Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
U.S. Claims Iran Deal Close, But It's Agreement to Keep Talking; CNN Analysis Shows Iran Quickly Unearthing Its Huge Missile Arsenal; Katie Miller Says, Democrat Tweet Calling Husband Ugly is Violent Rhetoric. Trump Prepares To Host UFC Fight on His 80th Birthday; Trump Tries To Be First Sitting President To Appear On American Currency. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired May 28, 2026 - 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 VIDEOTAPE)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, a deal for a plan, for an agreement, for a memorandum to keep talking, all while Iran unearths its missile stockpile.
Plus, after Democrats take a page out of the GOP's tone playbook, Republicans clutch their pearls.
KATIE MILLER, CONSERVATIVE PODCASTER: This is the same violent political rhetoric that is leading people to shooting up.
PHILLIP: Also, as a giant UFC cage goes up at America's most famous house, so does the volume of critics against the spectacle.
JOE ROGAN, HOST, THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE: The White House thing is odd. I don't like it.
PHILLIP: And the buck starts here. The administration pushes another item with Trump's face, this time a $250 bill.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): It's Monopoly money. It's fantasy.
Live at the table, Ana Navarro, Peter Meyer, Neera Tanden, Jesse Arm, Kian Tajbakhsh, and Kmele Foster.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
It feels a lot like Groundhog Day when it comes to the war in Iran. Tonight, negotiators for the U.S. and Tehran have reached a tentative agreement to end the conflict. It's being dubbed the memorandum of understanding, and basically, it's a deal to keep talking. The plan would trigger more negotiations over the next 60 days to hash out the hardest issues that both sides have been squabbling over for months, like Iran's nuclear program, including the fate of its highly enriched uranium. It would also reopen the Strait of Hormuz. And if that all sounds familiar to you, it's because Trump announced a very similar proposal on April 7th. That framework was the basis for more talks, and the Strait of Hormuz, as you might know, is still not open.
So, about a month later, there was this one-page memo, which was also meant to buy more time to discuss key issues. Now, when it comes to this latest deal, the so-called memorandum of understanding, two things still need to happen, two very important things. The president still needs to sign off on it, and so does Iran. So, whether Trump does so or not is still an open question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I do think that we've made a lot of progress here. It's very clear that I think the Iranians, they want a deal.
Hopefully, we'll continue to make progress. The president will be in a position where he can endorse the agreement, but obviously that's still TBD.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, Kian, you know the psychology of your audience very well. Would you call a deal -- would you call this, whatever we are discussing, a deal if effectively it involves some kind of agreement with Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which presumptively they've made some motions to that in the past and haven't done it in exchange for any kind of agreement to alleviate sanctions, to unfreeze money? Would that be a deal in your mind?
KIAN TAJBAKHSH, FORMER POLITICAL PRISONER IN IRAN, RELEASED 2015: Well, it would be a deal, but, you know, Abby, it would be very hard for me to put a positive spin on this deal. That is to say, it's very hard to see that this is a gain for the United States. It would be from the Iranian point of view, and that's the way they view it right now. They see it as a major victory in this battle with the United States.
The reality is that Iran, despite the bluster and I think some of the pronouncements by the president, I think the reality is everyone can see that President Trump is being forced into a negotiation by the fact that Iran has found -- you know, done an end run around the military operation, used the Straits of Hormuz in an unprecedented and unexpected way, which it's still baffling for me why the United States, despite, you know, we've been hearing for 40 years, they've been, you know, doing war games, it's still --
PHILLIP: And you can look at a map and see.
TAJBAKHSH: Yes. You know, it's baffling.
But I think, you know, I mean, so from their -- from the Iranians' point of view, a deal is merely solidifying the gains which they feel that they have achieved, which is actually quite significant. I mean, on the ground, I mean, what are the facts?
[22:05:01]
The facts are that since April 7th, President Trump was forced into a ceasefire, and he is -- you know, from the Iranian point of view, he's blinked, and he's blinked again, and he's blinked again, and he's extended the ceasefire. And for the Iranians, they have now come out major -- you know, far ahead of where they could imagine. The nuclear issue, the missiles, and the proxy issues are now off the table, and they're only focusing on the Straits of Hormuz.
PHILLIP: Yes.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Which means that when the change of regime issue is off the table, right? That was supposedly one of the primary goals. And the names may have changed, but the regime certainly has not.
PHILLIP: And the Trump administration is dealing with that, just as if --
TAJBAKHSH: I mean, you know, to be fair, I mean, I don't remember early that President Trump said that it was going to be one of our -- well, what he said is that we want to pave the way for the Iranians to take over the government.
PHILLIP: He did also say, I need to be the person who chooses who comes next. None of that has come to fruition.
