Return to Transcripts main page
CNN This Morning
Supreme Court Weighs Voting Rights Act; Trump Authorizes Action in Venezuela; Members of Young Republicans Fired after Messages Exposed. Aired 6:30-7a ET
Aired October 16, 2025 - 06:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:32:45]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We continue to cut deeply into muscle. And soon all that's going to be left is bone and articulations that won't be able to do the work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Former CDC workers sounding the alarm after another round of firings, but some of those federal employees could actually be getting their jobs back.
Good morning, everybody. I'm Audie Cornish. I want to thank you for joining me on CNN THIS MORNING.
It's now 32 minutes past the hour, and here's what's happening right now.
President Trump's firing of federal workers, as we said, on hold because a judge in San Francisco ruled they were unlawful. The judge said that the firings were politically motivated. Last week, more than 4,000 workers across seven agencies were let go.
And hundreds of people in Alaska being evacuated from their villages after a devastating storm ravaged communities and actually swept away homes. The residents are being transported more than 500 miles to Anchorage. Officials are calling it the most significant airlift in the state's history.
And the president claims Prime Minister Narendra Modi has assured him India will stop importing Russian oil. Trump calls it a big step and says he'll try to get China to do the same thing. An Indian government spokesman would not confirm any agreement and would only say the two countries share the same goal of ensuring stable energy prices.
And CNN has been reporting for months on states redrawing congressional maps ahead of next year's midterm elections. We've seen it in Texas. There's a campaign underway right now in California. But one case argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday could have a real effect on how congressional maps are drawn, while eroding a key statute in the Voting Rights Act. The case comes out of Louisiana, where a lower court ruled that the 2022 map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and ordered the creation of a second black congressional district. And that district was drawn and an election was held in 2024. The Trump administration is arguing that race should not have been considered in drawing that second map.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to support that notion. Here's some of him from the arguments.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT: This court's cases, in a variety of contexts, have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time, decades in some cases, but that they should not be indefinite and should have an end point.
[06:35:21]
And what exactly do you think the end point should be?
JANAI NELSON, PRESIDENT, LDF: So, a race-based remedy can and should, and, and, and usually does have a time limit and a durational limit. Section Two court-ordered remedies have a time limit. And so that is something that is grounded in our case law. What is not grounded in case law is the idea that an entire statute should somehow dissolve simply because race may be an element of the remedy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: OK, CNN's senior political analyst Ron Brownstein joins the chat to help us make sense of this.
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Good morning.
CORNISH: So after the 2022-2023 ruling around the Voting Rights Act, you heard a lot of people saying this has gutted the Voting Rights Act, the way that the court has sort of undermined the -- the necessity of race-based remedies means this thing is done. So, why are we back here having this conversation?
BROWNSTEIN: Yes. Well, first, to understand the history here. The standard that is at issue, the section of the Voting Rights Act that's at issue, was written by Bob Dole in 1982 in a Republican-controlled Senate, passed by over 80 votes in a Republican-controlled senate that broke a filibuster with dozens of Republicans from Jesse Helms, and signed into law by Ronald Reagan. Reluctantly, but signed into law by Ronald Reagan.
CORNISH: Yes, so this is not some vintage '60s era -- yes.
BROWNSTEIN: This is -- this is -- this is a -- a response to an earlier Supreme Court decision in 1982. There are, obviously, big partizan implications of this. If the
Supreme Court completely invalidates the use of race in Section Two, first of all, they will be saying that there is no limit on the amount of partisan intent you can have in drawing congressional districts, but it's impermissible to use race at all, which is really kind of a striking statement.
Big partizan implications, but I think even bigger social implications, Audie. And we are now, you know, hurtling toward becoming the most diverse major nation in world history. A majority of our under 18 population are kids of color. By the end of this decade, a majority of everyone under 30 in the U.S. will be a person of color. And what this decision could do is systematically and enduringly widen the gap between the governed and the governing class. I mean you were talking about states --
CORNISH: But can I ask you --
BROWNSTEIN: You were talking about states where a third of the population is African-American, that may have no black representation, not only in Congress, but the Section Two has been used more often in local and state election disputes. And so, you could systematically widen the gap between a country that is becoming inexorably more diverse and a governing class that systematically, fundamentally would not reflect that.
CORNISH: All right, let me ask these guys about this then because right now in California you have Gavin Newsom and others, even Obama weighed in on saying, look, we got to do this redistricting thing because the Republicans are doing a redistricting thing. And Republicans basically are like, yes, like, they're going around state to state and doing it.
So, to Ron's point, if you're a voter and you're watching the parties, you see people who are like, if we just manipulate the maps we can get what we want.
DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: You know, ultimately, all of this is a partizan game. And -- and I think what we see is if this goes through, this means Democrats can do a whole lot more partizan gerrymandering throughout the country, but not in the south. And we'll see African American representation in the south wiped out.
CORNISH: But I think what we're saying is, everyone will be able to do more with intent and --
HEYE: This is -- this is part of the race to the bottom. Absolutely. This is --
CORNISH: OK. Yes.
HEYE: This is a race to the bottom, regardless of what state we talk about. As long as you're pushing your partizan agenda, you have approval from your base.
CORNISH: I'm sort of intrigued because for the longest time it was demography is destiny. And Democrats were supposed to have like this big advantage because of a black and brown youth. It's not played out that way. So, why are Republicans so aggressive in these redistricting efforts?
BROWNSTEIN: Um --
JASMINE WRIGHT, CO-AUTHOR, "NOTUS MORNING NEWSLETTER": I mean, it's a great question. But I think it is, at this stage, being led by the president. The president wants to see these states. Texas has already done it. Indiana could come under fire next. Move to make sure that he is provided enough pad when it comes to the midterms because he sees that as part of his legacy.
If you go back to the first term, Donald Trump was absolutely kneecapped after the first midterm, in part because he, you know, lost control of multiple parts of Congress, and he felt that he couldn't really do anything.
CORNISH: Yes.
WRIGHT: And then, obviously, all the impeachments and all of that started. And so, he does not want that to happen again. And so, I think this generation --
CORNISH: But it's not unusual for a president to lose ground with Congress.
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
CORNISH: Like --
BROWNSTEIN: Well, I mean -- I mean the last five presidents who went into a midterm with unified control of government lost it. And the last president who --
CORNISH: So, is this a way of preventing that?
BROWNSTEIN: Well, it's an attempt to prevent that. But again, like, the partizan implications of this Voting Rights Act decision are significant. But they are not even, I think, the most significant.
[06:40:00]
I mean if you are basically saying that we are going to allow states whose population growth is entirely in their diverse populations, places like Texas, to systematically deny those new residents the ability to elect, you know, representatives who look and -- look like them and share their experiences, you are just opening up a just tremendous source of social pressure over time.
And it goes -- it's of a piece with what they have done on affirmative action in universities and in employment. Like, can you really function as a two-tier society where the country itself is overwhelmingly becoming more diverse, but like the -- the top level remains preponderantly one racial --
CORNISH: Yes.
BROWNSTEIN: I mean that is -- that's just like, you know, we've seen that through history. That is not a recipe for social stability. And that is the world the Supreme Court majority is systematically building brick by brick.
CORNISH: Well, people are going to be watching this closely, especially Kavanaugh's comments and others. We're hearing from this court a lot because they are very vocal. You know, Ketanji Brown Jackson, everyone speaks out.
I want to talk a little more about politics, but in particular the New York City mayoral race, because the -- Zohran Mamdani is set to face off tonight in a closely watched election debate against former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is now an independent, and also on stage, Republican Curtis Sliwa. Mamdani says he's leading a movement beyond the New York mayoral race. He had this message for President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZOHRAN MAMDANI, NYC MAYORAL CANDIDATE: I want to take this moment because you spoke about President Trump, and he may be watching right now. And I just want to speak directly to the president, which is that I will not be a mayor like Mayor Adams, who will call you to figure out how to stay out of jail. I won't be a disgraced governor, like Andrew Cuomo, who will call you to ask how to win this election. I can do those things on my own. I will, however, be a mayor who is ready to speak at any time to lower the cost of living.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: Mamdani says he was responding to a claim that the president made earlier this week that he had never worked a day in his life.
Group chat is back.
Who wants to take this one? I mean I thought it was interesting. First of all, the conversation on -- for Democrats has been whether or not to embrace Mamdani. He's clearly just bypassing it and taking the fight public. What do you think of how he's handling it?
MEGHAN HAYS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I mean, I think that speaking about race to the bottom, I think that this is what's happening in New York City. This is like the best people that we can find? It's a little disheartening.
CORNISH: So you are not on the Mamdani train?
HAYS: I think the way he has campaigned, the way he has captivated people is something that Democrats should take notice of and maybe learn to do. But he is not a Democrat. He is a socialist. Some of his policies are not part of the Democratic platform, and that is problematic for Democrats across the country.
HEYE: It's New York City, so it's going to get a lot of exposure. CORNISH: Yes.
HEYE: But how many times have we have we said, this new Democratic nominee is going to be the face of the new Democratic Party? That was Eric Adams. That was Bill de Blasio. We've heard this time and time again.
