINGS: Here's the bottom line.
HUNT: They said the same thing.
JENNINGS: When the president says it, this president, he's telling the truth. He has made amazing strides on prescription drugs, which, by the way, is a huge issue, It's not, you know, surprising that a president would talk about that or talk about the good things that are happening in the economy what the president did last night was draw -- it was a night of contrasts.
[16:10:04]
He drew the brightest lines you could draw between the two parties. And the trouble with subtlety is that not everyone gets it. And the president understands that. And when he goes to those Democrats to sit on their hands and they couldn't even affirm that their highest --
HUNT: I mean, that wasn't subtle, Scott.
JENNINGS: -- to protecting the American people, when he got them to sit there. And they wouldn't even stand up for that. He made the point, I'm for America and I don't know what they are for, and that will be the most unforgettable part of that speech.
HUNT: I don't know that that was subtle, so subtle that it was lost on people.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I also think that no one will remember this speech, and I will say that that was a stunt to appeal to the 80 percent, because now he's fallen a little bit with his base. And I think Chalian said this yesterday, it will be interesting to see whether his speech is targeted at the base or whether it is targeted towards the rest of Americans to get his approval up ahead of a midterm election.
And it was very clear that it was targeted towards his base versus addressing the problems and the issues that every Republican in a swing district is going to have to deal with, with a very low approval rating.
And so at the end of the day, I don't think it helped anyone, which means Democrats will still win in the midterm elections. Regardless of this speech.
JENNINGS: I interviewed eight Republican senators today, several of them on the ballot this November. Every single person was thrilled. They loved the focus on --
HINOJOSA: Because he didn't.
JENNINGS: Yeah, Nebraska. Talked to Ohio, talked to Husted today. Talked to Dan Sullivan from Alaska, who was thrilled with the energy stuff.
So, yeah, these are people who are going to face the voters. And they all had things in the president's speech last night that were good for their state, whether it was Husted talking about manufacturing in Ohio, Sullivan talking about energy in Alaska -- I mean, they were all picking the things out.
But I'll tell you something else. The public safety stuff, according to them, that's resonating with their people back in their home states.
HUNT: Senator Flake, I mean, reality check here. If you're a sitting senator, you're running for reelection and you're looking at the presidents poll numbers. Any president, whatever party you're in, and the approval rating is down where Donald Trump's is, how are you thinking about any of this?
FLAKE: No, it's going to be tough, obviously. The economy, that's everything. Foreign policy, obviously, if there's some big happening in Iran or whatever, that's going to matter. But it's the economy, that's what's different.
And the president has some good things to say. I mean, what Republicans have done on taxes and regulation and environment for growing economy, Democrats can't match that. They really can't. And they ought to focus on that. But then it gets back to tariffs. And that's awful. Yes.
HUNT: The big -- the big the biggest policy hits in the president's speech last night were actually pretty populist. I mean, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime. I mean, there were definitely moments when I thought huh, I would have expected a Democrat to have announced those policies.
FLAKE: Yeah, and I do think on the public safety thing, as Scott mentioned, that is a problem. If Democrats sit on their hands on that, they can take this too far. Yes, ICE went far, too far in Minneapolis. And Americans just say that's not who we are.
But having said that, we go back to the, you know, the mistakes that Joe Biden made, this makes -- mistakes Democrats made in terms of defunding the police and going too far there, and they risked doing that as well here.
HINOJOSA: Yeah. And I think they've learned from some of the mistakes you have heard especially those who are going to be or eye and toying with 2028, a lot of people have gone back and said, we need a secure border. We need to -- what Joe Biden did was terrible, but we don't want is we don't want to kill U.S. citizens on the streets, and we need some sort of policy that allows people to stay here in the country, and especially children and families who have been here for a long time. And so, I -- Democrats have started to go -- there more moderate on
immigration. You don't hear them so much talking about, you know, progressive immigration policies, because people understand that Democrats have lost trust on that issue.
JENNINGS: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Xochitl, abolish ICE.
