Iran War and DHS Shutdown Take Center Stage in Bipartisan Panel with Dasha Burns

Across America, Google AI is transforming how the public sector serves you.

Imagine, shorter wait times for government services, health care signups made simple

through rapid AI verification, and smoother commutes on AI-powered transportation systems

operating around the clock, from boosting staff efficiency to securing the infrastructure

that keeps us safe.

Google AI is delivering real results for communities nationwide.

For additional success stories, at publicsector.google-slash-ai.

America leads the world in medicine development.

It matters.

We get new medicines first, nearly three years faster.

Five million Americans go to work because we make medicines here at home, and not relying

on other countries keeps us safe.

But China is racing to overtake us.

Will we let them or will we choose to stay ahead?

When America leads, America cures.

So Washington, to keep us in the lead.

Learn how at AmericaCures.com.

Pay for by Farma.

Welcome to ceasefire, where we look to bridge the divide in American politics.

I'm Dasha Burns, Politico White House Bureau Chief, and joining me now on either side

of the desk, two guests who have agreed to keep the conversation civil, even when they

disagree.

Remember that gentleman, Florida Republican Congressman Carlos Jimenez, and Texas Democratic

Congressman Henry Quayar.

Thank you both so much for joining me today.

Thank you so much.

We're just a little bit going on, so appreciate your time.

Listen, let's start.

I remember we're both Latin, so we may be actually a piece of civil, but for you it

makes sound like we're not civil.

Okay.

I'll take that into account.

Thank you.

Let's start with your relationship, because you guys are actually friendly, despite being

a D and an R, right?

And I wonder how does that bipartisan relationship work, and how challenging is it to have this

kind of connection in a time of hyperpolarization?

Well, you're going to, first of all, Carlos, it's always a pleasure.

We actually just got back from Mexico not long ago, a bipartisan co-dale, so I really

appreciate his experience, Carlos' experience, but look, one of the things I've learned

about being in Congress is you don't burn any bridges.

You got to look at where you have things of common, you know, we might agree.

You might not, but some others do.

Well, yeah, no, and that's the problem.

That's the problem.

Look, I'm a Democrat.

He's a Republican, but I still follow the words of President LBJ, where he said many years

ago, I'm an American, I'm a Texan, I'm a Democrat in that order.

When I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, you got to put country before

any party.

Sir?

Henry, I've been in co-dales together, and that's, I think that's actually really good,

because then you kind of let your hair down, and then you get to meet the individual as

an individual, you know, and yeah, we may have some disagreements, but we also find that

we agree on a heck of a lot more than we disagree.

Some tequila in Mexico probably helps a little bit.

The what?

Tequila in Mexico probably helps a little bit.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, but, yeah, I'm actually a wrong guy.

He's probably a tequila guy.

I don't drink, so, but here's some water.

Yeah, but look, you know, people just people, and we just have differences of opinion, and

then you just can't let that, you know, get in between a working relationship.

Will we have disagreements?

Obviously, we'll have disagreements.

Will we have agreements?

Yes, we do.

And so, would I tell people and say, well, you guys are always disagreeing.

So, actually, most of the bills that we have in Congress, they're passed, you know, and

both of us voting for it, you know, suspension bills.

We have a ton of suspension bills that the majority of both parties agree to, probably

more so than the stuff that we disagree on, but yet everything's focused on the stuff

we disagree on.

Yeah, this is why we love having these conversations because people don't see that stuff, and it's

so important, especially when the stakes are this high in this moment, for the country and

for the world.

You want to talk about the war with Iran.

You both share some common ground on this, actually.

Congressman Quayar, you kind of bucked your party a little bit here in that you have credited

the president for these strikes, but cautioning a time limit.

I believe you said you'd give the president 30 days.

We're coming up on that deadline now here.

What's your assessment of the current situation?

Yeah.

When you look at the 1973 war powers that talked about 60 days, so some of us followed a

30 day where Congress should come in and play a role.

I just felt that at that time when our men and women were out there, you got to look at

the military operations, the realities on their ground.

So I thought it was important to give the president a little bit of space, but I sit on

defense appropriations.

Yeah.

I can tell you without going into some details, some of the classified briefings that if

you don't get answers to what are the clear objectives, what is your exit?

We know how many vessels, we know how many things that we've destroyed, we understand.

But what is the exit?

What are the clear objectives?

And I think it's very, very important that we have that.

Do you think you've gotten that from the administration yet?

No.

No.

We ask some of those very specific questions that classify briefings.

And the answers we got were general in nature.

And like I said, I want to give the president time, any president we got to give him time

while we do that conflict.

But after a while, Congress plays a role.

And I think 30 days should be sufficient time to get some of the answers.

And on top of that, we're going to get a supplemental, again, I sit on defense appropriations.

We haven't got that yet.

You just can't say $200 billion and just write a blank check.

Yeah.

Congressman Heman, is Congressman Quayar's concern valid here?

Oh, I think they're valid, but also I have a clear knowledge or at least indication of

what the objectives are, the objectives are to make sure that Iran can no longer pose

a threat to its neighbors in the world with ballistic missiles that Iran can never possess

a nuclear weapon.

And then the some kind of change in the government.

And so although that one is the third objective, and maybe that's not reachable.

Now for me, I'm a lot more aggressive than probably some of my colleagues.

We're at the 20 yard line.

I want to score a touchdown.

I don't want to kick a field goal.

Kick a field goal means we're going to, over time, we're going to do it again.

And so the only way that we score a touchdown is we actually do change the regime.

And then you've advocated, you've said regime change is necessary.

The president is kind of indicating whether that's reality or not.

He's indicating that he wants to sort of wind things down, although we are still sending

troops to the region.

So I think to your point, Congressman Quayar, whether we're winding down or ramping up

is a little bit unclear.

Do you want to see us ramp up more?

I want to see the elimination of this regime.

This regime has just killed 30,000 of its own people.

If it's willing to kill 30,000 of its own people, can you imagine what it's going to do to

us?

Or can you imagine what it's going to do to Israel?

And so yeah, look, if we defang it now, we take away its nuclear capacity now.

We take away its capacity to build ballistic missiles and drones and all that.

If this regime in place, they have set for 47 years that they want to kill us, that

they want to destroy Israel, I take them at their word.

