Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Tariffs Reinstated By Appeals Court For Now; Trump's Health Report Full Of Flawed And Nonexistent Studies; DHS Says, Migrant Vowed To Kill Trump, Investigators Call It A Set-Up; New Trump Administration Policy Brings Back Memories Of The Cold War; FBI's New Deputy Director Realizes Government Jobs Are Not So Easy. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired May 29, 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 HOST (voice over): Tonight, a lot of what Donald Trump does gets undone.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: These judges are threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States.
PHILLIP: Is it justice or judicial tyranny?
Plus, for as much as the White House cries fake news, the White House sure is selling Americans a lot of fiction.
LEAVITT: I understand there were some formatting issues.
PHILLIP: Also, do foreigners have a right to free speech in America? A move by the administration gives Cold War flashbacks.
And the FBI rookies get on the wrong side of MAGA as they find government jobs aren't that easy.
DAN BONGINO, FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: If you think we're there for tea and crumpets, it's hard.
PHILLIP: Live at the table. Scott Jennings, Ashley Allison, Kevin O'Leary and Chuck Rocha.
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, Trump's tariffs caught in a tug-of-war. On one side is the executive branch, and on the other is the judiciary. So, who has control of the rope? At least for now, it's Team Trump. Today, a federal appeals court temporarily reinstated his tariffs in a move that comes less than 24 hours after rulings from two different lower court judges that found that the president's tariffs are illegal.
The administration wasted no time taking a victory lap.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: We are very pleased with the ruling. We expected it.
President Trump's case is ironclad and the appeals court took almost no time at all. In fact, we're surprised it took until the end of the day for them to overturn this previous ruling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: But it is not over yet. Today's ruling adds to the uncertainty around the fate of Trump's trade war, and it fuels even more chaos and confusion for Americans over his tariffs. And as we wait to see who ultimately will have the final poll in this power struggle, the White House is making it clear one side doesn't belong in the fight at all.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER NAVARRO, TRUMP SENIOR COUNSELOR FOR TRADE AND MANUFACTURING: What we see, this is as this broader problem of rogue judges erecting essentially a judicial blockade.
LEAVITT: The courts should have no role here. There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Joining us in our fifth seat, retired U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin. Judge, that last part is, I think, a really big question that, frankly, this administration keeps asserting. They believe that courts don't have a role at all in telling the executive what they can and cannot do. Your response to that?
SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, RETIRED, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: Well, they're absolutely wrong. Of course, the courts have a role. That's where lawsuits are brought. And these are legitimate lawsuits challenging the actions the president takes, and that's what judges do. They're the arbiter. They decide whether what was done was right or not right.
By the way, I have to correct the word, overturned. They were celebrating and saying it was overturned. Nothing was overturned today. It was stayed very temporarily.
PHILLIP: Just until literally a week, June 5th.
SCHEINDLIN: June 9th.
PHILLIP: And June 9th, yes.
SCHEINDLIN: The responding papers come in June 9th, so it's about a ten-day stay, and then they said they would consider whether to really stay it or not stay it until a final adjudication.
PHILLIP: One more thing before, you know, obviously everybody get in this conversation, on this particular issue of tariffs, right, it seems to me like a basic constitutional question, a legitimate one, how much power unilaterally does a president have in this sphere?
SCHEINDLIN: Well, that's exactly right, because we haven't talked about the third branch. We've talked about the judiciary, we talked about the executive. We didn't talk about Congress. So, at some point after a period of time, he can do things under other statutes for a period of time on his own executive branch, but then it goes to Congress.
And so there are three equal branches. And we have to remember that here. It's not just the executive. It's the judiciary. It's the Congress. It's the legislative branch, all three.
PHILLIP: Yes. So, Trump, in an incredibly lengthy Truth Social post, I don't even know if we can fit it all on one screen, but it is very lengthy. He's attacking everyone in this post, the Federalist Society. He's attacking the courts. He's attacking his own judges in some cases, but he says, if allowed to stand, this would completely destroy presidential power.
[22:05:04]
The presidency would never be the same.
Let's take that, that's point. Counterpoint comes tonight from Rand Paul, a Republican, who says this on X. I have said time and time again that the founders wanted to prevent one person from having unilateral control and decision-making powers. That is why the power of the purse and the ability to tax lie with Congress, not the president.
Scott, who's right here?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, it's an interesting question. And Rand's got a very strong point of view. And I'm a Kentuckian, I'm his constituent and he's been very consistent on this. I'm sure there's others in Congress that hold his view. And the president has a very different point of view. I suspect, Judge, this is all headed to the Supreme Court. It could be a landmark decision ultimately because this power to tariff is a broad, sweeping power.
And now I think the president has been using it correctly here to try to bring some order to the international trade situation, but, you know, if the Supreme Court weighs in and pares it back, it would be a huge rebalancing.
