Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Mega Donor Says, He's Eroding the American Brand; Trump's Support Among Young Men Eroding Amid Economic War; Trump Offers Private Dinner to Investors in His Meme Coin. Rep. Crockett Argues Style Might Be More Important Than Substance; Hegseth Defends Himself On Signal Chat Issue. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired April 23, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, WWE at the West Wing. A fight between Donald Trump's X Man and Money Man gets so heated they have to be separated.
Plus, when it comes to America, one of the president's mega donors tells him, you are killing it. No, you are really killing it.
KEN GRIFFIN, FOUNDER AND CEO, CITADEL: We're eroding that brand right now.
PHILLIP: Also --
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Pete, you're going to have to be tough as shit.
PHILLIP: -- the Pentagon chief in trouble for spilling secrets now wants to give his wife access to them.
And --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think that people are voting on vibes.
PHILLIP: So, (BLEEP) policy, (BLEEP) polite, liberals go profane.
Live at the table, Shermichael Singleton, Hillary Rosen, Joe Borelli, Congressman Jim Himes and Toure.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Philip in New York. Let's get right to what America's talking about. America's chosen pitchman has failed to make the sale. Trump is blinking in his self- inflicted trade wars. The artist of the deal may be blinking in those trade wars, but one of the richest supporters of the president says that the damage has already been done.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRIFFIN: The United States was more than just a nation. It's a brand. It's a universal brand.
We're eroding that brand right now.
In the financial markets, no brand compared to the brand of the U.S. treasuries, U.S. treasury market, the strength of the U.S. dollar and the strength -- the credit worthiness of U.S. treasuries, no brand came close. We put that brand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Donald Trump was elected because of his economic prowess. New polls are showing that his support is, in fact, eroding, particularly among young men. And it's lies like these that people aren't buying anymore.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: $1.98 yesterday in a couple of states, you have gasoline's way down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: That is false. No state had an average below $2.70 cents a gallon, and the national average, nearly a quarter, it's above $3. Now, the lowest price that we were able to find was $2.19 cents at a gas station in Texas.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The price of groceries are substantially down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: That is also not true. Average grocery prices in March were up from February in the biggest month-to-month jump since October, 2022. They were also up nearly 2.5 percent from last March, the biggest year-over-year jump un nearly two years.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We had all eggs, and as you know, the cost of eggs have has come down like 93, 94 percent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Not even close. The national average for a dozen eggs, as I'm sure you know, is above $6. That is a decline of 55 percent from their high, but not nearly 94 percent.
Trump has taken his biggest win and he's essentially squandered it. And the polls are really showing that people are kind of fed up with it. They we're giving him the benefit of the doubt for a while, but according to a new Fox poll just tonight, he is at the lowest marks for any president since George W. Bush for this point in his presidency, Congressman.
REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Yes, not surprising. And it's not even so much what he says. I think the American public is used to Donald Trump's exaggeration, shall we say, by now. But it's what the American public feels, right? And they feel the uncertainty because they look at their 401(k) statement and what's happened in the last three weeks or so.
They're smart enough to figure out something that my Republican colleagues are just figuring out, which is that you can't cut roughly a quarter of the spending in Medicaid through waste, fraud, and abuse. And so what you see is you see people saying, whatever is said, I'm starting to feel like stuff that is desperately important to me is moving away from me.
And this is a guy who got elected promising that I would feel better about the economy, I would feel better about inflation. And the American people are smart enough to know that everything that's happened in the last just under a hundred days has actually made those problems worse.
TOURE, SUBSTACK AUTHOR, CULTURE FRIES BY TOURE: Just look at those comments and you wonder if this person is aware of reality, like are they in touch with reality at all?
[22:05:03]
And the polling's important, but the economic numbers, when you see investors, especially global investors, don't want to invest, because they don't trust what's going on in America. We need to have consistency and confidence from investors. And when you have frenetic, chaotic, the president makes the proposal, then he pulls it back, there's clearly no strategy, how would you invest when you don't know what's going to happen?
PHILLIP: One of the interesting things about Ken Griffin and the reason that I think those remarks really ricocheted is that this is not a guy who is like an anti-Trump person. I mean, he's a Republican donor. He doesn't really talk like this. But in addition to what we played earlier, here's what he also said about what the last four weeks has been like financially for this entire nation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRIFFIN: United States has become through, you know, if you use the Euro as a reference currency, we become 20 percent poor in four weeks. There's not a lot of money being made in that environment.
(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Americans didn't vote to become 10 percent, 20 percent poorer in the first 100 days of Trump's election. I mean, is now the time for him to reverse course?
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: No but I'm kind of reflecting back to 2018 when I. Trump's first round of tariffs happened and he implemented them section, what were they, 232 and 301 tariffs, and we saw the same level of panic. Now, I know the response is going to be things are all different now.
PHILLIP: Well, I think the responses that those were about a tenth of the size of the current tariff.
