A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, August 24, 2025 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the "This Week" transcript archive.
JONATHAN KARL, ABC “THIS WEEK” CO-ANCHOR: Right here on this show two weeks ago, John Bolton harshly criticized President Trump. He said Trump was presiding over a, quote, “retribution presidency.” Twelve days later, the FBI showed up at his office and his home.
THIS WEEK starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And I'm not a fan of John Bolton. I thought he was a sleazebag, actually.
KARL: The FBI targets President Trump's former national security adviser.
Are you worried that they're going to come after you in some way?
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I think it is a retribution presidency.
KARL: And the Justice Department releases its interview with Jeffrey Epstein’s convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. She denies Epstein had a client list.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S ACCOMPLICE: There's no list. There's never been a list.
KARL: This morning, Chris Christie and Sarah Isgur on the legal and political fallout.
Stalled negotiations.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, on Ukraine, how long will you give Putin?
TRUMP: A couple of weeks. We’re going to figure it out.
KARL: A familiar Trump deadline with no signs of progress on Ukraine peace talks.
Former CIA Director General David Petraeus on the path ahead.
Plus, a look at the one and only time Zelenskyy came face to face with Vladimir Putin.
And --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The motion is adopted.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They shot the first bullet.
KARL: The battle over congressional maps goes national. Rick Klein on which party has the advantage in the midterms.
And the roundtable with news on Elon Musk's promise to start a new political party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: From ABC News, it's THIS WEEK. Here now, Jonathan Karl.
KARL: Good morning. Welcome to THIS WEEK.
In a moment, we’ll get to the stunning developments coming into the weekend, with FBI agents swarming around the home and office of former Trump national security adviser John Bolton.
But first, the context. This didn't happen in a vacuum. John Bolton is on a long list of Trump critics who are now facing the wrath of President Trump and his Justice Department. Trump himself has suggested that dozens of his enemies, real and perceived, belong in prison. He has said that about former presidents Obama and Biden, about former FBI director James Comey and former special counsel Jack Smith. All of whom have been threatened with criminal prosecution. So have former Trump administration officials, Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Senator Adam Schiff.
Those last two have been targeted by Ed Martin. He’s the head of what the Trump Justice Department calls the Weaponization Working Group. Last week, Martin stood outside of Tish James' home in Brooklyn, New York, and posed for pictures dressed in a trench coat. Martin’s latest target is Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Not just investigating her, but telling Fed Chairman Jerome Powell to fire her, writing, “do it today before it is too late.” For his part, Trump has demanded that she resign. Miss Cook says she won't be bullied, but she will answer legitimate questions.
In addition to the legal targeting, Trump has stripped government security from individuals facing death threats. And there has been a methodical purging of people deemed insufficiently loyal to Trump. The latest came Friday with the firing of Lieutenant General Jeffrey Kruse, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, which had conducted an assessment of the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites that was at odds with the president's claim that the sites had been, quote, “completely obliterated.” There have now been at least 16 senior military officers fired or reassigned since Trump took office. Serve of them are women. Leaving the military without an active-duty four-star female officer.
President Trump promised retribution against his political enemies, and there is no doubt that he is serious about keeping that promise. We don't know what evidence the DOJ has against John Bolton, but we do know that he is the latest Trump critic to be targeted by his administration.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KARL (voice over): John Bolton arrived home Friday afternoon, just moments after FBI agents carried boxes out of his house. And four FBI agents were still inside.
REPORTER: What are they looking for?
KARL (voice over): They had been in there for nearly eight hours. Sources telling ABC News, the search was related to allegations that Bolton is in possession of classified records.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm not a fan of John Bolton. He’s a -- a real -- sort of a low life.
Not a smart guy. But he could be a very unpatriotic guy. I mean we're going to find out.
KARL (voice over): The searches of Bolton’s Maryland home and also his Washington, D.C. office were approved by two separate federal judges. Trump insisted he knew nothing about the search.
TRUMP: I purposely don't want to really get involved in it. I'm not a fan of John Bolton. I thought he was a sleazebag actually. I saw -- just saw that. I’ll find out about it. But if you believe the news, which I do, I guess his house was raided today. But my house was raided also, called Mar-a-Lago.
KARL (voice over): Minutes after federal agents descended upon Bolton's home, FBI Director Kash Patel posted on social media, quote, “no one is above the law. FBI agents on mission.”
But what exactly is that mission? Enforcing the law or retribution?
Bolton turned on Trump after he was fired in 2019. And ever since, he’s been a top target of Trump's wrath. Trump accused him of putting classified information in his White House memoir, "The Room Where it Happened."
TRUMP: And I believe that he’s a criminal. And I believe, frankly, he should go to jail for that. And that probably, possibly will happen. That's what should happen.
KARL (voice over): Back in 2020, Trump sued to block publication of Bolton's book. The lawsuit failed, but U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, who ruled in the case, wrote that, quote, “Bolton has gambled with the national security of the United States. He has exposed the country to harm and himself to civil and potentially criminal liability.”
