Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Admin Bars Harvard from Enrolling International Students; Trump Hosts Dinner for People Who Invest in His Crypto Coin; Democrats Say, Trump's Meme Coin Dinner an Orgy of Corruption. Republicans Appear To Be Stealing Plays From Hillary Clinton's Playbook; Transcripts of President Trump's Public Remarks Missing From White House Website. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired May 22, 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, the most transparent president in history goes behind closed doors to line his pockets.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president is attending it in his personal time.
PHILLIP: Plus, the most pro-free speech president in history is now banning all international students at Harvard in an unprecedented escalation.
And the most fiscally responsible president in history unleashes a bill that many Republicans likened to an iceberg of bankruptcy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This bill is a debt bomb ticking.
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Jemele Hill, Batya Ungar-Sargon, Fawn Weaver, Pete Seat, and Montel Williams.
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 unprecedented move in Donald Trump's war against colleges. Homeland Security throwing the weight of the federal government on Harvard, denying all international students from attending the university, and telling the current foreign students to immediately transfer or get deported.
Now, that's about a quarter of the student population at Harvard. The administration has accused the Ivy League school of fostering violence, fomenting anti-Semitism, and even coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party. Trump has demanded control over what Harvard can teach, who they can hire, and the administration is demanding disciplinary records of international students, or they will lose their federal funding.
Kristi Noem says that they're making an example of Harvard.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: This should be a warning to every other university to get your act together. Get your act together, because we are coming to make sure that these programs that you are facilitating an environment where students can learn where they're safe and that they're not discriminated against based on their race or their religion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: There's no question, Montel, that this will have a devastating impact on Harvard if it is carried out, about 27 percent of the entire university population, large portion of the graduate schools. And, you know, they're already challenging the administration on the money part of it. But this is also about the money because those students pay for free.
MONTEL WILLIAMS, TALK SHOW HOST AND ACTIVIST: What's so crazy is that we educate foreign students, not just because we're giving them an education, we're trying to teach them about American values, which include things like freedom of speech and also the rule of law. How dare we say, we're going to kick you out just because, in this particular case, it started because of that young lady from Tufts University who wrote that op-ed piece that criticized Israel, criticized, didn't go after Israel, didn't threaten Israel.
PHILLIP: I have to say she didn't even -- I mean in the op-ed was about the university's response to protests.
WILLIAMS: Correct.
PHILLIP: It wasn't even so much about the bigger issues.
WILLIAMS: It was unbelievable. I really enjoyed the op-ed piece. So, my perspective is, okay, if we're going to kick them out and say, we're not going to educate you here, who's going to educate them? Do we want China to do it for us? Let's keep doing this. Well, are we going to ask Harvard, you know what, go ahead and put a campus Harvard London and let the money flow there. When you said 27 percent, we're talking about 4,000-something students. Think about the impact on Boston. Think about the impact on the best and brightest minds from the world who come here to teach us and learn things about research and learn things about breakthroughs. That's not going to happen anymore.
PHILLIP: When we talk about trade surpluses, this is a place where the United States has a huge trade surplus. We export so much education, people are paying us from all over the world for the one thing that we have that they don't have, our American universities.
WILLIAMS: Right.
PHILLIP: But for the Trump administration, they're going to do this regardless. Harvard is saying in a statement, the government's actions are unlawful. This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to Harvard's community, our country, and undermines Harvard's academic and research mission. They do, the Trump administration, want to have a governing hand in a private institution, and there's really no precedent for that.
PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I don't know a lot of people who are shedding a tear for Harvard tonight. They made their bet. They allowed anti-Semitism to run rampant on their campus. And it dates back before the op-ed. It dates back to that viral moment where Congresswoman Elise Stefanik called out Harvard and the president couldn't answer a simple question and ended up losing her job over it.
[22:05:09]
And this has been going on the campus for a very long time. Harvard, in fact, put out a study. They had a task force to study this that came out last month. And in the study, which CNN reported on, it said that Jewish students felt a need to hide their identity and reported being bullied and excluded on campus. They have every right to feel safe on campus when they're getting that education.
PHILLIP: I totally agree. Doesn't that undermine though the argument that they're not doing anything about it? They put out their own study there. I mean, they're --
SEAT: It took them that long to do --
PHILLIP: Well, I mean --
SEAT: What happened in Gaza was October 7th, 2023. It is. May 22nd is 2025.
PHILLIP: This is a new Harvard president looking back at what an old Harvard administration did. I mean, if -- you're right, like this document is based off of Harvard's own investigation of itself. So, how do you go before a judge and say they're not doing anything about it when they've already put out the plan?
