Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Loses Support among Naturalized Citizens; Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY) is Interviewed about the Midterms; Three News Networks Push to Maintain White House Access; U.S. and China Discuss Nuclear Site Visits; Seventh Person Arrested in U.K. Airbase Plot. Aired 8:30- 9a ET

Aired October 06, 2026 - 08:30   ET

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

[08:30:00]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: School bus crash that left two people dead.

And new this morning, CNN learns the U.S. and China have been discussing visits to each other's nuclear facilities. New details on that, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Immigrant voters casting ballots as naturalized citizens helped Donald Trump win the White House in 2024. But the latest polls show he has lost much -- most of their support. It might cost the Republicans in the midterms as well.

CNN's Harry Enten is running the numbers on this one.

So, we've talked often about the big gains that the president made in '24.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yes.

BOLDUAN: What's changed?

ENTEN: Yes, what has changed, Kate Bolduan?

You know, this was one of the big surprises coming out of 2024, right? That is that Donald Trump made major gains among naturalized citizens. That is, immigrant voters, despite what a lot of Democrats thought were harsh rhetoric from him. But all those gains, they're basically collapsing. It turns out that actions do, in fact, have consequences.

[08:35:03]

Take a look here. Trump's net approval rating among immigrant voters. You know, in late 2024, look at this, his net approval rating was doing OK. Minus two points. Not too bad. Not too great either, but pretty gosh darn good for a Republican president.

Look at this now, minus 46 points. Falling through the floor. My goodness gracious. That's a shift of 44 points away from the president of the United States, amongst a group that he did historically well with for a Republican presidential candidate. But all those gains, at least for President Trump, seem for not. Immigrant voters are waving adios, amigos, goodbye to the president of the United States.

BOLDUAN: And there could be a lot that drives that. How much is the president's immigration policy are you seeing motivating this?

ENTEN: Yes, you know, look, there are a lot of reasons for this drop. You know, the economy, cost of living is one of them. But when I say actions have consequences, I'm also talking about immigration. Because one of the key things that immigrant voters did was they liked President Trump, or then former President Trump, on immigration. You know, back in 2024, he was more trusted on immigration policy by four points over Kamala Harris.

But look now. Look in 2026. Now 60 percent of immigrant voters say that Trump has gone too far on deportations. I think immigrant voters, just like other Americans, were -- they thought they were signing up for one thing. And what they got was something very, very different. And they did not want what they see as the harshness of the Trump deportation policies. And I think that is playing a major role in them shifting away from the president of the United States and him falling back to levels that he might have been used to seeing during term number one, instead of what he saw on the reelection pathway, for him at least, back in 2024.

BOLDUAN: So, you add this all up, and what could it then mean for the midterms?

ENTEN: Yes, OK. So, this would be one thing, Kate, if we were just talking about President Trump, right? You know, look, President Trump, as much as he wishes, is not on the ballot in a month. Who is on the ballot is Republicans running for Congress. And you can see it here. I mean just take a look here. Voters who are immigrants. You know, back in 2024, Donald Trump put up a historically strong performance among immigrant voters. He only lost them by four to Kamala Harris.

But look at this Democratic advantage, absolutely expanding. Now Democrats ahead by 22 points on the generic congressional ballot. That is a shift of 18 points away from the Republican Party. And that, of course, is, what, that's five times -- more than five times the lead. This is going to be a big part of the story because they make up about 10 percent of voters. That is a significant chunk. And if Republicans can't hold on to them, it's just another group that they haven't been able to hold on to that Donald Trump made big gains with back in 2024.

BOLDUAN: All right, good to see you, Harry.

ENTEN: Nice to see you, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Thank you so much. Important to remember this.

John.

BERMAN: All right, this morning, Democrats are preparing for potential scenarios for how President Trump reacts after polls close and the results are called in the midterms. Democratic Congressman Joe Morelle of New York is overseeing election preparation efforts in the House and has outlined more than 150 possible threats that could happen. And he joins us now.

