Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

First Lady Melania Trump Makes On-Camera Statement From White House, Blasts "Lies" Linking Her To Epstein; Trump "Optimistic" About Iran Talks Amid Strained Ceasefire; Trump Hits Iran War Critics, Calls Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, Alex Jones "Stupid," "Nut Jobs," "Troublemakers". Aired 4-5p ET

Aired April 09, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:06]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news, Melania Trump makes a stunning announcement denying any past links to Jeffrey Epstein and calling for public congressional hearings featuring his victims.

Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. I'm Kasie Hunt.

Just moments ago, the first lady, Melania Trump, in a moment that can only be described as shocking made an unexpected rare public statement about her past encounters with the deceased child sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein.

We want to play -- your her remarks for you in full.

MELANIA TRUMP, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: Good afternoon.

The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today.

The individuals lying about me are devoid of ethical standards, humility, and respect. I do not object to their ignorance, but rather, I reject their mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.

I have never been friends with Epstein. Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time, since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach.

To be clear, I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice, Maxwell. My email reply to Maxwell cannot be categorized as anything more than casual correspondence. My polite reply to her email doesn't amount to anything more than a trivial note. I am not Epstein's victim. Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump. I met my husband, by chance, at a New York City party in 1998. This initial encounter with my husband is documented in detail in my book, "Melania".

The first time I crossed paths with Epstein was in the year 2000, at an event Donald and I attended together. At the time, I had never met Epstein and had no knowledge of his criminal undertakings. Numerous fake images and statements about Epstein and me have been circulating on social media for years now. Be cautious about what you believe. These images and stories are completely false.

I am not a witness or a named witness in connection with any of Epstein's crimes. My name has never appeared in court documents, depositions, victim statements, or FBI interviews surrounding the Epstein matter.

I have never had any knowledge of Epstein's abuse of his victims. I was never involved in any capacity -- I was not a participant, was never on Epstein's plane, and never visited his private island.

I have never been legally accused or convicted of a crime in connection with Epstein's sex trafficking, abuse of minors, and other repulsive behavior.

The false smears about me from mean-spirited and politically motivated individuals and entities looking to cause damage to my good name to gain financially and climb politically must stop.

My attorneys and I have fought these unfounded and baseless lies with success and will continue to maintain my sound reputation without hesitation. To date, several individuals and companies have been legally obligated to publicly apologize and retract their lies about me, such as "The Daily Beast", James Carville, and Harper Collins UK.

[16:05:12]

Now is the time for Congress to act. Epstein was not alone. Several prominent male executives resigned from their powerful positions after this matter became widely politicized. Of course, this doesn't amount to guilt, but we still must work openly and transparently to uncover the truth.

I call on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors. Give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress, with the power of sworn testimony. Each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public, if she wishes, and then her testimony should be permanently entered into the congressional record.

Then, and only then, will we have the truth.

Thank you.

HUNT: Really remarkable. Let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA.

My panel is here, and we're also joined by House Oversight Committee member, congress -- Congressman Suhas Subramanyam. We're going to talk to him in just a moment.

But we want to get to CNN's senior White House reporter, Betsy Klein, because, Betsy, you were in the room when this happened. Can you explain to us what it was like, what you know, what you don't

know about how this came to be?

BETSY KLEIN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Kasie, one of the things I know from covering First Lady Melania Trump for more than a decade now is that she is very independent. She does things on her own terms, and this was no exception. None of the reporters in this room knew what this statement was going to be about beforehand. They had told us that it was going to be a statement and not an announcement, somewhat of a riddle there.

And a senior adviser to the first lady had told "The New York Post" that this news would spread internationally. So, there was this parlor game of, what is this going to be about beforehand? But complete silence in the cross hall of the White House as the first lady began. These remarks, really extraordinary effort to place distance between herself, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. And this is an issue where the first lady has been particularly litigious in the past. But she emphatically stated she was not Jeffrey Epstein's victim. She had no knowledge of his crimes, their connection, she says, is purely social.

