Return to Transcripts main page
Isa Soares Tonight
Vice President JD Vance Addresses White House Press Corps; WFP: Food Insecurity Could Reach Record Levels From Mideast War; WHO Deeply Concerned About The Growing Ebola Crisis In Central Africa; Trump: U.S. Can Reach Diplomatic Deal With Cuba. Aired 2-3p ET
Aired May 19, 2026 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
JAMES DAVID VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Do and say, OK, you're an asylee, go into the interior of the country, here's a work
permit, maybe come back in 10 or 12 years for your hearing on whether you actually have a legitimate asylum claim.
So, what do that mean? That meant that person was just completely given amnesty and released into the interior of the country. Well, what if that
person was a criminal? What if that person actually had a violent history?
We didn't do any of the work necessary to ensure that the people coming into our country claiming to be asylum claimants actually had anything
legitimate or anything good in their backgrounds. So, that is a serious problem. It is something that we have fixed in the Trump administration.
But fundamentally, that loophole, you're going to see some time in the future, somebody is going to try to exploit that loophole, and it's one of
the things that we're very focused on in the fraud taskforce is making sure that the people who exploited that loophole are actually prosecuted for it,
assuming they committed a crime.
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: So, I don't know your name. You have a beautiful cross necklace, though, so go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Karol Kastinova(ph) from (INAUDIBLE) "TBN"(ph) --
VANCE: Hi, Karol(ph) --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you so much. I have two questions. One of them is going back to the $1.8 billion fund, not to keep beating that, but sir,
every -- Democrat lawmakers are misrepresenting that fund.
VANCE: I agree.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes --
VANCE: It's a great question --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And if -- and sadly, some of the mainstream media doesn't understand the magnitude of the political persecution of J6ers. So,
if a violent offender like a J6er was still over sentenced and mistreated, literally some of them were sentenced to 24 years in prison.
Put it on unconstitutional pretrial detention, literally tortured in cages. Wouldn't that person still be able to apply for the fund because of due
process? And --
VANCE: This is why we say -- just to answer that very briefly. This is why we say we have to evaluate this thing case-by-case, right? We don't in the
United States say that everybody who is accused of a crime is automatically guilty in a court of public opinion.
You've got to actually look at this stuff and figure out what were they accused of? Maybe they did something bad even. But what they were accused
of is way worse of what they actually did. Maybe they had their entire lives ruined in a totally disproportionate way.
That's fundamentally illegitimate and political. And I find just here on this point, one of the interesting things about the American media is,
there is a fascination. If you go to any American law school, there are these, you know, prisoner rights clinic.
There are people who objectively committed heinous crimes. But the American media and the American legal academy has decided that even though they
committed bad crimes, their sentence was disproportionate. They were mistreated in some way.
You know who never, ever gets an ounce of sympathy when it comes to that disproportionate sentencing is people who voted for Donald Trump and
participated in the January 6th protest.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you so much --
VANCE: Go to your second question --
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's about Pete Davidson. He made a horrific, obscene joke about the murder of your friend, Charlie Kirk. What does this still
say about where our political divisions have gone? And what are you specifically doing to bridge the divide, especially as a potential future
president?
VANCE: Well -- sorry, who was it that said something.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Pete Davidson made a really obscene joke about Charlie Kirk? So, what are you doing as a potential future candidate or president
to bridge the divide?
VANCE: Well, first of all, I'm not a potential future candidate, I'm a Vice President, and I really like my job, and I'm going to try to do as good of
a job as I can. But let me just say this. So, you talked about Pete Davidson who said something bad about Charlie Kirk.
Look, Charlie was a very dear friend. But more importantly than that, Charlie was a father of two beautiful kids, and he did not deserve to have
all of those moments with his kids, all those moments with his beautiful wife taken from him in the way that happened.
I would expect everybody with a heart or a conscience would say whatever we agreed or disagreed with about his particular viewpoints, this is a tragedy
and it's totally unacceptable that it happens in the United States of America.
To their credit, a lot of the reporters in this room, even though I don't agree with their politics, they were open about the fact that what happened
to Charlie was disgusting and it shouldn't happen in a civilized country.
You talk about bridging the divide. I mean, one thing that happened that hits, you know, not quite literally close to home, but there was a very
terrible shooting that happened today at a Muslim community center. It seems like three people are dead, plus the shooters.
And you know, that community center is actually very close to this restaurant that Usha and I go to every time we visit -- her family lives in
San Diego. She was born and raised in San Diego. Every time we go to San Diego, we go to this restaurant that is like maybe a five-minute drive from
this community center.
And I found out about it actually on my way to the White House this morning. And I texted her, I said, you know, would you have known anybody
who was like involved in this? And she said, absolutely, I would have known some people, or at least their parents who might have actually used the
services at this community center.
I don't know a single person who would say anything other than what I'm about to say, which is that, that type of violence in the United States of
America is reprehensible. And I encourage every single American to pray for everybody who was involved and affected by it.
[14:05:00]
We don't want that to happen to our country. And may God rest the souls of the people who lost their lives. What I do find a little distressing is
that while every person I know, every politically-conservative person I know would say exactly what I said about these innocent people who were
killed.
There were a lot of people who were celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk. And I think one way that we can bridge the divide is just have a very
simple principle in this country, number one, we don't want the government throwing people in prison because they have bad politics, however you
define bad politics.
