Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Tensions Flare In Minneapolis As Noem Defends Rush To Judgment; Democratic Divide Brewing Over ICE As Shutdown Looms; Trump Weighing Potential Military Intervention In Iran; Trump Threatens Greenland, Mexico, Colombia, Cuba, Iran; A Midterms Question For GOP: Align With Trump Or Break Ranks; Senate Agrees To Display Plaque In Support Of Capitol Police. Aired 11a-12p ET

Aired January 11, 2026 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:36]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR: Iced out.

JACOB FREY, MAYOR OF MINNEAPOLIS: Get the (BLEEP) out of Minneapolis.

RAJU: Tensions flare across the country. How the Feds jump to conclusions.

KRISTI NOEM, UNITED STATES HOMELAND SECRETARY: That is an act of domestic terrorism. You don't get to change the facts just because you don't like them.

RAJU: Will there be any consequences?

REP. ILHAN OMAR (D-MN): If there is no accountability today, there won't be accountability tomorrow.

RAJU: Minnesota Senator Tina Smith joins me live.

Plus, globetrotter.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we don't do it the easier way, we're going to do it the hard way.

RAJU: As Trump eyes his next target. Could foreign entanglements doom his party?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I feel like we've got high school kids playing a risk.

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): To invade green would be weapons, grade, stupid.

RAJU: And rewrite.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is our Capitol. RAJU: New details on January 6, as defendants march again on the Capitol.

Inside politics, the best reporting from inside the corridors of power, starts now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Good morning, and welcome to "Inside Politics Sunday." I'm Manu Raju.

Past presidents, during times of tragedy, tended to urge calm and restraint and let the facts be known first before taking a stand. Not President Trump or his administration.

They wasted no time blaming 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, who was shot to death by an ICE agent in Minneapolis this past week, calling the incident, quote, domestic terrorism, but videos that have been released called that narrative into question.

Now, there is still much unknown. And later this hour, I'll speak to Democratic Senator Tina Smith whose state of Minnesota once again saw huge protests this weekend as tensions flared in demonstrations across the country.

Also new this morning, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, insisting that her version of events are the right one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Why did you not wait for an investigation before making your comments?

NOEM: Well, everything that I've said has been proven to be factual in the truth. This administration wants to operate in transparency.

TAPPER: You said within hours of her being killed, you said that she was a domestic terrorist. How do you define domestic terrorist?

NOEM: She weaponized her vehicle to conduct an act of violence against a law enforcement officer and the public.

TAPPER: How can you --

NOEM: Or as they are doing that.

TAPPER: How can you assert with certainty that she was trying to hurt the officer as opposed to she was trying to flee the scene?

NOEM: If you look at what the definition of domestic terrorism is, it completely fits the situation on the ground.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: All right. A lot to break down this morning with my excellent group of reporters, CNN's Jeff Zeleny. Marianna Sotomayor with "The Washington Post." Astead Herndon with "Vox." Good morning to you all.

I'm on cloud nine because of the Bears' win last night. That was an amazing come-from-behind, 18-point deficit to beat the Packers. And now moving on, I feel good about that. So as Astead, by the way.

HERNDON: Yes, yes, yes.

RAJU: OK. So there's a lot to dissect about Kristi Noem who came out right out of the bat, within minutes of this shooting, tragedy in Minnesota, said this is domestic terrorism. She's pressed by Jake Tapper today.

Time and time again, she's still continuing to dig in to her version of events. Why not just wait? Why not just wait, have the investigation before asserting that narrative and now having to defend that narrative before the facts don't even know.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I mean, we've seen it play out really again and again. This is the most high-profile example of it. But the Department of Homeland Security, in so many of these ICE situations across the country, has rushed to try and set the narrative, to set the narrative of what their account of things are.

The problem with this is there are so many video examples. There are so many video -- so many cell phone cameras were -- were rolling even from the own ICE agent, which does not support her version of events either.

So, the minute she came out to try and set this narrative, they clearly didn't know that there were going to be all of these versions coming out that just completely refute what they have to say.

RAJU: Because they're saying the car was stuck in the snow and they say that this defends, you know, the officers were trying to get this car out of the snow --

ZELENY: Right.

RAJU: -- and the like. It's unclear what she's referring to there and the videos that have come out.

ZELENY: And it's come down from the -- the White House, obviously, the vice president went out to give this very hot defense of something that we can see with her own eyes just is not true.

