Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Ivo Daalder is Interviewed about the Rutte Meeting; MAGA Backlash Against Trump; Ceasefire Talks Between U.S. and Iran; Army Secretary Won't Step Down. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired April 09, 2026 - 06:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:32:32]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Today (ph) I barely hit eight gallons. That's what happens when you vote MAGA, baby.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: OK, a ceasefire in Iran, but it could take a while for gas prices to drop here at home. The national average for a gallon of gas is $4.16. In Indiana, suspending their seven percent tax on gas for the next month to help people out.

Good morning, everybody. I'm Audie Cornish. And I want to thank you for joining me on CNN THIS MORNING. It's half past the hour. Here's what's happening right now.

After making history in deep space, the Artemis II will return to earth tomorrow. In a few hours, the crew and flight control teams will begin preparing the cabin ahead of the planned splashdown. That's what's to happened off the coast of San Diego. As they make their way home, the astronauts say they're having fun, despite, you know, the close quarters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTINA KOCH, NASA ASTRONAUT: We're constantly moving around, whether it's to complete a task, to just eat, you know, to look out the window, to take a picture. It -- everything we do in here is a four-person activity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: So, tomorrow, join CNN for "Mission to the Moon: Artemis II Returns." That's live coverage that's going to start Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern and, of course, on our CNN app.

And this morning, attorneys for Sean "Diddy" Combs will appear in court to try to overturn his prostitution related conviction and his 50-month prison sentence. Now, back in October, the hip hop mogul was convicted of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. Diddy is not expected to appear in court himself.

And a little more than 24 hours into the ceasefire, the two-week truce between the U.S. and Iran seems to be on shaky ground. Iran says the agreement has been broken because of Israeli strikes on Lebanon. Iran also says that they've closed the Strait of Hormuz because of it. But the White House and Israel, they're saying that Lebanon was never part of this ceasefire agreement. Tomorrow, delegations from the U.S. and Iran are headed to Pakistan for proper talks.

And President Trump is still determined to punish NATO after a closed- door meeting with the secretary general of the alliance, Marc Rutte. Before Rutte's arrival on Wednesday, the president publicly stated that he was thinking of pulling out of NATO altogether. Now, after the meeting, he posted this on Truth Social. "NATO wasn't there when we needed them, and they won't be there if we need them again. According to "The Wall Street Journal," President Trump is also considering, here this, a plan to pull U.S. troops out of the NATO countries that he considers the most unhelpful during the war with Iran.

[06:35:08]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: This was a very frank, very open discussion, but also a discussion between two good friends.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Did the president say he was going to try to withdraw from NATO, or at the very least, not support NATO as much as other presidents have?

RUTTE: Well, as I said, he -- there is the disappointment, clearly. But at the same time, he was also listening careful to my arguments of what is happening.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK, I'm going to bring in Ivo Daalder. He's the former U.S. ambassador to NATO.

I know you've been watching this closely, and I wanted to ask you about Mark Rutte's sort of charm offensive. Trump always speaks highly of him, even when he doesn't speak highly of NATO. So, is Rutte there just to take the punishment for the leaders that Trump isn't talking to? Like, what do you read in what happened?

IVO DAALDER, SENIOR FELLOW, HARVARD'S BELFER CENTER: Well, actually, it was a long-planned meeting. It just happens to come in a particularly fraught time for the alliance. What I'd say is the biggest crisis in the alliance in its 77-year history. And Rutte has, in the past, been able to find a way, both through charming and flattering, which is the only way, I guess, people can talk to President Trump, whether Americans or foreigners, find a way to sort of steer him in the right direction. He was pretty successful in the first year of the -- of the Trump presidency, the second term. He got an agreement to increase defense spending to a level that the president wanted. He -- although the U.S. walked away from supporting Ukraine, he found a way in which Europeans could pay for it.

CORNISH: Yes.

