Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Trump Admin Plans Unprecedented Military Crackdown For Chicago; Texas & California Advance Redistricting Plans As Trump Eyes Other States. Interview with Maine Democratic Senate Candidate Graham Platner; Newsom Blows up Social Media with Posts Trolling Trump; Taking Stock of Hurricane Katrina, 20 Years Later. Aired 8-9a ET

Aired August 24, 2025 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Now to our celebration of the day. Lions-Texans in the final slate of NFL preseason games. Lions rookie Isaac TeSlaa went for two catches, 41 yards, a touchdown.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Yes.

WIRE: And one word --

BLACKWELL: Yes, yes.

WIRE: Oh my goodness. Texans win 26 to 7.

And I had asked Victor what his touchdown celebration would be.

BLACKWELL: It would be that absolutely. I had no idea that was coming.

Coy, thank you.

WIRE: You got it.

BLACKWELL: All right. And thank you for joining us on "CNN THIS MORNING WEEKEND".

INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY WITH MANU RAJU is up next.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(MUSIC)

MANU RAJU. CNN HOST (voice-over): Power flex. New this morning, White House officials plot a big expansion in Chicago of President Trump's tough on crime military takeover.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Chicago's a mess and we'll straighten that one out probably next.

RAJU: Illinois Democrats say its unlawful. So just how far is he willing to go? Plus, imitation game.

Texas and California kick off a midterms arms race.

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D), CALIFORNIA: They fired the first shot.

RAJU: And Governor Newsom takes a page out of Trump's social media playbook.

So how will it all affect the midterms?

And fresh catch. Maine oyster farmer Graham Platner is looking to oust a GOP senator in a marquee race. Can he show Democrats how to win again? I'll ask him ahead.

INSIDE POLITICS, the best reporting from inside the corridors of power, starts now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RAJU (on camera): Good morning and welcome to INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY. I'm Manu Raju.

So just how far will President Trump go to send the military to the streets of America's biggest cities? Well, in the aftermath of doing so in L.A. and in D.C., the Pentagon is now planning a military deployment in the country's third largest city, Chicago. And as sources told CNN and "The Washington Post", the effort would have parallels to when Trump ordered national guard troops and active duty marines to L.A. in June.

But in Chicago, Chicago, they have a broader focus on combating crime. It's really an unprecedented use of the National Guard. Now, Trump previewed those plans on Friday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Chicago is a mess. You have an incompetent mayor, grossly incompetent, and we'll straighten that one out probably next. That'll be our next one after this. And it won't even be tough. And the people in Chicago, Mr. Vice President, are screaming for us to come. They're wearing red hats just like this one, but they're wearing red hats. African American ladies, beautiful ladies are saying, please, President Trump, come to Chicago, please.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: All right. We have an excellent panel to break this all down this morning. "Puck's" Leigh Ann Caldwell, Hans Nichols with "Axios", Tia Mitchell with "The Atlanta Journal Constitution", and Alex Isenstadt also with "Axios".

Good morning to you all. Good to see you.

I mean, look, before Trump did this in L.A., which is sending the National Guard without the consent of a governor, it had been in 1965 when a president had federalized the National Guard. Trump is making this commonplace. This is a clear tactic. Now he's going to go into Chicago over the objections of Democrats. What does this look like and how far is he going to go?

LEIGH ANN CALDWELL, PUCK CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's always the question how far he's going to go. Doesn't seem like Trump is going to pull back at all. He's targeting blue cities. Obviously here in Washington, D.C., 90 percent of people voted against Trump. Los Angeles is a blue stronghold. Chicago, too.

And so this also with, Chicago and California, you have Governor Newsom, Governor Pritzker, potential 2028 presidential candidates as well. So, this is obviously very political, but its also a way for Trump to draw that wedge, to build that wedge on this issue of crime. Something that he ran on.

But it's also more of an immigration raid instead of something that's focusing on crime that have we seen play out in Los Angeles and even here in Washington.

