Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Democrats Dealt Major Blows In Bid To Win Back House With Virginia Ruling, New GOP Redistricting In Deep South; Gas Prices Rise 25 Cents For Second Consecutive Week Amid Iran War; Sources: CDC Teams To Meet Americans On Hantavirus-Hit Ship. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired May 08, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH REPORTER: -- consequences for residents in this area.
[16:00:03]
In particular, toxic dust, that is, from the lakebed that is blowing into residents' homes, their families. There are big concerns about the health impacts here if the lake continues to dry up because of a project like this.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Yeah, a story to keep an eye on.
Clare Duffy, thanks so much for bringing that to us.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now. Thanks for joining us.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. I'm Kasie Hunt. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Friday afternoon.
Right now, the fight to sway control of Congress takes dramatic new turns, just weeks after Democrats declared victory in Virginia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: The law is with us in Virginia. The facts are with us in Virginia, and the people are with us in Virginia. Theres no basis in law or fact for the Virginia Supreme Court under the Constitution that exists, particularly in the aftermath of a people approved referendum, to do anything other than to allow it to move forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The law is with us, said the aspiring House speaker, Hakeem Jeffries.
Not so fast, says the Virginia Supreme Court. Today, they struck down the map that voters approved last month, a map that would have eliminated four seats currently held by Republicans.
In a new interview with CNN, Jeffries is vowing to flip at least two of those seats, saying, quote, "The fight is not over in Virginia. We're just getting started."
Today's ruling also a major blow to Governor Abigail Spanberger. She called the decision a disappointment and said this, quote, "The majority of Virginia voters voted to push back against a president who said he is entitled to more Republican seats in Congress. With a temporary and responsive referendum, they made their voices heard," end quote.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who himself oversaw a successful effort to temporarily eliminate as many as five red districts, today, pointed out that there were no public votes in Texas or in other red states, and he put his argument this way, quote, "MAGA has rigged the system," end quote.
As both parties look for any advantage come November, the math is changing almost daily. Fresh off a Supreme Court ruling that severely weakened the Voting Rights Act, states across the South are expected to try to eliminate Democrat held majority-minority districts.
And just yesterday, protesters filled the Tennessee state capitol as the Republican dominated legislature approved a measure to eliminate the states only blue district, with Democratic state lawmakers arguing that its no coincidence that it was also Tennessee's only black majority district
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLORIA JOHNSON (D), TENNESSEE STATE REPRESENTATIVE: This is not a special session. This is a white power rally and a white power grab. Vote yes, you're telling everyone you're a racist.
JUSTIN PEARSON (D), TENNESSEE STATE REPRESENTATIVE: These maps are racist tools of white supremacy at the behest of the most powerful white supremacists in the United States of America, Donald J. Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines. Head into THE ARENA. My panel is going to be here.
But we're going to get started with CNN correspondent Arlette Saenz.
Arlette, walk us through the Virginia Supreme Court decision.
ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kasie, the Virginia Supreme Court delivered a major setback to Democrats in this back and forth redistricting war. The state Supreme Court blocked the Democratic drawn maps that voters approved by about three points just last month, and could have netted Democrats as many as four additional U.S. house seats. The state Supreme Court ruled that the creation of this referendum did not comply with the state's constitution.
That is because the general assembly in Virginia is required to vote two times on a proposed constitutional amendment that theyre sending to their voters, with an intervening general election in between. Republicans had argued that when the state assembly took their very first vote on this in mid-October, there was already a general election underway heading into last year's governors race in the state and the Supreme Court sided with that argument.
Now, the state's governor, as you mentioned, the Democratic governor, Abigail Spanberger, said she was disappointed in this ruling, but said that her focus will be on making sure voters have the information to make their voices heard. In November, the house minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, took it a step further, saying that he believes that they will try to find every avenue possible to try to overturn this ruling, though its unclear if they can actually do that.
This really comes on the heels of a big week for Republicans in this redistricting fight. If you take a look at the map right now, Republicans have about an eight-seat advantage in this back and forth over redistricting. And that could potentially expand. There are a number of southern states who are considering redrawing their congressional maps. Louisiana, South Carolina and Alabama.
[16:05:04]
The state's governor there actually just signed a bill in the last hour that would allow her to move some of the house primaries coming up later in May. If the court allows them to move forward with these congressional maps. So, this is a big win for Republicans. But Democrats still believe that a lot of the politics of the midterm elections are on their side. Theyre hoping to tap into that frustration with President Donald Trump and with the economy. But right now, at least on the redistricting front, it does seem that Republicans have the upper hand.
