'This Week' Transcript 2-15-26: Rep. Thomas Massie & Ed Smart
This is a rush transcript of "This Week" airing Sunday, February 15.
A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, February 15, 2026 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)
MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC “THIS WEEK” CO-ANCHOR: Police descend on a home two miles from Nancy Guthrie’s in Tucson, detaining but soon releasing a man for the second time, as frustration grows over the pace of the investigation.
“THIS WEEK” starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RADDATZ: Desperate search.
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NANCY GUTHRIE’S DAUGHTER: We believe our mom is still out there. We need your help.
RADDATZ: Another detention Friday night, but no breakthrough, as the hunt for Nancy Guthrie enters day 15. Officials releasing chilling doorbell camera footage and asking neighbors for surveillance video.
SHERIFF CHIRS NANOS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: If Nancy’s out there, we're going to find her. We're not giving up.
RADDATZ: With no known person of interest or suspect named, what are law enforcement's next steps? This morning, the latest from ABC's Aaron Katersky, plus analysis from former FBI Special Agent Mary Ellen O'Toole and digital forensics expert Jim Jones. And Ed Smart, the father of kidnapping survivor Elizabeth Smart.
Explosive hearing.
REP. BECCA BALINT (D-VT): The American people have a right to know the answers to this. These are senior officials in the Trump administration. This is not a game.
RADDATZ: Attorney General Pam Bondi battles with lawmakers from both parties as backlash grows over the Justice Department's latest release of Jeffrey Epstein documents. We speak exclusively with Congressman Thomas Massie on his combative exchange with Bondi.
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: There was one redaction of over 4,700.
REP. THOMAS MASSIE, (R) KENTUCKY & JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBER: Where he’s listed as a co-conspirator.
RADDATZ: And what comes next.
No deal. Lawmakers leave town as the government enters a partial shutdown over reforms to ICE. Our roundtable on the political fallout.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: From ABC News it's "THIS WEEK." Here now, Martha Raddatz.
RADDATZ: Good morning, and welcome to "THIS WEEK."
There was a moment of hope as we began this weekend. Images of a swarm of police activity just a short drive from the home of Nancy Guthrie. But after briefly detaining a man and searching a home, there were no arrests and no sign of Guthrie.
Now, at 15 agonizing days of searching, the Guthrie family, like so many others, expressing frustration with the pace of the investigation, according to sources in contact with a circle of family and friends around Savannah Guthrie.
But remember, it was only days ago, Tuesday of this week that authorities released doorbell video of the suspect showing these chilling images of a masked man on Nancy Guthrie’s doorstep in the middle of the night. And just Thursday, police found gloves that could be connected to the case.
There is still so much we do not know. But as frustrated as the family may be, the police are now armed with far more clues than they were a week ago. This morning we will cover the very latest in the investigation and what experts say law enforcement are likely focusing on now to try to break this case.
But we begin with this report from our chief investigative correspondent Aaron Katersky.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, HOST, “TODAY”: Hi there. Good Tuesday morning. We’re following breaking news overnight.
AARON KATERSKY, ABC NEWS' CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice over): She is someone millions of Americans know from morning television. But when Savannah Guthrie made this moving plea, she was speaking of her own private anguish.
GUTHRIE: We are at an hour of desperation, and we need your help.
KATERSKY (voice over): The Instagram message reflected the painful reality of the search for her 84-year-old mother. There are hundreds of detectives and tens of thousands of tips from the public, but so far no sign of Nancy Guthrie two weeks after her abduction. Overnight Friday into early Saturday, the FBI and Pima County Sheriff's Department executed a search warrant at a home a short drive from the Catalina Foothills neighborhood where Nancy Guthrie vanished. Authorities also appeared to question someone in a nearby parking lot and towed a car, but there were no arrests and no sign of Nancy Guthrie.
The unidentified man authorities detained is the second individual to be questioned and released in connection to the case. Investigators are working to piece together a fuller profile of this masked, apparently armed man lurking on her doorstep. Video shows the man approaching the house, appearing to try to block the camera with his hand, before turning his back to grab some brush, then placing the branches in front of the lens.
Savannah Guthrie sharing the images on Instagram writing, “someone out there recognizes this person. We believe she is still out there. Bring her home.”
The FBI says the suspect is 5'9" to 5'10", of average build, and carrying a backpack sold at Walmart. The retailer declined to comment. We found the same backpack at Walmart here in Tucson for $11.
KATERSKY: The backpack’s a Walmart backpack, right? So, that’s -- can you trace the sale?
SHERIFF CHRIS NANOS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: That’s what I understand. We're hoping. We’re hoping. We’re -- we have teams working on all of this stuff.
KATERSKY (voice over): Investigators have more clues. Now analyzing gloves found near Nancy Guthrie’s property, as well as DNA. Some of that DNA was collected from her property. And investigators say it belongs to someone other than her, or anyone in close contact to her. Investigators are working to identify who it belongs to. Other DNA was lifted from gloves found in searches within a few miles of Nancy Guthrie's home. “The New York Post” capturing these images of law enforcement finding this glove along a desert road.