RAJU: I mean, to that point, it is a wedge issue. He's trying to create this wedge where Democrats look, he has successfully ran on crime in election after election. Is there a risk at this moment of going too far, though?

HANS NICHOLS, AXIOS POLITICAL REPORTER: They certainly don't think so, right, inside the White House and on Republican allies on Capitol Hill. They want to run on the crime issue. They want to run on the immigration issue.

Any day they're talking about crime and integration, and they're not talking about Medicaid or any of the other issues.

RAJU: Epstein.

NICHOLS: Epstein -- is a day they think they're winning.

So, if we think of the next however long we have to go before the next midterm elections is a series of 24, 48-hour news cycles. They like it when the focus is on what we're talking about right here, which is crime. And the president antagonizing his opponents and doing things that really cheer his supporters.

RAJU: Yeah. And one of the opponents is, as Leigh Ann was mentioning, was the governor of Illinois, J.B. Pritzker. A potential 2028 candidate, making his objections known to this as news broke last night.

[08:05:03]

He tweeted, "The state of Illinois at this time has received no requests or outreach from the federal government asking if we need assistance, and we have made no requests for federal intervention."

So just like we saw in California, Newsom going up against Trump, perhaps we'll see the same thing with Pritzker. TIA MITCHELL, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF:

And I think what's different in Chicago is you could argue that the previous activations of the National Guard had some type of federal connection, whether it was the immigration enforcement in California or Washington, D.C., having federal oversight because of the way the city was established. But Chicago is an entirely different game because Trump has said explicitly this is about addressing crime in Chicago, not necessarily a federal, something that the federal government has direct control over.

I do think, however, when you talk about this is how Trump wants us to talk about crime, what we aren't doing is centering the people that Trump repeatedly says he's trying to help, which in a city like Chicago is Black people who live in high crime neighborhoods.

RAJU: And he says that he said that African American ladies, beautiful ladies, is his words are saying, president, please, President Trump, come to Chicago, please. They're wearing red hats.

MITCHELL: Yeah. And he's saying they're wearing red hats. I can tell you that if you go to these types of neighborhoods in D.C. or Chicago, they don't necessarily want federal law enforcement carrying guns, stalking through their neighborhoods. They might tell you they would like jobs for their young men. They would like programs that help keep young men off the streets. They would like to address organized crime, gang crime, the drug trade.

And that's not what we're talking about when we talk about what President Trump is trying to do. I also think it's important to say, even in high crime cities, its not that they're war zones. That's not the truth.

What -- what they are are places where people are trying to raise their families, where crime, violent crime happens way too often, keeping them on a constant state of alert, in a constant state of having to watch their back and watch their children when their children just want to play in the streets. And that's way more nuanced than the way that a lot of people talk about high crime areas. But again, I think that's because we don't center the people who actually live in these.

RAJU: I mean, well, it's all, you know, its very red state, blue state when Trump looks at these issues. And at what point does he start to do this in red states and red cities run by Republican mayors or Republican governors?

ALEX ISENSTADT, AXIOS SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER: It doesn't seem like that's on the -- on the agenda, at least for now, right? It seems like he's pretty focused on -- he's been pretty focused on D.C. it now looks like he's going to be expanding into Chicago.

But I think you're right. I think this is definitely is a symbol of his, you know, decision to play off against blue states, blue areas. Less likely he's going to be interested in going into somewhere in Alabama or somewhere in South Carolina. RAJU: Yeah. And look, so much of the use of law enforcement has been

also this retribution campaign that has taken place throughout the course of his second term here, including that happened on Friday when the FBI searched the home of John Bolton, his former national security adviser, a now a very staunch Trump critic. This is ostensibly about a classified intelligence investigation, and his writing about this in John Bolton's book. The book was, of course, very critical of Donald Trump. That investigation was closed during. Biden appears to now be reopened under Trump.

The interesting thing, too, is just how much Trump and J.D. Vance are -- they don't really separate themselves much from the Justice Department. The way we have seen in past administrations. Just listen to how they described this investigation into Bolton.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're investigating Ambassador Bolton, but if they ultimately bring a case, it will be because they determined that he has broken the law. We're going to be careful about that. We're going to be deliberate about that.

