Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Sen. Bernie Moreno To CNN: Sent Daughter & Granddaughter "Out Of State To A Secure Place" Amid Max Miller Allegations; Sources: Trump Angry Over Reports On Depleted Munitions; Trump Signs Executive Order Targeting Birthright Citizenship; Senate Committee Will Ask Trump DOJ To Prosecute Fauci. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired August 06, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: -- except the plan has suddenly changed.
[16:00:03]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The plan has changed. All right, well, we know you'll be asking more questions.
Tom Foreman, thank you so much.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's great to have you with us on this Thursday.
As we come on the air, shocking new details as Congressman Max Miller refuses calls to resign amid allegations he abused his ex-wife. Miller denies those allegations, but his former father-in-law, the Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno, now says that his family no longer feels safe. Moreno telling CNN today, quote, "I sent my daughter, granddaughter, and wife out of state to a secure place until such time as they feel safe," end quote.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BERNIE MORENO (R-OH): I wish he cared about figuring out how to solve his family issues as much as he cares about his political career. This is obviously very atrocious. You know, someday we're all going to have to explain this to this little girl, what happened. And by having this all out in the public like this, she's reliving that emotional abuse on steroids. And so, to watch this media tour that he feels he needs to do for my daughter, it's gut-wrenching.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Speaking with CNN, Congressman Miller said it's not true that his ex-wife and daughter were moved for their safety. To bolster his claims, he showed us emails of Emily Moreno sharing flight information and allowing him to visit their daughter. In a statement to CNN, Miller's spokesperson said this, quote,
"Congressman Miller knows exactly where his daughter is. Emily asked to take the child to see family in Florida. They were not whisked away to some bunker. This is getting sad," end quote.
We at CNN have reached out to Emily Moreno for her comment on Miller's claims. But the pressure is mounting on the Ohio congressman from inside his own party. Ohio's other senator, Republican Jon Husted, saying today, quote, "I believe Max would be making the right decision to step aside as a candidate and resign from Congress to focus on what's in the best interest of his daughter. Years from now, I believe he will look back and know it was the right choice for her," end quote.
Montana Republican Senator Tim Sheehy went much further, saying this, quote, "This guy is clearly a degenerate sociopath. Max should step aside and seek help," end quote.
Miller has repeatedly said he will not drop out or resign, and he called for an ethics investigation into himself, which is now underway. The House Speaker, Mike Johnson, is not calling on Miller to resign, saying he would speak to Miller while the investigation plays out.
But, frankly, it doesn't seem like it's high on his list of priorities. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: There's all sorts of domestic events going on with 435 members of Congress all the time. It's not my business to get engaged in it. The House Ethics Committee does its work, and, of course, they apparently have legal proceedings going on between the two.
INTERVIEWER: I mean, this isn't the everyday domestic affairs of 435 --
JOHNSON: No, I mean, it's played out in the public, and it's awkward.
HUNT: OK, let's go off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.
The managing editor at "The Cook Political Report", Carrie Dann; national politics reporter at "Mother Jones", Abby Vesoulis. She's been covering the Max Miller allegations, excuse me, and has a new piece out on his reported history of withholding his daughter's stuffed blue bunny. We're going to talk more about that.
We're also joined by CNN political commentator, former DNC senior advisor and communications director Xochitl Hinojosa, and Republican strategist, former RNC comms director Doug Heye.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you very much for being here.
Abby, let me start with you because I do want to -- one of the things that really crystallizes what this is really about is the apparent saga around Max Miller's daughter's stuffed bunny. And any parent knows that if you have a child who sleeps with a stuffed animal, it is absolutely heartbreaking to discover you've left it behind. Your child might be beside him or herself. And it seems like some of this played out with Max Miller and his daughter's stuffy.
There have actually been at least three documented incidents. Can you walk us through -- I know you have new reporting that you've put out today. of the times that Max Miller has apparently withheld this bunny -- and again, he denies the abuse allegations against him. I want to underscore that. But when he apparently denied his daughter access to this bunny -- and this happened as recently as this past week.
ABBY VESOULIS, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, MOTHER JONES: Yeah. So, Senator Bernie Moreno brought this up the other day at the Capitol building and talked about how recent it was.
And so, after that, Congressman Miller posted these screenshots that he says proved that he did not withhold the bunny, that he was working with their parenting coordinator to get the bunny back to the child.
[16:05:03]
After that, I got some screenshots of emails and messages from a source. that showed that Max had, on several occasions, withheld the bunny or made it difficult to get the bunny. In one incident, the parenting coordinator said that Max was refusing to give it back. I believe that was the most recent one.
HUNT: Yeah, let's put that up on the screen, actually.
VESOULIS: August 3rd.
HUNT: I'll read it, and then you can continue to talk about it. So, this is the parenting coordinator and it says here, "I'm not coddling him. I advised him to let your dad get the bunny," presumably that your dad refers to Senator Bernie Moreno preferably from the mailbox but he adamantly refuses but I've suggested you keep the bunny at your house to avoid these situations because unfortunately in a high conflict divorce, these situations blow up often
VESOULIS: Uh-huh.
