Return to Transcripts main page
Isa Soares Tonight
U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance Gives White House Briefing. U.S. Vice President JD Vance Gives White House Briefing; Sixth Day of Deliberations in Lindsay Clancy Trial; Spanish PM Sanchez Defends Actions During Migrant Crisis. Aired 2-3p ET
Aired September 03, 2026 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
JAMES DAVID VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They realizing by the way that their control over the Strait of Hormuz is effectively gone,
and it's a diminishing asset. So, if you go back three months ago, how much oil and gas was coming out of the Strait under Iranian threats.
It was virtually nothing. Now, it's almost back to where it was before the conflict even started. So. my advice to the Iranians is stop acting like
crazy people and stop shooting at commercial shipping. And in the meantime, we've got to do what we've got to do despite what a foreign country is
going to do in the Strait of Hormuz.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the Iranians say that an attack on a wedding celebration earlier this week killed several people. But have you been
briefed on that attack? And was the U.S. responsible?
VANCE: So, I've been briefed to the extent that I know that we're investigating. I've seen the same public media reports everywhere else. I
will say that the Iranian state media has not been a very good scribe about what's happened in the conflict thus far.
So, I'm extremely skeptical of this. What I can say with a 100 percent confidence is that unlike the IRGC, the United States never targets
civilians in combat. We never will do that. We never have done that. And unfortunately, obviously, sometimes things happen.
But in this particular case, I don't think that we have any information one way or the other. We're investigating because obviously we care. We want to
know, and if we do make mistakes, again, this is a big difference between us and Iran.
When our military makes mistakes, they learn from them to try to get better from them. So, we're investigating it very fully.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, Washington --
VANCE: Right --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Do you share any of the concerns of Secretary Driscoll and several Republican lawmakers about
the current state of the army, specifically about the departure of so many Generals and other top officials?
VANCE: Well, first of all, look, Dan is obviously a very good friend of mine. I think he was a great Secretary of the Army. Pete is also a very
good friend of mine, and I think he's an amazing Secretary of War. And you know, fundamentally where I -- look, there are a lot of issues where I
agree with Pete on.
The issue where I'm in the most strident agreement with Pete is that we needed to have a culture shift at the Department of War. We have to ask
ourselves the very difficult questions, and it has nothing to do -- I want to be clear. This has nothing to do with the amazing troops that we have,
the amazing military officers, noncommissioned officers and enlisted personnel that we have.
But America has fought a lot of wars since I've been alive, 42 years, and we have won almost none of them until Donald J. Trump became the President
of the United States. What does that say about the culture of military leadership? The way that we did planning.
And what does it also say, frankly, about the political leadership that we've had in the White House at the Department of War for 40 years of,
frankly, military misadventures? What Pete came in wanting to do was revive the warrior spirit in the United States of America.
And I think you see evidence of that happening in a lot of different ways. Two important ways is, number one, we have recruitment at all-time highs.
We had real recruitment problems under the Biden administration because people didn't want to join a woke military.
And what I mean is, they didn't want to join any military that was geared towards a particular political narrative. They just wanted to join a
military that was willing to defend America's interests and do so at the very highest levels of professionalism and excellence.
That is what the military under President Trump's leadership is geared towards doing. The second way that I judge just that esprit de corps, that
warrior spirit that you see at the Pentagon is, when you go out and talk to troops today, they talk about how much better it is.
How much prouder they are, how much more they feel supported from Washington as opposed to, frankly, oppressed by Washington. We're trying to
bring the best and the brightest into the United States military and support them in every way that we can.
If you recall, under the Biden administration, guys were getting fired because they were making their own health-care decisions, and the Biden
administration was treating them like they were convicted criminals. We're not doing that. We're taking things in a much different direction.
So, I feel like the military is in a much better place than it was 18 months ago. Of course, there's a lot of work still to do, and of course,
some of that work is going to take years because, frankly, the rot got so deep under previous failed administrations.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Vice President --
VANCE: Let's see. Sorry, I'm -- sorry. I'm always confused a little bit by the chaos here. And unfortunately, I'm old and blind now. But let's go to
Kerry Picket.
KERRY PICKET, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE WASHINGTON TIMES: Has called for the President's impeachment, and many accuse him of trying to
jeopardize U.S.-Israel relations. What do you say to those who are uneasy with your close relationship with Carlson, and claim that you're avoiding
addressing a lot of these issues, which may be causing divisions within the GOP?
VANCE: Well, look, I'm not avoiding addressing anything. Everybody knows that Tucker Carlson and I are friends, and I think it's very obvious that
Tucker has said some things that I disagree with. He said some things about the President of the United States that I think are just wrong.
[14:05:00]
I think yesterday somebody sent me a clip that said that he would support El-Sayed over Rogers. I think El-Sayed is a crazy person, and I think
whatever your views on Mike Rogers' specific policy prescriptions, I'd like to have a non-crazy person like Mike Rogers representing Michigan in the
United States Senate, rather than a crazy person like El-Sayed.
That said, what my attitude towards this and I try to -- I try to practice what I preach. And I remember when I became the vice-presidential nominee,
one of the hardest things for me personally is not when people attacked me, but when people attacked my wife, including friends of hers who knew her
heart, who knew what a good person she was.
And I remember thinking to myself, what a travesty it is that in the United States of America, we let political disagreements define who our friends
are going to be and not going to be. So, yes, Tucker is a friend of mine. Tucker is a friend despite the fact that we disagree on a number of things.
And I'm not going to play the game where I throw friends under the bus because I have political disagreements with them. I think that is a
terrible place for the United States to go. And if you have a disagreement with somebody politically, even over a deeply-held issue, you should still
be friends with that person because the whole republic depends on people of different perspectives being able to talk to one another.
