Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Iran Fires Missiles At U.S. Air Base In Qatar; Trump: No Americans Harmed In Iran's Targeting Of U.S. Base; New DHS Bulletin: Iran Could "Target" U.S. Officials If Tehran Believes Regime's Stability Or Survival Is At Risk; Supreme Court OKs Trump To Remove Migrants To South Sudan. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired June 23, 2025 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[16:00:19]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news, Iran retaliates.

I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA.

An American air base in Qatar coming under fire from medium and short- range ballistic missiles. Iran's supreme leader posting just moments ago, his nation, quote, will not surrender to anyone's violation.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)

HUNT: This video released by Iran. Reportedly shows the moment one of those missiles was launched. Iranian state media calling this operation, quote, blessings of victory.

In a new post on his Truth Social platform, President Trump said that no Americans were harmed and that damage was minimal. He also confirmed that Iran gave advanced warning that an attack was coming.

The president adding that Iran had, quote, gotten it all out of their system, end quote. Al Udeid air base is Americas largest installation in the Middle East. It's home to about 10,000 service members, and it's also the regional headquarters for U.S. Central Command.

People at a shopping mall there in Doha running for safety upon hearing that Iranian missiles were headed toward their country and this footage showing debris landing by the side of the road. It's unknown whether this is from an Iranian missile or a defensive interceptor.

All of this coming less than 48 hours after American bombers and submarines struck three Iranian nuclear sites. A senior White House official says this retaliation was expected and that at this time, President Trump does not want more military engagement in the region.

CNN across all angles of this story from around the world.

Let's start at the White House with CNN chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny jeff. Of course, the question here, does it end with what we saw right now? Clearly, the president seems to be trying to send some signals that that could be a possibility. What are you hearing?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: There's no doubt that this message just sent a few moments ago from President Trump certainly signals what we've been hearing here for the last few hours, even as the missiles were being fired at the Al Udeid air base outside Doha. There was a sense that President Trump and his team want to de-escalate, and this message certainly confirms that.

Let's take a look at this and read it together, Kasie. The president has said Iran has responded to our obliteration of their nuclear facilities with a very weak response, which we expected and have effectively countered. There have been 14 missiles fired, 13 were knocked down, one was set free.

He goes on to say, because it was heading in a non-threatening direction, he said, I am pleased to report that no Americans were harmed and hardly any damage was done. Most importantly, they've gotten it out of their system.

Interesting how the White House and the president would know that, because that certainly is an open question. But he goes on to say, I want I would like to thank Iran for giving us an early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost and nobody to be injured.

But, Kasie, perhaps the most important part of this, if we could put this back on screen again, the president says this. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to peace and harmony in the region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same.

So, this is the first time were hearing the U.S. president say out loud that he would like Israel to effectively stop its attacks on Iran. So certainly, this would be significant. Iran has long said that they will not negotiate diplomatically as long as they are under attack.

So, we will see if this is anything more substantive than just the president sending out a message. But it certainly is a clear one that the U.S. is still looking for an off ramp here for diplomacy, very much an open question if that could happen. But there is no sign of a retaliatory response in exchange to the missile attack on Al Udeid. And ironically, the president was just on that base. The first president to visit in a 2000 -- since 2003. He was just there last month, spending some time with the troops there.

So, certainly, that was top of mind as the White House situation room was watching those attacks unfold. But the president, clearly taking a beat and certainly signaling a moment for diplomacy -- Kasie.

HUNT: A lot of really fascinating layers there.

And, Clarissa Ward, it sets you up quite nicely in Tel Aviv, especially considering that line jeff showed us about him, almost encouraging the Israelis to make peace. [16:05:03]

What do you take away from that, and what do you think the Israelis will take?

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think the Israelis have been projecting that they are starting to get somewhat close to the end of their operation in Iran. We've heard from the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, I believe the phraseology he used, we are very, very close.

Having said that, it was still a very busy day over Iran's airspace with Israel launching a number of strikes, one of the heaviest days of strikes. In fact, as our Fred Pleitgen on the ground in Tehran saw for himself. But Israel, feeling quite confident that they have now in, you know, the claim of the Israeli air force is that they have destroyed roughly 50 percent or half of Iran's missile launchers.