Bolton denied those accusations in an interview with our Martha Raddatz.
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: If I had put classified information in the book, it might have been 500 pages longer. But I had plenty to talk about without dealing with classified information.
MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC “THIS WEEK” CO-ANCHOR: Do you fear at all you could be prosecuted?
BOLTON: Look, under Donald Trump, it -- no -- no regular rules here apply. But I am confident that there's no national security information, no classified information in the book. I didn't intend to write anything that revealed classified information.
KARL (voice over): On the very first day of his second term, Trump stripped Bolton of his government security detail, despite a threat on his life from Iran.
Just two weeks ago, I asked Bolton if he was concerned that the Trump administration would come after him.
KARL: You’re, obviously, on his enemies list. At least Kash Patel's enemies list. Are you -- are you worried that they're going to come after you in some way? I mean he’s hinted at it before.
BOLTON: Well, I think he’s already come after me and several others in withdrawing the protection that we had for --
KARL: The Iranian threat.
BOLTON: From the Iranians for the attack on Qassem Soleimani. I think it is a retribution presidency.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KARL (on camera): All right, let's bring in former New Jersey governor, and former federal prosecutor, Chris Christie, and editor of the “SCOTUSBLOG” and former Trump Justice Department spokesperson, Sarah Isgur.
Chris, let me start with you.
They had to get two separate judges to sign off on those search warrants, so they have to have some evidence of probable cause.
CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) FORMER NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely. And look, let's be fair. When we talked about this in the context of the raid of Mar-a-Lago, I said the same thing at that point, that a federal judge had found probable cause to sign off on a search warrant, which means there's something. Doesn't necessarily mean that there's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt to violation of a federal law, but it means there's probable cause that a crime -- evidence of a crime was kept at the residence where he was searched.
Same thing applies to John Bolton. And in this instance, they got two judges. They got a search warrant in Maryland. They got a search warrant in the District of Columbia. And let’s face it, John, the District of Columbia is not known as a bastion of, you know, conservative judges.
So, I would say that there's real evidence that they believe something is there. Now, let's see what happens from here. But I think it's kind of funny to hear, you know, the president, you know, talk the way he does about Bolton and classified information, yet when he had the classified information, the same rules didn't apply.
KARL: And to see the FBI director posting on X while the raid is underway, I mean, could you have imagined FBI Director -- then FBI Director Chris Wray tweeting while Mar-a-Lago was being searched?
CHRISTIE: I couldn't imagine Chris Wray ever tweeting.
KARL: Yes.
CHRISTIE: He wasn't on social media.
KARL: Yes.
CHRISTIE: He was not someone who was a tweet master like Kash Patel is.
KARL: All right, so, Sarah, Trump says he had no advanced notice of the -- of -- of the search. Pam Bondi had to know, correct?
SARAH ISGUR, EDITOR AT SCOTUSBLOG & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely. The attorney general would have signed off on this. The deputy attorney general would have been most likely intimately involved with many of the decisions leading up to the search warrants as well. The president doesn't usually get informed about these things ahead of time.
But, of course, what we've seen here is President Trump has made clear that he wants retribution against his political enemies. He doesn't need to direct the attorney general in this case or the deputy attorney general.
I think that's where the concern comes from on some of these statements that we're seeing from DOJ officials that they seem to be on a mission, regardless of whether the president personally directed it.
KARL: I mean, as we just heard, it was five years ago that he first said that Bolton belongs in prison.
Let me play something for both of you that J.D. Vance had to say about this on Friday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, so we're in the very early stages of an ongoing investigation into John Bolton. I will say we're going to let that investigation proceed. We are investigating Ambassador Bolton, but if they ultimately bring a case, it will be because they determine that he has broken the law.
We're going to be careful about that. We're going to be deliberate about that because we don't think that we should throw people, even if they disagree with us politically, maybe especially if they disagree with us politically, you shouldn't throw people willy-nilly in prison.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: So -- so, Chris, I counted three times where he used the word “we”. We are in the very early stages. We are investigating. We are going to be deliberate.
We?
CHRISTIE: Yeah, sure.
KARL: What -- does the vice president have a -- have a role in in a criminal investigation now (ph)?
CHRISTIE: Constitutionally, not to the best of my knowledge, but look, let's face it, the president said earlier in that video you showed, you didn't show this piece where he said he's the chief federal law enforcement officer --
KARL: Yes.
CHRISTIE: -- in the United States.
Donald Trump sees himself as the person who gets to decide everything, and he doesn't care about any separation. In fact, he absolutely rejects the idea that there should be separation between criminal investigations and the politically elected leader of the United States. This is much different than it's ever been run before.
But look, let me say candidly to the American people who are watching, you were told this. You were told that this was what he was going to do. And not by me, by Donald Trump during the 2024 campaign. He told you he was going to do this, that he was going to have a Justice Department that acted as his personal legal representation, and that is what they're doing.
And that -- and J.D. Vance is just, quite frankly, got caught telling the truth because they are running it.
