Trump Pauses U.S. Effort to Guide Ships Through Strait

The breaking news tonight, the old operation is over, the new one is on hold. We think that's what the administration announced just moments ago. John Berman here in for Anderson. And just hours after his Secretary of State flat out said the initial mission against Iran, epic fury, was over, the president said the operation that replaced it, guiding ships in the Strait of Hormuz, Project Freedom, as it's called, is paused. And not surprisingly, the president announced this 180 online, quoting him now. to see whether or not the agreement can be finalized and signed. So those words landed just a short time ago, and they completely upended a day of singing the praises of, you guessed it, Project Freedom. This is a defensive operation, and what that means is very simple. There's no shooting unless we're shot at first. We're not attacking them, but if they're attacking us or they're attacking a ship, you need to respond to that. This is defensive. So if you hear stories about attacks and launching of firing back and forth, it's not back and forth. We are only responding if attacked first. So this echoes similar language from the defense secretary earlier today, who was also asked point blank about yesterday's exchange of hostilities in and around the strait. Listen to him pivot away from the clashes and toward this new mission, which, again, the president has just put on hold. last 24 hours or so Iran's fired at us we fired at Iran I'm just going to ask you more directly is the ceasefire over no the ceasefire is not over ultimately this is a separate and distinct project and we expected there would be some some churn at the beginning which which happened and we said we would defend and defend aggressively and we absolutely have Iran knows that and ultimately the president's going to make a decision whether anything were to escalate into a violation of a ceasefire. But certainly we would urge Iran to be prudent in the actions that they take to keep that underneath this threshold. This is about the straits. This is about freedom of navigation. Which was the selling point. It would certainly be a good thing for much of the world, just not quite yet. And for reasons not yet clear, after a grand total of two ships made through the strait under American protection yesterday, and apparently none today. In fact, shortly before the president's announcement, the British maritime intelligence firm, UKMTO, reported that another cargo vessel had been hit in the strait. So let's begin with CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes standing by for us. And Kristen, frankly, do you have any insight about what this post from the president actually means? John, it's been a real roller of a day for Project Freedom. We heard so much praise for this humanitarian effort from both the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, and Marco Rubio. And most notably, as you mentioned, Marco Rubio really painted this as a pivot, a new operation that we had turned the page and we were now in Project Freedom. Epic Fury was completely done. That was the most definitive answer that we have had so far that that part of this operation was over. Now we were in Project Freedom, which appears to not exist at this time because it is put on hold. Now, a couple of things. One, this is all related to those 23,000 sailors that are currently stranded. They're from 87 countries. We heard the chairman, Dan Kane, talking about this today in the Persian Gulf because of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which is why, as you noted, there was a lot of emphasis on the humanitarian effort there to get those sailors off those ships or get those ships through the strait. The other part of this, though, is that we had seen a real escalation with Iran when it came to hostilities. We saw them firing at ally countries like the UAE. We also saw them firing at U.S. ships. The U.S. in turn fired back, taking out roughly six ships, according to the Pentagon. Clearly, in that space, there was growing tensions. Now, what we don't have an answer to is where the negotiations currently stand, And because Rubio had really danced around that during that press briefing, he made it sound as though, yes, diplomacy was the number one goal. That was what they were efforting. That is what President Trump wanted, talking about Steve Wyckoff and Jared Kushner working towards some kind of a deal with Iran. But he also made it very clear during that briefing that it wasn't 100 percent that there was going to be a deal, that things were not going very smoothly, that there might be a time, even in the near future, in which this completely fell apart. And he held the, he left the door open for President Trump to resume any kind of military strikes, which we took in the briefing room to be part of Project Freedom since Epic Fury is over, but clearly there is no Project Freedom here. So this idea that now the talks with Iran have gotten so close that they had to pause Project Freedom, that is where we don't understand the dynamics from what we heard from Marco Rubio in the briefing where it didn't sound like they were necessarily completely aligned to President Trump saying this is a brief pause because they believe they're going to come to some kind of agreement. That's what we're trying to get to the bottom of the White House tonight. Well, we'll let you keep working on that, Kristen, because frankly, we could use some answers here. There is a great deal of confusion. Let us know if you get some clarity. We appreciate it. With us now, Edward Fishman, director of the Center for Geoeconomics at the Council on Foreign relations. He previously served as sanctions lead for the U.S. State Department under the Obama administration when the U.S. put oil sanctions on Iran. He's also the author of Choke Points, American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare. Also with us, retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Layton, a CNN military analyst and CNN global affairs analyst and senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Kareem Sajjapur. I got to say, we have the right people here to try to understand what may not be understandable at this point. But Edward, how do you interpret The president's 180 just a few moments ago. I think it's an admission that Project Freedom is dead on arrival. It was not working. As you said, yesterday we got two ships through the strait, and today, zero. And beyond that, the Iranians retaliated, right? They struck, they tried to strike some U.S. warships. They blew up a Korean vessel, a Korean cargo ship, and they launched attacks