HINOJOSA: Democrats are not for abolish ICE. I'm sorry. They're not.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: I hate to be the first to break the news to you, that's where your party is.
HINOJOSA: That is not where the party is at all.
JENNINGS: This is -- it's where your candidates are, and it's where the candidates who are winning primaries are right now.
HINOJOSA: I will say, my home state of Texas, what you will hear from candidates there is essentially that the border --
JENNINGS: Jasmine Crockett, what's Jasmine Crockett going to say?
HINOJOSA: That's what she is saying. The border must be secure and that --
JENNINGS: Abolish ICE.
HINOJOSA: -- to keep people --
JENNINGS: That's the baseline of Democrat --
HINOJOSA: That is not the baseline. Democratic --
JENNINGS: If you hold it right now, does anybody here doubt over half Democrats would --
HINOJOSA: I see the Democratic polling. The Democratic polling right now says that people are not for abolishing ICE, and neither are Democrats.
HUNT: There are a number --
JENNINGS: We'll make room for you in the Republican Party.
HUNT: Zohran Mamdani is potentially handing, you know, people like Scott, a tool by going on "The View" and saying to abolish ICE.
HINOJOSA: Yeah. And I do think that there are very few Democrats who are going in that direction. But the vast majority of the party disagrees with that because they know that's not where the electorate is at.
TODD: Well, look, I mean this is what it's like when Democrats take an extreme MAGA person and say it applies to every Republican. This is I think, what the abolish ICE thing is doing here and here's -- you do see that.
[16:15:07]
Here's what I thought was interesting in the Spanberger response, because what you know about these things, the way I know about them and, Xochitl, you know this, they're extraordinarily litigated. Meaning Jeffries and Schumer and their political operatives --
HUNT: Every word you say --
TODD: Correct. It's extraordinary. I know somebody who assisted somebody else with it, and it was a very frustrating process because of all the cooks in the kitchen, and they had to come up. I was -- look, the fact that criticizing ICE works with swing voters has surprised me. But you see it in the polling.
You saw it the way -- Abigail Spanberger would not have said what she said as candidate Spanberger because the assumption was, well, you've got to be careful there. But the politics of immigration, the voters have split border security, which, by the way the president led with and he should have led with because that's his most popular issue. But they've split border security from immigration a bit.
And you can see it in the numbers, right? The presidents border security policies rate higher than his overall policies on immigration. The fact that voters are splitting, that gives Democrats a chance to rebrand.
HUNT: Chuck, do you think -- I mean, one of the things that we saw with in the wake of the George Floyd killing in 2020 was this rush to say defund the police? Do you think that what Spanberger did there is a sign of a durable change, or is she in a specific moment in time? Some of these Democrats are going to get bitten later.
TODD: No, I think it's -- I think it's moment in time. I mean, you do see where the energy is there and, you know it's interesting. I've watched some of these primaries. You're seeing people take Minnesota, Angie Craig in any other cycle would be the slam dunk most obvious nominee. But the more progressive candidate who's the lieutenant governor has a lot more momentum on there.
And I think that there is a sense don't be too caught -- in fact, I've been -- I've been intrigued. While I thought Spanberger sort of did the best you can do in that situation, I've heard from a lot of Democrats who said, you know, she needed to have more showmanship. She needed to be more, you know, this or that.
It was interesting that the milquetoast type of messaging that I think really worked for Democrats in '18 and in '20, not resonating in the moment.
HUNT: With the voters now.
All right. Very interesting. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, a CNN investigation on dozens of FBI records apparently missing from the Epstein files, including interviews related to a woman who accused President Trump of sexual assault.
But first, Democratic Senator John Fetterman is here live on set in THE ARENA. His takeaways from the president's State of the Union and the Democratic response.
Plus, what will happen in the midterms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: The State of the Union speech by Donald Trump was a disgrace. And now that we're on the other side of it, it's going to be a sprint to November 3rd. House Democrats are on the verge of a takeover.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:22:31]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Do you have any regrets at all about the interaction we played between you and President Trump just last night?
