Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip

Trump Renews Iran Threats As More Troops Arrive In Mideast; Rubio Says, Not Quite Clear How Decisions Are Being Made In Iran; Iran Says Most Of U.S. Proposal To End War Is Unrealistic; Economists Sound Alarm About Long-Term Iran War Economic Impact; Pope Leo XIV Says God Does Not Listen To The Prayers Of People Waging Wars. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired March 30, 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 VIDEOTAPE)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, the war in Iran is a war of contradicting messages, like who is the United States negotiating with?

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It's a new group of people, people that we've never dealt with before, that are acting very reasonable.

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: We are dealing with a 47-year-old regime that still has a lot of people involved in it who aren't necessarily big fans of diplomacy or peace.

PHILLIP: What that means for the president's goal of making a deal.

Plus, it's week five in Iran. And as troop deployments ramp up, some on the right say it's time to wind things down.

Also, it's the story the Republicans don't want to hear ahead of the midterms, what a prolonged war could mean for the economy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What happens to the global economy if that happens? How do we see it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll have global recession.

PHILLIP: And the Pope would like a word with those who wage war.

POPE LEO: Jesus, Prince of Peace, he does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.

PHILLIP: Does Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have some explaining to do?

Live at the table, Marc Short, Ana Navarro, Charles Blow, and Lydia Moynihan.

Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening, I'm Abby Phillip in New York.

Let's get right to what America's talking about. The war in Iran is at a crossroads, down to one path, is a fast escalating conflict that could widen things further. In a social media post, the president threatened to completely obliterate Iran's energy sites, and then he suggested possibly targeting water desalination plants, a move that could violate international law.

Now, in that very same post, Trump also claims that the U.S. is in discussions with a new, more reasonable regime in Iran. It's not clear who that is, though. Iran's government insists that there are no direct talks happening and described the U.S. proposal to end the war as excessive and unrealistic.

And in the meantime, Pakistan says it's prepared to host U.S.-Iranian talks in the coming days. But the big question is, with whom? And do they have the power to end this war? A regional source is casting doubt, telling CNN, quote, no one can tell anyone today that whomever shows up in Islamabad has the power for the Iranian regime.

Now, maybe Secretary of State Marco Rubio can clear some of this up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUBIO: And if there are new people now in charge who have a more reasonable vision of the future, that would be good news for us, for them, for the entire world. But we also have to be prepared for the possibility, maybe even the probability that that is not the case. We always prefer to settle things through negotiation and diplomacy. But we also have to be prepared for the fact that that effort might fail, that we are dealing with a 47-year-old regime that still has a lot of people involved in it who aren't necessarily big fans of diplomacy or peace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Joining us at the table at our fifth seat is Kian Tajbakhsh. He's a former political prisoner in Iran and an international relations professor at New York University.

Despite what President Trump says in his Truth Social post, Marco Rubio seems to be clear-eyed about this to some extent. He's basically saying, look, 47-year-old regime, lots of people in it and not a lot of indication that we're dealing with anything radically different. What do you think is really happening here?

KIAN TAJBAKHSH, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROFESSOR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Well, thanks for having me on again, Abby. Look, I think that it's one of those cases where in the middle of war. It's very hard to gauge what rhetoric, how much seriously we should take. It's a moving target. And so what I say on both sides is when you hear conflicting stories or conflicting claims, I think that's -- we should accept that as part of the nature of both the kind of psychological play between the belligerents. But let me speak to the question of the regime. In the reporting currently, it is suggested that the person that the U.S. administration is talking with is the speaker of the Iranian Parliament.

[22:05:08]

I followed this person, Ghalibaf, when he was mayor of Tehran, when I was living and working in Tehran. And it is possible that he is the only person within the core of the power center of the regime that would be a good face to be sent out for diplomacy.

But it's very clear to me and clear to a lot of people who I speak to in Tehran also that he is not part of the core power group within Iran, that we can name four or five people that currently are, I would say, would be the real decision-makers. He has been marginalized partly, and but I think that it is also like a strategy amongst the Iranians who are masters at negotiation. They will put forward someone who sounds good to the other side and buys time, seeks concessions and so forth.

So -- but I think that if it indeed is this person who is the former mayor, he does not have the authority. He does not have the control to be able to enforce any negotiation or any agreement that he comes to. So, I think the idea of regime change that President Trump has mentioned is premature, I would say, at the moment in that sense.