BORELLI: But we saw the same level of panic. And I went back into my notes, a 2023 report by the Biden administration, the U.S. Trade Task Force said tariffs did actually onshore jobs and reduce imports from China. The Economic Policy Institute said that steel output grow based on the tariff imports, based on the tariffs, and that the other stuff improved as well. So, I mean, I just don't buy that we can just sit here and panic and go over these things.
PHILLIP: I'm wondering what's your reaction to just the fact that the economy is doing much worse now than when he came into office and that people like his own supporters say that the United States is going backwards in terms of wealth, backwards in terms of the security in the country. I mean, just on that front, I mean that should be a red flag, I think, for any politician. Wouldn't you say?
BORELLI: We faced an inflation crisis that we had not faced in 20 years since the 1970s, 1980s, right. That has worked its way out and things are definitely getting better. I heard what you said earlier before about some of the things that he said were not true. I don't know where you're buying eggs, but there's no eggs at $6 anymore. They're down to like $3. They're $4. They're lower than yesterday. I shop -- you should got to shop --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I feel very strongly about the egg situation because I buy a lot of eggs.
BORELLI: You buy them here in Manhattan. Everything's expensive here.
PHILLIP: Eggs are still expensive, and it's not just me saying that. That's just what the numbers actually say. But, again, I mean, egg prices are not going down. Gas prices are not at the levels he's talking about, and the people who support him, the people who backed him are saying, hey, Mr. President, you need to understand that you are destroying American wealth at a rapid pace that may not be able to be reversed.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And the cost of eggs are lower today than they were last year. That's a fact.
PHILLIP: What? No, they're not.
SINGLETON: Wage stagnation --
PHILLIP: The cost of eggs is not lower today.
SINGLETON: I go grocery shopping. I know what I paid last year. I know what I paid today.
PHILLIP: An average cost of eggs is $6 a dozen.
SINGLETON: Well, I can tell you from my personal experience.
PHILLIP: That's not the same thing as the price of eggs for Americans.
BORELLI: $2.99 a dozen, right here.
PHILLIP: Okay.
BORELLI: My shop price, it's down.
PHILLIP: The average price, just like the average price of gas, is not necessarily --
(CROSSTALKS)
TOURE: I hope that you guys keep saying this. As the country says, prices are going up. So, please keep saying that. You're really disconnected from reality.
HILLARY ROSEN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: You guys sound like Joe Biden did for a couple years, saying how great things, when you didn't believe it then. So, why would you believe it now?
PHILLIP: Shermichael, Hillary's point is one to be taken, because I thought that for four years, the whole thing was Democrats are in denial about prices going up. Democrats are in denial about how people feel about the economy. Democrats are in denial about how the economy actually is for people, okay, in addition to what the numbers say. And there were polls out just this week showing that more Americans than in a very long time feel like their economic situation is getting worse and not better. The trajectory, Shermichael, you have to acknowledge --
SINGLETON: Yes, and I was going to get into all of those other things, but my point was we saw wage stagnation for four years. The economy is still showing itself to be pretty strong. Unemployment numbers are really great. We're continuing to add jobs. I respect Ken Griffin. I mean, the guy is a brilliant businessman, brilliant CEO. I'm an entrepreneur. I listened to a lot of what he has to say. And I think his advice to the president is pretty spot on.
[22:10:01]
Look, we need to refocus on an initial promise to the American people, which is an overall strengthening of the economy, strengthening of a certain type of jobs. Re-shoring, I think, is a big deal. I would love to see the president do a re-shoring summit, bring some of the CEOs to the White House and figure out what the White House could do to help bring a certain percentage of those jobs back.
ROSEN: The president has brought a lot of CEOs in the White House, and they're all telling him he is on the wrong path.
SINGLETON: So, would you disagree with that there shouldn't be any focus on re-shoring?
BORELLI: More importantly, the markets have --
ROSEN: No, I don't think it's about re-shoring alone. I think --
SINGLETON: well, I didn't say that. It shouldn't be a part of a plan then?
ROSEN: It's about acknowledging that Americans are going to buy things, some things, and we're going to make some things.
SINGLETON: So, are they're not key and course that we should make in the U.S., semiconductors? Even Biden focused on that, for goodness sake.
ROSEN: Sorry, they're not focusing on that.
SINGLETON: But they should.
PHILLIP: Hold on, Shermichael. Go ahead, Hillary.
ROSEN: Well, the problem right now with what the Trump administration is doing is this sort of haphazard, like all tariffs everywhere approach. And that is clearly not what's going to get this economy going. A recognition that we need to buy some things from overseas and then we can make some things here is critical. And he has this kind of 1950s mentality about how the economy should be working in terms of our own domestic manufacturing.
It would be wise for Democrats today to come up with a strategy that says, okay, we're going to figure out what we're really good at making. We're going to make them, and then we're going to help people at the bottom get jobs in those businesses that have the opportunity to grow.