CORNISH: Are you shaming Bloomberg too? A little bit.
HEYE: Well, you know, he did run -- he did run for president.
BROWNSTEIN: Right.
CORNISH: Yes.
BROWNSTEIN: Look, mayor -- look, mayors can't even get elected governor, you know. There are --
CORNISH: But, in a vacuum, is this an interesting moment?
BROWNSTEIN: No, but, look, I -- yes, well, the debate will probably be good for him because it will kind of, you know, Andrew Cuomo in large -- Cuomo has been in his life an effective -- at governing --
CORNISH: Yes.
BROWNSTEIN: But he's not exactly, you know, kind of the warm, fuzzy. And like an hour on, on TV is probably not going to help him. And anything that raises Sliwa, you know, helps Mamdani in the end.
Look, if he is elected, he -- he is going to have a big platform because so much of the national and international media is in New York. But, you know, the elections of Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger are probably a better reflection -- if they win in November --
CORNISH: Yes.
BROWNSTEIN: Are probably a better reflection of where the center of gravity in the Democratic Party is going.
CORNISH: I think that's true. But I was also talking with Jasmine on the podcast, remember, about the up and coming generation.
WRIGHT: Sure.
CORNISH: Even in particular of black and brown Democrats --
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
CORNISH: Who are just -- they are like, the Republicans punch, we punch back.
WRIGHT: Yes.
CORNISH: You don't shy away from being called a socialist. You go to Fox and you look direct to camera and you speak to Trump.
WRIGHT: Yes. And you talk to President Trump, who is basically threatening to withhold funding if this city elects who they want to elect, right.
I think that Mamdani's use of Fox News is actually incredibly fascinating because if there was a lesson from 2024, it's that people want a politician who can honestly and transparently articulate their position across all mediums, including social media, including these interviews on TV, including two-hour long podcasts. And he is clearly meeting that moment, and then some.
I saw some reporting in that Mamdani is going to have the most to show, or the most to prove in this debate.
CORNISH: Yes.
WRIGHT: And actually, I don't think that that's true.
CORNISH: Because people are seeing a lot of him.
WRIGHT: I think Cuomo has the most approval.
BROWNSTEIN: There are two --
WRIGHT: But he still has to answer the question of whether or not he can govern.
BROWNSTEIN: There are two axis' (ph) now in the Democratic Party. One is left to right and the other is fight to no fight.
CORNISH: Yes.
BROWNSTEIN: And in 2020, the assumption was you had to move left in order to fight Trump. That is no longer the assumption. Watch what -- look at what Gavin Newsom is doing. He's the -- he is was the outer end of the confronting Trump. But he's also moving to the center on a lot of hot button social issues that have hurt the party in recent years.
[06:45:02]
You don't have to go left in order to be strong and kind of resisting what's happening.
WRIGHT: Isn't that because Joe Biden -- not to bring (INAUDIBLE) --
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
HAYS: Also, I just want to say, like, to your point on -- that they are good across all media platforms. I think we are learning as Democrats with Donald Trump, campaigning is different than governing. So, that's great. You can look direct to camera and you can give Donald Trump your hardest, you know, thoughts there. But that doesn't actually mean you can govern. That doesn't mean your policies are actually going to work. And I think that Democrats are not going to be fooled by that because we're watching what's happening with Trump. He is a person who is really great at the attention economy, but he's not good at governing.
CORNISH: Yes, through for centrists I think it's going to be tough when in the middle of the government shutdown, like, your alternative is not exactly -- the math's not mathing on the alternative of what you're doing.
HAYS: Right.
CORNISH: All right, Ron, thank you for joining me.
BROWNSTEIN: Thanks for having me.
CORNISH: I'm going to make a chart of what you just said.
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
CORNISH: We're now doing -- that is our new metric, left to right and fight.
BROWNSTEIN: It's two axis (ph), that is four quadrants. Yes.
CORNISH: Next on CNN THIS MORNING, ramping up the pressure on Venezuela. The CIA now operating inside the country. But why did the U.S. announce that to the world?
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Kids do stupid things, especially young boys.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: Boys will be boys. Turns out some of those kids are 40-year- old men who are facing the consequences of racist texts.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:50:36]
CORNISH: The CIA is now operating inside of Venezuela. The latest move in an escalating pressure campaign against the Maduro regime. President Trump confirmed that he's authorized covert CIA action as U.S. strikes against alleged drug boats continue in the region. So far the Trump administration has acknowledged at least five strikes, and the operation could soon expand.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Why did you authorize the CIA to go into Venezuela? And is there more information you can share about these strikes on the alleged drug boats? DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I can't do that.
