Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Sues WSJ Over Report On Epstein Letter; DOGE Cuts U.S. Institute Of Peace With Another Round Of Firings; Caitlin Clark To Miss WNBA All-Star Game Due To Injury. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired July 18, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL WEIR, CNN CHIEF CLIMATE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The humble respect for nature and neighbor, passed down from the very first Hawaiians.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Fun story to shoot. Don't miss Bill's report in an all-new episode of "The Whole Story With Anderson Cooper," Sunday, 08:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only here on CNN.
And tonight, the news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts right now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump is turning to the courts to accomplish what he has not been able to, thus far. Quiet the fury when it comes to the Jeffrey Epstein files.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
On two fronts tonight, we are seeing the President turn to the courts.
First tonight, his Department of Justice has asked a judge for permission to release some, but not all, of the information they have related to Jeffrey Epstein. More on that in a moment.
And second, and in an unprecedented move, we're seeing the President file a libel lawsuit, accusing The Wall Street Journal, its parent company, and Rupert Murdoch himself, of defamation.
The President is furious over this article that was published last night, alleging that he wrote a crude birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein, more than 21 years ago. The two men were friends at the time, before Epstein had been charged with any crimes.
And still, the President's anger over this story, so high, that he took it up with the Speaker of the House, directly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): The President and I talked about that ridiculous allegation this morning. He said it's patently absurd. He's never drawn such a picture. He's never thought of drawing such a picture. And he said, Did you see the language of this bogus, supposed communication or card or something I supposedly sent to Epstein? He said, I don't talk like that. I don't think like that. They're literally making things up. He's so frustrated by it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Part of what he's so frustrated by is this. According to The Wall Street Journal, the letter to Epstein included a drawing of a naked woman, a fact that the President seized on. He said this, quote, "These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don't draw pictures."
Though, there is this sketch he drew in 2005, of the New York City skyline. It actually sold at auction for about $30,000, back in 2017.
The President who in this lawsuit tonight, is taking issue with The Wall Street Journal describing him as being friends with Jeffrey Epstein, despite video and pictures that we've seen of the two of them together previously, before what was described as a falling out. This lawsuit tonight insists that there is no authentic letter or drawing that exists, and it's seeking at least $10 billion -- billion -- in damages.
On Truth Social, the President posted right after, and said, "I hope Rupert and his "friends" are looking forward to the many hours of depositions and testimonies they will have to provide in this case."
Lawyers have noted it's also standard for the plaintiff, which would, in this case, would be the President, to be deposed in a lawsuit like this.
But in the meantime, this story may actually be helping him, when it comes to the political aspect of all of this. For the first time in weeks, we've been listening to these right-wing podcasters, who have been so furious with the President, and his team's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Now we're seeing some of MAGA's most influential voices rallying behind him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, EXECUTIVE AND FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: Last night, they tried to actually destroy him with what looks like a phony and fake letter.
President Trump has put him on blast, put Murdoch on blast particularly. As I have long recommended, those clips, right there, are over a number of years. And who had the stones to stand up to the Murdochs? Most of these guys are still sucking up to Fox and sucking up to The Wall Street Journal.
Quite frankly, the Murdochs concocted something last night, and thought it'd be a kill shot on President Trump. And lo and behold, it's the exact opposite, because President Trump is now on offense of what we said should be done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Steve Bannon's thoughts on this lawsuit. And this comes, I should note, as the Attorney General is asking a judge, here in New York, to unseal portions of the grand jury material in the Epstein case.
In this court filing today, from the Justice Department, they say that public pressure is the reason they're doing this. They write, quote, "Given the public interest in the investigative work conducted by the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation into Epstein, the Department of Justice moves the Court to unseal the underlying grand jury transcripts in United States v. Epstein, subject to appropriate redactions of victim-related and other personal identifying information."
Now, as litigious as Donald Trump's history is, when we look at this tonight, and what the DOJ is asking a court, in New York here for, and waiting to see what that looks like, but also this lawsuit and the step of a sitting President suing a news outlet? It marks a significant shift in his push to silence criticism.
[21:05:00]
He's never been shy about voicing his frustration with The Wall Street Journal, in the past.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: What does The Wall Street Journal know? They've been wrong about everything.
Look, Wall Street Journal is China-oriented and they're really bad for this country.
Wall Street Journal has truly gone to hell.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But he's not only suing The Wall Street Journal. He's also suing the paper's owner himself, the person who, just five months ago, President Trump welcomed into the Oval Office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The legendary Rupert Murdoch.
Rupert is in a class by himself, he's an amazing guy.
I have great respect for Rupert Murdoch.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Some of CNN's best experts are here to help us sort through all of this tonight. CNN Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig, Senior Correspondent, Donie O'Sullivan, and our Chief Media Analyst, Brian Stelter.
