Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Gas Hist $4-a-Gallon; High Court to Hear Arguments on Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order; Hegseth Says He Visited U.S. Troops Fighting Iran Over Weekend; Johnson: Negotiations are Ongoing to Reopen DHS. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired March 31, 2026 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR: -- would deploy its forces, or that any European power, having not been consulted, it would have been clearly against this war, somehow is going to participate in an offensive coalition, not going to happen.

What could happen, Wolf, is that, and I think Macron is now leading an effort to create a post-conflict maritime coalition that could in fact guarantee the security of the straits, but you'd also need an Iranian buy-in for that. So, again, maybe I could concede President Trump's emotional frustration.

But this war is on him. The straits were open on February 28th. It -- clearly, the Iranians have closed them or regulated who gets through and who doesn't, but this war, basically, right now, has been a disaster for the United States.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Aaron David Miller, as usual, thank you. Thank you very, very much. Pamela.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Coming up here in the Situation Room, Wolf, with gas hitting $4 a gallon for the first time since 2022, how are drivers feeling right now?

CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich is at a gas station in New York. Vanessa?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Pamela, drivers here in New York City at this gas station are paying $4.09 a gallon. I'll tell you how they're feeling and also what the CEO of America's largest bank is saying about the war and the economy. That's after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:35:00]

BROWN: Breaking this morning, a new national average. The price for gas just passed $4 per gallon this morning for the first time since 2022, marking the highest point ever during either President Trump's two terms. Diesel is also climbing to $5.45 per gallon. That's about 30 cents shy of its all-time high. And the financial strain is forcing one airline, Korean Air, to enter emergency management mode over fuel costs. Plus, drivers nationwide are feeling stretched beyond the gas pump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEXIA BILLINGSLEA, MOTHER OF SIX CHILDREN: Last week was spring break, and I just could not create those memories or take my kids out because the gas, they didn't fit the budget.

TAMIRA MONCUR, TEACHER AND RIDESHARE DRIVER: We got to work. I mean, I'm driving, I'm working now, you know, for rideshare. And I don't know what that's going to look like next week because if gas is $4 a gallon, I'm done.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This gas price right here, man, it's got me wanting to just start walking everywhere I go.

JENNIFER, REYNOLDS, PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENT: You know, you have to fill up to get to where you're going. You got to get to work. You got to get to those things that make you the money, but also, you know, it's also going out as quickly as it's coming in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Let's go live now to CNN Business and Politics correspondent, Vanessa Yurkevich in New York. Vanessa, some analysts are warning record high prices could still be on the horizon. How likely are they to get worse before they get better?

YURKEVICH: Well, Pamela, we're hearing from some analysts that gas prices could actually rise another $0.10 in just the next couple of days, tracking higher to that $5.02 record that we set back in 2022 when the war with Ukraine and Russia broke out. Here in New York City, the average at this gas station is $4.09 a gallon. That is higher than the national average, which is $4.02 a gallon, but a $0.03 jump in just the couple -- just the last day and a more than $1 increase in the last month.

Drivers here at this gas station primarily are taxi drivers, Lyft and Uber drivers, and small business owners who use their cars for work. So, they really don't have a way around the higher gas prices, except if they choose not to drive at all.

Also, earlier this morning, Pamela, we heard from Jamie Dimon. He is the CEO of JPMorgan, America's largest bank. And he was asked what this war was doing to the U.S. economy and the impact that it was having. Here's what he said earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMIE DIMON, CEO, JPMORGAN CHASE: Obviously, gas prices going up are going to hurt people a little bit.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's $4.

DIMON: But they still have money to spend. They still have jobs. The market will be concerned until it's over. But I think it's very important. It's much more important that this be successfully completed than what the market does.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YURKEVICH: Now, a successful completion, according to investors and Americans, would be an end to the war, but also the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, for which 20 percent of the world's oil moves through. That is why you've seen oil prices back up above $100 a barrel, as investors believe this war doesn't seem to be coming to a close any time soon.

The president has said that this is just short-term pain at the pump for long-term gain, and that prices will fall really quickly after the war is over. But as it stands today, drivers are actually seeing prices rise really quickly. And some of them we've spoke to here just say that it is a little too much on their bottom line, Pamela.

BROWN: All right. Vanessa Yurkevich, thank you so much. Wolf.