And it's interesting in terms of the reaction that we have heard or the lack of real reaction we've heard towards Iran's attempted attack or missile strike on that base in Qatar. Basically, we heard the IDF spokesperson saying that it's another clear demonstration of Iran's hostility and violence and the fact that it's not just a threat to Israel, but the whole region.

I mean, that's what they're saying publicly. Privately, I think they're quite gratified to see Iran's response. They're assuming that that if it is indeed one and done, so to speak, Kasie, that that's indicative of the fact that Iran is in a relatively weak position.

And I should say I've been talking to officials and experts around the region since Iran's response. And while publicly were seeing the usual pro forma statements saying, you know, condemning Iran's attack, privately, you really sense a sense of relief, basically, that this was the least escalatory option that Iran could have gone with of all the options available to it, Kasie.

HUNT: Seems like a remarkable, remarkable reality. And to that point, I mean, Christiane Amanpour, Iran, of course, gave Qatar advance notice of the attack. The number of missiles that Iran used, the same number as the number of bombs that the U.S. used to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. What message do you take away? They seem to be sending one.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Very clear messages being sent and a very clear message back from the United States as well, that this was inevitable, that they had telegraphed that they had no choice but to respond. The supreme leader of Iran, in the words of one analyst, was caught between saving face and saving his own neck. And they have done something that apparently the region and the United States expected. Apparently, it could have been telegraphed.

And it follows very much the same pattern as what Iran did when President Trump in 1.0 ordered the assassination of the chief commander of the revolutionary guards, Suleiman Ghasemi, or rather, Qasem Soleimani. And they telegraphed that they would have to respond. And it was this kind of response that didn't cause significant damage nor injury or death to any American servicepeople.

So, the big bottom line here is in the overarching message, and being telegraphed from certainly, the United States is that lets get diplomacy back on track. And Iran, I spoke to the deputy foreign minister. You heard what the foreign minister said over the weekend.

We understand they have no intention of pulling out of the NPT. They're not going to go rogue. They're not going to do anything like that, they say, and they want to get back to negotiations.

They had said, of course, that they could not negotiate while under bombardment. And so, this may be the minute that this stops. And if President Trump says that to the Israelis, although the Israelis have really been leading this fight, it was Benjamin Netanyahu's (AUDIO GAP) for decades, and he's done it.

But I spoke to a very senior Israeli, the former Mossad chief, Amos Yadlin, today, and he said our goal was to set back, if not destroy, Iran's nuclear program. We have probably done it. We don't have a full BDA, but we in the U.S. have probably done it, and now, we have to get back to negotiations.

He actually said, there is no such thing as destroying a nuclear program from the air. It has to be diplomacy and it has to be -- you know, worked out.

I spoke to the former secretary of state, John Kerry, who said the same thing, that he hoped that President Trump would take into account what Iran called the proportionality of its response and go back to the negotiating table. I spoke to an Iranian former negotiator who said very similar things that, look, we have to work this out with negotiations. Of course, from their perspective, they thought they were in negotiations before Israel struck that Friday ago and before the U.S. joined in over the weekend.

But they believe that there had been a framework offered to them by the United States presented to them by Steve Witkoff, the special envoy, and that it was one that was workable.

[16:10:08]

I mean, in short, it's very similar to the nuclear deal as a temporary bridging method. And then willing, they said, to talk about the other thing that's been proposed, which is the consortium that the U.S. and I think some Iranians have come up with, which would involve enrichment for a civilian program.

But somewhere off the mainland of Iran, these are the these are the plans. And we'll see whether they get a chance to work. But there is no way to fix this by military means alone. And diplomacy has to do the final job, including keeping inspectors in Iran to monitor everything that they do, which there had been under the JCPOA -- Kasie. All right. Christiane Amanpour for us in London, Clarissa Ward in Tel

Aviv, Jeff Zeleny here in Washington -- thank you to all of you for getting us started today.

With us now, Admiral James Stavridis, the former NATO supreme allied commander, and now, CNN's senior military analyst.

