Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Conservative Justices Open To Further Eroding Voting Rights Act; Recently-Elected Arizona Dem Demands To Be Sworn-In; Vance Dismisses Young Republicans Chat As "A Bunch Of Kids". Aired 4-5p ET
Aired October 15, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:01]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Meg Tirrell, thank you so much.
Before we hand things over to Kasie Hunt, we have a quick programing note for you. Tonight on CNN, Kaitlan Collins is going to moderate "Shutdown America", a CNN town hall featuring Senator Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the congresswoman. This on the 15th day of the shutdown and after yet another failed vote in the U.S. Senate, the ninth one. Again, that's live tonight at 9:00 p.m. Eastern, only on CNN.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hey, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Wednesday.
Right now, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court appears ready to make it much easier for President Trump and Republicans to keep their grip on power in Washington in maintaining control of the House. So, you, of course, have been following what's been going on with redistricting in Texas. The reaction to that in blue states like California.
Well, today, the court is reconsidering a central pillar of the Voting Rights Act. That is, of course, the landmark civil rights era law that was aimed at protecting the vote of every American, regardless of skin color. The issue, Louisiana's new congressional map, a group of non- black voters say that the state racially discriminated when it created a second black majority district.
In oral arguments today, the court's conservative majority seemed to indicate they're inclined to agree.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, U.S. SUPREME COURT: This court's cases in a variety of contexts have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time, decades in some cases, but that they should not be indefinite and should have an end point. And what exactly do you think the end point should be? Or how would we know for the intentional use of race to create districts? (END AUDIO CLIP)
HUNT: So, the court may soon effectively forbid states from considering race when they draw their congressional district maps, and that would allow Republican-controlled legislatures across the country to potentially eliminate majority-minority districts, many of which currently held by Democrats. This is, of course, just one piece of the battle in this nationwide war for control of the House. Republicans hold the chamber by an incredibly slim margin, just five seats.
Every district matters, and that helps explain why former President Barack Obama out with this new ad supporting California Governor Gavin Newsom's redistricting plan. In less than three weeks, Californians will vote on whether to temporarily adopt a new map that is likely to give Democrats five more representatives in Congress.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: And, California, the whole nation is counting on you. Democracy is on the ballot November 4th. Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to rig the next election and wield unchecked power for two more years. With Prop 50, you can stop Republicans in their tracks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA.
Our panel is here, along with someone who was inside court during those arguments. That is CNN chief Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic.
Joan, let me start with you.
What -- what did you get the sense that I realize this can be misleading sometimes we can listen to the justices. You think they're going to decide one way, they go the other way. But what were your takeaways from today?
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Okay. Good to see you. And it was an intense 2-1/2 hours of arguments. And, you know, this is the greatest challenge to the Voting Rights Act that we've had up here in a decade. And one of the key questions is whether they will end race-based redistricting as a remedy to voting districts for Congress or for state legislatures that have been drawn to really minimize the electoral power of Blacks and Hispanics.
You know about that phrase case, Kasie, of packing and cracking what Louisiana was found to have done in this case that started this whole thing, is to have packed blacks into a single district and then spread them out, cracked them, among others, so that even though the state has a one third black population, they ended up with just one black majority district and -- which lower court judges had found had, you know, violated, likely violated the Voting Rights Act and required the state to draw a second Black majority district. And that's what's at issue here, is whether this was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Now, let me just tell you about where I think the justices are going. The most serious ruling here, Kasie, would be if they said that states would no longer be required to have race based redistricting to remedy these districts. It's not, you know, to start out, it's to remedy a discriminatory district.
[16:05:04]
But they have a couple different off ramps. And I have to say, just listening intensely to Justice Kavanaugh, who was a swing vote two years ago in a similar Alabama case. This one is from Louisiana. And listening to the chief justice, John Roberts, who has really been the leader on racial remedies that I think they might take, they might take a bit of an off ramp in a way that could still undercut the Voting Rights Act, but not completely dismantle it, as this case was teed up to, because you played that great soundbite from Justice Kavanaugh at the top asking about durational limits.
You know, shouldn't this one -- shouldn't race based redistricting end in the same way that you know, affirmative action has had to end as race-based school integration plans have had to end. And what the lawyer at the lectern representing the NAACP legal defense fund, Janai Nelson, said was, this is a whole different kind of law. This is only for to remedy situations where we've already shown that there's discrimination.
And, you know, that -- she tried to draw a line for why this case was different. And I have to say, Kasie, the liberal justices picked up on that and also seemed to be trying to make their case to Justice Kavanaugh. They will vote in their private conference on Friday, and we will know some months from now where they end up ruling.