KARL: And of course, usually you don't comment on a -- on an ongoing investigation. That's -- I mean, how many times have we tried to ask officials about X, Y, or Z? It's like I can't comment on an ongoing investigation.
CHRISTIE: For seven years, when I was the U.S. attorney in New Jersey, if I ever commented on an ongoing investigation, that would be one of the rare times that I would get a call from Main Justice saying, "Knock it off. You're not allowed to do this. It's not appropriate. People are innocent until proven guilty."
And for the vice president to say, "Well, we shouldn't willy-nilly throw our opponents in jail”, this -- this looks -- that looks like statesmanship in this administration.
KARL: As Sarah will remember, I -- that was actually one of the reasons, maybe the primary reason they fired Jim Comey for commenting on the Clinton investigation.
Anyway, let me -- let me move on to the other targets of ret -- or potential targets of retribution here.
Ed Martin, as we heard, is going after Tish James, going after Adam Schiff, going after Lisa Cook. Specifically, in each case, it's mortgage fraud, saying that they claimed a property was their primary residence when it allegedly wasn't in an application for a loan.
Sarah, have you ever seen the Justice Department go after somebody in a case like this? Or is it only Trump's enemies that get charge for this?
(CROSSTALK)
ISGUR: Well, as a top charge for primary residents, you know, checking a box for mortgage fraud, that would be unheard of. I mean, the Department of Justice actually has dedicated prosecutors on mortgage fraud, but we're talking, you know, nationwide multi-million dollar fraud schemes. This would be very, very unusual.
Now, it is the case that the Department of Justice under the Biden administration did charge Baltimore City State Attorney Marilyn Mosby with mortgage fraud as well.
But I think what the Trump administration sees is that Donald Trump was charged in New York with falsifying business records, which had also never been brought as a primary charge before. And they see this as fair play.
KARL: Okay. So, so, finally, there's so much I want to talk to you guys about, but in the time we have left -- the Epstein files, or should we call them the Todd Blanche tapes. The Justice Department released Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's interview -- the audio of his interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, of course, Epstein's longtime partner.
I want to play a clip of this for you, Chris. Get your reaction. Take a listen.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
MAXWELL: As far as I'm concerned, President Trump was always very cordial and very kind to me.
And I just want to say that I find -- I admire his extraordinary achievement in becoming the president now. And I like him. And I've always liked him.
TODD BLANCHE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: And did you ever hear Mr. Epstein or anybody say that President Trump had done anything inappropriate with masseuses or with anybody in your world?
MAXWELL: Absolutely never.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Just a reminder, Ghislaine Maxwell is in prison, convicted of sex trafficking and conspiring with Epstein to do so.
But, case closed?
CHRISTIE: Well, look, you know, we talked about this -- Sarah and I talked about this with you a few weeks back. When you go in there like that to a person who -- she might as well have taken out Donald Trump or President Trump and said, the man who can pardon me has never done anything wrong. The man who can pardon me has always been wonderful. I commend the man who can pardon me for being re-elected.
Look, Ghislaine Maxwell recruited 15, 16-year-old girls to be sex slaves to Jeffrey Epstein. And she was convicted of that in federal court. Why should we believe a damn thing Ghislaine Maxwell has to say about anyone? Now, that doesn't make Donald Trump guilty of anything. In fact, in my own experience, John, I don't think Donald Trump had anything to do with -- with Jeffrey Epstein that was untoward or illegal. But we're going to believe Ghislaine Maxwell? Give me a break.
KARL: Quickly, Sarah, what's your take listening to that interview?
ISGUR: What was the deputy attorney general doing? This had nothing to do with an ongoing Department of Justice investigation. He should have a lot of other things on his plate. It was sort of just shocking to hear a deputy attorney general spend this much time with someone in federal prison who was not providing information about any ongoing Department of Justice work.
KARL: And, of course, just after that interview, she got transferred to a, I don’t know, nicer prison.
CHRISTIE: Less restrictive for sure.
KARL: Less restrictive prison. OK.
Sarah Isgur, Chris Christie, thank you both very much.
Coming up, as it turns out, Vladimir Putin and President Zelenskyy have already met face to face. It happened once. We’ll take a look back at their eight-hour meeting in 2019 and what it tells us about the prospects for another meeting. Former CIA director General David Paetraeus joins us next. We're back in two minutes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: How long will you give Putin (INAUDIBLE)?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A couple of weeks. We’re going to figure it out. (INAUDIBLE).
REPORTER: Do you think you’ll have to intervene at some point?
TRUMP: Look, it takes two to tango. You understand that. I wanted to have a meeting with those two. I could have been at the meeting. But -- and a lot of people think that nothing’s going to come out of that meeting. You have to be there. Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not. But we're going to see. In the meantime, people continue to die.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: That was President Trump on Friday on the prospects of a meeting between Russia's Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
The week began with a push for peace, with a visit to the White House by Zelenskyy and Europe's most influential leaders. The White House said Putin had promised to meet with Zelenskyy, but now it seems the Russian leader has no intention of meeting with Zelenskyy, at least not any time soon.
