Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
TSA Workers Miss Second Full Paycheck As DHS Shutdown Drags On; House Republicans Reject Senate-Passed DHS Bill; Trump On Iran War, Not Finished Yet; Rubio Says U.S. Can Achieve Iran Objectives Without Boots On The Ground; Global Stocks Fall and Oil Prices Surge. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired March 27, 2026 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, it's a family feud on Capitol Hill.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I'm quite convinced that it can't be that every Senate Republican read the language of this bill.
SIDNER: No vote in the House for the deal the Senate reached, and travelers have had it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just think that Congress should be the one not getting paid.
SIDNER: Plus, with the fierce debate about sending ground troops to Iran, Secretary Rubio says this.
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: We are achieving all those objectives, we are ahead of schedule on most of them, and we can achieve them without any ground troops.
SIDNER: So, why are more than 1,000 being deployed to the region?
Also, stocks move lower and prices go higher, but the president says he's not worried.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Our country is prospering again, I think, like never before.
SIDNER: What the war in Iran is costing the economy?
Live at the table, Nayyera Haq, Pete Seat, Tim Parrish, Emma Vigeland, and Terry Moran.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER (on camera): And we begin with breaking news. Good evening, I'm Sara Sidner in for Abby Phillip.
Let's get right to what America is talking about, a deal, then no deal. Senate Republicans were on their way to end the 42-day partial shutdown, but they were stopped by their own party. The Senate unanimously passed a bill that would've funded most of DHS, including TSA, but not ICE and parts of Customs and Border Patrol.
But when House Republicans got the bill, they shot it down. It came after President Trump jumped in, saying he was signing an executive order to pay TSA workers. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: The Republicans are not going to be any part of any effort to reopen our borders or to stop immigration enforcement.
This gambit that was done last night is a joke. I'm quite convinced that it can't be that every Senate Republican read the language of this bill.
The reason that we can't accept this ridiculousness, okay, is because we're not going to risk not funding the agencies that keep the American people safe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Despite the frustration, House Speaker Mike Johnson said this was not Senate Republicans' fault. President Trump agreed, sort of, because he also didn't let Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune completely off the hook.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I have spent the better part of this year trying to get these criminals out, and the Democrats want to have them come in. And we can't let that happen. We just can't let that happen.
I understand John Thune and I understand Mike Johnson. They want to be sure that people aren't coming into our country like they have for the last four years. I don't want to say they've ruined it. They made my job a lot harder.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: And tonight, the House is just moments away from voting on a short-term bill that would fund the entire department, including ICE, for eight weeks. That vote could happen any second. If it passes, the Senate will need to approve it. The only problem is senators just left Washington for a two-week recess.
Okay. Here we are, Pete. I do want to ask you about what we heard from Speaker Johnson, who said, you know, the Democrats want to reopen our borders. Is that a fair argument? Because isn't ICE funded right now? They're just not given this extra funding from this particular bill because they were funded by the big, beautiful bill, correct? PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: It is a fair argument. And I will say I started the day in one place on this topic, and I'm ending the day in another. When the House first voted this amendment down, I was like, guys, why can't you take the win? Democrats are not getting what they wanted. We've had this protracted partial shutdown. Take the win. Move on.
And then I came to realize, after digging into it deeper, exactly what happened, and that is in the amendment, in the explanatory note, it says that the amount specified in the final bill for border security and under CBP and ICE headings, quote, shall be zero, which is contrary to the appropriations bill that the House passed on January 22nd of this year. All but one Republican voted for it, and seven Democrats voted in favor of that. That is what the Senate Democrats have been trying to stop all along.
So, it is absolutely fair, because Democrats want to zero out the funding.
[22:05:01]
ICE is funded as far as enforcement goes, enforcement operations, but the folks who are working behind the scenes, in offices doing administrative work, supporting those operations, they're not getting paid right now because they need the appropriations to be funded. They're not part of that big, beautiful bill package.
NAYYERA HAQ, ASSISTANT DEAN, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY'S MAXWELL SCHOOL: I love how we talk about footnotes in Congress right now as if Congress has for the last few years been anything but a rubber stamp for the president. The Congress under Speaker Johnson and others have actually given away some of their constitutional power, including on when it comes to the taxation, one of the most important things about Article 1 of the Constitution.
ICE has enough money right now to not only have doubled its workforce, not necessarily bothering to train that workforce on use of force, as we've revealed, but also to be planning to build dozens of warehouses in cities across the country where communities are upset because they don't want to have detention facilities in their backyards and all that attention that that brings.