PHILLIP: Yes. Well, to that point, that's a very sobering assessment, I mean, because that's one of the big questions in our reporting tonight at CNN is that even in the administration, they're not sure how much power, influence anybody that they're talking to has. But here's what Trump said on Sunday when he was talking to reporters about this regime change question.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's a whole different group of people. So, I would consider that regime change, and, frankly, they've been very reasonable. So, I think we've had regime change, but you can't do much better than that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Okay. I mean, even under the best of circumstances, Marc, there has not been regime change but the other part that you hear there, if you're really listening carefully, it just sounds like he wants to get out of this thing.

MARC SHORT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: Abby, I feel like the President was presented an opportunity to eliminate the ayatollah at a time when they'd been refusing to negotiate on the nuclear weapons, and much of that was leadership, and I think that was a commendable strike. I think we've had significant military success.

But I think the administration is struggling from not having a clear message. Is the purpose here to degrade their military purposes? Is the purpose to have regime change? Is the purpose to take over Kharg Island? Is the purpose, you know, to take away the uranium? I think there's been a lot of mixed messaging. I think that's confusing for a lot of Americans.

PHILLIP: Yes, it depends on the day, right?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, there wasn't even regime change, if you want to be truthful, in Venezuela. He took out Maduro and left the regime intact but for Maduro. He is the person he's dealing with now, was Maduro's number two, the vice president. The guy who terrorized Venezuelans, Diosdado Cabello, the enforcer of the Maduro regime, is still there, there're still political prisoners in Venezuela, but Trump is happy because he gets the oil and he gets to mark it off as a win.

I think he thought he could do the same thing in Iran and is proving to be a lot more difficult. It's very hard to believe anything that comes out of his mouth and he's -- I think that when he's so flippant and cavalier and things like these Truth Social posts where he says, he calls it our lovely little stay in Iran, why? Why be so stupid when there's 13 dead Americans, when there's hundreds of American soldiers and service members that were injured, when there's 150-plus little Iranian school kids that were mistakenly killed by a missile strike? Why be so flippant at a moment that is so serious for the United States and for the world?

TAJBAKHSH: Can I --

PHILLIP: And to add to that, I mean, just -- I do want you to jump in. I mean, to add to that, this threat and that Truth Social post this morning where he threatens the infrastructure of Iran, the desalination plants in particular, that's water that we're talking about.

TAJBAKHSH: Right.

PHILLIP: I mean, look, you know, the United States, we don't adhere to certain international, you know, bodies or whatever it is, but we want people to adhere to some semblance of keeping civilians out of military conflicts. Why would he even put that on the table?

TAJBAKHSH: Yes. I mean, that kind of rhetoric disturbs me as someone who's an Iranian American with family inside Iran, who I speak with on a regular basis when they can call out, which is maybe three or four times a week I'm able to speak to them. I mean, I would want them not to be -- to suffer any kind of, you know, total collapse of infrastructure or utilities.

However, I will say as someone who is a former democracy activist and someone who was imprisoned in Iran for many years for opposing the regime and for working for warmer relations between the U.S. and Iran, I put the responsibility for this on the Iranian regime.

[22:10:18]

They can stop this war tomorrow, tonight, by accepting the three points that President Trump put on the table in Muscat. They're actually -- from an international law perspective, they're pretty reasonable and understandable demands. And as you mentioned, they refuse to even negotiate with that.

Although I want to share one thing about Donald Trump's communication style, when I spoke to someone inside Iran, who, you know, I trust, he runs a very big business, he's not a politician, but he has to follow very closely all the tea leaves, he told me that guy is a genius, and he's talking about Trump. And I said, why? You know, he said, because he's completely confused the Iranians. Finally, the Iranians have met someone who is like a match for them. Iranians are --

PHILLIP: But do you think that's really true?

TAJBAKHSH: I think it's true. I think it's true.

PHILLIP: Because, I mean, the idea that he has confused them so much, but at the same time, here we are, we are five weeks into this war, Iran still have -- they just attacked an oil tanker waiting in the region. They weakened, don't get me wrong, but they also have control of the Strait of Hormuz. They've got us to a point where we've got oil at, you know, over $100 a barrel. I don't know, I mean, I just think Trump is -- his chaos is definitely a strategy, right, but I'm not sure it's actually getting the result he's seeking. That's the question that I'm asking. Are we actually seeing the results of the chaos that is supposed to --

CHARLES BLOW, LANGSTON HUGHES FELLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Well, the war is not over, even though he said it was over weeks ago. Vance said that we have accomplished our military objectives. Trump is now flooding the region with more military -- more members of the military, and also threatening other military actions. So, either Vance is lying or he doesn't know.

