A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, July 13, 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.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JONATHAN KARL, ABC “THIS WEEK” ANCHOR: Allegations of conspiracy and cover-up. Some of President Trump's most outspoken supporters are now turning on his attorney general.
MAGA backlash over the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
THIS WEEK starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? Are people still talking about this guy? This creep?
KARL: The Justice Department's Epstein memo this week sparks a MAGA eruption. Could a top administration official now be on the way out? What about the attorney general?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who would you guys prefer, Bongino or Bondi?
KARL: Pierre Thomas has the latest from the Justice Department. And Chris Christie and Sarah Isgur on the political fallout.
Pressure campaign.
HOWARD LUTNICK, COMMERCE SECRETARY: The president is driving his agenda. This is his agenda.
KARL: President Trump announces new tariffs on America’s allies and renews his attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Is he about to be fired? Top White House Economic Adviser Kevin Hassett joins me live.
And, changing his tune.
TRUMP: And I'm not happy with Putin. I can tell you that much right now. Because he's killing a lot of people.
KARL: The president loses his patience with Vladimir Putin and resumes military aid to Ukraine. Martha Raddatz and Susan Glasser on the changing dynamics and what it means for the war in Ukraine.
And sources say FEMA failed to answer thousands of calls from flood victims in Texas. That and more with the roundtable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: From ABC News, it's THIS WEEK. Here now, Jonathan Karl.
KARL: Good morning. Welcome to THIS WEEK.
We begin with the controversy roiling the leadership of the Justice Department. It's an uproar that has pitted the leaders of the DOJ and the FBI, and possibly the president himself, against some of the most prominent voices in the MAGA movement. Just this weekend some of Trump's allies were in open revolt, demanding the resignation of Attorney General Pam Bondi, and accusing her of taking part in a cover-up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEGYN KELLY, AMERICAN JOURNALIST: I don't think he realizes how much she's humiliated the administration. This is a self-inflicted wound. She caused it. Again, I have nothing against Pam Bondi. But if you want to look for the villain in this story, we have found her.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: This is about the administration's handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. He was the financier and convicted sex trafficker who was found dead in his jail cell after an apparent suicide in August of 2019. For years, many Trump allies, including his now FBI director, Kash Patel, pushed for the release of the government files on the Epstein case, suggesting they would implicate prominent Americans in a sinister plot.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR (December 2023): What the hell are the House Republicans doing? They have the majority. You can't get the list? Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are.
DAN BONGINO, FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR (2019): The questions surrounding this alleged suicide are numerous and are worth entertaining and worth getting to the bottom of, quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: That was Dan Bongino, the former MAGA social media star who is now the deputy director of the FBI. He hasn't been seen at FBI headquarters in days. And some of his allies say he may resign after he had a heated argument at the White House with the attorney general and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles over how the administration has handled the case, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.
It was Bondi who raised expectations earlier this year that the full DOJ and FBI files on Epstein would be released.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ROBERTS, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients? Will that really happen?
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Days later, a group of far-right social media figures walked out of the West Wing of the White House with binders labelled “Epstein Investigation Files” that Bondi said contained, quote, “a lot of information.” But it turned out there was no new information in those files, no client list. They were full of previously released and heavily redacted records.
Bondi then sent a letter to the FBI demanding the full and complete Epstein files be sent to her office and suggested prosecutors in New York were withholding thousands of pages of documents.
In May, Bondi claimed the FBI was reviewing tens of thousands of videos of Epstein, further raising expectations about what would be released.
And now, the big reversal. First, FBI Director Kash Patel poured cold water on the Epstein conspiracy theory in an interview last month.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR (June 6, 2025): We've reviewed all the information and the American public is going to get as much as we can release. He killed himself. Do you think -- let's play out the logical conclusion of this. Do you think that myself, Bongino and others would participate in hiding information about Epstein’s grotesque activities?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: And last week, an undated and unsigned memo, the Justice Department and FBI announced the end of its investigation, writing that a review found, quote, “no incriminating client list,” and, quote, “no credible evidence” that Epstein blackmailed anyone, and confirming that, yes, he died by suicide.
As for what Bondi said about the, quote, “Epstein client list,” here's what she's saying now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed, meaning the file, along with the JFK, MLK files as well. That's what I meant by that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: The memo, and Bondi’s comments, didn't put out the right-wing fury over the Epstein case, but it seemed to make it burn brighter, leading to calls for Bondi’s resignation and ominous warnings about the future of Trump's movement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (July 10, 2025): We need an attorney general who isn't going to lie, who isn't going to be addicted to going on Fox News, and who isn't going to jeopardize mid-term elections and cause President Trump to hemorrhage support from the base.
STEVE BANNON (July 11, 2025): The Epstein situation shows us one central thing, who runs the country. Either the people run the country, right, or the deep state runs the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: And where is the president in all of this? Trump, like many other New York celebrities, had some association with Epstein. You've probably seen this video of Trump with Epstein back in 1992. Decades later, when Epstein was arrested in 2019, Trump said that he and Epstein previously had a falling out and had not spoken in 15 years. And he suggested last year that he believed Epstein did probably kill himself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, AMERICAN JOURNALIST (August 2023): Do you think it's possible that Epstein was killed?
TRUMP: Oh, sure. Possible. I mean I don’t really believe -- I think he probably committed suicide.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Trump came to Bondi’s defense overnight, posting on social media that she “is doing a fantastic job.” He also urged his followers to, quote, “not waste time and energy on Jeffrey Epstein,” claiming, without evidence, that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, among others, created the Epstein files. And he directed the FBI to investigate other matters, including the 2020 election results.
