Politics has a funny way of flattening everything into a ten-second soundbite. If you’ve spent any time on social media lately, you’ve probably seen the headlines or the grainy clips of Kamala Harris talking about the "defund" movement. Some people say she was a cheerleader for it; others swear she’s a lifelong "tough on crime" prosecutor who never gave it the time of day.
The truth is messier.
When you dig into the Kamala defund police CNN archives—and a specific set of interviews from the summer of 2020—you find a politician trying to navigate a massive cultural earthquake. It wasn't a simple "yes" or "no" situation. It was a moment where the future Vice President was essentially trying to speak two languages at once.
The Interview That Started the Fire
It was June 2020. The country was reeling from the murder of George Floyd. Protests were everywhere. During a high-profile appearance on CNN, as well as a widely cited interview on the "Ebro in the Morning" radio show (which CNN later analyzed in depth), Harris was asked point-blank about the "defund the police" slogan.
She didn't use the slogan as a chant. But she didn't exactly run away from the sentiment behind it, either.
"This whole movement is about rightly saying we need to take a look at these budgets and figure out whether it reflects the right priorities," she said. She went further, challenging the very idea that more boots on the ground automatically equals more safety. She called it "status quo thinking."
Honestly, it was a pretty radical departure for someone who spent years as a District Attorney and Attorney General. She argued that upper-middle-class suburban neighborhoods don't have massive police patrols, yet they are safe. Why? Because they have well-funded schools, high homeownership, and access to mental health services. Basically, her point was that we’ve been "militarizing police departments" while "defunding public schools."
What the "Defund" Label Actually Meant to Her
Context matters, though. You've got to remember that in 2020, the phrase "defund the police" meant ten different things to ten different people. For some, it meant total abolition. For others—including Harris at that specific moment—it was shorthand for "reimagining public safety."
During that CNN window, she was pushing for a shift in where the money goes. She wasn't calling for the end of the police force. In fact, in that same period, she told CNN’s Dana Bash that she wanted to make sure that if a woman is raped or a child is molested, a police officer responds and there is "accountability and consequence."
She was walking a tightrope.
- The "Reimagine" Argument: She suggested that 911 calls for mental health crises shouldn't necessarily require an armed officer.
- The Budget Critique: She pointed out that many cities spend one-third of their budgets on policing while social services starve.
- The Shift: Once she joined the Biden ticket in August 2020, the rhetoric tightened up. The campaign explicitly stated she did not support defunding the police, favoring "reform" and "increased funding for community policing" instead.
The CNN Investigation and the 2024 Pivot
Fast forward to the 2024 and 2026 political cycles, and these old clips have become gold for her opponents. A CNN Kaczynski report (from the "K-File" investigative team) actually dug up these old recordings to show how her tone had shifted. It’s one of those classic political "flip-flop" traps.
In 2020, she was a Senator from California trying to reflect the energy of the streets. As Vice President, she’s part of an administration that has repeatedly called to increase funding for the police through the American Rescue Plan.
Critics say she was "pandering" back then. Supporters say she was "evolving" or simply acknowledging the validity of the protesters' frustrations.
Why the Confusion Persists
Part of why the Kamala defund police CNN topic stays in the news is the Minnesota Freedom Fund incident. On June 1, 2020, Harris tweeted a link urging people to donate to the fund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground.
While the fund was meant for protesters, it was later revealed that the money also bailed out people accused of violent crimes, including murder. This gave her detractors a permanent piece of evidence to argue that she was "soft on crime" during that era, regardless of what her actual policy papers said.
The Nuance Nobody Wants to Hear
If you’re looking for a "gotcha" moment, you can find it. If you’re looking for a nuanced discussion on urban policy, you can find that too.
Harris’s record is a paradox. She’s the woman who wrote Smart on Crime and oversaw a massive increase in convictions in San Francisco. But she’s also the politician who, in the heat of 2020, said it was "wrong" to think more police make us safer.
She essentially tried to bridge the gap between the progressive wing of her party and the moderate, law-and-order reality of a national general election. Whether she succeeded or just created a mountain of contradictory footage for her rivals depends entirely on which side of the aisle you're sitting on.
🔗 Read more: The Roofman Real Story: How Jeffrey Manchester Built a Secret Empire Inside a Toys R Us
Real-World Takeaways
If you're trying to make sense of the current debate around public safety and the Vice President's role in it, keep these three things in mind:
- Check the Date: Most of the "pro-defund" rhetoric comes from a very specific three-month window in 2020.
- Look for the Word "Reimagine": That’s the keyword Harris used to pivot away from the "abolish" movement while still acknowledging the protesters.
- Follow the Money: As VP, her actual policy actions have trended toward more federal funding for local police departments, provided they meet certain reform standards.
The conversation about policing in America isn't going anywhere. Neither are the clips from 2020. Understanding that she was advocating for a "reallocation" of priorities rather than a total "defunding" of the institution is the key to seeing past the campaign ads.