Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Extends Ceasefire Indefinitely As Negotiations Stall; CNN Projects Virginia Voters Approve Dem Redistricting Plan; Patel Disputes Atlantic Allegations With Acting A.G. At His Side. Aired 9- 10p ET
Aired April 21, 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)
JON POLIN, FATHER OF MURDERED HOSTAGE HERSH GOLDBERG-POLIN: I have him in my head, and on my shoulder, and in my ear, and I think he's saying, Live, find joy, celebrate, dance, be happy. And I'm trying to listen to him.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Now, the full conversation is available in about an hour or so, wherever you get your podcasts. We're still doing the final edits on it. Or you can watch the entire episode at CNN.com/AllThereIs in about an hour, hour and a half or so.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. See you tomorrow.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Why Vice President JD Vance was at the White House today, instead of on a flight to Pakistan, and how the peace talks unraveled, and what this means about what comes next.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
As we come on the air tonight, we have new reporting on how we went from President Trump saying this morning, from the White House, that he didn't want to extend his own ceasefire with Iran, to doing just that this afternoon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE KERNEN, "SQUAWK BOX" CO-ANCHOR, CNBC: But the deadline for the ceasefire is tomorrow. If it looks like things are progressing, will you not necessarily extend it to a definitive amount of time, but will you let it keep going if there's progress in the talks before taking--
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, I don't want to do that.
KERNEN: So to be clear, you're saying that you need at least the prospects for a signed deal today and tomorrow, or else you would resume bombing Iran?
TRUMP: I expect to be bombing because I think that's a better attitude to go in with. But we're ready to go. I mean, the military is raring to go.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was the President's sentiment just after 08:00 a.m. this morning.
But by 04:00 p.m. here in Washington, he had extended that ceasefire, saying, quote, "We have been asked to hold our Attack on the Country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal. I have therefore directed our Military to continue the Blockade and, in all other respects, remain ready and able, and will therefore extend the Ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted, and discussions are concluded, one way or the other."
Now, that Truth Social post there came, after the President had spent the afternoon, I'm told, huddling with his national security team in the West Wing.
While that was happening, Air Force Two was sitting on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews, and the administration was deciding, Should the Vice President, JD Vance, board his plane and head to Pakistan for the next round of negotiations with the Iranians, as was when he was there just a few weeks ago, as you can see here.
But today, the administration was dealing with an issue. Virtual silence that they were getting from the Iranians. I've learned that in recent days, the United States had sent Iran a list of broad points that they wanted them to agree to, in advance of the next round of talks, of JD Vance getting on Air Force Two and going back to Islamabad. But days went by without the United States getting a response, raising questions and suspicions about whether or not much could be achieved, in-person.
Officials had urged the top mediator from Pakistan to get at least some kind of response from Iran, before the Vice President boarded his flight. But still, hours later, an official tells me, there was nothing.
That radio silence is a far cry, though, from the confidence that we had heard coming from President Trump, just a few days ago, on Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This process should go very quickly, in that most of the points are already negotiated and agreed to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now cut to today, and the President's top aides basically believe one of the biggest reasons they did not hear back from the Iranians, on what they wanted to just get these talks started, is due to fractures within the current Iranian leadership.
The administration's sense is that the Iranians don't have consensus on their position, or know how much to empower the people who are going and negotiating in-person, on things like uranium enrichment and the current stockpile of enriched uranium.
Now, part of that complicating factor, the United States believes, is whether or not the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is giving his subordinates clear directions, or if they're simply having to assess and guess what he wants without specific instruction from him while he's been in hiding.
That's something that the President was alluding to, in his Truth Social post, about extending the ceasefire today. The U.S. believes that Khamenei's efforts to remain hidden have actually disrupted internal Iranian government discussions.
Now, as we sit here tonight, the President has extended this ceasefire. There is no end date, as you noticed on that Truth Social post, no new deadline on how long this could go on.
[21:05:00]
Despite our reporting tonight, about the concerns about what's happening inside the Iranian government, I am told that U.S. officials do believe there is still a chance that the U.S. and Iranian negotiators could meet again soon. But if and when that happens is far from certain tonight.
And my next source tonight sits on the Armed Services Committee, and is also the Ranking Member of the Senate Banking Committee. Massachusetts Democrat, Senator Elizabeth Warren.
And thank you, Senator, for being here.
Obviously, there was a big hearing in front of your committee today. We'll talk about that in a moment.
On President Trump extending the ceasefire with Iran. There's no timeline on it now.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): Yes.
COLLINS: Is that something you support, or don't support?
WARREN: Look, so we now have no timeline on the ceasefire, no timeline on the blockade and, let's face it, no timeline on the war.
Donald Trump has painted himself into a corner, and he can't find an exit. We're in a place where, before all this started, the Straits Of Hormuz were open, everything was moving, right? And now, it's all shut down, and Donald Trump is trying to get us to a place we were, before he actually started a war. What a mess.
COLLINS: Had he not extended the ceasefire. I mean, he said this morning he was prepared to resume bombing. I assume you think this is a better alternative?
