Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
CNN, Outlets Sue Trump Over Illegal White House Ban; Trump Heaps Praise On Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D-New York City, NY) Despite GOP Calling A Threat; Iowa Senatorial Bet Distances Herself From Trump; Illinois Governor Opens Up About His Weight Loss. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired September 21, 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)
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, Meet the Press in court. The media sues the president over his ban as his allies speak out against it.
Plus --
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Even the new communist mayor --
MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D-NEW YORK CITY, NY): Terrify a despot --
SIDNER: -- why are Donald Trump and Zoran Mamdani meeting just 43 days before the midterms?
Also, she declined to show up when JD Vance came to campaign. Now, an Iowa Republican candidate calls out Trump's war.
And --
TRUMP: Pritzker, he's too busy eating. He wants to eat all the time.
SIDNER: -- after the fat jokes, a Democrat reveals he's taking GLP-1s just in time for 2028.
GOV. J.B. PRITZKER (D-IL): I've been driven my whole life to lose weight.
SIDNER: Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Ashley Allison, Horace Cooper, Corbin Trent, and Josh Rogin.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SIDNER (voice over): Good evening to you. I'm Sara Sidner in New York, in for Abby Phillip.
It was a big day for President Trump, who's in New York ahead of tomorrow's speech at the United Nations, but there were fewer cameras to see it and show it. CNN and other media outlets are suing the Trump administration after he banned three outlets from the White House.
The major T.V. networks are standing in solidarity, declining to replace CNN as today's pool crew In the suit, the outlets called the ban a direct assault on the First Amendment and a blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles. A hearing is set for Wednesday.
For his part, the president claims the move is an assault on the, quote, fake news rather than the free press. He called the media corrupt, pervasive, out of control, and a threat to national security. He cited no specific story, however, instead claiming that because he won the election, he deserves positive coverage.
Before we open it up to the table here, we want to invite you at home to join the debate. So, you can head to cnn.com/abby and weigh in there. We'll get to some of your comments throughout the show.
All right, let's begin with you, Josh. You work for The Washington Post. You were outside, I think, the U.N. today doing your reporting. The pool camera system's been around, I think, since the Eisenhower years, so the 1950s. What does this mean for the public that the pool camera is not following the president right now?
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: You know, I've done pool duty in the White House over the years a few times. Everyone depends on it. It's not for the president. It's not for the outlet doing it. It's for the entire press, and otherwise you would have to have 100 people following every moment. So, the system is designed to be for the benefit of both sides.
Now, if the president's lost Fox News, that's probably not a good sign, you know? And the -- I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like the legal case is pretty convincing. It's pretty compelling that the White House doesn't have the right to do this. There's a pretty good chance it's going to get overturned. But what's he done? He's done two things. He's actually ensured that the coverage will stay tough. Because no matter what -- you know, what we see when the government takes access away from the press, they double down, not on being unfair, but on holding that line. Because once you cave to that tactic, that's a slippery slope.
And the second thing he's done is he's admitted what his actual motivation was. He doesn't want to hear it. He doesn't really care if you report bad things about him. He doesn't want them to be in his face. He doesn't want it at his desk, in his room, in his office. And he's built a cocoon around himself where nobody ever tells him no, where his reality is just agreed to, whether it matches the reality that the rest of us are living in.
And that has its own danger, because we have a leader of the free world who is eliminating all of the feedback channels that might tell him that, hey, the American people really don't like the Iran war, hey, the American people really do care about the Epstein files, hey, the American people really don't think the economy is good. And so penetrating that bubble of Trump's brain and his awareness, really important, and I think that actually took a hit today.
SIDNER: Scott, I don't know if you know this, but your name is up for running for the next press secretary. So, do you support the president's ban on the press?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think he's unlikely to prevail in court, A. B, it seems to me the net result of this has been -- he has less reach. I mean, his message is not going to get out as much. If this is sort of becomes the way it is, he will be seen and heard by fewer people, which I think is actually a net negative since he's his own best spokesperson and his own best press secretary.
[22:05:08]
Number three, I actually think sparring with some of these folks in the Oval works to his advantage. And so if you take them out, you lose that a little bit.
So, my view is this is unlikely to stick based on what I've -- I'm not a lawyer either, but based on what I've heard, it's unlikely to stick. And it may be a little self-defeating if you consider that you want the president to be heard and seen more, like I do. This seems to be working against that. So, we'll see what happens.
ROGIN: So, if you're press secretary, you're not going to do that? Is that what you're pledging here right now?
JENNINGS: I'm not answering any hypothetical.
ROGIN: You're not going to single out any -- okay.
SIDNER: So --
JENNINGS: Oh, let me -- can I add one more thing? I actually think there's a difference between, truthfully, CNN and Politico and MS NOW. You watch MS now for ten minutes, it's like total alternate reality. I actually think there's a difference.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, some would say that about Fox. Yes. I think --
JENNINGS: Yes, Obama, he said that about Fox News.
