Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Just In: Trump DOJ Drops Subpoenas For NYT Reporters; Sources: Current Bombing Campaign Unlikely To Alter Iran's Posture; Secret Service Agent In Vance's Detail Under Investigation For Leak. Aired 4- 5p ET
Aired July 23, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JEFF CORWIN, HOST, WILDLIFE NATION: -- unknowns and challenges.
[16:00:03]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yeah, Jeff, so great to talk with you about orcas and this story. We appreciate you.
WARD: I literally was what I was in Alaska yesterday on a boat looking for orcas. So it's this is very apropos. Then I took that horrible red eye and I'm back home, but I was actually looking for orcas yesterday up last.
KEILAR: Talk with us and we appreciate it.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Now we know the orcas were looking for you too, by the way.
KEILAR: Thank you so much, Jeff.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news at this hour, the federal government has dropped subpoenas issued to multiple reporters.
Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. I'm Kasie Hunt.
Right now, a major reversal. Moments ago, the Justice Department withdrew subpoenas it obtained, trying to compel three "New York Times" journalists to testify about the sources behind their reporting on the new Qatari-gifted Air Force One.
Like CNN, "The Times" had reported that the new aircraft lacked some of the security capabilities of the previous Air Force One, leading the president to switch planes right in the middle of a trip to Turkey. Sources tell CNN that reporting embarrassed President Donald Trump and left him fuming.
According to "The Times", the subpoenas had been issued by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton, the very man nominated to be the next Director of National Intelligence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. KRISTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): The subpoenas were issued so closely after a very long meeting at the White House. There seemed to be an unnecessary urgency behind it, and I'd like you to maybe comment on why there was this urgency. But more than that, they were served at the reporters' homes. And that is fairly unusual.
JAY CLAYTON, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE NOMINEE: I understand your concerns. I am -- but I want to tell you, I am comfortable with where we are, and I'm comfortable with how we are proceeding from here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA.
My panel is going to be here to weigh in. Let's kick things off, though with CNN media analyst Brian Stelter, and CNN senior legal analyst and former assistant U.S. attorney, Elie Honig.
Elie, why don't you start by walking us through how we got here? And then, Brian, I want you to bring us up to speed on what happened today.
Elie?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, Kasie, two weeks ago, Donald Trump took the first flight that he's ever taken on that 787 airplane that had been gifted by Qatar. He flew on it out to Turkey. Then for the return trip, that airplane gifted by Qatar was switched out and they went back to the old Air Force One.
Now, "The New York Times" on July 8th issued a two-part story that said essentially the reason for the changeover was because of security concerns around that Qatari-gifted airplane. Two days after that, DOJ sent agents with subpoenas to the homes of at least three, and the reporting's been as many as five, "New York Times" reporters who were part of that reporting. And those subpoenas required those reporters to go into a grand jury, to be sworn in under oath, and to disclose their journalistic sources.
And Kasie, if you look at DOJ's internal guidance and regulations, it says that subpoenas to reporters are only supposed to be used in the most extraordinary circumstances and only as a last resort. So, "The New York Times" challenged those subpoenas. Today was the first in- court hearing. And the federal district court judge in the Southern District of New York, Judge Arun Subramanian, who was a Biden appointee, clearly was siding with "The New York Times" and against DOJ, essentially told DOJ, either you withdraw these subpoenas or I will quash them. I will block them.
DOJ, after about an hour of futile argument, saw the writing on the wall and agreed to withdraw, pull back those subpoenas. HUNT: So, Brian Stelter, walk us through how "The Times" has handled this. And, I mean, there's some other extraordinary details around these subpoenas that touch on, I mean, family members or the reporters involved. What else?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Yes, and that is partly, you know, this has fallen apart for the government this afternoon, in part because of those mistakes and errors. Our impression from reporters inside the courtroom is that the judge laced into these prosecutors and pointed out some of the mistakes that were made along the way. One of those apparent mistakes was targeting phone numbers that were linked, they thought, the government thought, to reporters when they were actually phone numbers belonging to family members, a spouse, a different relative of these reporters.
So, you had the government trying to hoover up information about Americans. In some cases here, not even the reporters who were in question, but people who were not actually those reporters.
So, you had these kinds of errors, mistakes by the prosecution. And some of those were admitted to during this hearing this afternoon. My impression is that the government was so severely criticized and scrutinized by this judge that they've given up here, walked away, and accepted they'll have to find other ways to find these apparent leakers.