on the UAE. So I think this is an admission that it wasn't working, and we're still in this bind, where in order to end this oil crisis, we need to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. but it doesn't seem like we're going to get that absent some sort of diplomatic agreement. Senator Colonel, is there any military reason to pause Project Freedom when only two vessels made it through the strait over the last 24 hours? Yeah, that's a really great question, John. When you look at something like this happening, usually a Project Freedom type endeavor is done when you can really close off the kinetic option. But in this particular situation, we really don't have a final moment here in the kinetic side of things. And I think Epic Fury was terminated perhaps prematurely just from a military operational perspective. And, you know, as Eddie was mentioning, there are no real finishing touches to any of this. It seems as if neither the kinetic option nor the Project Freedom option, which is an escort, basically an escort mission, came through. And that shows that there is at least some level of either confusion or disorganization when it comes to what the White House is doing right now. Kareem, and forgive me for asking the same version of a similar question here, but it gets to, I think, the confusion as we sit here tonight. How do you interpret the president pausing this new operation? And just as importantly, how do you think the Iranians will interpret this? Well, John, I kind of think of President Trump as the Jackson Pollock of grand strategy, the great artist Jackson Pollock, in that, you know, to many observers, he's just kind of violently throwing paint on canvas to his supporters. They will say that's the art of the deal. He's keeping the Iranian regime on its toes. And it is true that Tehran, it's impossible for those of us who live in Washington to read President Trump's intentions, let alone the Iranian government. And the Iranian government, they've been, it's not an exaggeration to say they've been obsessed with the United States government for 47 years. They've been preparing for this moment. And they're usually a pretty keen judge of U.S. resolve. And I think if they feel that President Trump's resolve is waning and he wants to end this war, you will see, John, their demands will increase and their risk tolerance and provocations will also increase as well. Just to be clear, Kareem, it does seem the Iranians escalated a bit yesterday at the beginning of Operation Project Freedom. Is it possible they will feel like that escalation has been rewarded by causing this operation to stop so quickly? That's definitely a possibility. And as Eddie and I were talking about last week, Iran essentially wants to try to normalize and formalize its control over the Strait of Hormuz, to use it as a revenue generator and as a deterrent against future attacks. And this is a question for Eddie, because I'm hard-pressed to think of any country in the world that would like to see that outcome. But then the question is, who is going to, aside from the United States, be willing to challenge them? Eddie, what about that? So look, yesterday didn't get much headlines, but the Iranians actually announced a Persian Gulf Strait Authority. They are in the process right now of institutionalizing their control over the world's most important energy choke point. And just for a matter of scale, if the Iranians are able to actually charge a toll of $2 million a ship, which is what they're talking about, for the oil sector, it's actually not that big of a deal. That's about $1 a barrel for most oil tankers going through the strait. But if you actually add it up, It's about $50 billion of revenue for the Iranian regime. If you just think about what that does, how transformative it is for Iran, I think it's the type of thing where the only way for Iran to give up that kind of a revenue stream is if they're forced to do so. And right now, it doesn't seem like anyone's ready to force them to give it up. Eddie, stand by for a second. Kareem and Cedric, stand by as well. Because we have Nick Robertson for us in Islamabad, where so many of these negotiations and the discussions have been at least passing through. It's sort of the hub of this complicated diplomatic wheel right now. Nick, do you have any clarity on what's going on at this hour? Yeah, I think I do. And we've got the clues from both Secretary Hagseth and Secretary Rubio. Secretary Rubio, who's really focused on this issue of trying to find some very simple language, some very simple steps, a memorandum of understanding that sets out the key issues that will be discussed. That is precisely what is in play and what is happening here. And we heard from Secretary Hegseth today say sometimes the actions of the IRGC go out with the bounds of what the negotiators want. That's exactly what we've witnessed. With Project Freedom, the IRGC went out with the bounds of where the negotiators are. For the negotiators to get to the table, and this is what President Trump was. That's what Secretary Rubio said today. President Trump just wants to get to the table to talk about these issues. And what everyone is trying to do is simplify those issues down, get them to just three or four very small issues that can be agreed upon so that the moderates here can actually get to the table and talk face to face to move the thornier issues forward. because the more issues both sides present, the more the hardliners, certainly in Iran, jump on board. The more that Project Freedom pushed its agenda, the more that Epic Fury pushed its agenda, the more the hardliners in Iran stood up and had a bigger voice. If there is any hope of achieving what the president wants to achieve, which is talks, which is simple points to get into those talks, it is by pausing the kinetic activity. And yes, everyone who says that only gives the IRGC that greater sense of power and achievement of things they don't want to let go. What seems to be happening and what my understanding of what is happening is, if you can get to the table, then you can push the IRGC's agenda to the margins and try to get some substantive agreement. remembering that when J Vance was here on the 11th and 12th of April it seems so long ago now the assessment then was that they were very close to a deal It slipped through their fingers I think there's an effort to try to recapture that moment. But by continuing in a military or a vein that the IRGC sees as provocations, that's not going to work. So from my understanding from the big picture, from the details I see here, that I think is what's in play. Nick Robertson, thank you so much