Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
President Trump To Address The Nation On Iran Tomorrow Night; Trump Says He'll Attend Oral Arguments On Birthright Citizenship; Jamie Dimon: Success In Iran More Important Than Market Swings. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 31, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Thank you so much, Christopher.
CHRISTOPHER LAMB, CNN VATICAN CORRESPONDENT, AUTHOR, "AMERICAN HOPE: WHAT POPE LEO XIV MEANS FOR THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD": Thank you very much, Anderson.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Right. Quickly, before we go tonight, a reminder about tomorrow night. 09:00 p.m. Eastern, the President will address the nation. The White House tonight says it will be an important update on the war in Iran. CNN will, of course, bring it to you live.
That is all for us tonight. I'll see you again at 07:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow.
In the meantime, "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: President Trump is set to address the nation in prime time, after just announcing a new timeline when it comes to the war in Iran.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
There is breaking news, as we come on the air tonight, as the White House has just announced that President Trump will address the nation, tomorrow night, during what the press secretary describes as a, quote, Important update on Iran.
It will be his first formal address to the American people about the war since he started and launched it several weeks ago. As the White House says he is going to speak right at 09:00 p.m., here in Washington, from the White House. And we, of course, will have his remarks for you live here on CNN.
That announcement comes as the President today set a new timeline when it comes to when this war could end. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I would say that within two weeks maybe. Two weeks, maybe three.
We're hitting them very hard. Last night, we knocked out tremendous amounts of missile-making facilities, as you probably read or wrote. We knocked out--
REPORTER: We'll be gone--
TRUMP: Excuse me?
REPORTER: Pardon me for interrupting. We'll be -- the U.S. will be gone or done with the war in two to three weeks?
TRUMP: I think with two or three weeks, yes.
REPORTER: That--
TRUMP: We'll leave.
REPORTER: --and it will be--
TRUMP: Because there's no reason for us to do this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That notably, if the President sticks to the two to three more weeks, would extend the war a bit longer than what the President has said repeatedly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're already substantially ahead of our time projections. But whatever the time is, it's OK. Whatever it takes, we will always and we have from -- right from the beginning, we projected four to five weeks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now we're right at that four-to-five-week mark at this moment.
And while the President mused again today about leaving without resolving the Strait of Hormuz, and instead leaving it for Europe and China to deal with, that would also potentially mean leaving oil prices at the mercy of Iran's chokehold on the Strait.
Today, gas prices in the United States topped $4 a gallon, something the President says will all be over quite soon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What is the plan to bring them back down?
TRUMP: All I have to do is leave Iran, and we'll be doing that very soon, and they'll be -- come tumbling down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: President saying there that he believes gas prices will come tumbling down as soon as the war in Iran is over. He's also touting U.S. talks with what he is describing as a, quote, New and much better Iranian regime.
It's worth comparing how the President and the Defense Secretary have been speaking about what they describe as this new regime, with how Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, did.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Does Iran have to make a deal for the U.S. to end its operation in Iran?
TRUMP: No. No.
REPORTER: And have you spoken--
TRUMP: No. Iran doesn't have to--
REPORTER: And have you spoken directly--
TRUMP: Iran doesn't have to make a deal, no.
REPORTER: --to the--
TRUMP: Yes, I've spoken to a lot of people. It's a new regime. They are much more accessible.
The leadership we're dealing with now with the new regime, because we have a new regime, and the new regime is much better than the past.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: This new regime, because regime change has occurred, should be wiser than the last. President Trump will make a deal, he is willing. And the terms of the deal are known to them.
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: It's very opaque right now. It's not quite clear how decisions are being made inside of Iran.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My lead source tonight is our Global Affairs Analyst, Brett McGurk, who has served as the Middle East and North Africa Coordinator on the National Security Council.
And Brett, obviously, with this news that the President is going to be addressing the nation tomorrow night in prime time. He's spoken extensively about the war in Q&A sessions, in phone interviews, with reporters. What do you expect to hear from him? What are you going to be listening for, tomorrow night?
BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, FORMER MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA COORDINATOR, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: I think, Kaitlan, it's very good. I think presidents should sit behind the Resolute Desk, in the Oval Office, address the American people when it comes to war and peace. I think it's what the American people expect. It's not old- fashioned. It's what presidents should do and explain exactly what we're doing. So, I think this is a little overdue.
The fact that he said two to three weeks, I think, is significant. That brings it towards the end of April. That does extend the timeline. It's hard to put a timeline, though, on a military operation. Iran still has a vote in this. But that means potentially two to three more weeks of military operations.
[21:05:00]
Now, that can be quite significant. We have total air dominance over Iran. There's an awful lot that our military is doing. I think Iran is -- their defense industrial base, their missiles, their drones. Not insignificant what we are doing. It's very important. I think it's strategic. And we can do a lot more in two to three weeks.