PHILLIP: Well, I mean, I think we can -- we have -- maybe we have met the military objectives. But at the end of the day, the military objectives are not the only objectives. The political ones are just as important, if not more important.

BLOW: But they're literally -- Trump is literally saying tonight on Truth Social that he wants more military actions. Maybe it's in advance of a political aim, but he wants more military actions, including what would be a clear violation of international law, is going after the water supply. And that's very dangerous because you don't want to get into a water war.

You don't want Iran to then target the other states in the region and their water supplies, because Iran doesn't actually -- they don't depend on desalinization to that degree. It's a fraction of the Iranian water supply. But for other countries in the region, it can be up to 90 percent of their water is coming from desalinization. You don't want Iran to get into this tit-for-tat with us about whether or not we're going to destroy water.

SHORT: Iran is slaughtering and killing women and children. Do you think they have any question about a desalination plant? BLOW: What's that?

SHORT: They're slaughtering women and children, raping them. You think they'd really be concerned about a desalination plant?

(CROSSTALKS)

BLOW: You're saying they're not going to -- they would only do it if we did in a tit-for-tat.

PHILLIP: Well, that's what they've said. I mean --

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: I mean, isn't that, to Charles' point that --

BLOW: Yes, that's to the point that I'm making.

PHILLIP: -- Iran, it doesn't really care whether or not they hurt civilians?

SHORT: Yes, that's right.

PHILLIP: Right? They don't care. And so to sort of appeal to their good graces, well, you don't want us to do this because it might hurt civilians, seems like a naive perspective to have for a regime that is actively slaughtering their own people on a regular basis.

LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK POST: Yes, sort of their raison d'etre for existence. I mean, it is interesting, Charles, though, there's reporting that the Gulf allies actually are pushing Trump now to potentially oust the government, which, frankly, I think is a new thing. This kind of chatter about regime change is not something that I think the base is supportive of or wants to get behind.

And I think back to your original question, Abby, we heard initially that it was going to be weeks, not months, with this war and we are a month into it and still don't have a clear strategy. And that mixed messaging is confusing to the base who has been supportive, if you look at the polling of what Trump wants to do. But as the narrative changes, that seems like an early indication potentially of mission creep.

TAJBAKHSH: But I have something to say about regime change. I think one of the things we have to avoid is assuming that it's a one-sided game. This is a two-person game. That is to say, the decision for regime change -- and, by the way, I don't think at the beginning there was a claim for regime change.

[22:15:02]

NAVARRO: I know there was.

TAJBAKHSH: Well, it's very clear that what the United States wants is a change of behavior of the regime. Frankly, they don't particularly care, and I don't particularly care as an Iranian democracy activist, who is in power in Iran, you know, just so that they stop killing the people inside Iran.

So, the reason I say about a two-person game is that it's not just up to the United States, whether it decides whether it goes for regime change or not. You start a military operation. I think the clear the objectives have been very clearly stated by Secretary Rubio Rubio and also President Trump. And --

BLOW: Wait, how can you say that, that he literally was contradicting Karoline Leavitt.

TAJBAKHSH: Well, I think I read those reports and I think that we, you know, we have to read between the lines, you know, saying about sinking the ships and sinking the Air Force, you know, when knocking out their Air Force, it is clear that the goal of the United States is to neutralize the threat to the United States and its partners in the region on four key issues, enrichment of uranium, the ballistic missiles, the support for proxies and the Straits of Hormuz. That's it.

PHILLIP: Well, that's -- well, I would say, we can continue on the other side of the break because we have the sound bite and I want to play it. That is when Marco Rubio was on television this morning, and he laid out, he said, there are four objectives. He said, write them down, those things that you just mentioned are, for the most part, not included in those four things. And so there -- and then later in the day, he said four other things.

TAJBAKHSH: I did hear the -- hear those four, I think.

PHILLIP: So, I'll play it for you.

TAJBAKHSH: Okay.

PHILLIP: So, when we come back from the break, we'll continue this conversation.

Next for us, while some economists are raising some red flags about a possible recession, the White House insists that the shaky economy is just temporary. So, which is it?