[16:05:01]
And that is the core of the story, as Elle just said. It's a leak hunt because the president was upset. He was insulted. He was embarrassed. He had officials inside his own government pointing out that he misled the public by claiming that the plane was being sent to England so that U.S. service members could be given a tour, when actually this was about security concerns.
So, you have a case that's very personal to the president of the United States, because he was upset that he had officials in his government contradicting what he claimed. And as a result, this very aggressive leak hunt, it involved sending FBI agents to the homes of the reporters in the evenings. Imagine what that's like when you're watching a movie with your kid, and you have FBI agents showing up, giving you a subpoena, and telling you, you're going to have to go testify about your anonymous sources.
That is ultimately why this case is not just about "The New York Times". It's about all news organizations and their ability to communicate with anonymous sources. Because ultimately, if sources inside the government do not believe they'll be protected by reporters, and they can't blow the whistle when the president lies, or when there's official misconduct, or there's a security problem inside the government, then we all suffer. We all suffer if we can't get that information from people inside the government, and we can't protect those sources. And then the public doesn't find out about those cases.
So, this time, it's about Air Force One. Who knows what it'll be about next time? And that's why this case matters. HUNT: Brian, what's your sense of -- I mean, if the point here is to intimidate, were these journalists intimidated? Was the leadership of "The Times" intimidated? And how did the way the paper handled it impact things?
STELTER: That's a really great question, it's a really great point.
We are living through a period where we're going through First Amendment stress tests in the United States. And almost every time there's a test, we pass. The country passes.
In this case, "The New York Times" view this as a test right away. And instead of having this happen in secret, the way many subpoena fights have taken place in secret, there was a case during the first Trump administration where CNN was faced with one of these. And our lawyers were gagged. They weren't allowed to share it publicly, which was a really distressing situation at the time.
CNN passed that test years ago. Other news outlets have passed those tests. And now, in this case, "The New York Times" fought really hard to make this public, to not let this be waged in secret. They made sure that they fought to make sure these records were unsealed in recent days.
So, "The New York Times" went public right away, kept it out in public view, and fought very aggressively by pointing out the administration's errors, by arguing that this was processed, was done wrongly and improperly.
And so, I would argue here, Kasie, less than two weeks later, after the subpoenas were argued -- were issued, it's another example of the country, yes, going through a stress test for the First Amendment, but winning, prevailing, and ensuring that, in this case, those reporters are not going to be chilled, and they're going to be able to continue to contact government sources and get information out.
But, of course, you know, there will be more of these tests, and it's incumbent on people inside the government to know the reporters will protect those anonymous sources, will ensure their confidentiality, and get the information out to the public.
HUNT: So, Elie Honig, is there ever a situation, I mean, when are journalists, when can they be subpoenaed by the government?
HONIG: Well, Kasie, so there is no categorical privilege for communications between journalists and sources. We know that because there was actually a 1972 Supreme Court case that said, no, there's not an across-the-board privilege the way there would be, for example, between an attorney and a client.
However, you do have to be very careful when you're treading this close or maybe over the borderline of the First Amendment. And as a result, DOJ ever since then has wrestled with the issue and has changed its guidance. And if we look at the most recent guidance issued by this administration, April of 2025, within DOJ, it says two really important things that factored in today's decision. First of all, it's only supposed to be for the most urgent national security cases.
So, if somebody, for example, were to go out and leak upcoming war plans or to endanger the life and limb of somebody in an imminent way. And then, for example, right. And then the second thing is it has to be a last resort. And that seems to have really resonated with the judge today.
The judge today said, you use this as a first resort. You're not supposed to send out FBI agents with subpoenas until you've exhausted every other less intrusive manner to get these documents, to get this information. And so, DOJ really violated its own guidance.
And again, this isn't as if this is some age-old guidance that this administration inherited. This is something that this administration rewrote about a year and change ago, April of 2025, and the judge said, You didn't even play by your own rules here.
HUNT: Yeah. No, it's a really good point.
All right, I want to add our panel to our conversation here. The editor-in-chief of "The Dispatch", CNN political commentator Jonah Goldberg, is here. We also have two CNN political commentators, former DNC communications director, Xochitl Hinojosa, and former special assistant to President George W. Bush, among many other titles, Scott Jennings.
Thank you all for being here.
Xochitl, I know you were involved in some of this guidance, so can you shed light on the decision-making process that you were a part of.
[16:10:04]
I mean, I think it's worth remembering the Obama Justice Department at one point was very aggressive toward leakers.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.
