Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Says To United Nations That He May Annihilate Iran; More GOP Candidates Speak Out Against Trump's Iran War; GOP Senators Call For Investigating Don Jr.'s Wedding Gift; Trump Administration To Welcome More South African Refugees By 2027; AOC Wants The Next President To Be A Latina And A Female. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired September 22, 2026 - 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 VIDEOTAPE)
SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, in a building that promotes peace, the American president issues an apocalyptic threat.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly?
SIDNER: This as only 26 percent of Americans approve of the war.
Plus --
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): How on earth did this happen? Because on its face, it looks pretty dumb.
SIDNER: -- Republican senators calling for an investigation into Don Jr. and the wedding gift he received from a Russian oligarch.
Also, the administration tells Congress it's accepting 17,000 refugees next year, but they're mostly white South Africans.
And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez talks about a potential White House run, but questions whether a Latina would be elected.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Ashley Allison, Brad Todd, Ana Navarro, and Josh Rogin.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SIDNER (on camera): Good evening to you. I'm Sara Sidner in New York, in for Abby Phillip.
Tonight, President Trump is once again threatening to annihilate Iran if they don't make a deal to end the war. He made the threat in front of the United Nations General Assembly today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: But I have a big decision to make. Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world, or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations? But I believe we'll make a deal right after the election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff met with Iran's foreign minister in New York to discuss conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and Trump later said his administration and the Iranian delegation held a very good meeting.
It all comes as public support, however, for the war has never been worse. The new CNN poll finds only a quarter of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the situation in Iran. 70 percent say Trump's decisions on military action in Iran have hurt the United States. Even more think he doesn't have a clear plan in Iran, and only 36 percent think the U.S. is even winning this war.
Before we open it up to the table here, we invite you at home to join the debate. Head to cnn.com/abby and weigh in. We'll get to some of your comments throughout the show.
Scott, once again, the president is saying, I'm going to annihilate this country, and he's making these big claims. Why should we believe him? We have heard this over and over and over and over and over again.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first of all, we have been annihilating them. I mean, they have no military left. We sunk all their navy. We decimated their defense industrial complex. They haven't exported a drop of oil since mid-July. I mean, in many ways we've already annihilated them, and prior to that we annihilated --
SIDNER: But then why are we still there if it's all annihilated? Why is the United States -- why do we still have, you know, sons and daughters of soldiers still there?
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And why does he say we need to annihilate them if it has already happened?
JENNINGS: Well, I mean, we certainly possess the firepower to do even more. I think what he desires, and what he continues to say that he desires, is for this to reach some kind of a diplomatic end where they are no longer the world's largest state sponsor of terror, and where they no longer desire to have a nuclear weapon with which they would like to blow up Israel and the United States and the rest of western civilization. That's what he wants.
He also said in his speech today that, if you think I'm going to be persuaded by politics or elections or anything else, you have another thing coming. What I heard in his speech today was a message to the Iranians, if you think the political calendar or polling or anything else bothers me, think again, because it does not. And he made that quite clear today, which I actually thought was the main point of the message he was delivering.
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: You know, in any normal world, the President of the United States addressing the United Nations, threatening war crimes, celebrating the plunder of another country, and then threatening to start another war on top of that would be considered unusual, it would be considered shocking.
[22:05:10]
And what was most shocking to me about today's speech is that it wasn't shocking. Nobody -- everybody sort of heard Trump threaten war crimes, celebrate the plunder of a country, threaten to attack another country, and everyone was like that's just Trump being Trump. And the reaction, of course, from the Iranians and everyone to his threat to commit these war crimes was like, oh, he's bluffing, because everybody knows he's bluffing because he's done it so many times.
So, he destroyed the credibility and morality of the U.S. message at the United Nations for nothing, because everybody knows he doesn't want to escalate, because we don't have the munitions. He doesn't want to do more damage to the economy.
I agree with you that after the election, nothing changes. Trump's still going to want to bluff, and he's still going to want to demands from the Iranians that they're never going to agree to. But nothing changes on the Iranian side either. They're not going to change their desire to stick it to Trump and to stick it to the United States, and that's the quagmire. That's the quagmire that we've been -- or at least some of us have been predicting for the last seven months. We're in it now.
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But that's exactly the truth he spoke today. I mean, we've had seven presidents who've just pushed this to the corner and hoped this problem would go away. He went to the United Nations, a body that's supposed to stop countries like Iran, a two-state sponsor of terrorists, and supposed to shut that down, although it's a failed structure, so it can't. They have not passed a single resolution against Iran's nuclear program since 2010. But it took the American president Midnight Hammer and walking in there to speak the truth today.
He also talked about other things. He talked about the Gaza peace plan, which the U.N. approved, and his Board of Peace, which the U.N. approved. He bragged on Mark Rutte, secretary general of NATO, talked about how NATO's a great success, which was because he pushed it to be a great success in this administration.