TRUMP: And I'm chief law enforcement officer, believe it or not. You know, I don't like to go around saying that, but I am, that's the position. But I purposely don't want to really get involved in it. I'm not a fan of John Bolton.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So, yeah, we -- I mean, when they say we and we're going to be careful about that, we're investigating John Bolton. That's what J.D. Vance said. Trump says I'm the chief law enforcement.

Again, look, of course, the Justice Department, you can say administration after administration, politics drives decision making. You can't say it's totally separate. But in this administration, there is just simply there are no lines between the two. The White House and the Justice Department.

CALDWELL: There's no pretension that they're even trying to have separation between the Justice Department. And this is something that's much different from Trump's first term as well. And this is what exactly Trump wanted this time around. He wanted an attorney general who would show deference to the president and not separation. And he got that with Pam Bondi. It angered him in his first term when Jeff Sessions didn't do that. And at the end, Bill Barr didn't do that either.

And so, this is exactly the setup that Trump has been looking for.

[08:10:02]

And he's been quite successful at it.

RAJU: And this is what "The Wall Street Journal" said. The conservative editorial page said over the weekend, said the real offender here is a president who seems to think he can use the powers of his office to run vendettas. We said this was one of the risks of a second Trump term, and it's turning out to be worse than we imagined.

Surprised by that?

NICHOLS: This gets into sort of the convention and norms versus rule of law, and has just been a convention that we have all accepted. The Justice Department will not be used for vendettas and will not be used for explicitly political tactics. That's not written down anywhere, really. And correct me if I'm wrong, right?

And so, this is just another place where Trump is stretching norms, violating them, as some people would say. And there's like, it's a test of institutions to see to what extent sort of these norms that we all accept, hold. Obviously, the editorial page of "The Wall Street Journal" is upset. I don't think inside the White House, they're terribly concerned about "The Wall Street Journal" editorial page anymore. That's just been a big shift in Republican presidents that we've all watched.

RAJU: Yeah, it's a split within the GOP.

MITCHELL: Yeah. I just think the concern is, as these norms continue to be stretched, if not violated, where does it end? And again, what does it mean for the larger concerns about our democracy? Because our democracy is built in part on trust of our government systems.

And I think what we're seeing with not just John Bolton, but with Lisa Cook on the Federal Reserve and, it appears that Trump is literally using the powers of the government to go after his political enemies, even with the National Guard and activating them right now, just in blue cities and blue states.

I mean, how does that -- the voters at home, how do they trust our government when they see this is -- when the perception is this is how the president is choosing to run the government.

RAJU: And use of executive power, whether it's been on tariffs and investigations about the use of the National Guard. That's been the defining theme of the second term so far.

All right. Coming up, off to the races. So which party has the midterm edge after a week of intense brinksmanship in California and Texas.

And later I talked to a Democrat trying to shake up one of the nation's marquee Senate races. That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:16:35]

RAJU: Texas is now well on its way to giving Republicans five more seats in the U.S. House after a bitter partisan gerrymandering feud ended with a major GOP victory just this weekend.

And in California, Democrats could get five seats of their own. That's assuming voters there are back a referendum pushed by party leaders to redraw district lines to tilt the elections towards their party.

So, is it all just a wash? And where does that leave the high stakes race for the House majority in the 2026 midterms?

My excellent reporters are back here.

So just to look at the map, because there's a lot of these discussions about where they can do this, where they can redraw district lines, where they can benefit each party here. We look at, let's say California gets those five seats. Texas gets those five seats. There are some other states in which mostly Republican states in which there could be an advantage.

We're looking at possible gains in Florida, South Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, the Democratic states have a harder time. They've been talking about doing this, and perhaps in New York and Maryland and Illinois, they either have constitutional amendments, laws, or they've already been very gerrymandered, like Illinois, where they may not have the edge were looking at.

