Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Bob McNally is Interviewed about Oil Prices; Gabbard on Iran Intelligence; Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-IL) is Interviewed about the DHS Shutdown. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired March 19, 2026 - 06:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:32:56]

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Take a look at this. Brent crude oil futures right now, it's on the right, almost $108 a barrel. And here's why. First, Israel struck Iran's South Pars gas facility, part of the world's largest gas reserve. Now, President Trump says the U.S. did not know Israel was doing this, but an Israeli source is telling CNN that the attack was authorized in coordination with the White House.

Now in retaliation, Iran then struck Qatar's natural gas facility. And this is considered one of the world's most important liquefied natural gas hubs.

And this is coupled with a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, which already has halted 20 percent of the world's oil supply and could be having dire, global economic consequences.

So, I'm bringing in Bob McNally. He's president of the Rapidan Energy Group. He's also a former George W. Bush White House energy advisor.

And you also -- you called it a few weeks ago when, you know, we were talking, you were talking to others. You said that oil prices would shoot north of 100 barrels.

So, when you see Trump threatening to retaliate against Iran if it doesn't stop attacking Qatar how damaging is what's going on right now?

BOB MCNALLY, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSULTANT: Good to be with you, Audie.

Yes, unfortunately, the crisis is beginning to engulf critical energy infrastructure. And if so, it's going to sort of transcend the already biggest disruption in history in energy through Hormuz that you mentioned. So, as we start to see now the restraint that both sides have practiced until now in terms of not attacking key export oriented gas and oil infrastructure, as that erodes, now we have a whole new level of escalation. And as we see from the prices moving in the last 12 hours, a whole new level of risk I'm afraid.

CORNISH: I want to ask you some questions about what people are trying to do about it. I hear gulf allies looking to pipelines that they think could be an alternate route. And then the White House trying to blunt the pain by waiving the Jones Act.

[06:35:01]

This is a rule that had prevented shipping between U.S. ports to U.S. flagships. So, basically, anybody can now come to a U.S. port. Is that going to help lower gas prices? Like how is this going to actually shake things up?

MCNALLY: Yes. So, officials here and in the gulf are doing everything they can. They're looking under every rock to free every molecule. In the United States, sound steps are being taken. The usual steps. Steps we've taken in the past, in the Bush administration and others. But in the case of a Hormuz disruption, and now possible damage to critical infrastructure, their drops in the bucket, I'm afraid.

Look, relaxing the Jones Act will make it cheaper for folks on the coast, West Coast, East Coast, to buy gasoline, but it's pennies. It's a good step, but it's not something that's going to stop the upward march of crude oil prices.

CORNISH: I'm going to ask sort of a silly question, so bear with me. Wouldn't the industry be happy right now in a way that prices are so high? Doesn't this mean profits for you? Like, help me understand how they are processing this price spike?

MCNALLY: Yes. So, the irony is they are not happy. They're my clients. We know them well. They are not happy. These types of oil price spikes lead to something disastrous, an oil price bust.

The oil industry, like consumers, buying gas at the pump, we've been on this space mountain roller coaster of oil prices for two decades now. It's one thing to have steadily rising oil prices. That's good. But this is a shock. Oil prices are usually, Audie, present at the scene of a crime, meaning a recession. Go back and look. Since World War II, when there's been big downturns, an oil price spike usually contributed to it or caused it. And that means prices will collapse.

So, there is no joy right now in the oil patch about why oil prices are rising so much. They fear we'll be a lot lower later this year or next.

CORNISH: OK, Bob McNally, we're going to bring you back. Thank you so much for your time.

MCNALLY: Thank you.

CORNISH: All right, heading into all of this, questions about the intelligence on Iran. And then we had this remarkable moment where the top intelligence bosses actually appeared before a Senate committee yesterday. And they repeatedly contradicted or actually failed to support claims about the war in Iran.

So, in Tulsi Gabbard's written statement, she's the director of national intelligence, she said Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated and that no efforts were being made to rebuild it when the U.S. and Israel attacked. Again, her written statement.

But then when she was actually asked about the president's claim that Iran posed an imminent threat to the U.S., she said this out loud.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was it the intelligence community's assessment that, nevertheless, despite this obliteration, there was a, quote, "imminent nuclear threat" posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no?

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat. That is up to the president, based on a volume of information that he receives.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. But here's -- here's the problem. No, it is -- it is precisely -- it is precisely your responsibility.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen joins the group chat.

Is it their responsibility or not?

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: The whole point of the intelligence community is to provide strategic warning to the president. That's actually why they exist.