That's how I try to live my life, and I encourage everybody else to do the same. All right.
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: Let's go -- let's go to -- well, the problem is some -- OK, here's the thing. You guys can see the list here. It doesn't -- you know, you can
take your zoom up lens here. It doesn't -- nobody is even circled. Nobody is even circled. If Karoline Leavitt was still here, she would have told me
who to call upon. But clearly, that hasn't happened here. I am going to go -- I'm going to go to Nik Popli from "Time".
NIK POPLI, STAFF WRITER, TIME MAGAZINE: Thank you. President Trump asked on social media, when are the Iranian people going to rise up and fight? Is
the administration considering either arming or giving other direct support for Iranian dissidents?
(LAUGHTER)
VANCE: Wasn't it Peter Doocy who asked this question this morning on "Fox News"?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a great question.
VANCE: And what the President said is exactly what I'm going to say, which is, of course, I'm not going to talk about that. There are a lot of things
that we're doing. A lot of things that we're doing, of course, to try to apply pressure on the Iranians to get them to stop shooting at commercial
shipping, accepting that they're still going to try to shoot at commercial shipping.
Obviously, we're protecting a lot of ships, which is why we have not had a worldwide energy crisis. I can't repeat this enough. But for the leadership
of President Trump and the hard work of our troops, we would have had an energy crisis because the Iranians refused to stop acting like terrorists
in the Strait of Hormuz.
Now, that said, there are a lot of, of course, additional tools that we have at our disposal, some of those the President will use and some of them
he won't. But -- advertise exactly how we're going to engage with the Iranians in the months and years to come.
Because, frankly, it would take away the President's decision space. But everything that could happen is on the table. Economic pressure, military
pressure, diplomatic pressure, covert pressure, of course, these are things, these are tools in the President's toolkit.
But part of the reason they're tools in the toolkit is because the Vice President, hopefully, is not dumb enough to stand up before, you know, all
of you and a million Americans watching at home and say exactly what it is that we plan on doing. OK --
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: All right, I'm going to go to Emily Goodin or Goodwin(ph)?
EMILY GOODIN, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK POST: Hi, thank you, Mr. Vice President --
VANCE: Is it Goodin?
GOODIN: Yes, it is --
VANCE: OK --
GOODIN: Well, then. I wanted to ask you, why are you going to New York on 9/11 instead of the President? Is because it's the 25th anniversary, is
there some special security concern? We know the President's been a target before.
VANCE: No, I don't think it's a special security concern, though actually, I will -- we'll follow-up with Secret Service just to get you an actual
answer on that. But that's not what I've heard. I mean, you know, you have a Vice President, you have a President, and there are two very -- frankly,
we'd like to be 3 or 4 places on 9/11, but you can't have one person be in multiple locations at the exact same time.
And so, we just decided as a team that I would go to New York for 9/11, and the President would stay here in D.C., of course, to commemorate what
happened at the Pentagon, because that was a critical part of the tragedy of 9/11 as well.
I will say that as much as it's tragic, and it was a terrible day, I am looking forward to it because it's such an amazing honor to be able to get
to go to New York and to share in that moment, you know, where the parents and the kids read the names of the people who lost their lives.
I did it once before, I think, during the 2024 campaign. It's one of the most amazing experiences of my life. And I encourage every American,
particularly the people who are young enough to not really remember that day, just to tune in for a couple of hours and see what it meant.
And I think that sense of commonality and common purpose that we all had on 9/11, that's something that we should really try every single day to get
back to. And if even just for a day, even if just for a few hours, I would encourage people to tune in.
[14:10:00]
I'm also, as you guys can probably guess, I'm really looking forward to hanging out with Joe Biden, I'm sure that we'll have many intense
intellectual conversations. And, you know, it will be great. We'll have a great time with Joe Biden and the other Presidents.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Vice President --
VANCE: Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Vice President, thank you. A minute ago, you said that there is not a global energy crisis because U.S. is helping commercial
ships. Given that you don't have diplomatic talks with the Iranians to make them stop shooting commercial ships.
Are we talking about an indefinite Naval blockade? Isn't that costly and hampers U.S. readiness elsewhere? And hampers U.S. readiness elsewhere. And
how will the President declare an end to the war if the U.S. Naval blockade is still in place? Thank you.
VANCE: Well, first of all, in the phrase an end to the war, I want to push back on that just a little bit, because major combat operations are
currently not ongoing, and they haven't been ongoing in a very long time. In fact, what we did just a couple of days ago is that we made it harder
for the Iranians to shoot at commercial shipping again in order to ensure the flow of oil and gas into world energy markets.
So, you know, we have, again, a lot of tools at our disposal. But what we're talking about here is trying to maintain some basic balance in these
world energy markets. Now, you ask about these things, don't they cost a lot? Et cetera.
Well, look, the alternative I think costs a lot more, which is what the Gulf Arab countries have begged us not to do, and what a number of other
countries have begged us not to do, including those in Europe who will publicly criticize us on the one hand, but then privately acknowledge that
if we weren't doing what we were doing, nobody else in the world could do it.
We are the only country in the world -- Strait of Hormuz. The Iranians would like zero million barrels to come out of the Strait of Hormuz. Last
night, 15 million barrels came out of the Strait of Hormuz. That's because of the United States of America.
And if we don't do it, nobody else would do it. And if nobody else, did it, we would have a catastrophic world energy crisis. And our message to the
Iranians is simple. It's been the same from the very beginning, is you've got to stop shooting at commercial shipping. They've got to stop!
It's that simple. And to your point about negotiations, the President's been very clear. We're not talking to them, and we're not going to talk to
them unless they stop shooting at commercial shipping.
