Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip

Trump Makes Unsubstantiated Claims of Genocide in South Africa; Judge Says U.S. Deportations to South Sudan Violate Court Order. House Republicans Release A Package Of Major Changes To President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill; The Pentagon Announces Acceptance of Boeing 747 From Qatar. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired May 21, 2025 - 22:00   ET

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


[22:00:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, Trump's Oval Office unreality show, South Africa edition.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Turn the lights down and just put this on.

PHILLIP: The president ambushes his guest with false claims of genocide.

CYRIL RAMAPHOSA, SOUTH AFRICAN PRESIDENT: People who do get killed are not only white. The majority of them are black people,

PHILLIP: Plus, a day of back and forth over Trump's big, beautiful bill. We'll have the latest on Speaker Johnson's efforts to wrangle enough Republican votes.

Also, deported from the U.S. to South Sudan? a Boston judge finds the White House in violation of a court order for flying eight migrants to a war zone. The latest in the battle over checks and balances.

And extreme makeover 747 edition, the Pentagon accepts a palace in the sky from and Trump lashes out at a reporter questioning the gift.

Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Charles Blow, Ashley Allison, Shermichael Singleton and Tara Palmeri.

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 Phillip in New York. Let's get right to what America's talking about, an Oval Office ambush. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa thought he was joining President Trump at the White House to reset relations. Instead, he was accused of allowing, quote, genocide of white South African farmers to happen under his watch. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have thousands of stories talking about it. And we have documentaries. We have news stories.

Excuse me, turn the lights down. Turn the lights down, and just put this on. It's right behind you, Johann (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not this parliament can do with or without you. People are going to occupy land.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: The evidence that Trump is showing there with the press in the room has been debunked. There is nothing substantive to these claims that there is a genocide happening in South Africa. But that still didn't stop the White House from fast tracking the refugee status of 59 white South Africans just last week.

Now, here are the actual facts around this. In the last nine months of 2024, there were more than 19,000 murders in South Africa. Only 36 happened on farms, and only 7 of the victims were farmers. How many of them were white? We don't know because official data is not broken down by race.

Now, even a State Department report in Trump's first term addressed the claims of race-motivated attacks on white farmers. That same report goes on to say that those attacks and murders increased in line with the overall rise in violent crime in the country.

Still, Trump accused the South African president of doing nothing to stop his unsubstantiated claim of genocide.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: But you do allow them to take land.

RAMAPHOSA: No, no, no, no.

TRUMP: You do allow them to take land.

RAMAPHOSA: Nobody can take land.

TRUMP: And then when they take the land, they kill the white farmer. And when they kill the white farmer, nothing happens to them.

RAMAPHOSA: No. There is quite -- nothing happens to them. There is criminality in our country. People who do get killed, unfortunately, through criminal activity, are not only white people. A majority of them are black people. And we have, now --

TRUMP: The farmers are black. The farmers are not black. You say that's good or bad, but the farmers are not black.

(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Joining us in our fifth seat at the table is Elise Labott. But she's the Edward R. Murrow press fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and host of Cosmopolitics on Substack.

And you can see there why President Ramaphosa was a negotiator for the anti-apartheid government because he had extraordinary patience in trying to explain to Trump that what he is claiming there in the Oval Office for the world to see is just not true.

ELISE LABOTT, EDWARD R. MURROW PRESS FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: That's right. And he also, you know, brought some props with him.

[22:05:01]

He brought some South African golfers, a coffee table book. He knows that, you know, he needs to, kind of in this feudal system, bring gifts to President Trump. It wasn't enough to stop that ambush. But he tried to, you know, correct the facts, let him know that the majority, and there is a lot of crime in South Africa, the majority is not against whites, it's against blacks. The majority is not against farmers, as you said in the intro.

President Trump didn't want to hear any of it. It wasn't until one of the golfers and one of the white billionaires that he brought with him kind of said, look, President Trump, this is what's going on. And I think that's when, you know, then there was a joke about the jet, which we'll talk about later. But that's when I think the meeting kind of turned and the tensions were lowered a little bit.

PHILLIP: This is straight out of the conspiracy land of the far right, and it is not based in fact. And it's amazing that this has actually become the foreign policy of the United States based on just straight up -- I mean, we have the numbers. It is completely unsubstantiated.

I mean, Scott --

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You're saying it's not true that some white farmers have been murdered.

PHILLIP: No, it's not true that there is a genocide against white farmers.

JENNINGS: Okay? Whatever you call it, have white farmers been murdered?

PHILLIP: Actually, how many --

JENNINGS: Have violence been committed against white farmers?

PHILLIP: How many white farmers -- hold on a second. How many white farmers have been murdered in South Africa?

JENNINGS: I don't know, several. I mean, they asked --

PHILLIP: No. No. How many? How many?

JENNINGS: I don't know. Several.

PHILLIP: I know why you don't know? Because those numbers don't exist broken down by race.

I mean, wouldn't trust the South African government to tell me. I know that.

PHILLIP: How many black farmers have been murdered in South Africa?