Now, a lot of things can go wrong in two to three weeks. This is inherently risky. But if you're going to want to try to buy that time, you have to explain to the American people exactly what we're going to try to achieve and what we're doing.
So, I'm hoping that this address is focused and clear on the objectives and explains exactly what we've done and what we look to achieve in this additional time.
COLLINS: Because right now, we're just like the four-to-five-week period. I mean, I've seen the President's supporters talking online about next Tuesday, they believe, is right at that six-week period, the extent initially. So if he does go two to three more weeks, we would see this go on longer than what initially the White House had said.
MCGURK: Yes, I think early on -- and again, because there wasn't that initial address up front about, Here's exactly what we're going to achieve, and preparing the American people, This might go on for some time. I think there was a lot of questions about exactly what we're doing. So, again, it's overdue.
Now, I would just say, Kaitlan, I mean Marco Rubio, I think, has made the case effectively about Iran's missile and drone program. This program has just advanced to such a degree, and you're seeing what Iran has done with the missiles and drones, and we're on the precipice of like this is a new hybrid terrorism war. It's happening before our eyes.
Iran's drone program and missiles, they've proliferated them to Russia. Without Iran's drone technology, Russia could not prosecute its war in Ukraine, like it's doing. Proliferated to the Houthis in Yemen, which shut down the Red Sea, back in 2023, 2024. It's a massive problem.
And so, this drone, missile, hybrid warfare, attacking civilian targets, swarms, it's upon us. And I think taking Iran off the board, when it comes to that production, which is one of the main objectives, is very important. But then we're going to have to stay at it. This is like coming out as fast, and China is a part of this.
So, there's a -- there's a big strategic picture here that I hope the President can kind of back up and explain: Here's why we had to do this. Here's what we have done. Here's what we think we have achieved. And here is how we hope it comes to a conclusion over the coming weeks.
COLLINS: So, you believe there is a case to be made tomorrow night, he just needs to make it effectively?
MCGURK: I do. I think, look, might have done some things differently. You cannot -- but the core issue here, when it comes to Iran, and you've seen administration officials make it, but just think, make it very clearly. Their missile program and their drone program, Kaitlan, has expand -- over the last decade, expanded to such an extent.
It's called an Anti-Access/Area Denial program. They can target our bases. They can make sure that they can shut down shipping lanes. Their missiles can go farther, carry heavier payloads, and they're extremely accurate. That was not what Iran had, say, 10 years ago. And you add on top of it, this drone program, with the Shahed drones that can fly a 1,000 miles with technology that can proliferate all around the region and to Russia? Big problem.
So, if you can actually take that entire industrial base away, so that Iran can really not rebuild it? And it looks like that's what we're doing. We're completely devastating that. That's important. And then the nuclear is a whole other issue, which I think has also been set back.
So, I think you can make the case, why we did this. But also make a case that we hope is going to come to a conclusion, over the coming weeks, and where we hope to leave things, because the Strait of Hormuz remains a huge issue.
COLLINS: Well, and on the timeline, there's something that Nikki Haley, who was Trump's ambassador to the United Nations, obviously, later ran for the nomination, said today about ending this war too soon, in her view.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NIKKI HALEY, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: I think leaving now would make Iran stronger, because then they would have control over all of the ships. Right now, they're only allowing Pakistani and Russian ships pretty much to go through, and they're charging for it. So, it would allow them to have the money again, to do the proxies, to build the ballistic missiles back, to do the nuclear production. And I think that President has come too far to stop now. I think you finish it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: What do you make of that argument, which I've heard from a lot of the President's allies?
MCGURK: On the merits? Strait of Hormuz problem right now is a huge problem. We cannot have a outcome, in which Iran is controlling the Strait of Hormuz. But that's easier said than done. I think when you get in the Situation Room, you're sitting with your military advisers, What are our options?
And because of this drone hybrid warfare that we're seeing, the Iranians can fire drones from a 1,000 miles away, from the Hormuz mountains, and harass shipping, if they want to. So long as they have the drones, until they run out of them, they can continue to do this stuff. They can drop mines in the water. It's a very difficult military strategic equation. Again, I dealt with this in the Red Sea with the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
So, I'm sure our commanders are presenting options to the President. They're probably very difficult options. And the President is saying, Hey, it's not just my problem. It's the world's problem.
[21:10:00]
But look, Iran is being significantly weakened. I thought also something Secretary Rubio said about what is happening inside Tehran, Kaitlan, we probably really don't know. And I think there's some people sending messages. That's why you're getting these mixed signals. We'll have to see who's really in charge. Is Mojtaba, the Supreme Leader, even alive? We actually don't know. So, there's a lot to play out here.
And I hope the -- look, I hope, if the President does lay out, Here's what we've done, here's what we know, here's what we hope this is going.