So, I'm less worried about how ICE is functioning and more when you look at and realize the president had the authority all the time to simply pay TSA. This entire thing falls apart when you look at the fact that President Trump, and there's many maneuvers, but he finally used one of them to say, I'm going to pay TSA workers.
We have 400 TSA workers who quit in this period of time. They're actually trained to do their jobs. So, having ICE standing behind them at this moment doesn't help anybody at the airport.
SIDNER: You have the president and Republicans, and you hear the speaker there bagging on Democrats and putting all the blame on them. In all fairness, let's hear what some of the Democrats have to say, Hakeem Jeffries here, about the GOP holding out here. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Bring bipartisan legislation that was unanimously passed by the Senate to the floor so we can end this Trump-Republican shutdown today.
Taxpayer dollars should be spent to make life more affordable for the American people, not to brutalize and kill American citizens or violently target law-abiding immigrant families.
At the same period of time, we want Republicans to stop holding TSA agents and air travelers hostage to their extreme immigration agenda.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Emma, ultimately, when you look at -- you know, both sides are blaming each other, which is very typical of Congress. That's what you do, right? The American public is looking at this differently, don't you think?
EMMA VIGELAND, CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Absolutely. I think you saw this move from Trump to fund TSA by basically going around Congress, or that's what his executive order says at least, because they understand that this is hurting Republicans more, as had the previous government shutdown, when you also had after that, the Epstein files and the scandal from that, and this is where Trump has kind of entered into kind of lame duck territory besides the criminal and illegal wars that he's waging.
ICE should not be funded at all anymore. This is an organization that is completely out of control. I don't know if people are forgetting, but at the beginning of this year, ICE killed in cold blood two American citizens, or DHS, whichever, and that was a part of the funding that was blocked. And there has been no accountability on that front.
Since Trump got into office, over 40 people have died in ICE detention and we have no idea what's going on with those investigations, and you hear about the conditions in these detention facilities, which you could call camps, where children are not getting the adequate medical care that they need. There's no medical care being provided at all. And people are in squalid conditions. They're being warehoused. It's a human rights violation. So, the Democrats should absolutely hold the line on this front.
But we're burying the lead here. John Thune and Mike Johnson are not aligned here. Thune was a part of passing this with unanimous consent, understanding that this was hurting the Republicans in the Senate, and what Mike Johnson is doing is he's afraid of losing his speakership. Because in 2023, the House GOP basically said that you just need one member to call up and recall the speaker. And so he's terrified that if he moves an inch away from the president, who's absolutely out of control, I mean, his rantings -- his dementialated rantings are insane. If they move one inch away from him, he's going to lose his job. So, that means that everybody who is experiencing all these horrible instances with their travel, and -- incidents, I should say, when they're traveling and flying, that's because Mike Johnson's afraid to lose his job. And all those TSA agents that have to work without pay, as ICE stands over their shoulder, that's Mike Johnson.
TIM PARRISH, CONSERVATIVE STRATEGIST: Emma, I'm actually glad you said that. I'm glad you said that Democrats should hold the line, because that's exactly what they're doing. Everything that we're seeing right now, exactly as you put it, is because Democrats are, quote/unquote --
VIGELAND: They have the leverage.
PARRISH: -- holding the line. What, in fact, is happening is Speaker -- Leader Thune and Speaker Johnson understand something that you clearly don't understand is that the American public right now are suffering at the hands of criminal illegal aliens who we have to have an ICE agency to deport.
[22:10:00]
I want to point two of those out. Stephanie Minter in Fairfax County, waiting for a bus, killed in cold blood by a gentleman, I shouldn't even use the word gentleman, by a criminal, a thug, who had 30 previous charges and wasn't deported. There's a gentleman here in New York City, Richard Williams, 83 years old, Air Force vet, pushed off the platform onto the tracks of a subway. He died today, his family released a statement, by a crazed illegal criminal who ICE, if they're defunded, based on you, these people will be running wild on the streets attacking and killing the American public.
VIGELAND: Which ICE did, which ICE did to two American citizens --
PARRISH: So, your point, ma'am, about --
VIGELAND: -- with our tax dollars
PARRISH: Ma'am, your point about ICE being defunded --
VIGELAND: I raised you two people, two American citizens who were killed by ICE.
PARRISH: this is exactly what would be happening on the streets of American communities --
VIGELAND: I raised you two American citizens --
PARRISH: I let you finish. If you allow me, please?
VIGELAND: Yes.
PARRISH: This is exactly what would be happening on the streets of American communities if we don't have a law enforcement agency, like ICE who's willing to stand in the gap between good and bad --
VIGELAND: Okay. PARRISH: -- good and evil with these illegal immigrants who are criminals and are killing American people. And that's not all of them, but the ones that are killing American citizens have to be deported out of our country, full stop.