So, this speech was bigger than that. He had -- American presidents have to take Iran seriously and end this problem.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: One of the other things that, that that he talked about in this speech which- bothered me to no end was, you know, he boasted about the operation in Venezuela, about extraditing Maduro. That part is fine. But then he talked about working closely with the Venezuelan leaders, the leaders of Venezuela, to forge a better future.
The person he's working closely with is Maduro's vice president, and Maduro's vice president is just as complicit with the crimes against humanity that Maduro committed as Nicolas Maduro is. The regime is intact but for Maduro, that he made a 100-year deal with these people. And at the same time, Venezuelans in the United States are getting shot by ICE, are getting deported to far off places in Africa, are getting sent to torture centers in El Salvador.
But that he has legitimized Maduro's vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, with whom he was supposed to meet tonight, empowered her and given her the title of leader of Venezuela, while the legitimate leaders who won the election, that the entire world recognized won, Edmundo Gutierrez and Maria Corina Machado, are not allowed back into Venezuela by the United States of America because they say they can't provide security, is shameful, shameful and a complete betrayal of the people in South Florida who voted for him hoping for the end of the Maduro era.
ROGIN: And the country, yes.
ALLISON: I think that there's a couple things that happened. I agree that we should all be shocked, and we know elections have outcomes, and here we are. But the president said annihilation, and he uses a lot of words that people always don't really -- annihilation means the total destruction and non-existence of a people, which means civilian -- Iranian civilians would be murdered. They'd no longer exist. And that is what I was raised to say, that is not the American way.
And so I don't understand how people can sit here so nonchalantly. How does he annihilate the -- are you okay if every Iranian citizen is just going to be erased?
TODD: No. But I'm okay if the Iranian Republican Guard is erased, and I'm okay if he take -- removes them from power so that the Iranian army can stand up and take control of their own country and their own elections.
ALLISON: But how does that happen?
ROGIN: (INAUDIBLE) trying to make a deal with the IRGC.
ALLISON: But then how does that happen?
ROGIN: That the policy is to make a deal with the IRGC.
ALLISON: Troops on the ground. If you're at 25 percent right now, that Americans don't support this war, if you do a full-fledged troops on the ground, where do you -- it will be negative --
ROGIN: My question is, who are these 25 percent who think everything's going great?
ALLISON: These two.
ROGIN: No, I know you guys do it.
ALLISON: And their friends.
ROGIN: But you guys are kind of like in the game. I'm saying 25 percent of regular people are saying -- looking at this war where they're like, oh, this is going great.
ALLISON: They know enough people.
ROGIN: Everything's going great. Who are those people?
ALLISON: Josh, they know enough people to get to 25 percent.
ROGIN: I don't know anybody who thinks this is going great that's not getting paid to say it.
NAVARRO: They are blindly loyal Trump supporters who will never, ever admit that he's doing anything wrong.
SIDNER: Scott, let me ask you a question.
ROGIN: It's crazy.
SIDNER: Because you talked about -- you know, look, he's, he says he's not worried about politics. Shouldn't he be? The Republicans are running and they are starting to -- more and more people are coming out saying this war is costing us. We need to end this war immediately.
[22:10:00]
JENNINGS: Well, I mean, all presidents and all political actors have to worry about politics at some level. But I do think there's an argument to be made for just operating on national security and what you think is in the best interest of American national security, even if there are political consequences of doing it.
SIDNER: Even if Americans say, hey, we can't afford this war, we cannot afford this, this is really hurting us?
JENNINGS: But my view is, you know, I don't -- I've had my doubts about whether we will be able to make a deal.
ROGIN: The Iran war's going right according to plan.
TODD: Well, the Lend-Lease deal was a popular --
ROGIN: Is that what you're saying?
TODD: -- leading up to World War Two --
ROGIN: No, forget about the Lend-Lease deal from the -- like this Iran war that we're in right now, you're saying it's going great and it's going according to plan. JENNINGS: I mean, I think the U.S. military --
ROGIN: And we're on the way to getting the nuclear dust and it's going to be wonderful.
JENNINGS: I think the U.S. military has performed the most heroic mission and created results beyond anyone's wildest expectations.
ROGIN: Yes. But if killing people could solve the problem --
JENNINGS: We have absolutely decimated this regime.
ROGIN: Yes. But if military power -- if a military power could solve the problem, we would've won the war in Vietnam.
ALLISON: That just isn't true. Like there --
JENNINGS: you don't think it's true the military's performed well?
ALLISON: I think that -- I'm saying that people think that they have performed better than anybody's expectation, because 75 percent of the American people don't think this is being handled well. Those two things don't seem to -- cannot coexist. You cannot have already annihilated something and then want to annihilate. We sat here last night and you said, we have won the war. Well, then why do we need to annihilate these folks?
It's just -- that is why you are losing the American people on this because there is a duplicitous nature to this war, and there seems to be no end, and the American people don't want it.
