Return to Transcripts main page
State of the Union
Trump Judicial Nominees Under Fire; Interview With Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY); Interview With Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA); Interview With Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY); Interview With U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright. Aired 9-10a ET
Aired April 19, 2026 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:00:43]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST (voice-over): Open and shut. President Trump issues a new threat to Iran.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They got a little cute, as they have been doing.
TAPPER: But, as Iran fires on ships in the Strait of Hormuz, how will the U.S. respond? And how long will it affect your gas prices?
TRUMP: Wait until you see prices fall.
TAPPER: I'll ask Energy Secretary Chris Wright next.
Plus: Failing grade? Republicans fret over their midterm prognosis.
TRUMP: For some reason, the party does poorly in the midterms. It doesn't make sense. I'm still trying to figure it out.
TAPPER: I'll ask a close Trump ally who's set to leave office about the party's future and about her new book on the crisis in higher education. Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York is ahead.
And road map. Democrats could be on the verge of a big redistricting victory Tuesday.
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You have a chance to do something important.
TAPPER: But as the party searches for its voice in key races, is their best argument still we're not Trump? My political panel breaks it all down.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TAPPER: Hello. I'm Jake Tapper in Washington, where the state of our union is suffering from a bit of whiplash.
This morning, President Trump is renewing threats against Iran, warning them on social media he's -- quote -- "no more Mr. Nice Guy" and vowing to blow up every bridge and power plant in Iran if the country won't make the deal that the U.S. is offering.
We should note that targeting civilian infrastructure is considered a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.
On Friday, President Trump suggested a deal was in fact close at hand. He's still sending representatives to Islamabad, Pakistan, tomorrow for talks with Iran. But, this morning, Iran's top negotiator says the two sides remain far apart.
And the Islamic Revolutionary Guard commander says Iran is replenishing its missile and drone stockpiles during this cease-fire at a faster pace than they were doing before the war.
Meanwhile, despite Trump's optimistic pronouncements Friday, the Strait of Hormuz right now remains not open. Iranian gunboats are firing on tankers attempting to transit the strait. It's a clear sign that, nearly two months into this war, Iran's stranglehold on the global economy remains as tight as ever.
Joining us now to discuss, Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
Thanks so much for being here, Secretary Wright. We appreciate it.
CHRIS WRIGHT, U.S. ENERGY SECRETARY: You bet.
TAPPER: So, President Trump in a TRUTH Social post this morning said, if the Iranians don't take the deal being offered -- quote -- "The United States is going to knock out every single power plant and every single bridge in Iran. No more Mr. Nice Guy. They will come down fast. They will come down easy."
Are you not concerned that those proposed strikes on civilian infrastructure, including power plants, would hurt the innocent people of Iran and would constitute a war crime?
WRIGHT: Yes, like the president is looking for maximum leverage, maximum nego -- maximum leverage in these negotiations.
A lot of their infrastructure supports only their war machine. Of course, a lot of it supports civilians as well. But, no, I'm not worried about that. Negotiations are going very well. A lot of the chatter and noise you hear in public is really the signs of a regime that's falling apart.
Different factions go in different directions. They're worried about trying to get some leverage at the end of these negotiations. I think President Trump and Vice President Vance have us on a pathway to a good ending in this conflict before long.
TAPPER: Well, it's not just words, of course, right, because the Iranians are firing upon vessels that are trying to go through the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump had said it was open for business.
But then, this morning, he noted that Iran fired upon a French ship and a U.K. freighter. So just, to be clear, it's not safe right now to go through the Strait of Hormuz, correct?
WRIGHT: That is correct.
TAPPER: OK.
The president said -- well, let me just follow up on that. When will it be?
WRIGHT: I think after a deal is reached, after a deal is reached. It won't be in the too-distant-future. People are ready to go. Ships are there. The United States put through two warships through the straits. We can open it one way or the other.
But the best way to do it is to have an end to the conflict and a defanged and de-armed Iran.
TAPPER: How soon will that happen? This week, you think? Next week?
WRIGHT: I -- that's probably a reasonable time frame. It's not too far away.
TAPPER: In the next couple of weeks?
WRIGHT: The starting of the blockade of Iranian oil puts additional pressure on them. Through the Treasury Department, we're also going after their financial tentacles, which are spread all throughout the region and around the world.
We're turning the heat up on the Iranian leadership now.
[09:05:00]
TAPPER: Yes, the Iranian -- the U.S. blockade against Iranian ships going through the Strait of Hormuz, Iran says that that is why the deal to open the Strait of Hormuz has not been agreed upon, because as long, as the U.S. is doing that, they're not going to open the Strait of Hormuz.
So, should the U.S. pull back from blocking Iranian ships, so that all the ships can go through?
WRIGHT: No.
Look, during the conflict, Iran did everything they could to interrupt the flow of everyone's traffic through that. It's the only card they have. But that card is slipping out of their hands, and they know it.
