Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Touts "Great Progress" As He Threatens Energy Sites; White House Says U.S. Will Follow The Law After Trump Threatens Iran's Civilian Infrastructure; DeSantis Signs Bill To Rename Palm Beach Airport After Trump. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 30, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PATRICK OPPMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: But most days now, the power's off for most of the time. There are almost no cars on the road at this point in Cuba. So, it is significant that the first ship in three months has gotten through Donald Trump's oil blockade. He's let in this ship.
But you saw that piece there. Sandro Castro, the elites are doing well. It is the regular people that have suffered tremendously, the last three months. And it's not clear what the Trump administration has gotten in return.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Patrick Oppmann, terrific report. Thank you so much.
That is all for us tonight. I'm back at 07:00 a.m. tomorrow.
In the meantime, the news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump is touting progress with what he describes as a new Iranian regime, while also issuing one of his biggest threats ahead of his own deadline.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, thousands more of American troops have arrived in the Middle East, as President Trump is toggling between two drastically different trajectories for the war against Iran.
On one hand, the President is taking his threat to completely obliterate Iran's energy sites even further, now suggesting that the United States could possibly target water desalinization plants in a move that could cut off the clean water supply to tens of millions of ordinary Iranians and, as critics will note, could amount to a war crime.
In that same post, though, as you keep reading, the President also argued that great progress is being made in what he described as a serious discussion with a new and more reasonable regime in Iran.
That echoes what he told reporters last night on Air Force One. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We've had regime change, if you look, already, because the one regime was decimated, destroyed. They're all dead. The next regime is mostly dead. And the third regime, we're dealing with different people than anybody's dealt with before. It's a whole different group of people. So I would consider that regime change, and frankly, they've been very reasonable. So I think we've had regime change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And also, for the first time, tonight, the President is naming that third regime, as he describes it there, that he says his administration has been dealing with. The President confirms what we had largely suspected. It's the Speaker of Iran's parliament, Mohammad Ghalibaf, who President Trump told the Financial Times, that the United States will find out in about a week if Ghalibaf is someone that it can truly negotiate with.
This is what the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, said about that front today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, I'm not going to disclose to you who those people are, because it probably would get them in trouble with some other groups of people inside of Iran. Look, there's some fractures going on there internally.
There are new people now in charge who have a more reasonable vision of the future. That would be good news for us, for them, for the entire world. But we also have to be prepared for the possibility, maybe even the probability, that that is not the case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, on that note, Iranian officials are still denying that talks are even happening between the United States and Iran. And Ghalibaf, who is the Iranian Parliament Speaker, accused President Trump of signaling negotiation in public while secretly plotting a ground attack in private, as he warned that Iranian forces are ready and waiting for U.S. troops to arrive on the ground.
Today, the White House downplayed those denials, though, from Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Despite all of the public posturing you hear from the regime and false reporting, talks are continuing and going well. What is said publicly is, of course, much different than what's being communicated to us privately.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now this comes as sources are telling my colleagues here at CNN that the Trump administration is still not sure it's talking to the right people in Iran, meaning, it's not clear to U.S. officials whether the Iranian officials that they are speaking with and using as a back-channel, through Pakistan and Turkey, have the ultimate authority to sign off on any peace agreement, let alone implement one.
That uncertainty comes, as the President has continued to publicly float several major military options, which would carry significant risk for U.S. forces, should he take them. He told the Financial Times, Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don't. We have a lot of options... and It would also mean we had to be there for a while.
Kharg Island is where 90 percent of Iran's oil exports flow through. As the President also mused about the notion of the United States potentially taking Iranian oil. He says, that would actually be his favorite thing. But he also added this, saying, quote, "Some stupid people back in the US say: 'Why are you doing that?' But," he added, "They're stupid people."
It's an option the President actually raised as far back as 1987, during an interview that he did with Barbara Walters, a clip the President himself reposted today on Truth Social.
[21:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARBARA WALTERS, AMERICAN TELEVISION AND RADIO JOURNALIST: How would you do that? Would you send in the Marines? Would you take a chance in a war?
TRUMP: Let them have Iran. You take their oil. That's what--
WALTERS: But how?
TRUMP: How?
WALTERS: I mean, do we want a war?
TRUMP: You go in--
WALTERS: What do you mean, we take their oil?
TRUMP: You go in -- you're going to have a war--
WALTERS: How do we go in?
TRUMP: Barbara, you're going to have a war by being weak.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My lead source tonight is CNN Political Analyst, and White House correspondent for The New York Times, Maggie Haberman.
And Maggie, obviously, there's a real question of the sense of how the administration is actually feeling about these talks that they keep talking about. MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUTHOR, "CONFIDENCE MAN": Right.
COLLINS: Because you listen to Rubio and he says, Yes, there's a possibility, but a probability, that this doesn't actually work out.