Now, Trump might not care about the politics, but in the long -- in the effort -- in the instance that the Senate's actually goes back to Democrats and the House is actually won by Democrats, he should actually be concerned, because then there might be an actual third branch of government that does some checks and balances on him and reins him in. Right now, he doesn't have it.
I actually will talk about this later in the show. You see Republicans also balking at him, because they're like, you only care about yourself right now. You don't care. You're not on the ballot, but I am.
TODD: (INAUDIBLE) what's right for America and for getting rid of the world's greatest state-sponsored terrorism. That's what I care about. But --
NAVARRO: And can I ask you, how do you guys feel? Because, you know, you were a Bush Republican once upon a time. How do you all feel about the fact that we are in bed with Delcy Rodriguez, Nicolas Maduro's vice president?
TODD: I would much rather have -- I would much prefer to see the elected leader at the head. But I can tell you what --
NAVARRO: Over nine months after Maduro has been extradited. TODD: Do you know how many resolutions the United Nations passed against Victor Maduro --
NAVARRO: Nicolas.
TODD: Nicolas Maduro? None.
NAVARRO: A ton.
TODD: Zero.
NAVARRO: But, I mean, there's been -- there was condemnation by a lot of those countries. There was recognition of Maria Corina Machado's party as having won the election.
TODD: It takes kinetic energy to make change on the world stage.
NAVARRO: Right. But it was not the United Nations who went in and took out Maduro, and it's not the United Nations who's now in bed with the vice president of Nicolas Maduro. So, let's not, you know, make it about the United Nations when it is a bilateral thing between the United States and Venezuela.
JENNINGS: I thought one more thing that happened today that was of note was if you listened to what the prime minister of Denmark said today about the deal that they have made with President Trump and the United States. If you listen to her comments about the historic relationship that we've had, about how strong it is, about how this agreement is going to make it even stronger, about how we're going to keep the Russians and the Chinese from circling around this strategic piece of property that President Trump has long had his eye on, it was a momentous thing.
SIDNER: You mean Greenland?
JENNINGS: Yes. It was a momentous thing.
And for a year-and-a-half, or almost two years now, I've been listening to everyone have a complete and total hysterical meltdown about this, about how we've ruined our relationship with Denmark, about how this has weakened Europe and weakened NATO, blah, blah, blah. If you listen to her speech today, it could not have been more pro-American and pro-Trump and pro-national security, and it was perfect.
ROGIN: Yes, but --
JENNINGS: And it got done despite all the hysteria.
So, when I hear the same hysteria, people coming out here and claiming somehow we've decimated the entire Iranian military and that means they're winning --
ALLISON: I'm not saying it.
JENNINGS: I somehow -- ALLISON: He is saying it.
JENNINGS: Somehow feel like maybe, -just maybe we're on the right track.
ROGIN: On the Greenland thing, you know, the --
NAVARRO: You're comparing the Danish to the Iranians?
JENNINGS: No. I'm comparing the hysteria that I get on virtually anything he tries to do.
ROGIN: It was true that threatening to invade a NATO country and attack a NATO ally was terrible when he did it, and it's true, it's still true that it was terrible.
JENNINGS: Did you listen to her speech today?
ROGIN: And your view --
JENNINGS: Did you listen to her today?
ALLISON: Well, it sounds like the Danish leader is more in line with Donald Trump than 75 percent of Americans.
ROGIN: And if you look at the damage that that this episode has done to U.S. standing in the countries amongst the people there, not the leaders who have to --
TODD: Is NATO stronger or weaker than it was when he started?
ROGIN: It -- the U.S. commitment to NATO has been undermined by a Trump attack --
TODD: Is it a stronger defense alliance or not? Is it more capable of defending each other?
ROGIN: It's complicated.
TODD: No, it's not. Every NATO country's spending more on national defense now because Trump prompted them to.
ROGIN: At the same time, the United -- they fear the United States attacking our allies, which is bizarre and not good.
JENNINGS: The speech that the prime minister made today could not have been more forward-leaning about the relationship with the United States.
[22:15:06]
ALLISON: But she didn't say that about our president. That's the problem, like --
JENNINGS: Yes, she did. They were there together.
(CROSSTALKS)
NAVARRO: You get an award today for this incredible pivot of turning this discussion from the insane speech that Donald Trump gave. By the way, he sounded like low energy Jeb while giving it and turning it into the speech about the Danish --
TODD: (INAUDIBLE) a great deal in the speech. What are you talking about?
JENNINGS: Yes.
TODD: You only want to talk about the parts you don't like, because you can't give him credit for anything.
NAVARRO: Well, I think the way he went about the Denmark thing and Greenland thing was terrible, the same way that I think the way he went about the Panama thing was terrible. I don't think threatening allies --
TODD: Can you give him credit on any one thing?
ALLISON: No.
NAVARRO: Can I give him credit? Well, he stayed awake, which is a first.
TODD: Close my case.
SIDNER: And we will leave it there.
Next, also breaking tonight, more Republican senators are demanding an investigation into Donald Trump Jr. and the gift he received from a Russian oligarch.