HUNT: So, and this dates, I mean, the documentation you have around these incidents, some of it dates back over a year.
VESOULIS: Right, to March 2025, Emily Moreno sent Max multiple emails, two emails, saying, "Please, Max, give the bunny back, and please tell me if you've lost it. Because if you've lost it, then that's one thing, but if you're not giving it back for the sake of not giving it back, that's torture, that's awful."
HUNT: Yeah, let's put that up on the screen. So, in March 2025, Emily Moreno asks Max Miller to return her bunny. So, her daughter's one at this point in time. So can and the redacted is the name of her daughter. "Please have her bunny back. She's had it since birth. She sleeps with
it every night, carries it with her around the house, sees it as a source of comfort. You've always delivered it back to me when you drop her off.
Please don't punish our daughter. If you're upset with me, I'm willing to pick it up from your house, your mailbox. You can drop it in my mailbox, please. Thank you, Emily."
And then the next day, she emailed him again and says, "Max, if you lost it, please let me know. If you're choosing not to return our daughter's favorite toy for another reason, that's just cruel."
VESOULIS: Yeah. So, what I've found through these screenshots of emails and texts is that there's a pattern of at least three instances in which this blue bunny that the child loves so much and sleeps with every night was being withheld by Congressman Miller. And I reached out to Congressman Miller's team, his lawyers last night, and have still gotten no response.
Carrie Dann, I mean, this set of examples puts a very sharp spotlight on what is a broader story about the congressman. Of course, he denies this pattern of the allegations of abuse that three women have leveled at him over the course of years. The question for a lot of Republicans behind the scenes is whether this is putting his congressional seat in jeopardy.
Now, you know, there is of course a moral judgment to be made, right? And again, Max Miller denies all the allegations. But it is the political one that might force him to take some sort of action.
So far, the president has not called on him to step down. We've been reporting there's all kinds of pressure behind the scenes. What is the possibility that all the things that we just laid out here could ultimately cost Max Miller this seat?
CARRIE DANN, MANAGING EDITOR, COOK POLITICAL REPORT: Well, this is a seat that Democrats identified months ago as a potential target. It's one that Donald Trump won by 11 points. In this political environment, that is not a crazy reach for Democrats to be able to get.
They also really like their candidate in this race. His name is Brian Poindexter. He is an ironworker.
He's sort of one of these guys that looks like I feel like Washington Democrats love candidates who look like this. He presents his very working class. He's wearing a hard hat in the ads. They feel like he's going to be really well-resourced in this district.
And so, this is definitely a district that could potentially be in play. We currently have it rated as likely Republican at the Cook Political Report. If Max Miller does not drop out by a deadline of Monday, we will move that into a more competitive category.
HUNT: Yeah. Xochitl, what are Democrats talking about in terms of this district now? And again, this conversation, it is both political and moral. But again, the reality is that Max Miller is digging in because of the politics.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, and the Republican Party has a decision to make. They can either do the right thing. And by Republican Party, I truly mean Donald Trump and Mike Johnson.
It's -- Donald Trump has a hold, a tight grip on his party. And the interview with Jake Tapper from earlier this week was very clear that Miller was talking to one person, and that was Donald Trump. And he understands that if Donald Trump were to call on him to resign, that is it for his political career, and that cannot happen.
Donald Trump holds a lot of power. He can either show us that the Republican Party is going to embrace allegations of assault and that character is negotiable when it comes to the Republican Party because it's potentially a close seat that Democrats could take.
[16:10:06]
Or he could do the right thing and do what is probably best for not only the Republican Party but for the Moreno-Miller family and ask for him to resign and take an actual stand on principle. And so far, he has not done that.
And the way that Democrats have seen this is Democrats are quick, maybe not as quick as I would like, but quick to call on folks in their own party to either step aside or to not run for reelection. And that is not happening here.
Democrats now do see this as a competitive seat. They see this as if Miller remains, that They will continue to make the case of character in order to win that seat. But it is unfortunate.
And it's unfortunate for this little baby girl who it seems like her father is trying to inflict pain on her. For what reason? I mean, it's heartbreaking to me. Everyone's like, everyone-- if you don't have a kid, you're probably thinking, like, it's a stuffed animal.
It's not just a stuffed animal. You're trying to inflict pain on a one-year-old or a two-year-old who already does not understand what is happening in her family. And her parents and her dad is using her sort of for political purposes. And now she's having to go through all of this. It's just heartbreaking.
HUNT: Let's put up -- Doug, I want you to weigh in here. But since we've showed, of course, the screenshots that were reported by Abby here at "Mother Jones" that seem to show Emily Moreno's side of the story, let's put up the text messages that Max Miller posted, that seem -- he tweeted them when he was tweeting about the blue bunny.