And so I don't want my children or grandchildren fighting Iran in the future, a nuclear armed

Iran in the future, much less.

And so if we're there and we've undertaken this enterprise, then I think we need to finish

the job.

And I think actually politically even, all right, if we can finish the job quickly, then

the American people understand why they've had this suffering for a couple of months with

higher prices.

So about regime change though, it doesn't happen necessarily quickly.

And from the experts I've been talking to, it probably would require some boots on

the ground.

I'm saying you don't need to finish the job, because if not, we're going to be fighting

this war again five or ten years down the road and maybe with a much stronger Iran.

So I'm looking to the future, I'm not looking to the now, I'm looking to the future.

And so yeah, and then people say, well, we don't know what kind of regime comes later.

Well, I know the kind of regime we have now.

And so we could have said the same thing about Germany back in World War II.

Well, hey, why are we really going to take out Hitler?

What kind of regime comes after that?

Well, I think I'd rather take out Hitler in terms of that.

Well, let me ask you this because I've had some conversations and did some reporting

on how the administration is seeing this regime change idea right now.

And what I've heard from administration officials is that they are testing some options

right now of who might be a partner and somebody that the U.S. can work with.

Right now, they are eyeing the speaker of parliament.

And part because he is someone that is within the current regime, he's someone who was

an IRGC commander.

They are looking at sort of the Venezuela model from which probably I'm against.

So that was that was my question.

I mean, the administration right now, I don't I don't want clock step with the administration

because I think Delsi Rodriguez is the interim dictator of Venezuela.

Well, I was told that the administration is looking for the Delsi Rodriguez of Iran.

Is that a bad idea?

Yeah.

Okay.

I'll tell you why because Delsi Rodriguez is the illegitimate interim president of Venezuela.

They had an election two years ago, Maria Codina Machalla won overwhelmingly and in Moon

González as president, all right.

And so the Venezuelan people don't want Delsi Rodriguez to be the president of Venezuela.

There's something that the president said today, which are, hey, that sounds interesting,

that he said he'd run against Delsi Rodriguez in Venezuela and win, which probably he could,

by the way.

All right.

So that means that he's eyeing elections.

We need to get to elections in Venezuela as soon as possible and I'll tell you why.

If you keep Delsi Rodriguez in, the same administer, the same regime, all they'll do is wait

this out.

And as soon as they think that conditions are better, they'll turn their backs on the

United States and then they'll go back to doing exactly what they were doing before because

the same regime is still in place.

The only thing that changed was Nicholas Maduro is out.

There's a guy by name of Diels Dalo Caballu and who is like the interior minister.

He's really the henchman for the entire regime.

There's a $25 million bounty on his head.

We have it.

We have charges against him.

He's still there.

I'm asking the president, ask Delsi to turn over Diels Dalo Caballu and see what happens

with that.

I am not in favor of what's happening now.

I understand why it's happening, but that's not for me.

That should not be the end game.

Back to Iran for a moment here.

The administration, regardless of putting aside for a moment the messaging, do you believe

that the world is a safer place with a week in Iran and what we've done militarily?

Yeah, absolutely.

Look, we agree, you know, Iran has been the biggest sponsor of terrorism.

For 47 years, they've been saying they want to kill Americans.

They have killed Americans.

They have not only American soldiers, but they have also targeted people in the United

States.

So, I agree with Carlos.

I mean, they're a bad apple.

Now, some of the objectives have we destroyed a lot of their ships and their drones?

We have.

The weapons.

We have done that.

Some of them up to, you know, plus 90 percent.

Have we gone after their industrial, military, industrial factories?

We've done that also.

That last question, and I don't know this, and I'm sure that the administration have

they've been very clear on regime change.

Now they're saying, you know, I understand, looking at maybe the speaker, I don't know,

that's a good guy or not, I have no idea, but all I want is to say that, look, we can

achieve some of those things without an endless war, but why can we not score the touchdown

with Congress involved?

I don't think the president is the only one that can do this.

I think we can play a role on this, and we have a constitutional, you know, responsibility

to get involved after a period of time.

I voted against Democrats on this, because I believe that you got to give the space when

you look at-

Yeah, to be clear, you both voted against the Iran War authorization measures recently.

Right.

But I said 30 days.

After 30 days, we followed another resolution.

So the 30 days are up, and again, without going into the classified briefings, we've got

some, and they have not given us what we have.

Even on the $200 billion, maybe they're right, maybe they're not, but being an appropriator

on defense of probes, I certainly want to see some detail on that.

Does boots on the ground change your calculation here?

It depends on where the boots are on the ground are going to be and how long they're going

to be there.

In other words, there may be some tactical objectives that we can achieve with short-term boots

on the ground that would ensure the long-term safety of us and Israel and the people in

that region.

And so, look, what they're doing in Venezuela is they're controlling oil.

We're controlling oil.

And so we're coercing Delci Rodriguez to do the things that we want to do.

And so when I say that I'm not really happy about that, it's a heck of a lot better than

what we had before.

I just want-

Speaking of oil, I mean, Carg Island, when we talk about boots on the ground right now

the reporting is the most likely place that the president would send troops with the

president.

So if you control that portion of the straights of our moves, now you control 90% of Iran's

income.

So you want to see that happen?

I can see a lot of things happening what I want at the end is to make sure that Iran

is no longer a threat to the region and to the world and to the United States.

I don't believe by having the same regime in place that that's going to be the long-term,

I mean, that's going to be the long-term results.

So if we can control Iran and assure that they know that we can control them and then

they won't do certain things in the future, then I may be satisfied with that.

But the problem that I have is that our next administration, what's it going to do?

What's there?

How they're going to play with Iran?

We have previous administrations that wanted to negotiate with Iran.

They gave money to Iran, et cetera, all right?

And then allowed Iran to build up this arsenal, I don't want to make sure that in the future

that doesn't happen.

And so, again, there's a lot of parallel with Venezuela.

It's not exactly the same situation, but I think they're trying to thread that needle

as best they can.

You know, I certainly don't want to say endless war.

That's why I want to see their clear objectives.

I think if we got rid of most of their weapons or vessels or drones and all that and we get

rid of their military complex, that will push them back for many, many years.

Now the question is, using military terms, their center of gravity seems to be part of

it besides their leadership, seems to be part of that particular island because that control

is 90 percent.

