Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Now: Trump Officials Finish Briefing Senators On Iran, Amid Questions About Scope Of Damage To Nuke Sites; Now; Trump Addresses His Domestic Policy Bill. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired June 26, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Obviously, so many people did hear because we have such bright blue skies right now in the Southeast. The National Weather Service says it was detected between 11:51 and 11:56 a.m.
We've reached out to NASA to see if they have anything to say. There is a low level meteor shower happening this week across the United States. Maybe it has something to do with that. We're not entirely sure yet. Still a mystery.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: All right. Dianne, thank you so much for that. I guess people better, I don't know, check their swimming pools, right?
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Yeah, check the backyard. Maybe the aliens landed. Who knows?
KEILAR: Yeah. No.
Okay. THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news here, the White House defends President Trump's claim that Iran's nuclear program was obliterated as questions remain.
I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA.
Anderson Cooper live for us in Amman, Jordan. He'll be with us throughout the hour.
Just moments ago on Capitol Hill, senators wrapped a classified briefing with Defense Secretary Hegseth, Secretary of State Rubio, the Joint Chiefs Chairman General Caine, and CIA Director Ratcliffe.
That briefing focusing on the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, strikes that President Trump has repeatedly insisted, quote, obliterated, end quote, Iran's nuclear program.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): Without any classified information whatsoever, I think it's safe to say that we have struck a major blow alongside our friends in Israel against Iran's nuclear program.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): They blew these places up in a major league way. Major league setback years, not months.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): I walk away from that briefing, still under the belief that that we have not obliterated the program. The president was deliberately misleading the public when he said the program was obliterated. It is -- it is certain that there is still significant capability and significant equipment that remain.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: In multiple public briefings today, the White House has deployed a unified and defiant message that President Trump was -- is right. This, despite an initial assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency, one that was made with, quote, low confidence that Iran's nuclear program might have only been set back by a few months.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I can assure you what the CIA director said, that when we look at the entirety of the intelligence that we have to this date, it concludes that these strikes on Iranians, the Iranian nuclear facilities were absolutely successful. It was a total obliteration, as the president said.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: There's been a lot of discussion about what happened and what didn't happen. Step back for a second, because of decisive military action. President Trump created the conditions to end the war, decimating -- choose your word -- obliterating, destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, notably did not use the word obliterated and deferred to the intelligence community when asked if he would use it.
Right now, at the White House, President Trump hosting an event to promote his policy and spending bill that, quote/unquote, "Big, Beautiful Bill" that he likes to talk about. We're going to be monitoring that event. We'll bring you any new comments from the president as they unfold.
But we do want to start, of course, with Anderson Cooper in Amman, Jordan, with the very latest here -- Anderson.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "AC360": Kasie, thanks very much. Appreciate it.
I do want to bring in CNN chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny, who's at the White House. Also, CNN's chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju on Capitol Hill and CNN military analyst, Colonel Cedrick Leighton, because there's a lot to kind of get through about what we have heard so far today.
Manu, I want to start with you. First of all, what are you hearing? We heard some of that sound from senators on the Hill. What else are you hearing from senators who are given that closed door, highly classified briefing?
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, I spoke to a lot of senators as they were leaving and the overwhelming consensus is that it did have an impact. It did have a major setback for the Iranian nuclear program. There is a debate that seems mostly along party lines at the moment, about how far of a setback that truly is.
But there -- there's also seems to be a consensus, a bipartisan consensus that Iran could still develop a nuclear weapon and perhaps a matter of years, at least according to some Republican senators, even given Iran's ambition to do so and given some questions about whether the uranium that the Iran has can still be enriched and still can be turned into a nuclear weapon, and other sites that were not targeted by the by the U.S. strikes from last weekend.
And into asking Senator Lindsey Graham, I asked him to reconcile the differences between his statement that perhaps Iran could still develop a nuclear weapon in a few years, and what Donald Trump has been saying, that the Iran nuclear capabilities have been totally and completely obliterated.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: The administration saying it's obliterated, suggests that they are not able to build a weapon. But you're saying in several years, perhaps they'll be able to.
GRHAM: That's what I'm saying.
[16:05:01]
They're obliterated today. But you can reconstitute it, in the real question, have we obliterated their desire to have a nuclear weapon?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: And, Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, emerged from that press, that closed door, classified briefing and told reporters, quote, President Trump said that the nuclear stockpile was completely and totally obliterated. He went on to say, I did not receive an adequate, adequate answer to that question.
And you heard from another Democratic senator, Chris Murphy, there, saying that he believes that the initial analysis that Iran's nuclear program was only set back by a few months, it tends to be correct. He said, that it appears to be the case at the moment.