HUNT: All right. Joan Biskupic getting us started. Joan, thank you very much for that.
And our panel is here in THE ARENA. Professor of constitutional law and global health policy at Georgetown University, Michele Goodwin; staff writer at "The Atlantic", Toluse Olorunnipa; CNN special correspondent Jamie Gangel; former Democratic congressman from New York, Max Rose; and Republican strategist Brad Todd.
On the left side of the screen, as though this crowd was not enough, you will see our ARENA text chain sharing additional analysis.
We want to thank them for being there. Please enjoy while we continue our conversation.
And, Michele, I want to start with you just in terms of the stakes here. And, you know, Joan did a really nice job of kind of explaining this, but the level of challenge here to the Voting Rights Act and the potential implications across the country are really significant. What would you underscore?
MICHELE GOODWIN, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND GLOBAL HEALTH POLICY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Well, I'd underscore something that we've actually not heard. And Joan is brilliant, and that is the 15th Amendment.
So this is not just about the Voting Rights Act itself, but this is actually part of the three Reconstruction amendments, the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, 14th Amendment, birthright citizenship, equal protection under law, and then, critically, the 15th Amendment protecting and advancing the right to vote, of which not only African Americans had been disenfranchised, but women, poor white men.
And so, when we see this challenge today, it is truly about something absolutely fundamental to the Constitution, which is suffrage, the ability for individuals to vote and then elect people who would represent their interests, and that's critically important when you then think about the Voting Rights Act itself, given the broad myriad spectrum of laws that disenfranchised African-Americans in housing, in education, in employment, even in recreation, and the ability to be able to go to a park and swim in a pool.
Imagine if you were a voter and you're paying taxes. You might wish for your child to be able to go into the local park and swim in the pool. And if you could elect the lawmakers that would understand your child, too, deserves the ability to be able to swim in the pool in the summer, play Checkers, and play chess, and not be subject to police surveillance and arrest for doing so. You would want to elect those lawmakers that would see your interest in that.
HUNT: Yeah.
Toluse, let's talk about the politics of this here for a second, because obviously, the assumption often baked into this is that majority minority districts elect Democrats. Is that assumption, does that still hold in today's politics?
TOLUSE OLORUNNIPA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It holds broadly, but not exclusively. There are specific instances in south Texas where minority majority districts voted overwhelmingly for President Trump. A big Hispanic populations voted in favor of Republicans.
So that is changing. But what is not changing is the fact that state lawmakers are going to discriminate based on race, one way or the other. They're either going to do so in a way that makes it harder for minorities to elect their own choice of representative, or that makes it easier because the courts have required that through the Voting Rights Act, for them to make it easier for them to represent, to elect their own representative.
So, the court may decide to break apart the Voting Rights Act. One way or the other, these lawmakers, as we are seeing across the country as they're trying to seize power in redistricting mid-decade, it's very clear that they're going to try to seize this power one way or the other. And if the courts allow them to do that more, there's going to be more actions that would potentially discriminate against minorities in this situation.
[16:10:02]
HUNT: Yeah, I mean, big picture, Jamie, this is a part of a much bigger picture that we were trying to get at the top.
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: No question. There are exceptions like Texas, but I spoke to Democrats on the Hill today. They see this as an existential threat, not just for the midterm elections coming up, but going forward.
From their perspective, there is no question that if this case even erodes, forget about guts, you know, as we could see, it would be enough for Republicans to get many more seats in the midterm elections. And from a political perspective, they say, as one said, Donald Trump may be a lame duck, but he's a very powerful lame duck.
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first off, Democrats, I think we need to note here that they're for minority representation in minority majority districts until they're not. The Texas redistricting, which Democrats have opposed vociferously, would create three new Hispanic majority districts, and Democrats definitely do not want that to happen because they don't think they are doing well with Hispanics at the polls.
HUNT: You're talking about the Austin area there, right?
TODD: There's one in Austin. There's also another one in Houston.
The Democrats, there are three of the four new districts proposed a majority Hispanics. This is about Democrats trying to hold on to power. Originally, when we dealt with majority minority districts 40 years ago, the goal was to drive seats that were majority minority. Now, Democrats say spread minority vote out so that they elect as many Democrats as possible. That's what the goal here is, is pure partisan politics.
HUNT: How do you see it?
MAX ROSE (D), FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: Yeah, no, of course, the Republicans are doing this out of noblesse oblige. Oh, they always have their heart in the right place. Look, this is politics on both sides.
