Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Government Shutdown Imminent After Votes Fail; Trump And Hegseth Lecture Military Leaders In Rare Meeting; Trump Administration To Send National Guard To Illinois; U.S. Government Shuts Down. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired September 30, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, the United States government shuts down in two hours and Donald Trump is threatening pink slips if no deal.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible.
PHILLIP: Plus, after meeting with Democrats at the White House, the president mocks them with a video.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): When I'm back in the Oval Office, say it to my face.
PHILLIP: Hakeem Jeffries joins us live.
Also, the T.V. host turned defense secretary gathers the nation's military leaders to scold.
PETE HEGSETH, SECRETARY OF WAR: We became the woke department.
PHILLIP: Lecture --
HEGSETH: We are done with that shit.
PHILLIP: -- groom --
HEGSETH: No more beardos.
PHILLIP: -- and drop a plug --
HEGSETH: I heard someone wrote a book about that.
PHILLIP: -- as the commander-in-chief orders them to use their power on American streets.
TRUMP: We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds.
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Jaime Harrison, Tim Pawlenty, Ana Kasparian and Jim Schultz.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
The breaking news tonight, a government shutdown is imminent just two hours from now, thousands of federal workers will be furloughed or even fired. Millions will go without paychecks. And many like, air traffic controllers, ICE agents, and even members of the military, will still have to work despite not getting paid.
A shutdown would also close parks. It would delay important programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Now, Democrats are demanding extensions to Obamacare subsidies, and Republicans accusing them of holding the government hostage. But according to President Trump, it's not all that bad.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: So, we're doing well as a country. So, the last thing we want to do is shut it down. But a lot of good can come down from shutdowns. We can get rid of a lot of things that we didn't want and they'd be Democrat things.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: The finger pointing has the White House now accusing Democrats of being hypocritical. The West Wing put out this video of lawmakers talking about the last shutdown.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): To hold these people hostage instead of just letting them do their jobs, which they want to do while we work out our differences, so wrong.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Shutdowns are not good for the economy.
SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Shutdowns cost taxpayers billions of dollars per week.
SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): The longer that this shutdown goes on, the more Americans will be affected.
KLOBUCHAR: Critical services and our economy are being threatened with poison pill partisanship. Shutting down the government should not be a negotiating tactic.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): Hostage taking is all they have left.
(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: We will get to our debate in just a moment. But, first, joining me now is House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Leader Jeffries, thank you very much for being here.
I just want to get your response to that video, which the White House has been putting out and played in the briefing room today. Are Democrats being hypocritical here now on the verge of a shutdown?
JEFFRIES: Not at all. Republicans control the House, the Senate and the presidency. And we've indicated that we will sit down with anyone, anytime, anyplace to try to find a path forward in terms of reaching a bipartisan spending agreement that avoids the government shutdown, meets the needs of the American people, and deals with the painful Republican healthcare crisis that is devastating people all across America.
Republicans have basically demonstrated zero interest in trying to work out any differences from a policy perspective that we may have, because at the end of the day, they want to shut the government down, as they've done repeatedly over the last several decades.
PHILLIP: Well, let me ask you about that, because the House speaker, Mike Johnson, your colleague on the other side of the aisle, he just spoke with Kaitlan Collins, and he says that really what they're asking for is time. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Chuck Schumer has made the decision unilaterally, he's the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, to keep the government shut down for his own personal reasons. It is extremely selfish.
We didn't put partisan provisions in the C.R. We could have. I could have loaded that up with all of our partisan policy preferences, but I didn't because we're operating in good faith. The reason we need, again, just the short-term extension to November 21st, is to allow the appropriators to do their job.
[22:05:02]
They need more time to do it in a bipartisan fashion, by the way. They agreed, Republicans and Democrats agreed, November 21st would be the appropriate date to extend it. That's all we're asking for is time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, I want to get your reaction to that. But also, I mean, from your perspective, have you heard any concrete assurances from Speaker Johnson that your policy concerns might be addressed if they are given more time?
JEFFRIES: Not at all. And what we've seen with respect to Republicans over the last 15 years is a consistent effort to try to blow up the Affordable Care Act and hurt millions of Americans who rely upon that enlighten peace of legislation in order to provide healthcare for themselves and for their families.
Over the next few days, more than 20 million Americans are going to experience notices that will indicate that their premiums, co-pays, and deductibles are about to skyrocket in some instances, by thousands of dollars a year. People are going to face medical bankruptcy. People will be unable to provide healthcare for themselves and for their families.
And all of this is on top of the fact that Republicans passed their one big, ugly bill, which is now law, including the largest cut to Medicaid in American history. Hospitals, nursing homes and community- based health clinics all across America are closing and they're triggering a possible $536 billion cut to Medicare at the end of the year because of that one big, ugly bill if Congress does not act.