And Brian, I know you're hearing from The Wall Street Journal, just right before we came on air. What did they have to say about this lawsuit from the President?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Yes, this is the first response to the lawsuit, from The Wall Street Journal. A spokesperson for Dow Jones, the owner of The Journal, says the following. We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit.
That's to be expected, but it's also important to hear. The Wall Street Journal is prepared for this. They're not surprised about this lawsuit. And there's no indication they're going to fold anytime soon.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, he threatened it before they obviously actually published this.
Elie, when you look at this, do you think it has merit? Or, how do you see it?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: So, it's really, really hard to win a defamation case, if you're a public figure, which of course, Donald Trump is.
As Brian said, the reason Donald Trump has quote-unquote, Won, so many of these defamation suits is because people are caving in. They're settling. And--
COLLINS: Right, it's not a judge saying, Oh, on the merits you won.
HONIG: Right.
COLLINS: It's the companies or the legal or the news outlets caving.
HONIG: Exactly. And a lot of times that's just the bottom line loss calculus of, Cheaper to settle than to go through even a trial, win or lose.
And so, if The Wall Street Journal and Murdoch stick by the statement that Brian just read, and fight it? I mean, I think their chances of prevailing are very, very high.
Donald Trump, if he's going to win this, he has to prove, one, that the statements against him about that letter were false, and two, that The Wall Street Journal acted knowingly, they knowingly published a falsehood, or recklessly published a falsehood. That's -- Supreme Court set that standard years ago, and it's intentionally set very high.
COLLINS: So, there was a lot of refreshing happening, late this afternoon, to see this lawsuit.
Elie, just on the part where it says that -- they list financial harm twice before they mentioned reputational harm. HONIG: Right.
COLLINS: Does that stand out to you?
HONIG: I don't know how they're going to prove that. What financial loss? First of all, this happened last night. Has he lost 10 -- was it $10 billion--
COLLINS: Billion.
HONIG: --in 12 hours? That's impossible. These are -- look, these are made-up numbers. That's not uncommon, when you have a lawsuit like this, people put outrageous numbers on there. But, I mean, I don't take those numbers seriously at all.
COLLINS: Donie, what is interesting, though, is the White House's attitude has kind of shifted a little bit. And I don't want to say wind in their sails, but to a degree, they feel like they have something to fight about now, that two days ago, they were just getting railed on by their biggest supporters and influencers outside the White House.
DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and you saw that clip you played there from Steve Bannon. I mean, all week we've heard people just talking about getting -- you know, Trump has to do something, Trump has to release these files. That's what you're hearing from MAGA media.
But what's happened over the past 24 hours is they have this thing to rally around, right? And they're almost being distracted by -- they're so-now intent at going after The Wall Street Journal, and going after News Corp, and the reporters who reported on this, that they're no longer talking about the substance of what may be in these files that they are -- have been so long obsessed about.
COLLINS: Yes, well, and Brian on this, I should note that, as this lawsuit was being filed against The Wall Street Journal today--
STELTER: Yes.
COLLINS: --Trump's lawsuit against Bob Woodward got dismissed today, of his audiobook, with the recordings with Trump.
STELTER: That's right. That's right.
COLLINS: But I do wonder, should we be looking at this as the same old lawsuit that Trump has filed before? Or do you think this could be different and should be taken more seriously?
STELTER: I put this in a new category, not because of the legal arguments. Because from the legal experts that I've emailed with tonight, the ones I've spoken with so far, nobody I've heard from believes this is a very serious case in terms of, a threat to First Amendment rights, that they don't see this as a very strong case by Trump. But it is unique in one way. It's the first time a sitting President has filed a lawsuit against a news outlet for a story he doesn't like. All of Trump's past lawsuits, against CBS, and ABC, and Meta, and X, all those past lawsuits, Bob Woodward, which was dismissed today? Those were all filed before he took office again. They were all filed when he was still a private citizen.
COLLINS: And he didn't file any when he was in office the last time he was in office (ph)?
STELTER: No, I've been scouring the web, looking for those. I talked to Ted Boutros, and other lawyers, tonight. None of us can find any example of a lawsuit like this, filed by a sitting President, against a news outlet. So, we are in an unprecedented moment, and you kind of wonder, if this is the first of many.
COLLINS: Yes.
And also, I should note, also joining us is someone who used to represent Donald Trump. Jim Trusty is here with us.
And Jim Trusty, when you look at this, the President described this as a powerhouse lawsuit. Is that how you see it?
[21:10:00]
JIM TRUSTY, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, look, I think Elie's got the legal framework right. Actual malice is difficult for public figures. This is about the most public figure we have.
It's really hard for any of us to totally guess this, though. We don't know if it's a powerhouse until we know exactly what the communications were, from White House to Wall Street Journal. And of course, the President and Karoline Leavitt apparently said, This is bogus, it's not real.
But then also, the homework done by The Wall Street Journal to satisfy themselves that they should publish this inflammatory thing? That's the big question of whether it's a very serious case or just a symbolic case.