Congressman, it's great to see you.

I first became aware of your efforts back in July. Jeffrey Toobin wrote an op-ed where you were quoted in it. And you were proposing -- not proposing, but talking about these scenarios that had never occurred to me and probably most Americans. And you have a concern, a small c concern about the possibility, hey, Democrats win at the ballots in November 3rd, take back the House and the ballots, but somehow, when the calendar turns to 2027, that those new House members won't be sat because of the clerk of the House. How would that work?

REP. JOE MORELLE (D-NY): Well, look, I have every confidence it's going to work out exactly as it's supposed to work out. That three things will happen, that Americans will have an opportunity to get to a ballot, that their ballot will be counted freely and fairly and accurately, and that the will of the American people will be reflected on January 3rd, when the House reconvenes in 2027.

But just to make sure that the president doesn't do anything to subvert the election, we have been going through numerous exercises over the last many months now and joining with a lot of allies and folks who care deeply about democracy, non-for-profit groups and others who care about making sure that voters continue to be the ones that make the decision about where this country is going to go.

So, yes, we're tracking those threats. We've been working with folks. But I have every confidence this is going to come off exactly as it's supposed to.

BERMAN: What recourse do you have if the president doesn't, you know, accept the results of the election?

MORELLE: Well, at some level the president isn't in charge. I mean, he may think he is and he may talk a lot about it, but these are 50 different elections. Every state has a different election system. State and local administrators, by the way, of elections do amazing work. I mean, these people, Democrats and Republicans, care deeply about the system. There are rules. There are procedures. Each of them follow them carefully. They think it's like a sacred trust. And it is because it upholds the foundation and fundamentals of this democracy. So, they're working very hard.

[08:40:01]

But we will use certainly our communication and our partnership with those local election administrators. We're talking to groups all over the country. We have literally thousands of volunteer lawyers who are drafting proceedings. So, we'll use the courts. We'll use the legislative process. But we'll most importantly use the court of public opinion and the will of the American voters.

BERMAN: The president did an interview with "Time Magazine" where he was asked about the possibility of using the Insurrection Act in the lead up to the election. The question was, "would you rule out declaring a state of emergency in the lead up to the midterms unless there's widespread violence in the streets?" The president said, "I don't rule anything out or in. We'll see. You mean the Insurrection Act? The questioner said, "yeah." He goes, "no, I've never used it. I could use it. A lot of people think I should use it sometimes."

What's your reaction to his, I guess, reluctance to rule out the Insurrection Act surrounding the elections?

MORELLE: Well, when he says a lot of people think he should use it, I think he means the only people who are gathered in the Oval Office, because I don't know anyone else who thinks that that is a good idea, that there's any validity to the thought of it. None of the conditions exist that would allow the president to invoke the Insurrection Act. We have never had the Insurrection Act used in an election throughout American history. It's not going to be used now. There is no insurrection. None of the conditions exist.

So, the president, he's not a serious person. He doesn't know the system. He doesn't know how it works. But he just sort of spews these things. Nonetheless, we're paying attention and we're making sure that both we, as House Democrats, we're working with our Senate Democrats. But all the allied partners around the country who care, not that Democrats win or lose, they just want to make sure that the will of the American people is carried out and they're doing heroic work around this country. So, we're building the largest voter protection effort in American history. You shouldn't think you'd have to do it, but here we are.

BERMAN: So, overnight, the president reversed himself on what had been government sponsored, government paid for campaign-style ads that featured the president. He said in a statement, "it's a rather standard thing to do but, rather than doing that, although nothing will make them happy, I've decided to do the patriotic ads," he calls them, "and pay for them myself and with money I raised for MAGA Inc."

So, why do you think the president reversed himself after spending, you know, tens of millions of dollars, or allocating all that millions of dollars in taxpayer money?

MORELLE: (AUDIO GAP) Rosa DeLauro, who's the -- going to be the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and Robert Garcia, who's going to be the House chair of the Oversight Committee, we raised this with the president last week. We told him it was illegal. It was an illegal use of funding.