JEMELE HILL, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Well, not just that, Abby, it's like, let's be real. I don't think this is even about anti- Semitism. This is about the fact that this feels very personal, that they're doing all these things at Harvard and I'm like, did Baron Trump not get in? Like what happened, right? And it's about what it says about how they want to control other universities.
We already know how this administration feels about DEI. What if they go into a -- use a historically black college and say, we don't like that you're teaching that, we want to take it over. And if you don't do what we say, it's about the precedent that he said. Because I promise you if another president that wasn't this guy did this, everybody would be outraged. And I will agree with you, a lot of people aren't going to shed a tear for Harvard, and that's probably part of the reason they're picking on them. We live in a country that has a huge class divide. People look at Harvard and they consider it elite. It's easy to dislike Harvard because of what they stand for.
So, a lot of the American people are looking at this and say, why should we care about this university that just has these elitist and just have these people that look down on us, and especially in a climate where we are being increasingly anti-intellectual, where we have a government that is often belittling higher education. It's about the dangerous precedent that this sets overall in case they run against another university whose policies or principles they don't like.
SEAT: Like their coordination with the Communist -- Chinese Communist Party, which three days ago, the House Select Committee on the CCP sent a letter to Harvard, 14-page letter with 57 citations about their pattern of coordination. That should trouble every single American.
HILL: And I understand why you would say that. But let me just tell you this, Pete, is that for -- and especially about this particular issue. I mean, a lot of us went to universities. I went to Michigan State. The first time I was ever called the N word was at Michigan State, all right? There are other groups that are on campus, campuses nationwide, I know a lot of black students can certainly identify with this. We didn't see this energy. And I'm not saying that this energy shouldn't be there because, absolutely, Jewish students deserve to be safe, they deserve to be protected, for sure. But why are you picking this? Why now?
And I have to question, especially given their overall --
SEAT: I think what happened last night is a pretty good reason.
HILL: I'm not saying that it is.
BATYA UNGAR-SARGON, AUTHOR, SECOND CLASS, HOW THE ELITES BETRAYED AMERICA'S WORKING MEN AND WOMEN: I was going to say, I think probably a lot of Jews watching this are feeling the way I'm feeling, which is that I can't believe we're talking about this rather than the fact that two people were murdered, because the terrorists who killed them believed that they were Jews, and was chanting the exact same thing that Jewish students have had to hear chanted at them for two years while he did that, who wrote a manifesto that reads exactly like the kinds of op-eds that are written routinely on these college campuses, that the comments on that manifesto are all completely in support of him. He is an outgrowth of the anti-Semitism on college campuses.
And how are we not talking about that? That is the story. There is a culture of dehumanizing Jews that is rampant on the left. Nobody wants to talk about it. They're not going to listen to us. We need people on the left to say, this is unacceptable.
And when it comes to these --
HILL: Is there somebody saying it's acceptable? Did I miss something?
UNGAR-SARGON: Well, I just don't understand why this is not the topic that we are talking about.
PHILLIP: Well, I'll answer that, because we are not debating the depravity of what happened last night. That's why we're not just --
UNGAR-SARGON: That is not an excuse to deprive American Jews of hearing you talk about, Abby.
PHILLIP: Listen, well, what I'm saying now is that what happened last night was evil and terrible. And that's not a topic of political debate. It's not a topic of left or right, or you're on this side or you're on that side. It's just wrong. It's just bad. And I'm not going to set a table for there to be another side on that issue. That's why we're not debating it.
But I do think that it's completely fair to bring up anti-Semitism in the context of this discussion, because that's what the administration says that the moves against universities are about in part.
[22:10:08]
But I also think, you know, there are protests and then there is anti- Semitism. And I do think it's fair to say that those two things do not have to be and should not be the same thing. Would you not agree?
UNGAR-SARGON: But here is something we could actually debate. The fact that the terrorists who murdered those two people chanted not just free Palestine but the exact same way you hear it on college campuses, free, free Palestine, that is a college campus chant. This is something we have to talk about.
HILL: So, you think everybody who says free, free Palestine wants to murder somebody?
UNGAR-SARGON: Of course, I don't think that.
HILL: Okay.
UNGAR-SARGON: But my question is, is the expectation that Jewish students should have to go to college campuses and listen to people singing the song that the terrorists sang to justify his terrorist act? Is that something we're comfortable saying? I think the answer is obviously no.
On Kristi Noem, specifically on this thing, she was very clear about what she had asked Harvard for that launched this. She asked them repeatedly to give her office information that they had of foreign students committing crimes or criminal acts, and they refused to do that. That is what -- I just want to make one more, very quick point.