And look, I think there's a chance there's something to this thing. I don't know what the damages come out to, to that point. But if they were on notice that this is bogus, and it was not consistent with anything this President ever wrote or created? Then they better have some sourcing to back themselves up, or they do have a problem.
COLLINS: Yes, but when you look at it, they're calling it non- existent, and also saying that when they're arguing -- making this argument, if you look inside the lawsuit here, they're basically saying that this letter was never shown to them, but then they're saying it doesn't exist.
But then you read The Wall Street Journal story, and they're saying, We reviewed the letter and that is why we're publishing it. That's how they described it.
TRUSTY: Yes, look, it's early. There's a lot of fog of war, right now, in terms of really getting down to hardcore facts.
But I will just also tell you, Karoline -- Kaitlan, you know this for me. I mean, I looked at an awful lot of documents of President Trump's, for a variety of reasons, when I was representing him. And this does feel strange. I mean, I know people are going to disagree. We've got a sketch of the New York skylines (ph).
But the combination of typing, of saying these things, of doodling a woman? None of it seems all that authentic to me from the outside. I know that's not conclusive. But if they pointed that out to The Journal and said, This is out of character, not ours? And you don't have something to back it up? Then they're going to have some liability.
COLLINS: When it comes to where this was filed, the federal court in Miami. Not a federal court here in New York, even though the company is incorporated in Delaware, it's headquartered in New York, and all the principals live in New York. Why do you think they chose Miami here?
TRUSTY: Well, I think it's a couple of things. One, it's an available venue. And for President Trump, even though not everything in South Florida always breaks his way, it's a hell of a lot better venue for him than anything in New York. I mean, he's lived the New York experience. So, if you can avoid filing in that courthouse, you're going to do it.
But the venue is pretty wide open for defamation. You can say it has affected you reputationally, where you live with people that have voted for you in South Florida. I mean, it's going to stay in South Florida. That's just the perk of being the plaintiff.
COLLINS: Trump was saying, Rupert Murdoch's going to have to sit for a deposition and his friends. But Trump's also potentially going to have to sit for a deposition if it gets to that point. Do you think that's risky for him?
TRUSTY: Yes, I mean, look, he's pretty comfortable in his own skin, when it comes to talk -- he gets deposed every day by you guys, in a sense. I mean, there's no -- there's nothing that's off-limits--
COLLINS: I'm not sure that's the same thing.
TRUSTY: --in terms of the questions and this.
COLLINS: As much as we try to work hard on our questions--
TRUSTY: Well, OK.
COLLINS: --I don't think that's the same thing.
TRUSTY: Yes, I know what you're saying, but it's not -- it's not radically different from kind of way he takes it, his personality. I mean, look, it's not -- it's kind of a crazy concept to think of a sitting President, having to take time out and do a deposition, but we did live that once with Bill Clinton, and it's the nature of the beast.
But the good news, probably, if you're one of the President's advisers, is it ain't happening soon, like this is not something that's going to happen in the next five months, six months.
COLLINS: Yes.
TRUSTY: We're going to have motions to dismiss a long time before we have litigation with the depositions.
COLLINS: If you were on the legal team, would you have felt good about filing this lawsuit?
TRUSTY: It doesn't matter. I'm not on the legal team.
COLLINS: That's a telling answer.
TRUSTY: I mean, look, I'll say--
COLLINS: That sounds like a no.
TRUSTY: No, no, it's not. No, no, no, no, don't do that.
COLLINS: OK.
TRUSTY: Look, here -- here's what I would tell you, Kaitlan. This is very sincere. Defamation cases for a public figure are much harder when it's a broad-stroke type event, where you're saying, This network -- whatever network -- is treating me unfairly, and here's a whole bunch of examples.
When you have a singular moment where you can say, This is defamation? And I think Alan Dershowitz won a case on CNN for this, down in South Florida. When you have a single moment, it tends to make the case stronger for the plaintiff, and that's what we're talking about here. There's nothing that suggests this is going to be, The Wall Street Journal has forever been mean to me.
So, I think it's got a chance. But it is, again, institutionally uphill when you have defamation of a public figure.
COLLINS: Yes.
I mean, Elie, when you look at this, and in terms of what they're arguing here in the lawsuit, what else stands out to you? I mean, when you actually read The Wall Street Journal story, it's written pretty carefully. I think it was overhyped, because everyone was talking about what they were going to drop, and it was going to be explosive.
They wrote it and said, A lot of other people wrote letters too. Here's what we saw--
HONIG: Right. COLLINS: --blah, blah, blah.
[21:15:00]
HONIG: It's also very specific, The Wall Street Journal article, right? Describes the actual binding on the book and the insignia and all of that.
And so, the only way the Washington -- that The Wall Street Journal is going to lose this is if they were just outrageously journalistically irresponsible, if they published a lie, and they knew it was a lie. That is really, really hard to show. You have to presume -- I mean, Stelter's--
COLLINS: But don't you think it's the opposite that they were probably super-careful that they say--
HONIG: Well that's what I was just going to say.