But to just say the Strait of Hormuz is no longer our responsibility, we're walking away from it, after it was our action that caused this current problem? I don't really think that's acceptable. We have to figure out a way to get that under control.
COLLINS: Yes, we'll see what he says about it tomorrow night.
Brett McGurk, thank you for that.
MCGURK: Thank you.
COLLINS: And of course, Americans will be tuning in tomorrow. Americans, who have been paying a lot more at the pump lately, since this war started.
Gas prices in the United States have now hit an average of $4 a gallon today, which is why President Trump is now saying this, about one of the main reasons for that, as Brett was just referencing, Iran's chokehold on that narrow passage that is in charge of 20 percent of the world's oil.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Look, the problem with the Strait, a guy can take a mine, drop it in the water, and say, Oh, it's unsafe. It's not like you're taking out an army or you're taking out a country, or you know. He can drop it. Or he can take a machine gun from the shore and shoot a little -- few bullets on a ship. Or maybe an over-the-shoulder missile, small missiles. That's not for us. That'll be for France. That'll be for whoever's using the Strait. But I think when we leave, probably that's all cleared up.
Today, I heard tremendous numbers of ships were sailing through. We're negotiating with them right now.
But if they come to the table, that'll be good. But it doesn't matter whether they come or not. We've set them back. It will take 15 to 20 years for them to rebuild what we've done to them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And joining me now is Democratic congressman, Pat Ryan of New York, who is an Iraq War Veteran, and also a member of the Armed Services Committee.
And thank you for being here, sir.
Obviously you and I spoke, I think the day this war started, about a month ago. Now that we're a month in, the President is set to address the nation in prime time tomorrow night. What do you want to hear from him?
REP. PAT RYAN (D-NY): What we've wanted to hear from the beginning, which is, what is the plan? What is our objective? Why have we already expended 13 lives of brave young Americans? Why have we expended billions of dollars? Our blood and our treasure being spent, and he has not even had the -- he has not even tried to make the case to the American people, despite multiple options. So, I hope we hear that.
COLLINS: Are you receptive to hearing that tomorrow night? Is there -- do you think he could come out and effectively lay something out that you agree with?
RYAN: Yes, of course. I mean, I want our country to win and succeed and be strong. I want our troops to be safe. I want gas prices to go down. I want housing and health care prices and food prices to go down as well. That's what my constituents want. So, I think he needs to speak to all that.
But he does owe an answer for, now five weeks in, why he has insulted the American people by not trying to make the case, why he is spending our blood and our treasure there, and what he's going to do to get us out of the situation. And it cannot be abandoning and leaving a huge mess in its place.
And I do fear, and I think we can objectively say, a more dangerous Iran. While their military capabilities have been degraded, their intent now, having seen what we've done, I think the risk of them racing for breakout is much higher than it was, unfortunately and dangerously, a month ago.
COLLINS: I mean, given your experience as a veteran, why do you think that they would be more dangerous if, as Brett was just noting, you know, if the United States has significantly degraded their drone capability, their missile capability, their ability to build those and create those. I mean, some people might look at that and say, Well, how could they be more dangerous if they don't have access to that?
RYAN: A crude analogy, but it's, mowing the grass. My grass is going to continue to grow. If I continue to mow it, it will get cut, but it will grow again.
Their ability, specifically with these asymmetric commercial drone, you know, $5,000, $6,000 price-point drones, they can rapidly reconstitute. Russia's and China as well, have the ability to send that to them and other adversaries of ours.
So, a threat is capability and intent. We are degrading their capability, thanks to the exceptional capacity and heroism of our military. But that doesn't translate necessarily to their intention. And now you have a new Supreme Leader who, I think, is going to be more emboldened and, frankly, more pissed off. And what are we going to do to keep the American people safe?
COLLINS: Well, and the President has been trying to potentially come to an agreement. He's talking about this new regime as he's describing it. He also said tonight, though, Whether we have a deal or not, it is irrelevant.
Do you agree, or do you think there needs to be an agreement between the United States and Iran?
[21:15:00]
RYAN: The way that every war has ever ended in the history of humankind is some sort of negotiated agreement, going back to the beginning of recorded history. So, I don't know how he could expect it to end any other way.
And by the way, I think it's important to say, while he's talking about what he's going to -- or saying, he's going to speak tomorrow night. We have troops coming from across all corners of the globe, Marine Expeditionary Units, Infantry Brigade Combat Teams, Special Operations Forces. We've dramatically escalated on the ground. So, it's one thing, what he says, which changes often, hour by hour, as you know. It's different what he's actually doing. And the Iranians are seeing us escalate in every dimension of this. So, it's really unclear what's happening here.
And I got an email today from a mom in my district who has one of her son over there right now, and she basically said, like, What is the plan? I'm very worried.
COLLINS: And what did you say back to her?