for that explanation. Stand by for a second. So, Colonel Layton, let me bring you back into the conversation here. You can look at this, I suppose, in one of two ways, that the Iranian hardliners, the ROGC, maybe successfully pushed Project Freedom away, and or that, even if that is true, it's good to create space to have talks begin again if that's what happens? Yeah, that's definitely a possibility, John. And, you know, what we're seeing, as Nick was pointing out here, there's really a lot of infighting going on within Iran right now. And the IRGC clearly has a great deal of power within Iran, and they also have an agenda. Now, if the diplomatic side or the more moderate side can carry the day and actually achieve an agreement with the United States, that would certainly be progress. And if the White House can make that happen along with their Iranian counterparts, then perhaps the Strait of Hormuz can actually be reopened. But if they've set up a toll booth mechanism, in essence, as Eddie was mentioning, that can be a very significant obstacle because the Iranians won't want to give up that revenue stream. And it's going to make for some interesting negotiations, I think. Karim, you heard what Nick had to say, what he's hearing on the ground in Islamabad. But is there enough space for the moderates in Iran now to make a deal that would marginalize the hardliners? John, I'm actually skeptical of that line of analysis simply because the IRGC is the government in Iran. The idea that there are moderate factions who have any ability to control the outcome of the war or deliver anything substantive on the nuclear file without the IRGC's permission is simply inaccurate. So it is true that this is a country, Iran, which is suffering as a result of this blockade. They're now battling 70 percent inflation. They're losing approximately $450 million a day due to the blockade. So I don't doubt there are elements within the regime who want to see this war concluded. But the IRGC is the government. So I'm skeptical of this line of analysis that somehow we can push out the IRGC and empower moderates in Iran. No, the IRGC is the Iranian government right now. It may be a level of wish casting, but they may have no better option at this point. Eddie, when you heard the Secretary of State say that Operation Epic Fury was over, and until a day and a half ago, that was the war on Iran. Whatever you called it, that was this military operation. For him to say it was over, and to what end, right? I mean, the Iranian regime is still in place. Iran still has its enriched uranium. The Strait of Hormuz is closed, and they're done? I'm having the same thought that you're having. It's kind of confusing, and I know the Gulf countries, like the Saudis and the Emiratis, don't want to hear that because the status quo right now is intolerable. The Iranians have 440 kilograms of high enriched uranium still in the country, enough to make 10 nuclear bombs. And critically, they control the Strait of Hormuz. So if we were actually just to walk away without having any sort of deal where Iran's pausing uranium enrichment for hopefully at least a decade, where they're getting rid of that high enriched uranium, and critically, where they're not setting up a toll of the Strait of Hormuz, where it's going back to being an international waterway. I don't see how this is anything besides a humiliating defeat for the United States. Nick Robertson, I want to go back to you and Islamabad one last time here while we're in this discussion to find out what else you're hearing and what you're going to be looking for, I think, really in the next 12 to 24 hours. Looking for some kind of momentum, and I don't think it's going to come. Look, what I laid out there is what clearly the effort and focus is to try to achieve. And that's what I see, what I hear happening here. I see it and hear it in detail. But am I convinced that that's actually going to succeed for the reasons we laid out? Because the hardliners have the upper hand. We've heard what the president in Iran has said. There was a very real feeling here that there was a moment when J.D. Vance was here that the moderates sort of had a hand that everyone questioned afterwards when those talks failed to get agreement. Well, perhaps they didn't really have enough power to push everything through. But there was a sense here in Islamabad that it could have been done if the talks had gone a bit longer. But absolutely, when those more moderates went back to Tehran, they become more circumspect. The IRGC has grown stronger in this environment. Remember, when the talks first happened, that was right after the ceasefire had been called into play. Things were new. Things were fresh. It is different now, and I do doubt that the moderates can win over the hardliners. But I know from what I see and hear here what people are trying to achieve and how they're trying to do it. And it's great to have you there. You're absolutely in the right place to give us this reporting. We're lucky to have you there. We look forward to hearing more from you over the next 12 to 24 hours, because there's frankly just a great deal of confusion about where things stand tonight and why they stand there. Nick Robertson, Eddie Fishman, Colonel Cedric Leighton, Kareem Sajjapour, thank you so much. Next, we're going to get more reaction from tonight's breaking news. The Senate's top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee weighs in. And then later, fresh developments in that deadly viral nightmare at sea. Three ill passengers evacuating tonight from a cruise ship after three others die, apparently of a disease that's typically transmitted by rodents, but could now be passing from person to person. Also, we'll look ahead at tonight's CNN debate between the top seven contenders in a crowded and consequential race to become California's next governor. You are looking at U.S. war groups in the Persian Gulf. Their two-day-old mission protecting shipping through the state of Hormuz now on hold. That's according to the president, who made the announcement tonight. The reason he gave, and these are his words, great progress toward a complete and final agreement with representatives of Iran. Just before airtime, I spoke with Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. He is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator, I just want to read again part of the post from President Trump tonight on social media, who announced just a few minutes ago that Project Freedom, the movement of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, will be paused for a short period of time to see whether or not an agreement can