Admiral, thank you, as always, for being here.

It seems fairly clear, based on what our reporters around the world are outlining here, that Iran seems to have, the president thinks he's gotten it out of his system. I should read to you what Donald Trump also just posted on Truth Social. He says, quote, "Congratulations, world. It's time for peace."

Do you think that's correct?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: Man, I hope so. And I love it that he thinks the Iranians have gotten it out of their system. I think there's still a lot of venom in the Iranian body politic, but they have certainly blinked and they blinked in the face of overwhelming military superiority, combination of Israel and the United States. That's a good thing.

And if you think back just a few days ago, Kasie, you and I were discussing, okay, what are the options for Iran here if there was a U.S. strike and we talked about them coming back to the table, that didn't happen at least yet. We talked about what appears to have happened, a kind of a diminished response, performative, shoot a few missiles say, hey, that's the end of it. Get it out of your system.

And we talked about, would they go big and close the Strait of Hormuz and launch terrorist cells?

I think, fortunately, as we sit here this afternoon, it appears they went through door number two, minimalist response. And I'm cautiously optimistic we could get back to a negotiating table with a real understanding on their part. They can't have a nuclear weapon. They can't have an enrichment process. Maybe downstream we could come up with something doing it on an island in the Arabian gulf under international supervision, kind of face saving.

But let's all be happy, at least cautiously happy, that Iran has blinked and we have avoided a big time response from Tehran.

HUNT: Very encouraging, Admiral, to hear you lay all of that out.

I do though, wonder, are there areas where you think that we should not let our guard down? Because of course, there is what they're doing publicly, what they are broadcasting to the world. It doesn't mean they don't have covert ways of continuing to try to respond absolutely correct.

STAVRIDIS: And let's also remember that the United States used a very capable operational deception just a few days ago when the president said, hey, were thinking about two weeks and, oh, our B-2 bombers were headed to Guam. You know, there's always the possibility of operational deception.

I think in this case, what makes me reasonably confident Iran doesn't have any tricks up their sleeve is simply the incredible weakness of their position. Having said all that, what could they do? They could launch cyberattacks.

They could use terrorist cells in ways that they could try and disassociate themselves from it. They could still go after the Strait of Hormuz. All those things are possible. But, boy, they look a lot less likely from where we sit right now.

Final thought one thing I am advising all of our folks to be thinking about is cyber. It's hard to attribute if they wanted to conduct further mischief, they might use cyber, particularly against some of our Arab partners.

HUNT: Very briefly, sir, do you think the Israelis are going to be willing to stop their bombardment campaign if that's what's required to de-escalate?

[16:15:00]

STAVRIDIS: I do. If President Trump really leans in on them at this point, President Trump has been incredibly helpful to Israel. I think the Israelis are at a stage where they can reduce the bombardment. They've knocked back the nuclear program, knocked back a lot of the ballistic program, knocked back the drone production.

I think it's a good time for the Israelis to hit pause. I think President Trump will ask him to do that. Then we have a reasonable shot at getting to a negotiation again. Let's hope so.

HUNT: Let's hope so indeed.

All right. Admiral James Stavridis, so grateful for you, sir. Thanks very much for being here.

STAVRIDIS: Thanks, Kasie.

HUNT: All right. We've got much more of our breaking news coverage, including from here in Washington. New reaction rolling in from top lawmakers on the Iranian retaliation. We're going to talk with Iraq war veteran, Congressman Seth Moulton.

Plus, what the speaker of the House is now telling CNN about legislation to dial back the president's military powers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What is it worth targeting Iran's nuclear facilities now that they have retaliated against U.S. interests overseas, and there's a risk of a regional war?

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The president warned them not to retaliate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:20:36]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back.

Joining us now to discuss Iran's retaliation for U.S. military strikes, Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and, of course, a marine veteran who completed four tours during the Iraq war.

Congressman, thanks so much for being here.

REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): Good to be here.

HUNT: So, of course, as we watch this unfold over the weekend, now we see this retaliation. You know what it's like when the decisions that are made in Washington hit the real world. You have put yourself in harm's way for the country.