CORNISH: Facts on the ground.

BERGEN: Yes. And so -- and they usually -- you know, they -- their assessments, sometimes with high possibility, low, medium, whatever. It is -- they're not policymakers, so it is the president's job to decide to do -- what to do about it.

CORNISH: Yes

BERGEN: So, it's an interesting question.

Look, you -- earlier in the program you referenced -- Senator Dan Coats was in that seat in the first Trump term.

CORNISH: Yes.

BERGEN: And he said publicly that they were sticking to the Iranian nuclear deal, which would -- obviously, didn't please President Trump.

CORNISH: Yes. And I'll show you the tweet from that time. In 2019, after Coats and others got up and they were like this about North Korea and with Iran there's not a nuclear weapon yet. And Trump came out of that moment and he said, "the intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They arere wrong." And said that they should go back to school.

I bring this up because it means he has been at odds with the intelligence community over Iran for some time.

BERGEN: Yes. And I'm sure Tulsi Gabbard remembers that because Senator Dan Coats, a conservative Republican, didn't stay in that job very long. So, she wants to retain her job. That was her effort to retain it. And, you know --

CORNISH: Yes, here's an example of that. Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat from Arizona, here's what he asked her. And we can hear what you're saying in this answer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): Were you asked to brief on whether Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz?

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I'm not going to comment on what the president did or didn't ask me on any topic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERGEN: Yes, that's not an unfair answer.

[06:40:01]

You know, there's executive privilege. What she may or may not advise the president, that's a -- so, look, I mean, it serves her purposes right now.

CORNISH: Can I ask a question.

BERGEN: Yes.

CORNISH: Is she advising him? I mean the way Joe Kent, her former deputy, has portrayed this in the public since his exit is that they somehow weren't involved, that there weren't dissident voices, that it was all happening between closed doors and other people. I can't tell from him whether his boss, Tulsi Gabbard, was heavily involved in this or not.

BERGEN: Well, it seems that she wasn't. But, you know, Trump gave a very interesting interview to Brian Kilmeade, the Fox News host, and he basically said, look, people come in, they give me some different views, then I just basically persuade them to go my way. So, you know, I think his -- he had already made that decision. He took some opposing views. Clearly, J.D. Vance had a slightly different view. But at the end of the day, he is commander in chief.

CORNISH: Let me open it up to the group because lots of times over the last couple weeks I've had people in the chat say, where is Tulsi Gabbard, right? As the U.S. and Israel were launching these strikes, people were wondering, where is our national intelligence chief? And at one point we all learned that she was down in Georgia, Fulton County, right? Like -- and she was asked about this, what were you doing there? Here's Mark Warner of Virginia asking that question.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I did not participate in a law enforcement activity, nor would I, because that does not exist within my authorities. I was at Fulton --

: You were present on the scene.

GABBARD: I was at Fulton County --

: Are the photos -- are the photos of you on the scene --

GABBARD: I was -- I was at Fulton County, sir, at the request of the president, and to work with the FBI to observe this action.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: They finally tried to get an answer. Meghan, were you satisfied with it?

MEGHAN HAYS, FORMER BIDEN WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF MESSAGE PLANNING: No, I mean none of this makes any sense, right? They -- the president said Pam Bondi wanted her there. She's saying the president wanted. They're all lying. Who knows what's true and what's not true.

But the fact of the matter is, the national security -- the -- Tulsi Gabbard's role is a person who ran for president as a Democrat and sold t-shirts that said, "no war with Iran." So, I'm not sure why anybody would think that the president would have her involved in any of these conversations when we know her stance and have known her stance on this for years.

MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Actually, I -- because I think Peter's right on this, the reason she would be in the room and she could get in the room if she wanted to because there's basically an open door policy into the Oval Office, which, much to the chagrin of other administrations that they look, like, how are you not restricting the people coming in?

CORNISH: Yes.

DUBKE: In the Trump administration, basically anyone can walk in at any time.

CORNISH: You don't think that's changed since Trump one?

DUBKE: I don't really think that's changed.

TAL KOPAN, DEPUTY WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, "THE BOSTON GLOBE": They can at least call.

DUBKE: And she could have gone in and she chose not to, if she didn't go in. I mean, from my perspective, that's where we're at.

CORNISH: I've been thinking about the fact -- yes. All these years after 9/11, the creation, which was kind of sparked the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and also the conversation around intelligence community needing to come together, do sharing. This is why this office exists. Has it run its course? Do we now have a president who is saying, look, this way that it is structured, this is the way that it works, doesn't work for my White House.

