Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
GOP's Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) Warns Of Nightmare Scenario If Democrats Win; ICE Arrests Far-Right Provocateur, Who Supported ICE; Washington Post Reports, White South Africans May Get $4,500 If They Come to U.S.; Fed Chair Warns Inflation, Calling it Concerning; Trump's Attacks Now Unite Allies Against The United States. Aired 10- 11p ET
Aired August 28, 2026 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, Fear Factor: Midterm Edition.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I want you to imagine a nightmare scenario with these insurgent Marxist Democrats taking over.
PHILLIP: Mike Johnson's warning comes as Elon Musk is considering $100 million for Republicans.
Plus, a right-wing firebrand who supported Trump's immigration policies gets arrested by ICE.
Also --
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I'm going to call it Lake America.
PHILLIP: -- are Donald Trump's stunts against America's allies uniting them against the U.S.?
And the president wanted his first handpicked Fed chair gone because he wouldn't lower rates. Now, the handpicked replacement signals he may need to raise rates.
Live at the Food Network, Joe Borelli, Denver Riggleman, Sabrina Singh, and Tim Parrish.
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 with a field trip edition of NewsNight. And as you know, we spend our Fridays here at the Food Network, our sister company, in their test kitchen in New York. And we have, as always, a fabulous chef serving our friends of the show, and she's got a special treat for us at the end of the night. But, first, the news, we are less than ten weeks away from the midterms and Republicans are injecting fear into voters as the party faces a potentially ugly election season.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: I want you to imagine a nightmare scenario with these insurgent Marxist Democrats taking over the Congress. They would impeach the president on the first day.
They've already said what they're going to do. They'll convert every committee of Congress into an investigative body. They'll spend every waking hour investigating the president and his family and the cabinet and going on this law fair exercise. It would roil the markets.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: That was House Speaker Mike Johnson, who is on the campaign trail stumping for GOP candidates in Texas, but he's apparently got even bigger plans. According to Politico, Johnson is slated to meet with Elon Musk, as the GOP is hoping that the tech giant will dump massive amounts of cash to help its candidates get elected. And that wish may very well come true because Musk's super PAC is reportedly planning to jump into the midterms with a huge investment to boost GOP voter turnout.
Now, remember, Musk spent more than $290 million on the 2024 election.
Before we open it up to the table, we invite you at home to join our debate. Go to cnn.com/abby. We'll get to some of your comments as we go throughout the show.
That would be a drop in the bucket, obviously, for Elon Musk, but I also just wonder about the message from Mike Johnson, investigations and impeachment of Trump. Is that actually enough to convince voters who are not hyper-partisan to come out and vote for your party in the midterms?
SABRINA SINGH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: I don't think that any party making the case of voting against the other side or just making the case like, Well, you should vote for me because I'm anti-Trump, is necessarily going to motivate voters. And I think Mike Johnson's case there, I mean, he's throwing out a lot of buzzwords like Marxism and socialism. The reality is that you have Democrats across the country running on real issues, and we've talked about it here at this table, when it comes to high grocery prices, high gas prices, the affordability crisis.
And so I think going into this midterms, if I were a Republican running, and particularly Donald Trump, if you look at the 2018 midterms when Donald Trump had a low approval rating even going in, 52 percent of Americans still approved of his handling of the economy. Today, going into today's midterms, 2026, Trump's approval of the economy right now is around 26 percent. And in 2018, we won 40 seats. So, if I'm Republicans, I'm looking at a very large blue wave coming in this November, and I'd be worried. PHILLIP: Joe, I mean, is that really the right message for this campaign?
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: Look, y- you have to address voters who are thinking back to what happened in 2018 after the Democrats took over the House and how many impeachment proceedings there was, how the House was essentially log-jammed and mired in this anti-Trump rhetoric.
[22:05:00]
That's all very possible. When people are telling you who they are, believe them.
And it's not just talking points, right, when he's talking about Marxism. Brookings Institute had a study out last month that in 230 or so races where the DSA-endorsed candidates competed against Democrats, they won something like 130 of them.
So, this is an uprising within the party that is taking over. When we talk about which Democrats are driving the national news cycles, suggesting policy alternatives, it's the socialist wing. It's not the moderate wing. It's not the, the mainstream wing. In fact, I scrubbed the internet to find where Hakeem Jeffries has been campaigning, the leader of the Democrats in Congress. He went to exactly one swing state this whole summer in PA-7. He's not even out there. He's not even out there advertising the national broad --
SINGH: I actually would disagree. He's out there raising a ton of money. And we are going to be outspent by Republicans but he is still going across the country.
BORELLI: PA-7, one.
SINGH: I mean, you look at -- but you look at the leadership --
PHILLIP: Wait a minute. Is Hakeem Jeffries supposed to be a big draw on a campaign trail?
SINGH: Right.
