Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Supreme Court Backs Trump's Order To Curb Mail Ballots; Trump Escalates Trade War With Canada; U.S. Treasury Threatens New Sanctions On Nations Tied To Iran; Call For A Mistrial. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired August 24, 2026 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[17:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): This is "CNN Breaking News."
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: And welcome to "The Lead," everyone. I'm Bianca Golodryga, in for Jake Tapper. We start with breaking news in our "Law and Justice Lead." The U.S. Supreme Court just granted President Donald Trump's request for permission to implement his executive order overhauling and restricting mail-in ballot system, but additional legal challenges could stand in the way of this plan before the November midterm elections.
Still, this ruling brings new uncertainty about voting rules for the midterms because it keeps alive the possibility that Trump will impose policies outlined in the order that gave the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security unprecedented roles in the running of elections.
Let's bring in CNN's Gabe Cohen, CNN's Kristen Holmes of the White House, and CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. Gabe, let's start with you. So, walk us through what just happened here at the Supreme Court. What did the justices say?
GABE COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Bianna, the justices in this case have sided with the Trump administration. First, to give you a little bit of context, this dates back to this executive order that was issued by President Trump in March that, as you said, really was focused on election integrity, election security, and it was giving that sort of unprecedented role to his Department of Homeland Security and USPS in election administration.
There were a couple aspects to this. First off, he directed his DHS, his Department of Homeland Security, to begin creating these state citizenship lists to tap into various federal databases and start building lists of every American who the federal government believes is eligible to vote in federal elections. They were then directed to send those lists eventually to the states to help the states then call their voter rolls, looking for non-citizens or anyone else who is ineligible to vote. Of course, that ties back to the president's longstanding claims that there is widespread voter fraud in this country. Another aspect of that order was directing the Postal Service to add new restrictions to how it issues its mail ballots, essentially telling states that if states want the Postal Service to deliver mail ballots, they are required to provide full lists of any mail ballot recipients before those go out. They want names and addresses in order to keep a closer tab on who exactly is getting those ballots. The Postal Service, as a result, would not deliver ballots in any state that refused to provide those lists.
To be clear, there are still a lot of questions. This is likely going to be kicked back down because what the court is saying here is not that the implementation of this executive order is going to end up being lawful. What they're essentially saying is that the Department of Homeland Security and the Postal Service have not implemented anything yet, and so states do not have the right to bring forward this case saying that they have been harmed.
I'm going to read you a part of the court's decision. The Supreme Court saying, the court's disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell. But the order itself does not harm the states, so the district court lacked jurisdiction to bar the government from trying to implement it.
And for the reasons discussed, that injunction is likely to irreparably harm the government, an injunction that would block the executive order if it remains in place while the appellate process runs its course, essentially saying that lower courts were wrong to block the federal government from at least beginning that implementation process or seeing what that would look like.
I will remind you, Bianna, just a few days ago, Friday night, the Postal Service finally issued after months what its final rule would be here, again reiterating that they would not deliver ballots in any states that refused to provide those mail-in ballot recipient lists.
We know that that is going to be met with swift action in these states that now believe that they are going to be harmed by this because they have been extremely concerned with providing any more voter data to an administration that, again, has been making these sweeping claims about voter fraud in this country. They are also very concerned that providing those lists gives Trump's Department of Homeland Security more ammunition to, perhaps erroneously, go after non-citizens with investigations.
GOLODRYGA: And it's worth noting this decision did not address the legality of Trump's order, only the timing of the challenge to it.
[17:05:02]
Nonetheless, Kristen, this is a big win for the president who, we should note, votes often by mail as recently as earlier this month.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right. He, usually, when he's talking about voting by mail, particularly around a time frame in which he himself has voted by mail, he talks about the exceptions that would be in the Save America Act, and one of them is travel, which he leans heavily on given the fact that he is president of the United States and he continues to vote by mail.
Part of what you're seeing here is basically an allowance of the court for this unique and really unprecedented federal oversight into the election system. This is something that has usually been really just controlled by the state. But by bringing in DHS, by bringing in the Postal Service, you are bringing in federal entities here.
That is something that President Trump has long wanted, some kind of federal component to the election system. How this is going to play out, as Gabe said, we really don't know at this time, but it certainly seems as though they are going to kick this into high gear to start the process.
