Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Nicholas Burns is Interviewed about the Strait of Hormuz; Shan Wu is Interviewed about the Birthright Citizenship Case; Crackdown on Mail-In Voting; Patrick De Haan is Interviewed about Gas Prices; Judge Approves UPenn List. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired April 01, 2026 - 06:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:32:14]

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. I'm Erica Hill. Nice to have you with us here on CNN THIS MORNING.

It is 6:31 here on the East Coast. Here's what's happening right now.

President Trump set to address the nation tonight for an important update on the war in Iran. This comes as new CNN polling shows the president's approval rating dropping 13 points from a year ago. He's just a point away from his all-time low.

The Supreme Court, today, set to hear oral arguments in a case that will decide the future of birthright citizenship. For more than a century, citizenship has been guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to almost everyone born in the United States. The president, of course, last year signed an executive order to upend it. He says he also plans to attend those arguments today.

NASA preparing to launch four astronauts on a moon flyby. Liftoff is set for just before 6:30 p.m. this evening from Florida. You're looking at a live picture there from Kennedy Space Center. The Artemis II crew will spend ten days in space before returning to earth.

Well, as I noted, President Trump is set to address the nation tonight about the war with Iran. And there are questions about -- with the president saying he wants this to wind down, if the U.S. is actually ready to walk away even if the world's energy supplies are still being held hostage by Iran. White House officials telling CNN they can't promise a Strait of Hormuz will be reopened before the president is ready to declare mission accomplished. And that, of course, would then leave the Strait under Iranian control, which could mean high gas prices are here to stay, as well as questions about security in that area. President Trump, though, says the Strait, not his problem.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

We'll be leaving very soon. And if France or some other country wants to get oil or gas, they'll go up through the Strait and -- Hormuz Strait. They'll go right up there and they'll be able to fend for themselves.

What happens in the Strait, we're not going to have anything to do with, because these countries, China -- China will go up and they'll fuel up their beautiful ships and they'll leave and they'll take care of themselves. There's no reason for us to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Joining me now to discuss, Nicholas Burns, former U.S. ambassador to China, also former ambassador to NATO.

Ambassador, nice to have you with us this morning.

The president essentially saying at this point to other nations who do get their oil from that region of the world, it's on you, go get your oil. The possibility that the U.S. could say, we're done, the war is over, and Iran would still control the Strait of Hormuz. Is that actually a win for the U.S.?

NICHOLAS BURNS, BIDEN 3030 FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO China AND FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: No, that would be a significant defeat for the United States. And it's just not realistic. And it's irresponsible to suggest that somehow we're going to leave the war, leave everyone in the global economy worse off, the Strait of Hormuz closed, an economic -- a global economic and energy crisis. We started the war. There were reasons why the president wanted to do this. He cannot leave with the job unfinished.

[06:35:00]

Think of it this way, Erica. If he leaves with the Strait closed, Iran is the toll keeper on the Strait of Hormuz, which was not the case on February 28th when the war began. So, you know, you could be -- we could have a situation where Iran has lost every day of this war because of the brilliance of the American military and yet, on the final day of the war, when we leave, the world is in a different situation. Think of fertilizer prices. Think of helium, which is so important for the semiconductor industry. If those products can't get through the Strait of Hormuz, there's a significant challenge to the global economy. So, I don't see the logic here.

HILL: To your point, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, was also speaking out on the power that this could potentially give Iran. I want to play a little bit of how she put it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI HALEY (R), FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: I think leaving now would make Iran stronger because then they would have control over all of the ships. Right now they're only allowing Pakistani and Russian ships pretty much to go through, and they're charging for it. So, it would allow them to have the money again to do the proxies, to build the ballistic missiles back, to do the nuclear production. And I think the president's come too far to stop now.

I think you finish it. (END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: The question there, of course, is what does "finish it" actually look like? I mean do you have a sense of what "finish it" could mean?

BURNS: I think that -- well, first of all, I agree with Ambassador Haley, the logic here is, I think, very clear.

Two routes ahead, Erica. First of all, the president has to make some really difficult decisions. Does he put American ground troops into Iran, either to search for the highly enriched uranium, because that's the major problem, Iran's nuclear research program, or to take Kharg Island in order to drive up the pain to the Iranian government and have some more leverage for the United States. That's one option. And we've just deployed another aircraft carrier to the region, and we have ground troops and paratroopers in place. The other option is that we do pursue, with the gulf Arabs, and I think the Europeans would support this, negotiations with Iran to try to end this war with some kind of ceasefire where Iran does not emerge stronger, does not emerge as the toll keeper. Both of these are difficult options. Neither of them is guaranteed to be successful, but we are where we are. And walking away would be really the height of irresponsibility and we would feel the pain here at home at the gas pump.