Number two, and way more importantly, political violence, wherever it comes from, is unacceptable in the United States of America. Let's talk with one
another, not shoot each other when we disagree. I think that's the principle that everybody in this room agrees with. It's certainly the
principle the President of the United States agrees with.
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: OK, all right, sorry, I'm going to try to read this here. I'm sorry? OK --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Vice President, Mr. Vice President --
VANCE: I don't -- OK, that was kind of interesting, so I'm going to give you the question. All right, go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, last week, the Pentagon halted deployment of 4,000 troops, U.S. troops in Poland -- to Poland. This is in direct contradiction
to President Trump explicitly promised not to reduce the troop level in Poland.
So, I'm going to ask you this question, which many people in Poland think. Why are you rewarding Putin and punishing your best ally in Europe?
VANCE: Well, first of all, I'd say, there's been no President who has done more, frankly, to ensure that Ukraine survived the invasion of Russia than
Donald Trump. As he famously said, Obama gave them sheets, I gave them javelins.
And it was those javelins that ensured that Ukraine still has its territorial sovereignty. What he's also said is that he wants to pursue an
American policy that focus on the interests of the United States. And part of that foreign policy is not to reward Putin or not to punish a country
like Poland, which we love.
We love Poland. We love the Polish people. No, what we're trying to do, what our foreign policy is geared towards is promoting European
independence and sovereignty. We want Europe to take more ownership over its own territorial integrity. We want Europe to step up in a big way.
Now, I think you said 4,000 troops. We've not reduced the troop levels in Poland by 4,000 troops. What we did is that we delayed a troop deployment
that was going to go to Poland. That's not a reduction. That's just a standard delay in rotation that sometimes happens in these situations.
But here's the fundamental problem. Poland is capable of defending itself with a lot of support from the United State, we're not talking about
pulling every single American troop out of Europe. We're talking about shifting some resources around in a way that maximizes American security.
I don't think that's bad for Europe. That's encouraging Europe to take more ownership. The United States cannot be the policeman of the world. We want
to be good allies. We want to make sure that our troop presence promotes regional stability in Europe.
The President has not said that we could. The President has not said that he's taken all of the troops out of Europe. But Europe has to stand on its
own two feet, and that's something that he's been consistent of, frankly, not even since the beginning of this administration.
Going back to the first administration, is we have got to have more sovereignty and more of Europe standing on its own two feet. That will
continue to be our policy in Europe.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those troops will go eventually to Poland?
VANCE: What I said is that, is a delay in troop rotation. Those troops could go elsewhere in Europe. We could decide to send them elsewhere. We
actually haven't made the final determination about where those troops are ultimately going to go.
But what I'm saying is, it is not accurate to say that we are pulling a bunch of troops out. It is a very small and very minor thing, and I think,
frankly, a lot of the European media again is overreacting to this a bit. And here's one thing I'll say about this.
Look, I have for my entire life -- I'm 41 years old, for my entire life, I have heard chirping from the European media about everything that's wrong
with the United States of America. We don't have this, we don't have that, we don't spend enough on health care.
Even though, part of the reason why we spend so much on defense was because we have tens of thousands of troops in Europe. I think that if the European
media wants to attack the President of the United States, they need to start looking in the mirror.
All he has said is that we're going to be good allies. We're going to be good friends. We're going to be trading partners. But it is reasonable for
Europe to take a little bit more ownership over its continental integrity.
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: Kaitlan(ph)?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Vice President, I have a question on the war. But just to follow up, you previously told me that anyone who assaulted a
police officer on January 6th should go to prison. So, why not rule out giving them taxpayer-funded money?
[14:10:00]
VANCE: Well, Kaitlan(ph), what I said is, we're going to look at everything case-by-case, there are --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, what (INAUDIBLE) --
VANCE: Because, Kaitlan(ph), there are people who I don't know their individual circumstances, and I don't rule things out categorically when I
know nothing about a person's individual circumstances. Let's say a person is accused -- let's say, hypothetically, a person is accused of doing
something that they never actually did, that they got a kangaroo court, that they had a judge who mistreated them.
I think that we should look at those things case-by-case. We're not making commitments to give anybody money. We're just making commitments to look at
things case-by-case.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But just to follow up on the war, you last week denied that the President said he was not taking Americans financial situations
into consideration when he's making decisions on the Iran war.
He was asked about that again. He stood by it, called it a perfect statement, and said he would make it again. Do you believe that Americans'
financial situations should be taken into consideration when you're making decisions as administration?
VANCE: See, Kaitlan, what you did is, you misrepresented the question that I was asked, and then you misrepresented the answer that I gave. What I
said is that a question that was asked where the President allegedly, he allegedly said that he didn't care about Americans' financial situations.
He never said that.
What he said is that when he -- it was totally taken out of context. What he said is that when he is negotiating with the Iranians, he's focused on
the national security objectives that he's trying to achieve. Of course, the President has a mandate to be focused on a number of things.
And I guarantee you, every single day, I have conversations with him about it every single day. He's worried about his fellow Americans. He wants them
to be prosperous. He wants them to thrive. He wants them to have good jobs.
That's why we've done the things and taken the steps that we've taken in order to create record-job growth, in order to create record-wage growth,
in order to induce trillions of dollars of new investment into our country.
That's because he cares about that stuff. What he also said is that when he's talking to the Iranians, he's talking to the Iranians about questions,
of course, of national security, like their nuclear program. You can hold two thoughts in your head at the same time that the President cares about
financial security for Americans.
