Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Suffers Strings of Defeat, Rates, Mail Ballots, Kennedy; Vance to Voters, Give Us Another Chance to Do Better; Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) Endorsed Tariffs, Privately Asked for Exemptions. House Avoids Hegseth Impeachment Vote, Adjourns Until Post-Midterms. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired September 16, 2026 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, Donald Trump's chickens come home to roost.
KEVIN WARSH, FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR: Plain fact is that inflation is too high.
PHILLIP: Another institution defies the president over his decisions and against his wishes.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: They're raising the rates to make Trump do as bad as they can possibly do.
PHILLIP: Plus, a Republican senator pushed tariffs publicly, but wanted exemptions privately.
Also, the House calls it quits early, leaving town for the next two months to avoid a vote impeaching Pete Hegseth.
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): Where else can you get a job that pays almost $15,000 a month, and some months, you don't even have to come to work?
PHILLIP: And signs of the times, why the Smithsonian is the administration's next target in its so-called war on woke.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Bakari Sellers, Lauren Wright, Bill de Blasio, and Ana 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. For all his talk about winning, President Trump is on a losing streak right now, and it's all because of his own decisions. The man that he handpicked to lead the world's largest economy did what Trump hired him not to do, raise interest rates. It is the first time in three years.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WARSH: The plain fact is that inflation is too high and has been for too long.
We must be confident that underlying inflation is moving to our objective clearly and at sufficient speed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Trump did not take that news well. He lashed out on social media saying that the interest rate should be 1 percent or lower, and then he demanded, lower the interest rates fast.
This is just the latest sign that Trump continues to be a drag on the party that he leads with less than 50 days until the midterm elections. Listen to his other defeats over the last couple of days. The House voted again to end the Iran war. The Supreme Court, including all of his handpicked justices, blocked his efforts to limit mail-in ballots, and a judge blocked Trump from trying to slap his name on the Kennedy Center.
Before we open it up to the table here, we invite you at home to join our debate. Head to cnn.com/abby, weigh in there, and we'll get to some of your comments throughout the show.
This was a moment, I think, where all of Trump's activities and policy decisions over the last 18 months are really proving to be damaging to him. He decided to launch Liberation Day tariffs, which helps raise prices in this country, and, of course, the war in Iran. And so now you've got inflation that was 2.9 percent when he came into office. It's 3.4 percent now. The Fed had no choice, and now he's mad about it. Bakari?
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I mean, this puts me in the mind state of Milton Friedman, and Bakari Sellers quoting Milton Friedman is probably decently ironic, but he also said that producers don't necessarily cause inflation. Consumers don't cause inflation. Washington, D.C. causes inflation. The reason being is because those decisions, the printing press, rests at the feet of the United States government.
The Republicans control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the United States Senate, and they're spending like wild men. They have tax cuts they can't pay for, and we're seeing a war in Iran. We're seeing tariffs. We're seeing inflation rates go through the roofs, and right now you have to raise interest rates because inflation is too high. So, the cost of money -- oh, and we have the private sector and everybody else just going crazy and investing in A.I. and all these other things. And so now you have to raise rates, and so the cost of the dollar is going to get more expensive, and you're going to see less production, less employment, and it's going to hurt the American people.
LAUREN A. WRIGHT, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY POLITICAL SCIENTIST: It sounds like a very functional government to me. I mean, I remember when Kevin Warsh was supposed to be a flunky of Trump's, a loyalist. This guy is unqualified. I heard that the Supreme Court is the most extreme, dangerous court we've ever had, a five alarm fire, Patty Murray said.
[22:05:02]
Chuck Schumer said this is going to be the end of democracy. Joe Biden campaigned on the idea of expanding the Supreme Court to combat the extremism, but yet Trump's own Congress, his own court, his own appointees are doing things that he doesn't want them to do, and I think that's sort of what the founders wanted to see.
SELLERS: The crazy part about it is, I mean, we can go to commercial because I agree with you. What happens is when you have a president of the United States that's failing the way he is with the policies he's putting forth, with the war that's never-ending, we're spending endless amounts of money in there with no accountability.
When you're talking about gas prices or tariffs or everything, the litany of things we can go down the way, that's why Bakari Sellers quotes Milton Friedman because --
(CROSSTALKS)
WRIGHT: Except Democrats solutions to all the problems are more spending.
(CROSSTALKS)
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's getting a lot gold (ph).
SELLERS: I felt like I was rolling.
NAVARRO: I like it.
PHILLIP: In the meantime, the president seems undeterred by all of this. Let me play what he said about Kevin Warsh. Surprisingly, maybe to some, he didn't actually attack Warsh because he just appointed him just a few months ago. But he blamed everyone else for the interest rate hike. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: And I'm relying on Kevin, but he's got, you know, a very tough board. He's got a board that was put there by a lot of other people, and the interest rates are too high. They're not appropriate. And I told -- I talked to Kevin, and I said, you might as well vote with the board because it's not going to matter. The board is very hostile. They're very political. I didn't convince him. And I said, do what you want. I said, do what you want because it doesn't matter because he doesn't have the votes, no matter how good a job -- he's a good man, Kevin Warsh.
