Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Faces 60-Day War Powers Deadline; Louisiana Delays House Primaries After Supreme Court Ruling; Congress Votes To End DHS Shutdown Without ICE Funding. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired April 30, 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]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --the podcast is out now, wherever you get your podcasts. It's great conversation. He's a wonderful guy.
You can also find it at CNN.com/AllThereIs. That's our grief community page. You can also talk to other people who are also living with grief.
That's it for us. The news continues. I'll see you tomorrow. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN K. COLLINS: The war with Iran is hours away from a critical deadline, as more Republicans here in Washington are demanding answers.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
As we come on the air tonight, the war with Iran is hours away from what legally is a significant deadline. Tomorrow marks 60 days since the first American strikes on Iranian targets. And sources, both privately and publicly, are saying it's a deadline that matters under U.S. law.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives the President 60 days to either get congressional authorization to continue to use military force, or the President should ask for a 30-day extension, but only if he needs that time to withdraw American forces.
As we approach 60 days, more than 20 American naval ships are currently patrolling the Middle East. And when you see video of what enforcing that blockade that's in place right now, of Iranian ports looks like. Keep in mind, this law applies to any U.S. forces involved in what is described as, quote, Hostilities.
Now the President has not indicated that he's planning to go to Congress tonight. And while not directly addressing the 60-days deadline, he did make clear today how he feels about those repeated attempts by congressional Democrats to rein him in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: They go again and again, the war power. I'm negotiating a deal with Iran. And every week, every three days, they put in a thing that, The war should stop. And people ask me, How the hell do you negotiate like that? You're destroying them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: But Democrats might not be the President's only problem when it comes to the war in Iran.
On Capitol Hill today, the 60-day deadline has even some Republicans putting the White House on notice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): I do not accept that we should engage in open-ended military action without clear direction or accountability. Congress has a role. Congress has to step up and fulfill that role, that obligation, that the Constitution assigns to us.
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): 60 days is a trigger. After 60 days, in my view, the President has to obtain congressional approval, or Congress can block it. Those are the two choices.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): It just can't go on forever. If they don't want to have a discussion about AUMF, then we need to have a discussion about an extension under the War Powers Resolution, that's going to require details.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: That's the view from some Republican senators on Capitol Hill today, where Secretary Hegseth, I should note, returned to face more questions from Congress, about the war.
He offered this legal analysis of the 60-day mark.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: On Iran. Ultimately, I would defer to the White House and White House counsel on that. However, we are in a ceasefire right now, which, our understanding, means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire.
SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): I do--
HEGSETH: So, they're not in -- that's--
KAINE: Yes--
HEGSETH: It's our understanding. Just so you know.
KAINE: OK. Well, I do not believe the statute would support that.
(END VIDEO CLIP) K. COLLINS: And my congressional source tonight sits on the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, and also questioned Secretary Hegseth today. Florida Republican, Senator Rick Scott is here.
And thank you, Senator, for being here.
You heard your Democratic colleague there, Tim Kaine, disagreeing. When you look at the War Powers Resolution, it's only three pages long. Do you believe it says anywhere in it that there is a 60-day clock that stops for a pause?
SEN. RICK SCOTT (R-FL): Well, I think that -- first off, I think the President has the power to use our military to defend Americans, and I don't think he has to come to Congress for it anyway.
But as Secretary Hegseth said, we're in a ceasefire right now, but I don't think it's through -- you know, no president has said since Truman that he had to come to the Congress to use the military to defend freedom of this country, and that's what this President is doing. So, I think the President is doing the right thing. I'm proud of what our military has done.
K. COLLINS: But as far as the War Powers Resolution goes, I mean, the word pause is nowhere in it.
SCOTT: Well, the President doesn't have to come to us. I mean, if we don't -- if we don't want to -- for the President to do this, then we can take away the resources. That's what -- you know, that's what we have the power to do. We have the power of the purse.
[21:05:00]
But, I mean, what I don't get is, this is the first President that's willing to stand up for the freedom of this country. We've watched Americans killed for what, 47 years. We had to kill Soleimani because they kept killing Americans. And only because it's Trump, these Democrats want to, you know, they -- somehow it's bad.
I mean, golly, I don't want a nuclear weapon dropped in this country. Who does? I mean? I mean, it's like you're foolish, if you think that -- somebody that wants to kill us might not -- when they get their nuclear weapons are not going to use it? God. I think--
K. COLLINS: Well--
SCOTT: Well we ought to be thanking Trump for what he's doing.
K. COLLINS: Can I ask you? Senator Murkowski is articulating it differently. She says she's going to force the Senate to vote on whether to formally authorize this war, if she does not see a credible plan in the next week.
If she does try to force that vote, how would you vote on this?
SCOTT: I'm supporting what the President is doing. Like, I don't get why everybody -- wait -- but I just don't get it.
K. COLLINS: So then why not vote on it?
SCOTT: I mean -- I mean the -- so what I -- what I -- what I don't understand, is, why don't people understand what we're doing here? We are dealing with lunatics that want to kill us. And we finally have somebody who had the guts not to appease them. And then people want to question him? I mean, support him what he's doing. He's trying to save your life right now.
