Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Says, U.S. Wipes Out Military Assets At Iran's Critical Oil Hub; Hegseth Scolds Coverage Of War As Bombings Continue; U.S. Bombs Kharg Island; Trump Says War With Iran Will Be Over Soon. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired March 13, 2026 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, a major escalation. The U.S. strikes the military targets on a key Iranian island. And the president says, American Navy ships will soon patrol the Strait of Hormuz.
Plus --
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: We have been dealing with it and don't need to worry about it.
PHILLIP: -- the Pentagon makes claims that contradict what's happening on the ground as the U.S. deploys Marines to the Middle East.
Also, the president delivers a new timetable for when the war ends.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: When I feel it.
BRIAN KILMEADE, FOX NEWS HOST: Okay.
TRUMP: When I feel it in my bones,
PHILLIP: But he admits Israel may not agree.
TRUMP: They might be a little different. I guess, they're a different country than we are.
PHILLIP: And Donald Trump's retribution tour is running out of gas.
JEANINE PIRRO, U.S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Oh, cut it out. Do you know how many convictions we've got? Cut it out.
PHILLIP: The effort to target another of Trump's perceived rivals falls apart.
Live at the table, Keith Boykin, Brad Todd, Leigh McGowan, Lydia Moynihan and Josh Rogin.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Tonight, a significant escalation in the war against Iran, the president announcing that the United States has bombed what he describes as Iran's crown jewel of oil infrastructure, the Kharg Island. Donald Trump just released this video saying that the U.S. struck military targets on that island but not the oil. He did, however, threaten to attack the oil infrastructure if Iran continues to block ships in the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, Trump says that the United States' ships will soon begin escorting tankers in the strait.
Kharg Island is critical for Iran. 90 percent of their crude oil exports are handled there. And just 24 hours ago, Iran warned that if they're attacked, Tehran will, quote, abandon all restraints.
The warnings were pretty specific, Josh, not just that they won't be restrained, but specifically on Thursday, this is a statement from the IRG -- from the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, we warn the aggressor governments and all its allies that the slightest attack on Iran's energy infrastructure imports will be followed by our crushing and devastating response. In the event of such aggression, all the region's oil and gas infrastructure in which the United States and its western allies have a vested interest will be set on fire and destroyed.
So, this is a really big deal because of what it could mean for escalation.
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, THE WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: Yes, it's the definition of an escalation ladder. It's the thing that everyone talks about when you plan a short war, a war that's going to be quick and easy. Essentially, the enemy gets a vote, they escalate. Your instinct is to re-escalate. Then they re-escalate. And before you know it, you're in a quagmire. And sure enough, that seems exactly what's happening.
It was only yesterday, remember, Abby, where Trump said, we're done, we won. We're going to get out. It's over. It's going to be over very soon. That's what he said yesterday. And today he deployed 2,500 Marines and sent them toward Kharg Island. It's going to take them two weeks to get there, and he abandoned any timelines for the war, and says, it's going to take as long as it takes.
So, it's clear that the president has made the decision that he's going to escalate against the Iranians, and they're announcing that they're going to escalate against us if we do that. And that just takes the region and the world to further economic chaos, further disruption, higher prices, higher inflation, more instability, more shortages, more migration, more extremism, and a war that lasts for months and months. And someone's got to find an off-ramp or that's exactly what's going to happen, quite unfortunately.
PHILLIP: What is the off-ramp, do you think, Brad? BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I would take issue with Josh about more extremism. Iran is the one that's been funding the extremism. You can go all the way back to 1979 into the Beirut barracks and the U.S. of embassy in Lebanon, all the way back to the October 7th attacks, and people like Itay Chen and Omer Neutra, who were killed in captivity in Gaza, American citizens, the extremism and the carnage has been going on for far too long. Seven different presidents refused to stop it. And now we finally have a president who has decided we had enough. Iran does not get to continue to export terror to the western world, to the United States of America. And that is exactly the thing that's needed to happen for a long time.
ROGIN: Only if it works though. And if it doesn't work, then all you've done is bomb a civilian population, which is what causes the extremism in the first place. The more you bomb people, the less they like you.
TODD: No. There's no excuse for extremism. You become a radical, it's not (INAUDIBLE) because you decided to.
ROGIN: (INAUDIBLE) and the Iranian government. The Iranian government is a terrorist regime that deserves what they get.
[22:05:00]
The Iranian people are innocent and they're getting killed by the thousands. And the more we bomb them, the more they die.
TODD: Someone has to bomb the regime.
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK POST: Yes, they were getting killed by the thousands in January. The ayatollah was murdering 30,000-plus people.
ROGIN: Right. And isn't it --
MOYNIHAN: That's when they were dying. 80-plus percent of people are thrilled to have America come in --
ROGIN: 80 percent? Where do you get that number?
PHILLIP: 80 percent of what? We don't really have a window, unfortunately.
ROGIN: You know that 85 percent of statistics are made up?