She also addressed a 2002 email exchange with Ghislaine Maxwell that was part of a tranche of Epstein related documents released back in February. We had asked her office about that and received no response, but in that email, she signs it, "Love, Melania". Maxwell writes back and calls her "sweet pea". Today, Trump said that that was a casual correspondence and that she was just being polite.

But what is most notable about the first lady's comments today is that she is directly undercutting the messaging coming from her husband and some of his top lieutenants when she is calling for these public hearings.

Now, one source familiar says President Trump did get a heads up this was coming, but certainly adding momentum to an issue that they have sought to tamp down, Kasie.

HUNT: Indeed, pretty aggressively so.

Betsy Klein, thank you very much for that. Do keep us posted on what else you're learning about. Why now.

Joining me to discuss is Democratic congressman from Virginia, Suhas Subramanyam. He serves on the House Oversight Committee, which of course, has been conducting its own investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.

Congressman, you obviously, I'm sure, learned about this right along with the rest of us in that it was a surprise that seemed to come out of the blue. What understanding do you have, if any, about this? And what was your reaction?

REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): I'm really puzzled. What she's trying to do is encourage survivors to come testify before a committee. We're happy to give them that forum. Some survivors have said that they would join us for a hearing we were going to have in Florida. It was mostly just the Democrats who were going to do that, but we'd love to give them the form if they'd like it.

But honestly, if she wants to clear her name, she should come testify before our committee herself under oath, because it's clear that that's what she was trying to do. Either that or promote her book, I don't know which one it is, but if she has a story to tell, if she wants to clear her name, then do it under oath, and before a committee.

We now have set the precedent that first ladies like Hillary Clinton can come before a committee and must.

[16:10:00]

Otherwise, they'll face criminal contempt. And so, I think it's within our reason to ask her to come testify now.

HUNT: Congressman, is there anything that the committee knows about her relationship or lack thereof, between Jeffrey Ep -- with Jeffrey Epstein or with Ghislaine Maxwell that's not yet in the public record?

SUBRAMANYAM: No. We've released everything we know. I mean, there's very friendly emails. I think she understates the friendliness of the emails she had with Ghislaine Maxwell. Theres pictures, obviously, with her and Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. It's clear there was a relationship there. If Donald Trump was close with them, I would imagine she would be, too.

And so again, if she wants to clear her name and say that there was no relationship at all, you know, don't do it at a podium. Do it in front of the committee under oath. And it'd be more believable to me at that point.

But again, it's puzzling that she -- the timing of this, we've been talking about her and her relationship with Epstein and Maxwell for over a year now, and we've been questioning the relationship because of the president's unwillingness to release all the files. And that gets me to another point, which is she has a lot of power here, right? She has -- her husband is the president of the United States, and he's what's in the way of releasing the rest of the files. So, if she wanted to do right by the survivors, then do what they're asking you to do, which is release the rest of the files.

HUNT: Do you think there's any connection here timing wise, between the central firing of Pam Bondi, the attorney general, the announcement that she will not testify before your committee will not appear before the Oversight Committee, and what we saw today from the first lady?

SUBRAMANYAM: That's a really good question. And I have that same question going through my head right now. So do others on the committee.

The reality is Pam Bondi is refusing to testify, and we're going to hold her to it. We're going to try to get her, criminal contempt charges if that's what we need to do. And that was this past week that all of that happened and all that was announced. And now this is happening right afterwards.

So, I do have a lot of questions about the timing for sure.

HUNT: Congressman, I want to play a moment for you from the hearing on February 11th when your colleague, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, spoke directly to the survivors in the room and it produced this moment. Let's watch it. We'll talk about it on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): To the survivors in the room, if you are willing, please stand.

And if you are willing, please raise your hands, if you have still not been able to meet with this Department of Justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Pretty remarkable moment at the time. And of course, put the survivors front and center there. What in your view, is the difference between what Melania Trump called for here for these survivors to testify further before Congress and a meeting with the DOJ?