K. COLLINS: So then why not vote on it?
SCOTT: I mean, these people have been killing us for decades.
I'm sorry, Kaitlan, go ahead.
K. COLLINS: Why not vote on it then if you -- if you so wholeheartedly agree with it?
SCOTT: I'll be glad to vote. I have no problem voting. But let's put it in perspective here. We don't get to vote here in the Senate. I mean, the Democrats, the Democrat -- Democrats block all -- block all the votes only -- they're willing to get to vote on things they want to vote on. They use these -- this 60-day -- this 60-vote threshold, the filibuster, which I think we ought to get rid of, all right, to block all the votes. So, I'll be glad to vote.
Look, I was a governor. I had to either sign or veto about 200 bills every year that came through the legislature. I have no problem voting. It's not. A lot of people don't want to vote on things. I'll be glad to vote on anything.
K. COLLINS: But can I ask on--
SCOTT: I'll tell everybody exactly what I believe. We are doing the right thing.
K. COLLINS: But let's -- can we -- just for a moment, since you mentioned the filibuster, and you said you should get rid of it. When Republicans were in the minority, you described it as -- repeatedly defended as vital and necessary to protect minority parties' rights, you said, including by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and even Senator Schumer.
Why do you have a different position now that Republicans are in the majority?
SCOTT: Well, then let's do the filibuster, but it means you talk. I mean, we're not making people talk. The filibuster was set up -- so I'm fine with, if we were going to do the real filibuster, where people have to talk. The filibuster was used to say, We're going to have a conversation, and then at some point, once we're done, we vote. I'm fine with that. But we don't make people talk. So, if we're not going to make people talk?
K. COLLINS: But Republicans are in charge. SCOTT: Let's get rid of it.
K. COLLINS: I mean, this is -- the only reason that's still a thing is because Leader Thune says, y'all, Republicans, don't have the votes to get rid of that.
SCOTT: Well, I mean, I'm -- look, I'm from Florida. This is what I -- this is what I believe in. I talk to the people in my state, they agree with me. I've been clear on what I believe. Every senator has got the right to make a choice what they want, and I'm not going to question how any Republican and Democrat wants to vote. Vote any way you want. I read the Constitution. I represent Florida.
K. COLLINS: You said, Senator, that you're willing to vote to authorize military force for the Iran war, but you said you don't think it's necessary that Trump doesn't need Congress to approve it.
I mean, but some people might hear that and say, Well, as a member of Congress, what is your constitutional role in this war? Doesn't Congress have a say?
SCOTT: Well, we have the right to fund it. We have the right to make war. The President does have the right to use the for -- the military to defend the freedom of this country. He is doing what Obama and Biden wouldn't do.
K. COLLINS: But you also have the right to declare war, right Senator?
SCOTT: Say it again. I'm sorry, Kaitlan.
K. COLLINS: You also have the right to -- the power to declare war, as Congress, don't you?
SCOTT: Yes, we have the power to declare war. Yes.
K. COLLINS: You mentioned the cost of the war.
Last month, you were asked about how much it could cost. This is what you said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT: We've got to make sure we demolish their ability to do this. And we've got to watch our money. We've got to do all of those things.
LISA DESJARDINS, CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWS HOUR: What about the national debt, though? Is there a limit to what we should be spending here?
SCOTT: Oh, absolutely. We have $39 trillion worth of debt. We're borrowing money that our kids and our grandkids are going to have to pay off. It causes inflation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: What would you say your limit on that is, sir?
[21:10:00]
SCOTT: Well, the way I would do the budget, I would say, What do I think the federal government should do first? Number one, create a military that nobody wants to -- wants to mess around with us. That's how I would allocate the dollars first. So, the amount, if out of the federal treasury, I would spend the money it takes to defend us. Then you -- then you do the other things. I mean, we don't have a country if we can't defend our -- the freedom of our citizens.
K. COLLINS: But for this specifically--
SCOTT: And so, instead of -- instead of this--
K. COLLINS: For this war specifically, I mean, what we know yesterday--
SCOTT: I don't know how you'd put a price tag, Kaitlan.
K. COLLINS: --it was about $25 billion.
SCOTT: Kaitlan, how do you put a price tag on eliminating somebody's ability to kill you? I mean, if it -- for my children, and my grandchildren, what price tag would I put on to save their life? I'd spend my every dime of my life to protect their life.
So, I don't know how you put a price tag on this. I mean, I would -- if my -- if a grandson of mine, or granddaughter, had a disease, that I could spend every dime I've ever made my entire life, I would do it. That's what the way -- the way I look at the Treasury, the most important thing we do, protect us. That's where the first dollars ought to go.
K. COLLINS: OK. So, does that mean--
SCOTT: Protect American life.
K. COLLINS: For this war in Iran, does that mean no limit, in your view?
SCOTT: Well, I think -- I think what you do is you spend -- you spend it smartly. I mean, look at what we're doing now. The ceasefire is giving us a chance. It's the least expensive way to hopefully get them to come to the table and stop being the lunatics they are to want to kill us. I don't -- it's -- how can you do it any less expensively than what we're doing right now? I mean, it's way less expensive than dropping bombs or using missiles.