So, no, right now, we are on maximum pressure campaign on Iran. They're not going to sell any more products abroad through the Strait of Hormuz, and the financial and banking sanctions on them are biting hard. TAPPER: But it's also hurting not just when -- when the U.S. blockades their oil then and they continue to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed, that also -- that hurts everyone. It hurts the U.S. It hurts the global economy.
I mean, the president said today the U.S. loses nothing with the strait is closed, but gas prices have surged more than a dollar gallon for regular unleaded just since the war began. So it's not true, right? I mean, the U.S. does lose something.
WRIGHT: Putting this 47-year conflict to an end and preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, of course, has come with short-term disruption.
I think we have managed it fantastically, though. Here we are in the middle of the largest interruption in flow of energy ever and gasoline prices peaked a week ago about a dollar below the peak during the Biden administration, and that was just a Biden administration attack on the oil and gas industry.
TAPPER: So, when you were on the show March 8, I asked you when gas prices would go under $3 a gallon for regular unleaded.
You said -- quote -- "In the worst-case, this is a weeks, this is not a month's thing."
That was six weeks ago, so we're still within the weeks realm, but we're two weeks away from the months thing. When do you think it's realistic for Americans to expect the gas will go back to under $3 a gallon?
WRIGHT: I don't know. That could happen later this year. That might not happen until next year.
But prices have likely peaked and they will start going down. Certainly, with a resolution of this conflict, you will see prices go down. Prices across the board on energy prices will go down.
TAPPER: But it might not be under $3 a gallon until 2027?
WRIGHT: Under $3 a gallon is pretty tremendous in an inflation- adjusted terms. We had that in the Trump administration, but we hadn't seen that in inflation-adjusted terms for quite a long time. We will get back there, for sure.
TAPPER: Who's leading the delegation to Islamabad tomorrow? Do we know?
WRIGHT: The vice president's been leading the negotiations from the start.
TAPPER: OK.
President Trump previously said with Iran there were very good conversations going on. But the top Iranian negotiator told state TV in Iran that the two sides are still far from a final agreement. You think that there will be -- you're optimistic there will be a deal sometime this week or next?
WRIGHT: Yes, I think you will see a deal in the near future. I don't know exact time frame, but we will see a deal in the near future.
Remember, their regime is fragmenting. They have got two things they have got to solve. They have got to solve the conflict from the United States. I think they know what it's going to take to end that conflict with the United States. And they're trying to stay in power themselves. The regime is breaking up into different factions.
We don't know where Iran ends after this.
TAPPER: So, you noted that this -- closing the Strait of Hormuz is really the only card that the Iranians have. What's to stop them from playing that card some other time?
I mean, I don't understand what can be negotiated that would prevent them from just doing this any time they want?
WRIGHT: I mean, they did this in the '80s.
TAPPER: Right.
WRIGHT: So, yes, given their geography along that coastline, they're always a threat, which is why you need to massively change the Iranian regime, getting them to end their nuclear program in an agreement with the United States, many other things they will have to swear off. And we will have leverage over them continued going forward.
They have interrupted the Straits of Hormuz. We will stop the flow of all their energy. We will stop the flow of funds into their country.
TAPPER: So, if they do it again, we will have another blockade on them?
WRIGHT: Absolutely.
TAPPER: On Wednesday, the Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, said the U.S. would not extend the pause on sanctions on Russian oil that had been -- there was a pause on those sanctions...
WRIGHT: Yes.
TAPPER: ... so as to help the international global economy when it comes to fuel.
But just two days later, they did do that. They did extend the pause on sanctions on Russian oil. So what changed?
WRIGHT: G20 conference was here. We had bankers from around the world basically making pleas, hey, we want to keep energy prices down for us? Just help with us -- just help us be constructive.
All that Russian oil, it goes to China anyway. All we're doing is temporary allowing it to flow, instead of all to China, to flow into other Asian refineries. It's to lower the price of energy in Asia and in Europe.
TAPPER: And when that -- but those sanctions will come back at some point?
[09:10:03]
WRIGHT: Absolutely. Absolutely.
TAPPER: Lastly, we have gone through two months when the entire global energy system is in chaos just because of one shipping lane.
Doesn't that make an argument for alternative kinds of energy so that the U.S. is less reliant on oil?
WRIGHT: Well, the United States produces more oil than we consume. We're a net exporter of oil to the world, and we're by far and away the world's largest net exporter of natural gas.
We definitely want energy from everywhere we can get it. We're driving nuclear forward in the Trump administration. But in the last 20 years, the world spent $10 trillion on wind, solar, and batteries. It hasn't made it to 3 percent of global energy, and it's just driven up prices.
TAPPER: Secretary Wright, thank you so much for being here. Really, really appreciate your time today.
She asked a question at a congressional hearing that stunned even some of her political enemies and led to the downfall of two top university presidents. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, joins me on that and much more next.