But also, when he's negotiating with the Iranians, he's talking about the issues that are germane to the concerns of that particular conflict.
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: Go ahead --
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Going back to the price tag for this DOJ fund, $1.8 billion, you have people that can't afford groceries, gas is high, people
are making sacrifices in their personal lives to accommodate for this rise in prices.
People are telling us that they feel financially worse off. They're very concerned about the uncertainty. How can you justify that amount of
taxpayer money for that fund when people are struggling? What do you say to Americans who wonder why this fund is getting all this money, and I can't
afford basic life amenities?
VANCE: I want to say a couple of things about that. First of all, you said $1.8 billion, and it's important for people to realize we're not just
writing a $1.8 billion check. We're going to take a lot of people who are going to apply and say that they have been mistreated by their government.
We're going to handle those situations case-by-case. And if we determine they were, in fact, mistreated by their government, we think it's
reasonable to give them just compensation.
But when you talk about funds and pots of money that are out there, I mean, thanks to Donald Trump's leadership and the working families tax cut, we
put $40 billion into a rural healthcare fund in order to stop the closure, or at least, prevent some closure of rural hospitals and rural clinics that
have been decimated under the Biden administration.
We had a piece of tax legislation that put hundreds of billions of dollars into the pockets of families, no taxes on Social Security, no taxes on
overtime, no taxes on tips. So, I don't -- I reject the idea that we can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
We can give just compensation to people who are mistreated by the government. We can also make sure that the American people, we do
everything that we can to make their lives better, to make them more prosperous, to give them better jobs.
That is the primary focus of Donald J. Trump's White House. That's the question all of us ask every single day is, how do we make our fellow
citizens more prosperous? We can do that while also taking care of people who were mistreated by the last administration.
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: Go ahead, sir. Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Mr. Vice President, thank you, thank you very much, Mr. Vice President. Mr. Curtis here. After the ceasefire with Iran,
drone and missile attacks on the Kurdistan region have not stopped. That happened yesterday as well.
What is your position on this issue, and what do you expect from the new Iraqi government regarding the control of militias?
VANCE: Well, as, you know, you've asked the President this question before, and we certainly love the people of Kurdistan. Any time that drone attacks
or missile attacks are hitting anybody, but particularly civilian populations, that's not something we like to see at all.
[14:15:00]
And it's one of the things that sometimes happens. Unfortunately, these ceasefires, they're not always perfect. We've seen that in Gaza. We've seen
that certainly in Iran and some of its neighbors. But we have seen a significant reduction in violence over the last few weeks of the ceasefire.
And, look, fundamentally, the President's been quite clear, this is going to go again in one of two directions. We're going to restart the war, which
is not the preference of the President of the United States where we restart the operation, or we're going to strike a deal, and I think that's
an important thing.
That's what we're focused on, and that's what we're going to keep on working on --
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: OK, it is very -- OK, I -- in the -- in like the purple, the kind of purple dress there. Yes. Go ahead.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Mr. Vice President --
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: Go ahead.
ROWENA ORTIZ, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, TURNING POINT USA: Thank you so much, Mr. Vice President, Rowena Ortiz with "Turning Point USA". There has been
an uptick in religious violence across the country. What's your message to protect people across all faiths in America?
VANCE: I appreciate that question. Obviously, "Turning Points" would know a lot about this issue. As we talked about it earlier, you guys have been the
subject of a fair amount of violence yourself. I guess what I would say is the principle of religious violence is particularly disgusting, especially
in the United States of America.
And as a devout Christian, I would say it's one of the most anti-Christian things and anti-American things that you could do. And here's why? One,
because a fundamental principle of all the great faiths is, we are all children of God.
And because of that, we are endowed by certain rights that are unique to our status as human beings. You violate those rights most importantly when
you commit violence against another person, you can violate them in other ways as well.
But the most profound way to violate the fundamental right of human dignity is to commit violence. But here's why the religious piece of it is
particularly egregious.
One of the fundamental American rights that I think came from our Christian heritage as a civilization is the idea that we respect people's religious
freedom, in part because we respect them as human beings, but also because we respect their right to find their own pathway to God.
You can't force anybody to a pathway to God. They have to, through their own free will, find God themselves. That's one of the reasons why that
right of religious freedom is the very first right enshrined in our constitution.
So, when you commit acts of violence, you're committing an act against this fundamental idea that people are created in the image of God, and that they
have the right, through their own free will, to find God however they might want.
And as a -- as a Christian, of course, you might have your preference for how they find their pathway to God. They have to find that choice. And
anybody who would commit violence against another human being in the name of religion is, I think, doing something that is a violation, of course, of
the laws of man. But I think more importantly, it is a fundamental violation of the laws of God.
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: Let me -- let me -- let me go -- let me go with -- OK, Garrett(ph), do you have your hand up? Garrett(ph) --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right, that's right, OK, thank you Mr. Vice President. Midterms are well underway; you've got voters go to the polls in
six states today. You and the President ran on a platform that included no new wars, cutting gas prices, cutting inflation.
What do you say to the people who go to the polls today and who feel like those promises are unkept?
VANCE: Well, I'd say a few things. First of all, we've delivered great wins for the American people. We ran on delivering tax cuts to the American
people, which we did, the largest tax cuts in American history.
We ran on cutting taxes, particularly on people who were working on overtime, working on tips. We cut taxes for those Americans. We ran on the
promise of bringing investment back into the United States of America. That rather than factory closures, we were going to have factories opening.