REP. ILHAN OMAR (D-MN): I do not.
BLITZER: Do you think you violated the guidelines set out by your own leader?
OMAR: No, I think it was really an unavoidable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar telling CNN this morning she has no regrets about her role in that standout moment from last night's State of the Union Address, in which Omar accused President Trump of killing Americans as he slammed Democrats over illegal immigration.
Joining me now in THE ARENA, a Democrat who took a little bit of a different approach last night. He actually shook the president's hand on the president's way into the chamber. Democratic senator from Pennsylvania, John Fetterman.
Senator Fetterman, thank you so much for being here.
SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): Good to be back.
HUNT: Why did you think it was important to shake President Trump's hand?
FETTERMAN: Well, of course, that's the president. You don't have to agree with everything. You can be in a different party, you know, I think its just basic respect and courtesy. You know, whether it's for the office or whether it's just kind of -- I mean, I can't think we can get to the place where, I mean, the State of the Union can't turn into like the Springer show.
HUNT: Do you think your colleagues Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, conducted themselves the right way by that metric?
FETTERMAN: I'm saying I just disagree with that. It's not my -- it's not my -- I'm not going to criticize it but I'm going to say that's just not something I choose. And I think I walked around and I realized that half my colleagues were gone. And now if they want to boycott it, that's their choice.
But I think overall, I don't see that coming back to -- I remember back in 2009 when I forget his name, Joe Wilson, you know, yelled -- I mean, that was really provocative and shocking to people and that, that had bipartisan -- they condemned that.
And now here, it's just part of the -- part of the now where it's just kind of like here, here it is. So I think something is lost when if that becomes like the new normal.
HUNT: Do you think President Trump is responsible for that new normal?
FETTERMAN: I think we're -- we're all part -- we're all part of it, too. And I do think we have to find a way if we can be in the same room, we can disagree on these things. You don't have to sign off on everything.
[16:25:00]
You don't have to agree with everything. And now, if I hear something that I agree with or I like that, hey, I'm going to stand up and clap for those things. And I think -- and if someone's angry that I shook the president's hand as he walked in, that's I think that's on -- on them. And I think some of the people that were angry that I did that.
They didn't really have a problem when Mamdani visited with the White House, too. So, like, if we refuse to talk to the other side -- I mean, that's the only one that really loses. That's America.
HUNT: Some people were surprised you wore a suit and tie.
FETTERMAN: I'm not sure why that's news. Yes, I do. I do dress like a slob, but -- I mean, for me, I'm going to -- I'm going to respect the event. Respect -- that's the dress code, of course.
So, for me it was an opportunity to hear these things. And now I think there was enough there that I could say, hey, I want to acknowledge that I think that's a good thing.
HUNT: You obviously have spoken with President Trump. You met with him in the past. Wat was the last time you spoke to him privately?
FETTERMAN: No, I mean, it's -- it's just one of the things that was perhaps might make unique amongst the Democrats, I supported the Iranian strike last year, and I think -- I think every single senator in this agrees that we can never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. And if we all agree with that, you know, I think harsh language won't be -- be the solution.
And now, we've all discovered that a treaty or those kind of negotiations were unsuccessful. So the one thing that really did matter and I think was impactful was those kinetic kinds of strikes. And now here we are. Might be again, where now they have a -- they have another issue in that those, those missiles that they have.
And now, China is selling those hypersonic missiles. That's outrageous. That's effectively -- the Chinese are selling that technology that would be aimed right at American ships. You know, call and hold them accountable for that.
HUNT: So, would you urge President Trump to strike Iran in the interests of regime change there?
FETTERMAN: Well, I do think if you can -- I mean, Iran absolutely wants to acquire a nuclear bomb, and Iran has done -- they built up Hamas, and Hezbollah and Houthis. So, clearly, and now, Iran executed tens of thousands of their young people. And now, the brutality for that.
So, you know, Iran, that regime, that the war is never about the Iranian people, actually, their -- their war was also against Iranian people. But for me, it's about the regime. And now here it's teetering. And now here we are.
