Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
White House Releases Another Pro-Trump Ad Paid For By U.S. Government; Today: Deadline For CNN & Others To Ask Judge To Extend Block On Trump's White House Ban; Speaker Johnson: "Chinese Psyop" Behind A.I., Data Center Concerns. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired September 28, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Elon Musk would like full reusability. It's an incredibly difficult challenge. It is, after all, rocket science, Boris.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yeah. It really is.
Miles, always great to have you. Thank you so much.
And "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 Monday.
As we come on the air, Republicans are watching Election Day tick closer and closer, worrying that time has run out for them to try and turn the tide. One Trump advisor that CNN talked to about the midterms, yeah, they put it pretty simply, quote, "It's obviously going to be effing rough."
And just why is it going to be effing rough? Maybe it's because today the war with Iran hit the seven-month mark. Diesel is sitting at almost $6.50 a gallon, and interest rates are over 7 percent.
When asked if there was anything that Republicans could do to turn things around, one Republican operative told CNN, quote, "Go back in time and never start the war with Iran," end quote.
So that brings us, surprisingly, to NFL Sunday football. If you, like me, were watching yesterday, you might have noticed one ad that was not quite like the others. It was an ad that your taxpayer dollars paid for. It featured President Trump ranting about globalists, communists, Marxists, fascists, and the so-called deep state before concluding.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will liberate America from these villains once and for all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, just to underscore, that was the president, a man who is not up for reelection, using taxpayer money to promote himself and his political ideology. And it is not the first time he has done it. This ad aired on Fox last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANA WHITE, PRESIDENT & CEO, UFC: The toughest, most resilient person that I've ever met, and nothing was going to stop him from fighting so hard for the country he loves.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The White House defended that ad, claiming it wasn't political, But just ask yourself, do you really think they would be running ads like this if it wasn't an election year? I mean, come on.
Just this morning, President Trump posted saying this, quote, "I'll be out there spending money and helping every one of them get elected. MAGA, pretend I'm on the ballot," end quote.
So he's on the ballot, but the ad promoting him is not political?
Democrats have, of course, criticized the ads, questioned their legality. Now even some Republicans are saying this crosses a line.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves. Now the White House sees it differently, but I don't. I think there ought to be a rule that you can't. Well, there probably is a rule you can't spend public money to promote yourself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, let's go off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is going to be here, but we're going to get started with CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.
So, Kristen, you and colleagues have this new reporting taking us inside the Trump team's midterm campaign strategy. You provided us with some of those colorful, mostly anonymous quotations. What else are you learning?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, when talking to these various operatives, it is clear that the mood has soured around President Trump in terms of what's going to happen with these midterms. There is still a hope that while they might lose the House, they could hang on to the Senate. But every single day with these poll numbers that we're seeing across the country, that hope of holding on to the Senate is dwindling.
Now, I do want to be clear, they do not think that it is totally out of the realm of possibility, but it certainly isn't as secure as they once believed that it was. Now, part of what you're going to see is President Trump crisscrossing the entire country. We have some of the stops already that we've heard of from different officials, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio, Michigan, Alabama, Florida, many of those deep red states.
The idea there is to draw out the conservative base, which President Trump has been able to do in the past. That's why you're hearing him say, pretend like I'm on the ballot. They don't believe that he is going to make any kind of inroads with swing voters or independent voters the way he did in 2024. So now it's just about turnout and driving out the base.
Now, President Trump, he was asked specifically about the race in Iowa. He was staying next to Ashley Hinson, who was running for Senate in a state that President Trump won by double digits and now is in a very competitive race. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I love Iowa. I've always been very strong with Iowa.
First of all, the polls are fake that when you see somebody like Ashley, one of the greatest politicians, you'll see it, one of the greatest should be one of the greatest politicians in America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: And I can tell you somebody who doesn't think the polls are fake, or at least a group of people, and that is Trump's political operation, who is using polls, data, the entire infrastructure that they built out in 2024 to dictate where President Trump, where cabinet officials, where Vice President Vance will be campaigning in this effort to try and draw out that conservative base.
[16:05:18]
And I do want to add one thing here, Kasie, because you mentioned that ad that's paid for by the U.S. government. When you heard John Kennedy there, he said specifically, The White House has a different view of it.
And what he's referring to is the fact that the White House has continued to say, various White House officials, that these are, quote/unquote, "public service announcements", and then they liken them to previous administrations who have put out public service announcements about things like Medicaid, getting your COVID-19 vaccine, how to use Obamacare. That is what they are linking it to.