BLITZER: Also coming up, the house speaker, Mike Johnson, saying negotiations are ongoing to reopen the Department of Homeland Security, as Congress right now is still on a two-week recess. We'll discuss that and much more with Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:00]

BLITZER: Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether President Trump's executive order to limit what's called birthright citizenship is constitutional. The president signed that order on the first day of his second term. The historic case will be another test of his power, this time to deny citizenship to babies born in this country, to undocumented immigrants or people here temporarily.

We're joined now by CNN's Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid, and by CNN's Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig. Paula, let me start with you. What is the Trump administration's main argument in this case?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is, of course, one of the biggest cases for them of the term. Yesterday, I spoke with a senior justice department official who walked me through the argument that the solicitor general will make tomorrow in front of the justices. And of course, they're going to be focused on the 14th amendment and what the framers meant when they wrote that, quote, "All persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the U.S." And they're going to focus on that phrase, subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

[10:45:00]

And they're going to argue that essentially that means domicile, where you live, where you have allegiance. And the solicitor general is going to argue that does not apply to people who are here illegally or people who overstayed their visas or people who came here as tourists and had babies.

There -- they will also make an argument about the possible threat to national security with so-called birth tourism, especially when it comes to folks like Russia from Russia or China who come here, have babies who have all the rights of citizenship, right, and then those children are sent back to countries that are hostile to the U.S. to be raised.

So, this is going to be the gist of the argument that they're going to make. But this is this is a real uphill battle, Wolf, because they're essentially going to try to convince the justices that they've been wrong for over 100 years. And the Congress that has on multiple occasions sort of put this into federal law also didn't mean exactly what it said. So, this is this is an uphill battle for the administration to win here.

BLITZER: This is a huge, huge Supreme Court decision that will be made. And, Elie, you write a very long, detailed, excellent article in New York Magazine about this case. Among other things, you say this, and I'm quoting from your article, Trump's executive order turns entirely on the meaning of that constitutional phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Tell us about that and the arguments we should expect to hear.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL AND STATE PROSECUTOR AND FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: Well, Wolf, so the 14th Amendment doesn't quite say that any person born in the United States is automatically a citizen, as Paula correctly noted. There's also that other qualifier, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And that's what gives the Trump administration their hook here.

Now, I think it's a losing argument, as I argue in that article. But here's what the argument basically is. If you have a person who was born in and a resident of, let's say, Mexico, but is here in the United States illegally or temporarily, well, then they're subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico and the United States. And therefore, the 14th Amendment does not apply.

The problem is, the 14th Amendment doesn't say subject only to the jurisdiction of the United States. And if you think about it logically, if a person is subject to the jurisdiction of both countries, Mexico and the United States, then they are subject to jurisdiction in the United States. To put it a little more concretely, if a person in that situation who's born in Mexico but is here in the United States illegally or temporarily, they can be arrested by the U.S. government, they can be searched by the U.S. government, questioned, taxed, all the things that our government ordinarily does to people.

So, the counter-argument, and I think the better argument, is going to be that the 14th Amendment does cover people in that situation and should be construed broadly, as it has for the last 150-plus years. BLITZER: Let me ask Paula, what indications have we received from the court about their thinking on this critically important case?

REID: Well, what's so interesting, Wolf, is we know they want to hear this issue, right? This is something that really kind of came to their attention last year as part of a broader case about whether lower court judges can block policies for the entire country, so-called nationwide injunctions. The question about birthright citizenship was tied up in that case, and the Supreme Court kind of broke them off, broke off that question about judges, and the Trump administration won that. That's an issue that has vexed administrations for decades.

But they separated this other question of whether you can limit birthright citizenship through executive order and brought it sort of back before themselves. This is not a challenge that the administration has designed.

We also know that even friendly justices like Justice Kavanaugh are very skeptical about whether this is workable. He has previously grilled the solicitor general on exactly logistically, how would you do this? So, we know there is a desire to hear this, and there is also, even from conservative justices, skepticism about how this would actually play out.

BLITZER: And we'll have live coverage of the Supreme Court hearing tomorrow on this case. And just to remind our viewers, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, and it says these words, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States," end quote. And that's been the law ever since.

All right. Paula Reid, Elie Honig, we'll have continuing coverage of this important case tomorrow.

BROWN: All right. Wolf, happening now, NASA is counting down for its high-stakes mission around the moon. Tomorrow, it's set to carry four astronauts into deep space for a 10-day journey that will basically lay the groundwork for a return to the moon. Officials will hold a news conference hours from now on how they're preparing for this launch, and you can watch it live right here on CNN at 1:30 p.m. Eastern.