WARREN: Well, the best alternative is to get out of there. And I mean, this is the problem. If we had a United States Senate, and a United States House of Representatives, that were exercising their constitutional responsibilities? Remember, it is only Congress that can declare war. We'd have reeled him back in, weeks ago.
But so far, the United States Senate has voted, with the Republicans all saying, No, no, no, he can keep right on going. They voted that once, twice, three times, four times, and it will be up for another vote, tomorrow. So, I want to see the Senate step up, do its job, and that's to say No, to Donald Trump.
COLLINS: If it was a Democratic president who's doing the exact same thing in Iran. Would you have voted to reel that President back in?
WARREN: Oh, you bet. And frankly, I think most Democrats would, too. And I say that because of the reason that the Constitution says, this is about Congress. We are the people who answer very directly to our constituents back home, over in the House, every two years, a third of us, every two years in the Senate.
This is an unpopular war. And part of the reason that we had a revolution, and part of the reason we wrote the Constitution the way we did, is to say, No king, no president, all on his own, gets to wave his wand and declare war. Because it is the people who pay with the lives of their sons and daughters, and it is the people who are paying with their treasure.
And that's what's happened here. 13 Americans dead. A billion dollars a day that's being spent halfway around the world, to blow things up and blockade trade. That's money we could be spending at home, money for people who can't afford their health care, money for people who are now paying more for gasoline and fuel or oil.
COLLINS: Do you think the blockade of Iranian ports is effective?
WARREN: Well, effective at what? It's an act of war, and it keeps us in a war footing. That's where we are right now. And the whole idea -- it's hard to measure effective. Well, we don't have a president who can describe, what is the end goal here. What is it that we say, This is why we went to war and what we're looking for? And if you don't have that, you don't have an exit ramp to get out.
COLLINS: I assume you probably don't agree with John Bolton very much. He told me last night, though, that he thinks the President is just looking for a way out of this right now.
WARREN: Yes.
COLLINS: Is that what -- do you agree with that?
WARREN: Look, I have given up on trying to understand what's going on inside Donald Trump's head.
But I will say that it has just been chaotic. How many different descriptions of both, why we went to war, what we're trying to accomplish in this war, how well we're doing in this war, and everything from a generous ceasefire, to, We're going to destroy an entire civilization and eradicate these human beings from the earth. Donald Trump has been in all of those spaces.
And you know, if you're really trying to say, I'm looking at that much chaos, and I see pattern in it? All I can say is, I'm not sure if the pattern is there just somewhere in your own head.
COLLINS: I mentioned what was happening in front of your committee today. The President's pick to run the Federal Reserve was testifying. It was his confirmation hearing.
You questioned him. Here's part of that questioning.
[21:10:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WARREN: Mr. Warsh, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?
KEVIN WARSH, FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN NOMINEE: We try to keep politics, if I'm confirmed, out of the Fed.
WARREN: I'm just asking a factual question. I need to know. I need to measure your independence and your courage.
WARSH: Senator, I believe that this body certified that election many years ago. But--
WARREN: That's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking, did Donald Trump lose in 2020?
WARSH: And, I'm suggesting you, in 2020, the Fed made a--
WARREN: I'm suggesting, you can't answer that.
WARSH: --your huge inflation problem, and you certified the election.
WARREN: So, let me ask you another question. In our meeting, you said you would be independent--
WARSH: We need to keep politics out of monetary policy, and monetary policy out of politics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: You also asked about his financial holdings, and his -- where he breaks with the President? Why was his view on the 2020 election a litmus test for independence for you?
WARREN: Well, remember the importance of independence, and that is, we've got two choices with the Fed.
We could have a Fed that is primarily making decisions based on their best understanding of the numbers, where we're headed on inflation, what unemployment looks like, what kind of worldwide events like tariffs could end up affecting all of that, and doing their best to decide monetary policy based on that. You can agree with them, you can disagree with them, but that's the intent. That's what an independent Fed is all about.
Now there's a second kind of Fed, and that's the kind of Fed Donald Trump wants. And that is a political Fed, a Fed that answers to the President of the United States and does exactly what the President wants.
And why does that matter? Because we're about to roll into an election, six months from now, and Donald Trump has a huge problem on the economy. Remember his promise, on day one, he would lower costs? Prices are up for groceries. Prices are up for health care. Prices are up for housing. Prices are up for gasoline, for electricity. Up. Up. Up. So, Donald Trump--
COLLINS: And you think he's going to lean on his Fed chair?
WARREN: Oh, do I think he's going to lean on his Fed chair? I just listened to Donald Trump. He has said, his Fed chair will do what he wants.
And here's the thing. Not just because that's Donald Trump's opinion. Look what he's already done. He has brought criminal charges against the current sitting Fed chair over the renovation of a federal building? Brought criminal charges, which the courts have said, There's nothing here, there are no facts to support this.
He doubles down and doubles down again on that. Not just for Jerome Powell. But as a warning to every one of those governors on the Fed, that they better tow the Donald Trump line, or they're going to be in real trouble. That is not an independent Fed.
COLLINS: Yes, they're trying to charge him. They haven't succeeded yet.
