Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Supreme Court Allows WH Ballroom Work To Continue For Now; Dems Clash As Sen. Markey Stumbles Over Question On AI; Trump: Graham's Debate Gaffe "A Very Honest Answer." Aired 9-10p ET
Aired August 21, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: They're expected to live just outside London, and their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, are reportedly already enrolled in British schools for the coming term.
That's it for us. Hope you have a great weekend. The news continues. "THE SOURCE" starts now. I'll see you Monday.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A stop work order averted, at least for now. The Supreme Court throwing President Trump's ballroom a temporary lifeline.
I'm Boris Sanchez, in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
The former East Wing of the White House will remain an active construction site for the time being. The Supreme Court issued an order this afternoon, allowing work on the massive project to continue. Though this is not the end of the story. Today's order is only meant to give justices and lower courts more time.
Still, President Trump posted this. Quote, "We are grateful for the Decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Military/Ballroom Complex being built on the hallowed grounds of the White House, which is so vital for National Security, will be THE GREATEST OF ITS KIND."
That post alone was longer than the Chief Justice's one-sentence order, and it's now morphed into, if you noticed, in the President's wording there, a military complex as much as it is a ballroom.
And the President has spent much of his second term talking about it, talking about it, and talking about it. And what you're about to see is just a fraction of it.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We're going to make and build a ballroom, which they've wanted for probably a 100 years at the White House, and it'll be a world-class, beautiful ballroom.
KRISTEN WELKER, MODERATOR, "MEET THE PRESS," NBC NEWS (voice-over): A ballroom that could cost millions of dollars.
TRUMP: We've been planning it for a long time. They've wanted a ballroom at the White House for more than a 150 years. But there's never been a President that was good at ballrooms. I'm really good.
We're going to be adding a magnificent ballroom, most beautiful ballroom I think anywhere.
REPORTER: How are you holding up over the last three and a half days?
TRUMP: I think very good. And by the way, right there, you see all the trucks. They've just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House.
That is going to be the greatest ballroom anywhere in the world.
It was a big problem, but they just put a big tent on the lawn. Now we're going to have a world-class ballroom, beautiful ballroom.
I like it. For me, it's like -- I love it. In between China, and Russia, and everything else that we deal with, it's going to be a great ballroom. Going to be a great ballroom.
We'll have the most beautiful ballroom in the country. So, you'll have drinks, cocktails, everything on this floor, and then they'll say, Welcome to dinner. You walk into the ballroom, Mr. Senators. And you're going to see a ballroom the likes of which I don't think will -- I don't think it'll be topped.
I didn't know I'd be standing here right now because right on the other side you have a lot of construction going on, which you might hear periodically. But that's a knockout panel, and that goes right into the ballroom, and the ballroom is going to be beautiful.
We're building a world-class ballroom. You know, for a 150 years, they've wanted a ballroom here.
You can see this. This is a plan. If -- it's got tables, so that you honor a foreign leader. We have a proper space. Right now, we have a space that, with tables, holds about 79 people.
For every time we have one of these parties, we have to turn down 10 people for everyone that makes it. It's the White House. Soon you'll have a ballroom that's so big.
It's bigger than I told you. It's you know, after realizing we're going to do the inauguration in that building, it's got all bulletproof glass. It's got all drone. They call it drone-free roof, so drones won't touch it. It's a big -- it's a big, beautiful, safe building.
What a -- what a view. This is the door to the ballroom.
Well, what a view.
Unusual time to look, but I figure we might as well do it.
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: We have a lot of great service members here with us too in this beautiful building. Isn't it beautiful? We're adding on to the building a little bit. We're improving the building. See that nice drape? When that comes down, right now, you see a very, very deep hole.
REPORTER: A judge just ordered you to stop construction of the ballroom. Are you planning to stop?
TRUMP: Well, we'll appeal that. But it's not -- I don't know this -- it's basically -- I mean, I wrote -- I wrote it -- part of his opinion. But basically, he's saying, I need congressional approval, and he's so wrong.
[21:05:00]
I didn't want to say this, but this is why we have to have all of the attributes of what we're planning at the White House. It's actually a larger room, and it's a much more secure -- it's got -- it's drone- proof, it's bulletproof glass. We need the ballroom.
Well, they're not because that's for many other projects. That's for projects having to do with safety in this -- in a certain section of the White House grounds. That's not all for the ballroom. And we're putting up $400 million to do the ballroom, section of the ballroom. We are putting that up privately. I am doing it along with other patriots that love our country.