This is what he posted and they seem to show what. played out. And he says there, "OK, thanks. I'll let Emily know her father can come to your house to get the bunny. Deborah, it's a little bit unclear to me exactly the argument he's making here.
Abby, have you gone through these? Can you walk us through what they show?
VESOULIS: Yeah. So, Miller responded to the parent coordinator that Senator Moreno could come pick up the bunny. The Moreno family was busy. They then sent a friend of the family to get it, presumably from the mailbox, so there would have been no necessary interaction. And that person, the family friend, reached out to Miller and said he was going to do that.
And then it got heated, and Congressman Miller called it off and said, we're not doing that. That's not what I agreed to. And then Miller saying within the next 24 hours, somehow the bunny did get to the child.
HUNT: So essentially, he had a problem with the person that was sent to collect the bunny?
OK. And then let's watch, Doug, what Max Miller said to our Jake Tapper when the initial details of at least this August incident around the bunny were emerging. Jake pressed the congressman on his show "THE LEAD" as to whether or not, why, et cetera.
Let's watch Max Miller's response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MAX MILLER (R-OH): This is nothing more than an individual who's being politically vindictive and talking about a blue bunny when I have text messages I can show you from our parent coordinator, who is a mandatory court reporter, who said that Mr. Moreno would be coming over my home, and then another individual came who I don't know.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, "THE LEAD": Did you hold this doll hostage, because that is emotionally abusive behavior?
MILLER: Mr. Tapper, no.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Doug, what are people, Republicans -- how are they looking at --
DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: They're looking at it very badly, and there are a few ways that we can try and resolve this on the Republican side. Look, I understand that Speaker Johnson has always been consistent on having the ethics process go through its process and work.
This is a very different circumstance. The allegations not only are credible but are also on a much higher level. We're talking guns-to- head, child endangerment, and so forth. So, I could see a few ways for this to happen.
As you said, Donald Trump should step up and say, you're fired, you're gone. You can also see House leadership do this.
And then there's a third place that we can see leadership, and that's from the congressman's staff himself. If they start leaving, that puts even more pressure on them. And I guarantee you, because I've dealt with this with problem members, and Max Miller right now is the problem member.
Leadership is saying to staff, we can help find you, get another job if you're the chief of staff, press secretary, staff assistant, legislative correspondent, whatever it is. If you start seeing a staff exit, he has nowhere to go, especially when the two senators from his home state, one of whom obviously being his father-in-law, are saying, we will never work with you. You need to get out.
HUNT: Now, of course, worth noting that in that interview with Jake, Max Miller repeatedly invoked what President Trump did in 2016 when there were a lot of people who thought he couldn't get elected, wouldn't win because of various challenges he was facing. And of course, Trump stayed in, and that was one of the appeals that Miller made on TV when he came on with Jake.
Abby Vesoulis, thank you very much for coming on today and sharing your reporting. I appreciate it.
[16:15:00]
The rest of our panel is going to stand by.
Coming up here in THE ARENA, breaking news, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, what he's saying this afternoon about his health as the Senate approaches key votes, including whether to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general.
But first, Congressman Jason Crow will be here with us live as President Trump insists he's not upset with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Sources tell us the president is angry about one thing. We'll dig in.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Our stockpiles of those, as well as Patriots, remains extremely strong. We can sustain this fight easily for as long as we need to.
[16:20:00]
We've got no shortage of munitions. Our stockpiles of defensive and offensive weapons allow us to sustain this campaign as long as we need to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So that was back in March, the first days of the Iran war. But now, five months later, the President is publicly and, our sources say, privately complaining that news stories about the Pentagon's stockpiles are making America look weak at a critical juncture.
The president posting today, quote, "The U.S. has massive amounts of munitions, especially of certain types. Additionally, large amounts are being manufactured and shipped to the U.S. as needed," end quote.
This comes after two sources familiar with the Pentagon's latest inventory report told CNN that the U.S. has burned through 80 percent of its THAAD interceptor stockpile. That is a key missile defense system. It's seen here.
CNN chief national security analyst Jim Sciutto joins me now with more.
Jim, walk us through your reporting.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: So despite the president's comments that the supplies remain just fine, what our sources tell us is that commanders and intelligence assessments, military assessments, are communicating up the chain that in fact those stockpiles are, quote, "dangerously low," and in a couple of categories. First, the high-altitude air defense missiles for the THAAD system, nearly 80 percent of those expended,50 percent for Patriot interceptors, another air defense missile system, of course, used in the Middle East, but also crucial to Ukraine.
And this is a problem on a whole number of fronts, Kasie. For one, it limits U.S. military options going forward against Iran. It will certainly catch the attention of America's Gulf allies, given the U.S. role in helping defend their skies from Iranian missile and drone attacks, and it radiates out beyond the Middle East because Ukraine is highly dependent on the Patriot missile system, and while the president has had multiple opportunities to supply more of them to Ukraine and also to allow Ukraine to manufacture them themselves, the fact that U.S. stockpiles are low make it less likely the U.S. will be able to give Ukraine those defense missiles in numbers.
