Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
U.S. Strikes Iranian Drone Carrier in Effort to Sink Entire Navy; Trump Says, I Have to be Involved in Picking Iran's Leader; White House Uses Call of Duty Video to Promote Iran Bombings. Stephen Miller Says Trump Military Is Not Fighting Politically Correct; Trump Fires Kristi Noem as DHS Secretary, Takes on a New Title. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired March 05, 2026 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, the Ayatollah Apprentice. Donald Trump says he must choose the next leader of Iran, as a former high ranking American official warns they're making it up on the fly.
Plus --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fireball.
PHILLIP: -- the video game war. The White House treats the violence as a Call of Duty scene, literally.
Also, a new talking point emerges for the America First crowd once opposed to foreign wars.
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR POLICY: We had a woke Pentagon.
PHILLIP: And Kristi Noem is sent home. The president fires his embattled head of Homeland Security after she points the finger at him.
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): You're testifying that President Trump approved this ahead of time, huh? He did it?
KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Yes.
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Ashley Allison, Jason Rantz, Ravi Agrawal, Elise Labott, Kian Tajbakhsh.
This is CNN's special live coverage of the war against Iran.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
We begin with breaking news in the war. The United States military tonight says that it struck an Iranian drone carrier. Central Command is claiming that that ship was the size of a World War II aircraft. And the attack is an effort to sink Iran's entire navy.
Now, this is coming as the administration's rhetoric is getting more intense. The president says that the operation is ahead of schedule and he calls on the Revolutionary Guard to lay down its arms in order to stay alive. But Trump is also undercutting his own message. Three days ago, the White House assured Americans that this was not a regime change war. But in a new interview, Trump says that he must personally have a role in picking Iran's new leader. He rejected the possibility that the son of the slain supreme leader will take over. He called him a lightweight.
Now, it's worth noting, of course, that from Cuba to Afghanistan to Iraq, and, yes, Iran, the U.S. has a long and complicated history when it comes to regime change, and that is to put it mildly.
Earlier in the week, I just want to remind people that the administration said that they thought that there were other people that they might be okay with to lead Iran after the shah -- after the Ayatollah was killed, but then they killed all of them in subsequent airstrikes. So, Elise, I mean, you hear this and what do you think is really going on at the White House, at the Pentagon, as they're strategizing about the way forward?
ELISE LABOTT, SUBSTACK AUTHOR, COSMOPOLITICS: Well, I think you heard from both secretary Rubio and also from Elbridge Colby, who's the undersecretary of defense for policy, who was testifying on the Hill the other day, it really seems as if there are two military objectives, right? The U.S. objective is a very military targeted, the navy, the missiles, the launchers, really eliminating the possible weapons threat by Iran. The Israelis in -- and the nuclear. And addition to that is regime change.
And so it's not that they're not coordinating but the Israelis are really shaping the kind of direction of how this goes. And, you know, the administration did not necessarily want regime change, but this is where we're headed. They want to find someone that they can talk to and the Israelis keep killing everybody.
And so this is really the problem right now. And as Kian will say, it's like who -- at some point there'll be someone who will say, uncle, but until then, they're just killing layer by layer by layer. This is not, if you are interested in having a regime change, it's really about that patient, unglamorous work of diplomacy and reaching out and making context so that you have people you can deal with on the ground.
PHILLIP: So, Kian, just for the audience, I mean, you were imprisoned in Iran by this regime, and you've been in the United States essentially since you were freed. I want to play for you what the foreign minister had to say about how the military campaign is going and whether they're going to be swayed by the bombs dropping in order to change their regime. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBAS ARAGHCHI, IRANIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Six days after the war, it is clear that the U.S. has failed to achieve its main goal, which was a clean, rapid victory.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your supreme leader was killed. Your top military leaders were killed. Your military installations have been bombed. How can you call that a failure?
ARAGHCHI: Well, then what they have been -- they have achieved, what was their goal? They came here for a regime change, perhaps they came here for a rapid victory so they can, you know, control everything, but they have failed.
[22:05:01]
The system is working. The commanders have been replaced and the supreme leader is going to be replaced soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, Kian, you know this regime well, you know the resistance well. Do you think that Trump can actually decide who's next?
KIAN TAJBAKHSH, FORMER POLITICAL PRISONER IN IRAN, RELEASED 2015: Well, it's quite an astonishing development to hear that that's what he wants to do. But before I give you my interpretation, I'd just like to say that, you know, my perspective on this whole Iran thing is shaped by the fact that I was a political prisoner in Iran for my democracy activist work.
