Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Midterms Top Of Mind For Trump As November Looks Dire For GOP; Will U.S. Officials Be Held Accountable Over Epstein? One-on-One with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY); Obama Compares ICE's "Rogue Behavior" to Dictatorships; U.S. Athletes Get Political in Echoes of Olympics Past. Aired 8-9a ET

Aired February 15, 2026 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:36]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(MUSIC)

MANU RAJU, CNN HOST (voice-over): New resistance? President Trump faces pushback within his party.

Are these tariffs hurting your constituents?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

RAJU: Are you worried about getting the wrath from the president?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll see.

RAJU: As the GOP frets November.

KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: We've been proactive to make sure that we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders to lead this country

RAJU: Can Trump get back on track?

And, midterms math.

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: When they go low, we strike back.

RAJU: Democrats get a win in the war over maps. So, will it hand them the house? I go one on one with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

JEFFRIES: Republicans started this redistricting war. We're going to finish it.

RAJU: Plus, stand by me.

PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Have you apologized to President Trump? You all should be apologizing.

RAJU: As a slew of secretaries draw controversy. Will the president tell them you're fired?

And --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're not there to pop off about politics?

RAJU: As Olympians get political, how are their protests landing at home?

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

(MUSIC)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

Two hundred and sixty-one days to go -- yes, the midterms may seem far off, but they are starting to dominate the dynamics here in Washington and are fresh on President Trump's mind. As the GOP now confronts a daunting political environment, Trump is taking his pitch to the nation's battlegrounds, even before U.S. troops in North Carolina, where he urged them to vote Republican.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Biden, who is the worst president in the history of our country? Zero illegal aliens have been admitted into the United States, and that's done by the radical left.

Michael, will you come here for a second, please? He's running for the Senate and if he gets in, you're going to be taken care of. If he doesn't get in, were going to be stripping the military like they always do the Democrats. When I heard they were taking the name Fort Bragg off, I said, no, no, no, they're kidding. They're not going to do -- they did. They took the name off. We got it back very quickly, but they took it off.

And if we don't win the midterms, they'll take it off again. It's another reason you have to vote for us, because they'll change it back to whatever it might be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: And this weekend, Trump also renewed his calls to place new restrictions on voting as he started to see some fraying within his coalition, all, while possible 2028 contenders, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, flocked to Europe this weekend, where they're getting some attention.

Let's break this all down with my excellent panel. Tia Mitchell from "The Atlanta Journal Constitution". CNN's Phil Mattingly, and Julie Davis from "The New York Times".

Good morning to you all. So, look Trump is, of course, as he does demand total unity as we head into this very daunting stretch for the GOP. He wants to -- party wants him to focus on issue number one, the economy. And we've seen time and time again Trump trip on his own message or create distractions and do things that are causing significant pushback within the ranks.

Just this past week, we saw the Justice Department try and fail to indict six House Democrats. A lot of Republicans uncomfortable with that, how he's handled these ICE surges, particularly in Minneapolis in recent weeks, has caused pushback among Republicans and nervous about going too far. Of course, that that racist video of the Obamas that he later was forced to delete, though did not admit a mistake.

Phil, how is this playing as we head into the midterms with this party?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Not great. I think and honestly, like, I watch you work the halls every single week and its always a really good barometer of when do we hit self-preservation mode for members of Congress. And I think that as powerful as Trump's grip on the party has been, and I think we should all be very careful to pronounce some grand break or diminishment of his authority over the Republican Party and over his members which has been so kind of ironclad over the course of the last 13 months. But the moment where Republican lawmakers, particularly frontline Republican lawmakers, start looking around and say, if I need to actually win in November, I need to start creating some distance. Not dramatic scale of distance that we've seen, perhaps in past administrations.

[08:05:02]

But I think what we've seen over the course of the last couple of weeks, but in particular this week as well, is some of those members saying there are opportunities for me to break the repercussions of that from Trump's Truth Social posts are not -- in the kind of cost- benefit analysis -- bad enough for me to not want to risk this, and therefore, I'm going to move forward.