And you mentioned the missile issue. CNN is reporting that Iran is regaining access to vast quantities of missiles stored in their underground facilities, which casts doubt on the president's claim of having all but obliterated Tehran's arsenal.
So, again, it raises questions about what is this so-called deal or agreement supposed to accomplish if none of the main issues are being dealt with now, but also that one of the principal rationales for even starting the war, which was to dismantle the ballistic missile program, is also not happening.
PETER MEIJER, CO-FOUNDER AND HEAD OF STRATEGY, THE NEW INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION: Well, I mean, right now what we're talking about is focused on the Strait of Hormuz, right? All the other things the Iranians want, the sanctions relief, additional potential incentives, that's not -- that may be on the table for down the road, but this is a very narrow question of, okay, will the U.S. end the blockade and this component of our offensive U.S. strikes on Iran, and will the Iranians permit freedom of navigation through the strait?
I mean, that is what's being discussed here.
PHILLIP: But you see why that is not a satisfying explanation, because we start a war in which the strait was open, and then it became closed as a result of the conflict, and now we are negotiating with the people we're fighting with to get back to where we were before we started dropping bombs? TAJBAKHSH: Not negotiating, offering money.
MEIJER: I mean, my understanding is --
PHILLIP: How is that -- how is that even --
MEIJER: None of us actually know what this deal is, all right? We're talking about a leak, and then a reaction to a leak.
PHILLIP: But I guess what I'm asking is, like how is that remotely in the vicinity of something that would be considered a win for the United States?
JESSE ARM, VICE PRESIDENT AND POLLSTER, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: Well, I just think Peter raises a good point. We don't really know. It's a day that ends in why (ph), and Axios has new reporting about what's going on in the Iran negotiations. And this time it's a little bit more real, because the negotiators have confirmed what's going on. But we still haven't heard from the president, and we still haven't heard from the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.
And until we hear those details, I just don't think anything is that real. The president, this is how he negotiates, right? With one open hand extended always, people can come meet him halfway, and with the other hand a closed fist, ready to punch them in the mouth if the folks don't agree. You know, maybe you don't agree, but --
PHILLIP: Well, I'm just saying the hand has been open now for, let's call it six weeks, right?
ARM: Well, we've been in a ceasefire --
PHILLIP: April 7th.
ARM: Well, we've also had actually --
PHILLIP: He literally engaged in a -- he said, we have a ceasefire, and the ceasefire was going to last two weeks. They blew past that deadline, and now we're just in an indefinite ceasefire that's going to lead to another ceasefire that will last for 60 days.
NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: I think this conversation is actually the real problem the president faces, because nobody -- when anyone actually hears about additional details, like the possibility that we're going to actually have a maybe $300 billion Iranian fund so that they can repair themselves, you know, when you hear any of these details, it's terrible. Why? Because it's essentially managing a defeat.
So, we get every few weeks or every few days, we're on the cusp. They were on the cusp last weekend. All the Republican senators basically had a massive freak-out because it's such a terrible deal. And I think what the president is doing is essentially managing expectations towards a defeat.
At the end of the day, he announced at the beginning of this war several different goals, some of them somewhat conflicting. But they included controlling the nuclear program, ending their nuclear weapons capability, two, a new regime, three, ending their military capability, their ICBMs. All of those are not happening, as we can all see. They will not happen at the end of this negotiation at this moment. And why will the Iranians give in them two months from now?
PHILLIP: What's the best case scenario for the United States, Ana, in this moment?
NAVARRO: I think to end this thing. I mean, I just think there is no winning. The things that Donald Trump expected and thought were going to happen quickly, if we remember when this started back in February, he said, this is going to take four or five weeks.
[22:10:08]
I remember people talking about the arrest of the shah of Iran's son, and, you know, him thinking he was going to be over there in Tehran any moment now.
PHILLIP: And now that campaign has really turned on the --
NAVARRO: That there was going to be regime change. I remember them thinking that people were going to get go back to the streets, but the people had been slaughtered. 40,000, 50,000 people were slaughtered. There seems to be zero accountability for the fact that this regime slaughtered 50,000 or more of their people.
So, I think the best case scenario is cut your losses and get the hell out because the American people are not with this. When Donald Trump is saying he doesn't care about midterms, he's lying. If Donald Trump didn't care about midterms, he wouldn't be trying to rig the elections by redistricting all over the country and give Republicans more districts so that they can retain the House and the Senate.
PHILLIP: Kian, I want to get your take on this. CNN is also reporting that Trump has been seeking advice to ensure that the deal is strong enough, according to one person familiar with the matter. He's been fixated on ensuring that the deal can be marketed as stronger than the 2015 Obama-era nuclear deal from which he withdrew in his first term.
TAJBAKHSH: Right.