But what's interesting here is that the Republicans are leaving no stone unturned to include the actions of the Supreme Court, which is now basically a fully owned subsidiary of MAGA, Incorporated.
Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, and they're my home team.
HUNT: You think John Roberts is a wholly owned subsidiary?
ROSE: Yeah, not a fully owned, but at least a partially at this point. We'll see after this ruling.
HUNT: He may have just given Democrats --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: Like him or don't like him, depending on how he rules. He's good or bad. ROSE: Well, I don't like him right now after that case, but what I
will say is, is that the Democrats are leaving some tools on the table, and that is out of political selfishness. And this is my home team.
Okay. You have Illinois. They're leaving some seats on the table. New York, they're leaving some seats on the table because they hidden story of redistricting that no one talks about is that it takes some level of political sacrifice on the part of the party that does the redistricting, because it puts more of their own members in somewhat competitive seats.
There are two different types of members of Congress, and they're not Democrats and Republicans. They're safe seats and competitive seats. I can tell you, having been in a competitive seat, it is a lot more difficult. So, the Democrats need to do everything they can right now, even if it means that some of them may have to work a little harder.
TODD: Congressman, Illinois, 46 percent of Illinoisans vote for Republicans and Republicans have three out of 17 seats. By the standard, they're asking for in Louisiana on race that would not pass muster. Illinois is the most gerrymandered state in the country. And that's okay.
GOODWIN: Well, let's just be clear. The United States is gerrymandered. We can talk about the Electoral College when we think about majorities and whether majorities prevail. Hillary Clinton did not become the president in 2016 after a majority of individuals in the country voted for her.
It does matter that we revisit Americas histories because this case, yes, it's true that Democrats and Republicans can both engage in this, but we can't lose sight of the fact of something that you started with, which is that a third of the citizen population in Louisiana happens to be black. They've not been able to elect a statewide office holder. There are histories of racial discrimination in American voting. And we would be remiss if we just didn't put on the table that the history of voting in the United States has always been deeply political, where even poor white men were disenfranchised from the ability to be able to vote.
A lot of people think, well, the suffrage movement, the first one involves women. No, it involves poor white guys who wish to be able to vote, but who were shut out because they were not property owners. And that's this history that we have to contend with. And I know that we tend to be a bit ahistorical, but right now, the chickens are coming home to roost.
TODD: Everyone gets to vote. And this district we're talking about is 250 miles long. In the case in Alabama that we referenced the previous one, where Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Roberts sided with the liberals, he reminded us that the controlling precedent that guides these cases is the Gingles case from 1986. And if the -- if there's a reasonably compact alternative, a reasonably configured compact alternative, the state may do that, the state may pursue that. And we decided in Rucho in 2018 that the states predominate here. The
federal courts are not supposed to be drawing maps. That's what's going to happen when they go to conference on Friday.
OLORUNNIPA: I wouldn't be surprised if this is just the beginning of the story. We have seen some of these states move in with this mid- decade redistricting, and if this court ruling comes in time, you could see a number of states move very aggressively to redistrict specific districts that have minority members and get them potentially in a position where they can't run for reelection.
[16:15:07]
And we could see a very rapid change in the makeup of Congress and the racial makeup of the current Congress no longer being viable anymore.
HUNT: Well, and, Jamie, I mean, with the with the margins being as close as they are, right, as the congressman points out, literally every one of these seats matters.
GANGEL: Look, and you have to do it in the context of Donald Trump. That's really what everybody is thinking about for these midterm elections. I'm not saying there isn't a long-term impact.
But right now, Democrats feel democracy is in peril. That's not a slogan. They believe it.
GOODWIN: That's true. You're right.
GANGEL: And that if the Democrats can't take control of the House, Donald Trump, you know, there's no stopping him.
TODD: The public picked Donald Trump, and it picked a Republican House. Democrats need to accept that that is the will of the voters and change their own platform.
HUNT: But, Jamie -- Jamie's point that Democrats out there in the country are going to be mad at the Democratic Party if they don't do something about this, I think is very well taken.
TODD: That doesn't mean Democrat voters are right.
HUNT: I'm not saying they're right. I'm saying that is what the polling tells us they want.
GOODWIN: Well, the importance of the midterm elections, we can see that in the context of the Dobbs decision, where right after there was presumed to be this red tidal wave and it wasn't, the reason why the midterm elections really did matter then. And that's the concern. And what we have to watch coming from this, the concern about the midterm elections being a blue wave instead of a red wave.