HUNT: All right. Arlette Saenz reporting for us today -- Arlette, thanks very much.
My panel is here in THE ARENA. White House correspondent for "The New York Times" and CNN political analyst, Zolan Kanno-Youngs; Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson; former senior adviser at the DNC, Xochitl Hinojosa; and Republican strategist Brad Todd. Those last three are all CNN political commentators.
And for this conversation, I want to note, Brad advises the Tennessee state senate Republicans and won't be able to comment on anything specifically happening in Tennessee as we have this conversation about redistricting.
Thank you all for being here.
This situation in Virginia. I want to start with that, Zolan, because this is a massive blow for Democrats, as well as to Abigail Spanberger, the governor who is considered one of their rising stars.
Are you picking up in your reporting any regrets with how they pushed this through, the way that they did?
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right now, it seems that the reaction is mostly just the scrutiny on the Supreme Court decision when it comes to Democrats and sort of the anger after this, and hopefully some Democrats hoping that that anger can turn into sort of a galvanizing measure.
But look, this is a setback. When the referendum was first passed, there were Republicans that were questioning whether this redistricting fight that started with President Trump's call to redraw the maps in Texas was worth it, right? You had basically roughly a draw at that point between Democrats and Republicans when it came to this tit for tat redrawing of maps.
But then, you know, with this setback, now you do have Republicans with an advantage when it comes to at least the way the maps are drawn going into the midterms. Without a doubt, it is a setback. And it only comes after a lot of enthusiasm after the initial decision. And Republicans really anxious to the point where they were responding by looking to a state like Florida and saying to respond to the referendum passing in Virginia, we need to respond with Florida as well.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, Brad Todd, though, I will say, and then Xochitl, if you could weigh in too, this in some ways, this could have Democrats in Virginia could have seen this coming. But why not? Why didn't they?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, the attorney general of Virginia in October, Jason Miyares, warned them that this was going to happen on exactly these grounds, and the legislature chose to ignore him. It's black letter law. It takes two general assemblies with an intervening election before you can put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.
There had already been a million people vote by the time the general assembly acted in October. So, the election was already underway. And the judge in this case, who wrote the opinion, Arthur Kelsey, was actually put on the bench by Mark Warner. He was confirmed by every Democratic member of the Virginia general assembly.
So, this is not like a partisan ruling. It's a black letter law ruling. And they could have seen it coming and they could have not waged wagered $70 million in their campaign on it.
HUNT: Xochitl?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, I think that Democrats -- the overall thought is that four justices reversed the decision of one million people that voted. And Democrats have put these measures on the ballot. And they feel that they have done so that people can weigh in versus Republican states and a state like Texas, where they did not do that.
I will say, though, as I'm talking to Democrats and especially on the Hill, they still believe that they will take the House in this year, in 2026. Now, when it comes to the margin, yes, it would have been a lot easier to have be successful in a place like Virginia.
And I do believe that they think that this is a major setback, but they do believe because of gas prices, because of the way the economy is and because of the way voters are feeling, that ultimately, they will still take the House. It will just be a very slim margin.
KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Part of the reason, too, why some of these blue states, like Virginia or California, have had to go back to the voters is because at some point in the not-too-distant past, voters in those states had said, we don't want gerrymandering anymore. We want independent commissions. And it's because of that.
Youve had folks like Gavin Newsom that have had to go to voters and go, okay, okay, we know you said you wanted fair districts, but actually, just this one time, can we like, maybe, maybe not do that? And that's why the process has looked so different in these blue states, where voters had already once said, we don't want gerrymandering. And theyre saying, can we hit the undo button just this one time, instead of many of these red states that did not have this push for an independent commission or a need to legally go back to the voters and say, can you give us just this one exception?
HUNT: Well, I mean, and isn't -- I mean, big picture here? I mean, how is any of this, Zolan, good for America?
[16:10:00]
KANNO-YOUNGS: Well, I mean, if were talking about the idea of redrawing maps, I do remember a point in time where it was supposed to happen every ten years, and it was supposed to be dependent on population.
HUNT: It was pretty present. It wasn't that not -- it wasn't that long ago that that's what the status quo was.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Right, right. And now, we're talking about a conversation where it's almost blatant that the redrawing of maps is to gain a political advantage here. Right. Like this isn't how it always was supposed to be right. Now you do have -- I mean, we are going to maybe see more momentum in this direction, particularly after the Supreme Court decision weakening the Voting Rights Act. You know, now you're already seeing southern states respond to that and continue in this direction with this redrawing of maps.