Now, when it comes to the Postal Service, for instance, there was another ruling in another lower court that had put this on hold as well. So, there's going to be more legal hurdles before this can go directly into effect. Whether or not even the administration is prepared for this, that's what we're going to be spending the next several hours trying to figure out. If they had a plan in place for this, what it would actually look like, because part of the reason they wouldn't rule on the legality was because nothing had been implemented yet. So, do they have an implementation plan?
One thing to keep in mind, this is likely going to sow an enormous amount of chaos in the system. We are just weeks away from early voting beginning in some places. States are going to be scrambling to try and ensure that they can get their mail-in ballots or their information in if it's going to potentially impact who's able to go to the polls, who's able to send in those ballots.
We are waiting for a reaction here from the Trump administration, but it is safe to say this is a huge win for the administration on something that President Trump has been fighting for. He has been arguing for since 2020, really, is trying to put in some kind of federal oversight into the process. And this certainly seems as though it paves the way for that process to start.
GOLODRYGA: Elie Honig, let's bring you in here. What is your take on this ruling? Are you surprised? And what do you make of the timing?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Bianna, definitely a big win for the Trump administration. So, this goes back to an executive order that the president issued in March, which essentially does two overarching things. The order tells DHS, first of all, to assemble these state citizenship lists pulled from a variety of database, which can be used to identify who in each state is a citizen and therefore entitled to vote. And then the order instructs the Postal Service to only deliver mail-in ballots to or from those approved addresses.
Now, a bunch of states challenged that. They said this infringes on our constitutional right as the states to run our own election. This is essentially interference from the federal executive branch. The opinion that just came down sides with the Trump administration. It's essentially a six to three opinion with the six conservatives in the per curiam majority and then the three liberals dissenting.
And the gist of the opinion here is there's no harm that has been demonstrated so far. In other words, the majority says, well, the states put together this string of hypothetical harms that might happen, this might disenfranchise voters or this might cause people to be wrongly excluded. But the Supreme Court says none of that has actually happened yet. And, therefore, this suit is essentially premature. And the court says the states don't have standing at this point. They've not suffered some sort of concrete injury and, therefore, the ruling goes in favor of the Trump administration for now.
GOLODRYGA: So, all of this still a hypothetical. Nonetheless, a huge win for the president, as we've noted. Gabe, what kind of roles could this decision give to the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Postal Service?
COHEN: Well, in the short term, ahead of the midterm election, it definitely weighs most heavily on the Postal Service. And to be clear, going back to something Elie just brought up, you know, a major part of the Supreme Court's decision here is that they believe no harm has actually been done through the executive order because we don't actually know how this will be implemented.
But as I mentioned before, on Friday night, we did get a much clearer picture from the Postal Service when they put out their final rule. They published it. I believe it is 95 pages long. And it lays out how they will try to implement this executive order.
And as part of that, all they did or a major part of it was reiterate what they had previously said a couple of months ago when they proposed a rule that then had to go through additional processes, but it did reiterate that they will only deliver mail ballots in states that comply and hand over these lists of all mail ballot recipients.
[17:10:08]
There are other aspects as well requiring certain barcodes and certain envelopes that would have a dramatic impact beyond on states who may have to sort of frantically implement this. But I will also note that the Postal Service has been clear that they are not going to implement any of this unless federal courts say that they should. And not just that, but they won't implement it ahead of the 2026 midterms unless courts also say that that timeline is OK.
And so, again, we're expecting we're going to see this get kicked back down and that courts will eventually have to rule on whether or not the rule that they're seeing from the Postal Service does provide that evidence of potential harm or then where we go from there.
GOLODRYGA: And Elie, what do you think would happen when it gets kicked down?
HONIG: Well, Gabe is right, the practicalities are a big issue here. I mean, we have, what, 70 days between now and the midterms. It's going to be really difficult, A, for that rulemaking process that was just alluded to, to go through completion by the Postal Service and then for litigation to make its way through the courts in time for the midterm. So, even though this is a big win for the Trump administration, I think it's unlikely that the full thrust of this executive order, if any of it, gets implemented between now and November.