Unclear, though, what exactly is the public service part of that announcement that they are playing, but that is what they are comparing it to.
HUNT: All right, Kristen Holmes for us at the White House -- Kristen, thank you very much. All right. My panel's here in THE ARENA. CNN legal analyst, former
federal prosecutor Elliot Williams; Capitol Hill correspondent for "Puck News", Marianna Sotomayor; CNN political commentator and former Biden White House communications director Kate Bedingfield; and former Trump White House deputy press secretary, Abigail Jackson.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
Abigail, welcome to THE ARENA. It's great to have you.
ABIGAIL JACKSON, EXECUTIVE VP, ONMESSAGE PUBLIC STRATEGIES: Thanks.
HUNT: Kate, let me start with you, though, because, and this was what Thomas Massie posted about this ad, he says, "Don't worry, using taxpayer dollars to run ominous campaign ads of the president has been done before and is completely legal in banana republics."
You've been in the White House where ostensibly you would have faced decisions like this, perhaps run a public service announcement or two. What is that?
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, that's a political ad. I mean, that is what that is. The White House can try to say it's a public service announcement, but there's nothing there that does anything other than direct people to the president's political agenda. There's no direction to, for example, here's where you get your COVID vaccine. Here's how you apply for this benefit that is universal to everyone.
So, no, I mean, the idea that it's a public service announcement, that's ludicrous. It's not. I think what's politically kind of interesting, though, is, you know, exactly this sort of thing, using what should be tools of the government to advance his own personal agenda is actually one of the things that people are most angry about Donald Trump for, the idea that he's spending all of his time focused on putting his name on the Kennedy Center or tearing down the ballroom.
And so the idea that an ad that essentially reinforces exactly what people are mad about, which is you're not focused on my life and bringing prices down and doing what you said you were going to do, you're focused on your own self-aggrandizement, that is not going to help that Republicans are in when it comes to November.
HUNT: Yeah, I mean, Abigail, when we looked at the spending that Republicans are putting out there on their own ads, right, in midterm races, the vast majority of them do not feature President Trump. And yet this thing that he wants to put out there right now is really all about him, I mean, featuring kind of beauty shots of him.
Is that doing anything? Like, setting aside this question of whether it's appropriate or legal, et cetera, to use government money to pay for this, is using government money to pay for this great for the Republicans kind of like, hey, can we all look the other way, please?
JACKSON: You know, I think this entire mini-news cycle that's been created around this public service announcement is a good example of everyone in the Beltway caring about something that really doesn't matter that much to voters. Voters sitting around the kitchen table, they aren't debating whether or not an ad is political, if it counts as a political ad, which, by the way, talking about --
HUNT: Don't they care what the government's spending their money on?
JACKSON: They care about things that the president announced today in the Oval Office, the largest steel mill in United States history. They care about the jobs as that's bringing to Iowa. They care about plenty of things that the president is talking about all the time.
And they do care about the slide that we're seeing on the Democrat Party towards communism and socialism. And that's what these public service announcements are really focused on, from what I've seen. And I would say Democrats calling that partisan, they're --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Kate, go ahead.
BEDINGFIELD: I mean, that is a political argument. If they're focused, in your words, if they're the slide of the Democrat Party towards --
JACKSON: Communism, Marxism, saying that's an anti American sentiment. I don't think that's partisan. And I think if Democrats say that not wanting communism is partisan, I do think they're telling on themselves a little bit.
BEDINGFIELD: I think it's, you know, you talk about the focus on, you know, job creation. We never hear that from the president. I mean, you want to talk about a political strategy. If those are the things that are actually going to --
(CROSSTALK)
BEDINGFIELD: And yet what voters are seeing are is this, you know, self aggrandizing ad that's like, you know, a glamour shot of him, that is -- voters are saying repeatedly, if you look at every single poll, voters are saying over and over again, I'm frustrated that he hasn't kept the promises that he said he was -- that he made when I voted for him, and he's not focused on what I care about.
And so, again, I just go back to -- if the point of this is to try to help Republicans in swing districts, I don't think that message is the one that's going to do it.
JACKSON: I think Iowa voters are going to be pretty happy about the announcement today.
[16:10:00]
HUNT: Marianna, what are you hearing behind the scenes from the people you cover on the Hill?
MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR, CAPITOL HILL CORRESPONDENT, PUCK NEWS: Talking about a public service announcement, this is the kind of public service announcement that maybe Republicans would have wanted on the air earlier this year. I mean, Republicans on the Hill have been talking to the White House, have been talking to the political orbit around Trump for so long, saying, hey, can you stay focused on an economic message? Or go on air and talk about the One Big Beautiful Bill.
I mean, Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, they have made pretty clear they believe that if the American people knew what the One Big Beautiful bill really did, then maybe voters would be more on their side. But they were saying that all at a time when Trump wasn't necessarily focusing on that. He wasn't talking about that.
That wishful thinking, that time has now gone away. There's only so many weeks left, and voters are so, we've seen it in the polling, we've seen it like just talking to voters at this point, they believe that they cannot make ends meet, and that is driving their vote.
And so for this public service announcement, political ad, however we want to describe it, to come in at the last minute, I'm not sure it's going to change hearts and minds. It's not offering anything.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, I agree with the point that the public does not care about this. The public's not locked into something like this. But that's not the standard we should be following if the White House might be breaking the law.
And the law is pretty clear on this. It's that there are three areas in which an ad might be problematic. Number one, to use Kate's term, it's a legal term, self-aggrandizement. If a president or someone in the government is using public money to lift themself up, and the language, he's the most resilient person I've ever met, nothing can stop him, that's self-aggrandizement under the law.
Sorry, there's no ambiguity about it, number one. Number two, if there's a partisan angle to it, vote for Democrats, vote for Republicans, don't -- okay, that's not happening here explicitly.
HUNT: Right.
WILLIAMS: And then the last one is covert messaging where they don't say that they're using government money on something. That's certainly not an issue here because they're quite clear in saying this was paid for by the government.
But you cannot look at this and call it just a public service announcement and all the ones in the past, quite frankly, that the White House has pointed to from Bush, Obama, and Biden, you can distinguish all of them under the law. Those were public service announcements pointing to specific programs. And if not, they were found illegal. One of the Obama ones was, one of the Bush ones was.
So it's just they're breaking the law in all likelihood on a lot of this. And you just can't say that because press administrations did something sort of similar that it's OK to do it now. It's just not the same thing. HUNT: Yeah.
I know you, Abigail, the firm you work for does a lot of work out in the field. And if you look at some of the -- I mean, listen, the sense of momentum right now is definitely against Republicans. "Politico" wrote a piece about what they call -- the people who call themselves the front row Joes, who say that they are very disappointed. So these are some people who are, like, Donald Trump's superfans, I think is how we would describe them. OK, they travel the country. They've been sort of there for him all the way along.
"Politico" talked to a couple of them, okay? Here's what they had to say, quote, "It was like a dagger in my heart. It was a light switch that went on and a veil lifted. I saw him for who he was and I have not been able to unsee it since. He said the war is over 600 different times. He tells us they don't have a military, they don't have a navy, they're still blowing things up. It's just all lies.
He can't be trusted. Epstein crimes, in feeding the industrial military complex. Big nose for me. He promoted himself as a no-war president. That didn't work out.
And you heard our Kristen Holmes say that Trump strategists are basically telling us, if they could change one thing about the midterms, it would be not to start this war with Iran.
What are you seeing in your data and on the ground around those questions?
JACKSON: You know, I think that Republicans are focused on running races that are important locally, that focus on issues that voters really care about. And you're not seeing Democrats doing that. You're seeing Democrats trying to make everything about Trump.
HUNT: I'm just trying to ask you, what is the strategy here as you are trying to win elections in this moment, right? And it's a tough moment, right? I mean, are you -- would you encourage candidates-- we've seen a number of them break from the president on the war with Iran very publicly, Ashley Hinson is one of them. How do you understand why and how they're doing it?
JACKSON: Yeah, again, Republicans in races are focused on issues that matter directly to their voters, on things that are impacting them on a daily basis. There's a lot of great things that President Trump has achieved that you see Republicans talking about, things like lowering drug prices, things like bringing jobs back to the United States.
Again, this announcement today in Iowa, I really can't underscore how significant it is for Republicans. I think Republicans in Iowa are going to be talking about it a lot. You don't see that happening with Democrats, who are trying to make everything about Trump. You don't see -- Democrats aren't rallying around people like Abdul El-Sayed or James Talarico the same way that Republicans are focused on their individual candidates because they don't want to talk about their candidates. They just want to talk about the president. HUNT: Yeah, hold on a second. I want to bring this back to Iowa because, of course, the president wasn't in the Oval today talking about this steel initiative.