So this is not the first time it's happened, but it is a very common practice. So this administration tried and set the narrative.

[11:05:04]

And in this world where people get their information from vastly different places, it has largely worked to many degrees. But this case feels somewhat different to me because you can see it plainly with your own eyes. There is not a better example of all of the -- the ICE incidents from Los Angeles to Chicago to other cities. This is clear that their version of events simply is not accurate. RAJU: And she was asked by Jake Tapper. She said, she says, how can you be a sort that there's no ambiguity in this before any investigation has taken place? And Kristi Noem says, you know, I'd just been in Minneapolis and had been with those officers.

And seeing what they were facing on the streets every day and I talked to their incidents as soon as the -- talked to their supervisors, as soon as the incident happened and gotten the facts and seen the videos before I ever went to talk at that press conference.

She sort of danced around that -- that question. Did dance around that question about why not just wait? And it's -- part of it is, as Jeff was saying, this is, you know, this is a Trumpian playbook. And otherwise you make your assertion, you dig in and you fight to the bitter end.

MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR, WASHINGTON POST CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Yes. No, it sounds like it's just her assertion. It's how she answered that question. I think moving forward, we're going to see how these investigations go. It's pretty obvious now that there's going to be a federal investigation and then a state investigation. It's usually not the way that this works.

Usually, our federal officials do work with the state. And investigations usually have public trust. Now we're seeing the politicization of these investigations. Like, we'll see two different results already. We've already been seeing two different responses to what has happened here.

And that's really going to continue. And I think only a road -- how the public understands issues like this moving forward.

RAJU: And that's so significant because they made the decision, Justice Department did not to allow the state officials to cooperate to be part of this, but would normally be a federal state investigation.

Now the state's not going to be involved, it seems. And the story in the "New York Times" says the FBI is incoherent. The ice shooting faces doubts after the White House's remarks.

So, you know, that's the question. How can the -- how can the public trust what the FBI is going to determine from this investigation when you have Kristi Noem saying it's domestic terrorism, you have Trump, you have Vance, and the rest saying, making that assertion first?

HERNDON: I don't think the public can trust it because I think basically the White House has made its point, the administration has made its point to try to say that like inquiry or not, they have a version of events that they're going to go and run with.

You know, I mean, it's kind of, you know, I think a really shook -- really shocking in my opinion, because you have this video that you would think allow -- that you would think like creates a shared sense of reality, but it doesn't anymore. And I think that we're in this type of era where you have a politicization that is so deep, that their instinct is to instinctively defend ICE, defend the officer and do that till the death. And so they're going to double, triple, quadruple down even beyond that version of facts.

So I think Jeff's point is right. Like, I don't think that works in this type of thing. I think Donald Trump has seen, over the last six to seven months, his narrative setting power really shift. And so he's not being able to really dictate the narrative in the same level of ways.

And I think whether it is something like a January 6 where they tried the same thing, there are times in which their attempts to tell the public what is true or not don't -- goes beyond the skis. And I think this is one of those moments.

RAJU: And we mentioned Trump, he was at the White House on Friday and he was asked about Minnesota, everything that was going on there. And then he made this comment about Minnesota and how he did there electorally.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's a very corrupt state. I feel that I won Minnesota. I think I won it all three times. Nobody's won it for -- since Richard Nixon won it many, many years ago. I won it all three times, in my opinion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: I won it all three times, in my opinion. OK. So, let's just check the tape here. Minnesota presidential election results, didn't win in 2016. He got close, but he didn't win. Didn't win in 2020. Didn't win in 2024.

ZELENY: So here we have it. Finally, we have the true root of the president's obsession with Minnesota. It is not just Tim Walz, which, of course, you know, he has been frustrated with him since 2024, when Tim Walz was the Democratic vice presidential nominee, was the attack dog, but it is about that Trump believes he won Minnesota.

Because Mike Lindell, his ally and others, have fed him this false narrative for really a decade that he won Minnesota. It was close in 2016, largely because it was a sneak attack. The Democrats did not expect Trump to do so well.

RAJU: Yes, I remember right before the election --

ZELENY: For sure.

RAJU: -- he was up there campaigning.

ZELENY: She was. Day before the election.

RAJU: The Democrats are ignoring it. Yes.

ZELENY: I mean, Minnesota is the reddest blue state in America. There's no doubt about it. I mean, it is just on the spectrum.