PHILLIP: We don't have a window unfortunately, into what is going on the ground in Iran for a lot of different reasons, including how the --
TODD: We know the American diaspora of Iranians are --
PHILLIP: Sure, of course. But what I want to -- what we're talking about tonight, everybody understands that the Iranian people would like to be free, right? But I think what we're talking about tonight is what this means for the United States and for the region. And I'm going to play, this is a clip from a podcast that featuring David Sacks. He's actually a member of the Trump administration on the A.I. side of things, but he lays out his view of what's happening in the administration and what it could mean in the region. I thought it was interesting. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID SACKS, WHITE HOUSE A.I. AND CRYPTO CZAR: You are seeing, however, a faction of people, I'd say largely, but not exclusively in the Republican Party who want to escalate the war.
So, if the Iranians get hit, if their oil and gas infrastructure gets hit, they've already said they're going to engage in tit-for-tat retaliation against the Gulf state. And if that happens, it won't really matter if the straits get reopened because you won't be able to restart oil and gas production in the Middle East.
I think there was one desal plant in Iran that got hit and then it caused Iran again, tit-for-tat, to hit a desal plant. I think it was in Kuwait. I could be off about that.
But in any event, if you see that type of destruction continue, you could literally render the Gulf almost uninhabitable. I mean, you're not going to have enough water for a hundred million people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: What he's talking about there at the end are the desalination plants that are soft targets in this war.
So, look, realistically this -- there has to be some de-escalation at some point because Iran has nothing to lose. They could just send off a few missiles in some of these Gulf states and essentially create a catastrophe.
KEITH BOYKIN, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE AIDE: And that's the question. What is the off-ramp here? I don't think anyone has a clue in the Trump administration and definitely not for the Arab states who are watching in the region. What do we do to get out of this predicament?
I think the problem is that Donald Trump is making it up as it goes along. Every day there's a new answer for what he is going to do. One day, we're going to escort ships, the next day, we're not going to escort ships. One day it's over, it's already over, we've already won, the next day we're going to go on forever. One day we're there because we want regime change the next day it's for a different reason because we want to get rid of the enriched uranium.
But if you don't have a clear objective from the beginning, there's no clear objective to get out of it. And so how do you sell this to the American people, to the people in the region, to the people outside to our allies? What this has done is it's strengthened Vladimir Putin who is reputably our enemy. It's enriched him with oil revenues and helped him with the lifting of sanctions. And it's hurt our own allies. It's divided us, Italy, Germany, and Spain. And we're all come out against this now. They're opposed to what we're doing. Donald Trump has single-handedly divided the alliance.
PHILLIP: Lydia?
MOYNIHAN: Our Middle East partners are actually more allied us with us than ever. And I would just like to note, I mean, if you hear everyone talk at this table, you'd think this is literally World War III. It's not. I would like to tell everyone the U.S. is winning and it's not even close. The reason that Iran hasn't retaliated yet is because their capacity is already incredibly diminished.
PHILLIP: What do you mean they haven't retaliated?
MOYNIHAN: We have the best military in the world. We've already seen 95 percent of their drones.
PHILLIP: What do you mean that they haven't retaliated?
MOYNIHAN: Josh --
ROGIN: Where did you get the 95 percent figure? Is that another --
MOYNIHAN: That's from CENTCOM.
Josh made the point that they could escalate --
ROGIN: No, they can retaliate.
MOYNIHAN: Their capacity is already so diminished.
PHILLIP: They've been retaliating. I don't know if they've been --
MOYNIHAN: They've been trying to retaliate. And the longer this goes on, the less capacity they have.
ROGIN: 13 Americans are dead. 150 Americans --
PHILLIP: They have -- I mean, look, they have diminished capacity, but they have been retaliating. Israel is being struck on a daily basis in residential areas with cluster munitions. Neighboring --
MOYNIHAN: Of course, I want see this war end.
PHILLIP: -- Gulf states are being attacked.
MOYNIHAN: I want see this war end.
PHILLIP: So, the main -- the big picture, is how does it end? How does it end? And is there a plan other than escalation?
MOYNIHAN: I think even if we were to stop tomorrow, we've already seen this regime completely crippled. The military has been clear about the objectives. We don't want them to get a nuclear weapon. We want to decrease their missile supply. So, we're already accomplishing those goals. We're seeing global terror is going to be decapitated forever. Hezbollah is getting kicked out of Lebanon. We are already seeing some incredible results. And, of course, we want to see this war end tomorrow. But I haven't heard anybody at this table recognize the fact that our military is incredible and has already achieved so much.
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, POLITICSGIRL: See, I think that's what happens when we have these kind of conversations.
[22:10:01]
The implication is if we don't say, woo-hoo, we're winning, go military, we're not pro-military. I am absolutely pro-military, which is why I am against this war. Because if you take our soldiers into war, you not only have to have a plan and a reason, you have to have an exit strategy. You have to know why you're there, what you're doing, what your goal is. We do not have that. And today we are putting 2,200 Marines on the way to the Middle East with no plan for them.
MOYNIHAN: I guess that was the (INAUDIBLE). Should we just have let Iran build a new nuclear weapon?