But, certainly, the legal battle is not over. First of all, there could be challenges to that rule when, if and when, the U.S. Postal Service promulgates it. And then these cases can go back up the courts if, in fact, the states can show there is harm. If the states can show that their function is being infringed on, if the states can show that people are being wrongly excluded from voting lists, then this can come back.
This is not necessarily the final word. The Supreme Court was explicit about that, but the Supreme Court said, for now, the states have not been able to show the type of harm that's going to make us come in and pause this.
GOLODRYGA: And it's all happening, as Kristen noted, just weeks away before early voting begins ahead of the midterms. I want to thank my panel. Thank you for scrambling with this breaking news. We'll be covering it throughout the show.
All right, now, turning to our "Money Lead," President Trump today escalating economic wars on two different fronts, one against the U.S. adversary, Iran, another against a close ally, Canada. Trump threatened to double tariffs on Canadian cars and automotive parts by New Year's Day, bringing them up to 50 percent. Trump writing on Truth Social -- quote -- "Canada has been ripping off the United States of America for years. Not sustainable, and not anymore."
It's the latest sign that the United States and Canada are heading toward a larger trade war after a last-ditch effort to strike a deal collapsed Friday. Now, that failure led Trump to enact 50 percent tariffs on roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian goods this weekend. And Canada now wants to retaliate with dollar-for-dollar tariffs starting September 8th. This has set off a dramatic war of words between Trump and Ontario Premier Doug Ford. Here's how Ford responded this morning to Trump's latest tariff threat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOUG FORD, PREMIER OF ONTARIO (voice-over): Well, he can kiss my ass as far as I'm concerned. We need to throw everything and the kitchen sink at him. He's arrogant. He's cocky.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Well, President Trump responded on Truth Social, writing -- quote -- "Lots of bluster from Doug Ford, who is better known as the less charismatic, intelligent, and overall unimpressive brother of the late, great, Rob Ford. Someone should get these clowns to 'fall in line' or, the consequences for Canada will be far worse." But that wasn't the end of it. Ford also then held a news conference and have this to say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FORD: I have a lot of real estate on my ass, so he has a lot of room to kiss my ass. I'm a big dude. What can I say? Hopefully, they will come to their senses when they see the pain he's putting on the American people. And we have to focus on the red states. I've been in this game a lot longer than he has. I got skin on me like an alligator. And you think an insult from him hurts me? Well, bring it on, buddy. I'm ready. Bring it on. You know something? I've dealt with guys like you my whole life. And guess what? You all become losers because you're a loser.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Also, today, the U.S. increasing economic pressure on Iran as any sign of a peace deal remains elusive. After warning of an economic D-Day for Iran, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent today held a news conference where he threatened to penalize countries that refused to cut economic ties with Iran, but he stopped short of actually imposing big new penalties.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: These measures broaden secondary sanctions risk for anyone foolish enough to continue conducting business with this regime and will accelerate the speed with which we pursue them. This is economic asphyxiation of this regime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[17:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: All right, let's bring in CNN business editor-at-large Richard Quest. He's taking a look at how all of this economic news could potentially impact consumers. We'll leave derriere talk to the side here, Richard.
RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR-AT-LARGE: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Let's talk about what's really important. The U.S. and Canada are imposing and now threatening to impose more tariffs on one another. Walk us through what products will be affected and how much more will they cost the average buyer.
QUEST: Well, the ones that have just come into force are relatively small. But I don't think that's the key point here. It is the fact that they were unable to put together, to patch over their differences at the last minute.
And if you listen to what Mark Carney says, I mean, you talk about maybe a couple of hundred dollars one way or the other in terms of individual consumers. But if you listen to what Mark Carney, Canadian prime minister, he's now using the phrase we are at war, an economic war with the United States. And then you listen to Doug Ford and the rhetoric there. Remember, Ford had to once apologize for some of his insults to Trump.
But there seems to be a deteriorating scenario. And perhaps the only saving grace here will be the auto tariffs at 50 percent because the last thing that the U.S. auto industry wants are those tariffs coming into force come January, which is a -- which is a lifetime away in the world of Trump tariff land. But they don't want tariffs on autos. There has to be some more pressure brought to bear on either side. But at the moment, the Canadians are basically saying we can't do business here, we know exactly what he wants, he wants to somehow own us.