Plus: Are Democrats on track to win big on Tuesday? The latest in the redistricting wars coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:15:32]
TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.
My next guest is a top supporter of President Trump in the House of Representatives and also the author of a brand-new book called "Poisoned Ivies: The Inside Account of the Academic and Moral Rot at America's Elite Universities."
Joining us now, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York.
Thanks for joining us, Congresswoman.
Let's talk about your book, "Poisoned Ivies." Yale just issued a report blaming universities for losing the public trust in higher education, Yale calling for a series of changes. What is your view of what needs to be changed in higher ed to fix what you describe as moral bankruptcy and rot?
REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): Well, my view is, the Yale report would not have happened were it not for the congressional oversight that the House Education Committee conducted, particularly in that university hearing, which was the most viewed testimony in the history of Congress with the presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT.
In that hearing, it became very clear how much our higher education institutions have fundamentally lost their way. The Yale report has very similar recommendations as my book, but, again, these universities weren't going to fix themselves.
It identifies the ideological bent further and further to the left. I identify the faculty tenure program as the self-selection which has created increasingly out-of-touch ideologies. If you look at the delta, it used to be one to one decades ago, Jake, conservative to liberals.
Now it's 88 liberals to every one conservative in some of these humanities departments. That's the case at Harvard. I also identify foreign funding. You have foreign dollars that are flowing to these universities from Qatar and communist China. That was recently released by the Department of Education.
That undermines many of the principles, and I believe there have been strings attached to the curricula that's being taught and the type of professors that are being hired. In addition, I identify the percentage of foreign students. I think it is news to many Americans that, at Columbia, for example, 40 percent of the student body are foreign students.
And many of those students, some of them were organizing the pro-Hamas encampments that led to riots and targeting of American Jewish students, as well as destruction of property. That hearing set off an earthquake in higher education that we're still feeling the reverberations of, and it's going to happen for years to come.
TAPPER: I have met some foreign students at my alma mater, and I understand what you're saying when you talk about ones that come with extremist ideologies, but the ones I have met have been remarkable. I met somebody who was an Afghan and rose from a small town in Afghanistan.
And do you worry at all about demonizing foreign students? Again, I understand what you're talking about. Some of them come with...
STEFANIK: Absolutely. I'm not...
TAPPER: Go ahead.
STEFANIK: Right.
Just to answer that question, my proposal is to lower the -- cap it at 15 percent per institution. So when you have a counterexample, Jake, in the example of Mahmoud Khalil at Columbia, who literally organized the pro-Hamas encampment that destroyed Hamilton Hall, that targeted American Jewish students.
Those individuals need to be deported. And if you also think about these institutions rely on billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer funds, I believe they should be prioritizing American students. So I'm not -- I talk about capping that percentage, that it's gotten disconnected from the founding missions, which was to educate American students.
And what's interesting is, many of these institutions, particularly the most considered elite, were prior to our nation's founding. That's the case of Harvard, of Penn, of Columbia. And the book argues that they fundamentally lost their way.
And what's interesting is, people are voting with their feet and their wallets. Where you see admissions and matriculation rates declining for the traditional Ivy League schools, they're increasing dramatically at institutions like Vanderbilt, University of Florida, University at Austin, et cetera.
TAPPER: The Trump administration right now, in furtherance of the mission that you're discussing, is requesting the names of Jewish student faculty community members at the University of Pennsylvania. The Trump administration says they're doing this in order to identify potential victims of antisemitism, part of an EEOC investigation.
But not only has the University of Pennsylvania opposed the subpoena on privacy grounds and First Amendment grounds, but the school's Jewish community, including members of Hillel, they oppose this request. They say that making a list, compiling such a list, it misses the historical context of Jews being targeted by governments.
Do you understand the reluctance of Jews at Penn to compile such a list and give it to the government?
STEFANIK: Well, certainly, many Jewish students at Penn reached out to the congressional committee and to the Trump administration raising concerns of the targeting at Penn.
[09:20:04]
Penn was one of the worst actors, Jake. That's why you saw within 48 hours of the congressional hearing the resignation of Liz Magill. That's why you continue to see leaders like Marc Rowan speaking out and holding Penn accountable, a very prominent alumni, and students as well who have pending lawsuits with Penn.
And my concern here is, in the congressional testimony, I actually asked Claudine Gay, the former president of Harvard, the percentage of Jewish students, which has declined precipitously. She could not admit that because she said, oh, we don't want to collect this data.
The reality is, Hillel has this data and collects this data. So, on top of the academic and moral rot, I believe that we're going to uncover, which is the case for many of these schools, an admissions scandal that you have seen the percentage of Jewish students who have been accepted has declined significantly. It's fallen off of a cliff.