RYAN: I said, I can't give you a good answer. I actually asked in a classified Armed Services Committee hearing, last week, What should I say to the family of folks that are in those formations? And a very senior military official, uniformed military official, could not give me an answer of what the plan is for those folks that are being sent into harm's way right now.
COLLINS: Would you be comfortable if the war ended tonight? Or do you think that the Strait of Hormuz issue and who controls that needs to be resolved first?
RYAN: Well, it's not just me. It's my constituents, it's the American people that are now have seen gas prices, sky rocket, which no one can afford, fertilizer, helium, other critical things that we need. So, you can't just put this all back in a box magically, and it would -- it could potentially take months or longer for all those costs to come down and the impact.
So, to be clear, I want this war to end, I want our troops to come home, I want us to be safe, and I want costs to go down. But that, the President can't just wish that into fruition. There actually has to be a coherent strategy to get there, and I hope he does lay that out tomorrow night. I've never seen him do it to this point, but I hope that he does.
COLLINS: Congressman Pat Ryan, thank you for joining us tonight.
RYAN: Thanks.
COLLINS: Great to have you.
Up next here for us. There could also be history made before the President speaks in prime time tomorrow night. That's because he says he is going to show up to the Supreme Court arguments, tomorrow, on his attempt to end birthright citizenship. What we know about that?
Also, a judge says that construction on the White House ballroom has to stop until Congress signs off. How the President responded to that ruling today.
And also, talking about gas prices. Harry Enten is here to break down where they're headed and whether or not they're having a political impact.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Before he addresses the nation in prime time, tomorrow night, President Trump says he will also be taking a front-row seat at the Supreme Court, as it is going to hear the biggest case of this term on his own executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, which is the right for people born in the United States to be U.S. citizens.
If the President does show up tomorrow, and all indications of what we're hearing from officials is that he will be there, he's going to make history, as the first sitting president to ever attend a Supreme Court hearing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm going.
REPORTER: You're going to go to the Supreme Court tomorrow?
TRUMP: I think so. I do believe.
REPORTER: And just sit there and listen?
TRUMP: Because I have listened to this argument for so long.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I do want to note, the President had floated the idea of attending the Supreme Court arguments, when they were talking about his tariffs. He did not end up ultimately going, after scheduling a trip that day.
But I want to talk about this with my legal and political sources.
Because Elie Honig, I mean, you and I talked about this on the tariffs. The President really wanted to go. Apparently, there's, like, a designated seat for him at the Supreme Court.
But if he shows up there tomorrow, what do you think Elie, that's going to be like if he's sitting there, three of the justices he appointed, several of those that he criticized heavily and said their families should be embarrassed with them after the tariff decision. I mean, what is that going to change the environment to be like?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Well, if Donald Trump wants to go attend oral argument at the Supreme Court, he has every right to do so. Godspeed. He's a member of the public. He's a party to this case.
But let me tell you, he's not going to like what he sees playing out. Because his administration lawyers are making arguments that are vast stretches of law. A raid against his legal position is the plain text of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment on birthright citizenship, a 157 years of traditions and norms and congressional action and the decisions of every lower court federal judge to hear this exact case. Four federal district court judges, three federal circuits, have all ruled against the Trump administration.
So, if he does, in fact, choose to attend, Kaitlan, it will indeed be unprecedented. I think it's going to be hard to ignore the fact that he's in the room. I do not think it will have any influence on the judges. And I think when he leaves that courthouse tomorrow, if he does go, he's going to be in a bad mood.
COLLINS: Well, we'll see what his mood is going to be. Who knows? Maybe he'll enjoy it.
Shermichael. I should note the Solicitor General, John Sauer, was also Trump's personal attorney before all of this happened. So, it's not like he's unfamiliar with what the President is like.
And what I was thinking about when the President announced today that he was going is, I was in the courtroom when the President was there, on his case, on the hush money payment, and he kept -- the whole time, was hitting his attorneys, passing notes to them, Sticky Notes. I mean, he had a lot of input on their cross-examination, what was happening. He wasn't just a quiet bystander.
[21:25:00]
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes, I mean, he is an unorthodox person. This is a bit beyond the norm. Usually presidents in the past tried to adhere to that separation. But this is an important case to the President.
It's funny, because Elie and I have talked about this in the past, and I have a lot of thoughts and opinions on birthright citizenship and the overall 14th Amendment.
And while I trust Elie's expertise and analysis that the jurists at the Supreme Court may likely rule in a way that's not favorable to the President. I do think that there is a valid and logical argument one could potentially make on if the 1898 decision, United States versus Wong Kim was the right one, as it pertains interpreting the original intent of the 14th Amendment, which I would argue was for slaves and they're -- free slaves and their descendants to have full citizenship in this country.