This is an extraordinary assault on the healthcare of the American people. And we're simply saying this has to be dealt with and dealt with now.
PHILLIP: Yes. But what is the exit strategy here from a shutdown? Because once the government is shut down, which it will be in two hours, how do you get out of this? There's one Democrat who told CNN there is no way to play this shutdown game and win. And Democrats know that because Republicans for the last several shutdowns have been the ones playing this game. So, how are you going to get out of it if we are in a shutdown?
JEFFRIES: Again, correct me if I'm wrong in terms of the Republican perspective, but Republicans have been lecturing America all year that they control the government and that they're jamming their policy preferences down the throats to the American people. So, how is it the case that at this particular moment in time, they're suddenly at the mercy of Democrats who are in the minority in the House or in the Senate when Donald Trump has consistently behaving like he's all powerful, including in the things that he continues to try to do today with respect to the U.S. military?
All we're saying is that we need to have a conversation in good faith, that's authentic, sitting down with legislative leaders on the other side of the aisle and the White House to both fund the government in a way that meets the needs of the American people, but at the same time doesn't continue this effort by Republicans to gut the healthcare of everyday Americans, particularly given the fact that the Affordable Care Act tax credits, which benefit millions of working class Americans, are about to expire, and Republicans have shown no interest in dealing with that critically important issue.
PHILLIP: Are you worried that a shutdown could supercharge Trump's efforts to gut the federal government even further, and then on top of that, stack the federal government with Trump's people to pursue whatever a partisan agenda that they might have? I mean, is there a risk that this could all backfire?
JEFFRIES: Now, Donald Trump has been gutting the federal government since January 20th in ways that are only going to be restrained by the courts. And there's nothing that he can do in this particular instance that would be consistent with the law, and he will be held back by the courts at the appropriate time if he takes this aggressive action, which violates the law, but more importantly, public sentiment is going to what ultimately leads the Republicans to get back to the negotiating table.
We saw that during the shutdown in 2013, 14-day government shutdown, and, eventually, the Republicans concluded that public sentiment was not with them, and they engaged in unconditional surrender. And during the shutdown in 2018 into 2019, when Donald Trump was the president, and it began in the same way, Republicans controlled the House and the Senate. It lasted for 35 days. And at the end of that process, longest government shut down American history, the Republicans realized they couldn't sustain their position any longer. They engaged in an unconditional surrender and the government was opened back up.
[22:10:00]
Hopefully, this time around, it will only be a matter of hours or days.
PHILLIP: The difference, though, Leader Jeffries, between those incidents and this one is that Democrats in those times were the ones saying, let's just fund the government. Let's not negotiate in this moment. Now, the shoe is on the other foot. You acknowledge that, right?
JEFFRIES: No. Actually, we are saying, let's fund the government. Let's sit down and have a conversation. Republicans have adopted a my way or the highway approach. They basically have said, take it or leave it, with respect to our partisan Republican spending bill that continues cuts that were first put into place in March of this year that hurt veterans, hurt children and families, hurt childcare, hurt housing affordability and hurt the healthcare of the American people. And they're suggesting now that continuing that funding level is something that we should just accept and allow it to be jammed down the throat to the American people when we voted against it in March because it hurt the American people.
PHILLIP: Let's talk about though who you're negotiating with, because I think this is super important. I mean, you want to get to the table with the Republicans and perhaps the president, but I'm sure you may have seen this. I mean, President Trump just moments ago posted pictures from your meeting in the Oval Office where he, I guess, apparently tried to hand you Trump 2028 hats.
Then he posted another video, an A.I. video of you in a sombrero once again. This time he's in the background. The audience can see it there as a mariachi band. I mean, I think the question I have for you is do you think that this is even a White House, a president that cares to negotiate in good faith at all? Because it sounds like this meeting that you had this week has only resulted in trolling and not in any serious conversations.
JEFFRIES: Well, that's exactly the point. He's an unserious individual. The Republicans are unserious at this point. They have no interest in having a good faith conversation. And all of the behavior, erratic, unhinged behavior that we've seen subsequent to that White House meeting should suggest to the American people who actually is trying to drive us toward a government shutdown.
We continue to say we are willing to have a bipartisan discussion to arrive at a spending agreement that meets the needs of the American people in terms of their health, public safety and economic wellbeing, particularly as it relates to driving down the high cost of living, not allowing millions of Americans to experience dramatically increased healthcare premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
That's a reasonable position in defense of the quality of life of the American people. We just don't have serious negotiating partners right now on the other side of the aisle because they're engaging in this erratic behavior, posting racist, fake A.I. videos, and it speaks for itself in terms of the American people concluding who's serious and who's deadly unserious.