They're raising the rates to make Trump do as bad as they can possibly do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I mean, honestly, Scott, they may be raising rates in a way that could help him. If they are able to curb inflation, that would be good for Trump, not bad for Trump, and he doesn't understand that.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I guess it depends on what's actually causing the inflation. You know, I think there's a question about whether raising rates would have anything to do with short-term inflation bumps due to the war, which if the war were to, say, end, you could see that coming down. So, that is an open question.
Look, he's always wanted to drop rates. He wanted to drop rates before Kevin Warsh. He wants to drop rates now. And even if they drop rates next time or the next time or the next time, it still wouldn't be enough, because they're never going to go down to the levels that he wants.
If you look at what the Fed said today, and you look at the larger economic picture, he actually has quite a story to tell. They've got economic growth. The Fed said economic growth was expanding at a nice solid pace. The Atlanta Fed, I think their GDP projection's now over 5 percent. The Census Bureau says the U.S. poverty rate is the lowest on record. Prescription drug prices are falling faster than they have in 60 years. Productivity is up. Unemployment is down.
So, the Fed dealing with this inflation issue, you could be right, they might be helping him. What happens with the war could also help him or change that picture. But overall, as a political campaign matter, the Republicans have a story to tell independent of what the Fed did today, there's a good story to tell. And we should tell it.
NAVARRO: Look, in the statements that the Fed chair appointed by Trump, as Jerome Powell had been appointed by Trump, who he got to hate, in the statements that Kevin Warsh made today, you could see that he was walking on eggshells, that he doesn't want -- he very strategically didn't blame it on the war with Iran, didn't blame it on tariffs. He talked about geopolitics.
And, look, I just think that these -- the list of things that you talked about where he's had decisions against him are things that were obvious, right? You can't allow him to slap his name on the Kennedy Center because there's actually a statute that prohibits it expressly. You can't change voting by mail rules less than 50 days before the election. Even these judges had to go along with that.
Why are the Republicans going along with a vote against the Iran war? Because they're all going up for election in less than two months, and this is an incredibly unpopular war, and people are voting on this. So, there is no choice but to make the decisions that have been made, whether it's the Fed or the Supreme Court or the court in Washington that ruled on the Kennedy Center or the Republicans in Congress that voted. They had no choice. They rubber-stamped everything they could. But on this one, there was just no choice.
FMR. MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO (D-NEW YORK CITY, NY): Look I think on September 16th, to think that this narrative of this election can change in any major way I just think is unrealistic. I believe if the president and his team had been talking about actual things that would give people some economic relief for months and months now, if that had been the central message, maybe they'd have some kind of chance.
[22:10:01]
It's too late now.
What's interesting is the way the government, the larger government is reacting to Trump's fortunes is now creating a little bit of permission structure for people to start being more oppositional within the Republican Party, within the Supreme Court, wherever it may be.
I do think there are still profound threats to our democracy. I think -- I don't think we should take that lightly.
WRIGHT: Well, then we should be buying gold and hiding in a cave somewhere.
DE BLASIO: Now, well, wait a second.
WRIGHT: Because I do not see Democrats behaving as if we are in a threat to democracy situation.
DE BLASIO: Enough has happened in the last few years that we should be concerned, and every time in history when -- every time in history when people say it can't happen here --
WRIGHT: There's a fascist. The Republicans are fascists.
DE BLASIO: Hold on. You should never take lightly the threats. But I want to affirm something you said. What's happened in these last weeks has opened up space. It's given that permission structure. And I think you're going to see more and more people in the Republican Party now standing up and creating the kind of checks and balances that were the norm, by the way. This is the first time in a long time we've seen a party in such lockstep with a president.
PHILLIP: I want to play this from J.D. Vance because he was trying to make the case for the administration, why they should be given a chance at unified government for another two years. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: There's a lot of good that's been done, but there's a lot of work left to do. Don't give power to the people who cause the problems that we're fixing. Give us another chance or give us another couple years to continue to work on the amazing things that we've been doing for the past two years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: It sounds like, please, baby, please.
SELLERS: Well, he looked -- J.D. Vance looked so weak. And I think that's going to not only have other people in 2028 in the Republican primary who are on the periphery kind of licking their chops saying, wait a minute, he looked just very, very weak in that, just begging, begging, begging for another chance. But also Democrats in 2028 are going to say, look, we want to run against J.D. Vance, maybe not Marco Rubio as much.
But at the end of the day, Scott laid out an economic picture that may sound rosy to some, but the alternative to that is there are people at home who have grocery prices that are still sky high, gas prices that are still sky high, fertilizer prices in the Midwest that are still sky high. They're running on roads and bridges that ain't really fully functioning. I mean, we're talking about electrical prices that are still sky high.
And so, yes, I just think that there is -- Scott sounded a lot like Democrats sounded in -- when Joe Biden was running or Kamala Harris was running for re-election saying, look at the economic indicators, but not necessarily having their fingerprint on the pulse.