The two leaders have actually met before. It was five years ago when Zelenskyy was a newly elected president. A look back at that meeting may provide clues about the prospects for another meeting and another try at peace.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KARL (voice-over): For Ukraine's new president, it was a political gamble. December 2019, President Zelenskyy, who had been on the job for just seven months, traveled to Paris for a summit of the so-called Normandy Four, with French President Macron, German Chancellor Merkel, and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It was the first and so far the only time Volodymyr Zelenskyy would come face-to-face with the man who would later launch a full-scale invasion of his country. Putin had already illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 and invaded the eastern Donbas region where he had engineered a separatist civil war. A 2015 peace agreement had brought an uneasy and uneven ceasefire. Soldiers continued to trade fire and die.
Zelenskyy had campaigned on ending the fighting. He eagerly sought a meeting with Putin and signaled he was ready to make several concessions to get it, hoping for peace. But the notably younger Zelenskyy, not yet aged by the weight of war, was a political novice, a comedian turned politician. Putin was anything but.
Seated before the press for a pre-meeting photo-op, the Russian leader showed he'd been here before, signaling the newcomer to turn around. Zelenskyy took the hint, spun around and smiled for the cameras.
Back home, some Ukrainians were not sold on the summit. They gathered outside the presidential palace in Kyiv to watch the day unfold. Many feared their new president would cave to Russia.
"We're here to demonstrate to our president," one protester said, "that people are not indifferent and we don't want capitulation."
The talks went on for eight hours, but the summit achieved little. Putin refused any compromise, insisting elections be held in the eastern territories while Russian forces were still there. Zelenskyy refused. The two sides did agree to a prisoner swap and a full ceasefire by the end of that year. Prisoner swap deal held. The ceasefire did not.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KARL (on-camera): I'm joined now by former CIA director and CENTCOM commander, General David Petraeus.
General Petraeus, thank you for joining us this morning. Let me start with that lookback. What -- what do you think? Do you think there will be another Putin-Zelenskyy meeting? And is there any reason to think it would be more successful than that one?
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS (RET.), FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: There's not that much right now that would lead us to believe that, I don't think. In fact, out of the last two weeks, really, Jonathan, I think what should be clear to all, and I think it is even clear to President Trump, is that despite all of his efforts, again which we applaud, to end the war, to stop the killing, Vladimir Putin clearly has no intention of doing that unless he's given additional territory, which is heavily fortified and Russian forces would have to fight for years at the pace that they're going.
He wants to displace President Zelenskyy, replace him with a pro-Russian figure, and frankly, to demilitarize Ukraine. None of which can be acceptable to Ukraine nor to the European countries and the United States. In fact, by the way, President Zelenskyy, under the Ukrainian constitution, doesn't even have the authority to declare that certain territory would be controlled by the Russians. That would have to go to a national referendum.
So, again, I think it should be clear. The obstacle to peace at this point in time is President Putin. And what we need to do is change those dynamics by helping Ukraine far more than we have so far, lifting restrictions on them, seizing the $300 billion of frozen reserve in European countries of Russian money, giving it to Ukraine, more sanctions on Russia, even including the Gazprom Bank and curtailing the export of oil further than we have already.
KARL: Let me get to something else that President Trump said this week. This is a post on social media. He wrote, in part, "It is very hard if not impossible to win a war without attacking an invader's country. It's like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defensebut is not allowed to play offense. There is no chance of winning. It’s like that with Ukraine and Russia.”
He went on to say that it was Biden that wouldn't let Zelenskyy -- wouldn't let Ukraine attack into Russia.
What -- first of all, what's your take on what the president was intending to say there?
PETRAEUS: It's a very valid observation. It's spot on.
And interestingly, as we learned in a story overnight, it's contrary to the Pentagon policy. This is another case where it appears that the Pentagon is carrying out policies that conflict with President Trump's inclination.
Now, I can understand why they would limit the use of certain long-range systems against Russia when they think that Russia might still be willing to make a deal, but that should be very clear not to be the case at this moment, and I hope that there will be a review of that policy.
Indeed, that was exactly what the Biden administration did in the past. They were overly sensitive endlessly about how Russia might react to something that they provide to Ukraine, and they were restricting the use of the army tactical missile system and others.
And so, I hope that that will get a review in the White House and therefore a change in the Pentagon.
KARL: Yeah, this is a “Wall Street Journal” report overnight you're referring to saying that the Pentagon has been blocking Ukraine's use of those long-range missiles inside Russian territory. Obviously, the Ukrainian military has been using drone attacks which are far less lethal.
But let me -- let me get your sense of the human cost of this war because I know this is something you've spoken about, and I find astounding. You know, upwards of 20,000, just on the Russian side, getting killed every month. In the matter of just a few months, a greater death toll than the entire U.S. death toll in the Vietnam War. I mean, it's kind of hard to imagine.
PETRAEUS: It's staggering, Jonathan. Again, as someone who had five combat commands as a general officer and wrote letters of condolence to America's mothers and fathers almost every single night of those commands, I can't fathom -- I can't process, if you will, understand the magnitude of the losses on the Russian side.