As far as I know, I was the longest held American citizen imprisoned by the Iranian regime for democracy activism, human rights work, and for advocating for better relations with the United States. I spent over a year in Evin prison, including eight in solitary confinement, up close and personal with the IRGC officers. I spent countless hours and countless months being interrogated by middle level and senior level IRG officers. So, I got a real sense more close than I really had wanted to, but to the way they think.
Now, they accused me of regime change. They accused all civil society actors in Iran of working towards regime change. Anyone that was connected with the United States was accused of regime change. And I will just say, Abby, me, like maybe 50 percent or 60 percent of Iranian population, they dream of regime change. We've dreamed of a more democratic and free Iran. But the reality is that we experienced the brutality of the regime when we tried to rise up.
I was arrested after the 2009 Green Movement. Maybe some people don't remember that, but millions of people poured into the streets demanding greater accountable government in Iran. The government completely cracked down, closed down all opposition parties, all opposition newspapers, in other words, made any kind of reform impossible. And what we saw, unfortunately, a month ago was this unprecedented brutality in the Middle East, and certainly in the history of Iran, where perhaps 10,000 people were killed in two days.
And so the question of regime change from someone who has struggled for a better Iran, for a more free Iran, it looks very different. And I'll just say after the brutality, many Iranians, including me, felt that there was really perhaps no other way to dislodge this regime except via external force. That comes with many complications and worries, but that's kind of where we are.
PHILLIP: Yes, and we'll come back to that because, I mean, I think what kind of external force also is an open question. Ravi?
RAVI AGRAWAL, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, FOREIGN POLICY: Look, I have so much respect for what Keon went through and the fact that you're here telling your story to us, but as an observer of foreign affairs and foreign policy. We're in a very dangerous moment. I want to remind everyone. We've had a head of state kill another head of state. This is illegal domestically. It's illegal internationally. This has huge repercussions. Iran is lashing out across the region, 14 countries that it's attacked so far.
And I'll just remind everyone that when Trump says, we're ahead of schedule, we don't know what the schedule is. No one knows what the schedule is. No one knows what the plan is. The plan has changed in public several times over. First, it was regime change, then they realize they can't actually do that because the regime has multiple fail safes there and will survive. There's no endgame. Nothing has been declared in public. This could easily go sideways.
It's extremely dangerous, the pathway headed down. And I'll remind everyone, Iran, as it lashes out, we're in a missile math race right now, where you've got Israel and the United States trying to take out Iran's missile launchers before they run out of missile defense. And that came --
PHILLIP: Which could happen in a matter of just a couple of weeks.
AGRAWAL: Exactly. And it's also --
PHILLIP: Because these drones are so ubiquitous.
AGRAWAL: The drones are ubiquitous, they're cheap. One of Iran's drones can cost $20,000. It could cost a million dollars to take that down. And that is what is Iran is sending out across the Gulf. It's extremely dangerous. If Iranian people try to resist right now, I mean, Basij, the IRGC, all of them could crack down once again. So, I think it's actually reckless for Trump to call for regime change in this way.
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: Well, he's not calling directly for regime change, to be clear, even in the statement --
AGRAWAL: He's actually said directly,
RANTZ: Sorry, even in the Axios -- but I'm sorry, the quote from Axios --
PHILLIP: Explain. Explain how --
RANTZ: (INAUDIBLE) going to personally choose who was going to take over. What he was saying, he made a very direct reference to what happened in Venezuela, saying he wants to say.
[22:10:04]
And I think part of the context of that is because he wants to make sure that whomever is coming --
PHILLIP: I don't know.
AGRAWAL: He's calling for a regime change.
PHILLIP: I'm sorry, Jason.
AGRAWAL: Let me fact-check you on that.
PHILLIP: Jason, come on. Jason, let's be honest. Let's be honest. He said -- okay. He said he has to personally have a role in picking Iran's new leader. That's the first thing that he said. The other thing --
RANTZ: A role. He's not saying he's the one --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I don't understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that the administration is -- has not just said they want regime change, they've actually carried out an operation that has killed the ayatollah.
LABOTT: Well, that was the ayatollah.
(CROSSTALKS)
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: The reason why we actually are able to say that is because the administration has said so many things. They actually cannot keep their story straight. Two days ago, yesterday, this morning, I was told we were not at war. Today in the press conference, Pete Hegseth says, in the war. Are we at war? Are we not at war? Do we want regime chains or do we not?