So, I mean, it's pretty darn smart what they're doing. If they can do this and it forces the change, then maybe it won't work, because you're openly decided--
K. COLLINS: Yes.
SCOTT: You're always limited to what the other side does.
K. COLLINS: Well, the President said today that he thinks it's -- basically the trade-off for high gas prices, is Iran not having a nuclear weapon.
Floridians in your state are paying $1.24 more, though, for gas right now. I assume you've probably heard from some people who are unhappy about that. Maybe some people who do view it as a trade-off. But when the people are unhappy about paying $1.24 more, what do you tell them about how long they're going to be paying more for gas?
SCOTT: Well, as you -- and you know, Kaitlan, my background, I grew up in public housing, and I watched my parents struggle for food and struggle for jobs. So, I think gas prices, I hate them going up.
But here's what's fascinating. I mean, Democrats don't care about high gas prices. They tried to cause it, to make sure we all buy electric vehicles. Trump's tried to get gas prices down. He did his first term. He's done it this term.
But there's a trade-off right now. I want -- I want my family, your family, to be safe. And is there a cost right now? It's terrible that we have higher gas prices. But the trade-off is we're going to live in freedom and democracy, and we don't have somebody that's a lunatic, that's going to drop a nuclear weapon on us.
K. COLLINS: Senator, can I ask you? You mentioned--
SCOTT: I think it's -- I don't know what the price tag for that is, but it's worth it to me.
K. COLLINS: OK. You mentioned, obviously your childhood growing up. You were also Governor of Louisiana, or -- excuse me, of Florida. In Louisiana, we've seen the Governor there, delaying some of the state's House primaries after the Supreme Court's decision invalidating that congressional map that they have.
If you were still governor, would you feel comfortable suspending primaries if people were already voting?
SCOTT: I didn't -- you know, Kaitlan, I didn't see that. I mean, I don't know enough about exactly what they're doing in Louisiana to -- but shoot, we -- I want people to vote. I mean, I want things to be fair. I had -- always told people, I'd love you to vote for me, but go vote.
So, I mean, all this stuff where the redistricting, where Democrats are great, it's all great, if it goes on in Virginia, where there's no Republican seats hardly left. But if someplace else, they attack it.
I mean, I think we ought to say, Look, what we don't -- what we don't want -- we don't want anybody disenfranchised. We want everybody to vote. All right? And get -- and everybody get their message out and stop playing games.
K. COLLINS: Well, I mean, the legislature in Florida passed a plan to create four more Republican-leaning seats. Do you think that's fair, or do you think it's disenfranchising people?
SCOTT: Kaitlan, I haven't seen the details of it. I mean, we have -- we have an obligation to have Fair Districts. Whatever they end up doing, it will go through the courts. And I believe what will happen in Florida is that will be fair.
K. COLLINS: So, you're in favor of the new map in Florida?
SCOTT: I haven't -- I haven't -- I haven't seen the details. But what I do know is it's going to go -- ultimately, it'll go to the courts, and we'll figure out a way. It's required in our constitution there be Fair Districts.
But Kaitlan, why do the Democrats -- and look, they want to complain about Florida, but they don't complain at all about Virginia. I mean, one out of -- one out of a 11 seats when I think typical -- it's at least 47 percent of voters are Republican.
K. COLLINS: Yes.
SCOTT: I mean, that doesn't make sense.
K. COLLINS: I mean, it happens on both sides of the aisle. We've repeatedly pointed that out here on the show.
SCOTT: Yes. Right.
[21:15:00]
K. COLLINS: But when it happened in Virginia, Republicans were complaining about it, even though they had started it in Texas. So, I think the reverse could be argued. Republicans also complain about it when Democrats do it, but they also do it.
SCOTT: I know. Yes, it's the -- I mean, I think we ought -- the districts ought to be fair. They ought to be representative, and we ought to -- but the way I look at -- always looked out when I ran is it's my obligation to go get my votes, and I -- my one -- my first three races, I needed to get a lot of Democrat votes, and that's how I -- I mean, I had to get 500,000 Democrat votes in 2010 to win. So, I think people go out and campaign, run good ads, have a message, that's how you win.
K. COLLINS: Senator Rick Scott, thanks for joining us tonight.
SCOTT: Kaitlan, great job at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, by the way. I'm sure that was tough on you.
K. COLLINS: Thank you, Senator. It was obviously a scary moment for everybody, but we're grateful that everyone's safe and for the work that law enforcement did that night.
SCOTT: Yes.
K. COLLINS: Thank you, Senator Scott.
Up next here. We're going to have a reporter join us after this new report came out today in The New York Times. Jeffrey Epstein obviously was found injured in his cell weeks before his death. The New York Times now reports on a possible suicide note from that earlier incident. We'll speak to the reporter next.
And also, later tonight, as Republicans fight to hold their slim majority. Speaker Mike Johnson is calling for more states to redraw -- certain states, I guess I should say, ahead of the midterms. We'll talk about that.