BORELLI: When you talk about --
PHILLIP: I mean, it's a little -- no offense or anything, but I feel like is that really the --
BORELLI: You can't criticize Mike Johnson for out there talking about a real message to Republican voters --
SINGH: He was in Texas. Which battleground state was that?
BORELLI: -- when Hakeem Jeffries isn't doing any of that. He's not even making any tapes.
PHILLIP: My point is that like, you know, Democrats should want the people who are the most effective for their voters, and if it's not Hakeem Jeffries, then I guess so be it, right?
DENVER RIGGLEMAN, CONSERVATIVE STRATEGIST: Well, I think despite -- I mean, if we're talking about, if you're looking at the economy and you're looking at the $100 billion by Musk and you know I love you, Joe, but I got to talk about this. Look at the polling numbers right now for Trump, right? And you look at what's really bad, this -- when you're looking at 3.7 percent inflation, 23,000 jobs lost this month, it really doesn't matter.
What's happening right now is we pay attention to all that, but I own distilleries, I'm in the Fifth District of Virginia, and when people are coming in now, it's the first time I've heard three-time Trump voters say, what the hell's going on here? Why is this happening to us? Why are gas prices still high?
Lastly, Republicans -- when I was a Republican and I was raising money, I remember I put out this fundraiser and said, hey, I'm going to help with rural broadband. I made like $12. But when I said Nancy Pelosi was a socialist, right, who's coming for your guns, I made a lot of money on that fundraising. What they're going to do with that $100 million is they're -- Republicans have always been better at hitting their voters in the amygdala to get an emotional reaction based on the words that they use, and Democrats need to rise up and be just as tough.
PHILLIP: But that -- I get that. But what Mike Johnson seems to be doing is basically saying they're going to go after Trump. And it's not about voters and their lives and what they care about. It's all about Donald Trump and his family and protecting him, which I don't know if that's an effective message.
And, you know, I've also -- I asked Congressman Gregory Meeks, who's like the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I was like, are you guys going to impeach Donald Trump? Is this a conversation you're having? Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D-NY): The only ones that's talking about impeachment is the Republicans, because they're trying to scare somebody for electoral purposes. What we've been talking about as Democrats, we are going to deal with the affordability issue. That's what we're going to be focused on. We're going to deal with reducing the cost of healthcare. That's what we're going to be talking about. And we will -- yes, we're going to be doing oversight on some of the corruption that has taken place by this administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I mean, is it possible that voters actually might want some oversight on what they think looks like corruption, and that by Mike Johnson bringing that up, he is reminding voters that corruption is on the ballot?
TIM PARRISH, CONSERVATIVE STRATEGIST: Abby, Congress absolutely has an oversight capability and responsibility. And so that, no one at this table I think would argue that.
Unfortunately, for the congressman, his party is actually the ones talking about this. They're not talking about all the issues that Sabrina later --
SINGH: Actually, we're not.
PARRISH: Actually, you are.
SINGH: We're not talking about impeachment.
PARRISH: Al Green, the outgoing member from Texas, his last --
SINGH: Who is the outgoing member --
PARRISH: Can I finish?
SINGH: Who's the outgoing member of Texas.
PARRISH: He is. He's the outgoing member from Texas. But his legacy, his declared legacy is he's going to bring up impeachment articles against Donald Trump as his last act.
PHILLIP: He's not in Congress next year.
SINGH: Yes.
PARRISH: No, he said -- did you guys listen? His last act as a sitting member of Congress is to, in fact, bring impeachment articles against Donald Trump. Don't say that the Republicans are the only ones talking about this --
SINGH: Al Green is one out of 435 who might be talking about it, but I can tell you across the campaign trail, whether it's Pennsylvania, California, Texas, people are not talking about --
PHILLIP: Tim, do you have any other examples?
SINGH: Yes.
PHILLIP: Tim, any other examples other than Al Green?
PARRISH: Well, if I could finish my point, I'd give you more examples.
PHILLIP: I mean -- okay. Give them to me.
PARRISH: The only person you, this gentleman said and you guys are all saying, Donald Trump and the Republicans are the only ones talking about impeachment. It's not true.
SINGH: But he doesn't have any other example. A person who is a legacy member of your party said his last act in Congress --
BORELLI: Tim, I'll read from Reuters. Here's the headline. Democrats plan investigation over impeachment if they win House, sources say. I mean, this is like -- PHILLIP: Okay, which Democrats? Read a little bit further in the article, Joe.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: You read the article and tell us which Democrats you're talking about.
SINGH: I mean, I'm sorry, Tim, you can try and switch the subject.
PHILLIP: And -- okay. No, seriously, we can have a real conversation about what actually is going to happen.
[22:10:00]
To me one of the things that is the big debate actually in the Democratic Party is what is the strategy going forward? And the Al Greens of the world and the Hakeem Jeffries of the world they actually might have a different idea of how they want to govern than the far left wing of the party. And so that's a real debate that Democrats are going to have to hash out.
BORELI: Ready for the list? McBride, Kim, just going down, Thanedar, who's obviously not going to be there, Larson. I'm just reading from the list --
PHILLIP: And what are they going to impeach him over?