And we've seen both construction jobs in manufacturing, but also manufacturing jobs have great rebounds under the Trump administration and
under our leadership. We are very aware that because of what's going on in the Middle East, gas prices have gone up, and a lot of Americans are
struggling because of that.
Our view is that it is a temporary increase. We're taking a number of steps to try to push back against it and try to ensure that Americans are paying
as little at the pump as possible. But I feel quite confident after we've taken care of business in the Middle East, those prices are going to come
down.
And there have been a lot of prices. As you know, a lot of prices from rent to housing, where we still got a lot of work to do, but we do see some real
progress made across the economy on pricing, but also on people's jobs. For me --
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: OK, I have John -- I have -- I'm recalling John -- I'm just going to start calling Jon Raasch --
JON RAASCH, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, DAILY MAIL: Jon Michael Raasch of "Daily Mail"?
VANCE: Yes --
RAASCH: Great day, great to see you, thank you --
VANCE: Great to see you, too, thank you.
RAASCH: Sir, Trump initially said that the war would last six weeks. We are now -- it's been going on for 11 weeks and three days. What's your message
to the American people as to why it's gone on so long and it hasn't ended yet?
[14:20:00]
VANCE: Well, first of all, the President said it's going to be a short-term operation, and I think that has proven out to be true. The active period of
conflict lasted about five, five and a half weeks, and now we've been in the ceasefire where we're trying to get a negotiated settlement that gets
the American people the things that we need for our national security.
So, I've said before that we're going to go one of two options here. We're going to have a good settlement that actually gets the American people what
they need or we're going to go back to a kinetic operation.
Obviously, the President prefers to get that settlement, I think the Iranians prefer to get that settlement. But regardless of what direction
the President ultimately goes down, whatever he ultimately decides, I think it's important for the American people to know two things. Number one, it
will be for their security and their prosperity.
That's why we're doing this, and number two, it will not -- this is not going to be the sort of thing that lasts forever. I think a lot of
Americans, especially my generation, who are worried about forever endless conflicts, we have to remember, I think you said 11 weeks, a big chunk of
that has been a ceasefire.
This is not a forever war. We're going to take care of business and come home, that's what the President has promised, and that's exactly what he's
going to deliver.
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: Go ahead. Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Foreign Minister today on CNN said --
VANCE: No, the orange --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes --
VANCE: Yes, guys, please don't shout over each other --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. The Egyptian Foreign Minister today in an interview on CNN, he said that the Arab countries are
working with you on a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran that can lead to a deal.
Can you confirm that? And one other question also on Iran. You've spent over than 20 hours with the Iranians negotiating. Do you believe that other
countries may be able to achieve what those negotiations could not?
VANCE: Well, I think that the purpose of our initial negotiation was, one, to establish some relationships between two countries that hadn't talked
directly in a very long time. And number two, just to get this -- the pathway started to negotiation.
I don't think any of us -- meaning me, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff had any great confidence that we were going to be able to reach a deal. But we
did think we were going to take important steps along the pathway to reaching a deal. And we did.
Now, you asked what the Egyptian Foreign Minister said, I haven't seen those comments, so I won't comment on them myself. What I'd say is, I'm not
going to detail what's going on in the negotiation. There's a lot of back- and-forth.
A lot of good progress is being made, but we're just going to keep on working at it, and eventually, we will either hit a deal or we won't. But
we're going to keep on working at it. And I think it's important for us to actually privately have these conversations, because sometimes when you're
doing negotiation and you, you know, put everything out there in public, it actually complicates things more than it should.
So, we're going to keep these negotiations private until we've got something, of course, to tell the American people. And at that time, we
will.
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: OK, yes. Is that a magenta tie? It's hard to tell.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Magenta tie --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Vice President --
VANCE: I'm going to get purple tie there, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Mr. Vice President --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Something else --
VANCE: Thank you. So, this guy insists that he has the real purple tie. So, I'll give you a question too. Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Two questions for you. One on Iran, and one on China, given the President's trip last week to
Beijing. On Iran, you met on April the 11th with Iranian negotiators, including the Foreign Minister.
Is it your sense, Mr. Vice President, that they're just stringing the U.S. along? That's the sense from lawmakers from both parties. And then on
China, you come from a state that manufactures a lot of automobiles. Is it your sense that within this term that you have with the President, that
China branded vehicles will be sold right here in America?
VANCE: Well, I think that what the President has shown, a willingness to do, unlike any President in my life-time, is to protect the American
automotive industry. We are not going to let the American automotive industry disappear.
There are a lot of ways in which we've reinvested and which we've tariffed foreign competitors to ensure that American car workers, American auto
workers, and the products they develop are going to be made right here in the United States of America, and also available right here in the United
States of America.
I think it's important for the -- just the American people -- I want to make this point. Car manufacturing is one of those skills that when it
disappears, it's hard to regain. And when you've got people who can build complex machines and our great workers in Ohio, Michigan and elsewhere,
they do a very good job.
They also, God forbid, in times of national emergency, can be called on to manufacture other complex machinery. So, it's very important that we
protect that native auto industry. The President has done more on this than anybody, but we're certainly going to keep on working at it.
You asked about being strung along. Look, you never know until you know, right? What all we can do is negotiate in good faith, try to find a pathway
that accomplishes the President's objectives, that accomplishes the national security interests of the American people and gets this thing in a
good place.