TODD: You know, there was a time period when we did redraw them much more often than 10 years, and it was the 1830s and 1840s leading up to the civil war. They redrew every election in that time period.
HUNT: But that, of course, is probably one of the periods of greatest division, right? Leading in American history. Right? And I'm sure, yeah -- the thing, and, Kristen, you probably are best suited to answer this question. I take your point about the blue state, red state divide, right?
I mean, in some ways that's -- that gives voice to the language that Gavin Newsom was using here. He's saying MAGA is rigging the system. Sounds like the system is just set up a little bit differently in red states, but voters everywhere don't really like gerrymandering. No? What does your polling show? ANDERSON: Yeah. So, this is one of those things where when you ask
voters, they will say, I think we're too polarized. I think were too divided. I think that the system is not working. And I think the other side needs to change first.
And that's the real problem. That's like the root of our polarization is not so much that people love their own party and think the system is great for their side. It's that they think, if I give an inch, the other sides going to take a mile. And that's what's leading to a lot of these situations where even some voters who might say, yeah, gosh, I agree with you. I'd rather this be independent. We do this every 10 years, but I can't give an inch because the other side.
HINOJOSA: Yeah. And my fear is that we're going to have another round of this heading into 2028. There have already been talks, I think, in some of these red states where you see what is happening with the Voting Rights Act and, and Section Two. And then you're also seeing what's happening across the country. And Republicans are not done yet.
And that is the overall fear, I think, that Democrats have right now is like, how long are we doing this tit for tat? How long are we going to go through and spend this money every two years to try to gain seats so that one party is in power?
Ultimately, that silences voters. Voters should be able to elect their candidates of choice, and it shouldn't be politicians redrawing these maps. And unfortunately, I don't think that the poll numbers are going to actually put pressure on elected leaders in these states to stop the gerrymandering.
ANDERSON: Because the other the other numbers that are important is, remember what happened in Indiana this week, right? This was not that every Republican in Indiana wants to redraw the maps, but the folks that are the most energized to turn out and send a message are the ones that are the most aligned with President Trump. They're the furthest on the political extremes, and they're the ones that are the most willing to say, I'm not interested in disarming. Let's use every tool we've got at our disposal.
TODD: You also can't get Democrats and Republicans to agree on how to reform the system. There are people in the Republican side who say, let's reform it and have only whole counties and regions together and make maps compact.
There are Democrats who say, lets just make it proportional at the statewide level. If you get if a party gets 40 percent of the vote, they get 40 percent of the seats.
You couldn't even get the reformers to agree on reform, though, and not -- and reform is not dominant in either party.
HUNT: Yeah. So, let's -- let's watch what Senator Lindsey Graham had to say, questioning the success of the redistricting. This was on South Carolina public radio. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): You know, make sure the map accomplishes the goal. If at the end of the day, we create a map that gives Democrats more competitive opportunity, what have you gained?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Zolan, I want to put this to you because Jim Clyburn, who is a long standing member of the house, potentially at risk in South Carolina because of what happened with the Voting Rights Act. How does that piece of this fit in?
KANNO-YOUNGS: I mean, like we were saying before the Supreme Court decision recently weakened the Voting Rights Act by essentially saying that race could not be a factor in how we redraw these maps. We are seeing various southern states, particularly red states, respond to that. And by the way, the White House was also asked, should they respond to that? And you kind of had the president first being different, but then say, hey, if there's an advantage, maybe they should.
Those red states, you know, we are seeing now responding to that to go ahead and try to redraw these maps to gain a partisan edge, which again, just to emphasize, wasn't too long ago where that wasn't what this process was supposed to be for. And just in that clip, you can see politicians not shying away from trying to get the parsonage, but more so being pretty blatant about it as well.
HUNT: Yeah. Kristen Soltis Anderson, what impact do you think that this, this form of redistricting has? How is it different from -- I mean, Virginia, California, you saw basically pure partisan warfare at work, Texas as well.
[16:15:02]
The Voting Rights Act decision is a -- is a -- is a -- is -- has a different stripe.
ANDERSON: Yeah. I mean, I think the Republican argument is that a decision that says you shouldn't use race in redistricting should be something that we all get behind. It's the sort of thing you can imagine putting on a poll and getting an awful lot of people behind. The reality on the ground means that there are many districts that have been carved specifically to ensure that you do have some black representation in a congressional delegation.
The letter of the law means that goes away. And it's one of those things where if you presented the trade off, like, would you rather have districts drawn with no respect to race as the lines are being drawn, or ones where we are intending to try to get racial representation in the state? You're going to find the parties, go back to their camps.