Plus, that hot mic moment in the Oval Office. What did the President say?
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
K. COLLINS: Tonight, nearly seven years after Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his New York city jail cell, The New York Times is reporting on a possible note that Epstein allegedly wrote before a previous suicide attempt has been hidden away.
According to this new report, in The New York Times, a, quote, "Cellmate said he discovered the note in July 2019, after Mr. Epstein was found unresponsive with a strip of cloth around his neck. Mr. Epstein survived that incident but weeks later was found dead in the jail."
Now The Times reports that the alleged suicide note was sealed by a federal judge as part of the cellmate's criminal case.
My source on this tonight is on the byline of this story. The investigative reporter for The New York Times, Steve Eder.
And thank you, sir, for being here.
Because, I want to start with how this possible note was recovered. The cellmate apparently says, he found the note in his cell, tucked into a graphic novel.
How did it end up locked away by a judge?
STEVE EDER, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes, it takes a circuitous path, I guess, to being locked away from a judge. But basically, the short of it is, is that the cellmate says that he discovered the note in the days after Epstein was found injured in his cell, right? And he turned it over to his lawyers.
His lawyers, apparently, according to a document, that we -- we tried to authenticate it, weren't able to right away, and then it ended up being moved over to his criminal case, not the Epstein case, but this other case that was playing out kind of parallel, and ended up sort of sequestered from the Epstein proceedings in this whole other separate case for years now. And in that case, the judge put the letter -- this purported note under seal.
K. COLLINS: And what's the situation with the cellmate's -- the attorneys authenticating the note? I mean, is it clear how they would even go about doing that?
EDER: Yes, we don't know all the details. I mean, that's part of where we are with this.
But what we understood, there was a document that was released as part of the millions of pages of records that have been released in over the last year, less than a year now, that indicates that there was an effort to try to authenticate the letter, and it indicates that it was authenticated. We don't really know all the details of what went into that. So, The Times has gone ahead and made a request to the judge to have this letter -- this note, unsealed.
K. COLLINS: And what do you think will ultimately happen there?
EDER: We'll see. We'll have to see what the judge says. I mean, I think that, certainly, over recent months, there's been an incredible amount of records that have been released related to Epstein.
I think one of the big mysteries of all of this has continued to be his time in jail, his death. And this is a piece of that. And it hasn't been fully explored. And so, we'll see, you know, what the judge says, and kind of how that plays out. But I think as we try to put the puzzle pieces together, this is certainly one of them that we want to be able to analyze.
K. COLLINS: Yes, and, I mean, there's -- this has been one of the most scrutinized parts of Jeffrey Epstein, obviously, is his death.
When you look at the cellmate, the person is a former police officer, serving four life sentences, charged with quadruple homicide. The Times talked to him. How credible was he?
EDER: Yes, I mean, it's, hard to say, right? He certainly has his own case, his own interests to serve here.
But the story that he told my colleagues, Ben Weiser and Jan Ransom, is consistent with some things that he has said over the course of recent months about this. There's some -- the chronology, the document, does reinforce some of the -- some of the same points that he was making about the letter.
But we'll see. I mean, I think that's part of the process here is to, you know, to try to hopefully get a look at the letter -- at this note, at some point.
K. COLLINS: Yes. I mean, it would obviously be fascinating for people to see this.
I was thinking about this. Late last year, CNN had reported on a fake note that was attributed to Epstein that had been sent to the convicted sex offender Larry Nassar.
There are so many questions about his death, what happened before it, how it was handled by the Bureau of Prisons and the Justice Department. Why do you think this note -- or what does it add to in terms of significance as we look at that, from an overall perspective?
[21:25:00] EDER: Sure. I mean, look, this note carries some potential weight, because if it can be authenticated, if it's real, it would potentially give some window into his thinking, into Epstein's thinking during those final weeks, right?
There's been so many theories that have kind of spawned off of -- off of his death and his jailing. And this would be another piece of evidence that we'd be able to review and kind of look at what happened in totality there. And so, that's why I think it's, you know, it's a piece of -- as a piece of the puzzle, is kind of the way I've been thinking of it.
K. COLLINS: Yes.
Steve Eder, excellent work by you and your colleagues. Thank you for joining us tonight.
EDER: Thanks.
K. COLLINS: And up next here for us on THE SOURCE. The President today talked to reporters for a long time, but he was on a hot mic as they were leaving the Oval Office. What the President said? Next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:30:00]
K. COLLINS: Louisiana Republicans have suspended next month's primary elections for the House of Representatives, after the Supreme Court struck down the state's congressional map yesterday.
The conservative majority ruled that the state unlawfully considered race when it created a second majority black congressional district. Now, a new map could give Republicans at least one more seat in Congress, something that matters as Speaker Mike Johnson is fighting to keep control of the House.
This is just the latest twist that we've been covering in the nationwide redistricting race that has now seen seven states redraw their maps so far, with several others now weighing changes, as you just heard from Senator Rick Scott, we were talking about what's going on in Florida.
Speaker Mike Johnson says he wants even more states to join in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Look, the Supreme Court said that in Louisiana's case it was blatantly unconstitutional. And I think that principle applies probably in other states as well.