KATERSKY: Any DNA back on any of this?
NANOS: We have. Yes. We’ve gotten DNA back. And that’s why I say, they already have the genetic markers of those that we think had access to the home, rightfully so, the family, the landscapers, the pool guy.
KATERSKY: Anything useful come back that you know of?
NANOS: I -- well, you’ve got DNA. So, that’s of use. Now we have to go through and try to eliminate people or make people. You know, we're so hopeful that we're getting closer. We just -- we just believe that.
KATERSKY (voice over): Two weeks on, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos told us there is no letup.
NANOS: Four hundred cops are out there looking for Nancy 24/7.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KATERSKY (on camera): It's not clear what led to that burst of activity at the subdivision nearby, Martha, but it’s only about two miles away. So, that’s just the kind of place where the sheriff has implored residents to check their home security systems for footage of anything suspicious, maybe a vehicle or person from January 1st, a full month before Nancy Guthrie was taken, to February 2nd, the day after. The sheriff is hoping something was caught on camera that could help, Martha.
MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC “THIS WEEK” CO-ANCHOR: Of course, all of us are, Aaron. And let me ask you this, what are investigators hoping to do in the coming days as this search continues?
KATERSKY: The sheriff said investigators are going to come back to the house with more measuring tools. They would like to build out a more substantial profile of the suspect. They’ve estimated his height, 5'9" or 5'10". Now they’d like to try and guess his weight, maybe his shoe size, just to give the public something more to go on. Maybe focus on the tips that have been coming in.
RADDATZ: OK, thanks, Aaron Katersky, in Tucson. Thank you.
I'm joined now by two experts on how law enforcement approaches these kinds of investigations, former FBI profiler Mary Ellen O'Toole, the forensic science program director at George Mason University, and Jim Jones, the digital forensic program director also at George Mason.
Good morning to you both.
Mary Ellen, I want to start with you.
You just heard Aaron's report there. You just heard what happened on Friday with a suspicious person was pulled over. That turned out to be nothing. I know you also worked on the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. His -- her father is joining us soon.
But when you look at this case and where we are and the growing frustration, do you feel there were any missteps?
MARY ELLEN O'TOOLE, FORMER FBI SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT AND PROFILER: One of the -- one of the issues in the case that is concerning, and I don't want to call it a misstep because it does happen in other cases, is the crime scene itself. The crime scene was released and then they came in again, then it was released again. And the problem with that is that you can compromise forensic evidence. Forensic evidence can be very fragile to begin with. And so, when you open and then close a crime scene like that, it can be compromised and --
RADDATZ: So, there could be footprints or something like that?
O’TOOLE: There could be footprints. There could be evidence that was there originally and then somebody else touched it so now it's compromised. So, that could be problematic once they get to court and they have to present it, but it could also delay identifying somebody.
RADDATZ: And from what they have already recovered, they found these gloves. They may or may not be connected in any way, although you can't imagine there are too many gloves in that warm climate. So, what do you think is going on now and what will they have with that?
O’TOOLE: Well, with the gloves, they’re looking for -- obviously for forensics, specifically the DNA. And that's something that is obtainable with those gloves. So, they’re going back and they're looking for more forensics with DNA being the gold standard.
RADDATZ: But would they have to -- would the person have to be in a database? A DNA database?
O’TOOLE: Not necessarily. CODIS is our database. And that's the one that all the states contribute to. And if you’re arrested, your DNA is in the database.
However, there are other methods. And that -- one of them can be forensic genetic genealogy. Unfortunately, that takes a while to be able to use that.
RADDATZ: OK.
Jim, and I -- and specifically that doorbell video cam. She didn't have a description. Google managed to find that anyway. It took them a while. It's an intense process. How did they do that?
JIM JONES, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY DIGITAL FORENSICS PROGRAM DIRECTOR: Yes,
what happens with the cameras is they record the imagery no matter what. And assuming the camera is activated, which this one was, the data, the imagery goes up to the Google cloud. Whether you have a subscription or not, that's irrelevant.
The subscription determines how long the data is kept. And so in this case, the data was uploaded to the cloud. She didn't have a subscription. It was put in the queue to be deleted. And it was somewhere during that deletion process that they were able to recover the data.
So deleting a file doesn't actually get rid of the data, just marks it for overwriting later. They were able to go to those servers, to that storage, and find the remnant pieces of the video.
RADDATZ: And what we saw of him pulling down the camera or trying to cover up that camera, did it make any difference that the camera was pulled down? There's nothing in the camera itself, is there?
JONES: That's accurate. Like -- likely to not have any impact on it. The camera itself stores a very small amount of video if it's actively connected to Wi-Fi. If it loses Wi-Fi, it'll hold up to maybe an hour worth of clips, but it won't transmit them until it gets Wi-Fi back.
So, taking the camera off, it probably was still trying to record at that time, and then later couldn't upload, and so the data never made it to Google.
RADDATZ: And, Mary Ellen, the backpack, they also have identified where this backpack was sold. You heard Aaron there, at Walmart -- Walmart, $11.
How big is that database to find how many people have purchased that? I assume they're going online. They're going store to store.
