Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

New ICE Guidance, Officers Can Only Conduct Vehicle Stops if They Complete Certain Training; Supreme Court to Decide if Immigrants Can Be Denied Bond Hearings; Trump Heads to Texas as Latino Voter Support Wanes; WSJ: DOJ Reviews Whether Nixon was Mistreated During Watergate; Mortgage Rates Leap in Latest Week. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired October 01, 2026 - 15:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[15:30:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The Department of Homeland Security is changing the requirements for immigration officers before they're allowed to conduct vehicle stops. That's according to new internal guidance exclusively reviewed by CNN. The changes follow a number of controversial incidents that have resulted in shootings, some of them fatal.

CNN's Priscilla Alvarez joins us now. So, Priscilla, what are you learning about this new guidance?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, this is a significant development, one that includes new instructions for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers as they are conducting immigration arrests around the country. This is specifically about the vehicle stops, which we have seen time and time again, and that have been at the center of some of these fatal and nonfatal shootings involving officers. So let me walk you through what some of this guidance includes.

It includes, for example, that ICE officers who have successfully completed one of six agency training courses, they are the ones that can conduct traditional vehicle stops. Anyone else who does not or has not completed these training courses can only serve in a supporting capacity. The guidance also states that officers on scene must have an agency-issued and activated body-worn camera and that under no circumstances are officers authorized to engage in vehicle pursuits.

Instead, if someone does not pull over, that they need to take down information for further investigation. They also walk through pinning a vehicle, something else that we have seen, including in Austin last month. Officers are permitted to do so, but it says explicitly that it is for the safety of the suspected vehicle and its occupants.

The ICE officers engaged in vehicle stops and other motorists on the roadway. So really, it sets up more guardrails as to how ICE officers are conducting these vehicle stops and who exactly is allowed to do them. It doesn't do away with them, which is also important because remember, earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security had put a brief pause on most vehicle stops and then President Trump quickly did away with that. The reason is because these stops are important to the overall strategy of detaining undocumented immigrants and potentially deporting them. And so this is a way that the administration is now moving forward and has outlined for officers how they plan to move forward. Stops are still going to happen, but now there is more instruction on how exactly they happen -- Brianna.

KEILAR: Very interesting. Priscilla, thank you. Oh, I also want to ask you this.

We're learning as well some reporting that you've done about the Supreme Court agreeing to review one of President Trump's most aggressive and controversial immigration policies.

ALVAREZ: Yes, this is specific to mandatory detention. So here's what happened. The president broke with decades of practice in this second administration and interpreted immigration law to mean that anyone in the United States illegally is subject to mandatory detention.

Previously, for example, there were bond hearings, so someone who was detained could try to be released from detention. Instead, people who have been released have been released only because attorneys have filed habeas corpus petitions.

[15:35:00]

So this is a case that strikes directly at one of the ways that the administration is trying to detain people for prolonged periods of time before they're deported. To give you a sense of scope here, 65,000 people were detained, according to data from this summer. That is a number that has fluctuated, but more than anything, it has grown, and the administration has made clear they're trying to grow detention capacity.

All of this is because their interpretation of the law is that people here illegally should be detained on a mandatory basis. Now, this is something that the Supreme Court is expected to hear early next year, just another one of the immigration cases landing on their docket -- Brianna.

KEILAR: All right, Priscilla, thank you so much for that -- Boris.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We are standing by for President Trump to touch down in Texas, kicking off a month-long campaign blitz before the midterms. His arrival comes with his support from a key voting bloc, Latino voters, sliding sharply. One recent poll from Pew Research shows that the president's net approval rating among non- college Latino voters has tumbled since the 2024 election.

Joining us now to discuss is Abraham Enriquez, founder and president of Bienvenido USA. Abraham, thank you so much for sharing part of your afternoon with us. I want to start with where you see Latino voters right now.

In 2024, we just showed the graphic. Trump won non-college Latinos by a point over Kamala Harris. His net approval rating now is 42 points underwater.

Are you concerned that Latino voters are not going to turn out for Republicans in November?

ABRAHAM ENRIQUEZ, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF BIENVENIDO USA: No, I'm not concerned. I think that right after Labor Day, some of the polling looks a little bit different, especially going into early voting. Here in Texas specifically, where the president is going to be landing and doing some campaign stops, I love any time the Hispanic vote gets any attention.