HUNT: Yeah. Big picture here. The one thing that comes out of my experience covering Capitol Hill is that having to run a really strong campaign in a general election, in a really competitive place, because the voters are demanding that of you, puts you to a test and requires political skill and attunement and attention that not every politician is capable of.
And, Brad, in my experience, many of those politicians in swing districts and swing states are some of the best people that we have serving.
TODD: For sure.
HUNT: Are we not doing all of ourselves a disservice by giving ourselves fewer of those people in leadership positions?
TODD: Well, at some point in redistricting, you get where both parties send people from their base.
HUNT: Right.
TODD: When you maximize the drawing for your party in some states, you will make more seats competitive. And so, we don't know where the line on this is going to be drawn.
And one Democrat consultant told me, I'm going to tell you two things are going to happen, he says. First off, redistricting to you guys are going to do are going to create some seats that you can't win, and primaries are going to then create some people that we can't elect.
And so unintended consequences comes into play in politics with redistricting, particularly more -- more than most other issues.
HUNT: All right.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, the White House is touting today's new economic report. But there's more to the numbers beyond those headlines.
"The New York Times'" Maggie Haberman is here with us as the president tries to manage his poll numbers ahead of the midterms.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:31]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: These are two months in a row of absolutely blockbuster numbers. The fact is that people still don't have faith that the golden age is upon us, that Trump policies are working, but it keeps showing up in the data. And it's really astonishing. Like what record-setting numbers we're starting to see.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The White House, as you just heard, seems very pleased today with a better-than-expected April jobs report. The U.S. economy proving more resilient at a time when war and high gas prices loom large. Those are issues that do appear to be weighing heavily on the average American. Despite the jobs gains, consumer sentiment continued to decline this month to another record low.
And a new poll shows more than eight in 10 Americans say fuel prices are putting either a major or minor strain on their household budget. In that same poll, six in 10 blame President Trump for the spike at the pump. An inconvenient fact for Republicans who are struggling to shore up messaging ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Joining us now in THE ARENA, CNN political analyst, "New York Times" White House correspondent Maggie Haberman.
Maggie, it's great to see you.
I got to tell you, listening to Kevin Hassett, there, I was kind of trying to figure out, are we in the Trump administration or the Biden administration? Because there was a heck of a lot during the Biden administration of attempts to take numbers that looked rosy and convince people that their lives were fine and they didn't buy it then.
Do you think they're going to buy it now?
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Look, I don't think it's so much that the -- I agree with you that, yes, certainly there has been a similarity in terms of how President Biden and how President Trump have handled how voters feel about their own personal economic situations. I think that's different than the job numbers.
This was a good jobs report for this White House, and there's no question about it.
HUNT: Sure.
HABERMAN: And it's certainly welcome news for them.
There were good jobs reports and the Biden administration, too. And what would be very frustrating for President Biden was that voters did not feel that. And that showed up. That didn't impact their lives necessarily.
That is also true with President Trump. He is showing some of the same issues in terms of sounding as if he understands what people are going through, as if he wants to focus on what people are dealing with in their own lives.
And so, there is that disconnect that you've been talking about that others have talked about. Jobs are obviously a positive thing, but if people are paying, you know, $5 gas, I passed one gas station today where it was almost $6 in the Washington area. That's -- that's potentially much more problematic.
It depends where it is. In a few months, if things turn around, if the war in Iran, even though I know theyre not calling it a war anymore, starts to scale back, energy prices come down. That will obviously help the party and help the president and the White House with his numbers. But there's a gap there, and it's a sour electorate.
HUNT: I'm wondering if it's that gas station, that's right on the corner by the Watergate, that one. That's the prices are always crazy.
You mentioned the non-war -- the non-war with Iran. Obviously, the war is still going. Theyre still working on this peace proposal. But as you've noted, the administration doesn't really want to call it that. Where is President Trump's head on the war. Theres been some reporting that, you know he'd prefer to kind of move on, talk about other things.
What's your understanding as someone who is, you know, so understands him and his inner circle?
HABERMAN: My understanding is exactly that, that he is frustrated that this is where it is. He would like for it to move on. I think, to be clear, I don't think the Iranians want endless war either. I mean, I think that if it were -- if it were in their interests to, you know, fully end a ceasefire, I mean, it seems as if everybody is suggesting that it's not a full-blown conflict yet on both sides, you would see something different.