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: That's -- I think, Deon(ph)!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
VANCE: Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. So, President Trump, he posted on Truth Social, "let data rain", but there's a "Fox News" poll with
70 percent of respondents -- voters saying that they do not want a data center in their area.
So, how do you bridge the disconnect there before the Midterms in about two months? And also, second part of the question, if Democrats do take control
of Congress, then do we lose the A.I. race to China?
VANCE: Well, look, I think it's a very good chance that if the Democrats take control of Congress, we will lose the A.I. race to China. But we'll
also lose a lot else. You will see higher energy prices. The Democrats have promised that they will raise taxes on working Americans.
The Democrats have promised that everything that we've done to protect American industry and rebuild American manufacturing, that stops as soon as
the Democrats have real political power in this country. There's a lot that would go wrong if the Democrats take control of the House or the Senate,
or, God forbid, both.
But let me just say on the data center question, you asked, how do you -- how do you split the difference? Or how do you bridge the gap or I forget
exactly how you phrased it. But look, man, the simple answer is the way that you bridge the gap is by following the President of the United States'
lead.
What was the most important thing that we've done on data centers? He -- excuse me, came out and said we have to have ratepayer protection. If
you're going to build a data center, you have to feed power back into the grid as opposed to taking power out.
I'm a strong believer, and I've seen the same polls that you're talking about, that the political backlash over data centers, a very large chunk of
it. Not all of it, of course, but a very large chunk of it is that people associate data centers with my neighborhood is going to get worse in
particular, my power bills are going to go up.
The way to bridge that gap is for people to do what the President of the United States has enabled. He's made it easier to build a nuclear power
plant or any other power plant next to a data center. He's made it easier for people to put power back into the grid, as opposed to take it out.
And there's a broader and deeper issue I think that's much bigger than data centers. And it's the United States -- what the President is really trying
to train, frankly, American industry to do, is to build again. We cannot be a country that says we're not going to build more power.
We're not going to build more rockets. We're not going to do anything because the regulations are the cost to the risk are just too high. There's
a chart that I'm obsessed with, and it looks at the amount of energy generated by the PRC, the People's Republic of China, the amount of power
generated by the United States of America.
If you look at that chart in about -- I want to say 2005, is when China finally started producing the same amount of power as the United States of
America.
[14:15:00]
That was -- before that, they produced way less. They caught up to us, and then they passed us. And today, China produces three times as much power as
the United States of America. The way to get around that is as President Trump's leadership has showed, to become a nation of builders again.
We got to build more power plants. We've got to make the regulatory state easier to work with, and of course, we've done that. You've got to make it
easier to reinvest in the United States of America. That's what we're doing every single day.
We cannot be a country that says we're not going to build anything anymore. But this backlash on data centers, I think that it is downstream of the
fact that the United States doesn't build enough power, or at least, it didn't until about 18 months ago.
But obviously, that stuff takes a little while to come online. It's going to come online really fast under the President's leadership. OK --
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: All right, let's go to -- OK, somebody said left side. Let's go to Joey Garrison.
JOEY GARRISON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, USA TODAY: Yes, right here.
VANCE: OK --
GARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. You're speaking Wednesday night at the Midterm Convention in Dallas. Several Republican candidates in close
congressional races have said they don't plan to attend the convention, or they're being noncommittal about attending.
Why do you think some of them are making that decision, and do you have any concern about their being absences from some of the battleground Midterm
Republican candidates?
VANCE: No, that doesn't concern me. I mean, look -- so, when you're running a congressional race, especially in a very tight race, you have so
many things that are local that you're focused on. You've got fundraising, you've got money you've got to raise, you've got staff that you've got to
deal with and obviously give directives to.
And then most importantly, you've got to go out there and meet voters and message to voters. I think the unfortunate reality of the national media
for this Midterm convention is like, my speech will get covered a fair amount, the President's speech will be covered a ton.
We can make the argument as much as possible that if you elect congressional Democrats, you're going to see higher prices, worse energy,
higher taxes, and more fraud. The President I can go and make that argument on national TV; we don't need a congressman in a tight race to be there in
all cases.
Sometimes it might be better if that guy is out there raising money, but I think people are going to make a determination. What is the best way for me
to spend my time as a candidate? Fundamentally, the President and I get one vote each, just like every other American.
And what we want is every person in a tight race to go out there and make the best case they can to their constituents so they're going to get re-
elected. And so, we can do more good for the American people. That's the goal. Kaitlan?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Mr. Vice President, thank you. I've got two questions for you. First, the widow of an airman
who was killed in the Iran war says she's having trouble getting some of the benefits that they are -- they should have access to because it's not
been officially declared a war.
Can you and the President personally ensure that the family of Alex Klinner gets all the benefits that they deserve, given he died serving the country?
VANCE: Yes, so what's her name? You said his name is Alex Klinner?
COLLINS: Yes, he was an airman who was killed in the plane that went down over western Iran.
VANCE: So, what I'd say, Kaitlan, is please, if you -- especially if you have the private contact information, we will reach out to her directly as
soon as this is over and make sure that she gets what she's entitled to. Obviously, you know, our heart breaks for every single person who lost
their lives in this -- in this operation.
And, you know, as much as our heart breaks, I can't possibly fathom a young widow what she's feeling and dealing with it. And so, we want to be as
helpful as we can, and ensure she gets everything that she's entitled to. So, we will certainly work that on the back end as soon as that.
And my message to her would be, we love you. We're grateful for the sacrifice. And we very much take very seriously our commitment to get you
what you need to get.
COLLINS: Scott(ph), three young children. Secondly, in terms of the war and the timeline, given this administration has put timelines out there
before, what you just said about no negotiations happening with Iran. Will this war be over by the time of the Midterm elections?