PHILLIP: And you are obviously no fan of that Obama nuclear deal, but are you hearing anything that would make this scenario a better scenario as it relates to preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon?
TAJBAKHSH: Well, I mean, as you said, I was not a real fan of the 2015 nuclear deal. They both had flaws. And I think it's important to see them in a consecutive evolution. In other words, there was some weaknesses --
PHILLIP: You mean the 2015 deal and then what we're talking about now? TAJBAKHSH: In other words, one of the reasons, I think, you know, we got to where we are with President Trump is that he made a, I think, more or less correct understanding assessment that the flaws of the 2015 deal under Obama had led us to, you know, a level of cost and chaos. October 7th was my analysis. You know, I said before I think on this show, I said which was controversial, I think you can draw a straight line more or less from the 2015 deal to October 7th.
The turning over of the Middle East, the chaos that ensued after October 7th, I think what made clear to anyone in the White House, that we cannot go back to a deal which just focuses on the nuclear issue. We have to expand it to missiles and to proxies.
But what we see now is that, and, of course, the Obama administration, for better or worse, decided they would just focus on the nuclear issue, Iran cheated on that, you know, and we can re-litigate that, you know, but I think by the time it got to the Trump administration, they were right to say, look, they didn't focus on missiles and proxies. We have to add that.
But I think that the reason why I agree with Neera in the sense of a defeat is that we are actually the -- and what's important --
TANDEN: Yes, they will have the proxies. At the end of this, they will have the military at the end of this.
TAJBAKHSH: It's not important, I think. I think it's less important now what's exactly in the deal than what isn't being talked about, which is the missiles and the proxies and the nuclear enrichment.
PHILLIP: It is also is important to note that the sums of money that are being thrown around here are actually much larger than the sums of money that were being thrown around in the Obama-era deal that Trump has so strongly criticized. And so, I mean, I think that's one of the reasons why the president probably wants a couple more days to think this over because it's not an easy problem to solve. He may not be able to market this as better than the Obama nuclear deal at all because it may not be at all.
ARM: The difference between this deal and the Iranian nuclear deal, as negotiated under the Obama administration, is that the Iranian nuclear program has been blown to smithereens this time around.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: But actually no, Jesse, that's not the difference because back in 2015, the Iranians were not anywhere near where they are right now.
ARM: But President Obama did not hit the Iranians militarily.
PHILLIP: But hold on. I'm just -- but you're hearing what I'm saying. Back in 2015, that was before they had advanced to where they are now, and they are where they are now in terms of their nuclear enrichment because there was no watchdog. There was no referee.
ARM: You're right.
PHILLIP: They were able to do whatever they wanted to do in those years after we pulled out of the deal.
ARM: And Kian is right that you can draw a straight line from the Obama-Iranian nuclear deal to October 7th.
PHILLIP: I'm just saying, I think Kian is definitely -- Kian is right that the Obama deal was too limited in the minds of many people. But I do think that you cannot ignore the fact that the absence of any kind of constraints on Iran allowed them to advance dramatically in their nuclear program, which is why we are where we are today.
[22:15:09]
ARM: Yes.
PHILLIP: So, blowing that up now is fine, but we may not have been in this place if there had been something in place as opposed to nothing.
NAVARRO: And you also can't ignore the context of when this happened and how this happened. Donald Trump was on a sugar high after the Venezuela operation, after extricating Maduro and finding the vice president of Venezuela who would work with him, and thought he could take his warships down to the Strait of Hormuz, to the Middle East and replicate the model. And, you know, he struck a brick wall, and the harsh reality of what Iran and the Middle East is like, not Venezuela.
PHILLIP: We do have to leave it there, my friends. Next for us, Kian, thank you very much, as always, for being with us, Katie Miller is saying that a Democrat calling her husband ugly is violent rhetoric. Now, is MAGA suddenly upset with Democrats for returning insults?
Plus, as Americans struggle in this economy, the UFC cage construction underway at the White House, and even Joe Rogan thinks that it's a bad idea. Another special guest is going to be with us at the table.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: For years, MAGA has been dishing it out, but tonight, one of its most prominent voices can't take it. After Stephen Miller made an anti-trans joke directed at Texas State Senator James Talarico, the Democrats' official account matched his energy, replying, shut up, you ugly F word. The post has nearly 40 million views, prompting outrage on the right, accusations that Democrats have abandoned civility, and this condemnation from Stephen Miller's wife.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MILLER: This is the same violent political rhetoric that is leading people to shooting up, whether it be the White House Correspondents' Dinner or President Trump in Butler. But what it remains to be seen is this is an anonymous account, and it is run, actually, by a sad liberal woman named Paulina, who, which is why Pew says 50 percent of liberal women at some time have identified that they have a mental health disorder, and she is certainly one of them. What a sad state for the pathetic Democrat Party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: But is Katie Miller throwing stones from a glass house? In addition to outing the Democrat social media manager, claiming that she's childless and unmarried even though she's apparently engaged and therefore unhappy, Miller has repeatedly insulted liberals online. In just the past few months, she's suggested that liberal men aren't attractive. She's called liberalism a disease. She's used the R word to refer to Governor Gavin Newsom, and that's just a few of the many insults.