[16:25:07]
But that said, this is something of a -- of a strange semi stalemate. This is not how President Trump wants to continue the rest of this year. It's certainly not how most of his administration does. And where it ends, nobody who I talk to in that administration can give a clear assessment, because it is not only up to them, it is also up to Iran.
HUNT: Yeah, no, it's a good point. I want to play for you something -- let's flash back to December of last year when Susie Wiles gave a rare interview. She doesn't do a ton of them, but she talked about what Trump is going to do in terms of campaigning in these upcoming midterm elections.
Let's watch. We'll talk about it on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSIE WILES, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Typically, you -- in the midterms, it's not about who's sitting at the White House if you localize the election and you -- and you keep the federal officials out of it. We're actually going to turn that on its head.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good.
WILES: And put him on the ballot, because so many of those low propensity voters are Trump voters. He's going to campaign like it's 2024 again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, is it just me or is he not doing that? I mean, what -- are we going to see more of him? Are we going to see him do what Susie Wiles said he was going to do right there
HABERMAN: We may eventually, Kasie, but obviously, he's not doing it right now. I think that there's a variety of reasons. He has been -- you talked to any number of people about this. He has been hesitant to do a bunch of travel for the past year and a half.
Obviously, there was the incident with the shooting suspect at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Security weighs on everybody's mind, but he does go to places like UFC fights and things like that where, you know, arguably these are vastly bigger and less controlled events. That's different.
He's never really done retail. He had always really done rallies. And whether that picks up again, I think is an open question. Again, we're miles away from November and Republicans got a fair amount of good news in the past couple of days in terms of what the map could look like for them.
They are a structural advantage. What theyre not at an advantage toward is President Trump's popularity. Right now, it's quite bad. And that could change. And then maybe it becomes that they want him on the ballot again.
But it doesn't seem to be that's where it is right now.
HUNT: How does President Trump think about the potential results in the midterm election? I mean, does he -- how much does it matter to him personally? Is it just about if he loses the House and they're going to investigate him? Like, does he think about the Republican Party as an entity that's important. Is it all about him? I mean, how does he think about it?
HABERMAN: I think as we get closer to November, he may get more focused on what this could mean for his White House, for his administration. You know, and downstream from that, the party. But right now, from everyone I have spoken to, that just has not been a huge focus of his.
Again, that could change, but that's not where it is right now. He tends to focus more when he actually is on the ballot, not as if he might be.
HUNT: Yeah. For sure. Well, speaking of the next time when we of course, don't expect him to be on the ballot, which would be in 2028, the next presidential election. This has been quite a week for Marco Rubio.
And of course, there is a -- this shadow campaign going on between him and J.D. Vance, the Vice President Vance was in Iowa. What's your assessment of how Marco Rubio has handled himself on the one hand, but also, I mean, if this is a primary for President Trump's affection, where that stands right now.
HABERMAN: I have a somewhat contradictory view on that one, Kasie. I don't actually think that rubio is doing much to try to engage in a shadow campaign. I think whether the perception of that is there is a different issue.
You know, clearly, there are a lot of people who would like to see Marco Rubio run. I don't know that he is among them. And I certainly don't know that his family is among them, but I still think this is, you know, most likely the vice president's nomination to lose at the end of the day.
And so, whether, you know, whether the secretary of state at some point has to make clear he's not doing that, I think we have a little while from then, but I think this is less of a contest between two people than people watching the two people.
HUNT: Why do you say it's his to lose? What are the things that you would put on that list?
HABERMAN: Sure. Because I mean, a number of factors, but, A, you know, when a sitting vice president is with a figure who is even with President Trump's popularity in his own party, ticking down somewhat, he is still overwhelmingly popular among Republicans, Donald Trump is, Vance is still, you know, an incredibly well-known figure.
[16:30:01]
He is much more popular with the base than almost anyone else I can think of who would be running right now, you know, short of a couple of people who are just outside of elected officials. And so -- and I do expect there will be a lot of donor money with him. All of those give him structural advantages. I could -- things change. Absolutely.
His fate is tied to President Trump. Theres no question about that. I mean, what is going to happen in the next couple of years will impact whether J.D. Vance becomes president. You know, in a -- in a -- in a theoretical 2028 election, in a general election. But in terms of the nomination, you know, again, you never know what's exactly is going to happen. But at the moment, he still appears to be the favorite.
HUNT: Yeah. Fair enough.
All right. Maggie Haberman, always great to have you. Thank you so much for being here.