So, where does this all leave the Justice Department? We're joined now by ABC's chief justice correspondent Pierre Thomas.
All right, Pierre, you’ve got some remarkable reporting on this confrontation that Bondi had with Bongino in the presence of the chief of staff at the White House on Wednesday.
PIERRE THOMAS, ABC NEWS CHIEF JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jon, let me be clear, there's always a natural tension between the Justice Department prosecutors and the FBI investigators. Let's get that out in the open.
But this confrontation was unusual in its intensity, I’m told, in terms of Bondi allegedly accusing Bongino of leaking negative information about her. He denied it. And, again, it was very intense in the reporting that we have.
KARL: And he stormed out of the meeting, Bongino.
THOMAS: That's -- that’s some of the reporting we have, absolutely.
And here’s why it matters. These are two of the principal people who oversee the nation's national security in terms of terrorism, counter espionage still. The relationship and how they get along does actually matter.
KARL: It doesn't really work if the deputy FBI director, who runs the FBI day to say, is not basically not on speaking terms with the attorney general.
Let me -- let me ask you, though. There's been a lot of resources dedicated to this. I mean Bondi’s ordered this investigation. What -- give me a sense of how much they've actually spent on Epstein.
THOMAS: Well, at one point we had literally hundreds of agents who were tasked with getting together these files --
KARL: Wait a minute, wait a minute, hundreds of FBI agents?
THOMAS: Yes, that's the information that we have, that they were told, get this information to a point where some decisions could be made about what to release and not to release.
KARL: And now the answer is, they looked into it and they basically didn't find anything?
THOMAS: Well, at the end of the day, what the memo that they put out last weekend said is that he committed suicide and that there are limitations on what they're willing to release to the public and that's where it stands.
KARL: OK. I want to ask you before -- while I've got you. There was another remarkable story late this week, and that is that the FBI has been doing polygraph tests on its own workforce and that among the questions that are being asked is, have you said anything negative about FBI Director Kash Patel.
THOMAS: Well, let me be clear, there are always leak investigations and polygraphs and that sort of thing. It's been expanded from what our reporting is. And we do know that there's real concern about the so-called “deep state”.
And they've been asking questions trying to get at whether any of these people had political motivations in terms of the prosecution of former -- of, you know, then-candidate Donald Trump and now President Donald Trump.
And so, they're digging around again to make sure in their mind they want to be comfortable that they're not people still within the government --
KARL: I mean, that is pretty extraordinary though to see -- to being asked, “Have you said anything negative about the director?”
THOMAS: Well, some of the questions we’re told have to do with associations and political -- you know, for example, Pete Strzok, some of the people who --
KARL: Yeah.
THOMAS: -- are known to have said negative things. They want to know, “Have you been associated with those kind of people?”
So, it gets back to the issue of loyalty and whether they're fair or not to President Trump.
KARL: All right. Pierre Thomas, thank you very much.
I am joined now by former New Jersey governor and former U.S. Attorney, Chris Christie, and SCOTUSBLOG editor Sarah Isgur, who served as a spokesperson for the Department of Justice in the first Trump administration.
All right, Chris. Thank you for being here.
Let me get right to the president's very lengthy statement overnight defending Pam Bondi because it starts by saying, "What's going on with my boys and in some cases gals?" They're all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who's doing a fantastic job. We're on team MAGA. I don't like what's happening.”
So, are those boys and gals of team MAGA going to go along with this?
CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), FORMER NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, look, what Donald Trump is learning is when you start the fire, sometimes you can't put it out. Now, he started this Epstein fire during the campaign and prior to that by alleging that this was all some, you know, Democratic plot, that he was perhaps murdered by former Democratic officeholders, that there were a lot of Democrats who had been down to Jeffrey Epstein's island and all the rest.
He used that to fire his own base, and he was going to get to the bottom of it, and he was going to release it because he's in -- absolutely in favor of transparency. Well, now you get into the job and you realize -- you know, maybe I don't want to do that.
And let's be clear about this: Pam Bondi -- there's no chance, in my opinion, that Pam Bondi made this decision on her own. No chance. She was instructed by the White House that we're not releasing this stuff. And that's why he's defending her.
And now he's at cross purposes though because when you bring in people like Kash Patel and Dan Bongino who are true believers in what Trump was saying prior to getting elected, they're saying, "Wait a second. We came here to do the transparency thing."
KARL: It seems to me that it wasn't so much Trump himself that was fueling the conspiracy theories. It was the people very close to him, his biggest supporters, people like Kash Patel and like Dan Bongino.
CHRISTIE: But, Jon, wait a second. We cannot let the president off that easily.
He benefited directly from it. He fueled it. He encouraged it. And he certainly didn't stop it.
So, you know, part of what bothers me in this context is that Donald Trump gets a pass. Oh, it wasn't him. It was somebody else. He took these people who were doing exactly what you just said and put them in charge of the people on the front line of protecting the American people from crime and terrorism and counterintelligence operations.
He encouraged this and by putting them in those positions, he supported the work they were doing.
KARL: Well, let me play what Trump said Tuesday at his cabinet meeting. When he's there at the cabinet meeting, Pam Bondi is just a couple seats away from him and a reporter tries to ask Bondi about all of this, and Trump intervenes and says this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years. You're asking -- we have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things, and are people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is unbelievable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Okay. So, Sarah, he said it's unbelievable and people shouldn't be talking about this. That was Tuesday.
