Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Supreme Court Limits Reach of Voting Rights Act; Congress Questions Pentagon Officials Over Iran War. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired April 29, 2026 - 11:00   ET

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

GEN. DAN CAINE, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: But a president will employ national force and power based on the political and security situations that a president deems appropriate to use that military force.

[11:00:07]

There's always tradeoffs in all of these things. I'm confident that the president always carefully considers these readiness tradeoffs, and I'm sure he has done so in this case, based on -- based on the military options that we've presented with the associated risks and advice.

REP. JOE COURTNEY (D-CT): Well, to make a trade going after a regime that's weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades, which is -- quote, unquote -- from the defense strategies report, does not, in my opinion, in common sense...

(CROSSTALK)

REP. MIKE ROGERS (R-AL): The gentlemen's time has expired.

As you can tell from looking at the dais, votes have been called, so we are now going to stand in recess until the end of this vote. I expect it to take 20 to 25 minutes, but we are now in recess.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: All right, so they're taking a quick recess.

We heard a little bit there from Dan Caine and Pete Hegseth talking about why they're asking for $1.5 trillion in defense funding.

I want to go to Zachary Cohen to just get your thoughts on what we've heard so far.

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, well, the big thing I think we've heard so far is $25 billion, that's how much the war with Iran has cost so far. And, really, there's a concern among lawmakers that you talked to privately and what we've heard publicly that there's really no clear off-ramp, no end to the war in sight at this moment, strategically.

Ending the war and essentially calling -- declaring victory is -- we've seen some reports that Donald Trump is just considering doing, would almost be a strategic catastrophe in some ways, critics would say.

But the other thing that we're hearing too is -- and we just heard Congressman Courtney alluding to this -- is that trying to understand, how does the war with Iran compute with the national defense strategy, which really did highlight the threat from China. And it talked about positioning U.S. military assets and prioritizing assets in a way that countered that threat first and foremost.

I think he mentioned that the strategy lists Iran as the fourth biggest threat to the U.S. homeland, and was wondering why then does the U.S. Navy have three aircraft carriers parked in the Middle East, and only one in the general Indo-Pacific region.

So that's going to be a question and the theme of this hearing as it goes on. How does the war with Iran make sense in the context of what the Pentagon has said is its actual strategy, which is countering China?

BROWN: All right, I want to go to General Wesley Clark to get your take, General, on what we've heard so far and this $25 billion number for what the war has cost to this point. Help us understand that. Put that in perspective for us, if you could.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: It's a substantial amount of money, but the money is less important than the actual assets that have been expended.

So we've lost radars from attacks. They're hard to replace. We're down to about 50 percent of our Tomahawk land attack missile inventory. We have shot up maybe a third of our ballistic missile intercept capacity and maybe half of the very high-altitude THAAD missile inventory. These inventories on these missiles take, in some cases, several years to replace.

And, in addition the ships that are out there that have them have to be replenished, and that's an operation in itself. So the money is important, yes, but it's less important than the actual production behind it, Pamela.

BROWN: What is your concern, Sabrina, about the loss of munitions and weapons, as the general just pointed out?

SABRINA SINGH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: I think what General Clark and also what Zach is pointing out is something that you're going to see Democrats push more on. You have three carrier strike groups operating in the Middle East.

We have drawn down on major stockpiles that we could need in case we have to go to a war potentially with China. You have also seen Marines been pulled out of the Indo-Pacific. You have seen our Patriot and THAAD batteries pulled out.

So the Indo-Pacific right now is looking a bit bare. And so I think what you're going to see more Democrats push on is, if China is the priority for this administration and our challenge, our threat that we are facing, what are the assets and how are we going to rebuild our asset and our capacity over there in the Indo-Pacific?

I also think what you're going to see more Democrats push on, and some of the lawmakers that I have been talking to that we're getting ready for this hearing, is the gas price issue.

Constituents here at home are facing this everyday cost. What is the plan to open the strait, and how does this war end? I think, after the vote series happens, you're going to see more Democrats push Pete Hegseth and General Caine on, so what's the end goal? When are my constituents going to see lower prices at the gas pump?

And I think, frankly, the answer is not for a very long time.

BROWN: All right, I'm going to bring Beth Sanner in.

Because, Beth, we are now beyond the 60-day mark of the Iran war. This is the first time that Pete Hegseth and Dan Caine are going before Congress -- this is the House Armed Services Committee -- to testify and answer questions from lawmakers. Explain to us why that timeline is so important.

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, because we don't see the end of that timeline, right? I mean, yes, we're at 60 days. It's certainly longer than was the initial four-to-six-week time frame.