Plus, can a Latina be elected president of the United States? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questions that as she considers a 2028 run. We'll discuss ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
SIDNER: Tonight, the Republican senator is calling for an investigation into Donald Trump's eldest son for the lavish wedding gift he received from a Russian oligarch, and more senators are joining him now. Don Jr. and his wife don't deny the gift, and the president says his son paid Umar Kremlev, a close ally of Vladimir Putin, back for the expenses Kremlev covered.
Utah Senator John Curtis is having none of it. Quote, a toaster is a wedding gift, he wrote on social media. A private island party paid for by a Putin-connected oligarch is something else. Republicans nearly rode out the subpoena machine investigating Hunter Biden's foreign relationships. We should not unplug it now. Trust us was not enough then, and it is not enough now, he argued. All right, how do you explain what appears to be a gift that you usually get something back? They showed up at this. ProPublica, we should give the credit where it's due, broke the story, and you had these Russian oligarchs who were there at the wedding. How do you explain a whole bunch of money going towards a wedding? I think $100,000 is what the report was.
JENNINGS: I mean, I don't know. I wasn't invited, so I wasn't there. I mean, it sounds like a conversation was had, and it was repaid in short order, which was obviously the correct thing.
I'll be candid I'm not surprised about this letter from Senator Curtis, and just more broadly on investigations --
SIDNER: But are you surprised about a Russian oligarch giving the son of the president money for his wedding?
JENNINGS: Am I surprised? I really --
ROGIN: Is that a corrupt thing?
JENNINGS: I really don't know, but I think it was right to pay it back. Let me just make a broader comment about the letter. I think that anything that President Trump's family has been involved in for the last ten years is going to be investigated if Democrats take control of Congress, whether it's this, business deals, anything else --
SIDNER: But this isn't a Democrat.
JENNINGS: It's going to be open season on the Trumps.
SIDNER: This isn't a Democrat. This is a Republican and John Cornyn is joining him.
JENNINGS: Well, there's also a Democrat involved. It's not just Republicans.
SIDNER: And Thom Tillis.
ROGIN: Yes, they investigate a lot of things, but this guy is named Kremlev. He changed his name to Kremlev, which roughly means of the Kremlin, okay? He's not your normal run-of-the-mill Russian crook, okay? He's the bag man, the front man, for Putin's head of personal security.
He's the head of the boxing association, the lottery. They robbed the guy who owned the biggest car dealership, they gave it to him. He's a top crook. In the realm of crooks, of Russian crooks near Putin, he's one of the, the one of the top ones, okay?
And, you know, in the first Trump administration, they were at least kind of embarrassed about their relationships with Russian crooks, you know what I mean? Like not to say that they were illegal, not to say that they affected the election, but they at least tried to like deny it or at least they were kind of like felt some kind of -- type of shame about it. Now, they're just like proud of it, you know? I don't get it why, you know, Putin's bag man --
JENNINGS: They don't sound proud of it. They immediately paid back whatever the cost was?
SIDNER: Well, after the reporting. After the reporting.
NAVARRO: I mean, can I just say --
JENNINGS: Would you have preferred they not pay it back?
NAVARRO: No. I would prefer they had never taken the money.
ROGIN: I prefer they don't take money from Russian crooks.
JENNINGS: So, obviously, a conversation was had, a recognition of error was realized, and then you paid it back.
NAVARRO: But, Scott, can I just say something, though?
JENNINGS: I mean, I --
NAVARRO: Forget -- take away the Russian oligarch close to Putin angle of it, which is, you know, outrageous, that a 48-year-old grown-ass man getting married for the second time, who is worth millions and millions of dollars, who has profiteered off his father's presidency to the tune of even more tens of millions of dollars, who is the son of the president of the United States, is having his wedding party paid by anybody?
Forget this. You know, dude, it's tacky. It's, you know, irresponsible. It's kind of gross. It's kind of gross to me. I mean, do you think a 50-year-old should be paying for his own damn wedding?
TODD: I don't anticipate having any more weddings in my 50s, you know? It's -- hopefully, I'm --
NAVARRO: Are your 50s in front of you?
TODD: I'm one and done. I'm one and done.
SIDNER: Do you worry, though, that this -- let's say there's no malfeasance here.
[22:25:00]
Let's just, all right, give -- okay, we'll stand back and go, okay. Doesn't it look like there could be? Isn't that a problem, just the appearance that this looks really bad?
TODD: I think it looks like there's an absence of precaution, and there's an absence of precaution. And, you know, when your family inside the administration they do move inside the private and public spheres. But we certainly know from the last ten years that the expectation is going to be that everything's scrutinized.
And Scott's right. They say they pay it all back. We're going to find out how many pennies are on the end of the check. Because the Democrats will get a chance to issue subpoenas, and, you know, some Republicans will help them, as John Curtis has said. And they should. And they should.