Plus, as more U.S. troops are arriving in the Middle East, some voices on the right are saying that it's time to wind things down. So, will President Trump listen? We'll debate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:20:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUBIO: Number one, the destruction of their air force, number two, the destruction of their navy, number three, the severe diminishing of their missile launching capability, and number four, the destruction of their factory, so they can't make more missiles and more drones to threaten us in the future, all of this so that they can never hide behind it to acquire a nuclear weapon.

The Iranian regime can never have nuclear weapons, and they need to stop sponsoring terrorism, and they need to stop building weapons that can threaten their neighbors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: All right, so he started off in the morning with four things that were crystal clear, reasonable, but they didn't include the nuclear issue, which is at the core here. And then he added three more. So, now it's really seven. I think it's a real question. Are they going to be able to achieve all of those objectives in this military operation that we're engaged in?

TAJBAKHSH: Yes. Well, I mean, I only heard three really. I mean, the three basic ones. I mean, the nuclear one is the reason why --

PHILLIP: The second set of comments.

TAJBAKHSH: Right, right. I mean, I think the nuclear issue is the big one that everyone has been focused on, from President Obama to, you know, all U.S. presidents since Iran's covert program was exposed in 2002, the United States and the west have been extraordinarily patient in negotiating with Iran, and Iran has managed to do an end run around the U.S. over and over again.

And so it came to a point, I think, that after October 7th, what happened was that was the trigger. October 7th, 2023, the rules of the game changed in the Middle East in two key ways. One, the costs of President Obama's approach of just focusing on the nuclear element, the costs of doing that was exposed because the proxies had been so empowered during that period. The ballistic missiles were so expanded that it reached a point where we were seeing a time where the Iranian regime could create a ballistic missile shield behind which they could build a nuclear weapon.

And, by the way, the second thing I'd say is just that the Iranian officials for the first time said after the June war, we should go for a nuclear weapon.

PHILLIP: But what's important here, though, is what is the resolution to this problem? We understand that the problem set. But the resolution is either negotiation, it's a deal, okay, at the negotiation table, or it's to forcibly remove the nuclear material.

BLOW: And it's how much patience --

PHILLIP: And the forcibly removing of the nuclear material is something that would require ground troops, which is deeply unpopular.

BLOW: That's how much patience does the American public have for the operation? How much pain are they willing to endure economically? How many soldiers are they willing to see come back in caskets draped with. And that is a real thing.

And the idea -- so a lot of this -- a lot of those things that Rubio was talking about can be accomplished with an air campaign. You can destroy navy, you can destroy --

PHILLIP: The first set of --

BLOW: Yes, that first set of three. You can do that for the air campaign. Nobody can match the U.S. as a military muscle.

The problem is the idea of going to retrieve the nuclear material, that's a whole other ball game, whole other ball game, much longer horizon. And is the American public interested in being involved in that with that many troops on the ground for that long a period of time?

PHILLIP: Well, on that topic, I mean the rift -- there is a rift that is widening among some Republicans over this war in Iran, with some of the president's once loyal followers pushing back now on this.

[22:25:09]

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGYN KELLY, HOST, THE MEGYN KELLY SHOW: Literally, we're four months in -- four weeks into this war, and this is the first we've heard about we're going to go in and just get the uranium. Like we haven't -- that is new. It changed from, oh no, it's about the missiles. We got to get rid of those missiles. Okay. Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. That was stated broadly. We got to do regime change because the ayatollah is bad. It just keeps moving.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: And then there's Senator Lindsey Graham. He's one of the most hawkish figures in President Trump's orbit. And he called on Trump in a post this morning to wind down, yes, you read that right, wind down the war and wind up efforts for a peace deal.

Graham added that he supports diplomatic efforts, but he said that an agreement from both sides is needed to resolve this conflict.

So, Lydia, I mean, what is going on here? I mean, obviously, look, I always have to caveat this, MAGA is behind the president, but there are some people who are worried about where this is heading. Megyn Kelly is one of them, but Lindsey Graham saying wind down?

MOYNIHAN: Well, he went to Disney World this weekend, and I think he wants to bring some of that Disney magic back to Washington, D.C., clearly.

Look, I think one thing that's always been a hallmark of the right is ideological diversity, and I think it's good for conservatives to push back and make sure that President Trump is not in an echo chamber and that he's hearing what many in his base think, and so I'm glad to hear that articulated.