BORELLI: -- of people who are saying, we're going to remove him under the 25th Amendment or impeachment. I'm just reading from the article, okay?
SINGH: Can I just say --
PHILLIP: Okay.
BORELLI: The point is you're dismissing Trump as being crazy, but this is something that Democrats have been saying all election cycle.
SINGH: Democrats and leadership, when you talk to leadership, they have acknowledged impeachment is not a priority for the next Congress. We don't even have the votes for it.
PHILLIP: I would also add -- I mean, I do think that's an important point, because you can name a list of members but that's different from what leadership is going to do, and we shouldn't take --
BORELLI: They're not members of Congress at their word what they want to do when they're elected or re-elected.
PHILLIP: Well, I think that in every -- as you know --
PARRISH: And, Abby, you just questioned how Hakeem Jeffries got re- elected --
PHILLIP: Hold on a second, Tim. Just a second, Tim. As you know, in every Congress there are members who bring up bills, articles of all kinds of sorts. That doesn't mean that they go anywhere. That doesn't mean that's a priority, that's on the agenda. I think if Mike Johnson went with every single thing that all of his members did, then we would be --
BORELLI: So, you're telling me when a Democrat member files an article of impeachment next year, you're going to dismiss it and this table's going to dismiss it as some wild conspiracy theory that we shouldn't take it seriously? No, it's going to be front page headline news. We're going to treat it as that. So, we should treat people who are saying they're going to do that as real, just like Mike Johnson said.
PHILLIP: You tell me, Joe, if a Democrat files an article of impeachment against Donald Trump and it has no chance of going anywhere, how are you going to treat it?
BORELLI: It's still going to be front page news in every paper.
PHILLIP: You're going to treat it as the biggest news in America?
BORELLI: No, I'm not. You are.
PHILLIP: Okay.
RIGGLEMAN: I have a suggestion. I would not impeach Donald Trump. Listen, if it's a Democratic strategy, I wouldn't do it. I'm not a Democrat, but I'm going to tell them that would not be the way to go. You know what I would do? I would start an investigative team on the internal dealing and the self-dealing of the military industrial complex of the Trump family, Don Jr., Eric, drones, and what's happening there. That's what I would do. If you're a smart Democrat, that's what you should do.
PHILLIP: And, truthfully, that is actually what they're concerned about. I don't think that the White House is actually worried that Trump is going to get impeached. I do think they are concerned about that, that there will be investigated about it. I don't think Mike Johnson's wrong about that part.
And -- but the Trump family, Trump and his family, are doing nothing to make that a less likely outcome. They are brazenly engaging in business dealings where they are -- where the president and the administration has a role in them. And so, yes, it's a no-brainer that Democrats are going to investigate that, and the polling actually suggests that Americans actually think that they probably should.
PARRISH: Abby, no one at this table, I don't believe, is saying that Congress shouldn't carry out their oversight responsibility. But what we're saying is you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say no Democrat is talking about this. Joe just read you a list. It's Al Green's legacy to impeach Donald Trump.
SINGH: Right. But why isn't this Congress doing any oversight right now?
PARRISH: Sabrina, you did a better job at this table on the Food Network listing out all the priorities that Americans care about than the people in your party that are running for office do. That's not what they're talking about.
SINGH: I mean, thank you?
PARRISH: And Abby questioned the effectiveness of Leader Jeffries, which I agree --
PHILLIP: No, that's not what I -- that's actually --
PARRISH: Listen --
PHILLIP: Tim, that's not what I did. What I said was, if Leader Jeffries is not the most effective campaigner in some of those states, then it doesn't matter whether he's out there or not.
SINGH: And can I just --
PHILLIP: Because, actually, I don't know that Mike Johnson being on the campaign trail when the leader of the party, Donald Trump, can only go so many places.
SINGH: Yes.
PHILLIP: He's not -- he can't go to Maine and campaign on behalf of --
BORELLI: Well, Kamala Harris couldn't go to Iowa this week.
PHILLIP: -- of Susan Collins in a competitive Senate race.
BORELLI: The leading -- the Senate Democratic candidate in Iowa rejected Kamala Harris.
PHILLIP: Exactly. You can't go everywhere. That's the only point I was making. It doesn't really matter.
PARRISH: The point -- and the point that I'm making, Abby, is the Democrats are not talking about these issues. They are talking about --
SINGH: Talking about what issues?
PARRISH: They're not talking about the issues that Sabrina laid out. They're not talking about the economy, the cost of living.
SINGH: The gas prices --
PARRISH: Absolutely. They're not talking about the issues --
PHILLIP: They're not talking about gas prices?
PARRISH: -- the kitchen table issues that are facing Americans. They are talking about their revenge agenda.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Tim, that is patently false.
PARRISH: They are talking about their revenge agenda.