Do you think that the president did the right thing here, especially considering how Iran has responded?

MOULTON: It's too early to tell. We just don't know, because if this goes well and Iran's nuclear program is genuinely stopped and they're actually able to negotiate a long term deal to keep eyes on, you know, intrusive inspections to make sure that they're never able to restart their program. Then we might look back on this as a good decision.

We should have a very important debate about whether it was constitutional. You know, there have been presidents on both sides of the aisle who have taken military action like this without consulting Congress. And there are some serious legal issues that need to be raised. But looking forward, we have to figure out now how we continue to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapons program. And if these strikes end up being part of that whole story, then people might actually see it as successful down the road.

HUNT: Do you think that if in fact that happens, it will have been worth it?

MOULTON: Well, I mean, look, let's be clear. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. And for all the very legitimate questions that many of my colleagues are raising about how this action was taken and about the risks of wider war, which we absolutely cannot get into, we cannot get bogged down into a wider war in the Middle East. We also have to all agree that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons program. And we've tried for a long time to make sure that that doesn't happen.

Now, this is the president, of course, who pulled out of the deal that kept them at least a year away from getting a bomb that served as a as a baseline upon which more deals could have been struck to, you know, further prevent them from enriching uranium, prevent them from getting ballistic missiles. I mean, it provided a diplomatic baseline to do exactly what he's now saying he wants to do, which is to get back into a deal.

So, when you look at the whole history here, Trump has been all over the map. But let's not lose sight of our clear objectives. Iran is a regime that has constantly said "death to Israel, death to America". They have threatened American troops. They're threatening them today.

They killed a lot of my colleagues on the ground in Iraq. And we cannot allow a regime like this to have a nuclear weapon. And they're further away from that now than they were a few weeks ago.

HUNT: One of your colleagues in the House, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, posted that this was essentially an impeachable offense. The fact that he did this without asking Congress, do you agree with that?

MOULTON: Well, look, I voted for Donald Trump's impeachment twice. This is a convicted felon who's president of the United States. But you could use her same argument to say that Obama should have been impeached when he started a war in Libya without consulting Congress.

So, I think that actually the blame really is on Congress. We have abrogated our Article 1 authority to make these decisions, to take these decisions upon ourselves. And frankly, Speaker Johnson should have called us back to Washington to actually have this debate that members of both parties have said we should have.

HUNT: What does it tell you that this administration still, as of our understanding, or at least when I when I sat down to do the show, our understanding was the gang of eight still had not been briefed. The Democratic members of the Gang of Eight still had not been briefed.

What does it tell you that the administration is briefing top Republicans, but not Democrats, on this?

HUNT: That they care more about partisan politics than national security, and they care more about partisan politics than keeping our operational secrets safe. I understand that they even tipped off Fox News before they told Democratic officials in Congress. And at the end of the day, they want to just continue dividing the country. That has always been Trump's political aim.

That's dangerous when you have a commander in chief who's more interested in politics than strategic victory, who always puts political considerations first. As John Bolton, one of Trump's former officials, said, Trump's going to make this decision based on what he thinks will make him look best in the light of history. It's all about himself.

[16:25:00]

You know, when you heard Secretary Hegseth at the press conference with the chairman of the joint chiefs, Hegseth was always talking about Trump, not the troops. The chairman, on the other hand, was talking about these heroic actions by the pilots and other and other servicemen and women who made this operation happen. For Trump, the focus is always on him. And that's dangerous when you have someone like that making decisions that affect our troops' lives. HUNT: One conversation that we're having here, of course, has been

around the idea of regime change. President Trump kind of floated that a little bit earlier today. The conversation has dialed down since we've seen what Iran's response has been initially. But is there a world where you think the United States should support regime change in Iran? If it were to prevent them from getting a nuclear bomb?

MOULTON: Not if it gets us dragged into a never another endless war in the Middle East. We can't afford to do that. I think Americans know viscerally we don't want to be in a ground war in the Middle East because of our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. But also, if you just look strategically at where we are in the war world, let's not forget the greatest national security threat to the United States is China and the Pacific. That's why successive Democratic and Republican presidents have said we have to deter war in the Pacific. We're not going to deter war in the pacific.