I also agree with what you said about the Congress here. You know, at any given time, they could weigh in, if they felt like it, legislatively. They've chosen not to do that. And when they do that on any issue, that, of course, allows the executive branch to try to take more power, which is not an uncommon thing. So, it's a really fascinating question for Republicans who, of course, have not been a pro-tariff party really until Trump came along.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, we know why Congress isn't weighing in first, is because they have to -- Republicans at least are going to follow the lead of Donald Trump, and they don't want to risk going against him. And if they took a vote on tariffs and prices do go up, as everyone suspects they do, they know that, unlike Donald Trump, who is not going to be up for reelection in 2028, the people in the House are going to be up in a year-and-a-half, and some senators will also be up.
But I think what is the underlying thing is, again, something doesn't go Donald Trump's way, and he complains and he undermines and he talks poorly about the Federalists.
PHILLIP: The Federalist Society, yes.
ALLISON: Like they were his people. They helped select judges that Donald Trump actually --
PHILLIP: Well, he's upset about Amy Coney Barrett, in particular, it seems, is what they --
ALLISON: But that's his nominee, you know? I mean, so that was his pick. So, he should be mad at himself if he doesn't like what's going on.
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN, O'LEARY VENTURES: Yes. Congress is not going to weigh in. They got the big, beautiful tax bill to deal with. And after that they've got a bunch of other things.
ALLISON: Oh, they're so busy.
O'LEARY: And the need truth is nobody knows who the Federalists are until tonight. But I would say this is all noise. Here's what matters. If you're a country like the E.U., basket of countries, or the U.K. or Canada or Japan or India, does any of this matter? No, because Trump has a ton of other tools to squeeze your head with.
You may not like Trump. You may like him. You may think this is just crazy what's going on. It doesn't matter. If your negotiating team is on a plane flying to Washington, you stay the course because you know with certainty, one way or another, your head will be continuing squeezed --
PHILLIP: Or wouldn't you just wait for the courts to weigh in here.
SCHEINDLIN: Well, you know, but they're looking at this one statute, this statute about the economic -- Emergency Economic Powers Act. But there are lots of other ways that he could impose these tariffs under other acts.
PHILLIP: They gave him a pathway to do.
SCHEINDLIN: They did. So, he could go around this and never take it to the Supreme Court. Why bother with the IEEPA when you could use many other ways to do it? O'LEARY: Well, a judge hasn't agreed with me. I'm so honored. Thank you.
PHILLIP: I mean, but, Judge, you know, this whole idea of the president using tariffs as a tool to sort of squeeze other countries, as Kevin said, on a smaller scale, I think there are clearly other mechanisms that he can do that. I think what this tax court essentially said, was on a broad scale for the whole entire world, it's never been done before. And I think that's the big question.
SCHEINDLIN: Yes. Well, I'm not sure actually that I agree with that if we're going to surprise you and say, trade policy really is usually in the hands of the executive initially. They just have to get it right and do it right. If they do it wrong, the courts have a role, no question.
CHUCK ROCHA, PODCAST CO-HOST, THE LATINO VOTE: The realignment is what's got the political consultant over here literally spinning in my seat, to Scott's point. I spent 30 years fighting Republicans on tariff. I was the pro-union tariff guy who wanted steel and automobiles built here.
I spent 30 years trying to get Congress every time they would pass a spending bill and say, we need buy American provisions and I would have Republicans say, that puts us at that economic disadvantage and globalization. We want to manufacture some things, what we can here.
But the realignment piece is these voters, my voters, non-college educated dudes out in the country, go shop at Walmart and Target. They're not going to know what any of this means yet.
[22:10:00]
But if prices start going up or things happen, and I know we're all like, wait, let's see this all going to work out, it's all part of the big deal, that's where I think this realignment starts coming back.
JENNINGS: You know, this issue you raised of him trying to use other statutes, I mean, this is one of his most closely held views, is that the power of tariffs here, and so it wouldn't shock me if they did do that. But, of course, they also have a broader point of view about these judges. I mean, you can see it in his statement tonight.
They do believe the executive branch is being impeded by rogue judges. And although I do think judges have a role to play, I think multiple things could be true. In some cases, I do think the judges have gotten it very wrong. And in some cases, this is going to wind up at the Supreme Court and, you know, on a number of fronts and we'll see what the power of the president really is.
SCHEINDLIN: And the Supreme Court has ruled against him as often as it's ruled for him. And so there are, oh, I just want to finish, rogue judges.
ALLISON: Yes, sorry. SCHEINDLIN: Just one second on rogue judges, I don't buy that word at all. I think judges do what they think is right. Look at this panel from the Court of International Trade. Two of them --
JENNINGS: What is right versus --
SCHEINDLIN: No. I'm just saying two of the three were appointed by Republican presidents. One was his appointee, one was a Reagan appointee, and one was, I think --
PHILLIP: Obama.
SCHEINDLIN: Obama, thank you.
PHILLIP: And the Trump appointee actually worked in the Trump administration --
SCHEINDLIN: Yes, he did.
PHILLIP: -- as a senior official in the trade office.
SCHEINDLIN: Absolutely right.
PHILLIP: So, not someone who necessarily -- I mean, I don't know, I can't speak to his politics, but someone who Trump thought was good enough to work for.
SCHEINDLIN: But what I'm saying is they were unanimous.
ALLISON: Right.