I think what's more troubling to me than a podcaster saying, should we be pushing for regime change, is the fact that you have Democratic candidates, a Democratic candidate in Michigan, who basically, in a leaked tape today, said, I don't want to criticize the ayatollah because too many constituents in Michigan are devastated that he's dead.

So, that's something that I think is much more concerning than Megyn Kelly or --

PHILLIP: A Democratic candidate?

(CROSSTALKS)

MOYNIHAN: Yes, El-Sayed, from Michigan. He said there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad about his death.

BLOW: You're going to (INAUDIBLE) on the floor because they're sad.

MOYNIHAN: I would much rather see a party have debate and stay silent --

NAVARRO: Until that candidate in Michigan is commander-in-chief and actually can do something about the war, I'm going to give what Trump says and what the people around him say more important.

MOYNIHAN: I would like to say --

NAVARRO: I do think that it's --

MOYNIHAN: Maybe that's something we should all agree on as a America.

NAVARRO: Nobody's ever not condemned the ayatollah.

PHILLIP: But on the question of what the president of the United States was going to do about --

NAVARRO: But the problem is that Trump right now does live in an echo chamber surrounded by his cabinet members, right? This would probably be a very different situation if it was the Trump cabinet from the first administration that you were part of, if there was a Mike Pence there, if there was a Jim Mattis there, if there was a John Kelly there.

And I think that was --

PHILLIP: Oh, Mike Pence was pretty hawkish.

NAVARRO: That was part of the reason -- that was part of the reason why he put people like Pete Hegseth in there, why he put people like Pam Bondi and like Marco Rubio in there, because the quality he was looking for was absolute loyalty, and they're showing it.

PHILLIP: Do you think that the president is hearing this concern, conservatives, and some of the people that he used to cross over, right? So not just MAGA, but the people like the Joe Rogans who helped him get to the sort of the MAGA bros and the people in the middle who are worried that he's breaking promises, worried that he's slipping into a conflict that could necessitate American troops on the ground in Iran.

SHORT: Sure, he's hearing it. I think he follows it pretty closely. I think he's always following -- I think, his beta testing messages constantly.

But as they started, Abby I think that the professor makes a great point about October 7th, because for Israel, that has become an existential threat, and for Israel, it's hard for him to find a better partner than President Trump in this campaign, what do I think that the administration has failed to do is to give clear messaging. The messaging has continued to diverge on different reasons for why we're engaged here and what the ultimate objective is. They would do well to explain that to the American people.

I think that, again, Iran has posed a threat for 47 years. They've slaughtered many of westerners. They create an existential threat for our partner in Israel. And they are trying to develop nuclear weapons. There's a rationale for this, but it has to be explained to the American people, here's what we're trying to accomplish with this issue.

BLOW: Do you think that our objectives are the same as the Israeli government's objectives?

SHORT: I think that the Israeli has been more clear that they want regime change. I think they're mostly aligned and clear they want to go farther.

NAVARRO: The reason the messaging has been so muddled is because the things that Donald Trump thought were initially going to happen did not pan out, right? He thought that the Iranian people would take to the streets. He told them, you know, this is about your destiny, about your freedom, about regime change. When he saw that, that didn't happen. He's had to change and move the goalpost.

SHORT: I don't question that. And I think Israel intelligence suggested to them that the revolution would come faster.

NAVARRO: Yes.

SHORT: But I still think that, even still. It would merit them to say, here's what we're trying to accomplish.

NAVARRO: Absolutely.

SHORT: Exactly.

PHILLIP: All right, everybody, thank you.

[22:30:00]

Next for us, more economists are sounding the alarm about the long- term economic impact of this war in Iran. And it's not just the higher gas prices right now that has them concerned. We'll discuss that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PHILLIP: Tonight, as the war enters its fifth week, more pain at the pump and growing fears of an impending recession. U.S. crude oil has settled at its highest level since 2022 today with the international oil benchmark reaching close to $113 per barrel.

[22:35:05]

It's settled now around $110. Gas prices are more than a dollar more expensive on average than where they were before the war. And in the past few days, top economists have released some alarming warnings of recessions. Moody's analytics predict a nearly 50 percent chance. Goldman Sachs has it at 30 percent. The S &P 500 has now fallen for five consecutive weeks, its longest losing streak since 2022.