Yet all week his people have been talking about it, people like Steve Bannon, Megyn Kelly, Charlie Kirk. These are -- these are prominent figures in his movement who have been talking relentlessly about this.
SARAH ISGUR, EDITOR AT SCOTUSBLOG & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: We've heard plenty of times with folks trying to determine whether this is where the MAGA base abandons Trump and things like that. And I think those have all been pretty -- pretty big misunderstandings of how that hard candy coating around Donald Trump works.
You know, for instance, we saw that conversation happen around the pro-life movement that Donald Trump was abandoning pro-life principles and that maybe this would break up the MAGA movement.
But that hard candy coating, the people who really go out there day-to-day to defend whatever Donald Trump says, they're not policy people. They're not pro-life. They actually aren't even that big on immigration.
They're really big on this stuff, though -- JFK, Epstein, the moon landing, chemtrails.
So, this actually does have a real potential to influence whether Donald Trump has that protection between him and his base, that -- those translators. And that's what you're seeing this week is, those translators are taking a really long time to come back to Donald Trump, longer than I think we've seen to date.
KARL: I mean, I'll tell you this, if you look at his Truth Social post, again, this very long Truth Social post, the responses -- and who knows, they could be trolls, whatever, but are almost universally negative. People saying that they're not buying it. They're not ready to move on.
When --
ISGUR: Well, Jon, you had Santa's elves telling kids that Santa doesn't exist, and they're having a really hard time with that.
KARL: So, let me -- let me then play a little bit more from Kash Patel. We heard in the open. This was Kash Patel. He went on Joe Rogan's podcast in June and was asked about all of this, and here’s what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR (June 6, 2025): The problem is there's been, like, 15 years of people coming in and creating fictions about this that doesn't exist. Where is the videotape of an Epstein island, x, y and z committing these frauds? Why haven’t you given it to us? Do you really think I wouldn't give that to you if it existed? I'm working my (EXPLETIVE DELETED) off, along with the leadership at the bureau and DOJ, to give you what we're allowed to give you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: So, again, let me ask the fundamental question, are -- is the base going to buy it? You have the president saying nothing to see here. You have Kash Patel, who had been fanning this stuff directly saying, look, I mean, I would tell you. I got nothing.
CHRISTIE: Well, look, I'll tell you, I'll answer his question.
KARL: Yes.
CHRISTIE: Yes, I don't believe you give it if the president of the United States ordered you not to, because you haven't shown any independence from the president of the United States in your entire career. So, while he's asking me to believe something, like, would -- could you possibly believe me, Kash Patel, wouldn't do it, even if the president of the United States told me not to?
Look, the president made it very clear in the video we just saw before Patel's, I'm done with this. I don't want to talk about it anymore.
Donald Trump never gives, or very rarely gives, direct orders. What he does is, he does something like that, which is sending the signal out to everybody else, enough, stop. And so, I'll answer Kash Patel's question. Yes, I don't believe you would give it to us if, in fact, the president of the United States told you not to and your direct boss, the attorney general of the United States, has ordered you not to. And that's where we are.
KARL: So, Sarah, let me ask you really what is the big question. They have released -- they released, like, 11 hours of videotape of -- of Epstein's cell. It seems pretty well established that he, in fact, killed himself. I guess there are 60 seconds that are missing that has been attributed to a glitch. Well -- so, the big question is, is this now case closed on all of those conspiracy theories?
ISGUR: This was always strange to me because it depends what you mean by conspiracy theories. In terms of whether Epstein killed himself or this list that there's just no evidence ever existed, yes, I mean I hope those hundreds of FBI agents can go now, do some national security work, real stuff.
KARL: Yes.
CHRISTIE: Right. Right.
KARL: Yes.
ISGUR: However, like, where did Epstein's money come from? Where did the money now go? I mean, I guess I do still have questions about that. I'm surprised that, again, these people who made a lot of money and careers and got their current jobs based on this conspiracy theory aren't telling us any of those answers that they could have found. At the same time, hiding behind, you know, saying, well, we're not going to release, for instance, videos of minors or grand jury material that’s sealed by the court. Like, OK, but this was your bread and butter, literally.
CHRISTIE: And you know what we're finding out, Jon? Running the government is a hell of a lot tougher than running a podcast.
KARL: That’s -- that’s actually (INAUDIBLE) --
CHRISTIE: Running the government is a hell of a lot tougher than writing a children's book.
KARL: And I guess the big question now, is Dan Bongino going to leave and resign and go back to his podcast, or is he going to stay deputy director?
CHRISTIE: He doesn’t like his job anyway. Come on.
KARL: Anyway -- well, Sarah, Chris, thank you very much.
Up next, the president announced new tariffs on America’s biggest trading partners, and he turned up the heat on the Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Could he be on his way out? We'll ask the White House Economic Adviser Kevin Hassett.
We're back in two minutes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think he's done a terrible job. I think we should be --
UNKNOWN: You're going to fire him?
TRUMP: No. I think we should be three points lower interest rate. He's costing our country a lot of money. We should be number one and we're not, and that's because of Jerome Powell.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: That was President Trump this week criticizing the head of the Federal Reserve. Trump Economic Adviser Kevin Hassett joins me from the White House North Lawn.
Thank you very much, Kevin, for being here. Let me -- let me ask -- we'll get to Powell in a second, but let me ask you about the new tariffs that the president has just announced that he's going to impose on August 1st on Canada, European Union, and Mexico. Why now? What's going on?
