Full Episode: Sunday, March 29, 2026

When I need to impress someone with a gift, I go straight to 1-800 flowers.

There's a reason they've spent 50 years as the floor authority.

Every stem is hand-selected by a vetted florist and with same-day delivery nationwide,

100% satisfaction guaranteed. That's why millions go to 1-800 flowers to celebrate life's

most important moments. Order now for up to 40% off. Don't miss out on this limited time offer.

Act now and save up to 40% at 1-800flowers.com slash podcast. That's 1-800flowers.com slash podcast.

President Trump says the war with Iran will be over in a matter of weeks.

So why is he sending thousands more US forces to the region? This week starts right now.

One month of war.

The US keeps pummeling Iran while preparing to send 5,000 more troops to the Middle East.

We're crushing Iran's currently as we speak. But the administration insists they're negotiating.

We've had an exchange of messages and indications from the Iranian system,

whatever's left of it, about a willingness to talk about certain things.

And in anti-war message is central to the latest no-kings protest. Millions on the streets across

the country from New York to Austin to Los Angeles. Congressional dysfunction.

This has to stop. Your Republicans are not going to be a party to this.

The only thing standing between ending this chaos or not are House Republicans.

After 44 days of gridlock, Congress fails to end the Department of Homeland Security shutdown.

Congress heads off on a two-week recess with no deal.

Every member of Congress, Senate and House should be putting the back of these lines and

experience this. The latest on the war and the Congressional impasse with House Majority Leader

Steve Scalise and Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen. And our roundtable on what may be the most

worrying sign yet for Republicans going into the midterms. Plus, I do think we need an off-ramp

quickly to the war. We need to de-escalate. I speak with the only Iranian American Democrat in

Congress about how the war is hitting home. From ABC News, it's this week, here now Jonathan

Carl. Good morning. Welcome to this week. In the art of war, Sun Sioux wrote that a leader's

plans must be as dark and impenetrable as night. Well, the art of war may not be Donald Trump's

playbook, but on day 30 of the Iran War, his plans sure seem dark and impenetrable.

Just consider his words over the past 10 days. On March 20th, he declared that he was close to

meeting his military objectives and considering winding down our great military efforts in the Middle

East. The very next day, he announced a major escalation, threatening to hit and obliterate

Iran's power plants if the Strait of Hormuz wasn't opened within 48 hours from this exact point

in time. On Monday, within hours of that deadline, he announced he had had very good and productive

talks with Iran about a complete and total resolution to the war. And with that, he set a new deadline,

giving Iran five days to make a deal. Four days later, Trump offered up yet another extension

and yet another deadline, saying he was pausing the Threatened Obliteration again this time for

10 days. In a telephone interview with Fox News, he claimed that Iran had asked for an extension,

but a slightly shorter one. They asked for seven and I gave them 10. You got 10 days

and they were very thankful about that. So, are they speaking? Iran has denied that there are talks,

but there do appear to be messages exchanged through intermediaries.

Listening to President Trump's words at any given moment, it sounds like the war is about to end

or it's about to intensify. Saying at one point this week, if the Iranians don't give in,

quote, we'll keep bombing our little hearts out. The reality on the ground, however,

is affected by more than a president's words. The military force is growing, the attacks from

both Israel and the United States haven't slowed down and Iran's response to it all has shaken

the global economy. With more on the state of the war, here's our Matt Rivers reporting from

Qatar. The first signs of a diplomatic off-ramp for the war in Iran began to emerge this week,

but the military back and forth going full steam ahead. And on Friday, 2200 US Marines arriving

in the Middle East, with more troops set to follow them. As the United States and Israel continue

their missile barrage on Iran, where authorities say more than 3,000 people have been killed in the war.

President Trump on Friday giving an outline of what the US still intends to hit,

but providing no clarity on what comes after that. We have another 3,554 targets left,

and that'll be done pretty quickly. And then at some point, we're going to have to determine

what we do. Iran responding to the latest onslaught with retaliatory strikes across the region.

This video posted on social media showing the moment in Iranian missile struck in Tel Aviv,

leaving at least one person dead. And this satellite image showing the destruction at a US

base in Saudi Arabia from an Iranian drone attack that sources tell ABC News left at least

15 American service members injured. Five of those troops were seriously wounded,

bringing the total American troops injured in the conflict to more than 300 with 13 left dead.

And John, despite those diplomatic efforts emerging this week between the United States and Iran,

Israel has actually ramped up their attacks. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Friday,

the IDF would quote, escalate and expand strikes in Iran. And just hours later, Iran reported overnight

strikes by Israel on its nuclear facilities and steel factories. John, Colonel and ABC News

contributor Steve Ganyard. So Steve, we have 2,200 Marines just arrived in the region more to come.

These would be the ground troops, if the president decides to put boots on the ground.

What options is the Pentagon preparing for the president here?