HUNT: And actually, the former attorney general, Eric Holder, has named this as one of his regrets, kind of the way it was handled at the time with a Fox News reporter. How did this evolve?
HINOJOSA: Yeah, so at the start of the Biden administration, a number of reporters and outlets came to us and we met with them and we put together guidance and updated rules that would essentially put more protections in place for reporters and so that we weren't able to subpoena them.
And the whole thing was that you were able to find leaked information, classified information, not through subpoenaing reporters, but through a simple leak investigation of people in the federal government. That took time.
Before we left the Justice Department, and we knew that the Trump administration was going to come over, we were very worried about the First Amendment. And we reconvened these organizations, and we actually told them the only way to stop the subpoenaing of reporters and the attack on the First Amendment is to pass a law, and you need to work with Congress in order to do this, because just having guidance it can be changed from administration to administration. And that is not how we should be living as a country, where you have one president who doesn't care about the First Amendment, and you have another president who does, and we're going back and forth.
Regardless, I think we can all agree that this was an attack on the First Amendment. You can get leaked information without subpoenaing reporters. And I think that Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, whenever they put out this guidance, they very much were talking about how they were cracking down on leaks coming from the media.
The media does not leak. The media doesn't have access to classified information. It is people who leak to the media, which is a very different thing, and those people should be prosecuted. The reporters should not be targeted.
HUNT: Jonah Goldberg, I think we can acknowledge that there is sometimes a tension between the national security interests of the United States and the First Amendment, or, you know, the -- perhaps it's the interest of the public to know what's going on, or perhaps it's the information the media organization has.
I think it's worth noting, the government has often, in the past, worked with media organizations that it knows has classified information. And occasionally, media organizations will, in fact, take that on board and decide not to publish or handle it differently. How do you look at what the Trump administration is doing here? Because there are legitimate legal processes, there are guidance rules, whatever.
But then there is also a tool of the government, this is one of them, used as an intimidate -- a tactic to intimidate. And I see them as distinct from each other.
JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, I'm very conflicted about all of this. You're absolutely right about working with the government. Walter Cronkite wore a military uniform as a journalist and submitted his copy during World War II to government censors, right? I mean, this idea that somehow journalists and the government have to always be adversarial, regardless of the topic, I just don't necessarily think is true.
I kind of think the system worked here. I mean, I don't think what Trump did was wise. But I also don't think that journalists should have this sort of blanket immunity that are the privilege that lawyers or priests or doctors do, in part because that's basically a backdoor way to get the journalistic licensing, which I think is anti-First Amendment.
Everyone has the same First Amendment rights, whether they get paid by CNN or a plumber. We all have the right to commit journalism. And so, look, do I think that this was silly and that the Trump administration clearly didn't do its homework in how it brought these subpoenas? Yeah. But it also got smacked down by a judge, and the DOJ said, you know, we'll back off. That's how it's supposed to work when the executive branch overreaches.
HUNT: All right. Let's watch what Jay Clayton had to say about these subpoenas -- he was impressed about this by Ron Wyden, who has been a longtime advocate of free speech and a critic of the powers of the national security state.
Here's Ron Wyden, senator from Oregon, questioning Jay Clayton. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): So let me ask you this. It's not even clear that the subpoenas that you signed followed the administration's policy, which requires the government to first make all reasonable attempts to obtain information from other sources. What specific actions did you take before you signed the subpoenas?
CLAYTON: I can tell you that in all of these cases, we -- and not just one person -- and this is the way I operate. I operate by asking my team, what do you think?
[16:15:03]
Any action in this regard, you can be assured that it was a consultative exercise with the career prosecutors in my office.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Scott Jennings, do you think if the government had a reasonable issue with someone leaking about the security problems on Air Force One, that the government did everything that they should have done in advance of issuing these subpoenas?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I would have no way of knowing that other than to say I think the bureaucracy leaks against Donald Trump and his administration all the time. I think national security information, classified information is leaked to the media when it's adverse to American interests, when it's adverse to Donald Trump's political direction for the government. I think it's terrible.
HUNT: I would just say it goes both ways, OK? There is information that is leaked under a president of any party, and the interests of news organizations are not -- I take issue with the way that you're setting that up, I guess, is what I'm trying to say.
JENNINGS: You take issue with me stating the fact that the federal bureaucracy frequently leaks classified and/or national security information against --
HUNT: I'm saying they do it against all presidents.