VIGELAND: The highest percentage and increase in detentions have been people with zero criminal record.
TERRY MORAN, VETERAN JOURNALIST: That's it. And let's just agree, immigrants in this country commit crimes at far, far lower levels than people who are born here. So, let's not be --
PARRISH: So, we shouldn't do anything about crime?
MORAN: Law enforcement is necessary, but not a cartoon version of it.
And what is -- what happened here is that s- sometimes you wish that our government wasn't politics and politics only, right? The Senate did something kind of grown-up because two-thirds of them don't have to run for election this year. They recognize that ICE has caused a big problem with the American people, and that maybe we'll set that aside and see how that's going, and fund the rest of TSA. But the House, which has to run every year, is terrified of their own voters abandoning them, and so the deal fell through. And now Donald Trump has to do something that's probably unlawful.
SEAT: So, I think the real sticking point, I think, is less about ICE because there have been negotiations, good faith at times, at other times not so much. Democrats have been changing the goalposts constantly for the last several weeks. But it's more I think about the Customs and Border Protection and Border Security part of what Democrats were trying to do. Chuck Schumer his team, whoever put this language in there, they want zero funding for border security. That's what they are aiming for.
And when it comes to ICE, going back to what we said earlier, yes, you have funding for the enforcement operations, but their goal is to force the administration to move money around to fund the staff, the people who aren't getting paid right now, so they can slowly bleed ICE dry. That's what they're trying to do.
VIGELAND: Good. The --
SEAT: And I'll give them credit for legislative maneuvers.
VIGELAND: If Chuck Schumer was doing that, I would be so thrilled with him as the leader of the Democrats.
SEAT: But you know what? This is not what Americans voted for. They voted for immigration enforcement. They voted for secure borders.
HAQ: You know what the irony is?
PARRISH: Anti-law enforcement sentiment is one of the key factors that lost Democrats the elections in 2024. This idea that we don't need law enforcement, that we can just run around without regard for law and order is crazy. That is not what the American people --
VIGELAND: ICE is the one that's murdering people on our streets. ICE is the one that's murdering people on our streets.
PARRISH: And that's not what the American people want.
HAQ: You know what the irony in all of this is, is that this the idea of shutting down, this mini government shutdown of TSA pre-check and global entry was a Kristi Noem idea. This was not the default of how this had to go down. She overextended herself, as we saw, in many ways, $200 million ad campaign, sending, you know, boots on the ground into Minnesota, right, got the ire of the president and got herself fired as a result.
But this is cleaning up her mess of trying to make someone feel the pain, but she made the wrong people feel the pain. The American public is feeling the pain about TSA randomly being un-shutdown when, again, there are many maneuvers for the executive branch to stopgap with funding.
And I will underscore with this, ICE still has money, $70 billion they are using. They are not hurting for money by any means.
MORAN: There's one thing Donald Trump does very well, and he reads the polls and what they tell him about what the American people are telling him. And one of the things that he realized was a problem was the tactics, the nannies getting tackled on the street, the working men getting yanked into some gulag where they weren't available to have a lawyer or contact their family. That went south with the American people.
SIDNER: And there was --
MORAN: And that put the Republicans on the back feet --
HAQ: The polls show it.
MORAN: -- and the Democrats are overplaying their hand.
SIDNER: Look, there was some evidence in both Chicago in court and in Minneapolis where ICE agents or Border Patrol agents lied in court. And that really sent people in a direction where they were very concerned about training, very concerned about truth, very concerned about what is going to happen overall. But they were happy initially with how President Trump sort of slowed down the numbers of people coming into the country. Those polls have changed over time because of the tactics, and certainly the president has noticed that.
[22:15:01]
All right, coming up, President Trump has been claiming victory in Iran for weeks now. Now, he's saying it's not finished yet. Are things winding down or are they ratcheting up?
Plus, as gas prices are rising and the stock market is tumbling, President Trump says it hasn't been that bad. We'll debate all of this ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Tomorrow marks one month of the war with Iran. Is President Trump seeking an off-ramp or are things about to escalate? The messaging has been as clear as mud. Here's how the president put it tonight.
[22:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Now, it's not finished yet. I'm not saying it's sort of finished, but it's not finished. It's got to be finished.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Trump's comments come as we're learning Iran hit a major U.S. air base in Saudi Arabia, injuring several American troops, and sources are telling CNN another U.S. aircraft carrier is now headed to the Middle East. Two are already there, and it's not clear if the new ship will join or replace one.