SUBRAMANYAM: Yeah, that was a powerful moment by Congresswoman Jayapal. It's the DOJ's job to interview survivors, take them seriously, continue these investigations, especially when the public is demanding it. And it's, you know, not necessarily the job of us to put on a public forum and have them come in unless they really want to. Right?

But what they -- what they wanted is the release of the files. What they wanted is full transparency. And they want the DOJ to do their job and prosecute people and support victims rather than what's happened, which is covering up for perpetrators. So, I think it's very different what's being asked.

And I still can't believe Pam Bondi or anyone in this Department of Justice hasn't apologized to the victims either. I didn't see an apology from Melania Trump, but certainly if she supports them, she supports the survivors, then she will get her husband to release all the files and she will support them. And get this DOJ to do more than it has done to date.

HUNT: We are reporting that the president, President Trump, understood that his wife planned to make this statement, what she knew, what she was going to say in advance of her saying it. What is -- what does that say to you about his role in all of this?

SUBRAMANYAM: Again, really good question. You know, I wonder if the Iran talks are going poorly and they need to distract us again. I wonder if the president is supporting her and her effort to promote her book. I don't know what it is, honestly. You know, this is catching us by surprise. What I do know is if she wants to clear her name, she can come before

our committee and testify under oath. And what I do know is she and the president both have the power to make the story go away on them and give the people what they want and what the public wants and what the survivors want, which is releasing all the files and full transparency so we can actually prosecute people who are involved in these heinous crimes.

[16:15:03]

HUNT: I've spoken to a number of Republicans around -- you know, in Washington privately, who suggests that part of why the president reacts as strongly as he does to Epstein coverage is because of Melania Trump. How do you understand that dynamic, if at all? And does that show up with Republicans on the committee?

SUBRAMANYAM: I haven't heard him talk about Melania specifically very much. Again, it generally happens in press gaggles. He hasn't come to our committee or communicated with the Democrats early on in the community -- in our committee at all. So it's hard for me to really speculate about that.

I would just say generally, though, that actions speak louder than words. And if he wants to clear Melania's name and his name and anyone else's name, then just release the files. And you know, Melania really wants to clear her name. Come testify before us.

But it's hard for me to believe that given the actions.

HUNT: All right. Congressman Suhas Subramaniam, thank you very much for your time today. Appreciate you jumping on this story here that's unfolding as we speak. Thank you.

All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, our panel will weigh in on the first lady's statement. And we'll also be joined by someone who has written numerous books on life inside the White House.

Plus, the new developments in that fragile ceasefire overseas. What the president is telling Benjamin Netanyahu today as he tries to keep the peace both in the Middle East and here at home inside his own party.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R), FORMER GEORGIA CONGRESSWOMAN: He's out of control. And people within the administration need to step up, take responsibility and rein this in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:21:03]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) M. TRUMP: I have never been friends with Epstein. Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time, since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach.

To be clear, I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice, Maxwell.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Pretty shocking moment from the First Lady Melania Trump this afternoon as she made this unexpected statement from the White House denying any relationship with the deceased child sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, and his former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. She also called on Congress to give Epstein's survivors the chance to testify under oath at public hearings.

My panel is here in THE ARENA to weigh in. CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist Lulu Garcia-Navarro, CNN chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny, former DNC communications director Mo Elleithee, and CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Brad Todd.

We are also joined by journalist Kate Andersen Brower. She has written a number of books about the White House, about its first ladies, about what it's like to live there.

And, Kate, I want to start with you on that because Melania Trump casts such a fascinating figure, cuts such a fascinating figure, someone who is, you know, chooses very carefully what moments to speak. She clearly chooses the outfits that she wears, the way she presents herself very strategically. She's not someone that we hear from regularly. She has not necessarily engaged in the same types of traditions all the time that other first ladies have felt were obligatory.

What did you make of the statement that she made today? What stood out to you?