JENNINGS: Look, you guys are so triggered over 59 people.

PHILLIP: No, I'm not --

JENNINGS: After we left 20 million people in the country, I don't know why you're so triggered by it.

PHILLIP: I haven't even brought up the people, the white people that Trump picked out because they were white and told them they could come to the country.

JENNINGS: How much racial (INAUDIBLE) are you condoning?

PHILLIP: There are 19,000 murderers in South Africa, 36 were on farms. 7 of the were victims farmers, okay? This is according to the South African police.

JENNINGS: And you think the South African government is a credible source?

PHILLIP: The other 29 -- hold on a second. The 29 victims who were included in the farm killings were farm employees who tend to be black. So, the vast majority of people killed on farms in South Africa are black. Where is the concern about them?

JENNINGS: The concern is that there are white farmers who have had violence committed against them, and they're being threatened every single day.

PHILLIP: But, Scott --

JENNINGS: There's 59 people.

PHILLIP: But, Scott, hold on a second.

JENNINGS: And you're triggered about 59 people, and I don't know why.

PHILLIP: I haven't mentioned anything about 59 people --

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: Why are you only concerned about white people?

JENNINGS: I'm only concerned about this story because these 59 people asked for status. They're getting status, and now everybody's freaking out about it.

PHILLIP: They didn't ask for anything.

LABOTT: There's no evidence that white people have been targeted. Some white people in the larger issue of farmers, in the larger issue of violence, have been part of this violence. But there is no --

JENNINGS: Then why are they trying to get out? Why are they -- if there's no --

LABOTT: Scott, the majority --

JENNINGS: Why are they trying to leave?

LABOTT: The majority of --

JENNINGS: Have you seen the videos of the people saying, kill the white farmers?

LABOTT: -- Afrikaners do not want to leave.

JENNINGS: Yes. What do you think the phrase, kill the white farmers, means?

LABOTT: Yes, that's a phrase that was against the anti-apartheid movement, but the ANC, who's ruling the government, the president's government, has disavowed that phrase, he's disavowed the songs, and there's no evidence that white people are being targeted. And a majority of Afrikaners do not want to leave.

PHILLIP: They're not a part of the government, Scott. You're taking a fringe movement won and you're trying to make it a characteristic --

(CROSSTALKS)

HARLES BLOW, AUTHOR, THE DEVIL YOU KNOW: It is the height of racism to say that white people have to be exempted from all violence in any society. That is what is being said here. If we cannot say -- if we -- there is no white genocide happening. There is no farm genocide happening and the argument is some white people have been killed, even though 27,000 murders happened in that country.

What are we saying? If anybody of one racial group is murdered, then that constitutes a refugee status for that particular group? It's the height of racism.

LABOTT: He has also ended the refugee program for all other people in actual war --

(CROSSTALKS)

JENNINGS: I don't understand that. You want them stay, and I guess you want them to have violence committed against them. Does that make you happy?

PHILLIP: Go ahead and comment and then I'll let Shermichael -- ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think violence against all people is wrong.

JENNINGS: I agree with you.

ALLISON: Including the white farmers agree with you, but also including the black people that live in Africa. There are 1.5 billion people that live in the continent of Africa.

JENNINGS: I don't like violence of any kind.

ALLISON: There are 1.5 billion people that live in Africa.

JENNINGS: Okay.

ALLISON: There are 63 million people that live in South Africa. There were 59 people that were extracted out of a continent of 1.5 billion people and brought to our country. And what color were those people? White.

JENNINGS: So?

ALLISON: And where, were there other places where genocide is happening in the continent where 1.5 billion --

[22:10:00]

JENNINGS: Why are you against?

ALLISON: I'm not. I'm not. I'm not against it. I'm not against it. I want to know -- no. I want you to have -- no, I want to have -- I can have a complete thought. I want you to have a complete thought. You are okay --

JENNINGS: My though is these people are under threat and now they're coming here and you're --

ALLISON: Can you say that in addition to the seven potential white farmers that were murdered, the 18,982 black folks that were murdered in the country, that that's a problem too?

JENNINGS: Yes. All violence is a problem.

ALLISON: Yes. And maybe perhaps they --

JENNINGS: The government's policies are targeting these particular people with land confiscation and they're being targeted with violence.

(CROSSTALKS)

LABOTT: And no reforms taken from any white people yet.

JENNINGS: But the laws, do the laws not allow it?

LABOTT: There is a law but it hasn't been -- JENNINGS: There is a law, but they're being targeted --

ALLISON: Kind of like the Constitution.

PHILLIP: Hold on, guys. Hold on, guys. I think this -- hold on. A lot is being said right now, including many things that are not true.

JENNINGS: What's not true.

PHILLIP: So -- the land. Let's talk about the land for a second.

JENNINGS: It's the law.

PHILLIP: Scott, just one second, let's talk about the land. The land -- hold on a second. Hold on. Let's talk about the land. I'm going to take this one at a time because I think it's really important.