SIDNER: Let me just ask you though --
ALLISON: But he didn't kick them out, did he?
SIDNER: Do you support the president's ban on the press because -- I mean, you work here at CNN. Do you think the journalists here are reporting fake news?
JENNINGS: I sometimes strongly disagree with the framing, but, no, I think we need to cover the news here. And I think we still can cover the news, but I consider this to be a news outlet. I consider Politico to be a news outlet. MS is a different story, in my view. ALLISON: Yes, I mean, here's what I'll say. This is undemocratic, and this also is a distraction. And so the American people need to be able to do two things at once. He wants us talking about the, quote/unquote, fake news so we aren't talking about the disastrous economy, the war in Iran. He really -- he is very gifted at trying to do the pivot to take us off our eyes off the ball, and we are not buying it. We know why you do not want the press in there.
I'm actually really grateful that the other news outlets are standing in unison because guess what? The leopards will eat your face, okay? If you've ever heard that song? And the leopards are eating people's faces, even though we think sometimes we can be in good juxtaposition.
I'm glad that you're saying that he should not ban the press because I think we both would agree that we have a great deal of respect for all of our colleagues, including Sara Sidner, and those that sit in that press -- in the briefing room, that sit in the Oval Office, and I don't think you would ever accuse them of saying that they were doing fake news.
Even if you don't agree, that's the benefit of the news is that you get to ask questions and then he gets to answer. But by doing this, it's a distraction that we should not fall for.
CORBIN TRENT, HOST, A FIGHT WORTH HAVING: But part of it, I think more than just being a distraction, is also a continuation of what Trump likes to do, is just to push the bounds of the Constitution, push the boundaries of the office, push the boundaries of his ability as a commander in chief even to unilaterally declare war against Iran. And, you know --
ALLISON: And who's going to check him?
TRENT: Who's going to -- and the problem is nobody so far has been very good at checking him. So, that is one thing that I'm glad to see now, is at least that other media is banding together, up to and including Fox, to say, no, you know, this is a line too far for us. They've gone after law firms, they've gone after universities. They've really tried to have their way, they being this administration, against so many people, and there's been so little -- you know, so little opposition and backbone.
ROGIN: But the courts have pushed back. Congress has not, but the courts have. And that's what's going to happen here. And, you know, we didn't know before Trump that 90 percent of the things that we think the government should do were not enshrined in law. They're just norms. They're things we all agree are good for our society. So, Trump is attacking all of those, and in some cases he gets his way, but in a lot of cases the courts do push back, and I think that's what's going to happen here.
TRENET: Well -- and you can't have laws for everything. That's another thing we've learned. Like you can't think of every single thing that's going to -- you know, you have to have norms that are enforceable.
SIDNER: Well, Horace, let me ask you, to Ashley's questions, how is this ban helping anything? How is it helping bring prices down? How is it helping you know, end the war with Iran? How is it helping with gas prices? How is this ban helping the American public as Republicans look to the midterms alongside Democrats trying to convince the American public that they are the right party to go to?
HORACE COOPER, CHAIRMAN, PROJECT 21: All right, well, let's clear up something. I'm a free speech guy. I believe that the best way to deal with bad speech is more good speech. I wouldn't advocate a policy that suggests otherwise.
I will tell you that when we were sitting in a different administration, that would be that of Mr. Obama, heading toward midterm elections, Fox had the right to have the Super Bowl, and it was a tradition that the president of the United States would meet with someone like Bill O'Reilly. He eventually did, but there was a lot of caterwauling before that.
And, by the way --
SIDNER: But that's not banning the --
(CROSSTALKS)
SIDNER: Hold on. That's not banning the press, though. That incident that you just talked about there is not banning the press.
COOPER: No, not that incident, but he actually did directly go after Fox. I don't support that. I didn't support it then. I don't support the behavior now.
[22:10:00]
But it is remarkable to me to watch people that sat idly by while Fox was being marginalized and now they're upset today.
ALLISON: No, it's not the same.
SIDNER: The other outlets, all of them, all of the other outlets actually came to Fox's aid and said they need to be able to -- this was one interview that he --
COOPER: No, not the O'Reilly interview. I'm talking about --
SIDNER: No, I'm talking about the interview that -- with one of his czars. This was an interview. There was a pool. They said they didn't want Fox News there. They tried to ban Fox News, and all of the outlets stood behind Fox News, said they should be able to do their work.
So, a very similar scenario where the only in that, this was a group of journalists that said, no, you can't do that, and the Obama administration backed off.
COOPER: And we're likely to see this president back off. My point is that I am a free speech guy, and if the president doesn't, the courts are going to insist. The same way when one Jim Acosta, which I believe the way he behaved with regard to an intern merited some sort of sanction, but he got his credentials -- his credentials were completely restored.
My point about that is that this isn't a first time down this road, and I have been a free speech guy. I remain a free speech guy, and I will be tomorrow.
ALLISON: It's not the first time down this road for this administration. The Department of War or State or whatever you want to call it at this point -- defense, yes, they have banned reporters. Like it's not -- this is not the first opportunity this administration has said to, we're not going to engage with --
COOPER: I don't understand your framing.