But I think it was the -- just the pushback from the American public. I mean no one wants their tax dollars used in ways that are frivolous. And this certainly was an inappropriate use. So, I just think the pushback (AUDIO GAP). He's probably hearing from it, John, from a lot of Republican legislators who don't want to say anything publicly. (AUDIO GAP) choice. It's never because he wants to. But I'm glad he was pushed into making the right choice nonetheless.

BERMAN: Congressman Joe Morelle, from New York, on the Appropriations Committee. Always great to speak to you. Thanks so much. Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, thank you, John.

New this morning, lawyers for CNN, MS Now, "Politico" are all calling on a federal judge to indefinitely maintain White House access for the three media outlets. In a new court filing, lawyers for the three outlets say the White House has offered no new evidence to support its claim that reporters put national security at risk.

CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter is joining us now.

Look, this is not happening in a vacuum. It's happening as "Politico" reported that it was just blocked this week from boarding Air Force One as the primary print pool to cover the president in Nebraska. What are you learning about this latest case?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: That's right. CNN's been blocked twice in the past week from boarding Air Force One and "Politico" was blocked yesterday. The White House trying every avenue it can to ban these news outlets, even though a judge put a temporary blockade in place two weeks ago that protected access to the White House. So, that temporary restraining order, it expires on Thursday. That's when the next court hearing will take place.

And these news outlets are seeking longer term protection from a judge, something known as a preliminary injunction that would be in place until there's a trial. So, overnight, a new filing from these three news outlets making the case that the judge should put that injunction in place.

Here's part of what Ted Boutros and the lawyers wrote in this filing overnight, arguing that the president's own words actually undercut any defense of the ban. Quote, "at every turn since, defendants have sought to justify the president's ban on the free press with a series of shifting rationales lurching from unarticulated centers of professionalism to nebulous and pretextual concerns about protecting national security. But all the while, the president himself has continued telling anyone who will listen precisely what this ban is really about, most recently complaining at length in an interview with 'Time' that he banned the plaintiffs because he feels that he should not be forced to bear what he considers constantly bad stories."

[08:45:09]

So, in other words, the Justice Department is claiming that these outlets should be able to be banned over national security concerns. Even though that seems preposterous to me as a media analyst. But the point is that President Trump publicly and personally keeps saying this is about negative news coverage. So,, that is a preview of the arguments that will take place in court on Thursday. In this case, legal experts continue to say that CNN, MS Now, "Politico" have precedent and case law on their side.

SIDNER: You're also tracking another case that people are interested in, Disney's legal battle with the Trump administration. What is happening there? They -- I think they sued the FCC just a couple of months ago.

STELTER: Yes. That's right. And this morning, Disney will have its day in court in Washington. That's about two months after suing the FCC for violating the First Amendment. Different cases, but similar in the following way. These are about media outlets fighting for their rights in court, arguing that the Trump administration is violating the First Amendment.

So, later today, the judge will hear arguments in her D.C. courtroom over Disney's request for a restraining order trying to block FCC Chair Brendan Carr from further challenging ABC's local station licenses.

A challenge like this has never really happened before. It's widely seen as an act of retaliation by the Trump administration. Although Carr claims it's all part of an investigation into Disney's diversity practices. Disney says it's an extraordinary assault on free speech. So, you have one of the biggest media companies in the world in court later today trying to defend itself.

And why does it need to defend itself? Why are "The New York Times" and "The Wall Street Journal" and all these outlets, all in court against the Trump administration? Well, look at what Trump said yesterday. He said "The New York Times," quote, "should be arrested for their dishonesty and disservice to our country." Extreme rhetoric from the president. But Disney, today, arguing that actions are even worse than words. And that's why it's in court today.

SIDNER: Brian Stelter, you always keep us up to date on all of these matters. Thank you so much. I know you'll be watching it and we'll have you back.

John.

