Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Vance and Caine Raised Concerns about Escalating the War; Netanyahu Heads to the U.S.; ICE Vetting Under Review; Sanders Defends Progressive Candidates. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired July 27, 2026 - 06:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:30:45]

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Half past the hour here on your Monday. I'm Erica Hill, in for Audie Cornish. Thanks for joining us on CNN THIS MORNING.

The breaking news this morning, the search for a second suspect involved in the deadly mass shooting at a food festival in Seattle underway. One suspect is in custody. Police say three people were killed, multiple others injured, including a two-year-old child, when gunfire broke out. Police believe they may have been innocent bystanders and that the shooters were likely not targeting the festival but targeting each other.

Opening statements set to begin this morning in the trial of the Massachusetts mother who's accused of killing her three young children. This happened in 2023. Prosecutors say Lindsay Clancy planned the killings of her children, but the defense argues she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis.

It is another day of extreme heat for much of the central and southern parts of the country. You can see that on the map there. Millions under heat warnings. Officials say a heat dome with a heat index of up to 118 degrees in some places. Those temperatures are expected to dip by the middle of the week, but they could climb back up by the weekend.

The temporary pause in U.S. strikes on Iran does seem to be holding at this hour amid growing concerns over the conflict escalating further. Sources telling CNN, the president was briefed by Vice President J.D. Vance and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine on Friday. The general reportedly telling Trump that carrying out more aggressive moves could further deplete stockpiles, along with other potential downsides. Some Republican lawmakers also signaling some uncertainty about the direction of this war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): At some point date certain it will be that Congress has to weigh in. It may be soon, but in my mind, the president's had the opportunity to achieve the initial goals, which I agreed with, to wrap it up. It's not happened. At this point, I do think there needs to be a fuller national discussion as to how we go forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Joining us now in the group chat, retired Lieutenant General Karen Gibson, former deputy director of national intelligence and a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Strategies.

General, it's good to have you here.

So, when we -- when we purse (ph) through what we're hearing, right, about these concerns that were raised by General Caine about the military stockpiles in this moment, what does it tell you about the math here?

LT. GEN. KAREN GIBSON (RET.), SENIOR ASSOCIATE, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIES: Well, I think at any time that you're using weapons faster than the industrial base can replenish them, then, of course, your stockpiles are going to diminish to some point. The question is, is it dangerous? You know, what kinds of shortages might we encounter? And it's important to remember that it's not just U.S. forces that use these expensive interceptors, but also our gulf partners. You know, we provide similar kinds of capacity in the past in the Republic of Korea or to Ukraine. And so, it can become a global supply problem if we are depleting them too rapidly. And each time that Iran launches missiles or one way attack drones, it requires the expenditure of these scarce resources.

HILL: So, to your point, right, about where else these munitions are being used, I want to play a little bit of what -- we touched on this briefly, but we have the sound now, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Mike Waltz, had to say about that specifically.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE WALTZ, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: We inherited a difficult situation with many of our munitions having been given over in Ukraine, a lot of them expended in the Houthis. But we are rebuilding with cheaper, faster, more technologically capable as we are conducting this campaign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Recognizing, you know, what has happened before, it does beg the question of, shouldn't that have been taken into account before going into this war, knowing that it could last longer?

GIBSON: Yes. So, I would say two things. One, I think the shortfalls in the defense industrial base have been long standing. It's one of the four priorities of the new defense strategy is to rebuild that.

But, two, certainly I think the initial planning for this campaign did not anticipate that it would go this long.

HILL: We have heard from the president about how Iran's military capabilities have been depleted. What are you seeing? GIBSON: Yes. So, they've been dramatically depleted, right? But not

eliminated. And, frankly, eliminating them is darn near impossible. You look at the very narrow Strait of Hormuz that we're trying to protect, and the vast geography from which Iran can attack it with cheap, relatively easy to produce, easy to hide, one way attack drones.

