Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
GOP Races To Vote On Trump's Bill, Negotiations Underway; GOP Senator Blasts Medicaid Cuts In Trump's Bill; Musk Threatens GOP Who Back Bill, I'll Make You Lose Seats; U.S. Aid Cut Led To Starvation And Deaths; New York Candidate Says No To Billionaires. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired June 30, 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, as Republicans race to pass Donald Trump's agenda, the more Americans look under the hood, the more they're pumping the brakes.
Plus, who do you trust more, the politician under threat by MAGA's wrath or the politician with no seat to lose?
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): This bill will betray the very promise that Donald J. Trump made.
PHILLIP: Also, DOGE may be in the rear view but the domino effects of its chainsaw are having life and death consequences.
And --
ZOHRAN MAMDANI, NEW YORK ASSEMBLYMAN: I don't think that we should have billionaires.
PHILLIP: -- is it credible for the socialist to be blasting the system that helped build him?
Live at the table, Bakari Sellers, Joe Borelli, Neera Tanden and Pete Seat.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America's talking about. Donald Trump's big bill is getting bigger and there is a race to pass it, despite opposition from many Republicans. Negotiations are underway right now on changes to the domestic spending bill, which, if passed, would go back to the House.
So, here's a cheat sheet of what is currently in it. It's nearly a thousand pages long and it would add $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. The bill extends the Trump tax cuts. It makes massive cuts though to Medicaid, food benefits and other social programs. And it also introduces new work requirements to those programs, and it includes as well a child tax credit and tax exemptions on tips, overtime and car loans up to a certain limit. It rolls back tax credits on clean energy, including solar and wind subsidies. And it adds billions to border and defense spending.
Now, we're told that the president is right now making calls to persuade skeptics and threatening those who oppose it. But in the meantime, Elon Musk is calling this bill insane and threatening to unseat any Republican who votes for it, if it is, quote, the last thing I do on this Earth. We'll debate all of this in just a moment at the table.
But, first, let's go live to Capitol Hill where Lauren Fox is there with a fast-moving update on what is happening. So, where do things stand right now?
LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, they have been going now for more than 12 hours and what is known here as a marathon voting session, a voterama, on Capitol Hill, and yet they are nowhere close to a final vote. Multiple senators saying that it's really anyone's guess right now how much longer this goes. We know they have at least ten more amendment votes scheduled. It's not clear how long each of those votes is going to take.
But Democrats have been arguing that Republicans are trying to slow walk this process because behind the scenes they are still grappling to try to secure the votes they need to get this out of the Senate and back over to the House of Representatives where that's going to be an entirely new fight over in that chamber. So, right now, where things stand are, it's not clear who's willing to vote for this bill. All eyes are on people like Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Susan Collins, both Republicans who have expressed concerns about some of the deep Medicaid cuts in this bill.
There's also questions on whether or not some of these conservative members who want deeper cuts to programs, like Medicaid, what they're going to do. I just ran into Senator Rick Scott, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Mike Lee. They appear to be headed somewhere to huddle. They have been working on their own amendment that would make even steeper cuts to the Medicaid program.
It really is sort of a live action play right now on the Senate floor because it's not clear exactly which amendments are going to pass. So far, none of them have, but how they ultimately change the scope of this bill and how they change the vote count at the end of the day. Abby?
PHILLIP: Lauren Fox, thank you very much and keep us updated on how this is going all through the night. And I wish you some rest tonight because it's going to be a long night for the folks on Capitol Hill.
[22:05:00] Joining us at the table in our fifth seat is the economics expert, Michael Purves. He is the chief market strategist at Tallbacken Capital Advisors.
Michael, I want to play for you what Thom Tillis, who we've been talking a lot about lately, because he's been the most vocal on some of this stuff that's in the bill, what he said on the Senate floor about what he has studied in this bill and what he thinks is really in it. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TILLIS: Now, Republicans are about to make a mistake on healthcare and betraying a promise. It is inescapable that this bill, in its current form, will betray the very promise that Donald J. Trump made in the Oval Office.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And that promise is that this bill would not cut Medicaid, and it does.
MICHAEL PURVES, CHIEF MARKET STRATEGIST, TALLBACKEN CAPITAL ADVISORS: It does. There's also another broken promise implicit in this, which is this quest for fiscal discipline, right? That was also something that came out of the campaign last year. And what I think we're seeing here is that there's really not any fiscal discipline inherent of this. You can take -- look through the CBO scoring there, as you were saying, you know, there's well over $2 trillion in incremental deficit here, right?
You know, people can push back on the CBO, but if you actually go back to 2016, just before Trump was elected the first time, you looked at how they scored the future, right, what their estimates were and then what actually happened. Well, you look at 2019, for example. Revenues went down after that tax bill was put in. Expenses were more or less the same except for interest expense went up a bit. There's a little bit of increase in discretionary spending.