JENNINGS: -- Donald Trump. OK, well, look, my --
HINOJOSA: And the administration also leaks investigative information in this administration about their political opponents and who they're investigating. JENNINGS: I take issue with the idea that somehow the federal bureaucracy is equivalently adverse to Democratic presidents as Republicans, particularly this one. So, I take their point that they're upset when this government that supposedly answers to the executive branch is leaking national security information. I agree with what you said. If people are leaking national security information, they should be held accountable.
And I also agree with what you said. In this case, the system appears to have worked. And I give a wide latitude to journalists in the First Amendment. But you have to admit, it happens pretty frequently when Donald Trump is the president that somehow --
HUNT: He's been the president quite a bit recently.
(CROSSTALK)
JENINGS: And in both of his terms, The bureaucracy has fought against him, worked against him, and leaked against him.
And I understand the impulse to want to put a stop to it, particularly when his safety is in jeopardy. I read today that the Secret Service director said this year they have already investigated 10,000 threats to protectees of the Secret Service, which includes the president, which is a 40 percent increase over last year.
So, do I take his safety when it comes to this plane seriously, when we found out that Iran was trying to assassinate him over there? Yeah, and if there's people in the government putting him in jeopardy, I think we ought to take that seriously.
HUNT: Brian Stelter, I want to bring you back in here. I'm happy if you have a response to the conversation we've been having here at the table. I'm also interested to know where you think this goes.
STELTER: I think so far this year, in January, we saw officials knocking on the door of a "Washington Post" reporter and seizing her devices as part of a leak investigation.
We've also seen subpoena fights, mostly in secret, involving "The Wall Street Journal" and "The Washington Post". There were attempts to subpoena journalists and compel them to testify, both from "The Post" and "The Journal". Those subpoenas were eventually withdrawn, just like today's subpoenas against "The New York Times" were withdrawn.
But you add it all up, "The Washington Post", "The Wall Street Journal", "The New York Times", there could be other secret court fights about subpoenas that we don't even know about. I know many newsrooms like CNN's are on high alert about this because of what we've seen in the last six months.
So, Kasie, my takeaway is this is going to continue. The government's going to continue to do this not as a last step, but as a first step. Not as a last resort, but as a first step.
They're going to continue to aggressively try to hunt out leakers by targeting reporters. So, this is going to continue to be a threat to newsrooms. But so far, we're seeing newsrooms do all the right things in response. pushing back aggressively, having lawyers spend a lot of money and a lot of time fighting these, but defending the First Amendment. And so far, the stress test is being passed.
HUNT: And let's just underscore, of course, that the point of what we do in newsrooms and the point of all of the things that you just underscored there, Brian, is about the audience. It's about the American people.
It's about what they have a right to know in terms of how to make decisions about who they ultimately think should be given power in our democracy.
Brian Stelter, Elie Honig, thank you both very much.
The rest of my panel's going to stand by.
Coming up next year in THE ARENA, we've got new reporting on what U.S. intelligence assesses about the president's escalating strikes in Iran. We'll get into that and more with Democratic Congressman Jake Auchincloss, who will be here live this hour.
Plus, why a Secret Service agent assigned to Vice President J.D. Vance is now on leave and under investigation.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:24:07]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're doing very well against the Islamic Republic of Iran. We're doing extremely well. They would like to do something, but I say they're not ready yet. They need more of the same. They're not ready yet. They got some evil intentions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Right now, President Donald Trump is weighing a major escalation of the war with Iran. The president telling "Axios" today, quote, "I am considering a massive attack, bigger than ever before. I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it," end quote.
The reason for why now? The president's saying this, quote, "They haven't received enough pain yet," end quote.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Do you rule out striking civilian --
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I think -- I saw, you know, guys, I saw Araghchi, their foreign minister, who the other day say or something about their policies, an eye for an eye.
[16:25:00]
The president's policy is a head for an eye. I mean, honestly, that's what it's going to be.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: A head for an eye. We've seen a bit of what that looks like. The issue is that simply may not be enough.
Two sources familiar with the matter tell CNN that both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency have recently assessed that the Pentagon's current bombing campaign is unlikely to force Iran to shift its negotiating position.
All right, joining our panel on set here, White House correspondent for The New York Times and a CNN political analyst, Zolan Kanno-Young.
Thank you very much for being here.