Apparently the Pentagon is thinking about operations ashore. So they're bringing in light forces

because they're not talking about sustained operations ashore. Not a full scale invasion.

They're looking to do raids to go in and do intelligence gathering. Maybe take out those fastboats

or mines that are along the water. So they're trying to build options for Admiral Cooper. But where do

you use them? They go up to Carg Island, which they could take. That's the major transshipment point

for all of the Iranian oil that goes to the rest of the world. It's about the third of the size of

Manhattan. That's possible. Do you go after the highly enriched uranium that theoretically could

build tenant nuclear weapons? Or do you go down and try to unplug the straight of Hormuz?

It sounds like any of these options, boots on the ground, dangerous, significant risks.

Right right now the U.S. and Israel control the skies and the risk is fairly low to U.S. aviators.

But putting boots on the ground exponentially increases the risk to U.S. troops. Very challenging.

And what are the military options for opening the straight of Hormuz?

Are there really any? There are, but the geography is challenging. So if you look at the straight

itself, it's not like you're going past one single point. That transit time to go through the whole

straight to six to ten hours. And at the narrowest point there, it's only 21 miles across.

The shipping lanes themselves are only two miles. So you're sort of in the proverbial shooting

gallery, the duck and the shooting gallery, at the carnival having to transit that. That means

that probably any U.S. Navy ships would stay well offshore and any military options would be

based on raids conducted from well offshore. And just overnight there were signs of a possible

new front in this war. This is quite concerning. So yesterday the Houthi shot two missiles at Israel.

The Houthis, that's the militant group out of Yemen. Exactly. Iranian backed.

Yes. And the same ones who were responsible for a year ago shutting down the Red Sea for almost

two years to commercial traffic. So they shot two missiles into Israel. And then a spokesman

this morning said that they hold the option of once again shutting down the Red Sea.

If that happens, then all of the maritime shipping traffic coming from Asia, going to Europe,

has to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope at three weeks under the transit time, takes 20%

of global shipping off the table. Europe will feel that first. But the real key here is that

for thousands of years the civilizations have fought over those strategic choke points and those

strategic choke points are coming back into play. If the Red Sea remains closed, if the

straight of hormones remains closed, then the global economy very quickly within weeks goes into

recession and brings crushing stagflation. Massive economic repercussions, especially for Europe,

but for the entire world. Thank you, Steve. And I'm joined now by House Republican Majority Leader

at Congressman Steve Scalise. Congressman Scalise, thank you for joining us. Let me just ask you

a big question. Do you at this point have any concerns whatsoever with the direction of this war

and what President Trump may be preparing to do next? Well, first, Jonathan,

good to be with you. Thanks for having me. And if you look at what President Trump has laid out

in terms of the objectives, he's been meeting them. He's been very clear about what those

objectives are. And I think the whole world knows that a nuclear armed Iran would have been a danger

to the world. Just look at what Iran is doing right now. They've actually united not only Israel,

but all the other Arab nations around them against Iran because of the danger that they pose.

And so President Trump's doing something that, frankly, Republican and Democrat Presidents

before him have thought about contemplating, but President Trump's the one who had the guts to

do what needed to be done to keep America and the rest of the world safe. And so we're going to

get through this mission. But as you're seeing it being carried out, Epic Fury has been successful

and achieved in its objectives. I mean, there has been some confusion about the objectives.

At some point, he's talked about eliminating the nuclear threat, which he had said was already

obliterated last year. He's talked about eliminating the missile threat. He's also talked about

regime change. But I'm asking you, do you have concerns about where we are now, any concerns

at all about how President Trump is administering is running this war? Well, anytime you have our

men and women in uniform and conflict, you always pray for them. You're worried about them and

their families. That happens all the time. But you also have a commander chief that understands

what needs to be done. He's got a great team around him. We had a briefing, a classified briefing

recently with Secretary of State Rubio and the entire team, the CIA Director of Secretary of

War, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And they laid out to anybody who had any questions, what is going

on, what the objectives are, but also what the other countries in the region are doing. It's not

not just the United States and it's not just Israel, by the way, that are launching strikes

against Iran and who Iran's launching strikes against. And so everybody knows why this is being done.

Operation Midnight Hammer went after their nuclear capabilities. But right after that was over,

Iran went right back to work trying to develop nuclear weapons. And by the way, they were

pretty close to weapons grade enriched uranium. That was the real concern because with that uranium

and missile capabilities and drone capabilities to deliver those weapons, that's the real threat they

posed to the United States and the rest of the world that President Trump is working to take out.

