Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Democrats Project Unity After Moderate Candidate Pulls Off A Close Win Over Dem Socialist In Wisconsin Governor Primary; Just In: Leavitt Leaving As White House Press Secretary; Blanche Suggests "Victims" Of DOJ "Weaponization" Could Still Be Paid; WaPo: Costs For Trump's White House Construction Projects Grows To At Least $900 Million, Taxpayers Covering Most Of It. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired August 12, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: -- though, because your odds of winning are one in 292,201,338.

[16:00:06]

But you're saying there's a chance.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: You can't win if you don't play.

KEILAR: That's right. That's right.

THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.

SANCHEZ: Thanks for joining.

(MUSIC)

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. Kasie Hunt is off. I'm Pamela Brown.

And right now, Democrats are making sense of it all after both progressives and moderates scored big primary wins.

First up, the surprise of the night in Wisconsin, where the establishment-backed David Crowley narrowly defeated Democratic socialist Francesca Hong in the gubernatorial primary. Crowley now faces off against Republican Congressman Tom Tiffany, both men opening their general election campaigns last night with broad, moderate appeals to voters in the battleground state.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID CROWLEY (D), WISCONSIN GOVERNOR CANDIDATE: Today begins a new chapter. Today, we get back to work. We'll welcome Democrats, Republicans, independents and every Wisconsinite who believes in democracy.

REP. TOM TIFFANY (R), WISCONSIN GOVERNOR CANDIDATE: Whatever your political label, Republican, independent, politically homeless, or a Democrat, there's a place for you in the common sense movement. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: And next door in Minnesota, the state's lieutenant governor, Peggy Flanagan, triumphed in the Democratic Senate primary. Flanagan had the backing of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other prominent progressives. So that sets us up for a showdown with Republican Michele Tafoya, a former sports journalist.

Flanagan last night vowing to be a check on President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PEGGY FLANAGAN (D), MINNESOTA SENATE CANDIDATE: Minnesota is going to be part of Democrats taking back the Senate, holding Donald Trump accountable and helping. And helping working people before billionaires and corporate special interests. And you know what else I know? We're going to win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So, let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA.

Joining us now fresh off her primary win is Minnesota Democratic Senate candidate Peggy Flanagan.

First off, I just want to congratulate you on your win.

In your victory speech, you labeled your Republican opponent Michele Tafoya as a, quote, loyal soldier to president Trump. But as you know, Trump has not endorsed her. And she touts that she's an independent thinker. She's also running as pro-choice for abortion up to 12 weeks.

What do you see as the biggest challenge now in making sure independents go to you rather than her?

FLANAGAN: I mean, I think, you know, what this campaign has been about from the very beginning is the many versus the money. That work continues. And we know that these corporate special interests, these extremist mega, you know, billionaires are going to weigh in in this race and support of Michele Tafoya. I'm beholden only to Minnesotans, and I'm running to make sure that they can afford the lives they want to live.

I know that Michele Tafoya will absolutely be a yes, sir. Senator to Donald Trump. After everything that our state has been through this country, our economy, we deserve better. And I think that folks want senators who are going to be a check on Donald Trump and not enable his continued grift.

BROWN: Let's talk a little bit about that, because you say you want to be a check on Donald Trump. Of course, one of the core issues you've spoken about is immigration. CNN is learning today that ICE, the agency, plans to spend up to $20 million on electric shock gloves for agents. The manufacturer says the gloves are supposed to help deescalate encounters with individuals.

You've been critical of ICE's tactics given what's happened in your state. What is your reaction to this?

FLANAGAN: I mean, my reaction is that that's absolutely horrific, right? We've seen over $240 billion has been spent on ICE, on Donald Trump's immigration force. And, you know, we have been through an incredible amount of trauma here. The economic impact, the impact on our children, the death of two Minnesotans, Renee Good and Alex Pretti. This is a -- just an agency that's been allowed to kill with impunity.

I think what Minnesotans want, what Americans want, they want secure borders and an immigration policy that is grounded in safety and dignity and a pathway to citizenship for folks. This agency is completely out of control.

I think we have to rip it apart. And we have to be very clear, the $240 billion for Donald Trump's ICE, while we see literal food being taken off the table from Americans, 15 million people have lost their health care under Donald Trump. It's outrageous.

[16:05:00]

And the priorities of this president are out of step with the majority of Americans and Minnesotans.

BROWN: Let me just follow up. So, when you say you want to rip ICE apart, do you mean you want to abolish it?

FLANAGAN: I want to rip ICE apart and I think you shouldn't be --

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: So you want to get rid of it? You want to get rid of ICE completely?

