Trump Admin Faces Growing Scrutiny After Nvidia CEO Resigns

0:06A Silicon Valley scandal, an alleged Chinese spy, billions of dollars in AI chips, and a White House caught in the middle. What could possibly go wrong? Good night and good evening. I'm Laura Coates. I've got my panel here to talk about the stunning downfall of one of America's most powerful CEOs and what it means for the economy and the president. Stephen A. Smith is going to join to discuss his interview with Trump at the White House today. And we want you at home to join our coverage. Send me your questions, your comments at CNN.com slash engagedpolitics. We'll get them answered live on air this hour.

0:40So the man who helped build the AI boom suddenly out, NVIDIA CEO Jensen Wang, resigning after reports he had affairs with an alleged Chinese spy and another NVIDIA executive. And now the fallout is touching everything from the White House to Wall Street. And the first question, well, it goes straight to the top of the administration. What exactly did President Trump know, and when did he know about it? The New York Times reports that Trump was first briefed on Jensen-Wang's relationship with the alleged spy back in October of last year, but the president took no action. He was briefed again in May of this year.

1:23A source tells CNN the Secretary of State Marco Rubio told him on board Air Force One as the president was on his way to China. Now, Wong later met up with Trump during a layover in Alaska and traveled with him for the rest of the trip. But the president gave a different account this week when he was pressed on whether he knew about the allegations at that time. When you went to China earlier this year in May, did you know about these alleged ties with the Chinese by then? No, I didn't hear about it then, but a lot of people have heard about it, and Jensen totally denies that. And let's talk about the alleged Chinese spy, Alice Wong.

2:04I say alleged because the intel community is actually divided over whether she was actually working for the Chinese government. Multiple sources tell CNN the intel gathered so far doesn't prove she was. And Trump himself says he doesn't know. The big thing is, was the woman a spy? And I don't know if that's been determined yet. But if the woman was a spy, yes. If the woman was not a spy, perhaps it would be different. But I can tell you this. Somehow he'll end up in his feet. Now, this obviously goes beyond a personal relationship or somebody's marriage. It's where the politics gets tied up with the economics I worry about.

2:49I think about. I'm sure you do as well. Alice Wong worked for a company based in Singapore called Megaspeed. And that company has purchased billions in NVIDIA chips. And a report from Axios says Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has repeatedly resisted efforts to crack down on Megaspeed, despite concerns that those chips were being diverted to China. And now some Republicans want answers from not only Jensen Wong, but the president's own cabinet. it. I'd like to hear from the secretary of the treasury and more to the point, the secretary of commerce. I mean, why were they selling the chips? Did they did they follow the trail?

3:31How do they know the chips went to the to the company and not to the Communist Party of China? I mean, this whole thing is an intergalactic freak show. But the biggest question of all may be what this means for the entire AI industry. NVIDIA is more than just another tech company. I mean, it makes the lion's share of the chips powering this entire AI boom. It's helped to bankroll several of the companies buying its chips. And Jensen Wong has been the face and leather jacket of that boom. So what happens now that he's out? Well, it depends on who you ask. One of the top Financial commentators says Jensen Wong should not have resigned.

4:17It says he has no clear replacement and that he has slowed down as the most costly mistake of the AI revolution. Joining me now, tech podcaster and author of the newsletter, Where's Your Ed At? Ed Zitron, also here, former domestic policy advisor to President Biden, Neera Tanden, Washington Post editorial board member Karin Hajar, Democratic congressman-elect from Massachusetts, Dan Coe, and former Trump White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson. I'll begin with you here, Ed. You have been warning that the AI boom is a bubble. NVIDIA is the company at the center of that boom. So what does this scandal mean for the wider AI economy?

5:02So this scandal is nothing to do with the affairs. It's to do with the fact that according to Culper Research, more than 20 percent of NVIDIA's fiscal year 26 revenue, Over$43 billion came from sales to China. And NVIDIA losing Jensen Huang means the end of the circular financing era because replacement Colette Kress, who was formerly the CFO, was very much against funding open AI data centers or the amount of backstops that NVIDIA has been doing. It really spells ill for the AI trade. But there's still a huge demand for the chips. The revenue money is real. Is the boom itself not? Well, that's the thing.