So, this concept of an economic multiplier here sort of hidden magic that's going to be driving fiscal discipline out of this, I don't see it there. And I think the bond market is going to -- is effectively agreeing with that.
PHILLIP: And, Pete, I mean, I've asked at this table many times, why is it that rather than acknowledging what is actually happening in this bill, Republicans keep saying that it won't cut Medicaid when that is exactly what the bill is doing, and it's going to affect people, including many of their constituents?
PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, they're calling for necessary reforms like work requirements. And I may have been young when this happened, but I remember Bill Clinton loved work requirements for welfare reform and Democrats were in lockstep with him then. But now that Donald Trump wants work requirements, which is a bit of a misnomer, because it would also be -- you could go to school, you could volunteer for 20 hours a week, and that would make you eligible, ensuring those who need to have Medicare get Medicare.
And looking at waste, fraud, and abuse, I know it's just this phrase that people throw out there, but by the most conservative estimate, 5 percent of Medicaid spending is waste, fraud, and abuse. Do the math over ten years, that's $303 billion with a B, which is more than 30 percent of the cut that they're looking at right now. Why is that a bad thing? Why is it a bad --
PHILLIP: Let's take that. There's a whole 70 percent that's not accounted for in that. And, I mean, the other part is that it's clearly not just -- because Senator Tillis, again, he looked at the bill and he's for work requirements, but that's all that's in here. That's not where all the money is.
SEAT: Yes. Well, he only got his courage potion after he decided to not run for reelection.
NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: I have to say, I have to correct multiple things that were just wrong in what you said. Number one, Bill Clinton specifically opposed work requirements for Medicaid and healthcare.
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Correct.
TANDEN: He supported for welfare. He vetoed a bill that had work requirements in Medicaid. So, just get your facts straight right there. You cannot hang this monstrosity on any Democrat.
And, second of all, in every state that has used work requirements, 40 percent of people have lost their healthcare.
That's children have lost their healthcare, parents have lost their healthcare. It is outrageous to say that no one will lose their healthcare when you know Republicans, like Tillis, are saying that. And the fact is that we can all talk about waste, fraud and abuse, but like you are talking about in this third, fourth, fifth year of this, it's going to be 20 percent of the Medicaid program, $1 out of $5 in Medicaid.
And that is why, again, it's not liberals who are talking about it. It's the Louisiana Hospital Association. It's the Iowa Hospital Association. It's the Maine Hospital Association. It's doctors. It's nurses.
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: But they're primarily upset about the provider tax portion of it. The provider tax portion of this, which is a way for blue states to pad their Medicaid enrollment nor the double federal dollars.
TANDEN: I'm sorry. Medicaid dollars pay for nursing homes. Medicaid dollars pay for hospitals, children's hospital, the entire healthcare system.
SELLERS: Particularly in rural areas. TANDEN: 100 percent.
SELLERS: particularly in rural areas, which is somewhere along the line we oftentimes miss that boat.
[22:10:03]
What I was going to push back is that Pete didn't necessarily answer your question about just the sheer numbers of people that are going to be kicked off the rolls. I mean, you're talking about 663,000 North Carolinians. I'm looking at Nancy Mason, Ralph Norman, who called himself running for governor of South Carolina, but the hundreds of thousands of people in South Carolina that are going to be kicked off the rolls.
But even more, this is what happens with policy in Washington, D.C., particularly when Republicans try to legislate and we know they can't. They don't look downfield. So, what happens now? You have rural hospitals which are already under attack, which are going to close. You have those economies around those hospitals, which are going to be decimated.
You're talking about jobs, because in a lot of these areas, these rural hospitals, medical providers, they are your largest employers. And so by taking this axe to Medicaid, you are fundamentally making a more unhealthy country. You're making sure women and children don't have access to the healthcare they need, and you're also decimating the economy. And I'm not sure people fully understand or grasp that.
TANDEN: Other than Thom Tillis.
PHILLIP: Also, I mean, we haven't even talked about the tax implications here, which virtually every analysis shows largely benefits people who are making a lot of money, the wealthy, the top 5 percent, the top 1 percent. I was just looking at an analysis that said that the tariff policies are offset most of the tax benefits at the lower portion of the American population would get. So, you're increasing tariffs on people and then giving them a little tax break. Meanwhile, the rich are getting a lot of tax benefits. That is going to be unpopular.
I mean, already, the polling is pretty -- showing a pretty clear story, Pew, Kaiser Family Foundation, Quinnipiac, Washington Post, Fox, all showing this bill underwater. And, you know, people like Elon Musk are like, I'm just going to primary these people.