HILL: We know how much back and forth there is certainly publicly over whether or not there are actual negotiations happening surrounding talks. But what you have yesterday was China and Pakistan putting out their idea for a way to end this war, this five point diplomatic plan, which includes an immediate ceasefire, peace talks, a stop to attacks on civilian and nonmilitary targets, restoring normal passage through the Strait of Hormuz and a U.N. supported deal.

A two-part question. How feasible do you think this plan actually is, and where does all of this leave China?

BURNS: I really don't think this is a realistic plan that -- put out by the Chinese foreign minister and the Pakistani foreign minister. There's no indication that the Iranians would agree to it. And we shouldn't agree to it if the Iranians are going to keep fighting, first. Second, I think it's just a highly, almost hypocritical move by the Chinese government. They have not been a good friend to Iran. They are -- they were strategic partners. They haven't stood up for it. I think it's almost China trying to score some points against the United States diplomatically. But they're not a factor in this war right now. And we are. So, we have to make these tough decisions as to whether or not we go for a ground offensive or for diplomacy. I happen to think that we should exhaust the diplomatic option before we enter -- eave American troops enter on the ground, and certainly before we just leave, lock, stock and barrel and leave this to the rest of the world to figure out.

HILL: Ambassador Nicholas Burns, I really appreciate your insight this morning. Thank you.

BURNS: Thank you, Erica. Thank you. HILL: Well, today, President Trump will be in attendance at the

Supreme Court to hear arguments on his attempt to upend birthright citizenship. It's something no sitting president has done before. And there is, of course, a lot at stake here. The case itself considered legally weak. President Trump is risking a major political defeat at a time when his poll numbers as well are sinking.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: All of this legislation, all of this, everything having to do with birthright citizenship, it was at the end of the Civil War. The reason was, it had to do with the babies of slaves and the protection of the babies of slaves. It didn't have to do with the protection of multi-millionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get an American citizenship. It is the craziest thing I've ever seen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Shan Wu, defense attorney and former federal prosecutor, is joining the group chat.

I'm going to pepper you with the first few questions, my friend.

SHAN WU, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: OK.

HILL: When we look at this, just, first of all, take us inside that room. So, when these arguments are happening at the Supreme Court, the fact that the president will be there, what does that change in a room?

[06:40:00]

WU: I actually don't think it's going to change much in the room.

HILL: OK.

WU: I mean the optics politically and to the American public are big. But inside that room, in fact, if anything, the justices are going to lean over backwards to make sure there's not even any effect of that. And I don't think that the advocates are going to say anything about that either.

HILL: So, when we look at what we will likely hear today in court, John Eastman, Trump ally, of course, who tried to devise the plan to help overturn the over -- the election in 2020 is the driving force behind this. This is part of what he has said about birthright citizenship.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN EASTMAN, SENIOR FELLOW, THE CLAREMONT INSTITUTE: The Fourteenth Amendment says you got to be born here. That's requirement one. But you got to be subject to the jurisdiction here as well and reside in a state. That means temporary visitors and certainly those who are here illegally are not covered by the automatic citizenship of the citizenship clause. And that was the way we understood it for about a century. It kind of gradually, beginning in the 1950s or '60s, we moved away from that position.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: How sound does that argument?

WU: Pretty unsound. If you were to take his argument, for example, you could extrapolate that children of confederate soldiers should not be citizens because they were not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. They are challenging that. So, it really doesn't make much sense at all what he's saying.

The plain meaning of the words are quite obvious. The very creation of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to combat racism. And really implicitly, people who are challenging that clause are really espousing a racist viewpoint. It's very hard to get around that, no matter what sort of legal arguments you want to couch. Just because you have a legal argument doesn't mean it's not racist.

HILL: Fair point.

I was also struck by, in a preliminary stay hearing, comments from Justice Sotomayor. So, she said the administration's theory makes no sense, in her view, in a modern globalized context, noting it would lead to, quote, "administrative chaos in every hospital in America.

How important is the potential burden on whether it's hospitals or states or whatever it may be, records offices, how much does that come into play? How much do you expect we would hear about that in arguments?

WU: I think we'll hear a lot about that in arguments. I think you're going to hear, even the conservative justices will be very concerned, how would you implement this? You're creating a class of perhaps stateless children. Clearly couldn't be retroactive. That'd be like completely out of control. But going forward, potentially you're affecting millions of babies and children. Ad I think they'll really zero in on the administration, a nice theory, but how will this actually work?