Meantime, thousands of U.S. troops are also on the way, but when it comes to boots on the ground, something the White House has not ruled out, the Trump administration's messaging is unclear there as well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUBIO: We're going to destroy their navy, we're going to destroy their air force, and we are going to significantly destroy their missile launchers so they can never hide behind these things to get a nuclear weapon.
We can achieve -- we are achieving all those objectives. We are ahead of schedule on most of them, and we can achieve them without any ground troops.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Look, you are a veteran here, and when you consider the possibility of boots on the ground, should the president go to Congress? He did not go to Congress, but he has called this a war many times. And now we're talking about potentially boots on the ground. They're sending the paratroopers there, which they have one job. They go and try to get on the ground. And Marines are already in the region. What should happen as far as the president's responsibility for bringing the American people along on this?
PARRISH: Look, I always want every president to go through the constitutional process of working with their co-equal branch of government in the Congress to ask for either a formal declaration of war or the authorization for use of military force. Every president should do that. What we've seen historically is very few presidents, I think going back to World War II, have in fact gone through this formal process and gone to Congress to ask for those authorizations.
I don't think we need boots on the ground at this stage, and the reason why I say that is I don't want that. War is ugly. It's nasty. It's not something that I want to see any American have to deal with.
And so if the president and Secretary Rubio can utilize the steps that they're going through the diplomatic process, they have the Pakistanis working to do these negotiations, and I believe in my heart of hearts that the president does want this to come to an end without having to do boots on the ground.
But I also will tell you this president is a president of action. We've seen past administrations use, you know, big words and things and say that they draw lines in the sand and all these things if Iran does something. This president means business. If Iran rears its ugly head and attempts to continue doing what they've done for many, many years as the number one state sponsor of state terrorism, this president will take action. I don't want that to happen.
I don't think anyone at this table or any of the American public wants that to happen. But everyone should be on notice that this is a president of action who will in fact do what he needs to do to carry out his mission of protecting the American people.
HAQ: What do you mean as a state sponsor of terrorism though? How do you define terrorism?
PARRISH: Are we going to argue that Iran is literally the number one sponsor --
VIGELAND: Is Iran committing genocide in Gaza right now like the Israeli government is, which dragged us into this war, which every president prior --
PARRISH: Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism around the world.
SEAT: For 47 years, the Iranians have killed Americans and our allies across this world.
VIGELAND: Okay.
SEAT: They are trying to obtain nuclear weapons --
VIGELAND: How?
SEAT: -- so they can annihilate Israel and potentially capitals in Europe.
VIGELAND: There's no evidence of that. The JCPOA was actually a successful deal that Obama negotiated and --
SEAT: Well, I find it appalling that you're an Iranian apologist.
VIGELAND: Yes, this is so -- so, there's nothing I can do to call out Israel's genocide and then everybody swarms me.
(CROSSTALKS)
VIGELAND: It is about Gaza. This is about a regional conflict that's spiraling out of control that the president is adding to.
MORAN: But you stated that there's no evidence that Iran wants nuclear weapons. They lied. They buried something in the mountains --
VIGELAND: There has been a religious edict that has said since 2003 that they should not be creating a nuclear weapon. It's not --
MORAN: They lied to the United Nations. They lied to the international --
VIGELAND: We killed the ayatollah, the older father, who was actually against building a nuclear weapon because he thought that it was going to contribute here.
PARRISH: I'm genuinely shocked that you are defending the Iranians. And I got to tell you, I hope that you tuck yourself in at night under that pillow of lies that you just told about the Iranians.
VIGELAND: Okay. Okay.
PARRISH: That is absolute a crock of a word I can't say on national television.
VIGELAND: Okay. The United States is funding a government that an Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, says is committing genocide, as is Amnesty International, as is every credible human rights group right now. We are the -- there's a massacre in Gaza. There are hundreds of thousands of people unaccounted for under rubble. That's what I define as terrorism.
Now, Iran is now exerting their leverage over the Strait of Hormuz and --
(CROSSTALKS)
SIDNER: Everybody's talking over each other.
PARRISH: (INAUDIBLE) by Iran would disagree with your personal description of what terrorism is. And I'm sorry, it doesn't meet the bill of what that goes.
VIGELAND: Okay. So, I mean, killing civilians is what I define it as.
HAQ: As a diplomat, former diplomat and former adviser at the Department of Defense who has worked in the region and worked on all these issues, two things can be true at the same time.
[22:25:01]
The United States is supporting an Israeli government that has violated international laws, committing war crimes, and Iran is a state sponsor of terror, right? Those are both true. These are the realities the United States has had to reckon with for decades of U.S. foreign policy.
It is also why the United States has not ever put its hand on the lever in such a hard way as to bring the war to Iran that Iran has been itching for. Because Iran is able to -- it is now had all the possible folks who would have revolted and overthrown the regime, they suddenly woke up one day to having everything around them bombed.
