Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Indirect Israel-Hamas Talks Begin In Egypt; Trump Administration Makes Unprecedented Number of Emergency Appeals To Supreme Court; Dems Push To Extend Obamacare Subsidies; Virginia Dem Nominee For Attorney General Facing Criticism, Over Vile, Resurfaced Text Messages. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired October 06, 2025 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:00]

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: -- expectation, a lot of hope that this really is the moment that it's going to happen. But I think there's a couple of caveats that give the impression that this is going to take a little time.

Number one, President Trump has said that it could take several days. We've heard from the German foreign minister who's talking about that he hopes that the deal is done, that the hostages are released by sometime next week. So I think that gives you a sense of the timeline there.

But another key factor in trying to analyze how quickly this can get done is the fact that Israel's one of the lead confidants of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Ron Dermer, who was going to be leading the Israeli delegation to Egypt, has -- is not coming, that he will be leading the delegation but remotely, and we're told that he will come if, you know, the subtext seems to be if there is substantial progress.

But I think, again, another pointer to how this is going a little more slowly than people anticipate is the fact that Khalil al-Hayya, the Hamas leader of the delegation, met with Qatari and Egyptian officials today to try to narrow gaps, is what we're being told by Hamas, narrow gaps in that 20-point plan by President Trump.

And key issues for Hamas on this plan involve them being told they have to disarm, put down, get rid of weapons, that they will not have a part in the political future in Gaza, and for the leadership to be offered free passage, safe passage out of Gaza. These are outstanding and important issues for Hamas.

So the fact that these are only now getting some discussion, I think, gives an idea within a 20-point plan where the very simple headline part of it is that Hamas just agrees to the ceasefire and releases the hostages. There's a lot of conversation that needs to be had to get to the overall agreement.

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, no question about it.

Nic Robertson, live for us from Cairo. Thank you. From a lively scene in Cairo, we could hear all the sirens behind you. Thank you so much for that report.

And after months of emergency rulings in the President's favor, a new Supreme Court session has started. Now the justices will have to embrace or strike down some of the President's more controversial policies.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:36:50]

RAJU: Right now, the Supreme Court is hearing the first oral arguments of its new term, a term that could have sweeping ramifications for President Trump and the country. Not only could the court redefine the scope of presidential power, but also could reshape the race for the House in next year's midterms in a key Voting Rights Act case, while also ruling on transgender rights and deciding just how far the President can go on slapping tariffs on much of the world.

Joining me now is CNN's Supreme Court Analyst and a professor at Georgetown University, Steve Vladeck. Steve, thanks for being here. I want to start on the question about presidential power. Just how far could this term change the powers of the presidency?

STEVE VLADECK, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: You know, Manu, pretty dramatically. I mean, whether it's the tariffs case that the court's going to hear in November, cases about the President's ability to fire senior agency heads in December and January, or the cases that are certainly coming about, for example, the deployments of troops in Portland and Chicago, or other questions about alien enemies and removals of migrants from the country.

Manu, by the end of the term, the justices are going to have to weigh in, not just, as you say, about the scope of presidential powers, but Manu, about how much the President's factual determinations, that particular things are true, can be reviewed by the court. I think that's going to be a dominant theme of the court's business over the coming weeks and months.

RAJU: And speaking of the past -- couple past weeks and months, we've seen something really unprecedented this summer. The White House has done something that we've not really been seeing. They've been filing a staggering number of these emergency appeals, more than Biden's entire term in less than a year.

And President Trump has actually won 84 percent of those appeals. For context, Biden only won about half of those emergency -- his emergency appeals. So in some cases, they're basically overturning past Supreme Court precedent without explaining why. So, Steve, what are the ramifications of that?

VLADECK: So the ramifications, Manu, are massive. I mean, through these rulings, we have seen everything from, you know, federal officers who were fired despite statutes that said they can only be removed for cause. We've seen the president cut the Department of Education by a third. We've seen, you know, hundreds of thousands of migrants lose their

temporary immigration status. We've seen transgender individuals dismissed from the military. I mean, the list goes on.

But, Manu, the really key point is that for as solicitous as the court has been toward President Trump, for as much as those rulings have enabled these actions, the court has said shockingly little in those rulings about whether what President Trump is doing is actually legal.

And so a big part of the story for the Supreme Court term that starts today is that chicken coming home to roost, meaning now the court really is going to have to start weighing in substantively on what the administration's doing. Now we're going to learn a lot more, not just about whether the justices are willing to silently enable this behavior, but whether they're willing to publicly rationalize it to the law and the Constitution.

RAJU: Wow, that is absolutely fascinating. And all this summer's action, Steve, has sparked really deep tension on the bench. Just how polarized is the court right now? And what do you think that means for this term?

[12:40:08]

VLADECK: Yes, I mean, you know, it's a common thought process. It's a common sort of saying in Supreme Court circles that the justices sort of go away for the summer, they recharge, they basically sort of remember that they're friends. Well, they never really had a break this summer.

And it's not just that they were busy, it's that they were divided. Manu, in so many of the big cases right down the normal, predictable ideological lines, you know, by the end of the summer, the tenor of some of the dissenting opinions by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, by Justice Elena Kagan, by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had become quite sharp and provocative.