As you know, Boris, the Hispanic electorate is very independent. We're very swing. We're not loyal to a candidate or a party.

We're loyal to values. I think President Trump has a message. He has a campaign.

And we know that when he's on the ballot, he does well with Hispanic voters. So I love that in this midterm election, he's breaking from the traditional norm of sitting presidents not getting involved in the midterm election and actually going into states where our vote matters. And so him coming to Texas, telling voters that he cares about our issues and policy, I think is going to reflect really well come Election Day.

SANCHEZ: When it comes to Texas specifically, there were two heavily Latino districts in the southern part of the state that were redrawn by state lawmakers. And they sort of highlight the challenge that Republicans face because Trump carried all three districts by about 55 percent in 2024. A recent Texas Southern poll found that about 55 percent of voters there now disapprove of his performance in those districts.

You're not worried about the performance of Republicans based on Latino voters, but I wonder if this redistricting and the bet that Republicans made on Latino voters might fail to materialize. You're not concerned about it at all.

ENRIQUEZ: I'm concerned in the sense of does the Republican Party have the bandwidth and ability to invest in these districts. And following conversations with both the RNC, the Speaker of the House, and even the White House political office, we see some pretty great investments into these southern districts of Texas. Look, an Axios poll showed that 63 percent of Hispanic Americans in these districts actually approve of the immigration policies that President Trump and his administration have put forth.

It's maybe sometimes a method. So I think it's important for Republicans to kind of change the messaging in a way that actually reflects policy and not racial diversity or impacting just a certain race. And I think that's what we're doing with the new ICE guidance, right?

I think the president and the administration are doing everything to, one, fulfill campaign promises. I mean, he won all three southern districts by campaigning on mass deportations. But two, also tailoring policy to where it's benefiting those campaign promises and not, you know, falling for what the mainstream media says is on racial bias.

And the president coming to Texas, the vice president being here in south Texas just a day ago, I think shows us that the investment is serious from the administration's part. And, again, we're going to see that reflected come early voting and during Election Day.

SANCHEZ: When you talk about questions over the method by which the immigration policy is carried out, it's not the mainstream media that is suggesting that it's extreme. It's Republicans themselves. Congresswoman Maria Elvira Salazar in south Florida made the case that Latino voters in her district feel betrayed because of the immigration crackdown.

Are you sensing the same in south Texas?

ENRIQUEZ: No, not at all. And let me just make it very clear. Congresswoman Maria Elvira is a great friend of mine.

But, again, that same Axios poll, again, shows 63 percent of Latinos in her district approve of the immigration policies. Again, it's just the rhetoric and the method. So I think that the administration and the Republican Party in these coming days have the opportunity to still campaign and still show that they're fulfilling their campaign promises but also changing the method as well.

[15:40:00]

So it's all about messaging but also understanding the Hispanic electorate. Boris, two-thirds of Hispanics on the voter rolls are now second- and third-generation Americans, meaning, yes, we care about immigration reform. Yes, we care about a strong border. But more importantly, we are now assimilating to American culture better.

Most of us have a college degree. Most of us have English as our first language. So we care more about things like how's the economy going to help us start a business, start a home, and start being able to purchase a home.

And that really is what Republicans can make the case for young Hispanic voters.

SANCHEZ: I do want to get your thoughts generally because you continue to talk about the method and the execution of the immigration crackdown. I'm sure you know at least 58 people have died in ICE custody during Trump's second term. We've seen people who've lived in this country peacefully for years, who've established roots here, who've contributed to their communities, get deported to places where they have no connection, random countries in Africa.

We've also seen and reported on kids in immigration court without attorneys bursting into tears when they're given deportation orders. Do you think that the way that the crackdown has been executed has been humane?

ENRIQUEZ: Let me make one thing very clear, Boris. I'm a grandson of immigrant farm workers that came here to America under the Braceros program. I have a lot of empathy for these stories that we hear.

But every single story that you just mentioned, I blame it 100 percent on the Biden administration that failed to put leadership at our southern border. So these stories that unfortunately happened and have unfortunately happened since I think the dawn of American history, right? These stories were also found under the Biden administration, under the Obama administration, under the Bush administration.