There was no CIA or Mossad effort to actually support, you know, a proper uprising, which is frankly what the United States did with the shah, so we know we have the capability of doing that. None of that, none of that planning or strategy existed. We had U.S. embassies being attacked by drones and on fire in allied countries because our allies had no idea this was happening.
So, the United States went all-in on something that Benjamin Netanyahu has wanted for decades. And we're calling that action and strong, and guess what? The president of the United States, the commander-in- chief, wants to walk away from that right now.
(CROSSTALKS)
SIDNER: One person at a time.
HAQ: When the President of the United States calls this, what we are seeing right now, a victory, that is entirely rhetoric, that is entirely spin. Military capability has absolutely been degraded, absolutely true, but we are seeing economic impacts. We are seeing downstream effects. We are seeing impacts to the American public without any effort having been made to convince the American public that this was necessary.
SIDNER: Terry?
MORAN: Yes.
SIDNER: Hold on. Terry?
MORAN: The one thing you need in a president in wartime is credibility. And Trump is all over the map, right? First, it was unconditional surrender and regime change. Now, we won. Karoline Leavitt is out there saying the Iranians are defeated and will continue to be defeated. He says, I'm going to end this war. Don't worry, it's not going to last that long. He does not know what to do. And he says he was surprised that Iran, which has been waiting for this moment for a long time, and anyone who's spent any time there, anyone who's read a book, knows that the war they wanted was against the other Gulf states.
Trump says, nobody knew they were going to bomb UAE or Saudi or whatever. Of course they are. And the notion that it's won already or that they're defeated, they just bombed a U.S. airbase. The enemy always gets a say.
SEAT: I disagree, Terry, with you because in this situation, I think the fact that the president can be confusing in his language, that he contradicts himself and his subordinates, is intentional. It's deliberate deception. And when you're in the midst of a negotiation --
SIDNER: Hold on. Is he deliberately deceiving the American public? Is he deliberately deceiving Congress?
SEAT: The Iranians. We're in the midst of a negotiation.
And trust me, I know we're all impatient. We talk about this conflict -- it's only been four weeks. We talk about it like it's been four years, and we're impatient. We want certainty. We want to know what's coming next, but so do the Iranians.
SIDNER: That's true, but here's the thing --
SEAT: And we cannot tell them. We can't tip our hat.
SIDNER: The reason I think why people are impatient is because they didn't know it was coming. The American public was not sold on this. Congress was not sold on this.
SEAT: And that means the Iranians didn't know it was coming. Mind you, we were putting forces in the Middle East --
SIDNER: And I know --
SEAT: -- you know, hint.
SIDNER: But wait a minute. But you've also got Nancy Mace, who has said that Iran is becoming an Iraq. That's how she sees it. Now, that's her opinion.
SEAT: And that's her.
SIDNER: That's her opinion.
SEAT: Again, it's been four weeks.
SIDNER: But --
SEAT: She can take a chill pill.
SIDNER: Understood, but if you have someone who has been a great supporter of Donald Trump saying this, then certainly the American public is looking at this and wondering, why are we here? And now that we are here, now what? Because gas is going up, right? There is -- there are economic issues that are hitting Americans in ways that they thought that Donald Trump was going to solve. So, how do you explain to them that this is going to be for the better good?
SEAT: In terms of --
HAQ: $11 billion a day, right? Like that's part of the explanation, what are we doing with $11 billion a day? What has the American public gained in safety and security that it did not have a month ago? PARRISH: All of the points that have been made here, you know, we're in a very cordial debate, and I think that all of the points have been heard and well taken, except this one. There can be no -- there can be no ambiguity, there can be no question. And the American public, I think, is sitting at home watching this, gripping their chairs at the idea that you are an Iranian sympathizer, and the people that we --
VIGELAND: Gripping their chairs?
PARRISH: The people that -- well -- and it's not funny. The idea of what the --
VIGELAND: I think it is.
PARRISH: And that's scary.
VIGELAND: Okay.
PARRISH: The idea of what the Iranian regime has done around the world not just to Americans, but to their own people. You talk about rights and things. They killed 30,000 people who were --
VIGELAND: I don't defend the Iranian government.
PARRISH: That's what you were just doing for the last three minutes.
VIGELAND: The reason that we have this government is because they over --
PARRISH: You -- Pete asked you a question --
VIGELAND: -- reinstalled the Shah.
PARRISH: Pete asked you a question about do you want Iran to have a nuclear bomb?
