Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Admits U.S. Needs More Munitions Amid Shortage Reports; GOP Senators Hold Fauci in Contempt of Congress Over Fifth. Trump Denies Donors to Back Vance for 2028; Democrats Demand Trump's Sons to Investigate for Government Contracts. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired August 06, 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, is the U.S. running out of firepower to fight wars? The president denies friction with Pete Hegseth over munitions and worries it's weakening his hand against Iran.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We always want more. We have to have more.
PHILLIP: Plus --
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Don't interrupt the chair. Don't interrupt the chair.
PHILLIP: Senators hold Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress, sending him to the doorstep of the feds.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: The stakes here for Dr. Fauci could potentially be, depending what DOJ decides, a criminal indictment and prosecution.
PHILLIP: Also, a '28 debate as the Veep turns to fat-shaming critics.
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: So, I decided to hit back with a little bit of spice.
PHILLIP: Did Trump tip his hand on the J.D. or Marco race?
And family matters. Democrats demand the Trump sons be investigated for billions their companies are getting from the government.
Live at the table, Leigh McGowan, Horace Cooper, Sarah Matthews, Caroline Sunshine, and Lulu Garcia-Navarro.
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, is the U.S. equipped to fight this war with Iran, and any future war for that matter? President Trump publicly says no, but behind the scenes, concerns are growing. Sources tell CNN that senior military commanders are now warning that the Pentagon's munitions stockpiles are dangerously low.
Now, privately, we're told that Trump is complaining about these reports and that they make America look weak. CNN has reported that the U.S. has gone through nearly 80 percent of interceptors for its missile defense system, and roughly half of its Patriot interceptors since the start of this war. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said that CNN's report was, quote, not true.
In a post, Trump claimed that the U.S. has massive amounts, but also accused leakers of treason. And sources tell CNN that Trump has tasked the DOJ with finding those leakers. And then he appeared to admit that some of the reports were in fact accurate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have certain types of munitions that are very powerful that we have unlimited, virtual unlimited supply. We have others where it's a little bit tighter. But we have certain types of munitions, which are very -- they may not be as accurate. They may not be -- you know, they're not as elite. We have elite, too, but we're watching that very closely. But we have certain types which are very powerful and very good and we have an unlimited supply.
With that being said we always want more. We have to have more.
We're in very good shape. We have literally massive amounts of ammunition.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And before we open it up to the table here, we want to invite you at home to join the debate. Head to cnn.com/abby. You can weigh in there. We'll get to some of your comments throughout the show.
So, the president is both denying the truth of this reporting, but also confirming it, and then going after the leakers which is often a step that he takes. But the bottom line is that this does seem to raise the questions that have been there for a long time. Is this war just bleeding the United States to a point where we can't continue to fight it or any other conflict that we might get into?
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, POLITICSGIRL: Yes, it's a reasonable question. I mean, if this is something that's up for debate, I think when you start sending million-dollar missiles at thousand-dollar drones, that's a problem to begin with. I think when you have poor leadership, that's a problem to begin with.
If you get rid of the people that tell you no, if you get rid of the people that tell you news you don't want to hear, this is why regimes that have someone like Trump in charge often fail, because people are afraid to tell them the truth, and then you make poor decisions to make the leader look good or feel good, instead of decisions that we need to be making that are strategic for the war, not sending in the right people to do the negotiations, not having the right leaders in charge of the actual military. That is a problem. I think we had a foreign leader in the Situation Room to begin this, that convinced Trump to go to war in the first place, against his own advisers.
So, I think we started on the back foot, and we remain there.
PHILLIP: So, Horace, I mean, what do you think this means for the war?
HORACE COOPER, CHAIRMAN, PROJECT 21: Well, a couple things. One is if this information that's being leaked is accurate, it is disturbing. As a person who supports a strong national security, I have always wanted to make sure we stay on top of our military arsenal.
[22:05:03]
The president actually has submitted perhaps the highest numerical price tag for a defense budget in history, and that is the kind of thing that one would do as a way to make sure that we stay.
But, again, I don't know that these stories are true.
SARAH MATTHEWS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY, TRUMP FIRST TERM: I will say I think they are true if Trump is posting about it being treasonous, and I agree with your point that it's very disturbing if they are accurate. But it leads me to believe they are when he's posting about it and wanting to target these leakers and go after them. And I'm happy that the information is out there, though, even though it is concerning, because now the Iranians know just how weak we are.
And so I am worried about that, that they're going to be even more emboldened than they are in this war. I think that they feel like they have the upper hand right now. If you look at something like the Strait of Hormuz, I think that that is a red line when they're negotiating with us now. They know that they can control the strait. And so knowing that our stockpile is low is just going to give them even more --
PHILLIP: And they're on the cusp of a deal to reopen it, but for a fee.