Is it a grand kind of fracturing of the party? Absolutely not.

RAJU: Typically, in a normal, what's normal anymore? But in a previous administration, the president would be like, okay, break with --

MATTINGLY: Every other president says, like I get it. This is what you have to do. Trump is not that president. And how that dynamic plays out in the coming weeks, we're going to see more of this is going to be really, really telling.

JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, NEW YORK TIMES CONGRESSIONAL EDITOR: And I think that that's why it's been as limited as it's been, right? We saw that tariff vote last week. You had six Republicans. That's not anywhere close to the universe of Republicans that if they wanted to, you know protect their political flank and guarantee success in their races, would have wanted to vote yes on that, to cancel the Canada tariffs.

RAJU: They probably would be a lot more.

DAVIS: There are a lot -- there are a couple in there who are retiring, you know, one in there who's redistricted into a bad position anyway. So, this is not as dramatic of a shift as we normally see at this point in the cycle where you have a party that realizes they need to, you know, get some distance from the sitting president. But part of that dynamic is because this particular president will not brook any kind of break whatsoever even if he knows he probably doesn't think about this -- but that it's for his own political good, the good of his own people in Congress and keeping the majority.

RAJU: And we're starting to see his messaging to focusing, as he does, about voting, voter ID, which, of course, voter ID is an issue that unites Republicans generally. There's no question about it. But Trump is going much further than most Republicans are, particularly when he talks about -- what he mentioned on Truth Social. Just over the weekend, he said there will be voter ID for the midterm elections, whether approved by Congress or not also, the people of our country are insisting on citizenship and no mail in ballots, okay?

And then he goes on to say, if I can't get this through Congress, there are legal reasons why this scam is not permitted. I will be presenting them shortly in the form of an executive order.

What is he talking about? And states run elections, not the federal government. And here he is again saying that we will just do this regardless if Congress approves this.

TIA MITCHELL, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: States are on elections. The Constitution outlines some of this stuff. So what? What he's talking about. You can't do by executive order and you can't do without violating the Constitution. You know, it's the way our government was set up.

But I don't think Donald Trump cares about that. I also just think it's so interesting because I'm old enough to remember when Republicans state by state started relaxing the mail in ballot rules to allow more people to vote by mail.

RAJU: I mean, all Republicans want that to happen.

MITCHELL: They want that to happen.

RAJU: Because --

DAVIS: They wouldn't have the majority if vote by mail did not exist

RAJU: Exactly.

MITCHELL: Absolutely. And they know that the rollbacks of voting by mail could really hurt them in the long run, because a lot of rural voters, a lot of voters in far flung areas like that convenience of voting by mail. So, but -- so it's just like it's problematic from a legal standpoint. It's problematic from just a purely political standpoint that he's pushing for things that a lot of Republicans don't agree with, especially it's one thing to say voter ID at the polls. And that's what a lot of Republican members of Congress are focusing on but that is not all that what President Trump is asking for.

He's talking about proof of citizenship, which again, goes back to the fact that, yes, there are some states that have different rules because we have determined that -- well, the constitution outlines that states run their own elections. So, wanting to nationalize voter registration guidelines is, again, something that Republicans have resisted.

RAJU: Yeah. And I want to talk about Kristi Noem, who's in this -- her own situation, which we'll get to in a second about her standing within the administration. But she was out on Friday talking about how she says we need to make sure we have the right people voting in the elections.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: And elections is another one of those critical infrastructure responsibilities that I have as well. And I would say that many people believe that it may be one of the most important things that we need to make sure we trust is reliable and that when it gets to election day that we've been proactive to make sure that we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders to lead this country through the days that we have, knowing that people can trust it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: We have the right people voting and knowing -- electing the right leaders to lead this country. What does that mean?