But as Iran approves a plan to impose tolls on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz and continues to benefit from an easing of oil sanctions, the White House is assuring Americans yet again that the price increases that they're experiencing are temporary.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: These are short-term actions and short-term price fluctuations for the long-term benefit of ending the threat that Iran poses to the United States of America, our troops, and our allies in the region, and ensuring that this regime can no longer control the world's free flow of energy through the Strait of Hormuz, which is something the administration continues to tackle day by day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: CNN Global Economics Analyst Rana Foroohar joins us in our fifth seat. And Rana, it strikes me that there's a tipping point with these things. It's temporary until it's not, until suddenly you've kind of tipped over that domino and everything starts to fall.

RANA FOROOHAR, CNN GLOBAL ECONOMIC ANALYST: Yes.

PHILLIP: Where are we in that paradigm?

FOROOHAR: Well, let's talk just about oil and oil supply. You're seeing shortages. They're going to be starting in Asia in the next few days or weeks. Those are probably going to hit Europe by the summer. That's going to have a big impact on those economies. You're going to see inflation spiking. You're going to see consumption down.

Because most American companies, big companies, get about 50 percent of their sales from abroad still, even in, you know, the tariff conflict of the last few years. That's a big impact in the U.S. Now, the U.S. is going to feel the pain a little later, but it's still going to come. And the thing about energy is it's not something that you can cut out of your budget.

You know, driving your car, heating your home, these are things that are musts and it's going to increase inequality. And I think that that's going to have a big political impact, actually. NAVARRO: I think what she just said is so important, the inequality aspect of it. Every rich friend I have is saying, oh, don't sell. We can't sell right now. We have to wait it out. The problem is there's so many people in this country who don't have the luxury of waiting it out.

PHILLIP: Yes.

NAVARRO: There's so many people in this country for whom one dollar more in gas is the break or make whether they can afford food. Whether they can afford to take their kids to an extracurricular activity. Whether that can afford medicine. And I think that when you hear people in this administration talk about this is just a temporary blip, it sounds so damn tone deaf and callous to all the people who can't make ends meet and are living paycheck to paycheck.

FOROOHAR: Well, I think that that's true. And I also don't think it's a blip because again, these are supply chain issues. It's not just about what's happening at this minute in the Strait of Hormuz. These are ships that, you know, go over weeks and months to different places. A lot of economists believe that this impact, even if it were to stop in the next few days or weeks, could continue on in some form or another for another year, 18 months, even into 2028. So, it's not -- we're not talking about, you know, days here.

PHILLIP: Yes, some of the warnings, according to CNN reporting, Brent crude could reach $200 a barrel if this war continues until the end of June. That equates to a gasoline price of $7 a gallon. But if the Strait of Hormuz were to remain shut until the end of June, given its importance with oil supply, prices would need to move high enough for global demand for oil to fall. This -- they put the likelihood of this at around 40 percent.

And I also think a lot of Americans don't like it when, you know, this geopolitical stuff starts to crimp their lifestyles and airplane prices are going to go up. Even I saw today, the one of the airlines is charging for baggage is going up a lot.

Not because your baggage needs to cost more, but because they're compensating for the income that they're paying for jet prices. And when Americans are like, well, I can't take my family on vacation anymore because of this.

CHARLES BLOW, AUTHOR, "BLOW THE STACK" ON SUBSTACK: That's the thing. I think a lot of Americans count their lives in summers. That's when the kids get out. That's when they take the family vacation. That's when their kid goes off to camp. That's when they visit grandma. And I think it locks in a sense even if it gets better by Election Day. I think first of all, I'm just saying what I'm trying to say is this the political disaster.

Even if it gets better by Election Day, the sense locks in early and you start to operate on the sense that you felt that pain when you felt it.

FOROOHAR: Absolutely. BLOW: And you don't get over that quickly enough to rebound by Election Day.

FOROOHAR: It's true that felt experience you're talking about. It's actually a trailing indicator. It takes a while to come on.

[22:40:01]

You know, we've had a lot of bad economic news for some time now. And you know, things have been pretty robust, but once you start reaching that tipping point as you just said, it tends to last another year, two years, that trust is gone and people really button up their wallets. Also, when you get some of the, you know, dampening of the labor market like we're seeing added on to that, A.I., some of the other concerns, it's a lot.

PHILLIP: Yes, I mean as I like to remind people. Last year, virtually no jobs created in this country.

UNKNOWN: YES.

PHILLIP: Okay? That's -- that kind of just, with all the chaos going on that passes by, but that is not a good sign of where things are right now.