BORELLI: Abby, if you're thinking -- if you and the audience and thinking, this sounds familiar and you've watched CNN, as often as I do, it does sound familiar, because this is exactly the same thing that many people, including the CBO we're talking about in 2017 with the first Tax Cut and Job Act, right?
They were saying that the CBO O is going to score this bill, it's going to add to the deficit. CBO, basically, we know later on, underestimated growth by 1 percent. They underestimated $200 billion in -- PHILLIP: But that's largely the effect of the pandemic. Yes, and he just --
BORELLI: No. He talks about the 2016 score, the 2017 score. You actually quoted it, you said in 2017, there's no reason to believe that it would significantly increase either growth or tax revenue, and you were wrong. The CBO --
PHILLIP: I mean, Michael just talked about --
(CROSSTALKS)
PURVES: In 2019, GDP came at about 2.6 percent. That was right in the middle of the range. You did have above growth above --
BORELLI: That's why I said an average, an average of $200 billion per year, which is factually accurate.
PURVES: Right.
BORELLI: In F.Y. 2022, it was underestimated by $800 billion a year. So, the CBO has a history of being wrong.
TANDEN: That's not right.
BORELLI: You also said, by the way, in 2017 -- he also said in 2017 this is going to be a huge tax cut for the wealthy billionaires and paid for by the middle class. The poverty rate fell to the lowest rate in 50 years. The average family making under a hundred thousand dollars got a 16 percent tax cut. And, ironically, the top 1 percent of America --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Let met let Bakari respond.
SELLERS: Your talking points are amazing. He's like rolling them off.
TANDEN: I know. Here's the thing. No, I am so sorry that you can't get back the hour you start, you Googled on this quote. That has nothing to do with this.
BORELLI: No. I told you it was carsick on the way here. I told you already.
TANDEN: Yes. Well, clearly, you were carsick.
So, here's the difference. The TCJA, the president's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it was a tax cut bill. You know what it didn't do? It didn't slash healthcare for millions of working class people. It did not basically end food subsidies for working class people. Just to say what this bill does, according to like thousands of experts, not just random quotes, the average increase in costs for working families, the bottom 40 percent of people in the 40 percent of income in the United States is they get stuck with $560 billion, $60 more on average here.
BORELLI: The question, Abby, was about taxes.
TANDEN: And for wealthy people, it's $6,000. No, here's the thing, you don't get to --
BORELLI: I read your own quote and you were wrong. You know why I know you're wrong? I know you're wrong because Kamala Harris and Joe Biden --
TANDEN: I wasn't wrong.
SEAT: They both wanted to extend the tax cuts.
TANDEN: No, they didn't. No, they didn't want to extend the tax cuts for wealthy people. That is false.
BORELLI: Kamala Harris said she was not going to end the tax cuts for 89 percent of Americans.
PHILLIP: Joe, you cannot disentangle the impact of cuts to Medicaid and cuts to food assistance from the overall economic impact of this.
BORELLI: You asked me about the tax rate.
PHILLIP: I know, but what I'm saying to you is --
BORELLI: I answered your question.
TANDEN: No, but you're using it against me.
PHILLIP: What I'm saying to you is that you cannot disentangle those things. What is the bill -- the question is what is the bill going to do in terms of financial benefit to the poorest people versus the richest people? And, virtually, every analysis that takes the bill, as it is, says the combination of small tax cuts and big Medicaid cuts and big food cuts means that poor people get much less benefit from this bill than rich people.
[22:15:13]
That -- I don't think even Republicans are disputing that. They're just saying that if you give --
(CROSSTALKS)
SEAT: They're basing a lot on this on CBO, which is not infallible. And I want to go back to the polling real quick.
(CROSSTALKS)
SEAT: You were talking about how polling is underwater. Well, where I thought you were going with your comment earlier is the polling was underwater for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as well. This is the era of Donald Trump where all the negativity, all the deranged predictions from Democrats do scare people. And when you hear -- I've literally heard Democrats say that this bill will rip food out of the mouths of children -- TANDEN: It will.
SEAT: How absurd. How absurd to think that.
TANDEN: Okay. Let me explain how it will, okay? Because I think --
BORELLI: You probably said in 2017 --
SEAT: Someone will go and rip it out of their mouths?
PHILLIP: Neera, go ahead and finish your thought because --
TANDEN: Just -- here's what happens. They are cutting food benefits, the SNAP program. They're basically cutting this by tens of billions of dollars. And that means that whence a family goes to get food benefits, you know, struggling family, they will not be able to get those food benefits. So, you have to live with the consequences of hungrier children in America.
And I think what many Americans are asking and why this is so unpopular is when Donald Trump said to Americans, you know, I am the champion of working class people. And let me just quote Josh Hawley here who said himself this bill hurts working class people by taking away healthcare and access to food.