There will never be another building like this built. That I can tell. I've built a lot of great things. But there will never be anything like this built.
Bulletproof, drone-proof, missile-proof in many cases.
We're doing a great service. It's great national security.
We don't have a ballroom, we don't have a big space.
So, we're building a ballroom that everybody -- it's going to be the most beautiful ballroom.
So, the people that are opposing the ballroom are people that, in my opinion, are very disloyal to our country.
This is for future presidents. This isn't for me. This is for future presidents. And it's a gift.
We're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the ballroom, and it's all from people like me and great companies that are putting it up. It's going to be close to $400 million, and it's all paid for by patriots and patriotic companies.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: You know, I think he might be into this ballroom.
We've got some great sources to dig into this with.
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tom Dupree.
A pair of White House correspondents. Bloomberg's Jeff Mason. And The New York Times' Zolan Kanno-Youngs, who's also a CNN Political Analyst.
As well as Washington Post investigative reporter, Sarah Blaskey.
Thank you all for being with us.
Tom. First to you: How long do these types of holds, like the one installed by the Chief Justice, how long do they typically last?
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL: These are very brief holds. We're talking days. We're not talking weeks.
Over the next few days, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not they want to let this stop work order go into effect for the several months, during which the Supreme Court will debate whether they want to hear the case and how they would ultimately resolve it.
But one thing I do want to focus on, which you mentioned in your intro is that this is a case where I think the Trump administration, at least the Justice Department, has done a legally smart thing, which is basically to reframe this from a ballroom to a fortified military complex. It makes it far easier to defend, legally, in the Supreme Court, if this is a case about a military complex, if this is a case about national security, as opposed to simply a case where they want to build a more lavish ballroom.
SANCHEZ: Jeff and Zolan, you all are at the White House just about every day. Does it look like it's 65 percent complete, as the administration argued in court?
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: It's hard to tell. I mean, we don't get a chance to look at it very often. I was in the Old Executive Office Building, right next door, a little over a week ago, and we could see through the window a little bit of what it looked like. And I will say that the whole South Lawn looked like a mess, and that's because they're doing the helicopter pad in addition to this massive construction of the ballroom.
SANCHEZ: Part of the reason that the pace is important, Zolan, is because in court, the administration has said, If we stop now, there could be severe damage to what's already been built, so we just have to keep going.
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes, there's essentially been sort of a strategy here of, we're going to keep going and dare you to stop us, right? I mean, the administration -- my colleague, Luke Broadwater, wrote a story this week that showed that the ballroom construction is underway 20 hours a day, seven days a week, that they are moving ahead with this.
And there is a real question that even if the courts come down and block this construction, what happens? You've got this, like the East Wing's basically gone, right?
SANCHEZ: Yes, it's not coming back.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Right. So, what's going to happen after that?
Your point about the national security argument is very, I think, it's astute, and it's worth pointing out. Definitely part of trying to calculate the court's response here. It is worth noting, that national security argument we did not hear a lot about when this was initially announced. It was all about, This will be more room to host folks. But as you've seen the legal pushback, you've seen the President start to turn to that national security.
SANCHEZ: And as you saw the President there, after the first attempt at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, it seemed like the emphasis started to become national security more and more.
Sarah, we've heard the price tag on the ballroom quadruple from that initial $100 million. When you factor in all the construction that's happening at the White House, what does the price tag look like?
SARAH BLASKEY, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, what we've been able to determine is that the price tag is at least $900 million. That's not just for the ballroom, though. That's also for this planned visitor screening facility, the helipad, the Rose Garden, all of this other work.
But the ballroom itself, the price tag on that is much higher than the President has said publicly as well. It's a $600 million construction project, according to the general contractor and documents that we've reviewed from that contractor, with more than half of that coming from taxpayers. So, that's a very different story than what we're hearing the President say.
SANCHEZ: No doubt.
Tom, doesn't that factor in somehow to the Supreme Court's deliberation on this? The fact that this is taxpayer money that hasn't been approved for this purpose by Congress.
DUPREE: In theory, yes.
SANCHEZ: In theory.
[21:10:00]
DUPREE: But as a practical matter, to follow up on Zolan's astute point. Look, the fact that the administration is just moving ahead with this, and this is a good illustration of how quickly the Executive can move. It has the people, it has the money, it has the construction workers building it. All this time that judges are thinking deep legal constitutional thoughts, this thing is being constructed.
And so, regardless of what kind of the correct legal outcome is, as a practical matter, time is on the Trump administration's side because the longer it takes for the judges to decide what the right legal answer is, that ballroom is going to be built and it's going to be done.
