Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Axios: Trump Says He Expects Deal "In A Day Or Two"; Soon: Trump To Rally MAGA Base As Some In GOP Oppose Iran War; Peggy Noonan: "Trump Meets His Match In Pope Leo". Aired 4-5p ET

Aired April 17, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:03]

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: All right. Love it. Thanks, David.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Thank you so much for joining us.

Jessica, great to be with you this week.

DEAN: Thanks for having me.

SANCHEZ: Good to see you again. Soon.

"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.

(MUSIC)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's great to have you with us on this Friday.

As we come on the air, the president about to confront a turning point at Turning Point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE ROGAN, PODCAST HOST: It's (EXPLETIVE DELETED) terrifying.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.

ROGAN: All of it's terrifying. Anytime you're involved with -- you're shooting missiles into towns and blowing things up, blowing up infrastructure, blowing up bridges, you know, and Israel's blowing up Lebanon now. It's like, what the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) are we doing? Like, how is this still going on?

The Iranian regime is terrible. Like what they do to their protesters.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not disputing that at all. I mean --

ROGAN: Most people that voted for Trump or wanted Trump to be in office. One of the things that was attractive was this no, no more wars.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure, of course.

ROGAN: And now we're in one of the craziest ones.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Right now, President Trump facing a critical test among his MAGA base. He's set to speak at a Turning Point USA event that, of course, the late Charlie Kirk's organization. And what's different this time around is in many ways, everything.

Today, he says he expects a deal with Iran in the next day or two, and that the Strait of Hormuz is totally open. But since the last time he stood in front of what is typically the friendliest of friendly crowds, we've also seen the military operation in Venezuela. There's been the spike in gas prices. He's had a public fight with the pope, and there have even been some questions about his mental state among his supporters. That's just to name a few things.

This morning, the president went after some of his loudest conservative critics, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly, Alex Jones. He called them low IQ. It was just the latest rant against people who at one time were close advisers, serious supporters, both of those things.

And for some of the people in phoenix today, here's what they had to say about seeing the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think you are starting to see concerns.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I do support his policy. I am starting to lean away from his personality a lot more.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to see everything come back to us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean, I voted for him like, this is kind of what I expected, but look, after the Easter though, it's kind of like what is going on here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: It's a great question. What is going on here?

Let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.

We're also joined by CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.

Kristen, the president told Axios that he expects an Iran deal in the next day or two. More recently, he said that Iran has to Iran has to, quote, "agree to everything". What is going on here?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, that's what we're trying to piece together because President Trump has not actually said anything publicly. It's all coming in in these kind of snippets from conversations he's having quickly with journalists. And we're hearing from him is not the same that what we're hearing from U.S. officials who are involved in these talks or from the Iranian officials.

So, here's what we know President Trump has said and what the White House is saying. We have President Trump saying he believes there's going to be a deal in the next day or two. We are hearing that they are increasingly optimistic that they do believe there's likely to be negotiations as soon as this weekend. That would be the second round of negotiations. Those are likely to be led by Vice President J.D. Vance. They're likely in Pakistan would involve all the same key players that were involved in that first round of negotiations, and they do feel closer to a deal than they've ever been.

Now, this is where it gets a little complicated. What's actually in that deal? One of the things that we have been reporting is U.S. officials telling us that there was a consideration, and it is under consideration to unfreeze billions of dollars of Iranian assets. President Trump now, in a series of these interviews, has said that's not on the table. They're not unfreezing any money. They're not giving them access to any funds.

The other thing you mentioned this in this Iran has agreed to everything interview he gave a few minutes ago. He is talking about enriched uranium, specifically saying that Iran has agreed to hand over all the enriched uranium that they have and that that enriched uranium will eventually go back to the United States. And President Trump has said that you would require no troops on the ground to actually get that enriched uranium.

I do want to go back a little bit in time here to yesterday, when we were talking about the sticking points for the deal with Iran, and it was all about the timing that Iran was willing to agree to, to stop enriching uranium. The U.S. wanted 20 years. Iran wanted five years. Now you have President Trump saying they've agreed just to never enrich uranium again.

That's not what Iranian officials are saying. They are saying they have not agreed to anything like that. So were trying to piece together here what's actually being considered and what is President Trump kind of getting out there and saying, this is actually a deal for.