But I authorize -- for two reasons, really. Number one, they have emptied their prisons into the United States of America.
We have a lot of drugs coming in from Venezuela. And a lot of the Venezuelan drugs come in through the sea. So, you get to see that. But we're going to stop them by land also.
I think Venezuela's feeling the heat, but I think a lot of other countries are feeling the heat too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: Venezuela's opposition leader, Maria Machado, is welcoming the heat provided by the U.S. She's fresh off a Nobel Peace Prize. And she's calling for help against the Maduro government.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARIA CORINA MACHADO, 2025 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE RECIPIENT: Venezuela right now is a safe haven for Hezbollah, Hamas, the drug cartels, the Colombian guerrilla operate freely and -- and they are part of -- of this liaison with the regime. And what we have done, the Venezuelan people, as I said, is already mandated regime change. We won, and we need help to enforce that decision. And that help comes in terms of applying, enforcing the law, cutting those flows that come from these criminal activities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: Joining me now is CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen.
And, Peter, there's a lot to unpack there as you hear the word regime change. But I want to go back first to the president's reasoning for authorizing the CIA. Do you -- what is known about Hezbollah or other activities beyond what we traditionally think of in a narco state?
PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Hezbollah has long had a presence in Venezuela and other parts of Latin America. But, I mean -- so, the point about painting Maduro as a narco terrorist is -- it makes it easier to do their kinds of actions we -- we've heard about, whether it was classified finding to go after the regime. They're not talking about assassinating Maduro because that is actually illegal. But in terms of the regime change, in terms of targeting these drug boats, by conflating drugs and terrorism, I think it, from a legal point of view, makes it easier. As you know, they've designated several of these Mexican and Venezuelan cartels as terrorist organizations. That in itself doesn't allow you necessarily to go to war against them, but it makes the legal arguments, I think, easier.
Now, there's classified finding, hasn't been publicized. CNN's reported on it, and other media organizations.
CORNISH: But to just underscore what you're saying is --
BERGEN: Yes.
CORNISH: If you're just going after drug smugglers, you might have to go through a process. But if you're in --
BERGEN: Yes, there's something called a Coast Guard, right?
CORNISH: Oh, tell me more. Right. It's different from saying, like, oh, we're in a war and there are terrorists.
BERGEN: Right.
CORNISH: And I can assassinate them on sight.
BERGEN: And, you know, the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, has operated in Latin America for decades, you know. So, you know, there was -- there -- there was -- this is definitely a new process.
Now, in my view, maybe this is too cynical. Lawyers can often find you a legal rationale for something you want to do yourself. So, OLC, which is the part of the Department of Justice that comes forward with these opinions, has come forward with an opinion. But, you know, we've seen in the past that lawyers have, for instance, authorized CIA secret prisons or lawyers have authorized the coercive interrogations or torture of people who are deemed to be terrorists. So, you can find lawyers, I think, to come up with an opinion.
I don't think this is -- I don't think this is the way that things are really supposed to operate in a sense that the war -- the war authorities are supposed to reside with the Congress. Youve heard people like Rand Paul and others say, you know, is this really kosher?
CORNISH: Right. Because there's flying surveillance drones into Mexico. Also, the Justice Department having that memo about using cartels as being able to use lethal force, assassinations against cartels. Does this risk expanding beyond a Venezuela?
BERGEN: Well, I think there's reporting that CNN has already made that one of the boats was a Colombian boat that was targeted. But for the moment, it seems very focused on Venezuela, which is strange because there is virtually no fentanyl coming from Venezuela. It is almost entirely made in Mexico.
[06:55:02]
And it almost entirely crosses the southern border in, you know, basically a briefcase. Some -- you know, it's a kind of drug that very little of it can kill a lot of people. So, you're not putting it in a boat and sending it into the Caribbean. That's just not the way it works. So, this is sort of a rationale.
But -- and the other thing, Audie, which is very important, don't forget that the Trump administration wanted regime change in the first term.
CORNISH: Yes. BERGEN: And John Bolton's talked publicly about how difficult it is to organize a coup. He was the national security advisor at the time. So --
CORNISH: That was my next question. Are we -- I mean the U.S. has a long history in the region seeking regime change.
BERGEN: Yes.
CORNISH: Are we back to that moment?