SANCHEZ: To a degree, Jeff, this is a microcosm of Trump's view of executive power. Because you heard him there. He says, I don't need congressional approval for this.
MASON: Yes, it's also a symbol, I think, largely of how he likes to govern. Just blow up the East Wing, which is essentially what they did, right?
SANCHEZ: Yes.
MASON: They tore it down, now blow it up -- blew it up, but -- and then go. You know, don't ask for permission, ask for forgiveness. Except he's not asking for forgiveness either.
SANCHEZ: Right. Yes.
MASON: He's just moving forward. And he's done that on things like the physical attributes of Washington that he wants to change and institutions around the world.
SANCHEZ: Yes, no doubt.
Zolan, I wonder, if he had taken the more traditional approach and gone to a Republican-controlled Congress and said, This is something that we need for national security, for invitations to world leaders, et cetera. Would he have been able to succeed that way, or was this the only path for the White House to have accomplished this for President Trump?
KANNO-YOUNGS: I don't know about the only path.
I mean, on one end, we've seen a Congress that, in the course of President Trump's return to the White House, has on numerous occasions placated to him and sort of abdicated their congressional oversight responsibility.
On the other hand, you do hear Republicans quietly sort of wishing that the President would talk more about other provisions in his domestic legislation, tax cuts, Trump Accounts, particularly with November elections coming up, rather than ballroom construction. Right? Like, polls show, economic concerns are still top for voters, including many supporters of the President. That's been only fueled by energy price surge due to the Iran war.
And now, you have this split screen, right? Folks going and filling up a tank, seeing that the prices are going up. Meanwhile, the President of the United States is continuously talking about the ballroom. There are Republicans that are nervous about that.
SANCHEZ: Well, it's easy messaging for Democrats who are just able to say, Well, your gas prices are going up. Meantime, your tax dollars are going over to build this this ballroom.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Sarah, if Democrats wind up winning in November, what are you hearing about what they might plan to do? Is there anything they can do?
BLASKEY: There are no concrete things that we're hearing right now, but I think there are things that they can do. And the first thing is figure out what the money was originally for.
I mean, these dollars that they're moving into the account that they're using for the ballroom, we know where they came from. We know they came from the Secret Service. We know they came from the White House Military Office. But we don't know what they were originally appropriated for by Congress. And that's going to matter when the question of, Was this legal, comes up. Because it has to be in line with the original appropriation to use it legally.
SANCHEZ: Does anyone here think it doesn't get built?
KANNO-YOUNGS: I mean, it's underway right now, right? I mean, this really gets to a crucial question, which we're all getting at. Regardless of what the courts say here, what are you going to do after this? Do you have a half-built East Wing with this project, if it gets blocked? If it gets approved, do you continue to go with this building? And then, what are the political ramifications of that as well?
And again, it's not just the ballroom. We are seeing him take this sort of, builder-like approach, across Washington, to put his stamp and his legacy, physically, literally, on Washington, which will probably be there long after he leaves.
SANCHEZ: So, if everyone thinks it's getting built, do you think it becomes a campaign issue in 2028? If a Democrat wins, do they host inaugural parties there?
MASON: I mean, he's right when he says this is for other presidents. He, if it gets finished during his term, he might be able to enjoy putting something on, at the very end, but it's other administrations who will benefit from it.
But it's got, I think, a political taint. If you look at the money, if you look at the businesses involved, and you look at the way that it's been presented and changed, as you rightly said, Tom, from a military argument to --initially, from a social argument to now this military argument. That will be part of its legacy either way.
And yet, just like I can't imagine them bringing in a wrecking ball to get rid of what's been built, regardless of how the court rules, you also can't imagine a Democratic or a Republican president having a ballroom at their disposal and not using it.
DUPREE: It might actually be a beautiful ballroom--
MASON: Yes.
DUPREE: --that the Democrats--
MASON: No doubt.
DUPREE: --dreadfully will come to love over time.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
Any predictions for what the Supreme Court is going to decide, Tom?
DUPREE: I think they're going to let it go. I think the practicalities of this case are towering in importance, in that I think the Supreme Court is going to grapple with what we've been discussing. They don't want a half-built ballroom sitting there on their watch.
[21:15:00]
SANCHEZ: And so quickly, what precedent does it set for future presidents?
DUPREE: Well, I think it sets a precedent both for future presidents that maybe they don't have to go through this old-fashioned congressional approval process.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
DUPREE: I think it sets a very important precedent for this president with regard to his other construction projects, where this approach could well be a model for future construction projects in the next two years.