Kmele Foster is with us at the table. It seems like there is an energy matching energy kind of thing going on here and you can definitely make the case that we are headed to rock bottom. We are going low and lower. But at the same time for Republicans to be clutching their pearls in this moment, does that seem, you know, fair?
KMELE FOSTER, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, TANGLE: Yes, the pearl-clutching certainly doesn't fly. And I don't know who to blame for where things started or who's, you know, responsible for what. I will say that all of the ad hominem and the profanity -- look I do a podcast. We work blue from time to time. I've occasionally used a naughty word. I like Drake's new album. There's a lot of battle rapping going on there.
But I'm not sure that I want that emanating from the White House. I don't know that our national politicians engaging in this kind of conduct is generally a good thing. And it seems to me it's precisely the sort of circus that you would expect when neither party has particularly good ideas. Like having this idiotic argument calling the candidate transsexual, insulting one another with the F word and the S word, like this seems like a scene where someone is kind of getting into an altercation on the street, on the highway, like road rage, this is clearly theater. These are people who are behaving as if they're the roast masters, who are responding quickly with a quip and using the F word in these ways that seem obviously performative.
I don't know that anyone should be impressed with any of this. And, yes, rising above it, talking about policy, and talking about ideas in response to people who are insisting on engaging in theater, I think that is a better way to go. And, quite frankly, I think the Democrats have lost the plot by engaging in this nonsense along with the White House.
NAVARRO: Right. So, there's a difference for me between like a campaign arm of the Democrats and the White House and the --
FOSTER: There are elected officials who are using the F word in official statements.
NAVARRO: Yes, I know, but I'm saying I have more expectation of the White House and the biggest bully pulpit in the world, that is the president of the United States, than I do of the official Democratic account, the campaign arm of the Democrats. And let me just read to you what Donald Trump wrote about Bruce Springsteen. Bad and very boring singer Bruce Springsteen, who looks like a dried up goon, who has suffered greatly from the work of a really bad plastic surgeon. This is the same guy who compared the Obamas to apes, and I didn't hear Katie Miller saying anything.
So, I just think it's --
ARM: Did he compare them to apes?
TANDEN: Yes, he did.
FOSTER: We're talking about the meme video.
NAVARRO: Yes, he did.
TANDEN: Yes.
ARM: Yes. That's not what happened. That's not really what happened.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: He reposted a video of them being depicted as apes.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Well, hold on. Hold on. I'm sorry, but no. I'm sorry, no. He reposted a video of them being depicted as apes. I don't care if it was on the end of some other video. He reposted it.
TANDEN: He didn't take it down.
PHILLIP: He didn't take it down, and then he defended it. Then he defended it.
[22:25:00]
ARM: He did take it down. It was not very nice.
PHILLIP: But to Ana's point yes, it is Trump and all the many things that he has said, but also like the government accounts, right? You've got the communications director for the White House, Steven Cheung, Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie are some of the dumbest R words ever to be in. He says, hey, R word, you must be thinking of someone else. He refers to another person as, you have no idea what you're talking about, you slope-brained, mouth-breeding moron, so on and so forth.
ARM: Yes.
PHILLIP: I mean, this is a person who works in the government. He travels with the president. He tweets from official accounts. So, I don't know. How are you comparing saying your, someone's husband is ugly to, you know, violence in politics? It just doesn't make any sense to me.
MEIJER: I mean, if I'm Katie Miller, I'm defending my husband, right? So, I get that component, for sure. I just -- everyone is living in glass houses when it comes to being impolite, being uncivil, and all of that. The thing that bugs me, though, because there is a place to actually use a profanity when you are expressing a sincere feeling, when it's coming off as, you know, it slipped off my tongue because I'm feeling heated, because I'm passionate and I'm expressing something that's authentic.
The problem with the social media components is, you know, it goes through five layers of review to determine whether you should say the F word or the S word or the D word or whatever. Like it just -- it reeks of insincerity and it reeks of performance.
NAVARRO: Wait, whose social media goes through five layers of review?
MEIJER: Oh, the DNC. The DNC. Trump's social media does not go through five layers.
NAVARRO: He's tweeting out all kinds of crazy shit in the middle of the night on a daily basis.