MARC SHORT, FORMER WH LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: Abby, I think the President was elected on two primary issues, the border and addressing affordability issues. The reality is that (inaudible) labor jobs, they've actually met negative since Liberation Day. I think this is a huge challenge for Republicans heading into the midterms.

The President has a good story about having made America more a natural net exporter of energy. But we're not insulated from this. And the reality is that prices are going to continue to go up. This is going to continue to ripple through. And I agree with Ana.

It's to say this is a short-term pain really sets an expectation for a lot of Americans that if it's not, it's going to create a bigger and bigger problem come November. And so, I do think that affordability was one of the primary issues that he was elected on. I think it's going to be a growing, growing challenge for Republicans in the midterms this November.

BLOW: And he was also elected on not getting us into more forever wars. I don't know how this will be for or how long it will last, but I think that people have seen him bomb seven countries in one year. And we're now in a war that he hasn't been able to articulate while we're there, how we're going to get out of it and what the actual objectives are. And that is a problem for his voters and the electorate writ large.

SHORT: -- (inaudible) will change the Middle East for a long time and lower risk premium on oil prices for long time, but I still think he's going to face a short-term midterm challenge on these prices. PHILLIP: But the combination of the two things, the promise on not

starting wars and some period of time. Look, regardless of when this ends, prices have already gone up. So, that already, I think, is going to annoy a lot of Americans.

LYDIA MOYNIHAN, "NEW YORK POST" CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, it's definitely a concern. I do think there is always alarmism. You know, we heard that the tariffs were going to push us into a depression, and there's a great line.

Economists predict a hundred of the last five recessions that we've seen so I would caveat this entire conversation with things are often not nearly as bad as people, economists in particular, are afraid they will be.

I do think President Trump is highly attuned, at least to the markets and the economy. When the tariff regime didn't seem to be going well the first couple days, the markets were devastated, he quickly pivoted. So, I think it's something that he's highly aware of and is paying close attention.

(CROSSTALK)

BLOW: It's not alarmist when more Republicans have chosen not to seek reelection this cycle than any time in the last 100 years, including the last midterm from Trump. That is a real thing that's happening.

(CROSSTALK)

NAVARRO: And when long held Republicans see in places like Florida, including where Mar-a-Lago --

BLOW: Exactly.

NAVARRO: -- seats are getting flipped. And I don't know how much, how attuned he is to it. When at a time when so many Americans are experiencing economic pain, he pulls out a picture of his giant ballroom every time he can. And he's talking about gold coins and putting his signature on bills.

I mean, it's just, to me, it's, again, tone deaf from a guy who just surrounds himself with a bunch of other rich guys.

PHILLIP: All right, everyone. Coming up next for us, Pope Leo has some sharp words on Sunday for those who wage war. What the pontiffs said about the war in Iran, we'll tell you next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:48:18]

PHILLIP: Easter is less than a week away and Pope Leo celebrated a God of peace, not a God of war. In his Palm Sunday Mass yesterday, just listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) POPE LEO XIV, HEAD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (through translator): Brothers and sisters, this is our God, Jesus, Prince of Peace, who rejects war, who no one can use to justify war. He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying, even though you make many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: That last sentence is a reference to the book of Isaiah chapter one verse 15. Many are seeing the Pope's sermon as a rebuke of the Trump administration, specifically Pete Hegseth, who has publicly leaned on his faith and the Bible when praying and talking about the war with Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Pour out your wrath upon those who plot vain things and blow them away like chaff before the wind. Give them wisdom in every decision. Endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy. May Almighty God continue to bless our troops in this fight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: There's a long history of U.S. military leaders actually trying to avoid this sort of thing because the idea is that what differentiates us, you know, from the radical Islamic regime and others around the world is that we're not fighting a holy war.

[22:50:04]

We're fighting a war for civilization, for people of all faiths, et cetera. So, when he blurs that line, it is causing concern among some people in and outside of the military.

MOYNIHAN: I mean, he's a man of faith. I think he's seen brothers and sisters that he was over with in the Middle East get killed. This is clearly something that's very near and dear to his heart. Abraham Lincoln said, you know, I'm not concerned about whether God is on my side. I'm concerned about whether I'm on God's side. And I think that is a good sort of guiding principle for any sort of politician.

But gosh, on the Pope, mean. I, this Pope has gotten so politicized. It seems like he only comments on Trump and this administration. Where was he when 30,000 Iranians were getting killed? I don't know why he jumps in and has this little --

(CROSSTALK)

BLOW: It might be because he feels like --

(CROSSTALK)

BLOW: It might be because he feels like somebody is abusing his faith. Pete Hegseth is --

NAVARRO: Well, he's not Catholic.