SINGLETON: Democrats and Republicans do that together.
HIMES: It's so not about the eggs. I hate to say it, but the president of the United States has precisely zero control over the price of eggs, has zero control, generally speaking, over the price of gasoline.
BORELLI: Well, maybe that your own party doing press conferences about the price of eggs and blaming Trump just --
HIMES: But what the president doesn't have to do is come out with -- and, look, I'm kind of a free trade guy, so I'm going to say this grudgingly. But, yes, if in specific product areas, the Chinese are dramatically subsidizing steel and they're putting our steel makers in very narrow areas, if you want to impose some tariffs to stop that kind of predatory stuff. But these tariffs were everybody on everything. Coffee. We grow 1 percent in Hawaii of the coffee that we drink. It's otherwise all grown. You know what, we're never going to grow coffee in this country.
And, by the way. Another little truth bomb here with respect to eggs. We talk about the re-shoring, absolutely. But, you know, you said it right, Hillary, 50s, the vision the president has is that we're going to go back to factories that have thousands of people working on a two-acre floor plan. Go to any factory today and you'll see it is automated. And so, yes, we ought to be working to make sure that those things that we can produce here better than the Mexicans or the Canadians or the Chinese are produced here, but that is not going to lead to a return to the industrial economy in 1950.
SINGLETON: If I could ask you, I would assume you would support and agree with a more comprehensive strategy, rare earth minerals. We shouldn't rely on China. Semiconductors chip manufacturing. We should focus on expanding that within the United States. You mentioned steel and aluminum. I think those are good things. I think you would probably receive bipartisan support by shifting the strategy to those things. I would assume Democrats would support such efforts.
HIMES: So, the rare earth minerals, perfect. We will never -- no one manufactures rare earth minerals. If we really are serious about rare earth minerals, first of all, we won't put tariffs on. And, secondly, here's how we solve the rare earth minerals problem. We could mine those things here in the United States, in places like Utah and Wyoming. But to build a mine in this country is a two to three-decade proposition. And so if you're really serious about getting red earth minerals here in the country, you're going to have a hard conversation, particularly on my side of the aisle, about how you can build a mine in 2 years instead of 20 years. That's how you solve the rare.
TOURE: What do you make of the whole notion (ph) we had this trade war with China that we started and we have lost, we have lost, whatever tough guy aura that Trump tried, what is the long-term impact of that?
HIMES: Look, there's two problems with what Trump has done. Number one, it was an insane program. Again, you can do very highly targeted tariffs and that -- I'd sort of be saying that begrudgingly, but he said tariff everybody, you know, on everything, including a lot of products that we don't make here, a lot -- in my district, right, Cannondale Bicycles is in my district. Their parts come from China. They can't -- it'll take them five years to make the parts that they get from China.
So, you know what they're going to do? The president's going to put Cannondale out of business. And, by the way, if you're going to do a bad policy, at least do it with some consistency. Talk to any business leader. Talk to any business leader. They will tell you the most toxic thing here is stop, start, oh, it's 90 percent. No, it's not 90 percent, it's 90 days. As somebody pointed out at this table, when that's the environment, when no one knows what's happening tomorrow, nobody's investing.
PHILLIP: Well, we're in for a lot more of that stop, start, because according to the reporting, they are trying to figure out how to get out of this mess that they've created for themselves, but more ahead.
Coming up next, breaking news tonight, Donald Trump escalates the blurring of ethical lines as he offers a dinner to top investors of his meme coin.
[22:15:04]
Plus, why does Pete Hegseth's wife need a security clearance? The unusual request comes as he faces heat in a tech scandal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: You're going to have to be tough as shit. Boy, he was not kidding.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I will ask Congress to pass sweeping reforms to prevent foreign influence, pedaling, bribery, and corruption like we have seen with a certain family in the United States, the Biden crime family.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:20:02]
PHILLIP: Donald Trump spent an entire campaign accusing Joe Biden and his son of profiting off of their power, and now the MAGA king appears to be doing just that. The New York Times reporting that the president is offering dinner to the top 220 investors in his meme coin, which launched back in January, days before his inauguration.
The invite promises an intimate dinner where guests can hear from Trump firsthand about the future of cryptocurrency. And to sweeten the deal, the Times reports the top 25 holders will win access to a reception with President Trump alongside a VIP tour of the White House. We have reached out to the White House for comment on this story and have yet to hear back.
The obvious question is, how is this legal? He is the president of the United States.
ROSEN: Lawyers can debate that forever, how much immunity that the president has. But whether this is right or not, my grandmother told me two wrongs don't make it right. So, I'm not going to defend Hunter Biden, but I will say that the irony of Trump and his crypto behavior from getting the SEC to stop regulating crypto, to his sons going in the crypto business, and now the Trump coin, which people don't realize they issued a billion tokens for the Trump coin. But Donald Trump has held onto 800 million of those tokens. So, only 20 percent of the Trump coin is actually out in circulation in the public. So, he hypes the coin, gets everybody to buy it, so the price goes up. And he's the one who profits.