But particularly these stories that we're seeing today are 100 percent at the fault of the Biden administration because of the chaos that they gave us. Now we have these results. So the president and the administration are doing their very best to get the people that should not be here.

But unfortunately these stories, I'm very sad to hear about it, but they happen because of failed leadership like we had under the Biden administration. So I blame 100 percent of these stories on him and his administration.

SANCHEZ: I guess the distinction is that during those administrations we weren't hearing about, for example, these kids without lawyers getting sent to countries where they have no roots. Abraham Enriquez, nevertheless, we leave the conversation there. We do appreciate your time.

ENRIQUEZ: Thank you, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Of course.

Still ahead, reports that the Justice Department is reviewing the Watergate case to determine if President Nixon was mistreated by prosecutors. A fascinating historical look when we come back.

[15:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Today, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that decades after the Watergate scandal, the Justice Department is reviewing whether prosecutors mistreated former President Richard Nixon. The journal writing this, Jeff Shepard, a former Nixon aide, turned Watergate historian and revisionist, recently gave a two-hour presentation at the Justice Department headquarters that laid out his theory that the deep state took Nixon down. The title of his 78-page slide deck, Watergate as Lawfare.

SANCHEZ: The Justice Department responded to the journal's story saying quote, "Given his expertise and scholarship on Watergate, he was recently invited to give a presentation, but that presentation does not constitute an investigation." Earlier this year, while speaking at the Nixon Presidential Library, Vice President J.D. Vance made this comparison between Nixon and President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If you look at the story of how the deep state took down Richard Nixon, it's not all that different from what the same groups of people, the same institutions tried to do to Donald Trump and the first Trump administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: We're joined now by Jeffrey Engel. He's a presidential historian, the co-author of Impeachment and American History. Jeffrey, thank you so much for being with us.

So you saw what the vice president said at the Nixon Library. I wonder why you think revisiting what happened to Nixon resonates so much with those in the Trump administration and with Republicans more broadly.

JEFFREY ENGEL, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: You know, I think Vice President Vance gave us the entire answer there, that it would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous, this idea that Nixon was taken down, that Nixon was not guilty. And the reason that this is so important today is that, of course, we are living in the aftermath of the 2024 decision by the Supreme Court that gives presidents basically full immunity for anything they do in office. Therefore, the logic is that if you want to give the president full executive authority without any fear of investigation, well, wouldn't it be helpful historically to say that the last president, the only president really, who left office under such a cloud of investigation, well, he shouldn't have been tried in the first place, shouldn't have been attacked in the first place.

So it essentially gives those critics -- those supporters, excuse me, of Donald Trump more historical ammunition to say that the presidency is in itself unilateral and should not be checked by any other branch of government.

KEILAR: Trump has asked former Nixon aides on several occasions why Nixon resigned rather than fight it out. What does that tell you?

ENGEL: Well, that tells me that he has learned one of the central lessons from, of course, is his great mentor, Roy Cohn, which was never admit defeat, never admit guilt, and never stop fighting. Richard Nixon, ultimately, we have to remember, didn't resign because -- in 1974, didn't resign because he wanted to.

[15:50:00]

He resigned because it became very clear because of pressure from other Republicans, including in the Senate and all-time colleagues of his, that he was going to be impeached. And if he was going to be impeached, he was likely going to be convicted as well. So I think it's really important when we think about Watergate to remember that, ultimately, the last stab in the heart, if you will, of Nixon's presidency came from within his own party.

It was a real moment when Republicans stood up for country over party.

SANCHEZ: What does it mean that there's a former Nixon aide giving this presentation at DOJ about this theory? What do you think it means for the rank-and-file at DOJ hearing this? ENGEL: You know, I can't say what it means for the legal process, but I will tell you from a historical perspective, again, it's laughable, but it's also really, really very interesting because historians have debated for the last several decades really not whether Nixon was guilty. Everyone concedes that Nixon was guilty. Nixon basically admitted he was guilty and was found saying illegal things on tape.

The real debate for historians has always been about President Ford's decision to pardon Richard Nixon. Essentially, was that something that was good for the nation? Would the nation have been better served by having a trial?