Hard to imagine things are, you know, peachy keen in the justices' private conference room. But it's not just, Manu, about how the justices get along with each other. It's also about how they're getting along with the lower courts.

And one of the other real themes I think we're going to see emerge this term is more and more conflict between lower court judges who are trying their best with, you know, high profile, fast moving cases and who are getting from their perspective, insufficient guidance from the Supreme Court and the justices who are getting frustrated that lower courts aren't getting the hint. I think that's going to be a big story as we go forward.

RAJU: So interesting, so significant. And I really appreciate, Steve, you coming on and sharing your expertise.

Steve Vladeck for us here, the CNN Supreme Court Analyst. Appreciate your time. And up next for us, what exactly are the Obamacare subsidies that Democrats are fighting for in the government shutdown? And what happens if they go away? We break it down next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:46:05]

RAJU: Democrats are digging in on their demands to extend enhanced Obamacare subsidies that expire in January before they agree to reopen the government. Now, a new poll shows three quarters of Americans say they actually do want the subsidies extended, including 59 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of MAGA supporters are in our own favor.

But do voters want the government shut down over this fight? And what exactly are those subsidies? Who gets them and what happens if they go away?

Well, to answer all that, CNN's Tom Foreman is here to break it down. So, Tom, what can you tell us?

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I can tell you that the Obamacare subsidies are used by about 22 million Americans, a little bit more. They were first passed during COVID, renewed under Biden. Basically, by holding health care premiums set as a percentage of income, that kind of thing.

The goal here was to help people who might need financial help, who aren't necessarily in poverty, but who are struggling. So if you look at what happens if they expire, it becomes a very different ballgame. Four million people become uninsured almost immediately based on some estimates out there. Dramatic rate hikes would follow as well.

How high would those rate hikes be? Well, if you were making $18,000 a year, not much. Your current premium for this is $0. That's great. But then $378 is your new premium. $378 is the change.

If you're making $35,000 a year, your current premium, $1,033. Your new premium, if it expires, look at that, more than double. So up $1,500, almost $1,600. And if you're $55,000, $4,000 jumps up to $5,478, another giant jump there.

And look at this on what they call higher earners. Imagine an older couple out there who's making $85,000 a year. That's not a huge, that's not, you know, billionaires or anything like that, but that's a higher earner in this case.

Here's their current premium, $7,225 per year. That's 8.5 percent of their income. That's sort of the top end under the current rules. Under the change, if it expires, that will jump to $25,000 per year. That's almost a 30 percent increase.

That is -- that's almost 30 percent of their income, not an income -- 30 percent of their income for the year. That's a tough thing if you're making $85,000 a year. Now, Republicans are looking at this and by and large saying we're aware of all of that, we can get to that at some point.

But what we're really worried right now is the idea that somebody who's undocumented might be covered by this. Well, the law itself says that is not the case. It actually says the only people who could get this would be people who are lawfully present in the United States beyond citizens, lawfully present in the United States of people who have come through the right channels, who have been approved to be here while they're seeking asylum, or maybe they hold green cards or whatever it is.

They're in the country legally. So there would be some instances maybe, but this from a Democratic standpoint is a minuscule part of this program. And Republicans are saying, but let's focus on this and we'll get to that other part later on.

Democrats are saying the other part is the important part. You have to talk about that. And if you look at who's going to be hit, if this expires, you can understand why some Republicans are also saying, yes, maybe we need to get around to this now because look, these are the hardest hit states if the credits expire.

California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, that's where you have the highest number of enhanced subsidy recipients. And this one, this one, this one, this one, all voted red in the last presidential election. The truth is, if these expire, this is going to hit a lot of people in this country, millions of people and a lot of them in red states that backed Donald Trump.

RAJU: All right. Tom Foreman, thank you for that detailed breakdown.

My panel is back with me here. So how do we think -- what's your sense of how far Democrats are willing to go here? Do we think they're going to dig in in a week --

HANS NICHOLS, POLITICAL REPORTER, AXIOS: Let's see.

RAJU: -- and then two weeks, three weeks, they'll be in the same position now or will they back off?

[12:50:00]

NICHOLS: It seems like they're dug in. I'm open to the table or whatever anyone thinks. My line heading into the shutdown was there's 100 percent certainty and it would be either 72 hours or seven weeks. Well, I was wrong on the first -- I was right on the first part, I was wrong on the second. It seems like it's going to be long --

RAJU: Yes.

NICHOLS: -- and that seems to be the vibe, but I don't get paid to report my vibes, so.

SEUNG MIN KIM, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think Democrats are picking up on -- speaking of vibes, like vibes from Republicans that they could feel some political backlash if these subsidies aren't extended, but how much they're dug in and what the policy actually looks like if there is a deal at the end of the day is the big question.

RAJU: Yes.

KIM: We do know there are some Republicans who do want extended, but the vast majority don't. So what happens there?

RAJU: It's always harder to reopen the government --

KIM: Right.

RAJU: -- than to shut it down, so what do they get that constitutes a victory for them?