And I believe that is because of the roots of antisemitism. So we have seen these schools won't fix themselves. And I know there's been some pushback from these institutions to the administration. This administration has worked with Congress on day one to ensure these schools are held accountable.
TAPPER: One of the reasons why a lot of Jews at Penn are reluctant to make a list of Jews and then hand it over to the government is because antisemitism is not only a problem on the political left, which it is, but also on the political right.
And there are some people in the Trump administration that have been accused of antisemitism and ties to antisemites. Your critics have said that you're much more willing to call out antisemitism on the left than on the right, and that by suggesting it's not the problem it is on the right, you're helping enable it. How do you respond to that criticism?
STEFANIK: I would respond to that, Jake.
I have been the leading voice in the United States Congress of both parties in combating antisemitism. I have called out individuals on the right, including organizations within my home state, the New York Young Republicans, where you saw examples of heinous antisemitism.
I was the highest-ranking official to not only condemn that, but decertify that institution in the state of New York. So I have been crystal clear on this. And, in fact, I have been attacked by some of the voices who are not elected, but are antisemitic on the right.
The reality is, the difference is, if you look at the makeup of Congress, the vast majority, except for a handful of Republicans, have had very strong records when it comes to combating antisemitism. You look at the left, the antisemites have taken over the Democrat Party. It's the majority of the votes.
And, in New York, we see this firsthand when you have a high-ranking official in Zohran Mamdani whose top campaign aides are antisemitic, who has made antisemitic statements in his past. So, yes, there can be -- you can ask about questions about podcasters.
The reality is, the elected officials on the Republican side have been crystal clear in condemning and combating antisemitism. And I have been proud to lead that effort at the highest levels.
TAPPER: When there was an effort to purge antisemitism and those who platform them from the Republican Party recently, Vice President Vance rejected it. He called it a purity test. What do you think? Is it a purity test or is it important to do?
STEFANIK: I think it's -- I stand by my record that I believe that the elected officials need to continue to speak out very strongly. I think that the Trump administration has been tremendous in the executive actions they have issued.
I mean, we worked very closely with President Trump and Secretary Linda McMahon on day one in the issuance of the executive orders to make sure American Jewish students are protected, to combat and condemn antisemitism, to stand strongly by our close ally Israel. And that has been a real success story. And, again, I stand by my record. It is very different than what we're
seeing in the Democrat Party, where there is a full-blown takeover of the Democrat establishment of antisemitic elected officials who have refused to condemn antisemitism, whether you look at the mayor of New York City or whether you look at some of these primary races on the Democratic side.
That is not the case on the Republican side. And, again, this book, which is being read not just by Republicans, Jake, but Democrats as well, it was a reckoning on those college campuses, that it needed to happen to fix these higher education institutions.
TAPPER: You were praised by many in the Jewish community when you criticized the college presidents who refused to condemn students for chanting "From the river to the sea," which many Jews interpret to be, and you agreed -- you characterized it as a genocide, a call for genocide, to wipe out all the Jews in Israel "From the river to the sea."
So just to be clear, you believe that wiping out an entire civilization is genocidal and nobody should make a call to do such a thing?
STEFANIK: Yes, of course.
And that's why the question I asked, which was, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your university's code of conduct, yes or no? I worded it because it was a very simple straightforward question. It was not a political one. And the world heard as these universities equivocated saying it depends on the context or it's a context- dependent decision.
It is not. And we have seen that they didn't think there was anything wrong with those answers. That's why a billion people -- there were a billion views of that testimony and it created an earthquake in higher education.
[09:25:08]
And, importantly, these schools are now having to reckon with this. That's why earlier in the show, when you pointed out the Yale report, that is a step in the right direction, is starting to address internal issues. But let's see if there's action taking -- taken on these university campuses, because we have had to take very specific steps from the Department of Education and from Congress to hold them accountable.
TAPPER: Right.
What did you think when President Trump threatened to obliterate the entire Iranian civilization?
STEFANIK: He was focusing on the Iranian regime. And what did it do? It brought the Iranians to the table. It led to the cease-fire.
We know that President Trump has very strong statements when it comes to his tweets, but it has been targeted towards the Iranian terrorist regime.
TAPPER: He said the entire civilization will die.
STEFANIK: And it's very important to note that the -- I'm talking he was focused on the Iranian terrorist regime.
And, Jake, isn't it true that it brought the Iranians to the table to a cease-fire agreement?
TAPPER: I don't know.
STEFANIK: That is -- it did, because they had a cease-fire agreement going on for days.
And President Trump is correct to call out the Iranian terrorist regime, which has financed Hamas and Hezbollah, which I believe has led to some of the financing of these -- the skyrocketing antisemitism.
TAPPER: Yes, but I'm not talking about the regime.
STEFANIK: But that's -- Jake, you can ask this question, but the reality is it was targeted towards the Iranian terrorist regime. It was an effective tool to bring them to the table.
They have no cards.
TAPPER: Well...