But the President himself has sounded very hopeful between last night and today.
HABERMAN: Yes, I think, Kaitlan, those two are both reflecting sort of their views of the world generally, and certainly in terms of the Secretary of State, how he views Iran. I don't -- I think this whole time, he has been skeptical that there could be a deal here, and he is making that clear. I also think he doesn't want to get ahead of the President.
The President has consistently suggested, well, I shouldn't say consistently, because he's also said that, they're tapping us along in versions of that. But he has sounded more optimistic about doing what other presidents could not -- than other members of his administration, certainly for the most part.
Whether that's reality or not, we don't know, because there are so many different things coming out of Iran versus the U.S., and some of this, obviously, is what happens in conflict. It's a bit heightened right now in terms of a whipsaw of statements from the President himself, who we've talked about this before, he likes what he sees as strategic ambiguity.
The problem is that this is -- these are men and women serving in the military who do care about their futures. They do care very much about what they're doing and having been part of the U.S. military. But what exactly the endgame here is, hasn't been articulated. There have been several endgames mentioned. And it's understandable that the public is confused.
COLLINS: Yes. And I think it's fair when the White House says, Of course, Iran's saying one thing publicly, and they're saying other things privately.
HABERMAN: Right.
COLLINS: I mean, Iran does lie. Obviously, they do lie.
HABERMAN: Absolutely.
COLLINS: That's not surprising.
HABERMAN: Yes.
COLLINS: But I think the other part of it, though, is the White House kept insisting, talks were going on until about a week before they struck the nuclear sites last summer.
HABERMAN: Right.
COLLINS: Talks were underway before the President launched this war a month ago.
HABERMAN: Right.
COLLINS: So, I mean, there have been this kind of illusion of talks, or at least an effort, that didn't pan out, and then military action happened pretty quickly after.
HABERMAN: Yes, that's right. Look, I mean, again, for -- in the case of Iran, there's a very different domestic political concern, and regional political concern, which is part of why they are going to say there are no talks going on, even if there are, and there are reasons to believe there are talks going on, although what exactly that looks like, we don't know.
And it's worth remembering Kaitlan too, that last year, after Operation Midnight Hammer, there was still confusion for the U.S. government about exactly who they could deal with because, in the Iranian government, because communications were down for several people.
But yes, the Trump administration has not been consistent about what its own actions are doing. No one expects that a government is going to say to it -- or certainly the U.S. government is going to say, Here's every single thing that we might do militarily. Because, obviously there are reasons not to.
But you can't ignore the historical backdrop of what is happening, right -- what -- how -- what is taking place is happening against, which is, the longest foreign engagement ever in the Middle East, which is part of what led to President Trump's rise, it's part of what he ran against, and a huge mistrust, of these kinds of foreign endeavors, by the public.
And so, again, if this continues past another two weeks, we're in the window where they had said this would be ending, the U.S. government, four to six weeks. We are winding down toward that period. If it continues past that, I think the public is going to demand to hear more, eventually.
COLLINS: What's your sense, Maggie, of how officials feel at the White House about that exactly, about -- you know, they put a number on this. Do they feel that they need to stick to it? Or do they feel that they can say, All right, well, we're at week six. Which is next week. We're not there yet--
HABERMAN: Right.
COLLINS: --We need a few more weeks.
HABERMAN: I think that both possibilities are there, Kaitlan. The people I talk to generally would like to avoid, for obvious reasons, a very long and protracted fight. The main focus that many of them have right now is trying to get the Strait of Hormuz open, trying to get oil prices down. This global oil crisis is problematic, to put it mildly. But how long this goes on, and what exactly that looks like, and what the endgame is? That is open to discussion. Most of them would rather not -- most, I did not say, all -- would rather not have some kind of a ground force invasion. That doesn't mean it will not happen. It just depends on how this goes.
[21:10:00]
COLLINS: Yes, you know, I posted that clip that the President posted today of what he was saying to, in that interview that he did, decades ago. Listening to him talking about, just throwing in--
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALTERS: How would you do that? Would you send in the Marines?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: --and taking it, where she's asking, How would you do that, and -- Barbara Walters says.
And I just wonder what you made of hearing that now, and hearing how the President has been talking about this in 2026.
HABERMAN: He's been talking about it pretty similarly, now that he is the Commander-in-Chief. I mean, one of the things that is striking is that he is -- on the one hand, President Trump has taken many, many positions on a number of different issues over the years, most notably abortion, health care, a few others.
But there are a couple of sort of fundamental comments that he has made over time that have been consistent, that foreign countries are, quote-unquote, Ripping us off. He has talked about trade. He has not always talked consistently about tariffs, and he has also not talked consistently about taxes.