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: --no outlet did this to the President (ph) and he was--
HONIG: Stelter's the media expert. Yes.
COLLINS: --threatening to sue.
HONIG: I mean, they have to have gone above and beyond, right?
STELTER: They may well have a lot more evidence, and they just haven't published yet.
HONIG: Well there's that too.
STELTER: And that's a giant question mark.
HONIG: Yes.
STELTER: Are they sitting on this letter and they're going to share it when they decide that's in their interest?
Other news outlets have been chasing stories about Trump and Epstein in recent days as well. The Journal got there first. That doesn't mean this is the end, by any stretch of the imagination.
And now what you've got, Kaitlan, you've got like Godzilla versus King Kong, like Rupert Murdoch versus Donald Trump. I would not want to get in the middle of this. Back in 2020, in 2021, Rupert Murdoch talked about Trump being increasingly mad. He said, We're going to make Trump a non-person after January 6th. This is a relationship where they pull apart--
COLLINS: Yes.
STELTER: --they come back together, and now they're pulling way apart again. COLLINS: Well, and I was thinking today just about how long this Epstein saga has resurfaced, in Trump's world--
STELTER: Yes.
COLLINS: --as he's -- from being a private citizen to being President, Donie.
I mean, I was thinking back today. We were at this moment, on the South Lawn of the White House, Trump's first term. His Labor Secretary's on thin ice, he's facing all this backlash for negotiating a total sweetheart deal, when he was U.S. Attorney, for Jeffrey Epstein.
And there was this moment that we looked at today on the South Lawn where the President was asked about his relationship with Epstein.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I wasn't a big fan of Jeffrey Epstein, that I can tell you. And now, if you look, the remnants hurt this man. And I hate to see it happen. I will say this, and I'll say it again, and I say it loud and clear - Alex Acosta was a great Secretary of Labor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: July 2019.
It's July 2025, and we're seeing now his Attorney General being involved in this, in a separate way, but having to go and ask for the courts to unseal these records.
O'SULLIVAN: And what is incredible here is that what wasn't in the White House, in 2019, which is now, is this sort of new press corps, quote-unquote, the MAGA media press.
And it's been very notable, and I think you could probably attest to this, Kaitlan, there hasn't been many questions. I mean, we know, like Lindell-TV, Bannon, they all now have so-called correspondents, the reporters, whatever you want to call them, in the White House Briefing Room. Their audience is intensely interested in, and even obsessed--
STELTER: Yes.
O'SULLIVAN: --with the Epstein stuff. They, on their networks, in their studios, they've been talking about a lot. But very few, or, I don't know if any of these MAGA media reporters have actually used their access to the White House, to the Briefing Room, to the President's, to push him on this, since the DOJ created this news cycle, what was it, two weeks ago now?
COLLINS: Yes.
STELTER: MAGA media is also embedded at the FBI. I'd love to hear from Dan Bongino. He's been the quietest--
O'SULLIVAN: Oh, yes.
STELTER: --preacher on X this week. We still don't know what's going on there.
COLLINS: Yes, or if he's staying on the job, even. White House officials were wondering that.
Great to have all of you here. Jim Trusty, you as well. Thanks so much for joining.
Up next. The President's actions, are they enough to stop a bipartisan effort that's making its way on Capitol Hill, to get the Epstein documents released? My next source is a lawmaker who is pushing to force it. He's a Democrat. He's ahead.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: The President's turn to the judicial system is not slowing the challenges for the Jeffrey Epstein story that has been -- that have been created for him, inside Congress.
There's a bipartisan push, underway right now, to demand the release of all the Jeffrey Epstein files that is underway in the House. So far, it's got 10 Republican co-sponsors. That include some of the President's most vocal supporters, as you can see here. Republican congressman, Thomas Massie, tweeted, Folks, keep the pressure on, it's working. But we want all the files.
The leading Democrat on that legislation is my source tonight. California congressman, Ro Khanna.
And it's great to have you here, sir.
I wonder, when it comes to what the White House is pushing for now, after facing so much pressure, to release parts of the grand jury testimony that can be released, do you think that's a good start?
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): It is a good step. And they obviously are responding to what Thomas Massie and I are doing in Congress, and the fact that there are 10 Republican co-sponsors.
The problem is, Kaitlan, that most of those grand jury evidence, files are concerned Epstein and Maxwell. They aren't concerning all of the rich and powerful men who may have engaged in illegal conduct.
And the second problem is that that is subject to a court's order, whereas there's a lot that the Justice Department has, in terms of interview memorandum, in terms of texts and emails, that is in their own discretion to release, and they can do that while protecting the victims.