STEFANIK: And, frankly, we're not going to see peace in the Middle East until we get rid of the Iranian terrorist regime.
TAPPER: He said -- quote -- "Your whole civilization will die tonight." He didn't say the regime will be wiped out. He said, "Your whole civilization will die tonight."
And I just have to say it's interesting that a 20-year-old college kid on a campus yelling "From the river to the sea," that's worthy of condemnation, but a president of the United States who actually has...
STEFANIK: You don't think it's worthy of condemnation?
TAPPER: I...
STEFANIK: You don't -- Jake, you don't think it's worthy of condemnation of students that are targeting Jewish students, that are physically assaulting them, that are spitting in their face, that are drawing swastikas on their doors, these students who have to hire security?
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: I don't need a lesson on what it's like to be a Jewish student.
STEFANIK: Well, but you're equivocating, like those university presidents.
TAPPER: No, I'm not equivocating at all. I'm not equivocating.
STEFANIK: You're equivocating with those university presidents.
TAPPER: I'm asking if you're equivocating.
STEFANIK: What I have said about President Trump's tweets is, it has been very targeted. I'm not equivocating.
TAPPER: No, not when it comes to college kids...
STEFANIK: I have been crystal clear in my condemnation of...
TAPPER: ... but when it comes to a president threatening to wipe out an entire civilization. I'm saying there's -- you're applying two different standards here.
STEFANIK: He is targeting the Iranian terrorist regime. Everyone seems to understand that Jake, except for CNN.
And what did it do? It brought the Iranians to the table, delivering a cease-fire, and, frankly, bringing this terrorist regime to its knees. It has been very important for us to address, frankly, this conflict that has been going on for decades, the terrorist regime that has not only hijacked the Strait of Hormuz, but has been the number one state sponsor of terror.
TAPPER: Yes, I'm not supporting the regime.
STEFANIK: So, yes, the president delivers tough diplomacy, but what he has delivered is ultimately we will see peace in the Middle East better off.
TAPPER: I just think a call for genocide on a college campus and a call for genocide made by the president of the United States, like, they're both bad, right? I mean, that's what I think.
STEFANIK: We are condemn -- I condemn genocide across the board. The difference with those university presidents is, they couldn't answer the simple, direct question.
TAPPER: But you just...
STEFANIK: ... does calling for the genocide of Jews by -- President Trump didn't call for genocide, Jake.
You are putting those words in his mouth. He is engaging in diplomatic back-and-forth. And what did it do? It brought the Iranians to the table.
TAPPER: Your entire civilization will die?
STEFANIK: And we should -- no, we -- it's the terrorist regime, Jake. He's targeting the terrorist regime.
TAPPER: You're changing his words.
STEFANIK: You can continue the decades-long -- you're -- but you're adding genocide. That's not what he stated.
TAPPER: What is wiping out an entire civilization?
STEFANIK: In the case of the university presidents, I specifically asked them about calling for the genocide of Jews.
Again, the president is correct to call out the Iranian terrorist regime, to bring them to the table to force a cease-fire and, frankly, to free the Middle East from this largest state sponsor of terror that has not only killed American lives, but has targeted Israel and the United States of America, including assassination attempts against our elected officials.
TAPPER: I'm just -- it's just a very simple question.
STEFANIK: No, the very simple question...
TAPPER: Is calling for wiping out a civilization -- is calling for wiping out an entire civilization bad or good?
STEFANIK: No, it's targeted toward the Iranian terrorist regime.
TAPPER: But that's not what he said.
STEFANIK: Of course it's bad. That is not what he is calling for. He wasn't calling for genocide.
TAPPER: Your entire civilization will die.
STEFANIK: It was targeted towards the Iranian terrorist regime.
TAPPER: OK. All right.
STEFANIK: It was targeted towards the Iranian terrorist regime.
TAPPER: Agree to disagree. Agree to disagree.
The book is...
STEFANIK: This is typical CNN. This is typical CNN.
TAPPER: OK.
STEFANIK: If you want to compare the president of the United States to the university presidents who failed to call for the condemnation of calling for the genocide of Jews, that's on you, Jake.
TAPPER: That's not what I said.
STEFANIK: The world saw how morally equivocating those university presidents were.
Yes, you're the one. That -- it's not a comparison. So if you want to make that comparison, that's on CNN.
TAPPER: I'm just asking you if you have the same standard for somebody...
STEFANIK: That is not the comparison.
Of course, genocide is bad across the board, Jake. President Trump effectively brought the Iranians to the table. He effectively delivered a cease-fire. And he is going to effectively deliver peace to the Middle East to stop, frankly, the killing of the Iranian terrorist regime, which kills their own people and has created havoc across the Middle East.
[09:30:12]
TAPPER: We have people who actually supported the strikes against Iran, Iranian Americans and Iranian advocates, on the show all the time, and they all were horrified when President Trump called for a genocide of the Iranian the -- quote, unquote -- "wipe out your entire civilization. Your entire civilization will die."
