Transcript of The GOP is two seats away from a House majority. Here’s why it could be a historically slim win

Some breaking news for you this hour as CNN has just projected that the Republican David Valadeo will hold on to his California House seat. Obviously, we are watching all of these final races very closely to see the majority on Capitol Hill. I want to get right to CNN's Harry Entin. And Harry, can you just first bring us up to speed now that we have this win tonight in California holding on to that seat, how close are Republicans to having control of the House of Representatives?

Slowly but surely, they're making their way to the magic 218 seats. Caitlin, look where the Republicans are right now. We projected they have won 216 seats, only 207 for Democrats. Of course, 218 being the magic number, but of course, how many seats are they ahead in at this particular point? Republicans are ahead in 222 seats, a little bit more than the 218, but not so much Democrats at 213. But I would not be surprised if the number for Republicans actually end up with is actually a little bit smaller. Why I want you to take out to California where of course, we just called that race. Let's take a look at some of the uncalled races. First off, let's take a look at this race. California's 13th district, just a little bit north of that race we just called. John Duarte only up by two points. Still 73% of the estimated vote is actually reporting. Still 27% still out. That margin has been closing, Caitlin. It's been closing. There's also another race in California where the margin has been closing. Let's go down to Southern California. We're going to go right here to an Orange county seat, Michelle Steele, at this particular point.

Look at that. Her Advantage is only 22, 72 votes. It's less than a point. The margin has been tighter and tighter and tighter, Caitlin. So it wouldn't be surprising to me if Republicans actually end up a little bit closer to 220 than 222 seats.

Okay. So if that's how this works out, obviously they would still hold the majority, but it would be a slim majority. And I'm down here in Palm beach where Trump has picked two House Republicans to serve in his administration. How could that complicate the math for Republicans?

Oh, how could it complicate the math? Well, first off, let's just say that Donald Trump, in fact, didn't put anybody in his cabin, and we know that he's going to. Right now the GOP may have a record small House majority. 222 would be this Tied for the lowest ever since there were 50 states in the union. If it dropped down to 221, it would be the lowest on record heading into a Congress. Now, you mentioned, of course, that he may be selecting two folks from Congress. Let's take a look. Right. At least Stefanik and Waltz, of course, from Florida for national security adviser and UN ambassador. That could end up with a majority at 220, maybe 219 seats. My goodness gracious. What a small margin for error, Caitlin?

Yeah, a small margin for error obviously means basically none. Harriet, thank you as always for breaking down the math with us.

Thank you and enjoy the weather.

My Capitol Hill source tonight is a New York Republican who just won reelection in a competitive district. Congressman Mike Lawler joins us now, and it's great to have you here, Congressman, given what you just heard from Harry. You know, Republicans are poised right now, it looks like, to have a trifecta of control in Washington. But are you worried about the margins in the House given that two of your Republican colleagues have been picked to serve in Trump's administration?

Well, first, Caitlin, let me say President Trump made a great selection in Elise Stefanik for UN Ambassador and Mike Walts for national Security adviser. These are two tremendous members of Congress who will do a phenomenal job in the administration. Obviously, any time you lose members throughout the course of a Congress, it makes it, you know, a tighter margin. And we've been living through that in this Congress. We have passed a lot of bills through the House in a divided government that, frankly, Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats refused to move. I think by having complete control in Washington with the White House, the Senate and the House, it will make it easier to pass legislation with small majorities. But obviously, there's very little room for error. And so we're going to have to work through it as a conference, negotiate, find bipartisan compromise where possible. And frankly, hopefully many of my Democratic colleagues do not engage in Resistance 2.0, but actually work with House Republicans and Senate Republicans to address many of the problems that we're facing as a country. The American people spoke loud and clearly on last Tuesday that they want us to move in a different direction.

Yeah. And we've seen how even some Republicans have, you know, played a factor in that resistance there. We'll see what that looks like. But you just mentioned Mike Waltz, who's going to be national security adviser, at least. Stefanik, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. what do you make of Trump's pick tonight to run the Department of Defense? Pete Hegseth, any thoughts on him?