81 percent of the land -- or, sorry, the vast majority, 96 percent of the private land in South Africa is owned by white people despite black people being the, the vast majority of the population, 81 percent. The president of South Africa pointed this out today that the United States has in domain laws that allows the state to seize land --

JENNINGS: On the basis of race?

PHILLIP: -- from people -- hold on -- from people if they want to. And here is what The New York Times writes about what the Trump administration did in its first term. The administration filed more than 110 lawsuits against landowners in Texas as it sought to secure space for the border wall turning to imminent domain, even though many conservatives view it as an excess of government power that violates the sanctity of private property.

So, in addition to the fact that we do this all the time --

JENNINGS: We do not target people for land acquisition on the basis of race.

PHILLIP: Scott --

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: Make your point about your --

JENNINGS: Your race will take but we do not.

BLOW: We absolutely have done that. If you look at how the interstate system was built in this country, that was done all the time.

JENNINGS: On the basis of race. You're saying, you're a particular race and we take your land. We won't take yours.

BLOW: They literally built the highway system through black neighborhoods.

PHILLIP: Shermichael has been very quiet this whole nine minutes.

BLOW: And wait, why don't you want to say this? This is not an opinion. This is a fact. You can deny facts. You can smirk at facts, you can smile about facts, but that doesn't make a fact, not a fact. And I don't believe that you believe the things that are coming out of your mouth because I know that you know that that's true.

PHILLIP: All right. Shermichael.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So, a couple things. This is a lot to, to just listen to. In 1975, you had the apartheid Expropriation Act that pertained to land. This new bill that was passed last November, I believe, the president signed it into law January 25th of this year, it was sort of a reformation, a reforming of the '75 Act. And, essentially, what this act was attempting to do was to correct the apartheid leanings of that bill, which did allow the government at the time to take land away from blacks. I looked this up, I read about it, because I was really curious about where this was going to go.

Now the president, from what I did read in South Africa, some of the local news there, is actually finding himself in a lot of trouble with some of the more hardlining South African political alliances there because they want the president to take a harder stance to almost, in a retribution, if you would, to take the land away from the white South Africans. And the president has said, I'm not going to do that, which I appreciate the president, and he sort of made that clear tonight. Even President Trump said, you may not be doing it but there are cases of individuals who have killed some South African white farmers and they have taken the land. That is true. And the president did sort of clarify that.

I will say though, the South African president, I think, went to the White House today with a goal in mind. President Trump said, I want you to leave bricks. South African president appeared to be wanting to discuss some of those trade negotiations to not be so reliant on China.

So, for me, I get why this is a big issue for a lot of people, but I think as it pertains to the United States, if we can have bilateral trade with South Africa that weakens China's global position, that to me is way more of an impactful thing than what we're talking about domestically here in the U.S.

PHILLIP: It is important, but it is also important whether the White House is emanating truth or falsehood.

LABOTT: That's right.

PHILLIP: And what happened today was a whole lot of falsehood.

I want to play this, because this is actually from last week when they did let those 59 white South Africans in. And the deputy secretary of state greeted them at the airport with this message.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRIS LANDAU, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: I want you all to know that you are really welcome here and that we respect what you have had to deal with these last few years. We respect the long tradition of your people and what you have accomplished over the years.

A lot of you, I think, are farmers, right?

[22:15:00]

When you have quality seeds, you can put them in foreign soil and they will blossom. They will bloom. And we are excited to welcome you here to our country where we think you will bloom, and we will hopefully allow you to have fulfilling lives for your children. And then we will bloom and we will benefit alongside you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: So, quality seeds is the language being used when the only requirement for them to be let into the country is their race being white? I would say it's coated, but it's not so coated.

LABOTT: Well, first of all, you know, I don't know who gave him this tie. I don't know if this was a, you know, coincidence, but he was wearing this yellow, orange and blue tie, which is apparently the color of the African flag under -- the South African flag under apartheid. It was coated, I think. If it was just a coincidence, then, excuse me.

But at the same time, look, the idea is yes, this law is in effect. Yes, some farmers have been threatened. None of the land has been taken. I think Shermichael is right, the president has been trying to resolve this. And I think, look, that little, you know, dog and pony show was very tense. But my understanding is once they got into the meeting and once they started talking about trade and some of these other things, President Trump made his point and was then ready to get onto the more important --

ALLISON: There's a pattern here, and we're early in the Trump administration. We treat our allies, like Zelenskyy, like that, where we fight with them in public. We now treat the South African president like that. I worry that on our stage, on the national or an international stage, that if our allies see that they come into the Oval Office, which used to be a prized meeting that people will have, that they will come on defense and they won't actually want to work with America. This is not just about trade, this is about national security, and this president has said things about both of those countries that are just untrue.

And you cannot -- the issue with South Africa is you cannot extract -- the last time we were on here and talking about this, you didn't want to make it about race. You cannot extract race out of South Africa because it lived under such an oppressive system, like apartheid, and that many of the people who were indigenous to that land still live not just below poverty, but in such desperate conditions where they -- some don't even have running water because of the racial implications that happened on that land. You just can't extract it. PHILLIP: We have to leave it there, everyone. Thank you very much, Elise Labott for joining us.