And if you're seeing him do it with the naval fleet, with their facilities that actually

manufacture those missiles, those drones, and so many other things that he's decimating. But

you know, we're not there yet, but we're getting close. Are Republicans in Congress going to

support an effort to put boots on the ground if Donald Trump, you sent the Marines in,

you got the 82nd Air Bronze on the way. If President Trump decides to put American soldiers,

American Airmen, American Marines on the ground in Iran, is there going to be widespread support

from Republicans for that? Well, John, we're not at that point yet. Obviously, you're seeing

troop movement. And we've got a number of bases in that region too that have been there for a long

time. So until that day comes, I'm not going to speculate. And you're not going to see the President

go negotiate this in public. He's having negotiations. And you just reported on some of those

negotiations. And I think they're hopefully going to be fruitful. But at the same time, the Iran

regime historically has had a reputation for lying to anybody in the world who they negotiate

with. And that's been a problem. It's why you don't want them to have a nuclear weapon,

because they will absolutely use it when there's chanting death to America. And they get a nuclear

weapon. And they had, by the way, just slaughtered over 30,000 of their own people. Imagine what they

would do to us when they've already killed hundreds of our soldiers. Remember, Iran declared war in

America going back to 1979. They've been killing Americans for decades. So some President was

going to do something about it. Many thought about it. President Trump's finally taking the action

that, frankly, all of the free world and the civilized world is applauding right now.

I want to play you something that we heard over the weekend from Steve Bannon,

prominent figure in the MAGA movement about the prospects for boots on the ground and whether

or not the case has been made for doing that. Take a listen. You have to be convinced that this

is the right thing to do, particularly now that we're on the eve of potentially the insertion

of American combat troops. Your sons, daughters, granddaughters, grand sons could be on Car

Islander, be holding a beachhead down by the straight or her moves. We've also heard from some

Republicans in Congress, your colleague from Louisiana, John Kennedy, said this just the other day

that if the President's going to make that decision, he needs to come to Congress first. Do you agree

with that? Well, the President's already come to Congress. They've addressed number one. They've

let all of the congressional leadership know in advance of the strikes, but they've also had

briefings on Capitol Hill. Like I said, I was at one of those classified briefings with Republicans

and Democrats and they took questions from everybody. There were a lot of questions from people

on both sides and you'll continue to see the President engage. There's engagement with the White

House right now on the possibility of a supplemental funding bill. No formal request has been made,

but we're having internal conversations as well. Members of Congress are having those discussions.

So there are no boots on the ground today, but we're having a lot of conversations about

what could happen next. But I think most people, most civilized people recognize a nuclear

armed Iran is not an option that any of us want and what President Trump has done is making this

a more stable world in the future when you see this resolved. Look at how they threaten oil prices

today with the Strait of Hormuz and luckily President Trump's gotten over 20 other countries now

to agree to go back and get the Strait of Hormuz. So you at the same time, it's why we need to open

up energy production in America, which President Trump has done to reverse the previous administration's

anti-American energy policy. That's helped. You've mentioned this classified briefings twice. I

want to show you what the Republican Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mike Rogers,

and the Republican Chairman of Armed Services said this coming out of one of those briefings.

The administration needs to be more forthcoming in these meetings. I feel like the people they

sent over here to brief us are being very constrained and that needs to change. We deserve more answers.

So I mean, I'm hearing, and this is not a back bench or this is your Armed Services Committee

Chairman saying that they're just not getting enough information about this. You don't share

that concern at all. Well, he's able to get higher level of classified briefings than what we had

sometimes unfortunately, some of those briefings leak, and that's not something you want. It's

not supposed to happen, but sadly, sometimes people do go leak classified information in those big

settings. And so they have smaller settings where people like Chairman Rogers are able, but he's

saying he's not getting the information he needs. He's saying he's not getting the administration's

not being forthcoming. Well, I just spoke to him earlier this week about the possibility of a

supplemental funding bill. And, you know, we're still working out details and there has not been a

formal request made, but there have been some numbers that have been thrown around and some of the

things that we're looking at in Congress. So we're not there yet. We haven't made any final decisions,

but we're starting to look at that. And maybe a tough sell, $200 billion if they ask for that.

Let me ask you though, the time we have left, the shutdown, the Department of Homeland Security

shutdown, the Senate passed a measure to fund Department of Homeland Security, you know,

except for new funding for ICE and CBP. It was unanimous. There wasn't a single Republican

who objected and I didn't get a vote in the House. Why not? Why would the House not even give

that a vote? Well, we actually read their bill and, frankly, a number of senators have expressed

buyers remorse with what they did at three in the morning. So we looked at it. One of the things

that we had real concerns with is it actually defunds over 25% of the baseline operations of

the Department of Homeland Security, 25% at a time when we're at a heightened threat level. And so

we've passed now four bills out of the House to fully fund the department, the one that we sent

after the Senate sent over their week offer. We sent a bill that was short term. It's not exactly

what we want, but at least it allows everybody to get paid, all the agencies, TSA, everybody,

while we negotiate our differences. We have very big differences between the House and the Senate.

The Senate bill they sent over, by the way, defunds about 7,000 positions at the Department of

Homeland Security and John, keep in mind. We've had three Americans killed just last week by people

here illegally. We've had four terrorist attacks on our home soil here in America just in the last

month. This is no time to be defunding major operations at the Department of Homeland Security.