SCHEINDLIN: They saw it. They saw it the same way and they're not --
ALLISON: But the one thing about the courts, real quick about the court piece, about, to your point, is he could do other statutes, if you actually go back to Trump 1.0, I'm thinking about the citizenship question on the census, right? When the Supreme Court ruled to remove it, because he didn't follow the proper procedures, they actually didn't take another run at it, and I don't really know if that is their -- they try and if they don't, and then they move on to another issue and try something again. I don't know if he'll try --
JENNINGS: But the tariffs are so important.
ALLISON: I know, but I think the timing of it is different too because it's early.
PHILLIP: There's a question of whether this is sloppiness or a desire to expand powers into areas where it has not been expanded before, because they could go and do this the right way. The Section 232 tariffs are in place. They're fine. They are legal, according to this court. But why are they not doing it the right way?
O'LEARY: Regardless of party, test the edges always. So, all of a sudden, Trump's running into friction. So what? Does it change the narrative on tariffs? None at all. As you said, Judge, lots of other tools to squeeze heads with, coming to a theater near you shortly. But watch this happen. He doesn't care.
SCHEINDLIN: I think he likes the word, emergency. He issued an emergency order. There's an emergency in this country. It's the fentanyl again, to which the tariffs don't relate at all, but that's okay. He likes declaring emergency. So, this statute spoke to him. Somebody said, some of his people must have said, do it this way. But he doesn't have to. There's other ways to implement tariff policy.
PHILLIP: All right. Judge Scheindlin, thank you very much for being here. Everyone else, don't go anywhere.
Up next, breaking news, we are learning tonight that the administration's claim of a migrant sending an assassination letter to Trump isn't what it appears.
Plus, speaking of bad claims, RFK Jr.'s first health report include sources that do not exist. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, Alternative Facts 2.0 after it was revealed at RFK Jr.'s MAHA report on children's health was riddled with mistakes and cited studies that don't exist. The White House essentially blamed it on Microsoft Word.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: We have complete confidence in Secretary Kennedy and his team at HHS. I understand there were some formatting issues with the MAHA report that are being addressed and the report will be updated, but it does not negate the substance of the report, which, as you know, is one of the most transformative health reports that has ever been released by the federal government, and is backed on good science that has never been recognized by the federal government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: This is hardly the first time the White House has pushed literal fake news. DOGE claimed it saved $8 billion on one contract. It was actually $8 million. Musk also claimed millions of dead people were claiming Social Security benefits. They were not. Leavitt claimed the administration found a $50 million contract to fund condoms in Gaza. It had not.
And tonight we are learning that the claim by DHS that a migrant sent a letter threatening to kill Donald Trump isn't what it seems. Investigators actually believe the accused migrant did not write the letter, but instead was a victim of a setup by someone who was trying to get him deported. Despite that Kristi Noem posted this guy's picture, sent out a press release and news sites ran with the story.
This is kind of a pattern of announce it first, check it later. But, I mean, in the case of both this migrant, who, by the way, it seems might actually be the victim of a crime, that plus the MAHA reports, you talked about, the science being never recognized, that's because some of the science that they're citing literally does not exist. It's amazing.
ROCHA: You know, as a political consultant who's taught a lot of folks about spin, this whole thing about the formatting error is a whole new area for me to get into. I will also say that if you really look at it, there are news outlets tonight, just hours before we came on, Washington Post being one of them, we were saying that it is A.I., and that's fine. A.I.'s coming and taking lots of folks jobs, I get all of that, but they are saying it, not me.
[22:20:02]
I wouldn't know A.I. if I saw it. But I'm telling you that there's a pattern here of what we've been seeing with not just this, and I think you're making the case about the pattern.
PHILLIP: It's not a high school report. It's not a high school book report.
O'LEARY: Never just blame Microsoft. Always go with Google Docs also. Because I always think you want diversification of blame and I throw the A.I., thing, that's good. I mean, and I had no idea how this got out there, but we're going to clean it up now, brilliant, brilliant.
PHILLIP: Or you could say, we made a mistake. We're going to go back to the drawing board, make sure it's all on the up and up. I mean --
ALLISON: I think there's a bigger issue here. We're talking about citations that people use to verify science. And if you've ever written -- like, first of all, A.I., you're not even -- students aren't even really allowed to use A.I. to do citations and formatting.
ROCHA: There you go.
ALLISON: So, they don't -- the White House is breaking the rules that even high school students have to follow.
But the reality is the science is -- some of the science is bogus. That's why it doesn't exist. And I have no problem with some of the things that RFK wants to do with making children more healthy and getting sugar out of processed foods and red dye, but you can't make up science because it's a matter of life and death with people.
So, there will be reports that come out and pharmaceutical companies will make decisions. Healthcare companies will make decisions that will determine whether or not pregnant women can get vaccines now and whether it's covered. There are real life implications. And it's not just a formatting issue. It could actually cause somebody to lose their life.