Should it have been extended to everyone else beyond them specifically? I don't think so. I think perhaps an amendment could have codified citizenship for others thereafter. But we'll see what the arguments ultimately are.
COLLINS: Yes.
And Van, I think Shermichael makes a good point, because that is something that even conservative scholars, legal scholars, seem to be split on, on the merits of that. But it's going from just a legal argument tomorrow to becoming a real argument that we're going to get a ruling on. I wonder what your view on that for tomorrow is.
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, first of all, Donald Trump doing the wrong thing, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, for the wrong reason, as usual.
The President of the United States has no business being at the Supreme Court. We have a separation of powers for a reason. It's not just unprecedented. It's unwise, it's unbecoming, and it's unfair for someone who appointed people to the bench to be sitting there mad- dogging them, trying to get his way.
This is a terrible idea. It's a terrible argument. You know, my children were born here in the United States. Two of them. Their mom is from Mexico. They are American citizens. Period. Point-blank. End of story. And the fact that President of the United States wants to step on people's rights, step on people's dignity, and tell people that they don't belong here? He does -- they belong here. These kids belong here when they're born here, and he does not belong at the Supreme Court.
COLLINS: Elie, can I just get your response to Shermichael--
HONIG: Well--
COLLINS: --on the merits of this?
HONIG: Yes, so I think Van is going to come out on the right side of the law here. Shermichael has a fair point. There's a legitimate argument to be made about whether it might be better policy to amend the Constitution to limit birthright citizenship. That's a separate question, though, from the actual text of the Constitution itself.
COLLINS: Yes.
HONIG: And Kaitlan, to the point you raise about the prior experience we've seen with Donald Trump, handing his attorneys notes in the hush money case and being very active. If he does go to the Supreme Court tomorrow, he's not going to be able to do any of that, because just the logistics and mechanics of the room are totally different. The attorney who's arguing is on an island and not sitting next to his client. There's really going to be nothing Donald Trump can do other than just spectate.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, it's still going to be fascinating that he's there in the room. We'll see what happens.
But Elie, can I also get your take on something else we were talking about today, which was an exclamation-mark-laden ruling from a judge, who was actually an appointee of George W. Bush's, that said basically all the construction -- I mean, I was at the White House today. There are two giant cranes hanging over the White House. But he said, basically, that this construction of the ballroom has to stop -- exclamation point -- until Congress can authorize this construction.
What do you make of this ruling?
HONIG: Yes, this ruling does set a world record for most exclamation points in one ruling. Not -- exactly sure why.
COLLINS: There needs to be a limit.
HONIG: This is a mess--
COLLINS: Like two exclamation marks per--
HONIG: I agree. This is a mess legal--
COLLINS: --per ruling.
HONIG: Right. Legally and practically. I mean, legally, the judge himself says there's really not a lot of precedent either way on this, but ultimately it's about separation of powers. Congress controls Washington, D.C. Congress controls the national parks. Congress controls buildings on the national parks. Congress controls funding.
And the Trump administration is trying to point to a statute that allows the president to basically do maintenance at the White House. They try to argue that this is a quote, Alteration. And the judge, I think correctly, says, kind of hard to pigeonhole this ballroom as a quote-unquote, Alteration.
But the practical effect is also a mess. There's that hole in the ground now, Kaitlan, where you work every day, with cranes. They're actually allowed to continue construction for 14 days. The judge put his own ruling on hold for 14 days.
But if that lapses, we're going to be stuck, unless and until an appeals court reverses this, which could happen, we're not sure, or Congress takes action. I wouldn't bet on that. So, we could be at a construction standstill, a few weeks from now, that could go on indefinitely.
COLLINS: Van, I want you to listen to what the President said about this today in the Oval Office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, we've built many things at the White House over the years. They didn't -- they don't get congressional approval when they build in the White House. It's totally separate. And especially when it's a donation. I mean, the ballroom is a donation. It's gotten great reviews.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: What are your thoughts, Van?
[21:30:00]
JONES: Well, you can show me the statute that says, You can tear down half of the White House, if somebody gives you a donation. I'll be happy to read that statute.
There is no statute. The statutes are very, very clear. This requires authorization.
Now, I love my conservative friends. They say, Well, Barack Obama put in a basketball court where there was a bowling alley.
So therefore, I mean, the President of the United States can then replace the entire White House with, I don't know, maybe a tent? Like, I mean, they're -- actually there's something called rule of law here, and the President seems to ignore it.
COLLINS: I mean, Shermichael, the White House is very adamant about the ballroom that other presidents should have built it, that it's not taxpayer money.
It is a huge construction project inside the--
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: It is.
COLLINS: --the White House.
SINGLETON: And it's--
COLLINS: It's not some small renovation.
SINGLETON: I mean, one, it looks a lot better, in my opinion, than having the leader of the free world and other dignitaries having events in tents. I mean, that's just absurd to me, and I also think there's a potential national security risk there to dignitaries visiting.