VIGELAND: The reason this government exists is because --
PARRISH: You couldn't answer it. You are a sympathizer for the Iranians --
[22:30:00]
(CROSSTALKS)
HAQ: You guys are really piling, you're really piling on Emma, because I have not heard either one of you say anything critical of either the U.S. military operation right now, either the fact that Israel has more of a plan and a strategy and the United States, which is supposed to be leader, is following Israel. I mean, come on.
(CROSSTALK)
HAQ: I'm asking you now to clarify this point. How do you guys feel about the United States following another country's military strategy?
PARRISH: I'm not piling on Emma.
MORAN: I think we're doing an incredible job militarily.
(CROSSTALK)
MORAN: Are you signing on to Israel's conquest of southern Lebanon? Are we in a war of conquest now for Israel?
VIGELAND: That' a great question.
MORAN: Because Israel is going to steal some of Lebanon. They're going to go there and keep it. Is that our policy now?
SEAT: I'm focused on Iran and whether they have nuclear weapons, and the fact that they lied about their ballistic missiles.
MORAN: I'm sorry. We are linked -- we are linked like a chain with Israel right now and they're stealing -- they have announced they're going to take southern Lebanon.
PARRISH: And again, I can take that point, but the apology for Iran is ridiculous. I can't make it any clearer. She just said --
(CROSSTALK)
HAQ: You're continuing to say --
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: I think the point has been made --
(CROSSTALK)
VIGELAND: I just said I don't think that any nation should have nuclear bombs. We should denuclearize across the board and Israel shouldn't have one. Neither should Iran.
SIDNER: We're going to end it there because up next, the President pays close attention to the polls and the markets, and both have moved lower since the war in Iran. What's the economic price of this war? We're going to debate that coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:36:12]
SIDNER: The war with Iran is taking a serious financial toll. Today, the Dow dropped nearly 800 points to close in correction, with all markets at their lowest level since August. Oil prices are at the highest they've been since the war started, with Brent crude well over $100 a barrel. And that's having an impact, of course, on gas prices. The average cost is nearly $4 a gallon now. But tonight, President Trump downplayed economic concerns.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I thought we were going to go down more, and I thought oil prices were going to go up higher than they are now. And I thought that we would see a bigger drop in stock. Hasn't been that bad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: It hasn't been that bad. Pete, there are a lot of Americans that are really hurting now. Is this a good message?
SEAT: So, if we want to talk about the market first, the Dow is up almost 2000 points from the day Donald Trump came back into office last year. The S&P is up about 400 points, or 6.2 percent. NASDAQ, 1300 points, or mid-single-digit gains. So we can focus on the dip since this conflict began, but from the beginning of the administration to now, it's a net positive.
Part of me says also when it comes to the market that if the market feels good, that probably means the Iranians feel good because they know what's coming. So, I don't mind a little bit of market uncertainty. I also can't help but laugh when Democrats periodically pretend to care about the market because they think that it irks Donald Trump or it helps achieve their policy goals.
These are the exact same people who for decades have denigrated Republicans and said, we only care about the market because of our rich billionaire and millionaire friends. And now, they suddenly care. They've suddenly got religion about the market because they think it's going to score political points for them in the midterm election cycle.
HAQ: President Trump also was elected with high food prices, right, in the promise of immediately, immediately lowering inflation. And what I find really interesting about when we look at the, you know, sub- markets, and of all the markets that I've been looking at, it's urea, which is one of the products that is necessary to be mixed with nitrogen, which has to come all the way through the Strait of Hormuz to the United States and elsewhere so that farmers can have fertilizer.
They are placing their fertilizer orders right now. They're not able to meet them. That is going to impact the next harvest cycle. That is only going to make food prices worse just in time for the election. So, that is the type of market connection I think that people are looking at, which is the advanced part of the market that then indicates how we're going to be hit at the table in our pocketbooks.
And that's not trending in a positive direction for anybody who's been looking at food prices, let alone Donald Trump's promise about lessening inflation.
SIDNER: I do want to, Terry, I'm going to let you talk about this a little bit. But when you start talking about the markets, a lot of Americans are now in the markets because of 401Ks and different things, but often the markets do not necessarily reflect the everyday American who is struggling to buy food, struggling to pay for gas, which is the number one reason why Donald Trump is in office.
That poll after poll, it was economics and immigration. Immigration, for a while there, they were happy with things. Now, that's starting to sour, and now economics. What do you see happening here?
MORAN: What about us? That was one of the things that got Donald Trump elected. People listened to Donald Trump in his first term and in his second term. He's a nationalist, right? He's not really a traditional Republican or a traditional Democrat. He's a nationalist.
It's about America first, and that's what people heard, and given the fact that they thought that in many ways the system had been rigged against them by both parties for their own particular constituencies, Trump seemed somebody who would bust things up.