We want constitutional maps.
MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Should it happen this midterm? JOHNSON: I don't think it's a controversial notion, and I think all states who have unconstitutional maps should look at that very carefully, and I think they should do it before the midterms.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: I'm joined tonight by my political sources.
Shermichael Singleton is a Republican strategist.
Kate Bedingfield is the former Biden White House Communications Director.
And Ameshia Cross is a former Obama campaign adviser.
And it's great to have all three of you here.
I mean, Shermichael, do you think it's tough to suspend some of the primary elections when early voting is supposed to start Saturday?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I'm not surprised by this. And it's funny, because just two weeks ago, when Virginia, the state where I currently reside, changed, had a major vote referendum. They essentially proposed just one Republican seat. I said, Wait and see what's going to come from the Supreme Court as it pertains to Section 2 in the Voting Rights Act. So, I'm not surprised by this, looking at the current bend of the Court.
That said, I kept thinking through this, in terms of the court's decision, gerrymandering in general, and trying to figure out what would be a better way for the country moving forward. And I thought, why not have just all at-large congressional seats? And so, every 10 years, we have to redesign districts based on population sizes. States lose or gain seats because of it.
Number two, how about we just mathematically factor in, how many folks are Republicans? How many are Democrats? So, in a place like Massachusetts, where 20-plus percent vote Republican, maybe Republicans will gain two seats there. In a state where it's maybe more heavily Democrat, maybe Republicans will lose a seat.
But effectively, what you would do is have purely mathematically-based congressional decision-making effectively, that doesn't factor in race. It purely factors in how many folks are Republicans, how many folks are Democrats, and obviously state population size. That, to me, gets us away from gerrymandering all together.
KATE BEDINGFIELD, WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR UNDER BIDEN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But I don't--
K. COLLINS: And Kate, how do you see this?
BEDINGFIELD: Well, I don't think we want to be drawing districts based on partisan lines or on party affiliation. I think that's one of the things that's troubling about the Supreme Court decision, in addition to obviously gutting protections that have allowed minority votes to be counted in a useful -- useful is not the right word, but have allowed them to be counted reliably in this country.
But this decision, leaning on partisan gerrymandering, I think, is a dangerous thing. I think -- I think we are --
SINGLETON: But I would say where are those--
BEDINGFIELD: But I -- well--
SINGLETON: I would get rid of the districts. My point is, Kate, my proposal would be get rid of the districts together and have at-large seats purely based on party representation of said states. So, maybe one party would gain a couple because more voters are Democrats, maybe a party would lose because less voters are Republican.
BEDINGFIELD: But I think -- but I think making that calculation based on party affiliation of voters, it just it sends us further down this rabbit hole that we are now spiraling into, where parties are carving out seats solely to gain an upper hand in the Congress, which I think is creating districts that are more partisan. There's less incentive for members to compromise, to reach across the aisle.
SINGLETON: I just think--
K. COLLINS: I mean--
BEDINGFIELD: I think there are--
K. COLLINS: But into the rabbit hole, we have spiraled.
BEDINGFIELD: We have.
AMESHIA CROSS, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN ADVISER, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes.
SINGLETON: Yes.
BEDINGFIELD: No question.
SINGLETON: Here we are here, spiraling.
K. COLLINS: It is every--
BEDINGFIELD: No question.
K. COLLINS: Every party is now, or every state is now, getting asked about this.
CROSS: Well, once the redistricting war started, there was going to be no end.
SINGLETON: Sure.
CROSS: At this point, we have the Minority leader also pushing, to get Illinois to redraw, to get New York to redraw, to get Colorado potentially to redraw, so on and so forth. There are only a set amount of states that would be able to do it within this timeframe.
With that being said, I think the larger issue that we have is the precedent that this sets in terms of the unraveling, continued unraveling, of civil rights era legislation.
[21:35:00]
This administration has gone out of its way to ensure that the hard- fought gains of the Civil Rights Movement have been eked away. We saw it most, I think, fervently, with the SFFA decision, dismantling affirmative action, and then the anti-DEI policies that came from that.
Partisan gerrymandering, gerrymandering in general and voting rights laws have been attacked for the better half of 40-plus years, longer than both me and Shermichael have been alive--
SINGLETON: Yes.
CROSS: --longer than you've been alive. Sorry about that.
BEDINGFIELD: No problem.
CROSS: Acknowledge that at this point, this is something that has been going on for quite some time. And it's something that I know people hate the mention of Project 2025, but there are several documentation, pages, that pretty much outline how this was going to work, and they have been doing it part and parcel. And all Donald Trump needed was a majority to get it done. All any Republican president needed was a majority in the Supreme Court to get it done.
SINGLETON: But--
CROSS: And they've waited for it and they've pushed for it over and over and over again. And because of their state legislative priorities, in several Republican states, they have been able to push case after case, and this is the one that cracked.
SINGLETON: So but let's just say, we get a Republican -- a Democrat that wins in 2028, and they get the opportunity to nominate some Democrats or liberal-leaning justices to the court, the justices reverse this decision. You still have the issue of gerrymandering that doesn't structurally go away, and that's the point that I'm talking about.