GOLODRYGA: It did come as a surprise because it did seem, even as recently as last week, that they were making positive inroads here. The president was just moments away from signing a deal. And now, this blew up.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford says that Canada will focus on Republican states now in retaliation. He wants Ottawa to reach for the energy weapon. Of course, that is Canada's biggest lever export taxes on oil, gas, and electricity. Do you think they'll do that? What might it look like, Richard?
QUEST: That would be nuclear. But when I say nuclear, I mean in terms of the next stage up, in terms of what to start cutting, to start overcharging, to start rationing. That would be a major development. That would also, by the way, hit very various treaty obligations. So, that's a -- that's a big one.
But to just give you an idea, the United States wanted to limit the amount of French production or the amount of French use in Canada in terms of U.S. companies. But, you know, everybody knows Canada is a dual nation when it comes to language.
To suggest to the Canadians that somehow, they should not use French or that the use of French should somehow be restricted as the price of doing business with the United States is so unthinkable. It shows a major dislocation of understanding between the two sides. It won't easily be breached. It won't easily be broached, I should say, because the breach is so deep.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. The majority of Canadians now support Carney stepping away from this deal.
QUEST: Absolutely.
GOLODRYGA: Quickly, on Iran, Treasury Secretary Bessent threatening new sanctions on countries refusing to cut economic ties with Iran. Did anything significant actually change here? He didn't name names.
QUEST: I can -- I can answer this in half a sentence from Bessent's point of view. Easier said than done. From the world's point of view, let's see you try and do this without -- without really annoying and frustrating allies like Turkey, India and, of course, obviously, eventually, China.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. We'll see what that meeting between President Trump and Xi looks like next month as well. QUEST: Exactly.
GOLODRYGA: Richard Quest, thank you.
QUEST: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Still ahead for us, the case of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother on trial for killing her three children. How a question about faith led to a call for a mistrial. Plus, Vice President J.D. Vance in Maine. What he said about Republican Senator Susan Collins that sounded nothing like his boss, President Trump.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: In our "Law and Justice Lead," jurors in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial were sent home early today. The dismissal came after the judge denied the defense's motion for a mistrial based on testimony from a prosecution witness about Clancy's Catholic faith. The trial centers on whether Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis when she killed her three children in 2023.
CNN's Jean Casarez is outside of the courthouse in Plymouth, Massachusetts. And Jean, you were in the courtroom today. Walk us through what happened.
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is the first time that the defense in this trial has asked for a mistrial. And I'm sitting in the courtroom. The jury is out and the defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, says, you know, I've thought about this, what to do on this. Lindsay has been through so much, but I have to do it. I'm asking for a mistrial.
And here is why. You know, when the evidence has shown that Lindsay did tell her family, her providers, her professionals, that as she was killing each child, she said, go to God, baby, go to God. Well, when the expert witness was on the stand, Kirk Heilbrun, he said that when he spoke to her and talked to her about this, she was raised in the Catholic faith, and so he asked her, do you know that in the Catholic faith that that this is a mortal sin, to kill -- to want to kill yourself? Objection, finish, jury is out.
And that was the issue because he went into religion, which has no place in this trial to get testimony and hear her answer conceivably of what she responded to him. So, the jury came back in, and then the judge told them, do not consider this at all. And he was strong. But I saw the jury. The jury is older versus younger. Parent, grandparents, they were dressed casually, but very nicely. And they looked very, very focused and so serious on what they were doing here at this courthouse.
[17:25:02] GOLODRYGA: And Jean, during the prosecution's rebuttal, mental health experts who examined Clancy and reviewed the case offered differing opinions on whether she was actually suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time of the killings. Tell us more about the sort of battle of the experts.
CASAREZ: Right. Psychosis is the issue, Bianna. That is the issue. Right. And the witness expert that was on the stand believes she had bipolar. But in his testimony, it's very interesting, he said that in talking with her, that he just thought it was very difficult to have a hallucination for 18 minutes on the 24th of January. A thought, yes. And from months before that, she had wanted to commit suicide. She was having suicidal ideations. That was her thought.