[11:05:08]

Pete Hegseth pushed back on this and said, look, compared to the forever wars that we were in and did nothing, this is nothing compared to that. But I think that that's probably the wrong framing for America, but also for the rest of the world, which is suffering a lot more than we are.

And I want to add a little bit to what Sabrina and Zach and General Clark said in terms of the implications of this, because some of this is just kind of intangible. But when chairman -- or Ranking Member Smith was talking about the implications on allies and the criticism, it is that plus the fact that we don't have the presence in these theaters, that we will not have munitions to deliver, and real questions about whether we will be there if they are attacked, this Article 5 kind of idea.

So it is much more significant and strategic.

BROWN: And, Zach, just help us better understand -- and, Sabrina, you too if you want to jump in -- the military assets that have been redeployed from near China to the Iran war, because, obviously, this is going to be a big focus.

COHEN: Well, yes, I think first off, looking at the Gerald Ford and looking at how long that aircraft carrier has been deployed, I think over almost a year now, it's been first in Venezuela and those initial strikes that Donald Trump was considering when he was telling the protesters that help was on the way. In part, he was unable to launch the sort of military strikes at that

time against Iran because he didn't have the USS Gerald Ford in position to do so. And so we are looking still at this sort of mismatching of military assets, trying to move things into position on sort of an ad hoc basis.

And that's sort of what I hear from my source, is that the decision- making process has really been ad hoc and on the fly, whereas, typically, the military is planning these things out in a -- well in advance and knows exactly where its assets will be at a given time.

SINGH: Well, and to Zach's point, the Ford continues to be extended, which puts an incredible strain on our sailors and Marines out there.

And, I mean, these are people that have been away from their families, but not just that. It's also on the shipyards that schedule years out in advance to maintain these types of carriers. And so you're delaying timelines, setting everything back. That impacts the entire force. It puts a stress on the readiness.

And that's why you're seeing members continuing to push on, what does this mean for China? Because, if that is our real threat, we have to redirect assets, and everything is delayed in terms of the timelines.

BROWN: Yes.

COHEN: And as Beth and General Clark were both saying, the munitions issue...

SINGH: Yes.

COHEN: ... is almost happening in parallel with the issue with our ships being overextended, our aircraft being flown at a higher rate than they need to be. The munitions stockpile is -- according to our reporting and others reporting, is -- really been impacted by this war with Iran, that there are munitions like the Tomahawk missile that it could take one to six years to replenish and build up back to prewar status.

And so those are standoff weapons that military experts have been pretty much a consensus on that you would need a large number of those and burn through a large number of those in a potential conflict with China. And so that's the...

BROWN: And hence the big price tag of what they're asking, $1.5 trillion in defense funding to replenish in part some of those munitions.

I want to bring in Karim Sadjadpour just to bring us into what's going on in Iran right now. How are the Iranians looking at all of this?

KARIM SADJADPOUR, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, internally, in Iran, Pamela, I think there's a debate about how they should be dealing with President Trump and the administration.

One side of the debate says, essentially, Iran is under enormous economic duress. It can't win a military war against America and Israel. And, therefore, it's time to think about doing a deal.

The other side of that debate in Tehran are the people we call hard- liners, those who believe that resisting America is part of the regime's identity. And, up until now, Tehran has prevailed, in that it's survived and it's controlling the Straits of Hormuz.

And so I think that debate hasn't yet -- there isn't a clear winner of that debate. And that's why you see the statements from President Trump and others that Iran is too divided to come to the table.

BROWN: All right, General Clark, to bring you back in, the Trump administration has been very vocal in criticizing U.S. allies like NATO for not doing more to aid the U.S. military operation in the region.

What are you listening for today when it comes to the U.S. relationship with NATO?

CLARK: Well, I hope the visit from King Charles III will change the U.S. tone with respect to Europe and our European allies.

The fact is that all these -- all of our allies are democracies. You can't launch an operation in secret that nobody's ever heard about and then expect them to jump on board. They have to go to their parliaments. They have to look at public opinion.

[11:10:06]

And when we have needed NATO and we go through the process, they're there. And if we continue to go through this process, they will be there for us. They know that this is in their interest. And the Brits are coming along, the French are coming along.

And, yes, there's criticism. Allies are democracies. It's what Winston Churchill said. The problem with allies is, they each have their own opinions. And so that's the truth about NATO. But we need those allies. We need them militarily. We need their ships, their mine clearance. We need them diplomatically.

And, of course, they're economically integral to the United States, as the king pointed out in his speeches yesterday. So it is important we deal with NATO through the NATO process. We know how to do that. We have done that before.

But you can't do it simply by a surprise operation and a couple of tweets and expect them to jump in line. They're not U.S. states. They're their own sovereign countries.