[06:35:10]

And when I, as an intelligence professional, look at an enemy's -- what they might do, I look at two things. One, what is their will and intent? And Iran has been very clear that they intend to control navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. And what is their ability to do so? And in terms of their ability to do so, we've degraded that considerably, but not eliminated it. And in terms of their will and intent, there's really no indications that we've moved the needle on that. They still insist that they will control the straits. And so, I'm not sure -- well, it's been tactically effective and tactically we've degraded tremendous capabilities. We haven't achieved our strategic aims.

HILL: I just want to ask you one more question on that point. So Aaron David Miller, over the weekend, was talking on CNN. I spoke with him a little bit about this yesterday, talking about -- when you talk about the will, right, there's also the will of Iranian leadership to keep going.

GIBSON: Sure.

HILL: And to be able to inflict pain on their own people.

GIBSON: Yes.

HILL: That is incredibly strong.

GIBSON: Oh, yes.

HILL: And is it proving to be more strong in this moment than you think was anticipated?

GIBSON: Well, I think some people underestimated the willingness, one, of the Islamic Republic, or the men who are in charge, to absorb pain and the well-being of the Iranian people has never been a top priority. I think people also forget that, for them, this is an existential fight for the survival of the state. And so, their willingness and ability to absorb that kind of pain, whether it's in the form of punishing airstrikes or years long sanctions regimes, is very high. They are not making the kind of calculations that a nation who put their economic likelihood as their top priority would make. You know, I think there were perhaps some assumptions that they won't choke off the Strait because it will hurt them economically. They won't attack gulf states because they need them to remain neutral. And those are the kind of rational decisions that a nation that was economically minded might make. But when you're in an existential fight for the survival of the Islamic Republic, your calculus is different. HILL: And in terms of the calculus, we were talking about this a

little bit earlier, but the fact that -- and we heard from Senator Cassidy there, right, the fact that congressional funding, right, is going to play -- kind of plays an important role here, Sara, how do you see all of this figuring in now in this moment as the American people, as we know, from every poll that comes out, are increasingly dissatisfied with where things stand.

SARA FISCHER, SENIOR MEDIA REPORTER, "AXIOS": Well, I'll tell you, one thing that Americans don't think about, but you know that military officials think about, strategic officials think about is, if we were to get into a situation where allies depended on us, let's say China were to invade Taiwan and our stockpile is low, that is a very, very serious long term national security issue for us.

Now, I don't think that the American people are demanding answers to that of their politicians as we head into the midterms. What they are demanding answers on is the economic priorities that you just mentioned, and those things are going to be very, very seriously felt if we cannot figure out the stockpile issue.

So, for example, if we cannot figure this out with the Strait, if the Strait doesn't remain open and we can't get free trade to go through, there's no way gas prices are going down ahead of the midterms.

By the way, even if we got the Strait open, there's probably no way that they're going to go down in time for midterms. That's the biggest like priority for voters right now. And if you're Congress, you don't want to be in a position where you're voting against funding in a way that it's going to come down to the way that it's hitting people's prices at the pump, in grocery stores and all of those things. So, they've got some delicate dancing to do.

But I do think that the bigger strategic concern is, it's not actually about some of the short term economic pains, it's what do we do if we have no stockpile? China invades Taiwan. Our allies in the southeastern part of the world are dependent on us, that becomes a pretty serious problem.

HILL: Absolutely.

I do also want to bring you on, on this next topic. So, the mayor of New York wants him arrested. American support for Israel is shrinking. There is the war with Iran. In the midst of all this, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to the United States. On the docket, he has a meeting with President Trump in Washington tomorrow. This is going to be their first face to face since February when the U.S. and Israel launched their joint attacks against Iran.

The prime minister also here for the funeral and memorial services of Lindsey Graham. The senator, of course, was a vocal supporter of Israel, a vocal supporter of the war and of Netanyahu, calling him one of -- one of his greatest friends.

So, when we look at where things stand, for Benjamin Netanyahu coming in now, there are a lot of questions about -- I mean we've seen the polling, right, based on Israeli policies about American support for continuing to support Israel, right, and when it comes financially as well. The ambitions of Israel, the ambitions for Benjamin Netanyahu, how significant of a blow is it without that very vocal support of Lindsey Graham as a hawk and as such a staunch supporter of Israel, how much weight do you think he actually held?