But, Jonah, I actually want to start with you because, you know, on the one hand, you have the president of the United States telling "Axios" -- and worth noting, he told this to Barak Ravid, who's a reporter that covers the region, likely read by the Iranians, likely in the message being sent in that region. This was, like, less than 24 hours after he called it a, quote/unquote, "skirmish", right? Not a war at a political event here in the United States, right? It's like -- I feel like he's trying to have it both-- is he trying to have it both ways?
GOLDBERG: Yeah, I think in the first week of the war, I said on here that the problem with the way the Trump administration has handled this isn't that they haven't given an explanation. It's that they've given every explanation.
Nothing has changed. They were on every -- and it's not just both ways. It's on a bunch of -- there's montages, you'll see them around, of how many times Trump has declared we've already won, which kind of taps into that getting tired of winning thing.
And then there are other times where he says it's a war. There are times he says it's not a war. There are times he admits that we don't call it a war when talking to Congress, because that would be a constitutional problem.
There are times where he says the Strait of Hormuz is open. There are times where he says he's going to destroy the civilization, then doesn't. There are times where he says he's going to take out infrastructure, then doesn't.
He is -- you know, Yogi Berra had that line, when it came to a fork in the road, I took it, right? He's come to this thing where he's basically offered every single rationale possible. And you can string together any rationale that you want for the war, but the problem is everyone's hearing all of the competing rationales, too, and it's just a thought now. ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. I mean, and look, the president's aides and White House officials would say that part of him sort of escalating pressure is in this course to pressure the Iranians to come to the table. But the problem is we really haven't seen this result in any real longstanding sort of negotiations that can result in a longstanding ceasefire.
Each time the president escalates and uses this rhetoric or talks about potentially attacking civilian infrastructure, increasing the military operation, Iran has responded by trying to ramp up economic pressure really on the globe, right, when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz. And it's almost like when the president's responding to that economic pressure, that's when you see him trying to sort of play down this war, use words like skirmish as well, even yesterday, framing it as not a sort of severe long-term war. But when it comes to actually trying to ramp up pressure against Iran, that's when you also see him issuing that conflicting message as well.
So really, the thing that's been consistent about the messaging thus far is that there has been a lot of conflicting messages when it comes to President Trump.
HUNT: I mean, Scott Jennings, do you hear the president's words and think that he is going to actually do what he is saying that he's going to do? And do you think that he can material -- materially change things without putting boots on the ground?
JENNINGS: Well, I think the reporting on the intelligence assessments was interesting. It said the current bombing campaign might not be enough to drive them back to the table, which is why I assume the president is saying I'm now considering an attack well beyond what we have seen so far because maybe he's trying to do something beyond what the assessments would say would work. So that's number one.
Number two, boots on the ground. I think they would be very hesitant to do that, but they should not take it off the table because at the end of this, whenever it ends, whether it ends this afternoon, a week from today, a month from today, whenever it ends, he has to come to the American people and say the number one objective was to stop them from being able to build or obtain a nuclear weapon, and we have absolutely, unequivocally achieved that objective. If it required boots on the ground to get to that, you have to preserve that, and you want the Iranians to think you might do it. You wouldn't want to rule anything out.
But to me, the politics of this are simple. The only way out is complete victory, and the only complete victory is to tell the American people, we stopped them from getting a nuclear weapon. They'll never have it. That's what I went to do, and that's what we did.
HINOJOSA: But I also think that Donald Trump underestimated how hard this would be. He said it would be a few weeks. It has not been a few weeks.
There's a poll that came out that said 79 percent of Americans believe that this is going to go on for a very long time. And I think that we are at the point where Donald Trump's strategy isn't working. Pete Hegseth wasn't able to actually tell us how long this would take and what their strategy is moving forward.
[16:30:02]
And I would not be surprised if this ends up being a major issue in the 2028 presidential race. If Donald Trump can't wrap this up, and I agree with you, he has to have complete victory.
JENNINGS: Yes.
HINOJOSA: But if he can't get there, this is potentially going to be the next president's war to clean up if he cannot find a solution. And right now, it just doesn't seem like he is going to get there.
KANNO-YOUNGS: It's interesting because we often talk about foreign policy maybe not being as much of a factor in domestic politics and elections, but the ripple effect of this war, too. The report that came out today on the on oil price and crude oil, now $100 a barrel, right?
I mean, that -- that kind of news is not what I know many allies of the president want to hear. And that's going to actually rattle Republicans, you know, as they look to November.
JENNINGS: When they stopped before to do the negotiations over the memorandum of understanding. He effectively said publicly, we were a few weeks away from global oil supplies running out, and that would have led to -- it's a global depression or economic calamity. I mean, he effectively admitted as much that that is something they have to take into consideration.