But on that front, before I get to that, the President said today, he would be disappointed if his Fed chair does not lower rates immediately.
WARREN: Right.
COLLINS: Kevin Warsh told your colleague, a Democrat, Senator Gallego, who actually praised him as qualified for the job, that the President never once asked him to commit to lowering interest rates.
WARREN: Yes.
COLLINS: Do you believe that?
WARREN: Well, Donald Trump seems to have said something very different, and Senator Gallego quoted that at the hearing, after Mr. Warsh had said that Donald Trump had never asked him. And that's the real point here. The stories between Donald Trump and Kevin Warsh don't line up. One of them is not telling the truth here. COLLINS: Which one do you think that is?
WARREN: In this case, Donald Trump saying over and over and over, how much he wants Kevin Warsh to lower those interest rates, and that he has made that clear to Kevin Warsh. It's Kevin Warsh who seems to have backed off here.
COLLINS: You also brought up connections to China and Jeffrey Epstein with Kevin Warsh today, in terms of his financial holdings.
WARREN: Yes.
COLLINS: He says that he's in compliance and has promised to get rid of them. Do you have any evidence connecting him to China or Jeffrey Epstein?
WARREN: Well, what we have is a $100 million secret.
So, understand this, that when anybody comes in front of the Banking Committee, any of the nominees that Trump has put forward, they have to make full financial disclosures, and the Office of Ethics actually looks at them. And what they have said is that Mr. Warsh is not in compliance, because what he's done is something I've never seen in front of our committee. He has said he has this, not just little asset. He has a $100 million investment that he won't tell what's in it.
So, I said, OK, you won't tell what's in it. Could you at least tell us you're not invested in Chinese-owned businesses? Could you at least tell us you're not invested in businesses that are engaged in money laundering? Could you at least tell us, you're not invested in the vehicles that Jeffrey Epstein was using to fund his various activities?
And his answer? I'm telling you nothing.
[21:15:00]
That puts him not only not in compliance for ethics. But here's the deal. He says, Well, I'm going to sell it all.
If you don't know--
COLLINS: Yes, if he's confirmed.
WARREN: I'm not sure this makes it any better, because I asked him, Well, then will you tell us, will you be transparent, about the sale, like, who's going to pay a $100 million? Is it going to be the person that he calls out at the beginning of his hearing, Mr. Druckenmiller -- Druckenmiller, who makes his living, makes his fortune of--
COLLINS: Yes.
WARREN: --betting on what the Fed does next? Is he going to be the guy who writes a check to Kevin Warsh for a $100 million? And does that make you feel better about his independence? COLLINS: Well, and Senator Tillis was arguing that he is in compliance, in his view. But in terms of whether or not Kevin Warsh gets confirmed. I mean, Senator Tillis, a Republican, is saying, No one's getting confirmed until this investigation--
WARREN: Yes.
COLLINS: --into the current Fed chair, Jay Powell, is dropped.
The President said last week he does not want to see it dropped.
I mean, that's really more of a question of, putting his qualifications aside, if he gets confirmed is up to this. Should this investigation not be formally dropped? And I'm not even sure what that would look like to Jay Powell's, you know, what he wants to see. Do you expect him to stay on as the Fed chair? What are you going to see here?
WARREN: Sure. That's the law.
COLLINS: Because the President says he'll fire him. The President says he'll fire him--
WARREN: But--
COLLINS: --if he tries to stay on.
WARREN: President has already claimed he was going to fire him, and of course, he's trying to fire Lisa Cook as well. He's gone after another Fed governor. Look, Donald Trump is trying to assert dominance over the Fed, and he's trying to do it, even though the law is not on his side. But he wants to scare every one of those Fed governors.
Because understand, they have to go to court, they have to hire lawyers, they have to spend a whole lot of time going back through their own records, right? They have to get out there and defend themselves on charges that are completely bogus. And for Donald Trump, that's a win-win. Either, they tuck tail and run, or they spend lots of money, spend lots of time, spend lots of resources. And every other Fed governor looks over and says, Not where I want to be.
COLLINS: So, what do you think happens here?
WARREN: Look, Donald Trump is the one -- let me put it this way. I want to see lower interest rates in America. I want to bring down the cost of credit cards and home mortgages and car loans.
But you know, the best way to do that, is for Donald Trump to stop the tariffs, is to stop the energy policy that's driving up costs, and to stop dropping bombs halfway around the world. We need policies that actually helps support families and bring down costs. And Donald Trump is determined, more chaos and more costs for the American people.
COLLINS: Senator Elizabeth Warren, thank you for joining us here tonight.
WARREN: You bet. Good to be with you.
COLLINS: Appreciate your time.
Up next. We have more of our new reporting on why the President extended his ceasefire with Iran. What happens now?
Also, breaking news this hour, as CNN can now project Virginia voters have approved a Democratic plan to dramatically redraw the state's congressional map. What that means for the midterms?
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: We have some breaking news tonight, as CNN can now project that Virginia voters have approved a Democratic plan to dramatically redraw the state's congressional map. 92 percent of the results are in, with just over 51 percent voting yes, on the ballot measure.