That said, this ruling materially matters here, as Elie pointed out. So what if the appeals court says, Look, we're not going to rule in favor of the President? So, are we all of a sudden going to have cranes at the White House for God knows how long? Congress--
COLLINS: I mean, it's a giant hole in the ground.
SINGLETON: Congress can't agree on anything, and they're somehow going to agree on this? I find that hard to believe.
So, I agree with Van on the importance of respecting the rule of law. And that matters. I'm a conservative. I believe in traditionalism. However, we've already started. So, the ball has already gone down the court at this point. Allow him to finish instead of having a big hole at the freaking White House, which looks ridiculous, Kaitlan.
JONES: Well, follow the rules then.
SINGLETON: All right, Van, so let's just leave the hole in the ground, and just not do anything about it?
JONES: Hey, listen, when your kid says, Well, listen, Dad, I've already stolen the car, and I'm halfway to the bank I'm going to rob. Do you say, Well, you're already in progress, nothing we can do about it.
You got to follow the rules, Shermichael.
SINGLETON: Just make sure you hide a little bit of that cash for later.
JONES: Yes, sir.
COLLINS: We will see what happens over the next 14 days. The cranes were still there today.
Elie Honig. Van. Shermichael. Great to have all three of you here. Up next for us. A Wall Street titan is weighing in on the war with Iran. What does he think? He says the benefits actually might outweigh the risks to the economy. Jamie Dimon's take on why the war has to be won.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Today, U.S. stocks shot up and actually had their best day since last spring, amid the reports that President Trump is ready to end the war in Iran, even without reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
It was after the markets closed today that the President suggested in the Oval Office that the war could last another two to three weeks. Obviously, we will be watching and listening closely, when the President addresses the nation tomorrow night in prime time.
At least one of the most powerful voices on Wall Street, though, is still optimistic about how all of this could turn out. JPMorgan's CEO, Jamie Dimon, believes that the economic risks in the short term may be worth long-term peace in the Middle East.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMIE DIMON, CEO, JPMORGAN CHASE: So obviously, gas prices going up, going to hurt people a little bit.
BRIAN KILMEADE, FOX NEWS HOST: It's $4.
DIMON: But -- but they still have money to spend. They still have jobs.
We should all hope that these bad people are -- you know, that we win this thing and clean up the straits and that Iran is no longer a threat to everybody. But the markets will be concerned until it's over.
But I think it's very important. It's much more important that this be successfully completed than what the market does.
We've got to finish this thing and finish it right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Joining me tonight is Ambassador Mark Wallace, who is the former United Nations Ambassador under President George W. Bush, and is also the CEO of the bipartisan non-profit United Against Nuclear Iran.
And thank you for being here.
Because obviously you heard Jamie Dimon saying there, the United States has to finish this right. If the President does end the war in the next three weeks, what do you think the American people need to see to know his effort in Iran was successful? MARK WALLACE, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N. FOR MANAGEMENT AND REFORM, CEO, UNITED AGAINST NUCLEAR IRAN (UANI): Well, thank you for having me on, Kaitlan.
Look, I think Jamie Dimon makes a really important point. For the last 50 years, nearly five decades, we've had a global tax on the global economy, and that's the Iran Strait of Hormuz tax. Trillions of dollars of risk premiums have been spent ensuring the safe passage. And it hasn't always been safe. There have been mines, there have been attacks on vessels.
And I think once we have some process to internationalize the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran doesn't control the Strait of Hormuz, long-term? That will inflate the global economy in a manner that it hasn't had over the last 50 years. I think that's a very important point.
And I think President Trump, because the news cycle is the way it is, he's laid out a variety of different reasons and justifications for the war. Frankly, many of them, if not all of them, have been dead-on and accurate.
I think the long-form opportunity for the President to sit behind the Resolute Desk and explain to the American people exactly why, and what we're doing here, is really important. I think Secretary Rubio has laid it out. But I think it's important for the President to lay out, more broadly, and really enumerate and connect the dots of all the reasons why it was very important to confront the real danger of the nuclear Iran.
COLLINS: Do you think the United States can end this, in your view, successfully, without settling who controls the Strait of Hormuz?
WALLACE: I think that there's some posturing by the President. We've seen him do this before.
[21:40:00]
I think that, as I said, there's been enormous risk premium associated with the global economy. 20 percent of hydrocarbons, and a variety of other goods and products go through the Strait of Hormuz, mostly to the developing world, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, India, and the like. And I think President is trying to internationalize that and bring in a potential coalition.
Frankly, it's disappointing the reaction of the Europeans. I know they're offended, at times, by the President's brusque manner. But let me remind you of some comments made, calling the Europeans complacent and free riders. That sounds very much like President Trump. But in fact, it was Barack Obama, referencing the European Union's failure to increase defense spending, and to carry its own fair share burden of NATO.