MARY ELLEN O’TOOLE, FORMER FBI SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT AND PROFILER: It's huge. And that will take a while because there's so many stores in that -- in Arizona. He didn't have to buy it in Arizona. Could have bought it somewhere else. So, that's going to take a while.
But the beauty of the fact that he could have gotten it at Walmart is they have a tremendous amount of cameras inside their stores. So, once they narrow that down to possibly one store, maybe in the area, then they can go back and they can look at the cameras and they can actually see the day that the person bought --
RADDATZ: On that day, that video would be preserved.
And, Jim, I want to ask you about the timeline. So, we see this guy go to the door. Do we have any idea whether that was right before he may have pounded on the door?
We've seen that there was no -- I believe no force entry as far as we know. So, is it likely that he went back to the car, took off the mask, tried to knock on the door. I know you're speculating there.
But in terms of that timeline, what we know and what we don't know.
JONES: Yeah, the best public information shows that the camera was disconnected around 1:45-ish a.m. Around 2:30, her pacemaker stopped connecting to the Apple Watch. So, that's probably when she physically left the premises. So, there's about a 45-minute window from the camera stops recording to she leaves the premises. We don't know if he entered immediately, if he entered minutes before she left.
RADDATZ: And, Mary Ellen, I just want to close with you. How frustrated should people be at this point or is this normal?
O’TOOLE: Unfortunately, this is normal. These cases are not easy to resolve even with technology. And what they're depending on now in part -- large part is for somebody to come forward and say that's my husband, that's my brother, that's my next door neighbor.
RADDATZ: And it doesn't appear anybody's done that yet. So, we'll --
O’TOOLE: Not yet.
RADDATZ: Thanks to both of you. We appreciate it.
JONES: Thank you.
O’TOOLE: Thank you.
RADDATZ: And let's bring in someone who knows well what the Guthrie family is facing right now, Ed Smart, whose daughter Elizabeth was abducted from their Salt Lake City home in 2002 at the age of 14. She was held captive for nine months before her rescue.
Thanks so much for joining us this morning, Ed.
You have been in this excruciating position of waiting where -- while they're looking for your loved one. This is apparently very frustrating right now, two weeks for the Guthrie family, for so many people.
ED SMART, FATHER OF KIDNAPPING VICTIM ELIZABETH SMART: Absolutely. I mean, I remember, you know, once you have the initial shock, but it never goes away and, you know, at night you wonder, you know, where is she? How is she surviving? You know, what should I be doing to find her?
And that -- that just repeats over and over in your mind. I remember feeling so unable to address any of the issues that I felt were so important. But in the end, I felt that it was so important to keep Elizabeth's face out there, to do everything that we possibly could to keep her alive in the news because it's just a matter of the next news clip before everyone's distracted onto something else.
And finding Elizabeth was certainly what our effort was all about.
RADDATZ: And we know the Guthrie family has tried to do that as well through those
Instagram posting.
You had some similar experiences with ransom notes. You got some fake ransom notes during Elizabeth's disappearance. How did you deal with that? How did the FBI deal with that? What was that like during that period?
SMART: You know, we had two FBI agents that literally lived in our home for the first two weeks. And so, they were there to record any phone calls that came in and to help out if something else came along. So, we left all of that in their hands. And, of course, we did have one or two ransom notes. And, in the end, it was someone who fictitiously was trying to extort money and get part of the reward. So, that really was something that we weren't -- we were kept in the loop, but it wasn't something that we were dealing with every day.
You know, my heart goes out to the Guthries. This is so, you know, painful and so difficult to deal with. You know, it -- it’s like this open wound that you can't stop. And so trying to find Nancy and try to get people that might have seen something to call in because you -- you know, a lot of people will see something happen and not -- oh, well, that's not of any consequence. But it may be the answer to bring this all to a head. And certainly that was the way it went for us. I mean it went on for months that way. And we were on this emotional roller coaster.
And I think that one of the things that really helped us was the support that we had from the community. We had so many people volunteer to help in the search. You know, there were thousands and thousands of tips that came in. And certainly, the people even kept coming back for the search. And that gave us great hope that, you know, we are going to find Elizabeth. And, fortunately, we were able to have her come back to us.
RADDATZ: And we hope the same for the Guthrie family. Thanks so much for joining us this morning, Ed. We so appreciate it.
SMART: You bet.
RADDATZ: And up next, the wildly contentious hearing on the Epstein files with Attorney General Pam Bondi attacking lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. I’ll speak with GOP Congressman Thomas Massie, who faced some of Bondi's attacks.
We're back in two minutes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL, (D) WASHINGTON: Please raise your hands if you have still not been able to meet with this Department of Justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RADDATZ: That was one of the quieter moments from a contentious and protocol-busting hearing over hearing over the handling of the Epstein files. We will talk to one of the congressmen who get these documents released, Thomas Massie. But first, a look at the growing fallout from the files with ABC's Jay O'Brien.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAY O'BRIEN, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A combative hearing on Capitol Hill this week spiraling out of control.
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Shame on you.