[16:15:06]
The fact that Iowa is so in play, it's because there are so many of these dynamics that are playing out on the ground there, the price of diesel, the challenges around tariffs, farming, et cetera. I just want to play Chuck Grassley for you for a second, OK? Chuck Grassley is 93 years old, OK? He's a senator from Iowa. And he is at the point where he is basically saying, well, we might end up with Democratic governor in Iowa.
Let's watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): At 93 years of age, I don't know how many more groups of Republicans like this I'm going to have a chance to talk to. But one of the reasons I'm worried about who's going to be elected governor, I don't plan on dying in office, but if I did, I don't want a Democratic governor choosing my successor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, Kate, that's a lot of honesty in what sounds like.
BEDINGFIELD: Yeah. I just -- I think -- just to go back, Abby, to your point, I mean, I don't think you can really fairly argue that voters are not focused on the war in Iran, which is one of the number-one things that they repeatedly cite.
JACKSON: Well, I didn't say that. I said that candidates were on their individual issues.
BEDINGFIELD: But the fact that gas prices are so high because of the war, people blame Donald Trump for that. They look at November as an opportunity to elect people who will put a check on Donald Trump.
So, you know, the challenge that Republicans have here is how do they separate themselves from an incredibly unpopular president? Very, very hard to do in the midterms. I worked at the DCCC in 2006. George W. Bush had approval ratings that looked about like Donald Trump's. It was a 30-seat Democratic wave that year because it's very, very hard for candidates to distance themselves from an unpopular president.
HUNT: That was the thumping.
BEDINGFIELD: That was thumping. That was indeed the thumping.
And so, look, Democrats are making a very aggressive anti-Trump case because that is how you win midterm races. Midterms are a referendum on the party in power. They're a referendum on the president.
We have a nearly historically unpopular president right now, and Democrats are out making the case that they're going to hold him in check. And so far, that's an effective argument. We'll see how it plays out over the last five weeks.
HUNT: And if it is a wave, then on the other side, we'll be talking about, are we papering over bigger divisions that ultimately are going to --
BEDINGFIELD: I absolutely think that there's a lot for the Democrats are going to have to tackle after November, no question about it.
HUNT: For sure.
All right, coming up next here in THE ARENA, today, lawyers for CNN, "Politico", and MS NOW are expected to ask a judge to extend his block on Trump's White House ban. This after the president came up with another way to try to stop reporting he does not like.
Plus, Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna will be here in THE ARENA. I'll get his take on the confusion over whether President Trump offered to sell weapons to communist authoritarian China.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID PERDUE, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO CHINA: President Trump continues to say, hey, we sell arms to other people around the world. He actually asked President Xi, would he like to buy some at one point?
REPORTER: Is that accurate? Did you make such a suggestion?
TRUMP: To China?
REPORTER: To China.
TRUMP: You mean to Taiwan?
REPORTER: No, to China. That's what he said.
TRUMP: I never heard of that one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:22:25]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The president has every right to decide who gets to fly on his plane, and it is national security, especially on Air Force One and especially at the White House. And so it's not -- it's not just the fact that they refuse to report anything accurately.
By the way, that is what is a national security problem. When you have completely misinformation, complete misinformation coming out of the White House, that affects our relationship with our foreign partners, that affects our relationship with our foreign enemies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, Attorney General Todd Blanche defending the White House's decision to bar CNN from flying on Air Force One this weekend. The attorney general justifying the move by citing national security, an argument that the judge overseeing the case was skeptical about last week. Today is the deadline for CNN, MS NOW, and "Politico" to file a motion for a preliminary injunction that would extend the judge's block on this ban.
Professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, Michele Goodwin, joins our panel now.
Michele, so what's next here? And obviously, the judge had weighed in on the due process questions and raised some eyebrows about the national security argument. It seems more salient now. What's next?
MICHELE GOODWIN, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Well, as you mentioned, there will be the filing that comes next to extend this injunction so that these three news organizations, including CNN, can have access. This is an extraordinary case and really must be understood as such. It can't be dismissed as something that it's just a little bit of a problem. It's actually a pretty significant problem.
For over 230 years, press freedom has been protected in the United States. We have 90 years of precedent before the Supreme Court that there can't be things like prior restraint. That means that when a government thinks there's something negative that will be said, that they can basically deny press access or ask the press to shut it down. That can't happen. And a series of cases in the time in between, including with the Pentagon Papers in 1971, that the government can't say that you can't publish what would even be sensitive security information.