BROWN: Karim, final thoughts to you.

SADJADPOUR: So I thought there was three basic questions, Pamela, that were asked of Secretary Hegseth which are still difficult for the administration to answer.

Number one is, if Iran's nuclear threat was obliterated in last June's war, how did it constitute an imminent threat this time around? And that contradiction hasn't yet been reconciled. The second basic question is, what is the strategy and the endgame here?

And there's been so many contradictory remarks from the president that that's also been difficult for President -- for Secretary Hegseth to answer. Is the strategy simply to eliminate their nuclear threat? Is it regime change? What about their proxies and missiles?

And then related to that, what is the endgame that we're trying to achieve here? Because, when you come to ask the Congress for such an enormous budget increase, people want to know, what is it that you're trying to achieve? And those three basic questions I think haven't yet been fully addressed.

BROWN: We will see if they add any clarity to those questions when they return from recess.

Everyone, thank you so much.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:17:00]

BROWN: All right, we have breaking news right now, a new decision from the Supreme Court that could completely shift this year's midterm elections, potentially. The high Supreme Court is limiting the reach of the Voting Rights Act.

CNN chief Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic joins us live from right outside the Supreme Court.

You were inside when the opinion was read out. Take us inside that room, Joan.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: I will, Pam.

You know this area of the law. You know how important this case was. And I think, Pam, the drama I saw today and this ruling will stand when this term is finished as the most important decision of the term. The Trump cases get a lot of attention, but most of those rulings are going to be predictable.

This one matters so much for the franchise for black and Latino voters. It matters for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It matters because of the power struggle between Congress and the court. And it matters for Donald Trump's own agenda, in terms of diminishing the ability to vote and go to the polls.

Here's what has happened. At issue was a Louisiana district that -- where the power of black voters had been diluted because of the way a map had been drawn. And a federal court, a lower federal court had ordered a second black-majority district to be drawn as a remedy to that vote dilution.

Another court had come in and said that that's unconstitutional. And this court today indeed threw out the original map that had given black voters in Louisiana a second district where they could elect a candidate of their choice.

Louisiana's population is about a third African-American, but right -- and this new plan will mean that only one of its six congressional districts would have an African-American majority. But this is much larger than just one state.

It will affect voting districts across the South. And it also is, as the center said, the final piece in a project that this court has had. Justice Alito spoke first, Pam. He has for years been the voice with Chief Justice John Roberts in terms of narrowing the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

He laid out why they were turning back this key section, but he also said -- and this is what made it so dramatic in the courtroom. He said, don't listen to what the dissent is about to say. They're going to overblow it. This isn't that big of a deal. We're not reversing precedent.

It was you know very much doth protesting too much. And when he was finished, after 15 minutes just laying out how the court was thinking that this is a fairer approach, that you just have to have much more of a race-neutral approach to voting rights -- and that has been, as you know, a theme of Chief Justice John Roberts, who famously said in 2007, the way to end race discrimination is to stop discriminating on race.

But a lot of people in the country believe you have to take account of race to have a remedy. Then Justice Kagan, sitting right next to Sam Alito, began to speak. And you can see why he tried to sort of preempt what she was going to say, because she said, this Supreme Court agenda, project to destroy the Voting Rights Act is now complete.

[11:20:19]

And then she said, this was a law that was paid for literally by the blood of people. And she referred, Pam, to Bloody Sunday -- Sunday back in March of 1965, when marchers were beaten as they were crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge. And it was only after that incident that LBJ, President Johnson, was able to get the Voting Rights Act through Congress.

And it has stood since then. But this Supreme Court has been slowly, slowly, slowly rolling it back. Justice Kagan just did not mince any words. She was dissenting, along with Justices Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In the majority with Sam Alito were the five other conservatives led by the chief, John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett. And, coincidentally, just as an aside, those six conservatives were the six who were invited to Donald Trump's dinner last night, not with the three liberals.

And this goes to kind of this larger situation we have. I'm sure you have already had folks on air talking about how many states now are going to go to this opinion and try to redistrict to minimize the chances for blacks to elect a candidate of their choice. But they can do that now if they just say, well, politically, we're going to offer a race-neutral reason for this. And, frankly, what it'll do is give Republicans across the South much more of a stronger hand than Democrats just because of what past voting patterns have been.

But this -- the divisions that I saw play out reflect so much the polarized court and how under siege the liberals feel. Justice Kagan reminded everyone that, back in 2013, in the Shelby County v. Holder decision, which ended another major plank of the Voting Rights Act, how much states had been taking advantage of that to institute things like voter I.D. requirements, new redistricting maps.