PHILLIP: It would also be more credible if the president weren't doubling down on the same bad policies that got him to this point. In that same Truth Social post about interest rates being 1 percent, he said, if we stop trading with every country that we have a deficit with, which is most of them, we would make at least $1.5 trillion a year. The word deficit is nothing more than a fancy word for loss. We are carrying almost every country in the world, and that cannot go on any longer.
He completely misunderstands how trade works, what a trade deficit is, and what impact it would have on the American economy. Is he really going to go into November arguing that we should stop trading with the entire rest of the world?
JENNINGS: Of course not, but what he has said and what he has done is try to get --
PHILLIP: I mean, that's what he said here.
JENNINGS: -- is try to get more favorable terms of the trading that we do with other countries.
PHILLIP: He is arguing that we should just stop trading with countries that we have deficits with.
JENNINGS: And we are by far the most important trading partner for virtually every other country in the world.
Regarding Vance, by the way, so for eight solid years, I listened to Barack Obama blame every problem in the world on George W. Bush. Did you think it sounded weak when he did that? Republicans blame Democrats for problems. Democrats blame Republicans for problems. It is an election. And the two parties will have a debate. That's what they're having.
SELLERS: The difference is Mitch McConnell, the night Barack Obama got elected, said he's going to be a one-term president, right? So, there were forces out there saying that. Also --
WRIGHT: They're going to impeach Trump again.
SELLERS: Also -- I mean, he tried to impeach Barack Obama for wearing a tan suit, but I never heard Barack Obama look in the camera and say, please, baby, please, give me one more chance.
DE BLASIO: Yes. And, Scott, look, I would argue if you want to have a forceful connection to the people, you say, here are the things we're about to do for you, here's the new things we're going to do because you're hurting with the current policies. I don't think even most Republicans would deny the average American's hurting under the current policies, so we're going to do these new things that are going to improve your life.
What's shocking is that just doesn't come out of Trump's mouth, and therefore the rest of the party doesn't follow.
WRIGHT: But may I just ask, what are the Democratic solutions to lowering prices besides reversing the tariffs, which I happen to agree are bad policy?
JENNINGS: Or repealing the tax --
WRIGHT: What are they? I have never heard --
(CROSSTALKS)
DE BLASIO: Ending the war.
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: Would you repeal the tax codes?
DE BLASIO: Yes, especially with --
JENNINGS: So, you're running on tax increases?
SELLERS: No. Absolutely not. That's not the way that works.
DE BLASIO: Tax increases for millionaires and billionaires and corporations, yes. End the war, which will reduce inflation, reduce gas prices.
Also, look, I'll tell you something. More and more Democrats are embracing Medicare for all. Now, you can -- I know what you're going to say to it, but more and more of the American people are saying --
[22:15:02]
SELLERS: Well, how about this? Well, can I just say we expand Medicaid throughout the --
DE BLASIO: I'm making --
SELLERS: So, let's start there.
DE BLASIO: No, let me make my point.
JENNINGS: You can't even agree -- you two can't even agree on how much --
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: You'll raise taxes, we just don't know how much yet. Is that what I'm hearing?
WRIGHT: No, it's spending.
DE BLASIO: But Medicare for all says to people that we're going to do something different to get people healthcare, because --
JENNINGS: Yes, let's just make it clear.
NAVARRO: But I just -- you know, when I hear Trump and his minions talk, it's, to me, strangely reminiscent of Biden and his administration that tried to tell the American people that there wasn't a crisis at the border. And the American people were watching, were seeing it with their own eyes. They were feeling it. They were seeing it.
And so you can say over and over again, you can tweet, you can post, you can say everything you want, but the American people are feeling the economic stress and malaise.
And so I think that the first thing they should do is admit that we are in the problems, in the economic problems that we are, instead of him continuing to live in this dystopian bubble of a universe that he does.
JENNINGS: Do you not think it's proper for the Republican administration that's been in for two years to describe what they inherited from the Democratic administration that was in the four years previous? You all have amnesia.
NAVARRO: Do you not think --
JENNINGS: When did grocery prices go up?
SELLERS: They're not -- we shouldn't have elected them if they can't fix the problem.
NAVARRO: Do you think inflation should be 1 percent? Do you think the economy right now --
PHILLIP: Or the interest rates.
NAVARRO: The interest rates should be 1 percent, as Donald Trump is suggesting?
JENNINGS: I don't know. I'm not an economist.
NAVARRO: Of course you know.
JENNINGS: I trust the Fed.
NAVARRO: Of course you know. They're not stupid.
PHILLIP: You don't need an economics degree to know. But I don't think --
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: I trust Kevin Warsh, and I agree with the president that he's a smart guy, and I think he's got the right people --
SELLERS: Well, that's why he voted with the board. He voted with his people.
PHILLIP: And by, the way, it was -- I forgot to say, but it was unanimous, which includes three members that Donald Trump himself appointed.
JENNINGS: If inflation were literally zero, the prices from the Biden years would still be considered by the American people to be too high. Core inflation's 2.5 right now.