HUNT: All right. Michele Goodwin, thank you so much for being here today. Really appreciate your expertise.
We also want to thank our ARENA text chain. Some of them are going to be back later on in the show, and the rest of our panel will stand by.
Coming up here in THE ARENA, two key lawmakers here in THE ARENA live this hour. The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Congressman Robert Garcia, and Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma. They're both going to take us inside the day's top stories, including this new ruling just coming in from a federal judge. What she's ordering the president to do when it comes to his plan for mass firings during this extended government shutdown. As the White House says, those layoffs could be in excess of 10,000 plus.
That new legal threat from an elected member of Congress who has yet to be sworn in more than three weeks after winning a special election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS HOST: She says that you're afraid of her being the 218th signer to the Epstein petition to release the files that if she were a Republican, you would have sworn her in. What do you say?
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I say, bless her heart.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:51]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADELITA GRIJALVA (D), ARIZONA CONGRESSWOMAN-ELECT: Let's just be very clear: this speaker has sworn in three other members. Now members in a special under 24 hours after their election, and two Republicans, one Democrat. The only difference is I am not a Caucasian male.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was Congresswoman-elect Adelita Grijalva protesting outside Speaker Mike Johnson's office last night because 22 days after she won her seat in Arizona -- think about all these people she represents -- Grijalva has still not been sworn in by the speaker.
Now, Johnson says that's because the government is shut down. That is not what Grijalva thinks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: She says that you're afraid of her being the 218th signer to the Epstein petition to release the files. That if she were a Republican, you would have sworn her in. What do you say?
JOHNSON: I say, bless her heart. She's a representative-elect. She doesn't know how it works around here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Let me say, bless her heart to a woman, it just goes over so well.
Joining me now in THE ARENA, Democratic congressman of California, Robert Garcia. He is the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee.
Congressman, thank you very much for being here.
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): Sure thing.
HUNT: So is Adelita Grijalva, right? Is this why Mike Johnson is not swearing her in?
GARCIA: I mean, absolutely, it's a big part of it. And there is no question when you have the president of his own party proclaiming that were going to release the Epstein files, the attorney general saying, we're going to release the Epstein files, and all of a sudden, they've turned on that, and they flip flopped.
Now, Mike Johnson is part of this coverup. He does not want her seated. I mean, I was with her earlier today. She wants to represent her constituents and the people of Arizona deserve representation.
And now, Mike Johnson is saying that he will not swear her in when he has sworn in other people, of course, much faster. It's clearly they don't want that vote where I understand that a lot of Republicans are going to vote, hopefully with us to release those files.
So, they don't want those out. And Mike Johnson is a part of this cover up.
HUNT: So let's talk about the files for a second, because we've obviously seen your committee get a hold of some put out that birthday book, for example, that the image from that came out because of the work your committee was doing. What do you expect in terms of more files coming to light?
GARCIA: Right. And as a reminder, that birthday book, by the way, that note that we put out Donald Trump said didn't exist, right? And we actually proved that to be a lie. We have -- we know that there are tons of photos, videos, information, thousands and thousands of pages of information that is critical to our investigation.
The attorney general has said in the past that she has the files on her desk. The president and the vice president have said very clearly, they want to support a release of the files. And now there is complete silence and stonewalling, and the question has to be, why now? What is actually in these files that the president and others and very powerful men in government and in business don't want us to see?
I have --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: That was the question I was going to ask. You -- what do you know about what's in there? GARCIA: Look, there's -- we understand there's a -- there's a lot of
information in there. Of course, we're not going to speculate what's in there yet, but we need those files released to the Congress and to the public. I've met with numerous survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, some of which were minors, literally children, when they were raped, abused, and the violence that they experience is horrific and haunts them still to this day.
[16:25:09]
They deserve justice. They deserve to know in some cases. Many of them don't remember these traumatic events, and they want to know what's in the files as well. They should release the files immediately.
HUNT: Very -- of course, we're going to continue to follow this. I also want to ask you about the layoffs that the president and his team have promised. A federal judge in California ruled today that it is unlawful for the administration to undertake these firings. Do you think they're going to comply with the ruling?
GARCIA: Well, they need to. I mean, look, they are unlawful. It's an illegal firing. There have been 4,200 minimum federal employees essentially were being laid off. And I wanted people should know who's actually being laid off.
We're talking about workers at Health and Human Services who are monitoring diseases, who are tracking diseases across this country. We're talking about in the Department of Education, people that work with special ed students, with students and families that have kids with special needs in America's classrooms. These are people that are essential to families and to our government, and they're just being illegally let go by the Trump administration.