How do you structurally address this issue that is plaguing our country, where you do have both political parties looking for gains, wherever they can get them, regardless of how the Constitution is interpreted--
K. COLLINS: You are obviously against this.
SINGLETON: --as it pertains to the voting rights.
K. COLLINS: I mean, anyone who was watching the night of Virginia, you are-- SINGLETON: Oh, yes. I just -- I just don't think it's reasonable.
K. COLLINS: --you were hashing about this.
SINGLETON: I think the--
K. COLLINS: Do you think this could backfire on Republicans, though, what we're seeing in Florida and whatnot?
SINGLETON: It can always backfire, on either side, when you take these types of measures, because the political pendulum always swings back to the other side. The three of us know this as strategists.
BEDINGFIELD: Absolutely. It's also -- I don't mean to interrupt you.
SINGLETON: Yes, no, no, Kate. Go ahead.
BEDINGFIELD: But it's also it's not popular. I mean, people, broadly speaking, they don't like the idea of partisan gerrymandering. They don't like the idea--
SINGLETON: Yes, people will have some failed representation.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes.
SINGLETON: Yes.
BEDINGFIELD: They don't like the idea of mid-cycle redistricting. And part of the -- part of the reason that Democrats were able to get this over the finish line in Virginia is because they framed it as a response to Trump's efforts to start -- to start -- to start, so--
SINGLETON: They did. Although I didn't framing, Kate. I didn't like the framing.
BEDINGFIELD: But I'm agreeing with your--
SINGLETON: Yes, yes, no -- generally, yes.
BEDINGFIELD: --your point is that it is -- it is not popular, and it does--
CROSS: But how do -- how do you establish fair representation? Because I like that point. How do you establish fair representation when time and time again, when we see large percentages of African American populations, particularly across the Deep South, that have fought to maintain fair representation, and the only way they got it was through that original Supreme Court decision that came out of the Voting Rights Act.
SINGLETON: Sure, Section 2, specifically. And I don't think you're wrong with that, Ameshia. And that's why I said, if you go to the idea of at-large congressional seats, you're purely basing it off of what percent of the voters of a state happen to be registered Democrats? What percent happen to be registered Republicans? And so, let's take Louisiana, my actual home state. Let's say it's like, OK, 35 or 40 percent of the voters in Louisiana actually vote Democrat, white, black, Hispanic, et cetera. Then mathematically do an equation, we would say X number of congressional seats should be assigned based upon that party representation purely.
K. COLLINS: Yes, but of course--
SINGLETON: That's one potential proposal to that.
K. COLLINS: It is shifting. Obviously people change their party--
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: Sure. They do. They move, et cetera.
BEDINGFIELD: Right.
K. COLLINS: We do know the President wants to -- you were talking about Democrats who want to see it in other states. The President is urging Tennessee to do it right now.
SINGLETON: Yes.
K. COLLINS: He was talking about this when he was taking questions from reporters inside the Oval Office today. And all of the moments were on a mic. But as he was leaving, there was a hot mic moment, where he was talking about taking questions from reporters inside the Oval.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Somebody said, how the hell do you do this all the time? It's called "earned media" for a reason. And for those that say it's not earned, it's, and by the way, one little slip up, one little mistake, and it's potentially the end of your f**king career.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SINGLETON: He's not wrong.
K. COLLINS: Kate Bedingfield, if you're the White House Communications Director?
BEDINGFIELD: I mean--
K. COLLINS: I mean.
BEDINGFIELD: He speaks truth. Although it's interesting, because perhaps--
SINGLETON: Yes.
K. COLLINS: Your boss had a few hot mic moments. BEDINGFIELD: It's -- I think if you have worked in politics at the highest levels you have experienced hot mic moments.
SINGLETON: Yes.
BEDINGFIELD: Your candidate has said things that maybe you wish hadn't been captured. Hadn't been captured.
SINGLETON: Right. Right.
BEDINGFIELD: What's funny, though, is because is, is that Donald Trump is actually the person who sort of defies the conventional wisdom around this more than anyone. I mean, if a hot mic moment was going to bring him down, the Access Hollywood tape would have brought him down. So, it's kind of interesting to hear him, of all people, complain about this, somebody who has kind of existed outside of the--
SINGLETON: Well it's because it does--
BEDINGFIELD: --the traditional rules.
SINGLETON: It does suggest, Kate, that the President is well aware of the standards that strategists will say, Mr. President, don't say this on mic. Read these points.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes.
SINGLETON: And he sort of disregards them, and that's OK, but at least he knows them.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes.
CROSS: He's also well-aware that it doesn't extend past him. So, I think he's also trying to--
SINGLETON: Oh, yes, he knows he's--
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: --he does--
BEDINGFIELD: Yes.
CROSS: --for the rest of the party that also is kind of getting caught up. And TMZ is in D.C. right now. So, he needs to remind people.
SINGLETON: Yes, every -- I agree, every other Republican is not Donald Trump. And I think that's effectively what he's saying. You're not me. Don't try to take some of the chances I take.