PHILLIP: That's -- listen, I think that is true, but it's also not credible to acknowledge that under Donald Trump, that inflation metric has gone in the wrong direction. That is why rates are going up. When rates were -- when inflation was going down, the Fed was happy to cut rates. They're not doing it now because it's going in the wrong direction. The trajectory of this is problematic, and that is on Donald Trump. That's not on Biden. That's on Trump.
So, I mean --
JENNINGS: Her argument is a political argument, people being upset about prices.
PHILLIP: Listen, I'm just saying --
JENNINGS: Prices did not start going up in 2025.
PHILLIP: You're talking about what he inherited.
NAVARRO: People elected Trump on the economy.
PHILLIP: I'm just saying, you're talking about what he inherited and the number is -- what he inherited was 2.9 percent. What he has created is 3.4 percent. You don't need an econ degree to know that's going in the wrong direction.
JENNINGS: And all of that is less than 9 percent, which is what they inherited during the worst of the Biden years.
PHILLIP: Next for us, a Republican senator publicly embraces Trump's tariffs, but privately, she's asking for exemptions.
Plus, it must be nice. The House just called its recess early, which means they won't be back until after the midterms. Why? Well, they're trying to avoid an impeachment vote for Pete Hegseth. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, tariffs for thee, exemptions for me. That's how The Wall Street Journal board is describing the strategy of some Republican lawmakers, including Senator Katie Britt. After the paper filed a Freedom of Information Act request for emails from the U.S. trade representative, they discovered that the Alabama Republican had asked for exemptions in her own state.
In February, after the Supreme Court rejected Trump's emergency tariffs, Britt offered her support of Trump, writing that his tariffs work, and that she'll continue with the White House on them. But ten months before that, her legislative director requested that four companies in the state be exempt from the tax that Republicans claim isn't a tax.
Britt was concerned about the Chinese tariffs on a fireworks company, and how Canadian, South Korean, and Brazilian tariffs are driving up the cost of an aluminum company which could halt a new plant that was being built in her state. It goes on this, to say that she also asked to exempt a wood paneling company from European tariffs because they would add $60 million in costs.
And finally, she said that their trade policy had made plans for a new Airbus facility in Mobile no longer financially viable, and asked the White House to rethink European tariffs on the aviation sector in order to save that project.
I'm not at all surprised by this, because this is how the tariff policy has been working all along. If you can get to the White House, if you can pick up the phone and you can call someone over there, you might get an exemption for your company. Meanwhile, regular people, mom-and-pop stores, they're just hit with extra costs.
WRIGHT: I do think there is a difference between tariffs on China or sanctions on Russia, both of which, you know, Democrats have voted for, 58 strong in the case of Russia. Biden kept Trump's first administration China tariffs, and these wide sweeping tariffs that, as you said, Abby, treat every country alike, which I don't think are a good idea.
I'm not surprised by this either. I mean, this is what you get. You get, you know, politicians saying one thing in front of their constituents, and in front of cameras a completely different thing.
I think the tariffs do genuinely put conservatives in a tough spot because they are concerned about the impact of businesses in their state, but they want to be on the same page as the president.
[22:25:05]
But within the GOP, it's a very controversial issue.
JENNINGS: You get different experiences based on the industry. Back home in Kentucky, you know, the bourbon industry has been pretty critical of it. But G.E., which has a major facility in Louisville, has specifically cited the tariff regime for them re-shoring a bunch of jobs back to Kentucky. So, it depends on the industry.
In defense of Britt on this one, I don't think it's unusual for a senator to advocate for individual companies in the state, particularly when the companies are dealing with components that aren't domestically available. 99 percent of all fireworks are made in China. Some of these companies needed components that simply aren't made in the United States.
PHILLIP: But that's literally why the Trump tariffs don't make any --
NAVARRO: So, are the components on Bombardier.
PHILLIP: But, I mean, that is exactly why the Trump tariffs don't make any sense. Because --
JENNINGS: And wouldn't it be why Katie Britt would make a solid case for an exemption?
PHILLIP: Well, I mean -- but, Scott, you're literally making the argument, right? And actually, The Wall Street Journal makes this point. You know, they say, the point isn't that Ms. Britt made bad arguments against these four tariffs, it's that she made good ones, which show why blunderous trade wars are an economic mistake along with how tariffs deepen the D.C. swamp.
Look, the problem with Trump's tariffs is that they are not targeted. They are just blanket. And so there are industries where it makes no sense to have tariffs, and maybe there are industries where it does make sense to have tariffs, but Trump doesn't care.
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: But isn't that the job of a senator to know what's best for their state?
PHILLIP: Well, yes, but the president shouldn't -- I mean, don't you agree he shouldn't be doing it in the first place?
JENNINGS: Well, he -- I mean, look, we can rehash this all you want. He firmly believes in a broad tariff regime.
PHILLIP: I'm asking you what you think. JENNINGS: But in individual cases, it might make sense to have an exemption. And that might be the smart decision. And the administration might agree with that.
NAVARRO: He was in the Bush White House that signed the free trade -- the North American Free Trade Agreement.
JENNINGS: And we also put tariffs on the steel industry for political purposes in Pennsylvania.