VANCE: Well, Kaitlan, again, I don't -- I wouldn't call it a war. Right now, there is no active shooting. I recognize there is -- there have been
places where this has flared up, major combat operations. Again, major combat operations lasted for about six weeks.
And since then, we destroyed, of course, their nuclear facilities with Midnight Hammer. With Epic Fury, we destroyed their defense industrial base
for producing weapons and also a lot of their conventional military. And then we made it harder for them to rebuild that nuclear program.
But when you ask, when will this end? You're asking me a question like, when will the Iranians stop shooting at ships? I think the reality is, I
don't know the answer to that question. You would have to ask the Iranians. When will the Iranians shooting at ships stop having an effect on world
energy markets?
And the answer is, it has less effect day-by-day. So, what we're going to do is not depend on the Iranians behaving responsibly or negotiating in
good faith. What we're going to do is use the tools that we have at our disposal to ensure that the American people, one, never have to deal with
the threat of an Iranian nuclear program. And two, that world energy markets are properly supplied.
[14:20:00]
COLLINS: So, it's up to the Iranians when this war ends?
VANCE: Well, if the Iranians keep on -- but Kaitlan, if the Iranians keep on shooting at commercial ships, again, we have, I think, a responsibility,
but certainly we're the only ones with the capability to ensure that the Iranians are not destroying world energy markets.
And our attitude is, we're not going to set an artificial timeline because let's just say hypothetically, let's say I told you three months, say, I
told you three days, OK? And then the Iranians start blowing up oil and gas ships. And the United States is the only country with the capability to
ensure that those oil and gas ships get to market.
Well, what I would say is, it would be irresponsible for us to write out our strategy and our timeline for an Iranian nation that simply cannot
honor its commitments and cannot stop shooting at commercial ships.
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: Yes, you got "CNBC" --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes --
VANCE: Yes --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. James Carville(ph) famously said that when he dies, he wants to be reincarnated as the bond
market because you can intimidate everybody.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have seen higher bond yields throughout the year this year. And I'm wondering if you can tell us how the U.S. government
thinks about the bond market right now in terms of its impact on U.S. ability to borrow, to finance our massive deficits, and also on its impact
on your decision-making about the Iran war, and also American spending.
VANCE: Well, you know, obviously the President cares a lot about interest rates. And I think one of the main reasons he cares a lot about interest
rates is because he wants Americans to be able to afford a home. When interest rates go higher, that means that borrowing costs are higher.
And that's particularly true if you if you have a mortgage. So, our view -- and this has been a consistent message from the President and the rest of
the administration on down, is that we believe that the Fed should be lowering interest rates.
We feel quite confident that if you look at the inflation numbers, if you look at the CPI numbers, that it's proper and responsible for the Federal
Reserve to lower interest rates. So that is a very important thing. It's something we care a great deal about.
I would defer like the deeper questions about the bond markets to Scott Bessent, who probably knows more about the bond markets than anybody that
I've ever talked to. But obviously, we care about this issue. We're doing a lot of things to try to keep those interest rates down, but it would be
nice to have some help from the Federal Reserve. OK --
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: All right, OK, so does Andrew Feinberg(ph) have a question of less than 30 seconds? No, OK, then we'll go on to Roll Call. Roll Call.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir. Mr. Vice President, obviously President Trump has let his frustrations show at times recently with Senate Majority leader
John Thune. You worked with John Thune when you were a Senator. There will be leadership elections after the Midterm elections in the Senate today.
Will you endorse John Thune to be the GOP leader in the new Congress?
VANCE: Man, it's just not my business. It's the business of Republican Senators to determine who their next leader will be. I will say about John
Thune, that we have a very good relationship. He has a very good relationship with the President of the United States.
That doesn't mean you don't disagree with people from time to time or have a preference or a priority. That's going to be different from the Senate
Majority leader, but it's really not my business weeks, months before a Senate election to talk about who should be the next Republican Majority
leader.
I suspect John Thune will run again. I suspect that he'll get the support of a lot of his colleagues, but I would defer to those folks about who
their next leader is going to be. The most important thing, and I think John Thune would agree with this.
I know the President agrees with this, is we've got to keep the Republican Senate majority, because if we elect Senate Democrats, what are they going
to do? We all know what they're going to do. They're going to try to raise your taxes. They're going to try to stop us from preventing money going to
fraudsters.
They're going to try to investigate and investigate and investigate rather than legislate things that are in the best interest of the American people.
So, I think Senate Democrats taking over would be a nightmare. I think it would be bad for the American people, but ultimately, the American people
are going to make that judgment.
And when they do, then we can have a conversation about who's going to be the next -- the next Senate leader. OK, let's go to -- let's go to Libbey
Dean.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nine judges --
VANCE: Libbey? Yes, Libbey --
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: Can you guys not hear me? Libbey --
LIBBEY DEAN, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NEWSNATION: Mr. Vice President --
VANCE: OK, Libbey, go ahead.
DEAN: I would be, Mr. Vice President, thank you so much. First, a question on Iran, but I also want to ask you East Palestine on Iran. How concerned
should Americans be about these cyber-attacks by Iranian hackers? And then also on East Palestine.
You called for an investigation on Friday into that train derailment. I mean, it's been three years, "NewsNation" has been talking with some of the
people who live in that community --
VANCE: Sure --
DEAN: Who say their health concerns have been suppressed. Would you consider an emergency declaration to give those people the federal help
that they need while that investigation may be called for, plays out?
VANCE: Well on East Palestine, I wouldn't want to commit to something unless I would know that it would do some good. And so, having been asked
that question, I'll think about it. I've never thought about whether that's necessary to facilitate people getting what they need.