If China sees us bogged down in the Middle East. But having said all of that, lets also be clear that this is an evil Iranian regime that hangs its own people if they disagree, that seeks out women to disappear them from the streets and torture them in prison if they are not wearing head coverings, that hangs people from cranes if they're gay. I mean, so this is an evil regime that wants to obliterate the United States and our allies.

Am I in favor of regime change? Yes. I just don't want to have a ground war to make it happen.

HUNT: All right. Congressman Seth Moulton, very grateful to have you, sir. Thanks very much for being here.

All right. See you next time.

All right. Coming up next here, back to the Middle East with Anderson Cooper, who is live in Israel. And our panel will be here to discuss what they think President Trump will do next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:30:01]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back.

CNN's Anderson Cooper is live for us in Tel Aviv, where he is, of course, been for the past week or so.

Anderson, what is the latest on the ground there after this retaliatory strike from Iran and the president's statement that he says that he thinks Iran seems to have gotten it out of their system. His words.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "AC360": Look, I think there's certainly relief that a lot of people here feel that, you know, there was a lot of question about what would the response from Iran be? Israel has done, you know, a very effective job of degrading the proxy forces that Iran in prior years has used to strike. Hamas Hezbollah militias in in Iraq.

It remains to be seen if this is in fact the only response that that Iran is going to make. But if it is, there's certainly some relief here among people you talk to about what they see as a, you know, a very coordinated, you know, strike that, that Qatar was given advance notice of. It seems it all seems to kind of play out almost as a theater, as some have called it here.

You know, again, remains to be seen. Theres cautious optimism that this is -- this is the only response from Iran. There's a lot of people here who are breathing a big sigh of relief.

Obviously, there continue to be the threat of strikes from Iran into Israel. You know, there are air raid warning sirens went off, you know, earlier today. Once today. But for the most part, it has been a quiet day here in the skies over Tel Aviv and elsewhere. Waiting to see what the night brings.

But I think there's a lot of relief from -- from people and a lot of questions about what comes next. How long will Israel continue offensive operations in the skies over Iran? How long will they feel the need to do that? They've indicated that they are coming close to the end of sort of their target list.

So, we'll see how much longer the offensive operations go on. And then of course, what the next steps are in terms of accounting for the enriched uranium in Iran and whatever diplomatic steps then can be taken.

HUNT: Indeed.

All right. Anderson Cooper for us in Tel Aviv. Anderson, thank you, as always. Really, really appreciate it.

Our panel is now here in THE ARENA.

CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist and podcast host, Lulu Garcia-Navarro; the host of "The Chuck Toddcast", Chuck Todd; CNN global affairs commentator, former Pentagon spokesperson in the Biden administration, Sabrina Singh; and CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.

Chuck Todd, the arc of today has honestly been a pretty significant because when we woke up this morning, I mean, if you looked at a four box of news channels, it felt almost we are at war with Iran. The president is posting about regime change. The Israelis are continuing to drop bombs.

Then we saw the Iranian response. There seems to be a breath that's being taken now because, okay, if this is what it is, that as Clarissa outlined, is an option that could lead to some de-escalation. Where are we right now?

CHUCK TODD, HOST OF "THE CHUCK TODDCAST": No, it looks like I mean, I don't want to say Iran is surrendering, but this does feel a bit performative. What they did, which is an indication they seemed they know they're in a corner and they really don't have a good way out. And I guess the question is, are they in regime preservation mode, right?

[16:35:02]

If the regime wants to preserve itself, they need to -- they need to figure out how to get a deal, I guess, without humiliating themselves. And because that could lead to internal discord. There -- the question I have in all of this is because the country that feared a deal the most was Israel, right? In some ways, you know, they were -- they did not want to see a deal that sort of preserved the nuclear program. Will they be okay with it now, considering what appears to be where the nuclear program is?

But if Iran wants a deal, it seems as if now is the time to do it. The question is, are -- I think we don't -- what we don't know is what's happening internally. Does -- is the regime in. But if it is, then the question is how do you get it done? And is Israel ready to let the -- let it deal happen?