NAVARRO: Okay. So, now you're supporting blanket tariffs on Canada?
PHILLIP: We know what Trump thinks about trade. I'm asking you, as somebody who has a functioning brain, do you think that this makes any sense? Because if you are a senator, like Katie Britt or anybody else, first of all, yes, why should you have to go lobby the federal government to get tariff relief that shouldn't even have to happen in the first place? That's the first thing.
And, secondly, as a conservative, you just laid out how the tariffs are creating winners and losers as determined by one man. That's Donald Trump. You're okay with that?
JENNINGS: All tax policy creates winners and losers. The president has set --
SELLERS: That's not true.
PHILLIP: The president has set a broad tariff agenda. It may not make sense for all industries, and it may not make sense for all individual companies, and it is the job of every senator to do basic constituent services, which is what this is.
PHILLIP: Wow.
NAVARRO: Okay.
SELLERS: But that's not -- what Scott just said is not --
PHILLIP: That's pretty extraordinary. That is absolutely not the way that this is supposed to work.
SELLERS: It's also not true. So, I actually agree --
JENNINGS: It's not -- your senators aren't supposed to do constituent services?
SELLERS: I actually agree with you on this particular point because if you look at something like the -- it's the Lindsey Graham Sanctions of Russia and Iran Act of 2026, right? There's a big debate going on about it, where there is the ability for the president of the United States to sanction five companies that are procuring oil and uranium in Russia, right? So, that is something that is a very targeted tariff that he's putting forth.
JENNINGS: Which most Democrats voted against, by the way. SELLERS: Actually, no. You had a great deal --
JENNINGS: In the House --
SELLERS: No, actually you had a -- it was --
JENNINGS: We're going to look it up later, Bakari.
SELLERS: That's fine, but you had a good deal --
JENNINGS: Go ahead and agree with me.
SELLERS: But it's called bipartisan. Because what I was going to also tell you --
JENNINGS: Most Democrats voted against it.
PHILLIP: You're talking about the bill that they passed today, which had other things in it, which might explain why Democrats voted against it, by the way.
JENNINGS: They voted against the Russia sanctions. We're tough on Russia. They're not.
PHILLIP: No.
SELELRS: But my point is, when you --
PHILLIP: I just want to be clear. There were other things in that bill that gave Trump more tariff authority --
JENNINGS: Did more Democrats vote against it or not?
SELLERS: I'm actually just trying to talk about the targeted tariffs.
(CROSSTALKS)
SELLERS: And then I want to talk about how tax policy works, because we just saw this under the Biden administration.
NAVARRO: Yes, but let's just make clear that the bill that passed today, the sanctions on Russia had tariff authority --
PHILLIP: It gave Trump more tariff authorities, which is probably why Democrats voted against it.
NAVARRO: Which is the reason that a lot of Democrats voted against it.
SELLERS: But also it was targeted tariffs which is --
JENNINGS: It was soft on Russia tonight.
NAVARRO: It's not soft on Russia. It's giving Trump a hard line on tariffs.
SELLERS: All I'm trying to do is --
JENNINGS: You guys are soft on Russia now. Sorry to report.
PHILLIP: Hold on, Scott. Go ahead, Bakari.
NAVARRO: And you're pro-tariffs, I'm sorry to report.
SELLERS: I know. Finding me to be pro-tariffs is the weirdest thing anyway. So, those type of targeted tariffs I believe are actually good for a functioning government. But when you want to talk about tax policy and how it impacts reassuring and all those other things, you can look at the CHIPS Act, right, where you had workforce development, where you had infrastructure, where you had tax credits for specific jobs. You know, that was actually a bipartisan piece of legislation where tax policy didn't choose winners and losers.
JENNINGS: The winners were the companies, were they not?
NAVARRO: Yes, but --
JENNINGS: They passed tax policy to influence economic activity.
NAVARRO: Okay. Let me just say -- let me say this.
[22:30:00]
There's three problems. There's three problems with this issue with Britt. One is the policy itself, the Trump policy itself, which is issuing blanket tariffs. Two is the hypocrisy, the fact that she is saying publicly something very differently than what she is saying privately. And three is the uneven playing field, where the companies that can hire lobbyists, the companies that can give political donations, the companies that can have access to their senators.
Because we all know not all companies, not all mom-and-pop companies get access to their senators are being able to have her advocate for them, while the mom-and-pop shops are not.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, HOST OF "THE SCOTT JENNINGS SHOW" ON SALEM RADIO, AUTHOR, "REVOLUTION OF COMMON SENSE", AND FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: May I ask you all a sincere question?
BILL DE BLASIO (D), FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: I think this is a bigger story here.
JENNINGS: Can I ask a sincere question?
DE BLASIO: Since Liberation Day, there has not been a coherent argument that the American people could understand on tariffs. It is not about job creation, it is not an industrial policy that makes sense.
What people have seen is chaos, the tariffs changing all the time, they've seen it be a very personal obsession of Trump. For the border states by Canada, they've seen that create tremendous disruption to their economy.
NAVARRO: The border states where there are some very tight races, like Maine and Michigan.