COLLINS: When it comes to what the push is for, on Capitol Hill, with the number of co-sponsors that you have, can you -- can't you force a vote, come September? KHANNA: We can. In fact, we could have probably forced it earlier. And Speaker -- the Speaker's well-aware of this, and that's why I think he's going to adjourn us early, next week, because they don't want the seven days to take place.
Massie and I introduced the bill. It has to sit there for seven days before we can have the discharge petition. So, as soon as we come back from recess, we will have the votes. We will have all 212 Democrats. We have 10 Republicans, right now, who have co-sponsored, and none of them have taken their names off since President Trump has made this statement about the grand jury. And I expect that we're going to get more Republicans engaging in and co-sponsoring this.
COLLINS: OK. So, you're saying you will force a vote, come September.
[21:25:00]
I want you to listen. You mentioned Speaker Mike Johnson. This is what Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi had to say about how this all -- this whole saga, is playing out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): You know, again, this is a distraction. This is a distraction. We have major issues, right here, with -- things we're voting on today in the Congress, again, in terms of the rescission that the President and the Senate have sent back over to us to cut all of these resources, out of helping poor people throughout the world, America play its leadership role in soft power to keep us safe and to keep us healthy, so that viruses know no boundary. And instead, we're talking about him, about this thing.
And his own base has its own views of what the President should do. I'll leave it up to them to talk it out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Are you contributing to what she says is a distraction?
KHANNA: Well, not only is it not a distraction, it's one of the most important issues. I'll tell you three reasons why.
First, there are a lot of Democrats who say, Fight, fight, fight. How about fight smartly and strategically? This is the first time, in my memory, that you have actually legislation that is splitting the MAGA base. When else on any scandal, on any issue, have you had Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, Tim Burchett, Lauren Boebert, all aligned with Democrats to say, Donald Trump isn't doing what he promised.
Second, this is about who do you trust in government? Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of protecting rich and powerful people who have had too much sway, too much influence for decades? Are you against this corrupt system? Or are you going to protect them? And so, I think it goes to the fundamental issue of trust in government, and is the Democratic Party going to be a populist party. COLLINS: So, why didn't Democrats introduce this kind of legislation in the last four years?
KHANNA: Well, there are a couple of reasons.
One, Donald Trump ran on this, and he said he was going to release the file, so he raised the stakes.
Second, Pam Bondi went on national television and said that there was a Epstein list. Now, I know she's walking it back and saying she's -- just was talking about a file on her desk.
But they have so raised the stakes of this that now, ordinary Americans believe that rich and powerful people are being protected, and that the government is hiding something. So, it now has become an issue of trust.
But you're right. We didn't raise it in Trump one, or Biden, until Donald Trump has made this a symbol for corruption in government.
COLLINS: Congressman Ro Khanna, thanks for your time tonight.
KHANNA: Thank you.
COLLINS: We have new details up next on that stunning news coming out of CBS tonight. What we are learning about what was behind the decision to cancel "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert."
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, one of the biggest unions in media is calling for an investigation into the stunning cancelation of "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert." The Writers Guild of America, which represents the writers on Colbert's show, says it has, quote, "Significant concerns that The Late Show's cancelation is a bribe."
This comes, as Skydance CEO, David Ellison, is seeking the Trump administration's approval of his merger with CBS' parent company, Paramount. And The Guild tonight is calling on the A.G., here in New York, Letitia James, to launch an investigation into potential wrongdoing at Paramount.
In a statement, CBS maintained the cancelation is a purely financial decision.
And all of this is coming as a new filing today revealed that David Ellison met with the FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, earlier this week. Skydance said the meeting, quote, "Emphasized the public interest benefits" of the proposed acquisition of Paramount Global.
My sources tonight are CNN's Michael Smerconish, and former deputy assistant to President Biden, Jamal Simmons.
It's great to have you both here. Smerconish, when you read that they're saying it's purely financial decision. If you look into the numbers, there is data that shows ad revenue for network late night shows shrunk about 50 percent from 2018. It was -- used to be $439 million. Now it's $220 million. That's the reality of what is happening due -- to the business. But I wonder what you make of their claims in this moment.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN HOST, SMERCONISH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: He's a really funny guy. I did the Colbert Report once, and I remember he came into the green room, before we started, and he said, Do one thing. Remember, I'm the funny man, so you don't have to try. And I thought, OK, that sets the stage. Because I was nervous that I wouldn't be able to say something humorous.
Listen, in May, according to Nielsen, the people who do all the television ratings, for the first time, streaming surpassed the combination of cable and broadcast television. So, it's a troublesome environment for us all, dare I say.
So, I think that there's a financial argument as to why they wanted to do this. And there's a political argument as well, because they were able to detach themselves, or they will, when he finishes, from a liability in the eyes of President Trump. So, from that perspective, probably win-win for the parent. I'm sorry to see it happen.
COLLINS: Yes, and they have made -- I mean, it's been so clear that they are trying to get a very lucrative merger done. We've known that. That has been the background of all of this.