HUNT: Well, and Admiral Stavridis, who's, Scott Jennings, I always listen to. And since I've been listening to him through this, that lesson has been reaffirmed for me, suggested that Bibi Netanyahu might be willing to get on board with this.

Do you think -- I mean, this -- and I think, you know, Seth Moulton spoke to this. If this in fact, effectively sets back the program and doesn't lead to wider escalation, the president seems to have accomplished all the objectives that he set out to achieve.

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Of course. I told you yesterday, I didn't think we were at war and that this represented a de-escalation of the situation. And that's exactly where we are with this flaccid Iranian response.

In the words of the great boxer Roberto Duran, no mas, no mas. That's what Iran is saying after Israel has degraded their military capabilities and the president of the United States has taken away their ability to make nuclear weapons. This is capitulation, in my opinion, from Iran today. And it is a complete and total vindication of the Trump strategy, which was to let Israel beat these guys to a pulp. We show up and take away their nukes. Yes, let's have a deal now. I think it'd be great to have a deal with Iran about right now.

HUNT: Lulu, what do you think?

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think the winner here is Israel. I think Israel is now the superpower of the Middle East. What has happened since October 7th has transformed the region. It remains to be seen what that actually means in practice. But the Iranian regime, I agree with Scott, has capitulated right now.

We don't know what this is going to look like. I mean, I spent decades in the Middle East, and what I can tell you is that the arc of history is long and --

HUNT: They have long, the Iranians --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: They have -- they have a long memory.

TODD: They don't think in four-year terms.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: They don't think in four-year terms. And so, the victory today absolutely goes to the Trump administration tomorrow, next month, next year. We'll see.

SABRINA SINGH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, just to your point on the arc of history being so long, I mean, Iran does maintain significant cyber capabilities and they have their proxy networks throughout Iraq and Syria. I agree with Scott. I think they are certainly on their back foot right now. They are more than ever economically and militarily isolated.

But this cyber network that they have is still very active. And I think one thing that's important to point out during this time where Iran does maintain these capabilities, we don't have a cyber command -- cyber command commander confirmed right now. We have an acting. And this is a time when you would need a general or an admiral in that position to really be examining and working with DHS on the threats for Americans abroad and here at home. And we don't have someone in that position.

HUNT: So big picture, one of the things I think that's defined how we've, you know, the run up to these strikes, as well as the debate over it, is just how deeply partisan things have become, to the point that the president, the administration, is not briefing Democratic members of Congress, the Gang of Eight, the very top leaders on what is actually happening. That is very unusual.

And I think it is worth remembering -- and Congressman Moulton, just a couple of minutes ago said that the impeachment threat from AOC against Trump or insistence on it would also apply to President Obama when he, of course, struck Libya. And I think it's worth flashing back to remember what some Republicans in congress said at the time about that.

Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RON PAUL (R-TX): The Constitution is very clear. You don't go to war without a declaration.

SEN. MITCH MCCONELL (R-KY): This latest decision was taken without adequate consultation with Congress.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you commit U.S. troops and resources to combat, you should consult with Congress.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Allowing this assertion to stand unchallenged would increase the risk. That presidents will conduct similar military interventions in the future. Without seeking or receiving congressional authorization.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): They've never gone to the Congress for any authorization, and that has led to some pretty inflamed, or shall I say, bruised egos around here. And understandably, because the president should consult with Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Really underscores that a different era, chuck.

TODD: But it's not a different era. This is -- this is the --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: It's the one constant in Congress. It's the hypocrisy of the -- of the party that's not in power.

HUNT: But they were also calm. No one's that calm anymore.

TODD: But honestly, even though -- by the way, the passage of the War Powers Act, the president at the time didn't think it was -- no, I'm not sure it should apply this way. And other presidents have always been questioning of it. This has been a continued sort of debate between the executive and the legislative, but Congress just never wants to assert its authority. It always forgets they're Article 1.

HUNT: Because they don't want to be held accountable for it.

TODD: They don't want to hold the vote.

HUNT: Right.

TODD: They are chicken to have the vote. There was plenty of time to do it. They were chicken to have the vote.

