Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Defends East Wing Demolition; Ballroom Cost Rises to $300 Million; Government Shutdown on Verge of Becoming Longest Ever; American Beef and Soybean Farmers are Furious With Trump. Trump's Argentina Beef Deal May Hurt U.S. Ranchers; "NewsNight" Discusses Caribbean Boat Strikes; Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley Speaks For More Than 22 Hours On The Senate Floor. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired October 22, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, an unexpected twist in the middle of one of the country's longest shutdowns. Donald Trump lectures American farmers while they accuse him of betrayal.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, I'm totally mad. There's no reason for it. This is absolute stupidity. This is a manmade crisis caused by Donald Trump.
PHILLIP: Plus, the east meets its end. Is Trump's White House wrecking ball a makeover or a metaphor?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But there's not enough money for under this Republican government is you.
PHILLIP: Also, the president now says he's looking to expand his bombs from sea to land.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We have legal authority, right? We're allowed to do that.
PHILLIP: But if targets aren't dangerous enough to detain, why are they dangerous enough to execute?
And a Senate candidate says he's covering up a Nazi tattoo he got while he was drunk.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am not a secret Nazi.
PHILLIP: Some say this is disqualifying. Others say, get over it.
REPORTER: So you're standing by your endorsement?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): Absolutely.
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Congressman Jeff Hurd, Congresswoman Sara Jacobs, Congressman Tom Suozzi and Tim Parrish. Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Good evening. I'm Abby Philip in the nation's capital tonight.
Let's get right to what America's talking about, a new Rorschach test in our politics, Donald Trump's literal wrecking ball at the White House. Is it a metaphor for his brazen presidency with very little oversight or a metaphor for reforming the government and perhaps owning the libs?
Either way, part of the people's house is missing in rubble tonight. Crews are now planning to bulldoze the entire East Wing for Trump's massive ballroom. The costs originally were pegged to $200 million, but now are expected to be higher at $300 million.
Now, we're told it's going to be paid for by private donors, but when pressed, Trump claims that history is with him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Over the years, many presidents have made changes. This obviously would be the biggest change, but this was something they've wanted for at least 150 years.
I thought I'd bring this out because this is going to be probably the finest ballroom ever built.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, keep in mind, this is what Trump said in July.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It won't interfere with the current building. It won't be. It'll be near it, but not touching it, and pays total respect to the existing building, which I'm the biggest fan of.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, it shouldn't be lost in this debate that the government shutdown is on the verge of becoming the longest ever. Federal workers are waiting in food lines. Many aren't getting their paychecks, which makes for quite the split screen here in Washington.
This has caught a lot of people by surprise in part because Trump insisted in that clip that we just played that there wasn't going to be a demolition of the White House that happened as a result of this. I don't know. I mean, how does Trump justify doing this, and now literally this is happening right now as we speak, right, at the White House? It's the middle of the night. They are bulldozing the White House in the middle of the night without explaining to the American public really what's going to happen here. Congressman? REP. JEFF HURD (R-CO): Well, let's be clear. It's not the White House that's being bulldozed. It's the East Wing of --
PHILLIP: Which is part of the White House.
HURD: But it's much newer. There was a part of it that was built --
PHILLIP: Yes, but it's still part of the White House, Congressman?
HURD: And then renovated in the 1940s. It's pretty small. It's not particularly architecturally significant, at least from what I know. And this is an opportunity. Look, the president is a builder. He likes to build things, likes to create things. It is an opportunity for him to show that literally in Washington, D.C.
I've seen some of the schematics and architectural plans, and it's neoclassical. It looks like it's consistent with the architecture that the president likes. It's we see throughout the capital. And I think this is a way for him to shape literally the buildings of Washington, one of the buildings of Washington and create a legacy that I think and I hope will be one that's a positive one.
[22:05:02]
REP. SARA JACOBS (D-CA): I'm sorry. I was a White House intern and the first thing they teach you is how to give the White House tour, which is all about the historical significance of the rooms in the East Wing and the Colonnade and all of the different pieces of it. I mean, It's not fair to say that like there's nothing historical there. It's just not true.
And, you know, I represent San Diego. We're a huge military community. I've got about 50,000 federal workers in San Diego, and they are literally not -- like not sleeping at night because they don't know if they're going to be able to put food on the table for their kids, and he's instead spending his time and money building a ballroom. It is preposterous.
PHILLIP: Let me just play what Senator Thom Tillis said about this. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I think it's terrible optics, particularly right now. We're talking about a quarter of a billion dollars transferring maybe to the president when we're in a shutdown posture. So, it's at very best bad timing, but I think it's horrible optic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: What do you make of that bad timing?
TIM PARRISH, CONSERVATIVE STRATEGIST: Look, I agree. It is probably not the best timing during the shutdown, which is why I would advocate for Chuck Schumer to come to the table and let's pass the C.R. and reopen the government. I find it very interesting that we're having this conversation because FDR actually built the East Wing, put a pool in for himself. President Obama was a basketball player, put a basketball court in, President Nixon was a bowler, and put a bowling alley, all personal things they want to do. The president is doing an addition to the people's house. He's going to be able to hold hundreds of people instead of cramming people in, foreign visitors and other folks that we've crammed into these rooms, we're going to have an actual ballroom that we can properly host people in in the White House and he's paying for it and private donors are paying for it. So, any correlation --
JACOBS: He's not paying for it.