ROGIN: And the FCC is going after the licenses.
ALLISON: I don't understand your framing, talking about the Super Bowl --
COOPER: I am a free speech person. I am not an advocate for speech restriction.
ROGIN: So, all five of us -- all six of us agree that this is a bad move?
ALLISON: Yes.
JENNINGS: You would agree --
ROGIN: Scott?
JENNINGS: You would agree, though, that a lot of the people who are sort of up in arms about this are some of the same people who were clamoring for Trump to be thrown off social media, though, yes?
ALLISON: No, I think the people that are up in arms are the people, our colleagues, at this network. That's who I think actually.
JENNINGS: But there's -- I feel like there's somewhat of a hypocrisy with regarding the speech issue.
ALLISON: That's the source of the frustration, actually.
JENNINGS: If you're mad about reporters being restricted from going to the White House to report, why would you simultaneously have been someone that would have called for Donald Trump to have had his --
ROGIN: Because they're two separate issues.
(CROSSTALKS)
ALLISON: No, the government and a corporation are not the same.
JENNINGS: It's platforms --
SIDNER: No, it is assault --
ALLISON: The government.
SIDNER: But you know this. This is the false equivalence --
ALLISON: And one is a social media --
ROGIN: Funded by us.
SIDNER: Right, it's a false equivalence because private companies are allowed to have policies that where they're looking at their own private companies can say, hey, this goes against our policy. This First Amendment is about the government, right? The government -- hold on one second.
JENNINGS: But you would agree that trying to restrict the speech of a government official is also not a good idea, right?
SIDNER: It's not against the First Amendment. We're talking about the First Amendment --
COOPER: And that's where we disagree. I agree with you. It's not the First Amendment.
SIDNER: The courts don't agree with either of you.
COOPER: It's not the First Amendment.
JENNINGS: We're just having a discussion about what's good practice.
COOPER: It's freedom of speech.
JENNINGS: And some people wanted to stop Trump from speaking.
SIDNER: But this is about the First Amendment, and what you're talking about is a company's right, or --
ALLISON: I actually don't think people want to stop Trump from speaking. They wanted to stop Trump from lying about an election that everyone --
ROGIN: and inciting violence.
ALLISON: Yes, and an insurrection.
ROGIN: Right.
COOPER: The whole deplatforming movement was an anti-free speech initiative, and we saw it rise to a zenith over during the Biden years. My point about that, I will repeat, I am a free speech guy. Not just a First Amendment guy, a free speech guy, and people dropped the ball when that happened.
ALLISON: What about free speech when one type of speech is lifted up via an algorithm and one is not? Do you consider that free speech when a corporation is able to do that, or platforms? ROGIN: Or the Chinese government --
JENNINGS: I actually think algorithms right now are a major reason why everybody in America seems to be living in different universes. It's hard to have a shared national purpose when you don't have a shared national reality, and I think that's a worthy conversation.
TRENT: The bubbles that we all live in that are reinforced continuously. Do you -- what do you think about the Macklemore free speech situation? You -- he should've been able to free speech it up?
ALLISON: Right. That's a good one.
COOPER: I had no problem with him ruining the experience of people going to see Sheeran with his preaching. I had no problem with it.
TRENT: Right.
COOPER: I believe free speech. He just --
ALLISON: And so should have -- should stadium owners, did they quell his speech?
COOPER: Yes, they did.
ALLISON: And were you against that, even if you didn't like the speech?
COOPER: I don't know how many times I have to say this.
ALLISON: I just want to clarify.
COOPER: I am a free speech guy.
ALLISON: Right. Okay.
COOPER: I'm consistent. But I have watched, and there's a lot of inconsistency --
ALLISON: I know you're not talking to me.
COOPER: -- especially on the left.
[22:15:00]
ALLISON: Well, you might --
ROGIN: Yes. But what we're talking about tonight --
ALLISON: As you said to me, I don't know why you're talking to me, I don't know why you looking at me saying that. Because one thing I am is consistent.
COOPER: Right.
JENNINGS: Do you think a stadium owner should be forced to platform blatant anti-Semitism?
ALLISON: Do you think a platform owner should be forced to keep somebody on that is lying? It's the same scenario. In one instance, you just agree, argue -- so how is it different?
JENNINGS: So, if you owned a venue and somebody came by and said, I'm going to come in here and engage in the worst kind of racism, anti- Semitism, whatever you -- whatever, and you would be forced to platform that? I don't see --
ALLISON: What is happening on social media platforms, Scott? What are you talking about?
SIDNER: If you look at X right now, there's a lot of that's going on, right? A lot of racism, a lot of misogyny, a lot of --
ALLISON: That's the inconsistency.
TRENT: TikTok Live is out there.
JENNINGS: I mean, but you were just arguing that a private company can do whatever it wants. In the case of the stadium owners, they didn't want to platform some lunatic wearing you know, a Jewish, you know, anti-Semitic getup, and they didn't want to participate in that.