PHILLIP: The president told the Iranian people in his very first moment re remarks, his very first remarks on this, he said, now is the time to rise up and take over your country.
Look, it's not a question -- I mean, look, we can debate whether regime change is good or bad, but it seems very clear that the president signaled from the outset that his hope was that there would be regime change. And then he signaled again today that not only was he okay with some kind of change, but he wanted to be the person to determine change.
RANTZ: But that is different than calling for regime change. We were wanting the regime to change. I think every normal person in this country and around the globe understands that the people in charge right now are evil, murderous and they've been ruling this country with a precedent --
AGRAWAL: So, then you just take them out?
LABOTT: Let's go back to what I was saying earlier, that the Israelis are -- it doesn't matter really what the U.S., whether they want regime change or not, because the Israelis do. And so Trump --
RANTZ: The Iranian people also want regime change overwhelmingly.
LABOTT: Well, yes, they do, but I'm not sure that they want --
AGRAWAL: Then let them do it.
LABOTT: They want to be able to --
TAJBAKHSH: But as I mentioned --
PHILLIP: Let me let Kian --
TAJBAKHSH: So, what -- you know, the brutality, my experience has shown that there is a situation, unfortunately, where the balance of forces inside a country are so skewed against the people who are unarmed, who are disorganized, in other words, they don't have access to political parties, they don't have access to newspapers, they don't have the ability to organize or mobilize, they are so weak in relation to this, the regime, that they really cannot do dodge it.
Can I just say something about war? I mean, I think it's very interesting.
LABOTT: The parsing of the language.
TAJBAKHSH: Well, the question, I mean, you know, I know this may sound controversial in a number of among my friends.
LABOTT: Bring it.
TAJBAKHSH: Some of them is quite controversial.
PHILLIP: That's okay.
TAJBAKHSH: But I think that a lot of commentary is missing perhaps the big picture.
LABOTT: I agree.
TAJBAKHSH: And there is a big picture here. And I perhaps to simplify it, I would put it this way. I don't think it's right to say that President Trump has started a war with Iran. I think President Trump wants to finish a war that Iran started in 1979, 47 years ago.
And I'll just -- these aren't just words. Let me just tell you an anecdote. In 2003, 2004, when I was there in Iran working on projects at a very high level, I was talking with deputy ministers, I was talking with, going back and forth, and I was in the Foreign Ministry in Tehran, where I met someone who was very senior and he was semi- sympathetic with the projects we were doing.
But as I was leaving, he looked me in the eye and he said, you as an Iranian American, I want you to know something and listen very carefully. He said, we in this building, and what he meant is the Foreign Ministry, which meant representing the government, which means representing the regime, he said, we believe we are at war with the United States. He said at that time, it's a cold war, but it's a war nonetheless. This was a war --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Let me let Elise respond really quickly.
LABOTT: I think it's inevitable that we'd be coming to this point, okay? I think at some point, a U.S. president would be involved in strikes against Iran, and it does turn out that president --
AGRAWAL: I disagree.
LABOTT: I think at some point --
ALLISON: I think it might be inevitable and I totally respect your --
LABOTT: I'm not sure I feel comfortable with where we are right now and I definitely don't feel comfortable with the messaging or the --
PHILLIP: All right. Let me let Ashley respond and then we'll come back after a break.
ALLISON: And I respect your position, I respect your experience and I actually try and listen to people who have been directly impacted in situations to inform my opinion.
[22:15:02]
I might not even disagree with your point about there's always been this hostility and there might be a position that Donald Trump is trying to finish. I think the way you go about it matters. I think what your endgame matters. And I think the American people deserve that because our Constitution does say we are permitted that, and I don't think this administration has done that.
And I think the slippery slope -- and I don't like to compare Iran to other -- or America, to other countries, but I think we, we do have a democracy that I cherish so much, and we have a Constitution that I would hope our president follows. And at times I think he doesn't. And I think it is a slippery slope that doesn't just put Americans in harm's way but it puts Iranians in harm's way when he tells them he will be there for them and they rise up and he wakes weeks and those are killed in the street. That is my concern.
PHILLIP: All right. We'll pick up this fascinating conversation on the other side of the break.
Next, the White House uses Call of Duty video clips and put full songs to promote America's bombings against Iran. We'll discuss that tactic.
Plus, more breaking news tonight, Kristi Noem becomes the first cabinet member to get fired. Hear what ticked off the president the most about the Homeland Security secretary.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Is the White House striking the right tone when it comes to its war with Iran? Watch this.