However, it is not a Trump state in that respect. Clinton won it. Joe Biden won it by seven points, as you said so. But that gets to the root of the president's assertion here and his feeling about Minnesota.

[11:10:05]

But when you take kind of a step back, the whole Trump versus Minnesota aspect of all this, it's quite extraordinary really threatening to withhold funds withholding funds.

And, yes, there is a massive fraud investigation going on. There is no doubt about that, which Democrats obviously have finally acknowledged Governor Walz is now not running for re-election. That was only a week ago when he said that last Monday. But that was absolutely incorrect what the president said. But very revealing about why he is focused on Minnesota with all of his might.

RAJU: I won, in my opinion, he says. And it's -- and it doesn't really matter, because the facts actually do matter here.

OK. So then how does the public feel about things that are happening right now when it comes to ICE? How Donald Trump is dealing on the issue of immigration, which is a strength of his in the past election? The question about -- and the CBS News poll put recently, saying, is ICE too tough in operations?

Fifty-nine percent of independents say yes, and that's -- those from the fall. We'll see how that changes in the aftermath of Minnesota.

And then the question about his handling of immigration, down 11 points from March to December. That's something.

SOTOMAYOR: Yes. And we've seen some very quick flash polls even this past week that show a majority of Americans who do say that ICE is just too tough. They are responding in a very aggressive way. I think there's something to be said about how the public views the aggression within the country, then, for example, on the border.

Trump has said that the midterm elections are going to be all about crime and immigration. Well, this is kind of a flipping of the script it seems like if the public is saying, wait, you guys are going a little too far. And it may not inspire those voters who did turn out for Trump in the 2024 election on those issues to go out and turn out in the midterms again because they might be dismayed.

RAJU: Yes. We'll have much more to discuss about the midterms a little bit later in the show.

But first, up next for us, how should Democrats respond? And can they actually force Trump to change course on ICE? Minnesota's Democratic Senator Tina Smith joins me live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:15:12]

RAJU: Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem, this morning, is placing the blame on Democrats for the tense situation on the ground in Minnesota. This after the Justice Department decided to block state officials from participating in a joint investigation into the ICE agent shooting of Renee Nicole Good. Democrats are now responding.

RAJU: Joining me now is one of those Democrats, Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota. Senator Smith, thank you so much for being with me this morning.

I want you to listen to Secretary Noem and what she had to say on "State of the Union."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Officials are saying the Department of Justice is not working with them. Should they be working with the locals?

NOEM: You know, I would say that these locals, if you look at what Governor Walz has said, if you look at what Mayor Frey has said, they've extremely politicized and inappropriately talked about the situation on the ground in their city.

They've inflamed the public. They've encouraged to the kind of destruction and violence that we've seen in Minneapolis's last several days, and I would encourage them to grow up. Get some maturity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So, Senator Smith, is Secretary Noem right in any way? Should Democrats also tamp down some of their rhetoric?

SEN. TINA SMITH (D-MN): Well, I mean, that is rich coming from the member of the Trump administration, who just hours after Renee Good was shot and killed by ICE agents, proclaimed to the world that she was a domestic terrorist. And they didn't even know the woman's name.

I think clearly what is happening here is that the Trump administration, with their mass deportation campaign, is they are arresting and detaining Americans. They are shooting and killing Americans and that is making us all less safe.

And now, they are backing away from any sort of an investigation that was had -- that would have credibility. I mean, it seems to me that what they're trying to do is to cover up what happened in Minneapolis this past week rather than actually get to the bottom of it and do a true investigation that has integrity.

RAJU: Yes. And, Senator Smith, just to -- you mentioned her saying that this is domestic terrorism. She -- she doubled down on that argument this morning. She said that the vehicle was weaponized.

Do you think there's any possibility though that she could -- that she could be right as this investigation plays out? SMITH: Well, having looked at, you know, all of the eyewitness videos and listen to eyewitness accounts on the grounds, I'm not seeing it.

But again, why would she not allow a full and honest investigation? But instead, you know, they are blocking out state investigation -- state investigators.

And, of course, as you know that, no, Senator Klobuchar and I sent a letter to Pam Bondi a couple of nights ago insisting that state investigators be included as they have, you know, almost always been included when we have the need for joint investigation.

So, I think their credibility is pretty shot. And they are struggling to get Americans to believe that this is the way it should be in our country.