DAVIS: I mean, it certainly sounds like what she's saying is they want to make sure that only Republicans or people who will elect Republicans to the Senate and the House are voting in the elections. I -- the most charitable explanation would be that she meant the right people, as in only people who are legally able to vote, which, of course --

[08:10:01]

RAJU: Is still don't --

DAVIS: That's what everybody wants. And that is the law, right? It's still -- it's against the law for a non-citizen to vote. And the research shows that it's actually quite rare and the sort of widespread fraud that President Trump and Republicans often talk about just has not happened.

But, you know, part of this as, as substantive as all of the issues that Tia laid out are, this is a message, right? Like they are they are setting this predicate here of distrust. There's people who want to vote who shouldn't be able to vote you should not trust the outcome of this election and also it's an intimidation tactic, right?

If you are somebody who you know, has any contact with undocumented immigrants and you yourself are legal to vote, but you might be worried about what it might mean to show up to vote, given that there is this huge amount of scrutiny on illegal voting and possible fraud, maybe you're discouraged. Maybe you don't show up to vote, and that a lot of Democrats believe that that is what's behind this messaging, is trying to trying to suppress legal votes from showing legal voters from showing up at the polls and actually weighing in.

RAJU: And perhaps not surprisingly, Trump reposted that video. And that was after this. Of course, pretty damaging story that came out in "The Wall Street Journal" on Friday about the mess within the Homeland Security Department. This and, of course, in the aftermath of her handling of those two fatal shootings in Minneapolis. But Trump seems to be okay with how she's doing and perhaps talking about election security helps her with her job security as well.

I do want to talk about one other issue from this weekend that's Secretary of State Marco Rubio was on the world stage at the Munich Security Conference talking about really delivering a different message, at least in tone, a different tone that was laid out before these European leaders, different than J.D. Vance from a year ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: Our home may be in the western hemisphere, but we will always be a child of Europe. We care deeply -- we care deeply about your future and ours. For the United States and Europe, we belong together

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And what I worry about is the threat from within the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: This is a different policy. Or is this just two guys who talk about these issues differently?

MATTINGLY: I actually think if you read or listen to the two speeches very closely, they dovetail rather nicely together. And I think if J.D. Vance was the vice president, was the two by four to the face of Europe, Marco Rubio is kind of the softer version of the same exact at least push towards a policy and political or geopolitical outcome. I think it's important to note, it was interesting to watch the kind of standing ovation for Rubio compared to the aghast, like staring at one another that Vance got.

And tone matters a lot in these situations, but this was a speech that was not any kind of a break whatsoever. It was more of kind of a through line, maybe packaged in a slightly different way, as I think Secretary Rubio, as we all know him from covering him for many years, has an ability to do when it comes to Trump's foreign policy and trying to explain it on the world stage.

RAJU: Yeah, and J.D. Vance tweeted about how much he liked that speech as well. MATTINGLY: Best friends.

RAJU: Best friends. Exactly. We'll see how long that lasts.

All right. Coming up, I sit down with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. What he said about his path to become speaker?

And as the Epstein scandal derails one prominent career after another, will a member of Trump's cabinet face any accountability?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:17:55]

RAJU: President Trump has made no secret that he wants the saga over the Epstein files to go away and go away quickly. But the fallout has only intensified and blown up the careers of many overseas. Senior officials forced to step down here in the United States, and high- profile figures in the private sector abruptly quitting as their ties to the sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein come to light.

But as far as U.S. public officials, not so much. After the files contradicted Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick claims that he severed ties with Epstein more than two decades ago, Trump appeared with him publicly and gave him a shout-out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Secretary Howard Lutnick. Senator Ted Budd, he's doing a fantastic job, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: My panel is back. So look, I mean the list of people who have been hurt by this scandal by either forced to step down or quitting their jobs in all walks of life, and a lot of them overseas several in the U.K. others high profile in here including the Kathy Ruemmler, who is the chief legal officer at the general -- at Goldman Sachs this past week. But Trump -- when Howard Lutnick who was admitted to going to Epstein island, he said it with his family, he said it was it was there for an hour having lunch with him. He brought nannies over there.