TANDEN: I mean, I think, I kind of feel like we're talking about two entirely different things, actually, okay? So, it's a thing, people swear too much, whatever, okay. It's performative, it's not performative. But what actually happened here is, you know, we have members of the White House essentially freaking out because there was a tweet that attacked Stephen Miller. And just as a response, just to say, he had literally called the Senate candidate, who is not transgender, transgender. And it's just like the ridiculous aspect of all this is just the simultaneous, like throwing rocks and then being a victim. Like it's just like we can all see in our own eyes.
PHILLIP: Let me play, actually, Stephen Miller just tonight was talking about Talarico. Let's play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR POLICY: I think it is very bold, one could even say brave, courageous, that the Democratic Party would choose Texas of all places to nominate their first transgender Senate candidate, who's clearly transitioning into a female. You know, when Talarico goes in for a blood test when he gets a physical, blood doesn't come out. Instead, soy milk comes out. This man has less testosterone than Jasmine Crockett.
It is a mind-boggling choice. They would choose a person to run for that office who looks like he doesn't belong in the Senate, but in a cabaret show.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TANDEN: I mean, everyone okay with that? You guys okay?
ARM: No, I don't think that's very nice.
MEIJER: That is the type of language that should come from Jeffrey Ross, our roast master general. FOSTER: I hope you do a little better than that.
PHILLIP: Go ahead, Jess.
ARM: I don't think that's very nice, but I really -- if we get back to the politics of this, right, which is why all of this matters at all, the response from the -- you mentioned this is a campaign arm, so it's different than the White House saying it. But so the campaign arm's strategic goal is to say, shut up, you ugly F word, like I don't see how that earns you votes.
And at the end of the day, I think James Talarico actually understands something that the median Democratic communications staffer in Washington, D.C., does not, which is that he needs to moderate between now and November, because he is running statewide in Texas, which is the reddest -- one of the reddest states in the country. And Democrats have their eyes set on winning statewide in Iowa this cycle, in Nebraska this cycle, in Texas, and in places that are really, really red.
And if you want to do that, you're going to need to move away from the things you said in 2020, when it's okay to admit, as James Talarico is now starting to realize, that everybody got a little too woke for a little bit.
PHILLIP: All right. Well, I want to just also say Trump did take down the ape video, but he did not apologize for it. And the White House continues to rationalize putting it up in the first place.
NAVARRO: Yes, even Tim Scott complained.
PHILLIP: That's right. He took it down after a lot of complaints.
Well, next for us, the construction for the UFC event at the White House is well underway now, and so is the fight about what it says about the president's priorities right now. We'll debate that next.
[22:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, a before and after that speaks to Donald Trump's priorities. Pictured on the left, the White House and its East Wing, a day after Trump took office last year. On the right, the White House this week, the East Wing Trump tore down, and the framework of a cage on the South Lawn. As Trump prepares to host the UFC fight on his 80th birthday, the project is earning its fair share of criticism.
As construction continues, Democrats have repeatedly pointed to an on- going affordability crisis and the President's growing list of pet projects in and around Washington, calling into question Trump's so- called "golden age" and his focus.
[22:35:10]
One of Trump's MAGA allies and a UFC commentator himself has a different concern about the event. It's basic logistics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE ROGAN, "THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE" HOST: The White House thing is odd. I don't like it. I don't like the idea of fighting outside at all. And then --
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: There's problems with it.
(CROSSTALK)
ROGAN: -- June, and then D.C., and we looked it up the last time like last year same day was 100 degrees.
UNKNOWN: Yes. Oh, yes.
ROGAN: Yes. Hot as (BEEP). You add the lights. That attracts bugs.
UNKNOWN: How about dehydration?
UNKNOWN: Oh yes.
ROGAN: Yes, the bugs are a big one. I just don't think that you should compete in a world championship fight in a non-controlled environment.
UNKNOWN: A (BEEP) roof. Build a roof.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Some fair points there. Jesse, what do you think?
JESSE ARM, VICE PRESIDENT AND POLLSTER: I think this is dope. I'm trying to go. Like if anyone wants to invite me a fight outside at the White House, that sounds absolutely sick. Joe Rogan probably knows more about these things than I do. So, if the logistics of it are going to be difficult, he's probably right. But I don't care. It's America 250. It sounds like a really great time. We play football outside in uncontrollable environments. Things get crazy. It's a good time. I grew up in Detroit, so I never really got to see football outside that often. We play under a roof. But --
(CROSSTALK)
KMELE FOSTER, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "TANGLE": -- couple of street fights though, I suspect.
(LAUGHTER)
ARM: Yes, not so much in Oakland County. I say Detroit.
(CROSSTALK)
FOSTER: -- like gladiatorial combat at the White House. It just seems a little too on the nose --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: That is vibe that we get here from this.