LAURA DAVISON, WASHINGTON DEPUTY BUREAU CHIEF, "BLOOMBERG NEWS": So, Graham is one person in a chamber of 100, but he had a very unique position in that he was both an institutionalist, he was there for a long time, he had the trust of his colleagues, even some who were more Trump skeptical.

[06:40:01]

Plus, he also was friends and had the trust of the president. And there are very few senators left in that role. Plus, he was also sort of a defense hawk and was, you know, willing to -- wanting to intervene in some of these countries. So, you -- he occupied the space that there's almost no one really to replace him going forward.

You know, there -- you've seen some others, you know, Ted Cruz, for example, has also been very vocal about wanting to, you know, essentially finish the job in Iran and continue on a very strong support there. But this is going to be a voice that is lost. And, you know, as we've seen, you know, various factions of the party, strong voices, people like J.D. Vance who have said, look, we should pull back from this. You know, this really, you know, presents a potential pivot point for, you know, just U.S. foreign policy globally of, you know, does the U.S. decide to completely pull back on the foreign stage, you know, both Iran, Ukraine, you know, as well as potentially in the Caribbean, Venezuela, Cuba. You know, there's a whole laundry list of things that the president has talked about that, you know, may shift, you know, depending at least on Capitol Hill where his party is.

HILL: How much do you think is riding on this meeting this week?

FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, "USA TODAY": Well, meeting might be a strong term. We'll see what happens, right, tomorrow because it's unclear whether or not this is going to be an Oval Office meeting, or is this going to be a pull aside at the funeral. But it certainly is an opportunity for President Trump and Bibi Netanyahu to get back on the same page again, right? Across the summer we've seen various spats. The president has been very frustrated, to say the least, with Netanyahu at times. So certainly putting aside Senator Graham and the funeral for a moment here, certainly it's a very important opportunity for Bibi Netanyahu to at least reclaim or at least get on the same page, you know, with President Donald Trump over what the next steps in this are.

HILL: And when it comes to this relationship, right, and how important it is for both countries moving forward, how much of an impact has this war with Iran had on that relationship?

GIBSON: Well, I think, you know, certainly we launched it together with a similar aim and a desire to have a dramatically diminished Iran, which does not have a nuclear capability. The contours of what that end state looks like may differ for us. It's important to remember that Iran -- or, I'm sorry, Israel and our gulf partners all live within range of Iranian proxies and missiles. The United States does not. And so there may be a concern, as Iran's strategy all along has been to make this so politically and economically untenable for us that we back off on some of the concessions we're demanding. There could be concerns on the part of Israel and gulf states that we come to an agreement with Iran that leaves dangerous capabilities that continue to threaten them.

HILL: There is also, just before I let you all go, the fact that Netanyahu is coming in a moment when, in New York City, right, I don't live in New York City but I work there right here for the week in Washington, D.C., the backlash that Mayor Mamdani has been facing after his comments saying, yes, he would absolutely arrest Benjamin Netanyahu. Then, oh, wait, I realize I can't do that. The backlash there has been, and specifically from Jewish New Yorkers who are saying, I don't feel safe in this city. Bibi Netanyahu talking about that, addressing it in interviews over the weekend. Is this an inflection point for the mayor this early in his term, in terms of how he deals with this?

FISCHER: Absolutely. There is a huge Jewish population in New York City. One of the other sort of big problems with his rhetoric has been that Bibi Netanyahu represents, in a broader sense to Americans, sort of security in the Middle East, right? Israel is our only ally in the Middle East. And clearly the Trump administration has backed them and supports them with this new Saudi deal that is a huge, huge, huge pressure point on some of the Iranian proxy groups. Now that we are showing -- got Saudi (ph) to put their support behind Israel.

I think for Mamdani, he has this good relationship with Donald Trump. And so, I keep watching what becomes the breaking point to that. And I think that Bibi Netanyahu and the Israel issue could become a breaking point to that if he doesn't play his cards right.