5:41Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, said the other day that, as I've been saying for months, most of the demand comes from Anthropic and OpenAI, two unprofitable, unsustainable companies. And as far as how much revenue AI generates, well, Microsoft's fiscal year 26 revenue was a mere$33 billion from AI. They spent$265 billion on CapEx since 2022. The mismatch here is incredible. The software itself doesn't generate anywhere near the revenues of the$1.4 trillion that hyperscalers have spent on AI CapEx. Mismatch comes to mind. I think you used the word correctly there. But mismatch, many people are talking about, is the fact that, I mean, America's future, and of course AI, you're talking about the AI race, the future of the economy, national security implications, a lot of issues.

6:26They come down to a handful of tech executives, it seems, and what decisions they're making, and then the ripple effect based on those. Yes, but Jensen Huang was crucial. He basically operated the central bank of AI. Without NVIDIA basically bankrolling, backstopping, giving anyone who needs a few billion dollars money, well, it's not really clear who will fund it. Venture capital is running low. Interest rates have never been higher in the AI boom. And at this point, the question is how much money is actually left to keep this going because the cash flows are not sustaining the AI bubble. I want to turn to our panel here on this as well.

7:01Well, I mean, Congressman-elect, let me begin with you because you know that there are members on the Hill who are already looking into these issues. Trump has reportedly, you know, was briefed on the alleged affair twice. Again, the marital affair, that's really his business. The implications when it comes to the impact on NVIDIA and the American economy and the global economy, our business, right? So as a congressman-elect, what do you think is appropriate in terms of an appropriate investigation to figure out what happened and whether there was something sinister or nefarious happening? I mean, the real concern here is that this is a president who consistently sells out our country and our economy to the highest bidder.

7:42People forget that he allowed and lifted restrictions on chips that the Biden administration had put in place specifically to protect our national security in exchange for our cut of the revenue. People also forget that NVIDIA was one of the funders of the ballroom. People also forget that consistently this president has advocated for no regulation of AI because of the essentially bribes that he has been getting from OpenAI and all these other companies. The lawyer in me says, allegedly. Allegedly, sure. But it's very, very clear that this is an industry that needs regulation. But because of Trump's financial incentives, he's not looking out for the United States.

8:21He's only looking out for himself. Let me bring you in this because Howard Lutnick has a close relationship, as we know, with Jensen Wong, and he's taking a lot of heat right now in terms of the things that the congressman is actually articulating. Do you think that it's appropriate for him to feel this heat, and will he be the fall guy? Look, I'll say that was a lot of Democrat talking points, not the reality of what it's like in the Trump administration. President Trump is focused on making sure the United States wins the AI race. That's what we really need to focus on. That's what Republicans want Congress to focus on.

8:51In terms of Howard Lutnick and his role in all of this, I think it's fair that Republicans on the Hill are asking smart questions. The president himself is asking questions about NVIDIA, about this entire investigation that we're currently having. But I'm hearing from friends inside the White House that the president really values Howard Lutnick's role throughout the entire administration. Not just what's happening with NVIDIA, not just his role in the chips, but what he's done in terms of trade deals, in terms of drug prices. That's how he's thinking about this. In addition to the much bigger picture, which is how do we beat China?

9:27How do we make sure that the United States remains the leader? Those are still the priorities for the administration. Well, you know how you don't beat China? If you've got a spy taking things that take a gut punch to the AI trajectory. But go ahead. I want to hear why she's laughing first. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Go ahead. I mean, just with all due respect, The issue here is that we have an alleged Chinese spy who has influence of some kind over a tech executive who paid off at least$25 million to the ballroom and then got sweetheart deals to deal with China. So it's hard for me to take lectures on the president being hyper-focused on China when he, with his best friend.

10:12It's not a lecture, it's reality. I want to hear her point. Then why is he allowing the export of these chips? Why is all the reporting of how Howard Lettnick, and I'm sure Donald Trump as well, allowed sort of sweetheart deals with China on this? You can't say that the president is hyper-focused on competition with China when he's actually giving more chips to China, which allows them to actually do better on AI than we would want them to. And I think most Americans are wondering, is this another example of Donald Trump actually listening to people who pay checks to his various enterprises in order to do what they want, which in this case might be against the national security interests of this country?

10:56And that is a deep concern that should be investigated. And don't take it from me, but take it from Senator Kennedy and take it from Senator Thune. Karine, what did you want to say? Look, I think going back to Lutnik real quick, he's invoked national security when we're talking about tariffs against Canada, which is hardly on the same level of adversary as China. So I do think that this is going to bring up major tensions in the Trump administration. You had four different departments in the Trump administration sort of urge the president to rethink the mega speed, being able to sell chips to China.