Up next, a judge says that the Trump administration needs to interview the detainees that they tried to send to South Sudan. That's after he ruled they unquestionably violated the court order. We'll discuss that.

And at this moment, the House Republican leaders are trying to bring hardliners on board to support Trump's big, beautiful bill. But will they? A special guest will join us at the table.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:20:00]

PHILLIP: Tonight, a deportation dispute as the court clashes with President Trump over his immigration agenda. A federal judge says that the administration unquestionably violated a previous order when it tried to send detainees to war-torn South Sudan without giving them a chance to contest their removal.

It's just the latest chapter in the ongoing tug-of-war between the judiciary and the executive, as Trump plows forward with his border crackdown. DHS officials say they did nothing wrong.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN, DHS ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS: While we are fully compliant with the law and court orders, it is absolutely absurd for a district judge to try to dictate the foreign policy and national security of the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Vice President J.D. Vance echoed a similar message and took a swipe at the Supreme Court's Chief Justice John Roberts, who said the judiciary's role is to check the executive.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I thought that was a profoundly wrong sentiment. That's one half of his job. The other half of his job is to check the excesses of his own branch. And you cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Journalist Tara Palmeri joins us at the table now. She's the author of The Red Letter on Substack.

Tara, I thought it was really interesting that interview with J.D. Vance was a lengthy one, but it was interesting that it coincided with a moment when the Trump administration is being directly accused by the court of just ignoring a court order. And it seems like they are starting to push into that territory of you can't stop us.

TARA PALMERI, PODCAST HOST, THE TARA PALMERI SHOW: Right. I mean the, what is the court supposed to do about it, right? They are talking about targeting the officials that are involved in the actual roundups and the actual deportations and like creating a situation for them where there are charges for those individuals just to work in the government and follow orders and commands. So, maybe that's their only way of really doing it. But what are they supposed to do? Like they don't have a militia or an army, that all they can do is try to press charges and try to stop the individuals like carry out the act of the commander-in-chief.

Trump chose a particularly interesting issue because these are violent criminals and he'll keep saying, yes, these are violent criminals. Who cares where they go? And a lot of people might say, yes, who cares? They're violent criminals. But like you said, they're pressing the boundaries of the power of the executive branch and they're doing it in a very politically smart way.

PHILLIP: Why do you think, Shermichael, that they're sending them to Sudan?

[22:25:00]

Why not just send them to their countries of origin?

SINGLETON: I think they're attempting to have a deterrence to showcase to people you cannot continue to come to the United States. One, it's a national security problem. We have no idea who some of these people are. And, two, it is a legitimate --

PHILLIP: well, we know who these people are.

SINGLETON: I mean, we don't know 20 million, however many of these people here.

PHILLIP: No, I'm talking about the ones that they're sending to Sudan.

SINGLETON: Okay. But my point is, broadly speaking, for the most part, we have no idea who the people are who are coming into our country illegally. Number two, it is an excessive strain on all resources across the board, healthcare, crime, school, education, healthcare. We don't have -- I keep saying this I don't know why Democrats don't understand this. They don't have unlimited resource.

PHILLIP: But my question was why are they --

SINGLETON: To not -- as a deterrence, to make it clear, if you come into the country, you'll get somewhere you do not want go.

PHILLIP: So, the idea here is that we are going to deter people by saying, you committed a crime here, maybe they did, and --

SINGLETON: No, it's not maybe. They did. They came -- okay, sorry. Go ahead. PHILLIP: We're going to send you to a country where we're saying there's a civil war happening. There's a genocide occurring there. We don't know what's going to happen to them. Why not send them back to their countries of origin, which is what we do with everybody else.

SINGLETON: We don't know what's going to happen to them there either.

PHILLIP: Well, that's -- I think that's exactly the point.

SINGLETON: And they have broken the law, Abby. When you come into the country, you've committed a felony. And, number two, you have to deter this behavior from continuing to happen because it has become a problem for this country.

PHILLIP: So, the deterrence is, like El Salvador, we will send them to places where they might face absolutely imminent death?

SINGLETON: Absolutely, because that sends a message, if you come to the United States and break our laws, violate our immigration laws, it will have severe consequences.

PHILLIP: So for, unspecified crimes, we don't know exactly what all these people were convicted of.

SINGLETON: They broke the law, Abby.

PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Maybe they were convicted of very serious crimes. The penalty that the Trump administration says is appropriate potentially could be death.

JENNINGS: I mean, I'll read it, sex offenders, homicide, kidnapping, murder in the first-degree, battery, larceny, cocaine possession, murder, robbery, DUI, child sex abuse and sex assault on someone with a mental illness. So, Sudan is too good for these people, and I'm not sure any other country would take them.

PHILLIP: What about their home country?

JENNINGS: I'm not sure they'll take them. Would you take that person back?