[16:05:05]

Now, I do want to note one thing, just because you play those soundbites from Turning Point, I did talk to two people who were there just moments ago who are very anti-war, who have been very disappointed by this whole process. But they did say something interesting. They said that if President Trump does, in fact, come with a deal, say that he is getting out of Iran, and it is actually him getting out of Iran, that they believe that the tides can turn within the MAGA base and turn pretty quickly. And we know that we've seen that in the past.

But of course, the question is, what exactly is this deal? When is it going to come through, and what is that going to look like for everyday Americans, particularly when it comes to gas prices?

HUNT: Yeah, for sure.

All right, Kristen, thank you very much for that reporting.

My panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams; CNN political analyst, national political reporter for "Axios", Alex Thompson; former DNC senior advisor and communications director, Xochitl Hinojosa; and Republican strategist Brad Todd. They're both CNN political commentators.

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

Lots of nuts and bolts from Kristen on Iran. But I want to zoom back out to kind of the big picture politics of this and Turning Point USA.

And Brad Todd, I mean, some of these pointed comments, from the attendees there in some ways -- I mean, it almost reminds me of what we saw leading into the 2020 election when the sense was, well, there were plenty of Republicans who were on board with the president's policies, but his personality significantly got in the way.

Here, you have a little bit of both because the Iran policy is in some ways problematic, but the way they seem to be taking it in was as his personality. And one of them mentioned what happened on Easter Sunday.

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, on the -- on the war, the numbers don't back it up. I have a fresh national survey last week saw 86 percent of Republicans support the war in Iran. That's the question. Do you support the war in Iran? It's that simple. It's not any more complicated or there are no bells and whistles.

In the Republican Party, you know, when I do campaigns, we have a thing we know as the right. And then we have the online right. And they are not the same thing. The online right is a very small group of people. The real world, right, is pretty supportive of projecting strength abroad.

Now, I don't think they'll be supportive if we're still talking about being at war a year from now. But if you talk to Republican members of Congress, they know that the folks back home support the president, support the war. They want to see Iran decapitated. That's where they are.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Just to add, can I add one quick thing to that? You know, haven't people, even Trump's supporters been saying for a very long time that there are a lot of things they don't like about him personally. There are things they don't like that he says there are even some behavior that he engages in but still support his policies. I don't see that much that's new from what you saw from those comments that folks at Turning Point.

It's just more of the same. Donald Trump's problematic, but we like his policies.

TODD: But, for the record -- ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, the real quick, just

really quick, do you think the Turning Point USA is emblematic of more the real right or the online right?

TODD: It's the online right.

THOMPSON: And also in that case, it's going to be really interesting to see what happens there. And it's interesting, the White House political operation feels a need to actually address what the online right is saying, right?

TODD: Well, they pay pretty close attention to it. And, you know, young men, if there is a group of people that is -- that's not happy about this, this young man, right? It's people under 25 who are -- were Trump voters. And they typically are male, but that's a very small piece of the Republican base.

THOMPSON: But --

HUNT: Yeah, go ahead.

THOMPSON: I was going to say the one thing I'm going to be watching in this address is Israel is because there has been a lot of reporting that Charlie Kirk, before he died, had become more critical of Israel because he was seeing that sort of sentiment among, especially young men in Turning Point USA. And this is something that Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson have really honed in on. And I'm very interested to see how Trump addresses it tonight.

HUNT: Well, one attendee at Turning Point, actually, who's -- who spoke to our reporters down there actually talked about Tucker specifically. And of course, you have the president attacking Tucker Carlson today as he's kind of headed to do this.

Let's watch what this attendee had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLIE HURST: I am a very big Tucker Carlson guy. So when President Trump tweeted about Tucker Carlson, I took that one to heart. I personally think I do support his policy. I am starting to lean away from his personality a lot more.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: I mean, Alex Thompson, can you say a little bit more about kind of this -- this divergence? Because Israel is a significant part of what's going on with Tucker Carlson.

THOMPSON: I mean, literally, Tucker Carlson did an entire video segment with an Israeli flag taped over Trump's mouth, just like the other day, and has basically insinuated that, Israel might, you know, could be attempting to blackmail the president. I mean, the anti- Israel stuff, which, you know, I think a lot of pro-Israel forces basically think of as very thinly veiled antisemitism.

HUNT: Some of it's not veiled, some of it is straight up antisemitic, for sure.

THOMPSON: It's very much a part of this. And it will be something that Trump is going to at least implicitly address tonight.

WILLIAMS: And, you know, I think it's a fair point you're making, Brad, about the idea of the online right versus the real right. You find, God, the craziness on the left as well. I know Tucker Carlson got 18 million followers on Twitter.