11:27Lutnik reportedly pushed back on that. And so I do think that it's not surprising to me that Republicans are wanting to look into this more as well. We have a viewer question. I love when you guys weigh in. Let's ask it here. Why do Republicans think they have a voice for oversight on NVIDIA when they had done squat in this last Congress? I don't write the questions, but I'm going to have you answer it, Abigail. Go ahead. I would just go back to the Lutnik reporting one more time. I think everyone at this table. Is that answering that question? I think I just want to clarify on some of the Latinx stuff that you were saying there.

12:03The way these stories work, we all know there's one side that is talking to reporters that is is sharing their narrative. I think it's important to let the facts continue to come out at the topper. We talked a lot about, you know, all of these different alleged reporting that is still happening. This is why I think it's important for Republicans on the Hill to ask these questions and for the White House and the administration to continue asking these questions. I think, you know, just saying Republicans haven't done anything last Congress, that's not necessarily true. And really, the question is towards the administration and what has the administration done and how are they looking at the issue?

12:37You played that clip from the president himself who's saying, you know, we're going to look at this. If she is a spy, then maybe something needs to be done. But it hasn't been determined yet. And so let's figure it out. But here's what's not alleged. NVIDIA gave$25 million to the ballroom. Do you not think that that presents a conflict of interest? I think there are plenty of corporations who have involved themselves in administrations, Republican and Democrat. The Biden administration was no exception either. So just to say this company donated to the ballroom, so anything they do with the administration is a conflict of interest when they're one of the biggest companies as part Part of this AI boom is ridiculous to say they can't have any role.

13:19It's they gave$25 million and then they basically got sweetheart deals from this administration that many people, Republicans and Democrats, wondered was in violation of our national security. People raised those questions at the time. So I think what Dan is saying is the$25 million payout, and we don't even know if there's anything else going on here, but the$25 million payout does make it seem like there's a quid pro quo between doing a kind of deal that they want that comes at the expense of our national security and in favor of China for the money that the president got to his ballroom and various initiatives.

13:56That perception alone begs an investigation, if that's what people are thinking and believing. I want to bring in, Ed, before I come back to Ukraine. The president has an idea for a possible replacement for Jensen Huang. Listen to what he said. You know the expression, anybody can be replaced. So it's very hard to replace him. But I had an idea this morning that I sort of just released Tim Cook. He just sort of semi-retired from Apple. He's done one of the greatest jobs in the history of business. I think Tim Cook would be a great candidate to run NVIDIA. I mean, Cook had a remarkable, what, 15-year track record at Apple.

14:33It's true. But would his disappointment easily the concerns that you have about NVIDIA? Well, let's start with a really simple thing. What AI arms race with China? China has had throughout both the Biden and the Trump administration access to billions of dollars of GPUs. Tim Cook could help. He's a logistics guy. He is an operating guy. He would be good for the company, about as good as Colette Kress, I would argue, is the current CEO. But my general point is billions of dollars of GPUs got to China. We have seen what happens. We know that Megaspeed funded, according to the information, DeepSeek.

15:08We already know this is happening. This is much bigger than any administration. This is an American company, at one point the largest company on the U.S. stock market, that was flagrantly violating sanctions. And this is two administrations that have let this happen and a media ecosystem that's allowed it to happen too, all because of a growth at cost mindset, a growth at all cost mindset, I mean, that's dominating our economy and our media. Karin? Look, going into 2027, Congress is going to have a chance in the defense bill to address a lot of the loopholes that allow sort of different rules to unfold on the export of these advanced chips.

15:44And I really think that's what this all comes down to. We need to have uniform rules. We would not sell missiles to our enemies and we should not send some of our, I mean, these are vital national security resources. We should not be making it easy for China to get them. And the same rules should apply to every company. I love a shoulda, coulda, woulda argument in Washington, D.C. Let's see if it sticks. Ed Zitron, thank you so much. Everyone else, please stand by. All three times that I've been on the ballot, I won big. You campaigned everyone. For everybody on the GOP. I helped. I mean, you're all over the place.

16:14And you know what? And you said, put me on the ballot, plus you campaigned. They would have done worse if I didn't campaign. Stephen A. Smith gets into it with President Trump at the White House for a 40-minute long interview. They covered a lot of ground, frankly. And Stephen A is with me to tell us all about it next.