It's now estimated that over 1,060,000 Russians have been killed or wounded in this war. And of those, well over 500,000 have been so seriously wounded or killed that they couldn't even return to the front lines.
This has to have over time a very, very substantial impact on the ability of Russia just to find a civilian workforce as well. In fact, it's reported that they are actually looking in Africa for women who can actually replace some of the men in Russia in various industries.
KARL: And of course, we've seen they've also tapped North Korean military soldiers --
PETRAEUS: Yes.
KARL: -- fighting on the ground in Ukraine. Quite extraordinary.
Before you go, I want to get your reaction to another development on Friday, the firing of the Defense Intelligence Agency chief, Lieutenant General Jeffrey Kruse, after he oversaw the initial assessment on the Iran nuclear strike. What -- what do you -- what do you make of the president or the administration firing the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, you know, apparently because they didn't like an intelligence assessment?
PETRAEUS: Yeah, I don't know the details of this particular case, Jonathan. As you mentioned, it just took place at the end of this week.
There's a maxim in the intelligence community always about speaking truth to power. I think that that's what this administration, any administration should always ask of its intelligence analysts and indeed its senior intelligence leaders.
KARL: And very quickly, we'd also just shown on the screen, there are 16 general officers that have been either fired or reassigned since Trump became president.
And obviously, the seven of them, which we talked about earlier, are women. What -- what do you make of this? It seems like a -- it's been called a purge in the ranks. What -- is this a concern?
PETRAEUS: I think it has to be a concern. Obviously, it's unprecedented. There's never been anything like this.
There have been cases in the past where individuals who've gotten crosswise with the president or with the secretary of defense certainly, usually on a policy issue in which they should not have spoken out and indeed were replaced.
Popular Reads
Archive: 'This Week' Transcripts Sep 26, 12:06 AM
Trump's effort to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook likely headed for Supreme Court Aug 27, 3:52 AM
Trump claims to have ended the war in Congo. People there say that’s not true Aug 26, 11:02 PM
But the numbers here obviously are much more significant than that.
KARL: All right. General David Petraeus, thank you very much. Always good to talk to you. Appreciate your time.
Up next, Republicans prevailed in Texas. The battle over the congressional maps is just beginning. We'll break down the numbers and the surprising challenge the Democrats now face when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
STATE SEN. PHIL KING (R-TX): I'm convinced that if Texas does not take this action, that there is an extreme risk that that Republican majority will be lost. And if it does, the next two years after the midterms, there will be nothing but inquisitions and impeachments and humiliation for our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: That was Texas Republican Senator Phil King. He's being surprisingly candid about why it is that Republicans were so eager to redraw the maps in Texas. They feared that if they didn't squeeze out five more seats, they would likely lose control of Congress.
Let's bring in our Washington bureau chief, Rick Klein, to help us sort through what is at stake as the battle over redistricting goes national. So, Rick, is he right? Are Republicans going to need all the help they can get?
RICK KLEIN, ABC NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Yeah, Jon, the fight for the House is almost certainly going to be the biggest thing on the ballot next year. You see how tight it is now. After some special elections, Democrats are actually going to close this gap even more, we think, and they only need to flip three seats in the midterms next year to win control of the House. So there's no guarantees, but he is definitely onto something.
And in this nationwide war over redistricting, we've seen the two biggest states go first. The biggest red state, Texas, you mentioned those five additional seats that --
KARL: Look at all that red.
KLEIN: Yeah, and there's not a lot of blue. They're squeezing that big time. Now, what -- we're seeing the opposite in California where the Democrats, under Gavin Newsom, are putting a map on the ballot for voters this fall that could get them those five seats back. So that would make those two seats.
KARL: Extraordinary. Only four Republican seats, 48 for the Democrats if they pull it off.
KLEIN: If they were able to pull it off with the voters next year. And then Jon, if you look at the other states that might still do redistricting this year, bottom line, it is advantage GOP. There are just more opportunities in places like Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and Florida than there are in some of the big blue states like Illinois and Maryland.
So at the end of this, it looks like Republicans are able to -- are going to be able to squeeze just a little bit more juice out of these redistricting fights.
KARL: Because if history is any -- any guide, the Republicans are not going to maintain control of the House.
KLEIN: Midterm elections are almost always a referendum on the sitting president. Right now, Donald Trump, according to “The New York Times” polling average, has a 44 percent approval rating. And again, we have more than a year to go before we get there.
And if you look at the history of recent midterms, an unpopular president means a very, very rough midterm election, particularly when it comes to the House. Barack Obama lost 63 seats. Donald Trump --
KARL: Trump lost 40. He lost 40.
KLEIN: He know -- yes.
KARL: You remember how angry he was the day after that midterm? I mean, that changed his presidency. He doesn't want it to happen again.
But Democrats are facing some serious headwinds as well.
KLEIN: Yes. And this is just a stunning analysis that "The New York Times" has out in the last couple of days. You’ve seen, nationwide, a drop in Democratic registration numbers. And in the battleground states, it’s -- it’s just as stark.