NAVARRO: You talk about the expectations of the last ten years, and part of that is what happened with Hunter Biden.
ALLISON: Go ahead, sorry.
JENNINGS: Well, no, I was just going to add one more thing. I think every question that gets asked, every letter that gets sent, every request for information ought to be answered in full. I think -- look, I think whatever situation you got yourself into, whether you had good intentions or bad, or whether it was inadvertent, paid it back. Well, I just think you ought to answer all the questions.
And so now that these letters are coming, they know what to expect. I think they ought to answer every question.
SIDNER: So -- go ahead.
ALLISON: It just stinks, guys. Like this is just plain common sense. Like if we put this problem in front of a fifth grader, they would be like, oh, don't take money from the oligarch. Like that is basic. And so some things you just got to call a spade a spade. We don't -- luckily, you all last segment said, you never give Republicans or Trump -- luckily, Republicans are standing up and saying, whoa, whoa, we did it to Biden. We're going to do it here. That is actually how our government should work. They should do it for more things no matter who the president is. But like this should be a easy one. Like everything doesn't have to be a fight.
JENNINGS: Can't you just take yes for an answer? We've literally agreed that it's going to be investigated. That's a good thing. All questions should be answered, and they should pay it back.
ALLISON: But sometimes --
JENNINGS: When do you just take yes for an answer?
TODD: And we should all get to see -- we should all get to see the proof of it.
ALLISON: No.
JENNINGS: And it should be done in public, by the way.
ALLISON: The issue I take with it is that people, now granted, the son is not a leader, but people should have better discernment.
TODD: Bad judgment.
ALLISON: This is a bad judgment.
TODD: He had bad judgment. NAVARRO: Now, what happens and what, how do you guys feel about it if he in fact gets called to testify, but he gets subpoenaed and he ignores it and doesn't show up?
TODD: You're going to find out the check. You're going to get it. That means you're going to have enough Republicans that'll help. They were going to get it.
NAVARRO: Yes. But, I mean, if he doesn't show up, then what happens? It gets referred to the DOJ, and Todd Blanche is going to say --
TODD: It's a hypothetical. I don't know how to answer, because I have to expect it to happen that you'll know. They've already said they're going to.
NAVARRO: Well, I hope that if he does get subpoenaed, if he does get -- he does what Hunter Biden did, which, and Hunter Biden should have been called and did testify, and that's what I expect should happen as well.
SIDNER: Let me mention Hunter Biden actually went on X, I think, today, and he said this. You want to throw that up. He said, Senator Curtis of Utah suggested that Don Jr. and I should testify before Congress. I say bring it on. I've already given more than seven hours of sworn testimony, and he goes on. So, he's saying he would sit side by side, and they can ask all the questions that they want.
ROGIN: You know, influence peddling is a bipartisan tradition in Washington, okay? And I can't remember an administration that didn't have some family member who was doing some dirt. You know, the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, Neil Bush, not calling you out specifically, but look it up.
TODD: Billy Carter. Don't forget Billy Carter.
ROGIN: Billy Carter.
So, you know, you become president, somebody in your family is going to try to do some dirt, okay? Okay, fine, but this is an order of magnitude different because the -- one, the Trump family has 40 years of connections to Russian gangsters, well-documented. Two, they just went through ten years of being accused of being connected to Putin, and then the guy takes a wedding from Putin's bodyguard's bag man. He's kind of playing into it a little bit. And, you know, the Hunter Biden stuff was, like, in the low millions, right? Like he was influence peddling for, what, $5, $10, $20 million. Jared Kushner got $2 billion from the Saudis. It's 1,000 times as much corruption, okay?
ALLISON: But, you know, the other thing is like the --
ROGIN: It's another scale.
ALLISON: -- the reason why people --
ROGIN: They've taken the grift and they've put it on steroids in ways that we've never seen before. So, yes, I think if you put the Bidens and the Trumps together, it would be like this much corruption versus this much.
ALLISON: I also think the proximity of the relationship to the president matters, right? Like if this was somebody's third cousin's aunt or whatever the -- they would be like, okay, these are their sons.
ROGIN: It's a son, right.
ALLISON: Their sons. And so there is --
ROGIN: It's their name.
ALLISON: Exactly. And we know that they have been particularly the sons of Donald Trump, have been in the White House, have influence on, just as some may suspect that Hunter Biden did as well.
So, I do think the proximity also plays, and it's just bad judgment.
NAVARRO: But you know what these politicians, what these senators, what these elected officials need to do is frankly tighten up the laws when it comes to conflict of interest. There are -- you know, there are senators in jail right now because their wife was in business --
ROGIN: I don't think the Todd Blanche Justice Department's going to get to the bottom of this one.
NAVARRO: Well.
JENNINGS: Actually --
ROGIN: Call me crazy. I don't know if they're going to spend their resources on investigating Russian collusion with Donald Trump --
JENNINGS: I actually agree with you. I think the Congress should take care from time to analyze whether our ethics and transparency laws as it relates to the executive and legislative branch.