But this was years after Epstein pleaded guilty to sex crimes and years after Lutnick said he had severed ties completely and they had multiple interactions since then.

DAVIS: Right. I mean, as you said at the outset, Trump wants to move past this. I don't think we're going to see him demand accountability from anyone in his circle. And by the way, he's also in the Epstein files.

Now there's you know, there were a lot of allegations on the front end about what degree, you know, he participated in any of this, and there hasn't been anything uncovered that makes it that ties him to the illegal activity. But he's in the files. He does not want to talk about this.

[08:20:00]

He certainly doesn't want to hang a member of his cabinet out to dry over it and its worth noting that, you know, with Congress now investigating this, which is only happening because Democrats basically forced it to happen, the only high profile political person coming in for a deposition here is Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are now scheduled to --

RAJU: A couple of weeks.

DAVIS: -- be deposed in a couple of weeks. And there's again, there's no indication in anything that's surfaced to date that they did anything wrong. All indications are that Hillary Clinton barely knew or maybe didn't even know Jeffrey Epstein.

So, it's very clear here that there's an effort to sort of push this away and insulate the president and anyone in his circle, and certainly anyone in his cabinet from accountability.

RAJU: And I had asked the speaker about Howard Lutnick last week. He had indicated he had no issues about this as well before you jump in, I do want you there is there are some Republicans who are concerned about the way the Justice Department has handled the release of this information, saying that simply, it fails. What the law details, which is to release all the Epstein files.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Are you okay with that?

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): No, not at all. And that is -- you know, the system of -- I've personally lost all faith in our justice system. It is a system of injustice. There is evidence. There are coconspirators. You can't have thousands of victims and have no other accomplices except for one.

There's no effort, none at all, to prosecute predators in the Epstein cases.

RAJU: Howard Lutnick had lunch on Epstein island after he pleaded guilty in 2009 he also continued interactions with him after he said he had severed relations with him. Are you concerned about that?

MACE: Well, I'm concerned about anyone that would hang out with a convicted pedophile. Anyone that hangs out with a guy like that -- I'm sorry, but I'm not hanging out with you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: And she's been on a tirade, Nancy Mace. She's running for governor in South Carolina. She said heads should roll. Shame on the DOJ. She posted on X last night. Posted more this morning.

What are you hearing? MITCHELL: Yeah. And I want to add on to that, when Pam Bondi was

appearing before the House Judiciary Committee this past week, one of the things that she said was she's not -- she didn't have anything to do with Ghislaine Maxwell being moved to a nicer prison, you know? And to me, that just on top of that.

So you're the attorney general and you're saying, hey, I don't know anything about it, but you -- there is no evidence that she's looked into it, there's no evidence that she's raised objections to, again, the only other person who's been publicly, publicly identified as assisting and convicted of assisting Jeffrey Epstein with his sex crimes was moved to a nicer area. There's talks -- she's trying to get pardoned.

So, it's just a lot of things that are problematic that, again, as you've noted, members on both sides of the aisle are concerned about the redactions, the names that are being protected.

And again, every member of congress who gets -- they have access to the unredacted files they come out of that room, they talk to me and you, and they say, how horrifying it is, how much -- maybe members of the public don't fully know, but the more these members of Congress see, the more troubled they say they are.

RAJU: And they've been dragged. The administration has to respond because of pressure, not because of necessarily they've been proactive, but because of pressure. Pam Bondi, her appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, of course, got a lot of attention because she was such a yelling at Democrats the whole time and Trump seemed to be perfectly fine with it he said that he praised her afterwards.

There have been some calls, though, from folks on the right for her -- to either people losing confidence in her. But when you look at Trump and how he's handled his cabinets, it seems like he's standing by Howard Lutnick. It seems like he's standing by Kristi Noem. It seems like he's standing by Pam Bondi. This is much different than the first 13 months of Trump's first term, when there was firing after firing, after firing, after firing, not so much this time.