HILL: As we watch all this play out today, there's also the question of the president signing an executive order yesterday to tackle what he says is widespread fraud and issues with mail-in voting.

So, Seung Min, part of that order, right, would ask for citizenship roles and to effectively create a national register of voters. There's been a lot of pushback on this executive order. How is the White House handling that incoming in the wake of the order?

SEUNG MIN KIM, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I mean, they will point out, of all the lawsuits that -- I mean, they know and they anticipate a lot of these legal threats, but this particular executive order that targets mail-in voting, but it also effectively tasks DHS, working with the Social Security Administration, to create a list of all eligible voters in each state. That is something that the president has wanted to do for some time.

And I think we also have to look at it in the context of what is going on. He is changing -- he has put forward a lot of proposals to change election policy, election rules ahead of the midterm elections. You saw him try to -- try to push for mid-decade redistricting. It's the SAVE America Act in Congress is his top legislative priority.

The White House is aware, and Republicans writ large are aware, that this could be an incredibly bad midterm for them. And that's why -- that's one of the reasons why the president has been so focused on looking at the rules of how elections are administered. But election in the U.S., they are not administered by the federal government. They are administered by the states, which is why you had such prompt pushback from elections officials, particularly in states that are mostly or all mail-in balloting, saying this is patently unconstitutional. One elections lawyer told us at the "Associated Press" that this is going to get, you know, challenged as soon as lawyers can run to the courthouse to file -- to file -- to file a -- to file a lawsuit.

So, they are, obviously, anticipating legal threats. His previous executive order has gotten caught up in the courts as well.

HILL: Yes.

KIM: But this is -- this is a fight that they want to have.

HILL: The fight that they want to have. One Democratic strategist telling CNN, Terry, that this reeks of fear. They are terrified of losing in November.

And, you know, to Seung Min's point about everything else we've seen so far since the president came back in this second term, how do you look at this?

TERRY SCHILLING, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PRINCIPLES PROJECT: Well, I -- look, to say that we're terrified of losing in the midterms is ridiculous. It is -- the trend is the vast majority of the midterm elections after every single Republican president or Democrat president wins there's a huge pushback in the election. So, to act like we're wetting the bed over this is just preposterous.

But I will say that for the people that are concerned about all of the changes that President Trump is making to our election system, we should rewind a few years.

[06:45:05]

I mean in 2020 was the first election where not just millions of ballots, but tens of millions of ballots were cast through the mail. This has never been done in American history. Jimmy Carter, for example, wrote an entire brief and report on election integrity where he admonished nations that did mail-in balloting. It's super unsecure. So, I think we need some --

SABRINA SINGH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Donald Trump just voted by mail in the special election that was --

SCHILLING: No, no, listen, but there has to be -- but there -- but there --

HILL: There is also not evidence of widespread fraud.

SINGH: Yes.

SCHILLING: OK. OK.

HILL: And certainly not in the U.S., of widespread fraud that --

SCHILLING: Well, let me make my point. But the argument is not that there is not widespread fraud. The argument being made against this executive order is that he's making all of these changes to federal elections.

I'm sorry, but in California, they allow illegal immigrants to register to vote. They're only allowed to vote in state elections, apparently. But we know that these laws are fungible. You know, we're up against an entire party that really doesn't even believe in American citizenship.

SINGH: I am sorry, I have to absolutely object to that.

SCHILLING: Please do. I love that.

SINGH: As the -- as the party that is on the other side of that. I mean that that is just patently false. We are not against citizenship and we are -- we -- what we want and what Democrats have been fighting for is just access to voting.

And voting by mail is something that I do, something that the president does, that is inherently safe, that is secure, and something that can be done with ease.

SCHILLING: It's not secure. It needs rules. Virginia --

SINGH: I mean there is no evidence --

SCHILLING: There is no evidence of election fraud.

HILL: Where is the evidence, though, that it's not secure? That it has been widely insecure in the United States?

SCHILLING: Look at the -- the DOJ just went in and uncovered all the signatures on the ballots in Georgia that were fraudulent.

SINGH: Oh, please.

SCHILLING: Oh, come on. No, let's be honest. Like, if Republicans were doing this --

WU: Like, they knew which ones were fraudulent? Those were the only ones that they got?

SINGH: Yes, those --

SCHILLING: The ones where the signatures are egregiously off. Yes, you should actually look at the signatures on these mail-in ballots that don't look anything like the records that the secretary of state has in Georgia.

WU: So, just because they got them it means they're fraudulent?

SCHILLING: No, it means that their -- that their signatures don't match.

Look, the reality is, the American people need to have assurances that their elections are safe and secure. If the --

SINGH: They do. They have in every single election that has happened, they have had --

SCHILLING: No, no, you're missing -- I'm sorry.

