Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Officials Say, Around 40 People Killed in Fire at Swiss Ski Resort; Open Seat, New Maps Could Impact 2026 Midterms; Supreme Court 2026, Big Ticket Items on the Docket. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired January 01, 2026 - 07:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:00:00]

BRIAN ABEL, CNN ANCHOR: Several dozen people left dead after a tragic blaze strikes one of Switzerland's most exclusive ski resorts during a New Year's party. The latest we are learning this.

Plus, redrawing districts and a wave of Republicans set to make their exits from the halls of Capitol Hill. How it all may shift to high- stakes midterm election that could shape the president's final two years in office.

And the fight on Capitol Hill over artificial intelligence, why lawmakers are demanding guardrails for A.I.'s impact on jobs and children's safety.

7:00 A.M. here on the East Coast, a live look at New York City where it is a white New Year's. Good morning, everybody. Happy New Year to you. I am Brian Abel.

Breaking news, we are tracking this morning out of Switzerland, officials believe around 40 people are dead and around 100 more hurt after a fire tore through a Swiss ski resort. The resort is in Southern Switzerland, almost two hours from the French and Italian borders. The scope of this tragedy is so large, authorities say hospitals across Switzerland are seeing an influx of patients. And authorities warn citizens from multiple countries are likely affected.

Right now, we do not know what caused this fire, but witnesses say it triggered what looked like an explosion.

CNN's Nada Bashir is joining me now from London. And, Nada, what do we know at this point?

NADA BASHIR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brian, we've just had an update from police officials and local officials with regards to the progress of the investigation, which is still very much in its early stages. As you mentioned now, at least 40 people are presumed to be dead, some 100 others injured as a result of the blaze, which broke out at this bar in a ski resort in Southern Switzerland during New Year's celebrations. Now, authorities say at this stage they believe the fire broke out at around 1:30 A.M. local time, of course, at a time where celebrations may well have still been taking place. And we've been hearing from officials citing witnesses who said they heard an explosion after that fire had spread through the bar, the lounge.

Now, of course, at this stage, officials say it is too soon to determine the cause behind the blaze. Investigators are still waiting for the venue to be secure enough for them to carry out a full scale investigation. Of course, emergency services are still very much on the ground. As you mentioned, this has been a large-scale response by emergency services, some 40 ambulances, 150 medical personnel said to have been deployed to respond to this disaster. And, in fact, the state council has declared a state of emergency given the scale and severity of this disaster. But, of course, we will be waiting for more updates from officials as the investigation continues.

ABEL: It's such a tragic start to the New Year for that region and we certainly have our thoughts with everybody impacted.

Nada Bashir for us in London, Nada, thank you.

The 2026 midterm elections are already taking shape, and the stakes, they could not be higher. Republicans face a growing wave of retirements, leaving several vulnerable seats up for grabs and newly drawn Congressional maps in several key states could shift the balance of power district by district.

As for President Trump's agenda, control of Congress could ultimately determine how his final years in office play out.

Joining me now, CNN Senior Media Analyst Sarah Fischer, Republican strategist Melik Abdul, and Democratic Strategist Meghan Hays. Thank you all once again for being here.

Let's first talk about the GOP retirements. Meghan, what's behind them, in your estimation, and how much will this help Democrats?

MEGHAN HAYS, FORMER BIDEN WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF MESSAGE PLANNING: I think that a lot of the Republicans are sort of tired of having to answer to Donald Trump, and then if they don't follow his agenda, they threaten with a primary.

[07:05:05]

You saw that with Marjorie Taylor Greene and some other folks who are just like were throwing their hands up, We're done here.

I do think it will help Democrats in general elections, but Democrats are going to have some tough primaries too in a lot of these places. So, I do think it's -- you know, it's not a foregone conclusion that a Democrat will win these, some of these seats are safe Republican seats, but it does open up the map and it does expand the map. I think we saw the ability to expand the map for Democrats in the Tennessee race that the special election that just happened a couple months ago. So, it is an exciting time for Democrats to understand that they can expand the map and to be able to take more control, but it is going to be a tough fight in the midterms.