If this all plays out, Republicans could get 6 to 8 seats more than Democrats.

NICHOLS: On net. Yeah, it seems like the Democratic states you mentioned Illinois, Maryland, both the governors there have to try or at least get caught trying, right? They're going to make an effort. Gavin Newsom has showed the path forward on how to fight back. I will say just yes if you do all the math, 6 to 8, you put both California and Texas at five, you talk to Democrats on Texas. They say, we think the number is three. We think we'll still be competitive in those Rio Grande valley seats.

Republicans aren't totally convinced that they'll lose five. Seems like if California if this initiative goes through. So yes, net, to let's just say 4 to 8 seats. That's the band.

But inside the Democratic Party, it's almost been cathartic. What Gavin Newsom has done, it's this, this fight back and that's this, this notion that you don't have to lie down. And I think that shows has been great for Gavin Newsom. It's been great for his presidential ambitions, but it's also given Democrats a little bit of hope that they can kind of fight through this Trump era, even if it ends up being a net loss.

RAJU: And we're going to talk more about Gavin Newsom later in the show. And on this fight, it's just so interesting how it is. So everything is district by district, line by line, just to show you how narrow the fight for the house could ultimately be here. And zooming in on one state, Indiana, there are two Democrats, seven Republicans in that congressional delegation. And Trump is pushing the Republican governor and the Republican legislature very hard to just pick up 1 or 2 more of those seats, because that's how narrow the majority could be.

You had some interesting reporting about the governor there, Mike Braun, who you report said he's worried that Trump won't approve his request for major state priorities, including a desperately needed Medicaid waiver and the implementation of toll roads to help cover the state's budget shortfall for shortfall if he does not accede to these demands.

CALDWELL: Yeah. So, a lot of Indiana sources that I talked to said that Mike Braun is between a rock and a hard place. He doesn't want to do redistricting because his state legislature, Republican state legislature, doesn't want to do redistricting. But he needs these things from the federal government.

And he's worried that if he doesn't do it, then Trump isn't going to give him the things he needs to help run his state.

[08:20:05]

But this is really, really controversial in Indiana. People just don't want to do it. We saw all the Republican members of the House of Representatives in a span of about 12 hours come out in support of it.

You know, I'm told by these Indiana sources that, you know, they would prefer not to do it either. This changes their district lines. It makes them work harder for their seats. But a person familiar to the White House thinking that I talk to over -- over -- in the past week, they said that they are quite confident that their persuasion campaign is going to work.

RAJU: Somehow, Trump tends to get his way with this party no matter where they are, particularly state legislators. But just to take a step back on where things are in the race for the house, we often gauge it by the generic ballot, asking voters who they prefer to have in power Democrats or Republicans. You look at past wave elections in fall 2010 right before the election, when Republicans had the big tea party wave, six points was Republican advantage there.

When Democrats took the House back in the 2018 midterms, they had a seven-point advantage. Right now, one poll has them. The CNBC poll has them. Democrats up five in that question. The question I guess here is, we look at this redistricting fight, could it overcome the Democrats advantage?

ISENSTADT: Well, it could and the reason why is because the map is actually pretty small, right? If you look at the house map nationally, just generally, there's been so much gerrymandering that's gone that there's actually a pretty small number of seats. And so even if Republicans can net one or two or three seats out of redistricting, that could make a difference.

So typically midterm years are great for the party out of power. And it still could be a great year for Democrats. But every seat really matters if there's only a couple dozen or three dozen competitive seats on the map.

MITCHELL: I still think a this is still about democracy and what this does to our democracy. Yes, Texas appears like it's moving forward with coming up with a new map. Voters in Texas from both parties are not happy with what's being done. They're just being overruled because Republicans are willing to do what President Trump has asked them to do.

But if these maps get redone, the question is also what happens in competitive districts? Does this make Democrats competitive in places where they weren't necessarily competitive before? Because voters are angry, because the sentiment might change in a way that benefits Democrats. And also, even in these seats that are new Republican seats, what types of Republicans get elected now, and how does that affect as we know what happens in the halls of Congress?