BERMAN: All right, dozens and dozens under quarantine this morning amid concerns of a case of the plague.

Then powerful statements in court from the young daughters of a former "American Idol" contestant who was convicted of killing their mother.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:51:10]

BERMAN: New CNN reporting this morning. Sources tell us that the U.S. and China have been discussing visits to each other's nuclear facilities.

CNN's Davis Winkie is with us now with this new reporting.

What have you learned here and why?

DAVIS WINKIE, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: John, what we've learned so far is that these talks that have happened have been very preliminary and informal, and they've been taking place largely on the sidelines of gatherings of the P-5, or the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council. And it did not come up either directly during the recent meeting between President Trump and President Xi.

With that said, however, it has been a goal of the president's -- President Trump for both of his administrations to have some kind of trilateral arms control agreement between the U.S., the Russia and China. Recently, last year, the last remaining arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia expired. And we're in a world where an unconstrained arms race is a distinct possibility.

China has previously been hesitant to participate in any kind of substantive discussions on nuclear risk reduction measures beyond a, we won't give A.I. access to the button deal that Biden and Xi previously made. But the Chinese have been hesitant because they feel like they are behind the U.S. and Russia when it comes to the number of nuclear weapons they have. And they've embarked on a big expansion of their arsenal.

But talks about reciprocal site visits are what could be a foundational step to start to build trust between the U.S. and China on these issues. And the better that we understand each other's processes and systems, the less of a chance that there's a misunderstanding that could result in escalation in a kind of crisis scenario.

The question, of course, is, how sincere are the Chinese here? We're going to find out as these talks begin to progress.

John.

BERMAN: Early stages, but potentially significant developments here.

Davis Winkie, thank you so much for sharing your reporting on this.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: We do have some breaking news coming in right now, which is British police have just arrested a seventh person in relation to the suspected planned terror plot at U.K.'s Fairford Air Base -- Air Force Base. This comes after six other suspects had been arrested and then released on bail. It also comes, remember, then after the United States, very quickly this weekend, removed, evacuated all of its B-1 bombers from that same base after what was described as a real life, real threat incident from sources. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, though, has been downplaying kind of any connection here to all of this.

Here with us right now is Brett McGurk, CNN global affairs analyst and the author of the new book, "Brink: Inside the Race to Free the October 7th Hostages," out today, as of today. We're going to get to that in just one second.

But, Brett, with this breaking news coming in here, there's so many questions around these --

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yes. Yes. BOLDUAN: Maybe separated, maybe related events and not a lot of answers. What do you see here?

MCGURK: My -- I don't think we'd be moving our bombers unless there's a real -- a real threat. And I think, obviously, we'll learn more.

I'm reminded of Operation Spiderweb. Remember, the Ukrainians got those drones in a truck and struck Russian bombers deep into Russia.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

MCGURK: Could be something like that. These threats are diffuse and they're spreading.

One thing to look for, though, if this is a state sponsored event, particularly Iran, that really seems to trigger Article Five of NATO. So, this could really begin to develop. I'm watching it very closely.

BOLDUAN: Yes. There's -- I mean, as we've seen, really day to day there's more and --

MCGURK: Yes, we need to know more.

BOLDUAN: Some real hesitancy to speak publicly from U.K. officials, U.S. officials.

[08:55:02]

So, let's see where this comes.

MCGURK: Right.

BOLDUAN: Your book, out today.

MCGURK: Yes.

BOLDUAN: Releases today. Just ahead of the anniversary of October 7th, of course. And what this gets at is you were in all of the rooms from -- in Washington to in Israel to a desert tent on the race to try to free the hostages in the aftermath of October 7th. How do you reflect on now what you think went right to free the hostages --

MCGURK: Yes.

BOLDUAN: And what you see, with perspective, what went wrong?

MCGURK: Well, Kate, thanks so much for having me. And, you know, we're three years here from the commemoration. It's October 6th today. And I really -- I try to bring readers inside all the rooms, as you said, in the immediacy of the moment and what this was like and the judgments that were being made. And there can be debate about those particular judgments.