COLLINS: Yes. And of course, that was something the President pushed in his first term. He did get more countries to commit to higher defense spending. I do think it's worth a question, though, if he should have consulted them before obviously launching this. I think that's an issue that a lot of them have had.
But I want to get your take on something we heard just tonight, just a few moments ago, from Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, on this timeline for this war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUBIO: We were going to destroy their air force. We have largely done that. We were going to destroy their navy, which we have largely achieved that. We were going to destroy a significant percentage of their missile launchers. We are well on our way to achieving that. And we were going to wipe out their defense industrial base, meaning the factories that make the drones and the missiles.
We are well on our way. We are on or ahead of schedule on each of those four objectives. And we can see the finish line. It's not today, it's not tomorrow, but it is coming. We are going to get to the point, where our military will have achieved all of its objectives in this mission, and they're doing so with extraordinary efficiency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do you think all of that can be done and checked off in the next two to three weeks?
WALLACE: You know, having been in public policy now for some time and seen a few wars, the media and the public always wants a hard deadline.
But let me just say, the war planning and intelligence community has been dead-on and predicting and planning and performing incredibly well. We have to really laud our American military, our intelligence community. We are succeeding with devastating effect in Iran, in minimizing the ability of the IRGC and that regime to harm our interests.
So, I think that when you say a hard and fast deadline, the President said, four weeks. This new deadline, if you will, extends it a few more weeks. I think we have total air supremacy over -- superiority over Iran, and I think that we should continue it, to ensure that we degrade the regime in such a way that it's no longer a danger to our interests and/or allows the Iranian people to overthrow that regime.
COLLINS: Yes. And to be fair, it was the President and his aides putting that deadline on there.
But I do wonder -- because you have long obviously been a proponent of Iran not getting a nuclear weapon. You know, we've heard a lot of presidents say that they can't have a nuclear weapon. I've heard from the President's allies saying, Well, he's doing something about it.
Last summer, you had praised President Trump for sanctioning Iran's oil trade, because you talked about it cutting their revenue for the regime. They've unsanctioned a lot of the oil that was at sea, which could potentially, if Iran gets all the money for it, provide that $14 billion windfall. Are you concerned about Iran getting that money and potentially it helping boost the regime?
WALLACE: Well, in fact, the waivers that were granted by OFAC, the Treasury Department mechanism that engages in sanctions, unfroze about $150 million of oil that was at sea to be delivered to end users, including China and the like. But what it did not do is grant a waiver to deliver monies on the proceeds of those sales to Iran.
And that was very similar to what happened under the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal under President Obama. So, what it did is it allowed delivery, but it said to those countries, You can only pay in local currency, and you must keep that money in banks in your local countries without repatriating it to Iran.
COLLINS: Yes, and obviously we'll see. The administration has cast doubt that it will get the money.
Ambassador Mark Wallace, thank you for joining us here tonight on THE SOURCE.
WALLACE: Thank you for having me on.
COLLINS: Up next here, and when we talk about those gas prices, they hit the dreaded $4 mark, here in the United States, on average for a gallon. CNN's data guru, Harry Enten, is going to break down the numbers. Who's paying, what, where, and what's the impact, right after this.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Gas prices, today they hit $4.
TRUMP: $4, yes. And we have a country that's not going to be throwing a nuclear weapon at us in six months.
REPORTER: Of course, but Americans are feeling the effects in the interim.
TRUMP: And they're also feeling a lot safer.
REPORTER: What is the plan to bring them back down?
TRUMP: All I have to do is leave Iran, and we'll be doing that very soon, and they'll be -- come tumbling down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was President Trump's prediction tonight, when Americans can see the pain at the pump over. It's an old expression, though, that also says, Gas prices go up like a rocket and come down like a feather. CNN's Chief Data Analyst, Harry Enten, joins me now with the numbers.
And Harry, I do think that's a real concern. Right now, $4 a gallon is the highest price for gas since 2022. What have you been seeing?
[21:50:00]
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Oh, oh, my goodness gracious, you know? It's not just the $4 per gallon. You go to California, what is it, like, $6 a gallon? There's some places where it's like $8 a gallon. I mean, I just didn't quite think I'd see it this year. And I think that is part of the whole equation.
It's the shock of how quickly that this is happening. I mean, just take a look at these four-week increases. Look at this. The largest four-week increases in gas prices since at least 1991. Well, the good news is, is that this week, the four-week increase is not the largest that we've seen since 1991. The bad news is it's second, and the number one was last week.
What are we talking about? This week, we're talking about a 32 percent increase in gas prices compared to four weeks ago. My goodness gracious. Look at this, last week compared to four weeks before that, it was 35 percent. So, two consecutive weeks with these big increases compared to about a month ago.