PHILLIP: How do you know that?

PALMERI: Well, one of them came from Cuba. I have to say --

PHILLIP: How do you know that?

JENNINGS: I don't care what we do with them. These are heinous, violent criminals and they do not need to be here. That's all I know.

PHILLIP: So, let me just play -- this is more of J.D. Vance talking about this, well, similar issue. This is what he says should happen to immigrants who come here illegally.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) VANCE: I think that we should treat people humanely. I think we have an obligation to treat people humanely. But I do think that a lot of these illegal immigrants have to go back to where they came from.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Okay, send them back to where they came from.

BLOW: But they're not going back to where they came from. And it's like, you know, Guantanamo on a global scale, like we are sending people off to places we don't know what's going to happen to them. And, in fact, it is very likely, as you said, that some harm could come to them.

One of the people who were sent to South Sudan in the report that I read was from Myanmar, a whole other continent, 4,000 miles away. Does he speak the language? Can he access any sort part of their judicial system? Can his family ever contact him or visit him?

This is kind of like an orchestration of cruelty as a deterrent, but I don't think that we should be in the business of creating --

JENNINGS: Of deterring (INAUDIBLE)?

BLOW: I'll finish if you let me, of creating cruelty as a country's policy. And that is what we're doing.

PHILLIP: Tara, let me just ask this.

JENNINGS: Would you say that the victims of their crimes would say they were cruel?

PHILLIP: This reminds me of, I mean, a big question with Trump is optics versus, you know, policy. And I do think that they intentionally create these moments in order to have these conversations be aired out so that Scott can come on here and say, well, don't you want to -- you know, you guys want to be soft on the murderers.

But it is a question of what the law allows them to do in this situation, or what recourse these people might have.

PALMERI: Right. No, I mean, they're absolutely breaking the law in the name of good politics, because like what Scott just said is very -- it's a strong point that a lot of people are going to go home with and say, I don't want someone living next to me that's a rapist, child molester, this, that, and they don't care where they go.

I mean, a lot of people in this country just believe in the death penalty to anybody at any point. So, it's like Trump is speaking to his people in the language that they understand. And so while it may -- it's something that really agitates the left. It works for his base.

SINGLETON: But it's not just his people. A lot of these criminals propagate these crimes against vulnerable people. Some of them did not vote for Donald Trump. Some of them are not Republicans, some of them are Democrats. Some of them probably voted for Kamala Harris for other reasons.

ALLISON: Here's the thing. I don't disagree that people who commit crimes should leave this country, like that's not the argument, but you don't have the moral high ground when you do just as something wrong and you treat people inhumane. Like that doesn't make me feel like you're any better than somebody else.

I think that they should go back to their country they came from. I think they should be treated with due process.

[22:30:00]

I think they should actually face the judicial system in their country. And if they killed somebody, they should have to pay for their crimes. But I don't think you treat people inhumane. I don't actually care what crime. That's just not the principles I live my life on.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: Coming up next, House lawmakers are up late with the big question. Can they come to an agreement on this big, beautiful domestic agenda bill that Donald Trump is asked for? We'll discuss that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:35:04]

PHILLIP: Breaking news tonight. House Republicans just released a package of major changes to President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill. It comes just ahead of a high stakes vote and after days of talks to try to win over key groups of conservatives and hardliners who have been threatening to block it.

Among the changes are speeding up work requirements for Medicaid, changing the so-called SALT cap to allow some people to deduct state and local income taxes up to $40,000 a year. Now, that's up from the initial proposal of 30,000. It also renames a new kind of child savings account from MAGA accounts to Trump accounts.

And it phases out Biden's clean air tax credits sooner than previously planned. It's still not clear though if the Speaker, Mike Johnson, has the votes for this, but he has vowed to bring it up for a vote tonight. And that means all-night, potentially, as they work on this.

The sticking point here, eventually when this thing -- if this thing passes and it gets to the Senate, is going to be the reality of what this bill does and the trade-offs that it's making. And we've been talking about this all week, but it's -- it's worth just taking a look at this from the Congressional Budget Office.

In the first year that this is in place, households income for the bottom 10 percent will go down two percent. And it'll go up four percent for the top 10 percent. And by 2033, it'll be down four percent -- up two percent for the top 10 percent. So, in essence, the poorest people are going to have less income. The richest people are going to have more income. That's according to the Congressional Budget Office.

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: They get things wrong all the time. In 2017 when we passed the tax cuts, they totally missed the growth targets. They totally missed what was going to happen to federal revenue. They don't -- they're not -- they're not oracles. They don't -- they don't -- they can't foretell the future down to exact science. Our Republican view is if we lower taxes, we'll have economic growth and it helps everybody.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: Well, this isn't -- this isn't rocket science because the poor people are losing benefits, Medicaid and SNAP.

JENNINGS: What poor?

PHILLIP: Excuse me?

JENNINGS: When you said the poor people, what do you mean? The immigrants? The people who won't get up off the couch and go to work? Which people?