MCGOWAN: This is what you guys keep saying. What is the alternative? Should we just let them kill the whole world? It's like they weren't going to. There was no intelligence that said they had nuclear weapons. They were not ahead of nuclear weapons. We were in the middle of talks with them about nuclear weapons, which according to Oman, or --
ROGIN: They had 47 years.
MCGOWAN: We were doing -- they were getting everything we wanted. America was getting everything we wanted. And we have to say that --
MOYNIHAN: According to who? We're not Steve Witkoff.
MCGOWAN: Yes, no doubt. Steve Witkoff is the most honest man in the entire world, who actually literally feels like he works for Russia now and Russia is the one benefiting from this. So, no, I'm not going to take Steve Witkoff's --
MOYNIHAN: Well, he's negotiating on our behalf.
MCGOWAN: But I think that -- unfortunately, yes. And I think that Jared Kushner was the one who finally made the decision, and he told his father-in-law to do it. And I think we'll get out of this war when Jared Kushner tells his father-in-law they're no longer benefiting from it.
TODD: So, your answer is to continue to let Iran back Hezbollah.
MCGOWAN: No, that is not my answer, and that again.
TODD: Okay. So, someone has to take them -- no, it's not a false choice.
MCGOWAN: We did not need to be in this war.
TODD: It's a real life choice.
MCGOWAN: We did not need to be in this war. We started the war for no reason. We are the bad guys here.
TODD: Iran started the word in 1979.
MCGOWAN: Yes. We can't go back to 1979. We started --
TODD: Yes, but we can take away the fact that they are exporting terror and death to all of their neighbors. They're a menace to their neighbors. Every Middle Eastern country is with us on this. Everyone wants Iran taken out of the game.
MCGOWAN: Yes, and they had America do it with our soldiers and our money.
PHILLIP: Let me show you guys. This is the streets of Tehran earlier today, where a bunch of Iranian officials made a whole show of showing up in the streets at the Al Quds parade in Tehran, literally, even as there were explosions happening behind them, and you just mentioned sort of taking Iran out of the game. That remains an open question. Are they being taken out of the game?
ROGIN: No, of course not, because there's no sign that the regime has lost any measure of control at all. In fact, it was more likely to happen --
TODD: They've lost some munitions.
ROGIN: Well, yes, but they still are able to repress their people and control their country in perpetuity, which means all we've done is spend American blood and treasure, to replace an 86-year-old terrorist dictator with a 56-year-old terrorist dictator.
TODD: And his missile launchers.
ROGIN: Well done, everybody. Good job.
TODD: And Missile launchers, his air force, his navy. Does the government project power abroad?
ROGIN: And the thing is they have the ability to rebuild all that stuff. And for Iran, the only thing they have to do to win is survive. And if this regime survives, they've won. That means the only way that we have to win is to do regime change, which Trump doesn't really have the stomach for anyway.
So, we've got ourselves into this situation where Iran is going to be able to say, we resisted the great power of the United States of America and Israel. We tried to take down the regime. And unless Trump actually does that, which would take years and trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, which I hope you're not suggesting, because that doesn't seem like a good idea.
TODD: Your answer is to continue to let Iran menace its neighbors and the rest of the world.
MCGOWAN: That's not his answer. That's not what he said.
TODD: Those are the choices. That's what seven presidents have decided.
MCGOWAN: No, that's your choice. That's the false choice you keep giving us.
(CROSSTALKS)
BOYKIN: Please understand nuance. And what I hate about these conversations, we always get caught up in I say something and whoever is sitting next to me says something, which is complete opposite of what I was ever talking about, what Josh was talking about. And what we're talking about is there are other ways to achieve the objective. Let's all assume at this table, let's assume for the purpose of our arguing that we all agree that we don't want to have Iran strengthened. The question is, how do you achieve that goal? And what --
TODD: You don't want to see Iran ended?
BOYKIN: Well, I don't want to see Iran --
(CROSSTALKS)
BOYKIN: Well, the regime is a whole different thing. But you spoke about Iran as a country. I want the -- I don't want to kill the country of 90 million people.
TODD: Sure. No one does. Don't take -- don't put words in my mouth.
BOYKIN: Right. I'm not trying to say that. But my point is let's figure out nuanced ways to come up with solutions instead of assuming that because I don't agree with your approach, that means I want to go back and allow Iran whatever they want to do.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Let's go ahead and hit pause here because we'll have more on the other side of the break.
Next for us, we have more breaking news tonight. The president says he'll end the war when he, quote, feels like it in his bones, as he admits that Israel may not feel the same way.
Plus, the defense secretary scolded the media on war coverage, but some of his claims don't match what's actually happening on the ground. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, as the U.S. military takes on Iran, Pete Hegseth is taking on the media. At a press briefing, the defense secretary took issue with coverage of the war while contradicting his own message in a span of just a few minutes. Here are the first -- here's the first example.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: For example, a banner or a headline, Mideast war intensifies, splashing on the screen the last couple of days, alongside visuals of civilian or energy targets that Iran has hit, because that's what they do. What should the banner read instead? How about Iran increasingly desperate?