So that's why I would not vote for the Iranian powers resolution because the president will need to have the flexibility for these kinds of targeted attacks.
HUNT: Fair enough.
Let's turn to the midterm elections for a second this message the president delivered, obviously very much aimed at that. Do you think it would be good for the country for Democrats to retake at least one chamber of Congress in the fall?
FETTERMAN: I'm (ph) a Democrat, right?
HUNT: Yeah.
FETTERMAN: Yeah. So then it would -- it would be -- it would be a good thing.
HUNT: I think that is the question
FETTERMAN: I mean, the House -- I mean, you don't need to have a degree to know that. Yeah, that's -- that's going to happen. I mean, that's not just -- it's a fact. Just look at -- look at the history. You know, the party in power -- there's backlash. And now, it's already, I think the margins already just a couple seats already.
So, yeah, that'll flip. And now if the Senate might be in play. So, and that means it. So, for me, as someone that the only way I think that's flipped a red seat for blue. And now that makes it even mathematically possible to regain the majority here in the Senate. HUNT: And you still fully intend to continue to be part of the
Democratic Party, no matter what?
FETTERMAN: We've talked about this.
HUNT: I know we have.
FETTERMAN: We talked -- it's just -- it's like the numbers bear it out. I vote in the 90s percents, you know, of that. I mean, you can look it up. It's a fact. I'm not changing the party.
And I might clap for some things that I agree, but, you know, when you represent Pennsylvania, that's there. It's like, hey, we would all love like a, like a, a blue state, you know, then you can really just have to talk to one side. But for me, it's a -- it's a special responsibility if you represent Pennsylvania that, you know, we have to find a way forward.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, I think the question there really is about the reality that there are some Democrats that are considering challenging you in your race, potentially should you, of course, decide to run for reelection. In a potential reelection, would you want President Trump's endorsement in Pennsylvania?
FETTERMAN: You know, what I'm saying, it's like anyone's entitled. But it's very strange. If anyone -- if a Democrat. I'm not sure, it's like the guy that flipped a red -- a red seat and someone now, it's like, now, my record is solid. Solid Democrat. So, you know, whatever is possible.
So, for me, where I'm at -- here we are, don't we all want -- don't we all want the kind of Democrat that can flip a seat? That's the one thing that matters. There's no drama, you know, who's going to be in California or in Massachusetts? You know, where it is, the -- and the states that really matter about the big about the big dance. They all come down to those specific kinds of states.
And now someone you know, in Morning Consult a couple weeks ago, I'm up 15 points. I mean, that's -- so I think --
HUNT: Fair enough.
FETTERMAN: Yeah. So --
HUNT: Fair enough. And of course, that big, you know, 2028 could come all the way down to -- just to Pennsylvania.
Senator John Fetterman, thank you very much for your time today. Thanks appreciate it.
All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, new fallout related to the Epstein files, the new admission from Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates. What he's telling the staff at his global foundation.
Plus, we're learning more about dozens of FBI records apparently missing from the Epstein files, including some related to an allegation against the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The Justice Department doesn't seem to think that there's any -- saying that they didn't try to hide any information regarding Trump when you made that allegation yesterday. What do you say to that?
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): Well, first, to be clear, I didn't make any allegation. The allegation was made by a survivor then that survivor was interviewed and had conversations with the FBI. She was a minor at the time. And the reality and the truth is that those documents are missing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:36:21]
HUNT: This afternoon, Harvard student newspaper "The Harvard Crimson" broke the news that the school's former president, Larry Summers, will resign from his academic and faculty appointments at the end of this academic year amid scrutiny over his ties to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. For Summers, who's former treasury secretary, one of the country's most prominent economists, the resignation marks what "The Crimson" described as a, quote, "extraordinary unraveling".
In November, a batch of newly released Epstein files revealed communications between Epstein and Summers between the years 2013 and 2019. That's important. Why? Because it was long after Epstein had pleaded guilty back in 2008 to prostitution charges.