COOPER: But doesn't that actually justify the argument? If in fact these statements are not true and they are emboldening our enemy, it would be the kind of thing that you'd want --
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: But both things can be true. One -- both things can be true, right? On the one hand you can say, this information being out there isn't great for the United States because we are right now prosecuting a war. I think that is a fair statement. Anyone would say that. Any leader of this country would say, I don't want my enemies knowing what my stockpile is or is not. That's one thing.
The second thing can also be true, which is that the American people have a right to know exactly how this war's being prosecuted. The reason these stockpiles are low, why is that? Because this is a war that isn't just with Iran. This is -- the United States is acting like an umbrella for an entire region. Iran is hitting all of its neighbors, and the United States has to act defensively. So, that's why these weapons are being depleted. It's --
COOPER: If they're being depleted.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, I think it's -- one would assume. We're in the middle of a conflict. Why wouldn't they be? You're using weapons. Why wouldn't they be depleted? I mean, that's the way it works.
MATTHEWS: We did see all the social media videos that Hegseth and the White House were posting of the montages of us bombing them. So, I'm not actually surprised if they are accurate.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And we also know that they weren't prepared for a long-term conflict.
MATTHEWS: They were more concerned --
PHILLIP: (INAUDIBLE) calling it treasonous and saying he's going to go after leakers if it wasn't true?
COOPER: If I were in the middle of a major conflict and some other entity was attempting to undermine my ability to threaten my enemy, that would be enough --
PHILLIP: But how does it undermine our ability to threaten Iran if it's not true? It only undermines our ability to threaten Iran if it's true.
COOPER: Okay.
PHILLIP: Right?
COOPER: Well, let's take a look --
MCGOWAN: Do you think he's playing 3D chess here?
COOPER: I'm not saying anything about what the president's doing, but I will say all I got to do is look at World War II. All kinds of actions were made by people who were undermining the American government's prosecution of World War II. They didn't do it because they were trying to inform the American people. They did it as a way. The same thing happened during the time --
PHILLIP: Yes, but you're not answering my question.
COOPER: The same thing happened during the time of the Cold War, Abby.
PHILLIP: If we have the missiles, our ability to prosecute the war isn't changed. If we can prosecute the war because we have everything that we need, we're good to go. It sounds like you're concerned that it's true.
COOPER: It's not true at all. If I operated a bank and I had state- of-the-art security and people were going around saying, that bank doesn't have any protection, guess what? Just because I have state-of- the-art protection doesn't mean my bank might not get attacked. It is the exact opposite from a national security perspective.
MCGOWAN: I think his nice point --
COOPER: Surely, you understand that.
MCGOWAN: I think his point about World War II is actually more interesting if you look at it from the other side. Hitler was one of those people that didn't want to hear bad news, and so people kept telling him what he wanted to hear. They went into the Soviet Union area, the Russia area, against the wishes of his own side because he didn't want to hear the bad news. And they put themselves in major trouble because of that.
MATTHEWS: There's been literally been reporting that when they're briefing Trump about the war with Iran, they just play him video montages of us blowing stuff up.
MCGOWAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: But he's not actually getting the facts.
MCGOWAN: He's not getting the correct facts.
MATTHEWS: There's been reporting though that he's upset finding out this news about the depleted stockpile, yes, probably because he wasn't getting the information and not being briefed on it because he tuned out those briefings when they were trying to brief him on stuff.
I mean, I worked for the guy. I know that he isn't a detail guy in that way. He doesn't like pay much attention to that stuff.
COOPER: All I'm saying is that it's a supposition. It's not a fact.
PHILLIP: Meanwhile, the fighting is paused. And Trump started the week by saying that there was a deal, then he was like there was not a deal. Mohammad Ghalibaf, he's the chief negotiator for Iran, said this on X today, massive attack coming. Wait, never mind, they want to negotiate.
[22:10:00]
That's theater diplomacy on loop. Using bullying and broken promises and fake news as leverage is a failed strategy. Acknowledge the facts and fulfill your commitments. We don't need more theater.
Do you think that this is actually an accurate description of how Trump has been actually prosecuting the war at this point? CAROLINE SUNSHINE, FORMER PRESS AIDE, TRUMP 2024 CAMPAIGN: I think this war doesn't have a military solution. I think it's an economic war. I think all the good military options have been tried. I think there are 100 ways to lose this war, and I think there's one way to win it, and that is to leave. And that's what Ronald Reagan did after the 1983 Beirut bombings, is he took the U.S. troops out of the region. All other options involve staying, that is what Iran wants.