Today will be yet again the highest volume of strikes that America has put over the skies of Iran and Tehran, the number of sorties and number of bomber pulses, the highest yet ramping up and only up. And quantity has a quality of its own as we continue to ramp up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Next, Hegseth took issue with how the scope of the war is being presented.
[22:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: Another example of a fake headline that I saw yesterday, war widening. Here's a real headline for you for an actual patriotic press. How about, Iran shrinking going underground? The only thing that is widening is our advantage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: But the war is widening. More than two dozen countries have become involved either directly or indirectly. Some hit by strikes, some sending equipment and personnel and others, like Russia, are reportedly giving Iran intelligence. And then there is the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. At least 14 ships have been attacked in the strait or in the Persian Gulf since the start of this war.
And as we mentioned in the last block, the president is announcing that Navy ships will soon enter the waterway. But according to Pete Hegseth, there's nothing to be concerned about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: And as the world is seeing, they are exercising sheer desperation in the Straits of Hormuz. It's something we're dealing with, we have been dealing with it and don't need to worry about it.
The only thing prohibiting transit in the straits right now is Iran shooting at shipping. It is open for transit should Iran not do that?
The Strait of Hormuz is something we've paid attention to from the beginning. and the American people can rest assured, we will ensure that our interests are advanced, no doubt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Open for transit, except for the missiles that are headed toward these shipping vessels. I thought it was also very telling that he made it very clear they would like to write the headlines. They would like the press to be more patriotic. They would like the media to basically parrot what they say. In what democracy are we living in?
BOYKIN: I think that's an excellent point because I heard, I can't remember the exact words, he said patriotic press?
MCGOWAN: Patriotic press.
BOYKIN: Yes. Since when does the secretary of defense get to lecture journalist about their level of patriotism when they're covering a war? We went through this with the Pentagon Papers in the Vietnam War. We went through this in past controversies and crises where our government didn't tell us the truth about what was happening.
The purpose of the media is to ask questions. It's not to serve as puppets for the official line of the administration. And the idea that the government leaders are actually trying to tell journalists how to do their jobs, it should offend not only people who are in the journalism business but should offend all Americans who want the truth about what's going on.
ROGIN: Yes. I've been doing this for about 20 years. Every administration tries to tell me how to do my job. Every single Pentagon has been like, you are not patriotic. You're printing something that's going to, you know, result in bad harm for America.
So, they all do that. The thing about Hegseth is he's just so shameless about it. I mean, don't -- the water -- the strait is open except for the Iranian missiles. That's like, the pool's open. It's fine. The war is warm. There's a shark in there. But don't worry about that. Just jump on in. I mean, it's Orwellian. It's gaslighting and it's embarrassing.
I mean, that's the secretary of defense speaking not just to Americans, but to the whole world. Everyone in the world's got to watch that and be like, oh my God, these guys are actually, don't really have anything better to say. And if that's the best that they can come up with, that's embarrassing not just for him, but for the entire country.
MCGOWAN: But that's exactly why he wants to control the media. Because if we don't know --
ROGIN: It's not going to work. Nothing is going to work.
MCGOWAN: But if we don't know different, then he can say whatever he wants to say. He can say, we're winning this war. He can say --
(CROSSTALKS)
ROGIN: People don't like the war. It's a really unpopular war, a lot because of people like that.
MCGOWAN: It's not just gaslighting, it's the pledge. He just made the people in the Pentagon make that media couldn't go out unless it had gone through them. That's actually like decision-making.
And we don't need media that only says what the government tells us to say. That puts us in the world of North Korea and Putin's Russia and Xi Jinping's China. And that is not what Americans should want from their freedom of the press.
MOYNIHAN: Of course, not. And The New York Times and a lot of news outlets are suing the DOD and the judge seems to be certainly in their favor, so I think that issue is going to be resolved relatively soon.
Look, we absolutely need free press. And I don't think Hegseth is actually doing anything that's threatening people who are writing things. And I would just note though --
MCGOWAN: He directly threatened this network on that same broadcast.
ROGIN: Yes. He ordered the FBI to --
(CROSSTALKS)
MOYNIHAN: It's okay to not like headlines. As you said, many administrations are unhappy with headlines. I find it interesting though that I've seen among Democratic politicians and many in the media, they seem to almost be rooting for America to fail because they don't like Trump.
And if you look at some of these headlines, they're kind of, what, U.S. capability showing signs of rot around regime, doing well, in control. The U.S. has no strategy.
PHILLIP: What outlets are you quoting?
MOYNIHAN: The Atlantic.
ROGIN: That one's true.
BOYKIN: What outlet do you work for?
MOYNIHAN: The New York Post.
BOYKIN: And didn't they just post, didn't they just write an editorial the other day criticizing this administration for lack of transparency?
PHILLIP: Yes, they did yesterday.
MOYNIHAN: What specifically are you referring?
PHILLIP: They wrote an op-ed --
BOYKIN: They wrote an editorial criticizing the Trump administration for a lack of transparency.
MOYNIHAN: I want to see a free press.
[22:25:00] I'm all for a free press.
BOYKIN: I know but --
MOYNIHAN: I can also understand frustration that the media is painting this like we're losing.
