'PART OF THE ROT': Fetterman EXPOSES Democratic party divide

Welcome back.

Good Tuesday morning, everybody. Thanks so much for joining us this morning. I'm Maria Bartiromo and it is Tuesday, February 17th. It is just before 8 a.m. on the button on the East Coast. President Trump on Air Force One last night blaming Democrats for the partial government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.

Now entering day four.

This is a Democrat shutdown. This has nothing to do with the Republicans. This is a Democrat shutdown. This has nothing to do with the Republicans. This is a Democrat shutdown. They're upset that the crime numbers are so good. They're very unhappy that the crime numbers are so good. They're very unhappy that there's a movement

for getting voter ID.

This comes as Democrats send a counter proposal to the White House and GOP leaders to get operations open again. So far, no deal. The partial shutdown affecting the TSA, Coast Guard, FEMA and the Secret Service. TSA officials working without pay, sparking concerns about staffing shortages and possible

travel disruptions, similar to what we saw during last year's record 43-day shutdown. Joining me now is Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman. Senator, it's great to have you this morning. Welcome.

Hi, thank you for having me in.

And I know that the House and Senator are on recess until next Monday. What is the plan do you expect once you're back in session? How long can this shutdown for DHS go on?

I sure hope that we can. But but for me, I was the only Democrat that voted to refuse to shutting the government down. And I reminded even the director of ICE in a hearing just on Thursday that this shutdown would not impact the functionality of ICE, that they have plenty of money after the big, beautiful bill.

So that—why shut this down? You can want to reform ICE, and I do, but that's not going to have the impact. But you're willing to shut down all of those very important parts of DHS that you just listed there. That's always wrong. And now why here we are, and I'm not sure how we're gonna come back online.

You know, it's interesting because one wrinkle could be what President Trump says in his State of the Union address, right? I mean, it's unbelievable to me that the last time in 2019, we saw a previous government shutdown,

and President Trump was forced to delay that State of the Union because of this. The Democrats, some of your colleagues, are threatening that they're not even going to show up for the State of the Union. Will you be there?

Well, I'm saying it's fundamentally wrong to shut our government down. And if you want to reform ICE, as the Democrats, we do want some once. But that is not going to do that. And now why you're doing it, for me, it's always about country over party, and that's why I'll refuse to vote to shut the government down. And now with the Supreme, I mean, I'm sorry, the State of the Union, well, and I do expect

to extend, attend that, but, and I do hope there's not the same kinds of thing last year with the paddles and that kinds of disruptions. You can disagree or agree on things, but you don't have to turn it into like a spectacle like that.

I totally agree. And, you know, Senator, that's where I think most people are. You might lean to the right on certain things and lean to the left on other things. But people don't want to see this kind of pettiness, certainly from our elected leaders. Meanwhile, the House passed the SAVE Act, as you know, 218 to 213 in the House.

The bill now moves to the Senate. Democrats are vowing to block it with a filibuster. You've been very clear, you have no problem with the voter ID, but Maine Senator Susan Collins reversed her position, and now it looks like the Republicans have 51 votes and they're talking about this so-called talking filibuster, sir. And I want to get your take on what this means.

The president obviously is urging Senate Majority Leader John Thune to scrap the filibuster altogether and pass the legislation with a simple majority. But it sounds like the Republicans want the Democrats on record to have this quote-unquote talking filibuster so that the public understands who is not for having an I.D. to vote and who is. I spoke with Senator Bill Hagerty as well as Representative Ana Paulina Luna on this

issue over the weekend. Here's what they said.

Watch. Anna Paulina Luna on this issue over the weekend. Here's what they said. Watch.

We're looking at the talking filibuster. It's something that has not been used in a long, long time. It's a complicated process, but I think we're going to look at every way we possibly can to get this to the floor, to defeat the Democrats' obstructionism, and do something that makes common sense for America. We've gone through it as a conference, and now that we have Susan on board, I think we're going to be laser-focused on this and any other method that we can utilize to

get this onto the floor, because this is obviously something the American people want. I think what we'll have, if we actually implement it, is a higher turnout at elections, because people will have more confidence that the election, that their vote, is going to be sacred, it's going to be safe, and

we're going to have voter integrity.