This is on top of these illegal, by the way, messages by Kristi Noem at our airports. These website messages that are clearly partisan and a violation of the Hatch Act that are happening right now, this administration is the most corrupt administration in the history of our country. They've got to be called out for it. And I'm glad the courts are slowing it down.
HUNT: Let's turn to some of the politics inside your own party. We saw a generational -- we're seeing a generational battle play out for a senate seat in Massachusetts. Your colleague in the House, Seth Moulton, just announced he's going to challenge Ed Markey, who is 79 years old. I had Moulton on this show, and he pointed out that several Democrats had passed away while in office.
You, of course, had a generational battle of your own in the Congress to get the position that you have now. Do you think -- will you back Moulton in that Senate race, for example?
GARCIA: Look, first, let me say I think -- I think Markey is a great senator. Actually, the very first piece of legislation that I ever introduced into the House was with him as the Senate co-sponsor. I think he's been a great senator. And Seth and I also obviously have a great relationship. I think obviously the people of Massachusetts are going to make that
decision.
HUNT: So you're staying out of it.
GARCIA: Look, neither -- neither of them have asked me for my support. And so I'll have those conversations at a later time. But look, I think that what's important is Democrats have to bring in and have a big tent. There's no question.
I think generational change is always important, but it just can't be about age. We have members that have experience and have wisdom in the Congress, in the Senate that do incredible work, that do great from a progressive perspective, incredible work for the progressive movement in this country as well.
And so, I think Senator Markey is a great U.S. senator. He's been a leader on the Green New Deal, obviously have a great relationship with Seth. And so, I think the people of Massachusetts are going to obviously be involved in that primary.
HUNT: Do you think the Democratic Party is too deferential to its elders?
GARCIA: I think that anyone that wants to run in primaries, or people that want to get engaged in politics should get engaged. And I think that that's what elections are about. People should have an opportunity to select who they want to represent them.
HUNT: All right. Congressman Garcia, thank you very much for being here. Really appreciate your time. Hope you'll come back soon.
All right. Coming up, the news out of the Pentagon as new media restrictions take effect today. But first, here in THE ARENA, the mixed reaction among Republicans to the stunning leak of racist and homophobic messages from a group chat among young party leaders and activists.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NICK LALOTA (R-NY): Gross, gross, disgusting. Those individuals should be condemned. If they have government jobs, they should be fired for them. But what I really hate is the hypocrisy in this town, Manu.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:33:09]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The reality is that kids do stupid things, especially young boys. They tell edgy, offensive jokes like that's what kids do. And I really don't want us to grow up in a country where a kid telling a stupid joke, telling a very offensive stupid joke is cause to ruin their lives.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That's what kids do. Vice President J.D. Vance earlier today commenting again on a "Politico" story involving members of young Republicans organizations and thousands of leaked messages where they're seen exchanging hateful, racist and homophobic texts. The vice president choosing there not to condemn the messages, instead dismissing it as, quote, "what kids do" and that, quote, "kids do stupid things, especially young boys."
The organization in question is for Republicans between the ages of 18 and 40. Kids.
Anyway, according to "Politico", the Telegram group chats involve Republican operatives and at least one case, an elected official. Inside those messages, one referred to Black people as, quote, "monkeys", and quote, "watermelon people". One talked about sending political opponents to gas chambers, another called rape, quote, "epic".
Prominent Republicans like Congresswoman Elise Stefanik were quick to condemn the messages. The Young Republicans denounced the texts as vile and inexcusable.
"Politico" reports that at least one person lost their job, while another had a job offer rescinded. At least two of the people involved have apologized.
My panel is back.
THE ARENA tech chain is also with us.
Toluse, I want to start with you on the big picture. You spent a lot of time thinking and writing about how race and politics intersect here, and the coarsening of the discourse that is seen on display in these texts is really -- well, how do you interpret the reality that these groups -- these groups of people felt like this was an appropriate thing to do?
OLORUNNIPA: Well, it's shocking to see this in public. You have to imagine that this does happen from time to time in these private group chats. I don't want to say that this is representative of all young Republicans. Not at all. But it is something that has become more common.
And it's something that Donald Trump, we have to mention the president here, the leader of the party, has made more common. He talks about very coarse language when he talks about his political opponents. He has opened the door to some of this kind of language, and we see the lack of condemnation from someone like J.D. Vance saying that these are just kids, they're just being edgy.