The official White House Twitter account posted that Call of Duty- style clip promoting its war effort. And then there's the video that Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino shared featuring Marco Rubio and a Pit Bull song.
The videos from the White House in Scavino have sparked a debate whether the administration is making light of a war that has claimed the lives of six U.S. service members already and hundreds of people in Iran, tragically including over a hundred children in a strike that still hasn't been determined who was responsible for it.
But this is part of a broader strategy of the White House to memeify everything. I just wonder, are there limits to this even when we're talking about war and peace?
RANTZ: Yes. So, I'm kind of two different minds, because on the one hand I don't like these kinds of videos. I do think it makes light of something that's incredibly serious. But I also think at the same time they're trying to show what it is they're doing because I think they fear that they're losing some support amongst younger Americans, particularly younger men online who are seeing some of the opposite messaging going out there, the Douglas McGregors of the world who are pretending that somehow we're losing this and it's a total catastrophe for the United States. And so I think that there's a little bit of an information war going on that they're trying to compete with.
I think this is raising a lot of attention for what it is they're doing. And we may not like the tactic, and I don't -- again, I don't particularly like the tactic, but I understand what it is they're trying to do.
PHILLIP: It's interesting because, I mean, I actually wonder if maybe that might have the opposite effect. Because if you are a young person and you're worried about being dragged into war, the White House essentially making light of it is not necessarily reassuring. And then President Trump, he gave an interview with TIME Magazine and he was asked about what are the risks of, you know, the United States being retaliated against, and he says, it's a possibility, I guess, he says, but I think that they're worried about that all the time. He essentially was downplaying it. He says we plan for it. But, yes, you know, we expect some things. Like I said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people will die.
AGRAWAL: Can I just say this is wrong? It is wrong. This is not a debate about these videos. It is -- they look awful. It's an ugly image to present to the world. It's callous. It's careless. It is macho in a way that is gross. People are dying. Real people are dying. Businesses across the region have been disrupted. You look at people who live in the Gulf countries who did nothing, who were begging America not to go to war, whose lives have been disrupted. These are hubs that connect the entire world.
I mean, and I'll remind you all, the way in which we're talking about war here is not right. This is not how wars are meant to be fought. I'll remind you all, they were talking to each other. Iran and the United States were talking to each other, and then the United States attacked in the middle of talks.
RANTZ: Because they weren't serious with those conversations.
(CROSSTALKS)
AGRAWAL: We don't know that. You're just saying,
RANTZ: I'm sorry, you're the one who's just saying that.
AGRAWAL: I know, because I can back it up with facts.
RANTZ: But you're not backing it up with facts.
AGRAWAL: Okay. So, the Omani foreign minister -- did you mediate the talks? No. The Omani foreign minister mediated the talks, and he said Iran was ready to give up the sites (ph).
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hold on, one thing at a time. Look, let's just take the first point. This is a war, okay? People are dying. There's nothing more serious. And underlying this whole conversation about the broader issue with Iran, who we know is a bad actor and has been for 47 years, is who gets to decide when American blood and treasure is put on the line.
[15:25:04]
And this administration seems insistent that the only person who does get to decide is the president as long as they don't call it a war sometimes.
AGRAWAL: Can I just say one, one more quick thing here? Iran may or may not be a bad actor, but in --
RANTZ: They are a bad actor.
AGRAWAL: -- in using --
RANTZ: They are a bad actor.
AGRAWAL: But -- so, okay.
RANTZ: It's not they may or may not be a bad actor. AGRAWAL: So is North Korea.
RANTZ: They are a bad actor. I do think it's important --
AGRAWAL: They want to take out North Korea as well.
RANTZ: I think it's important to -- do we think North Korea is a good actor, or do we think they're a bad actor? It is fair to argue.
AGRAWAL: So, would you propose a war in North Korea now?
RANTZ: It is fair to have a discussion on what you do when dealing with bad actors. It's not a discussion at this point for any serious person to say that Iran might be a good actor.
AGRAWAL: I didn't say it might be a good actor.
RANTZ: Well, they might be or they might not be.
AGRAWAL: It's a nuanced, complex society.
LABOTT: You said to discuss what we're going to do. I think what you're talking about is there really needs to be more of a leveling with the American people. Yes, they talked about the threat by Iran, but what are our objectives? What is the endgame? What is the sacrifice that Americans might be facing, whether in blood, treasure, economy, you know, safety, terrorism.