KATE ANDERSEN BROWER, JOURNALIST: Well, it's very rare for any first lady to come out and make a public statement like this about a real personal matter. But, you know, she's been very unusual. As you said, we can't forget back in 2018, she called for the deputy national security advisor of her husband to be fired publicly. She's come out and talked about her differences with her husband on abortion in her book.

So, I mean, she strikes -- she is -- strikes me as somebody who's very individual. She's looking out for herself. She did not defend her husband in this statement. She was talking about herself having no relationship or no friendship, no close ties to Jeffrey Epstein. I think she's somebody who does hold on to grievances, and she wants to make it clear that she is separate from her husband when it comes to this matter.

HUNT: Pretty remarkable reality. Jeff Zeleny, you've covered presidents. You've covered the White

House. It's -- frankly, this type of event is so rare. It's almost -- it's almost hard to place it in context, but it is clear that this has been something that has animated the White House behind the scenes.

I mean, she named "The Daily Beast". She named James Carville in that statement. Those entities have had to issue corrections, retract statements around Melania and Jeffrey Epstein. I mean, this is clearly something that she's been very focused on. What do you make of it?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, I mean, where she was standing in the cross hall of the white house is exactly the same place where the president was standing just a few days ago talking about the war. So just the location of that spot I thought was so interesting.

But because we do not hear from her really hardly at all, we do sort of hang on every word why this is happening. I was struck the most by her calling for congressional hearings for the victims. I mean, this is just when this subject, which has been a troubling subject for this White House, for this party, has largely, you know, receded --

HUNT: Had receded.

ZELENY: -- to the background, and here we go.

So, you know, I think there are some who will say, is she trying to change the subject from the Iran war?

[16:25:02]

I don't really fall into that camp there because she does her own thing. So even though the president knew about it, that does not mean the West Wing appreciated it or, or authorized it. I mean, she does her own thing as Betsy and Kate were just saying there.

HUNT: Brad Todd, I mean, to Jeff -- Jeff's point here you were, you were on the show a number of days straight saying, oh, it's another Epstein day. It's another Epstein day. When are we possibly going to get off of Jeffrey Epstein? And we did. And yet now here we are.

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Here it is. And what I'm struck by so far, it's only an hour or so in. But a lot of Democrats who were calling for more action on Epstein, we'll see if they praise Melania Trump today. I mean, she's -- in calling on congress to hold hearings with the victims, that should be seen as a big step forward.

Congressman Subramanyam, I didn't hear that from him of a lot of unilateral praise. And I suspect it's because Democrats more want to get at Donald Trump and cause him political problems than they do help victims.

But, you know, the first lady has been an advocate for victims, her law that she pushed to take it down act, which was passed bipartisan first conviction on that was announced yesterday. So, this is a already a thing where she has a lot of credibility. I think that that might be part of the timing.

HUNT: Lulu, what do you make of it all?

(LAUGHTER)

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I mean, I don't know --

HUNT: Like a human emoji.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I'm like a human emoji.

I mean, listen, what is everyone asking here? Why now?

Why now? It doesn't make sense politically for the reasons that everyone has outlined. It doesn't even make sense in her own timeline, other than you were suggesting because of her book, or someone else was suggesting because of her book, she did mention her book in that statement, which was, I have to say, a little strange.

But why now? And so, I don't think we know the answer to that question, but the answer to that question will tell us what, what exactly she is trying to address here, because everyone is sort of saying, what pictures is she talking about? What stories is she talking about? She doesn't actually address precisely what it is that she is trying to tamp down and reject. We don't know.

And so, once we understand that, I think we'll have a better sense of what exactly she was trying to get ahead of.

HUNT: Kate Andersen Brower -- I mean, do you have any further understanding of what lulu is outlining there? I mean, exactly what is it that is animating Melania here?

BROWER: I think she just gets really fed up. And she's somebody who has come out and criticized media and criticized people often for making money off of her, as she likes to say, you know? And I think she's somebody who's isolated in many ways. She doesn't have Stephanie Grisham. She doesn't have Lindsay Reynolds, who was her chief of staff, who had worked for the Bush White House.