And there is a difference between when someone says something that's offensive, that's from a different party. Those kinds of people in the minds of Donald Trump and his allies, they get deported or they get shunned, or they get told that they need to lose their jobs. We have to remember what happened after Charlie Kirk was murdered.
There is an opportunity for leaders to condemn both sides. If someone on your side says something that's horrendous and offensive, you can condemn it while also condemning it happening on the other side. But there is a certain sense of hypocrisy that if something happens among my political allies, they're just kids and they need to be forgiven and given a lot of grace. If someone on the opposite side of the aisle says something that's offensive, they need to get the hammer put down on them.
HUNT: So, I want to play for you, Toluse, something else that J.D. Vance said here today. We'll just -- we'll watch it because I think it plays into the point Toluse was just making. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: We're not canceling kids because they do something stupid in a group chat. And if I have to be the person who carries that message forward, I'm fine with it. And by the way, if they were left wing kids telling stupid left wing jokes, I would also not want their lives to be ruined because they're saying something stupid in a private group chat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLORUNNIPA: First of all, having a little bit of accountability, potentially losing a job or having, you know, a role where you're representing the public, losing that role is not having your life ruined. It's having accountability for saying something when you're representing people. That's the same thing that people called for when people were, you know, saying negative things about Charlie Kirk, who were representative of the public in their own private Facebook chats or Facebook messages.
That was what Republicans were calling for back then. So, it's called accountability. It's not called ruining people's lives.
But it is important to note that some of these vile, racist and homophobic languages that we see in these chats, they do cause harm for a lot of people. They do stem for some from a place and for people who have power, who want to exert political power to espouse these views. That often filters into policymaking.
It's not just, you know, being edgy in a group chat. This is how people are seeing and dehumanizing people. And it does lead to policy differences that actually impact peoples lives. So, it's important to know that it's not just kids in a group chat being edgy. These are potential future leaders who have important roles.
TODD: It could be the attorney general nominee in Virginia, the Democrat Jay Jones, who's fantasized and texted about his opponent, his political opponent getting two bullets to the head or his children dying in their mothers arms.
OLORUNNIPA: For sure. TODD: I mean, these are random dorks in a young Republican club who don't have anything better to do. I condemn it, I completely condemn it. But these are not the attorney general of Virginia possibilities. I'm very familiar with that. I work --
GANGEL: Let's stipulate that the attorney general, you know, candidate in Virginia should not have said that. Let's also --
TODD: They should not run, he should drop.
GANGEL: Let's also stipulate these are not kids 18 to 40 years old. And if you read through what they said, they knew they shouldn't be saying it. They say we're going to get in a lot of trouble if this becomes public.
To talk about being hypocritical, let's go beyond Charlie Kirk, where people lost their jobs for posts. The Trump administration wanted to cancel Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert for making jokes about Donald Trump, for being a comedian. These kids -- you know, you should sit down and read some of the quotes, putting people in gas chambers. I mean, it just goes on and on, driving them to suicide.
The notion that they should be excused as kids is simply --
TODD: They're not kids. And all the condemnations.
GANGEL: -- ludicrous. Ludicrous.
TODD: We can muster for it. But I find it interesting that Democrats are aghast about this today when they won't run Jay Jones out of the attorney general's race in Virginia.
ROSE: So, first of all, we shouldn't forget where they were doing these text messages. It was on Telegram. They looked at WhatsApp. They looked at Signal, and they said, no, no, no, we need to go to a place that's super private and a venue for extremism.
HUNT: For our audience, you just underscore what Telegram is.
[16:40:00]
ROSE: So, Telegram is an app for super private, highly encrypted communication that terrorists have been known to use, that extremist actors have been known to use. They explicitly brought this chat to Telegram because they knew it was vile and worthy of condemnation. I love it how you and our friend Scott on the text are sinking up on you're talking points, constantly moving this back to something else.
Let's talk about Virginia. Let's talk about this.
TODD: Because Jay Jones potentially could lead a state that is much more consequential than a bunch of dorks on Telegram.
ROSE: First of all, all Republicans at this point are probably certifiable dorks. But the point here is that the Republican Party refuses to apologize for anything today, anything. TODD: The Young Republicans did apologize, Congressman. They can -- they condemned it.
ROSE: They did not apologize --
TODD: The Young Republican organization condemned it.
ROSE: They did not -- they did not -- I'm talking about the vice president of United States, not the Young Republicans organization or anything. They shot rubber bullets at a religious leader, and they did not apologize in Oregon. Okay?