PHILLIP: Do we not remember --
ROGIN: We don't cover the things that land on time.
PHILLIP: Do we not remember 25 years ago or so when the Bush administration presented evidence that justified a war and then it turned out that that evidence was not accurate and then launched decades of war and thousands of Americans being killed.
I don't think the problem was that the press was not patriotic enough. That war was very popular in the beginning. It's not that the press isn't patriotic enough. It's actually probably that they didn't ask enough questions. And we could be in a similar moment. And are we going to look back on this and say, wow, they weren't in favor the United States government's line enough, or are we going to ask, why didn't they ask more questions?
TODD: I think what we're going to say is, did we properly recognize the capability and excellent competence that the military of the United States has shown?
PHILLIP: I guess --
TODD: Wait a minute, wait a minute.
PHILLIP: I don't understand why that is the number one question. Nobody questions the capabilities of the United States military, but war is not just about sheer military power. It's also about strategy. It's also about outcome. Because if by that standard, we always would beat the opponent. We went to war for 20 years and we were always outmatching our opponent, and yet the American people would say that was a waste of blood and treasure. It's not just about military might.
TODD: Criticism's in order.
PHILLIP: Wouldn't you agree?
TODD: Yes, criticism is always in order, but so is the recognition of success. And I think Pete Hegseth, remember, is different from most secretaries of defense we've had. He actually was a grunt. He has been a reservist. He understands the mentality of the people that we ask to do these hard things.
And I think his frustration is built up because he thinks those people aren't being honored and he knows the sacrifices they're making. He knows how worried their families are at home and he knows how well they're doing their job. And I don't think that's unreasonable.
I personally wish that the secretary would let other people, like Lydia and I, others focus on media criticism and him that not be his focus from the podium, but that's why I think he's frustrated.
MCGOWAN: I think he's frustrated because you and Lydia are not the only ones speaking. I think that's what he's frustrated by. When he says he can't wait for Ellison to take over this network, he means get rid of the three of us at this table that might suggest the administration isn't doing everything perfectly and leave you two of here to say -- I don't know if Abby has a place here or not if she can -- you know, but we don't. I can tell you that, for sure. I'm not suggesting it. I'm saying he has said that he can't have Ellison take over fast enough.
PHILLIP: Let's not -- it's not about CNN. It's actually about
MCGOWAN: It's not about CNN. It's about who gets to speak in the Trump administration.
PHILLIP: Hold on. But it's about the broader question of how war is covered. This is an age-old issue when it comes to the media and government. And in this country, you brought up, the Pentagon Papers, in this country, it has been fraud. You've had governments try to stop -- go to all kinds of crazy lengths to try to stop the truth from coming out.
Patriotism of the media is not the number one priority in this moment. Actually getting to the truth on behalf of the American people is.
BOYKIN: Yes. And I want to agree with what Josh was saying earlier too about how every administration does this. And I've worked in the White House, I worked in the Clinton administration. I know how it is when you work in the White House. You start to believe your own lies. And I don't want to say that every administration lies, but they all do. And you believe the hype because you don't believe that the misinformation you're putting out is like the misinformation that the previous administration put out.
But somebody has a duty to question the things that those of us who are in the White House or in the government are saying.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I mean, even more charitably than that, I mean, you could also argue it's not even -- I don't think people are going into this thinking that they're lying, but sometimes there is sometimes a blindness to other perspectives, and that's where outsiders come.
TODD: And that happens in the newsroom too though. There was a blindness (INAUDIBLE). to other
PHILLIP: Of course, yes.
TODD: We don't often admit that enough.
TOGIN: That's true, we have confirmation bias in newsrooms. That's for sure. But we have a president who doesn't like to hear anything that he doesn't like to hear. And that is the culture of this administration, much more than the first Trump term, by the way. TODD: I've worked with politicians for 30 years. That's the way they all are.
ROGIN: Yes.
TODD: And when I was in journalism before, that's the way editors and publishers are. People who have authority don't necessarily have --
MCGOWAN: But that's why we have the First Amendment, right? That's why we have the First Amendment.
MOYNIHAN: I'm pretty sure that the judge who's deciding in that New York Times versus DOD case is very much in favor of the free press, and I think we're going to see it completely reinstated the way it was in the Pentagon.
ROGIN: You know, The Washington Post decided -- not me. My colleagues decided to leave the Pentagon because they didn't want to adhere to those --
MOYNIHAN: And they're going to be back.
ROGIN: And they've done great reporting. It didn't stop them one bit. They broke the most stories about this in Pentagon than anyone else. So, Pete Hegseth trying to control the narrative just won't work. It doesn't work.
[22:30:00]
It never works.
PHILLIP: Sometimes it backfires.
ROGIN: It's not going to work, and it does in fact backfire.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, Trump says that the war will be over when he, quote, feels it in his bones. But does this mysterious timeline line up with the regions? We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:34:54]
PHILLIP: Tonight, what exactly is the timeline for when this war with Iran will be over? So far we've heard weeks, not months, we've heard soon. We've even heard that it's already over. But now Trump has a new answer for that question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITD STATES OF AMERICA: When it's over, and I don't think it's going to be long, when it's over, this is going to bounce right back so fast.