And I think the greatest irony and the reason that drive these people hate this bill is because they did not think they were voting for Donald Trump so that they would pay the cast of tax cuts for the richest Americans.
PHILLIP: Quick last word, Michael, before we go.
PURVES: Well, I think there's a tax for everyone on this if interest rates do go up, because this is a loose fiscal package here that hurts rich people, that has hurts poor people, that hurts people in the middle. So, I think that's something to really keep in mind on.
It's important to realize back in 2019, the ten-year interest rate, the 30-year mortgage were half of where they were now. If those go up by another hundred basis points, it's going to create a lot of spillover problems throughout the economy and for the government.
PHILLIP: No, there's no free lunch, okay? You raised the deficit by almost $3 trillion, $4 trillion. Somebody's going to pay for it eventually, which is what Republicans historically have said, but here we are.
Michael Purves, thank you very much for joining us.
Coming up next, the Republican who stood up against the bill gets attacked by Trump and then announces that he will not seek reelection. So, who are voters supposed to trust here?
Plus, former Presidents Obama and Bush are speaking out tonight in a rare rebuke of Trump calling his USAID cuts a colossal mistake. This as a new report says that they've already had life and death consequences around the world.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: More on our breaking news tonight, a test of party unity is playing out on Capitol Hill as the Senate pushes through a marathon voting session on President Trump's massive spending bill. But Republican support is in limbo with several GOP lawmakers on the fence. Trump has made it clear, fall in line or else.
North Carolina's Thom Tillis was one of two GOP senators who did not fall in line. He voted against advancing the legislation and voiced concerns over the Medicaid cuts.
Harry Enten joins us at the table now. He is not running for reelection and probably because he's from a state that is a strong MAGA state. But, you know, does it make sense to you that he would vote no and then not decide to run again?
HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER AND ANALYST: Well, I mean, look Donald Trump has the highest, strong, favorable rating for a Republican, among Republican respondents dating all the way back since at least the Reagan administration. We're talking north of 60 percent of Republicans who don't just approve of the job that Donald Trump does as president, but strongly approve of the job that Donald Trump has done as president.
And more than that, look at the endorsement records for Donald Trump over the last three cycles. What are we talking about? North of like 95 percent of the folks that Donald Trump endorses in Congressional and gubernatorial primaries win those primaries. I mean, Thom Tillis read the writing on the wall. He knew that at this particular point, if he voted against that bill, there was about as good of a chance that I would root for the New York Yankees as it was that he would, in fact, win reelection.
Let me just tell you, I wish the Yankees nothing but 15 inning games played in rain.
PHILLIP: So, I mean, the question here is who's telling the truth here? The person who has decided not to take the easy road and maybe get a Trump endorsement, or the person who said, I read the bill, I think it's not what you say it is, and I'm not going to try to get political gain. I mean, who are you supposed to --
SELLERS: But, you know, North Carolina's, not necessarily MAGA, a bastion of MAGA country. I mean, they do have a Democratic governor and a Democratic attorney general.
PHILLIP: Yes. However, I mean, as you know, I mean, a Trump endorsement in that point --
SELLERS: Look, I get that, in a Republican primary, I get that. But the point, the reason I make that point is because I do believe that there are still are places, particularly post-Trump, when he's not on the ballot, where elections will be won in the center of the country, and I think that matters, and I think Thom Tillis is indicative of that.
But the flipside to Tom Tillis is somebody who doesn't have any fortitude at all, like a Murkowski or Collins. And we continuously -- Democrats put more faith in Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins on big bill after big bill after big bill after big bill, and they just let us down.
TANDEN: You know, we're still holding on here.
[22:25:01]
PHILLIP: The night is still young.
SELLERS: You know, I saw -- I think it was Cory Booker was talking about today, and he gave a great soliloquy. And Cory Booker is, if nothing, he makes you hopeful. And he was talking about Thom Tillis, and who else is opposing?
TANDEN: Rand Paul.
SELLERS: And Rand Paul.
TANDEN: He bipartisan oppositioned this bill.
SELLERS: And he said, yes. He said, well, let's hold out hope for Murkowski and Collins. I don't have that hope.
PHILLIP: Well, to your point, I mean, the list is long of people that we are watching tonight, Republican Senators Thom Tillis, Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Murkowski, Rick Scott of Florida, Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Cynthia Lummis. I mean, that's a lot of Republicans to be unsure of where they're going to land on this legislation.
BORELLI: I mean, this is how the sausage is made though, right? I mean, this is the same conversation we had about the ultra slim majority in the House, whether five or six holdouts would actually be able to be enough to get it over the Hill. I think they wouldn't have gotten this far unless they felt confidently that they will have the numbers by the end of the night. And I think it's what we're going to see.