be finalized and signed. He said this was mutually agreed upon by several countries, including Pakistan. I guess it's unclear whether Iran's agreeing to this or not. But how do you read this? Well, this is another example of the strategic incoherence that has dominated this whole operation. The president did not get the authority to conduct this war. He then entered into a conflict with very ill-defined objectives and with attempts to supposedly eliminate their uranium and enriched uranium products to change the regime. None of that has been manifested. And now, one day, we suspend Operation Epic Fury. We take a timeout. The next day, we impose Operation Freedom, which is going to guide ships through the canal. And the next day, we annul Operation Freedom, or at least temporarily suspend it. It's completely incoherent. And we have not heard anything from the Iranians, nor have we heard anything from what is the substance of this agreement. Operation Project Freedom, as it were, which had been in place for a day and a half, two days. As far as we know, two merchant vessels made it through in total. Can that be judged as a success? Absolutely not. There's approximately 1,500 vessels waiting to get through. And at the same time they were conducting Operation Freedom, the Iranian struck facilities in the United Arab Emirates. They also reportedly fired at vessels and perhaps even our own Navy vessels and have made no suggestion that they're stopping their blockade. And we're now in a situation where we have a blockade in place and they were trying to break ships through the block. Now they're not taking the ships. So the blockade is what the Iranians were imposing on our forces. This is just absolute confusion, chaos, and impulsive behavior. In Secretary of Defense, Pete Hexeth said it flat out today, and Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, seemed to imply it, that whatever was happening with Operation Project Freedom, the new fight, as distinct from the old fight, they don't think it counts toward the days of conflict in order for Congress to vote on war powers. What do you think of that? It's not supported by the legislation. It's clear that within 60 days of beginning hostilities, the president of the United States must either cease hostilities or get the permission of Congress. You can't take a timeout like in football and say, oh, time out. That's the legislation. And the president, frankly, should have come to us before he even started the hostilities and asked for authority. No, they're just avoiding their legal and constitutional responsibilities. You obviously are the ranking member of armed services. You know more than the rest of us do. You're brief regularly. Is there information that would make things more clear to the American public? Were we to receive the same information you did? This is one of those situations where the Department of Defense is not providing any information to Congress and not just to Democrats, to Republicans too. We had to press overwhelmingly to get the Secretary of Defense to suggest that the total cost of the operation is $25 billion. Well, I don't think that is at all close to the cost. I think it's much higher, But we haven't had any of this information, any of the briefings, anything that in other operations we would get that type of information. So, you know, one, I don't think they want us to have the information. And two, there's a question of whether they really have the information. Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island, we appreciate your time tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much, John. And we have more breaking news. Officials say at least three sick people will be evacuated tonight from a cruise ship stranded off the coast of Africa, off Cape Verde, the island there, after a deadly Hantavirus outbreak. More now from CNN's Randy Kay. I'm Jake, and I'm spending the next 35 days crossing the Atlantic, visiting some of the most remote islands in the world. Passengers like Jake Rosmarin were looking forward to an adventure at sea. Then people started dying on board the MV Hondias cruise ship. And now the World Health Organization suspects the Hantavirus, which usually occurs after exposure to rodents, may be spreading person to person. Passengers have been asked to remain in their cabins while disinfection and other public health measures are carried out. Medical teams from Cabo Verde are providing support on board the ship. The first sign of trouble came when a 70-year-old Dutchman suddenly fell ill on the ship with a fever, headache, abdominal pain and diarrhea. South Africa's health department told CNN he died on April 11th, just 10 days after the ship had left port in Argentina. The man's wife, a 69-year-old Dutch woman, died two weeks later on April 26th at a hospital in South Africa. She'd collapsed at the airport while trying to get home to the Netherlands. The cruise company, Oceanwide Expeditions, confirmed the woman tested positive for a variant of Hantavirus. We do believe that there may be some human-to-human transmission that's happening among the really close contacts, the husband and wife, people who've shared cabins. On April 27th, after the ship left St. Helena, a British national on board got sick. He's now in intensive care in Johannesburg. He also tested positive for the Hantavirus, according to the cruise company, though his condition is improving. And on May 2nd, a third victim died. She was a German national who came down with pneumonia It being treated as a suspected case of the Hantavirus What happening right now is very real for all of us here We not just a story We not just headlines The ship is currently moored off Cape Verde with 149 people on board. We are operating and working with the ship to make sure that anyone who is symptomatic, you know, anyone caring for patients is wearing full personal protective equipment. Medical evacuations like these of those on board suffering from Hantavirus symptoms was a top priority, according to the World Health Organization, which still says the risk to the general public is low. It is less contagious than many other viruses. This is not a virus that spreads like flu or like COVID. It's quite different. How might this have happened? The crews did stop at many different islands up the coast of Africa, and again, seeing a lot of different wildlife. On those islands, there are birds. Some islands have a lot of rodents. Others don't. The WHO suspects it's the Andes virus, a strain of Hantavirus that has spread person to person before. We need sequencing. So the sequencing is currently underway by the South Africans, and we hope to have a