Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Says Israel Won't Strike Iranian Gas Fields As War With Iran Threatens Global Energy Supply; Iran Retaliates With Strikes On Key Energy Sites; Cracks Form In GOP As Admin Floats $200 Billion Request For War. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired March 19, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JEFF GARDERE, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: -- eastern northern European countries have been doing.
[16:00:03]
And that's why they've been at the top of this happiness scale for the longest time.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yeah, such a good point.
Dr. Jeff Gardere, thank you so much.
And THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's good to have you with us on this Thursday.
As we come on the air, war in the Middle East quickly spiraling into a global energy crisis, as oil facilities across the region come under attack. The latest, a major refinery in northern Israel was struck today but was sourced -- by what sources say was an Iranian missile. This follows an Israeli attack on Iranian production facility at the largest oil field in the world leading to an exceptionally rare rebuke from President Donald Trump.
He wrote this this morning, quote, "No more attacks will be made by Israel pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars field," end quote.
An Israeli source tells CNN that the strike was coordinated with the U.S., an American source said the U.S. was, quote, "aware of it".
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Fact number one, Israel acted alone against the Asaluyeh gas compound. Fact number two, President Trump asked us to hold off on future attacks, and we're holding out.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yeah, I did, I did. I told him don't do that and he won't do that. We didn't discuss, you know, we do. We're independent. We get along great, it's coordinated. But on occasion, he'll do something and if I don't like it. And so we're not doing that anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The violence is spreading across the Gulf with the world's largest producer of liquefied natural gas, saying its facilities in Qatar sustained extensive damage from two Iranian missile strikes.
Oil prices jumped higher and higher today. Crude trading north of $100 a barrel. The national average for a gallon of gas, now $3.88. That is up 95 cents from just a month ago.
All right. Let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.
And we're also joined by CNN Jerusalem correspondent Jeremy Diamond.
And, Jeremy, you attended Netanyahu's news conference earlier. What more are we hearing about these tit-for-tat basically attacks on energy facilities?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Israeli prime minister held his first in-person news conference since this war began, and I had the opportunity to ask him a few questions. The prime minister began by talking about this fake news out there, he said, that he is alive and well. There had been these rumors circulating that a video of him was A.I. and that he had, in fact, been killed. I can confirm that we did see him in the flesh today.
The Israeli prime minister spent a lot of time today going after this narrative that has been circulating in the United States, in particular, in the wake of the resignation of Joe Kent, the national counterterrorism director, that Israel dragged the United States into this war. The prime minister insisting repeatedly that President Trump did -- didn't need any dragging at all, and basically saying that if you think someone can drag President Trump into a war, you're fooling yourself.
I asked the prime minister also about this notion of regime change. And that is, of course, the stated goal of this Israeli military campaign. The prime minister insisting that he believes that there are cracks that are showing inside the Iranian regime so far, rejecting criticism that these strikes that have assassinated senior Iranian leaders are only leading to a hardening of the position in that country.
And beyond that, I asked the prime minister, as well about this commitment that he had made to President Trump not to strike any future oil and gas facilities. He said that he is holding out on those strikes. Following that conversation with President Trump. When I asked him whether that also means that should President Trump ask him to end the war, basically because oil prices have gone too far. That's a scenario I've talked about with a number of Israeli officials. The prime minister wouldn't answer that directly. He did say however,
that President Trump is the leader of this campaign. He positioned himself kind of as a number two. He called himself the ally to the United States but ultimately, he would not answer my question about whether or not Israel would go it alone should the United States eventually choose to end this war in Iran? Beyond that as you were talking about, we have seen this escalation across the region in terms of these attacks on energy infrastructure today, escalating here in Israel with an Iranian ballistic missile attack that targeted an oil refinery in Haifa, in northern Israel.
That facility was engulfed in a large plume of smoke earlier today. And questions now about what this will mean for oil prices and for this widening of this conflict. The prime minister today insisting that he is helping the United States with this Strait of Hormuz situation although he didn't exactly specify how.
[16:05:01]
But the bottom line is that we are continuing to see this campaign escalate with no real diplomatic off ramps presenting themselves at this moment -- Kasie.
HUNT: Jeremy, you touched on this a little bit but there does seem to be this big picture question about whether Israel is pushing the United States farther than they would otherwise go. You had Marco Rubio early on, tell reporters and members of Congress that essentially we started the whole campaign because we knew Israel was going to go ahead and do this. Then, of course, there was the Israeli strike on energy facilities that seem to take it again farther than perhaps the United States was willing to go.