PHILLIP: Tim, that is --
SINGH: You can look at the world through colored glasses, this is just --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Joe, I mean --
BORELLI: If Democrats are not talking about this impeachment, which they are doing less than they have in the past, I'll stipulate that point.
PHILLIP: Okay.
BORELLI: It's only because of the political fallout they had years ago after they focused solely on impeachment, solely on, you know, having candidates run for office pledging to investigate and arrest and indict Donald Trump.
PHILLIP: Okay.
BORELLI: That happened.
SINGH: Can I just say that --
BORELLI: And that didn't pay off for them. We re-elected Donald Trump because of that.
PHILLIP: I actually -- I think Joe is -- can I just say, I think Joe is correct about that?
[22:15:03]
He just --
RIGGLEMAN: Dear God.
PHILLIP: I think he just conceded something that's very important, that Democrats have learned from some of the mistakes of the past, maybe not all of them. And they've learned that, you know, you don't like look a gift horse in the mouth. When you're handed a president with a negative 48 approval rating on inflation and prices, you run on that.
SINGH: Right.
PHILLIP: And you don't run on ancillary issues that are secondary to the thing that's most important to voters.
SINGH: Well, and Donald Trump even said, I mean, to Tim's point of Democrat -- to saying that Democrats aren't talking about this, Donald Trump said that Democrats are making affordability an issue. They're saying that he's -- they're -- he said that Democrats made up that word, which is ridiculous.
And he's saying that because we are talking about it all the time. We are talking about it in our districts, in Senate races, in governor's races, down ballot. We are talking about gas prices, grocery prices. I mean, you name it. It's all about this Trump economy right now, and Democrats are on message on that.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, we've got breaking news. A far right provocateur who supported Donald Trump's ICE operations is now arrested by ICE.
Plus, the president handpicked a new Fed chair to lower interest rates, but Kevin Warsh is signaling that he may need to raise rates because of big concerns about the economy.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, British far-right figure Milo Yiannopoulos, who in part rose to fame pushing hardline nationalist views on immigration, has now been detained by ICE. The Department of Homeland Security says Yiannopoulos was arrested on Thursday at a Louisiana airport, and he was given a final order of removal on July 22nd by a judge after failing to show up to his immigration hearing.
The agency says that he legally entered the United States in 2019, but, quote, chose to overstay his welcome in violation of the nation's laws. Now, their message, quote, being in detention is a choice.
Now, for years, he was better known as Milo, and he has a platform and used it to push for draconian policies against undocumented immigrants, increased mass deportations, and even no immigration at all, which I don't know how that works when you yourself are an immigrant, but there you go.
Here's the interesting thing about this. Laura Loomer seems to be kind of taking credit for this. She says she was the first to report that he was in the U.S. illegally, and she said, when Milo called me -- called for me to be assassinated, I reported him to ICE and the FBI. I told you all that he was an illegal alien. Today is a great day for America.
This is MAGA on MAGA violence.
BORELLI: I'm sure there's a lot of Democrats with the -- you know, they're all the popcorn meme right now, just enjoying that exchange between Laura Loomer. But, look, there's a lot of British slang words that would describe Milo Yiannopoulos in this situation, none of which I can say on T.V. But the reality is like this is so hypocritical, it's so stupid.
But the positive point of this is that it doesn't matter whether you have a blue check mark on Twitter, whether you're a pundit, whether you support Trump or not. If you're reported to be in this country illegally, and you're skipping your hearings, you deserve to be detained and deported. That's the overarching message of the Trump immigration policy. So, whether it's Milo or someone else, you know, sorry, buddy.
PHILLIP: Go ahead, Denver.
RIGGLEMAN: No. I just think it shows to me that the law is unequally applied when you find an enemy that has Trump's ear, and that's what happened to poor Milo. Now --
PARRISH: Poor Milo.
RIGGLEMAN: The other thing about Milo too is that he did get his dream and his wish. He gets to live what he wanted, which is to get everybody out of the country. The other thing is, I'm wondering, when is MTG going to visit him like she visited the J6 people, right? Because, you know, Milo worked for MTG. So, I'm waiting for the photo op where MTG is in prison trying to make him feel okay.
So, I'm hoping that that happens at some point, but I really don't care what happens to Milo.
PARRISH: Abby --
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, he said just some of the things that he's said on the support deportation for anyone who can't prove they're in the U.S. legally. We've got to deport millions and millions and millions of people. Without that, nothing else matters, et cetera, et cetera.
PARRISH: When I heard this story, Abby, I actually thought to myself, Who? Like I didn't know who -- I forgot that Milo was even around.
PHILLIP: You know who he is.
PARRISH: But I really didn't legitimately. He's got a poster. Come on, you know, on my wall.
PHILLIP: Tim was like, I don't even know the guy.
PARRISH: I don't even know, man. Who are you talking about?