HABERMAN: Thanks, Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, the congressman and Iraq war veteran Chris Deluzio will be here live, as the White House says it anticipates hearing back from Iran today after another day of no response to a proposal to end the war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: Their system is still highly fractured and a bit dysfunctional as well, so that may be serving as an impediment. I hope it's a serious offer. I really do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:35:36] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They trifled with us today. We blew them away. They trifled. I call that a trifle. If there's no ceasefire, you're not going to have to -- no, you're just going to have to look at one big glow coming out of Iran.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: According to President Trump, Iran's, quote, trifling, to borrow his word there, in the Strait of Hormuz yesterday, does not amount to a violation of the ceasefire. The two countries continuing to trade fire today, though the U.S. seen here striking an Iranian flagged oil tanker that was trying to bypass the ongoing blockade.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio promising today the U.S. will continue to respond, quote, defensively as we wait for Iran to respond to a proposal to end the war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUBIO: We're expecting a response from them today. At some point. We have not received that yet. As you know, the last in the last hour. But perhaps that will come. Their system is still highly fractured and a bit dysfunctional as well. So that may be serving as an impediment. I hope it's a serious offer. I really do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania. He's an Iraq war veteran and sits on the House Armed Services Committee.
Congressman, thank you so much for spending some time with us today.
I want to start with this proposal that we are still waiting on a response from the Iranians on. Are you hopeful that they will sign on to it?
REP. CHRIS DELUZIO (D-PA): Look, I root for peace. I don't think we should have been in this war. And the congress, of course, didn't vote to send Americans to go fight in this war. The American people don't support this war continuing.
I want peace. I want there to be stability in this region. I don't want the Strait of Hormuz being closed. I don't want it to have to be kept open with Americans risking their lives.
So, of course, I root for peace. And again, I think folks know we're paying for the cost of this war right here at home in Western Pennsylvania. We got gas prices heading up to $5 a gallon. That's because Donald Trump started this war and oil markets responded.
So, your question, do I hope for a response in peace? Yes. I don't want to see the region in a worse place than it was before Donald Trump started this war either. I think your viewers know there was a nuclear deal at some point that Donald Trump, in his first term, ripped up.
So, to me, we're seeing the cost of recklessness out of this president. And yeah, I'm always going to root for peace.
HUNT: I was talking to one of your colleagues in the House on this show earlier this week, Congressman Seth Moulton. He said he thinks America is losing the war in Iran.
Do you think America is losing?
DELUZIO: Well, I think lets think about what the cost has been. American lives. More than a dozen Americans killed in action, hundreds wounded, billions of dollars. The Department of Defense estimates $25 billion. We think it's maybe double or more than that. That's the cost side of the ledger.
And then we have gas prices on top of it. Oil markets again, because of this war. And what strategically have we gotten as any kind of benefit here? I can't see it. You've got a even harder line version of the Iranian regime. They've shut down the Strait of Hormuz, and it seems like Donald Trump and his team are negotiating for a deal that might be worse than the situation before and worse than the nuclear deal they ripped up in his first term.
So, I don't know what the heck theyre looking to get as any sort of strategic victory, which goes back to why we shouldn't have been in this war in the first place. I don't think you rush in or ask Americans to go risk their lives if its not absolutely necessary. And I've never thought this war was absolutely necessary for us to fight.
HUNT: But does that all add up to us losing
DELUZIO: It depends what the president gets out of this. But if it's a situation worse than we were in before, I think that's an absolute strategic defeat. And again, the cost side of the ledger has been substantial. I've heard the president, your viewers, have heard the president say that he cant have our country invest in child care and health care, because he has to pay for this war.
That's the choice that Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have been making. I do not agree with that. I don't think the American people agree with that. So, these strategic decisions come at a cost the life here at home.
HUNT: I want to ask you about another major story related to your service in Congress. And that is, of course, redistricting -- redistricting. House leaders had including your -- Hakeem Jeffries had celebrated the referendum passed by Virginia voters to change the map in a way that would elect more Democrats to Congress from Virginia.
[16:40:00]
That was struck down by the Virginia Supreme Court. Do you think that was the right decision?
DELUZIO: Look, I'm no expert under Virginia law or the Virginia constitution, but it seems to me the voters of Virginia voted for this map. That's the will of the voters. This wasn't some just legislative action and their state general or their state legislature. The voters decided this.
And I got to tell you, looking at what's happening across the country, you've got legislatures and states in the South and other states Republicans control that seem to have no problem writing their maps mid-decade to gerrymander their seats. And the voters here in Virginia made their voice heard.
I think the people all over the country who are looking at this see that this is a wildly different outcome when somethings done with Democrats in control of the state versus Republicans. I don't think that's right.