But still, Anderson, others, Republican senators who emerged from that said that this could be a long time before Iran is able to reconstitute its program. So, like much everything else, many things falling along party lines on Capitol Hill, Anderson.
COOPER: Yeah.
Jeff, I mean, so, look, the administration spending a lot of time trying to essentially back up the term that the president used immediately after the attack, before any extensive analysis was done. And they repeatedly said today, look, you can't make an instant battlefield analysis. You can't instantly say what happened, which is true. It is what the president did. He sort of used that term.
But beyond the attacks on the press and the false claim that reporters are somehow demeaning pilots or members of the armed forces, which is not the case, questioning their remarkable skill and bravery, which I have not heard anyone do.
What stands out to you from what we have heard from the administration today, not only about the scope of the attack, but also about the next steps, because all these arguments about this word obliterated, the important thing is what are the nuclear capabilities that remain? What's the intention of the Iranian regime? And how does the U.S. influence events on the ground now moving forward?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, you just get the sense really, with every passing briefing and day, the administration led by the president wants to close the book on this and move on and say that it was a successful victory and move on to other things. But you wonder why that would be. I mean, whether the semantics of obliterated or severely damaged, one thing that is clear, the ambitions of the Iranians has not changed. We heard that from the ayatollah earlier today, speaking out really for the first time.
But the White House and the president are intent on trying to make this a fight, trying to approve the president's words that he said in the hours after the strike, just a short time ago, the president sending out this message, talking about prosecuting a Democrats. So, let's take a look at this. We don't always analyze every message he sends out.
But this one's important. He says the Democrats are the ones who leaked the information on the perfect flight to the nuclear sites in Iran. They should be prosecuted. We're not talking about the flight. As you just pointed out, there is no doubt the flight was successful. The question is, were the was the Iranian nuclear program wiped out or is the uranium potentially missing?
And White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt again sounded the administration's central claim here by seeming to know the answer to that question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: What I can assure you is that the United States and our intelligence agencies and Director Ratcliffe and the president's entire national security team were obviously watching these sites very closely in the weeks and the days leading up to the attack on Saturday. So, we were watching closely, and there was no indication to the United States that any of that enriched uranium was moved prior to the strike.
REPORTER: From any of the sites?
LEAVITT: Correct.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZELENY: But that is not a known question. Other intelligence assessments say it will take longer to see. There were, obviously, images of convoys there. We will see.
But again, Anderson, you get the sense the administration wants to end this episode before all the questions are answered.
COOPER: Well, Jeff, I mean, to your point, the president, when he was leaving, I think it was from Europe yesterday, he seemed kind of ambivalent about whether there's going to be negotiations. I know there the U.S. wants to have talks with the Iranians, but the president sort of seemed to say, I don't really care one way or another. I don't know if that's a strategy. I don't know if that's his -- what he actually believes, but it does seem no matter what word one wants to use to describe this attack, I mean, there's a lot of follow on.
The real work, the heart, I mean, the intensely hard work of reining in the Iranian regime and figuring out how to move forward with the Iranian regime still in place, seems to be something that has to be worked out by somebody.
ZELENY: There's no doubt about it. I mean, the details of diplomacy and other things still have to be worked out. You know, that did not end. But again, very few details about what meetings could take place next week with the Iranians. But the president clearly has made the case that the U.S. will be meeting in some form.
But again, the ambitions of the Iranian nuclear program certainly have been slowed. If it's by months or years, it's unclear. But, Anderson, the real question is talking to a variety of people, Republicans as well. Why does the president want to move on so quickly here?
This is something that the government, the United States government, will need to know the future and strength of this program. So those questions still need to be answered.
COOPER: I mean, the entire world wants to know. The whole entire region -- Israel certainly wants to know.
ZELENY: Sure.
COOPER: You know, our other partners in the region. Colonel Leighton, were there new details? You picked up from what the Pentagon said today about the operation and its damage?
CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yeah, there were a few, Anderson. One of them was the fact that the Iranians had apparently covered the entrances to the Fordow site with concrete, and I found that pretty interesting, given the fact that the way in which they produce concrete in Iran is designed basically to withstand a blast, you know, any type of ordnance that is put on top of it.
Obviously, that didn't work in this case, and it was pretty interesting to see how the U.S. Air Force was able to, in essence, obliterate, if I can use that word, those particular pieces of concrete in front of those entrances. So that's one detail.
The other thing that is, I think another piece that was kind of alluded to was that they believed that the centrifuges that were at Fordow may have been damaged because of the blast into that area. And that is logical. That is something that could very well have happened.