PHILLIP: Yes, go ahead.
UNGAR-SARGON: The fact that 25 percent, 27 percent of college students at our elite university are foreign students, like this is utterly unacceptable. There are the hundreds of thousands of brilliant children being left on the table, children of color, children from inner cities, children from Appalachia who deserve those spots and deserve that education. Why are we giving it to Chinese people? I don't understand this.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. That's a super interesting point. I wish we had time to get to it. But I want to -- one of the things you mentioned about what they're asking for, the data that they're asking for, they're also asking for any audio, video footage in the possession of Harvard of any protest activity involving non-immigrant students on Harvard's campus in the last five years. That's an extremely broad ask. Anybody who has participated in a protest who is a --
UNGAR-SARGON: Any non-immigrant student, that's what it says.
PHILLIP: They're referring to visa holders, people who are at the university who are visa holders.
UNGAR-SARGON: Are guests.
PHILLIP: Right? So, if you are a visa holder participating in a protest now gets you sent to the government in this country, yes?
UNGAR-SARGON: You're allowed to ask for that information.
PHILLIP: I'm just asking because I was not aware of that until today.
FAWN WEAVER, ENTREPRENEUR AND CEO, UNCLE NEAREST: So, question for -- and the funny thing is that my WhatsApp was blowing up all day. I was with you. I didn't have time to, but my WhatsApp was blowing up all day because my Harvard cohort we're discussing this. And I had no -- and so I'm coming in here today and we're having this conversation and I'm realizing I should have checked my WhatsApp because I was like, why are all of the -- so all three classes that I took there to get my corporate board certification, most of the people there were foreigners.
And so I think that what is an interesting topic here now, and it's not what Trump is doing, I do think that there's something personal here. I don't understand the targeting of Harvard directly. I also don't understand why Harvard takes so much money from the government given how much we paid to go to Harvard. That's a whole other --
(CROSSTALKS)
WEAVER: Right. But here's the question though, is if you are taking that much money from the government, are you in fact saying the government can have some say so in what it is that you're doing? Because anything that we take money from, at some point, we have to answer to whoever it is that we're taking money from. And so is there a solution for Harvard to just -- and I don't know the answer to this. I just know my WhatsApp was going crazy all day.
Is there a solution that Harvard just says, you know what, government, we're not going to take any money from you? We are truly private. Get out.
PHILLIP: Well, I mean, that would be the answer, except that Harvard takes that money to provide a service, which is research, largely. And by and large it is research. That is what -- and there are not -- I think people think that research is happening everywhere all the time. It's not. There are only so many places who can do it at the level that they do it at the top universities, research institutions in the country. Montel?
WILLIAMS: In Brigham and Women's. I have been a board member on Anne Romney's Foundation at the Brigham and Women's for ten years now, doing neurological research. That research costs money. And, unfortunately, the way we have set up research in America, I did a study for a medical device over a course of six years, a hundred million dollars to do two double blind study. What? Why is research costing this much? That's the first thing.
So, universities like this have a lot of money. They have a huge endowment. But that endowment is going to actually pay for the Petri dishes.
[22:15:00]
They're going to pay for all the experimental, you know, super duper MRIs and things that they have, and all the research, PET scans, SPECT scans, all those kinds of things.
So, you know, why do they have that kind of money? They have that money because that's what we've risen the cost of research to, and they've got to be able to fund it.
PHILLIP: All right, we got to leave it there for that one.
Coming up next for us, we have more breaking news tonight. Donald Trump hosting his dinner for investors of his meme coin in what Democrats are calling an orgy of corruption.
Plus, Trump's agenda faces a do or die moment in the Senate, but Republicans are deciding the fate there, and they are warning that it's just not going to happen. We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, what Senator Elizabeth Warren calls, quote, an orgy of corruption. President Trump made good on his promise hosting more than 200 of the top buyers of his meme coin at a private event outside of D.C. tonight. They have pumped nearly $150 million into the coin so far. Most of them are foreign investors, according to Bloomberg. And we also don't know who they actually are. It's just the latest example of Trump flirting with that ethical line of the presidency.
But according to the White House, everything is above board.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LEAVITT: I have also addressed the dinner tonight. The president is attending it in his personal time.
The president is abiding by all conflict of interest laws that are applicable to the president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Democrats disagree. They are claiming the dinner is corruption in plain sight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): If you buy his coin. The price goes up and he makes more money. If you buy his coin, you get secret access to the president to be able to plead your case, to be able to ask for preferential treatment. And the extra benefit is no one will ever know that you bought the coin or that you got the private access. And so it provides cover for the most corrupt, for the most compromised, for the worst of the worst.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Batya, how does this land for you?