BERGEN: I think so. And, you know, our record isn't great. I mean the Obama administration essentially authorized the overthrow of Gaddafi, and we still have a civil war in Libya 15 years later. We overthrew Saddam Hussein. We had a civil war that killed more than 200,000 people. So, you know, our record -- there's a reason why, you know, you know --
CORNISH: Yes. And Maduro brought that up himself. He actually said, like, this reminds us of endless failed wars, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and so on. He didn't even bring up kind of a Latin American history.
BERGEN: No.
CORNISH: But trying to introduce the specter of, Americans, are you entering an endless war?
BERGEN: Yes. And it's also something the base doesn't particularly want, at least in theory. But on the other hand, maybe, I mean I'm not the political person. The people on the panel are. I wonder how this is playing, you know, in -- with the base. I mean people are not happy about the fentanyl overdoses. Now, they have gone down significantly. Not because of, I think, any of these actions. They've gone down because people see what my older brother, my older sister overdosed. I'm not going to start experimenting with fentanyl or drugs that in which fentanyl may be kind of hidden. I mean the number of fentanyl deaths have dropped from 75,000 last year to about 50,000 more recently.
CORNISH: Yes.
BERGEN: And that's to do, really, with people saying, this drug is something that is too dangerous for us to --
CORNISH: So, there's -- there's sort of multiple ideas going on here.
BERGEN: Yes.
CORNISH: I think it's sort of hard to tease apart as you bring in the drug war, immigration concerns and also regime change.
Peter, thanks for helping us make sense of it.
BERGEN: Thank you.
CORNISH: I'm going to talk about a group chat now, not ours. For members of the National Young Republicans are out of a job this morning for participating in a private chat on Telegram that was filled with racial slurs and jokes about gas chambers and rape. "Politico" first broke the story. The group's board of directors denounced the messages, calling them "vile and inexcusable." In one of those chats, according to "Politico," a state lawmaker's aide said, "anyone who votes no is going to the gas chamber." That person has since apologized after getting fired.
Vice President J.D. Vance had this to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Kids do stupid things, especially young boys. They tell edgy, offensive jokes. Like, that's what kids do. And I really don't want us to grow up in a country where a kid telling a stupid joke, telling a very offensive, stupid joke is cause to ruin their lives. And at some point, we're all going to have to say, enough of this BS.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: Group chat is back.
I wanted to talk about this, not just because everyone in Washington is talking about it, but because of the vice president speaking out and speaking out where he did, on "The Charlie Kirk Show," which we know has a very youthful audience. And so, he's sort of speaking directly to that world.
What did you think of sort of how this is playing out?
WRIGHT: Yes. I just want to note that some of those kids on the group chat are older than me. So --
CORNISH: Yes, there's definitely someone in their 40s. So, we're -- we're being liberal in the use of boys will be boys.
WRIGHT: Yes, so I don't -- I will -- I think -- I think it's a very liberal use of boys will be boys.
CORNISH: Yes.
WRIGHT: I mean, I think fundamentally Republicans who are not denouncing this language in the way that they would have maybe five years ago are actively kind of rebuking this idea that they need to be accountable for what other folks are saying. And I think that, you know, not to use -- I think this is something that a lot of Democrats say, but I think that the venue in which the vice president gave those comments is kind of creating a permission structure for people to say, if Democrats aren't going to denounce Jay Jones or a figure like Jay Jones for their comments, and we don't have to denounce this language, and it -- my question is, is how far does that extend?
CORNISH: Yes.
Can I ask you that, Doug? I mean this is the pipeline, right? These are the young people who are all in jobs, supports, aides, state things, and they have spent, if they're in their 20s, 30s much of their political maturation in the age of Trump. Was this the takeaway lesson?
HEYE: No, I think one thing we see is a classic Washington maneuver now of whataboutism. We have so much poisonous rhetoric in our -- in our political system that it's very easy to say, OK, well, maybe that was bad, but what about this one. When you can very easily point to Jay Jones, you can point to the rhetoric that fed the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The easy way, it's so easy in politics if you want to, be just be consistent. You can call out everybody.
CORNISH: The -- yes, I was about to say, the absolute easiest way is, please don't do this, everybody.
HEYE: Yes.
CORNISH: But that's not the vibe.
HAYS: Just do the right thing.
[07:00:01]
What Jay Jones said was horrible. What these kids said was horrible. Creating a permission structure for people to be horrible and to be racist and homophobic and anything else, that is the -- that is not what we should be doing, and that is not what our country is built upon. And it's gross that that's where our politics are headed.
CORNISH: It will be interesting to see what the fallout is, because there's also like a whole world of media that most of them can enter and use the same rhetoric, frankly, as a commodity.
You guys, thank you for being with us. Thank you for waking up with us. The headlines are next. "CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts now.