TIA MITCHELL, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Right. Because at this point, Democrats -- what makes this different than some of the past shutdowns is the shutdown itself was somewhat popular. You know, you had Democrats, their base saying, shut it down, stand up, do something, don't just go along to get along, which wasn't necessarily the message that lawmakers were getting from voters ahead of previous shutdowns.

The actual reasoning behind the shutdowns, the expiring subsidies, polls very well. That's not necessarily what we got from voters with the reasoning behind, for example --

RAJU: Yes.

MITCHELL: -- when Republicans wanted to shut down the government over repealing Obamacare or Trump shut down the government over the border wall.

RAJU: And we'll see if the polling shifts as this shutdown drags on.

All right, up next, apparently three's a crowd. We'll tell you how that applies to one of the most expensive Senate primaries in Texas history. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:56:15]

RAJU: Topping our political radar, from Texas two-step to Texas three- step. Republican Congressman Wesley Hunt is ignoring Republican leadership and jumping into the lone star Senate race. He's shaking up an already very contentious and expensive race with Attorney General Ken Paxton challenging the longtime incumbent John Cornyn.

But Hunt told the Associated Press, quote, "What I've seen in polling over the past few months is people want an alternative, and I'm going to give it to them." His launch video featured family, friends, and colleagues.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He's not afraid of a challenge of stepping up to the plate and giving it your all and showing we can fight back. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would describe Wesley as strong.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's a lovable fighter.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Magnificent.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Fearless.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Daddy.

REP. WESLEY HUNT (R), TEXAS: And that's why I'm running for Senate.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

RAJU: Now Hunt, Cornyn and Paxton will all have to duke it out to land the coveted presidential endorsement and fight to get into a two- person runoff.

And Virginia's Democratic nominee for Attorney General is facing intense criticism from both sides of the aisle for text messages he sent in 2022 suggesting a colleague should be shot. In exchange between Jones and Republican Virginia delegate Carrie Coyner, Jones wrote this about then-Speaker of the House of Delegates Todd Gilbert. "Three people, two bullets. Gilbert, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Gilbert gets two bullets into the head."

Now in a statement to CNN, Jones wrote, in part, "I take full responsibility for my actions and I want to issue my deepest apology to Speaker Gilbert and his family. Reading back those words made me sick to my stomach."

My panel is back. Wow.

NICHOLS: Yes.

RAJU: Pretty stunning messages that were leaked. Unbelievable he put it into a text message to another member.

NICHOLS: A Republican.

RAJU: A Republican -- exactly. And that in fact he said it.

NICHOLS: Yes.

RAJU: You have reporting about how Republicans plan to take advantage of this.

NICHOLS: Yes. Republicans, the Myers (ph) campaign has a 1.5 million dollar ad buy. It basically just repeats the text messages. It is a brutal ad. The question I have, and we'll see when you actually see where it's placed on this, is it just in the D.C. area? Is it down in Roanoke? Is it going to be in the Richmond area?

But Republicans clearly think they now have a much better chance of winning this AG race. Remember, Virginia is typically brutal for the party that controls the White House. It has this off-off-year election coming a year after the presidential. So real money behind the buy. And they're not a whole -- I could be wrong, but we haven't heard.

And I texted the campaign of Jones this morning, but we have not heard from them since that Friday night statement. And there have only been more and more comments and criticisms, mourning Joe of all people, saying he should probably get out of the race.

RAJU: Yes.

NICHOLS: Tough position.

RAJU: It really is a tough position for Democrats, too.

KIM: Right.

RAJU: I mean, Democrats are, you know, you have Mark Warner, Abigail Spanberger saying that they were to criticize it, but they haven't called on him to drop out.

KIM: Right, right. I mean, first of all, bottom line, those messages were abhorrent.

NICHOLS: Yes.

KIM: And I think that it's really, the pressure is going to build, likely, on Abigail Spanberger. And Republicans are really sensing a political opportunity here, because she is doing very well in polling compared to her down-ballot candidates, including the AG nominee and the lieutenant governor nominee. So you're going to hear Republicans continue to pressure more and more on calling Jones to drop out, which, as you know, she has not done.

RAJU: Yes, because Winsome Earle-Sears, you know, is a Democrat -- the Republican candidate for governor has been struggling in this race.

KIM: Right. Yes.

RAJU: But maybe she could be lifted up by the bottom of the ticket. Typically, the top of the ticket brings up --

MITCHELL: Yes, maybe.

RAJU: -- the bottom of the ticket -- maybe, the Republicans hope it could help down the ticket, up the ticket.

MITCHELL: Yes. I think a lot of it is going to depend on how he handles it. And being silent and letting people criticize him for days on end doesn't seem like the best way to handle it. Also, it's a little bit late. It's not like he can be replaced. Early voting is already underway.

KIM: Right.

MITCHELL: So Democrats are kind of stuck with him. So they're just going to probably hope he doesn't pull the rest of the ticket down.

RAJU: Yes, that is the big question. Of course, at this time of political violence, unbelievable comments that he made in those text messages that were leaked. We'll see the impact on this race.

And thank you guys for coming on and talking about all this. Thank you for joining Inside Politics. CNN News Central starts right now.