Actually, I think that most people agree it's no time to be defunding, but that's exactly where

we are. You wouldn't even bring up a vote on what passed in the Senate. You passed something that

has said to be dead in arrival. Meanwhile, the House and the Senate are gone for two weeks.

What should the American people take from this? You have no funding for the Department of

Homeland Security during a time of war and Congress flies the coup? Well, Congress, the House

stayed later than we were scheduled to stay to take up a bill to fully fund the Department

and send it back over to the Senate. The bill is over in the Senate. The Senate's got options.

They've got to come back and deal with it. I hope they pass the short term bill that at least

funds everything over to the President, but the bill they sent us, keep in mind, would zero out,

defund things like cybersecurity operations, human trafficking investigations. Again, we're adding

to the public level of alert. And yet not a single, not a five percent of the Department.

Right. Not a single Republican in the Senate objected to it. Unfortunately, we're out of time.

Many have expressed opposition now, but they voted for it. Congressman Scalice, thank you for

all. Thank you for being here. We appreciate your time. Thanks for having me, John.

So what have the Democrats gotten out of the Homeland Security shutdown?

Democratic Senator Chris Van Holland is next. We're back in two minutes.

This show is supported by Pocket Hose. The Pocket Hose Ballistic is a brand new product that will

revolutionize the way you take care of your lawn. Traditional garden hoses are heavy,

so heavy that you might feel like you've done a full workout just by dragging it out on the lawn.

And if lawn care is already a grueling chore, it's even worse when you start out already exhausted.

But the Pocket Hose is here to change all that. It's designed to be easy to manage,

so it's incredibly lightweight. It's a small manageable size that expands when you turn on the water.

And it's made out of top-of-the-line materials, reinforced with liquid crystal polymer for an

anti-burst sleeve. The engineers at Pocket Hose understand the way you use a hose and have thought

of everything. So it comes with a rotating pocket pivot attachment that allows the nozzle to pivot

360 degrees as you move, which prevents kinks from forming in the hose while you work your way

around the lawn. Learn to love taking care of your lawn this year. For a limited time when you

purchase a new Pocket Hose Ballistic, you'll get a free 360 degree rotating pocket pivot and a

free thumb drive nozzle. Go to pockethose.com slash podcast. That's pockethose.com slash podcast for

your two free gifts with purchase pockethose.com slash podcast. When you need to send the

perfect rose bouquet, only one brand can say they've been the floor authority for 50 years.

1-800 flowers. Why should you trust 1-800 flowers? They hand-select every stem to ensure top quality

and with nationwide delivery, smiles and satisfaction are 100% guaranteed. And right now when you order

a dozen multicolored roses, we'll double it at no extra cost. Don't miss out on this limited time

order today at 1-800-Flowers.com slash podcast. That's 1-800-Flowers.com slash podcast.

Senate Minority to Chuck Schumer celebrating prematurely the House later blocked the bill

that was passed unanimously by the Senate. I'm joined now by Senator Chris Van Hollen,

Democrat of Maryland. Thank you for being here, Senator. Good to be with you. So what's the bottom

line here? I mean, you guys are on recess for two weeks. Homeland Security is not funded. Where's

this going? So the bottom line, as you just discussed with Steve Scalice, is that you had a bipartisan

bill, Republicans and Democrats, passed the Senate that would immediately fully fund TSA and by

the way FEMA and the Coast Guard, while we continue to negotiate reforms to ICE, a Wallace ICE

operation. And the Republican Speaker of the House refused to even have a vote on that in the

House and went home as we have these big lines of airports. Now President Trump has said he has

the emergency authority to spend money for TSA. And the question I have is, why didn't you use

that 45 days ago? And is he going to now use it? So when the Senate passed that bill, and there

was that brief moment that looked like, you know, dawn and broken, you put out a statement saying

that Republicans had, quote, finally relented. What did Democrats get out of this? Even if that

passed, what did you get out of this? This DHS shutdown is going on for well over a month.

What have you gotten for it? Well, the issue here, John, is we let people know, number one, that

we want to fully fund TSA. We could get rid of these lines at the airports immediately. But we

also made clear that we're going to demand reforms of a lawless ICE operation. After all,

DSH agents killed two American citizens in Minneapolis. And the president's team called the victims

domestic terrorists. So for example, we've said you can't expect DHS to conduct a credible

independent investigation. There are denying information to the local law enforcement authorities,

Minneapolis and Minnesota. They've blocked access. Those state has had to sue. So we say,

you need to be able to hold people accountable for wrongdoing. And they say they don't want to do

that. By the way, I should point out that obviously ICE has more than enough money. After all,

the president is now deploying ICE agents to airports. We should have TSA agents at airports.