You talk about World War II, there's no Iwo Jima moment coming out of this war. There's no moment where there's American soldiers raising the flag over Iran. That day's not coming. They're not going to make movies about this war. There's no good outcomes here. The best outcome is for, if the U.S. wants to win, the U.S. needs to leave, and the president can do that tomorrow.
But to everybody's point at this table, I do think there are too many yes people around the president not telling him the truth and just telling him what he wants to hear. And the truth is, like what I just said, there's 100 ways to lose it and there's one way to win, and the way to win is to leave.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: There's victory in retreat.
PHILLIP: But -- and, Lulu, I mean, do you -- look the stockpile issue has come up so often in recent weeks, according to our reporting. It's the second time in recent weeks that Trump's military advisers have voiced concerns about these dwindling munitions, and potentially the risks of escalating.
And just -- we just have to look at what has actually happened. Trump keeps threatening escalation and not actually executing on escalation, which even if you put this -- take this reporting and you don't do anything with it, you ignore it, maybe it's not true, he's acting as if he is unwilling to continue or to do the next step.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: He's acting like that. And also you have to look at what his vice president has been saying. J.D. Vance is actually on the record just recently saying that they are in the middle of these negotiations, that they are -- that these are going to be complicated, and that they are not anywhere near the finish line. That is his own vice president. So, the idea that somehow this is going to be resolved and wrapped up in a bow is fiction.
The other thing is you don't have to be a genius if you're Iran to say, they're about to have midterm elections. Do I want to strike a deal with this government right before the midterms and hand my enemy a win? Do I want to negotiate in advance of the Israeli elections when my real enemy is going to be kicked out? Why not just play for time as much as I can? And that is what they're doing.
And so the problem is that President Trump has set himself up to a goal that, I think you're right, is just not achievable. At this point, the Straits of Hormuz are not going to open in the way that he -- it's not going to go back to the before times.
PHILLIP: If it opens, I mean, it looks like the Iranians are about to strike a deal with the Omanis to reopen it. They're going to charge a fee.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Exactly. Goodbye to the freedom of navigation.
PHILLIP: They're going to exert control over it. They're going to say that they're in charge. Trump keeps saying we're in charge, but there's no evidence of that being the case.
Meanwhile, Iran is going to start charging these ships to go through. So, we'll see what happens there.
Next for us, more breaking news tonight, the Justice Department is now deciding whether to charge Anthony Fauci after Republicans hold him in contempt of Congress.
Plus, as J.D. Vance fat shames critics online, the president denies privately telling donors to back him in 2028. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: Republican members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee voted to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress, and it's because, you'll remember, Fauci pleaded the Fifth more than 100 times during a hearing on COVID last week. Today, Senator Paul said that he plans to bypass a full Senate vote and send the recommendation directly to the higher-ups at the DOJ.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: There is some precedent for doing it that way, and it still may be done that way. But for now, we will hand-carry this over to the attorney general. We will hand carry this to the district court here in Columbia, and we will -- as a committee, we have voted the majority to refer this. So, that will be accomplished today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And just a few hours later, the DOJ said it did receive the document and is reviewing it and will work with the Senate accordingly.
Now, Fauci's lawyer is calling all of this a political stunt and a weaponization of the Justice Department. Meanwhile, Trump, who once awarded Fauci a Presidential Commendation for his work on Operation Warp Speed, had this to say about today's decision.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They prosecuted Peter Navarro, and they prosecuted Steve Bannon, two very decent people, over something that essentially was never prosecuted before.
So, when you see that happen, you sort of say maybe he should. What he did is far more serious than a lot of crimes, frankly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, this continues some degree of political theater, and now actually it goes to Jeanine Pirro in the U.S. District of Washington to decide whether or not she's going to charge him.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And guess what do you think is going to happen there?
[22:20:01]
PHILLIP: Well, yes. I mean, what do you think is going to happen there?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Well she's on thin ice because of what just happened with the Reflecting Pool. You know, Donald Trump has been very public in saying that he was very angry at the fact that she dropped the case against the gentleman who alleged to have -- yes.
PHILLIP: David Hearn.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes, David Hearn. And so I think that she's going to say, yes, sir, and try and prosecute this case. I think they're going to have a -- I think it's going to be tough for them.
But at the end of the day, I think the bigger picture here is that this is a person who was acting as a government official, right? He was at the behest of the Biden administration. To start prosecuting Fauci, I think, sets a very dangerous precedent.
MCGOWAN: Well, he started at the behest of the Trump administration, and I think we should point that out, like he was in advisory position. He did not have the authority to do any of the things people are claiming he is responsible for. He didn't shut down the country. Trump chose to. He didn't shut down the schools. Trump did. He didn't mandate masks. Trump did.