And I know it was your reporting about the gas field strike that yes, the U.S. was aware and that the Israelis carried it out in coordination with the U.S. But is -- how aggressive is the sense on the ground there that Israel is really the leader here?
DIAMOND: Look, I think the prime minister did a lot today to try and dispel that notion. You know again, when he talked about President Trump as the leader, I'm the ally but, you know make no mistake, Israel is also making a lot of its own decisions here. And that's why we've seen a difference in terms of what Israel is targeting what the United States is targeting. But the bottom line is that it's fairly laughable to suggest that Israel would carry out a strike on this very significant oil field without informing the United States ahead of time.
And again, our reporting does indeed bear that out. But I think the prime minister you know, wants to, on the one hand, maintain Israel's independence of decision making. He made that point, but he really hyper-emphasized this point about the United States being the leader about his kind of deference to President Trump, including today on this issue of any future strikes on energy infrastructure.
But it's also really important to note that this was a press conference for the foreign press. He was speaking in English. He was speaking to an international and particularly an American audience. He wasn't speaking to a domestic audience.
HUNT: Always an important distinction with Bibi Netanyahu, for sure. It's always fascinating to hear what he's willing to say in Hebrew, when you hear it translated and compare it to how he speaks when he speaks in English.
Jeremy Diamond, thank you. Always appreciate your great reporting. Really appreciate you being there for us.
The other big story on the war today here in Washington is, of course, the price tag for this war. The Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth this morning not denying a Washington post report that the Pentagon asked the White House to sign off on a more than $200 billion funding request to Congress for the war with Iran. Yes, billion with a B. It's a really hefty price tag, and it's getting mixed reaction from lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LAUREN BOEBERT (R-CO): I will not vote for a war supplemental. I am so tired of spending money elsewhere.
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): Yesterday, we voted on the floor not to even discuss publicly this invasion of Iran. Now comes a $200 billion price tag. This is not acceptable.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I think the original wording was around $100 billion. So, we need to look at it.
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): Let's wait and see what the request amounts to.
REP. ERIC BURLISON (R-Mop: It'll give me comfort if they pass an audit, and then I'll know that at least they're keeping track of the dollars.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Whatever it costs to finish this is worth it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. My panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN special correspondent Jamie Gangel, former DNC communications director Mo Elleithee, and former Republican congressman from Michigan, Peter Meijer.
Got a little reaction there to Lindsey Graham buttoning that spot, Jamie.
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Why are we not surprised that Lindsey Graham is in favor of spending more money on this? You know, I just want to say when Jeremy talked about escalation, the thing that I've heard in the last 24 hours from intelligence experts, national security, military, is they are very worried. They feel they are in uncharted territory here. They don't know where it's going. It's -- you know, it's easy to maybe say for President Trump, he'll
declare victory and get out, but does Iran stop shooting just because we suddenly decide people are very skeptical about that.
And I keep coming back to a quote from U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker when he was talking about Afghanistan.
HUNT: Right.
GANGEL: And he famously said, and it gets quoted a lot in the Middle East, "Americans, you have the watches. We have the time."
Iran has the time. And it's in their interest. I keep hearing over and over again to draw this out.
HUNT: Yeah. Well, I mean, Congressman, it looks like you -- respond.
PETER MEIJER (R), FORMER MICHIGAN CONGRESSMAN: Yes, they have some element of strategic patience. But I mean that regime is in no shape to continue on a on an ongoing basis. I mean, their military ability -- I mean, they're essentially knocked to the level of the Houthis were in terms of their ability to project in that region.
You know, yes, they can lob ballistic missiles. Yes, they can throw some Shahed drones. Yes. They might be able to have some explosives on a small craft, you know, that could detonate into the side of an oil carrier. That is -- that is harassing, that can shut down sea lanes. I don't mean to diminish that.
But in terms of their ability to threaten the region that they had a month ago versus today that has been significantly depleted. And I just want to focus on something because I think there's this sense out there. And Jeremy touched on this a little bit about this belief of -- in some circles on the right that, oh, Israel has just been wiped off the map, that Jerusalem is suffering tremendously, that, you know, Netanyahu's dead and it's all A.I. kind of projecting this.