Look at this. The share of registered Democrats down almost 4 points in Arizona, just since 2020. Nevada, more than eight points. North Carolina, Pennsylvania, all of these big battlegrounds have lost Democrats in large numbers, again, just this decade. So, that just tells you how tough it's going to be for Democrats to fight their way back when it comes to control of Congress or potentially the presidency down the road. It's hard to create a wave if voters are fleeing your party.
KARL: Extraordinary that Democrats have lost more than 2 million registered voters just in the past four years and Republicans have gained.
Rick, thank you very much.
Up next, is Elon Musk already backing off his promise to launch a third party? We’ll have the latest when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: The roundtable is here.
Former DNC chair, Donna Brazile, former RNC chair and Trump White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, “Politico” Capitol Hill bureau chief and senior Washington columnist, Rachael Bade, and “National Review” editor, Ramesh Ponnuru.
So, Donna, I've got to start with you with these -- we talked to Rick Klein about this extraordinary analysis by "The New York Times" showing that -- that Democrats have just lost registered voters in pretty incredible numbers. More than 2 million gone over the last two years. And Republicans gaining about the same amount in the same time period.
DONNA BRAZILE, FORMER DNC CHAIR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely. And, look, independents have also grown in their popularity. The Democratic Party has outsourced so many of its functions to third party organizations that did not produce the kind of registration number.
This is a wake-up call, clearly, as Democrats gather, starting tomorrow in Minnesota, where we’re going to have to figure out, what is the road forward? We have to do the basic things, but we also have to be prepared to do what Gavin Newsom is now urging Democrats of all different persuasions, fight back, punch harder, because if we're going to regain theCongress and get ready for the White House, Democrats are going to have to come up with a different playbook.
KARL: Let me stick with you on this for a second. We're going to get to Gavin Newsom in a second. But -- but substantively, this -- this happened while the Democrats controlled the White House, controlled the Congress.
What -- what did they -- I mean, is -- there's got to be a substantive problem here, not just tactical different organizations. What -- what substantively went wrong?
BRAZILE: I don't think you want to allow me to devote -- devote all of my times to what happened. But like I said, it was outsourced. This was outsourced to third party organizations. There was no one focused on taking care, feeding what I call mainstream everyday Democrats.
And also when you have a party that is focusing on six or seven battleground states, you're missing the moment. So, it is a wakeup call. I knew long before that study came out that we were having a problem with registration, especially with young people and, of course, people of color.
REINCE PRIEBUS, ABC NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, as Donna knows, the most important thing in winning elections, number one, to know where your voters are at. And then the strongest indicator for that is voter registration. They got -- they're getting trampled in all 30 states. Every battleground state --
KARL: All 30. We have 50 now.
PRIEBUS: Right. But there's only 30 that you can try late voter registration. Sorry.
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: Good point. In the other 20 --
(CROSSTALK)
PRIEBUS: Yeah. This is like natural for Donna. You can track it in 30.
KARL: Yeah, right.
PRIEBUS: But the bigger problem is and you're -- we're -- the elephant in the room here is that the Democrats are on the wrong side of normal. The people -- they're out of step with the norms of society.
It's so bad that the Democrats this week put out a memo and they listed 45 things that Democrats shouldn't say. It's all therapy speak, and explaining away crime --
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: A memo from whom? A memo from whom?
RACHAEL BADE, POLITICO CAPITOL BUREAU CHIEF: Third Way.
PRIEBUS: Third Way, and it's all because --
KARL: So --
PRIEBUS: -- because it's not -- it's not a matter of they can't put people on the doors and register people. That's all that is. It's that they're putting people on the doors. They're trying to win vote registrations.
There are state parties, county parties --
KARL: So --
PRIEBUS: -- district parties, and they can't sell it because it's not normal. People don't want it.
KARL: Okay. So, but, Rachael, if you -- what I found interesting about this is that the Republican gains in registration are virtually everywhere.
BADE: Yeah.
KARL: I mean, it's red states, it's blue states.
BADE: Across demographics.
KARL: And this happened again while Biden was president, this happened over largely the last four years.
BADE: Yeah. I mean, look, I think Reince is right. I mean, a lot of voters think Democrats are out of touch. They think it's a party of the sort of elites, that they are sort of focused on political correctness, you know?
And there's a -- there's a fracturing too in the American public where a lot of voters are uncomfortable with the party and its sort of move left economically as well. Sort of the populist swing of the Democratic Party, but then a lot of Democrats want to see a movement further left in terms of economics.
So, I mean, the party has a real problem right now. They move further left. They might sort of energize their base, which, you know, shows up to vote, they donate, et cetera, but then they alienate a bunch of centrist voters, and that's a lot of Americans who frankly feel like they're moving the wrong direction.
KARL: I mean, the unifying message now is Trump.
RAMESH PONNURU, ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah, but this is a long-running problem, actually. I think for many years, the Democrats counted on the sort of vestigial loyalty of a lot of working-class people in particular who thought of the Democrats as their home. And over the years being taken for granted, that relationship frayed. And now, the Democrats are finding they're not there.