So, he's being used as a scapegoat to distract from everything, from the war, from the diarrhea lettuce, from the cost of everything, from the decreasing healthcare, the Epstein files. Whatever it is, he's being used right now. We're coming back to re-litigate COVID. And it does feel like a lawless political stunt, and I don't think it'll go all the way through the courts.
But if you're going to hand it right from a small committee to Jeanine Pirro, who, like you said, is on thin ice, and then it might go to A.G. Todd Blanche, of course he's going to be rounded up. But you shouldn't be tarring and feathering someone that has been in six administrations doing nothing but being a devoted servant of our public health. It's a shame.
SUNSHINE: Forget about prosecuting him. The guy should be in a mental institution. He's a textbook sociopath.
MCGOWAN: What?
SUNSHINE: I mean, DSM-5 level sociopath who was running our pandemic response, low empathy, ability to inflict pain on innocents, narcissism. I mean --
MCGOWAN: What are you talking about?
SUNSHINE: Let me read you from his diary entries for years verbatim.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Caroline, let me just ask you.
SUNSHINE: He's writing in his diary --
PHILLIP: What -- hold on. What are you talking about? Are you saying, are you suggesting that he should be in a mental institution for having an ego, which I think --
COOPER: Close to that -- a- Okay.
PHILLIP: Which I think would characterize just about every single person in Washington?
SUNSHINE: He writes in his diary at the height of the pandemic, when Americans aren't allowed to see grandma dying of COVID, what is Anthony Fauci writing about? The media is so hot.
MATTHEWS: Respectfully, there is one person at this table who worked with Dr. Fauci. I worked at the White House.
SUNSHINE: I've had so many articles written about me.
MATTHEWS: Caroline, I worked at the White House during COVID. I was Trump's deputy press secretary during COVID. So, I actually worked with people like Dr. Fauci.
SUNSHINE: You couldn't keep him off T.V. You were in the press office. You would know.
MATTHEWS: And guess what, Caroline, guess what? Of course, I will acknowledge, was it very frustrating working in the White House Press Office and him being on a magazine cover or doing an interview on T.V. where he's talking ill about the White House and its COVID response? Yes. That was annoying.
But the thing is, that them trying to scapegoat him and say that it's all his fault, we were dealing with a novel virus. This was once in a lifetime, generational pandemic, and so we were all figuring it out as we were going.
SUNSHINE: Not him. He was busy reading his own press clips. They made donuts about him.
(CROSSTALKS)
MATTHEWS: And all the other senators on the Hill are just as narcissistic? I mean, come on, those guys would slit someone's throat to go on Fox News.
PHILLIP: Maybe he was drinking his own Kool-Aid.
SUNSHINE: Oh, and you all too. You all in the media you were in love with him.
PHILLIP: But you know who was pouring the Kool-Aid as well?
SUNSHINE: You guys loved him.
PHILLIP: You know who was pouring the Kool-Aid as well?
SUNSHINE: You were in love with a narcissist. I'm sorry. I'm sorry for you guys.
PHILLIP: Donald Trump. Let's play the clips.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have -- whether it's Dr. Fauci, we have the best people on Earth.
Anthony, who's become a -- where's Anthony -- become a major television star for all the right reasons. No, he's just so professional, so good.
I'm not firing -- I think he's a wonderful guy.
I have a very good relationship with Dr. Fauci.
He's got a very good approval rating, and I like that.
He was a great basketball player. Did anybody know that? He was a little on the short side for the NBA, but he was talented.
I told Tony Fauci, I said, why don't you move to New York, run against AOC? You will win easily.
I learned a lot from Tony.
He's a good man. I like Dr. Fauci a lot, just so you understand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, to be honest, I don't care about any of that. I think it's totally fine that Trump was praising him. I think it is embarrassing that he loved his press so much. But my question is, what is he being prosecuted for?
COOPER: I think that's a very fair question. I echo everything that she just said, but that had nothing to do with criminal prosecution. I believe that the Senate committee made a mistake, and that mistake was saying before the hearing that their intention was to call him and create some sort of perjury trap.
[22:25:00]
One thing the Fifth Amendment stands for is you can't be forced to testify against yourself. And if someone tells you, show up here and there's going to be a perjury trap, you get to say it's you're going to protect yourself from the Fifth Amendment. There's only a small technical question that may get answered, and that is if he gave the statement that he gave before invoking the Fifth, did that statement inadvertently waive the Fifth?