And we don't really know exactly how much of that affected the Iranian program. But I think it did have a bit of an effect and possibly a profound effect.
COOPER: Yeah. Colonel Cedric Leighton, Jeff Zeleny, Manu Raju, thanks very much.
Kasie, back to you.
HUNT: All right. Anderson, thanks very much.
And for more on this, we want to bring in Republican senator, Senator of Louisiana, John Kennedy, who was just in that classified briefing with Trump administration officials about Iran.
Senator, always grateful to see you.
Let's start there. Did you come out of that briefing thinking that Iran's nuclear program has been, quote, obliterated?
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Here's what I -- here's what I took from the briefing, or at least as much as I can tell you, Kasie in technical terms, we knocked the living crap out of our three targets. Before Israel and America did what we did, Iran was within days of having a nuclear weapon.
Now --
HUNT: Within days?
KENENDY: Within days. Now --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: That's been put in this briefing.
KENNEDY: Within days. Now, it will be a long time -- a long time.
Could they rebuild? Of course, you can rebuild anything. Will they rebuild? We were told that the country socially, psychologically, economically, certainly, militarily, is shambolic at best.
If they do try to rebuild, we will know. Israel will know. I can't speak for America, but I can assure you that that if they do try to rebuild, Israel will be on them like a bad rash.
You know, is this -- is the -- is the solution or the problem -- is the problem solved permanently? No. Iran is still Iran, but there is only -- there's only one country in the world right now that that that thinks Iran ought to have a bomb. And that's Iran.
One of the surprising things to me was how little support Iran has or received from its colleagues.
HUNT: I -- sir, just to kind of circle back and put a finer point on this. The days that they were to getting a bomb, that seems to be different from what Tulsi Gabbard had testified to in March. Was there a new assessment? Was that the Israeli assessment? Was that a new American assessment? Was that information new to you in this briefing?
KENNEDY: It was new to me. This was -- this was a good briefing. It was one of the best I've ever attended.
I mean, Rubio, Hegseth, Ratcliffe, General Caine, they didn't bring out a script and read carefully from it. They just -- they just looked us in the eye and talked to us and gave us plenty of time for questions. And they were refreshingly candid.
And I think it would be -- I know that the debates been going on, is -- are the facilities or the ability to make a bomb? Is it -- is it permanently destroyed? Is it partially destroyed? Look, they could make a bomb very quickly before Israel and America went in.
Now, they can't, not for a long time. If they -- if they have the appetite to even try again, the country right now is a hairy mess. And the ayatollah is not just fighting for his power. He's fighting for his life.
Now, we were told that we are -- we're not -- we don't want to just let this end here. We want to continue to pursue peace. We have contacted Iran. We want to meet with Iran.
We don't want to meet with Iran through a third party. As Rubio says, passing notes back and forth like a third grader. We want to meet directly with Iran, and we want to do it soon to talk about where we go.
Will Iran reciprocate? I don't know, I really don't know.
HUNT: Well -- sir, I mean, to that point, this actually just crossed here at CNN. We put it out five minutes before we came on the air here. The headline Iran says no plans set up to resume nuclear talks with the U.S. and this is from the Iranian foreign minister, who says Washington has a history of, quote, betraying the negotiations in the middle of the process.
Your reaction?
KENNEDY: Well, the ayatollah. He lies like he breathes. He's trying not only to save face, he's trying to maintain power at home. All I can tell you is that within 20 minutes of us asking for a ceasefire, they pounced on it. All I can tell you is what our intelligence shows, things in his country are shambolic.
They're hurt. They're hurt badly. And none of their friends came to their aid.
You couldn't -- you couldn't have found China or Russia with a search party. I was worried about that. I think I think Iran knows it's out there naked and alone. And I think eventually they'll come to the table.
But you can't -- you can't put too much stock in what the ayatollah says. He's not just fighting for his power. He's literally fighting for his life.
HUNT: Sir, let me ask you about this Defense Intelligence Agency assessment that assessed with low confidence that this had only set the program back by months. How did the officials in this briefing explain that assessment to you?
KENNEDY: It was a early partial assessment taken out of context. I kind of like this is what I took away from it, Kasie, if you look at one of the memos that a member of my staff wrote to me about provider tax and the bill and the reconciliation bill, and from that, you tried to extrapolate how I was going to vote on the bill. You would likely be in error.
I think this was an intentional leak by somebody who wanted to do harm to this administration, by somebody who probably has a history of disappointing his parents and it got a lot of press coverage. I understand. The press is going to cover this sort of thing, but I really do think it was not accurate and it was taken out of context, at least based on what I was on what I was told today.
And I believe Rubio, I believe General Caine, I believe him.