ABEL: And speaking of tough fights, 2025 saw a lot of abnormal redistricting efforts because they were outside of a census window. Sara, which state's new maps matter the most and how much could redistricting decide control of Congress?

SARA FISCHER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA ANALYST: It might have a small impact. I actually think policy issues are going to have a much bigger impact on the fate of Congress, including we had talked about earlier. Healthcare is going to be a huge issue on the ballot. When it comes to redistricting, I mean, the big states to follow, obviously, or the big fight that happened in 2025 over Texas. Obviously, that is traditionally been a red state with some blue hotspots. And so ensuring that they can get more seats there is what Republicans were hoping would push them over. Obviously, we had seen a big fight in Indiana over redistricting.

I think, ultimately, though, the redistricting is not what's going to win this over for Democrats. Again, it's going to be their policy push specifically around affordability and healthcare that's going to win them the house if they can take it back.

ABEL: And also there's Trump's agenda to talk about, Melik. What happens to it if Republicans lose the House or the Senate?

MELIK ABDUL, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, it's dead. I don't and I think that, you know, historically, Republicans are -- you know, we're supposed to actually use -- lose one of the seats, one of the Houses. I do believe that there is a better chance that we would lose the House than the Senate. But I would also remind people, remember back in 2022 with the red wave that actually was more of a trickle, I think that we should actually use that as an example of just something to actually watch. Because while I think that Democrats do have a better chance of winning the House now, I'm not convinced that it's going to be, you know, this broad sweeping agenda against Donald Trump.

I'm not sure that that's what's going to happen, even though, like I say, I do believe that the Democrats, or at least the Democrats should take the House. By what margin, I think that's the thing that I'm actually watching, because it will impact the rest of Donald Trump's agenda, which is why he tried to get so much in, in 2025, and he's going to continue to do that up until November of this year.

ABEL: And, Sara, kind of to what Melik is talking about here of just how wide the margins may be, 2026, will it be a referendum or a power struggle?

FISCHER: I think it will be. If you take a look back to Donald Trump's first administration, his first midterm election in 2018 sort of proved that that power struggle was very real. Democrats swept the House and it put Donald Trump in a position where he stopped trying to really litigate through Congress and started to exert more executive power throughout his first term, something we've seen in his second term. I think for this next upcoming midterm, it's likely that Republicans can maintain the Senate. But I think it's a very real chance because of the slim majority in the House, the Democrats can take the House.

Now, the question becomes, does it even matter? Congress right now is not getting anything passed despite the fact that it is controlled by the same party and the same party and the White House. So, I do think Democrats win it. Whether or not that means any legislative action is taken, who knows.

ABEL: And, Meg, I do want to ask you, if the Democrats do take over the House, what can we expect the Democrats to bring forward in terms of checks and balances to the Trump presidency?

HAYS: Look, I think there'll be a lot of oversight hearings on a lot of the things that Trump pushed forward in 20 -- in some of his executive actions and some of his, you know, different things with the National Guard and Venezuela and some of these things. So, I think there'll be a lot of oversight hearings. I also think that they're -- they will try to really push this issue of affordability.

I think that's where the '28 campaign comes in. I don't, I know we don't want to go that far into a presidential cycle, but I think that if Democrats don't get a handle on affordability, if they do take control of the House, they will not win the presidency. And I think that is the ultimate goal here, is to continue to be in power. So, people have to understand that there needs to be solutions for affordability.

But one thing in the midterms in '26 that I think that we need to not ignore here are all the governor's races. There's 36 governor's races that are up in '26 as well. And we've seen how important governor's races are and how important state leadership is in every single aspect of Donald Trump's agenda. So, I don't want to ignore those races because they are just as important as the House.

ABEL: You make a great point there with the governor's races, and maybe you already answered what my next question's going to be. So, I'll ask Melik first. What races are you going to be focusing on this year?

ABDUL: Well, I'll say this.