But with regard to this prosecution --
PHILLIP: But do you think that, I mean, but just really quickly on that point, he invoked the Fifth in response to individual questions. Are you not allowed to do that? You don't have to incriminate --
COOPER: But he said yes.
PHILLIP: Yes, I know, but I'm saying to answer your own question about whether his opening statement --
COOPER: Oh, no, that's an open question that the court may have to figure out.
PHILLIP: I'm asking you the subsequent invoking of the Fifth, those are -- seem to be all valid because they are in response to specific inquiries that he declined to answer.
COOPER: Well, the part of the problem with that is that this whole event was considered one event. It wasn't 15 separate events. It was one event.
PHILLIP: But invoking the Fifth doesn't have to be about any particular event.
COOPER: Actually, that's not the way the courts have treated the Fifth Amendment.
PHILLIP: It is about incriminating yourself, period.
COOPER: That is not the way --
PHILLIP: So, he could have decided to answer some questions but not others.
COOPER: If you're sitting on the stand and you start answering questions, and then you decide you're not going to ask answer questions by invoking the Fifth, and then you decide you will, you are considered to have waived it.
But the question is, was the mere formality of a statement that waiver? That's a small technical question, and I really wonder if anybody would want to pursue that case just for that.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And this is -- and I think the larger question here is exactly that, like that is not a reason to prosecute Fauci. There are real questions about this pandemic. There are real questions about what happened there, million people died, how they died, what can we learn from what happened there, and how can we protect ourselves and everyone during the next pandemic. But that's not what was going on in Congress. What was going on in that hearing was actually trying to entrap Fauci, as you said. They made it very clear that was --
COOPER: They told him, yes.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: They told him. And so he could -- they could have -- if they really wanted him to answer questions, they could have just said, we're giving you immunity. We are granting you immunity. You can say -- you can answer all of our questions, and we will not prosecute you. But they did not do that. Why?
MATTHEWS: It's because they don't actually care about -- it's not -- it wasn't a fact-finding mission. It was a witch hunt, and they were trying to make him their scapegoat. And it really --
COOPER: Well, he is a witch. Let's not forget that.
MATTHEWS: We disagree on that, but I will say that it is frustrating because this is what's dangerous about politicizing public health. Because we actually -- if we had serious people in office who actually wanted to improve public safety when it came to public health in case, God forbid, we face another pandemic and we have to go through that again, and, knock on wood, I really hope we don't, but if we did, they could have actually asked him serious questions about what we could have improved upon.
But --
SUNSHINE: Oh, I know what we could have improved upon. How about I'll start with the fact that 8,000 U.S. service members were discharged from the military for not taking the vaccine? We'll start there with civil liberties.
COOPER: How do you manage to get a million dollars in extra income and bonuses unrelated to your work?
PHILLIP: That's a question for the federal government actually, because if it wasn't allowed, then it wasn't allowed. That's actually --
COOPER: But he's got a pardon now.
PHILLIP: That's actually a pretty easy question to answer.
COOPER: But he's got a pardon now. It's illegal, but he's got a pardon now.
MATTHEWS: I feel like you guys are just slandering someone that has helped us so much.
PHILLIP: Next for us, did Donald Trump privately tell his own donors to back J.D. Vance in 2028? Hear his response to that, plus how the vice president has taken to fat-shaming his critics online.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:30:00]
PHILLIP: Some breaking news tonight, CNN has projected that former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher will defeat congressman Andy Ogles in the Republican primary for Tennessee's newly redrawn 5th congressional district. The result is an unexpected blow to President Trump who endorsed the incumbent Ogles in that race. Now, whoever wins the seat is expected to have the advantage in November with the newly redrawn district favoring Republicans strongly.
But next for us, and speaking of elections, President Trump appears to be getting in on the great 2028 debate as J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio jockey to be his heir apparent.
"The Washington Post" is reporting that Trump is privately telling his donors to get behind the Vice President saying, quote, "at the end of the day, we need to elect J.D." The paper notes that this doesn't mean that Trump has settled on a preferred 2028 candidate and he has yet to publicly endorse anyone, something that Trump clarified today when reporters asked him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: There is a report that you told donors that they need to get J.D. Vance elected in 2028. Is that your official endorsement?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No, I heard about it a little while ago. I think he's great, but we're way too early to even be thinking about that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:35:07]
PHILLIP: Caroline, do you think that Trump is either there now or going to end up there and want J.D. Vance to be his heir apparent, or does he want to fight?
CAROLINE SUNSHINE, DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, TRUMP'S 2024 CAMPAIGN: No, I think anybody who read the article clearly hasn't watched a single episode of "The Apprentice." That's just not how this is going down. The President is going to let Marco and J.D. get pitted against each other and compete and fight for it all the way to the end.