ALLISON: Right. But you were just arguing a very different point.
ROGIN: Yes.
TRENT: You're talking about Kanye or what?
ROGIN: But we're talking about the, the White House and the president of the United States targeting media organizations in a systematic way and using the power of the government to do it. That's why it's different. That's why it's not the same.
COOPER: So, you're saying it's a narrow issue.
ROGIN: No.
COOPER: If it's elite media, then we're all together connected. But if it's just random people in America, it's okay to shut them down.
ROGIN: No, it's not. What I'm saying is that the government --
SIDNER: Go ahead.
ROGIN: The government is funded by the people and responds to the laws that it -- and the policies that we have established. So, the government has a responsibility not to target media outlets based on their views. And that's the law. That's the law that's relevant here. All of the rest of it is a different situation.
And at the end of the day, the context is that the Trump administration is using the FCC, the DOJ, and lots of other official tools of government that all of us are paying for to try to influence the coverage that Trump doesn't like. He said it, and that's, A, not moral, and, B, not ethical, and, C, potentially not legal. And it had nothing to do with Macklemore. And Macklemore is not in the government, at least as far as I know. Not yet anyway.
COOPER: When the federal government stood on a platform --
ROGIN: And if Macklemore was in the government or Robert Kraft was in the government, then that would be relevant to what we're talking about here.
COOPER: Point made, understood. When the federal government stood on a platform and insisted that we all take a shot and people around got so confused about the importance of doing this, people were fired. People weren't allowed to rent property. People weren't able to continue their livelihood. That is not a First Amendment violation --
ROGIN: The COVID vaccine?
COOPER: Yes, I am. That is not a First Amendment violation, but it is an entirely a free speech trampling.
ROGIN: They literally forced zero people to take the COVID vaccine. They recommended it.
JENNINGS: A lot of military and first responders lost their jobs.
(CROSSTALKS)
TRENT: My kids have to take vaccines to go to school, every one of them. I had to take shots to go to culinary school. Like taking vaccines to go into public places is pretty standard.
COOPER: A doctor losing his license because he disagreed professionally --
ALLISON: And let me tell you what.
SIDNER: Well, hold on. Hold on. We have pivoted away from --
(CROSSTALKS)
SIDNER: Hold on.
COOPER: And this particular category.
SIDNER: We have pivoted away from the First Amendment and what the First Amendment says and the Constitution. And the Constitution is clear about the government's interference with free speech.
I will leave it there.
Next, the president meets with someone he's called a lunatic, who's a member of the group he and his administration have been calling crazy, and now Trump is -- well, he's heaping praise on Zoran Mamdani.
Plus, another Republican candidate speaks out against President Trump, this time over the war in Iran. We'll discuss ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
SIDNER: All right. Tonight, as the right continues to villainize Democratic socialists, including New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the president gushed some praise on him in their third meeting in less than a year. We're told they discussed housing and immigration as the president's in New York for the U.N. General Assembly this week.
Now, Donald Trump even left the door open to supporting a huge housing plan from the mayor, despite him and his party calling them threats to America. Now, in April, Trump posted that Mamdani was, quote, destroying New York. But today, Trump once again put on some praise. Trump said he wants Mamdani to be a great mayor and suggests he's off to a great start.
Mamdani sat down with CNN's Christiane Amanpour to discuss their relationship.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: I just wondered if you thought that you might get to this working relationship when he was calling you, you know, a lunatic radical, probably a communist during the campaign. You were calling him a fascist, amongst other things. Things have changed.
MAMDANI: Well, I think we've both said that we would be willing to have a conversation if it could benefit the people of this city. And to me, you can hold very disparate opinions and also be able to sit down because that is what this work demands of us. If I was only willing to speak with people who agreed with me all the time, I would be sitting at home looking in a mirror.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: All right. Scott, do you agree with Trump that Mamdani has great potential?
JENNINGS: Potential? Yes. He has the potential to, you know, bring about the downfall of America, sure.
SIDNER: But Trump also said Mamdani is off to a good start. Do you agree with him?
JENNINGS: Look, he's a New Yorker.
SIDNER: Yes or no?
JENNINGS: He loves this city.
SIDNER: Yes or no? Yes or no? Come on.
JENNINGS: I don't agree with much of anything Mamdani has done. However, I will say this about the meeting.
SIDNER: But that means you're not agreeing with the president right now.
[22:25:01]
JENNINGS: Yes. Okay, fine, I don't.
ALLISON: The man is still a pothole.
JENNINGS: So, listen --
ALLISON: You can't agree with that.
JENNINGS: Isn't this what you guys say you want? We have two people from two different parties.
SIDNER: That people are working, absolutely.
JENNINGS: They both love New York. I don't agree much with Mamdani. I'm sure Trump doesn't either. But they had a meeting to talk about something they could possibly do. Whether they get there or not, but it's okay to talk. It's okay for us to talk to each other. It's kind of what we're modeling here on a nightly basis.