STEFANIK: He's not calling for a genocide of the Iranians. It's targeted towards the Iranian terrorist regime.
TAPPER: OK.
STEFANIK: It's been consistent throughout, Jake. And, again, that has brought the Iranians to the table. And let's talk about the Iranians have killed tens of thousands of their own people.
TAPPER: Yes, horrifying.
STEFANIK: So, if you want to prop up the Iranian terrorist regime, that's on you.
TAPPER: I'm not. I'm not. OK.
STEFANIK: The president has been very effective in calling out the Iranian terrorist regime.
TAPPER: OK. Got it.
STEFANIK: Go ahead.
TAPPER: No, I just -- I'm not trying -- I'm not defending anything.
STEFANIK: Thank you, as always, Jake, for selling books here.
TAPPER: I'm not defending anything. I'm saying it's all bad. Calling for genocide, calling for wiping out civilizations, whether it's some knucklehead on a college campus or Mahmoud Khalil or this person or that person or President Trump, all of it's bad.
Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, thank you so much. Appreciate your time.
STEFANIK: President Trump was not calling for genocide. Shame on CNN for saying that.
TAPPER: I read the quote.
Thank you so much.
Up next: the high-stakes vote this week in Virginia. Will Democrats succeed in redrawing the map? Which party is coming out ahead in the redistricting wars?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:35:38]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: By voting yes, you can push back against the Republicans trying to give themselves an unfair advantage in the midterms. By voting yes, you can take a temporary step to level the playing field.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Democrats calling in the heavy hitters ahead of Tuesday's redistricting vote in Virginia, which could net the party, the Democratic Party, as many as four new seats in the House of Representatives.
The panel joins to discuss.
And we have two members of the House right here.
So, let me start with you, Congressman Bera. President Obama calling on Virginians to vote for a measure that would expand the state's Democratic delegation by four seats to a 10-to-1 advantage, according to how the parties -- how the districts would be formed.
I have to say, like, I spend a lot of time in Virginia. That is a not a 10-1 Democrat to Republican commonwealth. That is maybe 5-4. Is that fair?
REP. AMI BERA (D-CA): I mean, it's called redistricting. It's called very mattering. I mean, that's the game we're playing right now.
And it's unfortunate that we find ourselves where we are. But President Trump started this by going to Texas, and the governor -- having him redistrict Texas. We stepped up in California. And I think Virginia is stepping up. And, hopefully, we get past this and we can ban mid-decade redistricting.
TAPPER: Congresswoman?
REP. NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS (R-NY): Well, first, let me say that redistricting is wrong, regardless of which party does it. But I have been fighting redistricting in New York for the last two terms.
Actually, this is my third fight that I had this year, we won successfully. So it wasn't President Trump that started it. It was started a long time ago.
But what I will say is you're right about this being really unfair for Virginia. You want competitive seats. And at the end of the day, right now, President Trump won, what, 48 percent of the state.
(CROSSTALK)
MALLIOTAKIS: And it's cut right now where it's six Democrats, five Republicans. To make it 10-1 is just really egregious. And that's why I'm sponsoring legislation with Congressman Mike Lawler to really prohibit mid-decade redistricting.
We really got to talk about this issue going forward. How do we make these maps competitive, so it's the people that hold their representatives accountable, not the other way around, where people get to choose who their constituency is?
BERA: So, Nicole, what we will do is, we will make a deal. North Carolina is going to go backwards. Ohio is going to go backwards. Wisconsin is going to go backwards. And let's ban mid-decade redistricting.
Let's pass a refer on them and says you have independent commissions in every state.
TAPPER: That sounds great. Would you agree to that?
(CROSSTALK)
MALLIOTAKIS: And that is why I sponsored legislation to actually basically do that. I think we need to maybe use artificial intelligence going forward.
Think about how that can be used to actually cut real competitive districts, because, at the end of the day, if you have districts where the far right or the far left can win the primary and there's no general election, that is not good for our country. And I think that if we can do something where we -- and, by the way, you're not supposed to, obviously, redistrict mid-decade.
TAPPER: OK.
MALLIOTAKIS: But what the Democrats are doing here truly in Virginia is really egregious, to create a 10-1 situation.
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's so egregious actually that the Democrats in Richmond who are running this referendum have banned their map from being on the wall in precincts. It's a 10-1 map, and they have banned any voter from seeing that in the polling precinct as they're voting on it.
They made it temporary, "temporary" -- quote, unquote -- because, by a 2-1 margin in 2020, Virginians voted for this bipartisan commission that has the 6-5 map that we have today. I'm doing some work on the side for vote no. And, right now, I think Republicans have a -- and people who oppose this gerrymandering, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, still have a little more work to do on Tuesday.
TAPPER: Yes, it doesn't look like your side's going to win.