BRIAN KILMEADE, "THE BRIANE KILMEADE SHOW" HOST: When are you going to know when it's over? TEUMP: When I feel it.
KILMEADE: Okay.
TRUMP: When I feel it in my bones.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: When he feels it in his bones.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: -- will be over by Easter.
PHILLIP: How are the rest of us supposed to know?
MOYNIHAN: Yes, I think the President needs to be more disciplined when he's doing these interviews and stay on message. I think when he's done videos where he's reading prompter, where he's sticking to his talking points, I think that's the most effective way. We need to hear him communicate more to the American people, but making kind of vague statements like that is not helpful.
I understand, you know, I think the argument they would make is that they don't want to telegraph a specific timeline to the enemy, but again, I think you can be a little bit more disciplined and on message than he was in that interview.
PHILLIP: Leigh.
MCGOWAN: I mean, I think he plays pretty fast and loose with other people's lives and money. And I think that's where we are here. I think, you know, he's always said things off the cuff, like I was saying earlier, you know, he said COVID would be done by Easter, that was just off his top of his head. He said he would know when things were bad based on his own morality, which made many of us nervous.
I think that's the reason we go through Congress for wars. Because if you're going to be spending our money and our lives in a conflict, it should go through our representatives, which it didn't. And now there's one person making these huge decisions for everyone and he's doing it based on his bones.
PHILLIP: And every day it's a little bit different. I mean he was asked tonight about by a reporter about what does -- he talks about unconditional surrender that he wants from Iran. What does that mean? Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Do you still expect unconditional surrender and what does that mean?
TRUMP: Well, to me it means very simply that we are in position of dominance that nobody has ever seen before. And whether or not they're able to say the words or they're able to fight. (END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: It's just so vague and I think, I mean, you could argue right now we are in a position of incredible dominance over Iran. Could we end it today? Could we end it tomorrow? Where are we headed?
TODD: Well, we want Iran to be completely militarily decapitated, unable to export terror to the region, into Americans who live abroad and threaten shipping lanes. We want Iran to not be a menace. They've been a menace for 47 years. Americans have paid for it with their lives every single decade under every president. That's where this ends, as decapitated Iran. I want to go back to --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: How will we know that? I mean, is it when the Strait of Hormuz is opened again? Is it when they stop sending off missiles? Is it -- how will we even know? I think this is where there's a gap here between -- even for Iran to know how do they stop this thing? If they wanted to surrender, how would they surrender?
TODD: I don't want the President to outline exactly to Iran what his timeline is to get in, out, or do anything. But I will say I don't think he should be answering questions every single day in multiple times a day. I mean, Joe Biden was nearly dead, and that's why we didn't see him for weeks at a time.
UNKNOWN: Here we go again.
TODD: And so, I think, I think President Trump should be a little more restrained in how often he speaks to the press about these things and then do so deliberately and not on the tarmac --
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: But he's not, he's not, you know, you all can talk about how you want him to be more disciplined and restrained, but he's never been that way. He never will be. We know who he is. And, you know, he said unconditional surrender from the beginning. Everybody knows what unconditional surrender means.
The Japanese gave us unconditional surrender of World War two. They capitulated, they quit, they stopped fighting, they gave up. That's not what's happening in Iran. It's not going to happen in Iran.
MCGOWAN: Unless we do the same thing to them.
BOYKIN: Which, you know. Well, look, Josh, let me ask you this because I mean, Trump was asked about the objectives in the war and how it might compare to what Prime Minister Netanyahu wants. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: How regularly are you speaking to Prime Minister Netanyahu and are your objectives the same in terms of ending the war? TRUMP: Well, I think they might be a little different, I guess, they're a different country than we are. But he will tell you there's never been a power like the power of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROGIN: There you go. There you go, from the horse's mouth.
PHILLIP: How does that -- how does that work? I mean, are we running --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- two parallel operations?
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: I mean, I disagree with both of you. I think Trump should keep talking because you find out all sorts of interesting stuff all the time. And because the whole world is hanging on his every whim, you know, yes, I want to know what he's thinking. And what he did was acknowledge something that a lot of people have been reporting for a long time which is that the U.S. and Israeli war objectives are diverging.
And the longer this goes on, the more it seems that Trump wants to wrap it up, and Bibi wants to keep going, okay? And that Israelis have certain objectives in terms of what they want to see in the future Iran. And Trump doesn't care about those things necessarily. He cares about more narrow objectives of military, maybe nuclear objectives, but not total regime change. That's a pretty big difference. That's not to say the two countries don't overlap or they don't fight well together or they're not great militaries or great at shooting --
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: But Trump said it. And now we - are you going to deny --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: No Hamas, no Hezbollah --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: Do you agree with Trump? I think their two objectives are to eliminate Iran as the source of terror and mayhem in the Middle East. That's what happened.