And in those correspondences, the two men bantered about current events. At times, Summers sought Epstein's romantic advice. After the release of those emails, Summers said he was deeply ashamed about his relationship with Epstein. All of this as a CNN review, shows that dozens of FBI records are apparently missing from the DOJ's published files, including three interviews related to a woman who accused President Trump of sexually assaulting her decades ago.
My panel is back here.
Chuck Todd, I mean, some accountability here in the U.S. Again, we're still seeing it come primarily from private institutions, from universities, from corporations. But it just -- the level of the lack of judgment by many of these men in power is quite astonishing.
TODD: It is the -- and this gets at to, which is why I think a -- and this isn't -- I don't say this whether it helps team blue or team red. I think going after the Epstein class, I think it's a very clever broad brush, Ro Khanna, Jon Ossoff --
(CROSSTALK) TODD: But I don't think this is something that you say only one side over the other because as we've seen Epstein files feel like a machine gun that went off with, like, random bullets. And you look up and you're like, I teach an adjunct --
HUNT: Yeah, but I don't know how random they are.
TODD: No, no, no.
HUNT: -- just because these men firmly involved themselves in Epstein's -
TODD: What I'm saying by random is who gets held accountable and who doesn't, right? I teach adjunct at USC, and I was like, oh my God. There's like three USC professors on there, like it is -- and the account, and they've lost their jobs. Right?
The accountability in the private sector in this country has been quite aggressive in many ways where we haven't seen it at all in comparison to the U.K. is anything like, you know, not to be facetious -- I thought Howard Lutnick was going to be the designated survivor last night so that you didn't see his face on TV. I was surprised --
HUNT: Walk down the aisle.
TODD: And you know what? It did bother some parts of the president's base like, oh, you're rubbing -- rubbing our face in it.
HUNT: Yeah. Well, so there's another -- there's more news on this in terms of men being accountable or holding themselves in this case, accountable. Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, according to "The Wall Street Journal", acknowledged he had two affairs with Russian women that Epstein later discovered but that they didn't involve Epstein's victims.
Bill Gates says this, "I did nothing illicit. I saw nothing illicit." Gates said this, according to a recording that was reviewed by "The Wall Street Journal", "I did have affairs, one with a Russian bridge player who met me at bridge events, and one with a Russian nuclear physicist who I met through business activities," Gates told his staff.
Gates had an affair with a Russian bridge player. Epstein later appeared to use his knowledge of this to threaten Gates, "The Journal" reported in 2023.
Senator Flake, I've asked this question of a variety of people that have come through this set. And, you know, as somebody who I know you're a man of faith, you hold yourself to a high standard of morality, there are still, I think, people in public life who also do that. What's the difference between these men in power who, you know, had access to this and didn't use judgment and got involved in it? And the people who don't.
FLAKE: Well, I mean, if those people are in public life or public servants or elected officials, then they deserve what comes to them, and that's what's going to be interesting coming up. There's still a lot of files out there, and I hope that they all get out, but it's been, you know, for these people, particularly Larry Summers, that was not just guilt by association. This was knowledge of who he was, and very cozy emails over a period of time.
So, yeah, but I take your point. It is -- you don't know where it's going to go out. It doesn't seem to be, you know, Republican or Democrat its hitting all sides as it should. But it's -- yeah, it should be, it should be a warning to all of us. And I hope that lessons are drawn from this. I don't know.
And if people aren't held accountable, then the right lessons won't be drawn.
HUNT: Right. Scott Jennings, why won't Trump's Justice Department put out what people on the Oversight Committee have said are potentially up to three million additional files?
JENNINGS: I don't know, I don't know what's still laying out there. I mean, I think they've published 3.5 million files. Look, the law requires them to publish all the files. I think they ought to follow the law. If there are reasons they can't. They should probably say what those reasons are.
But, look, the Congress passed a law the president signed it into law. So if there's files that need to be published and they can be and there's no restrictions, they should follow the law.
HUNT: Xochitl?