And, look, you know, to your point, Harry, I mean, you have gone viral with how many times you've explained to people how this is Donald Trump's Republican Party, and I think that's going to hold true right here. I mean, this is what people voted for, who voted for Donald Trump. And Thom Tillis or no Thom Tillis, if you're not on board with President Trump's agenda, there is not much room for you in the modern Republican Party today. That is for certain.
PHILLIP: But I think I go back to my original question. If you're a voter and you're like, who's telling the truth about this bill? Is it the guy who was willing to basically say, I don't need to do this job anymore, I'm going to tell you what I really think is in it, or all the other people who absolutely need Donald Trump because, you're right, he runs the Republican Party and has a lot of power, but they absolutely need him and cannot -- they have no political future without him?
TANDEN: Freedom isn't having nothing left to lose. That is the thing about Thom Tillis. He obviously is basically saying, I am putting North Carolina voters, people, the public, the people will lose healthcare ahead of my actual political ambition.
And, you know, I think it's really sad and pathetic that that's basically what has to happen here, he has to say, in order to protect my voters who I worry will lose healthcare and that the rural hospitals in my state will collapse.
You know, I have to basically say I'm willing to end my political career. And that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that, basically, it's a choice between protecting voters and their political ambition and the choice is there because Donald Trump is making them walk the plank on this path.
ENTEN: Look, most Republicans in Congress care about winning the primary more than winning the general election. They're in safe districts. They're in safe states. There are a few her in the swing states and swing districts. But, you know, I can recall another Republican who basically put his political life on the line because he thought he had nothing left to lose, and that was Mike Pence, right, who went against Donald Trump. And his favorable rating among Republicans went from like 80 percent, that by the time he ran for president in 2024, it was down to, what, like 35, 40 percent?
You know, I don't know if you're a fan of a movie --
PHILLIP: I mean, John McCain really at the end of his life, his actual life, said --
TANDEN: And Lisa Murkowski voted against the ACA, right, and she still won reelection in Alaska.
SEAT: And that's the difference between her and Tom Thillis. She at least keeps her name on the ballot.
PHILLIP: But that is only possible in a state like Alaska, really, it is only possible.
I mean, one other thing though, Pete, Elon Musk says, every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending that immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their heads in shame and they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth. And he's got a lot of money to put behind in that statement.
SEAT: One man's pork is another sound fiscal investment. And I'm certain that if the E.V. --
PHILLIP: What?
SEAT: That's a great quote. I got it from a college professor, Kirsten Kantak. It was her line.
TANDEN: I don't think it was speaking on behalf of New York.
PHILLIP: I just didn't think I would hear you say that.
SEAT: Yes. But if the E.V. tax credit remained in this bill, he would bankroll a ticker tape parade after it passes.
PHILLIP: Do you think that this is all about that?
SELLERS: So, are you calling Elon Musk self-interested?
SEAT: I didn't use that exact phrase, but, yes.
SELLERS: I just think the funny part about this being Donald Trump's party is that it is, everybody who said that articulated it correctly. But when you worked -- this doesn't look like anything that resembled when George Bush was president of the United States. It doesn't look like anything like Ronald Reagan. This is something totally different.
And so to watch my good Republican friends sit up here and say, we're just spending $3 trillion, we're adding that --
(CROSSTALKS)
SEAT: But it's the height of hilarity that Democrats suddenly care about the debt.
TANDEN: Build Back Better was paid for.
SEAT: $4 trillion during the Biden administration.
(CROSSTALKS)
SELLERS: Facts matter. It was something called COVID. That's why you got -- people like to say --
SEAT: There's always an explanation.
BORELLI: To your point though, it is not the party of Bush on purpose (ph).
[22:30:01]
TANDEN: More than any other president, his name is Donald Trump.
PHILLIP: Okay.
SEAT: $8.4 trillion in one firm from Joe Biden.
PHILLIP: Listen, we got to go, we got to go. Listen, we don't have enough time to sort this all out. Harry Enten, thank you though. Thank you very much.
ENTEN: Thanks for having me. PHILLIP: Up next, a rare rebuke tonight from two of Donald Trump's
predecessors, how Barack Obama and George W. Bush are calling his aid cuts a colossal mistake as a new report blames children's deaths on the cuts.
[22:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, a colossal mistake. That is what former President Obama is calling President Trump's gutting of USAIDs -- USAID last day. And George W. Bush is echoing the criticism as well.
This comes as The Washington Post reports that the cuts have already had a sudden deadly impact on Sudan, the home to the world's largest humanitarian crisis. The Post is reporting that according to dozens of civilians, doctors and aid officials, babies have starved to death as soup kitchens supported by the U.S. were forced to close. Also, medical supplies are no longer even being delivered, and the absence of disease response teams has made it harder to contain outbreaks.
The World Health Organization says five million people there could lose access to life saving services due to those cuts as millions are fleeing their homes.