REP. BECCA BALINT (D-VT): For goodness' sake, this is pathetic.
BONDI: You're from a tiny, beautiful state.
BALINT: This is pathetic, Mr. Chair.
O'BRIEN (voice-over): Attorney General Pam Bondi facing off against the House Judiciary Committee over the Department of Justice's handling of the release of more than three million pages of records tied to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
BONDI: I am deeply sorry for what any victim, any victim has been through, especially as a result of that monster.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): You redacted the names of abusers, enablers, accomplices and co-conspirators. Even worse, you shockingly failed to redact many of the victims' names.
O'BRIEN (voice-over): The attorney general sitting just rows in front of Epstein survivors as she traded attacks with lawmakers.
RASKIN: And I told you about that, Attorney General, before you started.
BONDI: You don't tell me anything.
RASKIN: Yes, I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate.
BONDI: Washed up, loser lawyer. You're not even a lawyer.
O'BRIEN (voice-over): Pressed by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, who co-wrote the law requiring the release of the files.
BONDI: Within 40 minutes, Wexner's name was added back.
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): Within 40 minutes of me catching you red-handed.
BONDI: Red -- there was one redaction over 4700.
MASSIE: Where he is listed as a co-conspirator.
BONDI: And we invited you in. This guy has Trump derangement syndrome. He needs to -- you're a failed politician.
O'BRIEN (voice-over): A legal representative for Lex Wexner telling ABC News, the assistant U.S. attorney told Mr. Wexner's legal counsel in 2019 that Mr. Wexner was neither a co-conspirator nor target in any respect. Afterwards, some of the Epstein survivors responding to Bondi's refusal to face them directly.
DANI BENSKY, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: She had three opportunities to address survivors. We stood up and all she had to do was turn around. And she could not even turn around and face us.
O'BRIEN (voice-over): Bondi's hearing coming just one day after Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was forced to defend his repeated mentions in the DOJ's files after previously saying he distanced himself from Epstein, his one-time neighbor, in 2005.
HOWARD LUTNICK, COMMERCE SECRETARY: My wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again. So I was never in the room with him socially, for business or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn't going, because he is gross. That's my story. One and absolutely done.
O'BRIEN: But e-mails released by the DOJ show Lutnick and Epstein remained in touch years after Epstein first pleaded guilty to sex crimes in 2008, including a 2012 lunch attended by Lutnick, his wife, nannies, daughters and three sons.
LUTNICK: I did have lunch with him as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation. My wife was with me as were my four children and nannies.
O'BRIEN (voice-over): I pressed Lutnick ahead of the hearing.
Why did you keep contact with Jeffrey Epstein after he pled guilty?
LUTNICK: I'm already testifying today.
O'BRIEN: Did you mischaracterize your relationship with him?
O'BRIEN (Voice-over): More than six years since Jeffrey Epstein's death and the fallout from his crimes still reverberating, from Silicon Valley to Hollywood to Wall Street, where Kathy Ruemmler, the top lawyer at Goldman Sachs who served as White House counsel during the Obama administration announced her resignation effective in June. In e-mails she called up Epstein Uncle Jeffrey and sweetie, and advised him on how to respond to questions about his sex crimes.
A spokesperson for Ruemmler telling ABC News, quote, "Miss Ruemmler has done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide, nothing in the records suggests otherwise."
The impact of the files spanning the globe from the United Kingdom to France, Norway and Dubai, with the CEO of DP World, Dubai's largest port operator, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, stepped down Friday, revealed by U.S. lawmakers as the recipient of this e-mail, where Epstein said he, quote, "loved the torture video." DP World did not respond to an ABC News request for comment.
And in the U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer facing political pressure over his appointment and the later firing of his one-time ambassador to the U.S., Peter Mandelson, who e-mails show also corresponded with Epstein.
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Before he was appointed ambassador, Mandelson was asked directly about the nature of his relationship with Epstein. The information now available makes clear that the answers he gave were lies.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O'BRIEN (on-camera): And, Martha, President Trump this week defending his attorney general's appearance in that fiery hearing, posting that she did, quote, "fantastic." Martha?
RADDATZ: Our thanks to Jay O'Brien.
I'm joined now by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who helped lead the efforts to release the Epstein files.
Good morning to you, Congressman.
I would like your overall reaction to the hearing this week and Pam Bondi’s performance, combativeness.
REP. THOMAS MASSIE, (R) KENTUCKY & JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBER: I don’t think she did very well. She came with a book full of insults, one for each congressperson. She obviously had one for me.
And, you know, I've been there when Merrick Garland was there. Obviously, politically, I don’t agree with him, but he performed much better in terms of at least not looking bad. And, unfortunately, we didn’t get the answers we wanted about the Epstein Files Transparency Act from her.
RADDATZ: You -- did you get any of the answers you wanted?
MASSIE: No, but she did come off her script and engage with me about this production of documents where she admitted that 40 minutes after I pointed out to the DOJ that they had over-redacted some of the documents, they did unredacted documents. So, it’s clear they’ve made mistakes in the document production. At least she acknowledges that tacitly. And it’s clear that their work is not done here yet.