PHILLIP: When he tried to hand you that Trump 2028 hat, what was your reaction?
JEFFRIES: Well, actually he did not try to hand leader Schumer and I the Trump 2028 hat. They just randomly appeared in the middle of the meeting on the desk. It was the strangest thing ever. And I just looked at the hat looked at J.D. Vance, who was seated to my left and said, don't you got a problem with this? And he said, no comment. And that was the end of it.
PHILLIP: All right. Leader Jefferies, thank you very much for joining us. A very important couple of hours ahead for the American people, and we're going to debate and discuss it right here at this table.
You know, I do think, Governor Pawlenty, that in a sane world, yes, negotiations of some kind would be on the table, but as you saw there, President Trump seems to be very keen on trolling here in this moment instead of actually having a conversation with the other side of the aisle.
FMR. GOV. TIM PAWLENTY (R-MN): I think the reality, Abby, is neither side seems very interested in avoiding the shutdown. The Democrats need it because part of their base is very mad at them for being perceived as rolling over with the big, beautiful bill and not fighting enough. So, they're in fight mode for their base, at least for a while. And the Republicans don't need it, but they don't mind it. They're not afraid of it. And there's some things, as you mentioned, that can be done during the shutdown that can't be done otherwise. It could be very appealing to some Republicans in terms of administrative or executive action. But beyond that, the ask is a less than 60-day extension to work this out. And the Democrats are in a real box.
PHILLIP: But who's to say they're going to work it out? Because it doesn't really sound like there's a desire to actually work anything out, that you just want more time to do the job that they probably should have done three months ago.
PAWLENTY: But the Democrats here are in a box because they are the party disproportionately of government. Their constituencies disproportionately are going to be hurt by a shutdown.
PHILLIP: These are -- I mean, but these are Americans, Governor.
[22:15:00]
I mean, these are Americans who live all over -- they live in your state. They live all across the country. Yes, increasingly in red states, because the Trump administration has been moving them to places like Alabama and other parts of the country.
PAWLENTY: But I'll just make a prediction. The Democrats will fold before the Republicans.
ANA KASPARIAN, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER AND HOST, THE YOUNG TURKS: Well, Democrats are great at folding, so I wouldn't be surprised if that happens. But what irritates me about this entire situation is, you know, they're holding up the government funding bill over subsidies for the Affordable Care Act.
You know, in the last election cycle, not a single Democrat campaigned on fixing what is broken in our healthcare system. The Affordable Care Act, which is essentially a Heritage Foundation plan that was implemented in Massachusetts, forces Americans to buy private insurance. It didn't have appropriate cost controls, and so you need subsidies and tax credits for ordinary working class Americans to afford it.
So, you know, Jaime, I'm going to look at you and ask you. When is the Democratic Party ever going to be serious about actually walking the walk? Because they talk, the talk about how they're looking out for working class Americans.
JAIME HARRISON, FORMER DNC CHAIR: Well, Ana, that's not the debate right now. The debate --
KASPARIAN: No, but that's the core of the issue, though.
HARRISON: The debate right now is --
KASPARIAN: Pretending like they care about health insurance in the middle of a government funding debate is insane.
HARRISON: There's 20 million people who will lose their healthcare subsidies --
KASPARIAN: That is true, yes.
HARRISON: -- if this does not happen.
KASPARIAN: Right.
HARRISON: That is --
PAWLENTY: When did they lose?
HARRISON: No, they will lose them. KASPARIAN: They won't be able to afford health insurance.
HARRISON: And --
PAWLENTY: End of December, right?
HARRISON: And let's back up. Let's back up.
PAWLENTY: It's end of December.
HARRISON: Because there's already a billion dollars worth of Medicaid cuts in the big, beautiful bill. This -- Abby, the issue that they're talking about --
(CROSSTALKS)
HARRISON: This is a debate between 900 billionaires who've got $4.5 trillion tax cut in the big, beautiful bill and 20 million Americans who are just looking for $30 billion a year in order to keep their healthcare. Their healthcare costs are going to rise precipitously. Hundreds percents in some of these states are going to rise?
KASPARIAN: Why is it going to rise, though? Why is it going to rise?
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Go ahead, Jim.
JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: So, the ACA subsidy that we keep talking about, so the ACA subsidy originally was capped at, you know, for folks between 100 percent and 400 percent above the federal poverty line, okay? What they did as a COVID measure is extended that with no cap on the poverty line. And they put a cap on the cost of insurance.
And the way it works is either they get -- either the insurance companies get paid directly or the individuals can get it by way of a tax credit, by way of a refund on our taxes. That goes away the end of the year. That doesn't go out away before November 21st. That's the reasonable time that Republicans are asking for to get this extension. It goes away at the end of the year.