PARRISH: He's putting his personal dollars in along with per private donors.
PHILLIP: The pool and the basketball court did not disrupt the structure of the White House. That's the first thing.
PARRISH: And the changes --
PHILLIP: But hold on, Tim. The second thing is that, look, he is literally taking a bulldozer to the White House. It's just a basic thing. Should that be a conversation with the American people? Should it be a conversation with Congress? There have been several times when the White House, to your point, has been altered, renovated, updated, and it's gone to Congress.
REP. TOM SUOZZI (D-NY): I think that's going to be a big theme about a lot of things we talk about tonight, and a lot of this administration is just, there's no oversight, there's no following the rules, there's no following the historic norms. A new ballroom would be great. It'd be great to have a new ballroom. And, you know, I was a mayor, I built a new city hall, a new courthouse, a new police station. I had restored historic building as county executive. It's a nice idea to do something like this, but you got to follow some rules. We have to see, you know, are you actually doing this the right way? Are there some ethical questions about taking the money from people? And then --
PHILLIP: I mean, that is a big ethical question. I mean, shouldn't we know who's giving the money? Shouldn't we know what business they have before the government?
SUOZZI: Can I just finish?
PARRISH: Of course.
SUOZZI: It may be a good thing. This may turn out to be a great thing. But let's just like follow some process so we know that it's actually a good thing and you're not actually violating the rules.
PARRISH: The president would need to go to Congress for appropriations if he was asking for federal dollars to do this. In this case, he's not asking for --
SUOZZI: So, there's no ethical conflicts here?
PARRISH: I mean, Congressman, there's ethical conflicts for everything.
SUOZZI: But we just don't know.
JACOBS: Do you know who's paying for it?
SUOZZI: We just don't know you. So, let's follow some basic procedures and processes.
PARRISH: I agree with you that we don't know, Congressman. So, we also shouldn't assume that they exist --
SUOZZI: I'm not assuming.
PARRISH: -- because of your line of thinking. We don't know if there's ethical violations.
SUOZZI: I'm not assuming. I'm saying we're not following the process here.
JACOBS: Tim, that's not how ethics works.
PARRISH: We should talk to the attorneys. If the attorneys flag that there's some ethical conflicts, I'm sure that they'll agree with you.
(CROSSTALKS)
SUOZZI: They're not following a process.
PHILLIP: I do want to spend a moment on the ethical part of it because I think it's important. You're basically saying, well, if there's something bad, we'll find out. That seems like quite the opposite of how these things usually work. You know, there's usually an oversight process for stuff like this to prevent ethical conflicts from just slipping in the cracks. I mean, who's to say that somebody who's going to self-report an ethical conflict? That's what transparency's for. And right now there's no transparency. How do you explain that? How do you explain $300 million transferring hands and not a single person has been told who's giving that money and who's receiving it?
HURD: I trust we will see that. But here's the thing. We're talking about $300 million in spending here. We're also talking about $42 billion in spending, or actually $8 billion for 42 million people that are going to be missing their SNAP benefits coming up in just a few weeks.
The issues that our country faces, just like Tim said, are much bigger than this White House renovation. We're talking about a government that's been shut down for now 22 days. We did our job in the House of Representatives. We passed a continuing resolution to keep the government open. Senate Democrats need to do their job, pass that continuing resolution, get us back to work.
[22:10:00]
The people in my district, in Tom's district and your district, Sara, I don't think they're focused about this White House renovation, what's happening on East Wing. They're worried about their jobs. They're worried about our economy. They're worried about SNAP benefits. They're worried about healthcare. All the things that we're not talking about when we're spending time talking about $300 million on the White House.
PHILLIP: But I think that that's perhaps to Thom Tillis's point. He's been busy, according to CNN's reporting, showing visitors two flat tabletop models, at times quizzing the room on which version they preferred, the smaller one or the bigger one. Most answered, they wanted the bigger one, to which, of course, Trump agreed.
Again, the government is shut down, SNAP benefits are getting ready to run out. That's the context. But the president is running around showing tabletop models of a massive ballroom during a time when the government's not even operating, not bringing Congressional leaders to the White House to negotiate?
JACOBS: Well, that's right. I mean, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer have not been in a White House meeting since this shutdown started, and instead the White House has negotiated by A.I. meme videos. I mean, that's not how you get to a negotiation. And before you say like this is --
HURD: When do we start to negotiate? We passed the clean continuing resolution, no partisan riders, no poison pills.
JACOBS: It wasn't clean, first of all.
HURD: It was the resolution that Democrats had supported in the past.
JACOBS: In your district alone, Jeff, in your district alone, if we do nothing about these ACA tax credits. 33,000 people are going to lose healthcare just in your district.