BLITZER: And CNN All Access is here to answer your questions about the historic mission to the moon. You can send your questions to askartemis@cnn.com. Space experts and former astronauts will be answering them during our CNN's All Access coverage of the Artemis II mission. Tune in to cnn.com/watch.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:00]

BROWN: Breaking news. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says he visited troops fighting in the Iran war over the weekend, and that one junior airman asked for, quote, "more bombs, sir, and bigger bombs." Hegseth also spoke about the diplomatic efforts of President Trump's team.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: If Iran is wise, they will cut a deal. President Trump doesn't bluff, and he does not back down. You can ask Khomeini about that. The new Iranian regime should know that by now. This new regime, because regime change has occurred, should be wiser than the last.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[10:55:00]

BROWN: All right. Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley of Illinois. He serves on the House Intelligence Committee. Hi, Congressman. Thanks for coming on. So, do you believe there has been regime change in Iran, as both President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have indicated?

REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D-IL), APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Yes, I think just because you say it's so, it doesn't make it so. You've seen leadership change, not regime change. I think the regime has long planned a very elderly leader that they were going to have a change.

And the fact is, meet the new boss, same as the old boss, and maybe worse, right? The new leader is more conservative, more rigid, and really more of a threat to the region and to the United States. So, if this is victory, then we're in big trouble.

BROWN: And you're talking about the ayatollah's son, is that correct?

QUIGLEY: That's right. I mean, the new leader --

BROWN: Do you know if he's alive, though? There's been questions of if he's alive or, you know, medically incapacitated or able to actually lead right now. And there's reporting that there are two other leaders in the country that has been going through diplomatic channels to communicate with the U.S.

QUIGLEY: Sure. I have no idea of the condition of the current leader. I will say this. It really doesn't matter. The regime isn't going to fold just because its leader is killed. If anything, they seem to be more emboldened. And we've got to ask ourselves, the question I hear on the House floor from Democrats and Republicans alike, what are we trying to do? Is this regime change? Will it actually change how Iran acts and the threat it is in the area, or are we going to declare victory and go home?

If this is about the nuclear capacities of Iran, maybe Trump shouldn't have abandoned the treaty in which Iran was in compliance not to go forward with the bomb, the JCPOA. So, it's a mixed message. It's garbled. It's half-truths. It's simply not dealing with reality. And that is what's very dangerous.

BROWN: Is there any outcome of this war that you would be satisfied with? QUIGLEY: Well, I think it goes back to not getting there in the first place. At this point in time, my concern is the troops that we have lost, those who have been injured, the threats to our allies, the innocents lost, the extraordinary damage to the economy. And I'm not sure what we can say we got out of this.

So, other than a bill already voted for, a War Powers Act to end this conflict and to limit what a president can do unilaterally to start a war, I'd like to get out of it without any more deaths and go back to a diplomatic means that was working. The Iranians were not moving forward with a nuclear plan at the time. So, at this point in time, it's how do we get out of this with less damage and the great fear of escalation.

BROWN: So, just to be clear, obviously, you don't support how the president handled this unilaterally going in to start this war. But now that the war is ongoing, is there any outcome that you could look at and say, you know what, this is good for the United States in the long run? If the nuclear program and the Navy is demolished and the Strait of Hormuz opens back up, could you get on board with an outcome from this war?

QUIGLEY: Well, it implies that I support it in the first place, which is just something it's hard to do. The fact of the matter is, if we go back to a diplomatic means and this comes from it, we'd go back to where we already were. And that is Iran is not going to go forward with a nuclear program. So, how do you have compliance with that? You have to have a treaty in which independent agency can go in there to make sure that that's what's taking place.

Otherwise, they're going to have a full-scale war. Iran has a 1.5- million-man army. If this is about regime change, that's what it's going to take. If it's about completely eliminating the nuclear program, it's an all-out war. So, it's hard to answer your question in that fashion because it, it presumes something which just isn't true, that we couldn't have had this without diplomatic means.

So, now we're forced to try to use diplomatic means through these negotiations, and we didn't need this war to do that.

BROWN: I'm going to ask you, Congressman, about another topic: the partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. We have seen these airport lines ease since President Trump directed DHS to pay TSA workers, but this is obviously just a band aid, right, band aid solution. What more will Democrats do to fully reopen DHS?

QUIGLEY: Look, that offer has been on the table for months. The ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro, has offered to fund everything in that bill except for ICE. And the only thing we ask for ICE are the same reform measures putting in place the rules of engagement for --

[11:00:00]