You go after that.

The question is, do you go and send troops to control it or do you just strike and get rid

of it, but that hurts, you know, it's cutting the situation there.

So you got to look at what the center of gravity will be here.

I want to take a listen to a part of a conversation I had with Kentucky governor Andy Bashir this

week.

I asked him about the war in Iran, take a listen.

The Iranian regime were murderers.

They had murdered thousands of their own people.

They had sponsored terrorism that had murdered thousands of people around the world.

I don't feel sorry for the regime whatsoever.

But if you are going to take a country to war, number one, you have to have a real justification,

not one that changes three or four times in the first three or four days.

I've heard some compelling arguments from both of you about what's necessary in Iran.

To governor Bashir's point, Congressman Khrari, do you think that the war is going to

be?

If the administration had laid out a clear justification, maybe similar to what your

colleague here just said that more Democrats perhaps would have gotten on board at the beginning.

Well, I think a lot of us understand the history between the U.S. and Iran.

We understand.

I mean, just the way they parade it, our embassy workers, I think I was in college when

that happened.

It was the way they did it, the way they killed American soldiers over the years, the fact

that they have targeted the fact, you know, even people here in the U.S., the fact that

there are the biggest sponsors of terrorism.

I mean, we all agree on that.

I think Democrats and Republicans agree on that.

I guess the question was, was there an immediate threat?

You know, that's one thing.

I certainly want to make sure that we get rid of their nuclear capacity.

That is key, because you just can't set them back one or two years and then they're

back again.

We got to make sure it's long lasting.

That's why going after the military complex or factories is very important.

Now, I'll go back to the center of gravity.

One of the center of gravity is that island.

So the question is, do you just destroy it, but then it affects oil, or if you sit in

troops and I'm very, I think if we talk about sending troops, I still think we can spike

the ball.

You know, go to the touchdown, move from the 20 to the pass of one year line with Congress

involved.

And I think we ought to play a role on this.

But I think we all understand that Iran is a bad actor.

And I'm talking about the regime.

The people, I mean, look how many people they, every time they try to express themselves

or they try to, you know, change what happens.

They get killed.

I was looking at the picture of one of the recent people that they just executed the

wrestler.

You know, I mean, here's a young man.

And they just killed him.

They actually, and they do that, thousands of people in that regime is bad.

I don't, like the governor said, I agree with him.

I don't feel sorry for them.

I feel sorry for the Iranian people that won freedom and democracy.

Let's talk about the American people and their opinions for a moment because some recent

polling just showed that about 59 percent of Americans think the U.S. military action

in Iran has gone too far.

There's also a pretty big partisan divide, 90 percent of Democrats say it's gone too far,

only 26 percent of Republicans.

Congressman Jimenez, I'm curious what you're hearing from constituents in your district.

A lot of them support the president, of course, but they are from what I'm hearing and what

polling is showing they are concerned about higher gas prices, the possibility of an endless

war.

My constituents are 70 percent Hispanic.

Many of them Cuban and Venezuelans.

I'm Cuban, okay?

So my perspective is a little different, all right?

So we're seeing what happened in Venezuela.

We're seeing what's happening in Cuba, all right?

And so a lot of the conversations in my district are really centered about Venezuela and Cuba.

And what's the end?

And I do want to get to that later.

Right.

So that's what's the end game in Venezuela and then what are we going to do with Cuba?

Because he talks a lot about Cuba, right?

And then I ran, all right?

So, you know, being a member of Congress, I'm worried about all three, but again, if we

went there because they had almost 500 kilograms of nuclear material that was already enriched

to over 60 percent, weeks away from developing up to 11 nuclear bombs, all right?

And that's the reason why, supposedly, we went in.

I don't have verification of that, you know, we don't have verification of that.

We have to take, you know, the president and our armed services, you know, and our intelligence

folks, you know, at their word.

And if that's the case, then yeah, we were just to fight because this regime,

especially after it murdered 30,000 of its own people, would have no problem in launching

nuclear weapons against enemy, especially its sworn enemy, Israel, which is right there,

in which they have sworn to destroy and wipe off, wipe off, I mean, I told after I told

after I told, I said, we want them dead there.

And by the way, they're the, they were the second devil.

We're the number one devil, all right?

And so I take all that stuff seriously.

And so I look at Iran, yes, taking care of that problem, but Iran also also hurts our

number one adversary in the world strategically, our number one and number two adversary

in the world strategically, China and Russia.

Do you think your democratic colleagues, though, are playing this the wrong way?

Well, you know, they, they, you know, I can't speak for them.

I can only speak for myself.

And again, as I said, I don't believe in the funding police or ICE, but I certainly

want to see some serious rail guards on ICE.

Congressman, how does this end?

Look, I think there was a good off-ramp when the president dismissed the former head

of Homeland Security and now named a new one.

I think that was a sign that things are going to change and you've seen changes.

ICE is no longer that, that issue that it was two months ago, right?

And so, and myself and a lot of my colleagues on my side of the aisle, we're not happy with

some of the things that was going, we're going on with ICE and we express that, especially

in a different way, actually work inside the government, okay?

And, and so we saw some changes.

Now, maybe what's needs to be said from the administration is, look, these are the things

we're going to be, we're going to be actually focusing in on.

There are 700,000 criminal aliens right now still on the loose.

That's plenty of work for ICE and I don't think anybody argues with criminal aliens need

to be deported.

Yeah.

I don't think anybody argues with this.

Secure the border, 95% issue, a criminal aliens need to be deported, gang members need

to be deported.

And those that have active deportation orders, they would tell about 1.6 million need to be

deported.

That's going to keep ICE very, very busy.

We didn't want some, a lot of us that were not happy with what went beyond that, all

right?

And so, I think the administration has gotten that point and, and is going to make changes.

It has made changes, but I think it's difficult for the, for the, for the Democrats to have

an off ramp, okay?

Because if somehow we just completely defund ICE, they're not going to be happy with some

people because that's the base.

We're not going to defund ICE, all right?

They've got plenty of work to do.

They just have to do it in a little bit different way.

So what is your advice to Republican leadership on this?

And I'll ask the same to you for that.