And of course, Europe watches this, too, because They're going to be concerned about those supplies as they become more fearful of the Russian ballistic missile threat. And finally, Kasie, it radiates out all the way to Asia, because U.S. Asian allies, you've seen some of these systems move from Asia to the Middle East, and they're quite concerned about the military threat that China poses, and certainly Taiwan as well.
What are the effects on American military power projection across the world when those supplies of the key missile systems reach such a dangerous level. And the other point I'll make, Kasie, it takes a long time to build these things. This is not something that you could replace very quickly.
HUNT: Yeah. Of course, Jim Sciutto, thanks very much for sobering reporting indeed. Appreciate it.
Joining me now, Democratic congressman from Colorado, Jason Crow. He sits on the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees and is a former Army Ranger. Congressman, thanks for being here. Always good to see you.
I -- the reporting that Jim just walked through that we've depleted 80 percent of one category of missile interceptors, 50 percent of another. The White House claims we have more than enough of them. I know you get briefings on this all the time.
Do we have more than enough?
REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Well, Kasie, I mean, that video montage of Pete Hegseth dressed up, sitting at the podium, saying everything's fine. I mean, that's what the man was hired to do, right?
He's incompetent. He's unserious. He's a professional liar, but that's actually the point. He was hired to look good in a suit, stand at a podium, and say everything is fine.
The problem is that there is this thing called the real world, in reality, that is pressing down now on the administration, and that you can't engage in a war and a conflict like this in perpetuity without a plan, without a supply line, without stockpiles, which this administration has decided to do, without eventually that reality catching up on you or with you.
And that's what's happening here. Every passing week, we have fewer options. We have fewer off-ramps. and fewer things to protect our troops in the region, fewer options to assert pressure on Iran, and fewer off-ramps to end this.
HUNT: Congressman, what impact does it have for the Chinese to know that these stockpiles are depleted, or any one of our adversaries, for that matter?
CROW: We have these stockpiles both in the United States and spread throughout the world. And I, of course, can't get into where they are and what they are. I'm not going to talk about percentages or anything of that nature.
But we have these stockpiles, and they're used -- they're used for various contingencies. They're called O-Plans, operational plans.
[16:25:00]
So that, you know, you think about any possible thing that could go wrong in the world, and the military has a plan for it. And it's kind of like a "break glass in case of emergency". And then the military drills on these plans, practices them, does war games, work with our allies.
So, they're ready for these. But stockpiles are essential for every single one of these operational plans.
So as the stockpiles reduce and go down, it limits our ability to actually conduct those plans or those contingencies if they do in fact occur. HUNT: One of the things that President Trump has also leveled in the context of this is to blame leakers. On the one hand, he says the reporting's not true. On the other hand, he says the leakers are treasonous.
CROW: Yeah.
HUNT: Now, the question about whether you can leak false information and that be the problem that the president is outlining there, but what are the implications of him saying that this amounts to treason?
CROW: Well, I mean, the President has accused me of treason before, right? You might recall back in November, he said he wanted to have me executed and then tried for treason in that order, actually, so he even screwed up the order.
And then in February, he directed the Department of Justice to try to have me indicted, which they did several times. They put me and Mark Kelly and others before a grand jury to try to indict us.
Our treasonous crime is actually reciting the UCMJ and the law of war and saying that our soldiers and our service members have obligations to only follow lawful orders, which is military -- basic military 101.
So, the through line to all of this, Kasie, is that for Donald Trump, the problem is never that things are going bad or that they're falling apart or that there isn't a plan. The problem is always that people call it out and embarrass him for not having a plan or having things go poorly.
Let's take another recent example, right? So, you have Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who is now in bad standing with Trump. Her crime is simply reporting the fact that there wasn't actually vandalism around the reflecting pool in dismissing those cases, right?
So, there's just example after example of people pointing out reality, pointing out problems, and if it makes Donald Trump look bad, as they often do, then he gets upset about it, which is stunning, actually, because he's not actually upset about things not going well. He's just upset about the perception that they're not going well and when people call him out.
HUNT: I'm sorry to interrupt, but if you could stand by for me, we have to go to the Oval Office and listen to what the president is saying. He's taking questions. Let's listen.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: -- taking place before.
REPORTER: Ammunitions, you posted overnight that the U.S. has a massive amount --
TRUMP: Right.
REPORTER: -- and you denied that there were any shortages.
There is a supplemental request for $21 billion to restock.
TRUMP: Yeah.
REPORTER: So why is that request still there if there's any --
TRUMP: Well, because we need more all the time. I mean, we need more.
Look, we gave tremendous amount to Ukraine. The Biden people did. And they were given free of charge. No -- no charge. No charge. Billions, hundreds of billions of dollars.