UNGAR-SARGON: I was feeling worse about it until I found out that he spent all of 68 minutes with 200 people. I don't think you can get a lot of bribery in if you're competing for that kind of time.
PHILLIP: But an hour of the president's time?
UNGAR-SARGON: Split among 200 people? 200, that's 68 -- 200 divided by 68, I actually did the math, it's 2.9 minutes per person.
Here's how I'm thinking about it, Abby. You know, no one who voted for him, I don't think, thinks that he is a person who can be bribed easily. Certainly after he took a hatchet to the world economy, that solidified that, in my mind, that he has his view of what he wants to do and he's going to do it. What this is the appearance of something. So, if somebody like you who's not convinced that he can't be bribed would look at this and say, look, I have no reason to believe him, and that is true.
But what I'm balancing that with is everything else that he's done that I consider to be just epic and only he could have done it, like the 10 percent global tariff that we now have that's generating billions of dollars in revenue, deporting gang bangers and Hamas supporters, defunding Harvard, you know, securing the border. I mean, this is stuff that is so significant that it really does outweigh this appearance, especially given what I know.
I will also say, I do wish that the media had enough credibility so that when the Democrats and the leftist media came out here and criticized him for stuff like that, it actually landed. But because they gave a pass to Joe Biden on Hunter Biden and on the paintings, and because they refuse to admit when he does anything good, the Democrats and the liberal media have no standing with which to have that credibility to convince the American people that this is problematic. And that's where we find ourselves.
PHILLIP: I would offer only that you know about the Hunter Biden paintings because of the liberal media, so to speak. We reported -- you know, media outlets reported about that, which is why you know about it. So, the idea that we're just ignoring it --
UNGAR-SARGON: I heard it on conservative media.
PHILLIP: I know you heard about it on conservative media, but it was reported. It was covered by the rest of media.
But, anyway, okay, so your point is a little bit of maybe corruption, but certainly the appearance of corruption is fine because you get other things in the bargain. Fawn, what do you think?
UNGAR-SARGON: No, I said first I actually don't think he can be bribed. But I'm saying the fact that --
PHILLIP: Right, the appearance of it.
UNGAR-SARGON: The fact that it's unpleasant to me that you now can be --
PHILLIP: I don't think -- I've been covering politics for a long time, Montel. I don't think anybody can't be bribed. I'm sorry. I just don't.
WILLIAMS: Elon Musk selling automobiles on the White House lawn is not a bribe?
UNGAR-SARGON: Who got bribed there?
WILLIAMS: What was it, $125 million he put into his campaign?
UNGAR-SARGON: No, I mean, who --
WILLIAMS: That he got elected because he got $125 million from a guy who pulled his trucks on the front lawn and said he got advertisement from the president of the United States saying.
UNGAR-SARGON: Look at the stock. Look at Tesla's stock. It's in the toilet.
WEAVER: So, this is what I will say. I actually agree for a different reason. When you say that he cannot be bribed, I think about the picture of every single business leader in that rotunda who thought they were going to get something and what they got is they all are hundreds of billions of dollars --
UNGAR-SARGON: That's right.
WEAVER: So -- but I don't see that as a positive thing, to be clear, to be clear.
[22:25:01]
So, I don't want to say that. I think that's a positive thing. What I think that is, this is a man that has no loyalty to anyone, anyone. And so that is -- I think that that is the best example is look at everyone that was around him that day and look at what has happened since then.
So, I actually don't think he can be bribed because I don't think he actually has a loyalty to anyone.
PHILLIP: What about just making money? I mean, I don't know that it needs to even be bribery. Because like if it wasn't -- look, there's crypto, which -- okay, let's just look at the crypto that Trump has made. World Financial Liberty, which was announced just only in September, $550 million, Trump Digital Trading Cards started being sold in 2022, $7 million, Trump and Melania meme coins, the revenue from trading fees and other revenues, $350 million. You don't have to bribe anybody. You're just making money at the end of the day.
WEAVER: Can I just a different point to this?
PHILLIP: Yes.
WEAVER: Immediately after the election when so many people, especially black women, were really around me, were like not wanting to get out of bed. And they had come to a conclusion that it was because Kamala was black. And my argument to them was, have you paid attention to how many people own crypto? That is a block of voters that he's talking to right now --
PHILLIP: That he has delivered for.
WEAVER: That he has delivered for.