KEVIN HASSETT, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL DIRECTOR: Well, I think that we've got a deadline that's coming up in early August, and the thing about President Trump, if you go back and look at his history, that he became one of the most successful, if not the most successful, businessman in the 20th century because he was able to squeeze everything out of every deal that he made, and right now we've got that guy who wrote "The Art of the Deal" making deals for the American people, and we've got to see where the dust settles.
The bottom line is that he's seen some sketches of deals that had been negotiated with Howard Lutnick and the rest of the trade team, and the president thinks that the deals need to be better, and to basically put a line in the sand, he sent these letters out to folks. And we'll see how it works out.
KARL: I mean, for all the talk of deals, I mean, there were talks of 90 deals in 90 days and then the president actually said 200 deals at one point. And we've really only seen really two and a half deals. We've seen the U.K., we've seen Vietnam, and kind of a framework on China.
HASSETT: Right.
KARL: So let me ask you, because what we're hearing from the Europeans and from the Mexicans is they were in the middle of these negotiations as this was, as this was going on, so is this a negotiating tactic, or are these tariffs real?
HASSETT: These -- well, these tariffs are real if the president doesn't get a deal that he thinks is good enough, but, you know, conversations are ongoing, and we'll see where the dust settles. The bottom line is that President Trump has produced a huge amount of tariff revenue with the tariffs we've seen in the first half of the year. The Congressional Budget Office has said that tariff revenue over the next 10 years will help reduce the deficit and secure our entitlement programs is $3 trillion and consumers haven't seen that.
You know, Consumer Price Index inflation right now is the lowest it's been in over a decade. And so what President Trump has always said is that the foreign suppliers, the foreign governments are going to bear most of the tariffs. It's being visibly seen, and I think that that's probably affecting his negotiating position because we've got all this empirical evidence that his position has been proven correct in the data.
KARL: Well, as you know, a lot of economists say that the inflation will be coming and that there was -- there were certainly a lot of exports that were, I mean, imports that were brought in in the anticipation that tariffs would be placed.
But let me, let me ask you about one new set of tariffs that he announced on Brazil. Fifty percent new tariff on Brazil. Brazil had a $6.8 billion surplus last year. In fact, the U.S. hasn't had a trade deficit with Brazil since 2007. I mean, almost two decades. So why, why, why are we putting a punishing 50 percent tariff on Brazil?
HASSETT: Well, bottom line is the president has been very frustrated with negotiations with Brazil and also with the actions of Brazil. In the end, though, you know, we're trying to put America first. I think that a lot of people, when I'm talking to negotiators from other country is at some point they'll say, "What did we do wrong?"
And what I'm trying to get -- the message we're all trying to get across is this is about America getting itself ready for the golden age by getting our house in order, by getting our tariff and trade policy and tax policy exactly where it needs to be for a golden age.
And normally, it's not necessarily about a specific country, but with Brazil, it is. Their actions have shocked the president at times, and he's made -- been clear about that.
KARL: But I don't -- I don't understand how you're saying it's about America because the president has made it quite clear that what he's upset about is how the Brazilian Supreme Court has handled the criminal case involving former President Bolsonaro. I mean --
HASSETT: I'm agreeing with you. What I'm saying is that what I've been saying with most countries was that it's really about us getting the tariffs in order. And I think that this tariff for Brazil is a lot higher because of the president's frustration with Bolsonaro.
KARL: But --
HASSETT: And the fact that Bolsonaro himself -- you know, anyway --
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: But can you explain to me, because I find it confusing here, what -- on what authority does the president have to impose tariffs on a country because he doesn't like what that country's judicial system is handling a specific case?
HASSETT: Well --
KARL: I mean, how -- how is that --
HASSETT: If he thinks it's a national defense emergency or if he thinks it’s a national security threat, that he has the authority under IEEPA.
KARL: So, how is it a national security threat that, you know, how Brazil is handling a criminal case against this former president?
HASSETT: Well, that's not the only thing. That's not the only thing. I mean --
KARL: So, what is it? I mean, I've asked what it is. I mean, it seems that that's what President Trump's talking about. He's talking about his anger and his frustration. He's been quite candid about it with the Bolsonaro case.
HASSETT: Right. Well, the bottom line is that what we're doing absolutely collectively across every country is we're onshoring production in the U.S. to reduce the national emergency that is -- that we have a massive trade deficit, that's putting it at risk should we need production in the U.S. because of a national security crisis. And this is part of an overall strategy to do that.
KARL: But again, as we've just established, we have a trade surplus with Brazil, not a deficit.
HASSETT: But --
KARL: And we've had a surplus with Brazil for 18 years.
HASSETT: If you look at an overall strategy, if you don't have an overall strategy for this, then there'll be trans shipping and everything else, and you won't achieve your objectives.
KARL: Okay. I'm still confused, but let me move on.
Let me ask you about the 50 percent tariff that the president has imposed on copper imports. Copper, of course, is widely used in construction, industrial manufacturing, cars, mobile phones, and the like.
This is what “The Wall Street Journal” had to say about these tariffs: “Mr. Trump is going to make U.S. firms pay 50 percent more for a vital metal while they wait five or more years for U.S. sourcing. How does making it more expensive to build aircraft, ships, and ammunition promote national security? This is national insecurity.”
What's your response to “The Wall Street Journal”?
HASSETT: Right. The bottom line is that if there is a time of war, then we need to have the metals that we need to produce American weapons, and copper is a key component in many American weapon sets. And so, as we look forward to the threats that America faces, the president decided that we have plenty of copper in the U.S., but not enough copper production. And that's why he's taken this strong step.