BERGEN: There's a reason that John Ratcliffe, who spent a long time on the Intelligence Committee in the House, chose to be CIA director. He knew -- you know, the ODNI has always been something of a figurehead, the Office of Director of National Intelligence.

CORNISH: Yes.

BERGEN: So, you know, it's not a super powerful role. It kind of depends who's in the role. It's very personality driven.

Tulsi Gabbard, this -- clearly her views on Iran are well known, as you pointed out. He may have not thought (ph) her views.

CORNISH: OK. Peter, thank you so much. Helpful context.

You guys, next on CNN, we're going to talk about the fact that the Pentagon wants $200 billion more for the war in Iran. That's at least according to a new report. So, I'm going to talk to a Democratic congresswoman, Lauren Underwood, because she sits on the appropriations committee. So, are Democrats going to approve the funds?

Plus this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It takes a village. Our TSA employees, men and women, and all of their families. Without a paycheck, it's tough to put gas in your car. Without food, it's tough to feed your families.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: So, what do Democrats have to say to TSA agents and fliers who are feeling the brunt of this shutdown?

And later, Senator Peter Welch is going to join CNN to talk about the state of the war.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:48:18]

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): It's time for Republicans to stop holding the American people hostage to their extreme immigration agenda, and to put the American people first. It's time to pay TSA agents, and it's time to pay them now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: So, that's House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries leading the charge on a new tactic by congressional Democrats. A discharge petition to fund some parts of DHS. And a resolution can't come fast enough as long lines and call outs of TSA agents continue to plague airports nationwide. At this point, one third of agents called out from Atlanta's airport just yesterday, and one TSA official tells CNN some smaller airports could be forced to close if staffing drops further.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADAM STAHL, TSA ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR: As the weeks continue, you know, our TSA officers, as long as they don't get paid, they're going to continue to call out. They can't afford to come in. And they're going to quit altogether. I mean we need to stop allowing Democrats, frankly, to hold their financial livelihood hostage, both at TSA, but across the entire department.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Joining me now, Congresswoman Lauren Underwood, Democrat from Illinois. Not just any Democrat. You're on Appropriations.

REP. LAUREN UNDERWOOD (D-IL): Yes, ma'am.

CORNISH: You are helping people get elected, right, coming up into midterms. So, I want to talk to you first about this conversation around TSA and ICE. Democrats are talking about a discharge petition, which we've --

UNDERWOOD: Yes.

CORNISH: This is what was used to get the Epstein files out. It's when you all just decide to vote and see if Republicans sign on and override what House Republicans want. Do you have enough Republicans to make that happen?

UNDERWOOD: I think you should think of this as an invitation. You know, we have put forward a list of demands, really common-sense demands around accountability and reining in ICE, making sure that there's no masks and that people are properly identified, that they can't snatch people at, you know, school pick up lines and polling places and hospitals, right?

[06:50:14]

And the president didn't really respond to that. And so --

CORNISH: Yes. So, the White House counteroffer did not --

UNDERWOOD: I mean the White House counteroffer was like, yes, we're going to follow the law, which we know they don't do. And so, that's their way of trying to get out of making changes to federal law. I don't think so. And so, this is a negotiation, Audie. And so, what we're trying to do is invite House Republicans to the table to join us in that negotiation, and a discharge petition allows us to do that.

CORNISH: OK. So, polls are showing that Americans dislike immigration tactics, right? We know that. But here's what they are saying in airports and in these long TSA lines.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD ALEXANDER, TRAVELER, HARTSFIELD-JACKSON ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT: My understanding is the Democrats are proposing separate bills for the various agencies impacted, and the Republicans are killing those bills on the floor. It's disgraceful what's going on here. Wait till November and a lot of these people get thrown out because they're not -- they're not legislating appropriately for the people of this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: I want to bring Mike in for this.

DUBKE: Yes.

CORNISH: Do you -- is that congresswoman's leverage, that person's anger?

DUBKE: Yes, but he had the exact right line at the end, wait until November. I -- from my perspective, if we allow Congress to go into every agency and pick and choose what they want to fund, rather than funding the entire agency, this is what elections are about.

CORNISH: That's a good question for you. Yes, an appropriator, how do you feel about that?

DUBKE: Like, that -- it's -- I don't think it's an appropriate way to govern right now. And you've got this -- well, I'm sorry. I'll stop.

CORNISH: Yes. No, let's let her answer. I'm intrigued (ph).