FLANAGAN: I think we need immigration and we need an immigration system. But this immigration system is completely broken. What we have experienced here, 3,000 ICE agents in our streets terrorizing our neighbors. No one should be supportive of that.

And we can have comprehensive immigration reform. That's what I want to work towards, and I just think we can do so much better. The impacts that we have seen here, the fear -- you know, I'm a -- I'm a mom and I'm a child advocate.

And so, when I think about the fact that so many children in Minnesota will have an ACE score, an adverse childhood experience score simply because of the federal agents in our streets, it's outrageous. I talked to an eight-year-old in Richfield who told me her favorite part about school is going on field trips. But they couldn't do that because of ICE.

It is broken and we need an immigration system that actually is grounded in safety and dignity. And I think we can get there.

BROWN: So, let me -- yeah. Let me just put a finer point on this because correct if I'm wrong, it sounds like you want to abolish ICE. If there's a criminal in the country illegally in your state, for example, who would be the a -- do you think that person should be arrested and deported? What agency would be -- would facilitate that? Just help us better understand how this would play out if ICE was actually abolished.

FLANAGAN: So, I don't believe in that. I think that we need to rip ICE apart and make sure that this agency is held to account. I don't believe that people should be able -- you know, these agents should be able to kill with impunity. No one should be okay with that. But I'm absolutely --

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: But I'm talking about that they were abolished. How would it work, practically? For like a criminal in your state who's here illegally, how would that work practically? Would you think -- would that person be arrested and deported? And what agency would do it? I'm just wondering how that would work.

FLANAGAN: We need violent criminals to be held to account, and we need an immigration system. Donald Trump's ICE is completely broken, and it is not the answer. And again, I would just say, while the national media may have moved on, we are still recovering from Operation Metro Surge here.

And, you know, the fear, the chaos, it's outrageous. And I think the cruelty is the point. You know, I -- I go to church every Sunday and I sit in a -- in pew -- in the pew next to people who come from all different walks of life. It looks like Minnesota.

And my faith tells me that we need to treat our neighbors as we would like to treat ourselves. And that means, again, we need an immigration system with secure borders, but it needs to be grounded in safety, dignity, and a pathway to citizenship.

And of course, we should hold violent criminals accountable. Nobody disagrees with that. But what we see right now, it is broken. it's chaos. it's outrageous. And they shouldn't be given, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars to terrorize people.

BROWN: All right. Let me move on to another policy issue ahead of the midterms. Minnesota law does not set a minimum age for gender affirming care. Do you believe there should be one?

FLANAGAN: I mean, I believe that what we need to do is make sure that people have access to health care. Frankly, that's one of the reasons, you know, why I've run so hard on Medicare for all, and making sure that we get rid --

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: What about gender affirming care? I mean, should there be an age limit?

FLANAGAN: I think gender-affirming care is part of health care. People need access -- BROWN: Should there be an age limit --

FLANAGAN: -- to health care.

I think our law as it stands is a good law. I've supported in the past, but I think the real question that people are struggling with is, if I go to the doctor, how am I going to pay that bill? You know, when folks have $16,000, $17,000 deductibles, it's untenable for people. So that is the issue surrounding health care that I hear from Minnesotans all across the state.

BROWN: Okay. So, you support the law as is? No limit. So, if a 10- year-old wanted it, you would be okay with that?

FLANAGAN: Let me be clear. I want to be -- I want to be clear, that these, you know, medical decisions absolutely should be made between a family and their doctor. Period. Full stop.

BROWN: Okay. I want to turn to another issue now that became a flashpoint in your state, which is the pandemic area welfare -- era I should say -- welfare fraud scandal. And I want you to listen to what your former Democratic opponent had to say about your role in that scandal as lieutenant governor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ANGIE CRAIG (D-MN): The lieutenant governor, even as we sit here today, continues to take absolutely no accountability for any of the fraud issues. And she continues to blame the governor. And I'm going to be honest, it's pissing me off.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Do you take any accountability for the fraud that has happened under your administration's watch in your state?

FLANAGAN: I'll say a couple of things. First of all, I'm grateful to have Congresswoman Craig's support in this race. We know the most important thing that we need to do is to beat Michele Tafoya this fall. She understands that.

But I would also say is that fraud of any kind is completely unacceptable. As you know, someone who ran an organization that served children and families, the fact that taxpayer dollars would be stolen, is -- is horrific.

What I would also say is that what I hear from Minnesotans is that they are done with the corruption and grift that is happening under Donald Trump. We see the fact that, you know, he got rid of seven --

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: So, clearly, you have issues with Donald Trump. I just want to keep it on track here. What about the fraud in your state? Do you take any accountability? FLANAGAN: It's unacceptable. And there's been work that has been done

to stop fraud, prevent it from happening in the first place. There's been an independent office of inspector general that has been passed this last legislative session, and I support that.