This party at this point, irrespective of the level of extremism, will just march forward and hope that we forget. And this is yet another illustration of that.
GANGEL: Just to update one thing, I believe Elise Stefanik today sort of changed her tone and said that this was a hit piece by "Politico". So, she's now getting right with the White House.
But just to underscore what the congressman said, that was J.D. Vance, the vice president, making light of this. It's not okay.
HUNT: I think -- I mean, Brad, to the point in the comparison that you're making, I think it's important that we underscore that that the conversation here is not about the appropriateness of the remarks that that person made, but it does -- it does seem to me, Jamie, that the more responsibility you carry, the bigger platform you have, the larger your megaphone, the more responsibility you do bear.
But that does not free you from whatever consequences are appropriate from the place that you find yourself in your life.
GANGEL: I would also say this language goes to another level. This is not about someone --
TODD: Murdering your opponent?
GANGEL: Excuse me. I'm talking about J.D. Vance, the Republicans and what these people wrote. This is not about some war on woke.
And just to go back to what you said about, you know, President Trump opening pandoras box, you know, the language of President Trump, of what we heard from Vice President Vance today, it allows this to happen. It doesn't come in isolation.
All right. I want to thank our friends in THE ARENA at text chain, Scott, Alyssa and Leah for being there for us this time. The rest of our panel is going to stand by.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, Senator Markwayne Mullin here live. He's fought in actual arena's in addition to playing in this one here in Washington. One of his fellow Republicans is giving a pretty bleak assessment for the timeline of the government shutdown.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): I think this will be the longest shutdown in the history of ever. And I don't say that happily. I don't say that proudly. I'm just saying that realistically.
REPORTER: It goes past Thanksgiving?
KENNEDY: I do, I do, I just don't see what's going to going to get us out of it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:47:57]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back to THE ARENA.
Today at the Pentagon, journalists who have not signed on to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's new media policies are turning in their press passes after Hegseth's Tuesday deadline came and went with just one organization, the pro-Trump channel One America News, agreeing to new regulations that bar reporters from entering the building unless they report information that's been formally authorized by the department, even if it isn't classified.
Outlets covering the Pentagon have overwhelmingly objected to these new policies, including Fox News, where, of course, Hegseth himself used to be an anchor.
These outlets arguing that the rules are a blatant effort to impede their work.
Here's retired general, former vice chief of staff for the U.S. Army, Jack Keane, on Hegseth's former network last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACK KEANE, RETIRED GENERAL: What they were really doing, they want to spoon-feed information to the journalists and that will be their story. That's not journalism. Journalism is going out and finding the story and getting all the facts to support it.
And no one's going to walk in and bang on the door of a four star general or a or a senior civilian policy leader in the Pentagon. I never had that, but I did have journalists chasing a story of something that was going on in the Army, and those things were legitimate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Joining me now in THE ARENA, Republican senator from Oklahoma, Markwayne Mullin, who sits on the Senate Armed Services and Appropriations Committee.
Senator, great to see you. Thanks for coming back into THE ARENA. Honestly, what is the defense secretary afraid of here? I mean,
doesn't it show weakness that he can't handle some reporters coming around his building, sniffing around and writing what they're going to write? It's America.
SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): No, I don't -- I don't think -- I don't think that's his point. It's a privilege for anyone to be able to have access to the Pentagon. There's the journalists. They don't have the right just to enter the Pentagon. I have to get clearance before I go into the Pentagon. I have to give them a heads up before I go in.
Same thing with the Capitol. You come to the Capitol, you're going to be walking the halls in the Capitol.
[16:50:02]
You got to get credentialed to come in. And there's always a set of standards to apply.
Hegseth -- for Secretary Hegseth, he's not preventing anybody from writing a story. He's just saying, if you want access to walk the halls freely inside the Pentagon, then these are the rules that you have to comply with.
HUNT: It's important, though, the reason these news organizations, the reason we have a First Amendment, is because people in America whose tax dollars are paying for the pentagon, among other things, have a right to have an understanding of how that is playing out. And this is a very long, established norm that for news organizations. And you're right, there's a credentialing process, right? But this is a huge change in the way things have always been done.
I realize it's not a law, but it is a norm. How is that? I mean, if it were a Democratic president who was doing that and you -- I mean, obviously, Republicans have plenty of criticisms of how Democrats are running the military. Would that sit well with you?
MULLIN: Well, I wouldn't say -- it's not the way it's always been done. There was there was many years that the Pentagon didn't allow reporters to walk the halls. They had a press corps outside the building, much like what the -- what the White House has right now. The White House has a press corps where they meet the press.