PHILLIP: He's deregulated, he's participated.
WEAVER: And remember he was against it until midway through the campaign and realize how big that block of voters were.
So, right after the election, you're talking about $65 million invested, that's a big block of voters.
HILL: Or did he realize how he could personally make money from it? Because that's a different -- that's a different thing.
PHILLIP: I think both things should --
WEAVER: It's both. I think it has to be one or the other. I'm adding another side to this, which is he's solidifying a group of people that if it's not Republicans that are in there that are running the House, the Senate, all the rest of that, crypto goes away because, well, it's as much of a --
HILL: Ponzi pyramid thing that makes more money.
WEAVER: Right. SEAT: So, politically, it had value, right? He leaned into the crypto bros. He strung them along, got their votes. Now, he's got to cut them off. Because -- and this is -- my issue is less about the president and more about the country. Crypto is a scam.
WEAVER: It is.
SEAT: And what these guys won, these investors, they desperately need the government to legitimize their so-called investment. Otherwise, they're going to lose everything. And if they get what they want, which is displacing the fiat currency, the U.S. dollar, we're no longer the reserve currency, we no longer have the power to sanction, we lose everything.
So, you know, the senator talking, complaining is rich because it's not like you can't buy access to him by giving money to his campaign.
WEAVER: Exactly.
SEAT: So, give me a break.
WEAVER: Yes.
SEAT: The problem is what this could do to America.
PHILLIP: That's very interesting. That's such an interesting point, because I think it is different from what people would expect if you're a supporter of Trump, but it's a more of a national security question, which I think is colliding, honestly, with Trump's pocketbook. Because he is in that meeting, not because they necessarily -- that he wants to hear what they have to say. He's in that meeting because they paid money that is coming to him, and which is in direct conflict to what you're saying, which is that what's in the best interest of the country from a fiscal perspective.
SEAT: Yes. And they could still get access to them. And I agree with what you were saying earlier. The most precious commodity is the president's time. And the calendar is policy. And by him going to this and spending the time, those precious minutes, it's a mistake.
PHILLIP: Last word, Montel.
WILLIAMS: Yes. I go back to it. I mean, the cash is going in his pocket. At the end of the day, it's going in his pocket. So, he's making money. Whether you say I deliberately sold influence, I'm going to remember if you gave me $150 million. I'm going to remember that tomorrow. But, anyway, give it to me right now, I'd enjoy it. You know, if you gave me a $150 million, I'm going to say, you know, Abby, come on over, have a couple days -- not tonight because there's 250 other people waiting in line. Come next week.
PHILLIP: Maybe another day.
WILLIAMS: Come on next week.
PHILLIP: Maybe another day. WILLIAMS: Because we don't know who goes in that --
PHILLIP: If anybody at this table has $150 million. Okay, Montel, thank you.
Coming up next, Republicans want to give all of the newborns cash, speaking of, and name it after Trump. But when Democrats wanted to do that very thing, it was called socialism. We'll discuss.
Plus, why have the White House transcripts of Trump's events suddenly disappeared?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, further evidence the political world is upside down. Republicans appear to be stealing plays from Hillary Clinton's playbook. Their new domestic spending bill includes $1000 savings account for all newborns. It means for the babies to use later in life, for investing. It was first called the MAGA account, but ultimately, they went with Trump accounts. Liberals might call them Hillary accounts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5000 account that will grow over time.
[22:35:00]
So, when that young person turns 18, if they have finished high school, they will be able to access it to go to college, or maybe they will be able to put that down payment on their first call.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Other Democrats like Cory Booker have proposed similar ideas, but just a reminder, Republicans have hated this idea for a long time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLENN BECK, CEO, "THE BLAZE": Has anybody noticed that the Democratic presidential candidate seem to be on quite a spending binge lately? Look at what Hillary has proposed in just the last few months alone. She's got that $5000 baby bond thing for every baby born in America.
RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hillary's baby bonds came out of a lack of experience. I asked to find out how many babies are born, and I multiplied it by the amount of money she wanted to give them, and I found out it would be $22 billion.
ED ROLLINS, 1084 REAGAN CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR: But to give them a four -- $5000 reward because you're born here is absurd. It's just one more liberal Democrat program, at the beginning of -- at the beginning of your life. What do you expect when you graduate from the fourth grade? Ten?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: But hey, a good idea is a good idea. Right, Pete?
PETE SEAT, FORMER WH SPOKESMAN FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Five thousand is socialism. One thousand is way --
(LAUGHTER)
SEAT: How do you like that?