[16:10:02]

There's still an enormous following that he has that has to be consequential in some way for even --

TODD: Well, not all of them are Russian bots

WILLIAMS: Not all of them Russian bots. Not all of them are actual conservatives. But there's still 18 million of them. And so, I just --

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But --

WILLIAMS: It has to be taken seriously.

HINOJOSA: The Trump administration has led, based on what the online right wants. There are people like employees at the Department of Justice, career employees who have been fired because of what the online right has said, that things that have not been true about several of the investigations. Pam Bondi and the Epstein files, there is a reason why she was out there with binders, you know, with influencers, and then later then fired because she wasn't necessarily delivering and the online right was upset about it for quite some time.

And then now you're seeing the president really try to say like, this war is going to end soon because he's feeling the pressure. Whether he can do that, I am very doubtful. He has not been truthful this entire time about the war to the American people. And so I'm not really sure that he can accomplish what he wants to accomplish in Iran this quickly. But they move on policy pretty quickly when the online right is upset.

TODD: But let's -- let's go backwards. We can't take out their nuclear facilities than we did. We can't -- the siege won't work. The blockade won't work. And now it has, like the time and time again, the president's second guessed on this Iran policy. And it's almost always worked. So I'm going to bet on him as we go forward.

HUNT: I want to play something. And we actually we talked about this. We talked about it earlier in the week on this show. But it is a moment that is worth playing from the Vice President J.D. Vance because he occupies a very unique place in the universe that Brad has outlined the online right versus the non-online right, as well as, of course, positioning himself to potentially be the heir apparent in 2028 to President Trump.

Here was the moment when he was speaking at Turning Point USA, when he was talking about the Iran issue. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I recognize that a lot of young voters don't love the policy that we have in the Middle East. I'm not saying you have to agree with me on every issue. What I'm saying is don't get disengaged because you disagree with the administration on one topic. Get more involved.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Alex Thompson, where do you see J.D. Vance sitting in this universe that we've --

THOMPSON: Well, clearly, an avatar of what Brad has called the online right. If the entire Trump administration is paying very close attention, J.D. Vance may pay the closest attention, which honestly could end up limiting him. If Brad's thesis is right that the online right is actually not as influential in terms of a Republican primary, say in the year 2028, then --

HUNT: Just for example.

THOMPSON: Yeah. And then J.D. Vance paying so close attention to the online right. Versus actually what the real base thinks could end up being a hindrance.

TODD: I think J.D. has a lot of advantages with the Republican primary electorate, but I think his weaknesses on foreign policy, I think that he's not near as hawkish as most Republicans are the real world, right, if you will, versus the online right. I think this is an opportunity where he's been put in a lead role in negotiating with Iran, though, where he can own part of this victory over Iran. And I think that that will help him move from a position of weakness to a closer position of strength.

HINOJOSA: Don't you think he's trying to play it both ways? On one end, he's trying to say, you know, to say that he did not agree, and he disagreed with getting into the war in the first place. But then yet trying to take somewhat of an approach of leading sort of negotiations. It's trying -- it seems like he is, again, trying to please both online right. And what you're saying, the more hawkish part of the Republican Party.

TODD: Well, I mean, Joe Biden disagreed with killing Osama bin Laden and then he took credit for it after Obama had disregarded his advice. And so perhaps this is not an unusual move for a vice president.

HINOJOSA: I'd be rich every time we talked about Joe Biden on air now.

(LAUGHTER)

TODD: Big picture here. I mean, one of the -- one of the other aspects of this that I keep coming back to is that Vance, Alex, seems to want the country to know that he was against the war, right? I mean, there's this big "New York Times" piece in advance of, Maggie

Haberman and Jonathan Swan's book where -- I mean, it's a Washington parlor game. Who leaked what? But it seems very clear that Vance's team, those around him, want the world to know that he was opposed to this.

How does that play into it?

THOMPSON: Well, it is a fascinating parlor game because there are also people that think that it wasn't Vance's team necessarily that leaked, at least some of it, because they want Vance to sort of be seen as in opposition to the president behind closed doors. But it is -- I mean, there is no doubt that Vance came up as a huge you know, you know, anti-interventionist was among the most anti-interventionist members of the Senate when he was in the senate.

So, it is very easy to make it seem that J.D. was opposed, whereas like, you know, the other parlor game was who was the most in favor? Pete Hegseth. And then who was like sort of, quote/unquote, "ambivalent" in that piece was Marco Rubio.