I think, you know, Henry's right, you know, it's not, this is not a paper thing, you

know, I mean, when I was mayor of Miami-Dade County, I didn't exchange papers.

You wanted to go, Shay, you want to do something coming to my room, we'll sit down and, you

know, talk it out and, and then find a middle ground, which were, which is, neither one

wins, neither, neither one loses, right?

We both win a little bit, we both lose a little bit, and then we move on, and that's the

way the negotiations have to be.

If you're going to, oh, I have to win 100%, you're never going to, you're never going

to get there.

No, I have to win 100%.

You're never going to get there.

You both have to understand that you're not going to get 100% of what you want, but what

you want, you're going to get 80% of what you want.

And I agree with Carlos, and I'll, you know, go into your answer, it's a, to your question.

Look, you know, first of all, you don't have to come up with new laws, a lot of it is

just going back the way it used to be.

For example, in appropriations in 2008, but it got taken out in 2017, we had some language

on the appropriations for ICE.

ICE will prioritize criminals, you know, that, that was the effort.

Now if you look at, you know, some of the people have been picked up, and I don't think

we need to have, quote, was I agree, you go after the, you know, the people with final deportation

orders, they got no more appeals, final 1.6, 1.7 million, you go after criminals, anybody

that's a risk to the national security, that's it, go after them, you don't have to go after

work sites or, you know, places, people that have no criminal records.

But I can tell you, because I've talked to some of the people, there is still a little

bit of catch-up release going on, they said there was no catch-up release.

People that go to the Delhi, they're being released in Laredo, I've sat down with the

people that have been released in Laredo and that very limited catch-up release, not

like the Biden administration, that was totally different, I disagree with that.

But I've talked to them, this are people, they're picking up some people that are in the

process, they'll go immigration court, they're following the process, they get picked up after

they go for an ICE check-up, they get picked up.

So those are not the people in the system, leave them alone, go after the criminals,

there's enough work to do.

I mean, there's so much head nodding here in agreement on these issues.

We can work it out, tell our leaders to make ours an eye and we'll work it out.

Let's bring Congress here to this set and we'll work it out.

I do want to talk about the SAVE Act, because the president is trying to tie that now into

the GHS bill.

But Congressman Quayar, you were the only House Democrat to vote for the SAVE America Act.

It's currently a huge point of contention.

This is about voter ID, voter proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.

Was it hard to break with Democrats on this?

In Texas, we've been doing this.

There are 200 countries, Mexico and other places that you have a voter ID.

If you're going to go by beer or whatever you have to show a voter ID, depending on your

age, I mean, we show a voter ID, we have a real ID in Texas.

And there are certain ways that you can do this, whether you're married or not married,

you can get an ID.

So do you think it's a bad look for Democrats to be so resistant to this?

Well, again, I don't want to speak for the rest of it, but I think a voter ID is good.

I mean, I think you need to have that, you know, as long as you have certain exceptions

if you're having trouble with certain things.

But 84% of the American public with a lot of, I think, Democrats over 70, they supported

the American public, Democrats and Republicans support voter ID.

What are we afraid of?

And if you look at the states that have voter ID, Democrats came out and voted in strong

roles.

Well, one part of the Save America Act is that it would limit mail-in voting.

Ironically, in this recent Florida election, the president himself did vote by mail, thoughts.

My thoughts?

As mayor of Miami-D County, it was also the supervisor of elections.

So I know a little bit about elections, okay?

So voting by mail is not the issue.

The issue is-

Well, the president hates voting by mail.

No, he doesn't.

I think he doesn't.

Probably the way that it's carried out in certain states, all right, and I'll give you

the difference.

So in the state of Florida, as the mail-in ballots come in, they're counted, as they come

in, okay, and they're held in secret, but they're counted.

And any mail-in ballot that reaches the elections department after the close of polls on election

day are not counted, okay?

So you could have it postmarked on it.

We don't care.

If it doesn't reach our office by seven o'clock on election day, those are discarded.

They're not voted, okay?

And that's an issue with the Supreme Court.

Well, it is.

Okay.

And so we then, all we have to do is count the Tuesday absentees.

Then we count, you know, what was early voting was already counted, and all we had to do

is count day of, we're done three hours later.

In the state of Florida, you know who won?

Three hours after the elections over.

State of California, three weeks later, you may not know who won.

And that's the problem.

Why?

Because they allow these mail-in ballots to just flow and come on in and come on in, same

in other states.

That's the problem.

Well, speaking of Florida elections, let's take a look at this headline from this week,

the Wall Street Journal, Democrats flip Florida district that includes Mar-a-Lago, Emily

Gregory wins House C defeating Trump-backed Republican John Maples.

This is a district that Trump won by 11 points in 2024.

Democrats are pointing to this saying Republicans better be worried.

Mr. Florida.

Well, I'm not worried, but I am worried, in a sense, because we just talked about immigration.

Yeah.

Okay.

And I'm telling you that what happened with ICE during the last year hurt the Republicans.

All right.

Hurt us with Hispanic.

We made great gains with Hispanics.

And then we, because of the way that ICE was enforcing immigration, a lot of Hispanics

is way, way that way.

That's not what I voted for, all right.

And so I think that that's a reflection right there.

The margins there are pretty close, all right.

The swing was big.

No, I know, but the margins are still close.

And so the Democrats are more energized without a doubt.

We have to look at it not only in Florida, but across the nation and say, okay, what happened

here, and what happened here is the good thing is six months is an attorney in politics,

and that can change.

And so am I worried, of course I'd be worried, because these are districts that we would

normally carry, rather easily, and we didn't.

But then it's also, it also could be good in a sense that, hey, you thought we were okay?

Now we need to start working.

Now why did it happen and make those changes?

I think that that is combination of immigration, some, the gas prices then the war may be unpopular.

If in fact we get this war turned around, and if in fact we achieve our objectives, and

gas prices start coming down, and the price of goods, you know, stabilizers start coming

down, and then people feel the effect of the big, beautiful bill, which they're going

to get another 10% at least in refunds.

Many Americans are going to have a lot more money in their pocket, that's going to work

in our favor.

And also we need to say, hey, in terms of immigration, we have, we've done a course correction.

Yes, we're still going after the people we need to go after, and we're still going to

keep that border close.

And if you do that, that's a 95% issue, I think we can turn this around.