But what he was saying there, you could hear him saying now. It is a little different when you hear somebody who is a real estate developer and a businessman making those comments, because they've never been the Commander-in-Chief, versus someone who is now. It sounds sort of theoretical for somebody in the late 1980s to be saying from Manhattan versus now from the White House.
COLLINS: Yes, but she was pressing him saying, How would this work? How would you do that?
HABERMAN: Well, right.
COLLINS: Which are questions that are still appropriate today.
HABERMAN: Correct. Correct.
COLLINS: Maggie Haberman, as always, great to have you and your reporting. Thank you for joining us.
HABERMAN: Thanks, Kaitlan. COLLINS: Also here with me tonight is:
CNN's Global Affairs Analyst and Iran expert, Karim Sadjadpour.
And our CNN National Security Analyst, and the former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner.
And I'm so glad to have both of you here today, because right now there is a oil tanker on fire, a Kuwaiti oil tanker that was anchored in Dubai. I mean, you can see the images of this. It's been hit by Iranian strikes. We are told it was fully loaded. We have pictures of that fire also, in terms of what that looks like, as they're warning there could be an oil spill here, there could be this.
I mean, obviously Iran still has the capability and is still hitting and striking places that, obviously, places like Dubai do not want them striking.
KARIM SADJADPOUR, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, IRAN EXPERT, SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: It's long been Iran's gameplan to continue spiking the price of oil, try to decrease public opinion -- public support for this conflict.
And the challenge that I think President Trump has now is that so many top Iranian officials have been assassinated. He wants to do a deal, but it's a regime which is almost incapable of now, cohering around a leader with a clear ability to make a compromise.
COLLINS: So do you -- on the CNN reporting of -- now, the President confirmed who they're talking to. No one else wanted to confirm that. The President himself did say it. You think that it's true that there's uncertainty among U.S. officials? Or are they really talking to the right person who actually can give the sign-off on any agreement?
SADJADPOUR: I don't know if there's anyone in the current Iranian system who can sign off on a major compromise. Because, for 47 years they've had this strong ideology of resistance. Suddenly, the Supreme Leader, who has been ruling for 37 years, is eliminated. And right now, the Iranian strategic compass only points in the direction of escalation. They're not pointing in the direction of de-escalation.
COLLINS: I mean, that's a great thing to keep in mind, especially for you, an Iran expert, in terms of we hear the talks are going well, you know, they may not even be talking to the right person. There may not be a right person.
And so, Beth, I mean, it just has raised so many questions about where this could go from here--
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Right.
COLLINS: --in terms of the President's timeline, that Maggie was just noting there. SANNER: Well, I mean, first, they're probably not talking, right? They're not negotiating. They're like, passing notes. And they're passing notes, so they don't even know--
COLLINS: Through other people.
SANNER: Through other people. So they don't even know maybe who's getting those notes.
And I think Rubio was, like, really realistic. You know? I think we should listen to Rubio in describing what's happening, and he's telling us that.
But you started off with the Kuwait tanker exploding, so -- because of a drone strike. So, either the regime is sending a message, or a part of the regime is sending a message. And, as Karim said, how do you then get a cohesive answer that would be on the same wavelength as President Trump in these demands? I think that that answer, whether it's from part of the regime or it's from the regime itself, is the answer.
COLLINS: So, even if -- so, it's hard to read into this? Are they escalating? Or well they don't know? I mean?
SANNER: It means that at least part of the regime wants to escalate, and you're not going to get an agreement without the IRGC, the folks who would be doing this escalation, so.
COLLINS: But we keep hearing about the conditions to end this war.
SANNER: Yes.
COLLINS: The Strait of Hormuz, which is why we're seeing such an insane spike in the global energy crisis that's underway right now. That has been a key question.
And I want you to listen to what two of the top officials in the President's Cabinet said about control of that, and what the President himself said to me a week ago.
[21:15:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUBIO: They are making threats about controlling the Hormuz Straits in perpetuity, creating a tolling system and the like. That's not going to be allowed to happen.
SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: Over time, the U.S. is going to retake control the Straits, and there will be freedom of navigation, whether it is through U.S. escorts or a multinational escort.
COLLINS: What about the Strait of Hormuz? Who's going to be in control of that?
TRUMP: That will be opened very soon, if this works.
COLLINS: How soon?
TRUMP: I mean--
COLLINS: And who's in control of it?
TRUMP: I mean--
COLLINS: Will Iran still be able to control the flow of oil?
TRUMP: It'll be jointly controlled.
COLLINS: By whom?
TRUMP: Maybe me. Maybe me.
COLLINS: You want the United States to be in control of the Strait of Hormuz?
TRUMP: Me and the Ayatollah, whoever the Ayatollah is, whoever the next Ayatollah.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, Karim, when you hear that, and they are basically saying Iran cannot be in control of the Strait of Hormuz. The Wall Street Journal just reported tonight, before we came on air, that maybe the President is willing to end the war without figuring out the Strait of Hormuz and who's in control of it first.