Well, I think the president is obviously putting forth his national security apparatus, including John Ratcliffe at the CIA. I know there's been reports about Marco Rubio for Secretary of State, though I don't believe it's been finalized. But look, Pete Hegseth obviously is a decorated war veteran, two Bronze Stars, Army Commendation Medals, served in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been heavily involved in military affairs as well as veterans issues, and certainly is extremely knowledgeable. I think obviously there will be a Senate confirmation process, and he will obviously be able to better articulate his views on the Department of Defense. I think there's no question we need to rebuild the military and reform the Department of Defense. We have been working through that, this Congress to increase funding for the military and really make sure that we are in a position to combat the unholy alliance between China, Russia and Iran that we have seen forming around the globe. So, you know, Pete Hegseth obviously has a decorated military career, and I think he will be a strong choice along with the other members that have already been announced, including Mike Waltz, Elise Stefanik and John Ratcliffe.

Yeah. And as far as his views on the military, you know, we've already heard some of them. He is outspoken. He's on cable news every weekend. He did a podcast just a few days ago. Listen to what he said there about women's role in combat.

I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective, hasn't made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated. We've all served with women, and they're great. It just our institutions don't have to incentivize that in places where traditionally, not traditionally over human history, men in those positions are more capable.

What do you make of him saying men in those positions are more capable than women serving in combat?

I know many women who have served in combat and served in our military, and they do a phenomenal job serving. I'll let him obviously better articulate his view on that matter. But I think at the end of the day, we need a military that is prepared, that is ready for battle, and that obviously includes men and women serving in our armed forces. But, you know, obviously over the course of our history, we have seen obviously predominantly men in the military serving in combat roles. But I think there's no question women have played a significant role in our armed forces and continue to do so. And, you know, we will obviously continue to have a diverse role within our military for men and women. But I think the bigger issue is military readiness and making sure that our armed forces have the resources they need to do the job.

Yeah, and obviously that's because, you know, women weren't allowed to serve in the military, as you very well know, Congressman, before that. But the other announcement that we are getting out of Palm beach tonight on this outside group that Trump is putting Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in charge of, he's calling it the Department of Government Efficiency. I wonder how you view that, because what we've heard is an aim of 1 to 2 trillion dollars of slashing government spending. As you know, the government spent about 7 trillion. And last fiscal year, over 5 trillion of that went to health care, veterans benefits, Social Security. Is that realistic, in your view, to cut that much of federal government spending without touching those?

Under the Fiscal Responsibility act, we are saving taxpayers 2.1 trillion over the next decade without touching veterans benefits, military, homeland Security, Social Security, Medicare. We did that by focusing in on 11% of the federal budget and finding $2.1 trillion in savings over the next decade. We passed that this Congress under the Fiscal Responsibility act, signed into law by Joe Biden. It was a bipartisan bill designed to keep the government open and funded, as well as not defaulting on our debt. But I don't think there's any question we have a debt crisis in this country. We're $35 trillion in debt. We cannot sustain that. We cannot continue to borrow and print new money at the levels that we have. That's why we dealt with record inflation. The Biden administration increased federal spending by $5 trillion in its first two years. So we have to rein in federal spending. It requires going line by line, agency by agency, department by department. This, frankly, I view as a debt commission looking at, you know, very much like a blue ribbon panel looking at ways to reduce government inefficiency and spending. It does not mean it's all going to go into effect.

It's recommendations. Congress ultimately has the power of the purse. Congress will make the final decisions with respect to federal spending. But I think it is important that we actually have a serious look at our national debt. We all acknowledge it's a problem, and yet the moment you start looking at how to rein it in, people start attacking. But at the end of the day, the only way we're going to get control of our debt is if we do have a comprehensive look. So I think this is important.

Yeah, I don't think anyone's attacking it. They're just wondering how it'll work. We will see Congressman Mike Lawler. Congrats on reelection. Thank you for joining us tonight.

Thanks, Caitlin.