Now, if this map is enacted, it means Democrats could win 10 out of the state's 11 congressional districts, which would boost the party at large in the fight for control of Congress.
Harry Enten is here to join us.
And Harry, obviously, there were a lot of questions of how this would go tonight. Tell us what we're seeing in these numbers so far.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yes, I would just say, look, the yes side won. Yes, they are probably going to end up lower than the percentage that Kamala Harris won in terms of the margin. But you know what? A win is a win is a win. And this means a lot for Virginia.
And I will just note, just look at this. They have basically going to gerrymander this state rotten -- they are basically going to lock Republicans out of power, in a state where Donald Trump got 46 percent of the vote, back in 2024.
House seats, Republicans in Virginia are only going to really end up with 9 percent. That is quite the imbalance that's going on here, right? Of course, this is part of a larger national picture as well in terms of redistricting.
And this, to me, is what is so interesting, right? We've had all this redistricting, right? It started in Texas. Then it was California. We've done Ohio. We've done North Carolina. We've done Utah. But heading into tonight, pre-Virginia results, the net gain from this mid-decade redistricting was really zero seats, neither side gaining.
But now is where we are right now, with the Virginia measure passing, Democrats jump out ahead. They are the ones leading in mid-decade redistricting, leading right now by four seats on the strength of that yes-vote, however thin that margin actually is.
COLLINS: So Harry, I mean, obviously Senator Warren was just talking about six months from now, the midterm elections. What could this mean for the fight for who controls Congress here?
ENTEN: Yes. I mean, if you know anything about the House of Representatives? And you're down in Washington, D.C., so you'll know a heck of a lot more than I do. I would just say this. The power right now, it's so tight, right? Every vote is so tight in the U.S. House of Representatives.
So, you just take a look here, and this gives you the math of why this vote was so important. If you talk about the margin of the GOP majority in the House, post the 2024 election, it was two seats, two seats. That's how many seats they could lose on a vote before losing the majority.
[21:25:00]
Now, all of a sudden, we're talking about Democrats gaining one, two, three, four seats, four seats in Virginia. The simple math here is four is greater than two. Without Democrats needing to pick up any more seats, this would eliminate the Republican majority and instill a Democratic majority. Because the margins are so tight, this vote in Virginia means so very much, and that's why all that money was spent on it. My goodness gracious.
COLLINS: Yes, a ton of money.
Harry, thank you for doing that math for us.
ENTEN: I know. It's very hard, very hard.
COLLINS: This is why we keep you around.
ENTEN: That's right.
COLLINS: Harry Enten, thank you for that.
For more on this, my political sources are here tonight.
Shermichael, what's your assessment of what's happening?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I mean, look, I'm not happy about this. What we're seeing is a gradual destruction of institutions in our country.
So, what happens when you create an atmosphere and an environment, where compromise no longer exists? Yes, maybe this is good for Democrats today, but is it good for the long run? Probably not.
For four years, there was an argument from my friends on the other side about democracy, or democracy falling in darkness. Well, how in the hell is this preserving democracy? And look, I'm not saying that one side over the other doesn't gerrymander. Hell, they all gerrymander. It's this is not a good thing at all. The American people don't benefit from this.
And as someone who resides in Virginia, where you have, what, 40-plus percent of the state that voted for the previous -- for the current president, rather? Leaving only one Republican congressional seat seems to be in the force of democracy, and protecting the Constitution, and the preservation of these great ideals? I would think not.
COLLINS: Well, Neera, I mean, what do you say to that? Because that was a question we asked a lot of Democrats, once they launched their own redistricting efforts, after we saw what happened in Texas. But a lot of them argued to us was, What the Republicans are doing it, we're also going to do it.
NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT & CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, FORMER DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER TO PRES. BIDEN: Yes. I mean, the real problem here is that Republicans launched a mid-decade redistricting project in Texas. Virginia came up with its results. But Florida is likely to redistrict in the next couple of days. In fact, they held off for the vote, I think, for political reasons. But they are likely to redistrict. So, at the end of the day, I think Democrats and Republicans will roughly match out to be equal.
We don't know what Florida will do. I think maybe they'll be concerned that redistricting could end up -- you know, they could end up losing some of those seats, because there could be such a great wave.
But I think the truth is that Democrats have supported a national -- a nationwide ban on partisan gerrymandering. Republicans have opposed that. This was a part of legislation they tried to pass in the last cycle. Republicans have opposed that.
I believe that we should have a nationwide ban to partisan gerrymandering. The real thing that set this all up was Donald Trump called into Texas and asked them, not by -- not by anyone voting, but just asked the legislature to change.
And in California and Virginia, at least they asked the voters to weigh in. This is very different than what happened in Texas. Voters have said they would like to move forward on this, because they recognize the stakes, with Trump ending accountability through gerrymandering mid-decade.
COLLINS: Scott, what's your take?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO MITCH MCCONNELL, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH, HOST, "THE SCOTT JENNINGS RADIO SHOW" ON SRN: Virginia had, literally had the fairest maps in the nation. They had a six-five map, six Democrats, five Republicans. In terms of proportional representation, they had the fairest map in the nation that was drawn, by the way, by an independent commission that the voters asked for, just a few years ago. Now they will have the least fair maps in the nation.