SADJADPOUR: For me, Kaitlan, there's three different buckets of what President Trump has wanted to achieve.
Number one, in my view, he actually has to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to be able to end this war, because no U.S. partners in the Middle East will accept the fact that Iran is controlling this critical artery.
But then there's a second bucket, which is their nuclear program, unaccounted nuclear material, their missiles and drones, their regional proxies. He had also hoped to significantly change the equation there. He's degraded a lot of their capabilities that -- what they can rebuild.
And then the third question is the nature of the regime. He had hoped to change Iran from an adversary into a partner. And if all we get -- all the President gets, from this very costly war is that the Strait of Hormuz has been reopened? I think that's going to be viewed as a major strategic failure.
COLLINS: Well, because if that is what happens, and that is the success? I mean, the Strait of Hormuz is only closed because the war started. It wasn't closed before this.
SANNER: Correct. Correct. And our ability to open it. Talk is cheap. How do you actually do this, if you cannot eliminate mines, all the mines, all the drones, and you have a regime that is incentivized to continue their threats in order to control the Strait?
If we agree, we're kind of in this halfway house to hell. And I just don't know how, to Karim's point, how you can actually get this done and end this war if we don't do that. But curiously, today, neither Rubio mentioned it. And Leavitt on the podium said, also, you know, not really our main--
COLLINS: When they listed off their goals.
SANNER: When they listed their goals, it's not present. So, this disconnect is going to become a humongous problem.
COLLINS: Yes, it's a good thing to keep our eyes on.
Beth Sanner. Karim Sadjadpour. It's great to have both of you here tonight.
And also up next for us here. A former CENTCOM commander is going to join me, because after the President issued that threat to strike Iran's energy, but also its water, infrastructure, what would that look like?
Also, after going weeks without a paycheck, they actually missed two, TSA agents are finally getting money in their bank accounts today. But there's still no deal for the thousands of other DHS workers as lawmakers are on vacation, some of them in interesting places.
Also, it's the latest in the Trump name game. You could soon fly into an airport named after the President.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: Their best move is to make a deal, or else the United States Armed Forces has capabilities beyond their wildest imagination, and the President is not afraid to use them.
REPORTER: Including potential war crimes?
LEAVITT: Of course this administration and the United States Armed Forces will always act within the confines of the law. But with respect to achieving the full objectives of Operation Epic Fury, President Trump is going to move forward unabated, and he expects the Iranian regime to make a deal with the administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt's response today, when she was asked about a threat that the President issued earlier, claiming that the United States would obliterate Iran's power and utility infrastructure, including electric plants, oil wells, Kharg Island, and possibly water desalinization plants, if a deal is not agreed to with the United States.
Now, legal experts say that targeting these plants could constitute a war crime under international law, because they're generally considered civilian infrastructure.
And the President's threat comes as a U.S. Navy ship that is carrying roughly 3,500 sailors and marines has now arrived in the region. Those sailors are under the control of U.S. Central Command, which was once led by my next source here tonight, former CENTCOM commander, retired four-star general, Joseph Votel.
And it's great to have you here, sir, especially with your expertise on this.
First, can I ask you, what does happen if the President follows through on that threat to strike power and water plants in Iran?
GEN. JOSEPH VOTEL (RET.), FORMER CENTCOM COMMANDER, DISTINGUISHED MILITARY FELLOW, MIDDLE EAST INSTITUTE, SENIOR FELLOW, HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL: Thanks, Kaitlan. It's good to be with you.
Well, I think if we'd go after these kind of energy-related targets or infrastructure-related targets, it certainly invites Iran, the regime, to do the same. And we know they've already demonstrated the capability of doing that. So, we risk further -- further destruction of similar tech capabilities with our -- with our Gulf partners, really, across the region.
And secondly, of course, as has been raised in a number of different forums here, it also invites scrutiny on the United States and allegations of us not operating in accordance with international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention, and that's just probably not where we want to be with this.
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: I mean, the White House has listed a lot of goals in Iran, on nuclear weapons, missile capability, their navy and that capability. Would striking a water desalinization plant achieve any of those goals?
VOTEL: Well, no, I don't -- I don't know that it would be. I think when you look at the military utility of striking these targets, I think the legal -- the legal answers will fall out in the -- in the process as we -- as we go through that.
So, yes, I know these are clearly not military targets. They're -- I think they're -- you know, the President communicates in a very unique way, and I think he is trying to send a message to the Iranian regime, or the remnants of the Iranian regime, that he wants them to kind of come to the table here and make a deal.
COLLINS: And on this front, if they don't come to the table, we know they are preparing, at least for ground operations in Iran, should the President decide to take that option. He talked about taking the oil in Iran. He said some, quote, Stupid people back in the United States say, why are you doing that? The President says, they're stupid people.