I was interested in the data that you were showing a bit ago. I don't think that Americans want to see what's happened in my state. Kids being arrested, citizens being arrested while they're working at Target stores. And the young man is calling out, call my mom. Tell my mom what happened.

Ministers that have guns put in their face and being asked, you know, are -- are you -- are you scared now?

RAJU: Yes.

SMITH: I mean, this is -- this is just unacceptable.

RAJU: So, do you think that given that there's going to be a federal investigation now going forward, can the public trust the ultimate outcome of this probe?

SMITH: I don't see how we can trust the outcome of this probe when they are blocking out state investigators, and when the people that are in charge, that are in power in the Trump administration have already said what they think has happened here. It seems clearly that it would be a prejudiced investigation to me. And I think many here in Minnesota.

[11:20:15]

RAJU: Senator, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told me this past week that she believes that the ICE agent Jonathan Ross, should be prosecuted for murder. Do you agree with that?

SMITH: Well, I would say that this is a place where we need to have an investigation. This is how the court system and the judicial system works in our country, that we -- we fully investigate what has happened.

And we have some experience, some tragic experience of this here in Minnesota when the attorney general successfully prosecuted Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd. But that was as the result of a thorough investigation that had credibility from the public. And that is not at all what we're seeing here today. RAJU: Do you -- you said you want ICE out of your community. Do you think that ICE should be abolished?

SMITH: I think that ICE should be reformed and not abolished. Clearly, I see a role in our country for strong border security. But we need to get serious about what is actually happening with this unaccountable agency that is not abiding by any of the laws or the procedures that we would expect to see from professional law enforcement.

RAJU: Because -- because, Senator, because ICE -- because the Department of Homeland Security argues that ICE has been effective in your state. You want them out of your state. But they say that they've arrested child rapists and others who have been accused of some serious crimes. Have they done some good in your state?

SMITH: Well, I would like to see the evidence of what they say that they have done in my state. What I see is them harassing and terrorizing United States citizens and people who are here legally and lawfully.

But to the point, what we need to look at is serious reforms here. And I think this is a place where we can -- we can dig in and Congress.

RAJU: Yes.

SMITH: Concern about these tactics that ICE are using breaks across all different party lines. And I would like to see some cooperation to make some improvements in how they are acting.

RAJU: And to that point, there is a debate that's brewing in your party about how hard Democrats should go after ICE when it comes to the January 30th deadline to fund the federal government, given that the Republicans will, of course, need Democratic votes like yours to keep the government agencies open.

Listen to what some of your colleagues told me just a few days ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIMMY GOMEZ (D-CA): I think it should be a red line because this is too dangerous to live in anybody's hands.

I think Democrats should take a hard line position.

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): I think we have to use everything that we can to stop ICE this moment.

RAJU: Restricting ICE or red line in the funding fight or must that be part of any funding bill restricting ICE?

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Our focus right now, in terms of the Appropriations Bill are getting the three bills that are going to be on the floor today over the finish line.

RAJU: Should ICE be abolished, Senator? Will you -- will you -- you --

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): I have lots of problems with ICE.

RAJU: Will it be a red line, ICE restricting, ICE funding in the funding play?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So, those last two non-committal senators, of course, were the Democratic leaders.

But you heard some other members saying that this should, in fact, be a red line in exchange for Democratic votes to fund the federal government. Where do you come down? Should Democrats make going after ICE a red line?

SMITH: Well, so my view here is that, for me, it is hard for me to imagine how I could vote to support a budget bill for the Department of Homeland Security, given how the Department of Homeland Security is functioning right now in my community. I want to see work done that would bring some serious reforms to ICE.

For example, should there not be minimum training requirements for these officers? We understand that they're down to something like six weeks of training, which might explain some of the reckless behavior that we're seeing. Shouldn't ICE agents be required to wear a name I.D. and to not cover their faces?

These would be two examples of reforms that we ought to be able to find some bipartisan support for.

RAJU: All right. Senator Tina Smith, we're going to have to leave it there. Thank you so much for joining me this morning. Really appreciate your time.

SMITH: Thank you.

RAJU: Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.

Up next, Marco Rubio for president of Cuba? Well, Donald Trump says he's all for it.

Plus, new threats towards Iran, Colombia, and more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not.