And I think what we're seeing with these videos and with Pete Hegseth kind of comparing it to a football game, and, you know, this frat boy culture, this bro culture, it's disrespectful to the families. And there is nothing more serious than a country at war, and I just wish that this wasn't so glib. I think the seriousness of the moment is not -- you know, there's a sensitivity here that we need to be all together on, you know, if not united about the war itself, but about our safety, about our troops, And I don't see that.
TAJBAKHSH: Yes. I mean, let me say -- I mean, I also find some of these things distasteful. I don't find them a good thing. But we have to separate what is public kind of rhetoric or public signaling or media from the actual strategic decisions that are being taken by the United States.
As someone who witnessed now 25 years of what I believe were from the American side, extraordinary patients. Extraordinary, you could say, almost magnanimity towards the Iranians. So much so that I just simply could not believe that the Americans were -- you know, my government and the Americans were actually sitting down and negotiating with the government that had imprisoned me and killed many people.
But you can look at it this way very charitably. You could say that from 2003, 2004, when Iran's clandestine cheating on building a nuclear weapon was exposed to the world, the United States and Europe and so forth have gone bent backwards to try to get some kind of negotiated deal. What happened with President Obama, I'll just say this very quickly, and I was in the State Department in the 2000s, when we implored the Bush administration not to restrict the engagement with Iran simply to the nuclear file. What happened with President Obama is that, for better or worse, and I'm not going to litigate that here, he decided that given the three big -- the four big problems that have always been on American objectives with Iran, that is enrichment, ballistic missiles, proxies and democracy inside Iran, that he would put all the last three aside and focus only on the nuclear deal.
Now, I'm not going to say that was good or bad. I don't think it was a great idea. But what we have seen, and this is also maybe controversial, and I think a lot of my liberal friends are going to hate me for this.
LABOTT: Don't point to me.
TAJBAKHSH: But -- okay, I know. I know. I'm not -- I just want you to hear, is that, unfortunately, you can draw a straight line from the 2015 nuclear deal to October 7th. Iran --
LABOTT: I'd love to hear that from some administration officials that leveling with the American people, what you're saying, these thoughtful comments --
TAJBAKHSH: Well, I think said what the Trump administration is --
PHILLIP: We do have to go to a break here.
TAJBAKHSH: Okay.
PHILLIP: Yes, there's more on the other side. So, hold your thought, because I have some follow-up questions for you about what the endgame is here and now.
The president's war has some MAGA faithful questioning what's happened to America First, but one of his closest advisers is now giving a new defense. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, as the House rejects a resolution to restrict Donald Trump's war powers in Iran, one of the President's America First allies, who was once opposed to foreign wars, is testing out a new talking point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR POLICY: But what you're seeing right now, Sean, is a military under President Trump's leadership that's not fighting politically correct, that isn't fighting with its hands tied behind its back.
One of the reasons I fear, Sean, that some people in this country lost faith in the military and the capacity to use that military to defend us is because we had a woke Pentagon. What you're seeing now, Sean, is a military that is unleashed in all of its lethal prowess to go out and seek, destroy, and kill the enemy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:35:02]
PHILLIP: Now mind you, he was just warning that the Democrats were going to take us to war with Iran. Now he's got a different story. And I actually wonder how is that not insulting to the military who takes their orders from civilian leadership? Not -- they don't come up with this on their own and decide what they're going to do in a vacuum. They take their orders from the political leaders. So, to blame it on them?
ASHLEY ALLISON, PUBLISHER, "THE ROOT": I also feel like --
PHILLIP: Even in this paradigm.
ALLISON: I don't know any American during the Biden administration, and quite honestly, during the first Trump administration or the Obama administration that lost faith in our military. What it sounds like is that he lost faith in our military, which is highly problematic because that does not sound like an American first agenda.
I also think he -- there are tweets upon tweets, upon clips, upon clips where he was saying Kamala Harris is the person that's going to send your sons and daughters into war. Kamala Harris is not the president now. His boss is Donald Trump. They are the ones that have made this decision. Whether you think it is right or wrong, Stephen Miller's language right now is complete opposite of where he was a year ago.
PHILLIP: And just in light of our conversation about, we were just talking about all the history here. Let me just play a little bit more history. This is a history of President Trump actually claiming that other presidents, namely Barack Obama, wanted to take us to war with Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Our President will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate.
They said he will start a war. I'm not going to start a war. I'm going to stop wars.