I also think it's important for us to be very clear. Republicans are going to run against every Democrat on fraud, including Senator Amy Klobuchar and Attorney General Keith Ellison, because right now, they are taking no responsibility for the corruption that is happening under President Donald Trump.

We're going to take it to Michele Tafoya in the fall, who's actively courting support from Donald Trump.

BROWN: Let me just quickly ask you, Governor Walz has not actually endorsed you, and his wife, endorsed your former Democratic opponent. What kind of message does that send to voters? Why don't you think he has come out to publicly endorse you?

FLANAGAN: Well, I heard from the governor today, and he is all in to make sure that I get across the finish line and that we beat Michele Tafoya in the fall, I'm proud of the work that we've done in our administration to pass paid family and medical leave, feed kids, breakfast and lunch at school and, you know, pass a nation leading child tax credit.

We're going to continue to build on that momentum as we go into the fall. And I am confident that Tim Walz has -- is going to do everything he can to make sure that Michele Tafoya loses in November.

BROWN: Did he mention he would come out to publicly endorse you or publicly support you in a more -- in a broader way than we've seen?

FLANAGAN: He's going to be helpful. And let me just say this. We are not even 24 hours out of the polls closing. I have tremendous gratitude for everybody who showed up and everybody who's coming to join Team Peggy to help us get across the finish line. And, you know, that includes, that includes Governor Walz.

BROWN: All right. Well, thank you so much.

And before I let you go, I just want to note that if elected, you would become the first Native American woman in the Senate. So, it really is -- it could be a historic moment, that is for sure. And I just wanted to note that as well.

We didn't have time to discuss that any further. But I appreciate all the time you gave us here. Thank you.

FLANAGAN: Thank you.

BROWN: My panel is here in THE ARENA. White House correspondent for "NOTUS", Jasmine Wright; CNN political commentator, Republican strategist and pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson; Democratic congressman from Virginia, James Walkinshaw; and former Trump White House communications director Mike Dubke. All right. So, where shall we start? How about we start with you? What

did you think about that?

REP. JAMES WALKINSHAW (D-VA), HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE: I think she had a resounding, impressive victory. She's someone who's already well known in Minnesota. She's a statewide elected official.

I -- the narrative is progressive versus establishment, but she's very well-established in Minnesota. People know her. I've been in Minnesota once in my life. It was shortly after Renee Good was killed by ICE. I think it is impossible for us here to underestimate the degree of pain and trauma that that surge caused for folks in Minnesota across political lines. I think that will continue to color the rest of the race.

BROWN: Mike, what did you think?

MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, I think I take a perverse pleasure in watching a Democrat get -- it get grilled by a by a reporter. I mean, I want to commend you on your tough questions because that was fun to watch. That's -- that's my -- that's my pleasure.

BROWN: That's just a job of a reporter.

DUBKE: I totally -- I get it, and I loved it. My bigger point here is, and I think this is global, not just in the Minnesota senate races, but in every Senate race that we're going to see across the country. The more that the Democrats can make this about Donald Trump and the more they can make this about national issues, the better off they're going to be.

[16:15:07]

And I think we saw that in all of her answers. The more that Republicans can make this about local issues and state issues like waste, fraud and abuse, which I'm sure Michele Lafoya or Tafoya will do, it's going to be better for Republicans.

So, I think we're seeing a lot of that. And you're going to get this rhetoric going forward. This nationalization versus making this about local issues.

BROWN: Do you think that that will be enough to resonate with voters?

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, it's a very tough environment for Republicans. But I think in this moment, candidates matter. And I think this is not a Senate race that most people have in their top five Senate races to watch. But Michele Tafoya is a polished, strong communicator.

With all due respect, lieutenant governor, I don't feel like what I just saw was a very polished, strong communicator. I felt like there were a lot of issues where the Democratic base and the swing voters that these candidates are trying to reach are not in the same place. Threading that needle is a little. BROWN: More specific. Like what?

ANDERSON: Yeah, like I think not having -- seeming to really not want to answer your question on what to do about young children who might --

BROWN: Gender affirming care.

ANDERSON: Yes.

BROWN: She didn't give an answer.

ANDERSON: And this -- this strange answer about I don't want to abolish ICE, but I want to rip ICE apart. Just say you want to reform ICE. I just felt like some of the answers were not very crisp, and it felt like an attempt to thread a needle where voters know, okay, this person has found a word or two that they think is going to work to make everybody happy, but it just -- they don't want to actually answer the question. And I don't think that flies these days.