ROGIN: So, it's like if the -- Trump says stop, it's over, we won, and Israelis are like, no, we're not safe, the Israelis they're going to keep going and then the Iranians are going to keep going. And then Trump's going to keep going.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: And who pays for that? Who pays for that? ROGIN: The American taxpayer and the Iranian people.
MCGOWAN: Because -- the American taxpayer.
ROGIN: Mostly, the Iranian people on the ground who are getting killed, to be honest, they pay them - the civilians always pay the --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: But if you are an American right now and Israel decides to keep fighting after America says - we are the ones that will pay --
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: Yes, our inflation will -- yes, our inflation will go up and their children will die.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: How about the 46 Americans killed in Israel on 10-7 by Iranian funds, did they pay for it? The 46 Americans killed in Israel, did they pay for it? They paid for it. They paid for Iran. There were 46 Americans there. There were eight taken into captivity. They paid for the American politicians' tolerance of Iran --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: Can I ask you, this is the second time you talked about Americans dying. You just said 68 Americans.
TODD: Forty-six Americans --
MCGOWAN: Forty-six Americans.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: But here's the thing. We're spending, what is it now, $3 billion a day?
TODD: Are you putting a price on those 46 lives?
MCGOWAN: No, no. Here's what I'm going to say, so let me finish what I'm going to say. Because obviously I'm not putting a price on those Americans' heads. What I'm saying is, you're saying 46 Americans died so we should attack this country because they're a terror organization and we need to come and get them.
I could tell you here at home, 68,000 Americans die a year because they don't have health insurance. So if we're going to spend billions of dollars on something, would it not make more sense to save American lives, to spend it here on health care than bombing another country overseas?
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: It's the job of the United States government to eliminate our enemies.
MCGOWAN: But what I'm saying is that you're going to start saying American lives are specific. Forty-seven people died and this is worth going to world war. I would say 68,000 people die a year here --
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: By the way you're looking at the vast majority goes to entitlements - Medicare, Medicaid --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: The vast majority goes to the military, by the way.
MOYNIHAN: Okay, you can actually --
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: -- policy of eliminating all of our enemies here at calling for war on North Korea, China, Russia, and that is just crazy. So --
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: I think the difference with Iran is that it's the largest under a global terror.
ROGIN: No, we have to manage the threats with the resources that we have.
TODD: We've spent 47 years attempting to manage Iran with rhetoric.
BOYKIN: One thing, Donald Trump said no more wars, no forever wars.
MOYNIHAN: He also said - he also said Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.
BOYKIN: And you two are both saying, now let's go to war, we're all in. So which is it?
TODD: I'm a hawk. I was a hawk then and I'm a hawk now.
BOYKIN: But Donald Trump is not consistent.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Brad has probably been, I mean, way more consistent than Donald Trump --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: That is for sure. Coming up next, retribution rebuked. A judge stops the DOJ of subpoenas for the Fed chair Jerome Powell, citing essentially zero evidence to suspect him of a crime. We'll debate that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:47:49]
PHILLIP: Tonight, another roadblock on Donald Trump's retribution tour. A federal judge blocking an attempt by the DOJ to issue subpoenas to the Federal Reserve as part of its investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell. In his opinion today, Judge James Boasberg wrote that, a mountain of evidence suggests that the government sent its subpoenas to pressure Powell into voting for lower interest rates or resigning. And he added that the government produced essentially zero evidence to suspect the -- Powell of an actual crime.
It's yet another embarrassment for the Trump DOJ and its efforts to pursue his political rivals and his hand-picked U.S. attorney, Jeanine Pirro, says she wasn't having it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEANINE PIRRO, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: This process has been arbitrarily undermined by an activist judge. A judge says, yes, the guy's bathed and washed in immunity and you can't go after him. The process should have been allowed to run its course and it wasn't. And shame on them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Not sure what exactly was going on at that press conference, but it does, you know, not sure it was the best idea for her to come out and do this whole thing, but President Trump is fixated on this on Jerome Powell. I think he sent out a Truth Social just last night about interest rates, so she had to make a statement so that Trump knew that she wasn't going to take this lying down or whatever it is. I mean but, man, this is a big L for them.
MCGOWAN: Yes, it's a big L, but it's also like our President is on a retribution tour and I think it's worth noting that that he went after James Comey, and he went after Letitia James and, now he's going after Jerome Powell because Jerome Powell won't do what he wants him to do. But Jerome Powell is actually looking out for the American people which is his job.
And because you can't just fire the Fed chair, you have to release them because they've done something wrong. He's trying to gin out something wrong, and he failed. And I just think it's unfortunate for the American people that we have a president that makes his decisions in this way. It feels irresponsible, not just for our economy, but for the way the country is run. That if you come up against him, he will come after you, which I think is how we have so many people in his cabinet wearing shoes that don't fit them.
[22:50:04]
BOYKIN: I actually disagree with you.
MCGOWAN: Tell me why.
BOYKIN: Because I think it's a huge victory for the Trump administration. And the reason why is because James Boasberg essentially did Trump a favor
MCGOWAN: Okay.
BOYKIN: -- by not allowing this case to proceed that prevents market chaos, which is the last thing that this administration needs while they're in the middle of the war.