No, I would say -- I'll say, you know, Joe's point, this undergirds the how important and serious the Trump administration is taking the immigration issue, that no matter if you're a Republican, if you support the president, if you don't --
PHILLIP: Or that you can weaponize the immigration system against your enemies. That's also --
PARRISH: That's not fair. The administration --
SINGH: Loomer said she called --
PARRISH: Equal justice under the law. He violated our laws. He was deported, full stop.
SINGH: Can I just say though on this point though? PARRISH: I think that I think we actually all agree. I don't know why we're debating the issue.
SINGH: Yes. I mean, but can I jump on the immigration point though, that was one of Donald Trump's strongest issues when he came into office. I mean, he was elected on this issue that we are going to get violent criminals out of the country, and yet just last week, the father of a sailor who's on the USS Lincoln, who's been deployed since November, who hasn't seen land in over 200 days, was detained by ICE.
So, I think there is a right way to go about immigration and executing immigration policy. Like I do believe ICE has a role to play in our society.
[22:25:00]
I'm not losing any tears over this man. But I think for the innocent people who are being ripped apart from their families, when you see a five-year-old child standing by his father as he's being detained, that is not a good use of ICE, and I think a lot of ICE agents would agree with that too.
PHILLIP: So, while all of this is happening, The Washington Post is reporting that white South Africans could now get up to $4,500 in aid if they come to the U.S. as refugees. They'd be getting assistance to help pay for basic needs, such as housing and food, and that would nearly double under a new policy.
So, we already know that the only refugees that the United States are letting in are white people from South Africa. Now, they're telling us that these folks, they're going to double the potential upside for resettling these white South Africans in the United States at the very same time that they are trying to deny green cards to immigrants who use public benefits.
They are trying to take food stamps away from actual refugees because these white South Africans are not actually refugees. And they are deporting Haitians to a country that we know the United States considers to be violent and dangerous. And they're putting out this video showing Haitians whose legal status they took away being sent back to Haiti in chains in this video.
I mean, the administration has a policy that basically -- I mean, it is that if you are white, you get to come here. If you aren't, they're going to send you back to whatever place you came from, whether it's safe or not.
RIGGLEMAN: Can you imagine the uproar if it wasn't, you know, the money going to somebody who was not a South African? And I think that's what's -- I was trying to actually make a point here about Laura Loomer. Nobody likes Milo, okay? We can make that judgment right here. But I think what worries me is that this administration targets, Laura Loomer also had her hand in getting rid of the NSA chief. Laura Loomer also had her hand in getting rid of people in the government because, just because she didn't like them. And what we're looking at, it's always this targeted, specific way of doing business in an administration, which whoever's close to the president gets to apply law in that way, and I think that's dangerous. I think it takes away from the dignity of the office. I think it takes away from who we are as Americans when the law is only applied by people close to him for some kind of vendetta or for Laura Loomer's vendetta.
When we talk about South Africans coming over here, can you imagine us doubling the money or giving $4,500, say, to those that are coming from a South American country or somebody that's coming from an Asian country, or somebody that's coming from a --
PHILLIP: I mean, from a war-torn -- from an actual war-torn country --
RIGGLEMAN: Or the Afghanis who supported us during the war. And that's what I was getting to, is I just hate the unequal application of the law based on the whims of a president who seems to be able to do this by people who just come to him and say, I don't like that person, therefore they should go.
PHILLIP: I mean, Joe, is that defensible, that only -- literally, I mean, I'm not exaggerating here, the only people being allowed into this country are white South Africans, and they are also being handed a check.
BORELLI: Well, the reporting I read on it from some news sources says that the majority are white South Africans, but not exclusively.
PHILLIP: No.
BORELLI: And that the policy was based on countries that are repatriated -- expropriating, rather --
PHILLIP: Here's the reason I'm saying that, because there are numbers that are released by the State Department about people who are admitted to the country under refugee status. And if you look at that chart, as I have, it is zero for every country in the world except for South Africans, okay?
BORELLI: Well, I don't know any other country that expropriating property, no compensation. That's kind of the standard that the administration has used.
PHILLIP: What about countries that are war-torn? What about countries they're driven by gang violence, and there's no infrastructure, what about those people?
BORELLI: I'm not saying those are bad. I'm saying this policy was meant to affect people who are fleeing countries where there's expropriation of property without compensation --
PHILLIP: There has been no property expropriated in South Africa.
BORELLI: -- of which the president of the country in February of 2025 signed a law called the Expropriation Act. PHILLIP: Joe, factually --
BORELLI: CNN reported it.
PHILLIP: -- zero property has been expropriated in South Africa.
BORELLI: The law was signed in --
PHILLIP: So I don't even know -- so what you're talking about is completely misleading.
BORELLI: It was called the Expropriation Act.
SINGH: It's not a law. This is an executive order. And hold on just a sec.
PHILLIP: And no property has been taken from anyone.
SINGH: Donald Trump -- Right. Donald Trump, this administration, has revoked temporary protected status for 13 countries. And coming up in October, there are going to be four more countries that get that TPS revoked, including Ukraine, Lebanon, Syria. Like these are countries that are war-torn, that we would not -- that we should be saying to these people that are here that you are still protected.