RADDATZ: And I want to go to those -- some of those unredacted files. Congressman Ro Khanna said names of some of the men who were redacted shouldn’t have been redacted. They then sent that back to you, and two of them were not redacted. But on Friday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche accused you and Congressman Khanna of unmasking those people, saying they had nothing to do with Epstein or Maxwell. They were from an FBI line-up years ago.
What’s your response to that?
MASSIE: Well, three hours before Todd Blanche himself unredacted those names, I told him in an X post, which I know he read because he reposted it, that those may be men in a line-up. And then I went on TV and said, those may be men in a line-up. And it was actually the DOJ who released those names, which is fine, but they omitted the context that I provided, which is these may be in a line-up.
Now, there were two men who needed to be named, one of whom has already resigned, the Emirate, a sultan, resigned for -- as a CEO of a very large company because we released his name.
And there’s another man, Leslie Wexner, I'll add him to the list with Jes Staley and Leon Black, who need to be investigated right now. They’ve appeared in these files.
Leslie Wexner is the one who -- you know, Pam Bondi said, oh, he’s appeared thousands of times in these documents. We’re not covering up anything. But I pointed out to her, they redacted his name from the one document that says “child sex trafficking co-conspirator.”
And my question is, who is the person at DOJ who redacted Leslie Wexner’s name from a document titled “child sex trafficking” with “co-conspirator” next to this name?
(CROSSTALK)
RADDATZ: And I want to say right now that Wexner denies and they say he was not a co-conspirator. Wexner has a statement: The assistant U.S. attorney told Mr. Wexner’s legal counsel in 2019 that Mr. Wexner was neither co-conspirator nor target in any respect. Mr. Wexner cooperated full by providing background information on Epstein and was never contacted again.
But I’d like to move on, if we can.
MASSIE: Yeah.
RADDATZ: Yesterday, the DOJ sent Congress a letter explaining the reason for all these reactions. So, you are not satisfied with that?
MASSIE: No, they’re citing deliberative process privilege in order not to release some of the documents. The problem with that is the bill that Ro Khanna and I wrote says that they must release internal memos and notes and emails about their decisions on whether to prosecute or not prosecute, whether to investigate or not investigate.
It’s important they follow that because then we could find why they didn’t prosecute Leslie Wexner. What was the decision tree there? And also, why, in 2008 they gave Jeffrey Epstein such a light sentence?
And finally, I know the DOJ wants to say they’re done with this document production. The problem is they’ve taken down documents before we were able to go over to the DOJ and look at the unredacted versions. They took down some of the most significant documents. Two of them involving Virginia Giuffre’s case and other things, the picture of Epstein at -- in a room where it’s -- got CIA written on the boxes. That’s been taken down.
We want to be able to look at all these files. They can’t keep those documents down after they’ve already produced them.
RADDATZ: I want to talk to you about one of the moments in this hearing, and that is the attorney general would not look at the Epstein survivors behind her. Did that surprise you?
MASSIE: I think that was kind of cold on her part. I think she was afraid to.
And look, these survivors would love to have a meeting. It's not about Bill Clinton, and it's not about Donald Trump. This Epstein Files Transparency Act was about getting these survivors justice.
We've got some degree of transparency but it's called the Department of Justice, not the department of transparency.
And so, what these survivors need, they need to see some of their own 302 forms, which haven't been released, and they also need to see some of the men that they've implicated prosecuted.
RADDATZ: Do you still have confidence in Pam Bondi as Attorney General?
MASSIE: I don't think Pam Bondi has confidence in Pam Bondi. She wasn't confident enough to engage in anything, but name calling in a hearing. And so, no, I don't have confidence in her. She hasn't got any sort of accountability there at the DOJ.
When I asked her specifically, who redacted Leslie Wexner's name from the one document that mattered, she couldn't give me an answer, she wouldn't give me an answer. But ultimately, it's her who is responsible for the document production according to our law, the attorney general.
It's not Todd Blanche. It's not the people below them. You can assign tasks to people but you can't assign your responsibility.
RADDATZ: And just very quickly, if you will. You've supported most of what Donald Trump has done during his presidency. Because of your actions with these files, he is supporting your primary opponent and has waged very personal attacks on you.
I know we just have a few seconds here. But just your reaction to that.
MASSIE: Look, this is about the Epstein class, the people who are funding the attacks against me. They may or may not be implicated in these files, but they were certainly rubbing shoulders with the people who are in these files. They're billionaires who are friends with these people. And that's what I'm up against in Washington, D.C.
Donald Trump told us that even though, you know, he had dinner with these kinds of people in New York City and West Palm Beach, that he would be transparent. But he's not. He's still in with the Epstein class. This is the Epstein administration, and they're attacking me for trying to get these files released.
RADDATZ: And again, I'm going to say, President Trump has not been accused of anything criminal here.
Thank you very much for joining us this morning, Congressman. We appreciate it.
MASSIE: Thank you. Thank you, Martha.