Stephen Colbert actually criticized that, the settlement that happened as a part of this, with the CBS editing of the Harris -- Kamala Harris interview. And I want to listen to what Colbert said about that.
[21:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, "THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT": Now I believe this kind of complicated financial settlement, with a sitting government official, has a technical name in legal circles. It's big, fat bribe.
(LAUGHTER)
COLBERT: Because this all comes as Paramount's owners are trying to get the Trump administration to approve the sale of our network to a new owner, Skydance.
(MUSIC)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And Trump, of course, responded to his cancelation today, saying he loves that he got fired, and he hopes that Jimmy Kimmel is next. JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, CO-HOST, "TRAILBLAZE" PODCAST, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRES. BIDEN: Yes. You know Kaitlan, I was the Vice President's communications director. I was not there, when she did the "60 Minutes" interview. But I was there for a lot of times when she did interviews.
And of course, sometimes people might shave off a second here, like a second there, in a question, just to kind of make it all -- make the video work. But I don't think they did anything that was untoward, nothing that's not normal.
So, the President of the United States getting this worked up about a CBS interview, and CBS cutting this deal with him to, like, pay this money, just doesn't sit well, I think, with a lot of people.
Now, when you watch Colbert, and he teases the corporate ownership, it just harkens back to the old days, right? When David Letterman used to do this with GE, when he was at NBC, and he would really clown (ph) the parent network or the parent company all the time. It was part of one of the -- part of the shtick.
It just seems like in normal times, this wouldn't be that big of a deal. But something about this moment just makes it feel fishy, because they've got this merger that's in the works.
SMERCONISH: I agree with that. I think it's a combination of being a burr in the saddle of President Trump, and him not taking well to that.
I also think there's such fragmentation in the marketplace, because you no longer need to tune in and watch Colbert. If you want comedy, you could go to Netflix, I do, and watch any number of specials. SiriusXM's got a half dozen channels. And of course, there are any number of podcasts. So, it's a whole new environment, is what I'm trying to say, and there are political consequences.
COLLINS: Yes.
I want to talk about something else that's been going on with the White House today. The Trump administration has completed a large scale prisoner swap with Venezuela. It's 250 Venezuelans, who had been deported from the United States. They're now going home.
We saw these pictures today of all remaining American hostages, who are being held in Venezuela that have been released, with the State Department showing 10 of them onboard a plane.
I actually just sat down with the Special Envoy for Hostages, for the Trump administration, Adam Boehler, yesterday, when we were at this conference, in Colorado. This is what he said about how the President's approach to hostages has worked.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADAM BOEHLER, U.S. HOSTAGE ENVOY: When we decided to make a move, and the President decided to move on Iran? For me, getting Americans out? That's going to get Americans out. Because what do I need to say? You don't want to listen to the President. One of his core platforms is getting Americans out. Look what happens.
And so, it's so important to have that credibility. And that kind of credibility, it doesn't just bring Americans home. It makes people think twice before they take them.
I spoke with the President of a country this morning.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I guess that country, we've now learned when it comes to what that was.
But I wonder what you made of his answer there, in terms of the credibility he has, going into negotiations on something so sensitive.
SIMMONS: Yes, look, I think, anytime Americans come home, we should all be celebrating. It's a good -- it's a good day for the country. So, I'm not going to begrudge the President for cutting a deal.
I am, though, particularly curious, because the President made a lot of noise, earlier in the year, that he couldn't actually do anything about the prisoners that he had sent to El Salvador, that those guys were there, and there was nothing that he could do to get them moved anywhere else. So, I'm just a little curious as to how they were able to pull this off in a country where the President didn't seem like he had any influence.
SMERCONISH: So there's that. That was the comments, I think, made to Judge Boasberg.
There's also the issue of their quote-unquote, Terrorists. I'm thinking to myself, if they're such bad individuals, why would Venezuela be willing to take them back? It's a win for President Trump, because 250 people that he didn't want here are gone. 10 Americans now come home.
But there's something else. I think, maybe the President hopes he can avoid further litigation on the Alien Enemies Act, which was always thin ground, and perhaps hopes that that discussion goes away.
COLLINS: Yes, that's a good point.
Jamal Simmons. Michael Smerconish. So great to have you here in-person with us.
SMERCONISH: Thank you.
SIMMONS: Thank you.
COLLINS: And be sure to watch Michael's show, "SMERCONISH," tomorrow at 09:00 a.m. Eastern, here on CNN. Don't miss it.
Up next. We're going to talk about the battle that is underway between the Trump administration, and an agency that President Reagan once called as the valuable way to promote peace with freedom. My source tonight is that agency's longtime counsel, and is here to break down the fight underway with DOGE.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As Congress is sending President Trump a package to sign that makes DOGE cuts, some of them, to the federal government permanent, there's a major legal battle at a government agency that is meant to promote peace around the world, and has been targeted by President Trump and by DOGE.