Will they ever come to an agreement about anything? I don't know. Do I want the president and mayor of New York City, whoever they are, to have a relationship? Of course I do, and I don't have any problem at all with him meeting.
Now, that having been said, Mamdani is currently suing Trump over this public charge rule on the welfare for immigrants, which I thought the president might bring up today, but I guess it didn't come up. But do I have a problem with them meeting? No, of course not.
TRENT: Trump probably respects a good lawsuit. I mean, he is himself a fan and apparently to, you know, himself. So, maybe he's like, you know, really kind of -- I think he sort of feels the Mamdani swagger.
ROGIN: Yes. I mean, he likes writers. He likes guys who are handsome for some reason.
TRENT: I'm not back slapping.
ROGIN: If Trump didn't talk to people who he was involved in lawsuits with, he wouldn't talk to anybody. It's basically everybody.
But Mamdani is very pragmatic, okay, and he's very smart, and his team has taken a -- like it doesn't just, you know, defeat the Republicans who say that he's a crazy socialist communist because it defeats the, you know, hawkish Democrats who want to paint these progressive Gen X, Gen Z, and Millennial politicians as crazy and one- once they get into government, they're never going to be able to do anything.
Here is the one of the most prominent young progressive politicians in the country, successful. He's got a huge political mandate. He's got the capital to spend, and he spends it on building a relationship with Trump.
ALLISON: Yes.
ROGIN: So, that puts -- that flips the narrative and I think it's great.
The problem, of course, is that on the thing that really matters that they talked about, they made no progress, which is the temporary protected status for Haitians and Syrians and Afghans, people who have fled oppression and repression and torture, many of whom did so in the defense of America, working with the U.S. military, and we're sending them back to the slaughter, and it's unconscionable.
And Mamdani tried to raise it with Trump, and Trump didn't really seem that interested in it. And it affects New Yorkers, but it affects people all over this country, again, many of whom who fought and sacrificed with our military, and we're going to send them back to be murdered by the Taliban. And that came up today, and Mamdani brought it up, but Trump didn't really seem that interested in it at all as he said regarding.
COOPER: The president meeting with a whack job doesn't mean that the president approves of the whack job. The president meets with Xi Jinping. The president meets with the leader of France and all of the European countries. It doesn't mean that he is approving of them. It doesn't mean that they are wonderful people.
But politics is the art of what's possible. You get together to try to figure out --
ALLISON: But what makes him a whack job?
TRENT: One to build houses, one to bring down the cost of food.
COOPER: His radical idea that the government is the solution to the problems that people in New York City face. A supermarket, a supermarket? We've tried this. We know what works. When a company like Wegmans shows up, you get excellent service. When a company like New York City Mamdani's show up, you get crappy service, and the bill runs up.
ALLISON: Well, we'll see.
TRENT: That's actually not true. Like the V.A. is one of the most popular healthcare providers in this country when you poll the people getting it. The TVA is one of the most popular utilities in the country. You know, one of the best hospitals in San Francisco is a publicly-owned hospital. The fact the government can't do things, this court is nuts.
COOPER: You're sitting here and bragging about the V.A. when one of the achievements of our president is that he had to fire people who were literally letting our veterans die. The idea that the government is the best tool for solving problems, where has that ever succeeded?
ALLISON: Can we get back to Mamdani? TRENT: Okay. New York City.
ALLISON: You don't have to like his policies, but --
COOPER: And I can call him a whack job.
ALLISON: Yes.
TRENT: Okay. But why?
ALLISON: Is there any basis for calling him that? No. When you actually look at -- when you actually look at how he has governed, I think there will be people who are upset with Mamdani, actually, for meeting with Donald Trump because they don't think you should engage somebody who is like -- there are people there. And --
COOPER: I believe it, but I don't think that's the problem.
ALLISON: But Mamdani is mature enough as an elected official, as the mayor of the city of cities, New York, to say, I'm going to sit down with the president if it helps my constituents.
There are potholes. I don't know if you're on social media. Yes. But there -- but --
COOPER: I'm actually not.
ALLISON: But, listen, but like --
COOPER: But doxing people who are residents and telling who their names are and their addresses, that's what a whack job does.
TRENT: Are you talking about the public information, the public information about the tax, about the --
ALLISON: I think if you look at Mamdani's approval rating and Donald Trump's approval rating -- if you look at Mamdani's approval rating since he's been governing and you look at Donald Trump's approval rating, they tell you something.
[22:30:01]
The people of New York do not think he is a whack job. The people of America might not think --
COOPER: But Horace Cooper and most Texans do.
ALLISON: But he doesn't work in Texas.
COOPER: I just came on your show and called him a whack job, and you said why. Now you're telling me the answer to that is there's some people in New York who voted for him --
ALLISON: Millions.
COOPER: -- who like him. ALLISON: That's not millions.
COOPER: That hasn't -- that's not an argument.
ALLISON: What is it then?
COOPER: That's just evidence of some deluded people continuing to be deluded.
