Return to Transcripts main page
Inside Politics
Israel Orders "Immediate, Powerful" Military Strikes In Gaza; U.S. Strikes Four More Boats It Says Involved In Drug Trafficking; Democrats Spend Heavily To Tie Their Opponents To Trump. Aired 12:30- 1p ET
Aired October 28, 2025 - 12:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:30:43]
DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking news out of the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is ordering, he says, immediate, powerful strikes in Gaza. CNN's Jeremy Diamond is in Jerusalem. What exactly is he ordering and why?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, Dana, this is quite a momentous decision from the Israeli Prime Minister that comes just a few weeks into this ceasefire, a very fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. The Prime Minister after calling today Hamas is slow return of bodies of deceased hostages and the return of a body who was not one of those 13 remaining hostages a, quote, clear violation of the ceasefire.
He is now ordering, quote, immediate powerful strikes in the Gaza Strip. We have not yet seen those strikes take place inside of Gaza, but you can be sure that they will shortly be taking place. We don't know yet what the severity of those strikes will actually be, but this would be the second time that the Israeli military has chosen to carry out a wave of airstrikes in Gaza after accusing Hamas of violating this ceasefire agreement.
Now as it relates to the specific violation that the Israeli government is accusing Hamas of in this case, yesterday, we saw remains of what Hamas said was a hostage returned to Israel via the Red Cross. Following DNA analysis, the Israeli government concluded that it was remains belonging to a man named Ofir Tzarfati who was taken hostage on October 7th, but whose body was actually recovered in an Israeli military operation inside of Gaza in late 2023.
And so basically they're saying that Hamas has once again failed to return the remains of the 13 remaining deceased hostages whose bodies are still inside of the Gaza Strip. And we have been watching this frustration mounting from Israeli officials, but also from the families of deceased hostages about the slow pace of the return of these bodies of hostages and this appears to have been the last straw from the Israeli government standpoint, at least where they feel a need to take this kind of military action inside of Gaza. Earlier today, we know that the prime minister held a security consultation about this matter. No immediate decision was taken and it seemed that consultations needed to happen with the Americans first, but it seems that following those consultations, the Israeli prime minister now green lighting strikes inside of Gaza.
We have not yet heard comment from the American government yet, which as we know, Dana, has been trying to hold together --
BASH: Yes.
DIAMOND: -- this very fragile ceasefire, very uncertain times ahead. Dana?
BASH: Yes. And taken up shop in Israel in order to do that militarily. So just real quick, you said something important. You said this is the second time that Israel has ordered strikes since the ceasefire. So does that indicate that perhaps ultimately all is not lost with the very, very fragile, you know, negotiations that the White House and other Arab countries were successful at to bring the hostages home and the ceasefire at least in its initial stages.
DIAMOND: Well, the reality is that Israeli military strikes in Gaza do not immediately mean that this ceasefire has broken down altogether. It does mean however, that it puts it in a much more tenuous position than it is right now. Last time it happened after the Israeli military accused Hamas of killing two Israeli soldiers inside of Gaza.
This time it's happening because of this accusation over the return of bodies to Israel. You can be sure that the Americans will be trying to mediate the situation further to ensure that these strikes are limited and that they don't result in a total breakdown of this ceasefire. But, again, it is one of those moments where anything can happen going forward.
BASH: Yes, it sure is.
Jeremy, thank you so much for jumping on with us and giving us that breaking news. Appreciate it.
And coming up, the Pentagon says it's destroyed four more ships and killed 14 people involved in drug trafficking. But like the dozen or so before, the question is, where is the evidence to back up those claims?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:39:24]
BASH: Now more breaking news, the U.S. military says it struck four more boats in the Pacific Ocean killing 14 people. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claims the boats were involved in drug trafficking, but like the many other cases provided no evidence.
CNN's Zachary Cohen joins me now live from our newsroom. What are you hearing from your sources, Zach? ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, Dana. This is the first time that we know of where the U.S. military has conducted multiple military strikes in the same day. Three strikes against four boats on Monday. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says 14, quote, "narcoterrorists" were killed in the strikes. But as you mentioned again providing no real evidence to justify that label.
[12:40:03]
There was also one survivor according to Hegseth. We've seen this happen recently. As recently as last week, there were additional strikes in this same region in the Eastern Pacific Ocean where there were again survivors of these strikes that were first detained by the U.S. Navy and then repatriated back to their home countries of Ecuador and Colombia.
In this case, though, the status of the survivor really remains unclear. The Pentagon saying that Mexican authorities have the responsibility and are taking the lead on the search and rescue for this survivor. The Mexican authorities, the Mexican president has acknowledged awareness of a military operation in international waters and an alleged survivor.
But so far no indication that this person is in their custody. So this will continue to be something that we'll watch as the legal authority for these U.S. military strikes continues to come under question by both lawmakers on the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle.
BASH: Sure.
COHEN: We know Rand Paul, a Republican, has really repeatedly questioned the Trump administration's legal authority here. And the growing number of survivors from these strikes also raises additional questions.
BASH: Yes, no question.
Thank you so much, Zach. Appreciate it.