[16:15:03]

And so the parlor game of who leaked who on which in the room is very interesting, but it is clear J.D. Vance had serious concerns inside the room.

WILLIAMS: And there's something in that -- in that, who tends to make it through primaries is who can be all things to all people in their party. Barack Obama was in many respects, back to the primary, not how he governed, but all things to all members of the Democratic coalition. Joe Biden does to some extent winning South Carolina.

So, you know what he's clearly staking out here is dog whistling to both of these camps. And maybe it'll work.

HUNT: Brad?

TODD: I'm not sure I'm going to put full stock in "The New York Times" reporting of what happens in the Republican Party. I wanted to put a pin in that. But you are -- you're correct that to date, that is the one thing that we have seen so far about the internal deliberations of this war. I think we'll know more later.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, Senator John Fetterman is here with us live. He's the only Democrat in the Senate to vote against limiting the president's war powers in Iran.

Plus, has Donald Trump finally met his match in Pope Leo. The latest in the public feud between those two leaders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Going over to Iran, that was not my playbook for this year. But I also did not expect him to diss the pope like what he just did recently, because I'm catholic and I'm like -- some people around me don't really care, but I'm like, really?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:20:48]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On this motion, the yeas are 47, the nays are 52. The motion is not agreed to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: As we approach the seventh week of the Iraq war, parallel efforts by both House and Senate Democrats to curb President Trump's war powers have failed in recent days. It was the second such effort in the House and the fourth in the Senate.

Joining me now is one of just two Democrats across both chambers who voted against that effort, and the only Democrat in the senate to do so. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania.

Senator, thank you so much for being here.

I want to start with why you broke with your party on this, because this is something overwhelmingly that, of course, Democrats voted to do.

SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): Well, because the vast in fact, every single Democrat has already been on record saying, we can't ever allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb. Harris, Clinton, everyone that's run for president. We can't ever allow that to happen. And then Trump happened to do something about that to prevent that. That's why I support that.

And a lot of that, you know, I'm not the only Democrat that supports this, but I'm the only Democrat that's willing to stand up and say it's the right thing, because I know how politically toxic it is as a Democrat to support this, you know, Israel is becoming more and more toxic for a Democrat to support that.

I'm proud to stand with Israel, 80 percent of Democrats view Israel in a negative way. You know, you have like Platner has a Nazi tattoo on his chest, and now it was just released that he was praising and celebrating a video online where Hamas was beating and torturing Israeli soldiers to death, you know?

And then the guy in Michigan, he's leading now in that race, you know, as my party becomes more and more hostile to Israel, and now you have people like AOC voting against the Iron Dome, you know, the technology that prevents tens and tens of Israeli deaths from the rockets that those cowards fire at civilians, you know?

So, you know, if it's what's necessary, I'll be the last Democrat standing with Israel through this. HUNT: Do you think that the left of your party, do you think that your

party -- I'll just amend my statement. Do you think your party has a problem with antisemitism?

FETTERMAN: Sure, definitely. I mean, the guy that's going to win the primary in Maine has a taxi -- excuse me -- has a Nazi tattoo on his chest, you know, and that's no problem for a lot of voters. So I don't know. I don't know why -- that's crazy.

And now, I mean, we know he knows. He knew what that was. I mean, if you're back over 12, 13 years cheering about the death of Israeli soldiers -- I mean, you clearly have a serious issue. And the left has a serious issue with antisemitism.

And they're just palling around someone like Hasan Piker, you know, the guy that absolutely -- I mean, he absolutely is proud to cheer for Hamas loves Hamas. I mean, you know, Democrats are proud to stand with him and campaign with him. You know?

Like, you know, go ahead, try it -- try to win Pennsylvania, you know, and campaign around Hasan Piker saying, yeah, you know, America deserved 9/11 or Hamas is 1,000 percent better than Israel or I don't care about the rapes. And for all these other things.

I mean, we have a serious problem with my party. So if I have to be the last man standing in the Democratic Party, I'm proud to stand with Israel.

HUNT: Your colleague, Senator Elissa Slotkin, voted, to not to send aid to Israel, which a number of, of other Democrats as well. And overwhelming number of Democrats in the senate voted for it too. But this is what she said in her statement about blocking offensive weapons to Israel.

She says this, quote, "The people of Israel, like all people throughout the region, deserve long term security and peace. But being pro-Israel today is not about simply supporting the political or military agenda of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

[16:25:01]

Just like being pro-American should not be equated with loyalty to President Trump. This is a complex truth that many of us who support Israel hold, and it applies to my own patriotism and government as well."