[14:25:00]
I think somebody earlier asked this question. I am not certain, and I'm not going to be certain until we sign a deal, that we have a deal. But I feel
confident enough to keep on doing the work, and to try to find a good deal for the American people, and that's what I'm going to do.
So, the guy with the real purple tie. I will give you the final question, and then I'm going to have to hit the road.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, thank you, Mr. Vice President.
VANCE: Sorry, this guy and then the very tall guy here.
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: Sorry, I can't get to everybody. Marco is right, this really is chaos. This is crazy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes --
VANCE: You guys got to behave yourselves --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We've been here for a little --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. The President's financial disclosures were released recently, and they showed a lot of stock trades
in companies that he has talked up at events, official events at the White House on his Truth Social account, sometimes even putting the stock-ticker
symbols in his posts and encouraging people to buy their stock.
Americans, according to recent polling, are increasingly describing the President as corrupt and trading stocks --
VANCE: This is a hell of a question --
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, sir. Trading individual stocks is something that you said that public officials should not be able to do when you ran
for Senate all those years ago. And yet, the President, who arguably has access to more non-public information than your average senator, is not
only buying and selling individual stocks either through his -- through his trust --
VANCE: OK, what's the question?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The question is -- the question, sir, is, how can you and your administration argue to Americans that you're cleaning up
corruption, you're preventing fraud, you're fighting the sorts of things that harm people and people's financial situations. When the President
seems to be talking up stocks that he owns, selling them and enriching himself.
VANCE: OK, so, here, let me -- let me -- let me answer your question here. That was a doozy. Before I answer your question, I want to just observe,
there are different ways to ask a question, OK? You can just ask a question and try to get your answer, or you could do like a speech where you say,
you know, Mr. Vice President, every -- you know, you're a terrible human being, and so is the President, so, is the entire cabinet.
And say -- and then I'm like, what's your question? And then your question is, how dare you? Come on, man. Have a little bit of objectivity in the way
that you ask these questions, because there are a lot of things in that speech masquerading as a question that didn't actually get asked. OK?
Number one, the President doesn't sit at the Oval Office on his computer, on his like Robinhood account, buying and selling stocks. That's absurd. He
has independent wealth advisors who manage his money. He is a wealthy person. He has had success in business.
He's not making these stock trades himself, and your question imputes that. It sort of -- it doesn't say it exactly, but a reasonable person listening
to that question would assume the President is sitting around and doing that. He's not.
Second of all, you're right. I am a big fan of banning members of Congress from trading stocks, so is the President of the United States. All of us
believe that nobody should be taking proprietary information gained from public service and buying and selling stocks.
We want to ban -- we want to ban that. We want to ban that process. And I think the way to lead by example is banning that process, banning that
approach and making it illegal, which is exactly what the President has proposed doing.
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: OK, yes.
JORDAN CONRADSON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE GATEWAY PUNDIT: Thank you, sir. Jordan Conradson of "Gateway Pundit". I'll try and make this short.
There was -- you might have seen this. There was a massive United Kingdom rally in London just last weekend.
They were protesting mass illegal immigration and the replacement of British culture. What message do you think this should send to globalist
European leaders and to leaders here? And also, I wanted to ask about several House members are revamping this push to pass a -- it's called the
Dignity Act.
But it's really just an amnesty bill giving work visas and allowing millions of illegals stay in the country. Is that something the White House
wants to see stopped in the House?
VANCE: Well, number one, I don't like giving amnesty to anybody. Number two, since you asked about Great Britain and the United Kingdom rally, one
of the ironies -- when one of the great ironies of this job is that for the past couple of years, you see these protests break out all over the
country.
And sometimes, you know, they're fairly well-attended and sometimes they're very poorly attended. And everybody holds these signs saying, no kings,
right? And how many Democratic lawmakers have I seen holding up signs that say no kings? They are very insistent that we not have kings.
And then King Charles comes to the congressional chamber, and these guys break out in rapturous applause. So, maybe they don't care so much about
kings as they pretend that they do. Maybe they just don't like the agenda that we're implementing that's actually making American workers and
American families safe and prosperous again.
But to answer your question about this immigration issue. Look, one of the problems that we have in all of western societies is that we have a lot of
people who have decided, Wall Street bankers, corporate lobbyists, and government officials, that what the United States and what the West need is
more and more cheap labor. What we believe in this White House is what we need more and more of is high wages for American workers and investing in
our own people.
[14:30:26]
What you see all over the West, and it's kind of crazy, is this idea that the way to generate prosperity is to bring in millions and millions of
unvetted people and drop them into your neighborhoods and we simply reject that idea. So, to everybody in the U.K. who rejects that idea, I encourage
them to just keep on going.
It's OK to want to defend your culture. It's OK to want to live in a safe neighborhood. It's OK to want your job to go to yourself and your neighbors
and not to a stranger who you don't even know. It is reasonable for the people in Western societies to want to control who comes into their country
and who doesn't.
A lot of people -- Frank, a lot of people in the media have tried to persuade all of those people that it's somehow racist to want to protect
your borders, even though very often the very people who are most affected by low wage immigration are lower income black and Hispanic Americans right
here in the United States of America, and I guarantee that's true in the U.K. So, we believe in making America great again. You can't do that unless
you protect your borders. I'd encourage our friends in the U.K. to follow the same path. Thank you all. Good to see you.
ISA SOARES, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello and a very warm welcome, everyone. I'm Isa Soares. You've been listening there to the vice
president, J.D. Vance, giving him briefing. Of course, he's stepping in for White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who is on maternity leave.