And, fortunately, I built up so much during my term. I rebuilt the military and also loaded it up with a lot of stuff.
And we have certain types of munitions that are very powerful. that we have unlimited, virtual unlimited supply. We have others where it's a little bit tighter and we're getting them in on a daily basis.
As you know, our defense companies are building more plants right now than at any point in history. They're building plants for the Patriots, for the Tomahawks, for everything.
But we have certain types of munitions which are very, they may not be as accurate, they may not be, you know, they're not as elite, we have elite too, but we're -- we're watching that very closely. But we have certain types which are very powerful and very good, and we have an unlimited supply.
And so, we're in great shape. But with that being said, we always want more. We have to have more. We have other things maybe come up. Maybe come up and maybe don't come up. Hopefully nothing else does come up.
But we're in very good shape. We have literally massive amounts of ammunition. Yeah.
REPORTER: Mr. President, on Ukraine, President Zelensky says his country desperately needs long-range missiles or those Patriot missile batteries. Is that something that you're --
TRUMP: Well, I mean, we want missiles, too. You know, we -- when Biden gave him so much, Biden gave $300 billion worth of ammunition. You know, when I left, this -- it was full, and he gave a lot of it away. Now we're rebuilding it, and we're using munitions that are very powerful, very good, but we wouldn't have been using them.
We could have used something else, but these are a little bit older type, equally as effective.
[16:30:08]
And we -- it's things that we have so much. Plus, we have supplies of munitions all over the world that if we ever needed them we take that. We're supplied all over the world.
But we have -- we're in very, very good shape.
REPORTER: Russia seems to have increased their attacks on civilians --
TRUMP: I know. Yeah, I know.
REPORTER: That must be a concern to you, Mr. President.
TRUMP: Well, look, we're not involved from the standpoint that it's -- we're separated by an ocean. But I hate to see 25,000 young people a month get killed, and that's what's happening. Between Russia and Ukraine, they're losing, on average, 25,000, mostly soldiers a month.
And you know, we're working on it, and I think we're making progress. But it's a violent, very violent war. There's a lot of hatred in that war, a lot of hatred between the two leaders.
I settled eight wars. I thought this would be maybe one of the easier ones, and it turned out to be the most difficult. But progress is being made.
Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.
HUNT: All right. We were listening to President Trump take questions there from reporters in the Oval Office.
I want to go now to our Kristen Holmes, our senior White House correspondent.
Kristen, the president, before he took those questions and do give us kind of your top lines there, he seemed to want to defend against these reports that the munition stockpiles are depleted. But he also signed orders on birthright citizenship. Walk us through it.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, and if you feel like this is deja vu, it's because this is now the second time that President Trump has tried to curb birthright citizenship as well as birth tourism.
Of course, as we remember, in June, the Supreme Court shut down his first attempt. This was something that he had done the first day once he was inaugurated to try and attempt to end what he called birthright citizenship, which is, of course, with people, non-citizens, having children in the United States that are then automatically citizens.
It is unclear how this is going to work. We are going to get a fact sheet on this and how they're going to try to work around the Supreme Court ruling here. They seemed to name various groups saying that they were going to try and limit birthright citizenship among certain specific groups. It was unclear exactly what that would look like in practice.
The other part of this is when it comes down to what they're calling birth tourism. This is something that we've heard specifically from Stephen Miller over and over again, this idea that people are coming to America only so that they can have children on American soil and those children will become U.S. citizens.
So there already is a U.S. law that is banning anyone from getting a tourist visa with the sole purpose of having a child on American soil. So, it's not clear how this is going to completely advance this, although it does seem it's going to give new guidelines and restrictions to the Department of Homeland Security to look at this issue from a different lens.
One thing is very clear, President Trump cares deeply about this matter. He has talked about it incessantly, and now what they're going to try to do is work around what was in that Supreme court ruling. And we should be clear, Kasie, it seems very likely that this is going to be litigated in court. There seems almost zero chance that this is not going to be litigated and go back through the court system.
But something to watch for, of course, we'll be looking for those details.
And just on those munitions reports, President Trump has been incredibly defensive over the fact that there has been this reporting that CNN reported that 80 percent of interceptors for key missile defense systems have been depleted, a lot of that during the Iran. He continues to say that there are massive amounts of munitions.
And the question there was all about the fact that the Pentagon has asked for an enormous budget to rebuild the munition stockpile. So, if you are asking for this budget to rebuild the stockpile, how can you also say that there are massive amounts in the stockpile?
He went on to say kind of a roundabout answer that we had plenty, that there are enough there, but you always need more, you always need more things. And then he later went on to blame the Biden administration, which we have heard before.
I will say and just point to our latest reporting, which I think you brought up earlier in the hour, what President Trump we're told is the most upset about is the fact that these numbers got out there, that there have been leaks about the low stockpile, not necessarily the stockpile itself, and that he has instructed the DOJ to hunt down what he calls treasonous leakers, that he believes that this is putting him in a bad position when it comes to negotiating with Iran.
