Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Hegseth Says, Estimated Cost Of Iran War Is $37.5 Billion So Far; Trump: Midterm Elections Not A Factor In Iran War Plan; Trump: We'll Be Hitting Iran's Pickaxe Mountain Pretty Soon; Software Glitch Mistakenly Adds More Than 6,000 Non-New Jersey Citizens To The Voter's Registration Record, 400 Were Voted; Smithsonian Museum Director Slammed GOP Lawmakers During A Hearing. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired July 21, 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, the president digging in on his war in Iran --
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're not finished at all.
PHILLIP: -- as the defense secretary goes to Congress with a nearly $70 billion request.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: This kind of spending is needed is because of the gross negligence and neglect of the Biden administration.
PHILLIP: Plus, New Jersey's governor admits a software error added thousands of non-citizens to the voter rolls.
GOV. MIKIE SHERRILL (D-NJ): It's unacceptable that the vendor released software with such a glaring error.
PHILLIP: The White House seizes on the news as fuel for the SAVE America Act. But when it comes to punishment for China, the country Trump accused of meddling in the 2020 elections?
TRUMP: I think China's maybe a little bit different today.
PHILLIP: Also --
REP. KWEISI MFUME (D-MD): We will not let you destroy that museum --
PHILLIP: a fiery hearing on Capitol Hill as the Smithsonian plays defense against woke ideology claims.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Keith Boykin, Jesse Arm, and Alencia Johnson.
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.
Tonight, $37.5 billion, that's how much Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says the American taxpayers have already spent on the war in Iran. But according to experts, that bill is actually much likely higher, but it's not enough, according to Hegseth. He was over on Capitol Hill today asking for more, $87 billion to be specific, from lawmakers. $67 billion of that was to cover the cost of the ongoing conflict in Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: Without these funds, we face critical shortfalls that threaten our ability to also simply pay our service members, rapidly replenish equipment and munitions, and sustain vital operations without disruption.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Even before the hearing today, some Republicans were already skeptical of this request. Several of them told CNN that the Pentagon hasn't given them enough information about what the needs actually are. Even the Republicans who want to approve the funding request, they fear that it could be a political gamble that could impact the midterm elections.
Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick says that that's a lot of money to blow through in a very short period of time, adding, quote, they shouldn't just expect us to go along with whatever they say. They've got to make their case.
But Hegseth faced an uphill battle with Congress, and Democrats didn't hold back today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: Shame on you and others who call this a quagmire and a failure, and then you want to turn around and say you support the war fighter. Either you do or you don't.
SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MI): Because I used the word failure to their leaders. You, sir, are the failure, not the men and women who are on that frontline.
SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): Mr. Secretary, you stated we had, quote, achieved every single objective. Was that an accurate statement four months ago?
HEGSETH: The main objective of this was to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. Their main sites were obliterated.
OSSOFF: So, just to review, you will not answer whether your statement made on the 14th day of the war that Iran's military had been, quote, destroyed and made combat ineffective was a truthful statement to the American people as you sit here and ask for tens of billions more for the conflict? SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): The senator's time has expired.
HEGSETH: We've had a historic and effective military campaign against the largest state sponsor of terrorism that will ensure they never --
OSSOFF: Won't answer the question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Joining us in our fifth seat is former JAG officer Margaret Donovan.
And before we open it up to the table here, we're going to invite you at home to join the debate. Go to cnn.com/abby. You can weigh in there. We'll get to some of your comments throughout the show.
Margaret, it seems to me that that last exchange with Senator Ossoff is at the heart of the problem, that the Trump administration sold a story that this war was over within just a few days, that Iran had been defeated, and now they're asking for essentially an open-ended commitment, and a financial commitment at that. How do you think Congress really should respond to a request like this?
MARGARET DONOVAN, FORMER JAG OFFICER: So, Congress is in a really tricky situation right now because the administration started this without the proper legal authority for the war. Under the Constitution, war powers are shared between Article II, which is the executive branch, and Article I, which is the legislative branch.
[22:05:05]
If you are starting a war, if you are declaring war, if you are authorizing a war, that should be starting from Congress. That is the genesis of that legal authorization.
Instead, the Trump administration basically came up with this post-hoc rationalization after they started the war on February 28th saying, we were all in imminent danger, we needed to go now. Fine, all well and good, but you still have to go back to Congress and ask for authorization after 60 days under the War Powers Resolution.
And so what's happening now is basically the opposite of what the framers of the Constitution wanted. We are involved in a war overseas. There are troops committed. We are racking up costs, both in money and in American lives, and Congress is being asked to fund it. And they are in a very difficult position now where the executive branch has basically put the United States military in harm's way and is asking Congress to bail them out.