I wonder now this time around, when do you get back to that same point where economic considerations effectively drive you back to the table? Whether you want to be there or not?
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, the other leak investigation that we're learning about today, it involves a Secret Service agent assigned to the detail of the vice president.
Plus, inside a new poll from a key 2028 state that shows one Democrat getting more support than Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and Gavin Newsom combined.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:35:53]
HUNT: All right, welcome back.
A source tells CNN that a Secret Service agent on Vice President Vance's security detail is now on leave and is being investigated for a leak of information about the V.P.'s travel plans. This is just after a recent report described how, quote, "fed up" some of Vance's Secret Service agents were with last-minute travel demands. One request reportedly from the vice president, included flying him and his son to a golf lesson on a Marine Corps helicopter, though that trip was canceled due to the weather.
Joining our panel, CNN security correspondent, former FBI Special Agent Josh Campbell. He broke this story along with our Kristen Holmes.
So, Josh, what more can you tell us about this internal investigation?
JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, an unusual -- unusual development. We're told from a law enforcement source that a Secret Service agent who was on Vance's detail is indeed now the subject of an internal investigation, has been put on administrative leave after being suspected of being part of -- a party to providing information to a reporter that later got into a story regarding Vance's travel plans.
Now, today, the Secret Service did confirm that this criminal or this administrative investigation is now underway. It might turn criminal at some point. I'll read you part of what their statement said to CNN. They say that any conduct that undermines the trust and confidence between a protectee and their protective detail is fundamentally incompatible with our mission and will not be tolerated.
Now, this all stemmed from an article by MS NOW in which they described this building morale problem on Vance's detail. Agents were concerned about last-minute travel demands that are started and then canceled, saying that then requires a lot of them to disrupt their own personal lives as well. They also describe Vance's use, reportedly, of government aircraft for personal reasons, including using a helicopter to go to a golf lesson.
Now, we've reached out to MS NOW for comment on this story. It's worth pointing out that, you know, we've been hearing from law enforcement sources for months now, both within law enforcement and the military. who assist with Vance's movements, and this is, an operation that sometimes involves hundreds of people, saying they're frustrated by the kind of chaotic nature of his personal and private schedule, starting, stopping trips, requiring them to, again, disrupt their lives.
It's worth pointing out that particularly for the Secret Service, this is an agency that's constantly under pressure with a no-fail mission. But what Kasie finally caught the attention of the FBI, the Secret Service, and White House officials, and caused them to fume, we're told, is the number of operational details that were in this MS NOW story. One of the agents that was involved that suspected of providing information, again, now on leave, now under investigation.
HUNT: So, Jonah Goldberg, I would argue that this is one reason to be very considerate of the Secret Service people who protect you. And as someone who has covered a number of presidential campaigns with Secret Service protectees, there's a big difference between the candidates and leaders who treat them really well and think about the fact that there are people with lives and those who don't. Now, that said, there's obviously a concern here, a security concern.
But I want to play for you something that Vance himself said, right, he's talking about how his life is fundamentally different, right? Because why does this story catch headlines, right?
You and I don't take military helicopters with our kids to whatever sporting event, right? Like, we sit in traffic. Here was Vance reflecting on the ways his life has changed since he's become vice president and what that could mean. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that what Mamaw would be worried about -- and it's something I worry about, too -- is, like, my life is, dude, totally transformed. I don't go to the grocery store anymore. People go to the grocery store for me.
My life is so weird. I fly around on a 757, no more TSA lines for me and the kids. It's so weird, but it can become the sort of thing that if you internalize it, you start to be an entitled (EXPLETIVE DELETED). And I think that's the thing that Mamaw would really be insistent on, is don't become entitled about this. Recognize it's cool, it's a blessing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, Jonah, are they angry because it's a security concern, or are they angry because it makes him look entitled?
[16:40:05]
GOLDBERG: I don't know that you have to pick just one.
Look, the Secret Service has been a messed up agency for a very long time across a bunch of administrations. Morale is bad. It's bad -- it's a bad situation there. And you could see how these alleged behaviors by Vance would really tick off Secret Service agents.
You know, Ronald Reagan loved his ranch out in California so much and loved to spend the holidays there until it was explained to him that his Secret Service detail would have to be out there and miss their families to be out there, and so he stopped going and started doing holidays back home for the benefit of a Secret Service agent. You don't get that vibe from Vance.