And what she predicted with this ruling -- and I don't think it's far- fetched, only based on what states had been able to do before today's ruling -- is, she said, what's going to happen is it will diminish black representation nationwide and essentially return us to the pre- Reconstruction era.

I know that sounds like hyperbole, but -- and it was very dramatic today, but just because of where this court has gone, and how states have been taking advantage of where this court has been going, and how the Trump administration has been taking advantage of where this court is going, that's why I say I believe that this decision will be the most important going forward for the country for this entire term, Pam.

BROWN: Wow, I mean, you really just laid it out for us to understand all sides of this and the implications for minority voters across the country.

And we just got this statement and from Louisiana secretary of state, Nancy Landry, saying this about the ruling: "My lawyers are currently analyzing the opinion. We are limited in what we can say at this time, as this continues to be active litigation with the case remanded for proceedings back to the Western District."

I know that's a lot of legalese, but the bottom line is, early voting starts soon in Louisiana, Joan. So what can officials do there in light of this opinion?

BISKUPIC: Well, they can basically do whatever they want. And that's going to happen in a couple other states too, that what they can do is, they can push back some dates.

They can -- they're -- first of all, the Supreme Court definitely threw out the map with two black-majority districts. So we know that cannot be used. That will not be used, for sure. So what they will probably do, once they read the opinion carefully, as was just suggested there, probably draw a map that provides only one black- majority district.

But, as you know, Pam, like, Florida is in the middle of redistricting efforts now too. Other places are. And so I really anticipate that other states will do it. But if they don't do it for 2026, they will get it in place for 2028. And then, by the -- when we get to 2030 with the next round of a

census and redistricting, it really will change all the ground rules for what states consider, because, basically, what the court did today was to say, if you're going to try to challenge vote dilution -- and vote dilution is real.

Lower court judges have found it to be real. Lower court judges who have been appointed by Republican presidents have found it to be a real problem, particularly in the South, but other places too. And what's going to happen is, find -- just identifying vote dilution will not be enough to get a map changed.

They're going to -- the challengers are going to have to say that there are no race-neutral reasons for this. And that's awfully hard, especially because of the partisan alignment between whites generally voting Republican and blacks generally being affiliated with the Democratic Party, Pam.

[11:25:17]

BROWN: All right, Joan, stay there.

I want to go to CNN chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny, because you heard Joan really laid this out and the far-reaching implications. It could have an impact on the midterms and beyond here.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: There's no doubt about it.

And early voting, to Joan's point, does begin on Saturday in Louisiana, this Saturday. The overseas ballots have already been shipped out. So that explains the timing here. And I think it's important to look at this in a couple different ways, the short-term effect and the long-term effect.

And Joan is absolutely right. There is no doubt, in years beyond, this is going to majorly change representation largely across the South and elsewhere, likely opening the door for more Republican seats certainly in Southern states.

But, even before we get to that, in Florida, as the opinion was being read, as Justice Kagan was reading her dissent from the bench and as Justice Alito was reading his majority opinion, the Florida House of Representatives at that very hour passed the new Florida maps.

Now they have to go to the Florida State Senate, but this ruling likely makes legal challenges to the Florida action much more difficult. And just to remind our viewers, Florida, of course, is redrawing some of its maps to give Republicans four more seats.

That comes after Democrats in Virginia had a statewide referendum that would likely give Democrats four more seats. It's really the culmination of a yearlong gerrymandering war. But this ruling is going to change in 2028 and in years beyond, making it more difficult to challenge the drawing of this map, but, again, unclear about the actual effects in the midterm elections, because some states have already had their primaries.

Candidate filing deadlines have already passed. So it's possible that some states will call a special session of a legislature and try and change maps or postpone elections, like Louisiana. We will see. We have to see how that plays out.

But I think the bigger impact of this is in the years to come. And, Pam, I'm thinking back right now to 13 years ago, when Congressman John Lewis was standing in his office watching as the first pillar of the Voting Rights Act was struck down. He said he was sad and dismayed for that.

Now, of course, this is sort of a full circle, a major moment in American history, I think, for the dilution of the Voting Rights Act. And we will see the actual impacts going forward, but, again, short term versus long term, likely not major impacts in the midterm races.

But they have already been upended by so much mid-decade redistricting already.

BROWN: Yes. And you're right. You mentioned the Shelby case the Supreme Court had. And, in that case, they made it so that these Southern states no longer have to go for federal review if they make changes to their election laws.

ZELENY: Right.

BROWN: And this is all rooted in a history of discriminating against black voters, right? That is why the Voting Rights Act was put into place in the first place...

ZELENY: For sure.

BROWN: ... and why critics are saying that this decision further erodes the Voting Rights Act.

Thank you so much, Jeff Zeleny, Joan Biskupic. We appreciate it.

And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)