That is precisely why when you begin a conflict, if it is not a case of imminent self-defense, that needs to start from Congress. They need to be briefed on the plan. They need to understand the funding that goes into it, and we have seen none of that here.
PHILLIP: Yes, it's kind of a backwards way of doing a war, Scott. And on top of that, I think, let's say Congress does decide to do this, it sounds like at the very least they are in a position to ask for the administration to give them assurances of what comes next. And when you listen to Pete Hegseth, he can't back up his own past statements, and he also can't assure these lawmakers that there's actually a plan for what comes next.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, a couple things. One, look I do think it's unequivocally true that we have dramatically degraded Iran's military and ability to do things, not completely dismantled them. Obviously, they have the ability to shoot some missiles and attack drones and make some trouble but, you know, we have destroyed thousands of military targets, and that's not in dispute.
Number two, I think it'll be a long time from today before they could possibly build a nuclear weapon, not that that has stopped their ambitions, and not that we don't have some targets, which I know is in the reporting that CNN has tonight about possibly hitting Pickaxe Mountain.
But I will say this, Congress has every right to ask for every bit of information they can get. Congress has every right and duty to get as much transparency out of the Pentagon as they can get. They need to know what are the objectives here, what are the endgames, you know, what are the projections that the military planners have. If I were a member of Congress, I'd be asking those same questions.
PHILLIP: But wouldn't you be skeptical if Pete Hegseth had come to you three months ago and said, we've met all of our objectives, their military is decimated, and then now he's saying, actually, never mind?
JENNINGS: Well, I mean, we're saying that there's still more work to do, I think is what the administration is arguing.
PHILLIP: But that's not what they -- I mean, he testified. That's what Ossoff was asking about. It was Congressional testimony under oath. So, it's either he was lying then, or they didn't know what they were talking about then, which raises -- other serious questions about what they know now.
JENNINGS: Look, I think he, I think they were pretty clear that they had met a serious amount of military objectives, and they've been very clear that they want to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. They think the best way to continue to do that is to continue the war at this point. But, again, if I were in the shoes of a senator or a congressman, I would be asking some of these same questions, because I would want to know, what is your time horizon here? And also I'd want to know is there any diplomatic going on in the backchannel that might, you know, alter your request?
PHILLIP: Let me play what he said about Russia and China and their role in all of this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN HOEVEN (R-ND): Are Russia and China helping Iran? And if so, how? HEGSETH: Well, Senator, as the chairman alluded to, there's definitely adversary alignment attempts to do so. And there are many ways that we deter that, some of which are -- and the depth and extent of it ought to remain classified, and it should. But there are ways in which both of those countries are limiting at different levels enabling some of the things Iran is doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: That's quite the admission. I mean, they thought that this would be a one and done, in and out kind of thing, and now they're acknowledging Russia and China are involved, we're not holding them accountable in any way.
KEITH BOYKIN, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE AIDE: It's the hubris that the administration started the year with after the campaign in Venezuela. They took out Maduro. They were planning to take out Iran and then Cuba next. It was all part of the domino no strategy they had. Now, the U.S. military said today we've had 11 consecutive nights of airstrikes against Iran in this so-called ceasefire we have going on. 11 consecutive nights of airstrikes, and Iran is still attacking us.
They just killed three, at least three, maybe four American soldiers over the weekend. Hundreds of U.S. troops have been injured in just the past two weeks. Not only that, gas prices are $4 a gallon. The Strait of Hormuz is still controlled by Iran.
[22:10:02]
There's no unconditional surrender, and the, quote/unquote, ceasefire deal was proposing to give $300 billion to Iran for reparations. I don't see how under any circumstances any rational American could look at this and say this is not a failure by the Trump administration, a complete abject failure of foreign policy.
PHILLIP: Jesse?
JESSE ARM, VICE PRESIDENT AND POLLSTER, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: Well, I mean, to answer your question, right, how do we counter China if they're playing a role in this? The answer is to refill those depleted munitions, right, advanced munitions and Patriot missiles. You don't have to be a proponent of this war, I think, to be a supporter of increasing the defense budget at this point in time. This is about getting the American war fighter paid on a regular basis, and this is about ensuring that we have a military that's prepared to not only fight the next war, God forbid, but deter the next war as well.
And every day we go forward where, again, whether or not you agree with us getting involved in this conflict to begin with, our munitions are depleted, and we are in a position now where we either need to put up or shut up with respect to keeping our military strong and ready to go to deter other threats.
DONOVAN: But that was one of the main points that the secretary made. He basically said he inherited this neglected and unmaintenance military. So, when I watched that, I just thought, then why did you start a war of choice? If it was really that neglected and we had all of these missing stockpiles, maybe you should have asked for the money first and --
ARM: It's a legitimate question for the command -- it's a legitimate question for the commander-in-chief. But right now the defense secretary or the war secretary was there making the case for the funding he needs to continue running his department efficiently and evade any threats from hostile actors abroad.