DAALDER: But now this is different. The breach is bigger. And I think it's no longer flattery that's going to do things. And I think he was trying to explain what NATO was about. And I'm not sure if the president was listening.

CORNISH: No, it's pretty tough, especially after you've had so many leaders of NATO countries speaking out during the U.S.-Israeli strikes.

I want to play for you just some of them, the highest profile we know on the end of this spectrum being Spain, and also the French president, Macron.

Let me talk to you on the other side of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSE MANUEL ALBARES BUENO, SPAIN'S ACTING MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Violence only brings more violence. And that the consequences, economic, environmental, humanitarian consequences of carrying out that ultimatum and the consequences could be terrible for all humanity.

EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): Some people defend the idea of freeing the Strait of Hormuz by force via a military operation, a position sometimes expressed by the United States. This was never the option we have supported because it is unrealistic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: And it's not that this -- not just this, right? It's backed by actions in terms of overflight rights and access. So, there's really concrete issues here that the White House is concerned about. Do you think that's fair?

DAALDER: Well, fair to be concerned about it, but I think the White House should be looking at its own behavior to explain it. If you decide to go to war that is generally regarded as illegal under international law and unnecessary because there were many other routes to try to achieve the goals that you were trying to achieve, and you do so without actually consulting, let alone informing your allies that you're doing it, don't be surprised that they may wake up the next day and say, well, wait a minute, we're not part of this. We weren't involved. We weren't asked to be involved. We weren't informed about what it is you were going to do, and now you just want to go out and make sure that you use our airspace and the bases on our territory to do that. We have some questions.

And the president has, you know, perhaps skillfully, although my -- to my sense wrongly, taken those steps as the proof positive of something that he's long believed. He's long believed that NATO is more of a burden than a benefit to the United States. He's been saying that for a very long time. He came to the presidency back in 2016 saying NATO was obsolete. There was a couple of weeks where he thought NATO was OK, but he's now back at bashing NATO and finding ways to make, quote, Europe pay for what turns out to be his own mistakes.

And as a result, the reliance (ph) is so much weaker than it -- than it -- than it has been for so long because the president of the United States is basically saying, you sort out your own security, we sort out ours. The problem is that for the United States to sort out its own security, it actually needs NATO. It needs Europe. It can't conduct the war that it has just conducted for five and a half weeks without access to European bases and European airspace. And so, he should spend some time figuring out exactly what it is that Europe does, even when they don't support the United States in a war like this.

CORNISH: Yes. And there's some reporting now about whether or not the White House is considering pulling from certain bases, maybe moving them to other countries.

[06:40:02]

So, there's some big questions here about what that action would look like.

Ambassador Daalder, thank you so much for talking with us.

DAALDER: My pleasure, Audie.

CORNISH: All right, I wanted to turn to something else that's happening online. Some of the marquee voices in MAGA who had already been skeptical of war with Iran, they have just been speaking out more forcibly since Trump's threats against Iran over the weekend, especially that tweet about going after Iran's whole civilization. And now they're also talking about this two-week ceasefire.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE BANNON, HOST, "WAR ROOM" PODCAST: They're not dealing with the problems in this nation. The problems in this nation do not exist in the streets of Tehran.

MEGYN KELLY, HOST, "THE MEGYN KELLY SHOW": You don't threaten to wipe out an entire civilization, we're talking about civilians, just casually in a social media post.

Completely irresponsible and disgusting.

ALEX JONES, HOST, "INFO WARS": War. Iran has basically gotten everything it wants in the agreement because Trump was desperate to open the Strait of Hormuz. This is a huge black eye to the United States.

LAURA LOOMER, HOST, "LOOMER UNLEASHED": I am a die-hard supporter of President Trump, but I'm not celebrating tonight. I don't think that this is good. I think that this actually further legitimizes the Islamic regime in Iran. (END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK, so, now we've got this question, does the president risk losing some of his most loyal supporters with the largest megaphones just months before the midterm elections?