SIDNER: But you're talking about fellow Americans being deluded, who are voters, right? And who care about their city. Does that feel good to you, to sort of lash out at people that just want a better governed city, and they think that maybe this person can do it?
COOPER: When the mayor's incompetence leads to leading companies leaving the city, abandoning the city, for fear that they're being labeled as people who are getting a free ride, when it turns out as a lawsuit has developed, oh, they got a lot of the locations wrong about the Peter Thiel attack. It is incompetence, and this is what you get when someone of this kind of a radical persuasion takes over the city.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: I think a lot of people would think what you're saying is whack.
(CROSSTALK)
TRENT: If it's a second home, you don't even live there, you just got a multi-billion dollar property in New York, and so the one you don't live in, maybe you should pay a little bit more taxes on it.
COOPER: I absolutely and fundamentally do not agree with that.
TRENT: Well, there you go.
COOPER: And our governor in Texas has just announced that we're going to have a two-thirds vote by the community before we raise taxes on property.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: Wait, can we go back to the press conference, thought? Just because I don't know if everyone watched the whole press conference, but at the very end of the press conference, they dismissed, it was masterfully done. They dismissed the President and said, he is out of time, but the mayor will stay and fill the rest of your questions.
And Trump knew, even if he didn't want to answer the tough questions he would get, that if he walked away, it would look like it. So he literally had to stand there as long as Mamdani, and Mamdani kept saying, like, you can go if you want. You can go if you want.
And he just had to stay there behind, not in front, not next to, not being the one at the podium. It was the command -- and I just think that, like, as someone who can acknowledge that Donald Trump is really good at making television, even if I don't like to watch the television, he has this stage presence, he has his way.
Mamdani, I will say, slightly outplayed Donald Trump today with that press conference.
COOPER: You may be right, I will concede it.
SIDNER: We have some agreement. We are moving on. Next, a Republican candidate for Senate in Iowa, distancing herself a bit from Trump. She says it's time to end the war in Iran and give Americans a break from rising prices. We will debate all this ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Tonight, as Republican candidates continue to distance themselves from Trump ahead of the midterms, Iowa's GOP Senate nominee is putting even more daylight between herself and the White House.
Last week, Congresswoman Ashley Hinson snubbed J.D. Vance, declining to show up at a campaign event where he stumped for her. Today, Hinson made it more clear what amounted to a public critique of the administration, perhaps, saying "Iowans are being squeezed and shouldn't have to foot the bill at the pump or the checkout line for the war in Iran," that's what she wrote on social media.
The three-term Congresswoman has recently spoken out against Trump's beef policy, and her campaign is highlighting her efforts at bipartisanship. Hinson is now calling for an immediate end to the war.
Ashley Allison, I'm going to start with you here.
ALLISON: No, I'm not a Republican.
SIDNER: No, I'm starting with you here because what are Democrats seeing here that they are going to try to seize on?
ALLISON: Well, okay, if I -- strictly speaking as a political strategist, what she is doing is making a gamble that the base that still likes Donald Trump, enough of them will show up and she can get these mythical middle moderates who don't have their minds made up about what they really want, and so she's talking to them.
That's a really big gamble because what we have seen is those folks go like to Trump, to Obama, to Biden. They are very, very swingable. And in this backdrop, Donald Trump is not the person they are really rooting for.
So as a Democratic strategist, I would say seize on it. Say, you know, she's inconsistent. What will she really do when she shows up in Congress? Will she really have her back? Or when she goes to the Hill, will she really have your back?
And then I would say, if I was the candidate opposing her, I would say, I've always been on this area on the war. I've been saying over and over, yes, Iowans are struggling, but you supported the man who are allowing Iowans to struggle. And just, really, really hammer that message.
Now, again, I'm a progressive, and so most people won't agree with what I was saying. I also think that they are in Iowa, right? And they need to know the constituents that are going to elect. And so I would only talk about, as a Democrat, the issues that really matter to Iowans.
And really pinpoint the issues that Iowans are suffering because of. Donald Trump's tariffs, because of energy policy, because of all of the things, and the economy, and where -- it doesn't matter what she's saying now.
[22:40:00]
Now might be too late. Where has she stood before? And I would hammer it home.
TRENT: And we finally hit that magical 29 number that Chuck Schumer was waiting on, everybody to, you know. Once we get him down to 29, then we go to work on him.
Well, we've hit 29 now. One of the latest polls got Trump's approval down to 29 percent, you know. And it's not just that the overall approval rating is dropping. It's plummeting in states like Florida. It's plummeting in states like Tennessee, he's under 50 percent now. These states that he won by double digits, 20 points. West Virginia, he's like at 54 percent in West Virginia.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: And would you agree, the people that are getting him so low are the people that Hinson is trying to go after. And it's a real hard question if they want to stick with this party.
(CROSSTALK)
TRET: Trying to look for something different. So they're not (inaudible).