She has Haley Harrison, you know, a very -- she has a very tight circle of people around her. And so, if anybody was going to say its bad idea or bad timing, she doesn't have that voice in her ear. She really does do what she wants.

And you can look at that and applaud it. Or you could look at it and say, it's self-serving and doesn't make any sense to do it now.

HUNT: Kate, she mentioned her book, as Lulu points out. And, you know, one of the things that she goes through in her book and one of the things she highlighted in this statement was how she met her husband, the president. And she kind of -- she details the party.

She talks about going to The Kit Kat Club. She talks about the energy of the crowd, dazzling lights settling into her table in the VIP section. The atmosphere, sophistication, camaraderie and then, of course, she notices Donald Trump.

I raise that just to say that, you know, she's telling this story in the book and insisting -- one of the things she insisted seemed very focused on insisting on was that Jeffrey Epstein had nothing to do with this. I mean, where does that all come from and why is it so animating for her?

BROWER: I mean, my understanding of how they met was through Paolo Zampolli, who was a modeling agent, a former modeling agent, but I don't know the link between that and Epstein. And so, I don't know why this is such a pivotal moment for her, especially when this has been going on, as you've said, for months and months.

And there have been these A.I., you know, false photos showing her that are computer generated. And I think that that's very upsetting to her. And I think she really genuinely hates to feel like people are grifting or using her name to make money or to make names for themselves. And it's obviously a really terrible thing to be tied to, right?

So, she wants to make sure that it's clear that she's not. But again, when we've seen first ladies do anything, no one's done anything quite like this, but they've always come out and talked about their husband or tried to clear the presidents name in some way. And to me, what's most striking about this is that this is all about Melania.

[16:30:03]

And she's so separate from the president and how she views herself and her role.

HUNT: Pretty remarkable.

All right. Kate Andersen Brower, thank you. Really appreciate it.

The rest of our panel is on standby.

Mo, I promise we'll get to you when we -- very top of our next panel block.

MO ELLEITHEE, FORMER DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: All right.

HUNT: Coming up next here in THE ARENA, we're going to talk with the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Adam Smith, as the ceasefire with Iran is put to the test.

Plus, the other battle for the president, how he's battling the ongoing uprising in MAGA world.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGYN KELLY, PODCAST HOST: You got to say, the deal sounds very much like surrender on our part, which I'm in favor of. I mean, great, this needed to end ugly or any other way it needed to end.

(END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:35:08]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If Iran wants to let this negotiation fall apart in a conflict where they were getting hammered over Lebanon, which has nothing to do with them, and which the United States never once said was part of the ceasefire, that's ultimately their choice. We think that would be dumb, but that's their choice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Right now, the ceasefire between Iran and the United States is on a knife's edge, as President Donald Trump tries to prevent it from falling apart before peace talks even start. We just learned that the president called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday, urging him to dial back his war on Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The president telling NBC today in describing this by saying, quote, "I spoke with Bibi and he's going to low-key it. I just think we have to be sort of a little more low-key."

Sources tell CNN that it is that call that led Prime Minister Netanyahu to announce today that Israel will immediately pursue talks with Lebanon. Critically, though, he says there's no ceasefire with Hezbollah.

Joining me now is the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman Adam Smith of Washington.

Congressman, always grateful to have you on the program.

I want to start big picture here because in some ways, it's a little bit difficult to tell if this ceasefire is actually a ceasefire. What is your understanding?

SEN. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Yeah, well, it's actually not difficult to tell. It's not a ceasefire. The war, certainly in Lebanon continues, but Iran is still firing missiles, not as many as they did before. And the Strait of Hormuz is not open.

So, basically, all that has happened is President Trump went from threatening, you know, Armageddon, civilizational erasure to stopping all bombing of Iran, you know, completely. And nothing else has really changed.

Now I make a surprising statement here. I agree with what the clip you played of Megyn Kelly. This needed to stop. All right? It wasn't going anywhere positive, causing massive destruction. We still have to negotiate some kind of peace.