But when he says that -- if he goes after Kharg Island, and that means U.S. troops have to be there for a while, how long do you think that that would require a U.S. troop presence on the ground?
VOTEL: Well, this could be anywhere from days to weeks on any of these things.
I think when we think about the use of ground forces, I think it's important to kind of look at the conditions that the CENTCOM commander is dealing with right now. You've got these continuing strikes, as we saw with the strike on the tanker, we've got the challenges in the Straits of Hormuz. It may not be fully closed, but it's also not fully open to full and free navigation of commercial resources. And we've got the challenges with the remnants of the -- of the nuclear program.
So, when you look at how these ground forces would -- are going to be used, I think you have to look at them in the context of that, you know, things that they could do.
So, going to Kharg Island certainly could put a lot of pressure onto the regime. It could allow us to control the oil exporting architecture, so that could be used as a leverage point with the -- with the regime. Of course, it would expose our troops on the ground to a lot, potentially, extraneous missile and drone strikes coming from the -- from the Iranians. So we have to support it.
So, putting troops on the ground is certainly feasible in all these options. But we have to recognize, these are big decisions, and we have to make sure they have the resources in place to support any troops that we put in places like Kharg, or Qeshm Island, or maybe even Ashur in Iran.
COLLINS: Well, and the Iranian official that Trump says he's negotiating with, who's publicly downplaying that, in that downplaying of the post from yesterday, said, also Iranian -- the Iranian officials, that they're waiting on U.S. troops to arrive on the ground, should they do that.
I mean, how big of a risk do you think it is to the U.S. men and women in our Armed Forces, should that be the decision that the President goes with?
VOTEL: Well, any commander is going to consider, you know, in placing troops on the ground as a high-risk operation. We have to -- we have to treat it that way. We have to respect the capabilities that our adversaries have and their ability to use it.
So, what that means is, if we make the decision to put troops, Ashur in Iran, or perhaps on one of these islands, we have to make sure we've thought through the way we're going to reinforce them, the way we're going to support them, the way we're going to protect them, and the way we're going to support them, so they can accomplish their mission. And that requires making priorities, and it requires making sure that the resources are available for our troops.
You have to take it seriously. This regime, as we've seen, has latched out in a number of different ways, and so we have to respect their -- their capability to continue to do that.
COLLINS: Yes, and obviously it's a lot of ground forces there that have been amassed in the Middle East now, for those options.
General Votel, thank you for joining us tonight with your expertise. It's so great to have it here.
VOTEL: Good to be with you. Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: And up next here. Those TSA workers are finally getting paid. That doesn't mean the Department of Homeland Security is open. It's actually still shut down tonight. But lawmakers, who are not here in Washington, have been spotted on vacation, and Disney World, and Las Vegas. We'll talk about that with my political sources, right after this.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, even as President Trump's executive order to deliver backpay to TSA agents appears to have alleviated the crisis that a lot of people were feeling at airports over the weekend, there are still tens of thousands more staffers, within the Department of Homeland Security, who are working without pay tonight. Civilians in the U.S. Coast Guard, FEMA, cybersecurity agency employees, just some of the critical workers at DHS who aren't going to see a paycheck until Congress can work out a funding deal.
But lawmakers are not working furiously on Capitol Hill tonight to get one. In fact, most of them have left Washington for a two-week break, after the House and the Senate approved dueling proposals that have no chance of passing either side right now.
[21:35:00]
Instead of being here to work things out, some lawmakers are facing backlash tonight for going on vacation during this time. Among them is Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, who was spotted by TMZ at Disney World. You can see him carrying a bubble wand at the Magic Kingdom, dining at Chef Mickey's, and even in line to ride Space Mountain.
According to Senator Graham, he was in Florida to meet with the President's envoy, Steve Witkoff, to talk about relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, before meeting with friends in Orlando.
Joining me now are my political sources.
Karen Finney, former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton.
And Brad Todd, who is our Republican strategist that is joining us. And Brad, you know, it's not a great look for people who are, like, wondering whether or not getting paid, and then they're seeing lawmakers enjoying their two-week recess from Washington.
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, it'd be even worse if you're a Democrat senator who had voted against funding their paychecks seven different times in the U.S. Senate. And I think the question is, how much political gain do Democrats have to have? They think they're extracting pain from Republicans. But it's coming really the pain of the American consumers, in these lines.
This has to eventually end. Democrats have to be responsible and fund the government that they've had a hard time taking yes for an answer. John Thune gave them a lot of what they wanted.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, SENIOR ADVISER, HILLARY CLINTON'S 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, DNC: Oh, Brad, great talking points.
But let's remember, we're here because a majority of the American people want ICE to be reined in. They actually -- over 50 percent want ICE to be abolished. That's not even what we're talking about here. We're talking about holding them accountable the same way that other law enforcement is held accountable.