My district is, I was redistricted, and they went on a false premise saying that Hispanics

voted for President Trump in South Texas, which they did.

But the false premise was that it was a political realignment that the Hispanics voted for

every Republican down the ballot.

Didn't happen in 2024, certainly in 2026, it's not going to happen, because I'll give

you, the South Texas builders, I brought them up here.

They were, you know, this group were Hispanic business owners, the men, lumber, construction,

residential, commercial, all of that.

They all voted for Trump, they told me that.

But now they're not happy because of two things, ice rates, because you're going after

their construction sites, their workers, number one, number two, the cost of things, tariffs,

I don't like tariffs, cost of things, and now it's the energy prices, and now they're

saying the war would this be an endless war.

So you know, every district is different, but I can tell you in my district, they based

redistricting on a false premise that it was a political realignment, it was not.

They voted for Trump on an issue called open borders, which I was against open borders,

what the Biden administration was doing was wrong, and the Hispanics in South Texas didn't

like it.

So they're turning against Trump because another immigration, not open borders, if he were

to stop that, stop in the border, and deporting criminals, they would have been doing this.

Turns out voters do pay attention, and they are not one-track minds, all right, gentlemen,

that is all the time we have, Florida, Republican, Congressman Carlos, Jimenez, and Texas Democratic

Congressman Henry Quayard.

Thank you both so much for this great conversation, really a great time.

Are you not sure how to tackle your taxes?

Are you sweating the small print?

You may be experiencing FOMO, the fear of messing up.

The answer, using turbo-tax on into a credit karma, they help you get your biggest refund,

and then we help you do more with it, with a personalized plan designed to help you hit

your money goals.

It's time to take your taxes to the max.

We're filing today in the credit karma app.

It's not just something you made, it's the privilege that you get to work with your hands.

It's building something that serves a purpose, proof that you have the grit to keep going.

At Timberland, we understand you take your craft seriously, and we do too, which is why

our products are built to the highest quality.

We put in the work so you can perfect yours, with purpose in every detail, and crafted

with intention.

At Timberland, built on craft, visit Timberland.com to shop.

Going outside is so in during spring-fest and lows.

For a limited time, get extra big deals on select Holland Papers, three for one dollar.

Plus, save $70 in a char broil performance for Burner Grill.

Now $179 in Chef Up Sherables for your whole crew.

Fix your perfect patios in good food.

Yes, please.

Our best lineup is here at Loves.

Valet to 330, boss applies last, selection varies by location, pay for offer exclusive

last and why.

Starting a business can seem like a daunting task, unless you have a partner like Shopify.

They have the tools you need to start and grow your business.

From designing a website, to marketing, to selling, and beyond, Shopify can help with

everything you need.

There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Hines, and Allbirds continue to trust

and use them.

Does Shopify on your side turn your big business idea into?

Sign up for your $1 per month trial at Shopify.com slash special offer.

All right, let's turn now to this week's C-SPAN flashback where we dig deep into the video

archives to show you a moment from political history that echoes today's headlines.

As the U.S. continues military action in Iran, questions about when and why the country

uses force abroad are once again front and center.

That was the case back in 1998 in the aftermath of terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in

the East Africa.

Here's President Bill Clinton in an address to the nation on why he ordered military strikes

in Afghanistan and Sudan in response to those attacks.

There have been and will be times when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply

not enough.

When our very national security is challenged and when we must take extraordinary steps

to protect the safety of our citizens, with compelling evidence that the bin Laden network

of terrorist groups was planning the amount further attacks against Americans and other

freedom-loving people, I decided America must act.

And so this morning, based on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team,

I ordered our armed forces to take action to counter an immediate threat from the bin

law.

Like President Trump, President Clinton did not obtain nor seek congressional authorization

for those strikes.

And like the current president, President Clinton claimed authority under Article 2 of the

Constitution to act in the nation's self-defense as commander in chief.

And as the Iran conflict continues today, I'm joined by two national security pros with

White House experience, Jamil Jaffer, who's held roles in the White House Council's office,

the Justice Department's National Security Division, and both the House Intelligence and

Senate Foreign Relations Committees, he now leads the National Security Institute and

Samantha Vinaigrad, a former Biden administration department of Homeland Security official.

She also held roles in the Obama National Security Council and at the Treasury Department

during the George W. Bush administration.

My goodness, those are some impressive resumes.

I'm so lucky to have you both here today.

Thanks, Josh.

Awesome to be here.

Let's talk about your experience and your perspective on what's going on today.

You both have held very important national security roles.

How does coordination with the White House work in this kind of environment, in this kind

of moment when the stakes are so high?

Well, I think we back up and just think about how we even arrive at a decision to use military

force the way that we're seeing right now.

In my experience, intelligence is always driving decision-making.

We can talk about whether that actually happened in this case or not.

But when a president decides to commit U.S. forces, U.S. military assets to go after

another country, typically intelligence is directing his decision-making in the sense

that you want to know if the regime is going to react to other forms of pressure.

You want to know what you're going after, intelligence can help identify targets, and you want

to know ultimately whether military operations are going to sway the perspectives of the people

that you want to sway.

Now, I don't know how much intelligence was integrated into the president's decision

to commit so much military hardware to the region, and I don't know if intelligence is

driving decisions on whether to send additional military forces to the Middle East or not,

or whether intelligence is driving how diplomacy is playing out.

We know that there might be a series of meetings that could take place if the right folks

agreed to sit down at the negotiating table, so intelligence has been a common thread

through the negotiations I've been involved in, and I'm just wondering if that's in play

here.

Yeah, Jimmy, I'll talk about once you do make this sort of decision as the commander-in-chief,

what are the conversations that the president is having with various agency heads in a time

like this?

Well, look, obviously, the president wants to know how effective his menu support is going

to be, how effective is it being right now, what more do I need to do, are we protected

in the homeland, are we safe here, where are the threats to our allies, and Americans abroad?

And so, the president's trying to understand the entire dynamic of this situation, what

more do I need to achieve on the battlefield, what more do I need to achieve in negotiations,

what do I need to do to keep people safe in the military, in the theater of war, as well

as here at home, and Americans all around the world?

This week, the U.S. reportedly sent Iran a 15-point cease-fire plan, but it didn't necessarily

go over well.