HURD: I know, which is why I'm on a bill with Tom Suozzi that would extend the enhanced premium tax credits for a year. This is an issue that we need to address. But we need to do it in the context of a government that's open, not closed.
HURD: Let's just point out --
PHILLIP: Congressman Hurd, I've asked this before. I mean, you just acknowledged, as many Republicans who've come on the show of acknowledge, that you want to, A, do something about the tax credits expiring and that, B, you probably will. So, why not just do it now and reopen the government?
HURD: Holding the government hostage over a policy issue like this is not appropriate.
PHILLIP: So, essentially, this is on principle --
HURD: And also here's the deal. Hold on.
PHILLIP: I mean, I get it. The reason I'm saying that is because, look, people at home, I really think that if you're wondering if you're going to make ends meet in the next week or two, you don't really care at all about the principle. And I understand what you're saying because, trust me, I've covered a lot of these shutdowns here that, frankly, Republicans have been the holdouts on. So, I get the shutdowns are absolutely terrible. We shouldn't be here.
HURD: And the Democrats are the ones who --
PHILLIP: But if at the end of the day you guys are just going to turn around tomorrow and negotiate, how do you explain to Americans that you won't just sit down and do it now, you know, and put aside this desire to be right?
HURD: Well, look at what I've done. I'm already on legislation. I'm committed to discussing this.
Here's the thing though, when we talk about negotiation, what if the Senate Democrats introduce it? It was a 68-page piece of legislation. Do you want to know how much the enhanced premium tax credits were in those 68 pages? One and a half pages. They're talking about, you know, closing the government over an enhanced premium tax credits, which is just a fraction of what they're demanding in the Senate. I don't think it's a realistic proposal what Democrats are doing in the Senate. How are we supposed to negotiate in a context where it's not even accurate what they're saying? It's one and a half pages of those 68 --
SUOZZI: I've talked to lot of Democrats and a lot of Republicans, and most people want the government reopened and most people -- many people, I should say, on the Republican side, do want to do something about these premium tax credits that expire on January 1st and people's premiums is going to go through the roof. And 13 Republicans did sign a letter to the speaker with one of the lines was, allowing these tax credits to lapse without a clear path forward would risk real harm to those we represent.
So, there are people that want to do this. The problem that exists is that nobody trusts each other. The Democrats say, we want to link these two things together. The Republicans say, we don't want to link them together. Just open the government and we promise we'll talk about it.
PHILLIP: Is he right that the Democrats demands are laden with other things outside?
HURD: What's in the bill, Tom? 68-page Senate bill, one and a half pages of the --
SUOZZI: I would say that there's --
JACOBS: It's a three part thing that we're asking for. We're asking for the enhanced premium tax credits. We're asking for reversal of some of the cuts to Medicaid, and we're asking for some guarantee, we're asking for some guarantee that whatever deal we negotiate in a bipartisan way will actually be implemented.
Now, we know that is a starting bid. That was never going to be the final thing. That's what you do in a negotiation. You say, here's the maximum thing I want. Then you say, here's the maximum thing I want, and then you come to the table and have a conversation. But you guys won't even have a conversation.
(CROSSTALKS)
SUOZZI: The first time the president met with Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries was the day before the shutdown. In his nine months in office, that was the first time he met with them and there's been no meeting since then. And nobody in the House is talking to each other. Well, I'm glad we're here together right now, but, I mean, because we're not in session, we're not talking to each other face-to-face. So, there's just been a complete breakdown in trust and just doing our basic jobs.
And the people are sick of it. They're sick of everybody pointing fingers at each other, and they want us to work together to actually solve the problems that affect their lives, like the affordability of their healthcare.
PHILLIP: All right, to be continued on this never ending shutdown conversation. But next for us, an unexpected twist tonight in Donald Trump's economy.
[22:15:01]
The president and American farmers are in a heated feud in what some farmers say is a betrayal by Trump.
Plus, this may be a first for a campaign. A Senate candidate says that he's covered up a Nazi tattoo. Is it disqualifying or forgivable? We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, President Trump's trade war is searing up beef with U.S. farmers after he announced his plans to do this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We would buy some beef from Argentina. If we do that, that will bring our beef prices down.
[22:20:01]
The one thing that's kept up is beef. And if we buy some beef, no, I'm not talking about that much, from Argentina, it would help Argentina, which we consider a very good country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Trump has been prodding for a way to bring beef prices down, which have been soaring in part because of his tariffs. One Wyoming- based cattle farm says, Trump's plan would be an absolute betrayal to the American cattle rancher. And the CEO of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association said, it'll only create chaos.
In a post on social media, Trump scolded cattle ranchers saying, they just don't understand how they've benefited from his tariffs and that he saved their industry.
This is a mess, to say the least, but it's going to be hard to explain to the American people and certainly to farmers of a lot of different stripes why Trump keeps insisting on bailing out Argentina but not bailing them out. I mean, soybean farmers and now beef farmers, how does that work?