SANCHEZ: Everyone, thanks for being with us on this Friday night. Appreciate the conversation very much.
Up next. The age debate playing out among Democrats in full display, as they fight for a Senate seat in Massachusetts. My source tonight, Congressman and candidate Seth Moulton, where he sees the party heading.
Plus, beef backlash: why Trump allies on Capitol Hill and across the country are furious with the President's new plan to lower beef prices.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:20:00]
SANCHEZ: A Senate primary battle in the very blue state of Massachusetts is putting friction over the Democratic Party's future center stage. In less than two weeks, voters in the Bay State will decide between 80-year-old incumbent Senator Ed Markey, and 47-year- old Congressman Seth Moulton.
Here's how the generational rift inside the party played out in a final debate before the primary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ADRIAN WALKER, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, THE BOSTON GLOBE: Is there any age that is too old to serve in Congress?
SEN. ED MARKEY (D-MA): Well, I think everyone watching this debate can see that I'm more energized than I've ever been before in my life.
REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): And I'm running against the Senator's decision, after 50 years in Washington, to run for another term at age 80.
WALKER: Senator Markey, do you personally use AI platforms like Claude or ChatGPT in your work?
MARKEY: I use whatever is inside of my iPhone and my iPad, whatever comes up, and I don't know what companies my iPad might be using.
MOULTON: With all due respect, Senator, if you don't even know what you're using on your phone or your iPad, like this is why we need a new generation of leaders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: My source tonight was on that debate stage. Democratic Congressman and Senate candidate Seth Moulton joins us now.
Congressman, thanks for being with us.
MOULTON: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: So, you argued during the debate that the country needs a generation that grew up with the internet, to chart the way forward on artificial intelligence. Are you suggesting that age alone disqualifies someone from effectively regulating AI?
MOULTON: No, but I mean, look, when you have the 80-year-olds in the Senate who clearly don't even understand what AI is, I mean, they can't tell the difference between Siri and Claude. I mean, the Senator should just say, Hey, Siri, what is Claude?
But the fact that he has no idea what's even, as he says, in his phone, makes it really impossible to believe that they're going to be effective at regulating the risks with AI. Because, there are a lot of risks, and a lot of people are scared of this technology. And I think now, people should be scared of the fact that the United States Senate doesn't even know what it does.
SANCHEZ: Senator Markey has introduced several pieces of legislation on AI. One that focuses on the effects on young people, on the environment, for example.
If you were elected to the Senate, what regulations would you introduce that Senator Markey hasn't already proposed?
MOULTON: First of all, Senator Markey is the one who deregulated the internet back in the 1990s, giving so much unaccountable power to Big Tech, that kids can literally kill themselves based on what they read online, and nobody is held accountable.
Now, I passed the law 988, establishing the National Mental Health Hotline. There are a lot of young people whose lives are being saved by 988 because they were at risk from the internet.
So, this is the senator who literally deregulated the internet, giving no accountability whatsoever, who now is trying to cobble together some AI legislation to claim that he's going to fix the AI problem, when then, on the debate stage, he can't even understand what AI does. After the debate, he tried to kind of clean this up, and he compared AI to the automobile, and said that we ought to regulate it the way we regulate seat belts.
Look, I have a lot of respect for Senator Markey. He served admirably for half a century. He was elected before I was even born. But there comes a time when you just have to pass the torch to the next generation, the generation that understands this technology and is going to have to live with it for decades to come, to ensure that it's safe for our communities and for our kids.
SANCHEZ: It's not just technology that is rapidly changing. So is culture. And I want to ask you about a comment that you were pressed on at last night's debate.
A comment that you made after the 2024 election, when you told The New York Times that Democrats should shift their approach on transgender issues, and that quote, "I have two little girls. I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I'm supposed to be afraid to say that."
I want to play a part of the exchange from the debate last night. You respond to that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARKEY: Congressman Moulton threw those kids under the political bus after the election of 2024. He just turned them into political fodder that made them afraid. We should have been loving those kids.
MOULTON: To anyone, hurt by my comments, I'm sorry because that was not my intention. My intention was to say that we need to take on these issues. We need to have this debate and not cede it to Republicans across the country.
SHARMAN SACCHETTI, POLITICAL REPORTER, WCVB NEWSCENTER 5: Yes or no, Congressman? Do you think transgender athletes should be allowed to take part in girls' sports.