K. COLLINS: Well, I don't know, he seemed to be worried about himself--
(CROSSTALK)
[21:40:00] BEDINGFIELD: Yes, I think he was talking about himself, which is what I sort of found ironic here.
SINGLETON: Come on.
K. COLLINS: Saying he would be -- I mean, obviously he pays very close attention to his media coverage.
SINGLETON: He does.
BEDINGFIELD: Indeed.
SINGLETON: He does. Very well.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes. Indeed.
K. COLLINS: Shermichael--
CROSS: The same guy who said he could kill somebody on a street in New York and be OK? I don't think he's worried about a hot mic ever, yes.
K. COLLINS: Yes, there are many notables, quotables.
Great to have all three of you here. Thanks for joining us tonight.
SINGLETON: Thanks.
K. COLLINS: Up next here for us on THE SOURCE. The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against the New Jersey governor, Mikie Sherrill. They say this new law she signed, related to ICE, is blatantly unconstitutional. Well, I'm going to ask Governor Mikie Sherrill about it, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:45:00]
K. COLLINS: Tonight, the longest shutdown for any government agency in American history is now over. In a major concession by House Republican leadership, the House passed a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security for the first time in 75 days.
Sources tell CNN, today's vote came, as Speaker Mike Johnson faced a growing revolt from Republican moderates, as paychecks were about to stall out, once again, for Department of Homeland Security employees.
The vote also came after an urgent memo from the White House, urging Speaker Johnson to pass a compromise that the Senate had agreed to over a month ago, which does not fund federal immigration enforcement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Isn't this a solution on DHS that could have been passed days or weeks ago? Why did it take this long?
JOHNSON: It couldn't, and here's why. You heard me trash the bill when it came over the first time, because it literally was drafted in the middle of the night. It was about 2 o'clock in the morning when they came up with the final language, and it was haphazardly drafted. And what it would do is, of course, orphan and leave out immigration enforcement and Border Patrol.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: But as Democrats get a major victory in their funding fight against ICE and Customs and Border Patrol.
The Trump administration has now filed a lawsuit against the New Jersey governor, Mikie Sherrill, over a new state law that they argue is blatantly unconstitutional, because it prohibits law enforcement and federal officers from wearing masks and requires, quote, Every law enforcement officer to provide sufficient identification before detaining or arresting an individual.
My source that is joining me tonight on her 100th day in office is the Democratic governor of New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill.
And thank you, Governor, for being here.
The administration says this law that you signed is unconstitutional. What do you say?
GOV. MIKIE SHERRILL (D-NJ): All we are doing is requiring that people who are enforcing the law -- law enforcement officers in New Jersey follow the high standards we set for our New Jersey police. There's exceptions in any sort of mask ban to show that, you know, in case of -- cases of safety.
But we just don't want law enforcement coming into New Jersey and treating the people of New Jersey like some drug cartel, where they're unidentifiable. We've certainly crafted this in a very specific way.
But again and again, you see that the Trump administration keeps fighting the rule of law. So, they're taking me to court on this. They also took me to court, because I refused to turn over personal voter data on the voter rolls.
And I took them to court, because Trump illegally withheld Gateway Tunnel funding, which we have successfully unlocked for those, really, what could be about 100,000 jobs in the region.
K. COLLINS: On this law, banning masks. I mean, the administration is arguing, you can't enforce this because of the Supremacy Clause.
How do you enforce this? I mean, what happens if an ICE officer is not wearing a mask in New Jersey?
SHERRILL: Well, we're in court right now, showing that this is an illegal action by the -- by ICE if they come in there, and refuse to wear a mask, and the court -- you know, we're in court now to settle this fight.
K. COLLINS: On the other matter that has kind of taken the nation by storm today, ever since the Supreme Court decision came down. We're seeing Louisiana delay their primaries, after that Supreme Court decision. Florida has also just passed a new map, within 24 hours, that could give Republicans more seats. We're seeing the President urge Tennessee's governor to try to do the same, in that state.
What's going to happen in New Jersey? Will New Jersey redistrict under your watch, Governor?
SHERRILL: Well, this is so typical of Trump, wrongly claiming that there was a huge problem with voting, for example, and then making a huge problem with voting. So, he's gone after all of the redistricting and trying to cheat the system, trying to make it so that they can unfairly win, and he can unfairly win these seats, because he hasn't governed well, and he knows that a blue wave is coming.
And we'll take the measures we have to take in New Jersey. Right now, we are looking at what's going on and making sure that people know that the voting system is fair. And if Trump is going to try to attack fair voting across the country, then New Jersey is going to stand up, so that we can create a counterbalance to whatever he's doing.
K. COLLINS: Does that mean that you would be open to redistricting?
SHERRILL: We have some constitutional limitations on doing it immediately. We'd have to get some votes through. But I'd certainly be willing to work with the legislature to do that.
K. COLLINS: Would you encourage them to do that?
SHERRILL: Depending on how these maps go, certainly.
K. COLLINS: OK. So, it is on the table for you.
The other thing that is obviously something of high concern for voters, gas prices. They just hit the highest level of the year today. In New Jersey, I know alone, it's now $4.27 to get a gallon of gas.