The war has been a complete disaster. So even stopping it in this awkward way is better than continuing it. But we still have the burden now of getting Iran to stop, you know, of actually opening up the Strait of Hormuz.

So, you know, there isn't a ceasefire. I think the president is really lost on where he wants to take this, having failed to accomplish any meaningful objectives. And I know people always say, well, we blew up a lot of their missiles. We you know, Iran has suffered setbacks and they have.

But from a strategic standpoint, Iran is as hard line as it's ever been. They still have missile capacity. They still support terrorist groups. So, the objectives that were laid out have not been achieved.

HUNT: You mentioned Megyn Kelly and the piece of what she said that you agreed with. She described this also as surrender on the part of the United States. Do you agree with that characterization of what this is?

SMITH: I mean, that's overly dramatic, but basically, I mean, we're not surrendering anything. We're just going back to a status quo that existed before this started, having caused an enormous amount of damage. I mean, it just shows and proves that the war was a terrible idea.

I mean, think about where we're at right now. You've got the full- scale war between Israel and Lebanon. Iraq is now more destabilized than ever because the Iranian backed militias have been empowered by this war. The global economy is in trouble. The Middle East has been just in complete chaos.

And what have we accomplished? Iran is still Iran, all right? Their nuclear program isn't really any weaker now than it was before this war started. So, surrender is overly dramatic.

It's just that we, for the enormous cost that we have paid, not to mention the 13 service members who have lost their lives and the hundreds who have been wounded, and the billions of dollars we have spent, not only have we not accomplished anything, we've set ourselves back most dramatically, of course, in the Strait of Hormuz, but in a number of other areas as well.

HUNT: One area that seemed to come into focus in there was a lengthy piece in "The New York Times" this week, the kind of detailed how this decision to go to war was made inside the Situation Room with the Israelis and others. And one issue that persistently came up that, you know, considering your role on the Armed Services Committee, I'm interested in your perspective on this idea that the munitions stockpile that the United States has, that we obviously use to help people like the Ukrainians and other allies of ours around the world has been depleted, perhaps in a way that poses an existential problem.

What is your understanding of how bad that reality is and what role this decision to go to war in Iran had on that?

SMITH: Yeah.

[16:40:00] Existential is a crazy overstatement. It's not an existential threat. The U.S. isn't going to disappear because our munition stocks are low, but it is definitely, you know, impeded our ability to meet our deterrence objectives. It has unquestionably weakened us.

And the other thing about that "New York Times" story I thought was interesting, this is who President Trump is. He makes an impetuous gut decision against any sort of logical analysis that drops us into a very, very deep hole instead of thinking through it strategically and making a smart decision.

So, yes, of the many things, in many ways that this has weakened us, our munition stocks are certainly lower than they were. It undermines our ability to support Ukraine in their critical effort to survive against the Russians. And then you've got the fact that throughout this war, President Trump has sort of tripled down on alienating every country in the world by trying to, you know, insult them, belittle them, argue with them. So, we are now more alone than we have, have ever, ever been, been in recent memory.

So, yeah, the cascading effects of that terrible decision to go into a war that experts pretty much said, this is what was going to happen, okay? This is what experts have said for a long time. This is not like this was some big, huge surprise that we didn't see coming. All Iran had to do in this conflict was survive, survive, continue to be able to threaten the region.

And now they've discovered, you know, leverage that they weren't using before over the Strait of Hormuz, over the global economy, a bunch of different places. So, yeah, it's a bad decision. Munitions stockpiles are one part of it, to be sure.

HUNT: Some of your colleagues have gone so far as to say that. And this was in response largely to the Easter Sunday statement that the president put out. And then, of course, his call to end, potentially end Iranian civilization, that the 25th Amendment should be invoked. Others have called for impeachment over this.

Do you think a remedy of that level at that level is required? I mean, do you support calls to invoke the 25th Amendment?

SMITH: Well, let's just start here. What the president has said and the way he has handled this is unhinged, irrational, incredibly dangerous for a leader. It is evidence that he is unfit for office.