MOULTON: I think they should, with a discussion about where we have issues of safety and fairness.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: They should, but with a discussion about safety and fairness.
What exactly does that look like? [21:25:00]
MOULTON: Well, it looks like Democrats actually taking on this issue, and not refusing to talk about it because we're so scared of the debate, which has so often been the case in Washington today. A lot of Democrats seem more concerned about offending people than solving problems.
And with the transgender community, it's meant that the only legislation that's been proposed is hateful bills from the Republicans. And I've voted against everyone. I have a 100 percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign. I've been proud to champion transgender service members on the Armed Services Committee, fighting to make sure they have an opportunity to serve. And of course, my 988 National Mental Health Hotline has saved the lives of thousands and thousands of LGBTQ youth.
But the point is that we ought to be fighting forward on this. Where's our legislation to enshrine protections into law, so that they actually can be confident that they will have the health care that they need, when the Trump administration is trying to take it away? Where is our legislation to enshrine protections into law that they can't get fired for just who they are or what they wear to work? The Trump administration is trying to do that.
So, my only point, and I probably didn't pick the best words, but my only point is: let's lead on this as Democrats. It's time for leadership. Don't just respond to the Republicans. Show a way forward. And this is true with other issues as well.
I mean, look, the Republicans are completely weaponizing immigration, and I was the first in this race to call for abolishing and prosecuting ICE. But what about when the Democrats were in charge and we didn't get immigration reform done? If we had gotten that fixed, then the Republicans wouldn't even have this as an issue. That's called leadership, getting things done for people, and I think we need more leadership from Democrats.
SANCHEZ: A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 67 percent of Americans actually agree with transgender athlete bans. I wonder if you think that Democrats are out of touch with two-thirds of Americans on this issue.
MOULTON: I just think we're out of touch with just not even be able to have a debate about the issue, right? And just saying that if you disagree, you're not even a welcome into the discussion. And that's the point that I was trying to make.
As someone who's championed transgender rights and will continue to do so, I think that Democrats should lead on this issue and so many others. And when it seems like you can't even have a discussion in the party, I think that's a problem, and that's something that we need to change.
But it takes leadership. And sometimes, it means being willing to say, We're going to have these difficult discussions about contentious issues ourselves, when a lot of people would rather just leave them on the side. And when we're not willing to take on these debates, that ultimately does a disservice to the very people that we're trying to protect.
SANCHEZ: Congressman Seth Moulton, appreciate you sharing your point of view. Thanks for joining us.
MOULTON: Good to see you.
SANCHEZ: Of course.
Up next. President Trump just wrapped a rally for South Carolina Senator Darline Graham, putting the power of his endorsement to yet another test. How the President defended her debate gaffe. When we come back.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I want to say hello to a very special person that's with us tonight. Darline.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Because Darline is somebody I've known for a long time. I asked her to do this. I said, Darline, you got to do it.
What I really want you to do is pretend, please, that I'm on the ballot. Just come and vote. It's so important.
SEN. DARLINE GRAHAM (R-SC): Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for your endorsement. It has meant the world to me. Thank you for your support. Thank you for coming to South Carolina.
(CHEERING)
GRAHAM: This is MAGA country, right? Yes.
(CHEERING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: So, that was President Trump, at a South Carolina rally tonight, for Senator Darline Graham. And his self-described most powerful endorsement in the history of American politics is now being put to the test again. On Tuesday, Graham is going to face Congressman Ralph Norman in his Senate Republican primary runoff.
But this week, Trump's complete and total endorsee had her campaign rattled after this answer at a debate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, AMERICAN JOURNALIST AND LAWYER: Are Taiwan and the South China Sea national security issues for the United States and, if so, why or how?
GRAHAM: I'm just going to be honest here. I'm not on national security that -- I'm not that informed on national security, so. But I do support the military. My brother was in the Air Force for 33 years. So, I will do everything I can to support the military. My dad was in the army. I'm not a polished politician up here. National security is not my thing, not my area of expertise. But I do support the military.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: One Republican lawmaker, who endorsed Graham told CNN, that answer was, quote, Eyebrow-raising.
Tonight, though, President Trump shrugged it off.
[21:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: All she was is being honest. She's very smart, and she was being honest.
I mean, she's totally for the military. I mean, she's going to do what the military wants, and really what the President wants. She understands that national security is my thing. And she is a terrific woman who answered that -- I watched that. I thought it was a very honest answer, actually.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: My political sources are here now.
Charlie Dent.
And Maria Cardona.