SIDNER: Do you think that you're going to see more of this? Because Hinson, I think by and large, everyone looks at her, both Democrats and Republicans, as a very strong candidate in Iowa. That is not disputed. Someone who is a formidable politician. But she is making the choice here. And we're starting to see it, at least in one other candidate, who has said some of your policies aren't going to fly.
JENNINGS: I think two things. One, she said the war should come to an immediate and successful end and the difference between her and the Democrats is Democrats want to preach defeat, and actually Hinson and the Republicans want to preach victory over Iran. So I think that's a key distinction. Number two, I think every candidate in both parties and every
jurisdiction is going to run the race that they think they have to run to win in that jurisdiction. Some of the issues in Iowa are related to Iowa, they're agriculture related. They wouldn't be the same as an issue, say, in an urban congressional district.
So I think every candidate in both parties are going to run on the issue set and take the positions they have to take. And if you're President Trump, you need not worry about any of this because the only thing that matters is that Republicans come back. If Democrat majorities come back, we're going to lurch toward socialism, we're going to lurch toward impeachment, we're going to lurch toward all this chaos.
But if Republicans come back, you can continue to try to improve the country. He shouldn't worry about socialism.
ROGIN: You can say that everyone runs a local race, but the Iran war is the thing that unites everyone in this country because it's harming everyone in this country. It's the most unpopular war in American history for a reason and that was at the beginning.
And it just keeps getting less and less popular because it's increased our energy prices, it's increased inflation. Everybody sees that at least 18 Americans have died, 800 Americans wounded, 18 bases damaged.
Our reputation, our credibility around the world in tatters. And there's no end in sight. So when I see a Republican politician who's running for something, slightly move to the acknowledgement that your situation, whatever district it is, Iowa, Florida, Kansas, it doesn't matter.
It's linked to the Iran war. That's the reveal, they're acknowledging a reality that everybody knows because we're at the point in the Iran war where if you don't acknowledge that, you don't have any credibility.
She's trying to save her credibility by saying the obvious, what everybody knows, that the Iran war has made all of our lives worse in some way and will continue to do so. I agree she's not really pledging to do anything to stop it.
But that acknowledgement of that reality, it's not specific to her. It's something that every Republican has to eventually come to terms with if they want the voters to believe them. You can't tell the voters not to believe their eyes.
TRENT: You reckon it's the fear from lack of spending from the RNC and Trump PAC? Is that why more of these candidates --
JENNINGS: You say lack of spending?
TRENT: No, the fear -- the fear that Trump won't spend on their races.
(CROSSTALK) JENNINGS: You think the Republican Party is not going to spend on one of our greatest recruits in America, Ashley Hinson? She's probably our best state candidate --
(CROSSTALK)
TRENT: No, I'm talking about generally speaking across the board.
(CROSSTALK)
TRENT: Why is it more Republicans haven't seen the tea leaves and seen, hey, this is a very unpopular war.
UNKNOWN: They know it.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: I keep hearing all of this about this unpopular war. This is exactly the mindset that could have cost us winning World War II. People suffered a great amount. It was not easy. People had to do without. They lost jobs, they lost homes, they made sacrifices.
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: Here's the thing --
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: That is the reason why war is never popular.
ROGIN: Fact check, the Nazis and the Japanese and the Italians started World War II. We didn't start it. We started the Iran war.
COOPER: Some people during the Carter administration invaded our embassy, humiliated our people and have been killing Americans since then. I am ready to have them light up. I want regimes changed.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Regime change is actually not really on the table. The Trump administration has been clear that they're really focusing on the Strait of Hormuz.
COOPER: The Trump administration may be clear, but Cooper is ready to replace the people that we're negotiating with by another round of decapitation.
TRENT: How about the last time?
COOPER: We'll do it again. I bet you eventually we will find some people who will sit at the table and they'll want to cooperate.
[22:45:03]
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: How long are you willing to wait?
ROGIN: And we're running out of bombs.
SIDNER: How long do you think the American public should suffer through this?
COOPER: That mindset loses World War I. That mindset loses the Civil War.
ALLISON: No, that mindset might lose for Ashley Hinson.
ROGIN: What about the lessons of Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan? Where we enter into a quagmire with no strategy and then can't get ourselves out and a lot of innocent people die for no benefit. That's the --
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: I disagree with you --
UNKNOWN: What do you think the point of Iran is?
ROGIN: Hold on, I want to hear Scott --
JENNINGS: The benefit to defeating Iran?
ROGIN: No, but we're not defeating them.
JENNINGS: We are defeating them. We've already defeated them. They're defeated.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: They're trying to make a deal with the IRGC.
JENNINGS: You gave a long list. Let me give you my list. We've sunk their navy. We've destroyed their air force. We've decimated their defense industrial complex. We took out their leadership. They haven't exported a drop of oil since July. Our economy is in free fall.
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: This is what we heard. You should watch a movie about Vietnam.
SIDNER: Scott, hold on. Are we considerate still about the war right now? You consider we're still at war? Boris hopes we're still at war. Are we still at war?