DE BLASIO: Exactly. But the bottom line here is, if Trump had started with, here's how we're going to create a new vision of the American economy, not an obsession with tariffs, and it had been applied consistently, maybe the American people could start to feel something here. But what they've seen effectively is chaos.
JENNINGS: Manufacturing jobs are up, way up actually, number one. Number two, I have a sincere question for you three. You all are very concerned about the tariffs as taxes.
If Donald Trump tomorrow said, I'll trade you elimination of all tariffs for elimination of all corporate income taxes, would you take the deal? Would you take all taxes down to zero?
PHILLIP: Scott, what is the point of that? You're mad about taxes.
NAVARRO: You're mad about taxes. You're mad about tariffs.
PHILLIP: What's the point of that hypothetical, Scott?
JENNINGS: The point is this. You're mad about certain taxes. that every democrat constantly argues for tax increases on corporations while arguing against tariffs. It makes no sense.
PHILLIP: Scott, you are the conservative at the table. That's why this is so, in some ways, it's so comedic because you have to bend -- Scott, just a second. We're talking for a second.
You have to bend over backwards to explain the conservative rationale for tariffs and I don't see you doing it. You keep telling me this is what Trump believes.
NAVARRO: You've got to make a choice.
PHILLIP: But you know what else Trump believes? He believes that if you stop trading with countries, you make money. That's not how that works, and that's also not how tariffs work.
JENNINGS: The rationale is --
PHILLIP: Tariffs are taxes on Americans, not on other countries.
JENNINGS: Let's start there. The rationale is very simple. They believe tariffs will stimulate manufacturing jobs in the United States, and in fact, last month it did, that's number one.
PHILLIP: So let's pause there for just a second because, yes, you're right. Last month it did.
It did not for 2025, so it has not been a clear story of a manufacturing boom as a result of these tariffs. It's going up now. In fact, manufacturing jobs stagnated in Trump's first year in office, Scott.
Look, it is fine to want to strategically reshore American jobs, but nothing that we are talking about right now is strategic. Trump slapped a random number, percentage-wise, on tariffs on every country in the world. Explain that.
JENNINGS: Let me answer your specific question about tariffs as taxes. I agree with you. Tariffs are a form of taxes, so are corporate income taxes.
My question to you all is very simple. If you're so upset about tariffs as taxes being depressive of economic activity, would you trade all the tariffs for a zeroing out of corporate income taxes?
PHILLIP: You don't have to do that because the tariffs are just --
JENNINGS: Why are certain taxes good and certain taxes bad? Because Trump did one and you want to do the other, and that's the way it is.
NAVARRO: Not to mention that these tariffs have been deemed unconstitutional by the court.
JENNINGS: Every Democrat will run for president on an increase in corporate income taxes after arguing against these tariffs.
NAVARRO: And the people running for the Senate, the Republicans running for Senate in Maine, like Susan Collins and Mike Rogers in Michigan that border Canada, are going to be running on how they oppose these tariffs placed by Donald Trump.
BAKARI SELLERS (D), FORMER SOUTH CAROLINE STATE REPRESENTATIVE, AND CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Also, no person running for United States Senate is going to take Scott's position on that either because it's patently absurd. It's absurd? What's absurd? You're asking people to trade? You're asking me do I want to get rid of corporate taxes or get rid of tariffs?
JENNINGS: No, I'm saying get rid of all of it.
NAVARRO: I also don't know why the hell I haven't gotten my tariff rebate check, dammit. I want my DOGE rebate check.
SELLERS: Would you get rid of all my tariffs?
NAVARRO: I want my $5,000.
JENNINGS: This is a revealing debate.
NAVARRO: I won't take it anymore. Give me my checks.
JENNINGS: This is a revealing debate.
You say taxes on corporations in the form of tariffs are passed on to consumers. Where do you think corporate income taxes go?
On to consumers. Would you want to zero out? LAUREN A. WRIGHT, ASSOCIATE RESEARCH SCHOLAR, AND LECTURER IN POLITICS
AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: And they're both bad.
JENNINGS: So let's zero out.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second.
JENNINGS: Trade it all.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. No.
[22:35:01]
I don't think that they're both the same.
SELLERS: They're not.
JENNINGS: You just said they're all taxes.
PHILLIP: They are not both the same.
JENNINGS: It's a tax. You said it was a tax.
PHILLIP: Tariffs have the effect of raising prices on goods.
JENNINGS: What do you think income taxes do? What do you think corporate income taxes do? Where do you think it goes?
PHILLIP: Do income taxes raise prices on goods? No, they don't.
JENNINGS: Any tax raises the price of all goods.
PHILLIP: What are you talking about?
JENNINGS: Of course it does.
PHILLIP: Income taxes do not raise (inaudible).
JENNINGS: If you were the Abby Phillip Corporation and I taxed you, you could pass it on to your products, whatever they were.
PHILLIP: Income taxes do not raise prices on goods. Tariffs do.
JENNINGS: A tax is a tax.
PHILLIP: And tariffs, by the way, tariffs are designed, according to Trump, to depress trade, which is not good for the American people. I don't understand.