We ended temporary protected status for Afghanistan, people that served next to our men and women in uniform, protecting their lives every single day. Are they going to get shipped back to Afghanistan?
[22:30:00]
And then what happens, Joe? What happens? What happens? The Taliban's in charge. So what happens?
I mean, it's the same for Haiti. I think those images that were shown are so gross that people are going back in chains. The State Department has a travel advisory going against -- Americans are advised not to travel to Haiti because it is so dangerous. And yet we are sending people back there to die.
PHILLIP: And it's worth underscoring that they came here under a legal process. Okay.
So they didn't come here as criminals breaking the law. They came here under a legal process. The administration decided to take that away, but now they're sending them back in chains as if, you know, every single Haitian who was here under TPS is a criminal, which they are not.
Next for us, Donald Trump's new Fed chair delivers a warning about the economy and suggests that he may need to raise rates, which of course is why Trump wanted the last Fed chair gone. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, is inflation a problem or has it been solved? President Trump and his handpicked Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, appear to be at odds over that issue. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN WARSH, U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: As of now, I believe the labor markets are broadly consistent with full employment.
But on the price stability side of our mandate, the numbers are more concerning. Inflation is running above our 2 percent target. So the Fed's predominant focus right now should be on prices.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Inflation has been defeated.
Inflation has been defeated.
Inflation has been defeated.
The hottest country anywhere in the world by far with no inflation.
We have very low inflation. Inflation way down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, this comes as the Fed's preferred inflation gauge found Americans reined in their spending last month, but the annual inflation rate rising to 3.7 percent in that index, that's significantly above the 2 percent target. Democratic Congressman Ted Liu highlighted the Fed chair's concerns in a post before warning, quote, "November is coming."
As we were discussing, Democrats are going to be running on this because Trump promised to bring down inflation. It was at 3 percent when he came into office in January 2025, it is now 3.4 percent in the consumer price index. And Kevin Warsh might have to raise rates, which Trump is going to hate.
TIM PARRISH, CONSERVATIVE STRATEGIST: Yes, I mean, it is a real problem. It does present a real problem, I think, for two reasons. One, you do see the Fed numbers, which are hard to argue with that say that inflation is in fact not down, that it's up.
And the sort of tangible side of that, where Americans at home simply aren't feeling lower inflation prices, right, or lower inflation rates. But I do find some encouragement in Kevin Warsh's talk where he talks about focusing the Fed on affordability and price stability in the country.
I think that's the right move, I think it's the right thing to do to focus on the price stability thing. And hopefully the rates don't have to go up. But it's tough because the numbers simply aren't lying and Americans at home are not feeling the relief. PHILLIP: Wouldn't you like Joe Donald Trump's help in bringing prices
down? Maybe he could just give up on this tariff thing. Maybe he could actually end the war in Iran.
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL, AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHARTWELL STRATEGY GROUP: Part of the whether inflation was listed at 3.5 percent today or whether it was 2.9 percent, if Americans aren't feeling it at home, they're not going to look to reward the party that's in power.
And the reality is, we saw inflation under Joe Biden, and I'm not playing whataboutism, I'm just making a point before you jump down my throat. The price of everyday goods went up so significantly under Joe Biden that the only thing that's going to take care of that and rule that out is wage growth over time and the value of things evening out. That has to happen.
That should be Trump's main focus. I don't know if that's going to happen by November, I don't know. But that's going to be the real vulnerability for Republicans.
PHILLIP: What do you think he should do about it? That's my question.
BORELLI: I think the energy dominance is in part of it. We talk about gas prices right now.
Brent is down to about $82, down from $129 at the height of the war. Not where it was at $72 or so when the war started.
But that's probably the largest driver of inflation as of today. If the stories that we're hearing from a lot of different news sources are true, that the U.S. is shuffling 7 to 10 billion barrels of oil through the Strait every night, if those are accurate and true, we'll see those prices come down. That's the most significant thing we can do in the short term.
SINGH: Can I just say that you talked about how can Donald Trump address this problem, and you talked about energy dominance. But the issue here is that we're not diversified in our energy because Donald Trump and this administration cut back a lot of things that the Biden administration was investing in, like solar, for example. So now we are dependent, not necessarily we, but the global market and economy is dependent on oil coming out of the Strait of Hormuz.
And the problem with the messaging dichotomy between what Donald Trump is saying or what Kevin Warsh is saying, it's the same thing that goes for Iran. Donald Trump says the Strait is open. The only entity that can determine that the Strait is open are the shipping companies.
[22:40:01]
Inflation is down. We've defeated inflation. Well, your handpicked Fed chair is saying that's actually not the case.
So I think for Republicans and for you guys, this is hard to explain. And I think to your point that you were making on Joe Biden and the Biden administration, we did not acknowledge Americans' pain. We said that inflation was going to be transitory, and it just wasn't.