So this is a really crude way of trying to deny press to be able to have access and it's a smokescreen because what the court has said and what's been asked of Mr. Blanche is show us receipts, where has that there been inaccurate reporting? And so there are no receipts for that.
[16:25:00]
And what Blanche has basically said is that it's negative reporting that the president does not like. But that is not a legal rule, and that is not a legal standard. That will stand at a district court level, appeals, or before the United States Supreme Court.
HUNT: So, Elliot Williams, the, you know, injunction here that the judge issued, there was a period of time where journalists were barred from the White House even though that order had stood. It came down at, like, one in the morning and it took some series of hours. Is this ban of CNN on Air Force One a violation of that order, or is it not?
WILLIAMS: It might be. It just depends on what the basis for the ban was.
Now, part of the issue before was that these news outlets were barred partly but not completely like they could bring photographers in but not reporters.
HUNT: Well, I mean, in the beginning -- in the beginning, it was all of us. And then there were some questions around the state dinner, but that's neither here nor there.
WILLIAMS: And I think, when this gets litigated, the question will be at the time, were they barred specific? Can we find evidence that they were barred specifically? Because of the things they'd said or was there just a mix-up with their IDs or whatever else. That's an open factual question that hasn't been resolved yet.
But come on, step back, Kasie, let's be clear the president even in these campaign ads a few days ago is talking about the fake news media. This is not -- and the judge saw through the argument that this was a national security point. This is about disagreements with these three outlets.
This is about disagreements about how the president is covered. This is not a national security point it's a convenient and the judge has already shown that he's suspicious of it. But I just think we ought not give credence to arguments just because they come out of a litigant's mouth. This is sort of silly, and it's pretext. It's not going to win in court.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, Kate, you've been a part of plenty of conversations about press access, and you understand very well how historically the pool has operated in and around Air Force One. Do you get the sense here that they're using that to essentially try to create some sort of trail that they can then say to the judge -- well, this is what we leave and obviously Air Force One itself is a sensitive situation?
BEDINGFIELD: Yeah. I mean, I don't there's not a particular reason that Air Force One would necessarily present more of a security issue than having the pool with the president, you know, somewhere in the White House or elsewhere. I mean, there's not inherently an argument that would make this more of a national security issue.
But also, I mean, to Elliot's point, like Donald Trump has said that this is about unfavorable coverage and the fact that he doesn't like the coverage that he gets from these outlets. So, listen, as somebody who has sat in the White House communications director chair and made decisions about coverage, of course, are there times where you pick and choose the outlets that you have the president sit down with, of course.
HUNT: Yeah.
BEDINGFIELD: But historically, The pool has been a rotation that has been set by the White House Correspondents Association in the Biden administration. You had Fox in the pool, you had Breitbart in the pool, you had "The New York Post", "The Daily Caller|, I believe. And it has traditionally been the case that these outlets have equal access to the president through the pool rotation.
And so, setting the precedent of excluding an outlet because of their coverage, that is -- that's a dangerous precedent. And that's about Donald Trump not liking the coverage that he's getting.
WILLIAMS: It's also just not what the law says, right? Todd Blanche --
GOODWIN: That's right.
WILLIAMS: -- and the big story here in all of this is the debasing of the once great career of Todd Blanche. Let's be clear about that.
No, but I mean that. But he's absolutely right that no one is entitled to access to Air Force One or the Roosevelt Room right at these sensitive locations. The problem is that if that access is going to be denied, it can't be denied under the law on the basis of what someone has said.
And the president has literally close to a decade of statements blasting fake news media naming this network by name, including "Politico" and others. And so this idea that one day in September 2026, the president decided that now his problem with CNN and "Politico" is a national security one is nonsense, and we all know it.
HUNT: Well, and he also was not saying that in the days -- when he actually said he was going to ban these outlets, the president was very clear about why he was doing it, and then his lawyers came in and made a different argument.
Michele Goodwin, you were trying to jump in.
GOODWIN: That's right. Yeah, that's right.
And what makes this so problematic using this as a national security threat -- well, two things is that he was willing to fly in a plane that was given to him by a foreign government. Let's not forget that in a space of talking about national security threat.
But even more seriously, the concern with regard to using that as a proxy or a smokescreen is that it can be used in almost any other context. Let's remember that when Renee Nicole Good was gunned down and Alex Pretti, the theory behind it all is that they too had become a national security threat.