62 percent of Americans don't like the way ICE is doing their job, and we're talking about over 50 percent actually, of even Independents who do not like the way ICE is conducting themselves. That's a real problem for Republicans come the midterms. That's why Democrats have been so firm on this.
But look, at the end of the day, Republicans control everything. And so, I think the American people recognize that if the President can say, Look, with the stroke of a pen, I'm going to get you a couple of checks, I'm going to get you back -- maybe some backpay, at least a couple of checks? Then why can't Republicans say to Democrats, Look, we'll meet you on this deal that you've asked for instead of leaving town.
I think if Democrats were in charge, everybody would still be here working on it.
COLLINS: I mean, the President himself also didn't like the deal that had no immigration enforcement funding. That was something that Republicans seem to say, Let's talk about this, and then we'll debate our issues.
It wasn't just Republicans, though, that TMZ was staking out.
FINNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: They also caught a Democrat, Robert Garcia, who's been on the show many times. He was at a casino in Las Vegas over the weekend, as you could see here.
He actually responded to the TMZ post and said, I actually don't mind what TMZ is doing. He said his dad has lived in Vegas for 15 years, and he had lunch with him, and he says, Speaker Mike Johnson should have never sent us all home.
So, he kind of seems to agree.
TODD: Well, look--
COLLINS: Don't you think?
TODD: --he's on recess. He's allowed to be in recess.
And I'll say, Karen is right, the public does want some changes in ICE.
And Tom Homan wrote a letter to every Democrat in the Senate and basically gave them the changes they wanted. But in the end, that's not what they're trying to do. What their goal is, is chaos and disruption. That's their real objective. They don't want changes. They don't want to negotiate. They just want -- they just wanted--
COLLINS: But Tom Homan has defended them being able to wear masks, right?
TODD: But he -- he gave them most of what they wanted. But again, Democrats -- Democrats--
FINNEY: But Tom Homan saying it's OK versus getting it -- I think Democrats, you know -- Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on us -- recognize, look, we need to get this in the force of law because -- and even then, look what's happening with the Epstein files. Doesn't guarantee that people are going to follow the law. I think they're just not going to take Tom Homan's word on it, particularly knowing where Donald Trump stands.
TODD: Democrats are really pushing the envelope here. If they're not careful, Republicans will get rid of the filibuster, Democrats will lose all their input into everything. And there's a great chance Republicans could keep the Senate, not just this election, but for many elections to come. I think Democrats better be careful.
COLLINS: Well, and the President wants to get rid of the filibuster.
TODD: He does.
COLLINS: But John Thune has said the votes are not there to deliver on that.
I mean, the John Thune dynamic with Trump is going to be an interesting one to watch play out, because the President is asking for something that Senate Republicans are just not doing, even though they control it.
Can I ask you -- get both of your take.
FINNEY: Yes. COLLINS: Ron DeSantis, the Governor of Florida today, signed legislation to an airport that many White House reporters have flown into that is known as PBI, Palm Beach International, may soon be known as the DJT Airport, because he signed legislation that would rename it after President Trump. According to initial estimates, we're told, it could cost taxpayers about $5 million.
What do you make of that move by DeSantis?
TODD: Well, 12 different presidents have had airports named after them. Karen worked for the Clintons, and the Little Rock Airport is named after them. Grand Rapids, Michigan is named after Gerald Ford, who many Americans may not even remember was a president. It's entirely appropriate for the -- for Florida to do.
COLLINS: Gerald Ford catching strays for no reason.
FINNEY: Although those airports, those -- those places were named after the fact. This is -- we've talked about this before. This is part of the spree.
And look, people know what's the way you can get on Donald Trump's good side? You award him -- make up a fake award and give it to him, or name something after him, or give him some big fun present. So, Ron DeSantis, actually, this is him doing his own politics.
TODD: You know this is a good--
FINNEY: Smart move.
[21:40:00]
TODD: It's a good example that if Democrats oppose everything about Donald Trump, and if they -- there are some things that they probably should oppose about Donald Trump. But if they can't even acknowledge that naming an airport after a two-time president who made a remarkable political comeback is appropriate in his hometown, then that's--
COLLINS: What about--
FINNEY: He made a political comeback after he lost an election?
COLLINS: But you know what's important--
TODD: He made a comeback.
COLLINS: What's interesting though, is, I mean, I held a town hall with Governor DeSantis, when he was running in the Republican primary against Trump, and he was so critical of him at the juncture of that. And so, it is a long way to see him now naming legislation, so they can change the airport name after the President.
TODD: Well passed to have -- heavily in the Florida legislature. And I don't think Governor DeSantis asked for this legislation, but he knows good politics when he sees it. FINNEY: Yes. I think we agree, it's good politics. I'm not saying it's bad politics.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, it's a real question, also with that, given the President and his ballroom as he was showing off the renderings to reporters, last night, on Air Force One.
FINNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: As he was in the middle of fielding questions about Iran, Cuba, the ballroom.
FINNEY: I mean, the timing of it, given The New York Times story that had raised some questions about some of the specs and some of the concerns that architects have raised about it, was interesting.
But a bit disgusting in the middle of a war, when we're talking about people who, like the TSA folks, who aren't getting paid, others who aren't getting paid, we're in the middle of a -- you know, people are struggling financially. And talking about expensive ballroom? That seems a little tacky to me.
COLLINS: Do you worry about that with voters of all stripes, Republican, Democrat, Independents?
TODD: Donald Trump has more experience building ballrooms than any president in our history. We need a ballroom. I trust him to build it.
FDR built the East Wing that was just replaced with a military bunker underneath it during a war. So, I don't see -- I don't think a lot of Democrats are ready to criticize FDR.
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: But do you think -- you're not worried about the objects of that today--
TODD: No, he's capable of multitasking. I think people expect their president to be able to do more than one thing at a time.
COLLINS: Brad Todd. And Karen Finney.
Well he is doing more than one thing at once. That's for sure.
Up next. The lessons of the Iraq War, from my next source. He was actually President George W. Bush's speechwriter, once a proponent of the 2003 invasion. How does he feel about what he's seeing play out with Republicans and Iran now?
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think few people would say the war in Iraq was a positive. You had him on the aircraft carrier saying all sorts of wonderful things, how the world was essentially over. Guess what? Not over. And you know, the war with Iraq is a disaster. Now, Iran is taking over Iraq.
I'm the only president in 72 years that didn't start a war.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: The only one.
I'm not going to start a war. I'm going to stop wars.
No to endless wars.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was President Trump, time and time again, campaigning against going to war. Now it has been over a month since he did just that in Iran.
And then, as the President says that talks and peace talks are going well, that the war could end soon. The Pentagon, we know, is also drawing up scenarios for putting thousands of troops stationed in the Middle East on the ground. Though, it remains to be seen what happens next and what the President decides.
My source tonight is David Frum, who is a staff writer at The Atlantic, and was also President George W. Bush's speechwriter in 2001 and 2002, and at the time, was a prominent advocate for the 2003 Iraq War.
And David, you have notably changed your position on it since then. You've spoken about that at length. I wonder, given that experience and what you now believe in hindsight of that, how you're viewing what the President is doing right now in Iran.
DAVID FRUM, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Well, President Trump has repeated every mistake of the Iraq War and then added some new ones of his own.
So, the biggest mistake of the Iraq War was there were a range of outcomes, best, worst, middle, and the Bush administration consistently bet everything on the best-case scenario, and it didn't plan enough about for worst-case scenarios. It didn't take seriously enough, Well, what if this really does take 300,000 troops and five years, the way the pre-war military estimates suggested it would? It insisted on believing what it wanted to believe, and it was caught unready by negative events.
Well, that's what's happened here in Iran. Donald Trump has bet everything on the hope that he could bomb Iran for four weeks, get what he wanted, and that Iran would never, never, never, ever, ever retaliate with the most obvious move that every wargame has considered for the past 50 years, which is closing the Strait of Hormuz. And now, according to The Wall Street Journal reports tonight, President Trump's plan is to walk away from the war, after four weeks or six weeks of bombing, and let Iran continue to control the Strait of Hormuz, oh, and let them continue to control their nuclear material as well.
There's one other difference that really needs to be stressed. President Bush in 2001, 2002, and 2003, went to Congress for approval of his operations, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq. He went to the United Nations too. He spoke to the American people. And he had broad bipartisan support and broad public support, and a big allied coalition for both Iraq and Afghanistan.
There's, of course, no congressional approval, no public opinion, no allies, except for Israel. And oh, by the way, an astonishing amount of apparent insider trading by people close to the Trump administration, who seemed to have made gigantic fortunes. And we learned today from the Financial Times that Secretary of Defense, or Secretary of War, as he styles himself, Pete Hegseth, may have tried to join the party.
[21:50:00]
COLLINS: Yes, and I saw Pete Hegseth's spokesperson was denying that, saying that that wasn't true, just before we came on air.
When you look at this and--
FRUM: Well, with Pete -- we'll need a little bit more than -- than a crash -- we know there's high standards at the Financial Times. And we know the low standards in the Trump Defense Department and Trump administration. So, we'll need more than just Pete Hegseth's word for it to know the full stories on there.
COLLINS: Yes, it's a deeply-reported piece by the Financial Times.
You said that you believe they made all the mistakes of the Bush administration and new ones. When you look at this, and you look at how many U.S. troops are now in the region, just all the deployment that we've seen even the last five days--
FRUM: Yes.
COLLINS: --do you think this is headed for a ground war?