PARRISH: I see what you did there with the joke earlier that he's got the searing up the beef with the cattle farmers. Look, I think the president's going to get this figured out. The farming industry and the agricultural industry supported the president. I'm personally not a big fan of tariffs or the bailouts that we're seeing or we've seen in the past, but I think that the president's going to get this figured out, and I think that people have to eat. People want a cheeseburger, people want a hamburger. I think that we're going to get it figured out. The president's going to get it figured out. There's probably someone up here that's much smarter that's also going to figure out a plan to deal with this situation.
PHILLIP: But by that, Congressman, he's asking, are you going to defend this?
HURD: That's not what I'm saying, Abby. I'm not saying it's a defense.
PHILLIP: I mean, I'm just asking. I think he wants some backup here. But what's the defense?
HURD: Listen, I do have a large ag district. My district is basically (INAUDIBLE) in Colorado.
PARRISH: That was the point.
HURD: We have a ton of agricultural producers. We are the people that put the food on our plates there, contribute billions to our economy. They are some of the best environmental stewards. They're part of the culture of what it means to be America.
The best way to reduce beef prices in America is to increase the size of the beef herds to grow and support our agricultural producers here in the United States of America. I think supporting our ranchers on the ground is something that the president does support.
Listen, what's happening with Argentina, I don't think importing Argentinean beef is going to help the cattle industry here, long-term help the cattle industry, the agriculture industry. But what I will tell you is something that was interesting that was pointed out in The Wall Street Journal was the president might be trying to create some daylight between Argentina and China, and this might be a way that he's trying to help our long-term national security interests by separating the Chinese from the Argentineans and that symbiotic relationship they have.
PHILLIP: I'm not understanding that. You're not the first person --
HURD: Which is something worth pointing out, and I think that's valuable to --
PHILLIP: But you're not the first person to bring that out. But here's what I don't understand about that. If Trump's trying to put pressure on Argentina to not, you know, hold hands with China, then why is he bailing them out to the tune of $40 billion? It would seem logical that if you wanted to put pressure on a nation that relies -- would rely on you, you wouldn't bail them out first and then ask them to be nice to you later. They're already buying or selling their soybeans to China when China's not buying from us. I don't understand the negotiation logic there.
SUOZZI: Can I go back to -- I want to go back to the same theme for every topic I think we talk about tonight. There's no oversight. You know, tariffs are supposed to be done, according to the U.S. Constitution, through the House of Representatives, in the Ways and Means Committee specifically. And we're not following the rules, we're not going through the normal process. And there may be some very clever ideas that president's up to. Maybe he's negotiating something great, but you have to go through a process where you're actually figuring out what's actually transpiring here, what all the many ramifications. Because when you do something over here, it pops out over there.
So, we have to figure out how can we get back to some regular order here where -- the president's, you know, very creative guy, he is going to do his own thing. But you can't rely on that. That's why we have the checks and balance system in the United States of America.
HURD: That's a fair point, but we don't exactly know what the proposal is either. You talk about buying somebody. What that means --
SUOZZI: Isn't that kind of a problem?
HURD: Let's see. I mean, let's wait for the president to work out proposal, some of the details. But oftentimes, this is how the president works. We've known this. And he --
SUOZZI: That was the point I was making.
HURD: That's part of his negotiation --
SUOZZI: $40 billion to Argentina to bail bailout Argentina while our farmers or the people who need their healthcare here in America are not getting bailed out. So, I can understand why people who are concerned about high prices in America, the number one concern in America. And the president said in his inaugural address, I'm going to rapidly reduce prices, but prices are going up because of the tariffs. Prices are going up because of the energy prices of the demand for the data centers while we're cutting all these green energy projects. Prices are going up for people's healthcare premiums. Prices are going up because interest rates have upward pressure on them because the debt's so big from the big, beautiful bill.
People want prices lower. So, let's work together to figure out how to do that instead of the president just doing his own ideas without following the normal checks and balances.
PHILLIP: The complaints are coming in from the right. Marjorie Taylor Greene says, I'm hearing the same sentiment in my district. We love President Trump. Please tell him to stop helping foreign countries and put Americans first.
[22:25:01]
At this point, help Americans only. Tomi Lahren says, why the actual F are we buying Argentinean beef? Our American ranchers are getting crushed already by cheap shit foreign beef imports. The meat packers are already undercutting our American producers as it is. This is an outrage.
I don't know. This feels even -- the soybean thing is bad enough. I think the beef thing is going to add another layer of the discontent. It's both a story of rising prices, beef prices up 13 percent year- over-year, and also a story of the government intervening to help a foreign government at the expense of domestic markets.
JACOBS: I mean this whole policy is nonsensical, right? He wouldn't need to bail out the farmers if he didn't put the tariffs in place in the first place that are what's hurting them because of the reciprocal tariffs and making everything in the U.S. more expensive, right? So, like, yes, maybe he'll solve it, but he's the one who created the problem to begin with. So, he doesn't get any credit from me for then solving the very problem that he himself created with his tariff regime that literally makes no sense.