HARRISON: Well, you guys had time. You had time.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Let me just disentangle this one second, Jaime. I mean, the point he's making is that there is time to do this before the actual cost increases affect Americans. If that's the case, is it worth a government shutdown in this moment?
HARRISON: Well, Abby, this is the thing. We are dealing with a petulant child in the White House. I mean, my five-year-old would not have put a post like Donald Trump just put up tonight. And then you have a feckless speaker of the House who basically doesn't have a backbone. He did not wake up yesterday and say, oh my God, the government's going to shut down. They had months. They knew that this was going to --
PHILLIP: Right. But I just --
SCHULTZ: So, Senator Schumer then says, I'm taking my ball and my bat and I'm going home?
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. I think a big question here is the timing of it all. In this moment, is this the right timing? The New York Times/Siena poll said that 65 percent of Americans say Democrats should not shut down the government if there were demands.
SCHULTZ: Oh, that was a push-pull though, Abby.
HARRISON: I could have phrased that question, should Republicans shut down, that's a push-pull.
PHILLIP: Okay. Democrats also are very narrowly divided on this. About half of them say that they should hold out for, you know, their demands and the other half say no. So, I mean, look, this is not like a slam dunk for Democrats. And, again, I asked Leader Jeffries, and I think this is still an important question. What is the way out of this? Because there's got to be a way out of a shutdown. You cannot shut down the government indefinitely. What is the way out of this?
And, listen, you kept he talking about Trump, his immaturity or whatever it is, but that's Trump and he's not going to change. So, what makes Leader Jeffries and Schumer believe that suddenly a shutdown is going to force Trump's hand in this moment?
HARRISON: Well, once again, Abby, Republicans control the House, they control the Senate, they control the White House. If they are too drunk with power, then turn over the keys to somebody who understands how to navigate this. Trump has had shutdown after shutdown after shutdown as president of the United States.
[22:20:00]
Take a look at the presidents and look at who's had the most and the longest shutdown.
PHILLIP: Yes, I know. I mean, that's actually my point. Trump has been the president who has pushed essentially the most shutdowns as president. Like he was president and he allowed the government to shut down because he didn't get his border wall, for example. So, he's not afraid of shutdowns. I do think that's a fact.
PAWLENTY: And, again, just on the politics, not the substance. If the shutdowns are relatively short, they disappear in people's memory very quickly. But to this point on the ACA subsidies, they were supposed to be temporary because of COVID. And so we're arguing about something that was never supposed to be permanent.
PHILLIP: But that's like the Trump tax cuts, yes. I mean that is like the Trump tax cut. I mean, you all say -- hold on. You all say -- okay, we'll take a break in a second. But let me just make this point. You all say that the Trump's tax cuts should remain permanent, because if they go away, it's a tax increase. That's exactly the same scenario with subsidies. If they go away, it doesn't matter whether they were intended to be temporary or not, people are going to experience an increase in cost, and that's going to be on Republicans.
KASPARIAN: But that's for working class people. Who cares about that, right? When it comes to Congress, working class people are always on the backburner. Tax cuts for the rich, oh, make them permanent, we're not going to have much of a debate about it. Let's keep it real.
SCHULTZ: Senator Schumer said today, specifically said today that he's willing to come to the table on that, that there is some waste, fraud, and abuse and there needs to be some guardrails, but willing to negotiate it.
HARRISON: Waste, fraud, and abuse, that's the red herring for the Republican Party.
PHILLIP: All right. Okay, let's hit pause on this because we have much more ahead. We'll come back to this ticking clock as we race toward to shut down.
Plus, the night's other big story tonight, there's a reaction to Pete Hegseth's surreal lecture to the nation's generals and admirals involving everything, from beards to no more rules of engagement. Two veterans with opposing views on this will join us at the table.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:25:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, the T.V. host turned defense secretary gathered the nation's foremost military leaders to scold them. In a last minute gathering at Quantico, which one defense official says could have been an email, Pete Hegseth painted the military as deeply broken, an institution in serious need of reform. In nearly 45 minutes, and a lecture at that, Hegseth declared an end to woke within the ranks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: It's tiring to look out at combat formations or really any formation and see fat troops. Likewise, it's completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon.
No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses, no more climate change worship, no more division, distraction or gender delusions. We are done with that shit.
For every designated combat arms position returns to the highest male standard only. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it.
But if the words I'm speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Joining us at the table are two military veterans. Troy Olson, co-author of the Emerging Populist Majority, and legislative director for a Republican New York City councilwoman, also with us Paul Rieckhoff, founder and CEO of Independent Veterans of America, and host of the Independent Americans podcast.