There's this insane benefit, this insane kind of conspiratorial thinking on that. What nobody's really talking about because you got the kind of cui bono, the cui malo like, who suffers? It's China.
China's energy reserves, the vast majority of them go through that strait. They do not want to see that strait closed. They're the ones who ultimately have influence over Iran in ways, you know, that Russia didn't, and that even some of those internal dynamics don't.
So, I think when we look at that extended time, yes, they could close the Straits of Hormuz. We would see, you know, a significant increase in energy prices, but a survivable one domestically.
It's survivable to us. It is an existential threat to other places around the world including one of their largest patrons, China.
GANGEL: Politically though, Donald Trump does not want that kind of massive economic repercussions and --
MEIJER: Political inconvenience. It is not life or death in the way that it is for some of our adversaries.
GANGEL: Well, it could hurt in something called the midterm elections.
MO ELLEITHEE, FORMER DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: They've got a certain degree of strategic patience. I'm very curious how long the Republican Party has a certain degree of strategic patience, because yes, while Iran's military capability may be degraded, it's not eliminated. And so, they can continue to harass in the Strait of Hormuz, they can continue to do things.
What is the ultimate objective? Because if the ultimate objective allows the current regime to stay in power, they will continue to harass because you talk of existential. This is existential for them. They will stay in power, which will give them more leverage than we probably would like them to have.
If they don't stay in power, what happens then? We have a long and storied history as you know, of toppling a regime with nothing waiting, and seeing the situation become even worse, more unpredictable, more unstable.
MEIJER: There's a contrast there too, because obviously the regime staying in power implicitly is not the Iraq or Afghanistan scenarios that led to the collapse, that led to the chaos that led to the violence over decades. You know, there is a plenty of scenarios where there is some element of the regime in that Delcy Rodriguez, Venezuela example this is not going to be nearly as clean.
It's not nearly as simple. It's a far more complex country. It's a far larger country. It has many different power bases that are not as easy to come together.
But I think it's worth remarking that killing the ayatollah was far less impactful to them from a threat standpoint than taking out and disabling the South Pars field, like their natural gas export, their energy exports. That's where the rubber really hits the road. That's where people are rightly concerned about what the long-term effects will be.
And that's where I think you're seeing this is the ultimate escalation of that ultimate question. Is this regime fundamentally suicidal, or are they willing to cut a deal to preserve the revenue flows that could still go back to some elements of that government and maintain order?
HUNT: Here's the bigger the big picture question here, too, Jamie, is -- I mean, I hear your point about what are the Iranians willing to do? What are we willing to do? Right. What is the American Congress in particular willing to do?
I want to play Tim Burchett, a congressman, conservative congressman, typically with -- often with President Trump saying that, you know, we need to find a way out of this and fast watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): I think we need to find an exit strategy as fast as possible. I don't -- I don't want to put Americans on the ground out there in any shape, form or fashion. Unless, of course, it's -- unless they open the gates and say, we want you here. We want you to be able to check to make sure we're not building nukes and things like that, but I don't -- I don't want to put anybody on the ground.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: And now they're asking for $200 billion, Jamie. I mean, I was -- I was trying to figure out how to compare this to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, where they kept coming to Congress to ask for more money. And an NBC number put it, at least in the early years of the war, around $80 billion a year.
It's an imperfect comparison, but it gives you an idea of that. This is a lot of money they're asking for.
GANGEL: It's a huge amount of money especially when the political reality is it's not popular. There are a lot of people up on the Hill who don't want this, who didn't want it to begin with.
[16:15:00]
One other thing is the lesson of drones. So, everything you said about Iran's pain, true. On the other hand, we are not in a conventional war. We understood drones but we didn't fully appreciate the chaos.
HUNT: Yeah, for sure.
All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, we're going to talk with two senators on the intelligence committee as administration officials, again, head to Capitol Hill to answer questions about the war with Iran and the United States' goals.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO (D), TEXAS: What does the intelligence community assess Israels goals in this in this war to be. And are those goals aligned with the goals of the United States
TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I'm thinking carefully here about what can be said in this open setting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:20:18]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: $200 billion, I think that number could move obviously. It takes -- it takes money to kill bad guys. So, we're going back to Congress and folks there to ensure that were properly funded for what's been done, for what we may have to do in the future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth not denying a report that the Pentagon wants the White House to ask Congress for more than $200 billion for the war in Iraq.