FOSTER: You know, uncertain economy. Look, I think Joe Rogan is an interesting person to pay attention to. But I think the even more interesting person to pay attention to is Dana White, who himself has suggested the president probably regrets agreeing to this. And maybe he does at this point. You've got a war going on. You've got all kinds of people who are really uncertain about what's going to happen in the economy. And you're doing this.
ARM: That's entirely possible.
(CROSSTALK)
FOSTER: the White House.
PHILLIP: Yes, I mean, to your allusion to the gladiator combat, it is kind of giving like last days of Rome.
FOSTER: It feels that way.
PHILLIP: You know, I don't know that that's really the imagery that people want to see when real people people are actually worried about their day-to-day lives. They're very unhappy with what this White House is doing, what this President is doing. And then for him to have a triumphal UFC match outside of the White House that -- that by the way, the construction to mark --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- and the construction project that it has required to even put this together is enormous.
ARM: Abby, can I just add one point, though. At the top of this segment, we kind of introduced it in tandem with the improvements that have been being made around D.C. to quality of life issues fixing fountains that have been broken for a long time. Wherever you're out on the fight, I'm totally open to if you guys don't like the fight at the White House. This stuff around D.C. is good. Muriel Bowser, the mayor of D.C., who's a Democrat, says it's good. Everybody who lives in -- I live in Washington D.C. This stuff is great.
(CROSSTALK)
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I know a lot of people who don't think tearing the East Wing was good.
(CROSSTALK)
NEERA TANDEN, FORMER DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: I don't think the reflecting pool thing was a great idea. I don't think the new reflecting pool looks so great. And I think the tearing down the East -- I don't think it looks -- (CROSSTALK)
ARM: You don't think the reflecting pool was good? What about these fountains that have been fixed?
TANDEN: I haven't seen that many fountains fixed, but what I think is ridiculous is this first picture, which is, I think what they did to the East Wing is outrageous and horrifying. And I still think, you know, it happened last year, but let's just remind people he tore down the East Wing and he's building a ballroom that he wants all of Americans --
ARM: Do you think they would take offense to it if Joe Biden built a ballroom at the White House?
TANDEN: I would, absolutely.
NAVARRO: They wouldn't have done it unilaterally without there being a historic architect's --
PETER MEIJER, CO-FOUNDER AND HEAD OF STRATEGY, THE NEW INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION: He wouldn't have it.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: And by the way, the other thing he wouldn't have done that this guy did is tear up Jackie Kennedy's Rose Garden. "The Wall Street Journal" reported last week to make it into a Mar-a-Lago patio.
TANDEN: You know, I worked for --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: "The Wall Street Journal," --
(CROSSTALK)
ARM: I didn't know there was a Mar-a-Lago patio.
NAVARRO: Well, go look at what the Mar-a-Lago patio looks like with cement with the little yellow and white umbrellas. It is basically a replica. And what is he trying to do in the South Lawn? "The Wall Street Journal" reported last week he's trying to tear that out and build a cement helipad. He's trying to get a permanent helipad on Mar- a-Lago on our dime.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: So, as people can't afford healthcare, can't afford gas, can't afford groceries, he's going around Washington D.C. seeing what he can destroy, what he can paint and what he can replicate into Mar- a-Lago and paint gilded (inaudible).
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I just want to make one quick point because you brought up the reflecting pool. There was some great reporting from "The New York Times" over the last couple of days that found that the contract that they gave to this firm, Atlantic Industrial's coding, submitted a bid that charged 20 percent profit in addition to adding at least $850,000 to what a typical contract would cost. And even more so, they went with this contract having not sorted out the price.
[22:40:00]
And then it went from being something Trump said it would cost one or $2 million to costing $13 million or so. So, I mean, it's not just the, look, I actually think the -- I think you're right. The fountains, great. But I think one of the reasons that those things did not happen in the past is because they cost money.
And most other administrations know that there's usually a process, it's arduous when you go to Congress or whatever to get the money. And a lot of times Republicans wouldn't agree to spend more money on D.C. So, Trump is flouting all of that and just spending willy-nilly just to make things look the way that he wants them to look, to put up a UFC fight in the backyard, to put up an East Wing that has a giant ballroom. He's just doing it because he wants to.
MEIJER: Because he looks at a reflecting pool that's gray and algae- covered. And that the Obama administration tried to repair. There were some issues with continuing seepage. I agree with Jesse that a lot of the things he's doing around the city are massive improvements. I think some of them maybe are distractions. I don't really get the golf course on the island in the Potomac. I love the monumental arch, right? I mean, you can kind of pick and choose these.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And by the way, and the arch, they are not even trying to go through a normal process. They're using a hundred-year-old building permit --
(CROSSTALK)
MEIJER: Good, good. So, he's following the law.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- to try to build an arch that would obstruct the Arlington Memorial and might cause issues with flights landing at Reagan National Airport?