(CROSSTALK)

NAVARRO: We're not claiming -- we're not claiming Trump or Hegseth.

(CROSSTALK)

BLOW: I mean, Pete Hegseth is the same person who's been pushing the military to violate Rules of Engagement which would be another clear violation of international law. And he's trying to, literally, he said this. What -- you want to doubt that? He said, literally, he was one of the military to follow these stupid Rules of Engagement. That's what he said. Are you smirking about that? Are you upset about that? Do you dispute that?

(CROSSTALK)

SHORT: No, what I was going say is, I don't like getting into a theological argument with the Pope. I feel like

(CROSSTALK)

SHORT: Blessed are the peacemakers. But you know, in my Bible, King David prays for his men. He prays for God to deliver victory. Joshua prayed for his men in battle. He prayed for deliver victory. Moses paid for prayed for his men, prayed to deliver victory. So, it's hard for me to find fault for Pete for praying for his soldiers.

PHILLIP: Well, let me just give you another perspective. I mean, this is what "The Washington Post" wrote a story about this speaking to a lot of current and former military officials who actually are chaplain, some of them.

"Longtime norms are being upended by the proselytizing Christian campaign of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, said multiple former high ranking military officials and experts on religion and law. Rather than boosting cohesion through a more universal spiritual uplift. They say the new approach violates the Constitution and undermines the bonds of mutual respect between troops that are essential, especially in wartime."

And the story talks about, you know, the core of people in the military who are people of faith who are there to counsel and support troops of all different faiths, feeling like if they're not aligned with Pete Hegseth's version of faith, that there's no place --

(CROSSTALK)

NAVARRO: Listen, the Pope is the Pope, right? So, he's -- the Pope should be calling for peace. The Pope should be calling for justice towards immigrants. That's why he's in so much conflict with Trump. But that -- I think that's what I, as a Catholic, expect of the Pope. I don't want a Pope that's calling for war. I want a Pope that's standing for peace. I mean, we should all aspire to peace. Whether it's achievable or not, I don't know. But the Pope should be praying for it, and so should the Catholics.

PHILLIP: I mean, I guess I would be more surprised if the Pope wasn't praying for peace. There's also --

(CROSSTALK)

BLOW: Yes, but I don't want to see the -- Hegseth, in-charge of the Department of War, I hate calling it that, praying for more lethality and getting rid of Rules of Engagement and allowing soldiers who are not trained in this anyway, but allowing soldiers to violate international law. I don't want to see that.

PHILLIP: He's also brought into the Pentagon this pastor, his pastor, Doug Wilson, who's very controversial. He said controversial things about slavery and suggesting the people who had slaves were still good people.

He's had comments about women and whether or not they should be working, whether they should be able to vote. He has literally brought those people into the Pentagon and put them in prominent positions as part of his role as the Department of Defense Secretary.

MOYNIHAN: I mean, I'm not familiar with that specific password you mentioned. Those comments sound troubling. So, on its face, that doesn't sound like a good thing.

NAVARRO: You know what? We also should not not mention that Israel prevented the Cardinal and the Priest from celebrating Palm Sunday Mass at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

(CROSSTALK)

MOYNIHAN: (inaudible) security concern because --

(CROSSTALK)

NAVARRO: This is the first time, this first time, this is a Catholic cardinal. I don't think there's anything to be insecure about.

(CROSSTALK)

NAVARRO: And this is the first time in centuries that this has not happened and it's a huge -- it's a huge significance.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: And they -- I don't want to say apologize, but they tried to rectify it by allowing him --

(CROSSTALK)

NAVARRO: They've to do a lot of apologizing this week. They also had to apologize to the journalists.

[22:55:01] PHILLIP: That is true. All right, everybody. Thanks for all of that. Coming up, if your future travel plans include the Palm Beach, Florida airport, you might find yourself holding a plane ticket for the Donald J. Trump International Airport. We'll explain, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:59:55]

PHILLIP: Goodbye, PBI, hello, DJT. Well, Florida's governor Ron DeSantis just signed a bill that could rename Palm Beach International Airport to Donald J. Trump International Airport. That of course is where Air Force One lands whenever Trump goes to his Mar-a-Lago resort. And if the FAA approves it, the name change would take effect on July 1st.

Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media on X, Instagram, and on TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.