[14:25:00]
But on the broader issue, you know what we've learned over the last couple of months is something that I suspected, but frankly could never prove,
which is what -- that the Biden administration radically underestimated the risks to the people of East Palestine, and that their Environmental
Protection Agency wasn't being honest with the American people about what the consequences of that train derailment were.
So, yes, we want that to be investigated. We want the Biden administration officials to be investigated about whether they were, you know, hedging,
whether they were lying, whether they were doing something malicious. And that's what motivated the letter that Lee Zeldin and I sent. And then your
first question was about -- remind me?
DEAN: How concerned should Americans be about these cyber-attacks by Iran?
VANCE: I see, yes. So, you know, look, I'll tell you that we are concerned about everything because that's our job. And I think you always have to, of
course, balance when you're an American citizen -- you have to balance, obviously, assessing the real risks that are out there, but also going
about and living your life because none of us can be too overwhelmed by risk or by fear.
What I would say is that we feel quite confident the homeland is safe. We also feel quite confident that the Iranians are going to try to do a lot of
things that they don't have the capability to do, and that your government, the American people, should know that your government is obsessively
focused on both anticipating any potential cyber threats, but also responding to them appropriately and ensuring they don't happen.
So, you know, if you look at the Iranian ability to disrupt the normal lives of Americans, I think it's quite limited. It's not zero, but it's
quite limited. I'd be much more worried about cyber-attacks from other actors. But again, we're doing everything that we can to stay ahead of this
stuff.
And I think we're the best government in the world at anticipating and preventing cyber-attacks. So, what I would say to the American people is,
it is a risk that's out there, but I don't think it's wise to worry about these amorphous risks.
You elect a government that's going to fight for you, that's going to defend you, and that's what we're doing every single day.
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: Let's go to Christian Datoc.
CHRISTIAN DATOC, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, WASHINTON EXAMINER: That's me --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Vice President, you called on green media --
VANCE: Christian? Come on.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
DATOC: Sir, thank you. Two questions. One foreign, one domestic. First, since this economic D-Day announcement pertaining to Iran, has President
Trump spoken directly to President Xi, asking him to stop Chinese banks from lending financial services to Tehran?
VANCE: So, we've certainly had a number of conversations with the Chinese. And frankly, I think the Chinese have been responsive to some of the
requests that we've made. I actually don't know whether the President has spoken directly to Xi, but we will get an answer for you and follow up.
DATOC: OK, thank you, sir. And then I know you don't want to talk about your own potential 2028 prospects, but Senator Ted Cruz and your good
friend, Secretary Hegseth apparently have been privately and publicly in the case of Senator Cruz, positioning for 2028. Could you see yourself
supporting either one of them for a presidential campaign?
(LAUGHTER)
VANCE: That's an innovative way to ask the question, but I'm still not going to take the bait. Let me -- look, first of all, I'd encourage any
Republican, if you care about the country, and I think all of us do, you should be focused not on a job, a few years from now, you should be focused
on the Midterms.
And that's the approach that I've taken. I think people sometimes don't believe me because they assume you're the Vice President, you must think
about this all the time. What I'm focused on, man, is trying to get as many Republicans as elected as possible so that we can do as much good as
possible for the second two years of the Trump administration.
That's a long time. There's a lot of opportunity there. And this job is so crazy. Look at this, guys. We're at the White House. That's the front lawn
of the White House. We get an opportunity to come to work every day and make 350 million people's lives better.
That's what we have to be focused on. And so, politically, I'm very much focused on the Midterm elections. I mean, Pete is a great guy. And yes, I
could see myself supporting a whole host of people. But most importantly, right now, I've got a lot of people that I'm supporting right now to get
elected for the November 2026 elections.
And on Ted Cruz, I mean, look, man, he's just clearly, Ted is a very authentic and likable guy, and I'm sure he'll do great.
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: "Newsweek" --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Can you tell me, Maria Bartiromo just left "Fox News". Is she going to be the next White House
Press Secretary?
(LAUGHTER)
VANCE: I don't know, man. No, I don't think so. You know, I just saw the news literally as I walked out before. I love Maria, I think she's an
amazing person, an amazing talent. I don't get involved in the personal drama of media stations.
In fact, I'd like to invite Peter Doocy to come up here and ask -- answer a question about what happened to Maria. But I think whatever she does, look,
she's going to do great. And I wish her all the best. She's a very dear friend. I haven't even talked to her.
So, I don't know the backstory about why she's decided to leave "Fox News".
(CROSSTALK)
VANCE: I'm going to do a -- I'm going to do a couple more. I'm going to do a couple more. I've got -- OK, on the side here, OK, pink tie. Pink tie.
There we go.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's why I wore the pink tie today.
VANCE: That's right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you see it?
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Anyway. Nine justices, we all know grown-ups in grammar school, and there are nine Justices on U.S. Supreme Court. How long does it
stay that way based on what happened yesterday in the House?
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: What do you mean?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, going forward, how confident are you it will remain at nine?
VANCE: Well, look, our commitment in the Trump administration is that we would like to have nine Supreme Court justices. That's the way that it's
been for a long time, and we think that's the way that it should stay. We also know that Democrats have explicitly promised that they will pack the
United States Supreme Court if they're given additional power.
And again, this is why I think that the choice in this election is not between this set of policies that are good and this set of policies that
are not so good. The choice in the election really is between crazy people who are trying to rig the game and common-sense people who you may have
disagreements with from time to time, but at least they're rooted in common-sense.
The Democrats are saying, they're actively bragging, that they don't like the rules of the game, meaning Americans vote for House members, Americans
vote for senators, and then we all try to make the best government and the best rules and the best legislation in the interest of the American people.
They're saying that they think that the rules don't allow them to run roughshod over the American Constitution, so they want to change the rules.