And so, as I've watched people try to analyze this and justify it and say, oh, it was brilliant of him to make these mass threats because it finally got the war to stop. It's like, no, let's just start with the fact that the president's decision making and the comments that he's made throughout this conflict have been comments that should be rightly viewed regardless of where you're at in the political spectrum, as someone who's unfit for office. So, if we can just focus on that and not normalize this, not act like there was some kind of strategic thought that went into this, that would help.

Yeah. I think the 25th Amendment should be invoked. You know, of course, the people who have the power to do that aren't going to do that, any more than we have the votes for impeachment.

So, spending a lot of time focusing on, gosh, we have to remove him from office and coming up with a specific plan for it -- we don't really have a path, but we should certainly call his decision making what it is, which is unhinged, dangerous, and proving that he is unfit for the office, to try and get some Republicans to come up with some way to begin to rein this in because it is really dangerous, and to look through the things that he has said and just say, well, he was trying to do this.

No, he was just basically acting out in a very unstable way that is incredibly dangerous and that I want to focus on that aspect of it instead of going, oh, we should impeach him. Okay, we don't really have the votes to get that done, but let's focus on the decision making.

HUNT: I appreciate the pragmatism. As you know, not -- not all of your colleagues from any corner of our politics, always share it. So, I always appreciate it.

Congressman Adam Smith, thank you very much for your time, sir.

SMITH: Thanks, Kasie.

HUNT: All right. Ahead here in THE ARENA, President Trump just now hitting back at some of his MAGA critics after growing criticism of his handling of the Iran war.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:48:19]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: You got to say, the deal sounds very much like surrender on our part, which I'm in favor of. I mean, great, this needed to end ugly or any other way it needed to end. The Iranians proved to be tough MF-ers, and they realized that they had something far more powerful than nuclear bomb. They had control over the Strait of Hormuz.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: The fallout inside MAGA over the Iraq war and the current ceasefire doesn't seem to be slowing down. And it's not just the loudest voices in the party. "The New York Times" analyzed more than 40,000 comments on President Trump's Truth Social posts. They found this, quote, "More than half of those responding to Mr. Trump's warning on Tuesday morning that Iran's whole civil civilization will die were deeply critical of his comments. Only a quarter of the comments were supportive, and his profanity laced and vulgar Easter Sunday post still sounding alarms among his own supporters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R), FORMER GEORGIA CONGRESSWOMAN: How can any person that is mentally stable call for an entire civilization of people to be murdered, to be wiped out, to never come back again? That's what the president called for. And that shows that there's serious instability in his thinking. The conversation needs to be had, and he's out of control. And people within the administration need to step up, take responsibility and rein this in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. My panel is back.

And Mo Elleithee, you're on deck. We're hearing from the president just in the last couple of minutes. And he says on his Truth Social platform, "I know why Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, and Alex Jones have all been fighting me for years."

[16:50:03]

He goes on to say, "They're stupid people. Nutjobs, troublemakers. They'll say anything for free and cheap publicity."

So he is, you know, engaging right in on this, in this fight with them. But the common analysis is kind of interesting. I'm curious what you think, especially when you think about winning over independent voters from a Democratic perspective.

ELLEITHEE: Yeah. I mean, look, I don't pretend to understand MAGA politics. Are they the fringe or are they the early indicators of something that's about to happen? We'll find out. But your question about independent voters is exactly right. American people are willing to give a president a little bit of grace at the start of a military operation, at the start of a war, if that president has made a compelling argument to them as to why they should.

This was the first time at the beginning, at the outset of a military operation, the American people weren't with the president, and it was because he never told them why. Now he's out there declaring success. Yet as the congressman just pointed out, it's really hard to see where the success is. Iran is emboldened in the Strait of Hormuz, and in fact, we just gave them something they've never had before, the ability to exact tolls to go through it.