result suit. And Randy Case here with me now. So, Randy, beyond the vessel itself, I mean, how are officials trying to contain the spread of this? Well, John, they've already initiated contact tracing for the passengers on that flight to Johannesburg, along with that Dutch woman who later died in the hospital. So they're doing that. But as far as the ship goes, once those three sick people are removed, it does look like it's actually going to be able to dock. The Spanish health ministry confirming just this evening that it will receive the ship at the Canary Islands saying, in quote, in accordance with international law and humanitarian principles. Now, it's going to take like three or four days of cruising to get from where they are in Cape Verde to the Canary Islands. So the crew and the passengers will have to deal with that, with the social distancing and remaining in their cabins until then. But it's also really important to note, John, that this virus can remain in a person's system for up to eight weeks before showing any symptoms at all. So the question is, how long will they be able to quarantine? When will they be able to return to the general public? And where are they going to go? A lot of concern not only for the passengers, their families, but really the rest of the world. I mean, that's what we have to keep remembering. I think a lot of us say, oh, this is so uncomfortable, so uncomfortable. But it's deadly and there's already been a tragic loss of life here. They have to be so careful. Absolutely. Renegade, thank you so much for this. In about 30 minutes, at the top of the next hour, CNN will host the California Governor Primary Debate, moderated by Caitlin Collins and Alex Michelson. The top seven contenders, two Republicans to five Democrats, will face off. The two top two primary winners next month will be on the November ballot. With us now, CNN Chief Data Analyst Harry. And we talk about California and, you know, California politically is so important here. We know the song California Dream. And are voters in California feeling the dream? You know, I love that song. I love 60s music, John. But the 1960s seemed so long ago because Californians no longer believe in the California dream. I mean, take a look here. Say the California dream isn't attainable today. We're talking about 64 percent of all voters, 76 percent of Republicans, 70 percent of independents. and even a majority of Democrats say that the California dream is no longer attainable in this day and age. We are talking about the rare trifecta in which Republicans, independents and Democrats all agree, saying that the California dream is, in fact, no longer attainable, at least in this day and age. Why is that, Mr. Berman? Why is that? Well, it comes down to the cost of living. Say California's cost of living is unmanageable. Look at this. 70 percent of all voters, 77 percent of independents, 73 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Democrats. You rarely see this type of agreement across the board. But you see it here when it comes to the cost of living in California. The vast majority of Democrats, Republicans, independents say that, in fact, it is unmanageable. No wonder they no longer believe in the California dream, Johnny. Voters aren't just saying this to pollsters, Harry, right? they're also kind of voting with their feet? Yeah, they are. They're absolutely saying it with their feet. You know, per our partners at USA Facts, just take a look here. The state population changed from 2024 to 2025. California was one of only five states to actually lose population over the year from 2024 to 2025. So you see the polling data and it matches what you see with boots on the ground, the boots leaving the Golden State, going elsewhere in this country, because simply put, they do not believe that the California dream is attainable these days, and they believe that the cost of living is too high, and you see it across the political spectrum, my friend. Fewer boots. Harry Etten for us tonight, thank you very much. Next, Indiana, where the president is targeting seven fellow Republicans for primary defeat, and has already taken three down. And later, a preview of tonight's CNN California governor's primary debate. That's at the top of the hour and what that race could say about other key contests across the country this fall. I'm Jack McBrayer, and I am back on the hunt to find even wilder. Oh, no! Is this real? It is. More outrageous. You like pink? It's my favorite color. Over-the-top houses on the market. Oh, look at this bathroom. And meet the fascinating people who call these one-of-a-kind places home. How does one obtain a caboose? Zillow Gone Wild, all new season Friday at 9.30 on HGTV. We have more breaking news. A major test tonight of President Trump's grip on the Republican Party. We have new results coming in from Indiana, where the president is flat out seeking revenge on seven Republican state senators who defied him and helped defeat his redistricting effort there last year. Let's get right to CNN's Jeff Zeleny for the latest on what you are hearing and where things stand right now. Well, John, President Trump has been seeking revenge and tonight he is getting it. He has had a successful effort in at least three of the Indiana State Senate primary races, and one of the Trump challengers has failed. So right now the scorecard that the White House is watching very carefully is 3-1, and the Trump-backed candidates is leading in the other two. What are we talking about here? Why are we talking about the Indiana State Senate? Because the senators, the Republicans, who have served for nearly 20 years, each one of them who lost, voted against the president's redistricting plan last December. They said that they did not believe it was appropriate to redraw those maps. The White House has said, we are going to throw you out of office, and that is what is happening this evening. It was a dramatic campaign, millions of dollars spent, and the White House is winning this revenge war, if you will, tonight. Only one non-Trump-backed challenger, Senator Gregg Good, is holding on. His race was a bit peculiar. He was running against two people named Wilson, but he is holding on. So for the White House tonight, one bit of good news in this challenging midterm election year, John. Yeah, somewhere political strategists making their money tonight for putting two people named Wilson on the same ballot. Indeed. There are also prime race in Ohio. Jeff, what's going on there? I mean, this is really going to ring the opening bell for one of the most interesting Senate races we are going to be watching for the next six months. Senator