JENNINGS: On this immigration case though, you said this person might be the victim here, and I'm not disputing that this letter might have been made up. This person's not a victim. Ramon Morales, age 54, has entered the United States illegally at least nine times between 1998 -- since 1998, criminal record, including felony hit and run, criminal damage to property, disorderly conduct with a domestic abuse modifier. So even if this letter was made up, he should be deported immediately, letter or no.
PHILLIP: Well, let me explain what I was talking about. I mean, all of that may be true. But what I'm talking about, the reason that they're investigating this is because they believe that what might have happened here is that he was the victim of a separate crime, and that that person, the alleged perpetrator, may have tried to set him up so that he was out of the country before he could testify in a case where he was the victim of a crime.
So, I'm not talking about his immigration status, I'm not talking about whether he was entitled to be here. It's just a question of why was he allegedly set up, and that's the scheme. So, just so people --
O'LEARY: Because he's bad dude.
JENNINGS: But here's my question. This is another case, and we've talked about a few of them on this show, where you get an illegal immigrant who's in the country for a number of years, who's come in and out of the country, who has a long criminal record. And I think people are going to look at this story and say, wait a minute, why is this person here right now?
PHILLIP: Yes, I get that. I feel like you are also changing the subject because deport him for whatever crimes that he's committed. But the DHS secretary put his picture up and said he threatened to assassinate the president, which apparently he may not have done. I mean, it seems very much like investigators do not believe he did that. It's just a question of do we care whether or not the statements that public officials make are true or not, or I think it doesn't just not matter?
ALLISON: I think for some people it depends on who it impacts, to be honest. If it impacts the immigrant, I don't care.
O'LEARY: Wait a second. The guy's a felon. What the hell are we talking about? Why don't we just send it back to where he came from --
ALLISON: But that's not the issue that we're debating.
O'LEARY: A serious issue.
ALLISON: No. It's not. The issue that we're debating is whether or not --
PHILLIP: Yes, we just went over this in a second.
ALLISON: -- know did what was right in terms of -- what she was saying could potentially be false. Misformatting is because it is false. There is a pattern of false.
Now, if the person did those things that you said, Scott --
JENNINGS: It's in the CNN reporting. ALLISON: Fine, then they can be deported. But that's not the issue. The issue was that the woman who is leading the Department of Homeland Security, who you all are supporting, did something incorrectly.
PHILLIP: The other thing, I mean, we talked about -- well, of course, you do because it's a great way to change the subject. I mean, the question of whether this administration, I mean. I know we've talked a lot about the president and his challenges with the facts, but this goes beyond that at this point. I mean, Elon Musk, remember the whole condoms and Gaza thing, he was asked about that at the White House, and he was basically like, shrug. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: How can make we make sure that all the statements that you said were correct so we can trust what you say?
ELON MUSK, TRUMP ADVISER: Well, first of all, some of the things that I say will be incorrect and should be corrected, so nobody's going to bat a thousand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And those incorrect statements were used to justify arguing that, you know, government officials were fraudulently sending condoms to Gaza, which they did not do.
[22:25:04]
So, there are consequences to the false statements that are made by people like Elon Musk at that time had a lot of power.
O'LEARY: I feel like the American people like the kid bored out of their mind. They don't care. He said, I make mistakes. They should be corrected. I'm done with it. Who cares?
ALLISON: If you got a business report from one of your employees and it had -- and it was a decision about a deal that you were going to make and they had created some stock numbers about the deal and put it, and you sent it and you did the deal, you would fire that person. And if you didn't, you aren't a good business person, but I think you're a good business person, right?
O'LEARY: It's always what's material and what isn't.
ALLISON: You lose money because of it.
O'LEARY: No.
ALLISON: You lose lives because of stuff like that.
O'LEARY: I don't make decisions on a fractional, you know, element. I try and make them on what's material and what isn't. Condoms and Gaza sound to me like, okay, what's material about that, again? I mean, that's really why -- PHILLIP: Well, they thought it was material because they used it as a justification for claiming that federal employees were defrauding the country intentionally in order to send money to other countries. That wasn't happening. It was used as a justification, so it was essential to --
O'LEARY: The kid was yawning. He got it right.
JENNINGS: I want to concede the point on Noem, because if it's wrong, what they said, if what she said is wrong, it should be corrected and it should be corrected immediately. That's number one. Number two, has a single person from the previous administration admitted any of the misinformation they put out about President Biden come out to say, you know what, we were wrong and it should be corrected? I don't think so. This administration at a minimum is saying, hey, if we make a mistake, we'll correct it. That's a good attitude.
ALLISON: But they don't correct it.
JENNINGS: That's a good attitude.
PHILLIP: A, they haven't corrected it. B, they have not said anything that you just said. I mean, they haven't said that they're willing to --
JENNINGS: Elon just said it. He said it should be corrected.
PHILLIP: No. He said, I won't be --
JENNINGS: No, I make a mistake. It should be corrected.
PHILLIP: He said, I'm not -- nobody's going to bat 100. Some of the things I say will be incorrect, should be corrected. But they are not correcting it. The public is correcting it.
JENNINGS: I'm saying if a mistake is made, and it's a serious mistake, it should be corrected. I totally agree with that.
PHILLIP: Yes.