HUNT: Are they going to limit intelligence sharing with Capitol Hill out of this?
KENNEDY: Well, they didn't seem to be doing it today. I think they're going to continue to share intelligence with our with our relevant committees. But I think they're -- I think this leak, this leak spooked them. I don't blame them. I mean --
HUNT: You think it came off the Hill?
KENNEDY: I don't know, I have no idea. My guess is it came -- no, I really don't. Honestly. But I shouldn't have said that. But that's what my gut tells me.
I just think this was done in a way to try to hurt the president. And I get politics. Ive seen the good side and the dark side, but it wasn't a good time. I mean, the country needed to. This was a successful strike.
I can tell you, if you're against Iran having a bomb and you can slice it and dice it any way you want to, but that's the bottom line.
HUNT: Very interesting. Sir. And I realized I had asked you a question earlier as, as a two-part question. My mistake.
But the second part of my question, I want to put a finer point on the assessment that said that Iran was within days of having a bomb. Is that Israeli or American assessment?
KENNEDY: I don't know, I just -- I don't know, it just came up in in their briefing of us today. And also, it's our understanding.
And look, that's what you said, Kasie, I can't -- I haven't seen the intelligence. I can't tell you whether it's one day or three days or 30 days, but clearly, they were close.
[16:20:04]
And that's why -- that's why Israel went in. I mean, Israel did -- Israel did not beat around the bush. Okay? They were on -- they did not fool around. They were on Iran like a bad rash.
They didn't wait for America. Netanyahu didn't ask for permission. He went, and that tells me.
HUNT: Sir, I'm sorry that I have to cut off your -- we always appreciate your turns of phrase, but Donald Trump, President Trump is speaking. So, we're going to take that right now. Let's listen.
DONADL TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Approval and reception. And when we were thinking about doing it, we were going to break it down into three, four, five, six or even seven bills. And I said, let's make it one big, beautiful bill, Mike, right? They actually said it would be very much harder to get this way, but it would be better.
And the truth is, I think it worked out well because there's something for everybody. And I think in many ways much better. We're delighted to be joined by Secretaries Marco Rubio, Scott Bessent, Pete Hegseth, Doug Burgum, Doug Collins, Sean Duffy, Howard Lutnick, Linda McMahon, Brooke Rollins, Scott Turner, Chris Wright. Wow, that's a hell of a group.
I think that's the biggest -- that's the biggest group of cabinet members, huh? That's the biggest group of cabinet.
And were not finished yet because we have our great attorney general, Pam Bondi, here. U.S. trade representative, and he's working around 24 hours. We have one after another. Countries come. Everybody wants to be with us because we have the hottest country in the world.
A year ago, we had the -- we had a disaster on our hand. We had the coldest country, I think by far. And now we have the hottest, the king of Saudi Arabia. When I was there, we brought back $5.1 trillion between Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE, and all three said, great leaders, they all said to me the same thing, you know, it's amazing.
In four months at that time, at that time, now it's getting to be close to six. But in four months, they said you have the hottest country anywhere in the world. It's not even close. And they thought we were dead a year before that. They said, I thought you were dead. The country was dead, and it was pretty close to it.
But we have the hottest country in the world, so it's great. And Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is very busy because where are you, Jamieson? Everybody -- everybody wants to make a deal and have a part of it, right? I know you and Howard and Scott are working overtime making deals with other countries.
Remember a few months ago, the press was saying, do you really have anybody of any interest? Well, we just signed with China yesterday. Right. Just signed with China. We have everybody.
We're not going to make deals with everybody. Some were just going to send them a letter, say thank you very much. You're going to pay 25, 35, 45 percent. That's the easy way to do it.
And my people don't want to do it that way. They want to do some of it, but they want to make more deals than I would do. But we're having some great deals.
We have one coming up, maybe with India, very big one. We're going to open up India and the China deal. We're starting to open up China. Things that never really could have happened. And the relationship with every country has been very good.
And we also have OMB director who's very busy also, Russ Vought. Thank you. Thank you, Russ.
And also, I want to give a very special thank you. This is a hell of a group we have here. This is amazing. The quality of people. But actually, I like these people. And most of those people much better than the people I just named. Okay?
But a very special thanks as well to Speaker Mike Johnson, who's great, legendary guy. He's going to go down as a legend.
A great friend of mine, a fantastic senator, Roger Marshall, wherever you may be. Roger. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Bernie Moreno, great win Bernie had in Ohio. Bernie, great win. That was a tough race they said that was not winnable anyone by about five points. So that was pretty good. So much for not winnable.
Mike Lee is here. Mike -- hi, Mike. Thank you, Mike.