Joining me now here in THE ARENA, Republican senator from Oklahoma, James Lankford. He sits on the Intelligence and Homeland Security Committees.
Senator, it's always great to have you on the program.
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): Thanks, Kasie.
HUNT: Thank you so much for being here.
I want to start with this funding request, $200 billion. President Trump -- well, he said this about it today. Watch. We'll talk about it on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: What we're asking for a lot of reasons beyond even what we're talking about in Iran. This is a very volatile world and the military equipment, the power of some of this weaponry is unthinkable. So, we want to be sure. And it's a small price to pay to make sure that we stay tippy top.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Do you think $200 billion is a small price?
LANKFORD: It depends on what it is. None of us have actually seen it yet, Kasie, so I'm waiting to be able to see what the proposal is. As the president mentioned, this is more than Iran. This may be other issues.
Obviously, we've got to be able to improve our drone defenses, both here in the United States and for all of our own bases around the world, and for our allies as well, to be able to partner with them on this. So there's more that needs to be done that we can see from the war that's happening in Russia and Ukraine. And now what's happening in Iran that needs to be done to be able to bolster those defenses.
So, the details are going to matter here. The length of time that would actually be used is going to matter. So, we're all kind of waiting for that supplemental request. The administration has told us would be here by the end of the month
HUNT: It sounds like you're not willing to write the administration a blank check to do this.
LANKFORD: No, I don't think Congress should ever write any administration a blank check to be able to do it. I think we should go through the details and try to figure out what they're actually trying to accomplish and what this means. But I'm also walking into it with an open mind understanding that Iran has repeatedly attacked the United States and United States citizens.
There's some belief that's out there that Iran wasn't a threat because they don't have a missile that can hit Kansas. Well, the issue is we've got three quarters of a million Americans that live and work in that region, and the UAE and Saudi Arabia and obviously Israel and Jordan, so many countries in that area have a lot of Americans that live there. And Iran has been perpetually attacking those Americans over and over and over again.
We -- we've had more than 200 attacks on Americans just since 2023 by Iran and its proxies. So, this has gone on for a while and now the United States is saying, you're going to stop, Iran. You're going to stop attacking Americans wherever they may be, and to be able to stop them from actually advancing on nuclear weapons or trying to be able to shut off economic commerce in the Strait of Hormuz which they've done repetitively.
HUNT: Sir, who do you think is driving the terms of this engagement? Is it President Trump or is it the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu?
LANKFORD: No, it's definitely President Trump on it. Obviously, Israel has its own issues that are there. They're within missile range. So, when I talk about Iran doesn't have a missile that can hit Kansas, all of Israel can be hit.
As Netanyahu has said for a long time, they're a one bomb country. That one nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranian regime can destroy every Jew that lives in Israel. They're keenly aware of that.
So, they do have some priorities there, especially for regime change. Their focus is really on that. The president's focus he stated over and over again, you can't have a nuclear weapon, can't have a ballistic missile capability to be able to attack us. Got to stop your terrorism. And you can't have a navy that's going to take out the strait of Hormuz over and over again.
So, the president has his priorities on it. Netanyahu has his.
HUNT: Fair enough. When you and I spoke earlier this year about the conflict in Venezuela, I'm sorry. I was late last year, but we had taken out or we were thinking about taking out Nicolas Maduro there.
And I want to play for you what you said about that particular country and then we'll talk about it in this context. Take a look.
LANKFORD: Okay.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LANKFORD: If you break it, you buy it. We've seen that when we pushed out the leadership in Libya and it's just a collapsed, failed state.
(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: Do you think that's true here in Iran? Did we break it and have we bought it?
LANKFORD: Well, I pray that we have not. The focus there has been to try to provide an opportunity for the people of Iran to be able to rise up and to be able to run their own country.
I serve on the Intelligence Committee. There's quite a bit of information that's coming out of what the regime is doing currently to its own people, to try to suppress them, to be able to have them rise up and to be able to push back against this regime.
[16:25:03]
The focus that's been there over and over again is to give them some breathing room so that they could run their own country.
We don't want to try to occupy them. This is not Libya. This is not Afghanistan. This is not that situation. We're trying to be able to make sure that those folks can actually run it. That's part of the challenge on having oil and gas reserves and having the possibility for them to be able to produce their own oil and gas.