[16:30:08]
It is something that is very serious that when the White House is using that against press, against American citizenry, this is alarming. It's something that we should all be concerned about. It's not just incidental. It is actually a very serious problem.
And that was recognized by the district court judge, who also said, as you had mentioned, that there had not been process here, where is the notice? Where is the entitlement of a hearing? Where is the opportunity to respond? That also has not been the case with this administration. HUNT: Worth underscoring, I think there's always been tension between, often been tension between what our administration say is national security and some of the reporters that they don't like. That was true under the Obama administration. It's not necessarily a partisan issue.
But of course, Michele Goodwin, really appreciate your perspective. Thank you so much for joining us.
The rest of our panel is going to stand by.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, the White House is now using taxpayer money to run ads promoting Donald Trump's political agenda. I'll talk to a member of the House Oversight Committee, Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna.
Plus, we see it in polling and at town halls across the country. Bipartisan concern about A.I. data centers and their impact on things like water supplies and energy prices. Ahead, why House Speaker Mike Johnson is saying this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: This is what Democrats do. Every election cycle, they find something to, you know, glove onto and say that this is doom and gloom and everyone will die if we don't win.
Don't buy it. It is a Chinese psyop. I really believe that. It's not a conspiracy theory. I think they're pushing those ideas. But the community concerns are important.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:36:07]
HUNT: All right, welcome back.
More now on that pair of controversial taxpayer-funded TV ads promoting President Trump. Despite bipartisan criticism, the White House is defending them as, quote-unquote, "public service announcements", writing in a statement Friday that, quote, "administrations of both parties have used public service announcements to explain policy and make the case for the nation's direction," citing a similar examples, a Bush administration TV campaign about a Medicare law, as well as COVID-era Biden ad promoting vaccination.
Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna from California. He sits on the House Armed Services and Oversight Committees.
Congressman, it's always great to see you. Thank you so much for being back in THE ARENA.
Do you buy that from the White House? REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Look, the more they want to put President Trump on television, the happier I am. Obviously, it's an ethics violation, but here's my advice. Go spend as much money as you want putting Donald Trump on TV. Please put him on TV all over America. Please have him talk about how he's still committed to the Iran war and how gas prices are going up and diesel is going up, but he doesn't care, he's going to finish the war.
I'd love for him to spend all his money promoting himself in districts across this country.
HUNT: What are you hearing? I know you've been campaigning across the country and dug in on for many of these midterm candidates. We're starting to see places like Iowa elsewhere that's been traditionally read potentially get, you know, be in play here.
Do you buy that this is going to be a blue wave or do you have some words of caution or thoughts about where Democrats should be working hard?
KHANNA: We obviously have to run through the tape, but I'll tell you the two issues that I'm hearing most often. One is the price of gas and the price of diesel, the price of diesel because it's hurting farmers. It's increasing food prices, and it means heating oil is going to be a lot for many families this winter.
One woman in New England told me that she fears her heating bills are going to be 1,200 bucks a month instead of 250 bucks a month. And the other issue, I'm actually going to Iowa, I'm doing an event with Josh Turek and also speaking in Iowa, is the Epstein issue. There are a lot of folks, former Trump supporters, independents, We're furious at how he handled that issue, do not understand why we're not prosecuting people who raped, abused young girls, and feel like he has covered up corruption that he said he was going to actually root out.
HUNT: So, speaking of the Epstein issue, that, of course, speaks to the work that Democrats would have if you control the Oversight Committee, if you do take back the Congress.
Where would you put the Epstein issue on the list of potential priorities for a democratically controlled oversight committee? I know you've been happy to join with Republicans here, but there's also a long list of other Trump-related things Democrats want to investigate.
KHANNA: Should be one of our highest priorities. This is not about politics. This is about survivors who have been denied justice for decades, and this is about a group of wealthy and powerful men who either raped or trafficked or abused young girls and have not paid the price, have not had any consequence.
There has not been a single prosecution, Kasie, in the United States of America, even as people are being prosecuted around the world. So we need to demand the release of the remaining files.
Thomas Massie and I have an Epstein 2.0 bill, which we expect will pass in the lame duck. We already have 218 signatures, and we need to empower the attorney generals to be able which we expect will pass in the lame duck. We already have 218 signatures. And we need to empower the attorney generals to be able to prosecute. And we need to demand the Department of Justice begin prosecutions.
[16:40:02]
HUNT: I also want to ask you about something in your capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee. There have been some questions about arms sales to China. The president was actually asked about this today. I want to show you what he said. We'll talk about it on this side. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: China?