Tim Sheehy, another tremendous win. Way to go, Tim. Young, handsome, that was another race that wasn't supposed to be able to be won.
They said, we have a very young handsome guy. I said, does that matter? Looks don't matter. Do they? Mike looks -- anyway. Great. Great job.
You can't help it. You can't help it. Great. That was a great race. Along with Representatives Paul Gosar, Greg Murphy, Tom Kaine, Jen Kiggans, Rob Bresnahan, who's a -- where is Rob? Stand up. Rob, let me see you. Good. He's done a fantastic job.
And Ryan Mckenzie, thank you, Ryan. Thank you all. Thats great. It's a big group of people.
We're here this afternoon to share the stories of an incredible group of patriots from across the nation, whose future we are defending with the One Big, Beautiful Bill. This is the ultimate codification of our agenda to very simply, a phrase that's been used pretty well by me over the last ten years. But maybe even before that.
Make America great again. Very simple. Make America great again.
When Joe Biden used to get up and say, we will stop this horrible MAGA, we're going to stop MAGA, we're going to fight it. We're going to -- I said, Joe, loosen up. It's called make America great again. It's okay.
Remember, he got up so angry. He was so angry. He said, make America great again.
But well deliver a record tax cut, a record spending cut, a record investment in border security. We've done so well on the border. You know, last month we had zero people that crossed the border. Zero.
So, Kristi and Tom Homan and some of the people, what a job you've done. What a -- but, you know, people forget about that. They don't care. The border has been fixed. I wanted to talk about the border.
Two days ago, a big group, sir, I don't want to hear about the border. Why? It's fixed. You know, it's the second time it happened to me in 2016. I won on the border. I fixed it in about three months. It was beautiful.
And they wouldn't let me talk about the border. Sir, nobody wants to hear about the border. But we're going to talk about it anyway, right, Tom Homan. We're talking about it anyway.
So, we have a big number of dollars that's coming here because we want to keep it that way, and we want to keep it fixed. And a record number of deportations were bringing criminals out by the thousands. Nobody can even imagine. They let people in that were murderers -- 11,888 murderers, gang members, people from mental institutions and insane asylum.
You know what that is? That's insane asylum. That's a mental institution on steroids. And during the campaign, I talk about the late, great Hannibal Lecter. Do you know who that is? Hannibal Lecter, "Silence of the Lambs".
I talk about it, and the fake news would go crazy. Why does he keep mentioning. Well, because we won in a landslide. That's why. They don't want to have. They don't want to have Hannibal in our midst.
And the day I signed this bill into law, almost every major promise made in the 2024 campaign already will have become a promise kept. And that's very important. Promises made, promises kept.
And according to the Council of Economic advisors, these reforms will protect or create more than 7 million jobs. Add 3.1 percent to economic growth, reduce taxes for the typical American by nearly 15 percent, and increase take home pay for the normal family of four by at least $13,000.
And that takes place immediately. Thats not bad, right? Look, I'm looking at that guy back there, right? That's pretty good.
And if we had a person over at the Fed that would lower interest rates a little bit, that would be helpful too. It's hard to believe this is on top of, you know, we have to fight this guy. He's not doing the job. Each point that he keeps it up is the equivalent of $300 billion, $300 billion. So, if he lowered it to two, we'd save $600 billion.
We have to work hard with cuts on that, right? Thats a lot of cutting. And this guy could do it so easily. We don't have inflation.
Well, we might have inflation. Yeah. And if you do you raise the rate a little bit. That's okay. But we're going out because Biden gave us a lot of short term debt. And given a short term debt, he did us no favor.
So I think what well do is well probably just extend the short term debt and then go up, because I don't want to tie it up for 10 or 15 years at a high rate.
But every point is three -- it's really more is -- $300 billion. So, if we got -- got it down to 1 percent, we're talking about almost $1 trillion in savings just with the stroke of a pen. No work, no missing anything, just like an accounting situation.
Oh, Doug Collins, I just see. Doug. Did I mention you? Doug? I don't think so. I'm glad I saw you. I'm glad that somebody is going to be in big trouble with you. They didn't write your name down, Doug.
Somebody is in big. Somebody. Somebody is in. I got you.
So, we think of that, though. We save. And all you have to do is so simple. I'm explaining to this guy, and Biden extended him. That wasn't good. I'm explaining to him you can do so much for our country. You could save $1 trillion just with a stroke of a pen, just a little -- the utterance of a sentence that we're going to be cutting.
It's a shame. It's a shame. We're one of the highest. We should be the lowest. You know, were the United States of America. We have money coming in, like at levels that they have never seen.