Yeah. I mean, I guess what's confusing here is you have fought and blocked the funding for

the Department of Homeland Security because you object as you just outlined to what ICE has been

doing. And you wanted to force changes. And yet, the only thing that has been assured throughout

all of this is that ICE already has the money. Because as you said, 75 billion dollars

passed in the budget bill last year. So you're holding up the entirety of the Department of Homeland

Security because you object to ICE and you want changes to ICE. But but through it all, ICE

continues to have the money. John, we're not holding up all of the money for all the Department

of Homeland Security. That's just a false statement. We have said repeatedly, repeatedly, we should

fund TSA, we should fund FEMA, we should fund the Coast Guard. We are not prepared to give ICE

another 10 billion dollars. On top of the money they already have and are using in many of these

lawless operations, we're not going to give them another 10 billion dollars unless they make

funding. But fighting over that 10 billion dollars you're holding up everything else is killing

of American citizens. And fighting over that additional 10 billion dollars, you are holding up the

rest of the Department of Homeland Security. We're not holding it up. I mean, you're saying no, John,

we're not holding it up. We have now voted 10 times. But you're holding up unless it doesn't

include money for ICE. That's just the fact. Unless it doesn't include money for ICE, a very

reformed ICE. That's right. Which why not fund TSA now? That's what we've said. I mean,

that's what the House Black is. That's a very clear, very good question. And you heard me

talk to some different questions. But let me ask, the White House did agree to some reforms

as you were negotiating all of this. You had a letter that was given to the GOP negotiators

from the White House saying they would agree to increasing body cam footage to retaining that

body cam footage, sharing it with Congress to limit immigration enforcement its sensitive

locations, like schools and hospitals. It agreed to require officers to clearly display their

identification and verbalize their affiliation. Now, that's all gone. I mean, that was something that,

I mean, what's happened to that? I mean, that was at least something you were getting. Yeah,

look, but it's gone. At the end of the day, John, they were not willing to make meaningful reforms

in my view. So, for example, what I was just talking about, holding lawless DHS agents accountable

for the killing of American citizens. We want some independent credible review. We don't think

you can trust the agency that called Renee Good and Alex Freddie domestic terrorists to conduct

a credible independent investigation. I mean, do you think that would be credible? They refuse to

do that. In fact, as I said, the state of Minnesota is now trying to sue the FBI and the federal

government to get basic information about the killings of American citizens. Yeah, I mean,

it's incredible. But let me. But what's incredible though is that they refuse to allow

that independent credible investigation. That's what's amazing. I'm not going to give them another

$10 billion when you've got two American citizens killed by these agents and they're calling

domestic terrorists. And to this day, refusing to apologize to the families. And they've already

have 75 billion in the pipeline. So, let me. So, the question then is why are they so determined

to shut down TSA when, in fact, you're right. I mean, ICE does have money right now. We just

don't want to give them any more. So, the president said he's going to be ordered DHS to pay the ICE

officers, even though money hasn't been appropriated here. First of all, is he able to do that?

And for how long? I mean, do you have a sense of the legality of that? I don't completely,

but they do have, as we've been discussing. They do have like bottom-on. Billions of dollars

that Republicans provided them and what they called the big beautiful bill where they gave billionaires

these huge tax breaks cut Medicaid. But they managed to fund ICE. And so, if the president does

have that authority, what's he waiting for? Okay, so in the time we have left on the war,

they are preparing a budget request. Pentagon has suggested $200 billion. We don't know what it's

going to be. Do you think that? Does that, I know you're opposed. Does that pass? Well, I hope not,

because I don't think we should be providing more money for an illegal war of choice

to a president who promised during the campaign that he would not drag America into new wars,

especially in the Middle East, and a war that is now making us less, not more safe and is already

cost American lives, is costing billions of dollars every day. Oil and gas prices are going up.

So the president who said he was going to focus on bringing down prices and ending foreign wars

has started foreign wars along with Prime Minister Netanyahu and prices are going through the roof.

So no, we should not keep funding an illegal war of choice that's making us less safe.

And yet you have a depletion of weapons, of ammunition, of missiles, of missile defense systems.

I mean, doesn't that need to be replenished whether or not you

support the war? What happens there? These are the monies they're asking for to continue

an illegal war of choice. And you know, press and Trump, I saw you quoting some of his earlier

statements. You know, back more than two weeks ago, Donald Trump said we won this war. And so the

question for President Trump is completely delusional is if we won the war, why are they preparing to

send thousands and more American troops in the harms away? And last question, have you been it,

you've been to these briefings, have you? I have been to these briefings. And you heard of

what Scalice claims that they're substantive. We've heard from other Republicans that they're

complaining they're not getting information. What you're learning is briefings is exactly what

you're hearing outside the briefings, which is they don't have any particular objective. It's

a constantly changing objective. And there's no end game whatsoever. Meanwhile, the war is widening

as you discussed. And Americans are less safe and we're spending billions of dollars

both in terms of taxpayer money and at the pump. All right, Senator Ben Holland, thank you very

much for joining us. Thanks, John. Up next, the organizers say it is the largest nationwide

demonstration that we have seen against Donald Trump yet. We'll have a look at the scene from the

third. No Kings protests across all 50 states when we come back.