So, you guys are back? I wanted to talk to you both about this because when you look at the actual polling, take a question like, does Trump have a clear plan for handling the Iran situation? MAGA voters, 93 percent yes. OK, so we are seeing the MAGA part of the party self- identified say we're with Trump. And then, of course, the rest of the GOP, 47 percent. But who does marquee MAGA represent at this point?

JOEL RUBIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, hey, I mean, you know, let the Democrats answer (ph) about that.

MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: I would love to find this out.

CORNISH: Wait, why -- you're the one who's supposed to answer this one.

DUBKE: Oh, I -- you -- I -- (INAUDIBLE) wanted to jump in.

CORNISH: No, no, seriously. You were in the first White House.

RUBIN: Yes.

CORNISH: Those -- they courted these people.

RUBIN: Yes.

CORNISH: They brought --

DUBKE: They courted these people. They courted these people in the first White House, courted these people in the election of 2024 and others, Joe Rogan, some of the other manosphere and all of that.

CORNISH: Yes, who were also unhappy.

DUBKE: Look, the -- all of the individuals that you just put on there, Alex Jones included, who's got a big legal bill to pay --

CORNISH: Yes.

DUBKE: If we want to bring up, you know, a lot of things.

CORNISH: Of course.

DUBKE: Conflict sells. These individuals are really pushing for their own publicity. So, right now it's boring to agree with the White House. So, I -- am I surprised that I see a lot of these very loud voices who have their own platforms coming out and attacking the president? No. But the poll numbers are the important thing. CORNISH: So, who do you think is watching? Do you think it's Democrats

hate watching --

RUBIN: Oh, yes.

CORNISH: And suddenly saying, hey, Tucker's making good points after they've called him anti-Semitic --

RUBIN: No, they --

CORNISH: Or is there a real world of people, independent voters --

DUBKE: You're assuming their numbers are growing with their comments.

RUBIN: Yes, no, this is a gift.

DUBKE: I don't know that to be the case.

CORNISH: You think so.

RUBIN: This is a gift for Democrats. We love this, right? Watch these influencers essentially attacking the president. And even if the polls don't reflect it, and I -- I don't think they're right, quite frankly, about the MAGA base. But if they're attacking the president, that --

CORNISH: You don't think the polls are right about the matter (ph)?

RUBIN: No, I don't think that the influencers are right at all.

CORNISH: Oh, OK. Yes.

RUBIN: I think they're totally out of touch with the MAGA base. I think the MAGA base is in line with where the president is. They support this war. They support the ceasefire. Whatever it is that he does they're going to support. And so these influencers may actually be losing their influence, and that's why they're attacking him.

CORNISH: And Trump is starting to tear into them.

RUBIN: Yes, that's right.

CORNISH: He went into -- he went in on Tucker Carlson.

DUBKE: Which makes for great television.

CORNISH: Calling him "a low IQ person." Quote, "he calls me all the time. I don't respond to his calls. I don't deal with him. I like dealing with smart people, not fools."

RUBIN: Yes. Yes, not an endorsement.

CORNISH: These are not people you thought were fools when they were endorsing you and tearing down, you know, your opponents.

DUBKE: You never think somebody's a fool when they're supporting you. CORNISH: I know. But are they being contrarian? Is this, contrarianism

sells, or does it actually reflect certainly the polling when it comes to independence?

DUBKE: If we really want to get to the -- to the bottom line, if you listen to what -- at -- what they're saying is, why are we in Iran? If I'm going to get rid of all of the -- all of the rhetoric that's going on there, why are we in Iran when we have problems here at home with the cost of living? Kitchen table topics. We have the midterm elections coming up. Are they wrong about that? No. Are they inflammatory in their language? Yes. The poll numbers that you pointed out at the beginning of this, that's what the White House is paying attention to.

RUBIN: That's right.