16:34I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. We get to talk to the men's winner of the New York City Marathon. Andreas Almgren, he's a self-coached 31-year-old who was, get this, making his marathon debut. He never ran a marathon before he won it. If someone wanted to start getting serious about running and they wanted to approach it like a data scientist like you do, how would you suggest they start? Be patient. My peak weeks, I run like 140, 150 miles per week or something. Wow. Either increase the distance or you should increase the intensity. You should never increase both at the same time.

17:13Listen to Chasing Life, streaming now wherever you get your podcasts.

17:23So you said going into the midterms put you on the ballot. I did. So how can it not be that you were not on the ballot? Well, they didn't do it. They didn't put me on the ballot. The people didn't believe in the candidates, perhaps. President Trump making the round at the shellacking at the midterms. And he's still sounding defiant that the election was not a referendum on his policies or his popularity. and listen to what Trump said when Stephen A. Smith asked him about a hypothetical matchup between him and former President Barack Obama. I got many more votes than he got, and I got many more votes in the states, and I have all the state, you know, most of the state records of the big states.

18:04If you take a look at Texas, I have the all-time record. Florida, I have the all-time record. Are you saying you would beat Obama? Yeah, I think I'd beat him easily, yeah. Easily? I think he's highly overrated. I want to bring in the host of the first take on ESPN and straight shooter on Sirius XM. Stephen A. Smith, can we just go right there for a second? President Trump saying that President Barack Obama is highly overrated. You got to tell me your reaction to that. Well, I was shocked that he went that far. I wasn't shocked that he said he'd think he'd beat him. But I was shocked that he would be so dismissive and disrespectful of Barack Obama.

18:43I certainly don't think that would happen, to be quite honest with you. But, you know, it's one of those things when you talk to President Trump, which obviously I have over the last few weeks, he's just dogged in his belief in himself as always, but also in his discuss with liberals. And his mentality is that the Democratic Party is ruining the country. And so his thought is Obama is on the left and he would have to capitulate to those folks on the left. It wouldn't be the other way around. And as a result, it would make it pretty easy for me to beat him because all I have to do is point to all the crazy things the crazy left is doing.

19:22And that's all it would take. That's essentially that that's essentially the attitude of the president right now himself going up against anybody. The problem with the midterms was is that he thought that that mentality could be relatable to all of the other candidates that he was supporting going against folks on the left. And obviously the American people showed him otherwise. I mean, candidate quality, which he alludes to at the end of that statement, I mean, has been a very big topic in this midterm cycle. You asked the president if he regretted endorsing any candidates who, I mean, carried a lot of baggage, including people like Ken Paxton in Texas who lost to Tallarico.

20:01I think that's not too well, but I don't think Cornyn would have done any better. A lot of them thought if they get my endorsement, they don't have to debate. I think getting the endorsement with some hurt them because it didn't hurt them, but they didn't work as hard as they should have worked. I want to hear your take on that, because is Trump taking any responsibility for his role in the loss of the GOP? Zero. Okay. Finito. Zero. Zero. And not only that, it's, you know, it appeared in the immediate aftermath of the midterm results that he had, you know, some some contrition had kicked into some degree and that he was taking at least a little bit of responsibility.

20:41But that's not the individual I spoke to this afternoon. The individual I spoke to this afternoon happened to be the president of the United States wasn't having any of it. It was all about them. It was their fault. He did what he was supposed to do. He told the American people to put him on the ballot. In his eyes, they did not do that. The candidates weren't that strong and they didn't perform that admirably. But most importantly, they didn't put in the work. And in that regard, one could argue that he had a good point because we know how much he travels all over this country, particularly when he was campaigning long before he was the president.

21:11So we know the kind of work that he put in that regard. My issue was is that a guy like Ken Paxson and I use the word punk and I usually don't go that you call the names and all of that other stuff. But, Laura, I just have this firm belief if you are an individual seeking public office, the most insulting thing you can do to the American people is ask for them to elect and select you when you don't even want to show up and debate the opposition. You want to hide, but you still want to claim public office. Wait a minute. It's public office. One of the primary responsibilities you should be willing to do is to be in public and to put yourself on front street and say, I'm here.