JENNINGS: But my question is, you're holding them to this standard of wanting every single mistake corrected. Where is the standard for the previous? I'm just asking.
PHILLIP: Hold on. We have to go. But, look, I agree with you, the Biden administration, the Trump administration, any administration, when they say things that are wrong, not only should it be corrected, but they should acknowledge that they made a mistake, which I think is important.
O'LEARY: I can't sleep tonight about the condoms.
PHILLIP: All right, something to lose sleep over.
Coming up next, ahead for us, the MAGA podcast turned-FBI official complains about just how hard his new job is. Plus, the U.S. is suddenly revoking visas of Chinese students, a move that's giving off Cold War vibes. We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:32:30]
PHILLIP: Tonight, a new Trump administration policy brings back memories of the Cold War. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the Department will be aggressively revoking visas from Chinese students. He also said that they will revise visa criteria for applications from China and Hong Kong.
But short of that, two-sentence statement, the details on how the administration is actually going to do that are unclear tonight. The Trump administration officials have long said that they don't want The U.S. to completely decouple from China. But this is just the latest in a string of moves that have both countries increasingly close to doing just that.
Joining us in our fifth seat is Jamie Metzl, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. This is a move that struck me when it was announced as being a message, a warning to China. And according to our reporting, that this is about frustration that China hasn't done what they promised on trade, which they've essentially done nothing.
But the -- the response or the -- the consequences of it for hundreds of thousands of Chinese students who've done nothing wrong is that they could be sent back home. I mean, I don't know that we've seen anything quite like this --
JAMIE METZL, SENIOR FELLOW, ATLANTIC COUNCIL: Well --
PHILLIP: -- in a while.
METZL: Abby, we are in a Cold War. China is our adversary. They're behaving like they're our adversary. These Chinese students who are coming here are incredible, brilliant students, and we should welcome them. But that doesn't mean that there aren't problems.
That doesn't mean that there aren't people in every American university who are Chinese students who are watching other students and reporting back. That doesn't mean we have intellectual -- we don't have intellectual property theft. There are real problems.
You know, in our universities, we have students from other countries who are chanting incitement to murder like the murders we saw in Washington last week. I'm a Democrat. I'm a liberal. I absolutely think America's openness is our greatest strength. We need these students here to come here and build their lives, build our economy.
But I think it's okay for us to ask questions. So, I think the devil will be in the details here. We should -- we need to be keeping an eye on -- on the people coming into this country, but we need to maintain our opinion. PHILLIP: And to your point, I mean, there have been some several high
profile cases in 2020. The U.S. revoked a thousand visas of Chinese nationals deemed security risks. Trump issued an order, suspending the non-immigrants of certain students and researchers from China. So, there -- there are problems and in some cases those visas have been revoked. But the question here is whether there's going to be a blanket replication.
[22:35:01]
METZL: Right.
PHILLIP: -- of visas from China. That is different --
METZL: A hundred percent different.
PHILLIP: -- from finding --
(CROSSTALK)
METZL: So --
PHILLIP: people who are problems, right?
METZL: -- we need to be using a scalpel. I mean, we have a great system. There's a reason why our universities are the envy of the world, and it's -- it benefits us enormously -- our economy, our society, winning wars, everything. And so, if we're going to change things, and we have to change things because we have real problems, we need to be careful.
We need to use a scalpel and not a sledgehammer. And for a lot of these efforts, I feel like it's a sledgehammer and that's the danger, whether it's the stuff at Harvard with the visas and everything else.
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN, O'LEARY ADVENTURES: What is China's deal with the 800 U.S. students there if we impose this now?
METZL: Eight hundred U.S. students?
O'LEARY: Yeah, there's lots of U.S. students in China.
METZL: Yeah, I mean, there aren't that many there --
O'LEARY: Eight hundred.
METZL: -- and they are carefully watched, and then we -- they -- China is not giving the American students there the level of freedom and voice that we are giving Chinese students here.
O'LEARY: If we post this on Chinese, what do they do with the 800 Americans? They get home?
METZL: Even if they get -- if they kick them out and they -- and they come home, it won't be that big of a deal.
O'LEARY: I'm not worried if they get kicked out. Do they go to the slammer?
METZL: No. I don't think so.
O'LEARY: You sure?
METZL: I mean, I can't say I'm sure, but I -- I just think that I -- I don't think China is saying that these 800 American students are hostages.
PHILLIP: Well, I mean --
METZL: I think that's not how the Chinese -- operates.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- the Chinese are messaging this by essentially saying, this is proof that America claiming to be a free and open society essentially is a farce. It'll only further damage United States' international image and national credibility.
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
PHILLIP: So, in a way, they are using this as a propaganda tool to say, oh, they're claiming that they're free and open, but they're really not.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Free and open to let our biggest adversary in the world send spies over here? I mean, look -- I agree with a lot of what you said, by the way. Serious problems. I'm not sure that a blanket approach -- how that's going to stand up. But it is obvious to me, and should be obvious to everybody that China and other foreign countries are sending people here for nefarious purposes.