KARL: But are you concerned about the effect of higher copper prices before American manufacturing can get up to speed?
HASSETT: The fact is that that effect that you're just discussing is something that you mentioned that economists said were going to be coming all year, these effects, and inflation is way, way down. In fact, inflation in the U.S. is right about the same level as it is in Europe.
KARL: Okay.
HASSETT: And so, the tariffs have worked the way that we said. And so, I guess the expectation would be that the countries and the people that are dumping into the U.S. would bear most of this tariff.
KARL: Before you go, I want to ask you about Jerome Powell, the Fed chair. The administration's been highly critical of the way the Fed has handled renovations to its -- to its building, to its headquarters here in Washington.
Two-point-five-billion-dollar renovation sounds like a lot to me, I have to admit.
HASSETT: Yeah.
KARL: But let me ask you, could this be used as a predicate to fire the Fed chair?
HASSETT: I think that whether the president decides to push down that road or not is going to depend a lot on the answers that we get to the questions that Russ Vought sent to the Fed. The bottom line is that this is the most expensive project in D.C. history, $2.5 billion with a $700 billion cost overrun.
To put that in perspective, the cost overrun for this Federal Reserve project is about the same size as the second biggest building overhaul in American history, which was the FBI building. And so, the Fed has a lot to answer for.
And the bottom line is -- the bottom line is that there's a key statutory problem. In 1913, when we founded the Fed, the U.S. was under a gold standard.
So, it was never envisioned, never envisioned by the people that voted for the construction of the Fed that we currently see, that the Fed could print money and toss it around willy-nilly because they had to have the gold to do what they're doing. And they're unbounded right now.
KARL: Literally -- right, literally print the money to do the renovation.
Very quickly, yes or no answer, does the president, in your view, have the authority to fire the Fed chair?
HASSETT: That's a thing that's being looked into. But certainly, if there's cause, he does.
KARL: Okay. Thank you very much, Kevin Hassett.
HASSETT: Thanks, Jon.
KARL: Really appreciate it.
Up next, did President Trump just break up with Vladimir Putin? Martha Raddatz reports when we come back.
Up next, did President Trump just break up with Vladimir Putin? Martha Raddatz reports when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: Remarkable change in President Trump's public stance on Vladimir Putin this week. Trump saying the Russian leader is, "Not treating human beings right. He's killing too many people." My co-anchor, Martha Raddatz takes a look at Trump's shift and what it could mean for the battle in Ukraine.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC NEWS CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This week, with Russia's assault on Ukraine far from over, a stark and surprising shift in President Trump's tone towards Vladimir Putin, a man he has often praised.
TRUMP: We get a lot of (expletive) thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.
RADDATZ (voice-over): Trump lashing out at the Russian president and promising new weapon shipments to Ukraine.
TRUMP: We are going to send some more weapons. We have to; they have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard now.
RADDATZ (voice-over): A stunning reversal after the administration put weapons shipments to Ukraine on hold last week without explanation.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you approve of that policy?
TRUMP: We wanted to put defensive weapons because Putin is not -- he's not treating human beings right. He's killing too many people. So, we're sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine and I've approved that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So who ordered the pause last week?
TRUMP: I don't know. Why don't you tell me?
RADDATZ (voice-over): Putin's reaction was swift, launching Russia's largest attack on Ukraine since the war began more than three years ago. More than 700 drones and a dozen missiles launched in the massive aerial assault, much of it aimed at Kyiv. Trump reportedly saying he struck a deal with NATO leaders to supply weapons to Ukraine and teasing a big announcement for Monday.
TRUMP: You'll be seeing things happen.
RADDATZ (voice-over): Trump also considering granting Ukraine's request for an additional Patriot air defense system.
TRUMP: When you talk about a system like that, highly sophisticated, tremendous amount of money, and they're doing it because they want to prevent death.
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Hi, everybody.
RADDATZ (voice-over): Ukraine's President Zelenskyy telling me last month that without U.S. military support, including those Patriot missile batteries, there will be more Ukrainian losses.
RADDATZ: If you do not get more U.S. aid, more U.S. military aid in particular, can Russia win?
ZELENSKYY: More -- more chance. More quick. But you know what we will have? We will have more losses. Much more losses. Without help of the United States, they can give us -- they can provide us, for example, missiles for a better (INAUDIBLE).
RADDATZ (voice over): And President Trump now signaling he's ready to support bipartisan legislation, imposing more sanctions on countries that trade with Russia, as lawmakers push to get the bill passed.
SEN. JOHN THUNE, MAJORITY LEADER: It's leverage that we need and that, frankly, the White House needs in their negotiations are the Russians.
RADDATZ (voice over): But in an interview in Moscow in May, Putin's spokesperson telling me that more sanctions targeting Russia will not bring them to the negotiating table.
DMITRY PESKOV, KREMLIN PRESS SECRETARY: It's very hard to threaten Russia with sanctions. We are a country that is experiencing a luxury of maximum sanctions that, in the history of the world, was applied. And we're a country that used to live and to live quite well under those sanctions.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KARL: Our thanks to Martha.
I'm joined now by “New Yorker” staff writer Susan Glasser.
Susan, you just wrote a piece in "The New Yorker" with the headline "Did Trump Really Just Break Up With Putin?" So, what's the answer?