At the end of this war, you don't want Iran's economy to be zero. You want their economy to still exist so that they can rise as their own people in their own country. The regime that's there has stolen those resources and used the money for terrorism and left their people in poverty.
The goal is for the people to be able to actually have access to that and have a growing economy at the end.
HUNT: Sir, you of course, on the -- on the Homeland Security Committee, and you have been such a critical voice in negotiations around immigration policy over the years. Of course, the Department of Homeland Security is currently not funded --
LANKFORD: Not funded.
HUNT: -- because Democrats want changes to some of the ways that ICE operates, the way that they do business. Do you think that there is light at the end of the tunnel? As you know, Americans are now waiting in longer and longer security lines as we head toward spring break. Just one example of the impact of this.
LANKFORD: Yeah, there's quite a few FEMA, Secret Service, Coast Guard, TSA, there's a lot of examples. Homeland Security has a quarter of a million federal employees, a very large entity that does all of our homeland security on it. So, it's very important that we get it back open again. I've been pushing on this for weeks, saying we should stay over the weekend. We should keep working until we actually get it done.
The White House, to their credit three weeks ago now actually made an offer to Democrats to say, okay, we'll add de-escalation training for all these agents. We'll do badges on all these agents. They've got to identify themselves in vehicles. They've got to have identifiable uniforms that they've said they wore body worn cameras to be required on this.
So, a lot of the aspects that Democrats have said, these are changes that we're demanding. The White House has made that offer and said, okay, let's do it. They've put it in legislative language and said, let's negotiate this. The big offer they put out there actually sat on Schumer's desk for 18 days before he counter-offered.
So, my frustration is it feels like the politics are working for Democrats. And so they're using the DHS folks and not paying them for their political gain on it. When an offer sits there for 18 days before you respond, you know, there's a problem in the negotiations at this point.
Now, we've actually got people talking to each other this week, trying to be able to work this out, pleased to be able to see that the Democrats have come back and said, okay so now were ready to start talking, but we got to get this resolved for all those families. Again, a quarter million families that are not being paid, that are essential to our homeland security. Let's get it done.
HUNT: And Tom Homan's presence on Capitol Hill, what impact -- what does that say about the state of things?
LANKFORD: Yeah. So that was direct negotiations again between some of the Democratic senate members and between Tom Homan to be able to say, okay, let's talk through the details. What are the final things that we can all agree on? One of the big sticking areas is still about masks where Democrats are saying, no masks on ICE agents. They look terrible. They're, you know, they look like thugs.
The problem is that we've got activist protesters with a camera snapping pictures of ICE agents, posting it using facial recognition to identify who is it, and then showing up at their family's home, you know, protesting at their home or scaring their children back at home on this.
They're trying to force ICE agents to quit all over the country. So, there won't be an ICE, either by defunding them or by exposing ICE agents to these activist protesters.
We're not going to do that to law enforcement. We're just not. So, we need to make sure that if you're doxing law enforcement, that is a crime to be able to do that. And we need to make it very clear that we can protect those agents and their families.
Now again, we want to be professional. We wanted to follow the law, want things to be done the right way. We want full investigations. When there's any issue with any federal agent that's entirely appropriate to be able to do. But this issue about masks has suddenly become if we don't unmask everybody so protesters can identify everybody and go scare their kids at home, were not going to move on that. That is unrealistic and no one should agree to that.
HUNT: All right. I guess negotiating line in the sand there from Senator James Lankford.
Sir, I appreciate your time today.
LANKFORD: You bet. Glad to talk.
HUNT: All right. See you soon, I hope.
Coming up next here, another member of the intelligence committee, Senator Angus King, will be here live on set in THE ARENA
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:33:50]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: The objectives that have been laid out by the president are different from the objectives that have been laid out by the Israeli government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testifying on Capitol Hill for the second day in a row where she told House lawmakers today that the U.S. And Israel have different goals regarding Iran. Those comments, coming amid confusion over the extent to which the U.S. knew about an Israeli attack on the world's largest gas field.
Gabbard going on to characterize those differences this way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GABBARD: The Israeli government has been focused on disabling the Iranian leadership. The president has stated that his objectives are to destroy Iran's ballistic missile launching capability. Their ballistic missile production capability and their navy, the IRGC navy and mine laying capability.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Joining me now is independent senator from Maine, Angus King. He sits on the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees.
Sir, thank you very much for being here.
SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): Absolutely. Great to be with you.
HUNT: It's worth noting you do caucus with the Democratic Party.