PHILLIP: I mean, this is a juicing scheme here, because they are encouraging people to drive up the price of the coin.
On top of what you're saying, they're also profiting off of just the transactions that are happening, the buying and selling of the coins.
ROSEN: Yes.
PHILLIP: So, Congressman, I mean, there's so much going on here, but for a president who has said, you know, Biden, I guess, profited off of, you know, his son Hunter Biden's business dealings, his family is directly profiting off of this and he's participating it actively as a setting president of the United States.
HIMES: Yes. You know, the most painful thing to me about our politics today is that all moral issues are determined by whataboutism, right? So, you can excuse any behavior simply by saying, well, what about her emails, or what about Hunter Biden and stuff? At some point, we got to stop doing that, right, because we don't accept that as a way of thinking morally from our toddlers, right? Four year olds don't get to smack their sister because, well, what about when she did it last, last week?
And, I mean, it's painful to me for two reasons. Number one, look, it's an obvious scam. And, you know, the little devil that's there on my shoulder says, look, if you're going to buy a Trump meme coin, you know, you're going to deserve what is coming. But we're actually engaged in a serious effort and we don't know how this is going to play out. We're actually engaged in a serious effort in the Congress right now to try to build the regulatory structure that will allow for cryptocurrencies and crypto assets and blockchain generally to innovate. And it does -- that effort, absolutely no good to have obvious scams out there taking up the oxygen.
SINGLETON: Blockchain technology is --
TOURE: If only this were really about crypto. This is about the privatization of the White House. This is about corruption. This is about using the White House to personally enrich yourself, which is illegal, which is immoral, which is inappropriate, which surely leads to corruption. Do we really think that everybody is just a fan of Trump and they don't have some actual thing they're -- and this is not a right-left issue. I don't have any idea how the two of you don't will make some idea of like, well, this is actually okay because somehow, some other Dems did it.
SINGLETON: I don't want do what the Congressman just said we shouldn't do with the whataboutism, but Politico had an article that came out last year, President Biden had a bunch of donors at the White House and they wrote a bunch of big checks.
TOURE: You know, nothing you say on this show doesn't --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I do want to address that because -- hold on a second, because there's a difference. I mean, I'm not saying it's right, but I think that there are differences between donors having too much access to the White House, which is one set of ethical issues, and the president's family profiting off of the president himself and the president participating.
SINGLETON: Like what Hunter Biden did. I'm not --
PHILLIP: Yes. So, I think that's exactly what the congressman was saying was what -- I think that's what the congressman was saying was that that is the comparison that is probably the most apt. Do you agree?
SINGLETON: So, maybe the framing is in politics in general, to the congressman's point, we need to have some reforms. But to the blockchain technology --
PHILLIP: But, I mean, is it -- hold on. We're not talking about blockchain. Is it corrupt?
SINGLETON: Yes, but I want to bring it up because I'm fast. I mean, I invested in crypto and I --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hold on. It's not a blockchain conversation.
SINGLETON: (INAUDIBLE) blockchain technology. So, can I not bring up blockchain technology?
ROSEN: Taking advantage of something even like broader narrative, the fact that the American people don't really understand crypto, they really don't understand the fact that there is no regulation for crypto, and that the Trump -- one of the first acts of when Trump came in, he signed an executive order to prevent the SEC from regulating crypto.
[22:25:11]
He's taking advantage of that to find ways to profit from it. And that's very different than any other thing he could do. Everybody knew when he sent the government employees to go stay at the Trump Hotel, oh, yes, that doesn't seem right. But this is different. This is actually something that's so much more, sotto voce, and under the radar.
BORELLI: Thee points. I am one of those people who thinks that members of Congress, elected officials, cabinet people, et cetera, should not be able to trade stock based on insider trading laws, and I firmly believe that. That said, I looked for in this New York Times article what was the allegation of corruption, what was the crime that was being accused, and there wasn't something.
Is it inappropriate? Maybe you could argue that it's maybe, but it's not illegal.
TOURE: Maybe, Joe?
BORELLI: And I damn well I will play whataboutism when you had a culture of corruption for four years that was so bad that the president's final act, while he was gumming his eggs and his wife was doing the job, was to pardon his entire family.
TOURE: Because he's scared --
BORELLI: So, yes, I will play whataboutism when the last president was so corrupt, he had to pardon in advance his entire family.
PHILLIP: Let me understand.
BORELLI: Where is the crime? What is the crime? What is the crime you're accusing President Trump of.
HIMES: You cannot.
BORELLI: Is there a crime?
HIMES: I think the Trump administration is using the public office --
BORELLI: But that's the innuendo, right? That's the innuendo that we're talking about.