And I'm not sure it's going to be either one of them. And frankly, I think if it is either one of them, J.D. or Marco, it's going to be a real challenge for Republicans in 2028. I think 2028 AOC might be the nominee for the Dems.
I think the bigger dynamic Republicans have to pay attention to is the largest portion of the electorate in 2028 is going to be Gen Z and millennials combined. They're the most racially diverse, highly educated part of the electorate, and they're going to have the most voting power. And we've got to find our own Mamdani. We've got to find our own young voice who can get the young men back, who can appeal to young voters. And J.D. and Marco, if it's going to be either of them, I don't think they're going to be the horse.
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, "POLITICSGIRL": I have to say I agree with the President for the very first time in a really long time when he said this is way too early to be talking about it.
I think talking about 2028 right now is insane. I think we have to make sure we have free and fair elections in 2026. We get them, we can talk about 2028.
I think we have to make sure we get representative power in Congress that have the ability to tell this President no, that actually act as a co-equal branch of the government. Like, no, we don't want to do an unnecessary war; no, we don't need the ballroom; no, please don't go with these horses. No.
We need people like that. John Cornyn made a comment that sounded a little bit like that recently, where he was like, we can't rein this guy in. We have no power to do this.
And I'm like, okay, then we have to look to '26 to put people in office that actually do feel like they have the power to rein this President in. Because if they can't tell him no to gilded horses, they're certainly not going to tell him no when he says I'm staying in '28. So we need to do something about '26.
PHILLIP: You know, it is early on the 2028 front. But I think there's actually a fair amount of evidence that J.D. Vance understands that his job right now is to make the case for himself. And one of the odd ways that he's doing that is by being mean on the Internet.
Marc Thiessen, who is actually a supporter of the President and an advisor to him, he was sort of defending the President over the cost of living, talking about the cost of burritos, $20 burritos. J.D. Vance responds and says, I'm surprised to hear Marc say this. If you've ever met him in person, it's quite obvious the man has never missed a burrito.
And when he was asked about that today, here's what Vance said. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (on the phone): You know, it was a joke. I think he's been a little bit unfair to me over the last couple of weeks, and so I decided to hit back with a little bit of spice.
I will say that if you read the gospel, you know, Jesus has remarkable humility. He also has a remarkable way with words. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a little spicy from time to time.
And, you know, maybe in two years you'll look back and say, I wish I hadn't said that. But right now I feel pretty good about that. (END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Oh, yes, I do remember the part of the gospel where Jesus said, you can be a little spicy and fat shame someone.
SARAH MATTHEWS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY DURING THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, AND SPOKESPERSON, HOME OF THE BRAVE: I just have to say that it's very clear to me what J.D. Vance is trying to do, and he's trying to do Trump light. And we already saw how that played out for Ron DeSantis and it failed miserably.
Anyone who tries to recreate Trump and be Trump 2.0, it's never going to work. Trump is one of a kind and this has always been J.D. Vance, though.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, "NEW YORK TIMES" JOURNALIST, AND HOST, "THE INTERVIEW": This is not he's not -- he has the permission to do it, but he's always been a troller. I mean, that is been his sort of modus operandi. Certainly, since he became a bad guy --
MATTHEWS: People are receptive to Trump's trolling. But I don't think people are as receptive to J.D. Vance's because Trump is at least like him or not charismatic. J.D. Vance is negative charisma.
MCGOWAN: J.D. Vance is not authentic. Trump is authentic.
If he's mean to you, it's because he's mean to you. And that's why he's funny. He gets it.
J.D. Vance will change his personality and his name on a whim to see which one fits. And I feel like J.D. is trying on about 15 different personalities right now to see which one is --
PHILLIP: -- lose right in the sense that it does seem to me that he has really sided with the trolling, right? The red pill, whatever you want to call it, because he thinks that that is where his support is going to need to come from.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes, that's where he thinks that his energy is from. He does see himself actually as a young sort of person who can bring in young people and white men in particular. He sees himself like that.
I mean, I've interviewed him, and that is certainly why he was chosen initially. I mean, when compared to Trump, he is a spring chicken and he's got a young family at the end of the day. I mean, I'm not endorsing this vision.
[22:40:05]
I'm just saying this is what he you know, where he thinks that he can get a lot of the energy as we move into 2028. I agree, though. I'm not sure he's going to be the nominee.
I mean, coming out of this, these four years, as we saw with Kamala Harris, when you have an unpopular President, the V.P. doesn't naturally get ushered in as the heir apparent.
SUNSHINE: I mean, I will say J.D. did get it right on Marc Thiessen, though. Marc Thiessen is not a supporter of the President. He's a supporter of war.