HINOJOSA: Yeah. I think that what we're seeing right now is what happens when you release case files, and there is uncharged contact. You're not going to see the Justice Department charge anybody else, right? They're not going to charge anybody else, likely. They -- and now what you're seeing is interviews. Some may be credible, some maybe not. I -- whoever collects -- collected the evidence would know that.
But I think part of what this administration is grappling with is they didn't know the extent of what was going on. They thought that there was a full coverup, potentially more people could be prosecuted. They learned that that is not the case and that the files are embarrassing and are embarrassing, potentially to Donald Trump and others in his circle.
And so, I think that is why you've seen this hesitancy. And this is what everybody suspected from the beginning, which is why you had a law in the first place. It should have been for survivors. But I do think ultimately, you know, there were Democrats that were late to this game and I do think it was because they thought that the Justice Department was trying to protect the current the current president.
And so now, you're seeing this unfold in ways that now it looks like they're protecting Trump and his inner circle.
HUNT: Scott Jennings, do you think -- I mean, the president has -- if he has nothing to hide in these files, why would they hold back anything with his name in it?
JENNINGS: I don't know. The president has always maintained he has nothing to hide. And in fact, the files that we do have show that he was a whistleblower against Epstein and so that's out in the public domain right now.
Look, a lot of the people who've been dealing with this publicly have made some very serious mistakes. I mean, Ro Khanna who you mentioned and we've talked about, he went down to the House floor and doxed like four people who turned out to have nothing to do with this. There were four random people.
And so, you know there are some people who I think in their fervor to create a political problem for Donald Trump to create a moral panic around Donald Trump. They actually acted fairly irresponsibly. I don't think that does anything to get justice for survivors or to actually hold accountable people that may need to be held accountable.
So, I think some of the people who've been the hottest to trot on this in the public domain have actually been doing it for their own personal political reasons and not for any altruistic reasons about getting justice for the victims.
TODD: But, Kasie, can I just say that the easy message you can now say is the wealthy and the rich play by their own set of rules.
HUNT: Well, that's the whole problem.
TODD: Bottom line. And that is going to be a powerful -- I've been telling my friends left and right, the pitchforks are being sharpened and they are not going in the same direction. This is -- this is going to be us versus them. This is not going to be left versus right.
FLAKE: So a little shout out to Mike Pence, who was ridiculed by the president and others for his Pence rule and not being alone with somebody. I mean, it comes full circle and good for him and people like him.
HUNT: Good for him.
All right. We are going to take a quick break. We'll be right back with much more news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:49:09]
HUNT: All right. We're back now with some breaking news regarding those apparent missing Epstein files related to President Trump.
I want to bring in CNN correspondent Kara Scannell.
Kara, you just got this update from the Justice Department. What are they saying?
KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORREPONDENT: Yeah, Kasie, as you remember, CNN and other news outlets had reported that there appeared to be about 90 302s. Those are the FBI interviews with witness reports missing from the Epstein files that are publicly available, all coming from a privilege log that was turned over to Epstein's accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys. Three of those 302s that appear to be missing relate to a woman who claimed that she was sexually assaulted by Jeffrey Epstein and said that she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump in the 1980s.
Initially, DOJ said that the documents were either not posted because they were duplicative, they were privileged, or they were part of an ongoing investigation.
[16:50:00]
We just got a new statement from the Justice Department where they say, "As the Department of Justice has consistently said and has done since the January 30th, 2026 publication of the Epstein files, if any member of the public, including victims, reported concerns with information in the pages, the department would review, make any corrections and republish online. Several individuals and news outlets have recently flagged files related to documents produced to Ghislaine Maxwell in discovery of her criminal case that they claim appear to be missing.
As with all documents that have been flagged by the public, the department is currently reviewing files within that category of the production. Should any document be found to have been improperly tagged in the review process and is responsive to the act, the department will, of course, publish it consistent with the law.
So, now, DOJ saying it is going to review this tranche of records that CNN and others have been able to identify based on the serial number. So it shouldn't be difficult for them to locate them. In theory and said that they will review them and then publish them if it is complying with the act.