RAJU: It has a huge impact, of course, because it makes it less willing for members to want to compromise because they're playing to their base. But there are other factors that could impact the midterms, such as outside factors like mail-in voting. Trump, who railed against mail in voting in the 2020 elections, changed his tune in the 2024 election, started to embrace it. But then last week suggested that he wanted to do away with it again and would lead an effort to do away with it.

Just listen to his evolution on this topic.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Make a plan to vote either by mail, early in person, or to vote on election day.

If you have a mail-in ballot, get that damn ballot in place immediately.

Vladimir Putin, smart guy, said you can't have an honest election with mail-in voting.

You will never have an honest election if you have mail-in. And it's time that the Republicans get tough and stop it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Now. Republicans, even Republicans, are saying, why in the world is he doing this? Because look at the he actually gained with mail in voting by nine points in his overall vote share in in the 2024 election by embracing it. So, what is Trump doing?

ISENSTADT: Well, the difference is that in the election, you had a bunch of people around Trump telling him you got to embrace mail-in voting. You got to tell our people to get out to the polls through the mail. And now you don't have that same kind of effect where he's on the ballot and people around him telling him, you got to embrace mail- in voting.

RAJU: Yeah. I mean, and as a result, his party could be in trouble.

NICHOLS: Yeah. I mean, I guess Donald Trump's just reverting to his core belief, which is that mail-in voting is corrupt. And to Alex's point, like, you know, during the campaign, he had all these people telling him, mail-in voting is how were going to win. So, he accepted that. But those people aren't around anymore.

RAJU: Yeah. We'll see if he changes his tune yet again.

All right. An oyster farmer wants to be a senator. Is that a catch for Democrats or too wide of a net? The political newcomer joins me live next to discuss why he wants to take on a very powerful, yet vulnerable Republican senator.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:29:11]

RAJU: Maine Senator Susan Collins has long been a top Democratic target, but she's repeatedly defied the odds in her blue state, often making mincemeat out of her Democratic foes. Like in 2020, when Collins and Joe Biden both won in Maine by about nine points.

Now, Maine is a must win for Democrats in 2026 if they have any chance of taking back the Senate majority in this past week, a new Democratic candidate is getting some attention. That's Graham Platner, a political newcomer, military veteran and oyster farmer who says he's a different kind of candidate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM PLATNER (D-ME), U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE: I'm running for U.S. Senate in Maine to defeat Susan Collins. A decade of military service, going overseas, farming oysters to feed my community, but everywhere I've gone, it seems like the fabric of what holds us together is being ripped apart by billionaires and corrupt politicians.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: All right, Platner is entering a crowded field of primary candidates, and he's joining me right now to talk about his bid.

Thank you so much for being here, Mr. Platner.

PLATNER: Thank you very much for having me this morning.

RAJU: No problem.

Democratic leaders here in Washington, they're desperate really, to beat Susan Collins in their quest for the majority. But they're -- frankly, they're looking at your state's Democratic governor, Janet Mills. They think she would be the best candidate if she runs.

So why shouldn't the party consolidate around a battle-tested, two- term governor who has proven repeatedly she can win statewide?

PLATNER: If we keep running the same kinds of playbooks, if we keep having D.C. choose candidates for Maine that don't always represent a good -- the entire electorate of the state, then we run the risk of having another 2020.

And I feel that, frankly, because of the fact I was born and raised here, the kind of life that I've lived, the kind of work that I do, I have a connection with a lot of folks throughout the state -- Republican, Democrat, Independent unenrolled that I think other candidates just don't have.

RAJU: So if she runs, the governor, Janet Mills, would you drop out of the race.

PLATNER: No. I'd stay in. We're going to run the campaign we want to run.

RAJU: All right. So let me talk to you about your party, because poll after poll shows the Democratic brand at all-time lows. And a "New York Times" analysis this week found your party lost millions of registered voters in recent years.

Do you have confidence that Democratic leaders know how to change this very negative public perception about your party?