In a tribute video to the agency, President Bush pointed out that the 25 million lives that the program has saved from HIV and AIDS, and he said that the USAID program showed the greatest stretch, the greatest strength of America.
Now this is one of the saddest things I think that has happened because DOGE came in and literally, I mean, quite literally, Elon Musk said, we spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper. Could've gone to some great parties, did that instead as if this is I don't know. I mean, I don't even know what he thinks it is.
TANDEN: He thinks it's a joke.
PHILLIP: Maybe it's a joke, but this is actually real people, real lives, literal babies dying of starvation, of the of preventable diseases, of scorpion bites.
SEAT: America's interests, I believe, are best served with a mix of hard power, which is military deterrence and economic coercion if it's necessary, and soft power.
SELLERS: Correct.
SEAT: Which is diplomacy and development. In this case, development being dollars spent smartly. The Biden administration believed in dumb power, and they made some financially poor decisions.
And unfortunately, this administration took the mismanagement of the previous administration and decided to just cut it all out rather than say, okay, these were expenditures that we don't agree with.
SELLERS: Which ones did you not like from the Biden administration?
SEAT: There's LGBTQ stuff and all this other stuff.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: What that has to do with USAID in Sudan.
SELLERS: You don't one in particular that jumps out to you.
BORELLI: So I mean, (inaudible) in Egypt.
SEAT: I literally just said --
BORELLI: Why do we have done that?
SEAT: That I don't believe that they should be shutting down USAID. There were expenditures that we should not have been making as American taxpayers, but the program, the agency itself should not be shut down.
We have a responsibility to the world and a responsibility to ourselves. Our national security is on the line. Programs like this ensuring that children are not malnourished.
SELLERS: Malnourished. Correct.
SEAT: So, they don't get radicalized and ultimately want to harm.
SELLERS: And so --
PHILLIP: But for those kids who are not here, it's too late.
SELLERS: But I --
PHILLIP: The second guessing is it's done already.
SELLERS: But he brought a good point. I mean, it's not just a hard power, soft power because I agree with you on that. It's this fundamental humanity that is absent from Elon Musk and President Trump and cutting USAID to this point.
And then one of the things that that, I think frustrates me more than anything is when you have individuals who at one point, cut USAID and they champion it and they raise their hand and run around and jump up and down and then the next quote they're quoting bible scripture. And the hypocrisy of it is astounding to me.
But even more importantly, I think that this is one of the largest foreign policy blunders that we've made as a country in a very long period of time. Because what happens when we leave that soft power leaves these regions? We're talking about North Africa and Egypt. Right? We're talking about Sudan. We're talking about these places. It doesn't just go away.
What happens is our adversaries, China, Russia, Iran, they go in and fill these voids. Right? They utilize that soft power. And so, yes, particularly in Africa particularly in Africa where we have withdrawn because of Elon Musk. China is in Africa right now developing soft power. You have terrorist organizations in Africa right now providing those resources, and then you're just going to say, oh, I just like the images of little black and brown babies that are starving.
PHILLIP: So, I have a statement from the State Department. It says foreign assistance continues to arrive in Sudan, including humanitarian assistance. Given the massive needs, we call on other countries to step up and increase their contributions to the humanitarian response. We reiterate the need for parties to enable humanitarian assistance, ensure the safety of humanitarian workers, and protect civilians.
[22:40:02]
But I just want to point out that what they're saying is that now aid is flowing, but that doesn't mean that it was always flowing. According to the Washington Post story, initially, one of the projects in Quaz Nafisa was frozen by the stop-work order. Then it was terminated on February 27. And it was partially reactivated on March 3, but the disbursement of funds was delayed. Five months later, the clinics finally began receiving the help that was promised at the beginning of the year.
So, five months, critical aid medicine not going to people. And it seems like the only reason is because maybe some people in the nascent Trump administration did not know what this money was for.
And then when the backlash came, realized that they should reinstate it because people were dying.
BORELLI: I think this was an agency ripe for reform. You know, I don't agree with Presidents Obama and Bush who made these statements about USAID ending. This was an agency that their own AIG, inspector general in 2024, said that this was an agency funding terrorist linked organizations. That was the Biden administration's inspector general.
PHILLIP: Okay.
BORELLI: Then in 2025, just a few months ago, we had a conviction, a criminal conviction.
PHILLIP: But here's the thing. Okay. There are misuses, waste, fraud, and abuse, to use your term, all over the federal government. But you can't make that sound as if that was the whole of what USAID was doing. And then secondly, explain to me how eliminating USAID is reforming it.
BORELLI: You let me finish. So, --
PHILLIP: But no. But how is it reforming?