What do you say to her about that?

FETTERMAN: That's a -- that's absurd. You know? Like, it's like she's -- she's a Democratic senator. Why aren't you criticizing Iran? Why aren't you criticizing Hamas or Hezbollah or -- or these other kinds of forces that, you know, if you have to pick a side here, criticize that.

So that's where we're at as a Democratic Party and you're going to vote against the kinds of critical aid that Israel requires to need to, to beat back and destroy organizations like Hezbollah.

You know, like, like I said, if you have to pick a side in a war and clearly, we have a side, and I'm proud to stand on the side of his Israel and America. And I think these are incredibly positive developments. And now here we are as things kind of continue to wind down. You know, I was -- been the only Democrat in the Senate now, perhaps less than the entire Congress. That Epic Fury was necessary because that contradicts every single thing that every Democrat has said. We can't ever allow a man to acquire a nuclear bomb.

Clearly, that they were going to. And, you know, they've done something. That's why I support that. And up until 60 days, I'm going to continue to support these things because that's actually the way the War Powers Act that was crafted.

HUNT: Yeah, I was actually going to follow up with you on that. If this goes past 60 days, will you continue to vote the way that you have and allow the president to continue this effort, or will you change your vote?

FETTERMAN: Well, the people just don't realize how the way it works. And, you know, they continue to have this vote. I mean, Iran has celebrated this, you know, a lot of people in my party and a lot of people in the media has turned Iran into the underdog. You know, they're like Rudy and putting him up on their shoulders and cheering for Iran, at this point. It's absurd. It's absurd.

You know, I'm going to, you know, back, you know, you know, the president, I'm going to back our military in Israel through until that 60-day is triggered. And then there's an opportunity to extend that by 30 days, no matter how many times you're going to vote, no, no, no. Why? Because that just has empowered and emboldened Iran to continue for these things.

So I think it seems like it's going to wind down and people seem to be almost gleeful, like people like Tom Friedman saying, well, you know, if Iran, you know, if you know, that's a big win for Trump or Netanyahu, if Iran, you know, surrenders, you know?

So -- and that's easy for me, you know, yes, it. And so that's what's -- that's what's important to support. And were heading to a strong end at this point.

HUNT: Yes, sir. Just to go back to something that you said just a moment ago in your answer, who in your party do you believe is cheering for Iran?

FETTERMAN: I'm saying it's like, if you are, you are making it seem that that we, you know, America is not the force of good in the world criticizing America, criticizing Israel. You know, you have Iran, what they've done, you know, the kinds of outrage, you know, with Iranians massacring tens and tens of thousands of Iranians just recently for that.

Now, if you're going to continue to vote against our military, if you're proud to vote against defensive kinds of systems like iron dome for Israel, and you can continue to vote down something that you know is going to fail, you know, that actually must absolutely excite Iran to see, you know, the way that many people, you know, in the Democratic Party, you know, doesn't back, the attempts to try to break and destroy the Iranian regime to acquire nuclear bomb.

HUNT: Yeah. So I know you and I have spoken a number of times, and I think sometimes I've annoyed you in asking this question, but considering the way that you have talked about your party in this interview, I have to ask you again, are you not -- are you -- you're committed to being a Democrat despite everything you've just laid out?

FETTERMAN: Well, of course, yeah, I am. I absolutely committed Democrat. Absolutely. You know, like, you know, I vote the 91, 92 percent Democratic line, but I am the only Democrat now that's proud to consistently stand with Israel. And I'm going to do that. And that's --

HUNT: All right.

FETTERMAN: That's been very damaging within my standing as a Democrat. But what's necessary, I'll be the last man standing with Israel.

HUNT: All right. Senator John Fetterman, always grateful to talk to you, sir. Thanks very much for being here.

FETTERMAN: Okay.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, the MAGA sphere taking sides in the ongoing feud between President Trump and Pope Leo.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: The president is correct. The pope is wrong on so many levels. Perhaps, perhaps Leo's judgment is clouded

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Pope Leo XIV is now seemingly more interested in spreading left wing politics than the actual teachings of Jesus Christ. Why is the pope twisting religion to specifically attack only President Trump and the U.S.? Where are the pointed words for Iran, this evil regime, the number one state sponsor of terror? The people that murdered 40,000, 45,000 innocent protesters? Not a peep from Pope Leo.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[16:35:03]

HUNT: That was Fox News host Sean Hannity slamming Pope Leo, suggesting the pontiff is, quote, "twisting" religion to criticize President Trump and the United States for the war with Iran. This coming after a week-long back and forth between the president and the first American pope, as the pair exchange opposing messages.