MCGOWN: But that's why I'm thinking it's helping the American people, right? Because this is an activist judge.
BOYKIN: That's true.
So this is a --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: This is a George W.- appointed judge who's very middle of the --
BOYKIN: When I say I disagree with you, being rhetorical about that.
MCGOWAN: You're saying, you actually did him a favour, too.
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: I think this is an important decision that actually helps Donald Trump because it prevents the chaos that economic disruption could happen.
TODD: He also gives me an opportunity, to confirm Kevin's words, to the feds, because Senator Tillis in North Carolina said that he, as long as this case proceeded, that he was not going to give his consent.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Right. So, thank Judge Boasberg -- is the --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: There's a silver lining there.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: Two things could be true at the same time though. No way Jay Powell should have been prosecuted or investigated. I've said that from the start. At the same time, Donald Trump's right, he was too late. And I find it interesting today that Judge Boasberg said that he thought that this was an effort by Trump to influence Jay Powell on interest rates. I think so, too.
But Jay Powell was also trying to influence Donald Trump's tariffs policies. He withheld interest rate cuts and denied the American people the cut that everybody else in the Western world was getting, even as the economy met the benchmarks, even as the economy met his own benchmarks. (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Run that back for me, Brad. You're saying that Jerome Powell was trying to do what?
TODD: He was trying to force Donald Trump to pull back on his tariff policies. You can read it in his press conferences. It's way out of his lane.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: How would you --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: What evidence do you have of that?
TODD: Go read -- go read his post-press conferences after the --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Trump announces his liberation day tariffs. He says I've believed in this for 30 years, I'm going to do it. And you're telling me that Jerome Powell thought, well, maybe if I do this, I'll stop him?
TODD: Jerome Powell was trying to set tariff policies from down the street.
BOYKIN: No, that's not the way the Fed works.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I'm sorry. That doesn't make any sense.
TODD: He actually was, but he punished the American people in the process.
PHILLIP: Would it not be Jerome Powell's job to take into consideration the policy decisions of policymakers like the president, like tariffs, and make judgment calls about how that would influence the economy? Isn't that actually the definition of his job?
TODD: He did not know how other countries would react. He didn't know whether the tariffs would come off. He didn't know if they were temporary or not. It's his job to use the --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: He literally said that. He literally said that every time he went to the cameras. He said, we don't know how persistent this -- the tariffs are going to be. We don't know what the long-term impacts are going to be. He said that time and time again.
(CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: And in fact, he was actually quite measured about tariffs repeatedly, because he said that -- he said repeatedly that it was possible that tariffs could raise inflation, but it was also possible that those effects could be temporary. So, none of what you're saying is actually accurate based on what he has actually said --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: No, you're wrong. Every time that the economy began to the benchmarks Powell set out he still refused to lower rates.
BOYKIN: He doesn't make the decisions by himself. It's the federal open markets committee that makes the decisions. He's one member of the committee. He doesn't designate everything. He just essentially designates what's happening, what the committee consensus is. He did nothing different from what Janet Yellen or Ben Bernanke or Alan Greenspan have done in the past. They basically state what the economic reality is and the president can do whatever he wants.
PHILLIP: All right.
ROGIN: I agree with that the court saved Trump from himself because the last thing he needs is more chaos in the confidence in the U.S. dollar right now. But Trump is about to get what he wants. He's going to get a political Fed chair who's going to do what he wants, which will undermine the independence of the Fed and hurt the dollar and hurt the U.S. economy.
PHILLIP: Well, he might, he might, but he might not. Because you pointed out, Tom Tillis has been very clear that if he gets a whiff that somebody coming in there is going to just be a rubber stamp, he might throw a wrench in the --
TODD: Maybe he picked Jay Powell for low rates, too.
ROGIN: Yes, but Trump is not going to stop trying to politicize every institution of government that shows any independence. And that is what undermines international confidence in our institutions. And that's the last thing we need as the economy teeters on the edge, we head deeper into an unwinnable war.
TODD: But Josh, every president wants the Fed chair to lower rates. They all do. Joe Biden did, too. They all do.
PHILLIP: Yes, and Trump is the one that --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Not just -- prosecute.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All right, everybody. Thank you very much for being here. Coming up on CNN, much more breaking news on the Iran war and the U.S.'s bombing of Kharg Island.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:59:10]
PHILLIP: Award stages are no stranger to politics, but this weekend's Oscars arrive amid conflicts both at home and abroad. This year's host, comedian Conan O'Brien, addressed how he plans to handle it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONAN O'BRIEN, COMEDIAN AND OSCARS HOST: I think that what's happening in the world will be reflected throughout the show. My job is to always try and hit this very, very thin line, I think, between entertaining people and also acknowledging some of the realities. So it is a dance. It's a dance that goes on up until the show begins.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: You can catch all the glitz and glam this Sunday night on CNN, as CNN and Variety are live on the red carpet for the biggest night in Hollywood.
[23:00:01]
CNN, Variety, "Red Carpet Live" starts Sunday at 4 P.M. And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media -- X, Instagram, and on TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