CHARLES BLOW, AUTHOR, "THE DEVIL YOU KNOW": Oh my God.

PHILLIP: Okay. So, let me explain. Let me explain. The requirements for Medicaid, and we had this conversation last night, but here are the -- the real details. There are already requirements for people on Medicaid to work. This changes those requirements, so it increases them. So, some people will have to requalify, they won't be able to do that, and they won't have coverage.

JENNINGS: Why?

PHILLIP: There are changes to the out of pocket costs for people who are -- who are on this program so they might have to pay money in order to get access health care. It changes how the federal government reimburse -- pays -- reimburses the state, if they provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.

So, there are some real changes to, like, people who are eligible for the program now who will not be eligible for the program in the future.

ALLISON: I just really have to say for working class people who voted for Trump, those who are on Medicaid and those who are on Medicare, this bill is going to affect you. It doesn't matter if you are a Republican or you are a Democrat.

This bill is going to not only have you make less money, but the social services that you rely on, not cause you're an immigrant, not because you are trying to cheat the system, but because it's a system that they need, it will affect you. And I just encourage you to really talk to your member of Congress because you will feel the pain, they will not.

BLOW: And it's pain on purpose, right? This is pain on purpose. This is instituting a policy that will disproportionately hurt people who are poor and will disproportionately help people who are wealthy. Republicans talk all the time about how they're not, they're really against redistribution of wealth.

Well, this is massive pushing of wealth up the chain and not down and you can't walk away from that. That's just a fact of what this bill is going to do and we can fuss about whether or not we like the CBO numbers or not, but that is what the bill is going to go. You cannot cut a trillion dollars from Medicaid and food assistance and assume that that is all immigrants and people who are lazy on their sofas. That's not what that is.

PHILLIP: Well, from a factual perspective, it's not. I mean, it's going to be a lot of other people. But it's been interesting because, I mean, a lot of conservatives, some in the Senate, some in the House, some people like Steve Bannon have said -- these are Trump people.

TARA PALMERI, "THE TARA PALMERI SHOW" PODCAST HOST: They know exactly and Trump knows it, too. He has actually said we need to -- he wanted to, I think, lower the -- the rate for tax rates from the top of top owners, top earners. Yeah. It was 27 to 29. Or he wanted to -- he wanted to --

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: He wanted to raise the tax rate for the highest income earners.

(CROSSTALK)

PALMERI: Sorry. Sorry. He wanted to raise the tax rate on the highest earners, and then that was obviously poo- pooed. And then he wanted to lower the rate on the lowest earners. He's -- he' aware. And also Medicare, Medicaid, those are his people. He won the white working class. That is how he's in the office right now.

[22:40:00]

PHILLIP: Do you think he is aware of the details of what's happening in this bill?

PALMERI: Yes, he is.

PHILLIP: Because yesterday, he said, you know, don't -- don't F- around with Medicaid. The -- but this bill does exactly that.

PALMERI: Yeah.

PHILLIP: That might be just a rhetorical device. But, I mean, if Trump actually is worried about this, this bill is not going to alleviate those concerns.

PALMERI: No. I mean, I think you're absolutely right. And I think he wouldn't be making noise if - if he didn't know that. He's obviously backing down very quickly, but he knows it's an issue in the midterm elections. He knows it's a hot button issue that the Democrats can run with. And it's -- this is not what his people voted for.

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: I mean they voted for him. I would like some government reform.

SINGLETON: Are they going to run against inquiring people who are able to work? And I'm being very specific here, because I -- I understand that there's some people who have a host of issues, and I think we all at this table would be understanding of that. But from every single Republican member of Congress that I have talked to personally, they are very specific in the language of the bill.

And the work requirement, which is the number one bulletin on the graphic you guys just pulled up, I think 18 or 19 to 64, it's for eligible able-bodied individuals, and that does not mean that if you don't make beyond a certain cap that you can't still apply for those social safety net programs. And so, it's a bit of a misnomer here saying that we're kicking off people for no reason, that's just not factually true.

ALLISON: I just think -- I think it's a misnomer to presume that people who need these social service programs just are cheating the system and aren't working. Most people work three or four jobs and still can't afford, and so they still qualify for these programs because they don't have a higher minimum wage, or they are not in a labor union to protect.

SINGLETON: I'm not disagreeing with that, Ash.

ALLISON: So, who do you think -- so, what type of people are going to -- are going to be affected?

BLOW: They will eventually use the benefits.

JENNINGS: People -- people will have work in it.

BLOW: When you take a trillion dollars out of these programs, then the states are not going to have less -- less money to work with. They're going to make different decisions, and they're going to restrict more because they're going to have to balance their budgets.

The -- the states are not like the federal government. They can't run up to add trillions of dollars to their -- to their deficits. They have to balance their books. So, they're going to make choices, and they're going to restrict these programs down even more.

(CROSSTALK)

BLOW: This is going to hurt people other than people who are laying on sofas. I can't say that now.