[22:30:08]
I think they ought to look at them all the time and make sure that they are contemplating modern occurrences. And that's something --
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: Spoiler alert. They're not.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, AND HOST, "BLEEP WITH ANA NAVARRO": It would require them looking at themselves because there's plenty of sons and daughters and wives.
JENNINGS: Somebody did it. It would be good politics.
ROGIN: Guys, guys, the Trump administration destroyed the DOJ's ability to investigate foreign agent registration, foreign corrupt practices. They got rid of all the prosecutors, they've neutered our ability to take away this, to enforce the laws against this corruption.
NAVARRO: Yes, but we're not talking about DOJ. We're saying these three senators, for example, could collectively introduce legislation to tighten the conflict of interest law when it comes to family members profiteering off of their relatives' elected office.
ROGIN: All right. I won't hold my breath.
NAVARRO: Yes, neither will I.
SARA SIDNER, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT AND ANCHOR: All right. Everybody hold your breath until the next break is over.
All right. Next, the Trump administration says it's going to welcome more white South African refugees next year as it continues to restrict people from other countries. We will debate what's going on here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Tonight, as the Trump administration cracks down on immigration, the White House has informed Congress it intends to accept more than 17,000 refugees in 2027, the majority of whom are white South Africans. Trump has repeatedly claimed that Afrikaners are victims of government-sponsored race-based discrimination because they are white, even going as far as saying white South African farmers face a genocide.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration increased the refugee cap for South Africans by 10,000, despite the insistence of South Africans that genocide is occurring. As refugees from around the world fleeing war, persecution, and other dangers find it nearly impossible to find safe harbor now in the United States, the resettlement program announced today is expected to cost about $500 million.
This is to anyone, how do you explain this? There is no genocide happening in South Africa.
All of the political parties say that is not happening. There is no humanitarian group who has come out and said, hey, this is happening, it's not true. So what is happening here with the Trump administration?
JENNINGS: I'm glad we're finally fact-checking the use of the word genocide. It's positive development around here, number one, to move forward.
SIDNER: Okay, but here's the thing, Scott, deflecting this doesn't work in this instance.
JENNINGS: I'm not going to. I'm going to answer your question.
SIDNER: Okay. What's the answer?
JENNINGS: It is simply, in my opinion, a reprioritization of the refugee program. There doesn't need to be a genocide occurring for the administration to conclude that there's some sort of racial discrimination and violence occurring against the population of people.
That's what they believe is happening here, and for them to use the refugee program to resettle them. It is simply the administration's determination that this is a situation they want to engage in.
SIDNER: So you don't care if they're wrong? You don't care if they're absolutely out of their mind wrong?
JENNINGS: Wrong that there's discrimination and violence against these people? Of course there is.
I'm not arguing it's a genocide, but of course there's discrimination and violence against (inaudible). I'll give you one more thing.
SIDNER: The number of people who were killed in South Africa, most of them are black. You know where there is? Are you disputing that?
JENNINGS: Are you disputing that this population of people has faced racial discrimination and violence?
SIDNER: So they deserve to come into this country, but other people who have faced racial discrimination and violence do not?
JENNINGS: I didn't say that. You asked me why are they doing it, and I'm telling you it is simply a reprioritization of the refugee program. I'll give you two other things. Number one --
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, PUBLISHER, "THE ROOT", FOUNDER, WATERING HOLE MEDIA, AND FORMER NATIONAL COALITIONS DIRECTOR, BIDEN-HARRIS 2020: You think it's because they're white?
JENNINGS: Number one, the administration --
SIDNER: Why are they specifically, there's all this thing about race- based, or we shouldn't be doing anything that is race-based, and suddenly they are specifically allowing in white South Africans. Doesn't that sound to be very odd to you, and certainly race-based?
JENNINGS: Would you prefer that anybody who is white be barred from accessing the program?
SIDNER: That's not what this argument is. You know that's not what this argument is about.
JENNINGS: Let me give you two other things the administration said, which I agree with. Well, number one, populations that we resettle here ought to agree, ironclad agree to assimilation. Number two, populations that we resettle and allow here ought to be able to support themselves. Right now there are Democrats across the country suing the
administration over their use of the public charge rule. There are a number of reasons why the administration has reprioritized the refugee program.
But to say that this population doesn't deserve it, I just don't think it's true. So even if you agree -- let's say we all agree there's no actual definition genocide, that doesn't mean they don't qualify for some sort of resettlement based on the administration's priorities and judgment.
NAVARRO: Listen, Cubans have assimilated so much that they are senators, they are congress people, they are secretary of state, and guess what? This President is deporting them to Yemen and Sudan.
You know, it's funny because he talks about, so this administration talks about a genocide against whites in South Africa, I don't know about you all, but I've been to South Africa several times. And I see a lot of very rich white tourists who are on safari paying tens of thousands of dollars to stay in lodges in the middle of nowhere.