SUSAN GLASSER, NEW YORKER STAFF WRITER: Well, the answer is, maybe. Bottom line, Donald Trump, as you know, over the last ten years, has largely been incredibly complimentary of Putin. But what he's recognized is that in more than 100 days he hasn't fulfilled his pledge to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. And, at a minimum, Trump has been personally embarrassed, you could argue, by how Putin has strung him along and strong him along and strung him along. So, you know, it was a striking shift in tone. What we're waiting for with this big announcement, quote/unquote, tomorrow is to see whether he follows through with a change in actual policy.
KARL: But what do you think’s coming tomorrow?
GLASSER: Well, you know, it’s interesting because Donald Trump, again, has talked tougher on Russia, but right now the big question is, would the Trump administration, would this particular Republican Congress actually send more weapons to Ukraine? And the bottom line is that the last authorization of weapons was under Joe Biden's presidency in the final days, $1.25 billion. That is going to expire later this summer.
And, right now, there is no indication at all that this White House or this Congress is prepared to have a new bill authorizing billions more in aid. And, in the end, if Ukraine does not keep getting a steady supply of aid from the United States in the west, it doesn't really matter if Donald Trump curses at Vladimir Putin.
KARL: It would have to have serious Democratic support. Although it’s interesting, both speakers Johnson and John Thune have historically been supporters of aid to Ukraine.
But -- but let me -- let me ask you this, because you know Russia so well. You were based in Russia. You -- you -- you lived in Moscow as a -- as a correspondent. Are you seeing any indications that Putin is concerned about Trump's new tone? Or, what's the reaction coming from the Russians?
GLASSER: Well, I think it's striking that again and again and again over the last few months Putin has responded to Donald Trump by escalating the war. He has had an aerial bombardment of Ukraine and its civilian population in cities that has gotten tougher and tougher, frankly. The more that Putin was offered by Donald Trump, actually a very good deal, Donald Trump, according to reporting, gave him the chance to essentially keep the territory that he has illegally gained through this war of aggression, and Putin is saying, no, I want to go for it. I want to go bigger.
And that indicates that Russia thinks that its military position is actually strengthening in this conflict. That Ukraine is struggling on a variety of fronts, including the idea that Donald Trump and the West is not really there for the long haul.
KARL: If Congress passes these sanctions, which are -- seem to me pretty tough, that -- because they're not just -- they’re not on Russia, they're on people that trade with Russia, right? If - if -- if they pass these sanctions, Trump signs them and imposes them, will it make a difference? I mean Russia has been so heavily sanctioned.
GLASSER: Yes, that’s -- I think it's a, first of all, a big, important question. Second of all, it doesn't require Trump to impose these --
KARL: It gives him the power to do that.
GLASSER: Exactly. So, it really is a positioning, a messaging thing. Trump already has enormous power to impose additional sanctions on Russia, which he has chosen he not to do so. And I think that's the significant point, is it words right now or is it going to be followed up with actions?
KARL: All right, Susan Glasser, thank you very much.
Coming up, after devastating floods hit the Texas hill country, the Trump administration seems to have shifted its stances on eliminating FEMA. We'll discuss that and more with our roundtable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: FEMA has been deployed and we're cutting through the paperwork of the old FEMA, streamlining it much like your vision of how FEMA should operate.
TRUMP: We have some good people running FEMA. It's about time, right, we get some good ones. They failed us in North Carolina, but when we got in on January 20th, they fixed it up in no time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and President Trump this week touting improvements to FEMA under their watch, after previously saying they plan to disband the agency.
The roundtable is here. We'll get back in just a few minutes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: All right. Let's bring in the roundtable.
Former DNC chair, Donna Brazile, former RNC chair and Trump White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, Center for American Progress president and CEO, Neera Tanden, and “National Review” editor, Ramesh Ponnuru.
Thank you all for being here. Before we get to all the other stuff, just a follow-up on all the Epstein news.
Reince, we heard from Steve Bannon late yesterday saying that, that this whole controversy could cause 10 percent of MAGA to stay home and not vote in the midterms, and that could cost 40 seats for the Republicans in the House. Is this -- could this potentially hurt the president?
REINCE PRIEBUS, FORMER RNC CHAIR, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF & ABC NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: If the election were held tomorrow, perhaps, but certainly not in 2026. Look, there are issues here that need to be resolved. Number one, from a White House perspective, chief of staff perspective, you have a staff issue, right? I mean, you've got a deputy director taking on AG publicly; that has to get resolved very quickly.
KARL: I mean, he walked out of a meeting at the White House, stormed out with the chief of staff.
PRIEBUS: So how do you resolve these things? You come up with a solution, and you -- and I would predict that you're going to see probably this week, something laid out as far as how we're going to deal with this issue, whether it's going to be a -- is there going to be a commission? Is there going to be a press conference? Is there going to be something moving forward?
KARL: But I thought the president said no more on this. We've talked about it too much.
PRIEBUS: Well, I think this is going to be -- this is going to have to get resolved both on the staff side and the solution side. And I would suspect that you're going to see something very soon.
KARL: Donna?
PRIEBUS: It's not sustainable.
KARL: Donna?
DONNA BRAZILE, FORMER DNC CHAIR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, first of all, conspiracy theories, by nature, they're dangerous.
KARL: Yeah.
BRAZILE: It undermines trust. And it's very difficult to put the genie back in whatever bottle once it's out. This has been a comical relief, not the case itself, but the way in which they've handled it from the DOJ perspective to the White House, storming out of the meeting, all of the public threats, and now a big conference where this is the central theme, not that big beautiful betrayal. The central theme is why is this file being trashed? We need more information. It's all about the conspiracy.