And I'm not surprised that the yes-vote won. They had all the money and all the lies. And sometimes in politics, when you got those two things, you can put something over the line, even something as egregious as this. This whole thing has driven Spanberger's approval ratings down into the toilet. She lied to the people of Virginia. They had to write a ballot question that was a joke. They drew maps that were a joke. Now you're going to have huge chunks of rural Virginia represented by five or six Democrats, who all live in Northern Virginia, within about 15 miles of each other. It's a complete joke. Everybody knows it.
And there's a reason that all these national Democrats and all their money came into Virginia because, they don't really care about the people of Virginia. They just care about power.
COLLINS: I mean--
TANDEN: I mean, come on.
COLLINS: --if we could just put that new map back up. Neera, I want you to respond to that. But if we could just put that new map back up. I mean, that's -- back up -- that you can see, obviously, what the proposed districts that were on this ballot look like.
TANDEN: I mean, here's the thing. Unlike in Texas and other states -- in Texas and Florida, they are not putting this up to the voters, right? Republicans, I don't know, they have a lot of money in their coffers. As far as I can see, the RNC has a lot more money than Democrats.
JENNINGS: Who spent more here, Neera? Who spent more?
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: But you know what the difference is--
JENNINGS: Who spent more here?
TANDEN: Then they may not -- they--
JENNINGS: Just tell the truth.
TANDEN: They may not even spend more, because you know you're going to lose. Because the actual issue is--
JENNINGS: Just tell the truth--
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: But Kaitlan--
TANDEN: Here's what motivated people in Virginia. The fact is that because Donald Trump decided to do mid-decade redistrict in Texas. People believed that in order to level the playing field, you needed to ensure that Virginia acted. If--
SINGLETON: But you know what the difference is, Neera?
TANDEN: You know what's so ridiculous is that one thing just to say--
SINGLETON: But the--
COLLINS: What's the difference?
TANDEN: No, no, no.
SINGLETON: But the difference is -- the difference is with Texas--
TANDEN: Neither one of you said--
SINGLETON: But let me -- let me just -- let me just jump in.
TANDEN: --a word about Texas.
[21:30:00]
SINGLETON: Well that's not true. I actually talked--
TANDEN: Where were you, Scott Jennings, on Texas?
SINGLETON: --I actually talked a lot about Texas. And I wasn't happy about that.
TANDEN: OK. Where was Scott Jennings on Texas redistricting?
SINGLETON: But let me just say this. The difference is--
TANDEN: Silence.
SINGLETON: --Democrats have a number of seats still in the State of Texas. Now, we can disagree on whether this may sense, morally, ethically. That's a--
TANDEN: They took five seats.
SINGLETON: --that's a fair -- that's a fair point. But in Virginia, you're eliminating all but one.
TANDEN: They took five seats in Texas.
SINGLETON: All but -- all but one.
JENNINGS: But the--
TANDEN: Well, and--
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: That's basic math. How is that at all fair? How is that fair?
TANDEN: Well, and not too long ago (ph), it was just that -- you didn't give Texans the right to vote.
SINGLETON: How is that fair?
TANDEN: You didn't put it out to a ballot proposition. SINGLETON: That--
JENNINGS: Like the--
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: But the question is but how is it fair in Virginia that leaves Republicans with one--
TANDEN: The legislature you have.
SINGLETON: Would you be OK if we left Democrats with one congressional seat?
TANDEN: You know what I would be OK with? I would be--
JENNINGS: I would--
TANDEN: --I would be OK with a ban on partisan gerrymandering across the country, and I wish you guys had supported that.
COLLINS: Do you worry, Shermichael, that when the President, I mean, so clearly wanted this to happen in Texas, that it did set off this kind of arms race?
SINGLETON: Of course it -- of course it is.
COLLINS: And now it's resulted in this?
SINGLETON: And that's my initial point. This is not good for the country. Look, I'm a conservative. Hell yes, I want my side to do well. I strongly believe in my principles. And I presume, Neera here cares a lot about her side. She wants to see Democrats do well.
But how in the hell is this good for democracy when both sides believe there is no interest in incentivizing on anything? We don't have to compromise. We don't have to figure it out. We don't have to work things out. Because you know what? We'll have one red state, one blue state. There will be no purple states. There will be no party in the middle. How does that move things forward?
When you -- when you look at the things that this country is currently struggling with, on the economic front, the education front, health care. You have China, our greatest adversary, that are moving leaps and bounds ahead. And we can't even govern ourselves appropriately. This shouldn't make any person in this country happy about where we are.
TANDEN: You know, I can--
SINGLETON: It's appalling.
TANDEN: I agree. I just think the way to have dealt with this is to have a ban on gerrymandering in any of these states. Mid-decade redistricting is really something most -- has really happened very rarely. North Carolina did a few years ago. But we should really have -- most people are used to decennial.