And Alayna Treene joins us here at the table. Yes, we've heard many, many times Pete Hegseth and other members of the Trump administration say that they have legal authority because it is a, quote, "war," a drug war. But the fact that this continues, and as Zach said, this is one of the few issues that Republicans are raising their hands, not just Rand Paul, but others as well, saying, wait a second, show us the evidence. This is a very big deal.
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: No, that's exactly right. And it actually was surprising to me, to be honest, that this -- we're starting to hear from more and more Republicans. It actually took them a long time to get to this point.
But now it's very clear that they want more information, particularly as we know that this is only escalating further. They're moving, you know, an airstrike carrier, an aircraft strike carrier that would carry, you know, the type of planes that they would need to potentially take the further step of striking on land.
We reported last week that they -- there are plans on the table that the President is considering about striking what they refer to as cocaine facilities and other places, drug routes inside Venezuela. And that's what I told will be the biggest turning point is when they move away from these strikes in international waters and potentially toward those land targets.
Because a lot of people -- and one of the concerns I'm hearing from a lot of Republicans is that they do believe so much of this is about regime change --
BASH: Yes, of course.
TREENE: -- in Venezuela. It's not about really just stopping the flow of drugs into United States. And that's the issue that has had a lot of people, of course, concerned about this. Let alone, of course --
BASH: Yes.
TREENE: -- the implications of the Constitution.
BASH: And -- well, yes, little thing like the Constitution. But on that note, it will be interesting to see what happens if there is indeed a survivor of one of these latest strikes because one of the other -- one of the many other ones, there were two survivors and they repatriated them.
If they're so dangerous, one of the questions that we're even hearing from these Republican lawmakers is why not try them or find a way to figure out information from them because --
ASMA KHALID, CO-HOST, THE GLOBAL STORY PODCAST, BBC: Yes.
BASH: -- what they wanted with these strikes was to kill them in the middle of the ocean.
KHALID: I think there's been very little transparency about what is actually going on. You know, we were talking earlier in today's show about what I would say some Democrats call kind of the war within which is the immigration crackdown, and I don't think it is in any ways separate.
It is very much linked to what we see with this war outside happening in the Caribbean and now in the Pacific. And I think that is what is so interesting. We keep hearing about this happening in the Trump administration's words because these are narcoterrorists, these are, in their view, dangerous criminals and that is the pretext for this all.
But he hasn't really provided a whole lot of evidence to that sort. And I think one of the big questions that we've had, in fact, we just did this actually as an episode on our BBC show, is looking at what is the underlying concern with Venezuela. Venezuela is not a major market for producing fentanyl that is in fact largely coming up from China and Mexico. So if it's really going after Venezuela, then what's it about because it's not that they're the major producer of fentanyl.
BASH: I think she hit the nail on the head --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Exactly.
BASH: -- regime change.
All right, don't go anywhere. Hold all your thoughts, David Chalian, because coming up, Democrats have been running against Donald Trump for 10 years now. And, of course, they are doing it again in the pivotal elections in Virginia and New Jersey one week from today. The question, will it work?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[12:48:55]
BASH: It's just one week from critical elections for governor in Virginia and New Jersey and in both states Democrats are putting big money, big money behind what they hope will be a winning message because they've seen it win before. Two words, Donald Trump.
Our very own David Wright crunched the numbers and what he found is since the beginning of September, the party has spent more than $14 million on ads that mention Donald Trump. It's the second biggest issue in terms of how Democrats are spending their ad money.
Now here's a taste of how gubernatorial candidates Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill are tying their opponents to the President.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: With Trump and Sears, rural clinics close, hundreds of thousands lose coverage, costs go up for everyone.
WINSOME EARLE-SEARS, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA: The bill as you know now, there's so many great things.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. Winsome Earle-Sears so far right. She's wrong for Virginia.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 100 percent MAGA. That's what Donald Trump calls Jack Ciattarelli because Ciattarelli wants to be the Trump of Trenton.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I support the President wholeheartedly and my job is to help him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[12:50:03]
BASH: Panel is back. David Chalian?
DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, interesting. I think in the Spanberger ad, yes, it ties Winsome Earle-Sears to Trump, but it also keeps the affordability message front and center about not delivering on a promise to lower costs. So it's not just a purely anti-Trump play. I think we're seeing more of that in New Jersey than we are --
BASH: But -- forgive me, I would argue that it's connected. I think this is what you're saying.
CHALIAN: Totally connected.
BASH: Because the President promised to deal with affordability.
CHALIAN: 100 percent. I think it brings -- it allows her to bring the anti-Trump message --
BASH: Right.
CHALIAN: -- into her framework --
BASH: Got it.
CHALIAN: -- of affordability. Because I do think, Dana, you're raising a really interesting question and we're going to get the answer a week from tonight when we see how people vote in these contests. Is Trump 2.0 the kind of the anti-Trump messaging? Do we see it have the kind of salience with voters that we saw in 2017 and 2018 in Trump 1.0?
Because that was a motivating and galvanizing force. Clearly some of that is still present. We know that. We see the "No Kings" rallies. We see -- there's -- there is clearly on the left an energy about that. But is it going to be at the same level that we saw with those big Democratic years in his first term? And I don't know if we know the answer to that.