Sherrod Brown, who, of course, was defeated back in 2024. He won the Democratic primary or is projected to a win, as you can see there on screen. So now he is going to face the Republican Senator John Husted. Now, both sides are already putting massive investments, tens of millions of dollars into this via race. And Ohio, you know, was always a key battleground. It is a trended Republican. This November will be the test for Ohio and a test for Sherrod Brown, a very strong campaign there. And Republicans are concerned about it. So no doubt that is a very interesting race. And Vivek Ramaswamy also winning the Republican primary there. He's running for a governor via governor's race. Also very interesting. So Ohio, once again, back on the map, at least in this midterm election cycle. John. Jeff Zeleny, thank you very much. Keep us updated as results come in tonight. With us now, former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush, Scott Jennings, former Trump White House Communications Director Alyssa Farrah Griffin, former Special Advisor to President Obama, Van Jones, and former Senior Advisor to President Obama, David Axelrod. If you need advice, this is the place to be tonight is the message we're sending here. Alyssa, if we're watching what's going on in Indiana right now, things to be trending in the president's direction. So what message does this send about, I suppose, political loyalty? If you cross Donald Trump and you're a Republican, your political career is very likely over. Look, the United States is littered with politicians who opposed him as Republicans, and their careers effectively ended. I struggle to think of somebody who was high profile, challenged him, and maintained their place in office. And this is something, this redistricting in Indiana has been a goal of the White Houses for over a year. The president was talking to Governor Braun. They had plans underway to get this going. So those those state senators who opposed it really got in the way of a core part of Donald Trump's sort of midterm strategy trying to boost Republicans. So it tells you if you cross him, your career is over, even if you voted with him 98 percent of the time. So, Scott Jennings, the president's getting a win here, it does seem. But if you add your druthers, is this where Republicans would be spending money to defeat other Republicans who are pretty loyal Republicans on all the actual policy issues? Well, look, it's the prerogative of the president. He's the boss of the party. I think Alyssa stated it very well. He calls the shots in the Republican Party. And if you go against that, he will pour his wrath out upon you. And it doesn't typically turn out well. As Harry has said before, go against Trump in a primary and you wind up in the grinder. And that's what happened in Indiana. To me, what I was looking for tonight was the forward-looking lessons here. For instance, what's going to happen in Kentucky in a couple of weeks in that fourth congressional district where Thomas Massey is the one congressional Republican who has been the biggest thorn in Donald Trump's side. They have poured millions into that race. And a lot of people are wondering, could he withstand a challenge from a Trump-backed challenger there? If you look at what happened in Indiana tonight and you're Thomas Massey tonight or you're anybody else in a primary right now where Trump's on the other side of you, you've got to be thinking, this is a bad night for me. But bottom line is, there's always plenty of money in politics, And it's always a president's priorities and prerogatives that call the shots in his or her political party. And here we are. What do you think about retribution, Van, as a political motivator? I'm generally against it. And what a petty little punching down bully to be losing a war. He can't figure out how to get our gas prices down. He can't find the Epstein's files. We've got time to wander over here and slap around a bunch of state senators to feel better about himself. I would be embarrassed if I were the president of the United States with the level of crisis that we have, that this is his most important objective and the only thing he's gotten right, apparently, in the past six months. It's the wrong way to lead. Let people, if people in their state, they're close to their constituents, if they didn't want to change the maps, it's their prerogative. We don't have a king. Now, look, congratulations. He beat up some people who can't defend themselves, and we're losing all around the world right now. Van, do you think those sorts of rules apply to, say, Barack Obama when he engages in the Virginia redistricting referendum? Hey, listen, he got involved in a ballot measure. He didn't go poking and picking on little individual dog catchers and everybody else. Well, he was picking on the Republican congressmen who represented their constituents. David Axelrod is watching patiently here us talk about this. You're having a good time, Keith. I'm sure, I'm sure. It's always more fun being out there. So Donald Trump, there's just no question his power within the Republican Party. I think that's been undisputed for some time and it's undisputed tonight. The question is going forward, especially toward the midterms, especially if his overall popularity doesn't increase in if it's not six months from now, but in a year, two years, two and a half years. Is inextricably bound to Donald Trump the place where you think all Republicans will want to be? No, but I think this proves that they, for the short run, if they want to survive, they have to be. And that's why, you know, Van said, well, he's talked about the war and he's trying to distract. He started this war a long time ago and he had to win it. If he hadn't won a majority of these seats tonight, I think other Republicans would be looking around and saying, you know, you can defy him and you can survive. And I think the same is true of the Massey race. if Bill Cassidy were somehow to survive in Louisiana So he is the undisputed boss of the Republican Party The problem is his numbers among everybody else have just crashed His numbers among independent voters are a disaster His number among Democrats are exactly what you'd expect. He still has an 85 percent approval rating among Republicans and the loyalty of Republicans, but not the he's unpopular in the country as a whole. So obviously this creates this creates problems for Democrats who have to run in swing districts and swing states. If you only have to run in primaries, then you're going to stick with Trump. Now, the other issue here that we should talk about is money. Someone mentioned, I think Scott