RAMESH PONNURU, NATIONAL REVIEW EDITOR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: President Trump loves conspiracy theories. President Trump has indulged one after another after another. You could argue that (inaudible).
(CROSSTALK)
PRIEBUS: QAnon -- President QAnon.
PONNURU: The birther conspiracy about President Obama was one of the ways he originally won the Republican nomination and, just as a tactic, saying you could look at all of these other conspiracies, but don't look at this one right here.
KARL: Yeah.
PONNURU: That is a very bad tactic for putting this to bed.
NEERA TANDEN, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS PRESIDENT & CEO: Also, I mean, the Attorney General Pam Bondi went to the public and said all kinds of things about this. She said there was a list, there was files, they had people. That was in front of the White House, in front of the West Wing, that they had the influencers out there. So, I mean, there's a very legitimate question here.
Number one, was she lying then? Or is she lying now? She's the Attorney General. I do think she should go in front of Congress and sort of just explain the facts here, because ultimately, it is a big question. Was she just prancing around making things up? You're not really supposed to do that as the Attorney General. And then second of all, I'll just say, the -- everyone's acting like they don't know what the conspiracy theory is.
The conspiracy theory is that the client list has Donald Trump on it, and that's why his government is holding it back. And I think he should just -- we need to have people honestly answer questions in front of Congress or the press to just have this out once and for all.
PRIEBUS: And the overall problem with this case and why it's hard to just move on, that it's just a conspiracy. Listen, there are victims here and there are perpetrators who haven't been charged.
BRAZILE: Yeah.
PRIEBUS: And the public looks at that and says, OK, I get it. You guys are fighting over the one minute and this and that, but overall, we have a very bad thing that happened and there are people that got away with it, and that doesn't sit well with the public.
KARL: So let -- let me ask you about -- I mean, let me show you what Elon Musk, I don't know if you've been watching his X feed during all of this.
(LAUGH)
KARL: Elon Musk has been on this Epstein thing over and over again. Here's what he said. One of his many tweets. How can people be expected to have faith in Trump if he won't release the Epstein files? So my question is not that, Ramesh. My question is about Elon Musk and a third party, because Elon Musk has been saying time for a new party. He's going to theoretically fund one. How real is this threat?
PONNURU: Well, he certainly has the money to put behind any political initiative that he wants to undertake. But, we have historically not had a lot of success with third parties. The reasons we haven't had much success with third parties are still in place. And you also have to wonder whether he's the right guy to be behind it. He's an unpopular man and the platform he apparent -- presumably wants to promote, it not particularly popular either. You know, sure, a lot of people are very concerned about the Epstein issue. A lot of people are very concerned about entitlement spending. The intersection of those two groups, I don't know if that's a large constituency.
(LAUGH)
KARL: But Donna, you've seen, I think, in your past experience in politics that a third party --
BRAZILE: Third party.
KARL: -- doesn't need to be very big to have an impact.
BRAZILE: Look, I believe everyone should have a choice. They should have an opportunity to vote, you know, however they please, but the fact that Elon Musk, his brand is as tarnished. Well, I should say it this way. He's as popular as a root canal. How can he build a political party with a tarnished brand?
KARL: But -- but, Reince, Trump is really upset about this. I mean, he's been, you know, that the feud with Elon is what it is, but it seems particularly this idea that he would start a third party.
PRIEBUS: Well, because, granted, third parties -- I mean, the stacks -- the deck is stacked against them, right?
KARL: Right.
PRIEBUS: I mean, ballot X, winner-take-all electoral college, state legislatures, OK, but if someone is willing to spend a couple hundred million dollars, maybe more because Musk's ego is at it, you know, Jill Stein, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, a few points here and there can make a difference. Forty seats? No. But, can it make the difference between winning and losing the majority in the U.S. House and having the Democrats taking over oversight? Could be.
BRAZILE: Yes.
TANDEN: Yes, I -- I would agree with that. I don't think the danger of the third party is him winning and becoming president, the danger of the third party is that he would split Republican votes. I mean, this is the person --
KARL: And, and he's born in South Africa so he's not going to be president so --
TANDEN: He is not going to be president of the United States.
PRIEBUS: Right.
TANDEN: But he spent hundreds of millions of dollars to help elect Donald Trump.
KARL: He's actually born in Africa.
(LAUGHTER)
KARL: We know that.
PRIEBUS: (INAUDIBLE).
TANDEN: So, so, but I mean, that's the dangers that it's -- look, I agree with you. It's like it splits up a lot of people. Maybe puts the Senate in play.
PONNURU: Republican voters who are dissatisfied with the Republican Party hate the Democratic Party more that they're dissatisfied with the Republican Party. They're not going to defect. If they were going to defect in that kind of magnitude, that would have happened in the 2016 election.
PRIEBUS: Understood but if --
TANDEN: But maybe it gives them an option. Maybe it gives them an option to go somewhere else.
PRIEBUS: If you put $5 million in a congressional seat that's in play and somebody, you know, someone people know, a local bank, a local car dealer, it can -- it can make a difference.
PONNURU: The congressional seats that are in play are going to have plenty of money spent on both sides.
KARL: Let me --
PONNURU: It's not going to be decided.
PRIEBUS: I think you're mostly right, but I'm just saying in the small spaces it can hurt.
KARL: It can hurt. It can hurt in there.
TANDEN: It can hurt.
PRIEBUS: That's right.