DUBKE: When those numbers start to slip, then we can have a whole other conversation.

RUBIN: But I think they completely misunderstand Donald Trump on Iran. The president has been hawkish on Iran for 40 years. He was hawkish in his first term. I don't know where they're coming up with this theory that somehow now all of a sudden they're shocked, shocked that he's taking a hard line on Iran.

DUBKE: There's hand holding here.

RUBIN: This is -- this is -- they've basically been blinding themselves to it.

CORNISH: Well, let me pull one more thread. I know we're running out of time. But it looks to me as though this conversation on the right, the new right in particular --

[06:45:05]

RUBIN: Yes.

CORNISH: Which is suffused with anti-Semitism --

RUBIN: Oh yes.

CORNISH: Is a version of the conversation that Democrats and the left struggled with, with the last election, which is, you have a part of your base, a very loud part of your base, that is framing the conversation in ways you can't defend. And right now the administration feels like it's just ignoring that part of it, right? They're ignoring the fact that after courting a Nick Fuentes for many months, that all of his critiques about Iran also are deeply rooted in anti-Israel and anti-Semitic language.

RUBIN: Well, I think -- I think the -- Audie, I'm glad you brought that up. And I really do think that the one through line amongst the extreme left and extreme right in this influencer space is their desire to attack Jews on a daily basis. Their obsession with Jews. And the anti-Semitism is pervasive. CORNISH: But how long can the White House ignore that part of it?

RUBIN: Well, the president speaks out against anti-Semitism. And I'm going to say that they've taken actions that are controversial, certainly amongst Democrats, but taken actions to try to tamp down on anti-Semitism. And I think he looks at the language coming from Tucker Carlson and others and says, that is -- that is off base.

Now, he should and can and must do more always. But he has taken it on. In my party, I will say that we are having a fight right now over this.

CORNISH: Yes, you are. Yes.

RUBIN: And we do not have clarity enough yet from our leadership to push back against it.

CORNISH: OK, you guys, stay with me. I'm going to talk -- pick up some other topics.

Right now it's about 45 minutes past the hour. I want to give you a few more stories that you might have missed.

So, first, there's this parking garage in Philadelphia that collapsed on Wednesday. One person reported dead, two still missing. The fire department is saying they won't give up until they find those people, but there's no word yet on what caused this collapse.

And there was a massive fire engulfing the roof of the Velodrome at the Olympic Park in Rio de Janeiro. Luckily, no damage was done to the inside of the building. Now, this had been built for the 2016 Rio games, and the roof had previously caught fire twice in 2017, with both incidents linked to falling sky lanterns.

(VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK, so this video is showing the moment that a school bus full of students actually got clipped by a train. The bus driver, needless to say, was fired and arrested after refusing to stop at the railroad crossing. And, thankfully, no injuries were reported.

OK, you guys stay with us. And, of course, if you heard any part of the show you want to share, you want to argue with us, we're a podcast too. Scan the QR code right now. Hop in the comments. We love it. CNN THIS MORNING is available anywhere you get your podcasts.

And next, we're going to talk about the secretary of defense. Hegseth wants somebody out. The Army secretary. The Army secretary says, I'm not going anywhere. So, are the top ranking leaders on a collision course at a really crucial time.

Plus.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No ceasefire ever goes without a little bit of choppiness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: So, the vice president will lead the delegation for negotiations with Iran. What will it take for the two sides to come to a deal?

And later on CNN, Republican Congressman Mike Haridopolos will be joining.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:52:27]

CORNISH: OK, negotiating with Iran. Let's say it's complicated. Theres always been trust issues on both sides. And sometimes, according to J.D. Vance, there's a language barrier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I actually wonder how good he is at understanding English, because there are things that he said that, frankly, didn't make sense in some of the -- in the context of negotiations that we've had.