They still have their nuclear capabilities. They have a more extremist element in charge of the country. I don't know where the success is. And so it's not surprising to me that that's why you see his numbers continue to crater with independent voters and why you may start seeing more cracks with his own supporters.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I also think what we're seeing is the sharks circling in the water. The Trump era is ending. Just it has to, and what --

HUNT: Does it?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I'm not going there quite yet.

HUNT: Okay. GARCIA-NAVARRO: But what I will say is that this is a fight over the future of the party. And what you're seeing now, and the presidents, I will say, making it very easy for that fight now to burst out into the open because of his actions, which are hugely controversial. But there is a huge split in MAGA over Israel in particular. That was the early lead indicator. And now over the Iran war, which, you know, this group of the right thinks Israel dragged the United States into.

And so, if you want to take the crown, you have to take down the king. And I think that's what you're seeing.

TODD: You know, though, you can't judge the entire circus by a couple of clowns. And that's what we have here. I mean, the dovish isolationist anti-American military wing of the Republican Party.

It's not a wing. It's a shed in the backyard. These are just a very, very few people. They just happen to have a pretty good megaphone, and we pay way too much attention to them. If you go to the House and Senate --

(CROSSTALK)

GARCIA-NAVARRO: They got Donald Trump elected. Tucker Carlson helped get Donald Trump elected. Megyn Kelly campaigned with him.

I mean, these are all people that he -- you can't say that the last election was like the podcast election. And then all of a sudden, yeah, these people don't matter. I mean, it is a clear sign of trouble for the coalition.

TODD: I don't -- I don't think -- the people that got Trump elected are people who are ideologically in the middle and saw Kamala Harris and the Democrats as too far left. That's the people that got him elected.

The podcasters, political operatives, we don't get people elected. The people that get people elected are the voters.

ZELENY: The bottom line after spending several days in Iowa this week where Republicans actually have a lot of races that that they were planning to win easily, and now they are not.

No one cares about the podcast. What they care about is the rising price of fuel, of fertilizer, of costs and other things. So, the Iran war, the success of it, it's far too early to claim it's a success, but there is deep concern out in the country among Republicans.

But as of now, elected officials -- we'll see when Congress comes back next week. We'll see if there are any sort of growing voices about concern about this. But as of now, the elected officials have been with the president. The voters will find out in November.

HUNT: So, Jeff, I mean, when you're on the ground in Iowa, if it's not the podcasters, what is it that has Republicans in a bind in places like Iowa where they didn't expect to be. ZELENY: The gas station, the cost of diesel, things like that? I

mean, that is what people are far more concerned about than any inside thing.

And the president certainly has a very full agenda this afternoon. The fact that he sent out that long Truth Social post -- very long, longer than most, shortly after the First Lady spoke. I mean, doesn't he have anything else to do then sort of go after Megyn Kelly in the middle of the day.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But doesn't that show that this is something that he understands as a problem for him? Because he's always been very attuned to his base and the people --

ZELENY: An irritant. I don't know if it's a problem. We'll see.

TODD: Well, he may be paying too much attention to online, too. But I'll go back to this with Jeff sitting at -- the Donald Trump's ace in the hole is strength. His kryptonite is chaos. And the task for him as we head into the midterms is to project strength, but not be chaos.

[16:55:05]

And that's a challenge that we're -- still offers an opportunity for.

HUNT: Well, and also --

ELLEITHEE: Never been able -- he's never been able to walk that line. He is walking chaos. And you know that was part of the strategy for him for many years.

But at the end of the day, it is those people Jeff was talking about in Iowa who say, I am tired of the chaos. You promised to make my life easier. You have not. You've made it harder. And we're going to punish your team, your party.

HUNT: Well, and it's also part of why the first two military operations -- bombing Isfahan or bombing the Iranian nuclear program and then the Maduro raid projected strength. And now, we're looking at a military operation that potentially projects chaos. It's a significant problem -- all right, for the president.

All right. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. Thanks to my panel. Thanks to those at home for watching as well.

But, of course, don't go anywhere. As you can see, Phil Mattingly is standing by for "THE LEAD".

Hi, Phil.