mentioned money. They spent $9 million trying to defeat these senators in districts that are like 10,000 votes. So let's say they've spent $9 million to talk to 70,000 voters. They'll have $600 million or more to spend in this midterm, over 25 districts and a handful of swing states. And so for Democrats who are enthused by what they see, and there's plenty of evidence that the Republican Party and the president are in deep trouble, this is a warning sign that money is helpful when you have it in overwhelming numbers. And and he proved it in this in these districts. And I think you're going to see them try to deploy it to to to slow down the wheel of democracy, which is turning heavily against them right now in November. So you do think that this may add some fire to the efforts for sudden redistricting after the Supreme Court decision? Well, look, I mean, I think anything they can do to turn seats between now and November, they will do, because on the natural, the president is in for a beating in November. His party, these are referendums on the president. He's deeply unpopular. This war has made him more unpopular. So I think they're going to do anything they possibly can to try and throw a wrench in the works here. redistricting, voter purges, all kinds of things. But money for sure is going to play a role here. And that's something Democrats should be aware of. And listen, just clearly, he still has tremendous juice within the Republican Party, maybe the ultimate 100 percent juice, as it were. Will there come a point where Donald Trump is a lame duck? I mean, what will it take for him to have that sort of lame duck feel where his political magic no longer works? That to me is the most interesting political question right now because I think, yes, great job. Listen, I think the midterms, we expect how they're going to go in the House. I think that we think Democrats are going to take control of the House. The Senate is looking a lot more volatile now than it should be. If it ends up being a shellacking, which my Obama friends remember from their time in the White House, I think that the momentum starts to shift to the race for 2028. Is it Marco Rubio? Is it J.D. Vance? That's where the energy goes. But the one thing I would say is Donald Trump will never be a true lame duck. If he is even out of office down back at Mar-a-Lago, he is still going to have so many tentacles within the Republican Party and his hands around those, whoever ends up being the heir apparent. He's never fully going to go away. But I'm very interested to see what it how he reacts when the momentum shifts to the future leaders of the party. Ben, your phone just went off saying I should ask you a question. I do want to jump to California in a second. You can see pictures right there of the debate hall where the CNN debate is about to start. But one quick question on Iran. With the president announcing that this new operation, which had been in place for a day, and that all his major officials are out touting today is on pause? Yeah, it's very confusing because I thought, frankly, Rubio did a good job defending the policy and explaining it, and it was understandable. And then, like, 30 seconds later, it's no longer the policy. And that's really not good for our men and women overseas trying to figure out what they're supposed to be doing out there. All right. This is the night of a California gubernatorial primary debate hosted by CNN. I want to get right to CNN's Kyung Law, who is outside the debate hall where seven candidates will soon be facing off. Set the scene for us, Kyung. Outside the debate hall, actually, just on the other side of the door, Sean, I want you. I'm going to have Rory walk with me to the doors here. And this is what you're going to see. This is the debate stage. The candidates are going to be coming out in just minutes, going from left to right. You're going to have a number of candidates, mainly Democrats, but two Republicans have also made the debate stage. They are the top seven, according to latest polls, polling candidates who are going to be talking to the candidates. And what people here in California really are looking for is they're trying to figure out if any of these candidates. And remember, in California, the top two vote getters move on to November, regardless of party. So there is this Democratic equation and paranoia that they may not make it. But it's a little too hard to tell because we're in the early stages, still weeks till the primary. This is part of the dilemma here in California. This is a ballot. This is my ballot. You can see this orange section is for governor. But then flip it over. Those are all the candidates. There are 61 names. So to really search for the person you want, you have to look for them. So a lot at stake here because we're talking about the fourth largest economy in the world. Whoever is selected here is really going to set the tone in the country. This debate, John, is just one piece of figuring out who they want to vote for to make that November ballot, John. I just reflexively like reached for my reading glasses when you showed us all those names on the back of that ballot. Kyung-Hwa giving us an inside look at the debate hall. Thank you very much for that. Back with the panel now, we're also joined by CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein, a terrific reporter of all things California politics. Ron, what are you watching for tonight inside this debate, particularly after Eric Swalwell? we remember he was in this race just a few weeks ago, has left. Yeah, a few weeks ago, John, there was existential dread among Democrats about the very dynamic you were just talking about, the possibility that in this top two primary system, Republicans would finish one, two, and lock Democrats out in a state where they traditionally win 60 percent or the vote or more. That fear has significantly dissipated since. Two things really changed it. One was Donald Trump endorsing Steve Hilton, which effectively, I think, ended the chance that Steve Hilton will ever be governor of California, because the only way you would get to a top two Republican lockout is if they split the roughly 35 percent of the Republican vote virtually evenly. After Trump's endorsement, Hilton is going up. Bianco is going down. And the odds of a Republican lockout significantly diminished, especially because roughly around the same time, Swalwell got out of the race, which meant that the 65 percent or so of voters who are going to vote Democratic would have their votes split among fewer candidates than he was still in. I think the key now is not whether a Democrat reaches the general election