I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way. But if we don't do it the easier way, we're going to do it the hard way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:25:52] RAJU: As deadly anti-government protests continue to rock -- rock Iran this weekend, new this morning, two U.S. officials tell CNN that the president is weighing a series of potential military options in Iran. This as violence in that country has led to dozens of deaths and arrests.

So, is Iran actually next on his list or any of these countries that Trump mentioned this past week?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not.

We are going to start now hitting land with regard to the cartels. The cartels are running Mexico.

Colombia is very sick too, run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So there will be an operation by the U.S. and --

TRUMP: It sounds good to me.

People want to go back to Cuba and they want to work in Cuba, but Cuba is going down for the count.

I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way, but if we don't do it the easy way, we're going to do it the hard way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: All right. My panel is back.

Now, speaking of Cuba, this morning Trump is going all in, if you would, on Truth Social posting a bunch of times about Truth Social, including, as some poster said, Marco Rubio will be president of Cuba.

[11:31:08]

Trump posts, sounds good to me!

ASTEAD HERNDON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah.

RAJU: Is this bluster or is this real?

HERNDON: I think it's real because Donald Trump, throughout kind of campaign to presidency, first time, last time, has made kind of this imperialism view of the world, his calling card. He thinks land acquisition is part of his legacy.

I mean, he wants to expand the United States and he feels like that is one of the reasons folks brought him to office. Now, that's not true, right? Like, he -- he won the presidency because of ag prices. He won the presidency because of Democrats and all of those other things. But for him, that type of -- that type of America exceptionalism is core to the point.

So, I don't think that we should just take this as bluster even though I think that -- even though I think -- even when you talk to members of Congress, things like acquisition of Greenland feels like a red line to be crossed. That's not true for the administration. He believes this and he's going to try to do it.

RAJU: Now, how does the public feel about this? So, the question the CBS poll put recently, U.S. military action in other countries in the region, if they do not cooperate, all U.S. adults, 67 percent say they would oppose U.S. military action in other countries in the region if they don't cooperate. And 33 percent of Republicans oppose that, too. Seventy-six percent of independents do as well.

Now, when it comes to the military action in the Maduro operation in Venezuela, it is more split along party lines here, although more independents, almost 6 in 10 independents oppose that as well. Public is not really with Trump on this.

SOTOMAYOR: Yeah, I mean, let's remember Trump consistently, even before he ran in 2024, the message was "Make America great again, America first." He ran on making sure that the public, Americans would feel wealthy again, bring down inflation, et cetera. He is totally pivoted and focused on the world stage.

And you know, just to go back to that point about Marco Rubio, one reason we should be taking this -- the threats against Cuba seriously is because Marco Rubio is at the helm here. Even when those bow strikes were happening in Venezuela, one of the questions I had just being from Florida is, "Where's Marco Rubio?" This is him.

RAJU: And he's been the first put in the front lines, trying to sell this to the public and all the rest.

SOTOMAYOR: Yes. It goes back to his own upbringing in Miami. I mean, the Cuban exiles there have for years been wanting to see this kind of regime change. Obviously, not just in Cuba but also in Venezuela because Venezuela has been giving oil to Cuba. This is, if Trump can land this plane, if Rubio can land this plane. I mean, that is major legacy for the secretary of state.

ZELENY: I mean, we've seen it with second-term presidents before. They're frustrated at their inability to change things domestically. So, it's easier to do things around the world. And this is something that Trump clearly views as a legacy building thing, as Astead was just saying.

This is something that Trump believes he -- he did not do enough of in the first term. But I believe that the White House may be misled if they believe that really the lack of opposition among MAGA world in Venezuela will continue to other operations.

I mean, this is not what he was elected for. And there are already some quiet voices saying, "Whoa, whoa, hold on here. This is not America first." So, I think that would be a bridge too far. But it should be taken seriously. There's no doubt about it. He's been

thinking about Greenland for almost a decade. 2017 is about the first time he talked about it publicly. So, no time like the present here.

RAJU: Yeah.

ZELENY: So, this is something that he is as focused on as he is building his ballroom.

RAJU: And Greenland is, of course, the one we've seen perhaps the most significant pushback on this issue. This is how the American public views this, about whether the Americans, they support this or not. It is, of course, the numbers here are not good also for Trump, even for his own party.

Just 30 -- just 15 percent strongly favor of Republicans the idea of going in and taking Greenland. That is something you just don't see in the Trump -- Trump era typically. Republicans, that number is much, much higher.