And not only that. They're taking up slots in universities that could be taken up by American students. It's not just China, though. Look at what happened at the Harvard commencement today. You got people up there again with the anti-Semitism coming in from foreign countries.
I don't understand why people believe that we have to continue to take in people from around the world who fundamentally either despise America, hate America, want to tear down the West, or want to spy on us. We don't have to do this. Thank God Rubio is taking the lead on this because I think he's the right man for the job. It may not be all of them, but it's going to be some of them. And why not look at it?
CHUCK ROCHA, "THE LATINO VOTE" PODCAST HOST: Scott loves baseball, and I'll give him one hard right down the middle. This is where Donald Trump lives in the sweet spot of the plate. Think about Harvard. Think about elitism. Think about China. Think about our enemies. Think about us trying to defend Democrats, Chinese students over American students.
This is what Donald Trump wants us talking about Democrats. They want us to be defending this instead of saying exactly what should be said, which is we could do, use a scalpel, do it smart. We can defend four students who are here trying to do the right thing.
Sorry to get so excited. But this -- it drives me nuts because when it starts making sense when Scott Jennings and me agree, I'm like, yeah, we can -- this argument.
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But -- but, he's not doing that. He's not taking a scalpel.
PHILLIP: Go ahead.
ALLISON: But he's not. He hasn't done it before.
(CROSSTALK)
O'LEARY: I like the scalpel approach because I've learned there are lots of CIA, ex-CIA guys, I hire them, they're spooks. They can check out anybody, anywhere, anytime on the dark web, they're amazing. You pay a lot of money, when you do a background check on somebody, they'll tell you if they're a good or a bad guy, anywhere in the world.
And so, if you want to check out these students, because I have nothing against the Chinese people. I think there's a lot of brilliant Chinese students. I don't like the government. And so, I'm saying which of these dudes are being hired by the government to spy in America on I.P.? Let the spooks check it out. You can hire these firms, they're amazing. It's about $15,000 per --
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: I guess there's just, like, what reality are we living in? I don't disagree with anything that you all are saying, but like, where has the scalpel been --
METZL: Right.
ALLISON: --since January 20th, 2025?
O'LEARY: He just brought it to the set.
ALLISON: But not in the White House.
(CROSSTALK)
METZL: Exactly. I got it. I got it right here.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: He doesn't work at the State Department. At least not right now.
ALLISON: Not with this. Like, where is the scalpel? (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And also, I mean, I want to just remind you all, as I said at the beginning, according to the reporting, this is not just about -- and we know that there's a problem with people being sent here to spy on other Chinese people.
UNKNOWN: Sure.
PHILLIP: We know that that's real, right? But why this is happening right now is because China went to the negotiating table, said to them, oh, we're going to do this, we're going to do this, we're going to do this on trade, and they have done nothing. And the Trump administration is mad about that. And so, they are now threatening a sledgehammer.
METZL: Yeah, and so, if we if we take a step back, I mean, I served on the National Security Council in the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration made a terrible strategic error that harmed The United States by letting China into the WTO without sufficient conditionality.
UNKNOWN: Aye, aye.
METZL: And the Democrats, Republicans alike, there's been a lot of greed in The United States, and we haven't taken this problem seriously. So now, we definitely have to renegotiate our entire relationship with China across the board.
[22:40:00]
Because the philosophy of the case was, well, let's just be open and embrace them and open our economy and things are going to get better. And we've been played and now, everything is worse. And our society is -- is less safe. Our military has been undermined.
And we are in many ways under attack by China, Russia, Iran, North Korea. And they're using social media and other avenues. And they're sending people here to try to take advantage of our openness. And the challenge for us is how do we celebrate our openness and maintain the things that made us great?
Because go to Silicon Valley, so many of the entrepreneurs are amazing immigrants, refugees and others. But do it in a way that recognizes that we can't just have this open fairy tale globalization. We need to protect our interests.
JENNINGS: These student visas --
PHILLIP: We got to leave it there.
JENNINGS: -- they don't have a right to be here. They're our guests here. And every single person we admit, we have to be darn sure that they are here to love America --
PHILLIP: Yeah. JENNINGS: -- help America.
UNKNOWN: I've heard about that.
PHILLIP: I think that's - I think that's totally right. I think the question is -- is it just because you're Chinese? I think that's what where the rubber is going to meet the road when we find out how they're going to actually do this.
O'LEARY: They're not all spies. Come on.
PHILLIP: If -- if you're going to just say, if you're Chinese, you're not allowed to come in here, that's a very different thing than saying what you just said there. We got to go.
(CROSSTALK)
METZL: Majority of these Chinese students are incredible, wonderful people.
PHILLIP: We -- Jamie Metzl, thank you very much --
METZL: Thank you.