[16:35:00]
But I want to start here with what Tulsi Gabbard said. Do you believe that Israel and the United States have the same objectives in Iran?
KING: I don't I think Israel has a much more expansive desires. And what happened yesterday is a good example where they bombed the gas facility, which set off a whole series of repercussions around the Gulf. And that's one of the problems because the -- it's -- a bomb is a bomb. And if that gas facility is bombed, whether its Israel or the U.S., the region is going to pay the price and we're going to pay the price.
So, the difficulty is going into a situation like this with a partner, but not having the same set of goals and not having any real control about that partner.
HUNT: Do you -- do you think that the United States is essentially driving the train in Iran or are we, as Marco Rubio suggested, he had said very early in this conflict that we acted in no small part because Israel was going to act. So, we needed to.
KING: He did say that, and I think he was telling the truth. It was like three days. It was the Monday after the war started, and he said we went because Israel was going to go and we didn't want to be unprotected. So, we're going to, which is very disturbing because what he's really saying is another country is, is driving us to a war and I don't think we should outsource that particular responsibility.
HUNT: So, speaking of responsibilities, Congress has responsibility to fund the war potentially. And there are reports that the administration is preparing to seek $200 billion in additional funding for the Pentagon. Could you see yourself supporting such a request?
KING: Well, of course, I've got to reserve judgment and see what it is. But I've got to say, first thing, Kasie, it's kind of rich that they want to come to Congress for the money, but they didn't want to come to Congress for the authorization for the war. I mean, there's a little irony there. And all of a sudden, oh, well, we're going to go and talk to congress when they never consulted with Congress, they didn't fulfill their constitutional responsibility in terms of having a declaration of war or some kind of authorization from Congress.
So, sure, we'll look at it, but the military budget already is $900 billion, closing in on a trillion and I've got to understand, you know, what's this all about? And the president's comments said, well, there may be some other things.
Well, every dime of this $200 billion is going to be borrowed from our children and our grandchildren. And that's the consideration. That's the lens that I'm going to look at it through is, is this -- are we -- is it really justified because the cost, we've been told, is about $1 billion a day, which is considerable, but 14 or 15 billion so far is a far cry from $200 billion. So, as you can tell, I have some questions.
HUNT: Many questions for sure. And you do sit on the Intelligence Committee and, of course, I've covered Congress long enough to know what people will tell me when I ask about classified briefings. But one thing that we have gotten a sense of is our preparedness, or lack thereof, for the drone capability that Iran seems to possess, including the fact that the drones that they're using are a lot cheaper than these billion --
KING: We're shooting down $35,000 drones with $2.7 million missiles. The math on that doesn't work very well.
HUNT: Why were we so unprepared? Why were we caught off guard?
KING: That's a really good question. And I think part of it is just the Pentagon and the military is a large animal, and it moves slowly. But you would have thought we would have figured this out from Ukraine, because the war in Ukraine has been all about drones for about two and a half, three years.
And we've just been slow to move. We don't make them fast enough. We don't make them cheap enough. We're talking about $5,000, $10,000, $15,000 drones. In Ukraine, they're making them from $500 to $1,000 and they're making thousands a month.
I think it was a case of the military really -- I hate to say this -- but the old cliche is fighting the last war. And this goes for other technologies like directed energy and hypersonics.
HUNT: Troubling to say the least.
Sir, I also want to ask you, I know that speaking of government funding, the Department of Homeland Security currently not funded because of a standoff over the way that ICE does business, basically. I was just speaking with your colleague, Senator Lankford, who has been a key part of these negotiations, and he says that there has been a -- there is an impasse over whether or not ICE agents should be allowed to mask themselves. And he says this is not something that Republicans are willing to do.
What do you make of that particular line in the sand and how it fits into the bigger picture here?
KING: Well, first, I want to say something that's really important because the Republicans are saying that the Democrats are not funding TSA and CISA, and FEMA, the Coast Guard. I think six times in the last week and a half, including about an hour ago, the Democratic leadership has gone to the floor of the Senate and proposed funding everything in DHS except ICE, and the Republicans have objected.
[16:40:11]
In other words, we could be -- TSA could be funded this afternoon, literally, I say an hour ago. So, the question of what we're saying is -- what I'm saying is, let's separate these non-controversial funding issues, TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, and then focus on where the problem is which is which is with ICE. On the masking question, I've never seen a law enforcement agency in my life that wears masks as a regular thing.