HILL: Yes, it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Appreciate it. Thank you all.

As we continue here on CNN THIS MORNING, a deadly shooting, putting Homeland Security under the microscope once again amid new questions about whether the agency is doing enough to vet their newest recruits.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:48:37]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: Did the vetting process fail? Was that information not available?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Does ICE have a vetting problem on its hands? Border Czar Tom Homan admitting some red flags may have been missed when it comes to vetting the officer who shot and killed a Colombian citizen during a traffic stop earlier this month in Maine. Now, court documents reveal that officer was accused of abuse by two ex-wives. A judge later ordered he relinquished any firearms.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: Now, those are the facts. I don't think he should ever have cleared vetting. You know, when they hire somebody, put them through a vetting process and look at all that stuff. So, I know, based on that information, that that's part of the ongoing investigation.

ICE has about 30,000 employees. They all go through vetting. This is -- this is a -- kind of a rare instance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: You just heard Tom Homan there calling it a rare instance. Is it an isolated instance or could there be a bigger problem brewing?

Joining the group chat with us now, Marc Caputo, White House reporter with "Axios."

As we look at where things stand, and whether this is an isolated incident. Last night I spoke with Democratic Congressman Shri Thanedar, who serves on House Homeland Security, and he was very clear to me that he does not think this is isolated. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. SHRI THANEDAR (D-MI): This is absolutely not an isolated incident. They had a deliberate system that encouraged hiring of people that had, you know, questionable backgrounds.

[06:50:04]

Background search was not done enough. And ICE agents were hired in a hurry because they wanted to make up that quota that President Trump has set.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: So, we heard his claim here, this is about boosting the numbers to get to a number that President Trump wanted. Did the vetting -- is there evidence that the vetting process writ large has actually suffered in that process?

MARC CAPUTO, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, "AXIOS": Well, there's evidence that it happened because now there's a person who's dead. But there's a broader issue that ICE and the administration are facing, which is that the American people have increasingly lost confidence, not just in ICE as an agency. I think YouGov recently had 48 percent of Americans thought ICE should be abolished, and only 40 percent said it should be around. But, politically speaking, Republicans have now lost what used to be a sizable advantage on who's best to handle immigration, Republicans or Democrats. According to a Fox poll last week, Democrats now have an inside the error margin of lead of one point on that issue.

So, in addition to that, ICE also is perceived as having, and the immigration system at large, a culture problem. Remember, it's not just Guerrero who got shot. It was also two U.S. citizens who got shot and killed in Minnesota. And before that, there were shootings in Chicago. Is you have immigration agents who are placed in a situation where they wind up doing traffic stops that they're not really trained for, and shootings happen.

HILL: So, to that point, there was the issue of vetting. There's also the issue of training, right?

Sara, you were going to say something?

FISCHER: Well, I was just going to say, on the training point, this has been very well documented that the number of days that it took to get trained as an ICE officer has been reduced dramatically in the Trump era in order to make sure that they have enough agents that can get out to address some of these crises. We've seen a large pullback. But you'll remember, early on in Trump's second term, there was an ICE operation in a different city almost every week. And so, because of that, they needed to get these ICE officers out.

I think the number of days for training went down to 40 something, then it was reduced before, as opposed to many months long training. That completely changes the way that an officer is going to react in any situation.

HILL: And we saw that as a significant focus of questioning, right? I mean I can remember watching some of the hearings over the last however many months, right, that that was a question about. Talk to me about the training. Talk to me about why the training changed. Why the number of days changed. Tom Homan did talk about training practices as well, saying that they're under review. Here's how he put it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: Markwayne Mullin made a decision, well, let's do a temporary pause and make sure, you know, we -- officers have what they need to be safe and do the most safe, secure arrests where possible. And, you know, that review was done pretty quickly. President Trump also said we're going to -- we're going to continue doing vehicle stops because that's a necessary tool in the tool shed. But we always evaluate training.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: You know, you were talking about the training for vehicle stops. The intersect -- "The Intercept," excuse me, obtained internal -- an internal agency wide email from last week about new training for ICE officers, which reads in part, "the officer or officers conducting the stop must have successfully completed an ICE--administered vehicle stop training."