JENNINGS: New York did--
TANDEN: Most states are used to it, like doing it every decade. We should do it. And we should actually abandon all this. And I wish Republicans had joined with Democrats--
COLLINS: Scott, if you were--
JENNINGS: Well they -- they had a -- they had a--
COLLINS: --if you were a member of Congress, would you vote to ban gerrymandering?
JENNINGS: Well, I actually am rather protective of the states making these decisions. I don't--
TANDEN: That's a no.
JENNINGS: I don't have -- I don't really have a problem with states making decisions about this.
What I have a problem with, in this case -- look, Texas did what they did. They had a right to do it. Virginia did what they did. What I have a problem with in Virginia is you had a fair map, and you also had an independent commission draw it, and you also had the governor, new governor, tell the people of Virginia during her campaign, she wasn't going to do it. So, this whole thing was built on lies.
And the ballot question, if you read it, was a total joke. You showed the map of the districts. They're a complete joke. And so, I think what they've done is--
TANDEN: These voters voted for--
JENNINGS: --they basically disenfranchised--
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: Well I just--
TANDEN: It's against democracy--
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: I just -- I just -- I live in Virginia.
TANDEN: It's against democracy to argue against the voters.
SINGLETON: I'm a Republican voter in Virginia. I would never do this to Democrats. I don't agree with Democrats on a whole lot of issues.
COLLINS: So you disagree with it--
SINGLETON: There's no way I would do this.
COLLINS: --you disagree with it on a moral front--
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: How is this OK?
COLLINS: --and you just -- and on a principle front.
SINGLETON: Of course.
COLLINS: But politically, I mean, if you're Mike Johnson tonight and you're looking at this, how does that make you feel about November?
SINGLETON: I mean, look, you'd be pretty pissed off.
But I'll tell you this. Other Republican states are going to do the same thing, and Democrats should not be surprised if there's one congressional district, or if there are zero congressional districts, because that is where we are now.
COLLINS: Yes.
Everyone, stick around. We have a lot more to talk about with all three of you, not just on these new results coming out of Virginia.
We're also hearing for the first time from the FBI director, Kash Patel, on that new story and the allegations in The Atlantic. With his new boss standing by his side. What he said about the allegations of drinking?
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: There was an extraordinary moment at a press conference today, with both the acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, and the FBI director, Kash Patel.
As Blanche was asked directly, at one point, during a question-and- answer session, and he was talking about charges that are being brought against the Southern Poverty Law Center, when he was asked about a separate matter. Directly what he thought about that reporting from The Atlantic, last week, that alleged the FBI director has, quote, Alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Have you, separately, just heard any concerns, given your supervision over the FBI director, about any problems with drinking?
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have a lot of -- I have a lot of concerns, and my concerns are completely around the anonymous reporting that comes forth constantly.
REPORTER: I'm sorry, the FBI director is on camera, with the U.S. Olympic hockey team, chugging a beer. I mean, do you think that that's appropriate conduct for the FBI director?
BLANCHE: That has nothing to do with the article. I mean, look, there's an -- there's -- there's complete hit pieces, and you guys are in this business, and you know what they look like. And the fact that you're asking repeated questions about them, almost is an admission of such.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I do want to note that CNN has not independently corroborated the anecdotes that were reported in The Atlantic's article.
Patel has actually sued The Atlantic, and the reporter behind the story, for what he says is defamation, for $250 million.
My political sources are back here with me.
And I want you guys to listen. Because, that was Todd Blanche being asked about it. Then, a few moments later, Kash Patel actually was asked about it also.
[21:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: I can say unequivocally that I never listen to the fake news mafia. And as when they get louder, it just means I'm doing my job.
I'm the first one in. I'm the last one out. I'm like an everyday American who loves his country, loves his sport of hockey, and champions my friends, when they raise a gold medal and invite me in to celebrate.
I've never been intoxicated on the job. And that is why we filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit. And any one of you that wants to participate? Bring it on. I'll see you in court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Scott, what'd you make of that response?
JENNINGS: I mean, it's a pretty forceful response. And, you know, it is a lot of anonymous accusations. And I mean, it's one thing to say, This is a lie. It's another thing to file a lawsuit and to challenge everybody else. So, we'll see what happens.
But look, I mean, I don't hang out with Kash Patel. I don't really know him. But he seems pretty definite that none of this happened.
COLLINS: Neera?
TANDEN: I mean, Donald Trump files a lot of lawsuits that get thrown out. He filed a lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, got thrown out. I think this is a tried-and-true tactic to say, I'm filing a lawsuit. And then months later, it will get thrown out because there's no evidence for Kash Patel. We don't know what will happen here.
But I think what's really weird is, do people think that FBI sources that are in this story? I mean, these are multiple sources, saying that Kash Patel was drunk on the job. Do we think that the -- that the FBI is like a hot bed of Democrats or something? I mean, these are FBI sources, other sources.
JENNINGS: Well--
TANDEN: I guess, I think what's odd about this whole situation is you have an FBI director, who was on screen drinking, in front of everyone, on a morning, and that was pretty unusual behavior. And I think most Americans will think it's a little odd that, that happened, and it's probably corroboration for some of this.