HUNT: Governor Gavin Newsom of California, who also pushed through in his state a referendum on redistricting. He said that MAGA -- he used the word "rigged" in a tweet in response to what happened in Virginia.
Do you think MAGA is trying to rig the system?
DELUZIO: Look, I think this whole race to the bottom on gerrymandering is not good for our democracy. I understand that when the Republicans are going to go gerrymander however many seats they can, the Democratically controlled states are going to do the same.
But if we take a step back, I don't think any of this is good. It's why, before I was in congress, I was glad to see Democrats try to pass federal legislation to make gerrymandering illegal across the country. That would be much healthier for our democracy.
But I don't think any of this is good. I think it is cooking the books if you're trying to draw seats that dilute the power of voters. And again, I think the answer here is not a race to the bottom in every state. Let's have a federal anti-gerrymandering law and just take this out of the hands of party actors and states and parties across the country.
HUNT: Fair enough. I want to ask you about something that's going on closer to home for you. And that is, of course, Senator John Fetterman has Republicans privately trying to get him to switch sides. He's been outspoken against the Democratic Party, specifically around the issue of Israel.
My question to you, would you support Senator Fetterman if he runs for reelection as a Democrat?
DELUZIO: I can't imagine at the moment that, number one, he could win anything as a Democrat statewide in Pennsylvania. I've been disappointed in a lot of what he's been saying and doing. I've been pretty clear about that. And look, you know, the fact that it's even a discussion that the Republicans might convince him, look, we elected in Pennsylvania a Democrat to the United States Senate in 2022.
And I just think our disagreements, especially around this war, have been tremendous. We have a very different view of this war. I think it's been foolish and reckless. This war in Iran. I've had big disagreements with Senator Fetterman about that, and I've been clear about it.
And I think the voters are making their voices heard in this and have a lot of frustrations, disagreements with where the senator is.
HUNT: Do you think you could do a better job representing Pennsylvania Democrats in the Senate?
DELUZIO: We'll see. Look, I think I'm going to do everything I can to win reelection this year. And I think I've been doing a good job earning votes in my part of the world, which is pretty tough. But I've increased my margin in every election from not just Democrats, but independents.
And that tells you something. It's how you win in Pennsylvania.
HUNT: It does. Very interesting. And I hope you'll come back and talk more about it with us.
Pennsylvania Congressman Chris Deluzio, thanks very much for your time, sir.
DELUZIO: Thanks, Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Ahead here in THE ARENA with the president is talking about when he says this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have a lot of people, a lot of great people are studying. It should be fine. We hope.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:48:05]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's very much, we hope, under control. It was the ship. And I think we're going to make a full report about it tomorrow. We have a lot of people -- a lot of great people studying it. It should be fine. We hope.
REPORTER: Should Americans be concerned that it could spread?
TRUMP: I hope not. I mean, I hope not. We'll do the best we can.
(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: That was President Trump responding to reporters' questions about the hantavirus outbreak and whether Americans should be concerned about the virus spreading. This, as sources tell CNN that the CDC is sending staffers to meet with the 17 Americans aboard the virus-stricken cruise ship. It's the MV Hondius. It is expected to dock in the Canary Islands on Sunday, although Spanish authorities are warning that the ships arrival may be delayed due to bad weather.
So far, three people have died from the virus, while five cases have been confirmed. Here in the U.S., five states are already monitoring seven passengers who previously disembarked from that ship. This as the CDC says it's classifying the outbreak as a level three. That's low -- that is its lowest level emergency designation.
Joining our panel to discuss is Dr. Megan Ranney. She is the dean of the Yale School of Public Health and an emergency physician.
Doctor, thank you for joining us.
I want to open this up to our political panel in a second. But let me start with you just in terms of like, for everybody that's having really horrible flashbacks, were all still, you know, the pandemic was not a great period of time. What can you tell us that will reassure us that we should not worry so much about this?
DR. MEGAN RANNEY, DEAN, YALE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: Oh, it was absolutely not a good time when I was joining CNN back in 2020 or 2021. This virus is so different from COVID and it's different for a few reasons. The first is it is a virus that we know and understand COVID that was caused by SARS-CoV-2 was a brand new mutated virus, had never seen it before.
[16:50:00]
This one, we've had outbreaks in the past. We understand it. And genomic testing to date shows that the virus that these passengers have caught has not changed from the last time that there was an outbreak. So that is great news. It is something that we already understand.