But obviously, he is feeling very defensive about that reporting.
HUNT: Indeed.
All right. Kristen Holmes for us at the White House -- Kristen, thank you.
And Congressman Crow, I believe, is still with us. Congressman, thank you for hanging with us through that.
I wanted to get your reaction to what the president was saying there. I mean, they are asking Congress for more money for these interceptors. Should you give it to them?
CROW: Well, Kasie, I'm just so glad the president put all of this to rest, right? We have unlimited amounts of the biggest, baddest, most beautiful, best weapons. The problem is the reality, again, shows us a very different set of facts, because he sent Pete Hegseth two weeks ago to the Hill to plead with Congress for over $70 billion to actually replenish the stockpiles that he says are just fine. and that we have unlimited amounts.
So, will the real facts please stand up? I know what they are. The president seems to be embarrassed about the fact that he has entered a war without a plan, without a strategy, without an off-ramp, and now he's boxed in, right?
And it's not, to be clear, it's not the people pointing out the facts, not people pointing out that this has been a reckless war that is being poorly conducted that are to blame for Donald Trump being in a difficult negotiating position with the Iranians, it's Donald Trump that is to blame for being in a difficult position with the Iranian because he started this, he had no plan, he had no coalition, there was no buy-in from Congress, and here we are.
HUNT: Congressman, before I let you go today, I did want to ask you about some of the results out of Tuesday's primary elections, because I know you've been working on recruiting and campaigning for the Democrats in the House, and especially the result that we saw in Michigan. We obviously saw the progressive Abdul El-Sayed pull that out, barely, over Haley Stevens, the establishment candidate.
But if you look at the breakdown of who voted for Abdul El-Sayed, that electorate was wider and more educated than the electorate that showed up for Haley Stevens. You had more black voters, more voters without college degrees backing her.
What does the Democratic coalition actually look like? Can someone who is progressive and appeals to the white, higher income, higher educated portion of the country really win in a general election?
CROW: Well, first of all, I'm the battleground chair for House Democrats, so I have 99 problems, but the Senate is not one of them. My job is to retake the House, and I've been spending the last 18 months recruiting candidates, building the battlefield for the House.
In the story this week for me is Shannon Taylor, who won in Virginia. Tom Perriello, who won in Virginia. You know, Rebecca Bennett in New Jersey, Maura Sullivan in New Hampshire, JoAnna Mendoza in Arizona, you know, combat veterans, sheriff's deputies, business owners.
These people who have never run for anything, who are standing up to fight in their communities, to stand up to Donald Trump, who are going to flip red seats, help us retake the House this November. That is my relentless focus. We are going to get that done, and they are phenomenal candidates.
HUNT: All right. Well, being on message doesn't seem to be one of your problems either.
So, Congressman Jason Crow, thank you very much. I really appreciate it.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, Senate Republicans go one step farther today with a new move urging the Justice Department to bring criminal charges against Dr. Anthony Fauci.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: You've been in touch with the DOJ. And do you have any expectation that they will actually take up this referral?
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): I don't know the answer. That's a great question for them. We will hand deliver it today to the attorney general, and we will hand deliver it today to the District of Columbia, to the U.S. attorney there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right, breaking news, just moments ago in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump unveiled a pair of executive orders targeting birthright citizenship, this following a defeat at the Supreme Court earlier this summer when the justices upheld citizenship for almost everyone born in the U.S.
Here's the deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, explaining what they're hoping to do.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: The president is using his authority as commander-in-chief to sign first an executive order using the new ruling the Supreme Court issued to expand the definitions of people who are ineligible for birthright citizenship. That includes, for example, alien enemies in the United States, members of foreign terrorist organizations, and large categories of people who lobby and act on behalf of foreign governments. And so, with taking this action, it ensures that large numbers of people who wrongly would be getting birthright citizenship will no longer be eligible for those benefits.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, joining our panel, CNN political analyst and historian Leah Wright Rigueur. Also with us, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.
Elie, let me start with you just to kind of explain what's going on here.
What in your understanding -- and I realize this is obviously all just coming out now, we're all kind of working our way through it in real time. What is your understanding of what the president is trying to do here?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, let's start with the basics. Kasie, the 14th Amendment, which was ratified back in 1868, tells us that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.
Now, for 150-plus years, that was meant to mean -- that was understood to mean that if you're born here, you are a citizen here with only the narrowest of exceptions. And I'll get back to that in a second.
Now, Donald Trump tried to change that. On his first day in office in January of 2025, he issued an executive order that says that if the parents are here illegally or temporarily, which would essentially gut birthright citizenship.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Donald Trump's interpretation back in June a couple months ago. Now it seems like what Donald Trump is trying to do is sort of use an end run and to say, OK, well, let's look at the recognized exceptions and let's try to broaden them as much as possible.