Charlie, first to you. A Republican source told CNN that Darline Graham's team is downplaying the gaffe to donors and to Republicans who endorsed her. But even as Trump jumps in tonight, has the damage to her campaign already been done?
CHARLIE DENT, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (R-PA): Yes, I think the damage is pretty significant.
Let's face it: Americans don't like dynastic politics. We saw this, back in 2016. Donald Trump knows it better than anybody. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush were both running, and I think a lot of Americans rejected both of them, even though they were eminently well-qualified because, they didn't want another Clinton or another Bush. And I think that might be what's happening in South Carolina.
And if you are going to be handed a seat, as she has been, you better be ready for the job. And she got about a third of the vote in that primary. Now they have the runoff in a few days.
And I'll tell you what, I'd be a little anxious, if I were her right now because, that answer did not help her case. And there are a lot of Republicans in South Carolina who might not have been the greatest fans of Lindsey Graham to begin with. And now she's going to have to do a better job, explaining herself. And just saying that -- having the President just say, Well, she's going to do what I want her to do on national security. I don't think that helped her too much.
SANCHEZ: Maria, I want to play what President Trump said today on Darline Graham's answer versus what he said when AOC flubbed a similar question about Taiwan. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: All she was is being honest. She's very smart, and she was being honest.
Her performance was horrible. I was surprised, actually. I didn't know she was stupid.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Perhaps -- perhaps a lot to expect consistency in D.C. But that's a clear double standard.
MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Hypocrisy, much, you know? But I think what this demonstrates is that Donald Trump is laser-focused on one thing, and he said it, and Charlie just underscored it. He wants her there because why? She will do what the President wants, right?
SANCHEZ: What the President says.
CARDONA: That is not enough qualification to be a senator. I mean, obviously it is, if Donald Trump is President and you're part of the Republican Party. But I actually think it does a disservice to Lindsey Graham's own legacy.
Let's remember that Lindsey Graham was one of the biggest critics of President Trump. And then, we saw the transformation. But in a lot of what I've read, that transformation came from a real desire to do good for South Carolina, and to use Lindsey Graham's bona fides in national security, foreign policy, and politics, having been a lifelong politician, to steer Trump where he wanted for South Carolina. She's not going to be able to do that.
SANCHEZ: Charlie. Republican primary voters have now rejected 10 Trump-endorsed candidates just this cycle. This is for statewide office or for Congress. According to a CNN analysis, that is actually equal to the total number who lost in 2018, 2020, and 2024 combined.
Would you read into Ralph Norman defeating the Trump-endorsed Darline Graham in this race, as Trump perhaps losing some of his charm, or at least his endorsements losing some of their charm? DENT: Yes, I would. But you also have to consider this. I don't think the President seriously really thought through some of these endorsements, to begin with. Endorsing some of the people who had scandals behind them, as we saw with Mills in Florida, in the case of Graham.
Look, I'm -- I just, I still come back to this point that there are a lot of ambitious Republicans in South Carolina, who wanted a shot at this Senate seat and probably feel pretty angry and betrayed, and I suspect a lot of their supporters do too. So, I don't think the President really did a good calculation here by stepping into South Carolina, so aggressively, under these circumstances.
I can't imagine the Governor of South Carolina, when he appointed Darline Graham that she was going to run for the seat. I thought she was going to be a caretaker. He's changed the dynamics. I don't think this is well-thought through, and there's a very good chance that Norman could prevail in this primary.
SANCHEZ: On that note about Trump upsetting some Republicans. He actually defended his decision, tonight, to temporarily pause tariffs on imported beef--
CARDONA: Yes.
SANCHEZ: --despite furious criticism from farmers and several Republican lawmakers. Let's play that sound bite.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We want to get the beef prices down, so we'll get them down a little bit. And that's what people want. That's what the voters want. And that's what I want.
The ranchers are great; they're my people. I love the ranchers; they've done a fantastic job. But they admit that we need a little help, and in order to get the prices down. So, that's what we're doing.
[21:40:00]
REPORTER: On the beef deal, which countries did you make that deal with? What are the sources of the--
TRUMP: On which deal?
REPORTER: The beef deal.
TRUMP: I don't want to say which countries, but there are a few countries, but they're going to be sending in the highest quality beef, and it's something that we need.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Why doesn't he want to say which countries?
CARDONA: Because he might not even know, Boris.
You know, one of the weirdest things about this, when I read it, is that -- well, maybe not weird. This is kind of par for the course for Trump, which is why he's just so inept. No one knew he was doing this. No one on his staff. Secretary of Agriculture didn't know. And that's why they're kind of all responding, and you know, chickens with their heads cut off. And the ranchers certainly didn't know, the cattlemen didn't know.