BORELLI: You had an agency, right, that was right for reform because of the reasons I mentioned. Right? Then you had a political fallout of you know, again, people focus on the DEI stuff, and we've had this debate on this show. But there are things like I mentioned, like tourism in Egypt. Right?
I don't and we could disagree on this. I don't see much need for America to be investing in in tourism in Egypt.
PHILLIP: Okay.
TANDEN: Cut the tourism aid.
BORELLI: And that's fine. The fact remains that the U.S. is still the largest donor of foreign aid of any country by leaps and bounds. We are still going to be the far -- the largest donor of foreign aid by leaps and bounds.
SELLERS: But let me ask you a question. Let me ask you a simple question.
BORELLI: Let me finish. Let me finish. Did you quoted Elon Musk just now like it was, you know, the wrong thing he did. But five minutes ago, we were talking about Elon Musk about --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: Yes. I mean, I was going to ask you can actually be intellectually honest enough to say somebody's right on something and wrong on enough.
BORELLI: I understand.
SELLERS: But let me ask you this question. You saw the images up there of the babies who were dying.
BORELLI: That's awful. I mean, don't get me wrong.
SELLERS: But one second. But what you saw the -- but you saw that -- you just you just cut the agency that did it. So you have people that are starving. You have people that are in war torn countries that can't get the necessary resources they need.
TANDEN: Children.
SELLERS: You have people dying from preventable illnesses. You have people literally dying from AIDS. People don't die from AIDS anymore. You have that happening right now, and you're going to look at the camera and look at those babies starving and say, we should have shut down the program. How do you justify that?
BORELLI: I justify it by, again, there have been problems with USAID for many years. This is an agency that wouldn't answer some questions in Congress when Samantha Powers was testifying throughout the Biden administration.
TANDEN: Oh, my God.
PHILLIP: But Joe, --
BORELLI: This is -- PHILLIP: Why not address --
BORELLI: So, we should just keep an agent.
PHILLIP: Okay. Hold on.
BORELLI: I agree with you that a scalpel might have been better than a sledgehammer.
PHILLIP: Okay. Well, then just --
TANDEN: Okay, then we agree.
PHILLIP: If you think there are problem -- nobody is -- nobody in America is saying there are no problems in how the federal government spends money. But if you believe that there are problems, it behooves you to find those problems, cut those things. But there there's a policy decision that was made here to slash whole in whole cloth, huge swaths of foreign aid because that is part of the MAGA idea.
But foreign aid is not just a line item. It is human beings. It is little babies. Okay? The anecdote that this Washington Post story starts with is a little boy who is a twin who died because there was no food. And this boy's mother carted him to all these different places to try to find one place that could help him get the nutrition that he needed and could not and he's dead.
TANDEN: So, I think what's incredibly just callous about this situation is that, you know, I think we can agree that there is bipartisan, there's been bipartisan support. George Bush, President Bush was a leading advocate for this kind of investment and he saw the humanity of it and you know, he was a person who actually quoted bible scripture accurately about why we should care about the least amongst us.
And what is, you know, I don't think we should ignore what actually happened here which is Elon Musk came in, he basically tried to destroy this agency. He did irreparable harm and just like the visual image we should all have in our heads is the wealthiest man on in the world laughing callously at destroying an agency that ultimately meant that children died.
[22:45:01]
And I -- and now he's been scampered off to -- scampered out of Washington, D.C., but there's precious little accountability for what's actually happened here and that is what I think is a tragedy and makes people very cynical.
PHILLIP: And to Pete's point, you know, on the soft power of it all, United States actually spent a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to earn that soft power, to be the dominant force, not just militarily, but also in terms of peace and prosperity around the world. And a lot of that was thrown away for I'm not sure yet. We'll, I guess we'll find out what the end result of it ended up being in terms of the money that was allegedly saved. But next for us, the Democratic candidate for New York City's mayor is
doubling down on his socialist policies saying billionaires shouldn't exist. We'll debate next.
[22:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: President Trump calls New York City's socialist candidate a communist lunatic, but despite the attacks from the right, Zohran Mamdani dug his heels in even further, giving more red meat to Republicans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Do you think that billionaires have a right to exist?
ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: I don't think that we should have billionaires because frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality. And ultimately, what we need more of is equality across our city and across our state and across our country. And I look forward to work with everyone, including billionaires, to make a city that is fairer for all of them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: No billionaires?
SELLERS: No. I think that's insane. I mean, I just think fundamentally. I think fundamentally saying billionaires should not exist, but I'm also not a socialist. I mean, we don't we're not necessarily cut from that same cloth.
So, I just I have a fundamental disagreement with that. But I do think that and I just personally, I'm from South Carolina and I think that New Yorkers have this really unique sense of self because everybody in New York thinks that the rest of the world cares about the election that happened last Tuesday.
SEAT: They do. They see?