TODD: But the "Washington Post" poll said 57 percent of the state thinks that the map ought to reflect the partisanship of the state, not be in the interest of the party. So that's why the maps aren't on the wall.
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, but Democrats -- I mean, Democrats have been clear that this is not their preference. I mean, I think Democratic leaders who are running this effort in Virginia will say this is not their preference. This is a response to what Trump started when he went into Texas and tried to redraw the map mid-cycle.
So I think there's a broad bipartisan agreement even amongst the leadership running these efforts that this is not ideal. But this is the reality that Democrats are forced to address when Trump goes in and tries to change the game mid-cycle.
But the other thing I would just say is, I think the ominous sign for Republicans on this, as we look to November, is that Trump himself is entirely toxic in this fight. We haven't seen Donald Trump deployed to make the case. You have seen reporting with Republican strategists who are running the no effort, talking about the fact that they're happy that Trump is not the face of this in Virginia.
[09:40:10]
So, as Republicans are thinking about their prospects for November, the fact that the sitting president of the United States is a toxic factor, that's not a great time for them.
TAPPER: Washington, D.C., is really far away from Virginia, though.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes, that's true. It is.
TAPPER: It would be very difficult for him to campaign there.
BEDINGFIELD: It takes like six minutes to get there.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: Democrats have taken out Abigail Spanberger too as the face.
She's now underwater as the governor who was heralded as the savior of the party. It's taking her three months to be underwater. She's not the face of the campaign either.
TAPPER: Let's turn to another topic, because the president and his administration were feuding with the pope.
I'm not sure how many Catholics are at this table here. I'm assuming Malliotakis, but I -- or maybe you're Greek Orthodox.
MALLIOTAKIS: Greek Orthodox. TAPPER: Greek Orthodox. OK.
MALLIOTAKIS: Well, my mother is Catholic.
TAPPER: So, recently, it came out that J.D. Vance wrote -- after the pope put out a more conciliatory statement about how he doesn't want to be involved in politics, J.D. Vance wrote: "I'm grateful to Pope Leo for saying this. While the media narrative constantly gins up conflict and, yes, real disagreements have happened and will happen, the reality is often much more complicated.
"Pope Leo preaches the Gospel, as he should, and that will inevitably mean he offers his opinions on the moral issues of the day. The president and the entire administration work to apply those moral principles in a messy world. He will be in our prayers and I hope we will be in his."
It's a nice sentiment, but there was some ugliness here.
BERA: Absolutely.
Again, I think wiping out an entire civilization is a moral tragedy, and I think Pope Leo talked about that. I think Catholic tenets is about peace and civility and coming together. And, again, I think pope is absolutely right to talk about the moral clarity here.
TAPPER: You're from -- you represent Staten Island, where I was born, by the way. I don't know if I told you that. A lot of Catholics in Staten Island. How did they take this feud?
MALLIOTAKIS: It was a really mixed reaction, I think.
And nobody wants to see the president and the pope fighting. I think there's many people in my district who love both. I think the de- escalation is necessary. I hope that this can calm things down a little bit.
But I just hope that they do not fight over New York versus Chicago pizza, because the pope will lose that one.
(LAUGHTER)
TAPPER: Well, that thing -- that stuff from Chicago is not pizza.
(LAUGHTER)
TAPPER: Yes.
TODD: I want to give J.D. Vance credit for his statement. There are very few people come backward today in politics and they sort of admit they made a mistake and correct it. I think he did a great job there.
I don't think it's -- as a Christian, I want the religious leaders to defend the prince of peace. But I want the commander in chief to defend the United States of America. These are not in conflict. And everyone has a job to do. BEDINGFIELD: I will say, when I read Vance's statement, my thought
was, why wasn't this the initial statement? I mean, why wasn't this the initial tone and tenor coming from this White House?
Because, as we have discussed, historically, it is the case that popes weigh in on issues of morality as they relate to politics. You had the pope coming to see Lyndon Johnson.
BERA: And life.
(CROSSTALK)
BEDINGFIELD: Yes, well, of course Coming to see Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War, arguing to try to end the war. So it was not unusual for the pope to make that kind of statement.
It was unusual for Donald Trump to attack the pope in personal terms. And that's what was so regrettable.
TAPPER: I'm not sure if I'm the oldest person on this table, but as long as I have been alive, popes have been weighing in on life issues...
BEDINGFIELD: Yes, of course.
TAPPER: ... from conception through the end...
BEDINGFIELD: Of course.
TAPPER: ... including against the death penalty.
BEDINGFIELD: Of course. And presidents have disagreed with them.
TAPPER: Yes.
BEDINGFIELD: But they have not attacked them personally.
TAPPER: Thanks, one and all, for being here. Really appreciate it.
Some of President Trump's judicial nominees are dodging questions about who won the 2020 election. What does that tell you about the kind of judges they will be?