And whenever the President doesn't want to do war anymore, Marc Thiessen doesn't like him anymore. And the reason Marc never has missed a burrito is because Marc is never training to go fight in the wars that he supports.
PHILLIP: Well, look, I mean, I think the idea that he's not a supporter of the President is not true. And on top of that, I would argue that the President, you can't absolve the President of being hawkish in this war. He's the one who did it.
So you can't take him out of the equation.
MATTHEWS: Well, J.D.'s response --
PHILLIP: All right, we got to leave it there. Go ahead, Horace.
HORACE COOPER, CHAIRMAN, PROJECT 21: I absolutely think it was tongue in cheek. Somebody can say that about me. I've been on your show many times and I've watched what they say.
MCGOWAN: No one has ever fat shamed anyone on this show. We owe each other a lot. No one has ever fat shamed anybody.
PHILLIP: I'll just say, Horace, that is actually a mean thing to say.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: It's a mean thing to say. And the Vice President of the United States at the end of the day shouldn't be saying three kids. Yes.
PHILLIP: Next for us, breaking tonight, the Democrats are demanding that Donald Trump's sons be investigated over billions of dollars that their companies are getting in government contracts. They call it corruption. We'll discuss that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22;45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, Democrats demand an investigation into its federal contracts with the Trump family.
In a letter to the Pentagon's inspector general, the lawmakers raise concerns of a, quote, "growing cloud of corruption." They questioned whether Trump's family and the White House may be abusing their positions to influence the process. And that letter was triggered by a Washington Post report that found that companies that Trump's sons have invested in received 23 government contracts in 2025 and 16 more so far this year. The Post also found that in Trump's second term, the companies generated at least $3.2 billion in direct government business. And that doesn't even include a $3.1 billion in future contract options that they also have. It also puts some of those companies on the fast track now for future work.
The Trump organization told the Post that both sons' roles in those companies is, quote, "passive and downplayed their involvement." A spokesperson said that they have no role in awarding oversight or management of any government contracts. The White House says that there are no conflicts of interest and they blame Democrats for chasing a tired narrative.
I don't know. I mean, Lulu, this seems like just right out in the open. If you look at the numbers, you know, 16 this year, 23 last year, it dwarfs what their invested companies received from the government in all the years prior.
That's not a coincidence.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Numbers don't lie. I mean, when they talk about passive, do they mean passive income? Is that what they're trying to say here?
COOPER: Their roles may not be as the CEO.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: No, I understand that their role is not the CEO, but they're making money all the same. And, you know, I think there's been so much reporting about this already from "The New York Times," from "The Washington Post" and many others that shows how Trump and his family have enriched themselves. And this is unprecedented.
I mean, and President Trump, to his credit, has acknowledged this himself. He said during the first administration, I put it all on a blind trust and I got no credit for it. And so this time around, guess what? No one seems to care.
And so it doesn't matter at all to the point where he's even selling access to his tweets or his Truth Social posts early and enriching himself that way. This is, I mean, I think very clear corruption.
PHILLIP: It seems to me to your point, acknowledging that, yes, his sons might know things that other people don't know. And he's fine with it. Listen to what he said in July to CNBC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I feel badly in a way for my kids, because every time my kids do, if they invest in a stock or they go and do a bill, anything they do, because the presidency is so powerful, so big, everything, if they buy a cupcake company, well, the energy to make the cupcakes is, you know, sort of like, how's my energy policy?
So therefore you have a conflict. Almost anything they do, if they want to buy a truck, if they want to buy, you know, if they buy an energy efficient truck, they have inside information. So it's pretty tough in that sense. I tell my kids, stay away from as
much as you can stay away from. But they also have a life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:50:01]
PHILLIP: And suddenly they have a life in the government contracting business and a bunch of industries that they had never been a part of before until their father got to the White House again. How do you explain that?
SUNSHINE: Yes, we need a full vibe shift, because like when the President came into office, like Hunter Biden wasn't cool, Hunter Biden was the guy who made money off his dad.
And now it's like, oh, Hunter Biden is kind of cool. He's like actually kind of likable. Right.
And all of a sudden it's flipped. And the public is like, oh, I think the President was supposed to drain the swamp and now he's like kind of swampy.
Like, it's not good. You know, I think this is legal, just like trading stocks, unfortunately, for Congress is legal. So shame on us as a country that we haven't changed our laws to make this illegal.
But it's bad optics. And what I'm worried about is I don't want the President's legacy to be essentially the President that ushers in electing socialism in our country.