JENNINGS: My question about these supposed sources is, if you believed that the Director of the FBI was drunk on the job, and acting unprofessionally, unethically, whatever the allegations, however you want to call them. Do you run to The Atlantic anonymously? Or do you go to the Inspector General for the Department of Justice? There's--
SINGLETON: I think that's -- I think that's--
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: You really think the -- do you--
JENNINGS: There's nothing going on internally that we know of.
SINGLETON: That's--
TANDEN: Do you really think the Department of Justice I.G., people really trust that at this point? I mean, the President has fired I.G.s. Do you -- are you--
SINGLETON: Yes, but I think -- this is the--
TANDEN: Are you saying that they're not worried about repercussions of actually--
SINGLETON: Perhaps -- perhaps -- perhaps--
TANDEN: --going through to Todd Blanche, who just literally dismissed it, instead of saying, Oh, look, it's kind of a serious allegation. I saw -- I saw my--
JENNINGS: So--
SINGLETON: Perhaps the -- perhaps the--
TANDEN: --I saw the FBI director drunk out--
SINGLETON: But I -- look, I think that's a good point.
TANDEN: --on a Sunday morning. SINGLETON: I mean, these are some serious allegations, the head of the FBI being drunk on the job. And if these agents who corroborated this, these anonymous sources, rather, if it's true, why not go to the Inspector General?
TANDEN: Why is Todd--
SINGLETON: Because even if you are in fear of losing your job, I would presume you would have enough courage of magnanimity to say, Losing my job, it doesn't matter, because his role is so important to the country's protection, I'm willing to go that far.
COLLINS: But can I just say one thing on that?
TANDEN: Why would the Inspector--
COLLINS: Can I just say one thing on that front because--
SINGLETON: Why not -- why not do that?
COLLINS: Because, I mean, you did see Tulsi Gabbard, last week, make criminal referrals to the Justice Department for an inspector general, the watchdog, and talking about that, from Trump's first term in office, that led to his impeachment and the whistleblower in that situation.
SINGLETON: Yes, but now we're here, and Tulsi Gabbard might not even be there much longer.
TANDEN: No, but her point -- her point--
JENNINGS: So--
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: But I mean you see my point, right?
SINGLETON: So what--
TANDEN: Her point is that actually people who are whistleblowers get prosecuted by this administration. And I have to say, I'm sorry, is there any--
SINGLETON: So, go to a reporter? What does a reporter--
TANDEN: --is there any boss in the country--
SINGLETON: I mean, but why go to a reporter?
TANDEN: --who if you had a story--
SINGLETON: But why go to a reporter?
TANDEN: --that your person was drunk? Why wouldn't you just investigate it? Why is Todd Blanche saying--
SINGLETON: Well--
TANDEN: --OK. Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not true. But we'll investigate because it would be a really a bad thing--
SINGLETON: So you would--
JENNINGS: On an anonymous source?
SINGLETON: So you would talk to a reporter before you reported internally?
TANDEN: The FBI director not being on his job all the time puts all of our safety at risk.
SINGLETON: So what -- but what will the reporter do versus--
TANDEN: So, why wouldn't you just investigate that?
SINGLETON: --going to the inspector general?
JENNINGS: But you said that CNN has not been able to corroborate this.
COLLINS: Yes.
JENNINGS: I don't know if any other news organization has been able to corroborate it. I'm sure it's not for lack of trying. Why do you think that is? I mean, this--
TANDEN: Maybe they will corroborate tomorrow.
JENNINGS: --this Atlantic story, there's not another reporter--
TANDEN: Maybe they will corroborate tomorrow.
JENNINGS: --in Washington, D.C. that can get somebody to say something on the record?
SINGLETON: I'm sure--
TANDEN: Maybe they -- maybe they--
JENNINGS: I find it curious.
TANDEN: Maybe they will corroborate tomorrow, because all the way--
COLLINS: Yes.
JENNINGS: You--
TANDEN: --we all saw -- we all saw Kash Patel drunk--
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: I just think like we should speak with certainties on something with unanimous people.
COLLINS: And--
SINGLETON: I just think you got to be careful with speaking with certainty about something where we have zero proof. I think that's important.
COLLINS: Well, and The Atlantic is defending its reporting.
SINGLETON: Sure.
COLLINS: Obviously, Kash Patel is suing them. We'll see what happens with that.
Neera. Scott. Shermichael. Great to have all three of you here tonight on the breaking news.
SINGLETON: Thanks.
COLLINS: Up next. We also have more on our new reporting. Why the President extended his ceasefire with Iran, after saying, this morning, he did not want to extend his ceasefire with Iran.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Given my new reporting tonight, about why President Trump issued that indefinite extension to an already fragile ceasefire with Iran. You can see why the future of the U.S. and Iranian peace talks are in such a precarious position tonight.
I'm told that the President's top aides believe a main reason the Iranians went silent, on what they wanted agreed to, before the Vice President headed to Pakistan, is due to fractures within the current Iranian leadership, and that the Iranians don't have consensus on their position or how much to empower their negotiators, on uranium enrichment or the current stockpile.
Now, despite all of this, one official said that there is still a chance that the U.S. and Iranian negotiators meet soon. If and when that happens, is very much up in the air tonight.