They want to add additional states so that there can be more Democratic senators.
Note, they're not proposing to add territories that are heavily Republican. They just want to add the territories that are heavily Democratic. They
also, of course, want to pack the Supreme Court.
So, how long will it last? I think, frankly, so long as Republicans are in power, we're going to have a Supreme Court that is good and honest and fair
to the Constitution. What's up, man? Yes, you right here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. You mentioned something very interesting earlier. You said you wanted to -- the president was
focused on creating a nation of builders. The ISM manufacturing, PMI showed that manufacturing activity in the U.S. expanded for eight consecutive
months.
When you hit the trail, particularly in the Rust Belt, have you noticed the trickle-down effect of the tax cuts and the trade policy of the president
having a positive effect on U.S. manufacturing? And does that make ideas like the Foundry School, which you were talking about at the Institute of
Peace, that much more important?
VANCE: Yes, so let me just take -- I'm going to take a couple more questions here, but I appreciate you asking that. So, what I think
President Trump will be remembered by, rightfully so, is for a renaissance in American building and American manufacturing, that he is the president
who said 40 years of bipartisan policy, where we ship American jobs, we ship American industry, we ship American pharmaceuticals, we ship
everything overseas, and hope that it's all going to work out for the American people, he said enough. This is a terrible idea.
And it happened because we were being taken advantage of, both by corporations that were shipping American industry overseas, but also by
other nations that were getting rich by pursuing policies that the United States leadership was too unwise to pursue themselves.
So, you're right, the manufacturing index is at the highest level that it's been. By the way, after many left-of-center economists and many Democratic
politicians predicted that the manufacturing index would fall to historic lows, it is now at historic highs. The tax cuts have been a major part of
this.
One of the most important data points in the economy, and again, this takes a little bit of time to bear fruit, is that you're seeing businesses buy
capital equipment, buying the big machinery, buying the things that allow them to hire people and build more stuff. They're buying that stuff at a
record level, and that's because of the working families tax cuts, because we invested in people who are building and making right here in the United
States of America.
When those pieces of equipment get online, and then you've got to hire the workers who actually run those pieces of equipment, what does it mean? It
means more products and lower prices for American consumers. It also means good, middle-class manufacturing jobs for American workers. But it's not --
if I'm being honest, it's not just the carrot, it's also been the stick. I do not think that you could have the beginning of a manufacturing
renaissance were it not for President Trump's willingness to penalize corporations and foreign countries that take advantage of the American
worker. So, it's been both.
It's been the tax cuts that induce people to invest in our country, and it's been his willingness, and sometimes him following up with action, to
say that if you're going to shut down an American factory and put an American worker out of a job, then we are going to charge you a big, fat
tariff on anything you try to send back into the United States of America. That's done as much as anything to protect American jobs and protect
American workers. Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President. I want to ask you about the announcement made by Secretary Bessent back on August the
24th, the economic outcast operation. Since that time, besides the UAE, has any other country joined in isolating Iran in that way? And secondly, how
can that operation be successful if you don't have China coming on board and isolating Iran?
[14:35:00]
VANCE: Well, first of all, you do have, I think, the Chinese, the PRC, being willing to play ball here. And we all know this, and I think it's an
open secret for anybody who understands the People's Republic of China. Say what you will about them. And, of course, we have some policy
disagreements. The president has a very good relationship with president Xi, but obviously we have some misalignment of interests, some issues where
the president has to pursue our interests at the expense of everybody else.
Say what you will about them, they are not the sort of nation that shoots at commercial shipping because they're not getting their way in an
international dispute. They are, in that way, I think, willing to be a little bit more responsible. Again, I'm not saying they're doing everything
that we've asked them to do, but I think that the PRC has been much more responsible, certainly than the Iranians, and much more responsible than a
couple of other nations as well.
But it's not just the PRC. If you look at Turkey, if you look at Azerbaijan, if you look at UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, a lot of the Gulf Arab
coalition, but if you look all across the world, we're actually seeing a lot of countries. Sometimes they're not willing to say so publicly, but
privately they're doing a lot of good things to help us ensure that the Iranians pay a penalty for firing at commercial shipping.
Now, I have to remind you, it's not just that they're paying a penalty when they fire at commercial shipping, it's also denying them the economic
resources to rebuild their nuclear program if they try to do so. Now, so far, we haven't seen them try to do so, but part of what we're doing here
is having destroyed their nuclear enrichment capacity, we're trying to ensure they don't rebuild it even if they try to do so in the future.
And that's why these matters. We're protecting commercial shipping, we're protecting world energy markets, but it's all in the service, all in the
service of ensuring that Iran does not become a nuclear weapons power. Let me ask a final question of Mary Margaret Olohan.
MARY MARGARET OLOHAN, REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I have two questions for you, if that's OK.
VANCE: Go ahead.
OLOHAN: On the first one, were you or the president involved in the deportation of Milo Yiannopoulos, and when did you learn about that
activity? And then on the second one, could you give us your elevator pitch for why Americans should choose Republicans over Democrats in the midterm
elections?
VANCE: Yes, so on Milo, I won't speak for the president, but I found out, I think like so many others found out, if you can imagine, we are, because
the last administration brought in so many illegal aliens, I don't keep track of every single person that DHS deports. So, I found out about it
publicly. I'm not sure if the president knew about it beforehand, but I'm sure we can follow up with the president and get you an answer to that
question. It's interesting. I didn't expect to be asked that. That's one thing I did not talk to him about before I came out here for the briefing.
And then, look, my elevator pitch is actually, it's very simple. Do you want to live in a country that has safety and security and prosperity? If
the answer is yes, and I think most Americans do, then vote for congressional Republicans over congressional Democrats. On every single
issue, the Democrats have taken the side of fraudsters, of criminals, and of far-left interest groups over the side of the American people.