This prompted "The Wall Street Journal's" Peggy Noonan to write this today about the president's war of words with Pope Leo. Quote, "How odd to go to war while already in other wars with the head of a vast and ancient institution, a man whose job titles include vicar of Christ, head of the Holy See, and bishop of Rome, and who is the spiritual leader of 1.4 billion Catholics and the biggest Christian denomination in America. The president's comments speak of something disordered in the administration's relationship to faith."

My panel is back.

Brad Todd, this back and forth between the president and the pope, your face -- I feel like everyone should see Brad's face. Yeah. There it is.

(LAUGHTER)

WILLIAMS: So she burst out into laughter that she's loving this.

HINOJOSA: Yeah.

HUNT: I am taking a lot from your face, but if you could kind of let our viewers into how you are thinking about this, of course. I mean, Peggy Noonan, speechwriter to Ronald Reagan, who had a singular relationship with Pope John Paul, the second amid the fall of communism, among other things. That of course, the sort of arc of history here.

And then there's the brass tacks politics of today which seem to be if, if our, you know, the handful of folks we talked to at the Turning Point USA conference are any indication seems to be a little bit problematic.

TODD: I'm not Catholic. I have theological problems with Catholicism, but so let's start there and get my disclaimer out.

And the president should not be picking a fight with the pope. And that goes by the way, it's true -- if you're a Democrat president who's picking a fight with the pope on his right to life position. It's the pope's job to stand up for Catholic teaching, and it's his job to be an advocate for peace. And turning the other cheek.

And it's the advocate of commanders in chief sometimes to wage war that serve a purpose to protect their people. And so, I think everyone kind of needs to know their lane here. And I think it's also bad politics.

You know, religiosity increasingly is reflected in your partisanship. There are far more Republicans who are devout than Democrats and Catholics have been the group who's moved the most to the right.

So, for the president's own coalition, I think trying to divide Catholics and make them pick between their president and their pope is bad politics. THOMPSON: And speaking of politics, I mean, the Catholic Church and

Catholics in America had had a long affiliation with the Democratic Party, going back to Al Smith, then JFK, and then Joe Biden even. And the fact that there has been a shift with -- in the Trump party, and you've actually seen that reflected in the fact that J.D. Vance converted to Catholicism before he ran for Senate. And just before this fight announced that he has written a book about his conversion to Catholicism right before Trump got in a fight with the new pope.

WILLIAMS: And the other thing, just not just on substance, it's not a good idea to pick on the pope. And Peggy Noonan laid it out beautifully. He's a more popular figure both globally and in the United States. And the president is and you just look at the numbers. The president is underwater by, I believe, 11 or 12 points. The pope is over water by 30 or 35 points or so. He's just more popular.

TODD: Popes tend to be.

WILLIAMS: As popes tend to be. You're picking a fight with someone who's more popular. This is why people are constantly mocking congressional Democrats, because their popularity is so low. You win when you attack them. You don't win when you go after the pope.

HINOJOSA: Well, you're also -- he's also attacking him when the pope is just saying no war and treat migrants with respect. I would think the vast majority of Americans agree with those two statements.

And your point on how Catholics have gone over to the Republican Party. Both of you made this point. I am a Catholic, born and raised Latina. Everyone I know is Catholic in the Latino community. I mean, there is the Latino community has a strong sort of catholic faith when it comes to that.

And a lot of the reasons why Democrats did not win in 2024 is because that key demographic didn't feel like Democrats were talking to them. They didn't when it came to social issues, when it came to choice a number of other issues. And they felt that the Republican values were more aligned with their values.

Now we are seeing that demographic go towards Democrats and things like this do not help with that key electorate that Republicans would need to win.

TODD: It's bad politics.

HINOJOSA: Bad politics.

HUNT: Alex Thompson, I mean, how do you see this? Because obviously politics does not take place in a vacuum and elections are contests between two people, right? I mean, a midterm is a little bit a little bit different, but in a head-to-head like presidential contest.

Does something like this push -- is it enough to push Catholics back towards the Democratic Party, or does it just turn them off of Trump?

[16:40:06] THOMPSON: Well, we have to remember that Donald Trump -- it is not the first time Donald Trump has attacked a pope. In fact, he did it with Pope Francis. He called Pope Francis disgraceful. Pope Francis also spoke out, especially on behalf of migrants. And yet more Catholics start voting for Donald Trump than before. And for some of the bigger forces that brad sort of laid out about the feeling of, you know, not as much religiosity among sort of the secular left, for lack of a better term.