MATTINGLY: And I think it's important you're picking up on a really significant shift that one is tied to the personnel itself, the type of people that he brought into his second term how close they are to the president. They're not people that he feels like he can do away with very quickly one, because of the process of confirming somebody takes a very long time. So cabinet secretaries are protected because they don't think they can get anybody through right now, or it would be very problematic but also the cabinet secretaries are people that Trump believes are doing his bidding, are loyal to him, are carrying out his agenda, which he did not think would necessarily was the case for the first time.

If you're Howard Lutnick, there are a lot of people inside the administration that have long had a lot of frustrations with Howard Lutnick, his ability to stick around is because of his loyalty to Trump and Trump's belief that Lutnick is -- working in his best interest. Bondi and kind of like Kristi Noem is. This is like a -- I hope he sees this bro type of moment where like the hearing for Bondi and the press conference that Noem did on the election stuff is like for an audience of one, it's very effective this time around.

[08:25:02]

RAJU: No question it's effective. It's helping them, it seems, to keep their jobs. We'll see how long it lasts.

All right. Next, my one-on-one interview with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. I asked whether his party can gerrymander its way back to the majority, and if a fellow Democrat could ruin it all.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: If he stands firm, if he stands firm, could he cost you the majority?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:29:57]

RAJU: It's been an unprecedented arms race that could determine the next House majority. Gerrymandering district lines mid-decade to favor one party.

President Trump started this by forcing new Texas maps to add five GOP seats. Since then, the two parties have been going toe to toe across the U.S. The GOP holds a three-seat advantage before Florida has even acted.

But Democrats may add four seats in Virginia if voters back a ballot measure. And in Maryland, the state senate president, who is a Democrat, refuses to eliminate the one GOP seat there, angering party leaders including Hakeem Jeffries, who is leading the nationwide effort in his quest to become speaker.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RAJU: So you clearly think that you now have an advantage in this gerrymandering race that we've really seen play out in unprecedented ways across the country this cycle. Do you think that Democrats are going to gerrymander their way to the majority?

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: Well, we're not going to gerrymander our way to the majority. We are going to win the majority because the American people know that Republicans have gone way too far. They failed to keep their promises.

They're rejecting the extremism of Republicans and embracing the fact that Democrats have made clear we're going to work hard to lower the high cost of living, to fix our broken health care system, to reform the out-of-control ICE situation, and to clean up corruption. RAJU: So there was a big ruling in Virginia that just came down the

pike here. Potentially, this will go as a ballot referendum in April to voters in Virginia to decide whether or not to give you guys up to four more seats, a ten-one difference between Democrats and Republicans in a pretty purple state. Is this overreaching on the Democrats part?

JEFFRIES: Republicans started this redistricting war, and Democrats have made it clear we're going to finish it. We're going to make sure that there is a fair national map. So at the end of the day, it's the voters who get to decide who's in the majority after the November midterm elections and not Donald Trump.

When they go low, we strike back. That's the Democratic approach and the Republicans are feeling it right now.

RAJU: I mean when they go low you're going lower it seems.

F1: We're not going lower. We're striking back. We're going to make sure that there's a fair national map. Donald Trump is the one who instructed five different Republican states to gerrymander the national congressional map. And the reason why he did that is because he wanted to rig the midterm elections. And for whatever the reason, didn't think that Democrats were going to forcefully respond.

He got that wrong. They thought we wouldn't respond in California. They thought we wouldn't respond in Virginia. They thought we wouldn't win the litigation in Utah. They thought we wouldn't force a referendum in Missouri. They thought we wouldn't successfully push them back in Ohio.

They got that all wrong. And now they're feeling the consequences.

RAJU: So do you think that you'll have the advantage here come November on this issue of gerrymandering?

JEFFRIES: The best-case scenario for Republicans at this point is status quo, which is very different than what they were claiming when they were beating on their chest last year saying they were going to gerrymander our opportunities out of existence.

In fact, some of them said, we're going to pick up 10 or 12 or 15 seats. They're not saying that anymore.