And it's because there are also other factors at play right now. It's not -- you know, in New Jersey, Sherrill would be the third consecutive term for a Democrat. Ciattarelli is making the argument. It's time for a change.
BASH: And that hasn't happened in 60 plus years.
CHALIAN: Exactly. So --
BASH: Even in New Jersey.
CHALIAN: Exactly.
KHALID: And this had a history of having Republican governors. I mean --
CHALIAN: Yes.
KHALID: -- I think that that's part of this is the local politics at play in both of those states. I mean, I think the other interesting question I've had, and I've had this on my mind just, you know, ever since the November election, which is how much voters have shifted towards their perception of President Trump this second term.
I think Democrats writ large are really -- I mean, we always talk about this every election cycle out in the wilderness, but I think really this cycle they are.
BASH: OK.
KHALID: You hear that in terms of even who's thinking about running for 2028. They're really struggling to figure out would that help.
BASH: Yes. No, that's such a good point. You're not from New Jersey, right?
KHALID: I'm not from New Jersey.
BASH: OK. Well, the three of us are. So let's take (INAUDIBLE).
KHALID: Sorry.
BASH: We'll adopt you.
CHALIAN: Yes, please. Welcome.
BASH: Welcome. Jack Ciattarelli.
TREENE: Yes.
BASH: Let's listen to one of his latest campaign ads.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACK CIATTARELLI (R), NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR NOMINEE: We all know it. New Jersey's a mess and all Mikie Sherrill wants to talk about is President Trump. Come on.
What does the president have to do with rising property taxes and higher electricity bills? New Jersey's a mess because out-of-touch politicians like Bill Murphy and Mikie Sherrill care more about pronouns in sanctuary cities than they do solving our problems.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: Come on. He sounds so normal.
TREENE: No, the accent is so good.
BASH: So normal.
TREENE: It is so good.
CHALIAN: Authentic.
TREENE: Sounds like my family, honestly.
Look, I do think what's interesting is, I can understand I think broadly and particularly nationally this idea of just bringing back the Trump issue, the Trump of this all it. You know, it is a tired message/
New Jersey though, surprisingly, I mean, it has been becoming a little bit more red. I know that's what the President and his campaign are trying to say, but you can see it did --
BASH: Well he did so much better in 2024.
TREENE: Exactly.
BASH: Yes.
TREENE: And, I mean, I can even say from an anecdote. I went to that --
BASH: Check it out. I mean that just gives you the numbers --
TREENE: I mean --
BASH: -- to back up your point (ph).
TREENE: Absolutely. And I went to a rally in Wildwood, New Jersey on the beach, I remember, and I was shocked by how many people were there all to say this could be a message that actually, you know, does play a bit for Ciattarelli.
But, again, and I think your point was so good, is that, you know, if you look at the history of this and the tightening of this, it doesn't completely surprise me because New Jersey as you guys mentioned going back -- I think it was 1961 they haven't had three people in a row. And I do think people --
CHALIAN: From the same party.
TREENE: From the same party, I should say. With Democrats, you know this time that it would be if Mikie Sherrill pulls it off, it would be three cycles in a row that they won. And I do think there are a lot of residents who are tired of some of the messaging that they have seen, but we'll see how this plays out. It's very close. I don't know if I'm surprised though to be honest.
CHALIAN: Yes, no, and we see in the polling the enthusiasm factor seems to be on Ciattarelli side right now, like, when his voters tend -- seem to be more enthusiastic than do Sherrill voters in a lot of polling. There is a Democratic DNA in the state. So even within our margin --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
CHALIAN: -- even though Trump made up big games and it's the DNA of the state that may save Sherrill here in the day and produce a victory. But remember, Phil Murphy only won it by three --
BASH: That's right.
TREENE: Yes.
CHALIAN: -- points just four years ago.
KHALID: I have such a question for you, though, which is if Virginia and New Jersey go separate ways, I think everyone looks at these off- year elections and tries to read the tea leaves.
BASH: Yes.
KHALID: But what if they don't go the same direction, which is very (INAUDIBLE).
BASH: I think it sends Democrats further into the wilderness as you were describing. I think if Democrats don't -- I know that every Democrats going to get online and yell at me for saying this. If Democrats don't have a clean sweep this fall in a week, in November. I think they're going to have a really tough sort of broad national narrative heading into the midterm elections that this searching period of figuring out what went wrong for them last year is still very much (INAUDIBLE).
BASH: David, people get online and yell at you.
CHALIAN: I know.
BASH: That never happens to me. It's so weird.
CHALIAN: It's so weird.
BASH: Guys, thank you. Great conversation.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.
BASH: Thank you for all your reporting.
[12:55:01]
And it is a big day here at CNN. Starting today right now, CNN is streaming in the United States. What that means is maybe you are watching right now, our show streaming on CNN.com. There is award- winning journalism that you can access on the CNN app and on CNN.com. You can stream the news live anytime, you can explore exclusive reporting, watch a library of award-winning original series and films CNN.com/watch for more.
Thank you for joining Inside Politics. CNN News Central starts after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