There was a lot of topics, as you heard there. He spoke for, what, roughly 50 minutes or so, just over 50 minutes, or close to an hour, I can't even
say.
He was asked questions about the Texas Senate primary. He was asked questions on immigration, the San Diego mosque shooting that left three
dead. He denounced that. Also asked questions about troop deployments in Poland.
But I think the standout remarks we heard from him were on Iran. He said -- he reiterated the line that we've heard from President Trump, that Iran
cannot have a nuclear weapon. He did say there were two options they've had on the table, which is a good settlement or kinetic operation. On the first
point, he said, we're in a pretty good spot, and we think we've made a lot of progress with Iran. On the kinetic operation, he said, we're locked and
loaded, we don't want to go down that pathway. And he said the president doesn't want to go down that pathway, neither, he believes, do the
Iranians. He also said this is not the kind of thing that is going to last forever, this is not a forever war.
And it's on Iran that I do want to talk about, because he gave us -- of course, he's been part of the negotiations, he's traveled, he's been to
Pakistan, and he spoke a bit about the fracturing, the hardline position within some of those on the Iranian side.
Listening into all of this, because there's a lot there, including discussions on Pope and A.I., I want to bring in our senior White House
reporter, Kevin Liptak, which is my So, Kevin, I mean, the position doesn't seem to have shifted, right? Because this war was supposed to have lasted
six weeks, and here we are, no end in sight. This coming off the back of the fact that we heard from President Trump yesterday in a Truth Social,
said that he was only an hour away from resuming strikes on Iran, but then held off at the request of Gulf states. What did you take away? Because it
seems to me that diplomacy is still there, despite, of course, this threat of kinetic action.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Right. And, you know, I'm having some trouble reconciling J.D. Vance's view that the negotiations are
going well and that they're making some progress, and President Trump's claim that he was an hour away from launching the war again. And I don't
know how you can kind of reconcile those two views.
Of course, J.D. Vance is well known to have, you know, opposed the war from the beginning, but also to have encouraged some of the diplomacy, including
by participating in those marathon talks in Islamabad last month that did not result in a deal, but did, in his view, lead to the development of
relationships between the U.S. and Iranian officials, did develop some of the sort of structure of these negotiations that are still ongoing.
You know, he was asked, I think, multiple times in there about some of the economic fallout of this war, about its unpopularity, about the toll that
it has taken on the American people. He did, I think, say that it was going to be a temporary war. He said this would not be a forever war when he was
asked about the rise in gas prices. He said it would be a temporary increase.
And then when Kaitlan Collins asked him about the president's own remarks last week, sort of downplaying the role that Americans' financial hardships
have played in his thinking about the war, he grew very, very defensive, tried to claim essentially that the president had never said what he said.
[14:35:00]
And so, I do think it's --
SOARES: And on that point, Kevin --
LIPTAK: Yes.
SOARES: Sorry to interrupt. On that point, I think it's important for our viewers to clarify exactly what the president said. We actually have it.
Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Yes. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing, we cannot
let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: I mean, that, to me, was pretty clear, Kevin.
LIPTAK: Yes. I mean, J.D. Vance is trying to say that the question that Trump was asked about was whether the financial hardships would lead him to
agree to a deal that was somehow less positive than he originally wanted. But at the bottom line, this is what the president said, and this is now
the second time that J.D. Vance has tried to downplay it. And I think it just speaks to some of the difficulties that Vance and Trump and
essentially all of the Republican Party are going to have in trying to defend how the president is going about this conflict.
SOARES: Yes. He also said that Russia taking Iran's enriched uranium is not part of this deal. So, that's some clarification on that. Kevin, thanks for
talking us through all those points. It's very busy. Thank you very much indeed.
Well, I'm going to stay with this. Like a crisis within a crisis, that's how International Aid Agency describes the impact from the closure of the
Strait of Hormuz, due to, of course, the war in Iran, as I've been talking about there.
The World Food Programme says the stalemate over the shipping lane is worsening food insecurity and malnutrition in already vulnerable places.
With rising oil and fertilizer prices, a recent WFP report listed at least 10 countries where there are major problems, including many, of course, far
removed from the Middle East conflict. And they estimate 45 million people will be food insecure if the global economic crisis continues.
I want to speak to Carl Skau, who's a deputy executive director of the World Food Programme. And, Carl, I appreciate you staying with us, of
course, as we heard there from J.D. Vance. So, thank you for your patience. Look, I was looking through some of the figures. These are incredibly
alarming numbers.
Just explain to our viewers right around the world, Carl, what -- you know, what 45 million people becoming food insecure, what does that look like in
kind of practical terms?
CARL SKAU, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME: I mean, we were already in a perfect storm in the sense that we have historic levels of
needs, but also that the funding to deal with this historic food insecurity has dropped dramatically over the past year.
And so, this is now hitting us in two ways. One, our ability to respond. The prices are going up to do our work, some 25 percent globally. And so,
you know, that gap between needs and our ability to respond is even further widened. The supply chains, we have three to four weeks delays in shipping
rice from India to Eastern Africa, for example. And we are frightened that donors who are being pressured now with increased energy bills are further
going to come down in their contributions.
But the big issue here is really what you point to, that what we're seeing also is that food insecurity is going to increase even further. Our
estimate is that by July, if the price of oil remains over $100 per barrel, we will have another 45 million people food insecure. And it might get even
worse down the road because of all the shortages of fertilizer and that the price of fertilizer are going up.