DONOVAN: Well, you know, it's not just our stockpiles that are being depleted. It's the Gulf states as well. The Patriot interceptors, there are something like 2,200 down.
ARM: And as Scott mentioned, it's the Iranian military that's been heavily degraded as well. A lot of things have happened since the outset of this conflict.
DONOVAN: It just seems like a very high price to pay for an uncertain threat.
ARM: It certainly is. Every war is. We've got American men who are coming home in boxes from this conflict. So, yes, war is a game where it costs a lot.
ALENCIA JOHNSON, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, HARRIS 2024 AND BIDEN 2020 CAMPAIGNS: It's a game where it costs a lot, but the reality is I just remember over and over one of Trump's key campaign talking points was that we were going to stop these endless wars and not be in these forever wars. And what we have seen, even in this hearing today, is that there is no answer from this administration on exactly how they plan to get us out of this war.
And to the point that you made, I'm glad you brought this up, as well as you, Keith, we are losing lives. American citizens are losing their lives fighting a war that we don't see an end to that isn't a promise that this administration ran on.
And so it's really frustrating to hear that this administration's asking for more money to support, again, a war that looks like there's no end in sight, and yet wanting Congress to just open its purse and say, Have as much as you want and as much as you need.
JENNINGS: Well, it's not just to support the war. It's to support the men and women who are deployed. Regardless of whether you agree with the policy decision, I take it you don't agree with it, and that's a legitimate position. Once troops are committed, once the American military is in theater, to hang them out to dry, as some Democrats are proposing --
JOHNSON: None of us are actually proposing that.
PHILLIP: Well, let me get to this question because this is a question from our viewer to this conversation. Can Congress designate what the funds can be used for and not give them a blank check? DONOVAN: Yes, absolutely. They can specifically designate it, and that's what you heard a lot with the discussion today was, look, we already gave you this amount of money for this particular mission set. So, why are you coming back and asking us for more? So, they can absolutely appropriate it for a specific purpose, a time, and an amount, and any violation of those three factors could be basically a serious offense by the secretary of defense if he doesn't spend the money properly.
PHILLIP: Also -- but also, Scott, I mean, I just wonder, wouldn't the administration have gamed this out in advance? What would be the impact on our stockpiles? What would be the impact on our funding, our ability to pay the troops? I mean, shouldn't they have gone through that planning before they decide to engage in a war with Iran?
JENNINGS: Well, I'm sure they did, but, you know, you can't predict every minute of every day of the future, and I'm sure some things have happened in this conflict that they thought would happen, and I'm sure some things have happened that they thought might not happen. And the purpose of going to Congress now is to say, we're in theater. We have an objective, stop the Iranians from ever having the possibility of getting a nuclear weapon, and this is what it costs to do that.
You know, we've argued a little bit over the last few weeks and months about whether this was an imminent threat or not. The commander-in- chief made a decision that in fact it was an imminent threat. You can agree or disagree with that. But once the decision is made, you have to finish the job on this.
PHILLIP: Well, hold on. But I do think that, I mean, you say you can agree or disagree. The central question is whether or not the administration is making the right decisions. Because if they're telling you they need more money for some end that they may or may not be able to achieve, Congress ought to be able to say, we don't think you can achieve that end.
[22:15:00]
ARM: Well, they also probably did game it out, and they came to the conclusion that with a Republican majority heading into the midterms, they're probably going to be able to get additional defense spending. This is not particularly controversial stuff in the sense that a lot of --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: That is a perfect segue, because when we come back, we're going to talk about the fact that the midterms are, in fact, about a few months away, and a growing number of Republicans are now saying that it's time to wrap up this war in Iran.
And the president says the election isn't factoring into his decision- making, but should it? We'll debate that next.
Plus, a major disclosure from New Jersey's governor about a software error that added 6,600 non-citizens to the Garden State's voting rolls. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, a growing number of Republicans are questioning President Trump's endgame in Iran, especially how an extended conflict could impact the midterm elections. But according to Trump, that's not his concern.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Do you believe that Iran is trying to impact the midterm elections by threatening the Strait of Hormuz?
TRUMP: They won't have any impact on me. I'm just going to do the right thing. I don't view it as, gee, we're having an election in a period of time. You know, everyone says, oh, I'm doing something before -- no. The election I can't think about that having to do with this.
So, if we left right now, it would take Iran 20, 25 years to rebuild, but we're not leaving right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: It's kind of a rock and a hard place type of situation. I mean, first of all, do you believe that Trump doesn't care about the impact it's having on the midterms? And, secondly, is he really going to sell a never-ending war to the American people?