[22:39:49]
And there is no warning from the State Department to not travel to South Africa, yet there are State Department warnings for Americans not to travel to the countries where they are sending third country deportees, countries like Sudan, countries like Yemen, countries like DRC, where there's civil wars, where there's hostility, where there's violence, and where these people have zero connection to it.
Now, what's the difference between these refugees that they're sending, most of whom do not have criminal records, but they're brown, they're not white Afrikaners.
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FOUNDER, ONMESSAGE PUBLIC STRATEGIES, AND CO-AUTHOR, "THE GREAT REVOLT": We have too much discretion in this system. Four years ago, we had 100,000 refugees under Joe Biden when his policies were basically open borders.
When he was ready for re-election, that dropped down to 38,000 refugees. And last year under President Trump, we had 10,000 refugees. There's not a shortage of war-torn countries around the world.
What's happening, though, is we have a program that gives way too much discretion to the administration. Whoever it is. Republicans didn't like how Biden used it, Democrats don't like how Trump has used it, the common thread is the administration has too much leeway.
And we obviously can't agree on immigration.
NAVARRO: Do you like how Trump is using it? Do you like that we're reporting Afghans who helped us?
TODD: Well, let me finish my point. I'll answer your question after I finish my point. NAVARRO: Okay.
TODD: We can't agree on comprehensive immigration reform, but we ought to be able to agree that this knot of laws which were passed in 1980 and 1996, and have not worked, we ought to be able to untangle them and come to a definition of who's allowed in the country as a refugee, and who's allowed to claim asylum, and where you're allowed to file your claim. Surely both parties should be willing to do that.
NAVARRO: Do you agree with the way that Trump is doing it, and bringing in 17,000 white Afrikaners and throwing out Afghans?
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: I'm going to answer -- you asked me about Afghanistan, now you're asking me more.
NAVARRO: Yes.
TODD: I think if you helped us in the war in Afghanistan, and we can vet you, and we know that you're not tied to the Taliban, then absolutely you should be in this country.
ALLISON: I think it is -- I think it is so, I wouldn't say comical, it's sad, that it is so easy for this administration to identify discrimination in South Africa, and they can't even see how they apply it to their own citizens in this country. They know they can see it happening to white people, but they can't see it happening to black people and brown people.
Let's just say it. The reason why the Afrikaners are being prioritized is because they are white refugees. I just wish there would be transparency about it.
There is nothing happening in South Africa that makes this administration need to reprioritize this classification of refugees. You are right. I'm a believer that refugees should be able to come to this country, but from all countries, and then to the point of assimilation, what does that assimilation look like?
Give me your top three points of what assimilation needs to look like to be an American right now.
JENNINGS: Well, I mean, assimilation into our culture.
ALLISON: What is that?
JENNINGS: Do you want to speak English? Do you want to participate in our society? Do you want to follow our laws? Do you want to become part of what we broadly accept as American culture and framework here?
A lot of people come here and absolutely have no intention whatsoever of assimilating.
ALLISON: That's not true. That's not true. You haven't spoken to the refugees that have come here then, Scott. That is like a blanket, like you have no factual proof other than a stereotype.
JENNINGS: Democrats used to believe in this, by the way.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: No, you have no factual proof other than a stereotype.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: No, no, you have no other proof other than a stereotype. What you are saying a refugee is to make that statement that refugees who are fleeing their country from persecution come here and don't come to this land wanting to acclimate into this country make themselves better, make this country better.
That is a very disrespectful comment to say to people who are fighting for their lives and they come here with a hope and a promise because they believe in the American dream.
ROGIN: You know we can sit here and talk about, you know, common sense reforms to our refugee system but we'd all be ignoring the obvious fact which is that the Trump administration destroyed the refugee and asylum system on purpose, egregiously, cruelly, and destroyed the humanitarian system, putting hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people at risk of death and torture and worse.
And we know that this is race-based because we see it in their statements in social media. There's a strain that everyone knows, everyone sees coming out of official Trump administration social media, of white nationalist dog whistles and themes related to this issue. It's been going on for years, and it's not what America used to be.
It didn't used to be a country where we would take these white nationalist dog whistles and use them to justify a policy that favors white people over people of color, and that's what we've got and everybody knows that.
SIDNER: Let me just add to something that Josh said because the white nationalist ideals or white supremacist ideals that's where this idea of white genocide in South Africa originated.
ROGIN: Exactly.
SIDNER: Did you guys know that that the idea of white genocide in South Africa originated with white supremacists and white nationalists trying to push this kind of an agenda to --
[22:45:02]
ROGIN: And there are people are spread inside of our government now and they've been given leeway to pretend that that's part of U.S. policy in a public way that everyone can see. And it's shameful.
TODD: Josh, you're certainly entitled to criticize this administration, and there'll probably be a case or two where I agree with you on it, on how they've handled this. But you're skipping over something big.