JENNINGS: Yes, I think the President considers it, yes. But I think by any historical standard we have defeated these people. The strait is open. We've exported a billion barrels of oil out of there. We are -- the idea that one political party is cheering for America's defeat and one party is clear about who the enemy is, and how they defeated them, it's clear.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: It's your candidate that's saying -- yes, I've got a high pitch.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: Don't point at Scott.
ALLISON: I can point at him now.
JENNINGS: It's fine.
ALLISON: That's what I thought. Okay, so --
SIDNER: Last word.
ALLISON: The thing about it is it's your candidate, though, that is trying to distance herself from this war.
JENNINGS: She's successful and she wants a successful end. That's what Republicans want. Success, victory. Democrats want defeat. They want withdrawal and defeat, and that is a mindset. Listen to him.
ALLISON: We do not want defeat. But what I'm saying is --
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: I'm independent. I just want the troops to come home.
ALLISON: Hinson is seeing the writing on the wall and saying J.D. Vance (inaudible) saying give me one more chance, she's like, the people don't want a one more chance of what we're getting right now. And so that is why she is distancing herself and you may see other Republicans doing that.
That's your team, not mine. My team is very clear where we are. We don't want to be defeated as a country. But we're also like, Americans are suffering, too. We can hold those two truths at the same time.
SIDNER: We'll leave it there. Next, we're heading to Illinois. Illinois Governor J.D. Pritzker revealing he's lost 80 pounds using GLP-1 drugs. Is it part of his prep for a Presidential run? We'll debate that in a bit.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Tonight, Illinois Governor J.D. Pritzker says he has lost 80 pounds while using a GLP-1 medication. He says two years ago he was diagnosed with diabetes and his doctor advised him to use the medication which Pritzker calls life-changing.
He was asked if the decision, though, had anything to do with Presidential aspirations. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAIVD BEGNAUD, CBS NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Did you do this in any way to better your image so that you could run for President?
GOV. J.B. PRITZKER (D-IL): I've been driven my whole life to lose weight. The fact that I am now able to do it because this GLP-1 became available is truly, like, I mean, it's something that has meant a lot to me.
I have not made any decisions about what I might do in the future. I can tell you I want to be the governor of the State of Illinois for a while longer and I'm running for re-election.
BENGAUD: I'm going to give you an easy out. Tell me you're not running for President in 2028.
PRITZKER: I honestly am focused on what's best for the people of Illinois.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: All right, Corbin, do you think that Americans care whether or not J.D. Pritzker is on a GLP-1?
TRENT: I certainly hope not. I certainly hope not. But you know, I hope that's not the reason for it. I hope we don't feel pressured to get on GLP-1 so we can run for a higher office than we've currently got. But he's also proven very successful at running for office in his current, you know, in his current form. So, I hope not.
ROGIN: Listen, if going from fat to thin were a good route to becoming President, we'd be all covering the Mike Pompeo administration right now. You know, it doesn't really track the records.
But it's good for his health. I celebrate that. He's doing, you know, whatever he can do to ensure best outcomes. People -- everybody has a different way to manage their health and their weight loss. And if this is helping people, I'm here for it. Good for him.
ALLISON: I think that there's a lot of stigma to these drugs that just needs to be released. He was diagnosed with diabetes. If you know anyone with diabetes, it's a lifelong struggle. The reason he probably was on these drugs is to save his life. You cannot be President if you're dead.
COOPER: That's a fact.
ALLISON: And you know, he was talking about high cholesterol, high blood pressure. And I will say the American people probably would have taken issue with somebody of that stature to get access to GLP-1. Maybe when they first came out and people who needed them for actual medical reasons like diabetes, they were becoming a scarcity. But they have become so available to people that whatever tools you need to be the best version of yourself and healthy, we need to accept that. And we need to encourage people to be healthy so we can live long lives for this country, for our families, and for ourselves.
[22:55:05]
SIDNER: Look, about 40 percent of the U.S. population is considered obese. Could this be something that sort of links in with people that people understand this battle is really hard?
JENNINGS: Yes, a lot of people -- I fought it my entire life, truthfully. I think this may actually, by the time '28 rolls around, we may have a lot of candidates talking about universal access to these things, and would it make sense to pay for that versus all of the negative outcomes that come from obesity.
ALLISON: Yes.
JENNINGS: I know some states have done it and had some success.
SIDNER: Are you arguing for universal health care?
ALLISON: That's what I heard. Did you hear me say yes, yes?
JENNINGS: I'm arguing for, you know, like state Medicaid programs. You know, we're managing a lot of chronic diseases that flow from obesity. What if you eliminated the obesity, you know, overall, would it cost you less?
I don't know that we've done it at a widespread enough scale to know the answer yet, but I suspect this conversation is coming, and it ought to come because, frankly, the results of these drugs are pretty miraculous for a lot of people.
SIDNER: All right, I think we are done at the table here. Thank you all for joining us. I appreciate it. Thanks for a good discussion, everyone. Thank you for being here. We will be back in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