21:54This is what I believe. This is what I stand on. Let's go. And Ken Paxton, to me, was an utter disgrace. Well, even when you put it putting in the work, even when he did go around to campaign for these individuals, including Ken Paxton, where he was talking badly about him, other candidates, he was, you know, completely mesmerized by their body. he talked about things that were not in line with what the American people seem to have said they wanted when the midterm results came in. He wasn't talking about the affordability issues. He wasn't talking about the war with Iran, which is what his own vice president pointed to as one of the major issues for the midterm losses.

22:31He was talking about his architectural coups. He was talking about the things that are happening that relate only to him, only his legacy. Did he address any of those points as to why he had that divide between what they were saying they wanted to hear about and what he was actually talking about? Well, listen, again, his whole thing is that it was their fault, not his. Well, during that period of time, there was one moment when Trump said that black people were the biggest beneficiary of his work. And he spent more than five minutes reading from a list of accomplishments that was three pages long.

23:09I want you to hear this. Did you see me try to interrupt? I did. Yes. Listen to this. A record one time investment of four hundred and thirty eight million dollars to historically black colleges and universities. Thanks to President Trump's the Trump accounts initiative, 100 percent of black newborn babies now have exposure to the stock market. President Trump secured a tax-free 1 ,776 warrior dividend, of which the black soldier is a big percentage of our military, got$1 ,776 as a dividend, 1776, right? What went through your mind? I know you were trying to interrupt him. I mean, who wants to be read to?

23:51But what went through your mind when he was reading you that list, especially given when you went to the dinner at the White House with Bill Maher, with Kid Rock? You talked about how you were there in part because you wanted to talk about what this impact of his policies had been on historically black colleges and universities, on black federal employees, on women in particular as well. What was going through your mind? Yes. Well, listen, what was going through my mind is I just couldn't believe the experience that I was going through at that particular moment in time because we had had this discussion in the White House.

24:25Obviously, I brought up over 300 ,000 black women losing their jobs. Obviously, he swears up and down that they're excelling and thriving in the private sector. I was like, where's the proof of that? Because they're telling me there's no truth to that whatsoever. He denied that. And then I made an executive decision while I was interviewing him. Laura, I obviously had other issues that I wanted to get into even more about HBCUs that I wanted to talk. But when he said, I've done a lot for black folks and I have the list right here, I just said, you know what? I'm going to do something I never did.

25:00Go ahead and read that list because I want to hear this. And I think every black person in America wants to hear what you swear you have done for black people. because I wanted to. Now, obviously, I didn't let him go all the way because he had about four or five pages, Laura. I only thought it was like two. And then he pulled out and he had about four or five pages. And I said, no, I can't let him go on that long because I got too many other questions that I want to ask. And there's a limited time. And you know they're going to come at you when you're flowing and that, all right, he's got to go.

25:30He's the president of the United States. You don't know what call can come in that can stall the interview. But I really, really wanted to ask other questions. Of course, it's just that when he said specifically, I've done a lot for black people and I have the I have a list. I felt compelled on behalf of the black community to let him spew out some of those things so we can hear everything he swears he has done. You know what? He also was prepared because he asked you a question very quickly. He asked you directly if you were going to run for president and you said you have made up your mind. But you said before you're not running.

26:05Why don't you tell him no? Or is there a guess somewhere? No, because because because it's like this. I love my job. I love my life, etc. I just want to debate some of these folks so badly. I really do, Laura. I just really, really do. And it's just a shame that FCC regulations, equal time rules don't allow for it by virtue of what I do for a living. I was told that the minute I announce I'm running, I will immediately be pulled off the air, which means I won't be allowed to work, which means I won't be allowed to earn my money. And last time I checked, maybe not Trump, who's gone to three billion dollars since his return to the presidency, you know, in terms of his own bank account.

26:50But most politicians on Capitol Hill are looking for the kind of money that I have worked diligently over the course of 30 years to earn. And I ain't trying to give that up. Well, you know the best moderator in the world would be Laura Coates. Stephen A. Smith, nice talking to you, my friend. I know that's right. Yeah, I know that's right. Thank you for coming. All righty. Take care. Hey, this is breaking tonight. Senator Chuck Schumer is no longer running unopposed for majority leader. Senator Van Hollen now says he's going to give him a run for his money. Can we actually pull it off? The panel is back with me live next.

27:36Yes, I am planning to run for the Senate majority leader. There is a desire for change, not just fighting back against the Trump policies, but really change in Washington, D.C., getting beyond the status quo. And I think that requires new leadership. Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen is officially taking on Chuck Schumer for Senate leadership. To dethrone the longtime leader, Van Hollen will need 28 to 29 votes to pull off a win. How is Schumer feeling about all this? Well, he immediately dismissed the challenge on social media. Quote, I welcome any discussion about the future of our caucus and the important work ahead.