JEMELE HILL, "THE ATLANTIC" CONTRIBUTING WRITER": Well-played. Well- played.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Somebody pay this man more money.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: I mean, $5000 -- $1000. Look, if Trump could give people $5000, don't you think he would do it?
HILL: Oh, look, listen. It already worked before with the stimulus checks, right? Him putting his name on those checks did wonders. There's people who still run with the belief that, oh, Donald Trump personally gave me this money. It's like, no, no. This came from somewhere.
Look, the -- the bigger issue to me -- and -- and I'm not against people getting, you know, money in whatever fashion that we feel like will help Americans, is that you do this, but then at the same time, you're gutting -- you're gutting Medicare. You're gutting other services that will help the -- help children in this country. And you just want to give them this one-time payment or whatever for having the baby.
What about when they're actually here? Do something about that. I would love for you to invest more money in education, in their well- being. You're cutting head start. That's like, I went to "Head Start". That's a huge program. So, you can't talk out of both sides of your neck and this administration does that, but from an idea standpoint, he's seen it work before, so I'm not surprised he's going back to that well.
PHILLIP: I know that you, well, on some of these issues, you're not in favor of the sort of like cuts to the lower end of the spectrum. But that's -- that is exactly what Republicans are doing. And then you layer on top of that, debt that's just growing, and it's not getting any smaller. It's only going to get bigger. This part, I know you disagree with, but the tariff instability is making that debt crisis worse. BATYA UNGAR- SARGON, AUTHOR, "SECOND CLASS: HOW THE ELITES BETRAYED
AMERICA'S WORKING MEN AND WOMEN": So, first of all, this is one of many ideas that the MAGA movement has ripped out right from under the Democrats, controlling the border and immigration. This used to be Democrat policy on the theory, which is correct, that if you limit labor, a tight labor market puts money in the pockets of working class people.
Tariffs used to be Democrat policy on the theory that if you reshore manufacturing, if you protect the product of the American worker, you give the American dream to working class people. On so many issues, Donald Trump just tacked to the left of where the Democrats found themselves. And so, this is really the key to his success, and I'm -- I don't think a lot of people in the GOP, by the way, understand this either.
On the Big, Beautiful Bill, we have two senators already who have vowed that they are not going to vote on it as it is, specifically because of the cuts to Medicaid. Josh Hawley said there's he's never going to vote on something that cuts Medicaid, basically taking money away from poor people, and then gives tax cuts to the rich, giving money to the -- to the rich. So, the bill that we have right now, it, in no way resembles the bill that we're going to end up --
PHILLIP: I mean, you're right about it. Trump is tacking to the left, but you also have to say, if, you know, Joe Biden or Barack Obama had said $1000 -- $5000, whatever the number is, to every baby born in this country, Republicans would have said, hell no.
HILL: Yeah. They had accused him of buying votes, too.
(CROSSTALK)
MONTEL WILLIAMS, TALK SHOW HOST AND ACTIVIST: Had anything that's been done in the last three or four months, we'd be talking about a whole different conversation here tonight. So, yeah. I -- I don't understand do we necessarily have, is that $1000 over the course of 13 -- 17 years really going to amount to enough to be a down payment for a house 17 years from now when houses will be a minimum $400,000 -- $500,000?
SEAT: But it could inspire a culture of savings and that's what we need in this country.
HILL: Look at Pete defending Hillary Clinton's side.
(LAUGHTER)
SEAT: But not enough not enough Americans save. We've seen all the studies that what is it half of this country doesn't have enough to, you know, finance $5000 if something horrible happened to them. So, if that seed being planted is what gets that family, those parents, that child down the road to save more when they can see that $1000 grow, I'm all for it.
[22:40:00] HILL: But isn't that about more or less because they don't have the money to actually save? Like that that's -- I understand what you mean.
SEAT: And that's true for some people, but there are others who just make that choice. They'd rather be consumers.
HILL: There are. Most people are living paycheck to paycheck not because they're over consuming. It's because wages have been stagnant for a long time. Like, there are other factors. So, the saving is not because they just want to be -- they just want to be out here just blowing money. Most of it is because it's going toward things, necessities that matter.
SEAT: Well, in the case with some of my friends. Trust me, they're just blowing.
FAWN WEAVER, ENTREPRENEUR AND CEO, UNCLE NEAREST: I -- I love the idea because I love when Hillary had it.
UNGAR-SARGON: Right.
WEAVER: So, it is -- this is-- I -- I love the idea and -- and when we're talking about how divided we are in this country in terms of our policies, whenever the two sides are able to have the same idea, I think it's a -- a good thing. I think the challenge is -- is that whoever had the idea before, the other side ripped it apart. Then that I -- that side gets the exact same idea.