I could see where eventually the Pentagon could have the same thing set up. Nothing prevents the public from knowing what's happening on -- what's going on unless its classified. The dollars they spend, the programs that they are in, we authorize -- Congress authorize --
HUNT: Well, Hegseth's policy is not simply about classified information.
MULLIN: Well, I know, but as a whole. He's saying if you want access in the halls, there's these credential process you have to have. Otherwise, stay outside the building, collect what you want to. Nothing prevents you from running news stories. Nothing prevents you from chasing stories. You're just not going to have access to walk the halls freely inside the Pentagon.
Like I said, the White House does that. The Capitol does that. Reporters can't freely walk around unless they have -- unless they meet certain qualifications that are there.
HUNT: So, look, I'm going to full disclosure, I have -- I have worked in the White House. I understand the rules in the White House. I understand the rules of the Capitol. I have never been a working reporter covering the Pentagon.
But my understanding here is that, first of all, not every hall in the Pentagon is free and accessible to reporters, but that this is a situation where the places where they've always been allowed those briefing rooms, the places that are specifically for the press, you're not going to be able to even get that far.
MULLIN: Well, I -- we've had an issue with leaking going out of the federal government as a whole. And that has to stop. This isn't new to any administration. Every administration has complained about it, but this is a first administration that's doing something about it.
And as we recognize and find the holes, we're plugging it. And that's exactly what I think is happening here. And I support the secretary for doing this because it is a tough move.
He knew there was going to be some criticism, but it's important that we keep our national security safe. It's important that when plans are being drawn up, they don't accidentally leak. And it's from a -- you know, anonymous source because that happens all the time.
Some of this stuff is sensitive, not classified, but when it's sensitive --
HUNT: How does the White House have found out that they were planning a briefing on China for Elon Musk if not for the press?
MULLIN: I -- I don't -- I don't know the story.
HUNT: As I understand, the White House wasn't thrilled about what was the Pentagon was doing, and they heard about it because of reporters.
MULLIN: I don't -- I'm not familiar with the story, so I'll just have to go with you on that one.
HUNT: Okay, let's change subjects. We just were discussing this lengthy story in "Politico" where there were young Republicans in a Telegram chat saying racist, homophobic, sexist things, talking about Hitler, talking about gas chambers.
Do you think -- what would you say to the people who participated in that chat?
MULLIN: Well, first of all, the Young Republican Association came out and denounced it immediately. They said, there's no room for that. They're not associated with us. And those that would be involved in it are immediately fired. All Republicans, including myself, 100 percent denounce that. And
there's a difference. And I'm not really -- please don't think I'm trying to switch the story because what you said is it's a serious situation, that there's no room in the Republican Party for that at all. But the difference between the way the young Republicans handled it and the elected officials that all of us who came out and denounced versus the way that Jay Jones situation where he literally wanted his, his, his colleague to be shot twice in his kids to be murdered, no one's come out and denounced that.
In fact, they said he's apologized and he should be able to run for attorney general in Virginia. That's a -- that's a huge problem. There's a difference in the way the two -- the two situations are handled.
I mean, this this is despicable and disgusting. And there's zero and everybody's been perfectly clear. There's zero room for this kind of behavior in politics as a whole, regardless of Republican or Democrat. But we hold our own accountable inside the Republican Party. We want to allow that to happen.
HUNT: The vice president said essentially that these were kids making jokes and they shouldn't be canceled for it. Do you think that that's right?
MULLIN: Well, I didn't hear the president's remarks. Is the vice president or vice president's remarks, but I would never let my kids joke like that, that's zero. There's a solid no.
My grandfather fought in World War II. He went over on Omaha Beach. He saw the despicable things that the Nazis did to not just the Jewish people, but to other countries and other, races along the way.
[16:55:07]
He went into a concentration camp. He was -- he was a gentleman that you never ate Hershey's chocolate around because of the story that he tells about going inside a concentration camp.
HUNT: Yeah.
MULLIN: And so, it's not -- it's not a -- it's not room to joke for me. It's a hard stop that you're not associated with me whatsoever if you think that's funny.
HUNT: All right. Senator Markwayne Mullin, thanks very much for being here.
MULLIN: Thank you. Appreciate it.
HUNT: Really appreciate your time, sir.
All right. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks very much to my panel. Thanks to you at home for watching as well.
And here is Jake Tapper standing by for "THE LEAD".
Hi, Jake.