And then you put the question to members of Congress which I did this past week about the threat. Remember, the White House has not taken the option of military action off the table. And that is causing significant pushback in the ranks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DON BACON (R-NE): I feel like it's very amateurish. I use this word right now maybe too much, very amateurish. I feel like we've got high school kids playing risk.

REP. KEVIN KILEY (R-CA): We're talking about an ally.

SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): Greenland is not part of America. And we can't simply take it because we want to. To do so would be a colossal mistake. It would end NATO.

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Folks, amateur hour is over. You don't speak on behalf of this U.S. Senator or the Congress. You can say it may be the position of the President of the United States, that Greenland should be a part of the United States, but it's not the position of this government.

[11:35:11]

REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Well, I, I do not support any military action in Greenland.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Is the White House going to listen?

HERNDON: No, because Donald Trump supports it. And that's the only thing that matters to him. I think the point about Marco Rubio is important. I think we're seeing a convergence of kind of Marco Rubio foreign policy and Stephen Miller view of the world. And what he -- what I think is the sweet spot in the middle there is that you have -- you have a kind of Miller-Trump view of an all-important presidency, of a king-like presidency, of an unchecked presidency. And I think when he looks at these types of actions, it is not only for the foreign policy, kind of strategic purpose, but it's about the growing of power in general.

And so that is what we're seeing this administration push toward. And no amount of congressional pushback, particularly as they've abdicated their role, is going to stop them.

RAJU: And we'll see Marco Rubio meeting with Danish officials this week about Greenland. So, we'll see what comes out of that.

All right, coming up next, we are just 11 days into what's already a wild midterms year. And now some Republicans tell me, President Trump, well, maybe he's a liability. Could he cost them the majority?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), U.S. PRESIDENT: You got to win the midterms. Because if we don't win the midterms, it's just going to be, I mean, they'll find a reason to impeach me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:40:41]

RAJU: It has been a chaotic start to the midterm election year. While President Trump may not be on the ballot in November, his presence still will loom over the entire electorate. So, with everything that's happened, will Trump be an asset or a liability for the GOP? Depends who you ask.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): He's doing the exact things that would cause him to lose the majority. He's causing his base to be disaffected and uninterested in the outcomes of these midterms.

RAJU: Do you think that Trump's going to be someone that is going to be a benefit for your swing district Republicans today? They should embrace him?

REP. RICHARD HUDSON (R-NC): Absolutely. I want the president on the trail as many places he can go. I think he's a net positive for us. He helps us turn out.

REP. DERRICK VAN ORDEN (R-WI): Donald Trump won my district three times. And he's awesome. And he's always welcome in my district.

RAJU: You'll embrace him fully? ORDEN: Hundred percent. I mean, you're not going to find daylight between us. Just not.

REP. TROY NEHLS (R-TX): I'm celebrating Donald Trump. We should have Donald Trump Day every day. Every day.

RAJU: Should be a national holiday?

NEHLS: It should be. I believe so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: All right, my panel is back. I'm not sure if they'll make it a national holiday. Maybe they'll try to make Donald Trump Day a national holiday.

But what do you make of -- look, what was interesting -- one of the things that was interesting there, I thought, was the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee which is in charge of trying to keep Republicans in control of the House. Richard Hudson says, "Absolutely." He says he wants Donald Trump everywhere in as many places as he can go. Smart strategy?

SOTOMAYOR: I think we should ask some of those swing district Republicans. I think they would privately disagree.

RAJU: I know.

SOTOMAYOR: I mean, what else is Richard Hudson going to say, right? Especially since he pointed out he wants Trump there because he does turn out voters. That is true. We did see, I believe it was two million more people turn out for Trump. That did not turn out for House Republicans to win back the majority. So, like, people just turn out for Trump. He wants to see that momentum.

But it seems like he is becoming a bit of a liability. And there is a willingness for Republicans to start bucking Trump on a number of issues. We saw that this week. We expect that to happen in a midterm year but just the pace of that happening so quickly. The first week back on Capitol Hill, I think, could tell us a lot moving forward.

RAJU: Yeah. And speaking of which, you know, the -- just in 2026 from -- where were we -- January 11th, so we're barely into 2026, look at the number of times Republicans have broken with Trump. I mean, there's the five Republican senators who voted to check his war powers in Venezuela, the Republicans who broke ranks over extending ACA subsidies, many of them in swing districts. Then there's the dozens who voted to override a couple of his vetoes. Those vetoes were sustained.