And now those who were forward before rip it apart. And so, I think that in those rare instances where we're watching both sides agree on the same thing, I -- I say we call it a win. Because it just doesn't happen.
UNGAR-SARGON:
PHILLIP: It does not happen often enough. Coming up next, they call themselves the most transparent White House in history, but the Trump administration is also removing official transcripts from the president's events. We'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:46:06]
PHILLIP: Tonight, disappearing act. Transcripts of President Trump's public remarks are missing from the website that the White House operates. The page now features only videos of just some of Trump's appearances with one transcript remaining, his inaugural address. The change is raising questions about what the administration is disclosing or not disclosing to Americans even though it likes to tout itself as this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Most transparent and accessible president in American history. Most transparent ever. And this president, the most accessible in history. We have the most transparent administration. Most transparent and accessible president in American history. We have never seen this level of transparency and accessibility.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I have an idea. Maybe a simple way to be transparent is to actually be transparent. And to actually put the transcripts on the website, so people can do a quick Google search and throw it in their A.I., whatever they want to do, and find out what the President said. I know that this is actually a bit of a product of modernity, but it is important for people to understand what is being said.
WILLIAMS: He hates being fact-checked. So, if you put those transcripts back up there, you could back check him. He doesn't want that to happen anymore. Take a look at what just happened two days ago when we had the South African President. You know, he doesn't want anybody bringing that back up again. That needs to go away forever because if it doesn't go away, you're going to recognize straight up lying. And so, I got to tell you, I think that we ought to push back on that, but there really is no push back for that.
PHILLIP: It's -- I mean, it's also compounded. I mean, they are stripping it from the website, the transcripts, but it's --she says she - she talks about the -- the video. Actually, let me just play, well, no. Actually, this is a quote. She says, "The President's remarks are live on the website for every person in the world, including journalists, to access and watch for themselves." And then she repeats, "The Trump White House is the most transparent in history."
Okay. So, that is not actually true. It's -- it is not shockingly -- it is not actually all on the website, A. It's not even all on YouTube. They are picking and choosing which parts of the president's public statements and appearances they put out there for the world to access. I don't know. It just seems like it's not a crime, obviously. It's just not something that you would do if you're actually trying to be transparent.
HILL: Well, it's troubling on a lot of - on a lot of fronts, much as you noted, but I think the biggest thing is -- is because Trump is sensitive. That's what it is. I mean, this is about his ego. It's about the fact that, as you said, not only does he not like being fact-checked, he also doesn't he is prone to and susceptible to flattery. That's what it is.
And so, it I don't think it has anything to do with them trying to necessarily hide something nefarious, though this is an administration that's hard to trust. I think this is about protecting the ego and the sensitivity of the President.
SEAT: Well, see, the White House isn't the only source for transcripts, number one, you can find them almost anywhere. Secondly, I do take the White House's point, and you said it would --
PHILLIP: I have to disagree with that. You cannot. I mean --
SEAT: You can. You can find transcripts of the show.
PHILLIP: Yes, but because we, CNN, published some, though not all transcripts. I've covered two presidents, okay? You cannot find transcripts anywhere. News organizations actually pay money to transcription services to get access to transcripts. Regular people, they are not doing that, okay?
And the White House website has become, in modern history, a very important research source, not for regular people, just the average person. You're like, oh, I heard this thing happened. I wonder what the president said about that. You used to be able to search and find it. And back in the day, meaning November 2024, when -- when the Biden administration actually took one of those transcripts and tried to alter a misstatement from President Biden.
[22:50:10]
Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokeswoman, said the White House, quote, "unethically altered an official White House transcript in a failed attempt to edit the truth." So she understands.
SEAT: We had -- we had a similar moment when I was in the George W. Bush White House where the stenographers made a slight edit. The President, accidentally said childrens instead of children, and they just went ahead and changed it. We didn't -- I probably sent the darn thing out. I don't know. And the world went nuts. They went absolutely insane. What a quaint little world we lived in back then.
(LAUGHTER)
But -- but look, I just, I take their point, but --but putting those transcripts out protects the President. When you end up in a he said, she said scenario, having that record that the stenographers have taken down because usually, they don't mess -- mess up. They put exactly what the president says on paper. That is protecting him, and they should keep those up.
UNKNOWN: Yeah. Thoughts?
WILLIAMS: I don't think he wants that protection because, again, if I can pull up a transcript and say what he said last week, when he says he didn't say that last week --
UNKNOWN: Right.