JASMINE WRIGHT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NOTUS: I mean, id go back to what the congressman said, which is that this is a race in Minnesota that faced a really turbulent time. People that I've talked to on C-Span or across the country have resonated with that moment and talked about Renee Good, talked about Michael Pretti over and over and over again. And so, I think that you have to recognize that the reason why or one of the reasons why that she was successful over Representative Angie Craig was this idea of immigration over that Laken Riley vote, over the idea that Angie Craig was less -- or more conservative, rather in a Democratic space on immigration than she was.

And so perhaps that answer does actually work for the people who she is trying to get them to vote for. And I would also say that when I talk to Democratic strategists, they say that we want Democrats to talk more about affordability, more about key issues. And she was being a little bit dodgy on some of the questions. But you saw her time and time going back to that issue, affordability. And that's what people want. Or that's what Democrats want Democrats to talk about.

BROWN: All right. Thank you all so much. Everyone. Stand by.

Coming up, President Trump just announcing a major member of his administration is leaving. What we know about who's exiting the White House and why. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:22:09]

BROWN: Breaking news, President Trump announcing just moments ago that Karoline Leavitt will be leaving her role as the White House press secretary at the end of this month. The president taking a Truth Social saying that Leavitt will now serve as one of his, quote, "top outside advisers".

Joining us now is CNN White House correspondent Alayna Treene.

Alayna, what more can you tell us?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, look, I think this came as a surprise to many people, Pamela. And that's partly because this role, particularly under President Donald Trump, had been a tough one to fill. I remind you that leave it as one of the closest advisers. The president did say this in his post, but she is one of the closest advisers that he has.

She's part of that very small group of really loyal people who have been with the president on the 2024 campaign trail. She also worked for him, I should note, during his first term, when he was first in office and has continued to be one of those people that goes in to very sensitive meetings as one of the few people that actually knows what is going on at high levels in the West Wing.

So, it's a loss for the president. I would also note the timing of this, which I think is pretty crucial. The White House is losing their chief messenger just three months before the midterm elections.

Now, as for the reasoning for her departure, both the president and Leavitt, who did post her own lengthy statement on social media, said it was because of her family. She did give birth to a daughter. She gave birth to on May 1st. She only took about a month of maternity leave before returning.

And I'll tell you, I have been speaking with some of my sources. When she was on maternity leave, the president even then, was still frequently calling her and at times was asking when she was going to come back. So I think that just highlights the demanding role of press secretary for her to juggle with her two young children.

She did confirm that the president had asked her, Pamela, to stay on as a top adviser to her. Of course, that would be a role that would be outside of the White House. It does seem that she's agreed to that, but it's a loss for this White House, particularly at a time, as I mentioned, when they're going to be in a very difficult period on messaging around the midterm elections, with everything going on with the Iran war to lose a messenger like Karoline.

One last thing I want to say is I've been catching up with some staffers here since the news broke. It's not immediately clear, at least to some of the staffers I spoke with, who would actually replace her. So, we're staying tuned for that. When she was out on maternity leave for the month of June, there wasn't really a real replacement at times. You had people like Marco Rubio or the Vice President J.D. Vance do a briefing, but not in the way that she has in the past.

So, I think that will be a question for who will pick up the helm from Leavitt.

BROWN: Yeah. And she says that the truth is, since returning to the White House after the birth of my daughter, I have felt in my heart that I cannot be the best mom my two young children deserve while devoting the constant time, energy and attention required of the White House press secretary.

All right. Alayna Treene at the White House, thank you so much.

My panel is back with us.

What do you think? I mean, you know, in one hand, it's not a surprise in the sense that she just had a baby.

[16:25:03]

That is a tough job to juggle with two young kids. But on the other hand, she's been such a critical part of this administration.

WRIGHT: Yeah. I mean, it's a huge loss for the White House and President Trump. I remember a few months ago, there was a cabinet meeting and they were in the cabinet room, excuse me, and the Hungarian president was there, and he asked if Karoline Leavitt could come work for him. And Trump said, "Please don't leave us. Please don't leave us."

It was a joke at the moment, but it was an indicative of how close Donald -- Karoline Leavitt is to Donald Trump.

I mean, I know as a reporter, I would go and ask Karoline questions and she'd either say, let me go ask the president, or she would say, I was actually in the room at that moment, or I was in with the president just a moment ago. So, she was constantly in the Oval office with the president, seeing what was going on. Alayna is right. She's one of the closest aides.

I would say, though, just in terms of her being a mother. I remember back when she had her first baby, she didn't actually really take any maternity leave because it was the Butler shooting that happened right after she gave birth. And so, she came back to work. And so, she really hasn't had a lot of maternity time when she was with having two young babies.