The one thought I had listening to this 45-minute speech was, don't we have bigger fish to fry, like China, like drone warfare, like Russia on the march? I cannot imagine that people's beards rise to the level of dragging all the military admirals and generals into Quantico for a lecture. I'm not understanding this.
KASPARIAN: It sounds like you're into the beardos.
PHILLIP: I don't get it. Somebody explain it to me.
PAUL RIECKHOFF, IRAQ WAR VETERAN: I think you're right, and I think that's the problem. It's unprecedented. It's unacceptable. It's overtly political and partisan. And if you watch that speech, whether you are a general or just someone on T.V., you'd think that our enemies are fat generals, the city of Portland, Trump's political enemies and DEI. And it's a really low point for the division that's supposed to exist between our partisan politics and our military.
The shining part of it, the silver lining, if you will, is that the generals kept their military bearing. They didn't applaud, they were stoic and they showed why they are the guardrails that are protecting our military and much of our democracy from what is a very extreme political agenda that, from Hegseth, it sounded kind of like a culture war Ted Talk, rather than a proper, respectful address to our senior military leaders.
PHILLIP: I want to play a little bit more from Hegseth. This is where he's talking about those pesky rules of engagement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: We are preparing every day. We have to be prepared for war, not for defense. We fight to win. We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our war fighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for war fighters.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Troy, I mean, is the argument here, let's go back to like barbarian warfare where there are no rules of engagement, everything goes, you know, no such thing as a war crime, you can do whatever you want, is that the argument?
TROY OLSON, ARMY VETERAN: So, warfare is fundamentally something that is very hard to write down in the international law, the law of war.
[22:30:00]
I would say what we heard here today was not a speech for the punting class or the journalist class, or even the generals and admirals in that room. I think it was a speech for the warrior class. And he spoke about the warrior class a lot in his book, on his show, and he's building that military.
And by warrior class he means the few families across this country and the same towns that have since we've become an all-volunteer force have consistently bore the brunt and the sacrifice, especially in the post-911 era of that service. And I think he's speaking directly to them. And these are the 65 percent of the veteran population that voted for the Trump-Vance ticket for President Trump. And that's why I think he's --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But what is the message? What's the message to them? Is the -- again, I think my question is --
(CROSSTALK)
OLSON: The message is, "come back".
PHILLIP: No, in a concrete way. When he says the stupid rules of engagement, let's also remember that this is the Pete Hegseth who lobbied President Trump to pardon people who were convicted of war crimes. So, is that what we're saying? We're okay with war crimes now?
ANA KASPARIAN, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER AND HOST, "THE YOUNG TURKS": Obviously, we're okay with war crimes. We support a country that's committing atrocities --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But I mean the United States military.
PAUL RIECKHOFF, IRAQ WAR VETERAN: Yeah, that's what he's saying. He's saying that the rules are actually written down. They're called the Geneva convention, and most of the modern world in western world abides by them because it's a code of conduct. It's what holds us above the standards of our enemies. But the audience was not the warrior class. It wasn't the generals. It was TV cameras. It was the base.
And maybe it was the world in some way because they wanted to say, look, we have control over the most powerful military on the planet, and there's nothing that the Democrats or the moderate Republicans or anyone else can do.
So, it was a giant flex of their culture war, of their ideology, of the way they want to reimagine not just the military, but the country. That's really what this was. And that's why I think it's such a low point for our military because they're again being dragged into some of the most divisive issues of our time.
OLSON: For over two decades, we've been fighting wars to fight them, not to win them. And we need to build a military.
RIECKHOFF: Did you and I not fight to win?
OLSON: We fought to win but the politicians and a lot of senior leadership did not fight to win.
(CROSSTALK)
KASPARIAN: Why do you say that? What did they --
(CROSSTALK)
RIECKHOFF: Well, a lot of those senior leaders in the room have decorated veterans who served --
(CROSSTALK)
OLSON: We did not follow a doctrine that goes in with overwhelming force.
RIECKHOFF: It felt pretty overwhelming at times when I was there.
(CROSSTALK)
OLSON: Yes, but we stayed there for 20 years and we abandoned it with the fall of Saigon on live TV with people falling out of an airplane.
PHILLIP: But Troy, Troy, you arguing that there was not the use of overwhelming force when we bomb the crap out of Iraq? Is that really the argument?
OLSON: No, the argument is that we fought for 20 years. We did take out terrorist networks. We take -- we took out the network and the leader who attacked this city in the largest terrorist attack in world history. And we also engaged in nation building and these were very abstract.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yeah, but how's that a problem with the war? I mean, I just -- I'm not understanding. Why is that a problem for the war fighters and not the politicians who decided that the answer to that problem was war, a war that we could -- that didn't make sense to fight, we couldn't win.
TIM PAWLENTY (R) FORMER MINNESOTA: When I was governor, I was in Iraq.