RADDATZ: The Roundtable weighs in on how long the latest partial government shutdown could last. We're back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM HOMAN, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION BORDER CZAR: I have proposed, and President Trump has concurred, that this surge operation conclude. A significant drawdown has already been underway this week. It will continue to the next week.
GOV. TIM WALZ (D), MINNESOTA: I'm certainly not going to spike the football, but you’re not going to hear me express any gratitude for the people who caused this unnecessary, unwarranted and, in many cases, unconstitutional assault on our state.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RADDATZ: Border Czar Tom Homan and Governor Tim Walz this week on the drawdown of ICE operations in Minnesota. The roundtable weighs in when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RADDATZ: I'm joined now by the roundtable. Democratic strategist Faiz Shakir, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, “New Yorker” staff writer Susan Glasser, and Republican strategist Matt Gorman.
And good morning to all of you.
And, Chris, I want to start with the shutdown. The Homeland Security shutdown. They want -- the Democrats want changes in the immigration enforcement, no masks, agents wearing body cameras. Republicans are balking at that. So, how long does this last?
CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) FORMER NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Look, I don't think there's any political impetus for the Democrats to give in. You know, if, you know, ICE and Homeland Security is shut down, it's fine by them. And I don't think they have an impetus for this to end any time soon. And so the question’s going to be, do Republicans, you know, give in to pressure on some of those issues in order to get their operations back up and running in a full way?
So, I think, you know, in the last shutdown, there was incentives on both sides for them to get something done. This time I don't think there's nearly as much of an incentive for the Democrats as there is for the Republicans, so they’re probably going to have to decide which of those issues do they find the least objectionable and how much do they have to give to get this back up and running?
RADDATZ: Faiz, is it possible that the Democrats are overplaying their hand here?
FAIZ SHAKIR, BERNIE SANDERS 2020 CAMPAIGN MANAGER & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I know that Democrats and Republican want disaster relief recovery and they want the airports to function. So, functionally, of course, there’s elements of the DHS operations that you want to continue on.
But I agree with Governor Christie, that fundamentally they’re on two different plains on ICE. The big whale that right now isn't being fought over that I think is the next Congress's major obstacle is $75 billion was given to ICE. They had opportunities to increase the staffing by 10,000 people. That's out of control.
When you're cutting Medicaid and you're cutting food stamps, why are we giving that much to one agency?
The Democrats can't win that fight right now. But they have to tee it up for the next Congress such that, put us in charge and we can do this.
RADDATZ: And, Susan, we just saw Tom Homan there. They -- the Border Czar Tom Homan. Operation Metro Surge is coming to an end.
SUSAN GLASSER, NEW YORKER STAFF WRITER: Yeah. I mean, I think this is a really clear marker of overreach on the part of the administration. And it's really remarkable to have seen that actually, it was the horrible video images we saw from Minnesota, the killings --
RADDATZ: The deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good.
GLASSER: Exactly. But also, hundreds of everyday Minnesotans in the streets reacting, pushing back in a way that it appears the Trump administration had to do something that Donald Trump never does, which is to retreat, to push back.
So, one, are they going to apply this template of surging thousands of armed mass federal agents into other cities? That's one question. The other question is, are Democrats going to lose some of the momentum in -- as a result of the backlash to this? And will that affect this shutdown debate here in Washington?
RADDATZ: And what do you think, Matt? A new AP-NORC poll found 62 percent of Americans think the deployments of immigration agents to U.S. cities have gone too far.
MATT GORMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST & FORMER NRCC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Yeah.
RADDATZ: Sixty percent now have an unfavorable view of ICE. So, could it be in the administration's favor to stop that or to limit those?
(CROSSTALK)
GORMAN: And it seemed like in President Trump's Super Bowl interview, he seemed to talk about a lighter touch on some of these things. Didn't talk about --
RADDATZ: Softer touch, yeah.
GORMAN: Yeah.
You know, one of the things I was really surprised about was the fact that Democrats took this two-week stopgap back a couple weeks ago that Thune offer, right? I mean, three weeks ago, this was a red-hot issue, and it broke through in a way that a lot of -- to normal voters in a way that a lot of Washington stories don't.
And I was surprised. I mean, look, two weeks is an eternity, especially in the Trump era of the media cycle.
So, look, we're going into a shutdown. ICE is already funded through big -- the Big, Beautiful Bill, and they're -- without an endgame for Democrats, they have less leverage than they did three weeks ago when it was a red-hot story.
So, I think this is going to end in a lot of ways like the last shutdown ended when, to Faiz's point, the TSA starts having reverberations around spring break vacation that starts affecting real --
(CROSSTALK)
RADDATZ: Not so much is supposed to be happening right now because of the --
(CROSSTALK)
GORMAN: Yes.
RADDATZ: Yeah.
GORMAN: Yeah, exactly.
SHAKIR: One of -- one of the things that did change in those two weeks is that you had Republicans peeling off from Donald Trump increasingly and, of course, on the recent tariffs vote on Canada, and I think you're going to see more of it, certainly on Epstein, much more criticism of Trump.
I would argue that politically, you have a more likely possibility as we're moving into this period of time that there are Republicans who want to peel off from Trump.