And so, this is a huge loss. And of course, the question of who can replace her is a huge one that looms over. That was a question that we had for her maternity leave that was never answered. And so obviously, perhaps now we get a question or whether they'll replace her at all.

BROWN: Yeah. How do you see the timing of this announcement, Mike, so close to the midterms?

DUBKE: Well, I'm very surprised by it because generally when you have a transition from one press secretary to the other, you've got a -- you've got somebody waiting in the wings or maybe a deputy that can step in or -- and we saw for the period of time that she was on maternity leave, that there was just a rotating cast of characters that would come in to do the briefings.

I guess the one thing I would say this is the one time in politics where I truly believe someone when they say, I want to spend more time with my family. I mean, generally it's kind of a joke in Washington, you say that when somebody has to leave, that's the catch all. I think in this case it's probably right. And I'd be surprised if

there was -- if it was more to that -- more to it than that. But she's going to be missed.

BROWN: I'm just wondering, just given your experience of having been the former communications director for Trump, I mean, how difficult of a role is it to fill when you have someone like Trump who likes to be his own?

DUBKE: Well, he is -- he is obviously his best press secretary. it's a very difficult role to fill. And the fact that she's been there almost, you know, almost through the two years of this term is, is a testament to her really, because it is a very difficult role to fill.

BROWN: Congressman Walkinshaw, how do you see it? And do you concede that she has been an effective messenger for this administration?

WALKINSHAW: Well, I agree with Mike. I mean, to me, it rings perfectly true that this job is an absolute killer on family life. So, I think she's sincere in stating that. I also agree with Mike that it's a tough job. it's a job where to be Donald Trump's spokesman. You have to willfully deny reality on a daily basis. And she's done that repeatedly.

This week, she said Donald Trump has made life in America more affordable. She said the so-called Big, Beautiful Bill reduced the deficit. She said lie after lie after lie in front of the American people.

And I think her legacy will be one of further degrading the relationship between the White House and the press. She banished "The A.P." because they refused to go along with Donald Trump's silly renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. I don't think any of that is good for our democracy. That degradation of that relationship, and that will be part of her legacy.

BROWN: What -- do you agree with that, Jasmine?

WRIGHT: Well, you know, I am somebody who sat in the briefing room time and time again, asked her multiple questions, at times, gotten into an exchange that would go viral because of the way that she responded. And so, I think that her relationship with the press, when you look back at it in two years or five years is going to be an interesting one.

I will say, though, that she made herself available at the White House. Now, of course, I will acknowledge that they did close upper press, which is where the White House press secretary and the communications director go before this administration and the first year of this administration, you could walk into upper press and really go talk to them at will.

DUBKE: It's terrible.

WRIGHT: And now --

DUBKE: It's awful.

WRIGHT: For whatever --

DUBKE: I wish we had done it four years ago.

WRIGHT: For me, it was great, yes. Yeah. Okay?

So, they closed that. So, they made an appointment based. That was different note. But she did make herself available for calls, texts and all those things. And for a reporter reporting on the White House and needing someone to talk to, that is an advantage. Now, of course, the relationship with the press and the role of the press inside the White House and her relationship to that will be certainly under scrutiny.

BROWN: Yeah, but I also want to say there was a difference between her outward persona, like at those press conferences. You know, it's so much a show. It has been historically, and in this case, with this president, it is. But there was a difference behind the scenes with her.

WRIGHT: Yes.

BROWN: I agree?

WRIGHT: She's very different behind the scenes.

BROWN: Yeah.

WRIGHT: And, you know, I think that this White House really feeds on this antagonistic relationship with the press. They want it to be combative. Donald Trump wants to see folks in his corner really fighting for him. And what he feels is unfair press coverage, which he feels that the press consistently gives him. And so that is her role up at the podium, whether people like it or not. And I know a lot of people do not like it, but that is a role in which she sees is the best way to serve the president.

But behind the scenes, it was a little bit different.

BROWN: Yeah.

ANDERSON: The only other thing I would just add is that I think it's so interesting, I think about this announcement in conjunction with actually AOC talking about freezing her eggs as two things that actually like pair very interestingly together. It is two young, very influential, very good communicator women in politics, having very frank and public conversations about how you juggle that kind of a role, that kind of power, that kind of influence and the demands of it with the demands of motherhood, and that we may be living in a world where you cannot, in fact, have it all. And tough choices have to be made. And I admire both of them for making the choices that are right for them and doing so.