BOYKIN: Everything I know about Donald Trump suggests that he thinks about politics all the time. Of course he thinks about this. He's thought about this from the beginning. He just thought it was going to be a victory for him like he thought Venezuela would be. I also think there is a possibility he may be telling the truth in that maybe he thinks because he's going to rig the elections, he doesn't have to worry about this. But that's a topic for another time.
But I do think that the election is something that's in the forefront of his mind.
JENNINGS: How is he rigging the election?
BOYKIN: We're going to talk about that in the next segment.
ARM: I don't like election denialism personally.
BOYKIN: We're going to talk about that in the next segment.
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: It's a serious allegation.
PHILLIP: Hold on. We will actually talk about elections in the next segment. So, let's stick on with Iran for now. JENNINGS: We didn't bring him up.
BOYKIN: Yes. But I do think that Trump is in a hard place because you know, you were talking before about the midterm elections, and the truth is that Trump sat down with Bibi Netanyahu in the Situation Room at the White House, and Netanyahu convinced him to go to war.
There was no thoughtful planning about this decision because the people in the Pentagon had to have told him that Iran would try to close the Strait of Hormuz, and he didn't listen to them. And now we're in a position where Republican leaders in Congress are telling him that we can't continue to support this because this may hurt us in the midterms.
So, even if Trump claims he's not thinking about the midterms, definitely, the Republican senators and members of Congress are telling him that they're worried about it.
PHILLIP: And here's a little snippet from what's been being talked about in some parts of Fox News. Listen to this
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: The clock is ticking for President Trump to get out of this war before voters head to the polls. It's making a lot of Republicans nervous. It's already, as we know, unpopular.
Republicans cannot let this become an endless distraction, especially if they want to win in November.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And, you know, he promised to keep us out of endless wars or unsatisfactory wars. And now he's in one, and it's not at all clear how it's going to end. So, he's vulnerable on this point. And, obviously, in political terms, he does need to get this over with. But what he may need is time, and he doesn't have a lot of time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And may I add to that, the goalposts keep shifting. You were talking about Pickaxe Mountain. The reporting that CNN and the Journal have, and Trump seemed to confirm parts of it, that they believe that Pickaxe Mountain might now be where some of this nuclear material -- is being stored. We didn't strike it at all in the last two campaigns. So, it just seems like there's always a whack-a-mole, there's always something else that we haven't gotten.
JENNINGS: Well, I don't know if the goalposts are shifting as much as the targets -- I mean, I think they've moved things there. And if they did, it sounds like we ought to bomb it tonight, or whenever we're ready. And so --
DONOVAN: Well, interesting move that we telegraphed it before we're going to bomb it. That's typically not a strategically wise decision. I mean, that would give the enemy time to fortify whatever they're hiding there, but I'm not making decisions on -- JENNINGS: You don't think if they put all their nuclear stuff somewhere that they shouldn't expect some kind of an attack?
DONOVAN: I think they should but it's a very odd -- I think it's a very odd strategy to announce your targets before you strike them.
BOYKIN: And Trump himself, when he was running for office, said he would never do that, so why would he do it now?
JENNINGS: Look I think that this is going -- first of all, on the political piece I don't want political consultants and pollsters dictating a military strategy here. I want the commander-in-chief and the military planners to decide what's the best and fastest way to achieve our objective, which is stopping Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon. That's the best politics, is to achieve the objective. There is no other politics other than to win, and the win here is coming to the American people and saying they will not have a nuclear weapon.
PHILLIP: Can I ask you, Scott, I mean, knowing what you know now, was it a mistake for this administration to launch an all-out war this year against Iran when some of the goals that you've stated, which is deterring their nuclear program, were arguably already met last year?
[22:25:02]
JENNINGS: Well, look, I mean, what you're asking effectively is was it a mistake for the president to get information and see that there was an imminent threat, in his opinion, and not act on it based on politics? No, I don't think he should have done that. I think he should act when he believes there's an imminent threat.
PHILLIP: What was the imminent threat, really --
JENNINGS: Well, the imminent threat was we sent our negotiators to talk to Iran, and they told them at the table, as best I recall from the reporting, that they had enough material to build 11 nuclear bombs and intended to do so.
DONOVAN: But if he's wrong --
JENNINGS: That was the -- and they had the missile program to do it.
DONOVAN: If he's wrong, should he be accountable? Isn't that the question? Like if you are trusting the commander-in-chief to make a judgment on an imminent threat, should he be accountable --
ARM: We're going to have midterm elections on that question.
But, look, this is the thing, right? Keith, you were mentioning earlier you don't think the president is serious when he says that he doesn't think about the politics or the implications on the market or something like that associated with his decision-making here.