[22:40:04]
And now, he's in the Middle East again, right? $200 billion ask for more war. He's sending 7000 Americans, boots on the ground. I don't know why you would take them at great cost and great -- some risk to the places where they were and put them in the Persian Gulf if you aren't going to use them. And their lives aren't getting better. He is in political trouble because of his own choices here.
VIGELAND: Yes, and I mean, just to add to your point, one, you had mentioned the $11 billion figure, what we're spending a day on, this war of choice in Iran. Bernie Sanders' proposal in 2019 for college for all -- let's adjust it for inflation. I think it was nearly $50 billion, but let's make it $60 billion. You could pay for college for all for Americans in a week with what we're spending in Iran.
And you know what a lot of these young men and women who are signing up to be on the front lines who might die in this war in Iran are signing up for? Yes, in many ways patriotism, a sense of duty, but college education. These are the choices that we have made as a country, and this is the choice that Donald Trump is making.
And in terms of the market being disconnected from the reality of people's lived experience, I mean, the top 10 percent right now is responsible for 50 percent of consumer spending. You have record over record of credit card debt being hit month over month in this country. Subprime auto delinquencies are at an all-time high, a record high.
People are hurting in their everyday life. And yes, the market may be inflated right now due to a lot of speculation about A.I., but there are many indicators that that bubble is going to burst sometime soon. And what may accelerate that is what we're seeing with this war in Iran.
PARRISH: I don't understand the correlation and I really am attempting to between us, like this socialist idea of sending people to college for free and the national security of the United States. I'd also push back on the idea that --
(CROSSTALK)
VIGELAND: Question of choices and priorities.
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: I don't think it's a choice. Every administration, including the Obama administration, said that if Iran got to a certain point that they would do the same thing that President Trump is doing right now. Throughout the Democrat primaries, Hillary Clinton said that she would do the same thing that Donald Trump is doing right now. So, how this gets to a
VIGELAND: Do what?
PARRISH: -- point where we're like sending kids to college for free and ensuring the national security of the United States. And I'm also going to push back on the idea because it's completely false that the thought that's at the forefront of people's minds when they join the military is to go to college. That people, actually, less and less people are using the G.I. Bill and benefits.
People join the military to go, in fact, serve their country to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: Not to go to college. This idea -- this idea that you just said that people join the military so they can go to college is another falsehood. And I don't know where you are getting this --
VIGELAND: And that is not a falsehood. When you talk to many --
PARRISH: It is a falsehood. I'm sorry, when did you join the military?
VIGELAND: I did not serve. You served, I understand that, but I can assess politics even if I didn't serve.
PARRISH: When you talk about going and serving in combat, it's not politics. People don't join the military to get the G.I. Bill. That is a benefit that a lot of folks do take advantage of. But our service members, those that are deployed right now, those that are waiting to answer the call to be deployed, are not thinking about their G.I. Bill. They're thinking about protecting their brothers and sisters when they go and answer the call.
HAQ: You're raising a very important point here, right? Like, who decides and who serves, right? Because right now, there's a massive disconnect between the people who have volunteered for a voluntary service and we've professionalized our military, right, post-Vietnam war in commission. So, we have a 50-year standard of this.
We've had presidents who have put our troops in military combat situations, do that with consent of Congress. No one's gone for a declaration of war, but they've gotten authorization of use of military force. They've had discussions with the Senate. They've gotten approvals. That is not what Trump did in this case, right? So, there's always been a case made to the volunteer force that what they are doing meets a national security interest. So, when the rest of the American public doesn't understand why we're there, that also impacts their family members who are in the service. So, if Lindsey Graham and everybody wants us so bad, let's have another draft and see how people react.
SIDENR: All right. A new report reveals Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's surprising choice to block the promotion of four Army officers. Two of the officers are black and two were female. We're going to discuss this next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:49:05]
SIDNER: Tonight, "The New York Times" is reporting that Pete Hegseth is unilaterally blocking four Army officers from getting promoted to the rank of one-star general. Some senior military officials are questioning whether the officers are being singled out because of their race or their gender. The officials tell the "Times," quote, "Two of the officers targeted by Hegseth are black and two are women on a promotion list that consists of about three dozen officers, most of whom are white men."
All right, I'm going to go to you first, Tim, because you served and you see this. Your thoughts on this. You have to consider some of the things that Pete Hegseth has said in the past.
PARRISH: Yes, absolutely. So, I did some research on this. And one of the first things that I kind of looked at is our military active-duty -- I think we're somewhere coming up close to two million people in the military. A very diverse military. Lots of black people. Lots of women who, in fact, did get promoted.