FRUM: I have no idea.
And I think it's pretty incredible that the President of the United States would say, Look, depending on my mood, I may launch a ground invasion of Iran in the middle of Central Asia, or I may scamper off and cancel the whole thing and declare it a success, even though the Strait of Hormuz is closed. I have -- I am guided entirely by my whim of the moment. Congress plays no part. The American people play no part. I'm doing this whole thing by Magic 8 Ball.
It's completely unacceptable. If we're on a way to a ground war in Central Asia, people should know. And if President Trump is planning to scamper off and claim a success, despite the Strait of Hormuz being closed? People need to know that too. And he shouldn't be doing this all with his Magic 8 Ball, and Secretary of War self-styled.
COLLINS: What would you say if the White House said, Well, we've laid out our goals.
I mean, Rubio today was talking about destroying their navy, destroying their missile capability, ensuring that they can't get a nuclear weapon. I mean, those are the things they haven't always said -- been said together or at the same time.
FRUM: Well--
COLLINS: But generally, those are the ideals that they have circled around here in terms of this war.
FRUM: I think if you have goals, it will be the same on Monday, as on Tuesday, as on Wednesday. But every day, there are new goals. And every day, goals disappear. Eliminating Iran's nuclear capability? That used to be a goal. It isn't anymore. And the idea that you're eliminating Iran's Air Force in the age of drones, that that's a goal? That's not a goal. That's just a step toward a goal.
The strategic goals you would think would be ending the Iranian nuclear program and protecting the flow of oil. But they've abandoned both, and it looks like both are going to be the same at the end of the war as at the beginning.
So, I think no one regrets the elimination of these terrible theocrats at the top of the regime, and everyone appreciates that Iran's war- making capability has been substantially reduced, perhaps for some time. Those are achievements, but they're not goals. They're steps on the way to the goal, which would be denuclearization, and ideally regime change, or maybe free movement of oil.
The major things that are actually strategic goals, which used to be the goals, just a few days ago, have vanished, because they're not going to be accomplished.
COLLINS: Well, and one thing we've been talking about is who they are talking to, and if they're trustworthy.
I mean, Karim Sadjadpour, who is an expert in this, was just saying there's no one person left in Iran that has the ability to sign off on some huge compromise.
FRUM: Yes.
COLLINS: And you wrote, in a piece that you wrote for The Atlantic, in 2023, on The Iraq War Reconsidered, as it was titled, that, Crucial decision makers started with an assumption that regime change in Iraq would be cheap, easy, and lightly contested.
FRUM: Yes.
COLLINS: They then isolated themselves from all contrary information -- until it was too late.
When you think about that, and you look at what they're saying today about the new regime that they're talking to, what stands out to you?
FRUM: Well, I don't think they thought it would be uncontested, because they've killed a lot of people.
I think the theory of regime change in Iran, that the Trump administration held, was that Iran was like Venezuela, a regime that may once have had some apocalyptic fantasies, but was now basically run by crooks. And if you got rid of Guy number one and Guy number two, you'd strike by Guy number three, you'd be -- or in this Venezuela's case, Lady number two, you'd find a crook, and you could do business with her because she's a crook, not a fanatic.
But there are a lot of fanatics in Iran, and they and is -- by the way, it's not at all clear that the administration is really speaking to anybody. Again, we have this administration's word for it, and their word is worthless.
COLLINS: David Frum, it's great to have you tonight, especially just given what you've said about 2003--
FRUM: Right.
COLLINS: --and where we are now here in 2026. Thank you for joining us.
FRUM: Thank you. Bye-bye.
COLLINS: Up next. There is a new video outside of Kid Rock's house that has now prompted an Army investigation. We'll tell you more, right after this.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(VIDEO - APACHE HELICOPTERS AT KID ROCK'S HOME)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: If you're wondering what you're looking at, this video is now the subject of an Army investigation apparently.
It's a video that Kid Rock posted on Saturday. There are two Army attack helicopters hovering outside his home in Nashville, which, as you can see, he has dubbed the Southern White House. He captioned the video, talking about it being a level of respect that the Governor of California will never know, as he wrote, God Bless America and all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend her.
But the Army now says it's looking into why those Apache helicopters were there, and if this fly-by that was done outside of his home, violated any regulations or safety standards.
A spokesperson for the 101st Airborne Division told CNN that, Appropriate action will be taken if any violations are found.
We'll keep you updated on that investigation and where it stands.
[22:00:00]
And on a timely note, we have just learned here tonight that the Pentagon is set to hold a press briefing about the war in Iran, tomorrow morning. It's the first such briefing in a 11 days. We've heard from Secretary Hegseth, and others, at intermittent moments. But this is a briefing from Hegseth, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dan Caine, that is slated for 08:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow. You can watch it here on CNN.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT" starts now.