28:16I have the votes to continue serving as Democratic leader. My panel is back with me. I mean, Neera, Ben Holland says he already has talked to all of the incoming senators and has more than 10 supporters already on board. Is there a world where Trucks Schumer's grip on power is in jeopardy? I mean, I'm sure there is like a discussion about what should happen. I think 10 is less than 29. So that is that might be that might be an issue. But I mean, I think it's actually an important discussion what the Democratic caucus should do and where it should go. But I also think what's really, really important for this Democratic caucus in the House and in the Senate is to recognize that this big majority could also be fleeting.

29:04And the work of the next two years should really be to solidify and build on it. So I look forward to Senator Van Hollen talking about how his agenda will actually build on being able to win states like Mississippi and other races and places like other seats in Texas and North Carolina and Josh Hawley's seat. I think the issue really is how do we build on this momentum, not how do we pull ourselves back into sectarian and sort of ideological battles. I think the whole party is looking for a leadership that can take on Trump, offer a new agenda, but also build to a big election in 2028. That would be applicable to the House then, that same theory.

29:47Look, I think anyone in the House and anyone in the Senate has the right to run for these leadership positions. But I agree with Neera. I worry that Democrats learned the wrong lesson on this blue tsunami, that it was because the Democrats had some great momentum from the American people versus people's concerns about Trump. So we have this moment where we can have an ambitious agenda, including restoring Medicaid and Medicare cuts, making sure that people have their SNAP benefits, making sure that we're having health care for everyone, or we rest on our laurels and we can't do that. Democrats had a great week last week, no doubt about it.

30:20I think it's telling, though, for the future of the Democrat Party that this week they're already having two kind of moments of chaos, both in the House and in the Senate, that are highlighting stark divisions in the Democrat Party in the Senate. Obviously, you have Van Hollen challenging Schumer. He's getting support from El Syed. Bernie Sanders came out and endorsed him. That just goes to speak to the divisions between the new Democrat Party, the Democrat Socialists, and kind of the mainstream Democrats who are clearly trying to ward off that challenge. There should be tremendous unity in the Democrat Party right now, and there isn't.

30:53And then in the House, you know, the House members couldn't even get to the floor to vote to impeach Hegseth, something they were talking about as really their signature issue to end the Iran war. That's who they were going to go after. If I were a Democrat voter, I would be frustrated. I think Republicans are certainly going to take advantage of the growing divisions in the Democrat Party and exploit that as they should. Is it chaos or is it the process unfolding? I mean, all of this is the process unfolding. I do think Democrats are going to have to think carefully about what the midterm victory actually means.

31:28And I agree that it would be a mistake to overread into this as a mandate for more necessarily more progressive policy, because this blue wave swept through many states, surprising states. But if you look down ballot to ballot measures in places like North Carolina, even in California with the billionaire's tax. But you saw you saw voters reject more progressive policy. You saw voters vote for things like voter I.D. law. So I do agree that this was more a rebuke of the president than a mandate for more progressive policy. I guess I would just say I do think the whole party is really united on lowering costs for Roy Cooper's message of make things cheaper.

32:04Essentially makes stuff cost less to Tallarico to all these candidates. They are united on an agenda to address corruption. the president's corruption, and also address lower costs. So there's a lot of ideological discussions with the press and elsewhere. But you saw our most progressive candidates and our most moderate candidates actually running and winning and delivering for people, delivering for working class people who have felt betrayed by President Trump's policies. I want to point on this, and I want to move on to Vice President J.D. Vance, who is tethered to the president of the United States, broke with him a little bit in terms of his social media posts following the midterm losses.

32:46The president unleashed quite a moment on Truth Social this morning, early in the morning. And he yanked Vice President Vance off the Iran portfolio and is ordering him to investigate corruption in blue cities and states, he's saying. I mean, you've been in the West Wing, Abigail. What's the real message behind this? I think the real message is Donald Trump is the president. He is the one who's making the decisions on issues like Iran. He has even said, sure, maybe it wasn't the most politically popular thing. He believes that it was the right thing. In terms of what it means for Vance, though, the president knows the strengths of everyone on his team.