We more and more are not wanting to be the policemen of the world.
She would get us into World War Three.
They're drafting you to go and fight in some country that I've never heard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, what changed? He thought Obama was negotiating hard enough and would get us into a war. That didn't happen. Now, he's walked away from the negotiating table and we're in a war, but America First is morphing into whatever he says that it is.
JASON RANTZ, RADIO HOST SEATTLE RED: Yes, I don't think it's morphing. I think there have been some people who believe America First is an isolationist position and it never was an isolationist position. I think what the President would say here is that you have had previous negotiations that put us in such a tough spot that the only response at this point was militarily. That's where we're at and we have clear objectives.
I know some, you know, there's a claim that we don't know exactly what the objectives are. We do know what the objectives are. He tried to negotiate. They were unwilling on the other side to negotiate in good faith. And the other reality is October 7th happened, as well.
And that completely changed the region in a place where Israel can no longer just sit back and allow Iran to exist in that way as an existential threat at the same time where they're clearly trying to build nuclear capabilities that pose a direct threat to us.
So, both of those things together, we have a shared vision on this, is that we now have to act. I don't think this president is ever eager to get into a military action with anyone, but I do think he's saying, I will do it if I have to.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yes, and any president in history outside of World War two. I mean --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I just think you can't say that with a straight face.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: In 15 months he has dropped more bombs than any other president on more parts of the world. And I do want to play this because this is -- if we can get the Cuba part up. We're not even done with Iran, okay? We just did Venezuela. We're not done with Iran. Here's what he says might happen next to Cuba.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Marco, you've been doing a fantastic job. And you've been doing a fantastic job on a place called Cuba.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: He's doing some job and your next one is going to be, we want to do that special. He's waiting, but he says, let's get this one finished first. We could do them all at the same time, but bad things happen. If you watch countries over the years, you do them all too fast, bad things happen. We're not going to let anything bad happen to this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ELISE LABOTT, SUBSTACK AUTHOR, "COSMOPOLITICS": It's like an imperialism.
UNKNOWN: Yes. Yes.
PHILLIP: Look, there are some in the MAGA coalition and they are very much a minority, Okay? Don't get me wrong. But they are asking where does this end? Because the whole idea was that we weren't going to be into regime change. We weren't going to be just dropping bombs all over the world just to do it, because every day of this conflict in Iran is costing a billion dollars.
RAVI AGRAWAL, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, FOREIGN POLICY: And to use Trump's own words, which you played earlier, he didn't want to be the world's policeman, but he is now in a sense, I mean, for --
(CROSSTALK)
LABOTT: Well, he was having this whole affordability issue. Now, Abby's talking about the costs. You have a lot of Americans, including, you know, in the President's base that are saying how is this going to affect me?
(CROSSTALK)
AGRAWAL: Our prices are definitely going to go up.
RANTZ: We should underline that one point though because I think that's an important piece.
[22:40:00]
It is a very small number of MAGA supporters.
PHILLIP: Yes.
RANTZ: When you look at almost every single poll that's come out within the last --
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: One out of four Americans don't agree on these things.
PHILLIP: I think that is important but --
LABOTT: Isn't he supposed to be the president --
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: But MAGAs are Americans.
LABOTT: Isn't he supposed to be the president for all people?
RANTZ: You didn't mention -- the American people. You mentioned specifically the MAGA base.
ALLISON: I mentioned Americans. One out of four Americans disagreed on the Iranian strikes. The MAGAs are in that one out of four.
PHILLIP: Just quickly and then I got to --
AGRAWAL: America First -- you pointed out that it was an isolationist. It was in 1916 when it was first used, President Wilson.
(CROSSTALK)
AGRAWAL: Trump adopts it.
RANTZ: That is obviously not his position.
AGRAWAL: Well, he adopted it. The thing about America First is it is whatever you want it to be. So, yesterday it was the American interests, American people first, and today it's something else.
RANTZ: Is it possible that he's better to define this role since it's actually coming from him?
AGRAWAL: So, you agree the definition can keep changing?
(CROSSTALK)
KIAN TAJBAKHSH, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROFESSOR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: I just wanted to build on this idea of what changed in terms of Trump's position. I think a reality is, and we see this many times, whether you agree with a policy or not, politicians say one thing during a campaign because it is popular or it gets votes. But like anyone who ends up in a position, they get forced into actions that they can't avoid.
If you're the Commander in Chief or the President of the United States, you may have campaigned on something saying we don't want war, but you know there's an old famous saying which, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
LABOTT: Yes, the realities of government.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: But that's the piece.