PHILLIP: -- as always for being here. Everyone, hold on. Coming up next, he made a name railing against federal workers, but that he is -- now that he is one, the FBI director says the job is hard and he's being mocked for it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:46:09]
PHILLIP: Tonight, a fed is fed up. The FBI's new deputy director is realizing government jobs are not so easy. Dan Bongino and his boss, FBI director Kash Patel, have been facing intense MAGA fury for shooting down conspiracy theories that have propped up online and united President Trump's base. And Bongino, well, he isn't taking it too well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAN BONGINO, FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: I don't know what people think me and Kash are -- are doing all day. I mean, I gave up everything for this. I mean, you know, my -- my wife is struggling. If you think we're there for tea and crumpets, well, I mean, Kash is there all day. We share it. Our offices are linked. He turns on the faucet, I hear it. He's there at -- he gets in like 6 o'clock in the morning. He doesn't leave till seven at night. You know, I'm in there at 7:30.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: For those of you who've served in government, I-- I see the shrug from Ashley. I know plenty of people, when they have those jobs, six to seven is -- those are good hours. ALLISON: That's right. That's right. I guess government employees do
work hard, huh? Not -- they don't need to be delved as much. Look, I mean, I'm glad he's acknowledging that this work is hard work, that the people that do it are actually committed in public service. But like, this is the smallest violin I'm playing for him.
O'LEARY: By the way, you know, when you serve in politics, you need thick skin because it's not like celebrity or something. Fifty percent of the population hates you and some of them, small fringe, want to kill you. It doesn't matter what party you're in. It's a tough gig.
And so, I admire anybody that serves regardless of their party. They get in there, they get blowtorched the first day. And I think it's a lesson in life, but you got to have the kahunas to do that. You want to -- you want to really want to do that.
PHILLIP: He was one of the people on when he was on the outside who was basically lambasting the people who worked where he is working right now. And one of the reasons that he --
O'LEARY: Maybe it's karma coming back at it.
PHILLIP: Well, yeah. I mean look. One of the reasons he's so frustrated is because his own people are upset that Patel and Bongino are not doubling down on the conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein and so on and so forth. That's -- that's why.
JENNINGS: Isn't this what you want out of a public servant? Someone who's willing to go in, look at a situation, analyze the facts and then be willing to tell even your own people hard truths? I mean, I think we ought to be applauding this.
First of all, he's being real. These jobs are hard, and I agree. Public service is not easy, and it does take a toll on families. But more importantly here, look what he's being criticized for. Analysis and truth telling, even when he knows he's going to get criticism from his own side of the ball.
So, look. I've been a fan of this appointment. I like Kash Patel as well, and, you know, they've been in a short period of time. They've been -- put in stuff - in some tough situations. But I -- I still think most Republicans have confidence in these picks. And I think these kinds of interviews, like showing the real side of it, are actually helpful.
PHILLIP: I mean, I -- to your point earlier, though, wouldn't it be nice if he said I regret my role.
ALLISON: That's right.
PHILLIP: -- in pushing these conspiracies. And I was wrong. And I wish that I had not done that because now he has a bunch of people, Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Tucker Carlson -- all asking where's -- where's the beef? And the truth is it was never there to begin with.
ROCHA: And they're like the dog that caught the car because now, they're saying why are you being mean to me even though they spent decades on their online shows talking about what they thought the government should be doing or what should be there. And when they go in, whether it's analysis and say that, no, we haven't found anything.
But we're going to keep looking. And I was watching the interview when we sent around the clips and he was saying how -- and he -- and he still -- and this is what kind of bothered me, laying some meat out there for folks, like, well, you know, there could be this thing and we're looking at this thing. And I don't want to mention any of the three cases. And it just gets people on his side riled up again to be disappointed in him.
O'LEARY: On the other hand, Jeffrey Epstein is still dead.
ROCHA: Every day.
O'LEARY: Yeah.
PHILLIP: Look, one of the other parts of this, in that clip that we showed at the beginning, he's talking about the toll that it's taken on his family, which is a legitimate question.
ROCHA: For sure.
PHILLIP: Amy McGrath, a former senate candidate from Kentucky, as well -- Scott's familiar.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Sure. I lost by about --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: She says this. "I mean, can you imagine if a woman FBI director had made these comments? I'm not against showing emotion or one's personal side, but there is no way a woman in this position could say these things and not just be crushed for it."
O'LEARY: What do you say?
PHILLIP: It's a fair question.
ALLISON: Where's the lie? It's true. Like, okay. We -- let's just --
O'LEARY: We're all waiting for you on this one.
ALLISON: Let's just say, anybody, if it was a Democrat and was like, oh, I'm working so hard. Feel sorry for me. You guys would make fun of them, talk about jazz hands, right? Like you like to talk about people. I don't buy it. He's now reaping what -- he's reaping what he's sowing. He should do what you say, Abby, and say like, I might have opened a can of worms that they're -- I've -- I've investigated. There's no truth -- these conspiracy theories. But --
O'LEARY: So, can I translate suck it up and stop whining? Is that what you're saying? PHILLIP: Well, I mean, look, if you were -- I think -- I think that
there is some truth to the idea that if any woman, and that Trump -- Trump appointee, Biden appointee, Obama appointee, in one of these -
UNKNOWN: Member of Congress?
PHILLIP: Yeah. Member of Congress, in one of these high-profile jobs -- if they're going on national TV and complaining about how many hours they have to work, if you are a woman doing that --
ALLISON: Forget government.
JENNINGS: I don't know.