33:23The vice president is on the president's team. The president has talked about addressing fraud and corruption in states. Look at what the DOJ is doing in Minnesota, for example. they just announced 30 million identified in benefits fraud. So the president knows that's where the vice president's strengths lie. He wants to deploy his most effective messengers on those issues there. And when it comes to Iran, you're right. The vice president has made his feelings known on the war. And I'm sure the president took that into consideration. Well, there is one thing you're right about. The president is the president, which means he can blame J.D.

33:56Vance. But ultimately, he's the one with the terrible foreign policy. I don't think he's blaming J.D. He's he obviously Obviously, he's trying to, but the reality is this is a guy who said that the Ukraine war would be ended within 24 hours of him becoming president more than 50 times, and it's still going. This is a guy who just said that he was going to go into the war in Iran and was going to be done within months due to his gut instinct. It's still going. This is a guy who said his tariff policy would liberate America, and they've all been refunded except for working people. Over and over again, his foreign policy has proven to be an utter failure, and he can try to deflect it on J.D.

34:28Vance, but the 28 percent approval rating shows that Americans aren't buying it. I look at this differently. I think this is about just J.D. Vance going into this negotiation would have been necessarily from a place of weakness. He was part of the negotiations for that disastrous MOU that would have put the U.S. certainly in a weaker position regarding Iran. And he's made his political wants and needs clear on the Iran issue. So him going there wouldn't just embolden the regime. It could put us back in what is already a very difficult situation. And I think this was a rebuke. Put us back. I mean, I guess this is what I find so shocking about this debate.

35:05The president decided to go to war because a lot of neocons suggested that he could win this war in a few weeks. The American people have been paying for this war through higher gas prices, and they are angry at the war. The person who, you know, I don't think he's blameless, but at least J.D. Vance recognized this was a disaster, like actually told the truth about it to some degree. And what happened in Trump's administration? He gets rebuked. Instead of Republicans recognizing that actually J.D. Vance was right, this war is a disaster, like the numbers of Republicans who voted for Democrats last week in part because of this war, they are actually rationalizing the president's behavior.

35:48And I actually think it's ridiculous. We need to end the war. You're not going to end the war in terms you like because the war was a mistake. And we should acknowledge that and move on with our lives because actually we're all paying for the neocon fantasies that actually created this war. Look, I'm not trying to argue that this is a popular war. I mean, on the campaign trail, all I was hearing about was gas prices. That's not what I'm trying to argue. But on what terms you're going to end this war do actually matter. And Vice President Vance, I think, has shown to a worrying degree that he's willing to make concessions that I think are unacceptable for the country.

36:20But do you think Donald Trump has been negotiating this really well with the Iranians? But it matters who's negotiating. I mean, but basically you're saying, well, let's send anyone in on any terms to just end this. I don't think that that's the right message for American national security. What I am actually arguing is that this posture that we have to keep this war going because you're not getting acceptable terms is just another way in which we all are paying for the war and the theory and fantasy that underlie this in the first place. But, I mean, what terms would be acceptable to you? Would it be the MOU terms, which would have freed up billions for a terroristic regime, which would have entrenched proxies around the region, which, I mean, it really would have just entrenched and emboldened the regime.

36:57Is that an acceptable term to end this war? I mean, the reason why that Iran is emboldened is because the president decided to have a war that was a disaster. So that is the consequence of these decisions. Ooh, a chicken or the egg conversation to end the night. Thank you so much, everyone. Really important. Stand by, though, for a CNN projection.

37:20All right, CNN can now project that Democrats will win the governor's race in Alaska. Democrat Jonathan Craze-Tompkins has flipped this seat, winning just over 50 % of the vote. This now means that Democrats will have 30 governors across the country. And if you're curious about the Alaska Senate race, let's take a look at where that stands, shall we?

37:46about 5 ,600 new votes did come in tonight and Democrat Mary Peltola netted about 1 ,800 of those votes. She now leads by 5 ,800 votes with 88 % of the vote in. But remember, this is ranked choice voting and no one has yet crossed that 50 % threshold. up next how North Carolina became the poster child for gerrymander turned dummy Mander and my next guest was a big reason why riding the blue wave to victory congressman-elect Cyril Jefferson flipped a district that Trump won by 16 points know you're gonna meet him next

38:34Out of the 46 House seats the Democrats flipped, North Carolina's 6th congressional district may be the most unexpected of them all. Democrat Cyril Jefferson defeated incumbent Republican Congressman Addison McDowell by 6 ,600 votes. Now, two years ago, Trump won that district by 16 points. Republicans redrew the district to defend their House majority. But instead of defending their 10 House seats in North Carolina, Republicans have lost 10 seats so far. You know what? They could lose even more.