The U.S. Institute of Peace is a non-partisan, independent body that was created by Congress. Its stated mission is to prevent and resolve violent conflicts. And President Ronald Reagan signed the bill, creating the USIP in 1984, saying this about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN, 40TH U.S. PRESIDENT: Well, congratulations on getting underway with work of the new U.S. Institute of Peace. This Institute, we think, will be a valuable source of scholarly research and information on ways in which we can promote peace with freedom.
As Abraham Lincoln reminded us in his second inaugural address: We must do all which may achieve a just and lasting peace with all nations.
[21:45:00]
A real and secure peace depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But in February, President Trump issued an executive order deeming the USIP unnecessary, and terminating most of its staff. Since, the Institute has been locked in a big legal battle with DOGE, after DOGE sent $13 million of their private donor funds to the United States Treasury.
My source tonight is George Foote, who has represented the U.S. Institute of Peace for many years, and represents the management and board members who are suing DOGE, and the Trump administration, over their abrupt terminations.
And it's great to have you here, George.
Because on this, this is -- this story caught my interest, and it's why I wanted to have you on. Because on the $13 million that your findings get back. On X, DOGE is claiming these are taxpayer dollars returned to the Treasury. But you're saying that this is money that's given by private donors meant for this, and that it shouldn't go back to the Treasury. GEORGE FOOTE, OUTSIDE GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. INSTITUTE OF PEACE: The money is a combination of funds that the Institute has assembled, over a number of years, donor funds, some of the appropriated money that's been left over from earlier appropriations, the bulk of it from donors, and it's entirely USIP property.
It's only a part of the money that's been -- of the assets that have been confiscated by DOGE, including that building that you have on the screen right now, and the other property, the Institute that it's been used, that has -- it has used for the last years in its work around the world. So, the $13 million is an important part of the Institute's endowment, and it's definitely something that should come back to the Institute.
COLLINS: Well, and for people who may not be familiar with the work, the Institute of -- U.S. Institute of Peace does, what would you say about the impact that it's had -- that it has had, and if it's absent, what that -- what the consequences of that could be.
FOOTE: It would be a tremendous loss to the United States, to the United States military, and to the world, if the Institute of Peace went away. It's been in existence for about 40 years. It actually was the idea of President George Washington.
But it was the group of congressmen and senators that President Reagan was talking to, in that clip you showed, who had been veterans of World War II and the Korean War, who knew there had to be a better way to resolve international conflict. So, they wrote the USIP Act, created an independent organization, set it up to be insulated from executive control, private interest control, certainly foreign control.
And in the 40 years and seven administrations that it's been in operation, it has written hundreds of books and publications, helping people understand how wars start, how to stop them, how to keep them from starting again.
In recent years, it's served as a convening place for people from all walks of life, all parts of the world, to meet and discuss ways to prevent conflicts from breaking out, and to resolve conflicts underway. They've created one of the largest online peace training institutes in the world. They serve eight different languages. They've had Peace Games for members of Congress.
COLLINS: Yes.
FOOTE: And they're until -- until they got shut down by DOGE, they were doing work in Southeast Asia, and Latin America, and Africa, and an awful lot here in Washington.
COLLINS: Yes, clearly a very big impact.
George, please keep us updated, as this lawsuit plays out. We'll continue to keep an eye on it. George Foote, thank you for your time tonight.
FOOTE: Thank you. Happy to.
COLLINS: And up next. She is one of the biggest names in all of sports today. A new book takes a deeper look at how Caitlin Clark got there, in an industry that wasn't prepared for her. The author, and veteran sports writer, and SOURCE-favorite, Christine Brennan, is my source tonight.
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: This weekend, the WNBA will be without its brightest star for one of the marquee events in all of women's sports, as Caitlin Clark says she will not take part in Saturday's All-Star Game due to a groin injury that she has. A tough break for her fans, given the game is on her team's home court in Indianapolis, which has been transformed to host the event.
And it all comes as a new book, from a legendary sports journalist, says that the WNBA was completely unprepared for Caitlin Clark's rise, and the immense scrutiny that came with it when she burst onto the national stage.
My source tonight is that author, the deeply-sourced, Christine Brennan, Author of "On Her Game: Caitlin Clark and the Revolution in Women's Sports."
And Christine, it's so exciting to have you on. I know you've been working on this book for so long.
And just on her not being there this weekend, and this Caitlin Clark effect, Nielsen has reported that viewership of nationally-televised WNBA games goes down, went down 55 percent after her last injury, back in May. I mean, what does that draw say just about her as the player, as the individual?
CHRISTINE BRENNAN, SPORTS COLUMNIST, USA TODAY, AUTHOR, "ON HER GAME": Kaitlan, I think that Caitlin Clark is the single most important athlete to a league that we have ever seen. You talk about Tiger Woods, talk about Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, none of them had that kind of impact.