RAJU: So you said they tried to rig the elections. The other side may say, well, that's exactly what the Democrats are doing. They're trying to rig the elections now, too.

JEFFRIES: No, we're forcefully making sure that the overall national map is free and fair. And so whatever advantage Republicans thought they were going to obtain by gerrymandering in red states across the country, we are making sure those advantages are completely and totally wiped out.

RAJU: How much money are you guys willing to spend on Virginia? Now this is going to go to a ballot referendum in April, could have a huge impact on the midterms. How much money are you guys willing to put in to get this ballot initiative through?

JEFFRIES: Whatever it takes.

RAJU: I mean that's -- that sounds like a lot. It could be several -- it could be multimillion-dollar campaign.

JEFFRIES: We will spend tens of millions of dollars to make sure that the Republicans do not successfully manipulate voters in Virginia, and that voters have all of the information necessary to make a decision around whether they want Donald Trump to rig the midterm elections and halt the ability for the American people to decide who's in the majority, or whether the people of Virginia and the people of America should be the ones to decide.

RAJU: Do you worry about the cash situation with these outside groups? I mean the DNC, we're sitting in the DNC building right now. The RNC had $100 million more than the DNC at the beginning of this year. That has to concern you.

[08:34:49]

JEFFRIES: Well, it's not surprising that when one party has the White House, that the RNC, of course, is going to be in a somewhat stronger position financially than the DNC in the off year.

RAJU: Let's talk about Maryland, because this is a fight within your own party. The governor, Wes Moore, is backing this plan to redraw the one Republican essentially out of his district. This has passed the state house, but it's being held up in the state senate by one man, the state senate president, Bill Ferguson. Bill Ferguson, who's not bringing this to the floor For a vote.

What are the implications if he continues to stand against you and your party?

JEFFRIES: Well, I'm not convinced that he's going to be successful. Governor Moore has been incredibly strong, resilient patriotic and visionary on this issue. We know -- I'm very thankful to the Maryland house of delegates, who decisively passed this legislation which, by the way is going to give voters the opportunity in Maryland to make a decision about the future of this map.

That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. They are passing maps that they are intentionally gerrymandering, often wiping away black or Latino districts in the dead of night, legislatively. Because they're petrified of taking these things to the voters.

We're taking these things to the voters. That was done in California. That's being done in Virginia. And that also is the legislation that is being undertaken and considered in Maryland now.

RAJU: But if he stands firm, if he stands firm. Could he cost you the majority? This Democratic state senate president in Maryland?

JEFFRIES: Well, he'd have to live with that if that's the outcome at the end of the day. But I don't think that's going to be the outcome, because we know we have majority support right now as we speak in the Maryland state senate. And all we're asking President Ferguson to do is allow democracy to prevail. What that means is an up or down vote.

One man shouldn't stand in the way of the people of Maryland through their representatives in the state senate, being able to decide, should we go in this direction or should we not answer Donald Trump's continued efforts to rig the midterm elections?

RAJU: He seems to be concerned that this could lead to legal challenges, and it could even backfire for your party. Could it -- is he right -- could it backfire?

JEFFRIES: He's not right.

RAJU: Have you spoken to him?

JEFFRIES: Ferguson?

RAJU: Yes, Ferguson.

JEFFRIES: I haven't spoken to Ferguson in several weeks.

RAJU: Do you plan to?

JEFFRIES: Well, at some point I'm going to have to have a conversation with him if he continues to stand in the way of an up or down vote. But hopefully over the next few days, he'll change his mind.

RAJU: Ok, so there's also the possibility that the Supreme Court could really change things on the Voting Rights Act. It could even impact things this cycle. Does that worry you that the Supreme Court could come in and really undermine your chances to take back the majority?

JEFFRIES: I think it's important for the Supreme Court to stay consistent. And just two years ago or so in the Alabama case, Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh affirmed the continued importance of section two of the Voting Rights Act.

So I have no idea why two or three years later, they would overturn their own decision, particularly in this environment where Donald Trump has launched an all-out assault on civil rights, on voting rights, on black history, on these principles of diversity and equity and inclusion.