And I would actually argue that this is probably the number one thing, especially moving into the midterms. Many senators have said, well, if we do this, the Democrats are going to do this when they regain power. But the fact is, Maria, is that the Senate Democrats have made it very clear that they want mass amnesty, they want mass naturalization of illegals, and, frankly, I think they're going to do it anyways. And so, the only way to really secure our country for future generations is to ensure

that Americans have faith in the voting process and that if their senators work against their interests that they can vote them out at the ballot box. And that's exactly what this will do.

Senator, you've been very practical on this issue. I know that. But do you think that's what it's about? Your colleagues in the Democrat Party want illegals to vote. Is that why they're so against it?

Well, there's a lot to unpack in this about the SAVE Act. Now, it's not being a serious conversation because right now there's not a Democratic co-sponsor for that. And that's why, because that's necessary

because of the filibuster. And that's also part of history to unpack. We as all the Democrats, we wanted to eliminate the filibuster. We call to eliminate the filibuster. And now we find ourselves that we love it now.

And that reminds people that the filibuster is important about bringing on the other parts of to have a conversation. And now for me, there's other parts of SAVE Act that's been problematic for Democrats. But for me as a Democrat, just fundamentally at the end of the day, showing basic basic ID to vote is is a very reasonable idea.

And I think 84 percent of Americans in the last polling from Pew supports that. And Wisconsin, a very, very purple state, just less a year ago, they put that in their constitution. And that was passed nearly by 2 to 1, margin 2. Yeah, so if it could just come down to where just showing a state ID, you know, any state

ID, you know, I think that would make it more difficult for Democrats to defend just basic kinds of ID.

So what's in there that's beyond there that's so problematic? In other words, if you had a clean bill just showing your ID to vote, you would support that legislation?

Yeah, I mean, well, I'm not I'm I'm a Democrat. That's not going to freak out. You know, the world didn't end what happened in Wisconsin and in Georgia, for example, Georgia, which I think skews red. I think we'd agree. And after the law, they elected two Democrat senators, too.

So for me, that's kind of where we're at. So there's a lot to impact on that.

Understood. The president has floated doing an executive order to get the SAVE Act across the line. Is that possible, Senator? Or because, I mean, you you're the only Democrat in the Senate who said, yes, you you understand voter ID and you're comfortable with it. Is there any way that you see anybody else in your in your party that in the Senate that

you think could support that along with yourself?

Yeah, I don't know. I can't speak for anyone, but what I can say, what I've seen, you know, if it's just a state I.D. and states provide free free ones I think everybody should have ID honestly that allows people to more chance to participate in our society where they're joining for your library or running a car or doing all kinds of things what what that

excludes for a lot of Americans if they don't have just a basic state ID yeah, so and the vast majority of Americans have no problem with that. And you know then there's kinds of examples you know whether it's Wisconsin or Georgia that hasn't really seemed to be like the end of the world.

Yeah absolutely. All right. Well I want to move on and talk about Iran. Your voice has been so important here in terms of support for Israel. And of course, the president just met with Netanyahu again. U.S. and Iran officials held another round of nuclear talks in Geneva today.

Believe the talks at this point have ended this morning. As military tensions continue to rise between the two nations, Iranian naval forces, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, conducted military drills in the Strait of Hormuz Monday, and Special Envoys Steve Whitcoff and Jared Kushner are leading these negotiations. I want to get your take on this, because in the middle of all of these talks, Senator, it looks like Khomeini is mocking the United States again.

First, here's the president on his role in all of this.

Watch. I'll be involved in those talks indirectly, and they'll be very important. We'll see what can happen. Specifically, Iran's a very tough negotiator. They're good negotiators or bad negotiators. I would say they're bad negotiators, because we could have had a deal instead of sending the B-2s in to knock out their nuclear potential.

We had to send the B-2s. I hope they're going to be more reasonable. I think they want to make a deal. I don't think they want the consequences of not making a deal.

Senator, if this group can't even, you know, sort of hold back on their hostilities against the United States during the talks, what should we expect? Because here are Khomeini's tweets. The U.S. president has said that for 47 years the United States has not been able to eliminate the Islamic Republic.