39:13Joining me now is North Carolina Democratic Congressman-elect Cyril Jefferson. I'm glad to see you here. Thank you for coming. First of all, this number, you flipped a plus 16 district. Yes, ma 'am. And you even more so defied the odds because you barely, compared to your opponent, spent any money on it. Why did you connect so much? So being a local official, mayor of High Point, North Carolina, it's our job to be connected to the people, to listen and make sure that the message we put out there is one that resonates with them. And so all on the campaign trail, we weren't just talking about what we wanted to do.

39:47We were taking time to hear what was on people's minds. And as they were seeing where this country was going, it became really clear. And we made sure to craft our message around that. But also, we didn't just sit back somewhere and try to do ads. I'm a door knocker. I learned at a young age. I was 26 first time I announced running for city council. Wow. And all the sweet ladies in the neighborhood said, poor baby, bless your heart. And my uncle said, nephew, what you don't have an experience and expertise, make up for with energy. No one's going to knock more doors, shake more hands, or kiss more babies than you.

40:16So sure enough, we got to it the old-fashioned way. And I just keep that with me. The day before Election Day, we were knocking on doors down in Cabarrus County because we believe if you're going to get our country back on track, we have to do the work. Well, the Republicans tried to do work to undermine that work through gerrymandering. I'm not even sure you coat it. Remember, this is the same state where famously a judge said surgical precision was used to try to undermine the voting rights of people in North Carolina. but they tried to redistrict the state to win an advantage. And now it's the poster child of this term called dummy mandarin at this point in time on Wikipedia.

40:49What message does it send that it was so unsuccessful? Will it deter future gerrymandering? The power of the people should always be greater than the people in power. I'm a firm believer in that. And hopefully this election sent a signal to people to never give up, that even when it feels really, really tough, choose hope. And Brother Barack Obama and his story of the audacity of hope tells us hope isn't something you stumble into. You got to choose it. You got to be very intentional every single time. And every generation has always fought for democracy. So if we can get out there and do it, inspired by the forefathers and folks from previous generations who had to march in Selma and across Edmund Pettus Bridge, if they could have hope at times like that, then certainly we can deal with some gerrymandering.

41:35We can do it. And you saw we did last week. there is hope that Democratic leadership will be able to put forth and promote the agenda that many call the mandate across the country, which obviously has accountability. It also has affordability as but one of the many issues. Leader Hakeem Jeffries did outline some of the priorities earlier today, and it included ending the war in Iran. It included repealing Trump's tariffs. It also reversing cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. Does that agenda go far enough for you to support him for Speaker? So we sat down with Leader Jeffries today, and I made abundantly clear to him is that I appreciate the plan that he's put out there.

42:14And to be clear, not one other person in our caucus has stepped forward with a plan. I feel a butt coming on here. No, no, no, no. Well, maybe. Here's what we talked about, is that I think we have an opportunity to prove to the American people that this government wants to be different. The 120th Congress can make a statement, and that statement should be on day one, we're going to move to ban stock trading for all members of Congress. Now, originally, this caucus wanted to do that, but they wanted to make sure it included legislative branch and executive branch. But Donald Trump said, you send that over here, I'm not signing it, because of course he wants to make his money.

42:45So I said, look, do it for us. We are Article I in the Constitution, meets first amongst equals. Congress has to set the example, we'll be the bigger person and make executive branch follow it. We had that conversation with Leader Jeffries today and he was supportive. So I look forward to what we're going to do. We have that opportunity, as well as what we do with Citizens United. That's a bigger lift, Laura. That's a much bigger lift. But I think the American people are ready for it because they want change. Well, they were heard in North Carolina. Thank you. Congressman Cyril, Congressman-elect Cyril Jefferson.

43:15Thank you. Thank you. Remember, you can stream my show live on the CNN app, scan the QR code on your screen or go to CNN dot com slash all access to learn more. Hey, thank you for watching. The story is Alex Michelson is next.

43:32to have i got news for your ears the podcast i am your host michael ian black we are talking about jensen hwang's nvidia spy scandal trump goes on 60 minutes stephen miller is finally in charge and is this curtains for pete hegset have i got news for your ears check us out on apple amazon on music wherever you get your podcast even better you can watch the vodcast on spotify