Why in this environment where were seeing a resurgence of racism and oppression, could the Supreme Court possibly conclude that the Voting Rights Act is outdated?

RAJU: But if they do, what does that mean for your chances to take back the House?

JEFFRIES: Well, I think the interesting thing is that if, for whatever the reason, they allow certain states in the Deep South to reopen the congressional map, that doesn't mean that every other state in other parts of the country, including the North, the Midwest and the West can't do exactly the same thing. So I would caution Republicans, be careful what you wish for. They've

already gone down this road once before, and they've seen the outcome.

This whole gerrymandering scheme has completely and totally backfired on them. Do they want to double down on that failed effort?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RAJU: My panel is back. It is remarkable how much this issue, redrawing house lines, now could determine the next House majority.

JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, "NEW YORK TIMES" CONGRESSIONAL EDITOR: Absolutely. I mean and, you know, Jeffries is right that a lot of times when you undertake these efforts, it's a be careful what you wish for situation.

I mean, I think we've already seen that what happened in Texas really could have a blowback effect for Republicans particularly since they're using 2024 vote to apportion these districts.

And, you know it's very clear that the vote is or it looks very likely that the vote is going to look a lot different in 2026. So --

RAJU: Yes.

HIRSCHFELD DAVIS: -- but, you know, this is going to be a big mess.

RAJU: Every seat matters, which is why the Maryland seat, he's trying to strongarm this Democrat to fall in line.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: That was a fascinating interview. That is a leader who feels very, very comfortable in an evolution that has played out to Democratic advantage which nobody thought was going to be the case several months ago when this began.

[08:39:51]

MATTINGLY: And he is willing to press that advantage at a level that with Jeffries, who is very, very cautious to get over his skis on things and has been that way, this is a confident leader who is very willing to press the case.

HIRSCHFELD DAVIS: Yes.

RAJU: Yes. And the Voting Rights Act though, if the Supreme Court strikes that down, that could change the dynamics significantly.

TIA MITCHELL, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION WASHINGOTN BUREAU CHIEF: That could. And that, especially in southern states, Republican-led states that have large black voting populations and quite frankly, the Congressional Black Caucus, we've seen the difference that enforcing the Voting Rights Act has had on black representation in Congress.

It wouldn't affect every black lawmaker, and there are plenty of black lawmakers that aren't necessarily in districts protected by the Voting Rights Act, but there are many. And we'll see how that's impacted by what the Supreme Court determines.

RAJU: That's going to be a huge, huge ruling. That's big implications as well.

All right. Next a massive federal agency shut down for a second day. What Barack Obama is now saying about the issue driving that dispute.

[08:40:50]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJU: Former president, Barack Obama, making some rare public remarks about an issue that has caused a third government shutdown in less than six months -- immigration enforcement. A dispute that has shuttered the Department of Homeland Security. And now it will be up to President Trump and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer to find a deal.

Obama raising alarms on how ICE agents have been deployed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The rogue behavior of agents of the federal government is deeply concerning and dangerous.

The sort of behavior that you know, in the past, we've seen in authoritarian countries and we've seen in dictatorships but we have not seen in America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Comparing it to what's happening in the U.S., I mean, can Democrats compromise off of this position in order to reopen the government?

MITCHELL: Yes. I mean I think what's before Democrats now is deciding how much they're going to dig in to their calls for reforms of immigration enforcement policy. We know that.

You know, one of the frustrations with their base after the last government shutdown was that, you know, the handful of Senate Democrats that voted to end the shutdown allowed it to happen without them having any tangible, you know -- anything to show for it.

RAJU: That was over health care.

MITCHELL: Right.

RAJU: Yes.

MITCHELL: So the question is, are they going to dig in and for how long? I think they're still going to be a pain point when it comes to the airport security. That's going to be the big pain point.

And there will be pressure on Democrats to cave. But what -- will they get anything for it this time?