DUBKE: I got passionate. I'm sorry.

UNDERWOOD: Well, on the Appropriations Committee, we certainly try to make sure that agencies have the resources that they need to execute their missions on behalf of the American people. And what we see now is that we have a Republican Party that is not willing to look at some harm that's being done. A couple agencies, ICE, Customs and Border Protection, you know, U.S. Border Patrol, that clearly need reform. And instead of really looking and tackling that issue, we have other agencies performing essential functions for the American people. Essential safety functions. Brave TSA officers. We have Coasties, Coast Guard, who are out in harm's way every single day that are working without pay, showing up and doing their missions.

CORNISH: But to Mike's point, doing it piecemeal, using it as political leverage --

UNDERWOOD: Yes.

CORNISH: Over time does that just become damaging?

UNDERWOOD: This is not a best practice.

CORNISH: OK.

UNDERWOOD: You can see that on display. It's terrible.

CORNISH: I want to bring up one other thing related to ICE. Of course, with Kristi Noem gone --

UNDERWOOD: Yes.

CORNISH: Greg Bovino retired at the end of this month. There have been some changes on the way. Markwayne Mullin is the person that the White House is looking to replace Noem. He was in a hearing yesterday. And we were mentioning earlier that he had this kind of combustible exchange with Senator Rand Paul.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Tell the world why you believe I deserved to be assaulted from behind, have six ribs broken and a damaged lung. Tell me to my face why you think I deserved it. And while you're at it, explain to the American public why they should trust a man with anger issues to set the proper example for ICE and Border Patrol agents.

SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK), HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY NOMINEE: I can set it aside if you're willing to set it aside. Let me earn your respect. Let me earn the job. I won't fail you. I won't back down from a challenge. And I'll also admit when I'm wrong.

PAUL: I haven't heard the word apologize. Haven't heard the word regret. Haven't heard, I misspoke and it was heated and I made a mistake. I haven't heard any of those words.

MULLIN: Actually, it -- sir, actually it wasn't heated and I'm not apologizing for pointing out your character.

PAUL: Good. Good.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: He took a personal thing and brought it into the political.

UNDERWOOD: Yes.

CORNISH: And I want to get your point of view, because Mullin's answer there, give me a chance to earn your trust. I'll admit when I'm wrong. He's trying to portray himself very differently --

UNDERWOOD: Yes.

CORNISH: Right, than what, a, people have described him in the past. But, b, to Noem.

UNDERWOOD: Yes.

CORNISH: What did you see in that moment?

UNDERWOOD: Well, I saw two colleagues who know each other for real, and that they don't like each other. And they're not faking the funk. They're saying, listen, I know you to be a bad person. And he's like, I don't like you either and I'm not apologizing. It was very factual (ph).

(CROSS TALK)

CORNISH: But is that relevant to who's going to run ICE and does that do some work that Democrats need done to damage Mullin in the public's eye?

UNDERWOOD: Well, I think that, you know, Mr. Mullin is a really ambitious person. Senator Mullin is an ambitious person. And he knew that if he wanted a job with the Trump administration, he'd have to get confirmed by his colleagues. And if you have trouble on your side of the aisle, it's tough to think about how you move forward.

CORNISH: Yes. Earlier during the break you said something that surprised me. You said, it's deal making season.

UNDERWOOD: Yes, ma'am.

CORNISH: Which is not how I think of this Congress, frankly.

UNDERWOOD: Absolutely.

CORNISH: Which is what you heard from that voter in the TSA line. But we're also in the middle of a war.

UNDERWOOD: Yes.

CORNISH: The U.S.-Israel led war on Iran.

UNDERWOOD: Yes.

[06:55:02]

CORNISH: The White House is planning to come to appropriators and say, look, we need supplemental funding for the Defense Department. We are running out of munitions. You've now got people in the field -- we talked about an air carrier full of Marines, you know, that just passed Singapore. Would Democrats vote against funding in the middle of the war?

UNDERWOOD: Probably.

CORNISH: Really?

UNDERWOOD: Yes, ma'am.

CORNISH: What's the messaging on that to voters?

UNDERWOOD: Well, I just think that the voters are not supportive of the war. They are not supportive of the rising gas prices. They are not supportive of 13 service members being killed and hundreds being injured. And they're not supportive of the president taking this action without justification to the American people.

You know, when we look at the cost of this war, you know, we could have already funded an extension -- a year extension of the ACA tax credits.

CORNISH: Right.

UNDERWOOD: Right. Like, people's real affordability needs are not being met while Donald Trump is over conducting this war of choice in the Middle East.