I got a call the other day from the people in Congress because we're doing our bill. I didn't even tell you this, Mike. And they called. They said something. There's something wrong with the numbers, sir.
I said, what's wrong? I don't know, they're not balancing out. There's something really wrong. I said, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well, we don't know.
It just -- I said, what's the problem? We're taking in much more money than we have scheduled. I said, so far, that sounds good. They said, how much is it? About $80 billion. I said, do me a favor, check the tariff line.
They called me back an hour later. Sir, we've taken $88 billion in tariffs. Isn't that a beautiful thing? Eighty-eight billion. I thought I'd tell these little stories, go off script and tell these little stories, Scott, right? Because it does make it a little more interesting. Although my speechwriters have just gotten every award in the book.
Vince, where are you? Vince, where are we? Where's Ross? He's getting all these awards, and I'm going off the record all the time. Where is he?
He didn't show up to the speech. He wrote the speech he didn't show. Well, that means he has confidence in me.
According to the Council of Economic Advisers, these reforms will protect or create more than 7 million jobs. Add 3.1.
HUNT: We have been listening to President Trump talking about his legislative agenda. We are going to continue monitoring that. We'll bring you any news out of it. But for right now, we're going to take a quick break.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:36:29]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: If you want to know what's going on at Fordow, you better go there and get a big shovel because no ones under there right now. No ones under there able to assess, and everyone's using reflections of what they see.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. That was the advice from the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth today to those trying to understand the extent of the damage at the Iranian nuclear site, Fordow, following U.S. strikes over the weekend.
Senators on Capitol Hill just emerged from a classified briefing about Iran.
Our panel is here in THE ARENA, national political reporter for "The Washington Post", Sabrina Rodriguez; CNN political director, Washington bureau chief, David Chalian; CNN political commentators Xochitl Hinojosa, and Brad Todd.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
David Chalian, big picture. This has really become a massive political flashpoint. The word obliterated and exactly what it means. And you have seen various senators come out of this briefing and put
their own -- you know, we heard John Kennedy just a few minutes ago, put his own. I think the word crap was involved in his description of what happened. But clearly --
DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Notably, not obliterated.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Yeah.
Clearly, this is something that the president is extraordinarily focused on. What do you think -- put it all in context for us?
CHALIAN: Well, I thought listening to Senator Kennedy talk to you earlier, I think he was focused on the right thing, which is looking ahead to see, like, has this program been destroyed in a way that it can't be reconstituted, right? That -- that's the information that that everybody would like to get here.
And so, I get the president is on a political mission to tie this up in a bow and call it obliterated, and have nobody question it. But Kennedy cites the real information that the country deserves from its government about -- yes, the mission itself clearly successful, but now what? What does it mean for the end goal of eradicating Iran's ability to have a nuclear program, ever?
And that's going to take time. As the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has said, that is going to take time to understand. I know the president wants to kick up dust for his own political purposes, but it's actually separate and apart from the question at hand that even Republicans on the hill are asking.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, Brad Todd, I have to say, I mean, if this in fact worked the way that senators are coming out of this briefing and talking about it, not the president necessarily, but the idea that they were able to strike, you know, make significant clearly a significant destruction. The Israelis also involved in all of this. And then be done with it seems like what the president set out to do in the first place.
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, yes. And, you know, I look back, I try to get out of the American context and look at what Rafael Grossi from the International Atomic Energy Agency said.
He said those centrifuges at Fordow are no longer operable. That's good enough for me. No longer operable is where we need to be in this spot.
John Ratcliffe said they know it's severely damaged. We know it's a big pile of rubble right now, and that you would need a bulldozer to even figure out what's under there. That's what he set out to do.
That's why we have the MOP bomb in the first place. And I think it's been a really good week for the president. And fighting over the word actually doesn't really change. It has been a good week. XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But it's not fighting
over the word. It's what David said. It's being honest with the American people about what you did and the impact that it had. And does that make our world more safe? And what are Iran's nuclear capabilities now?
Most of the problems that we have seen in Trump's first term have been made because of him. I mean, this is one of them.
[16:40:01]
He could have simply said, we don't have enough information. We know that our military provide -- went out there and what they did to Fordow was amazing. And he could have said, like, we will -- we won't know for a few weeks what this will look like. We don't yet know what their nuclear capabilities will look like, but we will know soon.
And he could have been fairly honest with the American people.
HUNT: Could have said it in two weeks.
HINOJOSA: He could have said in two -- he could have said in two weeks, his favorite term.
But it continues to amaze me how most of the problems are created by him. And another one is tariffs, right, where he was poised to -- he needed to bring down costs and instead he was bringing up costs. So, everything he has done, it's because he has put himself in that situation. And I could see why folks in the White House are frustrated.