[07:10:00]

I'm not going to be focused on a particular race. What I'm really going to be looking for is what happens with Donald Trump's legacy. You know, he was pushing -- he was in office, got a lot of pushback. People didn't think that he would win. What happens this year with the coalition that Donald Trump built over the years? What happens to that? I think that's going to be the big thing that I'm going to be looking for in November. Not a particular race, but it is the coalition, what happens to it in November.

ABEL: And I want to follow up on that a little bit because we are starting to see a little bit of fractures within the MAGA movement in and of itself, specifically Marjorie Taylor Greene, in the America first versus the foreign policy agendas. Melik, do you believe that will play a role in the midterms?

ABDUL: See, this is why I don't get booked elsewhere, because I'm willing to tell the truth about it. It will absolutely matter. It's mattering now. And you have many Republicans, I understand, we're not supposed to say that there is a fracture in our -- you know, on our side, but it's absolutely true. In anybody denying that that fracture exists, they're going to be a problem for the party. That's going to be a problem for the party, for sure.

ABEL: And Meghan, from your perspective, from the Democrat side, what races are you looking for the most?

HAYS: I agree with Melik that looking sort of at the coalition and these independent voters of where they're going, I think is extremely important. But there are some really important Senate races. I think Michigan is a really important Senate race, not only for the primaries for Democrats, but for the general. I think because it is a battleground state, that's going to impact the '28 cycle as well. So, there's some -- you know, there's some important races out there in these battleground states, but I also don't sleep on these down ballot races either. Some of these things are extremely important. These Supreme Courts and these different commissions are extremely important as we've seen in the last year.

ABEL: All right. We will see what happens in the New Year.

Sara Fischer, Melik Abdul, Meghan Hays, I appreciate you all. Thank you so much.

ABDUL: Thanks for having us.

HAYS: Thank you.

ABEL: Coming up, birthright citizenship should be decided by the Supreme Court in the New Year. We look at that and other cases on the docket in '26.

Plus, the showdown in Washington over A.I., can lawmakers loosen the rules and still keep kids safe?

And you can wish people a Happy New Year, but what they really might need is a little joy. We'll explain the difference.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:15:00]

ABEL: Birthright Citizenship, Voting Rights Act, and redistricting, the president's tariffs, the Supreme Court, it has a busy docket come 2026.

So, joining me now to discuss, Alyse Adamson, former federal prosecutor and host of the At Least You Heard It Here podcast, and Mike Leon, anchor for the Legal Podcast Network. Okay, let's talk about this birthright citizenship first. The Supreme Court will decide if President Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship with an executive order is constitutional. We're talking about the Fourth Amendment here -- 14th, rather, excuse me. That's the focus here in particular. So, let's put that up on the screen, if we have. There's one particular part that says, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. But the president's team argues this point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

D. JOHN SAUER, SOLICITOR GENERAL: Our primary contention is that the citizenship clause related to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens who weren't even present as a discrete class at that time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABEL: Alyse, walk us through what's at stake here.

ALYSE ADAMSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes, I mean, there's a lot at stake here, right, because you got to imagine every individual born in this country to parents who are either here illegally or on a temporary status that can even be lawful visas would no longer have citizenship automatically conferred upon them.

So, this is a very high-stakes case. I think what's important is, you know, we hear John Sauer, that's the solicitor general, saying, no, this was really about slavery, but that flies in the face of the plain text of this constitutional amendment. There have been other lower court cases, one out of New Hampshire, for instance, that said that that is not the plain reading of the text.

So, it's going to be very interesting to see how the Supreme Court considers this case, even with that historical framework, given the language of that text.

ABEL: Okay. So, there's another case that we want to talk about here that's before the Supreme Court, redistricting in Louisiana, Mike, and if their new maps violated the Voting Rights Act for this one. Justice Brett Kavanaugh seems to be key and the ruling could erode the Voting Rights Act. What's your read on this?

MIKE LEON, ANCHOR, LEGAL PODCAST NETWORK: Yes, I mean, this is another big case that's going to be before the Supreme Court in 2026. And, you know, we've already seen it on the ballot in California with Prop 50. We've already seen what Texas has done with these maps. Now, we're seeing this case with respect to Louisiana. I would defer to the lawyer on this, on what she expects.