So, we expect, like at the beginning of the war on Ukraine, that three, six months from now, the situation will be even worse.
SOARES: Yes. And look, I'm not sure whether you're able to hear the vice president, J.D. Vance. He was asked, you know, this was supposed to like
five to six weeks. It's now been months. It doesn't seem like we're any closer. He did say this is not a forever war. But I wonder whether WFP have
any contingency plans here. If this does drag on, because we like you said, the cost of rising oil prices, fertilizer costs, give us a sense of what
this impact on the countries such as Sudan. I know you were in Sudan just some weeks ago.
SKAU: Yes, Sudan is a good case. I mean, it's the largest humanitarian crisis. It's where the largest hunger crisis. And that's a place now where,
you know, 50 percent increase in fuel costs. So, our operations to try to reach the hungriest are getting more expensive and we're reaching fewer
people. But also, food prices have come up. I mean, energy price and food price in places like Sudan are basically correlating one to one.
So, if you are already spending all your money on food, you're basically eating 40 to 50 percent less. And that is what's pushing people into
hunger. But what's worse there is that we are looking at the production side. All the fertilizer in Sudan comes through the Strait of Hormuz.
And so, this is now planting season. This is rainy season. We know that the productions are going to come down three to six months from now.
[14:40:00]
On top of it, it is a country where for agriculture, you need irrigation. They take the water from the Nile. And with energy prices going up, farmers
just simply don't have the money to irrigate their land. So, yes, it's a good example of a place that is really -- was already on their knees and
are now being hit even harder.
SOARES: So, then, my question, really, in the contingency plan here, Carl, I mean, what do you say to world leaders still trying to find a solution to
this? This was a problem -- I should say, this wasn't a problem, right, before the strikes in the U.S. and Israel -- the U.S. and Israel started
striking Iran. The Strait of Hormuz was never a problem. This has been as a result of this war.
So, what is your message to the international community? Do you think the international community appreciates, Carl, the kind of the scale of the
humanitarian consequences that we could be seeing -- that we are already seeing, I should say?
SKAU: I mean, number one, obviously, we need an end to this crisis, but we need an end to many wars and crises, the war in Sudan, the war in Gaza, the
war in Lebanon. I mean, this cannot go on. And 70 to 80 percent of those 300 million people acutely food insecure that I spoke about is a result of
war and conflict. So, clearly, we need political solutions to end wars, to prevent new ones.
But in the meantime, donors need to step up and fund our programs. I mean, it's peanuts in the big scheme of things. You know, we can reach over 100
million people if we have $10 billion. We have not been able to mobilize that this year. And in some operations, like in Afghanistan, in Somalia,
for example, we're only some 10 percent funded.
So, yes, political solutions to end and prevent wars, but also contributions to deal with the consequences when they are there.
SOARES: Carl, really appreciate you taking the time to speak to us. And let me know, let my team know, next time you're in London, it would be great to
have you on the show in person. Thank you very much.
SKAU: Thank you.
SOARES: And still to come tonight, a warning from the WHO over the Ebola outbreak. We'll have an update for you next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: The World Health Organization is deeply concerned about the growing Ebola crisis in Central Africa. Health officials in the Democratic Republic
of Congo now say more than 130 deaths are linked to the virus. And they suspect there could be at least 500 more cases. At least two cases have
been confirmed in the Ugandan capital of Kampala.
[14:45:00]
The WHO holding an emergency meeting on the outbreak today in Geneva. The organization's chief saying he's especially concerned about the scale and
the speed of the outbreak. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS, DIRECTOR-GENERAL, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION: In the absence of a vaccine, there are many other measures countries, of
course, can take to stop the spread of this virus and save lives. Even without medical countermeasures, including risk communication and community
engagement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Well, an American doctor working in DRC has also tested positive for the virus. We brought you that story on the show yesterday. This is the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention invoked a public health law limiting travel to the U.S. from affected regions.
So, Larry Madowo is on the story. He joins me now from Nairobi. So, Larry, just give our viewers a bit more of a sense of what we heard from the WHO.
They clearly, as we heard there in that clip, concerned both about the scale and the speed. But what is being done on the ground to really try and
contain this?
LARRY MADOWO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Isa, there's a surge of both medical equipment and personnel going to northeastern DRC in Ituri province, where
the epicenter of this outbreak is. They're sending PPE. They're sending testing kits.
They're sending all sorts of equipment necessary to make sure that they contain the spread of the virus, which is spreading within the province and
neighboring provinces. It's an area that needs a lot of attention because of how close it is to neighboring countries, to Uganda, South Sudan and
Rwanda.
And we've also learned a bit more about how this could have started. They still don't have a patient zero, but they do know where it could
potentially have started. The World Health Organization is saying there was a man that died. The family put him in a coffin. After some time, they
decided that coffin was not worthy of him. They put him in another coffin. There was a funeral. And that seems to be the beginning of this outbreak
here.
The reason the WHO is concerned, it appears to have been spreading in the community for a few weeks before it was determined because this is a real
remote part of the country. They don't have enough testing kits. And when they did have testing kits, it was for the more common Zaire strain of
Ebola, not the Bundibugyo virus, which is what we're seeing here, which has only been seen twice before.
But authorities of the DRC are saying, listen, this is not as fatal as other forms of Ebola. We've had 16 other cases to deal with. And so, we are
reasonably confident that they can put this under control within a short time.