And he believed that she wanted to commit suicide. It was a serious attempt, but she didn't want to leave her children without a mother. And so, she felt that she should kill her children so they would still all be together. And that focus was very interesting because what he's trying to say is that she knew right from wrong, but she didn't want to leave them alone. They needed to be with their mother, even if it was in heaven.
GOLODRYGA: And I know, Jean, that you spoke with Lindsay's defense attorney today. What is he saying?
CASAREZ: Well, I spoke with the defense attorney, and I asked him, I said, I don't want to breach any confidential communications, but do you talk with her after court, just when you're alone in the courtroom and everyone has left and before she is taken out? And he said that he definitely did, and he said he always does. And the two nurses, I thought they were the nurses, are right there behind where she is, ready to aid and assist her at any moment.
GOLODRYGA: Jean Casarez in Plymouth, Massachusetts for us, thank you, as always.
And up next, denied entry. We'll speak with a North Carolina bakery owner about what he calls a tense encounter outside his store with Gregory Bovino. That is the former U.S. Border Patrol commander-at- large.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:31:38]
GOLODRYGA: In the National Lead, a Colombian bakery owner and activist in North Carolina is once again at the center of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. Manolo Betancur confronted former U.S. Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino, Sunday, while the former official was outside his bakery reporting content. Betancur says that he wouldn't let Bovino in his store and told him that he wasn't welcome in Charlotte.
And Manolo Betancur joins me now. Manolo, what was your reaction when you spotted Bovino outside of your bakery? And tell us what happened next. MANOLO BETANCUR, OWNER, MANOLO'S BAKERY: At the beginning, I was very scared. I always have been in fear of, oh, what I'm going to be doing, the time that I had to face ICE over the patrol. And what a surprise. My first time ever facing them and it's Bovino.
So I approached him, I make a video, and he approached me and I told him, what are you doing here? And he said, well, I can be whatever I want. He says, you are not welcome in Charlotte. You are not welcome on this property. And he says, what? Well, who are you? I said, I own this bakery. Ah, you are Manolo. You are the hero of the illegals.
You're the one who closed the bakery to protect the illegals. I said, well, at least you're protecting your freedom of speech myself. I'm doing the same thing. I'm protecting the freedom of speech. So that was how the conversation started.
GOLODRYGA: He also asked you why you carry your U.S. passport. We should note that you are a U.S. citizen. You immigrated to this country from Colombia, I believe, with only $900. How did you respond?
BETANCUR: I told him that every day people are pulled over in America because of the color of their skin or because of their accent. And that happens very often here in North Carolina. And I am in East Charlotte. This is ground zero. And I just don't want to go to a trial. I don't know how to explain or get detained by these people because of my accent.
So that's the reason why I carry my passport. And I asked him, do you carry yours? We're in the Constitution. We need to carry our passports. He said, oh, I carry my passport once in a while with me. That's what he said. By the way, he, yes, he recalled everything, you know, and just trying to remember everything. It was like a 40-minute conversation. And so it was too much that we shared.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, well, you noted that during Operation Charlotte's Web, that was the immigration enforcement operation in Charlotte earlier this year, that you had to temporarily close your business, costing you between $50,000 to $64,000. How is business going for you now?
BETANCUR: Bad, very bad. Yes, now my debt is $100,000. Things are not getting better. Things are getting worse. The inflation, the war, whenever ICE is in Charlotte, ICE is in Central Avenue, you know, people are not buying way in case. There are no quinceaneras. People are spending less money. So, yes, this is worse than 2008 recession, worse than COVID. And nobody cares. It's too much silence in our country. And nobody's paying attention to us, to the small business of this nation.
[17:35:05]
GOLODRYGA: Manolo Betancur, thank you so much for taking the time today. We appreciate it.
BETANCUR: Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
GOLODRYGA: And ahead, what a source tells CNN about a discussion between House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Hear from the first journalist to report on that meeting up next.
Plus, Vice President J.D. Vance, with his own dig at Canada, brushing it off as a Freudian slip. We'll let you judge for yourself.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NEW YORK CITY: I continue to support Congressman Jeffries and his bid to become the leader.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[17:40:03]
GOLODRYGA: That's New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani today saying that he still backs House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his bid for House Speaker. Now it comes after Jeffries met with President Trump's son-in-law and close advisor Jared Kushner recently in New York.