(CROSSTALK)
MEIJER: The reflecting pool contract said the contracting officer determined that due to the risk of the project, the inflated overhead and profit percentages of 20 percent were reasonable, the analysis said.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Can I just make one thing -- can I just say one thing? (CROSSTALK)
ARM: -- that you're getting exactly right is that eventually, he's going to need some money from Congress if he wants to get this ballroom done and all these things. And the President is -- has dwindling support among some of members of Senate Republicans, right? This is the cost of doing business. He is politically very powerful. He can take out Bill Cassidy. He can take out John Cornyn. He can take out Tom Tillis in North Carolina. Mitch McConnell is not around any longer soon. Susan Collins is going to have lot of flexibility on politics.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: He's making a lot of name dust (ph).
ARM: Absolutely. And so, when he wants that ballroom money, it's going to be a little bit tougher.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Well, it sounds like the ballroom money is not happening, at least not right now.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: I have one point I'd just like to make about every other president is they've treated the White House like a place they rent, not own. And the fact that he essentially thinks he can just redo all of the White House and take our taxpayer money -- now maybe it won't actually end up happening because it is such a catastrophically bad idea to make all the taxpayers of America pay for his ridiculous ego- driven ballroom. But I do think it is driving outrage in the country that that's where he's --
(CROSSTALK)
MEIJER: -- (inaudible) president has improved the White House in some way, shape or form. It wasn't built in the 19th century with a (inaudible).
PHILLIP: We got to go guys. Next for us -- well, let's go ahead and have an outdoor UFC fight in the backyard of the White House, no problem. Next for us, a new $250 bill with the President's image on it to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the country while the administration is now pushing for it. We'll debate that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:47:49]
PHILLIP: Tonight, President Trump is trying to become the first sitting president to appear on American currency. The Treasury Department confirmed plans to potentially put Trump's face on a commemorative $250 bill for the country's 250th birthday. Bessent, the Treasury Secretary, acknowledged that the law prevents any living person from being printed on money and that Congress would have to act in order to make it work. But other than that, he's on board.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, TREASURY SECRETARY: I don't think that there's anything untoward about having the President the United States, that the person who was President of United States on the 250th anniversary, fell
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Democrats are vowing to stop it and say that the effort shows where Republicans' priorities lie.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D) HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: It's monopoly money. It's fantasy. And we're going to do everything possible to make sure that this never happens."
"This is what they're focused on as opposed to actually doing the type of things to address the damage that they've done to the American people."
"The economy is in shambles. The Republicans have been a failure. They said they were going to lower costs on day one. Costs haven't gone down, they've gone up. And yet they're focused on a $250 make-believe bill for Donald Trump? I mean, you couldn't make this up if you were a Hollywood screenwriter."
(END AUDIO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I have to chuckle because Scott Bessent's like, there's nothing wrong with putting a president on a $250 bill. And it's like, actually, Congress explicitly said that there's something wrong with this.
MEIJER: Which he said in that same press conference.
PHILLIP: So, yes. But I mean, like, yes, there is, the thing that's wrong about it is that it's against the law. That's the thing that's wrong.
MEIJER: Which is also Hakeem Jeffries saying, oh, we're going to stop it. You don't need to do anything unless Republicans try to change that law, which --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Which they are trying to do.
MEIJER: Which will not have the majority of support.
PHILLIP: Here's Andy Barr trying to get into the good graces of and Trump with this photo of himself and a $250 -- giant $250 bill. I mean, yes, they're trying to, they are trying to do it. But I think what's really the truth of this reporting is that the Treasury Department, rather than saying, we're not going to take this seriously, because it's not going to go anywhere.
[22:50:04]
They're putting pressure on officials inside the Printing Bureau to plan to make it happen. The director of printing, Patricia Patty Solimene, and other staff repeatedly explained that there were legal and procedural obstacles to producing the note. She says she abruptly resigned from her post in Treasury management on April 27th presumptively facing pressure to --
(CROSSTALK)
MEIJER: Are you going to leave out the fantastic line in her resignation letter that said the buck stops here? That is a fantastic --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Apparently, it doesn't because she got moved out of her jobs. I mean, and it's just like, can we just say how cuckoo it is that we're at war, that we've got an inflation report today, that inflation is the highest it's been in three years, that the President promised to lower prices, they promised not to do forever wars or go back into the Middle East, and that's what we're doing. And then how does he spend his time? Bessent is on, he's basically in
the briefing room talking about a $250 bill. First of all, who other than Bessent's friends need a $250 bill? I don't know anyone who uses a $250 bill.