Now, maybe there's some special case where they should, but the problem with people in mask is, number one, it's intimidating and puts fear in people. And I think it sort of takes down a barrier to responsible conduct. If nobody knows who you are.
I think the answer is, let's get rid of the masks, allow them in certain limited circumstances and make doxing a serious offense, so that people can be protected from what James Lankford says is the problem.
The other issue, and by the way, there are discussions I was in a meeting this morning with the White House on these -- on this issue. But the other sticking point is what's called judicial warrants.
HUNT: Right.
KING: Can you break down the door without a warrant from a judge? My position is that's -- that's law 101. That's the Fourth Amendment. And I don't understand why this is such a big deal.
The masks and the warrants, I think, are the issues that we got to work through. But discussions are going on.
HUNT: And do you see a path through, do you think?
KING: I don't want to predict? It's not easy. There are some -- you know, there's some really serious differences here, but I can just -- I don't want to characterize the meeting except to say I think progress was made. And the important thing is we're talking.
HUNT: Yeah, that always, always important.
Sir, you brought with you a stack of papers, which I think our viewers have seen a little bit of, and you wrote in "The Bulwark" about the SAVE Act. And you said this, "Here's the real danger. Democracy depends not only on secure systems," which these papers here show that the systems are secure, "but on public trust in those systems when leaders and commentators repeatedly claim elections are rigged without substantiation, they chip away at that trust, and citizens begin to believe their votes do not matter."
That seems to me to be the heart of the problem that has been, you know, exploded in the information age that we live in. How do you see a way through?
KING: Well, here -- here's the problem. When I used to work with the Maine legislature, the first question was, what's the problem we're trying to fix? And in this case, there's no problem. Voter fraud is a fraud. That's what -- all of these are studies for years and years and years some of them going back 40 years. And the number of cases of people misrepresenting themselves undocumented people trying to vote are minuscule.
The Heritage Foundation, conservative group here in Washington found -- they went back to 1982. They found 99 cases of people trying of -- undocumented folks trying to vote out of 2 billion votes, cast. That's ridiculous. And we're talking about imposing these requirements that will disenfranchise millions of people for no reason. That's the point.
And I know your viewers are saying, oh yes, of course, there's voter fraud and illegals are voting. It just isn't true. And what are these are studies 20, 30 studies all of them conclude there's no such thing. I mean, there is occasional cases like I said, 99 cases out of 2 billion. In Maine, they found two out of, I don't know how many million casts over the past 40 years. So, this is a solution in search of a problem.
HUNT: All right. Senator Angus King, very grateful to have you on the show. I hope you come back. It's really lovely to have you in studio.
KING: Always a pleasure. Thank you
HUNT: Talk to you soon.
Ahead here in THE ARENA, Kevin O'Leary, Mr. Wonderful, the man himself is here about what's next for gas prices as the cost of oil hits its highest level since the start of the war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I said, you know, if I do that, oil prices will go up, the economy will go down a little bit. I thought it would be worse, much worse actually. I thought there was a chance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:48:52]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I saw what was happening in Iran, and I said, I hate to make this excursion, but were going to have to do it. And I actually thought the numbers would be worse. I thought that it would go up more than it did and I said, you know, they do that, oil prices will go up, the economy will go down a little bit. I thought it would be worse, much worse, actually, I thought there was a chance it could be much worse. It's not bad and it's going to be over with pretty soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: President Trump once again playing down the rise in oil prices as the result of the war with Iran. Even though he says it will be over soon, Americans are not, or at least they don't seem to be optimistic that it's going to lower their gas prices.
According to a new poll from Yahoo and YouGov, 67 percent of Americans say they think gas prices will go up over the next few months, 40 percent expecting prices to rise, say that President Trump is most to blame. Nine percent say Iran is at fault and two percent blame former President Joe Biden.
The "Shark Tank" investor Kevin O'Leary joins our panel now.
Sir, always great to have you. Thank you for being here.
Do you share President Trump's assessment of -- that he was almost surprised that prices didn't go higher or haven't gone higher than we've already seen them go?
KEVIN O'LEARY, "SHARK TANK" INVESTOR: It takes about three months of gasoline or at least oil barrel price above $95 to get into that $6 to $7 gasoline price. That's the freakout price for the consumer. We're nowhere near there. We're just 20-plus days.