CNBC some did up like this, Iran rejects U.S. cease-fire offer, demands sovereignty over

the strait of Hormuz.

I mean, there's a lot of noise going on right now, but the sides do seem pretty far apart.

How do these negotiations work?

What is your expectation in the next steps in the process here?

I'm not putting a lot of focus on what's being said publicly right now.

Having been involved in various negotiations that ultimately did pan out, I am unsurprised

with both the United States and Iran, or both saying the other side is so thirsty to

come to negotiating table.

I'm also not surprised that everyone's starting from a maximalist position.

That's just negotiating 101.

So I think the big question is, do both parties, at any point, think they can trust each

other?

The Iranian regime remnants have good reason not to trust President Trump, right?

He backed out of the first Iran nuclear deal.

He launched military strikes in the midst of the last Iranian negotiations.

And President Trump has a lot of reason to question whether, whomever he's negotiating

with on the Iranian side, not only his credibility with the United States, but his credibility

within Iran itself.

And so I actually think the intelligence community is whatever is left on the Iranian side

and on the U.S. side are probably trying to sort all that out, whether they can be confident

in one another.

And you mentioned the straight of Hormuz, kind of the elephant in the room right now.

You know, you asked me how decisions like this are made, typically the energy department

and the intelligence community would have come together and said, this is what the impact

on global markets is going to be in the intelligence community would have said, this is what Iran

is going to do vis-à-vis the straight if they're under military pressure.

And again, query whether that happened or not.

Yeah, Jimmy, from what you have seen publicly, does it seem like the administration was

prepared for how Iran would react and what would happen with that straight?

Well, I think Sam is exactly right.

When a president acts, you rely on all the intelligence, all the information you're

given, but at the same time, a president has his or her instincts about what's going

to happen, how this is going to play out, and how much wiggle room they've got with the

American public, ongoing a war, with Congress, on where they're going to get involved, with

the other side on whether they're going to respond to the pressure, and how things are

going to play out.

And what happened here, clearly, there's no doubt that the president was briefed that

the straights of our firm moves were going to be in play, right?

If it is the first move that Iran would take in a conflict like this, they've threatened

it over and over again, they've closed the straights in the past.

This is not a new or surprising move, right?

So actually, the only surprise on the straights of our firm moves is that it took this long

for them to try and shut it down.

It should have happened in the first week.

It didn't.

It took them a few weeks to get there.

They're there now.

So the president now is reacting to that.

The problem of years have been, the president's instinct was, they wouldn't close it, they'd

buckle.

They haven't.

And now the question is, how does this play out?

Will he buckle?

Is this 15 point peace plan?

Both again, Maxwell's.

They have a five point version.

He has a 15 point version.

Are they going to come to a middle?

Are they both going to remain in their corners, is this fight going to go on for weeks and

weeks to continue?

So the president's top global negotiators had been his son-in-law Jared Kushner and special

envoy Steve Wyckoff.

But there's reporting now that Iran has expressed a preference for negotiating with Vice

President JD Vance, quoting CNN here, the message which was passed through back channels

to the U.S.

Signals Iran believes discussions involving Wyckoff and Kushner wouldn't be productive

given the deficit of trust following the breakout of negotiations prior to Israel and

U.S.

launching military action.

Vance in contrast to Wyckoff Kushner and even Secretary of State Marco Rubio is viewed

as more sympathetic to wanting to end the war, the sources change.

Sam, could changing up the negotiators have an effect here?

I personally don't think it's really going to matter who's on the other side than negotiating

table.

I think the Iranians at the end of the day want to make sure whoever they're negotiating

with is actually speaking on behalf of the president, but that still doesn't answer the

question about whether they can actually trust the president.

And so we may see JD Vance go to sit with the Iranians at the Pakistanis, rapport,

reportedly serving as a mediator, can make something happen, but that still doesn't answer

the question as to whether they can trust President Trump.

At the beginning of this, the U.S.

sort of touched gloves with Israel and said, you know, we're doing this together.

But there's been a lot of reporting and based on the comments publicly, the aims of Israel

and those of the United States aren't necessarily completely aligned.

How does the U.S. work through that?

Look, I'm not sure I believe the way it's played out in the media, right?

This idea that Israel is hitting oil, oil sites in Iran without consulted with the

U.S.

Not the U.S.

Knowing.

There's no question that Israel is letting us know when they're hitting sites and what

they're doing.

The fact that the president might explain some frustration, displace some frustration

with it after the fact that they have pulled them back, that's part of the negotiating

strategy, right?

To show that, look, we're not, we want these attacks to happen, right?

But we want to do with some amount of deniability, right?

There's no question the president and the United States and Israel are of a peace on this

effort.

We got the same goal.

We want Iran and its nuclear program and their support of terrorism.

Ideally, we'd see regime change.

The president made that clear on day one, where he called the Iranian people to rise up

when the time was right.

That time has not yet come.

It's not clear that time will ever come, given our limited commitment to this fight.

And so we'll see how this plays out.

But at the end of the day, I don't think there's real, there's real air space between Prime

Minister Netanyahu and the president.

I think what you're seeing here is the way I play in the story out to give everyone

a little bit of top cover to figure out what happens next.

Sam, what are you seeing here?

I just don't think we really know what ultimately the U.S. objectives are.

I think it is certainly true that the president is focused on getting rid of the Iranian

nuclear program.

Now, nuclear disarmament, as you both know, is incredibly complicated and takes time when

you have a friendly government on the other side and when you're not in the middle of a war.

But I definitely think that that's a non-negotiable.

In terms of daylight between the U.S. and Israel on regime change and ballistic missiles

and support for terrorism, the president and other officials in the administration, that's

been an evolving narrative.

It's been a bit of a roller coaster.

So certainly the 15-point plan lays out everything.

But in terms of what the non-negotiables are for the administration, I'm still scratching

my head a bit and wondering what they're going to settle for if it comes down to it.

Can we talk about China because—

Finally a meeting in the way, yes.

I could see it in your head that you were itching to discuss it.

Yeah, let's just bring that in.

Where is China and all of this?

What are they benefiting from?

What are the concerns for Chinese leadership right now?

It's a mix-back in the sense that China has for years and the intelligence community has

said this publicly.