Like if you're saying you're trying to do tariffs to protect and get more U.S. industry, then you can't then on the other hand turn around to try and get, buy Argentinean beef to bring the costs down. That's not how it works.
HURD: Well, we do need to support our agriculture industry in America. And, listen, other countries will dump food and products on the market. We need to make sure that we protect our American producers, our farmers, and our ranchers. The best way to do that is to create circumstances within which they can grow and thrive, and they can pass their businesses along. That's one of the things that we did in the one big, beautiful bill when it comes to in, you know, passing along your farm or your ranch to the next generation.
We can have policies that will grow ag in America, but, fundamentally, we need to increase the -- if we're going to decrease the cost of beef, we need to increase the size of the beef herds in the United States. And we need to support our agricultural producers and ensure that other countries can't necessarily dump their products on our market.
PHILLIP: In this case, Trump says he's going to -- he wants to buy Argentinean beef. Should he be doing that? HURD: Listen, what exactly those details are, I don't know. But as a general matter, I would prefer that we produce more beef in America and we buy more hamburger from our hardworking producers.
PHILLIP: I mean, is that a yes or no? It should be pretty simple, right?
HURD: If there's another reason that the president is doing it, if there's a strategic interest, I just want to leave -- there's a little -- there's possibility that there could be something else going on here, particularly with respect to China --
PHILLIP: And are you comfortable with the bailout?
HURD: -- and the relationship that Argentina has with --
PHILLIP: But there is the bailout, right? That's the other side of this. Are you comfortable with that too?
HURD: Listen, as a general matter, I think we should be focused on our American producers and supporting our farmers and ranchers. In my district across the country, food does not come from the grocery store. It comes from hardworking Americans and making sure that they have the tools that they need to grow and thrive and the resources is something that I think is essential for all of us, whether you live in a urban district or a rural district like that.
PARRISH: Abby, I think this is super interesting actually, because it's a stark contrast in what we saw in the last administration when the left actually went after farmers because their beef cattle had flatulence. They were creating some sort of CO2 with beef farmers and they actually required in certain bills to cut cattle farming in America.
The congressman's absolutely right. If you want to focus on beef being produced here in America, you should be supporting the cattle industry, the agricultural industry in the country, not attacking them like we saw in a not so distant past, like we saw --
JACOBS: I want to go back to what he said, which is that like, okay, maybe there's a strategic reason maybe Trump is trying to get Argentina to separate from China. You know what some of our best tools are to get countries to work with us instead of the Chinese? Foreign assistance, diplomatic presence, all the things that Donald Trump has cut so that we can't do the kind of relationship building we need to actually bring people onto our side.
SUOZZI: So, Congressman Hurd, you know, has thousands of farmers in his district, so he knows this better than I do. I know a guy named Farmer. So -- but I was with livestock people today at a press conference, a bipartisan press conference about immigration, and the farmers are getting beaten up because of the fact that the tariffs are an issue, there's an issue with this idea of buying beef in Argentina, but they're also worried about losing their workforce because all these folks that are getting deported or people that are afraid to go to work are people that are working in agriculture, working in the livestock industry, and they're worried that they're not going to have the people to do the work necessary to keep their industry.
You would know this better than I do. I'm sure you've heard it from your people.
HURD: Yes, absolutely, Tom. I saw you wrote a Times op-ed on some of these immigration issues. What I would tell you is we need to reform our H2A system and make sure that we have the agricultural workers that support our farmers and our ranchers throughout the country. That's a big district. It's a big issue in rural districts like mine and other rural districts across the country. We have a badly broken system that we need to work. And that's something that we as Republicans and Democrats can come --
SUOZZI: We also have millions of people in America that have been here for 5, 10, 20, 30 years working these jobs, following the rules, maybe not having the proper documentation, as the president says, we have to use a lot of common sense.
[22:30:06]
How can we legalize a bunch of these people so that they can continue to work. They don't have to be citizenship. How can we legalize them so they can work and pay their taxes and do their jobs and raise their families and stop looking over their shoulder?
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: All right, I wish we could solve that immigration issue at this time. We won't do it tonight, but maybe one day. Next for us, breaking news, the administration is expanding its boat strikes, now hitting targets in the Pacific. And it comes as Donald Trump says that he may move his efforts to land.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:35:13]
PHILLIP: Tonight, a significant escalation in Donald Trump's war against "Narco" terrorists. The U.S. military is now targeting alleged drug smugglers in the Pacific. Pete Hegseth announcing today an eighth lethal strike on a boat in international waters, killing two people on board. When he was asked about that strike, Trump celebrated its success and promised a dramatic shift in tactics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: There are very few boats traveling on the water right now. Actually, that includes fishing boats, that includes any other kind of boat. But there are very few boats traveling underwater. So now, they'll come in by land at a lesser -- to a lesser extent, and they will be hit on land also.