I believe him because I remember liberation day. I remember when he was going through with these tariffs, and everybody in the pundit class was saying, well, once the markets react negatively, he's going to immediately pull back. No, a Supreme Court decision had to lead to him pulling back on that front.
PHILLIP: Well, sort of. He actually pulled back from liberation day several times even before the court ruled. So --
BOYKIN: TACO Trump.
ARM: If you want to talk --
PHILLIP: So --
ARM: Well, okay, so TACO Trump, then why wouldn't he pivot now?
PHILLIP: Just to be clear, the backdown happened even before SCOTUS weighed in.
BOYKIN: Trump's ego is so huge, he can never admit when he's wrong. The reason why this is a political disaster for Trump is because this is a guy who last year was going around campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize. And now he's saying he stopped all these wars last year. And now he's in the middle of a --
ARM: They have to be realistic about the fact that the pundits and prognosticators got so much wrong on the --
BOYKIN: Let me finish. Now, he's in the middle of a five-month war that he said was only, that he said was only going to last a few weeks.
PHILLIP: Okay.
ARM: The pundits and prognosticators got wrong what the market impact of this conflict would be. The markets are soaring to all-time highs at this point. It's possible that the president may believe that the pundits and prognosticators are getting it wrong with the political context --
PHILLIP: Hold on. The impact of this war is not limited to the stock market.
JOHNSON: No.
PHILLIP: Gas prices are still elevated significantly compared to where they were on the day before this war began. So, it is not true that there has been no economic impact of this war.
ARM: But that's not what I said.
PHILLIP: That is completely false.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: But the pundits did not limit their punditry to just what the stock market is going to do.
ARM: Of course not.
PHILLIP: Because, obviously, what the stock market does is only a fraction of the economy. The rest of the American public that is not invested in the stock market, they are going to the gas pump every day. That's what really matters when it comes to voters. You know that.
ARM: Right. But my only point is that the pundits may believe that -- or the president may believe that the pundits are wrong about the politics of this conflict as well.
PHILLIP: I mean, maybe he does. Maybe he does. But the numbers are also pretty clear there, too. This is an unpopular war.
ARM: Yes, money talks, though. And the RNC is currently outraising the DNC by orders of magnitude. Ken Martin, the DNC chair, had to issue a document today basically explaining why his party is in the red over the course of the last --
BOYKIN: But you're still losing. You're still losing the polls.
PHILLIP: All right, guys.
BOYKIN: Good luck.
ARM: Okay.
PHILLIP: Let's -- we'll leave it there for today.
Next for us, New Jersey is double-checking its voter rolls tonight after a software error added 6,600 non-citizens to the voter rolls, but about 400 of them actually voted and cast a ballot.
The White House is now saying this is just the kind of thing that they need the SAVE Act for. We'll debate next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, the Democratic Governor of New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill, revealing that a software glitch had added over 6000 non- citizens to the state's voter rolls.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. MIKIE SHERRILL (D-NJ): In June of 2023, nearly three years before I became governor, a serious software error in New Jersey's motor vehicle system led to the improper voter registration of what we believe to be roughly 6600 people in our state. In the case of this error, some individuals indicated that they weren't citizens and weren't eligible to vote, but the software registered them anyway.
(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: The governor said that about 400 of those people cast ballots, but there's no evidence at this time that any elections were swayed. She made the surprise disclosure just days after President Trump's address to the nation where he claimed that hundreds of thousands of non-citizens are on the rolls across the country.
Sherrill promised accountability and said that the vendor responsible for the system is being replaced. She also took a swipe at the President.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHERRILL: As the Trump administration tries to weaponize elections for political gain, I am ensuring that we protect our elections. Let me be clear, Donald Trump has zero credibility on the issue of election integrity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: The White House obviously seized on the news to help push Trump's voter I.D. bill, writing quote, "Democrat 'glitch' registers thousands of non-citizens to vote, another reason to pass the SAVE America Act."
This is obviously not a great situation, she acknowledged that, but it also doesn't demonstrate that there's widespread voter fraud in New Jersey or anywhere.
JESSE ARM, VICE PRESIDENT AND POLLSTER, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: In New Jersey? 6600 non-citizens made it onto the voter rolls, that to me is widespread voter fraud.
PHILLIP: That's widespread?
ARM: Yes. I think it would be pretty bad if one person who's not a legal citizen in the United States --
PHILLIP: What's the percentage of the number of registered voters in the state?
[22:35:04]
ARM: Well, New Jersey spends $60 billion over that overall on its budget, so I think if we're seeing --
PHILLIP: Yes, but I mean, you just said it's widespread, so where's the proof that it's widespread?
ARM: 6600 non-citizens voted onto the voter rolls.