Wherever Bud goes, his harmonica goes with him. It's a pocket full of soul. Now he's living with

prostate cancer. He asked his doctor about Extandi and Zalutamide. Extandi 40 milligram tablets

treats men with prostate cancer that has spread to other parts of the body and responds to a medical

or surgical treatment to lower testosterone. Extandi may cause serious side effects, seizure,

a brain condition called press, allergic reactions, heart disease that can lead to death,

falls, and bone fractures, swallowing problems or choking that can lead to death. Stop

Extandi and get medical help at once if you're face, tongue, lip, or throat start swelling.

Tell your doctor at once if you faint, have a seizure. Quickly worsening headache,

decreased alertness, confusion, vision problems, chest pain or discomfort, or shortness of breath.

Extandi can cause harm to an unborn baby or miscarriage. Use birth control during in three months

after Extandi. Common side effects include muscle and joint pain, feeling unusually tired,

hot clashes, constipation, less appetite, diarrhea, high blood pressure, bleeding,

falls, fractures, and headache. Talk to your doctor and visit Extandi.com.

It's the middle of the night in a small town on the Jersey Shore. Someone reports an abandoned

car on a bridge. A search gets underway for the missing driver. 19-year-old Sarah Stern.

Is it a missing person? Is it a suicide? At this point nobody knows.

Old friendships, buried cash, and a sinister plot that was once pitched as a movie plays out

in real life. I'm Juju Chang from 2020 and ABC Audio. Listen now to Bridge of Lies wherever you

get your podcasts. This past winter federal troops brought death and terror to the streets of

Minneapolis. Will they pick the wrong city? The power and the solidarity of the people of Minneapolis

and Minnesota was an inspiration to the entire country. You are strength and your commitment told

us that this is still America. That was of course Bruce Springsteen at the No Kings rally in Minneapolis

yesterday. Organizers say at least 8 million people gathered at more than 3,300 events across

all 50 states. They claim it was the largest single day nonviolent protest in modern American

history. But we'll make a difference in November. We're back in two minutes with the Round Table.

Let's bring in the Round Table, former DNC Chair Donna Brazil, former New Jersey Governor Chris

Christie, and Puck's Chief Washington correspondent, Leanne Caldwell. So Donna, No Kings protest, they're

saying this is the largest yet? It's the largest. And you know what? I do believe that the momentum

that they're generating across the country. Look, this is ordinary people. I cannot tell you

that there are folks who are out in the streets today marching and protesting because of what

they have witnessed in this president's second term. They're protesting, of course, the rising

cost of living. They're protesting what they saw and witnessed firsthand, not just in Minnesota,

but across the country, what ICE agent. And of course, they're now protesting this war in Iran

without a strategy to end it and even without information to the public. This is a large movement.

It's growing. And I hope that they continue to organize because what they're doing, they're

training people to go out there and to get involved in their own civic life. And this past week,

Republicans lost two state legislative seats in Florida, including the one representing Mar-a-Lago.

I want to play Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, his response to that.

These special elections are a one-off and they're anomalies. They all, that's what we call them,

special. There was circumstances in that race at the state legislative level not involved

with Congress. I am very bullish about November, very bullish about the midterm.

Okay, it was a one-off, but let me just put up a graphic here you may find interesting. There have

been 30 state legislative seats that have flipped since November of 2024. 30 of those were won

by Democrats, Governor Christie. I think that's a zero behind underneath Republicans.

31-offs, or is this a trend that should cause Republicans concerned? Look, you're always going

to be some specific things that happen, John, inside of state legislative races that are unique to

it. But when you see a trend that is 30 to zero, you wind up hurting yourself if you ignore the trend.

But even more importantly, look, when I look at elections in these House districts that are

going to make her break whose majority. Independence are more important in those districts than ever

before. There's an increasing number of independents, people are leaving their parties,

and those districts are swing because independents are so important. In the Fox News poll that came

out this past week, the president's approval rating among independents is 25, 75. So 75% don't

approve. 75% of independents nationwide do not approve. If in those swing districts,

they have a similar type of ranking among independents. This is going to be a very, very bad

November, no matter what the speaker says about being bullish. He's going to be run over by the

bulls if it's 25, 75 among indies. And Lee and a lot of his Republicans in the House are retiring.

They're not running again. Yeah. And that's why the speaker has to put on a good face. He is

trying to keep more people from retiring. And he also needs donors to continue to donate to his

campaign coffers so that he can try to do as good as possible in the November elections. But yes,

36 House Republicans have announced their retirement. That is the most in modern history.

More than in 2018, the last time Republicans got slaughtered in the midterm election.

And what's also notable, it's not just rank and file Republicans who aren't running for

reelection. Chairman of committees have announced their retirement and they're seeing the

writing on the wall. Look, Sam Graves, transportation. He's the latest return.