HIMES: No, this is something that only the president can do in virtue of his position. But, again, we got to get off of the whataboutism, right? I mean, this goes back -- look, this goes back to Billy Carter. Every presidency has had family members try to profit off the president. But let's -- I mean, come on, there's no way you can look at the Trump administration and say that he's not, you know, taken everything to 11. You know, the Hunter Biden stuff was unseemingly --
BORELLI: Hunter Biden was paid --
(CROSSTALKS)
ROSEN: Yes. Well, I invested in Melania. I guess he didn't care about that.
SINGLETON: People make money off of crypto every single day. I am a big crypto guy. Pump fun is an easy way to launch a meme coin with younger people, Hillary, my generation, gen Zs. We understand.
PHILLIP: All right, guys. This is --
SINGLETON: And so, look, I think crypto's the future. We can debate whether or not the support should be there,
PHILLIP: Okay, crypto might be the future, but the president --
SINGLETON: But, Congressman, the blockchain tech, Web3 technology, I think what you guys are doing in Congress is really, really good.
PHILLIP: The president pumping a crypto coin that his family is profiting off to the tune of potentially billions of dollars is something we have never seen before in this White House. The scale is what we're talking about here in, in addition to the ethics of it all.
Coming up next, Democrats are diagnosing why they lost the election and some voters only care about vibes, not policy. So, are they right about that? We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, vibes over policy? Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett isn't one to shy away from speaking her mind. And in a late night appearance with Jimmy Kimmel, Crockett argued that style might be more important than substance, if Democrats want to regain control of Congress. Here's your proof -- Donald J. Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D) TEXAS: I don't think that, honestly, policy is what we need to be fine about because guess what? Can nobody tell you that Donald Trump's policies were at all? Like, you ask them, like, what policies? I don't even think that it's policy.
I think that people are voting on vibes. I think that, people are voting for, like, who they feel like is being honest with them even if they don't like what they're saying. So, I think that we just need to really tap into, like, being okay with just being real people, and showing people that we are real people, and we'll be fine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Toure, you think there's some truth in that?
TOURE, YOUTUBE HOST, "RAP LATTE": I think her general thesis is probably right that most people are not reading white papers and trying to figure out that the meanings of policy and Trump's sense of strength and the sense of authenticity that people take from him was big for.
And perhaps, yeah. I mean, you know, there's certain policies that are critical to me. I couldn't vote for you if you weren't pro-choice. I couldn't vote for you if you weren't supportive of civil rights and -- and DEI (ph) sort of things, but, like, trans children. But you can definitely win over a lot of voters by communicating a personality like the congresswoman is saying, that communicating a personality that speaks to people, that says I want you to be my leader.
PHILLIP: There's a big authenticity debate happening in the Democratic Party right now.
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: I agree. And -- and I just met the good congressman tonight. But I guarantee you, if I go on his Twitter or his social media, he has a whole bunch of stuff, him doing stuff around the district, fun stuff, playing sports, meeting with kids, having a beer somewhere, I guarantee you have that. I don't know, I guarantee you have that.
And I guarantee his engagement on those posts are better than when you've outlined some specific policy thing. And that's why you do it, right? That's why -- that's why that's why people in politics do it. So, I actually agree with Jasmine Crockett in this respect that it is a lot about vibes. It is about a person's connection to elected officials. It is about a person's connection to a candidate that actually drives them to vote.
PHILLIP: Congressman, we were talking about over the last few days, Democrats, going dark essentially, which it seems amounts to using curse words more often, I guess.
[22:35:04]
Is that the way to project authenticity to voters?
REP. JIM HIMES (D) CONNECTICUT: Yeah. You know, it's funny. I -- I think it's, Jasmine's 15, 20 years younger than I am, so she says vibes. I would say authenticity, those of us who are a little older. And, you know, it is in such short supply. And -- and I think, you know, policy does matter, right?
I mean, I think if -- remember, George W. Bush gets re-elected because you want to have a beer with the guy. And George W. Bush was funny and everything, but there was no amount of funniness or I want to have a beer with that guy that was going to save him when the Iraq war went south. So, it's not -- it's not one or the other.
But, yeah, you know, I -- I have in my entire political career, I have, bristled at what happens amongst politicians. You get the piece of paper that has four bullet points on it and, you know, some people read those four bullet points.
PHILLIP: Yeah.
HIMES: And then, you know, there's something deep in the human soul. This probably goes back to, you know, caveman days where you want to know whether somebody's for real. Are they telling me the truth? Can I trust this individual? Do they understand my values?
And if you're reading bullet points to your swearing question, you know, if you're authentically a swearer, if you're Rob Emanuel, swear. But God, for God's sakes, if you're, you know, Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi, I'm not sure his other swear word and it was like, no. Don't go around just because somebody cursed at you.