You know, early on, we were trying to do two things, get the hostages out. Worst mass hostage event in history. And also stop the war, get a ceasefire and contain the regional situation, try to avoid a broader, regional war. And that plays out just consistently all the time.

Early in the war, in November 2023, we had a ceasefire. I describe how difficult it was to get to for all the women and children. Very clear. And the war stopped for eight days. We got about 100 hostages out. And then the eighth day Hamas said, you know, the younger women, we're actually going to -- we're going to hold on to them. Let's skip and start talking about the older men. You're there in that moment. What do you do? It's a moral dilemma. Do you skip over these younger women who are treated horribly? But that night the war returned.

I did not anticipate that night, as I say in the book, it would be 14 months until we got back to a deal. And the book kind of articulates why it took so long and all the -- all the hopeful moments we had where we had a deal down.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

MCGURK: You know, Israel said, yes, we're waiting on Hamas. And we couldn't -- we couldn't get there until the end of the Biden administration when we finally got that deal in place.

BOLDUAN: You talk about there will be a debate over judgments made. You know, and that's absolutely true. There are times in the book where you describe a pretty rough and raw view of the judgments of Benjamin Netanyahu that seemed to emerge in these conversations in just a couple places in the book. And it is -- there's a lot, of course, more to it.

In a meeting with Biden, shortly after the attacks, you write that Netanyahu, "offered no ideas on how we might secure their release, other than as a byproduct of the Israeli ground assault into Gaza." And also in another meeting, "for more than 30 minutes he never mentioned the hostages." Also that, "Netanyahu was animated in discussing the military campaign, and far less so when discussing the hostages, when he chose to discuss them at all."

What should people take from this, Brett?

MCGURK: Yes. We were dealing with Netanyahu. You're in the room with him. All the actors on it, Sinwar, who hold the keys to the hostages, the leader of Hamas, Khamenei, everybody making decisions in real time.

Look, Netanyahu, again, you're there with him, OK? What this is like. He had two goals. One, to make sure that Hamas, at the end of this, is no longer in power in Gaza, and also to get the hostages out. And he was a big believer that the military pressure, time was on his side. It would get him a better deal and get all the hostages out. Whereas Sinwar believed time was on his side. The more he can hold out, the better the chance the U.S. just breaks with Israel. And we're kind of -- we're trying -- we're in the middle of that with totally irreconcilable positioning. And frankly, the hostages fall into the middle of this. So many innocent lives fall into the middle of this. And we are trying to bridge those gaps throughout, while we are also dealing with, you know, Iran. We just talked about Iran. You know, they basically opened fire

against U.S. personnel across the region. This happened very early. Attacks went way up. We're taking casualties. President Biden sends me to see the Iranians in Oman in January of 2024 in a back channel to try to get a handle on this. You're right there when that happens. It all kind of comes together at once.

BOLDUAN: I mean but there's -- we often see journalism as like the first draft of history. And some -- in some way I wonder if that's how you view this, because time and perspective bring --

MCGURK: Yes.

BOLDUAN: And more information brings a fuller view on world events. You've got new reporting of warnings that Netanyahu received or didn't before October 7th. Things he calls lies. But ultimately, you write in the acknowledgments, Brett, that the book is ultimately about tragedy and loss. And what is your lesson in it?

MCGURK: Yes, I think -- I end the book -- a lot of times a book written by a former official like this, you have a chapter that says, here are the five things that have to happen now. I don't say that. I think the Middle East is going to remain in a very, very difficult situation. And so long as Hamas is there clinging to power in Gaza, there's just -- like, we're stuck. There's no way forward.

And Israel is going to have an election at the end of this month. I think they need a broader configuration in their government to just set the preconditions for a better future.

Look, right now, right now, we have a U.N. Security Council resolution that kind of maps out where to go.

[09:00:01]

But that work is so hard. And if you read the book, you get a fuller understanding, I think, of just how difficult it is.