PHILLIP: One of the interesting things is that we already know what work requirements do for these programs because it's been tried in some red states. And in those states, they introduced work requirements and it did not increase employment. What it does do, however, is increase the bureaucracy for people.

And, well, I thought it was interesting because one of the changes that gets made here is that rather than if you have minor children, the work requirements kick in, now it lowers the age to seven. So, if you've got an eight-year-old at home, the bill now says you could lose Medicaid if you're not working X amount of hours a month.

So, maybe you are working those hours, but you got to reapply. You have to fill out more paperwork. You have to jump through more hoops. And so, people who are looking at this say, that's one of the main reasons that people are going to get kicked off of this program, and it may not increase employment.

SINGLETON: It means Bill Clinton did work requirements in a bipartisan way in the '90s with Republicans and Democrats' congressional approval in support of House and Senate. It actually did work. This bill is going to go to the Senate, Abby. They're going to rewrite this thing maybe two or three times before it's returned to -- to the House with probably a litany of amendments.

So, what we're seeing now in the final iteration will not be the final bill that passes. Republicans understand that there's an election coming up next year. Republicans understand the people in their districts and those needs.

PHILLIP: So you -- what part, I mean --

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: What do you think --

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: Yeah, I mean, you're -- you're arguing in favor of the bill as it's written right now but you're also saying now that you think that it's not passable?

SINGLETON: No. What I'm arguing right now, Abby, is the idea of having work requirements in the bill to me does not make the bill ineligible to pass. I don't know a single American out there who would not say if you were to ask, if someone's capable of working, should they work to -- to apply for these programs and they would say yes, of course.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: I don't necessarily think that --

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: -- it would be arguing against work requirements. It's just that the bill is --

SINGLETON: But that is what you guys are essentially arguing.

PHILLIP: No. No. No. The bill is introducing work requirements in order to have fewer people be on the program.

ALLISON: Yeah.

PALMERI: Yeah.

PHILLIP: That's the whole point of the whole --

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: The goal is that they eventually work themselves out. They're not supposed to be trapped in this forever.

ALLISON: Yes, but you have to change other policies. So raise the minimum wage.

JENNINGS: We are. We're cutting taxes.

ALLISON: Give them child care.

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: We're having record investments in America.

ALLISON: Make sure child care. Make sure the -- all the things that actually allow people to then get off and have enough money in their pocketbooks, lower the price, don't put tariffs --

(CROSSTALK)

ALLISON: It's just --

SINGLETON: So, Democrats want more people in poverty?

PHILLIP: Coming up next-- coming up next for us, the Pentagon confirming that it has, in fact, accepted a jet from Qatar. And President Trump feels very strongly about it. We'll play you what he said. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:49:29]

PHILLIP: Tonight, it's official. The Pentagon has announced that it has accepted a Boeing 747 from Qatar, and the DOD says that President Trump will use it once it's upgraded with proper security measures.

You'll remember that Republicans and Democrats alike raised legal and ethical concerns about this gift. But after days of downplaying the criticism, it still appears to be a sore spot for the President.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Mr. President, the Pentagon announced they would be accepting a Qatari jet to be used as Air Force One.

[22:50:00]

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: What are you talking about?

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: You know, you need to get out of here. What does this have to do with the Qatari jet? So, why did they give us a plane to the United States Air Force? That's what that idiot talks about after viewing a thing where thousands of people are dead.

CYRIL RAMAPHOSA, SOIUTH AFRICAN PRESIDENT: I'm sorry. I don't have a plane to give you.

TRUMP: I -- I wish you did. I'll take it.

(LAUGHTER)

TRUMP: I would take it. If your country offered the United States Air Force a flight, I would take it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Why is he so upset about a question about a plane that he accepted?

ALLISON: He's salty. He knows he's wrong. He knows he's breaking the law. It's the law, right? the Emolument Law.

BLOW: Probably was.

ALLISON: Was, until now.

PALMERI: It just doesn't look good.

ALLISON: That you shouldn't take gifts from foreign countries.

JENNINGS: Is there -- is there a law against the -- the Air Force taking the taking this plane?

ALLISON: Emoluments Law. Okay.

PHILLIP: Well, we will find out whether or not the Air Force is taking the plane --

ALLISON: That's right.

PHILLIP: -- paying for the plane, take, you know, being gifted the plane. I also think it's very questionable whether he will actually be on this plane.

(CROSSTALK)

PALMERI: It's going to take a long time, like, 2027 or 2029 maybe, and a billion dollars to retrofit the plane to be an Air Force One in the sky, and Boeing's already working on two of them. "The New York Times" said that -- quoted an expert who tried to sell the plane, but failed at selling it saying, you'd be better off just buying a new one.

ALLISON: Brilliant.

PHILLIP: Yeah. I mean --

PALMERI: You would save more money by buying two new planes than trying to retrofit this old plane that he couldn't sell for five years to turn it into the situation room in the sky, possibly bugged by a foreign government.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: Actually, when you put it that way, it does sound a little bit like we're being played here.

PALMERI: We're totally getting scammed.