But from a redistricting perspective, like this is going to be front and center for the Supreme Court in 2026 because we have elections that are going to be consequential, and so we're going to have expedited rulings on these things because of primaries that are going to start to happen in some of these states. And we need to get some clarity on what we're going to have here with respect to all of this, because it's being challenged.

ABEL: And it's going to be front and center for voters as well. Alyse what's your take on it?

ADAMSON: I mean, it's hard to guess what the Supreme Court is going to do. I mean, they've already narrowed voting rights. We know that. So, I think it's fair to say that, you know, the Voting Rights Act is on the chopping block.

Here in Louisiana case, we have two districts that are primarily African American. That's what the current map shows. And, you know, the Voting Rights Act was meant to protect the rights of minority voters. And what they're saying here is if this case, if the map is ultimately reversed, it could potentially disenfranchise those minority voters because they wouldn't have their own voice heard at the ballot. So, very high-stakes, very high-stakes.

LEON: And I was going to say, we've seen a case like this before with Harris County in Texas. We saw some allegations, I believe it was during the '22 midterms or '24, where voting locations started to close early, precincts started to close early and there was some challenges legally down there, and it's because of, why, the disenfranchisement of voters, African Americans, Latinos, that were -- make up a lot of Harris County outside of Houston.

[07:20:04]

So, we've seen challenges like this. To Alyse's point, like this is eroding the very fabric of allowing voters, especially ones that look like Alyse and I, to go out there to the ballot box and express their vote.

ABEL: Also, one of the larger conversations topics for 2025 was President Trump's tariffs, right? That is going to be hitting the Supreme Court as well. The Trump administration arguing that a 1977 law that grants the president economic power to address emergencies, give him broad power to levy these tariffs. What would a win or loss mean for the president? Alyse?

ADAMSON: Again, very high-stakes. This entire term is very high- stakes and it's really testing the bounds of presidential power. So, here, the legal question is whether or not the president exceeded his authority under that statute.

Now, the Supreme Court has seemed a little bit -- not suspicious, but they have asked questions indicating that they think that this might have gone too far, right, that there is a check on the executive, because this is really a separations of powers issue. This is really -- the tariffs --

ABEL: Not the first time that the Supreme Court has ruled on separation of powers issues.

ADAMSON: Correct. But this Supreme Court has actually expanded the executive branch. But here, they seem to be signaling that they might go the other way and really recognize Congress' power, who really has the power over the tariff. And so the stakes are high because if this is ultimately reversed, if the Trump administration is found to have exceeded their authority here, we could be talking about billions of dollars of potential refunds from all of these tariffs that have been levied.

On the other hand, if the Trump administration prevails, then that has just given just extraordinary economic power to the president that should belong with Congress.

Mike, what consequences do you see happening on either side of that coin?

LEON: I mean, it's the politics game that's being played in D.C. right? When is Congress going to actually legislate and do their job and put the check on the executive branch? And that's what's at stake, like Alyse just mentioned in this case.

In terms of tariffs, overall, remember tariffs are a tax to everybody out there, okay? I hope the administration's watching this on New Year's Day. So, we're going to see how the court ends up ruling on this. But it is interesting to see that you mentioned exactly the core of the case, which is truly the separation of power and letting the executive branch just have carte blanche authority, which is what I've heard from legal scholars, like yourself and others, that have mentioned about the way the Supreme Court has ruled with regard to this.

And, again, the administration's using older legislation, little tricks, you know, we got the War Powers Act that was invoked with the immigration stuff. Now we've got this 1977 one that's no one knows about except if you're a legal beagle. So, we're seeing -- we're going to see if all of these things, how they're tested by the Supreme Court. She's right. Alyse's right. this is the most consequential term probably for the court on dockets and cases.

ABEL: Not the only thing on Supreme Court's docket that talks about President Trump's powers. So, let's talk about his power over independent agencies as well. The Supreme Court seems ready to side with President Trump in this case and expanding his power over independent agencies. But there is an issue whether the president can fire two federal trade commissioners. A favorable ruling could give the president the power to remove political appointees, right, at will.