TODD: So, Xochitl, he could have said, we'll find out in two weeks. And you're right, that would have been a fine answer as well. But in the end, this was a big move for nonproliferation this week.
And I think General Caine today at the press conference with Pete Hegseth, made a very good point. They talked about how we aren't talking about the pilots. We aren't talking about the engineers who studied the Fordow site for decades and watched it being built via satellite.
This arguing over a word is making us --
CHALIAN: But, Brad, why do you think he's doing it? Why do you think he's chosen the path he's chosen?
TODD: Because he chose the word. He's been challenged on the word. He thinks the word is accurate, and so he's going to try to make it stand.
HINOJOSA: This is classic Donald Trump, right? I mean, he wants to set the narrative. He's not going to give the two weeks because he wants to set the narrative. And that's why now you hear the blaming of, oh, the leak was probably Democrats. And you hear, you know, the secretary of defense coming out and railing against the media. I mean, it's a very typical narrative for the president to come out
and criticize Democrats, for him to criticize the media, for him to say they're coming out to get him because he wants the narrative to be set. And for him, it goes beyond just Iran. I mean, looking back at the past weeks, the start of his second term, he promised all these things on the war in Ukraine that haven't been able to come to fruition. The same thing when it comes to Israel, Gaza.
So, this is a situation where he wants, again, the neat bow to say, well, I have a victory on foreign policy. Look.
CHALIAN: But to Brad's point, he had a victory anyway, it seems. Do you know what I'm saying? That's the --
TODD: It's a victory. There's no way for it not to be a victory.
CHALIAN: So the narrative, the facts are, would be a positive narrative for him, irrespective of his language.
TODD: I think he's irritated that underlings at the DEA, who technically report to him, put out a low confidence report, which, by the way, didn't -- they didn't stress the low confidence part in the leak. But that is what's in the report. And they did it out of the chain of command.
And I think he's right to be ticked off about that. If you work at the DIA, you're supposed to send your findings up the chain and let other people check it. And if they decide on this.
CHALIAN: But that's different than calling out a CNN reporter for reporting information, that's a different thing.
HINOJOSA: They're making it worse because now they're so focused on the leaks, and the administration is now talking about investigating the leaks. Todd Blanche was on Fox yesterday saying, I don't know, we might call him up for a deposition. I mean, I'm sorry, are we really at the point where we might be investigating reporters and their sources at this point?
HUNT: This is not the first administration that wants to investigate reporters for leaks. Okay? Let's just put that out there. The Obama administration was actually particularly --
HINOJOSA: We put a stop to that.
HUNT: -- on that front.
HINOSA: I will tell you.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: All right. We got to take a quick break. Up next, we're going to talk with a Democratic member of Congress about what he wants to hear when the House gets its classified briefing on Iran tomorrow.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [16:47:38]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
Joining us now to discuss the latest on Iran, Democratic Congressman Eugene Vindman of Virginia, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, former army colonel who also previously served on the White House National Security Council.
Congressman, thanks very much for being here.
You obviously are going to receive this briefing tomorrow or that's what's planned.
What is your top question for these briefers, now that you've heard what senators have said on their way out?
REP. EUGENE VINDMAN (D-VA): Well, it's great to be on with you this afternoon.
Look, the last thing the American people want is another war in the Middle East. I served in the Iraq war, and we should learn from those mistakes.
I want to know whether these strikes made us safer or not. That's the bottom line question.
HUNT: And based on what you know now, before the briefing, do you think they did or did not?
VINDMAN: I have some serious questions. There's public information out there already. The strikes, the military forces that we use, the air force, the navy preferred -- performed magnificently. No other military force in the world could have achieved what they had done with the precision, and it's not on the military.
It's on the president and the administration on whether they sent these service members on a fools' errand. Was the objective of destroying the Iranian nuclear capability ever achievable?
I mean, this is not like they exhaust port on the fusion generator on the Death Star. Was it achievable or not?
HUNT: It's an interesting analogy. I come from a family of Star Wars fans, so I do know exactly what you're referring to.
What would you say, Congressman, to the president who says it was, quote/unquote, totally obliterated? You know, are you confident in that assessment based on what you know now? Why do you think the president is insisting on that?
VINDMAN: Well, look, I'm waiting for the briefing tomorrow. The bottom line is that this is a tough mission. And the president claimed it was obliterated. That is not a term that we use in the military. Certainly not during my first -- during my 25-year military career. So he's also said that we have to wait for a full assessment, directly
contravening himself within one statement. And so, I have serious questions about whether we even set back the Iranian nuclear program in any meaningful way, and whether now it's going to go underground, and we're in a much more dangerous environment with a covert nuclear weapons program?