BROWN: Yeah. No, I think you're absolutely right. I think that's important to recognize. I remember seeing her after she came back from maternity leave recently. She had the bassinet in her office. And I remember thinking how tough that must be to juggle one of the most demanding jobs in the world and having a little baby and another child.

And so, I do think it's bringing the conversation into focus in a way that's important.

All right. We have much more to discuss coming up. Todd Blanche making his first comments on the so-called anti-weaponization fund since being formally sworn in as attorney general. He's reiterating it's dead, but says there may be other ways to pay people who claim they were victimized by DOJ.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The president feels very strongly, as do I, that there were people who were victims of a Department of Justice that was absolutely weaponized. And he feels very strongly that that he would want to make them whole, as do I.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:36:10]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHE: I'm not sure how I can further say that the anti weaponization fund doesn't exist, or we use the word dead. But if anybody has any ideas, we also have said under oath that if Congress would like to make it a law, that we would support that, as would the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: For the first time since being sworn in as attorney general, Todd Blanche says the $1.8 billion anti weaponization fund is dead. For months, the president has undermined Blanche's commitment to killing the fund. However, the A.G. does say the administration still wants to find a way to compensate people who claim they were targeted by the DOJ.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHE: The president feels very strongly, as do I, that there were people who were victims of a Department of Justice that was absolutely weaponized. And he feels very strongly that that he would want to make them whole, as do I. But it will not be through the anti-weaponization fund.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Joining our panel in THE ARENA is CNNs senior legal analyst, former state and federal prosecutor, Elie Honig.

Elie, how do you read today's comments from the attorney general? Is he trying to have it both ways here? What's going on?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Pam, for all the wrangling we've heard over the last few weeks over the slush fund, here's the more important point. With or without the slush fund, Donald Trump and the Attorney General, Todd Blanche, absolutely have the power to pay out essentially whoever they want.

The way this works, and this goes back decades is that anyone who believes they have been harmed by the federal government could be DOJ, could be the United States Postal Service, could be any arm of the federal government, could put in a claim under what's called the federal Tort Claims Act. And those cases ultimately can land on the desk of the United States Attorney General.

So, if and when violent January 6th rioters start putting in claims under that act, it will be Todd Blanche's call. And if you listen to him there, it sounds like he's quite eager to pay them, whether through a slush fund or through the normal channels.

BROWN: All right. So, Rep. Walkinshaw, do you trust the attorney general on this issue?

WALKINSHAW: No, no, I don't. I mean, look, the courts told him what he could do. They said you can sign a sworn statement killing the weaponization fund. He's refused to do that. He issued a memo which is an equivalent of a press release, basically. He did reference Congress could pass a law to block the weaponization fund.

And the good news is we have introduced that legislation. Democrats have a discharge petition to pass the I think it's called the Carte Blanche Act that would block the weaponization fund. I would love for the Trump administration to put their back into this and call on Speaker Johnson to bring that bill to the floor for a vote in September.

BROWN: Do you think blanche will try to find a workaround here?

DUBKE: I don't think it's in his advantage to find a workaround here. Whether or not he gets pressure from the president to find a workaround here, that -- that's a totally different story. But I mean, it's effectively it's effectively dead. This judgment fund that has been around since the 1950s, there is a process that already exists for something similar to this, but it's a very kind of open process. So, I'm -- I'm also not concerned that that process is going to be abused.

And we forget to talk about the judge who came out a couple of months ago, Judge Williams, who basically put the kibosh on both this and the IRS deal, saying that it was insider dealing. I don't think that has fully played itself out either.

So, we've -- got we've got legal reasons. we've got, you know, other practical reasons why this is this is dead.

BROWN: Yeah. But I mean, he's still saying, you know, I agree with the president. We should help them in some way. If this fund makes a comeback in a new form, a new shape, you know, sort of as Elie laid out the possibilities, how do you think it affects Republican chances in the midterms or voters? I mean, at a time when they're really struggling right now with the affordability.

ANDERSON: It's not going to be the top issue for people. But I do think that voters have, especially voters on the left in my data, are increasingly saying that things like the state of democracy and our institutions and those sorts of things are even more of a five-alarm fire for them than the economics of it all. And so, it's an issue where I don't expect that it would be a top issue for most voters, but I do expect that it's part of this overall sense that who is Washington looking out for? Are they looking out for someone like me, or are they looking out for the president's allies, et cetera?

And I think that's just whether it's this kind of an issue or many other things that the president has done that sort of favor friends and punish his enemies, I just think for voters, it's not something that they're loving.

BROWN: So' I bet there's some bets going on here in Washington. How long Blanche will last, right? Because he's Trump has had quite a few attorney generals across his first and second terms. Blanche is already under intense scrutiny. That just also comes with the job. But given everything that he's overseen as acting attorney general, there's some extra scrutiny there.