What are the broader implications of giving the president those expanded powers?

LEON: Well, I mean, again, back to the question of separations of power. The executive branch is in charge of these agencies. Keep me honest here, Alyse. So, the president has talked about where he fired that commissioner, and then obviously the lower courts, I think, ruled that she had to be reinstated back. So, where does the executive branch's power versus where it -- it's something where the president is told, no, you can't do that, that is outside of your jurisdiction.

This is another case that will set the precedent, I think, going forward for future presidents on how they delegate and how they hire people in some of these roles and how these agencies function. I mean, keep me honest here, Alyse, I think it's the core issue, as you're seeing the core through line through some of these cases that are going to be before the Supreme Court.

ADAMSON: Yes, it's whether there's a check on executive power. So, there's really two consequential cases here. There's one with Lisa Cook, that she's on the Fed Reserve, and then there's this other case, Trump v. Slaughter, where you have the person from the FTC who's fired.

So, the Slaughter case is testing precedent that was set in a case called Humphrey's executor, which basically means that there has to be certain criteria met before you remove something -- someone from a federal agency.

It seems like the court might be poised to overturn that precedent, although, again, I don't have a crystal ball. I'm very careful with these predictions.

ABEL: If only we all did, right?

ADAMSON: If only we all did.

LEON: It was also in the 1930s, right, if I'm not mistaken.

ADAMSON: It's a very old case. 90 -- I think it's 90 years old. Then contrast that with Trump v. Cook, where we have the Fed Reserve, who has extraordinary independent powers. They have really been set up to be an independent agency because they shape monetary policy. So, the stakes in that case are actually higher than the other case, because if a president can remove a governor at will, then the monetary policy could be shifting quicker than has been really the framework of the Fed Reserve has really been structured to be.

[07:25:04]

And it could possibly, in fact, impact inflation and other policy.

And so that is why that case is so high-stakes, and if there is not that check on presidential power, I think we will see serious consequences to economic policy.

ABEL: Well, and it seems like nearly every case that is at the footsteps of these justices ends up having broad impacts on America. What do you see for the next year being the biggest cases?

ADAMSON: I mean, I think we just talked about them. For this term, it's going to be birthright citizenship, because that will fundamentally change what it means to be an American citizen, right? I think also the tariff case, because how much power does the president enjoy from economically, right, and how much checks are there on that executive power when Congress does also have the dual authority? And then I'm also looking at the Cook case, because if they can -- if a president can fire somebody on the Fed Reserve kind of at will, and they also have to decide what -- for cause, rather, than what for cause means. I mean, I just -- it's going to completely shift the constitutional landscape.

And, again, I am a legal beagle or legal eagle or nerd, so I understand where we're heading and it could be very consequential.

ABEL: What are looking for?

LEON: Well, and just to piggyback on that, look, I live in Miami. There's a lot of people with TPS status. I think over 500,000 folks that are Cuban, Haitian, Venezuelan, some in my own family, and they're going to be looking at this case, right? Because, why, they're born to parents that are undocumented here in this country. So, I think birthright citizenship is the first one.

Look at what the Supreme Court just did as we left 2025. They've ruled on the case with respect to deployment of National Guard troops. It's something that you and I have talked about at length, as each case has its own specificity, whether it be L.A., whether it be D.C. Chicago was totally different. The Supreme Court's like, no, you can't do that.

So, we don't know how they'll rule. I know she wants to have the crystal ball. We all do. We don't have it, unfortunately, but I think birthright citizenship's number one.

The redistricting case is very interesting as well because, again, it's the future at stake of impacting and disenfranchising voters. And that is going to have a monumental impact.

The other two, again, I'll look to Alyse's assessment on her show, but I think those are the two that are front and center for me.

ABEL: All right. Alyse Adamson, Mike Leon, I appreciate you guys. Thank you.

Coming up, the fights over artificial intelligence in Washington, why some in Congress want guardrails and others don't.

Plus, a live look at a very foggy Seattle, Washington. You cannot even see the needle in there. Your New Year's Day forecast is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:00]