You can win elections even if you have a registration disadvantage. Republicans have done it in many states, but you have to win then a lopsided number of the independents. It's a tall order.
KARL: So --
BRAZILE: I'm -- here's the one thing and I reject this notion that the Democratic Party or Democrats -- Democratic leaders on the other side of normal. We are on the side of working families. We're on the side of raising wages and protecting people's health care, their Medicaid, their Medicare. That's who we are.
Now, do we have a problem getting that message out to the people who need us most?
KARL: Yes.
BRAZILE: Absolutely. But that is not about being so-called normal or not normal.
I don't like this notion that somehow another when we have differences of opinion of policies that we have to somehow another demonize and dehumanize.
(CROSSTALK)
BRAZILE: So, Democrats -- look, there's a reason why Democrats have won special elections, all across.
PRIEBUS: -- for illegal immigrants, boys in girl sports, no cash bail. Come on.
(CROSSTALK)
BRAZILE: The cultural wars --
PRIEBUS: They're trying to sell that getting mugged in D.C. is part of our charm.
KARL: Wait a minute. Nobody is saying --
(CROSSTALK)
PRIEBUS: They’re arguing over crime stats.
BRAZILE: You want to divide the American people.
BADE: Yeah, look --
PRIEBUS: Democrats are arguing over crime stats.
(CROSSTALK)
PRIEBUS: Well, while the crime -- well, crime has gone down since August 12.
BRAZILE: You’re arguing over labor stats.
(CROSSTALK)
BRAZILE: Why don't you just answer the question --
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: Okay. Quick point to Rachael --
BADE: Yeah. No, I was going to say, you bring up crime. I mean, this just highlights the continued problem Democrats have, is that President Trump has the bully pulpit right now.
KARL: Sure.
BADE: And he is a -- he is master messenger in terms of redirecting conversation to focus on issues that benefit Republicans. And that's another challenge Democrats have right now. I mean, this whole thing with crime, and the -- the takeover of Washington, D.C., yeah, I mean, there's a lot of voters who say that looks a lot like authoritarianism.
But I would say most voters, the thing they care more about is their own safety. And a lot of voters when it comes to crime, these are issues that benefit Republicans and Donald Trump. And he's driving that message.
KARL: OK, so -- so -- so -- let we --
(CROSSTALK)
BRAZILE: You know all of it. January 6th pardons, we know all of it.
KARL: We were -- we were -- we were mentioning.
BRAZILE: You are abusing it.
KARL: You, you, you invoked Gavin Newsom. He's taking this approach of we're going to fight harder. Take a look at his -- one of his latest posts on X. Obviously, a mimicking of -- of Trump. Wow, my maps are the best, the best maps ever made, we'll soon pass the greatest legislature in the history of the world, not just America.
Anyway, he's trying to -- by the way, he's got it a little bit wrong because Trump isn't usually all caps. He mixes the caps and the lowercase.
PRIEBUS: More nuanced.
KARL: Yeah, there's -- there's more subtlety.
BRAZILE: Well, I'm looking --
KARL: But is this the approach to kind of --
PONNURU: He's also got to tweak the authenticity setting on --
KARL: Yeah. So --
BRAZILE: He has time. Look, he -- he was able to do something --
KARL: But is this the approach? To imitate Trump?
BRAZILE: No, he's mimicking. I'm -- like, everybody likes a good laugh and now he's about to, I guess, issue his own cup and golden tennis shoes and who knows what else. These are serious times that require serious people to be at the table. And D.C. could talk about crime. D.C. can talk about the things that we have done in our community, working with local police. Why is it that Donald Trump and the Republicans are withholding $1 billion that D.C. needs to pay our policemen, pay our teachers, get ready to go back to school.
But no, you want crime because that's what Republicans want. They want to create an issue, an emergency, and then flood all of our American cities with the military. And that is not how you do it. That's not how you fight crime.
PONNURU: Look, I think there is an element of this with Trump setting a trap for Democrats, but Democrats are walking into the trap.
BADE: Yeah.
PONNURU: When Democrats argue, oh, actually statistically, crime is a little bit down since 2023. And they don't acknowledge that crime has always been high.
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: But Trump crossed (inaudible) by saying things that just aren't true. I mean, Trump is not telling the truth about the -- about the crime stats.
PONNURU: He -- look --
BADE: Crime stats might be down, but there is still --
(CROSSTALK)
PONNURU: There are many cases in which Trump lies even more than --
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: No question (ph). But he says, this is the worst ever and --
PONNURU: But the way Democrats handle it also matters. And they are -- they are making themselves look more out of touch with the way they're responding to it.
BADE: Yeah. You also just have to open your eyes. I mean, look, D.C. looks a lot different than it used to. I mean, I used to live here. I moved because my house got robbed, my car got stolen, and this was before it got bad. So, I mean, there's that element of --
KARL: OK. So -- so, and -- and by the way, I'm old enough to have been here in the '90s when it was actually really, really bad. But, I want to talk, given the downfall of the Democrats, given the challenges that -- that Republicans are going to face going into midterms with a president that is under 50 percent. What -- what about Elon Musk?