[21:50:00]
Here's what President Trump said, when he was asked about these high prices today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: The average price of a gallon of gas is now $4.30 in this country--
TRUMP: Yes, and you know what? And we're not going to have a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran.
REPORTER: But we're--
TRUMP: The gas will go down, as soon as the war is over, it'll drop like a rock. There's so much of it. It's all over the place, sitting all over the oceans of the world. And it'll be -- it'll go down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: He says, Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. Gas prices are up. That's the trade-off.
Is that a trade-off you believe your constituents are willing to accept?
SHERRILL: It's not even real. He has no strategy for this war. He doesn't know that he's kept them from producing a nuclear weapon.
In fact, I think we're in more danger now. Because, prior to this war, Iran was not moving towards that. In fact, the previous Ayatollah had put a fatwa out against enrichment of uranium to nuclear -- to weapons-grade. And now, they have no intention of agreeing with us, it seems, on any nuclear weapons deal. So, we are actually less safe. He has made it less likely that we can stave this off, and he's made prices go up everywhere.
So, here I am at a 100 days. I've run on affordability. We've attacked things like utility rate hikes. I've expanded power generation, lifted a 50-year nuclear moratorium, taken Trump to court to make sure he's not illegally withholding funding for Gateway, and kept thousands of jobs going.
And at every turn, he keeps raising costs for people. In fact, he's asked Congress for $1.5 trillion for defense spending in next year's budget, and says, because of all this funding that he's spending on this war, which he can't explain and can't seem to get out of, he's not going to be able to pay for health care and education and food security. That's the trade-off this administration is giving for really no discernible reason. It's making everyone less safe.
And I'll tell you, as I go around, New Jersey, fighting hard for affordability and a different path forward, it's certainly not something the people of New Jersey want to see.
K. COLLINS: I mean, this has obviously taken up a big part of your -- the latter part of your first 100 days in office, now that this war has been in place. Given it is driving up gas prices, jet fuel prices, and you've got several airports. I mean, obviously the concern is about food prices, fertilizer, everything else. What do you envision the consequences of this being over the next 100 days, how do you plan to deal with that?
SHERRILL: Well, I'm still going to keep fighting incredibly hard and focusing on driving costs down for New Jerseyans in those ways that I can do at the state level.
We've put out the most fiscally responsible budget. But we've had to make some hard choices in that budget, given all of the hits coming from the federal government and the things -- not only the $1 billion that we see, about a cut to our state budget, but all the other millions, hundreds of millions of dollars of programs that the federal government usually runs that are now being pushed back on the states. You have a bipartisan group of states that continue to push back against the federal government. And I think the really difficult part is, as we see all these economic hits, as we continue to see gas prices go up, grocery prices going up, and now we're concerned about with the fertilizer restrictions, that we'll even see food prices going up more. Again and again, you just see Trump creating unnecessary costs for the American people.
So, you have governors, especially Democratic governors, running really efficient, effective governments, driving down costs. And at every turn, Trump keeps jacking them up more and more and more.
K. COLLINS: Governor Mikie Sherrill, thank you for joining us on your 100th day in office.
SHERRILL: Thanks so much for having me.
K. COLLINS: Up next. We have some chilling new video to show you of the suspect from Saturday night's White House Correspondents' Dinner shooting, sprinting past security is much clearer. We'll play it for you, right after this.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
K. COLLINS: Prosecutors have released this new video tonight, showing the moments before the shooting, at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
If you watch the top left corner of this footage, the alleged attacker, Cole Tomas Allen, can be seen briefly, passing law enforcement and going into the doorway by a security checkpoint. For a few moments, an officer and his dog can be seen standing near that doorway, while the other officers are breaking down the magnetometer. After a couple of seconds, the suspect then runs in from the room with a shotgun, prompting that frantic response that we see here from the officers.
Now, prosecutors say the video shows Allen and a Secret Service Officer exchanging fire. It's not immediately clear, in this video, when Allen allegedly fired a weapon. Additional video released from the night before shows him wandering through the halls and other areas, potentially casing the hotel, it looks like.
At a court hearing today, his attorneys said they are not going to challenge efforts to keep him in jail, as the case proceeds.
If we get more video, we'll bring it to you.
And also, before we go tonight, a quick reminder that next Tuesday, California's Democrat and Republican gubernatorial candidates will face off on the CNN debate stage. I'm going to be hosting, with my colleague, Elex Michaelson. The action all kicks off live from Los Angeles, on Tuesday, at 09:00 p.m. Eastern on CNN, or you can watch on the CNN app and stream it there. Let me know if you have any questions for the candidates. And if you missed any of tonight's show, it's available on demand to subscribers on the CNN app. You can check out our podcast wherever you get your podcasts. And you can also follow me on Instagram and Twitter @kaitlancollins, where I'm always posting and sharing my reporting throughout the day.
Thanks so much for joining us here tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
[22:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST, CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP: Tonight. As gas prices hit a new high in the third month of the war, and polls hit new lows, the administration says the war is a popular one--