When you do something like this that is going to affect some of your greatest supporters, you come and meet with them, or you bring them into the White House to say: Listen, this is why I'm doing this. I know that you guys don't like this. You might be hurting for a while. But I really need you to support me on this.
They had no idea that this was happening, which is why they have responded this way. They are really pissed at him. And frankly, economists don't even think that this is going to help bring down the prices. So, again, another huge misstep and a huge not -- not a focus on the economy and on affordability, he thinks it is, but it absolutely is not, and it's screwing up his own politics.
SANCHEZ: Charlie, last word to you. Obviously, this puts some Republicans in challenging positions to defend this decision, to their constituents, months before the midterms.
DENT: Well, I'm actually pleased that the administration has realized that tariffs actually do increase prices for consumers in the United States. I actually think the administration is right to relax some of these tariffs, including this one and many others. Because the effect of these tariffs is not only does it raise the price of the product being imported, but it also allows domestic producers to raise their prices. We see this time and again.
But this administration has been telling us for some time that tariffs will be borne by the countries doing the exporting. Well, if that were the case, then why are you lowering the tariffs on beef or anything else?
I'm glad they're doing this. I think they need to do this for a whole host of reasons. But it's just showing the hypocrisy, I think, of the administration on this tariff issue. They say it raises prices for the exporter, but then they say, when the prices are too high here, then they cut them on coffee and some other commodities.
So, this administration is in a bad spot on tariffs. They're inflationary, not helpful, and they need to get to a better place.
SANCHEZ: Maria Cardona. Charlie Dent. Always a pleasure. Thanks for joining us.
CARDONA: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: Up next. The Pentagon firing leaders at a military publication who told CBS News about red lines for their editorial independence. What the now former Editor-in-Chief just told CNN about it.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: The Pentagon has fired top leaders at Stars and Stripes, the Defense Department-funded military newspaper known for decades for its editorial independence. Among those given separation notices are Publisher, Max Lederer, Editor-in-Chief, Erik Slavin, and Reporter, Lara Korte. Lederer had announced his retirement this week, telling staff that he disagreed with decisions from Pentagon top brass.
The firings come after Stars and Stripes published several articles on the harsh conditions aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, and after Slavin and Korte spoke to CBS News, defending the paper's independence, something Slavin says the Pentagon deemed, insubordination.
Here's a clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID MARTIN, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, CBS NEWS: Do you have red lines in your mind?
ERIK SLAVIN, THEN-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, STARS AND STRIPES, FIRED TODAY AS STARS AND STRIPES EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Yes, I do.
MARTIN: Give me a red line.
SLAVIN: Well, Don't run a perfectly accurate story. Run this instead. Here it is, written by the Pentagon.
That would be a red line.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Earlier tonight, Slavin spoke to my colleague, Erin Burnett, and pushed back on that insubordination claim.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SLAVIN: According to the memo, they cited the CBS interview and they said that I was insubordinate for responding to a hypothetical about censorship and saying that it was a red line. I didn't say that I would disobey any sort of directive. In my mind, I reaffirmed what the law says, what the DOD regs say, which is that Stars and Stripes is meant to be free of news management and censorship.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: My sources tonight are:
Brian Stelter, CNN Chief Media Analyst.
And Barbara Starr, former CNN Pentagon correspondent.
Brian, how concerned should we be about the Pentagon firing these top editorial leaders at Stars and Stripes?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Well, it's a symbol of something really troubling. The Pentagon defends press freedoms all around the world, including press -- you know, defends all sorts of freedoms, including press freedoms. But it's curtailing press freedom both at home and within its ranks.
And this fits into a broad pattern we've seen from Pete Hegseth, and his aides, trying to tamp down on the free flow of information and replace the press corps with propaganda. I would say, this is all about exerting control, but in various ways.
[21:50:00]
So Hegseth's approach, if I just sum it up, having studied this for more than a year and a half at this point, it's not just anti-media; it's anti-transparency and anti-accountability. He has pushed the press out of the Pentagon. He refuses to hold press briefings. It's been more than three months since there's been a press briefing. He's acting like he doesn't owe the public any answers. And this action against Stars and Stripes is right in line with that broader approach. What he wants is not news coverage. What he wants is propaganda.