[16:45:08]
There have been two long-recognized exceptions. First of all, the children of foreign diplomats. And you just heard Stephen Miller say that they're going to try to expand the definition of who counts as a foreign diplomat.
And the second long-recognized exception has been for the children of invading armies. Now, fortunately, we've never actually had to deal with that, but I think that's really where the rubber is going to hit the road. It sounds like what the president is going to do is expand that definition of what constitutes an invading army.
We've seen him do this in the immigration context and try to say that the presence of certain populations here, they're actually invading armies. And so, one thing we know for sure, this will be challenged in the courts and Trump's first attempt to redefine birthright citizenship failed. This is a narrower attempt, but still fairly aggressive and wouldn't surprise me at all if it ends up in the Supreme Court again.
HUNT: For sure.
Leah Wright Rigueur, I mean, how do you kind of look at this from a holistic perspective?
I mean, when Elie is talking about essentially redefining what is an invading army, we saw some of this for years in the global war on terror, kind of changing some of the definitions around -- that dictated what we were allowed to do and not allowed to do. What do you see here?
LEAH WRIGHT RIGUEUR, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST & HISTORIAN: Absolutely, but I think one of the things, and Elie pointed this out, is that the Supreme Court has been very consistent about saying, this is what's in the Constitution, this is what the law is, and you cannot create your own definitions or offer your own interpretations. This is how we see the law.
So, I think that this is something that's going to end up in front of the courts, multiple layers of the courts that is going to be protested. But I do think the area that has the most wiggle room is this definition of what is an invading force. One area, I think, where Trump has been consistently-- has been OK in front of the courts has been this definition, this larger definition of, is this -- does this rise to the occasion? Does this rise to the definition of something that is we are under attack, this is an invasion, this is problematic?
What I think will happen here is that the courts will help Trump narrow it down. Will he get his birthright citizenship? No, absolutely not. He's not going to get his ban on that. Will he get a slight expansion? Yes, particularly because the court seems sensitive to certain ideas of problematics and invasion.
HUNT: Xochitl, how do you see this?
HINOJOSA: That -- I mean, to me, that seems like invading force, and to make that case to me seems problematic. Who is invading? This is --
HUNT: Right.
HINOJOSA: I mean, to me this is just, you are targeting a certain population because of the color of their skin, and now we're potentially also targeting pregnant women because of the color of their skin, which is just horrifying.
All of this goes back to the fact that Donald Trump, instead of taking a victory lap on securing the border, he is pushing the limits on immigration, whether it be ICE shootings across the country. Now, whether it is birthright citizenship, this is clearly unconstitutional. It will be challenged.
But now, he's targeting more than just violent criminals, and he has been. And this is why his numbers have been decreasing in certain instances.
People want the bad guys out. They don't want the families out. And I think this is going to a big issue for Republican candidates, not only this year, but I think it's going to be a big issue in 2028.
And it'll be interesting to see whether J.D. Vance, if he decides to run, whether he distances himself from the president or how he handles it.
HUNT: Well, the way it could cut the other way, Carrie Dann, is, honestly, the president's numbers are in the tank right now. Usually when he's under fire like this, he goes to the issues that he feels are surefire with the base because their issue, frankly, is going to be turnout, excitement among Republicans. Is this an example of him returning to something like that?
DANN: I think absolutely so. That was my first thought when I heard him speaking. Because Republicans' theory of the case is we have to turn out every single voter who is motivated by this issue and likes the Republican position on all things immigration. I do agree that the other side of that coin is they also need to put together the coalition that Donald Trump was able to put together in 2024, which included a lot of Hispanic voters, a lot of voters of color, uncertainty about the citizenship status that they have is not going to be a motivating factor for them to go vote for Democrats -- for Republicans in the fall. HEYE: And for Trump, the end result is not necessarily what's important to him here. It's signaling that he's going to fight, especially on something that he feels is terra firma for him. And he's always been consistent on both that tactic and on this issue.
HUNT: All right, coming up next here, the move that Senate Republicans are taking today and whether it could result in Dr. Anthony Fauci becoming a criminal defendant.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:54:05]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): We are voting on whether a witness who has received the benefit of a sweeping federal pardon can be ordered by this committee to answer questions and then defy that order without consequence. The witness had many chances to answer. The question is pertinent to our investigation, and he made his decision 111 times.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Republicans now one step closer in their efforts to prosecute Dr. Anthony Fauci. This morning, the Senate Homeland Security Committee voted along party lines to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress after he invoked the Fifth Amendment over 100 times during a hearing last week.
Committee Chairman Rand Paul said he would, quote, "hand-deliver" charges to the Justice Department and district court today. It's an unusual move that will require J.D. Vance, as president of the Senate, to sign off on circumventing a full Senate contempt vote.
Fauci said he invoked the Fifth to avoid potential missteps that could lead to his prosecution. But that didn't stop Republicans from targeting him on the Hill.
[16:55:03]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MORENO: Do you feel like you're in deep shit?