KARL: So, so -- but let me ask, can we switch topics to -- the horrific scene in Texas? And we saw at the top of this that now they're talking about improving FEMA and not eliminating FEMA, it's a bit of a change in tone. But I want to play something when Trump went to Texas and he was asked a question about the warnings, could there have been better warnings. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: The several families we heard from are obviously upset because they say that those warnings, those alerts did go out -- out in time and they also say that people could have been saved. What do you say to those families?
TRUMP: Well, I think everyone did an incredible job under the circumstances. Only a bad person would ask a question like that, to be honest with you. I don't know who you are but only a very evil person would ask a question like that. I think this has been heroism. This has been incredible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: So it was evil to ask about families who were upset about lack of warnings. Also, Donna, we've had this report in "The New York Times" that FEMA didn't answer thousands of calls from flood survivors, essentially because a contract had been taken down by Department of Health -- Homeland Security.
BRAZILE: We need a strong FEMA. If -- if there's one thing in life I know a lot about --
KARL: Katrina.
BRAZILE: It's the aftermath. I mean, first of all, they didn't get the proper warning.
KARL: Yes.
BRAZILE: That's -- that's problem number one. But after an event, you need federal resources on the ground. States cannot handle this by themselves. With Katrina, we had over 5,000 FEMA employees. We had the National Guard. We had the U.S. military. And the fact that many of those resources are not available to the states, I mean, you just make the problem even worse.
I have to say something. Look, I understand the president wants to praise everybody when he gets up to speak, when you weaken FEMA --
KARL: Heck of a job.
BRAZILE: I mean, heck of a job, Brownie. You weaken FEMA. But with over 2,000 employees cut, 16 senior executives who know how to handle this kind of strategy, catastrophic losses, it's terrible that FEMA is not there to respond and to help the people in need.
KARL: And the acting FEMA director just got on the ground.
TANDEN: Yes, I mean, I think there are several errors here. One, as you said, they've been weakening FEMA all along. Two, they weren't pre-positioning people. People knew about this, Chip Roy knew that it was an issue we came back. But FEMA wasn't pre-positioned. And then, third, it's just, just to say this, they cut the contracts as this was happening. So call centers were down. And, you know, with all due respect to the president, last year, in North Carolina, he went on a vicious attack when there was no evidence FEMA didn't do everything it could do, almost zero evidence. Here, he's basically like everything is fantastic when there are still people hurting and these aren't like --
BRAZILE: And missing.
TANDEN: -- Republicans or Democrats. It's a --
BRAZILE: People are still missing.
TANDEN: People are still missing. Exactly.
PRIEBUS: There's plenty of time. As Donna said, there's plenty of time for us to go through this and find all the nexuses between what wasn't done right and what could be done better.
KARL: But I'm talking about the future and FEMA because they had talked about eliminating FEMA.
TANDEN: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: Kristi Noem has said, and the state should be empowered to do this stuff on their own.
PRIEBUS: But, one doesn't beget the other. I mean, perhaps there is a better way to structure FEMA. It doesn't mean -- there can't be just one way for us to deliver emergency relief to people that are suffering. And so, I don't think it's off limits to analyze it. But in the meantime, we've got a lot of families that are grieving and arguing over whether phone calls were received or not.
And yes, we should -- maybe there should be a warning system. There's I think a lot in play here, but I don't think now is the time to start analyzing why and what -- that it's someone's person that's being blamed in FEMA.
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: A phone call.
TANDEN: Why is -- why is --
(CROSSTALK)
PONNURU: What is happening in New Mexico.
TANDEN: It's the families --
PONNURU: It's happened in Oklahoma.
PRIEBUS: No.
TANDEN: No, no, no, no. I'm sorry.
PRIEBUS: You guys are politicizing this, and I think it is ridiculous.
(CROSSTALK)
PONNURU: (Inaudible).
TANDEN: I'm sorry. This is an issue that's live right now. Families can't get through in the call centers. Like they weren't able to get through.
KARL: Two-thirds of the calls.
TANDEN: That is happening in real time right now. So, I think using the excuse that it's too close means that we'll just won't do enough --
PRIEBUS: No, no, no.
TANDEN: -- to help the families right now.
PRIEBUS: There are state resources. There's governors. There are federal resources. There is a lot of people here that are helping. There are people down there by the thousands delivering relief.
KARL: I mean, there are people --
(CROSSTALK)
PRIEBUS: And there are people who are grieving.
KARL: Ramesh?
(CROSSTALK)
PRIEBUS: And there are people who are grieving.
KARL: Look --
PONNURU: To the extent that there are knee-jerk criticisms that assume the conclusions, right, that haven't gone through and looked at all the evidence, that deserves being called out. But the president is trying to shut down the whole conversation.
TANDEN: Exactly.
PONNURU: He's saying let's not even ask the questions. It's evil to ask these questions. And I heard that question being asked during that press conference, and it was not a got you question. It was not a question trying to go after the president. It was a completely reasonable question that we have to be able to ask.
PRIEBUS: At the right time. Not where families are waiting for their children.
(CROSSTALK)
PONNURU: A press conference is the right time.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: I'm sorry, why was it -- was it the right time during North Carolina for the president to (inaudible) everything?
PRIEBUS: People are looking for their dead children. I'm not talking about North Carolina.
KARL: All right, we've got to take a break. Well, thank you very much. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: That's all for us today. Thank you for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Be sure to watch the "Wimbledon Men's Final" today on ESPN. Have a great day.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END