So, we will wait to see what hits those public records in the next couple of hours and days, Kasie.
HUNT: All right, fair enough. Kara Scannell, thanks very much for that reporting.
Xochitl Hinojosa, you were kind of nodding along with Kara just because you worked at the Department of Justice. I think you have an understanding of what this is. I mean, she did a good job of laying it out, but I mean, why do we know these are there? What does it say that they're missing?
HINOJOSA: Well, it essentially is saying that there are these FBI files that they're normally interviews of witnesses, et cetera, that I am assuming are potentially in other places within the FBI, et cetera.
What I will say is that this entire thing and the fact that there have been missing of these documents, just shows how the Justice Department was not prepared to do this and why the Justice Department does usually does not put out their case files for a reason, that case files live everywhere. They don't just live at the FBI they are at the U.S. attorney's office, multiple U.S. attorney's offices, national security division, DEA. I mean, all of these places.
And so, when you say I want every file on X issue, what ends up happening is that you are trusting all of these entities to come together and to give you those files. Yes, things will be missing. There are people in the National Security Division that are looking through each one of these files. There is human error. There are things like that.
So what you're seeing right now, what we've seen over the last few weeks, is sort of this chaos. And what happens because the Justice Department normally does not do this.
HUNT: Yeah, but in this case, I mean, the reason -- my understanding of our reporting is that this was a manifest that was given to Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, so they should have known that it existed.
HINOJOSA: Yes. And they should have known. You're exactly right. I think that there will be questions about why was it missing, who left it out, why was it at some point taken out of the original tranche? And where did it originate from in the first place?
So yes, there are those questions, but it also goes to show you that there isn't someone in there looking at each of these files to figure out whether or not that they've made public, they're in compliance with the law. And also, in every one of these instances, I will say, how long have we been talking about this? If they would have released all of these files at once when they were supposed to be released, we wouldn't be talking about this past January.
TODD: There's been a special master --
HINOJOSA: Yes, I think there should have been an independent person.
TODD: -- that sort of dealt with this.
HINOJOSA: Correct. Yes, an independent person who could have dealt with this.
HUNT: Chuck, I want to go back to the point you were making before the break which is this idea of the Epstein files, because, I mean, that really is the thing that has stuck out to me as we have learned more and more about this, something that started in the realm where everybody wanted to call it a conspiracy theory, right? Both Democrats and Republicans that I talked to in this town would say that it was a conspiracy theory.
There were people in the MAGA base for President Trump that really wanted these files out. His vice president was one of the loudest voices on this, and they come into office. They're somehow, you know, not interested. You know, the president is literally calling members of Congress into the Situation Room to convince them not to write, not to vote for a law that will ultimately release these files. Then we get the files, and it turns out that everybody that said these
files showed something that really stank were right. They were all right.
And for the president of the United States and his base, who are still saying that this is a problem for them, like how does -- how does he keep going the way he's going in his -- regardless of whether or not he ever actually did anything wrong? Right? We're not saying we saw something that's in the files that says Donald Trump committed a crime, et cetera, et cetera. To Scott's point, there's no whistleblowing in there.
But for his base, that is saying give us the Epstein files, and he doesn't, what problem -- what problem does that create for him?
TODD: Well, I think it does create some problem with some parts of his base when it's -- when they feel let down about another issue its sort of like, you know, over time that gets away. It becomes a trust thing.
But you know, let me also step back. There was a lot of people that believed, you know, a lot of strange things about Epstein.
[16:55:04]
And so, the craziest conspiracies have proven not to be true. But that doesn't mean what was done was not bad, right? Like it turned. And I think that this is why -- this has been a difficult why you've seen -- everybody handle this -- it's not what people rumored and feared that it was, but it wasn't good. And so, they've just been paralyzed by this.
And I don't know how else to describe it, but you feel it. Let's not pretend, the Biden Justice Department was paralyzed on this, too.
HUNT: Indeed. All right. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks very much to my panel. Really appreciate you all being here.
Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Jake, I feel like I just saw you a few hours ago.