GORMAN: And I think, too, one real quick. We -- a lot of those list of things, body cameras, et cetera, a lot of them are in favor of it. I think they're just not willing to use the government shutdown as a -- as a maneuver on it.
RADDATZ: And, Chris, I want to change to a big story this week, and that was Mark Kelly and the others, a grand jury. Mark Kelly, they tried to get criminal charges against him and others for the video, a reminder, the video where they reminded -- lawmakers reminded veterans or active-duty military rather that they do not have to follow illegal orders.
That was it. That was the video. And they don't have to follow illegal orders.
What's your reaction to that? They tried to get the grand jury to indict. Grand juries almost always indict. They didn't this time.
CHRISTIE: Well, I want to put a couple things in perspective. Having done the job of U.S. attorney for seven years. In seven years that I was U.S. attorney in New Jersey, and we were the third most productive district out of 93 in the country during those seven years. So, we brought a lot of cases.
We never once -- not once in seven years, we’re “no bill” by a grand jury. Not once.
So, to try -- people --
(CROSSTALK)
RADDATZ: Overwhelming majority.
CHRISTIE: No --
(CROSSTALK)
RADDATZ: Because the prosecution just --
(CROSSTALK)
CHRISTIE: Unanimity, unanimity. We never got “no bill”, right? So, why is that?
This false idea that grand juries, you can indict a ham sandwich, it is not true. And the Trump administration is proving that. They're putting a bunch of ham sandwiches up there and the grand juries are not indicting them.
The fact is that the previous Justice Departments before this one took very seriously bringing charges to a grand jury and asking to indict a fellow American. And what you're seeing now is absolutely the destruction of the credibility of the Justice Department with our judicial system. Judges are not giving the benefit of the doubt anymore to U.S. -- assistant U.S. attorneys when they come into court. And worse yet with the public.
And so, the damage that gets done here by this just pure vendetta prosecution is long term. And it's going to be very, very difficult to fix over the course of the next decade.
RADDATZ: Susan, also the military, Pete Hegseth went after Mark Kelly, specifically, as well, trying to reduce his rank in retirement, reduce his pay in requirement. But we had a Republican-appointed federal judge temporarily blocking Hegseth from punishing the Senator.
And he ripped into Pete Hegseth, saying basically, he was trampling Kelly's First Amendment rights, rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members, he said, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise, and the statement goes on.
GLASSER: Well, that's right. And that judge said to the Defense Department's arguments, he said, horse feathers. You know, but I think, in a way, this remarkable thing of everyday Americans saying no to one of the excesses of the Trump administration, it shouldn't obscure the fact that I think a very significant line has been crossed by the administration here.
There's only been one time, one time in American history that a member of Congress was sent to jail for speech, and for speech criticizing a president of the United States. That was in 1798, OK? And that was because of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which, of course, have been repealed and repudiated.
It's not the modern world we live in of the First Amendment, which protects not only your and my right to criticize the president of the United States, but certainly members of Congress who also have the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.
And I just think that we need to take a breath and realize that Donald Trump, this week, instructed his Justice Department to throw U.S. Senators and House members in jail for the crime of criticizing him implicitly and telling service members that they don't have to obey illegal orders. This is a line. This is a cross.
RADDATZ: I've got to get your reaction to that.
GORMAN: Yeah, look, I don't see the Hegseth or Republicans stopping him going on offense. I think they see themselves as, oh, they can win a fight on their base on this. But on the other end of this, both sides actually benefit from this fight, because Kelly was somebody in the 2024 VP search, had no presence of personality.
Suddenly, he's been elevated. He has something to talk about and has a signature issue that he can own for the future as well.
RADDATZ: And just a final thought on that, Faiz.
SHAKIR: I mean, this is not their authoritative impulses of Donald Trump, and thankfully, the American public is increasingly angering and upset over this. Obviously, we've seen it play out in the way he's dealt with Epstein. There's a bubbling sense that he's lost the country, and that gives me great hope.
RADDATZ: OK. Thanks to all of you. We're going to be right back with more on the Roundtable and a report on a critical change by the EPA on how the U.S. addresses climate change. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEE ZELDIN, EPA ADMINISTRATOR: Under President Trump's leadership today, the Trump EPA has finalized the single largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States of America. Referred to by some as the Holy Grail of federal regulatory overreach, the 2009 Obama EPA Endangerment Finding is now eliminated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RADDATZ: That was Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin announcing that the Trump administration is eliminating the landmark finding allowing the federal government to regulate climate change.
Chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce reports on the fallout.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MARY BRUCE, ABC NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In a sweeping move that scientists warn will impact generations to come, the Trump administration this week erased the scientific finding that greenhouse gases threaten human health and the environment. Gutting the government's ability to regulate emissions and fight climate change.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is about as big as it gets, they tell me.
BRUCE (voice-over): The Environmental Protection Agency's 2009 Endangerment Finding gave the government authority to regulate greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane found in emissions from cars, power plants and factories, declaring they endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations. That bedrock decision now gone.
TRUMP: A disastrous Obama era policy that severely damaged the American auto industry and massively drove up prices for American consumers.