But we don't really concern ourselves with what they claim they have the right to do. We concern ourselves with what they actually do. And I think the president's been very clear on the enrichment question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK, so Vance is talking about Iran's parliament speaker, Mohammad Ghalibaf. And while we do not know for certain who's representing Iran in the negotiations on Saturday in Pakistan, Ghalibaf could be part of it. Now, on the U.S. side we're talking about Vance, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

Joining me now is CNN national security analyst Alex Plitsas, who knows a lot about this kind of negotiation.

So, let's start with who might be in the room. While the U.S. has, quote/unquote, decapitated much of Iranian leadership, who might be at the table?

ALEX PLITSAS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Good morning, Audie.

So, you're 100 percent correct. And Ghalibaf will likely be at the table, especially since Vice President Vance is going to be there. My understanding is there's been communication between the two of them. The Iranian regime, prior to the war, had been trying to get in touch with the vice president for the better part of a year based on my conversations with interlocutors, with some messages being passed through intermediaries between Steve Witkoff, the Omanis and the Qataris with the late Ali Larijani, but a meeting never took place. And the Iranians largely see him as the most anti-war person in the cabinet. And so, he was the sought after person there. And on the other side, Ghalibaf is the -- probably one of the few

remaining individuals who can bridge both the security and the political divide in Iran to be able to have those conversations. So, it appears to be the two right people both sides want in the room for those discussions. And then for the U.S., I believe it's also going to include Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, and then they'll obviously be some support for speaker Ghalibaf as well from the Iranian side.

CORNISH: Is it a wild card that -- whether or not there will be an Israeli representative there? I mean this started out a joint set of strikes, U.S. and Israel.

PLITSAS: I think it would probably be -- it would probably be a stretch to see that happen, particularly -- because it is in Pakistan as well. So, between the Pakistanis and the Iranians, I don't know that they would want the Israelis sort of in the room. And that's, you know, to your point, that's been part of the problem since the beginning. There really are three actors, and this has really been treated as a bilateral discussion. And it's expected that the U.S. is going to carry the water, or at least, you know, be responsible for passing messages or some requests or, in some cases, asks from the United States back to the Israelis outside of the meeting.

[06:55:05]

CORNISH: That leads us to the sticking points. We're talking about Israel and, of course, it's incursion into Lebanon. The other thing is the Strait of Hormuz, which thanks to these strikes, is kind of still closed. And I got a question from a viewer I want to read to you. "Iran doesn't own the Strait of Hormuz, so why are they allowed to hold dominion over it?" Can you talk about that in the context of these discussions?

PLITSAS: Sure. I mean, in reality, they really shouldn't be. Freedom of navigation should be uninhibited. They shouldn't be able to charge money going through there. You know, there's been discussions about sort of tolling. And to your point, they've held the Straits at risk. There was some reports this morning that sounds like they may have released some mines in the water and now they're suggesting that the coordination with Iran that they spoke about in their statement for navigation is required to get around mines. But getting around mines doesn't give the right to charge money. So, where I'm reading into that is, if we look at what's transpired, they've attacked their gulf neighbors, who would have been the most likely to help with financial support after the war for reconstruction. The U.S. in a -- in this type of environment, never mind the fact that it's an election year, sending large amounts of money to Iran for reconstruction is not really feasible for a host of reasons. We've told Europe that they need to increase defense spending from three to five percent of GDP. The Russians are broke after their war in Ukraine, and the Chinese are unlikely to bring in a lot of money. So, if Iran needs to rebuild, they've made that part of their conditions for sort of a peace or a ceasefire of some sort.

The easiest way of political expediency is if they have 100 ships transiting a day on average, you charge two million a day, that's 200 million a day in boat tolls, never mind the gas and the oil profits that they sell on the back end. That makes Iran a decent amount of money to help with that and gives us sort of a political out. But that is in, you know, complete, you know, contrast to freedom of navigation of the seas and how things normally operate.