PHILLIP: Yes, okay, that is .006 percent of registered voters in the state. Mikie Sherrill, she won her election by half a million votes, there were 3.3 million ballots cast in that election, 400 ineligible voters, let's say, because we don't even know, let's say they all voted for her, which maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
ARM: That's still going to invalidate the election.
PHILLIP: That would be about one one-hundredth of a percent of all the votes cast. Widespread?
ARM: Yes, 6600 non-citizens voted onto the voter rolls, that's pretty bad, I think that --
PHILLIP: Hold on, widespread?
ARM: Yes.
PHILLIP: 6600 people who were inadvertently registered to vote, the vast majority of them never cast a ballot, and you're calling 400 maybe ballots cast by people who are registered as Republicans, as Democrats, as Independents, as widespread in the state, where there are 6.8 million registered voters?
ARM: Yes, I'm with the governor of New Jersey on this, I think it's a pretty big problem.
PHILLIP: That math doesn't math, Jesse.
ARM: Well, I didn't say it invalidated Mikie Sherrill's election results.
PHILLIP: I didn't say you said that, but I also dispute the idea that there's any proof that this is widespread.
ARM: I think there are thousands of non-citizens on the voter rolls in New Jersey, and I'm pretty concerned about that, I would call it a widespread problem. I think the bigger problem here is that --
PHILLIP: What's your definition of widespread, by the way? Is it one percent? Is it two percent?
ARM: I don't know, more than a hundred? I think it's a big problem, what's yours?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER AIDE TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, AND RADIO HOST, "THE SCOTT JENNINGS SHOW" ON SRN: What's your tolerance for this?
PHILLIP: Hold on, this is not about tolerance, this is about, is it widespread, or is it something that is relatively rare, Scott?
JENNINGS: You're pounding him over the word widespread, I just want to ask you, what is your tolerance for any fraud at all?
PHILLIP: Is it widespread?
JENNINGS: Absolutely. Over 6000 people. And she said --
PHILLIP: What is your bar for widespread?
JENNINGS: My bar is, I want no tolerance. I have zero tolerance for this. PHILLIP: So, what is your tolerance for American citizens --
JENNINGS: By the way, this isn't the only place this is happening.
PHILLIP: What is your tolerance for American citizens whose valid voter registrations are invalidated by incorrect databases? What's your tolerance for that?
JENNINGS: I don't have tolerance for any mistakes in the electoral system, including putting non-citizens on the rolls.
PHILLIP: So then why are we not keeping the same energy for that as we are for this?
JENNINGS: I do have energy. As you know, I've come out here and long argued that every time we don't clean up the voter rolls, that every time a non-citizen makes it onto the voter rolls, it invalidates some legal person's vote. And I don't like it.
PHILLIP: What about when an American is not allowed to vote when they are eligible to vote?
JENNINGS: I don't have any tolerance for that either. American citizenship are allowed to vote.
PHILIP: So then why are you okay with the administration --
JENNINGS: But American citizens are invalidated when illegal aliens are glitched onto the system.
PHILLIP: Why are you okay then with the administration using a system that a federal judge recently found was actively removing U.S. citizens from the voter rolls based on inaccurate information? Why are you comfortable with that system being used to check the voter rolls?
JENNINGS: This is a convenient deflection for you. This is the worst possible story that could happen for Democrats right now regarding the debate over the SAVE Act.
PHILLIP: These are pretty simple questions that I can tell you.
KEITH BOYKIN, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE AIDE, AND AUTHOR, "WHAT DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE ABOUT RACE?": Can I tell you why I think this conversation is wrong?
First of all, this is not the worst possible conversation. This is actually a very good conversation for Democrats, because Mikie Sherrill did exactly the right thing.
She was transparent.
ARM: That's all I was saying.
BOYKIN: Let me finish. She was transparent.
ARM: And it was good. BOYKIN: She was transparent, she was accountable, she immediately held the people accountable, she removed the software vendor. And she criticized the former governor, who was a Democrat, criticized the former governor for failing to address the problem.
That's exactly what a responsible leader is supposed to do, exactly the opposite of what Donald Trump did in his irresponsible speech last week, exactly the opposite of what Donald Trump did when he lost the 2020 election and he told the people in Georgia he needs to find 11,780 votes, which, by the way, is voter fraud.
This is not an issue about whether it's widespread or not. Because it's really the question about is it even fraud? This was not fraud. This was a mistake.
People were given an option. Are you a U.S. citizen or not? They said no.
But the computer system incorrectly registered them to vote. They didn't do anything. Fraud required them to do something on their own purposely to defraud the system.
PHILLIP: The suggestion that this is fraud suggests that these people were trying to vote when they were --
ARM: 400 of them.
BOYKIN: Yes, I think --
PHILLIP: Exactly. Hold on. Let's be honest.
BOYKIN: They were registered by the state incorrectly.