BRUCE (voice-over): Former president Barack Obama firing back, saying Trump's repeal means we'll be less safe, less healthy and less able to fight climate change. All so the fossil fuel industry can make more money.
But the White House touting this as the largest deregulation in U.S. history, claiming it will save over $1 trillion by eliminating emission standards for cars and trucks. And paving the way for rollbacks for power plants and oil and gas refineries.
ZELDIN: What that means is lower prices, more choices and an end of heavy-handed climate policies.
BRUCE (voice-over): President Trump has long called climate change a hoax and campaigned on, quote, "unleashing American energy."
TRUMP: We're going to drill, baby, drill. Energy is coming way down.
BRUCE (voice-over): And on Inauguration Day, Trump signing an executive order directing his EPA to assess whether the regulation should be kept in place.
Is this a decision based on science?
MATTHEW DAVIS, FORMER EPA SCIENTIST: No. This is definitely not a decision based on science. The science is clear, it's indisputable.
BRUCE (voice-over): Scientist Matthew Davis worked at the EPA under Democrats and Republicans. He says the change will have deadly consequences.
DAVIS: We're going to see more pollution. So we'll see more heart attacks, more stroke, more asthma attacks, more people's lives will be cut short.
BRUCE (voice-over): The president with this message for Americans worried about that.
TRUMP: Don't worry about it because it has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam.
BRUCE (voice-over): But major health organizations and several states have already vowed to sue over the repeal, setting up a legal battle that could very well end up before the Supreme Court.
For THIS WEEK, Mary Bruce, ABC News, the White House.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
RADDATZ: Our thanks to Mary.
So let's bring back the roundtable. And Faiz, I want to start with you. You heard Mary saying the impacts of this reversal could last for generations.
SHAKIR: You know, this will be one of the hottest Januaries on record despite the ice that you and I see out our windows.
I want to just make a point about this. A lot of people don't know the data centers is one of the things that's driving this. The data centers accounted for about 40 percent of the U.S. economy last year, its growth. And Trump has been in the pockets with the big tech oligarchs. And they want to develop all over the country and they want fossil fuel to burn heavily for their usage.
And Trump is saying, you got it. Whatever you want and need. And of course what leaves many communities out in the dust paying higher electric bills, by the way.
RADDATZ: Chris, this will almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court. A very different Supreme Court than in 2007, when they ruled that Greenhouse Gases are considered air pollution. So what happens here?
CHRISTIE: Well, excuse me, first off, I just have to say about the Obama administration. You know, live by the sword, die by the sword. You know, I think this was an extraordinary executive overreach at the time. And if you do it that way,
then you are subject to having those things reversed when a different administration with a different philosophy comes in.
And the other thing, as Barack Obama said, elections have consequences, is the Supreme Court. And this is a different Supreme Court now. They defer to executive authority. And if, you know, they defer to executive authority on a number of other issues, I think what you'll probably see here is they'll say that the executive has the ability to be able to rescind something like the endangerment finding.
RADDATZ: And Matt, is this something you believe Americans really want to see happen? You don't really have any polling on that. But that has been our life for a very long time, and understanding that the climate is changing.
GORMAN: Well, look, I think the climate change movement is at a nadir we haven't seen in the last 30 years or so. I mean, I think a lot of factors contributed to that. The Washington Post wrote about this back in November 2025.
I mean, there was a repeated moral urgency argument that I think has fallen deaf. But also, in this post-COVID era where affordability is paramount among when voters, it has been for the last five or six years, when people are worried about energy prices and rent prices and inflation, that's a direct conflict with so much of the climate change movement. And who bears the brunt of this? Suburban voters, working-class voters.
And I think they did a lot to erode their moral standing. Heck, even Greta Thunberg is more worried about Gaza and Cuba right now than on the environment. I think that says a lot to where the movement is at the moment.
RADDATZ: Susan, this is not just a domestic issue. The rest of the planet is looking at us as well.
GLASSER: Yeah, well, that's right. I mean, on so many issues, you have the Trump administration sort of standing atop history, you know, saying, enough, you know, let's roll it back. And I think Trump, in area after area, is sort of saying, I want to undo many of what he sees as progressive gains over the last few years. The U.S. has sort of abdicated any possible leadership role.
The interesting question, of course, is, what does it mean for the rest of the world? We don't live on the planet alone here. And I think our friends and neighbors are saying, well, first of all, can you trust America's word on anything? Because every four years or eight years, we're wildly veering back and forth between Barack Obama.
You'll remember in the post-COVID, you know, bill that was passed by Congress was the -- touted as the largest green energy package ever in American history. Here we are just a few years later, trying to undo all of that.
CHRISTIE: Martha, I'll tell you, I'll tell you this --
RADDATZ: I got about 10 seconds for you.
CHRISTIE: I'll say this. China is not worried about it. They're not worried about the rest of the world. And so, we shouldn't have to worry about it either.
RADDATZ: OK. Thanks to all of you. We'll see you again soon. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RADDATZ: That's all for us today. Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Check out "World News Tonight" and have a great day.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Popular Reads
ABC News Live