HUNT: Obama tried to do it in Syria and Congress --

TODD: I did remember that, was the what -- because he didn't want to launch any strikes.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But there is a difference. There's a difference, though, in this debate and also not briefing Democrats about what you're doing. That seems to me like materially different, and I would love to understand what the thinking behind that is, because it isn't Democratic members of Congress who had a sort of, you know, group chat with --

TODD: Think about the Democrats that are in that group of eight journalists, all kind of supportive of likely the Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, Mark Warner, Jim Himes, these aren't -- these weren't going to be automatic critics and leakers.

So I -- this -- but this has been -- this Trump administration has been this way in 2.0, which is they don't deal with Democrats on anything.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, the new bulletin just coming out from Homeland Security warning that Iran could target U.S. officials. We'll dig in.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:45:52]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back.

As we continue to follow this breaking news out of the Middle East, we're learning that Iran could try to target U.S. government officials if Iranian leaders believe the, quote, stability or survivability, end quote, of their regime is at risk. That's according to a new Department of Homeland Security bulletin obtained by CNN.

CNN chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller joins us now with more.

John, what exactly does this mean and how worried should we be about it?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, it's a bulletin that was reported on by our own Sean Lyngaas from our Washington bureau. But it focuses on different threats that could come from Iran. And that has shifted because the American involvement went from tacit support of Israeli operations to direct involvement with the bombing, which then raises the potential threat level for retaliation.

But what it talks about is the potential lone wolf threat, which were familiar with the cyber threat from Iran to potentially attack or try to disable critical infrastructure as some kind of punishment operation. But more intriguing is the renewal of the idea that Iran might try to target U.S. government officials that it believes may be responsible for the killing of Iranian generals or Iranian officials.

And, Kasie, you know, from our own reporting that there has been a standing contract, if you will, out on several U.S. officials by Iran since President Trump in his first term took out their general, Qasem Soleimani, who basically was the head of their Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. But I think the warning from DHS is that this could renew that threat and add others if they believe that either the U.S. bombing will continue or that we are responsible for the targeting of some of their key people.

HUNT: Well, and, John, I also think it's worth underscoring. I mean, there was a threat against President Trump himself from the Iranians. No?

MILLER: No, that's right. I mean, the target list was people who were in the decision tree of that plot to take out General Soleimani. And that would be -- it was ordered by President Trump. It was supported by Mike -- by Ambassador Bolton, who was the national security advisor, and Mike Pompeo, who was the secretary of state at the time. Each one of them, according to intelligence, has been the target of a threat.

But the president Trump threat carried on, meaning during the campaign here in New York, the FBI arrested an Iranian operative who allegedly admitted to them that the government had hired him to get together a crew of people to try and assassinate Trump on the campaign trail because they believed security after he became president would be too tight to pull it off.

HUNT: Really remarkable.

I mean, Scott Jennings, I also think it's worth noting that when the president came back into office after he won, he stripped security that was given to his former officials by the president of the opposing party, John Bolton. Mike Pompeo, others. He stripped security in the face of the threat from Iran, from these people out of spite.

I mean, was that the right thing to do? I mean, if Americans who were executing the decision that you made to take out an Iranian general need protection from the American government. And by the way, that threat is about to get more intense now, with developments with you now in the White House, should he not be protecting these people?

JENNINGS: Well, I think given that were on a different footing with Iran and given what's happening in the Middle East right now, they should relook at the intelligence. If it's true that Iran may be trying to target U.S. officials or former officials, they should look at these on a case-by-case basis and be pretty lenient, in my opinion, in terms of who gets security. I mean, I'm certain current government officials have, you know, the kind of security they need.

But anybody in the president's orbit, given the threats that he's faced, his assassination attempts, what Iran tried to do to him and people around him, I think it's time to look at the intelligence. And, you know, make sure the decisions you've made are still current, given what's happening right now.

HUNT: John Miller, can I ask you, what should Americans believe?

[16:50:00]

What do you understand about the actual capability that the Iranians have to operate on American soil? Like, obviously, the Biden administration thought it was important to protect people like John Bolton from these threats. Does that tell us that they think that it's actually possible that they could have killed Americans on American soil?