CORNISH: Yes. And of course, there's the whole nuclear issue. I hope you're going to come back so we can talk about that. That's going to be the biggest thing coming out of this deal.

PLITSAS: Yes.

CORNISH: Alex Plitsas thanks so much.

PLITSAS: Thanks, Audie.

CORNISH: Now, I want to bring up one other thing. In the midst of everything we've been talking about, there is this like power struggle unfolding at the top of the White House.

So, you have the Army secretary, Dan Driscoll, who says he's got no plans to leave. This is after a series of clashes with the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. And his defiance is coming after Hegseth removed more than a dozen senior ranking officials, including the Army's top officer and two other senior military officers.

Now, Hegseth has been at odds with high-ranking officers at the Pentagon almost as soon as he took over.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: It's completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world. It's a bad look. No more beer-dos (ph). The era of rampant and ridiculous shaving profiles is done.

But when it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender neutral. If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK, so we wanted to play that to set the tone for --

DUBKE: Very nice.

CORNISH: For this merit-based conversation.

DUBKE: The pep talk.

CORNISH: It was --

RUBIN: This is not a beer-do.

CORNISH: In the U.S. military. No beer-dos. Happy birthday to you. But I wanted to bring this up because this is a rare moment of just saying, no. Army secretary defies the Pentagon chief. You've got Driscoll actually releasing a statement being like, hey, I know there's chatter out here. He says serving under President Trump has been the honor of a lifetime. I have no plans to depart or resign.

Do you think that's because he reportedly has some connections to J.D. Vance? Like this is not a person who's a political orphan.

DUBKE: Yes.

RUBIN: Yes, look, I -- clearly there is a power struggle at the top. There are political appointees all jockeying for each other's jobs. There's Sean Parnell, he's out there as well, listed.

CORNISH: I'm sorry, the military is a hierarchy.

RUBIN: Right.

CORNISH: I don't want to see jockeying in the middle of a war.

DUBKE: Well --

RUBIN: Well, that's the point is that --

CORNISH: No, tell me.

DUBKE: Those are two -- those are two separate questions.

RUBIN: You can't -- but you can't have this kind of dysfunction.

CORNISH: Oh, tell me. Tell me. Give it to me. Give it to me.

RUBIN: But just to -- really briefly, the leadership can't be dysfunctional. Certainly not during time of war. They need to be all on the same page. So, the idea that they're sort of hashing it out publicly now about who's on first again, what's on second and I don't know is on third really creates chaos at the top and makes us less safe. And that's a problem.

DUBKE: So, to Joel's point, now is not the right time for all of this to be happening. And kudos to Driscoll to try -- to try to tamp this down. But it's politics, Audie. Of course there's jockeying on top of the Pentagon. There always has been. There's jockeying in the catholic church, for goodness sake. I mean, this is -- this is the world that we live in.

CORNISH: Yes.

DUBKE: And when you have civilians controlling your military, which we want to have happen, you're going to have this.

Also, Driscoll, we shall not forget, in Washington, the biggest rumor is, if Hegseth leaves, who's there next? Who do you -- who do you think you can get through the Senate? Driscoll's name comes up time and time and time again.

CORNISH: Oh, it does? All right. DUBKE: So, if you're Hegseth and you listen to Rahm Emanuel when, you know, use every, every, every crisis as an opportunity, he's trying to get rid of people that could be threatening to him.

[07:00:10]

None of this is surprising. The timing of it is what's wrong about this.

RUBIN: But he's spending all of his time thinking about jockeying for a job --

DUBKE: Yes.

RUBIN: Rather than protecting our forces.

DUBKE: Exactly right.

RUBIN: And achieving our national security mission. That worries me.

CORNISH: I mean like I think the flip argument is also, you want to have people on board with the mission, as the mission is unfolding.

RUBIN: Exactly.

CORNISH: We'll keep an eye on these morning press conferences he's been having. So, thank you both for being here and thank you for being here. Headlines are next.