That's a good confession, I say. You, too, will not be able to do this. Then he goes on to say, the Americans constantly say that they've sent a warship toward Iran. A warship is a dangerous piece of military hardware. However, more dangerous than that warship is the weapon that can send that warship to the bottom of the sea.

So now they're threatening us on their nuclear capabilities, I guess.

Well, I mean, it's laughable. I mean, I think it took Israel exactly about two days to achieve air supremacy, and they were begging for a ceasefire about that war last year. And now, absolutely, I supported the B-2s bombing their nuclear facilities as well, too. We can never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb.

Absolutely not. And I was the only Democrat to support striking those facilities, and I will be probably the only Democrat again. Now, that's why it's entirely, entirely important to make sure that Iran never acquires that nuclear bomb. So I don't think you can trust Iran right now. And they are so desperate now,

they were executing thousands and thousands of their young citizens just wanting for rights and democracy too. So I think they're teetering and I think they're scared. And that's why they put out that laughable tweet just recently, because they know that they're scared and they realize that we mean business and now we can strike and hit their nuclear facilities again because we have the we have the ability to do exactly that.

Well, I mean, it's literally a threat. I mean, the other the other tweet from Khomeini says the U.S. president keeps saying that they have the strongest military force in the world. The strongest military force in the world may at times be struck so hard that it cannot get up again.

Yeah, I mean, it's just it's laughable. Yeah, I mean, Israel just wrecked them, absolutely wrecked them into submission just last year. And now here we are now. It's like they do not have the capabilities to talk that tough, they can't back it up. And now I hope that there's a peaceful kind of outcome,

but I don't think that's gonna happen because the only thing that they respect and respond to is force just exactly what we used about destroying parts of their nuclear facilities. And I'll be the Democrat to stand with Israel through that, for peace in the region. And now let's call Iran what they are, and they need to be taken out of the business

of acquiring a nuclear bomb.

So the president has put sanctions and tried to use diplomacy in this situation since that, you know, taking out the nuclear facilities. But now the president wants the ballistic missiles taken out, and he wants the Iranians to stop supporting these terrorist proxies. You say, look, the world knows Iran's never going to honor any of this, any of this, and any treaty, so why are we negotiating? What are we negotiating?

I agree.

I've said I've said that on Twitter just a couple of days ago. It's like, why? I mean, to me, it's a waste of time. They only respond by force and strength. And I fully support that. And another thing we want to remind people, if China didn't buy the vast majority of all their oil, that absolutely would have broken that regime.

China is willing to support this regime, and they continue to provide the revenue that backs up their regime. So here we are. We can't ever allow these kinds of nuclear ambitions and all these other missiles technology to the—I will support those kind of strikes. nuclear ambitions, and now all these other missiles, technology, too. I will support those kind of strikes, and if we do bring up another Iranian war powers,

I will vote no against that, too.

Well, you raise a really important point in terms of China, because China acts like a friend to the United States, but then is complicit on every level, undermining the United States. What do you want to see out of this upcoming meeting between the president and Xi Jinping in April? Because I know that there are plenty of Chinese companies that trade on our exchanges, and, you know, I mean, aren't we in many ways just funding the expansion of our number one adversary

here? Are there other things to be doing to get tough with China so that they're not bullying the world like they are right now with their critical minerals?

Absolutely.

I mean, you know, they're not, obviously they're not an ally. They're not even, I'm not sure they're even a frenemy. So for me, you know, confront them. Why do you buy all of the Iranian oil and that props up a poisonous regime and a destabilizing force in the region? Why don't you want peace in Middle East?

Why would you want to support that? Because they back the kinds of proxies that, you know, that Hamas and Hezbollah. Why? So I would, that's, I think that's entirely appropriate if the president confronts them and demands that they must stop this kinds of destabilizing force. And it's actually evil, evil standing with a regime like Iran.