TOURE: You don't curse. I was a Hillary Clinton guy when she was running. The first time that her and Bernie debated, I was like, I believe everything he says. I like her, but I -- I -- and I -- and I would -- and she don't have to -- he didn't have to curse to have that effect on me. HILARY ROSEN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I -- I sort of think people are
making this too complicated. She's absolutely right. Politics has always been about feel and has always been about trust. And Democrats blew it the last couple of years by supporting Joe Biden when people thought that -- that he wasn't telling the truth. They, you know, you didn't believe their lying eyes.
PHILLIP: What about Vice President Harris?
ROSEN: And so when you get to that point, you lose so much credibility. You've got to find ways to get it back.
PHILLIP: What about Vice President Harris? I mean, I think that there was a time right after she got the nomination when people -- the -- the critique was voters need to know more about her, and the campaign responded to that by saying, here is after a period of time, here are our plans, and, like, here is what she stands for.
ROSEN: Well, I firmly believe that Kamala Harris lost because she would not separate from Joe Biden.
PHILLIP: Right.
ROSEN: But that's a separate issue. I do think if you look -- if you put -- if the-- this is our bad issues. If you pull the American people on issues, the American people are -- are pro-choice, barely, but are pro-choice of majority. They are for health government supported health care. They're for increasing minimum wage. They're for taxes on the wealthy. They're -- in other words, they're for all the positions that Democratic Party are for, but Democrats haven't won and that's not because of policy.
PHILLIP: Shermichael?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, look, I think she's right about authenticity, but I also think there are some value issues for a lot of American voters that they personally believe the Democrats have gone too far to the left on. And you've even had Democrats, Rahm Emanuel, others that have actually acknowledged, like, hey, there's some cultural issues we probably need to go back to the center to win back some people, and we'll see if they make that adjustment. But her premise, I don't think overall, is incorrect.
PHILLIP: All right, everyone. Coming up next, why does Pete Hegseth need his wife to have a security clearance, especially since he's facing heat for spilling government secrets? Another special guest is going to join us at the table. Plus, the defense secretary declares that if you're overweight, you are no longer welcome in the military.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: They need to be fit, not fat. Sharp, not chef, especially our leaders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:43:20]
PHILLIP: Tonight, Pete Hegseth is facing heat for spilling secrets, and yet, he apparently now wants to get his wife access to them. Jennifer Hegseth is a former Fox producer, and she's requested a security clearance. Her prominent presence is something that a former Pentagon official says never in my life have I ever seen this. Now remember, he is under scrutiny for two incidents in which he shared sensitive information in group chats, one of which inadvertently included a journalist and another included his wife.
Joining us in our fifth seat at the table is CNN legal analyst, Jennifer Rogers. She's a former federal prosecutor. Jennifer, that official says that he's they've never seen a spouse sit in on these high level meetings with counterparts of other countries where they're talking about matters that are substantive and related to our relationship with foreign militaries. Can you see any justification for something like this?
JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I'm not thinking of it. I mean, listen. There are anti-nepotism rules in the federal government. So, I guess she's not coming in to take an official position or that would be a violation of those rules. So, she has this unofficial position and now wants a security clearance. As far as I know, she doesn't have any background that would make her suited for that sort of role.
The kind of informal advice that a spouse sometimes, you know, gets from their spouse when they have tough decision-making in front of them, has happened throughout history, but you can't disclose, obviously, classified or otherwise sensitive information when you seek that kind of advice. Yeah, I don't know. I'm not seeing it.
I mean, security clearances are there for a reason. They require full vetting, background checks, training on how you handle that kind of information once you get a hold of it.
[22:45:01]
So, it's obviously a dangerous thing for her to be hearing those things without security clearance. And there's no reason for her to have it either.
PHILLIP: Yeah, I mean, and there's, you know, there's the Signal chat that I mean, Signal shouldn't be used for classified information. She was on it. I mean, could that cause her to face legal exposure?
RODGERS: Well, I mean, you have to have be grossly negligent in releasing classified information to be charged. I mean, I certainly don't expect any charges from these incidents, not least because the Trump DOJ would never pursue those charges.
PHILLIP: They've already said that they're not going to.
RODGERS: But, you know, it really is all highlighting the cavalier attitude that the Secretary of Defense seems to have in terms of the information that he's in possession of, the -- the lives that are under his control during his military operations. That's what's really concerning to me. Excuse me. And the wider that -- that circle gets of who he's sharing this kind of information, the more concerned I am.
PHILLIP: There are judgment issues here. It's that, what we just discussed. Also, in CNN's reporting, it -- it sounds like when it came to briefing Elon Musk on China, Pete Hegseth didn't tell the president. He -- the report about his plans to brief Musk came to a surprise to Trump himself who ordered the briefing canceled.
It's not clear the president according to our reporting would have even found out about this had the media not reported it. The -- it took the president to say don't give this person who has business dealings in China a top secret briefing on the United States military plans for China?