What do you think, Jasmine? How long will it last?

WRIGHT: Well, who knows? No, I mean, I think if you're -- if you're Jeanine Pirro, right? You're kind of a warning sign to Blanche. But listen, I've talked to a lot of people who were not necessarily supportive of Blanche's pick before he became acting.

And, now, they have kind of changed their tune because of all the ways he has tried to ingratiate himself with the base, with MAGA, all of the moves he did even before this, he took the actual oath.

And so I think you're going to see that type of behavior from Blanche continue trying to do what the president likes, trying to do what the president wants and try to do what perhaps just as importantly for him as the base wants him to do, which is target folks who they believe targeted the president, which is target folks who believe are involved in fraud and expand some of the goals when it comes to immigration and whatever he has under his purview. And so, I think that you are seeing that Blanche enjoy a lot of support from the base. Of course, Jeanine Pirro did at one point, and we see how that's going now.

BROWN: So, Elie, if January 6th rioters were to be paid by DOJ, is that something that would be made public? Would we even know?

HONIG: It's a good question. And the answer is not necessarily. Those processes often happen behind closed doors. If I could just follow up on a few points. First of all, to Jasmine's point, I think Todd Blanche is going to finish out this term. I know it's always a risky bet to bet that any cabinet member will make it all the way to the end. BROWN: All right. You're on the record now, Elie.

(LAUGHTER)

HONIG: Blanche -- nobody -- nobody go place any bet. But Blanche has been through an awful lot with the president, and he has made entirely clear that he understands his number one job is to do the president's bidding.

To Mike Dubke's point -- if you can watch that clip of Todd Blanche talking about how badly he and Donald Trump want to pay back people against whom the government was weaponized and say he's not going to pay off January 6th rioters. I disagree with that. I think it couldn't be any clearer. He has very broad authority to do that.

Again, forget about the slush fund. Just through the normal channels. Id be shocked if all the January 6th rioters who put in are denied.

And then finally to the congressman, whether one is a Democrat or a Republican, if you all on Capitol Hill are working on legislation and you want to truly end this, if you pass legislation that just says there shall be no slush fund, that's fine, but you're still leaving open the other door, which is the normal payout channel.

So, if Congress is serious about stopping payments to violent January 6th rioters, that's what your legislation. I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat needs to say, which is no money shall be paid to anybody who has a violent January 6th rioter. That's how you avoid the loophole.

BROWN: All right. Elie Honig, thanks so much.

The rest of my panel, stand by.

Still to come in THE ARENA, new details on the almost billion-dollar price tag for the president's pet projects at the White House. Plus, how much you, the taxpayer, will be on the hook for.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: At least $900 million, that's how much the Trump administration plans to spend on White House construction projects with you, the taxpayer, footing most of that bill, according to a new report from "The Washington Post".

These are records obtained by "The Post". And they also show that the administration is planning to take funds from other agencies like the Secret Service, as well as private donations to pay for these projects.

All right. My panel is back here to discuss.

Congressman Walkinshaw, I want to go to you because you sit on the house oversight committee, and I want to know what your reaction is to this report and what Democrats can do, if anything, to make sure that there's more transparency around this one. WALKINSHAW: Well, one, I think this typifies where the Trump

administration is right now. And if I were Mike Johnson, I would hate this story because as the American people are struggling with high gas prices, high cost of groceries, high cost of goods for back to school supplies and clothes for their families, Donald Trump is hyper focused on building his golden ballroom and his other projects.

It was reported recently that Donald Trump spends up to 75 percent of his time. Whether that's accurate perfectly, I don't know. He spends a lot of his time designing his golden projects around Washington, D.C.

American people need him focused on ending the war, bringing down the cost of gas, bringing down the cost of groceries. That's not what he's focused on.

BROWN: And, Mike, on the ballroom specifically, Trump has repeatedly promised that it will be zero cost to taxpayers and that it will be paid for by American patriot donors. You see right here the Truth Social.

But I mean, this report raises that question. Is this now a taxpayer funded project, and do you support it?

DUBKE: Well, I think we need to clarify these numbers. So, the numbers that it originally was a $200 million ballroom.

[16:50:03]

And the reports that I've seen, the private dollars that are into the White House are somewhere between $300 million and $400 million. So that would have covered the original cost of this. Now the cost has ballooned up to some, say, $500 million or $600 million.

BROWN: A house renovation will tell you that will happen.

DUBKE: I know, and it takes twice as long and it's twice as expensive.

So, the nine -- I want to pull back from that $900 million number because I think that number at the beginning of the story -- I'm sorry.