First of all, I guess I was supposed to have said this earlier in the show, but Scott is reportedly under consideration for press secretary. I have to say that.
But secondly, I think it is not credible, because Katie Britt is not making that argument. Katie Britt is making the argument that tariffs are raising prices in her state. All of these Republicans, if you gave them truth serum, if you asked them to pass a bill that codified Donald Trump's tariffs, do you think that would pass?
JENNINGS: They have voted on tariffs.
PHILLIP: It would not. You know why?
SELLERS: The last time we had.
PHILLIP: You know why I know they wouldn't pass? Because it hadn't happened.
SELLERS: The last time we had corporate -- Can I just say this? It hasn't happened. The last time we had corporate tax cuts in the way that Scott's talking about, I believe, was 2017.
The people that had benefited were shareholders, it benefited corporate members, it benefited those individuals who had dividends. It did not trickle down and benefit the people. We saw stock buybacks, We did not see --
JENNINGS: We had a great economy. We had a great economy and Trump won. Yes, we did.
SELLERS: He ruined Barack Obama's --
PHILLIP: All right, we got to leave it there. People voted for him in 2024, even though he was impeached and disgraced.
All right, next for us. So we'll trust you. They're like Aaron Rodgers or Gritman right now.
What is one way to avoid an impeachment vote for a defense secretary? Well, you might want to have the House break for an early election recess. We'll tell you about it when we get back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, Mike Johnson is sending House lawmakers home early. He's canceling votes that were planned for Thursday in a move that could prevent a major embarrassment for the GOP.
Yesterday, Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie stunned members of his own party by announcing that he would be forcing a vote to impeach Pete Hegseth over his handling of the war in Iran. Now, because Massie's resolution carries special procedural power, it forced GOP leaders to put it on the House floor in the coming days.
And now Republicans have found a way to stall that vote by leaving early and postponing it until November. Announcing the schedule change, Mike Johnson had this to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: It's time for our members to go home to their districts and make their case to the American people to go and explain all the great things we've done. You've seen the record. You've seen what we've delivered.
I'm excited for my Republican colleagues to go home and talk to the American people, work in their districts, and explain to them not only serving their constituents, but explaining to them all the great things we've done for them and all the things we're going to do in the days ahead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: The House has worked a total of 122 days, or a little over four months this year. It is mid-September, about 57 days until the next election, and they're gone.
NAVARRO: I think it's 49 days, 48 days maybe.
Not only that, they just came back from an August recess. They had a huge August recess, which is the time when they're supposed to be in their districts making their case and campaigning. I think this has got to hit the American people the wrong way.
At a time when Americans are having a hard economic reality, to see people getting paid with our taxpayer money, who are not showing up to work and out there campaigning, while people are worried about everything that's going on with A.I., to see them just pack their bags and go home is, I think, somewhat offensive to most average Americans.
DE BLASIO: To not take action on A.I. after what's come out in these last few days. I'm amazed on a strategic level that Mike Johnson didn't think we are in a losing position. Right now, the Republicans are losing.
They need to put up some more points, they need to do something more for the American people. They had a chance on A.I. to show that something that literally could be an existential threat to the American people, that they see it and they're doing something about it, and instead he says, go home. Talk to people.
JENNINGS: What would they do?
DE BLASIO: Fight for something.
First of all, let's talk about the majority of the American people who right now think A.I. is a threat to them, particularly to their jobs. You could have at least seen the beginning of an effort to embed safety officers in corporations, to get some kind of disclosure from corporations.
SELLERS: National regulations.
JENNINGS: National regulations. Officers in corporations.
DE BLASIO: Hold on. We're talking, we own a piece of intel. We could give you 20 different examples of things that could be done to address some of the concerns around A.I., and what do they do? They go home.
[22:45:01]
PHILLIP: So on a more practical, hold on a second, just on a more practical, I shouldn't say more practical, but even if you put aside the A.I. of it all, there were some Republicans who wanted to address the price of gas.
They wanted to push for some kind of gas tax holiday.
DE BLASIO: Suspension of federal gas tax.
PHILLIP: Controversial policy. But some of them, okay, let's do something. Let's show symbolically that we're working on things that Americans care about. Instead, nope, they're gone.
SELLERS: Well, they actually passed a bunch of bills today. They passed the Ratepayer Protection Act, which actually has to do with data centers, and it would put the tech companies building the data centers on the hook for all energy infrastructure. That's number one.
Number two, they passed a fraud bill today. Number three, they did the Russia sanctions bill, which most Democrats voted against. The idea that they didn't do anything while they were there is not true.
Now they are going home to campaign, and they do need to campaign.
PHILLIP: Okay, so I'm going to pause this here, and we're going to take a quick break. We'll come back, and then I'll let you hear what Republicans think about this break that they are being forced to take now.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANY RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What do you think of the fact that the House is not leaving town until after the November elections?
REP. RALPH NORMAN (R-SC): Well, if you leave, in the business arena, if you leave town, you don't get paid, you don't work. Disappointing.
REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): Democrats benefit from this as much as Republicans do. Everyone gets to go home and campaign. It's going to be a bloodbath. RAJU: The Speaker, though, says the reason why you guys can go home is
because you guys have done such a great job up here. Do you think that the public thinks you guys have done such a great job?
MACE: No, actually not. We have the lowest ratings ever in the history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Yes, they're thrilled.
JENNINGS: For the record, they don't need to go home and campaign because they're both out.
SELLERS: First of all, my South Carolinians, although I don't claim them often, they were actually right. Ralph Norman made a good point.
If you're not going to work, don't get paid. Nobody else in America is able to say we're not going to show up for four months. And I hear you.
You named three bills before we went to break.
JENNINGS: They passed them all today.
SELLERS: Congratulations. There's still so much work to be done, right? And it's just, I think it's insulting to the American public because there are people who wake up every single day, right?
And every politician gives the same story because we know those people, those working class people, they wish they didn't have to go to work.
NAVARRO: Those people who wake up every day and work two and three jobs to make ends meet.
SELLERS: Or the working poor, which we have to explain to Republicans.
WRIGHT: They're all Republicans now.
PHILLIP: The other thing we didn't even talk about is that all of this is in service of protecting Pete Hegseth from an impeachment vote.
JENNINGS: You know, this vote, by the way, this is a tactical matter.
If this vote had occurred and Massie got all the Democrats and just a couple of Republicans, they could have passed it. But you know what would have happened as a procedural matter? It would have put the Senate immediately at trial, which would have tied up the Senate for the next however long.
WRIGHT: And also, may I just say, it is a careful what you wish for situation. Because who's Trump going to pick to replace him?
First of all, it's going to slot in Feinberg, who has even less military experience than Pete Hegseth. That's the main knock on Hegseth.
SELLERS: He must have none.
WRIGHT: He has none. It could be a loyalist. It could be Dennis Quaid.
It could be anyone. It could be anyone.
DE BLASIO: Yes, that's correct.
WRIGHT: I'm just saying. These Democrats are hating on Hegseth. I get it.
DE BLASIO: We didn't do this.
NAVARRO: That was Thomas Massie.
DE BLASIO: Thomas Massie. We didn't do this.
SELLERS: He's effectively one of them now.
WRIGHT: I'm kind of one of you guys now. But careful what you wish for.
PHILLIP: This is a stand-in for Hakeem Jeffries at this table. Because what I was going to say was that actually, you know, there's a lot of people out there Democrats also did not really want this to happen, maybe for the reasons you mentioned, but also just because they have a whole other agenda.
Pete Hegseth is for down the road, if maybe they take over the House. But right now, they don't want to be talking about Pete Hegseth. They want to talk about affordability.
DE BLASIO: Look, I think this is a boon for the Democrats. I think it's horrible for the American people that Congress left, I think it's an insult to working people. But it's a boon to the Democrats.
Because when you're in a campaign, the question is closing argument, right?
Right now, the Republicans just said, we're folding right here. We've done everything we're going to do. Judge us based on our work up to now.
When people in this country don't even think they've addressed the core issue. What I don't get is why would Johnson not say we have to produce something more to even have a credible chance in this election?
PHILLIP: I guess maybe he might not say that because the real thing that they would need to do is get the President to drop his tariffs and end the war. And they can't really do that.
WRIGHT: But Democrats really don't have policy solutions to the lowering prices in Washington. That's the real problem.
SELLERS: It's a lot like Republicans in their fixes for health care.
WRIGHT: Yes, it is.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, we've got your feedback to react to. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Now, some viewer feedback from cnn.com/abby.
First one says, taxing millionaires and billionaires will not be enough money for free health care. So where will the money come from? Bill?
Absolutely correct.
DE BLASIO: I think the bottom line here is you start with that. I would rather have a system with appropriate co-pays and other ways for people to contribute, but the universal ability to get health care than what we have now where tens of millions of people either don't have health insurance or don't have quality care.
WRIGHT: I love this person. Even if we taxed every person making over a million a year at 100 percent, as in confiscating all of their wealth every year, all of their income, you wouldn't cover the deficit. So good luck with that to the Democrats.
PHILLIP: But that's the deficit.
WRIGHT: That's a one-year deficit. Anyway.
That's a very good question. I like your viewer.
DE BLASIO: You can't have tens of millions of people not getting health care. That's the bottom line.
WRIGHT: So where are you going to pull it out of the sky? Yes.
[23:00:05]
SELLERS: I think a country that cannot provide health care for its own people is on the wrong track, period.
We better try something different.
JENNINGS: You think we should raise some taxes? Because you were vehemently against tariffs earlier, but now you're for these taxes.
SELLERS: Raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires, absolutely.
JENNINGS: I'm trying to pin you down. PHILLIP: All right, last one. I don't agree on any of Scott's
policies, but I agree that the beard had to go. It's a thumbs-up for me.
JENNINGS: Let me address this.
PHILLIP: Quickly. We have five, two seconds.
JENNINGS: I started growing that when Senator McConnell went to the hospital, and I vowed to shave when he went back to work, and here we are.
PHILLIP: Okay. All right. That's that, everyone.
Thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