Yeah, I mean, and he was running for reelection. So now he has to file papers that he's not running.

And there will be a scramble to run in his seat, which is a reliable red district.

But I want to go back to Chris Point. When you start losing independence, 25, 75, you're not

just underwater. You're drowning. You're drowning. And in order to win, you need independent voters

in many non-frequent voters. And what you're seeing, not just in Florida where Democrats just

picked up two seats, including the seat that represents Mar-a-Lago, meaning the president,

his wife and his family. What Democrats are doing across the country? Yes, they're

they're motivated. We see enthusiasm, but yet we know in order to win in November, Democrats will

have to run very vigorous, strong campaigns across the country. And I'd say two things, John,

about what Donna just said. First off, if I were the chairman of the D-Triple C,

right now given Donald Trump's numbers, I would take every Democratic Congressional candidate

and send them to Turks and Cacos. Get them the hell out of here. You know, because you're

no harm. Absolutely. You know, like, look, I had a political side professor who told me back in

college when you're adversaries in the midst of committing suicide. There's no reason to commit

murder. The result is the same. And so, you know, the worry for Democrats needs to be themselves.

You saw Senator Van Hollen this morning. I thought his points were incoherent on what's going on.

Look, LaGuardia Airport yesterday, two and a half hour wait to get through the security lines.

Thank you. By the way, we're glad you made it. Right here. Welcome. And let's think about this, John.

We've got people going on spring break, Passover, Easter travel, and they you very well put,

they went home for two weeks. They're going to blame both parties for this, but in the end,

Republicans take it more because we're in charge. And so those points are points that if you don't

resolve some of the things that are basic to government, and then you add to with the overlap

of Iran, these are really big problems for the president and on my party. How does this

the Homeland Security shutdown get resolved? I was left confused with Van Hollen and Scalice

of where the path forward is. Yeah. There is no clear path right now. As you you pressed both

Scalice and Van Hollen, Congress is out for the next two weeks. Talking to sources yesterday,

they said that they expect this to continue, that there is no immediate way out of this.

Hopefully in the next two weeks, there's some sort of backroom negotiations and deal that comes

together. But a big problem for Republicans is that President Trump has been very disengaged

from this. And it is only the president who is able to corral a very slim majority in the House

of Representatives, get them on the same page as the Senate, and he hasn't been able to do that.

He hasn't. He's been distracted. He wants to corral them to something that can't pass,

which is a nooking the filibuster. Yes. Hey, one other thing. I want to play the deputy attorney

general was at CPAC, a big conservative political action conference down in Texas this week.

And he had this to say about a purge that's been underway at the Department of Justice and the FBI.

There is not a single man or woman at the Department of Justice who had anything to do

with those prosecutions. And when it comes to the FBI, Director Patel has cleaned house there too.

There isn't a single man or woman with a gun, federal agent, still in that organization that had

anything to do with the prosecution of President Trump. So Chris, what he's saying is that anybody that

had anything to do with any of those federal prosecutions of Trump, including like line prosecutors,

FBI agents, they've all been weeded out. And there's a lot of a lot of personnel.

Look, this is the single most damaging thing to the long-term stability of our institutions

that has happened in the second Trump term. The dismantling of the Department of Justice

and the greater partisan activity as the deputy attorney general himself just admitted in that clip

that the only reason these people were let go was because they followed the direction

of the rightfully appointed Attorney General of the United States confirmed by the United States Senate

to conduct investigations. And because they did that, they're being fired. Well,

what is going to happen to the Department of Justice going forward? Regardless of who the president

is, will the American people have faith in him longer that any investigation can be independent

and free of partisanship? And to go down to CPAC as the Deputy Attorney General of the United States

and brag about that is disgraceful, disgraceful. And he is going to have to live with the reputation

he has developed now over the last two years. Part of this Todd Blanche had a very good reputation

inside DOJ. He has, he wants to talk about obliterated. We didn't obliterate the

Iran nuclear problem program obviously in June, but he is obliterating his reputation

and the reputation with the Department that I work for and that I really love and I'm mourning

right now. It is pretty extraordinary to see a top justice official appear at a political conference.

I mean, but especially in that way. The men and women of that Department were doing a job and

they were purged. They were fired because this administration can't tolerate the truth.

And they are, the Trump administration is still on this big retribution campaign. They're not

looking forward. They're not trying to take care of America's interests. They're not taking care

of the American people. They're on a retribution campaign. And now Mr. Blanche has just told us

that they have weaponized the Department of Justice against the American people. That's why

that rally was important yesterday. The rally was we don't want dictators. We want a democracy.

We want the rule of law. That's why people gather across the country yesterday.

We're going to see a retribution campaign from Democrats if they win control of the House.