Let me choose just a few issues, OK. So, on fraud, we are trying to take money out of the hands of fraudsters so that people who rely on Medicaid or
people who rely on food stamp benefits, they're able to get what they need because we've ensured that Americans' people's tax dollars actually go
where it's supposed to go rather than fraudsters. Democrats have fought for the fraudsters, and Republicans have fought for the people who deserve
these benefits and the American taxpayers who are paying those benefits.
If you look at oil and gas policy, Democrats for a generation have gone to war against energy. We've tried to make it easier to build additional
energy capacity, and we've done that for the past 18 months. If you look at crime, we have had, I think, the most successful anti-crime policy maybe in
the history of -- I can't think of a single 18-month period where you've seen violent crime drop so significantly thanks to the work of a single
administration.
And at every step of the way, the Democrats have fought us to open prisons. They've fought us to prevent us from putting people, violent criminals,
behind bars. They've fought us on basic things like funding and supporting law enforcement. They've fought us on giving tax breaks to our police
officers. So, on every issue where we've been successful in promoting law and order, the Democrats have been for the criminals and we've been for the
American people.
And finally, just one other very, very important issue, and that's building in the United States of America. This guy, Abdul El-Sayed, he says that he
stands for working people. Well, if you stand for working people, then why have you supported the same policies that for 40 years shipped the Michigan
auto industry to foreign nations?
We are the people who have been fighting for the jobs of Michigan auto workers. We've been the people willing to stand up, both to the big
corporations, but the big foreign competitors, and say, you are not allowed to steal American industry anymore.
[14:40:00]
So, on all these issues, Democrats stand for somebody else, the Republicans stand for you. My argument to the American people is not that you're going
to agree with us on every issue, but they're a bunch of crazy people. Elect the common-sense people to Washington, and we'll keep on doing great work.
Thank you all. Good to see everybody.
MAX FOSTER, CNN ANCHOR: U.S. vice president there giving the White House press briefing. He hasn't done it for a while, but obviously lots of
attention on it because he's such a high-ranking member of the government.
We can speak to Kevin Liptak about what he thought of this. But, Kevin, I was struck by, when he was answering questions about the war, saying it's
not a war. He wouldn't describe it as a war, so he couldn't put a timeline on it. He described it as certain places flaring up, and it's very much
defined on when Iran stops attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Right. And he said, somewhat remarkably, that there was no active shooting, despite what we've
seen over the last three consecutive days, which is active shooting between the U.S. and Iran. Iran striking ships in the Strait, the U.S. striking
back on positions in Iran.
And so, the vice president seems to be trying to put the war in the rearview mirror in a lot of ways, saying that combat operations had ended
six weeks in, and that what's happening now is simply the United States' efforts to keep commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz flowing,
but still, at the same time, refusing to give a timeline, one, for when that would end, saying essentially that that was up to the Iranians, but
also refusing to give a timeline for when Americans might see gas prices coming back down below $3 a gallon.
And so, I think he's trying to make some contradictory points. One is that the war is over, but two, that he doesn't know when the effects of the war
will be fully gone away. And so, I think that's going to be complicating and complicated to any Americans who might have been listening in to what
he was saying there.
He did affirm, you know, something that we knew, which is that President Trump had instructed him and the rest of the negotiating team to cut off
any of their discussions with the Iranians until the commercial shipping issue is resolved. So, really, I think making clear that there are no
active negotiations underway at the moment that might yield a more durable solution to the conflict.
And so, you know, if you were listening to this briefing and trying to ascertain where all of this is heading, I don't know that you got a clear
picture beyond Vance making very evident that this is not the issue that he thinks is the most important one for the American people heading into the
midterm elections.
And there was one other point that I thought was notable was when a reporter asked about this turmoil that we've seen at the Pentagon under the
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. You know, the firings, the blocked promotions, the feuds, the resignations. Most notably, in the Army
Secretary's resignation earlier this week, Dan Driscoll, who is a very close friend of J.D. Vance. They were classmates at Yale Law School.
Vance really downplayed that in a lot of ways. He didn't affirm what we know Driscoll had been concerned about behind the scenes, which is the
tumult that Hegseth had been overseeing. Vance said that he supported Hegseth's efforts to reform the culture of the Pentagon. And he, again,
kind of remarkably claimed that for the last 42 years, the Pentagon and the political leadership of the military had overseen a number of wars that
they hadn't been able to win. And just to hear Vance say that at the moment that the president is still bogged down in this conflict, even if you don't
want to call it a war, it's certainly still a conflict, and I don't know that anyone is claiming victory there just yet, I think kind of a
remarkable statement from the vice president.
FOSTER: Yes, absolutely. Kevin, at the White House, thank you so much. Still to come tonight on the show, the deadlocked jury in the Lindsay
Clancy murder trial is in the sixth day of deliberations now. I will take a look at what might happen next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:45:00]
FOSTER: Jurors in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial are spending a sick day deliberating in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The jury of nine women, three men,
have now been deliberating for more than 33 hours. Twice they've told the judge they're deadlocked and can't reach a verdict. Twice he's sent them
back to continue deliberating. Jurors are trying to decide if Clancy is criminally liable for strangling her three young children.
In 2023, Clancy's defense argues she was mentally ill, suffering from postpartum psychosis. The judge gave jurors special instructions as he sent
them back to the jury room. If they remain at an impasse, the judge could declare a mistrial. But let's see where we are.
Ivan Rodriguez joins us now. And I gather you're expecting some sort of update today.