And then Trump went after those Republicans who voted on the war powers. Resolution calling them out by name, including Senator Susan Collins, who's in one of the toughest races in the country, saying she should never be elected to office again. Collins responded to reporters said that, "I guess this means he'd prefer to have Governor Mills or somebody else, the Democrats instead." RAJU: Look, what do you think?

ZELENY: It sounds like that that phone call with Senator Collins was very heated. Not surprisingly, of course. Look, I think the reality is that whether Trump is on the ballot or not, he's in the air. There's nothing Republicans can do to run away from him. So yes, Richard Hudson is saying that -- that Trump should campaign but we'll see how much that actually happens.

A bigger point here, though, I think is just the obsession of the White House about the midterm elections. It started last summer with trying to do all the redistricting. That basically was not a successful endeavor. There's still Florida redistricting to a wash, but it's basically a wash. So, that has already been one failed effort of the White House.

RAJU: So, much energy has been put into it.

ZELENY: Sure. And it just didn't work. So, I think that like virtually every president, with the exception of George W. Bush in the first midterm of his first term, presidents party lose seats. So, Trump knows where this is going. He is intently focused on it. However, all the events of Minnesota and other things are not likely helping his case.

And also, a restricting federal funding from Minnesota, that's just not affecting the city of Minneapolis. It's affecting the statewide. So. we'll see if their actions actually change but it's a real challenge.

RAJU: But the White House wants -- but the White House wants Trump out everywhere. I mean, Democrats kind of do too.

ZELENY: Yeah.

RAJU: The White House is saying that they want this to be about Trump, the midterms.

HERNDON: And we expect them to say that. But we've seen this kind of change over the years. Democrats have got improved on off-year elections. And Donald Trump has not really shown the ability to drive out the voter that comes out for him for other candidates. This is the reason why even things like the 2022 midterms were better for Democrats than they may be expected.

[11:45:18]

I think that Donald Trump is in a unique moment. His approval rating is going down, specifically driven by things like tariffs, Epstein files, things even like foreign policy and all that front has really dragged him, I think, down to earth in terms of like, in terms of the public's reaction to him.

He's also obviously a lay duck in terms of not being able to run again. That has created some space, particularly for the senators, to be able to push back for him in a different way. But I just think it's -- it's a different kind of question for Trump politically because he wants his legacy to be front and center --

RAJU: Yeah.

HERNDON: -- whether they lose or not, you know.

RAJU: Yeah.

HERNDON: He figured out he wants to be the main character.

RAJU: And we'll see how many more Republicans decide to cut ties with them --

HERNDON: Yeah.

RAJU: -- because they believe it'll help them politically. We saw that happen with Biden. We saw that happen with Obama. Will it happen again with Trump? We shall see.

All right. Coming up, the White House has its own version of what happened on January 6th. But what did the people who were in the Capitol actually say that day? The author of a brand-new book on that subject joins me live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:50:24]

RAJU: In the five years since January 6th's attack on the Capitol, there's been a concerted campaign by President Trump and many of his allies to rewrite the events. And the "Washington Post" and the "New York Times" report this weekend, the National Portrait Gallery has removed any mention of Trump's impeachments or the insurrection under his portrait. As many of the rioters he pardoned demonstrated this past week on the fifth anniversary to retrace their steps.

But there is now a new book that details everything that happened that day based on the participants' own words. The author of that book, "Storm at the Capitol: An Oral History of January 6th," Mary Clare Jalonick of the "AP" joins me now. Her book is on the shelves and her book is also right here on set.

Mary Clare, it's so great to see you.

MARY CLARE JALONICK, AUTHOR, " STORM AT THE CAPITOL: AN ORAL HISTORY OF JANUARY 6TH": Thanks for having me.

RAJU: Absolutely. This is such a unique way to tell a story which is based on the participants' own words, what you gather through your reporting through public testimony and the like. What did you learn as you compiled everything that happened that day from the people who experienced it?

JALONICK: Well, I really thought that, you know, there's so many different people with different narratives of this day. And I really think the best way to sort of find out the facts of what happened is to talk to the people who were there and who lived it. So, you know, we've got rioters themselves, lawmakers, journalists, the police who were, you know, injured in the attack.