HUNT: Congressman, what concerns do you have about -- there has been a suggestion reporting that the administrations going to limit information sharing with Congress based on the leak? Do you think that's the right move?
VINDMAN: It's totally unacceptable. We are co-equal branch. We have an oversight function. We also have to pay for these things.
And so, if the president is concerned about leaks, he ought to be concerned about the Signal leaks that have been absolutely proven in -- put our service members in jeopardy. And we know that those vice president and secretary of defense and the entire national security team, pretty much that was on that.
HUNT: You're talking about that signal chat that was out in "The Atlantic".
All right. Congressman Eugene Vindman, thank you so much for your time today, sir. I really appreciate it.
VINDMAN: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. Our panel is back. We're also joined by CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger of "The New York Times", who has been traveling with the president.
David, let me start with you. Just because you've, you know, you've heard now probably what some of these members of Congress have come out saying, you heard -- we heard from Lindsey Graham, who said its obliterated now that he might try to bring it back.
This is what Mark Warner said, the vice chair of the intelligence, quote, clearly damage was inflicted on the Iranian nuclear program, although he added, it's going to take time to get a final assessment of how much damage.
What do you make of what these senators heard in this room, and what else we've learned about the state of play?
And David may be frozen. David is frozen. We'll get him back.
David Chalian, let me go to you on this, because, I mean, Warner is very interesting to me because, I mean, he's been a serious player in this arena for a long time on intelligence. He was the chairman for quite a while.
He's clearly been willing to give the Trump administration the win on this. Right. Like the way that he has approached it has been very much from the intelligence perspective and less from the political perspective. We've obviously seen a lot of politics in this, in this exchange, but it does seem like he came out of this being willing to believe that there was massive damage done here.
CHALIAN: And everything we've learned day by day throughout the week suggests that to be the case, whether it's from the Israeli intelligence, from the IAEA, from our own CIA, each day there is more and more put out that suggests this is really significant damage was done here. Goal accomplished here in many ways.
But as Mark Warner wisely also included in the comments, he said, is there were not at a final assessment phase yet, and that that's an important part of the process, too, to get there. I don't think those two things are in contradiction with each other.
HUNT: Yeah, well, and hold on one second, Brad, I think David Sanger has been unfrozen.
David, are you there? There he is.
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I hope I'm unfrozen. There we are.
HUNT: Yes. No, you look great. So, weigh in here. How do you look at this?
SANGER: So, you know, I think David had it just about right. Look, if you think about where we were four days ago. We didn't know anything about how much damage was done. And now we believe that most of the centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow were wiped out by the overpressure of these explosions by their own sensitivity.
The big mystery right now is, did the Iranians move their ten weapons worth of highly enriched uranium or near bomb grade uranium ahead of time? And almost everyone I speak to except the United States believes they did. The International Atomic Energy Agency believes they did. The Europeans believe they did.
They would have been crazy not to. It would have been like we kept all of our fighters or bombers or nuclear weapons in one small area. So, you know, I think the big problem that we're facing now is it's hard to keep control of the material.
That doesn't mean they can turn it into a bomb right away. They did a big job on the -- on the -- a lot of the facilities that are used to actually make a weapon. But it does suggest that it was not totally obliterated. And they do have a pathway to rebuilding. It might take them years.
HUNT: David, forgive me. This is definitely a layman's question here, but where do you -- where do your sources think they took it? Like where -- where do they think it is now?
SANGER: They don't know. But there are lots of underground bunkers that the Iranians have built for various purposes, including building new centrifuges and so forth. So, they had lots of options.
HUNT: All right. David Sanger, thank you very much for your time today, sir. Appreciate you hanging out for us with -- for the hour.
Don't go anywhere. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:59:21]
HUNT: All right. Thanks to my panel for joining us today. Thanks to all of you for being with us as well.
And if you did miss part of today's show or one earlier this week, you can always catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. You can scan that. I guess it's that way, that QR code right there, and follow wherever you get your podcasts. You can also follow us on X and Instagram @TheArenaCNN.
Brad Todd, you were going to jump in at the very end. I'm going to give you the final thought for our panel on what we're seeing from the president and why.
TODD: Well, I -- he seemed very ebullient today to me in that meeting. And I think that means that he believes that the reconciliation bill is coming in closer for a landing. The Senate parliamentarian ruled some of the changes some senators wanted out of order today. That may mean the Senate has to come pretty close to the House position.
HUNT: Might be feeling like he's going to get that over the finish line.
All right. Jake Tapper is standing by for us for THE LEAD.
Hi, Jake.