First of all, the WNBA has never received the attention it deserves from the male-dominated mainstream sports media. So, this is the moment. And as you said, when she disappeared for five games, with her first injury this year, so did more than half of the television audience. That is dropping off of a cliff. That's how important she is.
[21:55:00]
She's the economic rocket fuel for the entire league, and truly the bargaining chip of all bargaining chips, in terms of TV ratings, in terms of attendance, bringing new fans. It's just an extraordinary story of this one person being so important. And obviously, as I say in the book, the WNBA, either they didn't believe it could happen, Kaitlan, or they just weren't prepared. They were telling me they thought it was as big a deal as say Maya Moore, a few years ago. Maya Moore is a great player, but Maya Moore never transcended her sport and became part of the culture--
COLLINS: Yes.
BRENNAN: --the way Caitlin Clark has.
COLLINS: And why do you think that was? Why do you think they didn't anticipate how big she was going to be?
BRENNAN: Well, it's a total failure of leadership, and I hate to say it, because I know Cathy Engelbert, the Commissioner, and I like her. And of course, you and I, we've talked a lot about women's sports and men's sports, and we want to see women's sports succeed.
But how you cannot look at the crowds, barnstorming Caitlin Clark, around the country, the Big 10, people standing in line in January for a college game, looking at it like a Taylor Swift concert or a Springsteen concert, and they're there in line for hours to watch a woman play basketball. I've never been able to say that sentence before, until now. And the WNBA either didn't see it coming, or they didn't want it to come.
And we -- I've got great voices in the book, like Dr. Harry Edwards, the great civil rights leader, a black man, and he talks about how the WNBA failed the players.
It's a 74 percent black League, as we know. Here's a white superstar. We can understand in our polarized society that there could be issues and friction, that's understandable. How do you not prepare the players, talk to them, have seminars, as Dr. Harry Edwards says, not because they're damsels in distress, but because no league has ever had anything like this happen before.
And again, how you miss it completely? And their big brother, the NBA, they missed it as well.
COLLINS: Yes, that's such an interesting take. Just in terms of watching her, and seeing the rise, and seeing that moment, is obviously fascinating. And for people who are as interested in it by -- as I am, they should read your book.
And Christine, it's so great to have you. And congrats on the new book.
BRENNAN: Thank you very much, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Great to have you. Thank you.
Also, tonight, as we are seeing the President hope that his actions that he's been taking on the Epstein case are enough to quiet the uproar, I want to take you behind-the-scenes this week at the White House. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ON SCREEN TEXT: Monday, July 14.
COLLINS: The President is sending defensive weapons to Ukraine. Is there any plan to send offensive weapons?
MATTHEW WHITAKER, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: All weapons are both offense and defense. We're not taking anything off the table.
COLLINS: The tariffs that he's threatening to put in place against Russia. How do you ensure that it has actual impact?
WHITAKER: It's sanctions on countries that are buying the oil from Russia. Countries like India and China. And it really is going to dramatically impact the Russian economy.
COLLINS: Doug Mills, you were at the rally on that fateful day when shots rang out.
You just won a Pulitzer, for your picture, showing the bullet whizzing by.
What stands out to you one year later?
DOUG MILLS, PHOTOJOURNALIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: It's obviously a big point in his campaign, a turning point, I would say.
Politically, you know, anybody who sees a man get shot, running for president, and then stands up and pumps his fist? There are a lot more people that are going to support him because of that.
And how lucky I was to be on the ground there at the event, and not be hit by a bullet, and be able to capture some of the moments that I did.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Tuesday, July 15.
COLLINS: We're standing here on the South Lawn, waiting for President Trump to leave the Oval Office. He's headed to Pennsylvania today, for an energy event. We'll wait and see if he takes questions from reporters, as he leaves before he gets on Marine One.
TRUMP: Jerome Powell is too late.
Interest rates should be coming down.
Bolsonaro was a respected president.
COLLINS: How do you justify putting tariffs on Brazil if they have a surplus with the United States?
TRUMP: Because I'm able to do it.
COLLINS: Do you have confidence in Dan Bongino? Do you have confidence in Dan Bongino? TRUMP: I like Dan Bongino.
COLLINS: A lot of questions. Just now, the President said that he was not pushed away from his tariffs by the inflation numbers that came out today, even though they showed inflation ticking up, and we're just now getting started on the tariffs.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Thursday, July 17.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: What's the White House saying tonight about this Wall Street Journal story?
COLLINS: They're pretty enraged about it. We're seeing the Vice President JD Vance respond to it tonight, calling it BS, and saying that The Wall Street Journal did not show them the actual letter that they say the President wrote to Jeffrey Epstein in this book, with other people.
[22:00:00]
President Trump has been facing intense pressure from his MAGA base to release more information related to Jeffrey Epstein. He has directed his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to release any and all grand jury testimony subject to court approval related to this, and he cited the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein as a reason for doing so.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: And that was behind-the-scenes, this week, at the White House. Join us for another one, next week.
Thanks for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