REPORTER: To China.
TRUMP: You mean to Taiwan?
REPORTER: No, to China. That's what he said.
TRUMP: I never heard of that one. I'm going to have to ask him, you mean we're going to sell. No, they probably like to buy it because we do make better equipment than that, so maybe it's a good idea. But we didn't discuss it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So he was asked that question because David Perdue, who is the U.S. envoy, the U.S. ambassador to China, said that during this state visit, Trump asked Xi if he wanted to buy American weapons. Do you have concerns about that?
KHANNA: I couldn't believe the reporting when I read it. I'm the top Democrat on the China Committee, and I'm a senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. I'll tell you, I don't think there's a single Republican on either of those committees who would be for selling arms to China.
What they're for is that we stand by our assurances and don't have China interfere in any of our arms sales to Taiwan. So I don't know if the president just got confused, but it is against the law to be selling arms to China. And why in the world would we want to do that when they are tightening the nose militarily around Taiwan?
HUNT: Yeah. Speaking of China and the visit with Xi, I know you also have been focused on A.I. policy. Were you at all heartened by what came out of that in terms of where we are on that issue?
KHANNA: Look, putting aside any partisanship, it was a step. It was a baby step, but it was a step. I held a hearing with the China Committee on getting some agreement between the United States and China. One of the ideas that came out of that is have a working group of technologists, A.I. safety researchers in the United States working with a group of scientists and technologists in China. The President and Xi Jinping didn't go that far, but they at least
agreed to have a dialogue That's a start. We have a lot more that we need to do.
HUNT: And a little bit of midterm politics before I let you go. You had endorsed Jasmine Crockett in that Texas Senate primary, and she has obviously been out there campaigning on the trail and she released -- her PAC released a list of endorsements today.
She left James Talarico off the list. He, of course, is the nominee for Senate in Texas.
Would you tell her -- do you have an understanding of why that is, what's going on there?
KHANNA: I don't. I mean, I wish she would get behind. Talarico's run a brilliant campaign. I was proud to support Jasmine. She was someone who was very effective on the Oversight Committee where I serve.
But these elections are too important for any individual to have personal grievance or to have personal disagreements with candidates. I mean, the control of the United States Senate is at stake. The control of the House is at stake.
We finally see some end of the tunnel light in moving past Donald Trump. If we win the House and the Senate, Donald Trump is a lame duck the next day. We can finally begin anew.
So I would just hope she sees that bigger picture. I know she understands the threats that Trump poses to our democracy. And, you know, I would counsel her not that she takes my advice to get behind Talarico.
HUNT: All right, fair enough. Congressman Ro Khanna, thanks very much, sir. Always great to see you.
KHANNA: Appreciate it. Thank you.
HUNT: All right. I had here in THE ARENA. We're going to have more on A.I. and the executive who was treated to dinner and now a summit at the White House as the administration tries to address concerns over artificial intelligence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know, you know, thanks for having me, Michael. I may have been alarming in my recent interviews, but I want to assure you that if we can pressure lawmakers to create guardrails, we will be able to stop me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:48:44]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: This is what Democrats do. Every election cycle, they find something to glom onto and say that this is doom and gloom and everyone will die if we don't win.
Don't buy it. It is a Chinese psyop. I really believe that. It's not a conspiracy theory. I think they're pushing those ideas.
But the community concerns are important. And I think our candidates on the campaign trail made a very good case for this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: House Speaker Mike Johnson earlier today calling the pushback against data centers a, quote, "Chinese psyop", the very issue that 64 percent of registered voters told CNN in a poll was extremely or very important to their vote for Congress.
Sources tell CNN the president will welcome executives from several top artificial intelligence companies tomorrow. Last night, he dined privately with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei.
It all comes as Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates offered another doom and gloom warning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL GATES, MICROSOFT CO-FOUNDER: A.I. is certainly powerful enough to drive events that, you know, cause a billion deaths. There's never been a weapon as powerful as the combination of people with ill intent using the latest A.I. tools.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Such an even-keeled way to talk about a billion possible deaths.
[16:50:02]
I mean, look, the reality here is that some of this is at a level where SNL honestly probably did the best job of handling it because, like, how else can you deal with it except for humor? Let's watch that from the weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A.I. is the devil and I its maker.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, well, so, look, Sam Altman, myself, all the major A.I. players, we have talked about this extensively and we are all on the same page here. We do not condone what we are doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, Kate Bedingfield, this has really exploded onto, you know, as a political issue here. What do you see -- I mean, in some ways, for politics that are so partisan and so divided, this is almost bipartisan, the way people feel about this.