At the same time, the job is the job, and you cannot be leaking information about what the principal is doing, where they're going to be, any of that kind of stuff. The answer to that, if you really don't like it, is quit, and then explain why you quit.
HUNT: Yeah.
JENNINGS: Yeah, having worked for a president in numerous presidential campaigns and been around Secret Service agents for most of my career, it's unfathomable to me that any of them would take this kind of information, which by the way if you leak it, this could get people killed, okay? I just -- we're talking earlier, the Secret Service director today, 10,000 threats against protectees this year.
HUNT: Well, W was famously wonderful to his service.
JENNINGS: And I -- of course, I witnessed that behavior many times. I would also defend Vance on this point and his wife. They have four very young children. Having four children in my own home, I can tell you it's a little chaotic sometimes.
But Jonah is right. If you don't like protecting a family that has young children, then go do something else. But being teed off about that and then leaking information, if this is true, it's just an investigation, that's -- you can't do that. Trump and Vance and the people around Trump and Vance are unsafe every day because of these thousands and thousands of threats, and doing anything to put them in jeopardy just makes my stomach turn.
HINOJOSA: Well, but also, the reason -- I mean, people -- there are -- there's an increased threat environment and our officials are under threat every single day. There are also staffing shortages at the Secret Service and you one would think that instead of flying J.D. Vance and his son to a golf game or whatever that is, that doesn't seem necessary. You need to end up making decisions to appropriately staff everybody.
I'll also say that Josh was talking about how there have been rumblings about this for quite some time. Congress isn't going to do anything about it. No one is going to make changes. I'm not -- they should not leak operational details, but the only way to sound the alarm on something that is not accurate is by sounding the alarm and saying something.
Now, he should have maybe sought whistleblower protections or something. But at this time, no one was paying attention. And now J.D. Vance is making changes, which was the purpose, I am sure, from the Secret Service agent.
HUNT: All right. Josh Campbell, thank you very much for sharing your reporting with us. Always appreciate having you here.
Our panel is going to stick around.
Coming up next, Congressman Jake Auchincloss is here after Congress takes a vote and is split on forcing the president to end the Iran war.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:47:38]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUBIO: Iran is begging us, okay, both directly and indirectly. Let's do a deal. Let's talk, let's talk. Iran is begging every day.
The problem with Iran is every time they make a deal, the people that are in charge there, they either break it or they want to change it. So, it looks like they're not ready to make a deal. So, they're going to continue to pay a price. And every night, the price gets higher and higher and higher.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Iran is, quote, begging for a deal every day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said earlier.
As the war continues to escalate, the president now telling "Axios" that he's weighing a, quote, massive attack one that could include strikes that would be larger than those that were carried out during Operation Epic Fury.
Joining me now, Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, Jake Auchincloss, who is, of course, a Marine Corps veteran as well.
Congressman, always great to have you here in THE ARENA.
I'm interested to know if you think that the president means what he says about these potentially massive strikes, and whether you think they could actually change what has become a status quo, basically, in the region.
REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D-MA): Yes, he means it. No, I don't think it can change the status quo.
Kasie, I view this quagmire fundamentally about psychology, not about politics. There are two sins that cause forever wars, whether Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq.
The first is groupthink. It's when a group of smart people sit around the table and they all know something privately, but they won't say it publicly. As in, this ain't working, but I don't want to say it publicly because I'll look weak. Number one sin.
Second sin is sunk cost bias. When you say to yourself as a decision maker, well, we've already spent money and we've already deployed troops, and so now just a little bit more and it'll work. That was Vietnam, that was Iraq, that was Afghanistan.
We are seeing groupthink, we are seeing sunk cost bias with Iran, and it is Congress's imperative to snap this administration out of it before more Americans get killed.
HUNT: So, if you follow the logic that you've laid out there, what is your prescription for what should be done now? Can we pull up stakes, depart the region, let the Iranians take what control they're able to wield over the Strait of Hormuz?
AUCHINCLOSS: Let's treat it domestically and then internationally. So domestically, just this morning I voted on a successful War Powers resolution that would end all hostilities in the Middle East.
[16:50:05]
It passed the House of Representatives with Republican votes. It needs to pass the Senate.
Now, I know what people are going to say, well, the president will veto it. It won't do anything.
Well, hold on. Remember groupthink and sunk cost bias. Those are collective failures of psychology. And it happens slowly and then it happens suddenly. If you continue to force a vote, if you continue to force politicians coming up to the election to go back home and defend these unconscionable no votes in front of their constituents, this tide can turn, just like it did with the Epstein files.