PHILLIP: That's a political problem, it seems like to me, not a military problem.
PAWLENTY: When I was in government, I was in Iraq five times, Afghanistan three times, and we had a chance to visit with lots of troops, including some special operators. And one of their complaints, among others, in terms of the rules and engagement weren't always war crimes. They weren't advocating for war crimes. Well, in fairness, they were just saying simple things like, we can't even do particular raids at night in certain compounds or situations.
Now, that's a common sense thing. They like the stealthy nature of nighttime raids. But they felt they were being held back in certain circumstances, not all. There were certainly plenty of nighttime raids. And that's just one example. Maybe there are some rules of engagement that could be reviewed and improved upon.
(CROSSTALK)
RIECKHOFF: And there are some people who said they want to go into mosques, for example. And there's this kind of twist that if you hadn't been hamstrung by these restrictive rules, we would have won in Afghanistan. We would have won in Iraq. We would have won in Vietnam. That's a reframing of history because there were so many other factors that inhibited our ability to win both the war and the peace and there's plenty of political blame to go around for leaving us there for 20 years.
But the idea that we're not lethal enough in Portland or now in places like Venezuela or Iran where there's no congressional approval, no congressional consultation, is a manipulation of the public understanding of what our military does and what they're --
(CROSSTALK)
KASPARIAN: Our military should be tasked with nation building when our own nation is falling apart, period. I mean, that's honestly the heart of the issue here. But just going back to that ridiculous sideshow we all saw with Pete Hegseth, I'm sorry, but it wasn't about speaking to the warrior class. It wasn't about actually doing anything about the health and fitness of our soldiers. It was more of the same theater and kayfabe. It was for wrestling fans.
UNKNOWN: Yes.
KASPARIAN: That's what that was. And this is what frustrates me about the administration. Look, if he was really concerned about the health and fitness of our soldiers and our military, well then he would take it seriously, not televise it, and act like this big tough guy and engage in this type of theater.
[22:35:02]
JAIME HARRISON, FORMER DNC SQUARE And Abby, I would add, this was disrespectful. He dressed down the world's best military leaders. The world's best military leaders like they were a bunch of misbehaving third graders. It was wasteful. Think about when those leaders coming from all across the world are convened right there.
One, is a security threat because now what if something would have happened right there where all of our military leaders are all in one space to hear him talk about that you're too fat and you need to trim your beard. It was a waste of money. I mean, when you think about it, this guy should not be in this position. He should go back to Fox News, go back on the podcast or do something, but he is not qualified to be the Secretary of Defense.
PHILLIP: Last question for you, Troy. Why the obsession with singling out women by this Defense Secretary? He has, and since Trump has been President, essentially presided over the elimination of women in the highest ranks of the military according to Military.com. There are, Franchetti, who was the last person who was fired, has left the military without a single woman in a four-star general or admiral position, and many female officers say that they're concerned their ouster will have far-reaching consequences.
Why the obsession with that when actually, it's women who are helping the military meet their recruiting goals? Because they meet the fitness requirements. They meet the intelligence requirements when men don't -- and art.
OLSON: If men can't meet the requirements, they don't get selected for those roles either. What he's arguing for is one combat standard. Combat is a very, you know, hard, harsh reality and there needs to be one standard that set by what the battlefield realities actually are, not two different standards. Throughout the military, you have a male P.T. test, you have a female P.T. test. For the combat area, he's arguing that it should be one P.T. test and I agree with that. I want to go back to the -- that -- that we have the best leaders in eight years.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Sure, but why did he fire all these -- why did he fire -- but why did he fire all of these female --
(CROSSTALK)
OLSON: Eight years ago, we had the best generals and admirals.
PHILLIP: Okay. Why did he fire all of these female generals and admirals? Why is it that it seems like there was a purge that happened when --
(CROSSTALK)
OLSON: There's a purge before World War two, as well, who did not --
PHILLIP: Of women?
OLSON: No, of generals, the high-ranking --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, why are they firing only -- why are they firing -- not -- I shouldn't say only, but why are they firing to the point of eliminating women in high ranking roles in the military?
OLSON: Because they are tasked with the defense of this country and the Department of War, which is -- has a much better track record for winning wars and waging them with -- with clarity than the Department of Defense there has, where we've gotten into Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. And he's building out the military that is to wage wars and hopefully we rarely have to fight them.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: What does that have to do with women?
RIECKHOFF: What he's doing is narrowing --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: What does that have to do with women?
RIECKHOFF: Because it's not just about the purge, which is important and disproportionately focused on women and people of color, but it's the messaging, and it's the tone, and it's the optics. Because you didn't see too many women highlighted. You didn't hear women's stories highlighted.