A source familiar with that meeting says the two discussed ways that the White House could work with Democrats should Democrats take back power after the midterms. Here now is one of the reporters first to report on this meeting. New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman. She is co-author of "Regime Change." Maggie, it is great to see you. It's been a while, my friend.
We'll get to more reaction on this meeting in just a second. But first, Republicans and Democrats agree on very little. So what areas could Democrats in the White House actually compromise on here?
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, so according to our reporting, Bianna, and Annie and I heard about this meeting a couple of weeks ago, and it took us a while to get even what we were able to learn. There are still things we don't know, like who hosted this meeting, among other things. But the main ones would be cost of living, housing, and immigration. As you said, you know, the possibilities of compromise on those are remote.
In our reporting, what Kushner was telling people, and Kushner is not working for the government. Kushner has been working outside the government on foreign endeavors, as you know well, and we've both been covering. But this is unusual because he is one of the only people who has a relationship with Hakeem Jeffries in this current White House.
And this is not a White House that has developed real relationships with Democrats. The chances, as you say, of there being some kind of a compromise on most of those issues are pretty remote. The President tanked a bipartisan housing bill earlier this year.
And on immigration, they're pretty far apart. However, it is impossible to ignore the backdrop of the fact that Democrats may retake the House, that polling shows that Republicans are really in trouble. And Jeffries is going to have to make a decision about exactly what he wants to do in terms of oversight and investigations of a White House that Democrats and the left of his party are very angry at.
GOLODRYGA: And as you noted, these two men do go back. They do know each other. They've worked together in the past on issues like criminal justice reform. Speaker Mike Johnson was asked about the meeting yesterday on "Fox." Here's what he said about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), HOUSE SPEAKER: Jared is a smart guy, and he hedges bets. But I'm telling you what, you better not bet against the House Republicans. I know Jared has interests in lots of other things going on. He's not really directly involved in the admin, at least in the day-to-day in the White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So he just picked up on what you pointed out, that most of Jared Kushner's focus has been on foreign affairs, in particular the Middle East. Is he trying to downplay this meeting? Are you surprised by the outrage that you're seeing on kind of both sides here?
HABERMAN: I'm definitely not surprised by the outrage that I'm seeing on the left. I think it's pretty revealing about Mike Johnson and how he views this White House and how much he does not want to anger the President or people around the President because he did not go further than that.
That was a pretty tepid response considering that, you know, he is downplaying it. He is sort of distancing himself and Kushner from anything here and saying, you know, don't bet against the Republicans. Well, the polls are all betting against Republicans right now. And again, that could change. But I think that the next two years, at least from how some in the White House are approaching it, could end up looking fairly different than what we saw for the first two years. But Democrats get a vote in that too.
GOLODRYGA: Let's talk about how the White House could physically look different in the next few years. Before we go, President Trump had this to say about his White House ballroom project. This was during a White House event, we should note, on School Choice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Now, I don't know if anybody wants to do this, but I'm going to be walking down here in about two minutes to meet with the people that are building the heliport. And you'll see right alongside of it the great structure that's rising right next to the White House, and that's going to be the ballroom slash military complex. It's incredible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Maggie, he is very focused on this ballroom, and you recently said the President spends about 70 percent of his time on construction projects. "The Washington Post" appears to undercut the president's argument that the White House needs a secure structure, noting, "More than a decade ago, federal officials built a highly protected bunker embedded deep underground that can shelter the President and his top aides in a national security emergency, according to three former officials." So what is your reaction to that?
HABERMAN: Look, the problem for the White House with all of this has been that they have changed their arguments over and over and over. It has been, we need a ballroom because people don't like using the porta-potties outside the tent setup. And that is true. I mean, there have been complaints from foreign leaders about that over other administrations.
[17:45:01]
But then it became, well, we need it for security. And then it became, actually, it's going to be a drone port. You know, this goes back to the White House demolishing the East Wing or having the East Wing demolished without notifying anybody, without going through congressional approvals. And so it isn't that people are just objecting to what the President is doing.
The question of who is going to be the President of the United States, who has legal standing to sue over that is a different issue. But it's not really a surprise that people feel like they weren't informed of what was happening. The public was not.