Would the nation have been better served by having a president perhaps even put in jail? The same kind of debate that we had after the January 6th of 2024 -- '25, excuse me. No, January 6th of '21 debate about whether or not people who had committed some sort of treasonous crime should be exonerated or should be pushed away or should be prosecuted.

You know, that's what historians have really been concerned about because we all credible historians agree that Richard Nixon committed crimes and resigned frankly right ahead of the lynch wagon. The lynch wagon from his own party.

KEILAR: Jeffrey, if a political movement were to kind of like revise and rewrite the history, the judgment, the legacy of Richard Nixon, what facts might they have to ignore or really revise in order to do that?

ENGEL: They would certainly have to ignore all of the audio tapes that Richard Nixon kept of his time in the White House, which I think clearly demonstrates his culpability. The fact that he knew about Watergate, the fact that he knew about the break-in at Watergate, which of course occurred in 1972, remember, it takes almost another two years for Nixon ultimately to have to resign. But the fact that Nixon knew about it at the time, the fact that Nixon tried hard at the time to make sure that the people who had supported him would get off scot-free, the fact that he tried to cover up the crime, and then ultimately the fact that he fired different prosecutors in order to impede the investigation.

All those things I think are way too large to ignore for anyone who really takes a good serious look at what Nixon did.

KEILAR: Jeffrey Engel, thanks so much for being with us. Really appreciate it.

ENGEL: Thank you.

KEILAR: Bond yields are surging to some of their highest rates in decades, but shouldn't those strong rates be attracting investors to juicy bond yields? Why investors are still scarce and what it will mean for your wallet next?

[15:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Mortgage rates just jumped higher in the latest week. It means to buy a home, you now have to pay more than 7.25 percent interest on a 30-year fixed rate loan, according to Freddie Mac.

SANCHEZ: Yes, just one sign of the turmoil in the bond market and how it can make borrowing a lot more expensive, not just for home buyers. It also makes things a lot more expensive for corporations and countries that rely on borrowing. CNN Business Senior Reporter David Goldman joins us now.

David, bonds are supposed to give you a reliable payout, so why aren't investors running to the bond market?

DAVID GOLDMAN, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR REPORTER: Yes, well, they're scared, right? I mean, this is the proof. We had at one point earlier today, this is 5.3 percent. That was the highest that we had seen for the benchmark treasury yield since 2002, right? So we're talking about a significant length of time since we've seen things like this. That's the sort of wake of the dot-com bust. What does it mean?

Well, this is a very strong economy, and that's why you're starting to see these bond yields continue to soar, because we think that the economy might be overheating. It's a little counterintuitive, but when you see GDP at 2.2 percent, that's the total economic growth, and full employment, basically, unemployment rates at 4.1 percent, and spending continuing to rise, well, that is a hot economy. Add a trillion dollars of AI spending, well, we're going to keep seeing inflation rise, and that is what we are seeing.

3.4 percent is well above that 2 percent target that the Federal Reserve wants to see. If that keeps rising, well, your bond investments, well, they're going to continue to deteriorate, and you're going to want more and more and more yields. So why not invest in the bond market right now?

Because tomorrow it might not be worth as much as it was today, and that is what we're seeing. Gas and diesel certainly are a big factor here. 48 percent rise in gas prices since the war, and diesel, we know, 74 percent, and that is a nightmare for people who are paying shipping costs.

All of that is adding to our budgets. Now, oil is continuing to rise as well because there's no resolution to the Iran war. And what does this all mean?

It means that your cost of borrowing is higher. Brianna said it's 7.28, a new 19-month high for your mortgages. And then look at this.

This is proof. This personal savings rate, which fell to a four-year low yesterday, that is proof that people are dipping into their savings to pay for all of this.

KEILAR: David Goldman. David Goldman.

[16:00:00] SANCHEZ: David, I'm sorry. I appreciate the report. I will say, he usually does fun costumes and props and stunts for the morning show.

He doesn't do that for us as much.

KEILAR: Oh, he does props?

GOLDMAN: Oh yes, I got suspenders, maybe I'll get a propeller hat and do this.

KEILAR: We're getting a hard wrap now, David. Props tomorrow, buddy.

"THE ARENA" with Kasie Hunt starts right now.

END