So, it's really all those different voices and it's kind of a collective history meant to be nonpartisan and definitive of, you know, exactly what happened through those 24 hours in the building.

RAJU: And you were in the Capitol that day. You were in the House Gallery that day. I was in the Capitol as well. I was in the Senate that day. We all witnessed it. And there were so many other people that were there who were dealing with this as the rioters were in the building.

You have a very riveting anecdote from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's aides who were hiding from these demonstrators. I want to read just part of what they said to you. This is Henry Connelly. He's a communications director for Pelosi. He said, "We heard them crashing into the office. We heard them breaking down the doors. We started thinking about our own door. We could hear them breaking down our outer door and the metal part of the doorframe clanging as it popped out of the wall and hit the marble.

Alisa La who is a special assistant to Pelosi said, "We basically went into active shooter mode. I started a text among us in the room to communicate." And Connelly responds, "Two of the guys in the room, when the sound happened, they sprang up to the door and gripped the doorknob to stop the door from being ripped open." What was your takeaway from that?

JALONICK: I mean, there's so many stories like that from inside the Capitol that day. People who sort of lived it in their stories might not have been told before. And, you know, I work in the Capitol. You work in the Capitol. I didn't want those stories to get lost. And really, it's history.

RAJU: And you spoke to people from both sides of the aisle on this. How hard was it to get people on the record? And what was that process like? Particularly as we saw, look, a lot of the Republicans, in the aftermath of January 6th, when I was -- I remember, talking to senators, Republicans, Democrats, House members, like they universally condemned what happened. And then as we've seen Trump mount this campaign to change the narrative of what happened there, Republicans have gone quiet or they have aligned themselves with Trump's version of events. Given that, as you were trying to get them on the record, how challenging was it or what -- what obstacles did you encounter?

JALONICK: We -- we certainly have seen the narrative shift in those -- in those years. But at the same time, there's still are a lot of, you know, even Republicans who -- who do want to talk about it and who do talk about it very honestly and the experiences that they had that day.

Lindsey Graham, in the book from an interview, says it was a dark day in American history. It was violent. And the people who assaulted police deserve to be held accountable.

RAJU: And he was one you tracked him down in the Capitol to ask him that question. JALONICK: That's right. Yeah.

RAJU: You didn't see a whole lot of people willingly come out and talk about it?

JALONICK: Right, a few did. I did have some interviews with Republicans, certainly. But, you know, that's -- that's a benefit of my day job as I have some access to these, you know, are able to ask people about it.

But yeah, some people are willing to talk about it. So, we saw sort of an interesting shift this week with the Senate deciding to, you know, the plaque that will honor police officers.

RAJU: But the Speaker has not put up yet.

JALONICK: Right.

RAJU: Now, the Senate has moved to vote to actually install that plaque that honoring the police who defended the Capitol.

JALONICK: Right. And if one Republican had objected to that, they wouldn't have passed that but they did. The Senate unanimously agreed to put that up on the Senate side. So, I'm -- there are people who are willing to acknowledge the violence, a lot of people.

[11:55:11]

RAJU: Well, the White House has a different version. Remember, just a few days ago on January 6, on the anniversary, they put out a website this past week, giving their own narrative of exactly what happened here. I -- I want to ask you, you spoke to a bunch of police officers through this book. What do they think about all these that's being rewritten? And what do they tell you? And, you know, more than a hundred police were injured that day.

JALONICK: Yeah, the website says -- the White House website blames the police officers for the violence and says that they incited the violence. But, you know, there's a lot of stories in the book from the rioters and the police themselves that, I think, contradict that. And a lot of the police, a lot of the police -- a lot of police aren't speaking out about this.

But a lot, you know, there are several who have and who talked to me for the book and have talked in court and have talked, you know, we've seen obviously testimony over the years. And some of them are still having a hard time with it.

RAJU: Yeah.

JALONICK: This anniversary.

RAJU: Yeah, no question about it. And there's so much in here. I highly recommend it. "Storm at the Capitol" by Mary Clare Jalonick of the "Associated Press."

Thank you so much for joining me today.

JALONICK: Thank you.

RAJU: Really appreciate it. Thank you for joining us. That's it for "Inside Politics Sunday."

Up next, "State of the Union" with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. Jake's guests include Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Police Chief Brian O'Hara and Illinois Governor, J.B. Pritzker.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)