There are a lot of questions about the rhetoric is going out there. Apparently, the directives are out there. But is there actually follow through? Do you see any of what has transpired over the last couple of weeks leading to more thorough reviews here?

DAVISON: That certainly has not played out on the field. You know, we've really seen a ramp up of ICE related violence, versus a cool down after we saw in Minneapolis earlier this year. But this raises a lot of questions. You know, we're starting to see some daylight between ICE and Homan and the White House here. You know, we saw this last week when after, you know, this traffic stop involved shooting that ICE said, look, were going to put a pause on this while we figure out what's going on. Trump came out the next morning and said, nope, we're not going to do that. We're going to continue, you know, everything that ICE was doing before. Again you have -- you know, this is not really an admission of guilt from Homan here about the vetting, but at least suggesting that there could be problems with the process really will be interesting to see how Trump reacts to that. You know, ICE has, in his mind, sort of been infallible here. And you're starting to see the head of ICE, the guy that Trump put in place to run this program, saying, hey, we may have gotten over our skis a little bit.

HILL: It is also fascinating, to Marc's point, Francessca, when we look at, like, Democrats are gaining a little bit when it comes to handling of immigration. You know, Donald Trump has a really good narrative in some areas on immigration in terms of fulfilling campaign promises, right? What we're seeing at the borders. This is not sitting quite so well.

CHAMBERS: This has typically been one of Republicans' best issue areas --

CAPUTO: One hundred percent.

HILL: Yes.

CHAMBERS: As we've seen in the past. I mean this is largely what Donald Trump launched his first campaign on was about immigration. And so certainly heading into the midterms, this is something that, you know, Republicans want to wrestle control back over in terms of a topic for Republican voters.

But with respect to the daylight that you were talking about between, you know, the White House and ICE, I mean, we've seen in the past too where they haven't -- have made announcements and President Trump has said, and the White House has said, nope, that's not how we're going to be handling deportations when it comes to, you know, farm agricultural workers and other things like this.

So, all along we've seen that the White House and the president have typically been setting the policies when it comes to immigration in this country.

HILL: Also want to talk to you about what we are seeing in terms of Democrats.

[06:55:03] Senator Bernie Sanders standing by his coalition of candidates, even as some Democrats worry that the so-called Bernie bros could tank the midterms.

Obamas former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, making that argument in a "Wall Street Journal" op-ed over the weekend, blaming the Bernie bros. Adding for the division -- adding, "if the Bernie bros were serious about growing jobs and wages, they would support candidates touting substantive ways to help families." Senator Sanders, firing back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): You are an establishment, like Rahm Emanuel, who are dependent on billionaire campaign contributors and want to maintain the status quo. Then you have a progressive movement, which, by the way, what is getting these guys nervous is we are winning all over this country. It's not only Mamdani in New York City. It's in New Jersey. It's in Ohio. It's in Colorado. People are sick and tired of the Rahm Emanuels and the Democratic establishment and the Republican establishment. They are asking simple questions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: How do you see this playing out?

CAPUTO: I see it as a sort of a -- the Democrats catching up to where Republicans were in 2010. I mean it's been written about and said about a little is that this is sort of the Democratic Party's Tea Party movement. And, I mean, obviously their version of it.

This, to a degree, is perceived in the Trump White House as a possible advantage because they think, well, we've always accused Democrats of being communists. Now they're actually picking communists. Chevalier is the example in New York. I'm not sure how fully accurate it is, but that's going to be the battle line that the Republicans are going to be drawing with the Democrats.

FISCHER: I just want to remind people, though, in November what we were talking about was this becoming the big tent party, right? Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey, Abigail Spanberger (ph) in Virginia. This was not just about bringing in Democrats that were super far left. These are women with military track records. And so, I think that the Democrats got to figure out a way to get back to that narrative of, no, no, no, we're the big tent party, right? We can bring on a Mamdani and that works for New York City, but that's not going to work in a place like Virginia, which is a purple state.