SINGH: they had the assurance that these are free and fair elections.

SCHILLING: Sabrina -- Sabrina, let me just say -- let me say --

SINGH: That is something that has been a long standing in our history.

SCHILLING: Let me say, half of the country -- half of the country disagrees. And that's why President Trump --

SINGH: That's actually not true.

SCHILLING: Yes, half of the country actually has very big concerns, they're called Republicans, about how our elections are handled in this country.

SINGH: I have talked to many Republicans that do not have any --

SCHILLING: Well, you haven't to me and --

(CROSS TALK)

HILL: Here's the thing -- here's the one thing that I do know, is that we're tight on time in this segment. I don't have exact polling numbers in front of me, but I'm sure we could look them up, as to how many Americans overall and broken down by party or political affiliation, whether or not they feel elections are secure. We don't have those in front of us right now. We will pull them, though, for the next time we have this conversation.

We also have more to talk about. Ahead here on CNN THIS MORNING, Penn forced to make a list of all Jewish students, faculty, every Jew on campus. They want names. They want phone numbers. Who is they? The federal government asking for that information. We'll tell you why. What the courts just said about it, And take a listen to some of the concerns and what some students say this reminds them of.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [06:52:10]

HILL: So, we were talking just before the break about whether Americans actually have confidence in elections in the United States. Do want to share some of that most recent polling with you. So, this is from a March of 2026 poll from Marist. As you see, about two-thirds there, 66 percent say they're very confident, 34 percent say they're not confident. Just to break it down too to give you a sense. Majority of Democrats, 72 percent, 70 percent of Republicans, 65 percent of independents express confidence in their local governments to run fair elections.

So, I think that's an important number to point out there in terms of confidence in Republican voters. We were talking about this as well. They're actually more confident today in state and local elections than they were in October of 2024.

SCHILLING: Yes, look, I will just say, it's a third of all voters that have concerns about how secure our elections are. I think they should be paid attention to. I think that that's a pretty big voting bloc. It's 100 million Americans if you (INAUDIBLE) laid it out to all of us. That's a lot of people. And I don't think that their concerns should be dismissed.

SINGH: I think the numbers speak for themselves. Voters have confidence in their state and local elections. And the polling reflects that.

HILL: All right, we are going to move on to gas. But don't worry, we'll be talking about this for months on end, you guys. So, I know there's more there.

Just this hour, Americans now blaming President Trump for the rise in gas prices. Take a look at the new CNN polling just out this morning which finds 76 percent disapprove of the way the president is handling prices at the pump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The highest price I've seen with my own eyes was $6.49 a gallon for diesel right at a truck stop in Washington. That kind of made me take a look.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's over four now? Man, that's insane. Last week it was $3.60.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Someone that just freshly turned 21, I barely have my life figured out, and this is horrendous. Honestly, my personal opinion, it's horrendous.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm on E and I have no choice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Well, those high prices may be here to stay potentially for years. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID GOLDMAN, CNN SENIOR BUSINESS REPORTER: So, this means that for six years the oil market is saying that we're going to be above where we were before the conflict started, and that's a bad signal for the economy. It means that we could have high gas prices, high oil prices for quite some time.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Joining me now to discuss, Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy.

Good to have you with us this morning.

So, I will say too, our polling shows that most people do think this is temporary. The president saying yesterday that he thinks once the war ends prices will come tumbling down. What do you see? How temporary is this pain?

PATRICK DE HAAN, HEAD OF PETROLEUM ANALYSIS, GASBUDDY: Well, that's the million dollar question, how temporary the pain is really tied to the future of the Strait of Hormuz, whether or not it will reopen. What the president might say tonight might have an impact on what we're paying at the pump in the next few weeks.

But prices, once there becomes clarity in what's going to happen in the Strait of Hormuz, prices will likely react to that.

[06:55:04]

Whether that's clarity good or if it's bad. If the Strait of Hormuz is just going to be left in its current state, that is not very good for clarity. That's not very good for resuming shipping through the Strait. So, everything really, when it comes to oil, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel prices, cares about the Strait being shut down. Whether or not that is going to be addressed is the million dollar question. I mean I'd really hate to see that that Strait is the cleanup on aisle five. If it's going to be left as a mess, that's not going to bode well for what you and I are paying at the pump this summer.

HILL: It's important to note, I mean, the U.S., in many ways, it doesn't feel it, but is more insulated, of course, than the rest of the world when it comes to gas prices. But even if we're -- we're just talking about the Strait being shut down, there's so much more that plays into this. You know, Qatar noting that just one of its LNG facilities that was struck, this impact means a 17 percent reduction in Qatar's production capacity. And experts warn just that damage could take three to five years to fully repair. That's regardless of a ceasefire. That is just one facility.