Here I am, sitting in front of you six years later, saying, who the fuck do you think you were for doing that?
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): You called yourself the most famous scientist in the world. You've done more to harm science than anybody in my lifetime, and I hope you'll go home and write that in your diary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. So, Elie Honig, let's -- I want to start with some of the legal brass tacks here, because, of course, Dr. Fauci received a preemptive pardon for his actions during the pandemic from President Joe Biden. What is the actual legal possibility here? I mean, could Fauci end up facing time in prison?
HONIG: So it is correct, as you heard Senator Rand Paul and Josh Hawley and others say, that once a person receives a pardon, they cannot take the Fifth. But the part that they always leave out is for anything within the scope of that pardon. If there is liability that could be outside the scope of that pardon, then yes, a person can take the Fifth.
And I think if you look at Dr. Fauci's situation, could he have potential liability from a state prosecutor who's not bound by a presidential pardon? Absolutely. We know there are several attorney general state-level investigations of Dr. Fauci. Could Dr. Fauci have potential liability for anything he did after the date of that pardon, which was issued on January 19th of 2025? Sure, he could at least hypothetically or theoretically, and that's enough to take the Fifth.
So, now, the decision about whether to charge criminally goes over to the Justice Department, and the two people who'd be making this have been in the center of a lot of news lately, Jeanine Pirro and Todd Blanche.
But if they bring this charge, they're going to have a major, major uphill climb to get a conviction, because they're going to have to prove to a jury unanimously in Washington, D.C. that Dr. Fauci had absolutely no right, beyond a reasonable doubt, no right to take the Fifth. And if there's any murkiness about it, any legal ambiguity about it, and I think there's more than that in his favor, then this prosecution will fail.
HUNT: So, Doug Heye, COVID and Dr. Fauci's actions have become one of the central cultural divides in our country, right? I mean, it's political as well, but it's also -- in some ways, it's more than that. People seem to be operating on two completely different sets of what they perceive to be the facts about what Dr. Fauci did and how it affected their lives during this time. He's a hero to half the country and a villain to, you know -- and you saw the way that he was treated on the Hill by Republicans. You're someone who has come up through the Republican Party.
You've made clear that you have issues with the way Trump leads the party and the country now, but you, cross over all of these worlds enough to help us understand a little bit like what is actually true here with Dr. Fauci? And how far do you think Republicans should take this?
HEYE: I first met Dr. Fauci in 2005 when I worked for Senator Richard Burr as he was dealing with biodefense legislation. Anthony Fauci's reputation was as sterling as could be. But any time we'd have these hearings over the past couple of years, I changed the channel. Because frankly, I found them embarrassing kabuki political theater on the Republican side and frankly, on Dr. Fauci's side as well.
I've watched him really tank his own reputation, which had been in such high esteem. And obviously, now that things are so politicized, when they would come and meet in a Senate chamber together, or a House chamber for that matter, it would be a sparring match, where the two, whether it's a senator, a House member or Dr. Fauci would be screaming at each other.
Who's served by that? No one who wants to get to the bottom of what happened and was it a lab leak or not, and how we avoid this again in the future. And I think that is the ultimate real problem.
HINOJOSA: Yeah, I also think that Republicans have been wanting to see some sort of accountability for Fauci. And with the pardon, they weren't able to do that. And so, they were trying to find -- Republicans on the Hill were trying to find a perjury trap, which is why he pled the Fifth, because he understands that they want to see him in jail.
The interesting part about all of this is this has become even so much more political because Jeanine Pirro is in hot water with Donald Trump. And if a referral goes to her, which it will, because it goes to the D.C. U.S. attorney's office, she can please Trump and be back in his good graces by potentially prosecuting him.
Again, uphill battle, as Elie mentions, but there is a lot of politics involved here in terms of her job security, and I would not be surprised if they decide to move forward with it just for the reason to please Trump.
HEYE: Cautionary thing, Elie used the term "murky waters". Jeanine Pirro has learned a whole lot about murky waters in the past few weeks.
(LAUGHTER)
HINOJOSA: Literally.
HEYE: Be careful.
HINOJOSA: Literally.
HUNT: Yeah, Elie, let me give you a quick last word on this. I mean, how do you take all that in?
HONIG: Yeah, to Xochitl's point, it's hard to see Jeannie Pirro, who just narrowly avoided firing, according to our reporting, who got publicly lambasted by Trump for, quote, "folding like an umbrella". It's hard for me to envision her saying, you know what, I've thought about this carefully and I'm not going to prosecute Dr. Fauci." That would shock me. I guess I'm shocked sometimes, but that would really shock me.
So, it wouldn't surprise me if they charged Dr. Fauci, and it wouldn't surprise me if that case fails.
HUNT: Every time I'm shocked, I wonder why I'm shocked, because everything is just consistently shocking all the time.
All right, thanks to all of you for being here. Really appreciate it. Don't go anywhere. "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.