So, we have to press this and get Article I to do its job over war and peace. Now, internationally, what do I want? I'm a realist on this one. I think the status quo is going to be worse than it was before this war. This president has messed it up so bad that he has now yielded to a new hardened and hardline regime another strategic deterrent, which is choke-point control over the Strait of Hormuz.
There needs to be a negotiation that ensures some type of navigation through that strait, but it's going to have to be a negotiated transit, probably, rather than a truly free and open navigation like it was before the war. And then Congress needs to prevent this president from signing disastrous MOUs like he tried to a month ago, and just persist a peaceful status quo until there's a new president who can actually clean up this mess.
HUNT: So, speaking of the possibility of a new president and the shift in control of Congress, we have seen an increased possibility lately that Democrats may take back the Senate, which would be a game changer, of course. One of the things that you actually said on this program, you talked about Graham Platner and your lack of support for him. And you took no small amount of incoming from your own party over your willingness to be candid about that.
I'm curious, would you like to say I told you so?
AUCHINCLOSS: Kasie, it's not an "I told you so" moment. It's a "let's do better" moment.
We saw Republicans 10 years ago decide that character doesn't matter in politics, and the party's become a cult of personality, regrettably. And Platner, I think, demonstrates to Democrats that character should matter in politics, and we can't run the risk of agreeing with Republicans that it doesn't.
So it's a "let's do better" moment, and the party caught itself. And I think, you know, I'm spending my time and resources rallying to candidates that inspire me.
HUNT: All right. Is there anyone that inspires you for '28?
AUCHINCLOSS: One election at a time. We got '26 coming up in a few months. And in all seriousness, I'm worried about the integrity of these elections. Obviously, you got him threatening it with that ridiculous speech last week. He's trying to bully the United States Postal Service on mail-in balloting. We're worried about cyberattacks on secretary of state websites, potential deployments of National Guard or ICE troops, which would be illegal.
And so, Congress needs to ensure that every vote is tabulated fairly. Let's get through this election. And then we'll have plenty of time to talk about '28.
HUNT: All right. Fair enough. Congressman Jake Auchincloss, thanks very much for your time. I really appreciate it.
AUCHINCLOSS: Good afternoon.
HUNT: All right. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:57:55]
HUNT: It has been 39 days since Senator Mitch McConnell was taken to the hospital. So far, the former majority leader has only shared publicly this one photo. It was sent nearly two weeks ago. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are saying that it is not good enough.
Scott Jennings, have you had another phone call with the former majority leader recently?
JENNINGS: Phone call? No.
HUNT: Have you traded? Do you know anything new about his condition that you can update us with?
JENNINGS: Well, I know he continues to do his rehab activities. I know he's still following doctor's orders and. My assumption is sometime between now and Monday, they'll probably issue another update on how he's coming along. I don't know if they've made any decisions about whether he's going to be cleared to come back to work or not, but I would be surprised if we don't hear from them again by the by the weekend or by Monday.
HUNT: What do you think he should do?
JENNINGS: I think he should routinely update his constituents on how he's doing and keep people apprised of the issues that he's looking in on, of the work that he's doing with his staff, and just be transparent about the things that he can do, even while he's convalescing and recovering.
I mean, truthfully, I think a little transparency on the front end here would have saved him a whole lot of grief, but that didn't happen, and they are where they are now. But I think regular updates on things are good to do, and that'd be my advice.
HUNT: Yeah, I mean, I will say, I think last time that you and I spoke about this very topic, you said the exact same thing. You were like, ask me on Monday.
JENNINGS: And they did put out and I was right. The Oracle of Kentucky was right in that particular. HINOJOSA: At what point do you think that maybe he should resign from his seat?
JENNINGS: Resign?
HINOJOSA: Yeah, give up his seat because he is not able to do the job of a U.S. senator.
JENNINGS: How do you know he's not working on U.S. Senate business while he's --
HUNT: He's not voting, Scott. He's not --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: And he's getting paid. And he's getting paid.
JENNINGS: Well, we've had senators that have taken medical leave before. I do know that he's routinely meeting with his staff and going over issues and I think maybe even talking to other senators.
I -- look, I'm not in there every day, but, you know, he won the term.
HUNT: All right.
JENNINGS: I think a statement in the next few days would be prudent.
HUNT: More on Monday. You put it here first.
JENNINGS: Yeah.
HUNT: Thank you all very much.
"THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.