That being said, he has not made J.D. Vance's job easier. Or Marco Rubio, who is also Catholic, easier by basically making, you know, and I think the biggest difference between then and now is that Donald Trump's approval rating on all the other basic issues affecting everyday lives is much lower than it was back then. And so many people, you know, who made this Faustian bargain are like, we don't like Trump's temperament, but we like his policies. Maybe people are getting tired of it.

HUNT: Yeah. Well, and do you see -- I mean, Brad, is there a difference in pope -- Alex brought up Pope Francis and the previous attacks on Pope Francis. I mean, he was different in many ways from Pope Leo. He cut a different figure.

But perhaps the most significant thing here is that, Pope Leo is an American, right? Who, like, when he speaks English, he sounds like everyone here. I mean, yes, a little bit, a little bit midwestern in there. But if anything, that in some ways makes him more -- more relatable.

TODD: Went to college in Pennsylvania, the central state in American politics right now.

You know, I think this will end up working itself out because in the end, Donald Trump has put three justices on the Supreme Court that have helped Republicans and conservatives achieve one of the greatest Catholic political goals in our lifetimes, which is overturning Roe v Wade. I think that Catholics are not finding a welcome home in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party -- Xochitl accepted -- is increasingly hostile to people of serious faith, and they question it and they think, maybe you're talking to sky daddy or something like that.

And so, I think that Catholics will find a home in Republican Party, but we should make it easier. At least most Catholics are not long term Republicans. They're fairly new Republicans, and there's no reason to shut the door.

WILLIAMS: What's remarkable, though, about that sentiment is that it over-indexes abortion as the single one issue that Catholics care about and all the things were talking about and, quite frankly, what the pope is speaking about here are core tenets of Catholicism and doctrine. And --

TODD: He would tell you it's all one cloth.

WILLIAMS: It's all one cloth. But somehow when we speak about Catholicism in the United States and politics, it's about abortion, and it's about putting judges on the court. With respect to that one issue. It's far more vast than that.

Now, that may never change, and we may just continue to regard, Catholic wins. As, you know, the overturning of Roe v. Wade. But it's far more comfortable.

THOMPSON: To your point --

HINOJOSA: But you have to remember, abortion was on the ballot and it's not on the ballot now, like, this is not what Democrats are running on for a reason, right? We are pro-choice, but that is not something that we think we're going to win on in the midterm election.

THOMPSON: And I also just add to you -- add to your point is that if abortion was the key issue to moving Catholics, they would have moved decades ago.

WILLIAMS: Decades ago, right. That's a good point, right?

HUNT: Right. I mean, Brad, how do you see abortion as an animating issue or not? I mean, what Xochitl just said is not unremarkable, I have to say.

TODD: No, I think Xochitl's right. We've seen the same surveys. This issue has moved to the states. It's being settled in the states. And most people understand that now.

And they know that -- where the lay of the land is in their state. Now, if you have a referendum in your state on the ballot this year, yes, it's going to be in --

WILLIAMS: Yes. I just -- it's just remarkable, having grown up Catholic, that, you know, I've been in church and heard abortion, talked about all the time, but I can count the number of times a priest has ever said the words death penalty. And if this really were about enshrining Catholic views in American politics, it would be a much bigger, much broader conversation that we're not having, I think.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, President Trump claims were a day or two away from a deal with Iran to end the war ahead of a potential second round of negotiations. We're going to talk with someone who once served as America's top spy, former CIA director, and, of course, as the former head of U.S. Central Command, the retired General David Petraeus.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:48:22]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back.

A deal with Iran could come any time in the next day or two. President Trump says, telling CBS in an interview today that Iran has, quote, agreed to everything, including working jointly to remove enriched uranium from the country and bringing it to the U.S. That's a claim that Iran is denying at the moment. The president adding that, quote, no troops would be required for such an effort.

Joining me now is retired U.S. Army General, former head of U.S. Central Command, David Petraeus, who of course, also served as CIA director.

General, thank you very much for being with us today. I really appreciate it.