IVAN RODRIGUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Max, that's been the biggest question all day long. What can we possibly expect from the jury today? We haven't
formally gotten any notice officially that any sort of notes or questions have come in from the jury to the judge. But again, if we look back to
yesterday, the timeline was around 2:00 p.m. when the jury sent that second note to the judge saying that they have not been able to come to a
unanimous decision. And that's when the judge brought the jury in and read them the instructions, known as a dynamite charge.
Also, here in the state of Massachusetts, known as the Tuey-Rodriguez instructions, really giving the jury final instructions to come to a
possible unanimous verdict. Now, we've sort of been talking about what could happen if there is a potential mistrial. If this deadlock continues,
the judge could determine that there was a mistrial. We could see a potential future trial down the road as well. And then it would be an
entirely new jury at that point. And there's no set timeline of what that would even look like.
Now, if a judge does declare that mistrial, the prosecution would have the ability and they most likely would have the intent to retry the case. And
Clancy -- Lindsay Clancy, would be returned to the hospital where she's currently being held without bail on her murder charges, according to some
legal experts. Now, if the prosecution does decide to retry this case, which Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, says is very likely, he has
indicated that Clancy would remain in custody until that next trial date as well.
So, again, there's a lot of possibilities here, Max, and we're just waiting to see what could possibly happen here if we do get any news by the end of
today.
[14:50:00]
We, at this point, have, you know, been looking at jurors more than five hours so far today that they have been deliberating so far and nothing yet
officially. So, the judge has let them continue deliberating all this time. And there's a lot of supporters outside of the courthouse as well. Many of
them Lindsay Clancy supporters, some of them wearing pink as well.
Earlier today I also walked inside of the courthouse itself. The courtroom is located right on the third floor. There were some metal benches out
there, a lot of supporters, a lot of press, also filling that hallway, again, waiting to hear anything, waiting for time to pass. Some people even
reading books, newspapers, just to wait for that time to continue to go on.
FOSTER: OK. Ivan, thank you. Back with you as we get any updates. As you say, they have been coming in roughly this time of day.
A billionaire financier with close ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is refusing to testify to Congress. Leon Black filed a lawsuit
today trying to block the House Oversight Committee from forcing his testimony. He's also refusing to turn over non-disclosure agreements that
he and Epstein signed. Black allegedly provided $180 million to Epstein over several years and has been accused of sexual assault by multiple
women. The Republican chair of the Oversight Committee said he's considering holding Black in contempt of Congress.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): I mean, I think we could do contempt right now. And that's fine with me. But we're going to consult with our legal team,
with the House Council. We don't want to do anything. I don't want to walk into any trap that would somehow lead him through some mistake that we
make, get out of having to answer questions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Spain's prime minister defending his actions to end the country's migrant crisis in Ceuta. The defense by Pedro Sanchez comes amid protests
across the country. The prime minister denies that the government ignored warnings about an impending mass border crossing from Morocco. Sanchez also
says his government's actions were the most humane in the middle of a difficult situation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PEDRO SANCHEZ, SPANISH PRIME MINISTER (through translator): Our dilemma was to either allow the people to pass through momentarily or to try to
stop them in force of the breakwater and also in the sea, something which would have triggered an even worse catastrophe than what happened on the
30th and 31st of July with hundreds drowned, which I referred to before.
They did the right thing, the intelligent and brave thing because facing the threat, they knew how to respond with humanity, which is what
differentiates great democracies like Spain.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Well, at the end of July, approximately 72,000 migrants crossed the border into Ceuta. City officials estimate up to 10,000 migrants still
remain there, though. Pau Mosquera is there from Madrid. The prime minister there explaining why they did what they did. I guess that's not really the
concern of people right now. They're living amongst this chaos and they want a solution.
PAU MOSQUERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Max, because as you were saying, there are around 10,000 people that are still wandering the streets
of Ceuta and the residents, local people, are worried of what may happen in the future because we have seen different situations that have prompted
with some tensions between the locals and the irregular migrants that are still in the autonomous city.
Now, it is important to say that Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, during his appearance before the Spanish parliament, he recognized that the situation
in Ceuta remains challenging, but at the same time, Max, he defended all the measures that have been taken by the members of his government as to
tackle this situation, as he believed those were the most appropriate ones. But it seems that this defense didn't really convince all the lawmakers,
not at least the ones from the opposition, as we heard some calls for bringing the elections forward and also asking Sanchez to resign. But it
doesn't seem like the Prime Minister is interested on pleasing them.
So, we have heard on how he has defended the handling of the situation. He actually has detailed the reconstruction of all the events leading up to
and following the crisis, and also outlined the plans that he has for the people of Ceuta, and how he is going to help them by mobilizing around $358
million. But something that actually caught our attention, Max, is that he denied any responsibility from Morocco on this event, Max.
[14:55:00]
FOSTER: OK. Pau, thank you so much for that. Dozens are feared dead after a boat carrying migrants was found drifting off Spain's Canary Islands late
on Wednesday. The head of the Spanish NGO says the boat left the West African nation of Gambia 27 days ago, and was carrying one hundred people.
Of the 127 passengers, 83 of those are now said to have died, including four women and a baby. Spain's Maritime Safety and Rescue Society tells CNN
44 people were rescued from a, quote, "makeshift boat, but rough weather conditions stopped the operation."
And finally, tonight, do you prefer tea or coffee? The answer could have an impact on your bones, apparently. A study by Flinders University in
Australia finds that women who drink five or more cups of coffee a day have lower bone density and could be more prone to hip problems. But the same
study found stronger bone density in tea drinkers. Researchers say the differences were small, but could be significant for women who were worried
about osteoporosis.
Thank you for watching tonight. Do stay with CNN. I'll be back after the break with "What We Know." We have heard that the jury in the Clancy trial
has actually sent a note to the judge. So, we'll have the latest on that for you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:00:00]
END