And what that did was really, really effectively recruit MAGA recruits and people who are ideologically aligned with him. It didn't expand the aperture to women or a more diverse fighting force, which is ultimately what you need to win wars in the modern battlefield.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And last I checked, the responsibility for the catastrophe in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan did not fall on women or people of color, okay? They're not responsible for that. Those were our political leaders who made those mistakes.
UNKNOWN: Absolutely.
PHILLIP: And last I checked, they were all white men. So, where is the responsibility for them there?
OLSON: So, what I think the -- let's just call it for what it is, the so-called wokeness in the military. I think this is a reaction to the Biden administration in which that was a central feature. And it's a walk back of that era.
PHILLIP: Well --
OLSON: And they're pursuing the military that defends this country and pursues protecting the American people and putting America's interests first.
(CROSSTALK)
RIECKHOFF: Diversity is also kind of a central feature of society. Every single Fortune 500 company is focused on diversity --
(CROSSTALK)
KASPARIAN: I'm sorry. (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All right.
(CROSSTALK)
OLSON: -- more authentically diverse than any other institution --
(CROSSTALK)
KASPARIAN: Sexual assault continues to be a huge problem within our military.
PHILLIP: Yes.
KASPARIAN: Over 8000 complaints last year alone. To say that the military is woke is just regurgitating the same nonsense talking point with no evidence behind it whatsoever.
(CROSSTALK)
TIM PAWLENTY (R) FORMER MINNESOTA GOVERNOR: And to your point, if they were Biden appointees or they were woke and that was the concern, and if you get rid of them, then to your point, promote some other women so that you still have a representative.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But that would be DEI, Governor. You can't do that in this administration.
(CROSSTALK)
PAWLENTY: They would be qualified under one standard.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All right.
HARRISON: So, they're not qualified now?
PHILLIP: Next for us, the President told the generals
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: They would be.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- to use American cities as training grounds for war. We'll debate that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:44:32] PHILLIP: More on the surreal moment at Quantico today, the President told the nation's generals to use American cities as training grounds. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military -- National Guard, but military. Because we're going into Chicago very soon. That's a big city with an incompetent governor, stupid governor, stupid. We don't need the military.
[22:45:00]
No, they need the military desperately.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Jim is back with us at the table and just in time. I do wonder sometimes when I hear Trump say things like that, whether he has read that pocket constitution that I guess he sells to his supporters. How is this going to work in Trump's mind to have the military use American cities as training grounds for war?
JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: I think that's a one-off comment by the President. The fact that it matters --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: How is it a one-off comment? He's literally --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: I think it's a one-off comment by the President, right?
PHILLIP: -- he's literally saying it repeatedly and doing it.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: He's using the example of -- D.C. had a 39 percent reduction in -- in violent crime, fifty-three percent reduction in homicides since the National Guard's been there. D.C. is safer and he wants to employ that and deploy that same -- that same show of force, that same amount of resources in the most dangerous cities in the country. And it -- the proof is in the -- in the results, and the results are pretty good.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, why would he --
(CROSSTALK)
KASPARIAN: -- here is different from sending National Guard troops who don't actually engage physically. And just the mere presence of the National Guard troops, yes, is going to lower crime. It serves as a deterrent. What he's calling for, and mind you, this is on the heels of what Pete Hegseth was talking about in regard to the, you know, active engaging -- the engagement of war, is send the military to literally train against Americans in American cities.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: Yeah, I don't think we're going to see that. I just don't think we're going to see that.
(CROSSTALK)
KASPARIAN: I hope not.
OLSON: Which has already been done. He literally sent the National Guard in that clip.
(CROSSTALK)
RIECKHOFF: I think -- I think the biggest stories in America and one of the stories in the world is that Donald Trump can do whatever he wants with the most powerful military in the world, and that span from striking Iran to hitting boats off Venezuela, to deploying federal troops to U.S. cities without any congressional authorization, without any consultation.
Conservatives used to hate this sort of thing. But right now, he is telegraphing his punches and he's on plan. And he said, we're going to go into Chicago, we're going to go into Portland. You should take him at his word because that's not a one-off.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I don't know -- I don't know that he can do whatever wants.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: No question about it.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: There's a -- well, hold on.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Well, just, listen. I think L.A. situation was a particular situation, right? And that was allowed to go forward in that particular situation when they were responding to something. D.C., another different situation. But there is a real reason that they have not done this in Chicago. It's because it's actually against the constitution.
(CROSSTALK)
RIECKHOFF: No, I don't think that's why.
PHILLIP: So why do you think it is? RIECKHOFF: They haven't gotten to it yet. I mean, they're moving
sequentially, and they've also deployed federal troops to the border.
PHILLIP: Maybe that's the case. Maybe that's case.
RIECKHOFF: I think it is.