CORNISH: Can I bring it to the messaging folks? I mean, this is what I expect to hear from some candidates, right? Is this how you guys plan to talk about it on the campaign trail?

UNDERWOOD: Well, this is how we're talking about it right now.

CORNISH: Yes.

UNDERWOOD: And, you know, let's hope it doesn't make it till November.

CORNISH: Right.

UNDERWOOD: We need this war to end.

HAYS: Well, I think that's what the American people believe, right? I think that they are wondering why we are spending so much money on a war that the president has not justified, he has not come out and given an address to the nation saying why we are doing this. He lets Pete Hegseth do his briefings that sound like a lunatic, quite frankly. And they can't afford gas. They can't afford to have their kids in childcare. They can't afford their health care. But yet we're spending money on a war that no one understands why.

CORNISH: Yes.

OK, Mike, messaging. How do you -- do you just say, look, we're already in it. You guys have got to pay for it?

DUBKE: I mean, if I'm -- straight up messaging --

CORNISH: Yes.

DUBKE: How can you not fund the soldiers in the field? That's the straight up messaging that's going to come from the administration. That's what their counter will be.

UNDERWOOD: I mean we just passed the defense appropriations bill last month and they didn't mention anything. The president came to the State of the Union last month and didn't mention anything. at the end of the week of the State of the Union, he launches these strikes. He had the opportunity to tell the American people why he needs these resources.

KOPAN: I will say, one thing that struck me on the campaign trail last year as I went around the country and talk to a bunch of voters, is the number of even Democratic voters who parroted this talking point, who repeated this talking point, that as -- in regards to Ukraine, why are we sending so much war overseas when I'm hurting so much at home? Why are we spending all that money? And so, to see Trump sort of lose the upper hand on that talking point is really striking.

CORNISH: And now hearing it from his own party. I mean we've sort of made a lot of hay of the sort of Tucker, Megyn Kelly, that world. But when I go into the comments, it's people saying, this money is not being spent at home on us. Which brings me to another thing.

I know Democrats are focused a lot on affordability.

UNDERWOOD: Yes.

CORNISH: And I hear you're actually pushing some legislation. Is it called the momnibus (ph)? Did I make up that name?

UNDERWOOD: Yes. No.

CORNISH: Now, you're a nurse by training. Tell me what you're thinking of doing. And is this, again, the kind of thing that I'm going to start seeing in people's campaigns?

UNDERWOOD: So, the momnibus (ph) is a comprehensive piece of legislation designed to end our nation's maternal health crisis. We have moms dying of preventable causes every single day, and we're dying at rates that make the United States the leader across the world in preventable maternal death.

CORNISH: But Gallup polls are also showing that 26 percent of adults are putting off medical care because of the cost.

UNDERWOOD: That's right. They can't afford it.

CORNISH: So, we're already in an even broader crisis around these issues.

UNDERWOOD: Absolutely.

CORNISH: Can Democrats promise -- can say, like, look, if we're in charge, this will be the new focus when there's like a war that's going to have lasting ramifications.

UNDERWOOD: That's right. We have one party that wants to take away health care from people. They cut $1 trillion out of Medicaid, $500 billion out of Medicare, refused to extend the popular ACA tax credits. We have another party that shrugs their shoulders and says, we don't care if you have health care.

CORNISH: I think one of the things I'm wrestling with is, I don't hear Democrats offering an alternative vision of how to exit the war in Iran, because it's not going to be his problem, you know what I mean? It's not going to just be someone else's problem. We are all going to live with this for a very long time. And what's the offer from Democrats about like, OK, here's how we would do it if we're in power.

UNDERWOOD: I have not heard any articulation from any Trump administration official that would lead us to suggest that this war would continue for months and years to come. They have described this as a short incursion that has lasted now a couple weeks. I am urging the president to wrap it up. The American people do not want to be in a prolonged war. We are not interested in this extended fighting in the Middle East. And we support our soldiers and those brave heroes that put on the uniform of the United States every single day. But this war is not our fight.

CORNISH: OK. Which is something we're also hearing from NATO allies who are saying that it is not their fight.

You guys, thanks for being with us and thank you for being with us. Please stick around because we're going to hear from the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, today. He's been doing these briefings the last couple of days.

[07:00:03]

We're going to hear if he addresses any of the issues that the congresswoman just brought up. And we're also going to hear I believe from a senator in the next hour as well. So, stick around. The headlines are next. Thank you for being with us. I'm Audie Cornish.