I want to quote from The Wall Street Journal had a story this week, saying maybe not so fast with Elon Musk has stayed in touch with J.D. Vance in recent weeks and has acknowledged to associates that if he goes ahead with forming a political party, he would damage his relationship with the vice president. That people said Musk and his associates have told people close to him that he is considering using some of his vast financial resources to back Vance if he decides to run for president in 2028. In other words, apparently, given up on this idea of a third party? You're shocked.
PONNURU: I don't know that it was ever that serious to begin with. It seemed like a stray thought, not something that he was doing anything to follow up on. And frankly, I don't know that the audience is there. A lot of people dislike the two parties, but a lot of those people, they dislike one of those two parties a lot more and they're not going to take a gamble on empowering it.
KARL: A lot of them dislike Elon Musk as well.
BADE: He was also a one man parade. I mean, let's be honest, there were all these stories when he left the White House about how this is going to cause a huge problem for Donald Trump. They just didn't bear out. In fact, I mean, Elon Musk isn't popular in and of himself. He was popular with the Republican Party because President Trump made him popular by adopting him.
KARL: Can I ask you -- because you know Elon and you know J.D. Vance and you know, the build -- the Big Beautiful Bill that J.D. Vance is now trying to be the chief proponent marketer of around the country. How does -- how does Elon Musk jump in with Elon -- jump in with J.D. Vance when he called that bill an abomination?
PRIEBUS: Well, I mean, I think --
KARL: And basically, the end of the country, I mean, he went over the top in criticizing that bill, and that's J.D. Vance's baby.
PRIEBUS: Well, I think -- I think they're realizing that it's a lot more fun just to clink the glasses than to knock each other out, number one. Number two, they have more in common when it comes to cutting spending in D.C. than they have not in common.
And number three, we are in a divided country. It's obvious. It's bad for business. Doesn't sell cars. Doesn't help you get government contracts either now or in another administration. You know, maybe stepping away politics just might be good for the bottom line as well.
BADE: Elon also is reading the political tea leaves here. I mean, JD Vance is going to be the nominee for Republicans in 2028. And obviously if you want to be close to the potential next president of the United States then --
KARL: Is Rachel right about that, JD Vance is going to be the nominee?
PONNURU: I think JD Vance has a better chance of being our next president than any other person in our country.
KARL: What about those 2028 hats that Trump has in his closet at the White House?
PONNURU: You know, Trump also talks about there being a Vance-Rubio, although interestingly, he also discussed a Rubio-Vance ticket in 2028. I don't take the 2028 talk for Trump seriously.
BRAZILE: Elon Musk saw how far and fast and why his money went in Wisconsin. It -- it made no difference in that race, that state Supreme Court race. And perhaps someone gave him some good advice. Hold your money and do your daytime job, which is sell cars and get somebody to Mars one day.
KARL: All right. We've got to take a break.
Up next, it's been 20 years since Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast. ABC's Robin Roberts returns to her hometown which took a direct hit from Katrina. That when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLIE GIBSON, THEN ABC NEWS ANCHOR: Robin, I know when you left here last night and flew down, you hadn't been able to make contact with your own family yet. Have you done so?
ROBIN ROBERTS, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: They're OK.
GIBSON: They're OK? Because I know they are right there on the Gulf Coast. Mom is OK? Sister is OK?
ROBERTS: They're all right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: That was our colleague Robin Roberts in 2005, reporting from the Mississippi Gulf Coast where her family had survived the direct impact of Hurricane Katrina, a storm that devastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.
Now, 20 years later, Robin returns home for a deeply personal look at the enduring impact of one of the most catastrophic natural disasters in American history.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS (voice-over): Growing up in Mississippi, we lived through Hurricane Camille in 1969, and you never think it's going to happen again.
When I arrived early, early Tuesday morning on the Gulf Coast, I was not prepared to see that type of destruction.
ROBERTS: I remember how I felt. Science over there, math over there. It withstood Hurricane Camille, but Katrina got it. Wow. That just -- I cannot believe that is the high school.
(LAUGH)
ROBERTS: My high school, it is like an old brick school yard and they brought a lot of the memorabilia from the old high school here, or class pictures and that, but -- but it's still -- it's kind of tugs at you that you don't have your high school. Oh boy, I remember that was -- I was going down a lot in the beginning. It was eerily silent. There was no wildlife, no train.
And I remember one time, my niece, she said things are getting better out, Robin, right? And I said, hon, there's a boat in that tree. So many people were working as hard as they could, and slowly, I started to see not as many blue tarps on the rooftops that you would see. And you're going, yeah, we're getting there. But it took a little longer than people imagine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Our thanks to Robin. You can watch "Hurricane Katrina: 20 Years After the Storm" with Robin Roberts this Friday on ABC, and streaming the next day on Disney+ and Hulu. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: That's all for today. Thank you for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Check out "World News Tonight." Have a great day.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)