We're going to play the tape next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:47:50]
TAPPER: At his hearing this week to be appointed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, nominee Justin Smith was asked a pretty simple question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): Will you acknowledge that President Trump lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Now, this isn't a matter for debate among any serious, honest person remotely familiar with the facts.
There was simply not sufficient evidence of fraud that would have changed the results of the 2020 election, as affirmed by Trump's own attorney general at the time, Bill Barr, and affirmed by others at the Department of Justice at the time under Trump, and every battleground state governor, and every battleground state secretary of state, regardless of party, and every election board, and every judge, on and on and on.
It is a simple answer. Yes, Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden in 2020, just as Donald Trump won in 2016 and 2024.
But here's how Mr. Smith answered the question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUSTIN SMITH, EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE NOMINEE: The Electoral College cast their votes in December of 2020. In January of 2021, Congress met to open and count those votes, and, as a result of that process, Congress certified Joe Biden as the president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: So that's a dodge. He didn't answer the question. It's a judge nominee asserting facts about the electoral vote process without acknowledging that, before that electoral vote process, Trump lost, which he did. He lost. Trump lost. It's not tough to say for any normal person. Trump lost, right?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Who won the popular vote in the 2020 election?
SMITH: In January 2021 was when Congress counted the Electoral College votes and certified Joe Biden as the president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: It's the same dodge by the same guy, same guy seeking a lifetime seat on the federal bench, where he will be expected to rule on facts and truths and empirical evidence. And yet he is unwilling to state the basic fact that, in 2020, Joe Biden won the election, Donald Trump lost the election.
[09:50:01]
But I don't mean to pick on just one Trump judicial nominee. This is obviously some sort of affliction.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BLUMENTHAL: Who won the popular vote in 2020?
ANDREW DAVIS, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NOMINEE: Senator, in 2020, President Biden was certified and served four years as president.
ANNA ST. JOHN, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NOMINEE: Joe Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election and served four years.
JOHN SHEPHERD, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NOMINEE: President Biden was certified the winner and served four years.
BLUMENTHAL: Mr. Wolfe?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Same answer, Senator.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: So, three of those nominees are now federal judges. And the fourth is expected to be confirmed shortly.
So there's a clear pattern here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. PETER WELCH (D-VT): Who won the 2020 election?
JENNIFER MASCOTT, U.S. CIRCUIT COURT NOMINEE: Senator, President Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election.
WELCH: You can't tell me who won.
MASCOTT: Will, Senator, President Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election.
WELCH: Did he win the election or did he just accidentally get certified?
MASCOTT: Senator, I have answered that question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: With all due respect, you really haven't answered the question, ma'am, certainly not in a way you as a judge would assuredly allow. Either way, she too is now a circuit court judge.
The refusal to acknowledge facts that Donald Trump hates is rather embarrassing, one might even think disqualifying. For instance, here's a question. Was the Capitol attacked on January 6, 2021?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUSTIN OLSON, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NOMINEE: Individuals entered the Capitol and some of them were charged and there were cases that arose as a result of those.
BLUMENTHAL: So, you agree that the Capitol was attacked? OLSON: Well, Senator, the qualitative characterization, I think, of
what happened and how it's been referred to by various individuals is debated. And I think to weigh in on that would be improper.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Huh. It's debatable.
If only there were indisputable evidence that the Capitol was attacked on January 6, 2021.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(SHOUTING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Oh, right. I forgot. There are hours and hours of incontrovertible proof that the Capitol, and, in fact, Capitol Police officers were attacked on January 6, 2021. It is actually not a matter for debate.
Another nominee asked the same question answered -- quote -- "I was not present at the U.S. Capitol at the time. I do not have personal knowledge of the details" -- unquote.
You know what? I'm not on the surface of the sun right now, but I'd venture to say it's pretty hot there. There's a name for those last two nominees, Your Honor, Justin Olson, Maria Lanahan, district judges in Indiana, Missouri respectively now.
All of these folks, they either believe these deranged lies or they are in a cowardly fashion refusing to acknowledge facts that have been adjudicated in numerous rulings by their peers on the federal bench. So are they believers in lies or cowards? I don't know.
But either way, it's an insult to the law enforcement officials who served on January 6 and to the millions of voters who accepted the true results of the election.
Here's a question. What oath is going to be administered in those judges' courtrooms? Will it be, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God, unless they are truths that offend Donald Trump?
Marijuana enthusiasts may be preparing to celebrate 4/20 tomorrow, but are the risks there when it comes to rising cannabis use?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:58:30]
TAPPER: Tonight, meet women who are growing and selling and using cannabis, but does their passion for pot pose any health risks? "DR. SANJAY GUPTA REPORTS: WEED 8: WOMEN AND WEED" Sunday at 8:00 p.m., tonight 8:00 p.m., on CNN. Thanks for spending your Sunday morning with us.
"FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" starts next.