GOLODRYGA: So, Maggie, as you noted, if the President is spending 70 percent of his time consumed by construction, what does that say about the amount of time he's putting into policy, both domestic and foreign?
HABERMAN: So a couple of things, and also just to the last question about the bunker that "The Washington Post" reported on. That is absolutely going to further undercut their argument. But I don't know quite what the court's going to do with it. In terms of what the President is spending his time on, Jonathan and I report in our book just about how much time the President is spending on these monuments to self and these renovation projects and making sure that he is leaving a permanent mark on Washington. There are presidents who have done both.
But, you know, the economy bores this President. That was something that came up with people who talked to him, around him, over and over in 2024. That clearly has not changed. And things are not going well with the Iran war. So I don't think he wants to spend a whole lot of time on that. And it's an intractable problem that he has of his own making that he can't quite get out of.
But these physical projects, Bianna, just underscore to people who are hurting economically out in the rest of the country that the President's mind is on something else.
GOLODRYGA: Someone who had a pulse on where the nation was feeling, you know, over the past decade seems to be out of touch, at least as it relates to these construction projects. Maggie Haberman, thank you.
Also in the Politics Lead today, Vice President J.D. Vance in Maine today, defending the administration's escalating trade war with Canada.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have to remember, Canada is a state, sorry, Freudian slip. That was actually an accident. Canada is a country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: All right, one Republican noticeably absent at a speech today, Senator Susan Collins, she is in a tough re-election fight and critical of new 50 percent tariffs on Canada. Let's jump in with the panel. Shermichael, to you first. Here's why Senator Collins says that she skipped today's speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): I always welcome anyone coming to the state of Maine. I am already scheduled on Monday, so I will not be able to join the Vice President.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Now, the senator did find time to post, "If the administration proceeds with these tariffs, they will increase costs for Maine families, as most businesses will have no choice but to pass on the tariffs to their customers through higher prices." So, Shermichael, could this escalating trade war cost Republicans a key Senate seat?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Perhaps, but I don't think it's going to cost them Maine. I mean, you look at the more recent numbers, and it does appear that despite the competitiveness of the race overall, that Senator Collins appears to be in a good position. I think the White House is taking the right position here, including the Vice President, by allowing the senator to have distance.
They all understand the same numbers that we debate every single day on our network, which is that there are some challenges that will make some of our candidates more vulnerable. And so they give them the opportunity to distance themselves, be critical where necessary to run their state-specific, or in the case of congressional, congressional- specific races in order to win those seats so that we can at a minimum maintain our majority in the Senate and be as competitive as possible in the House. You're not going to find a strategist on the Democratic side or the Republican side who would objectively disagree with that.
GOLODRYGA: Well, Alyssa, to that point, take a listen to this shout- out by the Vice President for his, "good friend," Susan Collins.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) VANCE: I'm going to give Susan a little bit of crap. She comes to work every single day, and she fights for the great people of Maine. And I've seen it, which, by the way, is a very hard job. But she does it, an amazing job, and so please give it up to our very independent friend, Susan Collins.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, Alyssa, we know President Trump is not so charitable to Republicans who don't support him 100 percent. What does Vance's approach say about how important this particular race is?
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Listen, that was probably the best message the vice president can deliver because, to Shermichael's point, Susan Collins needs some distance from this White House right now, and she needs some distance from Trump and J.D. Vance. So I think a sort of tepid endorsement, acknowledging that she's independent at times from the administration, is actually quite helpful when he's in her local media markets.
[17:50:07]
At the end of the day, Maine actually looks like a much stronger hold because of all of the drama with Graham Platner and having to change candidates last minute. And Susan Collins is a political heavyweight. She is somebody who has come back from worse numbers than she has now and claws her way back and ends up winning in her state because she doesn't -- she knocks on every door she needs to, she shows up in every union hall she needs to, in every GOP event.
So I think the White House knows they want to keep this seat. They know that it's an uphill battle and more of one than it should be to maintain control of the Senate. So they're going to embrace Susan Collins in the smartest way they can right now, which is by creating some distance.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and all of the drama that the Democrats created in this particular race seems to have helped her as well. Chuck, let me bring you in in the breaking news story that we covered at the top of the show. The Supreme Court just moments ago, citing with President Trump's executive order that restricts mail-in voting. This ruling comes just 71 days, I believe, before the midterm election. How do you think voters will interpret this ruling? Does it just add to confusion?
CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think it does. And there's a reason why each state runs their own election and their state government should run their election. We shouldn't be federalizing our elections. And to all my Republican friends out there, mail-in ballots is paper. Mail-in ballots is verified signatures.
And I spent the primary in Alaska during the Alaska primary, and guess how all those folks up there, mainly Republicans, vote by mail. Guess how all of our military votes? By mail. We don't need this confusion days before these things are supposed to go out. And it's literally days. We're going to start sending out these ballots to our military overseas in the coming weeks. We don't need this kind of confusion just because somebody's hurt because they got their butt whooped in an election and they want to say there's election fraud when there was not any.
The American people are focused on gas prices and the price of ground beef, and they don't need another distraction. And that's what they see this as.
GOLODRYGA: Shermichael, this is definitely a win for the President, but we know that historically mail-in voting has been popular with both Democrats and Republicans. So longer term, does this actually hurt Republicans' chances?
SINGLETON: You know, this is a bit vague. I read through the decision in terms of the mandates from the United States Postal Service. I read through the notion that some states will have to provide these lists. I wish they would have made a ruling one way or another on this. I think this is going to confuse a lot of people, unfortunately.
If you look at the current iteration of my party, we do teeter more older and more rural. And so as a strategist, and Chuck and Alyssa know this very well, you're constantly thinking about maximizing your turnout, particularly in an environment where there are very few competitive races. And so when you're looking at that reality, if there's mail-in balloting, et cetera, you want to maximize, you want to take advantage of it, you want to use it because you're trying to find any edge you can get in an environment where there aren't many, to be quite honest with you, Bianna.
And I'll quickly add here, keep in mind, a couple years ago, many Republicans advocated for mail-in balloting because we were looking at the projections of our voters. They were getting older. They live in far places. We wanted to make sure that those people had an opportunity to participate. And so I view this a little differently from the President. I would encourage him to strongly reconsider this because on the other side, the voters are younger, there's an enthusiasm gap as well, and those folks appear to be willing to turn out in higher numbers.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and Alyssa, going back to 2024, the election the President won, I mean, I remember that Republicans were successful in persuading him to lay off of this particular issue, and yet here, this is a win for him. Longer term, what do you think the consequences are?
GRIFFIN: Yes, the President is a dog with a bone on this issue. I remember in summer of 2020, campaign advisers trying to get him off of the issue of mail-in voting. Despite the fact that he himself has voted through mail-in voting, I don't think you're ever going to convince him of this data that Shermichael just rattled off there, which is it's actually incredibly helpful with Republicans and the demographics of our party to make it accessible. Military voters, older voters, rural voters, et cetera. But this, I think, is just going to confuse a lot of folks ahead of the midterms. This is -- Josh Shapiro, governor of Pennsylvania, is already out with a statement saying he's going to challenge this ruling. So you're going to see more lawsuits, you're going to see more states that push back. And I'd also remind folks, as a conservative, we believe that states should run elections. We've never believed in federalizing elections. So this is a push from the White House I've never quite understood, and it could end up biting them in the back.
GOLODRYGA: Chuck, let me ask you, as we wrap up here, how do you think Democrats should respond to this ruling?
ROCHA: I think we should talk about everybody having a right to vote, whether they're old folks who live way out in the country or whether they live in the city. Everybody should have access to that. We were just talking about Maine. Guess what? A lot of voters in Maine mail in their ballots because they live in the upwoods of Maine.
And Susan Collins knows that. Susan Collins can try to distance herself from this decision in Donald Trump, but Democrats will continue to tie her to it. I want to be 6'5" and have a flat stomach, but I don't. She's like, she can want to be distanced, but she ain't going to be.
[17:55:14]
GOLODRYGA: All right. Well, with that thought in our heads, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you, panel. Appreciate it.
Much more on the breaking news this hour. A big legal win for the President. The U.S. Supreme Court backing his executive order restricting mail-in voting. The significance of this ruling coming just 10 weeks before the November midterms. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:00:02]
GOLODRYGA: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Bianna Golodryga, in for Jake Tapper. We are following breaking news tonight.