No. Well, Donna might know more, but I will say they are already talking about subpoenas. They're

talking about investigations and there will apps while impeachment night might not necessarily

be on the table. Right now, there is a huge demand from Democrats to investigate a lot of what

this is. All of a sudden, the credibility is different. If they get majority's on, they should fix

the country and not worry about what we are. We have to take a break. Up next, the first

Iranian-American Democrat in Congress, and she has mixed feelings about the war and the wrong

our conversation when we come back. I didn't think the pain from the shingles rash would

affect simple everyday tasks, like bathing, getting dressed, or even walking around. I was wrong.

Though not everyone at risk will develop it, 99% of people over the age of 50 already have the

virus the cause of shingles, and it could reactivate it any time. I developed it and the blistering

rash lasted for weeks. Don't learn the hard way, like I did. Talk to your doctor or pharmacist

today. Sponsored by GSK. Hey there, it's me, John. Stay

most in partnership with Colorguard. And a little birdie told me over 45. Listen, that's not old.

It's really not, but it's an important age. If you're at average risk, that's when you start

screening for colon cancer. And look, it's okay to be nervous, but it's not okay to ignore your own

health. It's time to see if the Colorguard test can be an option for you to get screened.

All right, I'm glad we had this little chat.

The Islamic Republic is a barbaric corrupt regime that has murdered, imprisoned, and terrorized

its own people for decades. As a daughter of Iranian immigrants who fled this regime, I know

personally what its violence means. At the same time as an American congresswoman,

who sworn oath to the United States Constitution, I am deeply concerned by President Trump's

decision to launch an illegal war because it is in fact illegal against Iran without congressional

authorization and without presenting a clear plan to the American people.

That was Arizona representative Yasemin Ansari, the first Iranian-American Democrat in Congress.

The Iranian regime has persecuted members of her own family. We sat down for a conversation

about her complicated feelings about the war and her hopes and fears for Iran's future.

So let's go back. February 28th, the war starts.

What were you thinking? How did you hear? What was your first reaction?

It was a weird feeling. Feeling of something you knew was going to happen, but the uncertainty

of what comes next was quite heavy. I immediately called my parents and I knew it was like two or

three AM for them in Phoenix, but I called them. The next few days were really tough. The first

and the first week or two, honestly, were very, very heavy. I think a lot of pressure from

the standpoint of somebody who's grown up with wanting to see change in Iran,

positive change, a better future for the people of Iran. But in my role as a U.S. Congresswoman,

knowing very well what we're dealing with in a President Donald Trump and knowing that there is no

plan or clear objectives for what the war is about, had a lot of anxiety and mixed feelings.

In your parents, they effectively fled the regime. Your dad was here as a student, couldn't go

back. Your mom left. My mom was 16 or 17 years old when she was forced to flee.

Well, women were losing their rights, and so my grandfather had been supportive of the monarchy

before it fell, and so he was briefly imprisoned, and that's when they decided to send my mom here

by herself. Stories I've heard are that she was extremely depressed, lost a ton of weight,

was here by herself, living with a family, and they've gone back over the years, but especially

as I've gotten more into politics. It's pretty much 18 years old onward. The possibility of going

back diminishes. And what was their reaction when they heard that Ayatollah Hamina had been killed?

I think everybody's reaction, including my parents, to that news is joyful. Not a classic joyful,

right, because you're talking about somebody's death, but there's a feeling of hope that comes

with it. Maybe now something can happen. Maybe now this is the beginning of the end. I think

immediately they are worried about their concerns have always been Iran, like Balkanizing essentially,

and the borders of the country changing, because there are so many different ethnicities and groups,

and not all good actors and interests around Iran, but also that it could become a failed state.

And if this isn't managed carefully, a country of 90 million people could very well fall into

civil war. And I think that has been their concern from the beginning and my concern as well.

This is obviously a very challenging time. There's a war going on, but is there a hope that the end of

this, that what comes next will be better? This has actually caused a lot of internal strife within

the community. A lot of families, my own family at the Thanksgiving dinner table, there were a lot

of debates about whether or not people should be hopeful what the right thing is to do. I will say

there are many people who feel that there was no other way to weaken this regime than outside

military intervention. The people don't have the weapons, the regime has the weapons, and they will

happily massacre as many people as they can to stay in power. Then I think there's another camp,

and I think that camp of folks feels that they really actually do believe that Donald Trump

has a good plan here and has positive intentions. And that's real. I don't agree with that.

There is another camp that I think is very anti-war and believes that bombs are not going to free

people. You know, there's people who are within the diaspora and Iranians who just

who want something hopeful to hold on to and are trying to now steer this in the right direction

already in this war. So what can be done? And I've been thinking a lot about that.

Ultimately, I do think we need an off-ramp quickly to the war. We need to de-escalate. I

you know, just want to see the best for Iranian people who have had to live under this regime for

the last 47 years. Or thanks to Congresswoman Ansari, we'll be right back.

That's all for today. Thank you for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Check out World

News tonight and have a great day.

ESPN and streaming on the ESPN app. Present it by Capitol One.