HUNT: Going to say $7 gasoline. I mean, that -- that feels like, I don't know, the 70s level crisis.
O'LEARY: Yeah. Well, that's -- that's what the numbers say. I mean, if you actually keep the per barrel price, the input price to the refinery north of $95 for three months, that's where you get to historically.
Now, I think the president knows that. I think the administration knows that. I think midterms know that. I think every politician, both sides of the aisle know that. So there's a lot of pressure to resolve this sooner than later.
And secondly, but it's not good enough to resolve it and stop bombing Iran. You have to resolve the Strait of Hormuz. You have to get the 21 percent of all energy that goes through that strait clear. It's got to be able to go through. It's got to be ensured that two-mile stretch. Where's the deadly zone where these attacks occur. It's that's the short -- the shortest width in that strait where the tankers go through.
And for decades now, that's where the attacks have been. That's where they're trying to mine it. And so, everybody knows that. All the insurers know that, all the shipping companies know that.
And so, the minute you can float through a tanker, even if its empty, just to prove that it's not mined, and that the insurance syndicates can see that, you will immediately have an effect on the price of global oil. And it's not just the benefit of domestic markets. The Chinese, the Japanese, everybody Japan gets 70 percent of their oil through there.
So they've got a lot of interest while they're sitting in the White House today to work some deal out.
HUNT: And what do you make as an investor of the attacks on the gas field today? These attacks on the actual infrastructure that produces energy. Do you find that chilling?
O'LEARY: I don't like war, period, investors don't like uncertainty. But we have to invest money and so we have to make decisions every day. We talk to each other all the time about this. Most of us are looking at this saying, how long can Iran take this punishment? How long can it keep getting pounded this way? And why would they continue to do that?
And what amazed most people is having them rain drones and missiles on their neighbors. In the last three days, the narrative has completely changed.
HUNT: Yeah.
O'LEARY: You heard it out of the leadership in most of the countries around them saying, this is not something we're going to work with after this is resolved. So they've really isolated themselves and the market kind of knows that at the end of the day, there's going to be a coalition paying for that -- the Hormuz.
HUNT: Mo Elleithee, how many seats will your Democratic Party win in the midterm elections in the House of Representatives, if gas costs $7 a gallon in November?
ELLEITHEE: Yeah, right. I don't -- I -- after 2016, I stopped making predictions on elections.
HUNT: Uh-huh, fair.
ELLEITHEE: But I would rather be, you know, in the Democratic headquarters --
HUNT: You'd rather to be with them.
ELLEITHEE: -- than at the Republican headquarters for sure.
Like people are just -- they don't have the patience to sit through this. They don't have the patience, you know, and its people at the bottom who are getting hit harder. Right? You know, some economists are calling this sort of the K Street or a K-shaped situation because if you're at the top, $30 more a week in gas doesn't impact you. It sure does if you're at the bottom.
With diesel prices going up at the same time, not only are you seeing it when you go to the gas pump, but that diesel transports the groceries to the grocery store, transports -- so everything you order. So are people really going to be willing to sit through this for some -- for any sort of protracted period of time? I don't think so.
HUNT: Congressman, I mean, Americans are many things. I'm a proud and patriotic American. Patience is not always our strong suit.
MEIJER: It certainly isn't. You know, I just -- I -- every moment I hear Democrats talk about gas prices, I love -- I'm just there has to be some appreciation going back to, like, the 2021, 2022, that the Green New Deal legislation was effectively stunted. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema deserve a very big thanks.
I think that this is a scenario that could resolve relatively rapidly on the gas side or on the oil side. Gas is a whole different equation because some of the production facilities that were struck will take longer to get back online. It is an international market in oil and energy and natural gas. We are -- we are part of that. But we may very quickly see a divergence in the pricing, even more so than we're seeing between Brent and West Texas Intermediate.
[16:55:03]
HUNT: Fair enough.
All right. Kevin O'Leary, thanks very much for being here. Really appreciate it. Hope you come back soon. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks very much to my panel. Really appreciate you all being here today. Thanks to you at home for watching as well. We always really appreciate you too.
And don't forget. You can now stream THE ARENA live. You can catch up whenever you want in the CNN app. You just scan that QR code below on your screen.
You can also catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. You can follow the show on X and Instagram @TheArenaCNN.
But you can also stick around for "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" who is standing by.
Hi, Jake.