PHILLIP: Listen, there's been a lot of work done on situations like this. And going back, you know, state by state, you can go state by state, there have been cases that have looked at it, they've found, you know, maybe a couple of dozen cases over the course of 10 years, 20 years.
Sometimes what happens is that when state systems are incorrect, people receive information and they are confused. And they're not voting because they're trying to defraud the system. They might have cast a ballot because they just weren't aware that they were incorrectly put on the voter roll.
[22:40:00]
JENNINGS: They weren't aware that they weren't a citizen of the United States?
PHILLIP: No.
BOYKIN: They said in this instance that they weren't citizens. They still weren't.
PHILLIP: Is this accurately described as fraud when none of these people tried to register to vote?
JENNINGS: Yes, they cast ballots. 400 of them cast ballots. They had to actively go do that.
I assume no one voted in their name. Maybe they did, I don't know. But they actively cast a ballot.
An illegal alien gets put on the rolls, however they got there, and cast a ballot.
PHILLIP: But you acknowledge that some people might actually be, because this has come up in courts before, where some people who are ineligible to vote are not aware that they're ineligible to vote.
ARM: Guys, widespread waste, fraud, and abuse doesn't require malice. It can be a product of government incompetence. That's my point from earlier.
You raised the issue.
PHILLIP: I think it's a fair point that it can be due to the government just being dumb about some of these things or making mistakes. But again, I do think whether it is widespread or not matters.
I do think that the numbers actually matter. Because if the argument is that this is so widespread that you need to override the state's constitutional rights to run their elections, then you have to actually prove that that's actually the case.
ALENCIA JOHNSON, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, HARRIS 2024 AND BIDEN 2020 CAMPAIGNS, AND DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes, and the numbers don't prove this conversation of widespread.
Language matters. Saying widespread and fraud, it matters when, to the point that you were making, if folks were being honest about the fact that they are not citizens, and yet it was a mistake on behalf of the actual machines, and then the Democrat in office took accountability for it. This is actually modeling making sure that our elections are safe and fair.
But what is happening is in order to ram through the SAVE Act, in order to sow this discord -- let me actually finish -- to sow this discord that for some reason there's this quote-unquote "widespread voter fraud" in this country, the Republicans, Donald Trump leading this, is taking this honest mistake that Democrats, again, are cleaning up in order to push their agenda.
ARM: You are making the argument that because (inaudible) did a good, she absolutely did, she did a good job of it. But the President's argument about this widespread problem, clearly it's a credible argument because this mistake was in place.
PHILLIP: All right, we're going to leave it there.
Next for us, in a fiery hearing, Republicans accused the head of the National Museum of American History of promoting woke ideology. Democrats say the right is trying to rewrite history. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, as the White House accuses the Smithsonian National Museum of American History of undermining faith in American institutions and slams its leadership for promoting a quote, radical activist ideology, the director of that museum was grilled by Republican lawmakers in a hearing on Capitol Hill today.
Anthea Harding took issue with the administration's characterization of the museum that cast the American History Museum in a negative light. But Democratic Congressman Kweisi Mfume of Maryland took it a step further. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. KWEISI MFUME (D-MD): We will not let you destroy that museum, no matter how long it takes, how many battles are required, how much effort is needed. We will not allow that to happen, unless you find a way to kill all of us and walk over our bodies to change history. That history is too sacred, it is too precious, and it will not be erased.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: The tension here is between the Trump administration's insistence on, in their words, trying to correct the overemphasis of slavery in some of these museums with their, maybe their correct, criticism of some of the things that the museum has done in the past. Let me play for you an exchange between Brandon Gill and Anthea Harding about something that the museum had as it relates to politeness. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BRANDON GILL (R-TX): Is it important to be polite?
ANTHEA HARDING, DIRECTOR, SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY: Excuse me, sir?
GILL: Is it important to be polite?
HARDING: Yes, sir.
GILL: It's also interesting because the same mass action tool kit that your organization has been promoting references politeness as a defining characteristic of white supremacy culture. Ma'am, are you a white supremacist?
HARDING: No, sir.
GILL: You're not? Can you help me square why your organization says that being polite is part of being a white supremacist? HARDING: I'm not exactly familiar with that passage of the mass action
tool kit, which is not --
GILL: I can show you the passage right here.
HARDING: I don't, pardon me?
GILL: I said I just read you the passage from it.
HARDING: And then your question was, sir?
GILL: We're going to move on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So they're conflating these two things.
JOHNSON: Yes, you know, when I hear this conversation, it makes me think of a Baldwin quote and says nothing can be changed until it is faced. And that's the thing about these museums is that it shows the full spectrum of the American history, parts of it that are really uncomfortable and hard for people to grapple with.