PHILLIP: But I mean, the constitution pretty clearly states, Troy, the military is not supposed to be used on Domestic soil particularly against U.S. citizens.
OLSON: But the National Guard has been used historically for riot control. For a variety of sources, the National Guard is a dual federal and state mission --
PHILLIP: Sure. But that's -- but that's --
(CROSSTALK)
OLISIN: -- and that's what he's talking about. He's not talking about the military that is doing training exercises.
PHILLIP: But you know -- but Troy, Troy, you know, that that's a different thing, right?
KASPARIAN: Yeah.
PHILLIP: The National Guard -- the National Guard is, as you pointed out, a dual mandate. And when they've been deployed domestically, generally it has been because of the governor's request -- with the permission of the governor. I want to play one more piece just from what Trump said about the invasion from within in his speech today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're under invasion from within. No different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don't wear uniforms. At least when they're wearing a uniform, you can take them out. These people don't have uniforms. But we are under invasion from within. We're stopping it very quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KASPARIAN: That's disgusting. He's talking about Americans, okay? I love this country and I love all Americans regardless of where they land in their politics. The idea of treating them as if they're enemies disgusts me. The President of the United States just coming out and talking about Americans that he's supposed to be representing as enemies is a problem.
HARRISON: This is what you would find in Russia. This is what you would find in North Korea when they have no guardrails. And you have in Congress right now a bunch of feckless Republicans that control, they don't see themselves as a co-equal branch of government. They do not. They see themselves as rubber stamps. You saw it earlier today,
Speaker Johnson couldn't even condemn the racist and bigoted posts by the President because he knows his hand will get slapped. And therefore, you know, he won't get the jelly beans.
I mean, it is, it is -- to see what is happening to a great nation is abysmal. It is abysmal and we've got to do better. And Democrats and Republicans and anybody in between need to stand up and say enough is enough.
RIECKHOFF: He has crossed the Rubicon, right? This is the Rubicon that has never been crossed in modern history by a President to deploy troops in these ways. He's not talking about them filling sandbags and putting out forest fires.
UNKNOWN: No.
RIECKHOFF: He's talking about the being the hammer behind ICE, behind National Guard troops and using them --
[22:50:02]
(CROSSTALK)
OLSON: -- riots in Chicago.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: Does that happen in D.C.? Does that happen in D.C.?
RIECKHOFF: It happened in D.C. Yes, it has happened in D.C.
SCHULTZ: What happened in D.C. other than the fact that it's -- before the National Guard troops were not there, it was more dangerous than Islamabad and Mexico City.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on. Hold on.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Just to be clear, really, the National Guard in D.C. was engaged in none of the policing, let's just put it that way.
KASPARIAN: Right.
PHILLIP: And they were doing things like picking up trash. They had a beautification mission. So I mean, look, I think you can argue, as Ana did and you did. Their presence there perhaps is a temporary deterrent. But they were not doing the things that Donald Trump wants them to be doing. And that's why, you know, you have to take it seriously because he keeps talking about it.
(CROSSTALK) SCHULTZ: And they're not doing the things that they want to be doing.
PHILLIP: All right.
SCHULTZ: Does he say they want him to do something different in D.C. other than reduce crime?
PHILLIP: Troy Olson, Paul Rieckhoff, we appreciate you both very much for joining us. Next for us, what concession should each side give in order to prevent the government shutdown? We'll ask our panelists next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:23]
PHILLIP: And we're back and it's time for the NewsNightcap, concessions edition. You each have a few seconds to tell us what one concession you would make to avoid a shutdown. Governor Pawlenty, you're first.
PAWLENTY: Well, if the Democrats would agree to keep the government open and pass a clean resolution, I'd say let's guarantee them a vote on their two main healthcare objectives sometime in the next 90 days.
PHILLIP: Sounds reasonable.
HARRISON: Well, the Republicans are talking about waste, fraud and abuse. It's a red herring. So one of the things I would say, let's create a bipartisan commission. Let's get former Republican, Democratic speakers and leaders of the Senate get together and let's look at the appropriations process and identify where that waste, fraud and abuse really is.
PHILLIP: All right. Ana?
KASPARIAN: I think since healthcare is really at the heart of this debate, I am willing to concede healthcare for our congressional lawmakers, half of whom are multi-millionaires.
PHILLIP: They probably don't need it anyway, maybe.
KASPARIAN: Exactly.
PHILLIP: Go ahead.
SCHULTZ: I would say nothing more than what Senator Thune has already conceded which is what Governor Pawlenty was suggesting, is that -- is that he's willing to have a discussion about the ACA enhancements and the ACA enhancements that are in jeopardy towards end of year.
PHILLIP: All right everybody, thank you very much. The government is about to shut down and CNN is live on Capitol Hill. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