MILLER: Well, I mean, let's look at what we learned when I was with the New York city police department, working with the Joint Terrorism Task Force here. We first had a two individual team whose job was simply to select targets for Hezbollah, which is a terrorist organization funded and largely controlled by Iran. And the idea was to look at critical infrastructure, tourist locations, government buildings, and build files on how to attack them. And then transmit those files to Hezbollah on behalf of Iran, in case the IRGC wanted to launch an attack, part one.

Part two, there was a particular Iranian dissident you're familiar with in Brooklyn who was very vociferous on social media about the regime. They hired individuals run by an intelligence officers to kidnap her, bring her to a boat and ship her back to Iran through Venezuela. When that plot was uncovered by the task force, and we took those people down, they hired an individual just to kill her. We arrested that guy in the street with an AK-47, in a car stop, hours after he left her residence when she wasn't there.

Since then, the plot to kill president Trump by another operative of Iran on the -- on the ground and a couple of others. So, they have been --

HUNT: So, yes, basically.

MILLER: They have been very active running sleeper cells to collect intelligence and active cells to take people out.

And then there's still the propaganda piece. I mean, the individual who stabbed Salman Rushdie, the author, at a book fair in Upstate New York, was reacting to propaganda from the Iranian regime.

HUNT: All right, John Miller, thank you very much, as always, for your sobering assessments and excellent information.

MILLER: Thank you.

HUNT: Really appreciate it.

MILLER: Our panel is going to stick around. We're going to be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:56:47]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back. This just coming in here to CNN. The Supreme Court has weighed in on a significant part of the president's immigration and deportation policy.

CNN's chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid, joins us now with more.

Paula, we understand this decision relates to the administration's attempts to deport people to countries other than the country that they are from. What are we learning?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's exactly right, Kasie. A significant win for the Trump administration.

Here, the high court allowing them to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their homeland. And we're talking about some turmoil-ridden countries like South Sudan, because a lower court judge had ruled that the Department of Homeland Security had to provide migrants written notice about where they were going and give them an opportunity to challenge that deportation on the ground that they could face torture or other adversity.

Now, this lower court judge also said that deporting these individuals to third party countries without due process unquestionably violated their constitutional protections. But now, while this litigation continues to play out, the Supreme Court allowing the administration to continue sending these migrants to third countries and roughly a million people now are eligible to be deported to these other countries.

And I think its notable here. The court did not really give a lengthy explanation of their analysis, but there is a pretty fiery dissent from the liberal justices written by Justice Sotomayor, who wrote, quote, rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high stakes litigation with the care and attention, it plainly requires, this court now intervenes to grant the government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied. I cannot join so gross an abuse of the court's equitable discretion.

She goes on to say that the court's decision to grant the government equitable relief is not the first time the court closes its eye to noncompliance. Nor, she writes, I fear, will it be the last.

So, clearly, she is not happy with this decision.

HUNT: So, Paula, this is, of course, the final, final very end of the term for the Supreme Court. What are we still waiting on from them this year?

REID: Kasie, it's a great question because one thing this case does is it combines two of the big themes of this year's Supreme Court term immigration power of the president, and also the power of lower court judges to block things. The administration is trying to do.

And really, the biggest outstanding question from the justices right now is an opinion on the power that one judge anywhere in the country can block an administration policy for the entire nation, so-called nationwide injunctions. This question comes about connected to President Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship.

That is the biggest case that we're watching. We expect we will likely get it over the next 10 days. We're also looking at other cases. For example, the parent's rights to opt out of LGBTQ curriculum in schools. And then another one about minors accessing porn in Texas.

So, we're hopefully going to get those decisions in the next ten days.

HUNT: All right. Paula Reid for us -- Paula, thank you so much for that.

And if you missed any of today's show or any of our shows here at THE ARENA, don't forget you can always catch up by listening to the podcast. You can go ahead and scan the QR code that you see on your screen. You can follow wherever you get your podcasts.

All right. Phil Mattingly is standing by for us for THE LEAD.

Phil, nice to see you.