PLATNER: No. I'm doing this because I feel that we need to rebuild the party from the ground up. There was a time when this was a party that actually represented the working class, when it represented unions, when it represented big structural changes that were going to help working people. We haven't had that for a real long time.

And there's a lot of finger pointing about who's to blame. But truthfully, I just think that at its core, we need to really start rebuilding from the ground up and turning the party back into a party of the working class that goes and fights for the working class.

RAJU: So, so to that point, I mean, if you win next year, your first vote would be on choosing the next Democratic leader. That would be Chuck Schumer. Would you vote for him to be the next Democratic leader?

PLATNER: No. At this point, we need leaders that have vision and frankly, the ability to fight. The things that I've seen recently don't show me a Democratic leadership that has that.

And while I don't really have any answers on that front right now of who it would be, I do know that it certainly wouldn't be those who've been in charge.

RAJU: All right, let's talk a little bit about Susan Collins and the brand she's built in the state. I mean, she is a rare swing vote in the Senate GOP conference.

She's broken with Trump. She sides with them. She's also broken with them, too, including opposing nominees like Pete Hegseth and Kash Patel. She voted against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. She even voted to convict Trump after January 6th in his second impeachment trial.

So aren't those positions in line with the views of many voters in your state?

PLATNER: No. And the only reason I say no is that I have lots of friends, Republicans and Democrats, who all think that she is full of it. That the vote she takes, the stances she takes, she -- it's not -- it's not based on any kind of caring about the people of Maine. She's just trying to protect herself politically.

People in Maine don't believe it anymore. She has run a scam, quite frankly, for a long time. And I don't know anybody in my small community who buys it. And so I think that there is a --

(CROSSTALKING)

RAJU: But, I mean -- would it -- but wouldn't it be better to, you know, for voters? Some voters would say, better to have someone who is willing to break with their party. And unlike someone who is willing to be in line with what their party leadership, what the base wants to do 99 percent of the time.

[08:34:50]

PLATNER: When she breaks with her party, it's almost always on votes that are going to pass anyways.

People understand what's going on. Mainers aren't stupid. Everybody gets it. We're not -- we're not getting tricked by this. And I think that because of that, because this has gone on for so long at this point, there's a long record of people being able to understand exactly what Susan Collins has been up to. And I think that's becoming very clear.

RAJU: I want to ask you about a big issue that's been dividing your party, and that's been on the issue of Israel. You told Politico that you would have backed a Bernie Sanders resolution to block arms sales to Israel.

But I want to ask you about what's happening actually in Gaza. Do you think the Israeli government is committing a genocide in Gaza?

PLATNER: Yes. And to be fair here, I say that because I've read articles written by Israeli scholars of genocide who say that it's a genocide.

I just happen to be the kind of person who believes the experts when they tell me and present the evidence of what is going on. And yes, so I -- it is what we are seeing in Gaza is beyond horrific. Starvation as a weapon.

Should -- I can't even say it should never be used. It's so obvious that it should never be used. It's horrific. And I don't think American tax dollars should be paying for it because we have so many issues back here at home. That's where the money needs to be going. We should not be spending billions of dollars on a horrific war crime.

RAJU: You have also been critical of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby. There are a lot of Democrats who are very aligned with AIPAC. So what do you say to them? Should the party -- should the Democrats, as a party, swear off AIPAC? PLATNER: Yes, I say come into the future. Come join the new Democratic

Party, a party that isn't just going to be beholden to large corporate interests and big dollar PAC money.

Come into the new party, build a better world with us. I don't see -- I don't see the future of the Democratic Party lying with those interests.

RAJU: All right. Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate in the Maine Senate race, thank you so much for joining me this morning. Really appreciate your time.

PLATNER: Thank you. Appreciate it.

RAJU: Yes.

And next, if you can't beat them, join them? Well, Gavin Newsom trolls Trump and MAGA world all over social media. So is he unleashing a successful strategy for Democrats?

[08:37:31]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-Ca): We're fighting fire with fire, and we're going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.