SELLERS: Okay. That's my point exactly.
SEAT: But I'd be in Indiana.
SELLERS: But, like, yes. Exactly.
TANDEN: Yes, exactly.
SELLERS: But I, you know, when people are talking about the future of the Democratic Party, I love the fact that he focused lazily on affordability. You know, I saw some of his videos and the way he was connecting with voters.
TANDEN: Yes.
SELLERS: So, but I'm also looking at Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill as being the future. But, like, I thought --
PHILLIP: It is a little bit of a headline when the biggest capitalist city in the world (inaudible) socialist, who says billionaires shouldn't exist. I mean, that is going to penetrate the (inaudible) psyche.
BORELLI: But he also said we should, quote, seize the means of production. I mean, he's not just a, you know, a weekend socialist. He is someone who fundamentally believes this. But to your point, this is someone who ran one of the most effective campaigns I've ever seen in New York. And he talked about issues that do matter, affordability, --
SELLERS: Correct.
BORELLI: -- the cost of housing, --
TANDEN: Yes.
BORELLI: -- and he did a great job with it. I have to give him credit for that. But in your -- to your point, I mean, he beat someone who was responsible for all the problems that New York currently has, Andrew Cuomo. The problem is that his solutions only make the problems worse. They only compound it.
When you talk about rent freezes, you can't build housing in a city like New York when you're talking about rent freezes. Who's investing? Who's investing their capital if you build housing?
PHILLIP: I think that's only, but just to be clear, he's talking about rent freezes for rent state wise.
BORELLI: Which is a million units.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, units that are already rent state wise.
BORELLI: Which is a million units (inaudible).
TANDEN: I was going to say --
SELLERS: I'm like, where is my residence expert?
TANDEN: You could.
PHILLIP: I actually --
TANDEN: I own the house.
PHILLIP: Somebody -- I saw somebody point out that a lot of New Yorkers mistakenly believe that he's calling for rent -- a rent freeze on --
TANDEN: For everybody.
PHILLIP: -- everybody, which is not the case. That might sound good. That's not actually --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: That will get you elected. Who cares?
BORELLI: As an expert, it is a rent freeze on million units of housing, which is a large percentage. And whenever there's a rezoning, all of those units become --
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: You're losing. You're losing the people watching.
PHILLIP: All right.
SEAT: Watching this too far in Indiana, it is quite entertaining. But what I want is for all the Democrats who have demanded that Republicans repudiate and denounce another New Yorker, Donald Trump, for the past 10 years for this, that, and whatever he has said or done, I want a camera shoved in their face every time --
TANDEN: I believe --
SEAT: -- this guy said something socialist.
PHILLIP: That is exactly what's going to happen, Neera. I mean, he's right.
TANDEN: Yes.
PHILLIP: Democrats all over the country, Abigail Spanberger and others are going to be asked to account for what happens.
TANDEN: And I honestly think people should just answer the questions. They shouldn't run and hide.
BORELLI: Sure.
TANDEN: They can and unlike the Republican party, I'm sure there will be Democrats who disagree with statements that Mamdani makes. And, you know, I do give him a lot of credit for the kind of campaign he ran, but I also think people should think seriously about the fact that he talks a lot about talking to working class voters.
We should all recognize that working class voters, a lot of working- class voters, not all, but a lot of working-class voters voted for a billionaire three out of the last three elections and I think we have to distinguish between arguments that billionaires should pay their fair share, which I believe a 100 percent.
I think it's insane to give billionaires a tax cut at the expense of health care for working class people. But I also think we have to be a party that sounds like we want people to build wealth and be successful.
PHILLIP: Yes. SELLERS: But also, it was a shot across the bow at turning the page because you have to turn the page on the air on Andrew Cuomo. He should have been gone a long time ago.
PHILLIP: All right. Coming up next, everyone, thank you very much.
Up next for us, the president is pushing official fragrances on social media. Does that pass the smell test? Well, you be the judge.
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: What do you think MAGA smells like? President Trump wants you to find out by spending nearly $250 for a bottle. Yes. You can add fragrances to the list of products the president of the United States is hawking along with his Bibles and sneakers. The bottles are called Victory 45-47 that resemble an Oscar statue, and the site describes the women's perfume as, quote, "subtly feminine and sophisticated, capturing confidence, beauty, and unstoppable determination."
[23:00:04]
The cologne is described as rich, masculine, and for men who lead with strength and confidence. Of course, it is worth noting that no fragrance ingredients are listed. What is listed, however, is the cost, $249 for 3.3 ounces.
Just for some context, the same size for the classic Chanel Number 5, which has been in existence for more than a century, is considerably cheaper at a $176.
Thank you for watching Newsnight. You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media, X, Instagram, and TikTok.
Laura Coates Live starts right now.