WILLIAMS: -- all of a sudden, on by tomorrow.
HILLS: I mean, we've seen how he's responded before. So, when they confronted with his own words.
PHILLIP: Some people have suggested that part of it is also because if you read what Trump says, you see a lot of what he calls the swerve.
SEAT: The weave.
PHILLIP: The weave. Oh, yes. The weave. Sorry. The weave.
SEAT: It's trademark.
PHILLIP: The weave, which is what he goes from topic to topic to topic and you have to then figure out what he was trying to say and connect the dots. And the weave doesn't -- doesn't transfer certainly does not transfer on paper. I don't know if it transfers in video but it certainly does not transfer in paper.
WILLIAMS: Right.
UNGAR-SARGON: So, I compared what's up now, which is, all of the video addresses to the way back, link of the -- the, transcripts. There's actually more videos up now than there were transcripts. I try to catch as much as a journalist of his speeches as I can. Everything I had seen was up there.
And there's really an argument to be made that, you know, people can now access the actual video itself. They are everywhere. They are all over YouTube. You can take an A.I. program and get -- download a transcript yourself of anything you want to watch. It's not like it's not accessible. Every video is there. And in a way, it's almost made us a little bit, less necessary as journalists because average Americans can just go to YouTube and watch it themselves.
PHILLIP: I just want to say there are journalists who have been tracking this. Every video is not there. That's part of the problem. So, that's why we're --we're having this conversation because it's not all there. And -- and regular people shouldn't have to, like, mess with A.I. to figure out what the President said, but that's another story.
Next for us, the panel is going to give us their night caps. They're -- they're going to look into the future and tell us, speaking of A.I., what they want an A.I. partner to be in the future. We'll explain.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:57:49]
PHILLIP: We are back and it's time for the news night cap, A.I. spouse edition. An A.I. company says that in a survey, very suspect of Abraham, eight out of 10 Gen Z respondents would consider marrying an A.I. partner. Okay. Yes. Take that with a grain of salt. The company is also selling A.I. partners. But each of you have a few seconds to tell us what you would want in an A.I. partner. Batya, you're up first.
UNGAR-SARGON: So, in Genesis, it says that God made for Adam a helpmeet against him, an Ezer Kenegdo. And the idea is that, you know, you need both things. You need help, you need support, but you also need a little friction, you need a little bit of fight.
I'm married to my best friend. I'm still madly in love with my husband, Zoe. I love you so much, and you are irreplaceable to me.
PHILLIP: Okay.
WEAVER: Very good answer. I want everything my husband is. My husband is 22 years. Like, give me --that is -- if anything ever happened to my ever, like, we're 80 years old, whatever. Anything happened, just give me the A.I. version of him. I'm good.
PHILLIP: You all are the 20 percent of A.I.
(LAUGHTER)
WILLIAMS: I'm going to tell you. I don't want an A.I. partner. I want the partner that I have. Why? Because she's authentic.
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
WILLIAMS: She calls me out when I need to be called out. She corrects me when I'm off. I mean, and instead of me being upset about it, and we could be in the middle of a conversation with multiple people, she'll go, baby. And I don't think an A.I. thing will do this. Any A.I. substitute will do that because it's -- it's programmed to learn me, to make me want to talk to it more, so it's going to make sure it says all the right things it thinks that I want to hear.
UNKNOWN: That's true.
HILL: See, I -- I this is the worst question I've been asked since I've been appearing on this show because I think I thought about my husband. I've been married six years and I was like, he is exactly -- that's what I want. But the one thing I struggle with probably week to week, since I do most of the -- most of the cooking is meal planning. So, if there was something I would want an A.I. partner to do --
WEAVER: There you go.
HILL: -- it'd be meal planning because I'll ask him like, what do you want for dinner? He's like, I don't know.
[23:00:00]
PHILLIP: Yes. The most annoying thing ever.
SEAT: A few weeks ago, I -- I broke one of the sacred rules of the nightcap. I went 42 seconds instead of 30.
PHILLIP: All right.
SEAT: So very short today, two words, Emma Watson. That's my prompt.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: Yeah. None -- so none of you all want somebody to pack and unpack the dishwasher? Okay. All right. Before we go, I want to mention that Montel has a new book out. It is called "The Sailing of the Intrepid". It is out right now. You could go get it in stores. WILLIAMS: Anywhere you can buy a book right now. I'm actually doing a
signing on the "Intrepid" this coming Sunday.
PHILLIP: All right. If you're in New York City, everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight". You can catch me on your favorite social media. In the meantime, "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