Yeah. And you've tweeted about a lot of this, as well. And I want to get your take on sort of the response that you get from your colleagues, because you look at all of these issues in such a practical way, which is why you've got so many fans and so many supporters of moderates and Republicans, as well. Senator, you've said to me in the past that there's rot within the Democrat Party when

it comes to anti-Israel rhetoric among some members. I mean, Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently suggested that the U.S. should consider reevaluating military aid to Israel. I mean, it was stunning. Tell us more.

No, I agree.

You know, I've consistently, that's part of the rot in the Democratic Party. You know, why? If you have to pick a side, why would you pick the side or defend Hamas or defend Iran in a way? For me, stand with Israel. I'll never vote for any kinds of restrictions on aid, whether it's military, financial,

or intelligence. There are never going to be any restrictions on that. And now, for here we are, we can have peace. Again, that's become part of the serious problem in our party.

So are the Democrats standing in the way, extremists like AOC, are they standing in

the way of peace in the Middle East then? Well, I'm saying I refuse to pander to the part of my Democratic Party that finds that there's value in being anti-Israel. And that's effectively, they use the word anti-Zionism. I mean, effectively, what that's really become on college campuses and it's just anti-Semitism. You know, we have a problem here in our party, and I'm going to stand against that and always unapologetic supporter for Israel.

And I think all of this will be in the president's State of the Union address coming up in one week's time. And of course, then we're all in on watching the midterm elections. You predicted that the Democrats could regain control of the House and narrow an already very thin, razor thin lead in the majority in the Senate. Why is that? Do you not think that some of these issues are resonating with people?

Well, what I do think, I mean, you don't have to be an expert for anything. I mean, as you point out, the margin is very close. And there's always history always tells us there's a backlash against the party in power. There's always going to be some kind of a backlash.

So I think most people would have assumed that the House is going to flip. Now, here in the Senate, that's a little more difficult. And now you have other races in the play. For me, like for Texas, for example, Cornyn is a reasonable Republican, and now that would be money in the bank.

But now I don't know why politically, I'm not sure why the Republicans and the president wouldn't sit on that and just lock down Texas. But for me, there's other states that are in flux. So that's why I'm saying, you know, focus on things, focus on securing our border and deporting all the criminals and stop all the kinds of tragedies in Minneapolis and focus on other things that traditionally the Republicans are stronger

on like the economy.

Yeah, I mean, that's a great point because I think most people agree that we need to get the criminals out of America and they don't want to see this kind of crime and chaos. But of course, the FBI is reporting now that crime numbers are down sharply across the country. Senator, walk us through what you think are the most important priorities for American citizens today going into the midterm elections.

Well, what I think, Americans are constantly responding to affordability, and that's a real issue for many people now. But I don't think that the economy's in the kinds of, and it's not really in the kinds of condition the way the extreme rhetoric would describe it. Similar like it was back in 2024, I think the economy is much stronger

and more resilient for that. So for me, I would focus on the things that don't really get anybody any upside for that and focus that. Now, thankfully, inflation actually was below the kinds of expectation and the stock market is up now a thick hit.

Fifty thousand now. So for me focus on those kinds of affordability things now. That's I think the vast majority Americans want and less chaos and a lot of the kinds of other chaos and that's why that's the dynamic that we have here in 2026. Yeah you're right I mean I

looked at the numbers the other day we had almost 5% growth in the fourth quarter we had an inflation number the other day that was lower than expectations and we had jobs created that were better than expected but still you see your colleagues like Chuck Schumer and others saying that the economy is so bad. I mean, do you think that people understand

what's really going on, even though you've got all this politicking underway?

All I'm saying, like when I'm going to just provide like an honest assessment, you know, the economy was much stronger back in 24 during that and I'm going to say that here in 26 not to remember America was obsessed with eggs eggs eggs. I do most of the shopping here my family

and I buy you know a dozen for 2 bucks. I mean I think that's I think that's incredibly affordable. Yeah, so there's other things to so I I'm not going to respond to the history on either side. I'm just going to say, hey, here's what I think where we actually are and be very fair about this.

Understood about the state of affairs today. Senator, it's great to have you on this program. You are a good man and we appreciate your leadership, sir. Thank you.

Thank you for having me on, Maria.

All right, Democrat Senator John Fetterman this morning. We'll be right back. We'll be right back.

Stay with us.