ALLISON: Doctor, nurse, mom, like any -- the -- the burden --
JENNINGS: That's not how I read the interview. What I -- what I understood him to be saying was he was getting criticism from people saying, well you're not working hard enough, or you're not in the office enough, or whatever it was. And he was simply saying, no I can attest, we're in the office all the time. I didn't read it as whining or a bid for sympathy. I just read it as him answering the critics who were saying, you guys aren't putting in enough hours to get to the bottom of these things.
(CROSSTALK)
O'LEARY: He looked like a human being under stress. That's kind of cool.
ROCHA: That's every part of it.
PHILLIP: Okay.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Well, I'm glad that there is grace enough for him to be a human being under stress. But welcome to Washington, Mr. Bongino. The work is very hard.
UNKNOWN: Oh, you're being nasty.
PHILLIP: The panel gives us their nightcaps, hidden talent edition. And a quick programming note for you all. Don't miss an all new episode of "My Happy Place" this Sunday. Academy award-winning actress Octavia Butler takes viewers to New Orleans. It airs this Sunday at 10 P.M. Octavia Spencer, excuse me, it airs this Sunday at 10 P.M. Eastern and Pacific right here on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:57:29]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(SISTER MARIZELE CASSIANO PERFORMING) (END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: It's not sister Mary Clarence. You could see it here -- there. That is Brazilian nun, Sister Marizele Cassiano who has captured people of all faiths with her beatboxing skills and, of course, the dancing. Don't forget about the dancing. So, for tonight's nightcap, what is your hidden talent? You each have 30 seconds to tell us what it is. Scott, what's yours?
JENNINGS: Well, at a very young age, my grandmother who passed not too long ago, taught me how to whistle. She was the greatest whistler I ever heard. And so, when I was little, I picked up on this whistling. And I don't really -- I'm not a musical person, but I've always been able to whistle. So, I can whistle.
PHILLIP: Let -- let's hear it, Scott.
(LAUGHTER)
JENNINGS: It's hard to whistle when you're laughing.
PHILLIP: No. Don't laugh. Just --
JENNINGS: Tell you what. Go around and I'll -- I'm going to wait a minute.
ALLISON: Oh, come on.
JENNINGS: I'm just -- I'm just -- pucker up. Pucker up.
PHILLIP: He's -- okay. Performance anxiety. All right.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: Chuck, you can save him.
ROCHA: Here's what you don't know is that if a fire truck pulls up out front, I can operate it. I was a fireman back in the day, and I was also a medic and a fireman in the factory where you all know I worked in this factory. So, I know how to drive it. I know how to pump water. If any of you all pass out, I can keep you alive till the medics get here. Or if this place catches on fire, I could help put it out.
PHILLIP: Chuck, I'm starting to call B.S. on some of these stories.
ROCHA: I got pictures. I got pictures.
PHILLIP: You're -- you used to work in a factory.
ROCHA: I was on the fire brigade from the factory.
PHILLIP: Okay. Okay.
ALLISON: Many lives.
PHILLIP: I will need some proof. ROCHA: Many lives.
ALLISON: Many lives.
PHILLIP: Ashley.
ALLISON: Well, I am a -- I don't usually brag, but I am an excellent dancer. That's not my hidden talent, though. My hidden talent is that I can pick up choreography in like two watches of the routine.
JENNINGS: Oh, I can't.
ALLISON: And I -- in my childhood, learned most of the '80s and '90s choreography of every music video and every movie that was a musical. I just -- and all these line dances that are out, I -- I know them all. And I can just watch a video and --
(CROSSTALK)
O'LEARY: Wow, that's impressive.
PHILLIP: I wish we had the room for you to perform for us.
ALLISON: Yes.
ALLISON: And when I -- when I was tested by the producer today, I busted out an if in the -- in the green light. Don't try me.
(CROSSTALK)
ROCHA: She was right.
UNKNOWN: Yes, very much so.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: She did it.
JENNINGS: I can't even, like, the electric slide. I just can't even do it.
PHILLIP: Kevin?
O'LEARY: Guitar. You know, I want everybody to come out, to Sysco Brewery on July, the 6th. I joined my band, the Tushy band. There I am, practicing right now. Check out that jacket, you know.
[23:00:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
PHILLIP: All right. All right. Scott. Whistle along?
(SCOTT JENNINGS WHISTLING)
ALLISON: Oh, Lord. PHILLIP: Okay, some dancing from Ashley?
ROCHA: And then when you all pass out I could bring you all back.
(LAUGHTER)
ALLISON: Take it on the road, guys.
PHILLIP: This is amazing. The news -- the "NewsNight" talent show, I think, is going to be next.
ROCHA: That's the gong show.
PHILLIP: Everyone, thank you very much. We'll make sure that they all perform the next time. Thanks for watching "NewsNight". A special programming -- special note for you. Tomorrow night and most summer Fridays, we are taking the show on a little bit of a field trip. We'll be broadcasting our roundtable debate from the Food Network Studios. We will have food and drinks and some lively conversation. That is tomorrow night right here on CNN. But first, "Laura Coates Live" begins right now.