And so we should have been better about how we talked about it. And frankly, Donald Trump's saying inflation is gone. Well, to your point, Americans are going to the grocery store and they're not feeling that.
DENVER RIGGLEMAN (R), FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, VIRGINIA, AND FORMER SENIOR STAFFER, JANUARY 6 SELECT COMMITTEE: I think there's always a downward effect or a cascading effect to incompetence in economic policy. And it's very difficult. It's a spider web of grotesqueness.
And let me give you a really personal example. When you talk about across the border, if you talk about, say, just liquor laws or liquor tariffs, what happened to us? You get a 50 percent tariff on bottles or glass that are coming over. You get tariffs on quarks.
All of a sudden, you're like, oh my gosh, a bottle goes up from $1 to $1.53 just for a piece of glass. Now you might have tariffs on everything else that's downrange based on the fact that everything is actually now has this huge squeeze on it.
What we had to do on our distilleries, we had to up the price drinks by about $1 per drink. And you're like, well, what's that mean, Denver? Well, we sell about 4000 to 5000 cocktails.
So now we're trying to absorb the cost of the bottle with the cocktail cost going on. Well, when people come in, the per ticket prices actually go down because now they're only buying one drink instead of two drinks because one drink is $16 instead of $17.
When you start looking at all these microeconomics that's going on in just a distillery in two locations with supply chain issues, think about what's going on in the huge arena of just the liquor industry. And the reason I'm explaining this, I promise you this has a point.
What are barrels right now? A four-year bourbon barrel is now down to about $700. It was about $3,000 before the tariffs on Canada and the fact that Canada stopped this.
Now what happens? Everybody's valuation crashes. Now you can't borrow on the specific barrels or your inventory when you're trying to do any type of business.
And I think the thing that gets me very angry is that I don't think Donald Trump cares because I think they've already enriched themselves enough where he's not even worried about the 2026 midterms because of the billions of dollars downstream that they've gotten through the military-industrial complex, through crypto, through the Board of Peace, through all these things that you're looking at right now. And I think that's the thing that just did -- I get angry because you're looking at 3.7 percent inflation, awful. 23,000 lost jobs this month, awful.
But the awful thing is when you have bad policy based on personal politics because he's angry or throwing a temper tantrum or his Sharpie is out that day, that's the issue you have with economic policy. PHILLIP: You followed all of that, I think, it's a basic -- It is
really important because I think what you're showing people is how tariffs affect prices and how they affect not just consumers, but business owners and the decisions that they're able to make. And the truth about tariffs is that this has been Donald Trump's hobby horse since at least the 80s, but his economics are stuck there and it does not work for the modern day.
And speaking of Canada, we're going to get to that next. As Donald Trump continues to attack allies, is he uniting them now against America? We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: President Trump has a history of picking fights with America's allies, but are his stunts turning them against the United States?
In the past two months, Trump has mused about cutting troops to Europe and sent a message to NATO threatening to bomb the shit out of Oman as the Iran war has dragged on. He scaled back joint military exercises with our ally, South Korea, over his close relationship with North Korea's dictator leader. He's escalated his trade war with Canada and he continues to troll our northern neighbor after giving Lake Ontario the Sharpie treatment.
Denver, you recently were in Canada and I'm sure you've seen this firsthand. There is a new sense of anger from Canada, but it's not just them. A lot of our allies around the world are now looking around trying to figure out, how do we do without the United States?
RIGGLEMAN: They are. And I think when you're looking at these agreements between other countries that used to be so NATO centric, you start to get the hairs on the back of your neck go up.
Because when I was in Denmark, I was in Iceland, I went over to Greenland. I've been in Canada from Ottawa to Vancouver. They still love Americans, Abby, they're still like, Denver, you're great, let's go fishing.
But as far as the U.S. government is concerned, they can't stand them. What they're doing is they're actually establishing new supply chains with their countries. The funding that they're putting into drone initiatives, the funding they're putting into infrastructure, the funding that they're doing for their D&D, you're talking about a five- time increase from 1 percent of their GDP to 5 percent of their GDP by 2030 on defense spending.
That's what Canada is doing. And I think what they're looking at the U.S. is they think we're an unstable partner. It's not that they don't like the United States, it's that they think we're unstable. We can't make decisions based on real foreign policy, we make decisions on the personal whims of a President who seems to have gone over the edge.
The other thing is this. There's Canadian companies in the U.S. that are so incredible. They came here because of our economic freedom.
Now those Canadian companies are like, what is happening? Canadian companies have become American subsidiaries. Those are our closest allies.
Last thing, 9/11. We served with Canadians in 9/11. When you talked about Oman, do you know who allowed us to launch our B-1s after 9/11? Because I was there.
Sorry, I get a little emotional. It was the Omanis.
[22:50:06]
I was with the B-1 bombers, right? And I think when he's doing this to allies that have supported us in our time of need, these individuals are looking at our country and these other countries are looking at us like, what is happening over there when we were there for them?