BEDINGFIELD: Well, I think it's actually an expression of the kind of rising populism that we're seeing on both sides of the aisle. There's great distrust, broadly speaking, in corporate America, in big companies, in tech. And so this is kind of the coming together of all of those factors under an umbrella of, and by the way, we might inadvertently wipe out the human race -- I mean, people are hearing this doom and message.
They're seeing data centers in their communities causing utility rates to go up and they're being told, you know, broadly like trust that we're -- we're going to handle it responsibly. We in corporate America and we know everything we know about our politics right now is that people are not feeling that trust.
And so seeing this issue kind of, you know, play out this acutely, I think this is only going to continue. There's only going to continue to be increasing concern and elected officials on both sides of the aisle I think are only going to continue to feel pressure to put in place meaningful framework around this because people are concerned.
HUNT: Yeah, I mean, Abigail, is this a place where candidates that are out in their communities seeing how people are reacting to this is different from what you're hearing from the White House?
JACKSON: I think there are like kind of two parallel tracks to think about this, which is one, of course voters are concerned about data centers, about A.I., and it's wrong to dismiss that or pretend that concern doesn't exist, but the other parallel track is that it's very important that the United States kind of win this race with China.
And so balancing that is an important dance for candidates, for businesses. And a great way that the president has proposed this is the Ratepayer Protection Pledge. I think that's expected to come up for a vote in the Senate this week. It passed the House with huge bipartisan support.
And I think it's interesting they tried to fast-track it in the Senate. It was blocked by a Democrat. And so I will be watching, and I think Republican candidates will be watching to see are Democrats really going to put their money where their mouth is and say we want to protect consumers, we want to protect Americans from bearing the brunt of that cost, or are Democrats just looking to use this as another political tool heading into the midterms?
WILLIAMS: You know, it's interesting. The question that I think we all need to collectively answer, and to this China point, is what is the thing we are seeking to win with China? Is it a national security question and just to be the first to be able to control global annihilation?
JACKSON: Well, I don't want China to be able to kill us all with A.I.
WILLIAMS: Neither do I. But is it a corporate growth question? Is it a money question? Is it a data center construction question?
All of these things are open questions, and I think China is this big enemy But I don't think everybody has a clear sense as to what exactly we're fighting and what exactly our goals ought to be as a nation with respect to A.I.
I will note that we regulated the nuclear bomb, we regulated anthrax, we regulated smallpox, we regulate all kinds of things. I don't understand why A.I. is any different.
Yes, it could potentially lead to, like Bill Gates says, a billion deaths, but everything can be in some way handled by people, and I just think we have this fear of sitting down and figuring out --
HUNT: Well, if you go read that report about how they're concerned about what A.I. may do with biological weapons. I think you can get to Bill Gates and his billion deaths.
WILLIAMS: But it's just a question of scale, though. It's just nuclear, I mean, nuclear weapons can kill billions of people as well, yet somehow we figured out how to cabin. I know.
HUNT: We got a minute left. I want to get Marianna in here.
Marianna, the question is, I mean, is Congress at all capable?
SOTOMAYOR: Correct.
HUNT: Of doing anything on this?
SOTOMAYOR: I mean, when you said, like, why is there regulation on A.I.? I was like, oh, well, here's the answer, it's Congress. And they will tell you it's because they don't know the issue enough.
Two weeks ago, when this really was put forward to a number of House lawmakers and senators, they were honest. They said, I actually don't know what the right path is. And Speaker Mike Johnson was actually the first one to say, well, you know, Congress had a or the House had a bipartisan report come out on how to deal with A.I., and all of those A.I. leaders contradicted it completely.
So I kind of want to hear from these leaders first. That's why that meeting is happening tomorrow. But I do not see Congress actually tackling this by the end of the year.
[16:55:03]
HUNT: Well, and the question, of course, is are their motives exactly what they say they are, right?
All right, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks, my panel. Really appreciate all of you being here. Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well. It's always great
to have you. Don't forget, you can stream THE ARENA live. You can catch up whenever you want. It's in the CNN app. Just scan that QR code below.
You can also catch up by listening to our podcast. You can follow the show on X and Instagram or @TheArenaCNN.
But don't go anywhere. Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Hey, Jake, are you ready for tonight?