China has for years been trying to position itself as an alternative leader to the U.S.-led

liberal democratic order.

So to the extent that the United States is viewed as being erratic, causing disruption,

being destabilizing, that is a net positive for the people's Republic of China and the Communist

Party there.

At the same time, of course, China is buying a heck of a lot of energy products among other

commodities from Iran and other commodities that pass through the state of Hormuz.

China has certainly been stockpiling reserves for several months.

It does have a buffer.

But these energy market disruptions, the overall commodities disruptions, fertilizer and other

things, will hit China.

So at the end of the day, you know, the fact that this Xi Trump meeting has finally been

on the books does make me think that there have been other discussions between China and

the United States about—

Yeah, it's mid-May now.

It's just a plan.

Yeah, mid-May.

It was going to be at the end of March about where this war is going.

I don't think that President Xi will meet with President Trump.

If the U.S. is still bombing Iran, I don't think that that would look good for President

Xi, not that he's really worried about getting reelected in that system.

But it does make me think that they have been having discussions.

Bloomberg is reporting that Turkey is urging Gulf Arab states not to join the war against

Iran.

Jamil, can you talk a little bit about the pressures that other countries in the Middle

East are under right now?

Well, look, obviously, our Middle Eastern allies have been hit hard by Iran.

They have been launching ballistic missiles by the dozens and hundreds in the early days,

drones and the like at facilities, including hitting desalination facilities in Bahrain and

elsewhere.

United Air Emirates, we've seen efforts to go after civilian infrastructure.

We've seen efforts to go after data centers, American data centers in Bahrain and the

UAE.

So we've seen a real hit on our Arab allies, and they're understandably frustrated and upset.

Not with the United States, but with Iran, whose President went on television, apologized

for hitting his neighbors, even as IRGC was hitting its neighbors in real time.

And so this is obviously a huge problem for our allies.

The idea that Turkey, a NATO ally, is going around telling people not to get involved

in this war on our side of the war is a concerning and troubling fact.

I mean, you know, Turkey is an interesting country in NATO.

They bought Russian S-400.

Interesting as being kind.

No, that's right.

I mean, you know, look, I mean, it's not a great place to be.

It's a NATO ally, notionally, we have air bases in Turkey, and yet they're buying

Russian S-400s.

They're working against our allies.

The Kurds, I mean, it's a very difficult relationship and President Trump is sought to

make a better relationship with President Erdogan.

Going around and telling our allies to not get in this fight with us is not going to

do President Erdogan any favors with this administration, particularly when our Arab

allies are the ones that are getting hit.

Yeah, I mean, the President has tried to pull Turkey closer.

He's also formed stronger relationships with Qatar, with Saudi Arabia, with the UAE.

How are those dynamics playing into this?

Well, certainly, President Trump's embrace of the Gulf Arabs has been helpful in this

conflict, right?

I mean, you see Qatar, you see Saudi Arabia, you see the Emirates.

They have been standing with the United States ever since Operation Epic Fury started.

Over the course of the past few weeks, their public statements, not to mention what

has happened privately, have become increasingly focused on the right to self-defense, and hinting

not so subtly at the fact that they might interpret self-defense much more broadly than

others if they continue to be hit.

And so I do think that President Trump's strong relationships with those countries has

been helpful as part of Operation Epic Fury, and what I'm waiting to see is whether these

countries actually start committing military assets to proactively defend themselves versus

just responding to incoming fire.

And what will that mean?

We, you know, there's a lot of hypotheticals here, but if you want to interpret self-defense

much more broadly, you start launching more offensive operations, providing intelligence,

and the like to help identify, for example, other Iranian, you know, missile sites that

might still be there, and other, even just providing intelligence for US targeting, could

be a much broader interpretation of self-defense versus just shooting down drones and missiles

that are coming into their airspace.

There's rhetoric, and then there's the actual reality of what actions are being taken,

right?

And the President has been saying he's winding things down, and he's negotiating at

the same time we are seeing more troops move into the region, just based on forgetting

the rhetoric, based on what you are seeing happen in the region.

Are we closer to the end, or are we ramping up?

Well, look, it's hard to know because the question is why are these two marine expeditions

sharing this going into the theater?

Why is the 82nd Airborne being deployed?

Is it a negotiating tactic to try and put pressure on Iran and say, look, if you don't

get with the program and negotiate a deal, we're going to take Karaghal and we're going

to have to abandon our boss.

We're going to reopen the streets of our moves ourselves, we're going to start escorting

ships through, or is that the plan, right?

And so we've got a marine expeditions sharing unit coming over from Okinawa.

That'll be there soon, about 2,200 Marines.

There are 2,200 coming from California on the boxer, that's going to take a little

while to get there.

And then you've got the 82nd Airborne showing up.

This is a lot of firepower and a lot of potential boots on the ground, President said no

boots on the ground.

Well, we might see that, and then you've got Secretary Rubio saying somebody's got to

go into the ground to get that highly enriched uranium, 60% for 40 kilograms in Iran, well,

who's that going to be?

Are we going to deploy American troops into Iran that seems unlikely, you know, these

raids are going to go in?

Where are they going to get it from?

Are these allegedly in these tunnels buried on the rubble, if you believe they're

running for minister?

You've got to believe that the Iran's have highly enriched uranium, their centrifuge capability

isn't completely gone either.

Where are those facilities that are still covert, are they in their pickaxe mountain near

Natanz?

We don't know for sure, those sites may be a problem as well.

Yes, Sam, you've been in these rooms when these conversations about military strategy

are happening.

What are you seeing?

How are you reading these signals?

I actually – I'm strongly against U.S. boots on the ground in Iran to be clear, but

I think generally speaking, it is smart strategy to really have all options on the table.

So when engaging in diplomacy and if you're unsure that it's going to lead anywhere, having

the military option fully ready to go diplomacy fails, it's smart.

And so it's not unusual to be pursuing both lines of effort at once.

I do think that you raise an important point, which is the Iranians have every reason

to believe that these negotiations are just to buy time for the additional military assets

to arrive in theater.

We saw this play out in January and February, right?

Steve Wichoff and Jared Kushner were negotiating with the Iranians while the additional carrier

strike groups, as well as other assets, were moving to the region.

So I do think the Iranians are very suspicious of the motives here behind negotiations, and

that's going to present a lot of challenges.