[22:50:09]
But it also does a job of showing the promise of who America can be. And in order for people to get to that promise, you have to be honest and reconciling that history.
One part of the hearing that I really loved today was Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley having that conversation with the historian from Yale. And she was asking and drawing parallels to 1930s Germany as to why would this administration target museums, arts, and culture. And the historian said, authoritarians, they do this in order to control the mind of the people.
And so this isn't about this conversation that they're having in Congress. It is about ensuring that there's one conversation or one belief system in the United States and not celebrating the diversity that, sure, there's pain in this nation and our founding, but there's also promise. But in order for us to get to that promise, we have to reconcile with the hard, uncomfortable truth that takes a bit of courage to face and move forward.
PHILLIP: I just wonder, even if you think that they went too far in some of these, you know, 2020-era moves, again, what does that have to do with the administration wanting to remove mentions of slavery from exhibits in the Smithsonian to, in Philadelphia, George Washington's house?
ARM: No, I don't think they had much to do with each other. I think 2020, everybody did get a little too woke, and it's okay to contend with that reality.
Practically speaking, the earlier portion of that, Brandon Gill clip, who I think earned some plaudits for today, did a good job. Bethany Mandel had a piece in the Washington Examiner profiling him the other day where clearly that's somebody who is a standout among this freshman class in Congress and is going to do a good job of grilling progressive institutional bureaucrats in many future congressional hearings down the road.
Immediately preceding that clip that you showed, though, he was also asking about objectivity. That same toolkit that the Smithsonian was promoting as a document to be upheld around that time period, 2020, 2021, whatever it may have been, suggested that objectivity was a tool of white supremacy. I think we can all agree that that is facially ridiculous.
You think objectivity is a tool of white supremacy?
BOYKIN: I'm not going to interrupt you. I just want to say you presume things that were not true.
ARM: Do you believe that objectivity is a tool of white supremacy?
BOYKIN: You said we can all agree on something. I'm just saying we don't all agree.
ARM: Can we all agree that objectivity is a tool of white supremacy?
BOYKIN: No, we can't, because that requires a longer discussion we're going to have in the six minutes we have left. I don't want to talk about that. I just don't want you to make assumptions.
ARM: But you interrupted me to make that point.
BOYKIN: Because you made an assumption about me that's not true. So just continue on.
ARM: No, I'd like to know. I don't want to talk about it. I want you to continue.
PHILLIP: Hold on.
ARM: You interrupted me, so I'm giving you the opportunity to weigh in. I'm giving you the opportunity to weigh in.
PHILLIP: Can I just, because we don't have that much time, so I want to make sure that we stick with what we're talking about here.
The reason I asked you initially, what does that have to do with what the administration is doing, is because the administration has used these so-called, you know, woke policies of the 2020-era to justify what they are doing in order to try to rewrite what is in the museums. And I don't understand why they are doing that, because the two things don't seem to have anything in common.
JENNINGS: I don't think they're trying to rewrite American history. I think there's a worldview difference. People on the left believe that we should focus relentlessly on the most negative aspects of our history. And there have been negative aspects of our history. There's no questioning that. But people on the left in this country want our country to be defined today by the most negative aspects of our history.
People on the right, as led by the President today, would like to focus on what you, I think, correctly called the promise of America. What makes America great? What we have done to overcome the worst aspects of our history.
This example that Brandon Gill pulled is one of the most egregious examples of excess at this museum. I mean, you know, it's like their white supremacy list.
Individualism and self-reliance, nuclear family structures, rational, linear thinking, work before you play. It goes on and on. Politeness.
PHILLIP: Well, I think people, including she, would acknowledge that, first of all, that wasn't policy of the museum. It was done by individuals who worked there. But to the point that I made, Scott, I mean, you're saying nobody wants to rewrite history.
Literally, earlier this month, the federal government removed a panel about George Washington's slaveholding and replaced it with one that said that Washington knew and trusted his enslaved house staff enough to buy them tickets for the circus and theater and let them venture out into the city's markets on their own, so on and so forth. So there is some rewriting happening, for sure.
BOYKIN: Absolutely. I was there at the President's house in Philadelphia just a couple of weeks ago, right before the Fourth of July. I was there earlier in the year before they made the change in the panels.
[22:55:00]
And it is a rewriting of history, the same rewriting that tried to erase Jackie Robinson and erase the Tuskegee Airmen from the Defense Department website. The same rewriting that created the 1776 commission that Trump used to try to whitewash American history about slavery. I know as an African-American that we cannot allow this erasure to happen, and Kweisi Mfume is right to speak up about that.
PHILLIP: All right, everyone. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." Don't forget you can stream my new show, "Confessions and Obsessions," anytime on the CNN app.
In the meantime, "Laura Coates Live" starts right after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