And I'd also note, Kaitlan Collins, I went through the record books in terms of the absolute number. We're talking about, increases of more than $0.90 compared to four weeks ago. Those are the only times the last two weeks on record, since at least the last 35 years, in which we've seen gas prices climb by nearly $1 compared to four weeks ago. It's mindboggling.
COLLINS: I mean, imagine if you're a political aide in the White House, who is--
ENTEN: Oy vey.
COLLINS: --staring down the midterms.
ENTEN: No.
COLLINS: Because low prices have always been a winner for Trump. I mean, he ran on that. He won on that, arguably. I think a question is, is are you seeing a political impact for these high prices?
ENTEN: Oh, I would think there's absolutely a political impact. If I was in the White House, I'd be shaking. I'd be shaking in place because there'd be nowhere to hide. And of course, if I was in Congress, running at the end of this year, I'd be shaking as well.
And you can see it here. I mean, just take a look here. OK. This is Approve of Trump on Gas Prices. Look at this. Among all voters, it's two and seven, 27 percent. That's it. That's it.
How about among Democrats? 5 percent. Just one, two, three, four, 5 percent.
How about among Independents? Only one in five Independents. You can't win elections when only one in five Independents approve of you on gas prices, the thing that, of course, charges the vehicles that most of us have.
And then even among Republicans, we're only talking a little bit less than three in five of Trump's own base approve of him on gas prices.
I mean, my goodness gracious, we're talking about Joe Biden levels right here, in terms of overall, when it comes to approving of Trump on gas prices.
And, of course, Kaitlan, this speaks to something larger, right? This speaks to inflation. You mentioned it. This was the reason that Donald Trump was elected -- reelected back in November of 2024.
And just take a look at Trump's net approval rating on inflation right now, compared to the margin which he was favored over Harris, back in October of 2024. Look at this. He beat Harris on inflation by 7 points. More folks trusted him on inflation by 7 points than Kamala Harris.
But down he goes, down he goes into the deep blue sea. Look at this net approval rating right now. 45 points underwater. Folks are 45 points more likely to disapprove than approve of Trump on inflation, the worst of his presidency so far.
COLLINS: I think one question on that, Harry, is the President today was saying, Oh, the prices will come tumbling down as soon as we leave Iran.
I mean, experts have doubted. They've actually said it will take a little bit for them to readjust, even if he leaves in three weeks, say, the end of April. I mean, what could that look like in terms of, you know, we've seen how this has affected presidents before. Jimmy Carter being a prime example here.
ENTEN: Yes, the Jimmy Carter comparison is apt. Why is it apt? Because we know that inflation killed Jimmy Carter.
And just take a look here. Net approval ratings on inflation about this point in the presidency. Donald Trump has about the same net approval rating as Jimmy freaking Carter had back in 1978 at this point. 44 points underwater. 45 points underwater.
Kaitlan, if I recall correctly, Jimmy Carter lost in 1980 because of inflation, it killed his presidency. And it looks like it's crushing Donald Trump's as well.
COLLINS: Yes. We'll see if the White House predictions prove to be accurate.
Harry Enten, always great to have you with the numbers. Thank you for joining us tonight.
ENTEN: Thank you.
COLLINS: And up next. We do have a big update on that U.S. Army investigation that I mentioned to you last night, those fighter helicopters that were seen outside of Kid Rock's Nashville home. As the President himself weighed in tonight.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Just 24 hours ago, the Army announced that it had launched an investigation, after Kid Rock posted a video, over the weekend, showing Apache helicopters flying over his home in Nashville. And today, the Army said it was suspending the crews who were involved amid that investigation.
And President Trump, earlier tonight, was asked himself to weigh in from the Oval Office, and said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, they probably shouldn't have been doing it, yes. You're not supposed to be playing games, right? But I'd take a look at it. They like Kid Rock. I like Kid Rock. Maybe they were trying to defend him, I don't know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Just about 35 minutes after the President said that, though, the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, said, actually, that suspension was lifted and that investigation was canceled. He wrote online, Thank you Kid Rock. USArmy pilots suspension LIFTED. No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots.
We've reached out to the Army for comment on Secretary Hegseth's post. We'll let you know if they say anything.
[22:00:00]
Also tonight, be sure to tune in tomorrow, because the countdown is on. The first time in 50 years, a team of astronauts are set to take a giant leap for mankind, as they embark on a historic journey around the moon. CNN will have special coverage of the Artemis II Launch. You can watch right here on CNN, or on the CNN app tomorrow.
And that's not all. Tomorrow, you're also going to be quite busy. Also, join us tomorrow night, 09:00 p.m. Eastern here. We'll carry President Trump's address to the nation on Iran, that very important update that the White House described earlier. And all of our sources and experts will be here to weigh in and analyze it right after.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