For more on what comes next or what could happen, I have Karim Sadjadpour here, who is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
And it's great to have you here, Karim.
Because just in the last 12 hours, in terms of the President extending this ceasefire, what's your assessment of where things stand right now?
[21:50:00]
KARIM SADJADPOUR, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE, IRAN EXPERT: I think, Kaitlan, it's clear that the President doesn't want to go back to a full-blown war with Iran. At the same time, this has been an incredibly costly war for the United States, perhaps over $50 billion. So, he needs to demand a strong deal, and I think he, at a minimum, needs to get a stronger deal than President Obama got. And he's hoping that, with threats and intimidation, he can bring the Iranians to the table.
But as you alluded to, this is a regime which has just experienced an enormous power vacuum. Even under normal circumstances, it oftentimes takes them many months to come to an internal consensus. And this isn't -- this is an extraordinary circumstance.
And so, I think there's a -- there's a huge disconnect between the President's sense of urgency to wrap this up and move on to other issues, and just Iran's normal political culture.
COLLINS: I mean, based on even just their normal pace and procedure for things. Obviously, we know how long it took for the original, the JCPOA deal, to come together.
What do you make of what we're hearing from officials on what they believe is this fractured Iranian leadership, that basically they don't know how to empower people, who are coming to the table, when it comes to making decisions on uranium, it's not clear if the Supreme Leader is giving direct orders? What's your sense of that?
SADJADPOUR: I think, Kaitlan, there is an enormous mistrust in Tehran of President Trump. You have to remember that on two occasions, while the United States and Iran were in the midst of negotiations, President Trump attacked Tehran.
So, even this time around, I get calls sometimes, from Tehran, with people believing that even the negotiations are simply a ruse for Iran to let its guard down, and the United States could well attack.
And obviously, there's enormous mistrust on the U.S. end as well. I think even if a deal ends up being signed with Iran, very few people in Washington will believe that Iran has really renounced its nuclear weapons ambitions.
COLLINS: Yes, and I'm showing the President today in the White House. He was in the State Dining Room. That was after he had announced he was extending this ceasefire. He didn't even mention Iran there, which is pretty rare for him. He typically brings it up at any event, even if it's unrelated to the war.
He did just post on Truth Social, right before we came on the air, saying that Iran does not want the Strait of Hormuz closed. They want it open so they can make half a million dollars -- half a billion dollars a day, which is, therefore, what they are losing if it is closed.
The President writes, They only say they want it closed because I have it totally BLOCKADED (CLOSED), so they merely want to save face. People approached me four days ago, saying, Sir, Iran wants to open up the Strait, immediately. But if we do that, there can never be a Deal with Iran, unless we blow up the rest of their Country, their leaders included. OK. So, that's what the President writes tonight.
This is what the President said on Friday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Iran has just announced that the Strait of Hormuz is fully open and ready for business and full passage.
(CHEERING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Does that make sense to you?
SADJADPOUR: Not really, Kaitlan. And I think that what -- there's a disconnect here, in that you're not dealing with an Iranian regime, which has cost benefits of Western democracies. So, their primary goal has never been to advance the economic wellbeing of their population. Their primary goal is to stay in power.
And internally, I think they have a real divide about what is the best way for them to deal with President Trump. There are some in that system, who say that if you give in to pressure, that's simply going to embolden President Trump, to turn up the heat even more. And there's others in that system who say, Listen, our economic condition is in such dire straits that we have to compromise.
But as I said earlier, Kaitlan, the trust gap between these two countries is really unbridgeable.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, it's on full display right now.
Karim Sadjadpour, it's great to have you here always. I love hearing your expertise on this. Thanks for joining us tonight.
SADJADPOUR: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: And as we continue to track that, here's something else we're watching here in Washington. The Pentagon, reversing a mandatory vaccine policy that dates back actually decades.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: For the first time since the early 1950s, the United States Military will no longer require American troops to get an annual flu vaccine. Citing what they describe as a commonsense approach, the Defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, said, this new policy is effective immediately.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: We're seizing this moment to discard any absurd overreaching mandates that only weaken our warfighting capabilities.
The notion that a flu vaccine must be mandatory for every service member, everywhere, in every circumstance, at all times, is just overly broad and not rational.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, up until this evening, the official Navy Medicine website stated that seasonal flu vaccines are the most effective control measure to reduce the risk of severe influenza and mission degradation, minimizing risk to force.
But the page that you're looking at right here has since been updated to remove that section.
Secretary Hegseth's memo gives the military services 15 days to request to keep the vaccine requirement in place.
We'll keep you updated on that front.
If you missed any of this show tonight, it's available on demand to subscribers on the CNN app, you can check it out, and the podcast as well, wherever you get your podcasts.
And you can also follow me on Instagram and Twitter, @kaitlancollins. I'm always posting and reposting our latest reporting throughout the day.
We'll see you back here tomorrow night. Thanks so much for joining us here.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
[22:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST, CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP: Tonight. Backing off. Donald Trump drops his deadline, extends the ceasefire, without any apparent concessions from Iran.