HIMES: Yeah, well, I think it's not news that, there's questions about Pete Hegseth's judgment here, which is another reason to think hard about, you know, how much you want him sharing with his spouse and whether he feels permissioned in sharing it with his spouse because she gets a security clearance, which is in fact unprecedented.
And, you know, by the way, there's another principle here that's even more important than the existence of a security clearance, and that's, generally speaking, we only share our secrets, especially the kinds of secrets that the Secretary of Defense gets, with people who have a need to know those secrets.
And there's a reason for that, which is we're all people, we have feet to claim, we make mistakes. And part of me says, why would she want to be in that position? I mean, I've been dealing with classified information for a decade and a half.
And there are moments, you know, and I'll be at a dinner party and talking. I'll -- I'll stop myself and say, well, wait. You know, was this something that I learned from the newspaper? Because -- so it's actually kind of a hard thing to do, and it doesn't -- I don't see the upside to it, and there's an awful lot of risk.
PHILLIP: I mean, Shermichael, all of this, I mean, adds up to something we don't really know what, but it it's one of those situations where how much smoke do they need to see in order to decide, oh, we don't need to wait and -- and have the whole House get engulfed in flames.
SINGLETON: Yeah. I think that's ultimately up to the president. I would imagine though just knowing Trump, man, this is a lot. I mean, this is a lot. Every single day there appears to be something new, like I, on our airwaves, offended Pete because I said every president has an opportunity to nominate the person of their choice. The president spent a lot of political capital to get him confirmed.
My advice to the secretary would be, dude, keep your head down, focus on the job. The president has a lot of stuff he's dealing with. This should not be one of them. PHILLIP: I'm so surprised also to hear this kind of justification, I
guess, from Senator Kevin Cramer who voted to confirm Pete Hegseth, basically suggesting that we just need to give him some time to figure out the job, something that I don't think any press defense secretary has ever been granted in the history of this country. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R) NORTH DAKOTA: I would hope that he's learned. I'm confident he has. I'm confident that Pete Hegseth can still be and will be a great secretary of -- defense. He's going to need some help around him. I think one of the things he has lacked, in the early days is a, is some real, expertise, institutional expertise in the building.
I think the monster that is the, that is the Pentagon is -- was a bigger monster perhaps than he even he even thought.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Joe, Pete Hegseth came in with a hatchet and fired a bunch of people claiming that they didn't believe in merit. And yet you have a sitting senator saying he didn't understand the scope of the job. How is that merit?
BORELLI: I -- I think that's Senator Cramer's opinion. I don't think it's certainly the case that Pete Hegseth didn't understand the scope of the job. He is a combat veteran, a long time -- long time member of the U.S. Army.
Look, I think there is a learning curve with any job. I think the learning curve should -- should damn well be very short when you're the secretary of defense. There's no question about that. And I think Pete Hegseth overall has done a positive job.
I think things are --are going in the right direction at the Department. And I think most importantly, he has kept the confidence of President Trump. There were all these rumors, what, two or three weeks ago that Trump was going to fire him. There was a whole news cycle centered around that. Trump came out, vehemently denied that, if anything, doubled down on his confidence, and that's where we are.
PHILLIP: If this were a woman or a person of color, do you think we would even be having this conversation? Would they even be in their jobs?
ROSEN: That's a rhetorical question, right?
PHILLIP: I don't know. I mean, it's a real -- I guess it's a real question now because I don't -- I don't know.
ROSEN: Well, if -- if anyone would ever let a woman be Secretary of Defense, we'd see.
[22:50:01]
PHILLIP: I mean, but the funny thing was Trump had --
UNKNOWN: We could have seats --
PHILLIP: Trump had some options here. I mean, Joanie Ernst's name was being put forward for this, so he actually could have done that.
ROSEN: This is a really big job. You know, there's three million people who work for the Defense Department. There's a million and a half soldiers in the armed forces. I mean, this guy has never managed anything more than an assistant and -- and a junior producer maybe at Fox News.
And, no offense to my friends and producers here, but the -- the job is just way beyond where he has shown any capability for -- for doing and he keeps getting distracted by silly things, by using Signal to like text friends about, you know, the plans in Yemen to, you know --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And also, let me -- let me play the other thing that has been occupying quite a lot of his time. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: To be lethal, you have to trust that the warrior alongside you in battle or the troops fighting in the unit that many of you will lead are capable, truly physically capable of doing what is necessary under fire. They need to be fit, not fat. Sharp, not shabby.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHERMICHAEL: He's not wrong. He's not wrong. You got to be honest.
HILARY ROSEN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: But, you know, there might be heresy to say, like, I'm okay if soldiers have to pass a physical --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: They -- which -- which I think, just to be clear, they do. They do. I think the issue is --
SINGLETON: About lowering the standards.
PHILLIP: First of all, they -- they do. There's no evidence that the standards have been lowered. I think to me, what this seems to suggest is, is where is his focus, right? And the -- the Pentagon is a big challenge. And -- and the biggest part of the Pentagon's challenge is the future. And the future is, how are we going to combat China?