And we need to stand up to this authoritarian. We need to stand up at this moment.

If you've got issues with what I'm putting out, you sure as hell should have concerns about what he's putting out as president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: You have noticed a certain politician lighting up social media with long partisan tirades written in all caps, no less. Nope, not President Trump, but Gavin Newsom, the California Democratic governor who has taken an increasingly combative approach to Trump as he positions himself for a potential 2028 bid.

My panel is back. So just a look at some of the tweets here -- all capital letters. Trump and very Trump-like. It's obviously trying to goad Trump and get attention. Successful tactic?

ALEX ISENSTADT, AXIOS SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER: It's -- well, it's certainly working for Newsom right. I mean, if you look at the fundraising, I believe he raised over $6 million within the first week of making this redistricting announcement.

So he's developing -- he's getting attention. He's developing a small dollar donor base, in other words. And those are things you need to have if you want to run for president. The thing is, for Newsom, it feels like he's kind of been all over the

map this year, right? If you remember back to the beginning of the year after Trump was elected, he had on -- he launched a new podcast, he had on people like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon.

So it sort of feels like he's trying to find his footing as to where -- what direction he's trying to go.

RAJU: Yes. I mean, that was that was a good point because during those podcasts, he was moderating on some social issues, like trans women playing in sports, male sports. Now, this is a very different approach. It's combative, take on Trump head on.

TIA MITCHELL, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Yes. It seems I think that's a great point Alex just made. It seems that he's trying to figure out what message translates. And what I think a lot of politicians are learning in our current media landscape is different messages on different mediums speak to different types of people, different types of voters.

And so you can see him speaking a certain way on social media, not just to troll Trump, but also to get the enthusiasm from a certain segment of the Democratic base that wants to see fighters.

But then if he goes on a certain type of podcast, his message is a little bit different because he knows the listeners of that podcast are a little bit different.

And then when he's speaking to Democrats, maybe like high-dollar donors in a private fundraiser, that message might be even different from the previous two. And that's kind of modern politics so he's playing the game. But I think he is also trying to figure out what works.

HANS NICHOLS, AXIOS POLITICAL REPORTER: Gavin Newsom appears to be enjoying himself, right. And candidates who enjoy themselves, they don't always win, but they catch fire for a moment.

[08:44:46]

NICHOLS: And the challenge for him and we have a long way to go before 2028 is, is he able to sort of bottle this energy and save it and then unleash it when he needs it, which is the primaries in the states that we don't even know which states are going to be crucial and dispositive in 2028 in the Democratic primary states.

That's his challenge. Can he keep this momentum up? But for now, he's enjoying himself.

RAJU: Yes. And look, the California Democratic voters seem to be enjoying it too. This is a poll that came out recently showing really a shift in more favorability towards Gavin Newsom.

This is a choice for candidate if 2020 presidential primary was tomorrow. This is among, again California Democratic voters, Newsom number one, above Kamala Harris. The same polls showed that there were more -- they were excited about

Newsom as the possibility of a Democratic candidate than Kamala Harris herself.

But does that translate outside of California?

LEIGH ANN CALDWELL, PUCK CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

RAJU: South Carolina or wherever else.

CALDWELL: Right. Exactly. I mean, that's the question. This is a poll three years before the election. You definitely don't want to peak now because that's not a really good sign.

But he has nothing to lose. He took on the president in this redistricting fight, as we've all talked about here around this table repeatedly today. It has really worked for the party. The party has embraced it. The party wants this fight.

And Gavin Newsom is channeling that anger and that energy right now. And so he's going to -- he's going to keep doing it.

RAJU: And he's gotten attention from MAGA media. I mean, he's gone after Fox News host Sean Hannity talking about him, Dana Perino talking about him and there's a Politico article says that Newsom is holding a mirror up to MAGA, and MAGA doesn't like what it sees.

ISENSTADT: Yes. Look, he's figured out how to get attention. And that's something that's really important when you want to run for president.