The asylum system was broken by Joe Biden, who basically said, we're going to let everyone in. And he lost the American people's trust in it. And that's a large part of why Donald Trump --
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: Donald Trump is the master of identifying real problems and coming up with bad solutions.
JENNINGS: I think we probably agree that there are different political preferences of the right and the left here as it relates to who we're letting in the country, asylum laws, resettling people.
In the next election, are you advising Democrats to say, we're going to go back to a system where we're letting in hundreds of thousands or millions of people from, you name it, into this country?
Because if you are advising them, I would advise them not to take your advice because it would be roundly rejected by the American people. They have had enough.
ROGIN: I'm a journalist and a commentator, so I don't advise anyone, and I certainly don't advise one side or the other, but it's my belief as someone who has written a lot about these issues, that we need to have policies that are moral, ethical, and not based on the color of a person's skin when we decide who needs the official and desperate assistance that only the United States can provide.
And that's how we've operated, more or less, for the last 250-some odd years, and it's not how we're operating now, and that's a big change that I think should be nonpartisan and essentially is un-American.
ALLISON: Well, I do advise Democrats, and so I would say that the way that the Biden administration handled the asylum situation was not right, but I would not go as far as to say that what Donald Trump is doing is any better.
What he is actually applying is, he's done it in this country, but now he is applying discrimination on our refugee system because he is targeting South Africa. Maybe because of Elon, maybe because of some deal he made, we don't know, but it's --
TODD: The fact that we're having this conversation points to a political failure. I'll go all the way to that point for you.
The immigration should be the President's greatest triumph. He closed the border that Biden had left open, and the American people elected him to do that. And we should be talking about that.
Instead, we end up talking about these side issues that affect 17,000 people when we should talk about the fact that Biden was letting in hundreds of thousands of people every single year on purpose.
ALLISON: You know what you don't call a side issue? A genocide. Because it's not -- TODD: It's not a genocide.
ALLISON: Exactly.
TODD: It's not a genocide.
JENNINGS: What we've accomplished is that we've all agreed that we're not going to misuse the word genocide here on CNN anymore. Very positive news.
NAVARRO: It could be Donald Trump's great triumph if he wanted to work on comprehensive immigration reform and really find a pragmatic, compassionate, fair solution for this. And nobody has --
TODD: Three Presidents late on that.
NAVARRO: Yes, but you know what? Nobody has had the political capital with their own party, with the Republican Party, that Donald Trump has.
SIDNER: All right. Next, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez questions whether America would elect a Latina for President and a woman. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Tonight, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 2028 perhaps? In a new interview with the "New York Times" that Congresswoman didn't exactly shut the door on that possibility. She also gave an honest assessment about the role gender and race plays in that decision.
She said, "Pretty candidly, I think, about my identity. I'm not naive to the fact that we are living under a very regressive administration, and I happen to be a woman, and I, you know, happen to be Latina." And I think that there's a lot of conversation about electability, and I don't kind of shy away from those realities."
All right. She has opened the door. She has definitely not said no, and looks like she's certainly thinking about this.
What do you think her chances are? Do you co-sign on what she's saying here?
NAVARRO: Oh, absolutely. That those conversations are happening. I hear them all around me whenever anybody's talking about the potential field of Democrats. And frankly, I don't know if you're getting the same experience.
It's women saying that Democrats need to nominate a white man. I think it's a defeatist attitude, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But what she's saying is absolutely true. Those conversations are happening, and they're happening. I've heard feminist women, glass-breaking women, who voted strongly,
who supported Hillary, who supported, and Kamala, they're scarred. They cannot understand how two qualified women lost against the most unqualified human being that has ever held the office, and they're saying it's got to be sexism.
I happen to not agree, and I refuse to tell little girls, little black girls, little Latina girls, little girls of any color or creed, that they are out of the game, ab-initial, just because of their gender, that it's happening, and that this is being talked about. Absolutely.
SIDNER: Ashley, what are you hearing?
ALLISON: Yes, it's hard to understand what something would feel like if you've never experienced it, but it's not hard to dream about it if you want it.
[22:55:02]
And I think that if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to run for President, whether she can win or not, that's a different conversation. But a Latina in America should have the right to run for president, just like a black woman should have the right to run for President, just like a white woman should have the right to run for President. The reality is, this country has never elected a woman to president.
So there is a reason why we're at, what, 47 at this point, with one repeat? There's a reason why, and we got to get to the bottom of that, and we should overcome that. But I appreciate her candor of saying this right now, and saying it now, and not in 2028.
NAVARRO: And frankly, this is a woman who has shown herself to have ginormous cojones. She took on an establishment party leader guy here in New York, what was his name, Crowley?
ALLISON: Crowley.
NAVARRO: And beat him like a drum when she was nothing but a bartender.
SIDNER: Last word goes to Ana. Everyone, thank you so much for joining us. We'll be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Before we go, you can stream the show live or watch on demand anytime with an all-access subscription. Scan the Q.R. code on your screen or go to cnn.com/watch to learn more.
And thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