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: -- technology.
PHILLIP: Yeah, like, the big stuff, right? And he's like, oh, your uniform is not in ship -- tip top shape. It just seems so small compared to the scale at the top. (CROSSTALK)
HIMES: To counter the story, there was a story in the Pete Hegseth universe. This was a small story today, but there was a story that he paid to have a -- a makeup room set up next to the briefing room. I -- I heard that. I thought, who cares? Like, everybody's got a make-up room next to it. He issued a statement defending it.
You know, a Secretary of Defense, somebody in one of the most serious jobs on the planet says, I'm not even going to talk about that because I've got more important things to do.
PHILLIP: Real quick, yeah.
RODGERS: It's worse than that. It's not just distractions. He's lying. He didn't just defend it. He denied it. He denied the Signal chat stuff, and then it came out, and it's like, oh, okay. I mean, he's not telling the truth. That's a bigger issue to me than just his distraction.
SINGLETON: Military recruitment is up. That's a good thing.
ROSEN: This is not what Donald Trump wants from his secretary.
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: And the Houthi attacks have been successful.
PHILLIP: Okay. Yes. We're -- we are aware --
ROSEN: The country and he --the president deserve better.
SINGLETON: So, my point of him focusing on the job --
(CROSSTALK)
ROSEN: PHILLIP: The attacks have been successful.
SINGLETON: An army recruitment is up.
PHILLIP: But again, I would --
(CROSSTALK)
HIMES: Until the Suez Canal is open, you could not claim success on the Houthi attacks.
PHILLIP: I would --
HIMES: Just because you destroyed a bunch of buildings, the objective is to reopen shipping in the Red Sea. We're not close to that.
PHILLIP: Okay, I got to go.
SINGLETON: Better than what the previous president did. That's my opinion. PHILLIP: The previous president had attacks on it, too. All right, we
really got to go, everybody. Jennifer Rodgers, thank you very much joining us -- for joining us. Everyone else, stay with us. Coming up next, the panel is going to give us their nightcaps. They'll tell us what they would add or change to the White House inspired by a new renovation project.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:58:01]
PHILLIP: We're back. Toure is back with us, and it's time for the "NewsNight" cap, extreme makeover edition. President Trump plans to put two American flags at the White House, each nearly a hundred feet tall, and there he is surveying the land himself. You each have 30 seconds to tell us what extreme change you would bring to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Shermichael, you're up.
SINGLETON: All right, so you know I'm a big gun person. I would love to have a gun range in the basement of the White House. I would want it to be reinforced so I can shoot a Barrett fifty-cal BMG, there's not a lot of ranges that will allow that in.
PHILLIP: The Secret Service would like to have a word.
SINGLETON: So, I think that would be cool and I would want the range to be modular, so if I want to do some IDPA shooting or some USPSA shooting to bite my gun buddies, we can do that in the White House.
PHILLIP: All right, Hillary.
ROSEN: I think Donald Trump needs a throne room. You know, he's become, you know, he's moved from president to emperor to king, and he needs a throne room to, you know, meet his subjects and have them pledge fealty to him.
PHILLIP: Toure.
TOURE: I'm glad I know you and know that you're kidding.
PHILLIP: She's definitely kidding.
TOURE: You know, there were thousands of enslaved people who helped build the White House. If we're going to make changes, let's have a memorial to them. Perhaps get the Black Smithsonian involved and try to name those folks so we have a proper memorial to the people who built the White House for free.
PHILLIP: That's actually a great idea.
HIMES: Yeah, I like Toure's idea, but, as a legislator, I got to say I'm not a lawyer, but I remember fifth grade social studies and I was taught that it's Congress that appropriates and spends the money and declares war and this administration doesn't agree with that. So, I want a little annex where he's got a whole bunch of really well trained lawyers. PHILLIP: Doesn't he already have that?
HIMES: I said well-trained. I said well-trained.
PHILLIP: All right, Joe.
BORELLI: I give you the White House Waffle House. Every all-star president needs an all-star breakfast --$13.99 at your own Waffle House somewhere in the Eisenhower Building or the West Wing. Inflation proof, unlimited coffee, he can get diet Cokes, and we could all just get rid of the Navy mess and have all-star breakfast and grits every morning.
[23:00:07]
PHILLIP: You know -- you know what?
ROSEN: And cheap eggs.
BORELLI: And cheap eggs.
PHILLIP: Cheap eggs. Well, you know what? You know what I think you should wear? You should wear the Waffle House where they have the bowling alley because --
BORELLI: Nobody bowls.
PHILLIP: -- it's all-day -- people bowl.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Breakfast all-day and bowling sounds perfect to me.
UNKNOWN: Oh, bowling.
PHILLIP: Everyone, thank you very much for joining us. Thanks -- thanks for watching "NewsNight". You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media -- X, Instagram and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