HILL: Right. And that that's OK. I thought it was fascinating too, there was some reporting in "The New York Times" talking about the rise of Democratic socialists, specifically in the state of New York, right, and their influence. And in talking to the chair of the Democratic Party in the state, right, he, Jay Jacobs, who raised the concern, saying, look, I like some of what they're doing. But the issue here, and I'm quoting him, he said, "too often they look at moderate Democrats as the greater enemy than Republicans. They don't appeal to people in the middle. Most Americans are moderate." I mean, how much of a concern for Democrats, right, to your point about big tent, is that this is going so far to the left that they're actually looking at Democrats, moderate Democrats, as more of an enemy than Republicans?

DAVISON: That's a huge problem. I mean, if you're done with the midterms and just want to focus on 2028, just watch this debate. This is what is going to be sort of the central theme, you know, after we get through these November elections.

HILL: Yes.

DAVISON: But, you know, there's a prime example in AOC, who was sort of the -- at the vanguard of this whole, you know, progressive movement, of, you know, unseating a long-standing incumbent. She is now facing questions of, is she progressive enough? Is she doing enough for the party? You know, this is, you know, a cyclical thing we see in politics all the time. But if you have someone like AOC getting questions, if her bona fides are true, if she's really committed to the DSA mission, that's a problem for the party.

HILL: And meanwhile you have the, you know, administration and likely most Republicans across the country just sitting back and popping popcorn.

CHAMBERS: I was laughing. I said if you're done with '26 and just want to talk about 2020, because you guys knew I wanted to talk about 2020 at this point.

HILL: I knew you wanted to talk to. That's going to be your next question. Don't worry.

CHAMBERS: I know -- I know and next time -- or next time.

But listen, the administration, as Marc was saying, is sitting back and saying that this is going to be their midterm message at this point, right? You've seen the president. You've seen House Speaker Mike Johnson, a number of other Republicans saying that they're Marxists, they're communists, you know, they're socialists, that they're going to, you know, you're going to be living in squalor I think is what the president said two years from now. They're saying it's free, but it won't be free. I mean that is exactly what the midterm message is right now coming from Republicans.

As far as Democrats go, though, I mean, there is this intraparty debate about the future of the -- of the Democratic Party right now and what they want it to look like. And even if Hakeem Jeffries does take over of the House, I mean he's going to have a similar problem to Mike Johnson on his hands --

HILL: Yes.

CHAMBERS: Where he could only have a margin of a couple. And he's going to have to, you know, barter with them to get things done.

HILL: We're -- CHAMBERS: If he's -- if he's -- if he's the leader, because they won't even commit to making him the leader.

CAPUTO: But the future of the party might be AOC. I mean, I know you don't want to talk about 2028, but the idea that --

HILL: Francesca very much wants to talk about it, actually.

CAPUTO: Right. Well, the idea that the Democratic socialists now think she's not socialisty (ph) enough sort of puts her in the middle to a degree and that's not a bad spot for AOC to be as a 2028 cycle dawns after 2026.

HILL: So, we only have a minute left, so it's hard to get to everybody's group chat, but because we've been teasing it so much, I will say, Francesca's group chat is all about 2028.

CHAMBERS: Yes. So, Democrats set their 2028 presidential calendar on Friday evening. You may have missed it because it was a Friday night. South Carolina is going to go first. Hypothetically, this depends on what New Hampshire and some other states do. They could potentially hop the line again. New Hampshire has a law that says it has to hold the first presidential primary. But hypothetically, South Carolina is going to go first. It's meant to empower black voters. This after a big debate between a panel of Democrats over whether it should be Nevada first, potentially, as they try to incorporate Latino voters.

[07:00:07]

This is really going to change though how campaigns and candidates potentially campaign in the 2020 cycle.

HILL: It's certainly also going to change where you all will be spending perhaps your winter months.

We are out of time now. I'm sorry we didn't get to everybody's group chat, but we will have many more days of group chats ahead. Thank you. Nice to see all of you this morning.

Thanks to all of you for joining us on this Monday morning. I'm Erica Hill. Stay tuned. The headlines are next.