when they would be significantly favored, but who it will be. Becerra has benefited, Javier Becerra has benefited the most from Swalwell getting out, very similar to what we saw in 2020 in the Democratic presidential race, when people worried that Bernie was emerging as the lead candidate and that he couldn't beat Trump. Democrats fear above all getting locked out. And there was kind of a flight to safety for Becerra. But while he is the lead candidate, he's not in an impregnable, insurmountable position. And Tom Steyer, in particular, with all of his money, is still a threat. And you probably will see him going after Becerra tonight from the left. All right. Lightning round of the five minutes we have left, friends. David Axelrod, Who is ascendant, do you think, in California at this moment? Well, as Ron said, it's absolutely Becerra. He was really in the low single digits before all of this drama unfolded. And he has leapfrogged toward the top of this race. And he will be a target in this debate. Tom Steyer may get some incoming because when you spend $158 million, as he has with plenty more to go, people are going to pay attention to you. But Becerra was the absolute beneficiary of it. He's been the attorney general of the state. He's been a congressman. He was in the Biden cabinet. And he is a familiar figure to Californians who, if they want the status quo within the Democratic ranks, he is a pillar of the Democratic establishment there. Van, you know, David mentioned Tom Steyer, who ran for president a few years ago, got a lot of money. How much love can that money buy? Well, listen, California is a particularly weird state and it's 30 million people. You cannot knock on all those doors. And so money means a lot in California. You got a lot of mailers. You got a lot of TV districts and stuff like that. Look, Becerra was invisible. Nobody cared about him. And then Swalwell disappears and the Latin community comes forward. But here's how you know that this is a jump ball. The SEIU comes out and dual endorses both Steyer and Becerra. This is jump ball. Nobody knows where this thing is going. When the SEIU can't pick between our two front runners, almost unprecedented, this thing is jump ball. Listen, Becerra was in the Biden cabinet. You come at this from the other side or maybe more toward the middle now. How much of a liability do you think that might be? It certainly is. People want to move forward. They want to look forward. But I think juxtaposed to Tom Steyer, there's this anti-billionaire bent within the Democratic Party. That is a knock on him. That is tough. I think Becerra can ultimately benefit from that. I'm really curious to see the swipes that they take at each other tonight. But also a dynamic I'm going to be watching is the Republican candidates are going to be making California as sort of a failed state right now, a referendum on Gavin Newsom, whereas the Democrats are going to say this is a referendum on Donald Trump. So what actually breaks through with the voters is going to be interesting. What do you think, Scott? Well, I think the Republican message is one party rule. Good for a state. We've had one party rule here for a very long time. And now California is losing population. Nobody can afford to live here. Gas costs more here than everywhere else. A black kid in California is two and a half times less likely to be able to read or do math proficiently in the fourth grade than a black kid in Mississippi. Why are the schools in California worse than the schools in Mississippi? You know, all of these things have happened under one party rule. I interviewed Steve Hilton, one of the Republican candidates on my radio show yesterday. He's quite articulate with this message. What I'm kind of interested in is what Alyssa was alluding to is how much of this splashes on Gavin Newsom. And do the Democrats even try to engage in any of that content? Because I suspect what you're going to hear from them is Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. But for the people in California, Donald Trump's not running your local school. Donald Trump's not the reason your gas prices have higher taxes and regulatory fees. Donald Trump's not the reason they can't build houses after the Palisades fire. In fact, they've been trying to help clean it up. So I want to hear Democrats engage with what's the reality of living in California, which ain't too hot right now. So, Ron Brownstein, back to you here, because there is a candidate who isn't on this stage tonight and won't be by choice, but who at one point maybe might have been. And that's Vice President Kamala Harris, who opted not to run here. I mean, how many Democrats or to what extent are Democrats playing what if tonight? right? Sure. A lot less than a month ago when it looked like they might get locked out before Trump intervened and greatly reduced the odds of that. But sure, they have not, they don't have a top tier figure in this race. I think Steyer is hitting a limit like Al Checky did back in 1998, spending enormous amounts of money. He's also got Katie Porter dividing up the vote on the left where he's anchored himself. You know, but to tie all of this together, Indiana really explains why there's not going to be a Republican governor in California, among other things. It's that basically Republicans are afraid to distance themselves from Trump, even in blue states. We saw that in New Jersey and Virginia, and it just makes it insurmountable. I mean, Steve Hilton won't say that Joe Biden won the 2020 race in a state where Biden won 63 percent of the vote. He won't criticize Trump for the Medicaid cuts, which are going to throw 1.5 million people off of coverage in California. So pretty much any Democrat who gets to the general election is can be strongly favored in a year when Trump's approval is only 30. The question is which one? All right. Well, obviously, these are all the subjects that will be coming up tonight in this big moment. I want to thank each and every one of you for being here with us tonight. This has been Anderson Cooper 360, the CNN California governor primary debate moderated by Caitlin Collins and Alex Michelson starts right now. I'm Daniel Dae Kim. I'm going to South Korea to figure out how this small nation conquered the world with its culture. Join me and meet the artists and creators behind the phenomenon. K-Everything, streaming May 9th on the CNN app. Influential journalist Kara Swisher is taking a hard look at the longevity industry. There's so much bad information that the really good information gets drowned. The new CNN original series, Kara Swisher Wants to Live Forever. now streaming on the CNN app.