PHILLIP: Who asked for this?
TANDEN: But whatever. But also the idea that we're going to spend money to put Donald Trump's pictures on a $250 bill is ridiculous and absurd.
MEIJER: The press conference was about Iran's sanctions and the media (inaudible) --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: It would be a crazy conversation.
TANDEN: Because they're doing it. It's why they're being asked about it.
NAVARRO: It would be crazy conversation.
PHILLIP: Go ahead, Ana.
NAVARRO: It would crazy conversation except that he just put that same picture, that same mug on banners all over D.C., that same mug on U.S. passport. By the way, it's a picture that every time I look at it
TANDEN: I agree with you.
NAVARRO: -- it reminds me of Vigo, the ghost on the tapestry from "Ghostbusters" who would come out and terrorize the people.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: The hair does look a little like --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: And I just, I mean, I, you know, I, again, it goes to the extreme tone deafness of this administration that we see over and over again. Also some sort of like clinical pathological need of Donald Trump to piss on every hydrant he can and mark every territory he can. It is not normal. It's kind of weird and creepy.
FOSTER: It's beyond unseemly, but I also think it is a troll. This is a wag the dog kind of situation here. They are interested in getting --
(CROSSTALK)
FOSTER: They want Democrats talking about this --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I would agree with you if he didn't put his face in a passport.
FOSTER: I'm not saying that it isn't ridiculous --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: That actually happened.
FOSTER: You can do something about this after the fact, but it is certainly an opportunity to say, look, we're not even going to engage on this. Here are my specific policy recommendations. I don't know why Democrats continue to get animated about this stuff. We're going to do everything possible to stop this. This is ridiculous. I'm not going to devote any time to it whatsoever.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All right, let me have Jesse have a quick last word because we do have to go. Go ahead, Jesse.
ARM: I just think this is, you were -- Donald Trump does this kind of thing to elicit this kind of reaction on this kind of show and you all have played right into this.
TANDEN: No, it's not. The reason why people respond --
(CROSSTALK)
ARM: What if we put Harriet Tubman on the $250 bill?
(CROSSTALK) TANDEN: You know why people respond because, I heard the same thing. No one really cares about the ballroom. People respond to this, Democrats respond to it, because it actually upsets people that Donald Trump cares more about his picture on the face of a $250 bill than he does how much you're paying for gas from his war. That is why people respond to it.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All right, we'll it there, my friends. Next for us, the panel is going to give us their nightcaps, Knick's Tickets edition. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:58:26]
PHILLIP: The Knicks are in the NBA finals, but if you're trying to make it to a game in Madison Square Garden, it's going to cost you a pretty penny. The get-in price on secondary markets is $3400 minimum, and it only goes up from there. So, for tonight's News Nightcap, what event are you willing to spend that kind of money to see? Peter?
MEIJER: Yes, I'm not doing it for a ball game, but I would do it in a man versus beast to watch RFK Jr. go through a zoo, animal by animal, and try to best them. I think he's well-suited.
PHILLIP: That would be interesting, to say the least. Ana?
NAVARRO: I'm going to be willing to spend $3500 for a hotel, airfare, and to go see Hakeem Jeffries be sworn in as the next Speaker of the House. And there'll be finally some accountability.
FOSTER: I might pass on now. I just don't want to pay for that. I have spent a fair amount of money on some tickets before, including basketball tickets, but I'm like courtside at $2500. To be in the nosebleeds for that amount, not going to work for me. I would pay that much to go to like Michael Jordan's, like a flight club camp where you get to play one-on-one with him, $2500 to get in to do that or 20 - 3500.
PHILLIP: To do it or to watch it?
FOSTER: I want to do it.
PHILLIP: You would actually go up one on one --
FOSTER: Yes, I mean he would, he would cook me, but that is a great story that you can tell.
PHILLIP: All right, Neera.
TANDEN: I have to say I kind of just don't think I would spend $3500 on anything related to entertainment. I kind of think maybe most people wouldn't.
PHILLIP: All right, Jesse?
ARM: Well, I mentioned earlier I'm a Detroit guy.
[23:00:00]
So, I would say maybe Detroit Pistons finals tickets, but I don't think the get in price would ever be that high at $3500. So, I said a Detroit Lions Super Bowl which I do think with flights and hotel and everything, if I could get that done for $3500.
PHILLIP: You guys are adding flights and hotels. We're talking about just the ticket.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: I know, exactly. I know because everyone's guilty that they spend $3500.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Anyone would go to Paris to see Celine Dion for $3500? Yes, right?
NAVARRO: I would definitely fly to Madrid to see Bad Bunny.
PHILLIP: Okay, there you go. All right, everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can stream the show anytime with an all-access subscription in the CNN app or at cnn.com/watch. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