The question is, how does this -- how does this play out over the next few years? Because, as Hans said, we've got a long way to go here.

RAJU: Yes, we certainly do. And you know, well see. This ballot initiative, the redistricting fight, assuming it goes through, perhaps that'll be a win for him.

But potentially, if it goes, if it goes south, then that could be a big problem. So as you say, a lot of questions ahead as we get to 2028. But we'll be here to dissect it all for you.

All right. Hard to believe it's been 20 years since Hurricane Katrina. Up next, we'll look at the made-for-TV moment that helped the city get back on its feet.

[08:47:10]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJU: 20 years ago, Hurricane Katrina shocked the conscience of the American public, one of the deadliest and costliest natural disasters in American history.

Now CNN is looking back at what became a bright spot for a city in despair, the rebirth of the Superdome. Of course, that's the home of the New Orleans Saints and it was a temporary shelter for thousands of people in the aftermath of Katrina. And the effort to rebuild it, along with the Saints' journey to the Super Bowl, became a beacon of hope.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITCH LANDRIEU, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW ORLEANS: When Katrina hit the Superdome, it was the site of devastation. When the Saints came back into that building, and we all saw each other for the first time in a long time and we had the glorious Saints there, that's the moment where we knew we were going to survive.

It was a big -- I'm still crying -- it was a big moment for us. And people -- people in New Orleans remember that very moment. And the Saints gave us that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: All right. Joining me now is CNN sports anchor and correspondent Coy Wire.

Coy, that 2010 Super Bowl win really was a symbol of New Orleans' road to recovery.

COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR/CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that run of the Saints during that 2009 season was a beacon of hope for the city, still recovering from Katrina. Five years after the storm, the Saints, they went marching through the entire NFL, Manu, with a 13 and 3 record, inevitably winning the city its first ever Super Bowl title.

Sports, perhaps greater than any other thing on this planet, have the ability to bring people together, no matter your race, religion, socioeconomic background. And that season energized and brought together the people of New Orleans in ways that transcended sports.

Quarterback Drew Brees, the Super Bowl MVP, famously said, redemption is a beautiful thing and you have to be willing to work for it. And that resonated with the fans who had to work tirelessly to rebuild their lives and their city.

You know, the Superdome, Manu was one of my favorite places to play. As a member of the Atlanta Falcons, it was always electric. There are heated division rivals, but that 2009 season, you could feel this heightened buzz. We played them in New Orleans on a Monday night, Monday night football, Manu. Crowd was loud, shaking your helmet type of loud.

I forced a fumble, I recovered a fumble, I recovered an onside kick. We were going to make a comeback right? No, they still found a way to win that season. The Saints, they just felt like that team of destiny.

They had that elusive "it", that something extra. And it was because they were playing for something bigger than themselves. All 32 NFL teams that season were playing for what the Lombardi trophy, Manu? But the Saints that season, their why was bigger than the what. They were playing for the people of New Orleans. RAJU: A great memory. I got to go back and watch that highlight going

that sounds great. And Drew Brees just had an amazing Super Bowl. I had the fortune to watch him when he was in college, back in Purdue when he came to Camp Randall watching against my Wisconsin Badgers.

[08:54:50]

RAJU: We won that game. But Drew Brees tore it up. That was quite a scene.

Coy Wire, thank you so much for breaking down all of that with us. Great memories.

All right. Be sure to tune in tonight: "NEW ORLEANS SOUL OF A CITY, REBIRTH OF THE SUPERDOME" premieres at 9:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific right here on CNN.

That's it for INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY. You can follow me on X @mkraju. Follow the show @INSIDEPOLITICS and follow me on Instagram @manu_raju.

If you ever miss an episode, just catch up wherever you get your podcasts and search for INSIDE POLITICS.

Up next, "STATE OF THE UNION WITH JAKE TAPPER AND DANA BASH". Dana's guests include House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries and former Chicago mayor and ambassador Rahm Emanuel.

Thanks again for sharing your Sunday morning with us. We'll see you next time.

[08:55:34]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)