Just put into perspective for us how widespread -- I mean like how many years of recovering are we actually talking about, even if tomorrow everything went back to, quote/unquote, normal? DE HANN: Yes, Erica. I mean it would probably be months, if not years,

to fully rebuild things back to the way they were. And that's why there's really not any winning in this, right? There's a huge mess left. The energy infrastructure is, you know, has been attacked. It's going to take months, if not years, to bring this back to normal.

You and I just look at it from a perspective of what we're paying at the pump. That could improve slightly here in the weeks ahead depending on what is said later today or even tomorrow in the days ahead. But there's still a lot to unpack here. I mean Europe is still reliant on Qatar for energy. And when natural gas supplies are attacked, it's a big problem.

And this isn't just something that you go out to the field and open the spigot up and it's solved overnight. To your point, there's going to be rebuilding done by these Middle Eastern countries, and we may not be back on the right footing for potentially a year or two depending on how long these fields take to restore.

So, I mean, a lot of problems. The least of them is what we're paying at the pump. But gas prices now continuing to go up nationally, $4.06 a gallon, diesel, $5.47 a gallon. And, you know, to what the trucker said earlier, this is the cost that's going to soon start showing up in your grocery store, you know, in all aspects of life.

HILL: Yes.

DE HAAN: You can't dismiss the fact that diesel in five states now has hit a new all-time record high.

HILL: Yes, not the numbers you want to see.

Patrick, appreciate it, as always. Thank you.

The Trump administration wants a list of all Jewish people on campus at the University of Pennsylvania. And now, following a ruling from a federal judge this week, the school has to hand that list over. This is part of a federal investigation into alleged discrimination at Penn. Jewish students and faculty members, however, say this feels a whole lot like Nazi Germany.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RABBI GABE GREENBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PENN HILLEL: Every minority group should feel invested in the protection of other minority groups. This is -- it's a slippery slope.

BETH WENGER, HISTORY PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: It is important to understand the resonance of collecting names and personal information of Jews and identifying them as Jews, and having the government collect that information.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: The group chat is back. So, the administration frames this as a way of protecting Jewish communities. They say they need to know who to protect, who's on campus there. There are a lot of concerns, as you just heard, about that list. The judge dismissed some of those comparisons to historical prosecution -- persecution, rather, calling them inappropriate, saying, though it was "ineptly worded, the request had an understandable purpose, such as employees are reasonably likely to have information relevant to whether Penn subjected Jewish employees to religious discrimination."

Legally, what makes all this different, Shan?

WU: First, because of the religious aspect of it, there's a strong First Amendment concern with people having to reveal their religious beliefs. Second, I was very struck by the judge's wording there because I'll be very critical of this judge, saying that it was an ineptly worded subpoena, yet it is still properly, narrowly tailored. That's like -- the whole thing is about the wording. If it's ineptly worded, he should have required that be modified to make it more narrowly tailored. Not just say, oh, well, they didn't do such a great job. I'll just let it go anyway. That really does not make any sense.

Also, his dismissal of the concerns of Jewish students and groups as being basically unfortunate, it's improper to make these analogies, who is the judge to say that about these people's actual feelings about this situation? It kind of reminds me of the mars attack scene, where the Martians are like wiping out people and saying, we come in peace. I mean, why should you trust them?

HILL: Hadn't thought about that comparison, but, OK, we've got that to go on.

We're a little tight on time, but do you see this -- I mean Penn has vowed to appeal. Important to say. Do you see this having a ripple effect?

SINGH: It potentially could, I mean, expand out depending on if there are other challenges. I mean I think all the points that you made are very valid. I think when you're gathering a list and consolidating a list of people, that's problematic. And so, that's going to rise up to more challenges, potentially.

[07:00:04]

HILL: Quick word, Terry.

SCHILLING: Look, I think this is very important -- we need to combat anti-Semitism on all of our college campuses. I don't know if I just -- if I agree with collecting a list of Jewish people on campus.

HILL: Yes.

SCHILLING: But this is a right -- a big, huge problem on our college campuses, anti-Semitism. And we need to do everything we can to address it.

HILL: And I'm sure we'll be hearing more from the White House on this one.

KIM: Yes.

HILL: We are -- we have to let that go, unfortunately. So nice to see all of you, though, in person. Thanks for bringing the spirited discussion this morning, which we always love, which means you at home need less coffee, so, you're welcome.

Great to have everybody with us. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. I'm Erica Hill. The headlines are next.

[07:00:00]