And I think that's the issue that they have.
PHILLIP: Susan Collins weighed in on this because Maine has a very close trading relationship with Canada. And I just want to note, I mean, the fear that Canada was going to tariff their seafood was huge. And Canada actually pulled back on that because they were like, we don't want to do that to our friends in Maine.
But Susan Collins says Canada is not China. Canada is one of our closest allies and largest trading partners. She stressed the negative impact these tariffs would have on Maine to the U.S. trade representative.
Why would Trump and Jameson Greer, the USTR, why would they compare China and Canada when it's very clear that they are not the same thing?
PARRISH: To be honest with you, Abby, I don't know the answer to that particular question. I think the President is ribbing Canada in this trade war that he's got going with him. The side of Lake Ontario that is deepest and coolest, I guess, is in the United States.
I have no clue. I think there are many more priorities that we could be talking about than what the name of the body of water up there is. There's many more priorities.
I do think that there are some issues that the President, that are legitimate that the President is bringing up with Canada. I don't know that renaming the body of water is the correct way to go about it.
SINGH: I guess my question for you would be specifically what are those issues that the President, that you feel are the ones that he needs to address with Canada, but to the point that Denver and that you were making of why is he doing this, he's going after our allies and I don't understand why we are not prosecuting our adversaries. I mean comparing Canada to China in no way, it doesn't even make
sense. It's not just Maine that has a close trading relationship with Canada. It's also Michigan.
So much of our auto industry is tied to Canada. So I'm curious on the specifics.
PARRISH: What do you mean we're not prosecuting our adversaries?
SINGH: I'm sorry. When we are cozying up to Russia, when he is praising Kim Jong-un in North Korea and saying we canceled exercises with South Korea, our ally, when we should be protecting power.
PHILLIP: Can I just suggest that maybe the answer is staring us in the face.
Trump, not that long ago, went to China. And he couldn't have been happier. The red carpet was rolled out for him. He praised China's leader despite our longstanding and very significant trade issues with China, issues over intellectual property, issues over all kinds of things.
But China is a hard adversary for him to deal with. And it seems like what he is doing is trying to pick on the little guy. And that's why Canada is so mad.
Because they feel like he's bullying them. They are taking a country that has been nothing but nice to us and friendly, and he is picking on them because they are the smallest kid in the playground. And Trump can't take on the big dog.
BORELLI: They're not sitting up there guzzling maple leaves just happy with the U.S. before Trump. They're buying 800 or so billion dollars of our goods.
There's a trade imbalance that adds up to about $48 billion. That has decreased from where it was before Trump took off. Those are positive things.
I understand that this is not going to be popular for Susan Collins. It poses a problem for her domestically. She has to distance herself from the President.
But ultimately, whether it's a country that you want to maybe handle a little softer touch, like Canada, versus a country that you want to handle with a stronger touch, like China, I'm happy that there is an addressing of the imbalance.
PHILLIP: So are you suggesting that Canada has been a bad trading partner, even though when you take out --
BORELLI: It's a number two trading partner. I think the President has pointed out there is an imbalance of different issues that he wanted to have a more symmetrical relationship with the country.
PHILLIP: Let me just be factual here. If you take out oil and gas, we have a trade surplus with Canada, meaning that they buy more of our goods than we buy of theirs.
BORELLI: So you're just picking out the most important industries.
PHILLIP: Well, no, I mean, the reason I take that out is because --
BORELLI: You're picking out the service industry. There's a $27 billion surplus on that side.
PHILLIP: But Trump wants a trade surplus. He basically has it with Canada. So the idea that he would complain about that, especially when they're operating under his own trade deal, doesn't really make a lot of sense.
We do have to leave it there, Denver.
But next for us, we're going to find out what Chef Ginevra has been cooking up for us. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: We're back. And the Food Network's executive chef, Ginevra Iverson, is here with us with some spectacular plates that we've been enjoying during the break. Tell us what we've got, Chef.
GINEVRA IVERSON, EXECUTIVE CHEF, FOOD NETWORK: So you have a paella. We have a great recipe online for a cast iron paella that you can do on your grill end of summer. Wonderful thing to share with friends and family.
I did it individually here for you. But also, Bobby Flay shot his new show, "The Line," actually in this kitchen. And we know he loves paella.
So this is also a little bit of a tribute to him.
[23:00:01]
PHILLIP: Yes, I love paella. This is seafood, but a little chorizo.
IVERSON: A little chorizo, a little chicken.
PHILLIP: A little chicken, which is why Denver has his own plate.
RIGGLEMAN: I have a special plate. Thank you so much for the special plate. I have alpha-gal, so I can't eat any mammal meat or anything with a nipple.
So I really do appreciate this. I appreciate this special dish.
PHILLIP: I promise you, he did not make that up. You can scan the Q.R. code to get the recipe. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." Tomorrow, you can watch
"Table for Five" at 10 a.m. Eastern right here on CNN. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