[22:50:01]
And so, when I look at these four, I thought to myself, there's probably some issue here. I went and looked at Title 10, Section 624. One of the sections there about delaying promotions for military officers, it actually opens with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
And then it goes on to talk about if the Secretary, even himself, unilaterally, sees that there are officers who are not in line with strategy or vision or what have you, he can, in fact, legally, under Title 10, Section 624, delay the promotions of military officers. And the Department did come out and say that these four people -- there were some alignment issues or whatever you want to call it with this.
It wasn't about race. It wasn't about gender. That was what they came out with and said. And there were questions about the legality of the Secretary's ability to do this. And of course, I just quoted it. Title 10 gives the Secretary the ability to, in fact, delay these promotions if he finds cause to do so. SIDNER: Let me just -- hold on. Let me just read you what Sean Parnell
says. He's the Department's chief spokesman. He said, under Secretary Hegseth, military promotions are given to those who have earned them and goes on to say that this was apolitical and unbiased and defended the process.
HAQ: Yes, something can be legal doesn't mean that you should do it, right? That's -- Secretary Hegseth in his confirmation hearings came out and said he doesn't believe that women should be in the military. Let's just start with that. That is his strategy. So, his decision to remove people from promotion lists aligns with his strategy.
PARRISH: How about the other women there in the military?
HAQ: That doesn't necessarily mean that this is how we should be operating right now. Twenty six countries in the world have women in the military, all of the NATO countries, right? So, to suggest that after all the rigor and effort you have to go to, to even get on the promotion list, to be considered to become a flag, right? To have all of your colleagues and the people who have worked with you.
And these are not -- it's not like, oh, I just volunteered, please give me a flag. Like, this is a huge process and deal to conveniently say that two women and two black people don't comply, given what the Secretary has said in the past.
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: He didn't say that women shouldn't be in the military. And what you're talking about -- he specifically was talking about women in combat arms and in infantry, which was the policy of this country for many, many, many years. And so, this is not like his idea that --
HAQ: I will follow up with that point. In 2013, the last NATO country to put women into combat positions was actually Norway, but they went even a step further and they said, yes, women should also be subject to the draft, which I completely agree. So, the United States is not leading first and foremost on military integration. Let's be very clear.
SIDNER: Let me let you hear something that Pete has said, which is why sometimes things like this get brought up because of past comments. This is from September 2025.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: For too long, we've promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons -- based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so-called firsts. Foolish and reckless political leaders set the wrong compass heading. And we lost our way. We became the Woke Department, but not anymore. No more division, distraction, or gender delusions. No more debris. As I've said before and will say again, we are done with that shit (ph).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: I mean, these are people who serve in the military that he is sort of casting aspersions at. What do you make of this?
SEAT: Well, I don't defend the way he speaks about them, but I do want to make the point that there are other black and female officers who remain on this list. They were not removed. These four individuals were. So, if race was the sole reason, why weren't they all taken off the list?
VIGELAND: I mean, I just think it's kind of rich to hear Pete Hegseth talk about people's qualifications. This guy was a Fox News host right before he was picked for Defense Secretary because Trump thought he was a little handsome or something like that. He has a rape accusation against him. There was a New York report where he apparently in a bar chanted, "Kill all Muslims."
Trump actually, maybe before he thought he was handsome, was really charmed by how in 2019, Hegseth successfully lobbied for the pardons of convicted war criminals in this country and Trump acquiesced on that, and agreed with him.
So, this is a guy that celebrates war crimes, that celebrates loosening the rules of engagement, and is responsible for bombing and double tapping. I will repeat, a girls' school where over 100 girls in Iran were killed. And then we talk about how, oh, they just hate us for our freedom. No, they hate us because we bomb girls' schools.
PARRISH: Actually, before that incident happened, which I think was horrible and we made a mistake, and there should be accountability there.
VIGELAND: Double-tap.
PARRISH: The country -- they were yelling "Death to America" in Iran long before we did that. So, they hated us.
VIGELAND: Because we overthrew their government.
[22:55:00]
PARRISH: Back to the Iran thing, they hated us long before that. The second point that I would make is, it's just -- it's mind-blowing to me. The Secretary of Defense is a decorated combat veteran. The Secretary of Defense deployed in defense of his nation, again, like I said, to go and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So, he does have qualifications. Is he as qualified on paper as past Secretaries of Defense? No.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: I'm going to leave it there. We're going to quickly go to break. Let me quickly go to break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:00:10]
SIDNER: Your favorite comedians of "Have I Got News For You" are back this Saturday for the final episode of the season tomorrow, 9 P.M. on CNN and on the CNN app. Thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