WALKINSHAW: Billion.

DUBKE: No, I'm sorry.

WALKINSHAW: No, million, million.

DUBKE: Yeah. That number is for a whole host of things. So, let's -- if we're just talking about the ballroom, I want to set the stage for this. I do think that where the president was making the promise here at the beginning that this cost has gotten out of control, but they've added things, they've added size, they've added a anti-drone rooftop, they've added medical facilities to the basement.

Now how you slice and dice that in the -- in the grand scheme of things, I think is what's going to come out. But we do know that there's probably between $300 million and $400 million that is private dollars. And this is how the White House historically has always been paid for, except for the one big renovation that they had back in the '60s, which was some taxpayer dollars allocated by Congress.

So, you know, it's a little bit of all of the story, but we love talking about this. So, we're going to continue talking about it.

ANDERSON: Well, but we're also going to continue talking about it. If Democrats take the house next year, I imagine that the congressman's committee is not just going to be interested in talking to folks in the White House, but talking to the companies that made those donations. In all of my data, I work for a lot of corporate clients. I've done a lot of research on what are the things people care about.

The ballroom in and of itself, not a top issue for voters, but for something that makes a potential consumer frustrated about a corporate brand. You gave money to the ballroom is one of those things that a lot of business leaders are going to be figuring out. How do I navigate this when I get to get called to have my CEO go testify in front of the house?

BROWN: All right. So, will you be looking into it?

WALKINSHAW: Yeah, absolutely.

BROWN: Obviously, when --

ANDERSON: It's coming.

DUBKE: There is no hesitation.

WALKINSHAW: Yeah. You know, I think the message to the corporate world is if you felt like and you made the decision to start playing by the Trump rules over the last 18 months, where at least the perception was in order to secure that contract at Homeland Security or the Pentagon, you needed to contribute to the ballroom or to Freedom 250 or any one of other Trump's pet projects. If you made that decision, you're likely to be in a hot seat next year answering for that decision.

If you continue to do things by the book, the way the law requires, you're going to feel good about that decision next year.

BROWN: And while we have you on this topic, can you give us a sense of what the top priorities would be for the Dems on the Oversight Committee if you get the majority?

WALKINSHAW: Well, top priority for us is ending the corruption, especially when the corruption is connected to the cost-of-living crisis the American people are facing. And one of the arguments we have been making is that this corruption is taking money out of your pocket, putting it into Donald Trump's pocket.

BROWN: Can you be more specific on what investigations? WALKINSHAW: Yeah, digital schemes. I think digital schemes is a good

place to start. Donald Trump and his family created a digital scheme where they took money from his supporters and put it in the Trump family's bank account, tens of millions of dollars.

The Trump sons have a tungsten mining interest in Kazakhstan that's now being underwritten by taxpayer dollars $1.6 billion. Your money if you're an American out there struggling to make ends meet, your money is going to support the Trump family's business interests.

BROWN: What more evidence do you have that this corruption exists and that people's money is being stolen to go to the to the Trump family?

WALKINSHAW: Well, all of this has been widely reported. I mean, the meme coins, widely reported --

BROWN: But people paid for that, knowing where it was going, right?

WALKINSHAW: I don't know if they knew where it was going. I don't know if they if they knew that the Trump family would end up getting it when the price crashed. The tungsten mine has been widely reported. Maybe they'll pull back from that. But it's been reported that Donald Trump has signed off on the $1.6 billion loan guarantee to finance the Trump sons' tungsten mine in Kazakhstan. You could go on and on and on. They've been enriching themselves, and maybe folks wouldn't be concerned about that if they weren't struggling to make ends meet.

BROWN: What is the data show? I mean, how concerned are folks about that?

ANDERSON: I think they're quite concerned about those two issues combined. I mean, cost of living is something that crosses party lines. Even some Republicans, frankly, will tell you these days that they like a lot of what Donald Trump is doing. They like what he's done on the border.

But man, it does feel like things are a little bit expensive. And I think that combined with their getting rich and you're not, I do think there's real political peril headed into November. Now, I think the question is for Democrats, if they do take control of Congress, is it good enough to just spend two years going after Trump, investigating, investigating, investigating or at some point do voters say, well, what's your agenda? What are you going to do about it?

And I think that'll be the challenge that they have to face.

BROWN: All right. We'll be right back. Stay with us

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:59:36]

BROWN: Thanks to my panel. And thank you all for joining us. You can now stream THE ARENA live or catch up whenever you want in the CNN app. Just scan the QR code below.

I'll see you tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Eastern in "THE SITUATION ROOM". Don't go anywhere.

"THE LEAD", anchored by Phil Mattingly, starts right now.