We have legal authority, right? We're allowed to do that. And if we do by land, we may go back to Congress. We will hit them very hard when they come in by land. And they haven't experienced that yet, but now we're totally prepared to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Trump said there he may tell Congress why he's conducting strikes on land, but suggests to reporters that he actually doesn't need to. Just last week Trump acknowledged that he authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela and said that he was considering strikes on Venezuelan territory.
This is escalating incredibly quickly and as Congressman Swaziland said several times tonight, Congress is MIA. Congress is MIA while Trump is essentially declaring war and not really telling the American people on whom he's declaring war on.
REP. SARA JACOBS (D) MEMBER, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Well, correct. There is -- the Constitution says Congress gets to declare war on peace and he does not have the legal authority to do this. But even beyond that, this is murder under both international and U.S. domestic law. If you have all of this proof, come show it in a court of law. That's what we do in this country.
I represent San Diego, a border community. We've got the land border. We've got the Coast Guard interdicting drug crimes all the time. And there's a process, and that's not just what they do outside, like right off the coast of the United States. It's what they do in the Red Sea when they're trying to get Iranian stuff being smuggled to the Houthis, right?
Like there is a process for what you do. You board the ship. You collect evidence, not to mention the fact that you actually want to bring these guys in and prosecute them. One, so we know they're the right people and we're not just killing civilians and fishermen. But two, because actually through that you can learn more about the smuggling process and who you actually need to go after.
PHILLIP: Why is Trump insisting that he can just kill people, whether by land or sea, without proving who -- that they are, even who they say -- they say they are?
REP. JEFF HURD (R) COLORADO: They say protect our country is a power that presidents have exercised back to the very beginning of our country. And I had a law enforcement official tell me that on one of these drug boats, the amount of fentanyl or cocaine has the ability to kill 30,000 Americans. If you have --
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBS: Great, then bring it to the court of law and prove it.
HURD: If you had a missile that was coming to the United States that had the potential to kill 30,000 people, I think the President --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yeah, but you haven't even started--
(CROSSTALK)
HURD: -- the authority to stop that --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- basic level of proof is, is that boat actually carrying fentanyl? Let me play what Rand Paul said about that very issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL (R) KENTUCKY: When you kill someone, you should know if you're not in at war, not in a declared war, you really need to know someone's name at least. You have to accuse them of something. You have to present evidence. So all these people have been blown up without us knowing their name, without any evidence of a crime. This happens every day off of Miami.
But we know from Coast Guard statistics that about 25 percent of the time the Coast Guard boards the ship, there are no drugs. So, if our policy now is to blow up every ship we suspect or accuse of drug running, that would be a bizarre world in which 25 percent of the people might be innocent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: We're also interdicting -- no, I shouldn't even say interdicting. We are bombing ships that are not even apparently headed to the United States. So again, I mean, I take your point about stopping drugs coming to this country, but don't you have to A, prove that there are drugs and actually know that they are coming to this country?
HURD: I haven't seen any evidence that suggests that the president of the military were mistaken.
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBS: That's because we haven't seen any evidence.
HURD: Okay, but listen, I trust our military. I trust the President, the professionalism of our men and women armed forces to protect our country.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: There's no evidence at all, one way or -- there's no evidence at all.
(CROSSTALK)
HURD: -- And they know where these drugs are going. They may not be directly headed for our country --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But Congressman, have you seen any evidence at all about any of this? Like, who are -- who are these people? What drugs were they carrying? Where were the boats heading (CROSSTALK)
HURD: Listen, I trust -- I trust our military, and our executive branch, and our law enforcement officials to make sure that they're protecting our country. And I don't think it's realistic to suspect that we're going to board all these drug boats and take them to court and extradite them in the United States. That would be -- I don't think it's efficient.
(CROSSTALK)
SUOZZI: Okay, but Jeff --
(CROSSTALK)
HURD: And it's -- this is a great way to deter --
(CROSSTALK)
SUOZZI: What's going to happen when there's "60 Minutes" episode in the future and it shows the fisherman who went out with his brother to go fishing for tuna, and it turned out that he was shot by one of our military. I mean he --
[22:40:08]
(CROSSTALK)
HURD: We need to --
(CROSSTALK)
SUOZZI: We have to go through a process. With every topic we've talked about tonight, whether it the East Wing demolition, whether it's the tariffs or the Argentina, the cattle farmers, now this. There's got to be some oversight. That's the purpose of our Constitution. There's got to be following some procedure and process.
I'm all for going after the bad guys. Let's go after the "Narco" terrorists. Let's go after the cartels. Let's stop them from killing the people in our country. I am all for that. But let's follow a process --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So --
(CROSSTALK)
SUOZZI: --so that we can stop people from breaking the rules.
PHILLIP: A former legal counsel for President Bush, Jack Goldsmith said, "It's dangerous enough to try to kill with military force but not dangerous enough to detain and prosecute by lawful methods, almost certainly because a lawful case could not be made before a court. That is especially awkward for the DOD." Again, it raises the question, if you -- we had two people in our custody who were on one of these boats. And you know what we didn't do? We didn't bring them in. We didn't question them. We didn't try them. We just sent them back to their home countries. If they're guilty enough to kill, why are they guilty -- not guilty enough to be tried?