SOARES: Did we hear, Larry, at all from the WHO, you know, giving us any sort of answers to the questions that you and I were -- you know, were
talking about yesterday, why it's taken them so long for them to learn about the Ebola outbreak, to actually come out and reflect on this? What
did they respond to this?
MADOWO: They didn't respond to that explicitly. And there's some criticism. In fact, in the last hour or two, the U.S. secretary of state, Marco Rubio,
announcing $13 million of aid going to the DRC to help them contain this, but also criticism for the World Health Organization saying they were a
little late to this. But to be fair to both the WHO, the Africa CDC.
And the health ministry and the DRC, this is a really remote part of the country. It doesn't have the best kind of health care available in the best
of times. And when they did have testing, it wasn't for this kind of Ebola. It had to be sent to Kinshasa in the capital, which is a three-, four-hour
flight to get there. So, it took a few weeks until that was determined and then called by its rightful name, and then they've done the right things,
informing the world, putting in this contact tracing, lab testing, et cetera.
But, yes, that delay could end up being quite significant in how quickly it could have spread within not just this province in the northeast and DRC,
but in neighboring countries.
SOARES: That is important context indeed. Larry, good to see you. Thank you very much indeed.
Still to come tonight, Cuba on the brink. A U.S. oil blockade chokes off the island's dwindling energy supply and leaves desperate Cubans with
little hope and even fewer options. We'll head to Havana next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:50:00]
SOARES: Welcome back. U.S. President Donald Trump says Cuba is ready to make a deal with the United States to avoid American military action.
Earlier, the president told reporters at the White House he believes a diplomatic solution between Washington and Havana remains on the table,
even as the U.S. oil blockade deeply exacerbates an already dire energy crisis.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, we're going to see. Look, Cuba is calling us. They need help. Look, Cuba is a failed nation. Well, I don't know about changing the
regime. I can do that, whether you change the regime or not. You know, it's been a rough regime. They've killed a lot of people. But it's a country
that really needs help. It has nothing. They can't turn on the lights. They can't eat. We don't want to see that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: And the president's remarks follow a warning from Cuban leader Miguel Diaz-Canel that any U.S. military operation targeting the island
would trigger what he says would be a, quote, "bloodbath with incalculable consequences."
Our Patrick Oppmann joins us now from Havana. So, Patrick, let me just pick up with what we heard from the president there, that, you know, Cuba is
ready to make a deal. Is this what you are hearing on your end?
PATRICK OPPMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No, it seems like a deal is getting farther and farther away by the day. Cuban officials are waiting, as we all
are, to see what news comes out about the U.S. government, the Justice Department seeking an indictment against former President Raul Castro.
That would really mark the end of negotiations. It would be a significant step, to say the least. It would probably be one of the most significant
developments in years in U.S.-Cuban relations. It would really set up a scenario like we saw in Venezuela, where the Cubans, I expect, would circle
the wagons, perhaps cut off talks altogether because Raul Castro is not up for negotiation.
Clearly, the U.S. thinks that by applying more and more pressure here, they will get what they want. They will force the Cubans to come to heel and
make important economic and political concessions. You talk to Cuban officials, and they say, our arm has been twisted now for almost 70 years.
We're used to this kind of coercion, and certain things are just off the table.
The idea that the U.S. would indict Raul Castro, as U.S. officials have told CNN they are seeking to do, would set up a scenario where they could
potentially try to seize Raul Castro, like they did Nicolas Maduro, in January. That would be tantamount to war. And so, you just wonder what
Donald Trump is talking about when he says that a deal is in the works. Of course, he said the same thing about Venezuela and Iran as well.
But here, Cuban officials have made it very clear to me that this would be a step too far, that already the oil blockade has had a major impact on
this economy. Other efforts to get foreign companies to try to stop doing business with Cuba has a major impact on this economy.
But going after not only a former leader, but the person who has been the most influential member of this government that is still alive, named Fidel
Castro, who has essentially put all the top members of the military and political elite in their positions, handpicked them over the years. You
know, he's 94 years old. Raul Castro is still the ultimate voice, the ultimate authority on this island.
And so, the idea that the Cuban government would negotiate his freedom, that they would accept any kind of pressure against him, any kind of
indictment against him and force him to leave the island, really strikes me as a bridge too far.
[14:55:00]
SOARES: Yes, and it does seem the remarks from the Cuban leader, Miguel Diaz-Canel, seems to suggest that they are anticipating some sort of move
from the U.S., potentially not a deal, it does seem, from his wording. We shall see our man in Havana, Patrick Oppmann. Always great to see you, my
friend. Thank you very much indeed.
And finally, tonight, it seems humanoid robotics are taking off, just not on the Southwest flights. The airline has announced a ban on robot
passengers. I kid you not. Have a look at this. And this comes after a humanoid called Stewie took a one-way flight from Las Vegas to Dallas. Now,
the robot was sent on its journey by a company called the Robot Studio. Stewie had the full experience, as you can see. He was able to check in. He
went to the terminal. He did the boarding and caused quite a stir among fellow passengers, as you can see with that one's face. But Southwest has
attributed the policy change to risks posed by lithium batteries, not any poor behavior from Stewie. That is very good to know.
That does it for us. Thank you very much for your company. A very busy hour of news. Do stay right here. "What We Know" with Max Foster is up next.
Have a wonderful evening. Of course, we'll see you tomorrow.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:00:00]
END