Former Secretary of Defense, during the first drop administration, General Jim Mattis weighed

in on the Iran War this week, listen.

I think that what we're seeing is a situation where target tree never makes up for a lack

of strategy.

And by that, I mean, 15,000 targets have been hit.

There have been significant military successes, but they are not matched by strategic outcomes.

Now, some of the strategic outcomes early on, unconditional surrender, regime change,

we're going to dictate who the next supreme leader is.

Those were clearly nonsense, those were delusional.

I mean, you two, as the experts, do you see a clear strategy here?

No, I think that's what we're just talking about.

It's unclear whether this was regime change, it's unclear whether this was about the

nuclear program, the ballistic missile program, stopping support for terrorism, and the

lack of that strategy is lending itself to a situation where we could keep blowing stuff

up in Iran for months to come, and the strait could stay closed for months to come.

And so it's not a lack of military targeting or military hardware.

It's knowing what it's going to take to achieve an objective, and just based on what we've

heard publicly, we still don't know what that is.

And at the second round, I mean, Sam Leitt on earlier, the president's story and his administration

story about what we were seeking to achieve has changed day to day from individual to individual,

and even sometimes within one speech from the president's self, he's on stage saying,

we won just not enough, right?

What does that mean?

Right?

And what are we trying to achieve?

Was it regime change?

Was the nuclear program?

Was it their navy?

Was the ballistic missiles?

Is it a support of terror?

Is it all those things?

Right?

And if you don't know what your goal is, or if you don't publicly explain what your goal is,

and then you don't achieve it, or you only get part way there, it looks like you might

have lost, even though you've actually achieved significantly the success of the battlefield.

And the military has done, the military and intelligence community has done a phenomenal

job here, right?

This is a no pun intended epic operation, and hats off to them, but we could keep at

this for a long time if we're not very clear on what we want to achieve.

That's going to cost money and it could cost more lives.

You both also have extensive homeland security experience.

If you were in the White House right now, how concerned would you be about threats here

at home?

Iranian threats from the Iranian regime have kept me up at night for a very long time,

and certainly Iran has evolved its tactics.

Has relied on proxies, has relied on sleeper cells of individuals that it's fostered here.

Right now, what I'm actually really concerned about is their ability to inspire individuals

to action here in the homeland and against American traveling overseas.

And I'm really concerned about their cyber capabilities, Dasha.

The regime has invested in aggressive and effective cyber tactics that have the possibility

to be incredibly destabilizing here.

They haven't flipped the switch yet.

As far as we know, at the same time, the U.S. government has been working to counter

Iranian threats for 47 years.

We're quite good at it, but I'm worried about it, Jamil.

Yeah, look, I think they have capabilities here in the homeland.

I think they have capabilities in Europe, particularly with Lebanese Hezbollah, that

actually effectuate operations.

The Hezbollah leadership has been, has suffered significantly under Israeli pressure for

the last year or two since we started bombing Iran, since we started, since they started

to post October 7th operations, I think that's hampered Hezbollah's ability.

So they operate, but they have capabilities here in the United States.

It's very concerning to me.

I do worry about the Iran decision to move forward with their proxy to unleash them here

in the homeland and abroad against American targets.

And Sam is exactly right.

Their cyber capabilities are there since 2015.

Iran was the first country in the world, followed shortly by North Korea, to attack America

in the cyber domain and create destructive effects on American infrastructure against American

companies.

So we know they've had the capability for a long time.

They have less good access than do the Russians or the Chinese, but it increased willingness

to use it.

Why they haven't done it thus far at scale?

It's unclear.

We'll see what happens over the next few weeks or months, but that's what I be looking

at.

I think terrorism and cyber are exactly the right things.

All right.

Let's take a bit of something a little bit different.

This is our weekly feature, not on my bingo card where we highlight funny offbeat or downright

weird political or cultural moments.

You guys may have seen a little bit of this.

First lady, Melania Trump held a summit at the White House focused on the development

of educational technologies for children.

The first lady was accompanied by an AI-powered humanoid named Figure 3, who gave the opening

remarks.

Take a listen.

Thank you, First Lady, Melania Trump, for inviting me to the White House.

It is an honor to be at fostering the future together as global coalition in entrepreneurial

meeting.

I'm Figure 3, a humanoid built from the United States of America.

I am grateful to be part of this historic movement to empower children with technology and

education.

Welcome.

Okay.

If I was a kid, I might have some nightmares after that, but who did the runway walk better?

Melania or Figure 3?

I was Figure 3.

I'm going to go to Melania.

I'm going to come up.

That was, honestly, it was not on my bingo card this week.

Melania and her runway walk off with an AI robot.

That is all the time we have.

Thank you both so much.

Jamil Jaffa former associate counsel to the president and Sam Vennograd former assistant

secretary for counterterrorism and threat prevention at the Department of Homeland

Security.

Thank you both.

Really appreciate your time.

And let's close this week's program with our ceasefire moment of the week, highlighting

what's possible when politicians come together as Americans, not just partisans.

The bipartisan policy center held a conversation with mayors from across the aisle on creating

economic opportunity for their constituents.

Here's a portion of that event.

Mayors are forced to be bipartisan.

In Fort Worth, we do not run as Republican or Democrat in some cities they do, but ultimately

when you take office, as soon as you do, you have a responsibility to all of the people

in your city.

And you have to be able to count to a certain number based on your council size to get

anything done on any given Tuesday for us.

I think national strategies and state strategies are set, but talent pipelines, which is a term

I want to keep coming back to, are really set in cities.

And I think that's been our experience in crisis, but also in that long term kind of urgent

need to come up with strategies that respond, not in a vacuum, to what the needs of citizens

in America are about for prosperity in the future in a very insecure time.

And that's all the time we have for this episode ceasefire is also available as a podcast

by us in all the usual places.

I'm Dasha Burns, and remember whether or not you agree, keep talking and keep listening.

This episode is brought to you by Nespresso, introducing Virtual Up, the latest and a long

line of innovation from Nespresso.

It's innovation you can touch, sense, and taste in every single cup.

With a 3-second start, easy open lever, and dedicated brew over ice button, it's even

easier to enjoy your coffee your way.

Sit for yourself, shop Virtual Up exclusively at nespresso.com.