RAJU: Yes. That's a big question because there's so many agencies impacted by this shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.

Trump, though has to compromise, too. And can he compromise on an issue that has been his calling card since he came into the political scene -- hardline immigration tactics?

MATTINGLY: Yes, the constraints to both sides on what a compromise or what a pragmatic solution here would actually look like are extremely, extremely difficult.

I talked to a Democratic senator on Friday who said, look, there's more than half of our caucus that simply will not vote for anything that they come up with, no matter what. That's an extremely difficult position for Schumer to be in.

How Trump and his side try and figure out some way to thread this needle here. I don't see this ending anytime soon, especially until TSA pain points start to really rise.

RAJU: Julie, you wrote the book on immigration, literally. So how do you see this playing out?

HIRSCHFELD DAVIS: I mean I think the problem here, in terms of finding a solution, is that both sides can point to some support for their position right?

Republicans know that, you know voters are supportive of the idea of cracking down on illegal immigration. That's certainly borne out in the polls. But what is also starting to show up is a real broad, not just Democrats, but also Independents and a lot of Republicans, discontent with seeing some of these tactics and a feeling that ICE Has gone too far and the enforcement really has gone too far.

And so Democrats can take comfort in that and say, listen, we are -- the public is on our side here. So I think when you have both sides feeling, you know, that justification in their position and seeing that borne out in the polls, it becomes really difficult to figure out where either side can give without getting a lot of political blowback.

RAJU: And just as we go to break the number of shutdowns under -- days under shutdown, when you compare Trump to past presidents is just so remarkable.

49 days in this second term alone, 37 in the first term. And this started -- Jimmy Carter only one day. And then it really hadn't happened a whole lot since. Now quite common, which was not common in recent years.

All right. Up next, Winter Olympians speaking out against Trump's actions and what the president is now saying.

[08:48:59]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You're there to play a sport and you're there to represent your country and hopefully win a medal. You're not there to pop off about politics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Perhaps no surprise in these polarized times but the nation's political battles now surfacing in Milan-Cortina where several U.S. Olympians have spoken out against the Trump administration.

And Vice President J.D. Vance firing a broadside back at those Olympians even after he received less than a warm reception during the opening ceremonies of the Winter Games.

Now, some American athletes say they feel torn about representing the U.S.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD RUOHONEN, TEAM USA CURLER: I'm proud to be here to represent Team USA and to represent our country. But we'd be remiss if we didn't at least mention what's going on in Minnesota. What's happening in Minnesota is wrong.

CHRIS LILLIS, TEAM USA SKIER: I love the U.S.A. and I think I would never want to represent a different country in the Olympics.

I feel heartbroken about what's happened in the United States.

HUNTER HESS, TEAM USA SKIER: I think it's -- it brings up mixed emotions to represent the U.S. right now, I think.

Just because I'm wearing the flag doesn't mean I represent everything that's going on in the U.S.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[08:54:45]

RAJU: Well, that comment in particular did not sit well with President Trump, who wrote that skier Hunter Hess was a, quote, "real loser", saying, "it's hard to root for somebody like that."

But while seeing a president insult a top tier American Olympian is hardly par for the course, seeking -- Americans making political statements is not all that unusual.

In 1906, an Irish athlete who was forced to compete for Great Britain waved the Irish flag.

In 1968, two U.S. sprinters raised their fists in a black power salute. That same year, a Czech gymnast on the Soviet Union's team turned her head away from the Soviet flag. And then in 1980, the U.S. boycotted the Moscow Olympics. In '84, the

Soviet Union led a boycott of the L.A. Games.

And this week, a Ukrainian skeleton racer was disqualified for wearing a helmet showing Ukrainians killed in his country's war with Russia.

And there's still one more week left until the closing ceremonies.

That's it for INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY.

Up next, "STATE OF THE UNION WITH JAKE TAPPER AND DANA BASH". Jake's guests include Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, border czar Tom Homan, Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin and Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear.

Thanks again for sharing your Sunday morning with us. See you next time.

[08:56:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)