PHILLIP: I don't know if it matters really because I think that the mismatch is important because if the American people voted for one thing and then they got something else, I think it is worth noting that that change has happened because that's a real thing that affects their lives.
So, we have more ahead, more breaking news. Donald Trump fires Kristi Noem, the first cabinet member to get the axe in his second term. So, what was the final straw for the President? We'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:46:56]
PHILLIP: Kristi Noem is officially out as Secretary of Homeland Security. President Trump fired her today and noted that she's going to take on a new role that he's calling Special Envoy for the Shield of the Americas -- whatever that is.
Frustration has been building inside of the White House over Noem's perceived missteps, including her decision to pause TSA Pre-Check during the ongoing DHS government shutdown, and for her controversial responses to the ICE, the federal agents who killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
Now, Trump has raised questions about Noem to his allies in the aftermath of those killings, but it was this $200 million DHS ad that sealed her fate and this exchange with Republican Senator John Kennedy who questioned her about the spending during a hearing this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R) LOUISIANA, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: The President approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently.
KRISTI NOEM, DHS SECRETARY: Yes, sir, we went through the legal processes, did it correctly, worked with OMB.
KENNEDY: Did the President know you were going do this?
NOEM: Yes.
KENNEDY: He did?
NOEM: Yes.
KENNEDY: Okay.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Trump says he did not know about the ad and Noem is going to exit at the end of the month. And Trump has long picked -- he has picked a long-time ally and former MMA fighter, Senator Markwayne Mullin, to replace her in that role. But he has to get through a confirmation battle first.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R) OKLAHOMA, NOMINEE FOR DHS SECRETARY: I want to try to earn their support and I'm going to be very open and honest with them. And at the end of the day, all I can do is do my job.
(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: You know, I think most people expect that Markwayne Mullin will probably get through, but the interesting thing about this, and I think you could -- the ad is, I mean the ad is insane because $220 million, where is that money going?
LABOTT: She looks good.
PHILLIP: But it's also the fact that it seems to be an acknowledgement that she messed up a big thing, which is immigration.
ALLISON: Yes. Yes.
PHILLIP: It used to be a huge boon to Trump, and now it is one of his worst issues, and he is on the defense on it.
ALLISON: Yes, I will say all the issues that DHS is supposed to handle are very seriously. So, don't take my comment as a slight of that agency. But what I will say is the last 24 hours around Kristi Noem's looks like it feels like a scene out of house of cards. And I felt like Kennedy, I felt like the Republicans on that committee, I felt like the White House had Kristi Noem walk off a plank in this hearing and almost set her up.
PHILLIP: It was a set-up.
ALLISON: It was a set-up and she was a liability for their strongest issue, and she had to go, and so well-paid Republican --
(CROSSTALK)
LABOTT: Look, the time was telling. You know, officials in the administration, Susie Wiles, his chief of staff, had been urging him to fire her for months. But what finally got her was this and Minnesota and you know, the idea that she's making him look, you know, it's the optics. And that it made a look that I will say that -- lawmaker said to me tonight that, you know, Mullin, you know, he does have a lot of -- he gets along with people on both sides of the aisle easily.
[22:50:05]
It was like he's respected, and he doesn't have a lot of Homeland experience. He was on the Senate Armed Services Committee but this lawmaker said tonight is nothing could be a downgrade from Kristi Noem.
PHILLIP: He's been a great defender of DHS as it is, so I think that the expectation is not that you'll be a radical change on policy --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yes, but it is a very important one and it's one where the public-facing aspect of it has been a big liability for this president and he's -- Trump, according to our reporting, has loved watching Mullin on TV. He's played a role -- that has played a role in Trump's decision to tap him for this position. Trump has called Mullin following combative interviews to praise him.
And White House staffers have often been dispatched -- have dispatched the Senator to do cable news hits around big moments for the administration. So as usual, Trump watching TV likes what he sees, puts him in a position.
RANTZ: Well, he's a good communicator and you need someone in this position to be a good communicator. The benefit, of course, is that Democrats also like him. He's someone who's very well known in the House and on the Senate side. I mean, it's to be a bipartisan vote. I don't know what number he'll end up getting, but he's got Fetterman already. I imagine he's going to get Welch based on just how he's talking about him. So, I do think that this is ultimately a good move for this administration. And it's coming at a good time.
(CROSSTALK)
LABOTT: -- bring it back to the war in Iran-
RANTZ: I do think he's qualified.