TIM PARRISH, CONSERVATIVE STRATEGIST: Well, Congressman, that was a great hypothetical about the people going on their boat fishing for tuna. And I think anyone at this table would be hard pressed to show me one incident of, you know, someone having a line in the water and we indiscriminately bombed them. The intelligence is there, as the Congressman said, we have to trust our military.
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBS: I'm sorry. I'm on the Armed Services and the Foreign Affairs Committee. The intelligence is not there.
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: One second.
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBS: We've not seen any of that intelligence.
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: What I would say is this. What we just heard from Senator Paul is that when we board these boats, 25 percent of the time we don't find drugs. The scourge of fentanyl in this country and the American families that it's devastated 75 percent of the time according to the Senator is --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay.
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: -- absolutely worth it.
(CROSSTALK)
SUOZZI: Are you saying that it's okay to kill the 25 percent?
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: What I'm saying is, I would challenge you to --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Tim, before you ramp up on your monologue, let me just make a quick point that I noticed that you ignored my question. I noticed that you ignored my question, which was about the fact that we had people in our custody. The United States military had two men in our custody. We are accusing them of trafficking drugs into our country. Why will they not charge those people? Why did they send them --
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: Abby, I'm not familiar with the case that you're bringing up about the two men. What I will tell you --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: It just happened.
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: -- is that as a former law enforcement officer, what I am familiar with intimately is what Fentanyl does.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay, so, hold on, hold on.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: One more thing. One more thing. And this has come up before on the fentanyl issue. Let me play also what Rand Paul said about this. I'm just playing Rand Paul because sometimes you got to hear it from your own side for it to penetrate. But listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: There is no fentanyl made in Venezuela, not just a little bit. There's none being made in Venezuela. These are outboard boats that in order for them to get to Miami would have to stop and refuel 20 times. They're in all likely going to Trinidad and Tobago.
When can you kill people indiscriminately? When you were at war. That's why when we declare war, it's supposed to be done by Congress. It's supposed to be thoughtful. It's supposed to be debated, and we're not supposed to do it willy-nilly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, we can decide that we want to police all of the waterways in our hemisphere, in the Caribbean, in the Pacific, for drugs that are headed destination anywhere. But if you are going to do that, don't you think that the American people ought to know what we're doing?
Because they're -- he's right. Ninety percent of the fentanyl comes from Mexico. None of it practically comes from Venezuela. So, if the justification is the scourge of fentanyl deaths in this country, why are we bombing --
(CROSSTALK)
HURD: -- cocaine, illegal drugs -- (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yeah. Why are we bombing boats coming from Venezuela that do not have fentanyl on them that are maybe, probably, not headed for here?
HURD: Well, listen. They could be headed here just indirectly. These may be precursors for some of these drugs. I mean, I would say again --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Precursors for fentanyl --
(CROSSTALK)
HURD: Also, if the standard is any --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- to Mexico. We know that.
(CROSSTALK)
HURD: -- any military action is going to require review and approval and we need to take these bad guys and bring them to justice beforehand, we're not going to be able to keep our country safe. President Obama didn't do that. President Biden didn't do it. You're putting this administration to a standard that no other administration has ever had to have. It's not realistic, what you're proposing.
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBS: I would disagree with their analysis of the 2001 and 2002 authorization for the use of military force, but at least they existed. And one other point I want to make --
(CROSSTALK)
HURD: So, did you protest when Obama killed an American citizen in Yemen?
JACOBS: Yes, yes, I did.
(CROSSTALK)
HURD: Tom, what do you think?
JACOBS: But --
(CROSSTALK)
HURD: There's a history of --
(CROSSTALK) JACOBS: But I also want to make a point. We're talking -- he talks about expanding this to land. Let's talk about what that really means. I represent San Diego, right? That's the border community. Ninety-nine percent of all fentanyl that comes across the border is brought by U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.
[22:45:00]
It's brought at legal ports of entry, not by asylum seekers in between. So, if he's talking about bringing this fight to the land, that's literally about bringing this fight to U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents in my district without any oversight from Congress, without any evidence or justification.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Well, look --
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBS: And that's just wrong.
PHILLIP: Listen. And that would be a law enforcement challenge as it has always been for this country. It's not to say that we shouldn't stop that from happening. We should. But is that a job for bombs and drones from the United States military?
HURD: They're already declaring war on the --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I think that's really -- that is the question that we -- okay.
(CROSSTALK)
SUOZZI: We have an Armed Services Committee. The head of the Southern Command, SOCOM, has just announced he's retiring unexpectedly, which never happens. Why? We should be having a hearing to find out -- are they following the rules?