Second thing that makes me not worried is how this virus spreads. It almost always spreads through exposure to rodent, particularly mouse droppings or urine that get swept or vacuumed and aerosolized. And you breathe it in and it makes you sick. Every once in a while, this particular strain and strain can pass from person to person, but only under really close contact.
This is not like how COVID or flu passes. Chance of this becoming a pandemic or even an epidemic is so infinitesimally small.
The last thing that gives me hope that it's contained to a cruise ship. So, we still have a chance to keep it from spreading further.
HUNT: Fingers crossed.
All right, stand by for me. I want to bring my political panel in here because I -- I got to tell you, watching President Trump talk about an outbreak was really not like where I -- it was giving me really terrible flashbacks to 2020. And then there's this question of what's happened to our government under this president.
Xochitl, do you want to take this --
HINOJOSA: Yeah.
HUNT: -- because, you know, considering what's happened at the CDC, especially it's a brave new world.
HINOJOSA: Well, there's the hollowing out of the CDC. There's also -- they have cut funding for studies to study this exact virus and to study exactly how it moves from a rodent, from an animal to a human. And I would think that at this time, we need more research when it comes to this virus, not less research.
And so, when you hear Donald Trump talking about how theyre looking at it, theyre studying it. Et cetera. You have to think about this with the backdrop about how they have not funded critical research so that we can prevent the next COVID 19. Now, again, this is not COVID, luckily, but there's still, you know, we should be studying these types of things in the future so we can prevent them.
And it does not give, I think, folks, confidence that the CDC has been hollowed out.
HUNT: Kristen, the thing that I keep coming back to also in the wake of COVID and, Brad, I'm interested in how you think about this too, because I know we've talked about it, but the issue of trust in government, right? It's in a situation like this, you know, in this one, it seems like were lucky. The doctor has outlined why this isn't something we should all worry about. But in the event, whenever you come back to it, we would need the government to lead on this.
I don't think -- what is your -- what are your numbers say about whether Americans are willing to follow anymore?
ANDERSON: Yeah. What makes me very nervous is that trust in public health institutions was really shredded during the COVID pandemic. Some of it was because of outside voices trying to push misinformation, but some of it was because public health authorities did the shredding of that trust themselves.
And so right now, if you had another pandemic, I do worry that half of the country, if told you need to isolate, would say, screw you, I'm going out. That half the country, if told you need to mask, would say, you told me that last time and it was pointless, I'm going out.
And that when the moment comes for Americans to have to come together and actually listen to authorities because of that squandering of trust and because of those missteps during COVID-19, we would not see that unity. We would not see people even remotely coming together. And that terrifies me.
TODD: You're right. I think half the country doesn't trust the CDC now, and half the country didn't trust the CDC five years ago. And some people -- maybe some people don't trust them at all ever.
But this is a function across the federal government. We're in such polarized times now that we're going to see all these government information sources and authorities retain only half the country's trust. And that is a new territory for our politics. And it's going to have to make, I think, a lot more decisions made at the state level.
I think state health departments are going to be retained trust that CDC doesn't have. It's just a brave new world on this.
KANNO-YOUNGS: It doesn't help when the CDC also issues a statement about this. You know, after a medical, you know, news outlet first wrote about it and set up a team to respond to this, about a month after this initially started as well.
So, you know, yes, the compounding sort of, you know, stress on public trust, but also when you have these cuts and still questions about the public messaging from this agency that has faced all these staffing cuts, there is a question about public trust moving forward.
HUNT: Yeah. Dr. Ranney, quick last word on that. On where public trust stands in our health officials.
RANNEY: Luckily, there's still trust in individual scientists, individual doctors. But it is true that the CDC has been decimated. And worse yet, our partnership with other countries has been decimated as well, which is deeply worrying in something like this. That is a test run for what could be future pandemics.
HUNT: Yeah. All right. Dr. Megan Ranney, thank you.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:59:38]
HUNT: All right. Thanks very much, my panel. Really appreciate you guys joining us.
Thanks to you at home for joining us as well. Don't forget, you can watch much more of THE ARENA tomorrow. THE ARENA SATURDAY airs at noon. And then it airs again at 4:00 p.m. Eastern. It is right here on CNN. I would love to have you share some of your weekend with us.
You can also stream THE ARENA live. You can catch up whenever you want in the CNN app. You can scan that QR code below on your screen.
You can also catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast or follow the show on X or Instagram. We are @TheArenaCNN.
But don't go anywhere. Do stick around for Jake Tapper, who is anchoring "THE LEAD" right now.
Hi, Jake.