And there's been an effort now, for several months, to reform Stars and Stripes. And by the way, it is completely fair to want to bring in different leaders, to want to make the newspaper more digitally savvy. There are valid reasons to want changes at Stars and Stripes. But everything we've seen from Hegseth and his aides suggests what they really want is propaganda, not independent news coverage of the military.
SANCHEZ: Barbara, the Pentagon also fired the paper's Ombudsman earlier this year. Here's what Jacqueline Smith said about editorial independence in the Stars and Stripes newsroom.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACQUELINE SMITH, FORMER OMBUDSMAN, STARS AND STRIPES: I think that there's a very real threat to their editorial independence. I think the Pentagon is taking steps to try to control the message, through various ways, to have more public affairs content, for example, to remove the requirement that the publisher is a civilian, so they could put, you know, perhaps a military person in there. There's many ways. And also, they're limiting -- not limiting -- they're eliminating, prohibiting use of syndicated material, which directly affects what readers can get.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: What message do these firings send to journalists covering the military community?
BARBARA STARR, FORMER CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT, SENIOR FELLOW, USC CENTER ON COMMUNICATION LEADERSHIP AND POLICY: Well, Boris, I think it sends a message to both journalists and to the troops who read Stars and Stripes and look forward to reading it. I don't know where, at home in the U.S. or overseas, I don't know of any place where Pete Hegseth is defending press freedom. I just don't see this administration doing that. That is not something that is of any interest to them, and they continue to assault press freedom in the United States.
So, to me, it comes down to a very fundamental question that I think has been asked since day one, since Hegseth took office, which is, what is he so afraid of? Is he afraid of truth? Is he afraid of transparency? Is he afraid of independent voices out there, telling the story of what the U.S. military has been up to?
Remember, Stars and Stripes, just in the last several weeks, has really led the way, along with other media, on reporting on the aircraft carrier that's been stuck in the Middle East, and the family concerns about their loved ones on that carrier, having enough food and supplies and being looked after in the question of their mental health.
That's not something Hegseth wants to see reported. He doesn't want anybody to talk about that because in his world, to keep President Trump happy, everything's just fine. So, I think this is another step down that road. And really, you know, I don't know that he'll ever get over being so fearful of the truth and transparency.
SANCHEZ: Brian, the Pentagon spokesperson tweeted in January that there were now new rules for the Stars and Stripes that would, quote--
STELTER: Yes.
SANCHEZ: --Refocus its content away from woke distractions that siphon morale.
Under these rules, how can the Stars and Stripes be independent from political or Pentagon pressure?
STELTER: Right. Ever since that post in January, I've been trying to figure out what woke material is the Pentagon claiming is in Stars and Stripes.
This is a just-the-facts newspaper. People can go online, by the way, for themselves, starsandstripes.com. It's a pretty impressive operation, given the size of the staff, with scoops and original reporting, and also yes, some syndicated material from wires, et cetera.
But ever since January, there's been this attempt to crack down. That's what CBS was covering in July, in a pretty in-depth report that apparently was the trigger for today's firing.
So, you think about this: you have journalists expressing concern about censorship, and then they're fired because they expressed concern. That should definitely set off alarm bells, and it has tonight with many press freedom groups speaking out.
And by the way, Boris, I reached out to the Pentagon today for comment on these firings. No official comment. But they have issued a statement from a new person who's been deputized to be basically overseeing the paper. This person claims that the editorial independence will be protected. But the sources I'm hearing from inside Stars and Stripes and on these sidelines, they're very skeptical. They think Hegseth is trying to crack down hard and send a message.
SANCHEZ: Brian Stelter. Barbara Starr. Thank you both so much. Great to see you.
Up next. The Source Code. We're giving you a number at the center of a story in the news. So, can you guess the story? Tonight's Source Code, a 180. We'll be right back with the answer.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Tonight's Source Code is a 180, as in a 180 miles an hour. That's the speed IndyCars are expected to hit through the heart of D.C., this weekend.
The Freedom 250 Grand Prix is going to take over streets around the National Mall, as part of a Trump-backed celebration of America's 250th anniversary. More than 200,000 people are expected for the two- day event. With cars zipping past the Capitol, The National Archives, and the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.
[22:00:00]
The White House says that President Trump will attend Sunday's race.
Organizers say that IndyCar is picking up the bill, $35 million and change. The one thing they may have to contend with, in summer in D.C., the weather. Looks like it's going to rain.
Thanks for joining us tonight. Kaitlan is back on Monday.
You can catch me every Monday, and Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, every weekday on "CNN NEWS CENTRAL" at 01:00 p.m. Eastern.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