LABOTT: -- to bring it back to the war in Iran.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Yes, because I think that this is someone who has shown time and time again he knows how to manage people. He knows how to manage --
ALLISON: How? Where?
RANTZ: He's a business person who turned business from his ailing father. He didn't even complete college to get it into a multi-million dollar --
ALLISON: How many people did he manage?
RANTZ: I don't have the number off the top of my head.
ALLISON: It was a -- I'm not to say --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: It was a plumbing job, so, yes, and I have no problem with that. He's also a senator. He's also a sitting senator who -- and a former House member who's been very successful --
PHILLIP: I'm not sure being a sitting senator is a whole credential --
RANTZ: I mean, he's better than the last guy.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Let's hit pause. We're going to take a quick break and we'll finish up on the other side. We'll be right back. (CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: No.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:56:45]
PHILLIP: Now, one of the things that none of us will ever forget about Kristi Noem, who is now out of a job, is her many, many costume changes. Just take a look at just a few of them. Everywhere she went, she was putting on a different hat. Some people would describe it as cosplaying, and that was what she was doing, I guess --
(CROSSTALK)
LABOTT: Maybe for audience of one.
PHILLIP: -- but it didn't seem to work.
LABOTT: ICE Barbie had all of the costumes. I remember the video of her in El Salvador in front of the prisoners. Look, I mean, to take you back to where we started the war in Iran, I mean, I think you know, Noem was really performative and those costumes are really in ticket about that.
Now, there's more of attention. I think Mullin has said that he's going to listen to people, listen to their concerns and I think there will be more attention to the actual role of DHS. Immigration may not change but there may be more attention to, you know, the actual role of DHS and keeping the Homeland safe.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Supporting the Homeland, I mean, in this moment --
(CROSSTALK)
LABOTT: I think maybe this is a good moment to have a change.
AGRAWAL: Yes, and can I just say we started off talking about whether can agree or disagree on whether we should be at war. But as Americans, we need to be safe and especially when you're at war, the chances of terrorism are higher, the chances of --
LABOTT: Especially with Iran.
AGRAWAL: -- having attacks and hybrid, as well. I mean, cyber, other forms of attacks. This is the moment to be absolutely secure.
RANTZ: I wish Democrats agreed with you with that point, which they've still kept the government closed.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: We're still dealing with the closed DHS. ALLISON: That's because of Kristi Noem, because --
RANTZ: She's no longer there, so do we agree that it should be reopened today?
LAMBOTT: And also, ICE is funded already, right?
ALLISON: It was because of the policies, the baseline policies -- let me just say this. That's a conflation of this issue. What we're talking about here is keeping our homeland safe. Why Democrats are not supporting additional funding for ICE is because they already had one of the biggest budgets out there.
But also -- but also because of the overreach they did with snatching babies out of cars, killing two American citizens. So, let's not conflate issues.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: Let's be rigorous enough with issues that we can actually isolate them so we can solve real problems.
RANTZ: But they're not just taking funding from ICE.
PHILLIP: Look, I mean, ICE is funded right now because of the bill. It is, though, a fair and maybe an open question whether this leadership change will spark a new opportunity for negotiation between the Democrats and the administration on what to do about reforms, because the administration understands that there need to be reforms. They get that because they have been slapped on the hand by the --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: But one thing Democrats asked for was Kristi Noem, too.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- people over the last couple of months.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: Yes, and for warrants and for body-worn cameras. I mean, just some basic constitutional rights that people in this country --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yes, I mean, there is a lot more that could be done. Whether Markwayne Mullin will be the person to do it, I don't know, but I will just note inside DHS, some officials seem to be really thrilled about this. I think this is long overdue. The mood across the headquarters is relief, so on and so forth. Part of it also because of this unusual arrangement between Corey Lewandowski and Kristi Noem which created a bureaucratic nightmare, is what it seems like --
[23:00:00]
(CROSSTALK)
LABOTT: Well, and one thing that we didn't really hear about was it wasn't only the plane, or you know the blankie or all that, he fired someone because of her blankie or whatever --
(CROSSTALK)
AGRAWAL: Disapproving (ph) --
LABOTT: But she also commandeered the residents of the vice admiral of the Coast Guard.
PHILLIP: That's true.
LABOTT: I don't know what she was doing there but there was a lot of talk that it was -- she was doing it with Lewandowski.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All right, we got to leave it there. Everyone, thank you very much for being here. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