PHILLIP: Lots of questions there. Coming up next, a Democratic candidate for Maine Senate is showing off new ink after his old tattoo was identified as a Nazi symbol. We'll discuss that controversy next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:50:37]
PHILLIP: A Democratic senate candidate in Maine now says that he is covering up a tattoo that some people compare to a Nazi symbol. Here is what Graham Platner's ink looks like now. He says he got a skull and crossbones design nearly 20 years ago that was the result of a drunken night out. And at the time, the Marine veteran says he was not aware that it had any association with Nazis. Platner is seeking the seat held by Republican Susan Collins, and he held a town hall tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM PLATNER (D) MAINE SENATE CANDIDATE: Somebody showed me a picture of a motif that neo-Nazis use and it's a skull and crossbones. They're pretty popular amongst military units, but they definitely had a lot in common. And I then went and got it covered because I do not want something on my body that represents in any way the antithesis of my politics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: It's not just that. It's also a bunch of statements that he deleted online that he made about all kinds of things, about women, about guns, et cetera. But a lot of Democrats now in your party are saying, let's just ignore this. Why? Because they want to win that seat?
SUOZZI: We can't ignore that, and we can't ignore what happened with the guy who applied for the job in the Trump administration who said he had a Nazi streak. We can't ignore the young Republicans in New York City that are having conversations about Nazis. As a general rule, don't do things that are affiliated with the Nazis. And if you do, don't try to run for office.
PHILLIP: You think he should be out?
SUOZZI: Yeah.
PHILLIP: What about you?
JACOBS: I mean, look, I'm Jewish, so this is very personal to me. I've dealt with anti-Semitism my entire life, including by colleagues of ours in Congress. And I don't think ignorance is an excuse. Now, like, I am comfortable saying there should be no Nazis in the Democratic Party. The Big Ten is not that big. And I hope that my colleagues are comfortable saying that about the Republican Party.
PHILLIP: But hold on. You think he should leave the race?
JACOBS: Look, I don't know. I'm -- the honest answer is I'm not in Maine.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yeah, but I mean I wouldn't vote for him.
(CROSSTALK)
This is about whether or not this is a disqualifying set of facts.
JACOBS: Yeah.
PHILLIP: Because again, it's not just, you know, that. It's also -- this is what he said about sexual assault, take some responsibility -- "People should take some responsibility for themselves and not get so effed (ph) up that they wind up having sex with someone they don't mean to." That's just one small example.
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBS: No, I think what he said was horrific and the idea that he even had something that could be remotely related to Nazism on his body for years -- for years and claimed he didn't know what it was is horrific. Now, I also believe that people can grow and believe in second chances. And I look forward to hearing what he has to say to really atone and amend for this. And you know, I'm comfortable saying like we should not have Nazis in the Democratic Party and --
PHILLIP: Yeah, okay.
JACOBS: -- If he's a Nazi, he should not be like running.
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: Congresswoman, we should not have Nazis in any party.
JACOBS: I agree.
PARRISH: And actually, as a matter of fact, just last week --
(CROSSTALK)
SUOZZI: Look all the agreement we have.
PARRISH: Just last week -- well, we don't agree and I agree with part of what you said, Congressman. But we should be able to answer this question emphatically that no, he should get out of the race. You brought up the young Republican scandal and Republicans were nearly uniformed in saying that the elected official in Vermont who was the state senator should step down.
His Republican governor called him in and stepped down. I called him in and stepped down. All the Republicans did and he did. But to say that I'm not sure that someone should be able to run still when they've had this is a little bit beyond --
(CROSSTALK)
SUOZZI: Janet Mills is also running. She's a sitting governor. She's won statewide.
PHILLIP: All right.
SUOZZI: He'd be a great candidate for the --
PHILLIP: Next for us, the panel is going to give us their nightcaps. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:58:53]
PHILLIP: We're back and it's time for the NewsNightcap and "Furthermore" edition. Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley spoke for more than 22 hours on the Senate floor. So, you each have a few seconds to tell us what non-political topic would you talk about for 22 hours? Congressman Suozzi, you're up.
SUOZZI: I like movies. I like talking about attorney classic movies, old movies. I like telling people what my favorite movie is and asking people what their favorite movie is. My favorite movie is "It's a Wonderful Life". I'm kind of a nerd.
PHILLIP: Tim?
PARRISH: I'll tell you, I won't be talking about Argentinian beef, but what I can talk about for 22 hours is hand-rolled premium cigars. I love cigars and I could talk about them all day. And the beautiful thing is I can smoke a cigar while also talking about them.
PHILLIP: Interesting. Go ahead.
HURD: Abby, mine is parenting. I feel like 22 hours is the number of hours every day that I need to tell my kids why they can't have social media and they would probably say I spent 22 hours a day or I could filibuster on "Dad's Rules of the House" volume one.
PHILLIP: Yeah, you could definitely talk about parenting for 22 hours. Go ahead, Sara.
JACOBS: "Grey's Anatomy". There are 22 seasons. So, an hour a season for the Gen Z.
[23:00:01]
Meredith Grey is the original pick-me-girl, which I think is important. And we can debate about McDreamy or McSteamy. I think McSteamy is hotter and that is an important thing we can talk about for 22 hours.
PHILLIP: Wow, okay. I feel like you just sparked -- you're going to spark some debate on that one. Everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight". "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