(CROSSTALK)

SINGLETON: But the real concern to me is Boeing cannot meet the demands of protecting the President. They were supposed to have planes built. I want to say, six or seven years ago, Abby. They're still behind, and it's crazy because it's going to take four or five years to retrofit this plane. And Boeing may finally, at that point, be ready to deliver the new Air Force One to the new President.

ALLISON: The best solution is this?

SINGLETON: The best solution to me is to figure out what's going on with Boeing and try to reform their process.

ALLISON: Okay.

SINGLETON: It shouldn't take this long.

PHILLIP: Okay. That's not happening. There's no talk of reforming Boeing. Why is the President --

JENNINGS: Why? There should be.

PHILLIP: I agree.

JENNINGS: You're giving them a lot of tax money.

PHILLIP: Listen. I think that the biggest problem with Boeing is not what's going on with Air Force One. It's the safety of their planes, writ large.

JENNINGS: I think it's our problem. I agree with you.

PHILLIP: But this president, he was very sensitive. He attacked the reporter in the Oval Office multiple times. Why? When, you know, it's either above board or it's not. He seems very sensitive about it.

JENNINGS: Well, I mean, I think he was having a meeting with another head of state. They were discussing all kinds of other issues, and our relationship was saying, you know, he gets asked this question, so it agitated him. Look.

All I can do is read the statement that the military put out. "We'll work to ensure proper security measures and functional mission requirements are considered for an aircraft used to transport the President of The United States."

I have no idea how long that will take. I suspect it'll take quite some time. I don't know if he'll ever step foot on this plane. I really have no idea how long that will take. I suspect that it will take quite some time. I don't know if he'll ever step foot on this plane. I really have no idea. But I do trust the military to make sure that the President never gets on a plane that he should not get on.

PALMERI: But it's such a waste of money though. If it's going to cost a billion dollars to make an old plane --

JENNINGS: Is it a waste of money to pay Boeing something they can't deliver?

PALMERI: It's actually cheaper to buy two new planes than to retrofit this time.

JENNINGS: But we don't have them. That's the problem.

PALMERI: They're working on them. Apparently, they're going to be done --

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: Well, you don't have this plane either.

JENNINGS: We should give them more --

(CROSSTALK)

PALMERI: For four or five years.

BLOW: And it also evokes for me the endless parlor game, which is, if Obama had taken a plane --

PALMERI: If Obama had taken a canned soup --

(LAUGHTER)

BLOW: --from a Middle Eastern government --

(CROSSTALK)

BLOW: -- exactly. What would he say?

ALLISON: What would you say? PHILLIP: Scott? I mean, it probably would have been a big scam.

(CROSSTALK)

PALMERI: There was a scandal.

ALLISON: Scott. You don't know?

PALMERI: Come on.

BLOW: Man halfway bit, and they'd be like, he bowed execution.

PALMERI: I mean, yeah. Well, I think if Biden took a plane, it would be a huge scandal, too. I think any president does --

PHILLIP: Some of this is because Trump -- I mean, he said this. He doesn't think Air Force One is opulent enough for --

SINGLETON: It's old. It's an old plane.

PHILLIP: Yeah. It is old. But he does not think it is opulent enough for the presidency, which is quite the opposite of what most American presidents want to give off about the office.

(CROSSTALK)

SINGLETON: But most of them aren't billionaires. I mean, there's a bit of a difference from his personal life to being president. You all know what?

PALMERI: He also was tried to make the Oval Office very gilded. Every time you look in there, there's, like, more gold. I didn't -- you -- did you notice that?

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: -- not have the most awesome plane in the world? We are The United States of America. We should have the most awesome plane.

(CROSSTALK)

ALLISON: We should be able to afford living is the most important priority, not the president having the most awesome plane.

JENNINGS: We should have the best plane.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: But shouldn't the most important part of Air Force One be how secure it is --

JENNINGS: A hundred percent.

PHILLIP: -- rather than how opulent it is?

JENNINGS: And the DOD is going to make sure whatever plane he's on is the most secure, but I'm just telling you, The United States ought to have we ought to have -- we ought to have the best everything.

[22:55:01]

Why do we have to have, like, the crappiest plane? Let's get a good plane.

PALMERI: That's exactly what they're doing though with this old plane. They're trying to make it, like, nuclear protected in the air. So, if anything happens, like, it takes so much to make a plane that is worthy of a president, a floating White House.

SINGLETON: Just ask Boeing. I mean, look how long it's taking with this.

PALMERI: This is absurd.

SINGLETON: Yeah, it is.

ALLISON: So, you don't know national security concern with this?

JENNINGS: I don't have any concerns that the military could take this thing apart and make it functional. I don't have any idea how long that would take. I suspect quite some time.

ALLISON: Do you like taking --

(CROSSTALK)

ALLISON: -- from Qatar?

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: Everyone, thank you very much. Coming up, a Homeland Security agent who raided the home of Sean "Diddy" Combs testified today in court. Laura Coates was at that trial, and she has all of the details in a special "Laura Coates Live". That's right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)