MCGOWAN: I think it's interesting that you brought up Hunter Biden because that's optically where I think that's the I think that's one of the most striking things here is that we spent years demonizing Hunter Biden for how much he was being paid for his paintings.
SUNSHINE: I got some money from the guy --
MCGOWAN: If he got sitting on Burisma and if he got that job because of his dad and then we're watching, like you said, 23 deals last year, 16 deals this year that the Trump brothers are getting that they were in businesses they never had. And they're not buying cupcake companies.
They're buying tungsten mines and A.I. and drones and all the things that their dad actually makes decisions on. In fact, sometimes it's happening before times where the companies come and say, well, we might make a deal with an American company. Then the Trump boys buy into an American company and then America makes the deal.
It's actually so obvious what's happening. And it shouldn't be just the Democrats that are calling for it should be everyone that's calling for it, because this doesn't help the American people. It just enriches the Trump.
PHILLIP: Should this be investigated, Horace? COOPER: Oh, well, I thought that's what the GAO did with this report
was that they presented an argument that there were questions about it. The F.A.R. --
PHILLIP: I think the Democrats are asking the Pentagon's oversight office to look into it is what (inaudible).
COOPER: The F.A.R. which handles or is the statute that covers regulations affecting government acquisitions and contracts. That is the question as to whether or not any crime has been broken. And sure, in the sense of transparency, sure, you can investigate.
But I agree with you that even if it's legal, you need to be careful about the optics of it. Now, I will say, in contrast to Hunter Biden, what we are talking about are actual products that are necessary and needed, not finger painting that we sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
MATTHEWS: What Hunter Biden did was peanuts compared to what the Trump brothers are doing. I mean, I'm getting awarded over $3 billion.
$3 billion, we're talking about. I mean, the optics of that, even if it is legal, the optics are not good.
I was critical of Hunter Biden for profiting off of his dad's last name. And I'm doing the same to the Trump brothers, because there's no reason why they should be making that much money and profiting off the presidency. Maybe Hunter Biden is looking at it.
I think he left money on the table and he should have taken a note out of that playbook.
COOPER: I agree that we investigate. I agree about the optics. I don't agree that the statutes that presently exist make this a crime.
So I don't agree with you there.
MATTHEWS: I said that it could be potentially. I didn't say that. I'm not accusing them of a crime.
I'm just saying that the optics are not great. And it reeks of corruption. When Trump was the guy who said that he was going to drain the swamp and his family are the biggest swamp creatures of them all.
COOPER: It's like reeking, robbing the banks.
PHILLIP: Next for us, we'll react to your feedback from cnn.com/abby when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: And now some viewer feedback from cnn.com/abby. The first one says if Trump wants to find the leakers, could someone
tell him to look in the mirror? He's talking about it. Why? Let's tell all of our enemies we're ready to be defeated.
I mean, he is talking about it.
SUNSHINE: Well, I think I will say his President has talked to the press a lot, I'm sure everybody at the table knows this. Like most people have his phone number. They can call and he loves to chat.
PHILLIP: This is like the airplane where he tells them that he's not taking the plane and then he gets mad that they find out that there's something wrong with the plane.
MCGOWAN: Yeah. I mean, I think if I was playing for money, playing against Donald Trump in a poker game would be really good because he doesn't definitely has a lot of tells.
COOPER: The President airs on the side of oversharing.
SUNSHINE: Which is better than what we had before.
COOPER: That's right.
PHILLIP: Okay, we got one more.
Abby, you should have just made it ladies night.
COOPER: But they didn't make some burritos. So I'm very --
PHILLIP: We're outnumbered tonight. That is true.
That is true.
MATTHEWS: But we loved having Horace.
PHILLIP: A gentleman in a small room.
MATTHEWS: Yes, a gentleman in a small room.
PHILLIP: All right, everyone, thank you very much for being here.
And a quick programming note. Revisit the decade of iconic moments and legendary rivalries from Miracle on Ice to Larry Bird versus Magic Johnson in a new episode of "Decades in Sports."
Here is a little preview for you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOB COSTAS, VETERAN SPORTS COMMENTATOR: Bird and Magic is one of the great rivalries in the history of team sports, and their rivalry had begun in college in the championship game.
MICHAEL MACCAMBRIDGE, AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST: Indiana State and Larry Bird actually go undefeated through an entire season and they get to the national championship game.
[23:00:03]
Meanwhile, Michigan State, with a lot more blue chip players and Magic Johnson, also get to the national title game. And Bird and Magic, one white, one black, one urban, one rural, are tied together.
UNKNOWN: You couldn't have scripted this any better. It was the ultimate series of contrast and a rivalry was born.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: A new episode airs Sunday at 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific on CNN.
Thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