The president saying this a deal in a day or two, do you think that is plausible, especially in light of these Iranian denials?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Well, I'd certainly hope it would prove to be true, but it doesn't sound as if Tehran is fully embracing what the president has laid out. And sometimes the president uses this technique projecting onto an adversary what he hopes they'll come back with. And occasionally that can actually galvanize action. But it seems that the two really big issues, first, that they will not enrich uranium, again in Iran, and second, that the enriched to 60 percent stockpile that is buried, we believe, underneath one of the destroyed former nuclear sites at Isfahan that that would be turned over probably to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would validate and verify it. That issue is out there.

And then, of course, you have the issue of freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, where Tehran was trying to turn that into a its version of the Panama Canal and charge $2 million for transit.

[16:50:03]

A hundred thirty ships each day. That's not a trivial amount of money. And where we are blockading them in a very good move because I think it increases the pressure on them very dramatically. And it's going to put enormous economic and fiscal pressure in particular, once they run out of the reserves that they have right now, $35 billion or so, and then can deliver the 150 million barrels or so of oil sitting in tankers around Asia.

HUNT: So, speaking of finances, we reported earlier that the U.S. is weighing a $20 billion cash for uranium deal for that stockpile that you mentioned. Do you think that's wise?

PETRAEUS: Well, there would have to be some very substantial conditions connected to that. Among them would have to be absolute verification, absolute transparency, absolute commitment that Iran will never enrich uranium again, which would be a huge achievement. And then also that the enriched material that is at 60 percent, just one turn of the enrichment process below weapons grade, that that would be taken out or accounted for in some fashion, again, verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

If you can achieve that, that is not trivial. It's an indication in a way that Iran is finally willing to swear off one of the biggest sources of tension. Of course, in the relationship between Iran and the entire world. And of course, successive American presidents of either party had said they will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. So, this would be a very significant achievement. I think that might

be certainly worth considering unfreezing. Keep in mind, we're not giving them our money. We're allowing them access to frozen assets of their own.

And I think again, there's some trade space there. And then if you can also then get the issue of the Strait of Hormuz resolved, that would be a very favorable outcome. Remember, I think I mentioned on your show recently that the paradox was that we could end up with Iran militarily, dramatically weakened, but strategically strengthened if we didn't resolve the Strait of Hormuz and also the nuclear issue.

If you can resolve that, that would be a very favorable outcome for all involved. Everybody in the region, really, throughout the world.

HUNT: Yeah -- really, yeah. Remarkable when you when you lay it out that way.

And speaking of how you have kind of framed and looked at this, you wrote a piece in "The Wall Street Journal" this past week and, and it was under the headline America's success against Iran may prove to be a distraction. You say Americas impressive military performance in the gulf should be a source of pride, but it would be a mistake to draw too much comfort from it.

Can you explain?

PETRAEUS: Yeah. In fact, I was just in Ukraine. Just got home two weeks ago after spending a week out there and was able to go to the headquarters of front line units this time to see how the operations are being carried out by a country that is on the cutting edge. It's really redefining the very nature of warfare, and that is Ukraine by necessity. This -- they're fighting for their very survival.

And the innovation is nothing short of breathtaking. They are now using 10,000 unmanned systems per day, and they're going to ramp that up because this year they're doubling production of drones from 3.5 million to seven million. Keeping in mind that last year, we produced all of 350,000.

So, they are on the very cutting edge of unmanned systems, and you're starting to see a glimpse of what's coming next, which is not going to be remotely piloted unmanned systems, by the way, not just in the air, but on the ground, at sea and elsewhere. You're going to see autonomous systems.

And this is where instead of a pilot controlling it remotely through a command-and-control link, it's going to be an algorithm that will be controlling it. And that is a whole different nature of threat, because now you're confronted by swarms, not just the small numbers that we have seen coming at us in, in from Iran in relative terms, to what goes on on the battlefield in Ukraine, and noting that Russia is innovating right behind Ukraine.

So, for the future of our defense forces and so forth, the lesson should be, from what we see in Ukraine, much more so than what we have seen in Iran. Despite, however impressive our military men and women in uniform have been in achieving the military mission set out for them.

HUNT: Do you think we're behind on this?

PETRAEUS: I think that we -- I've said for a number of years, including, I think on your show along the way, that we should have been learning more rapidly from what's going on in Ukraine and that we should be responding with much greater swiftness in this. Now, we are seeing this.

The Department of War is going to spend over $55 billion for something called the DOWG, the Defense Autonomous Weapons Group. You're seeing the individual military services recognized that you have to change very substantially.

[16:55:04]

HUNT: All right. Retired General David Petraeus with a little bit of a warning there, but always really appreciate your perspective on these issues. Thanks very much for being here.

PETRAEUS: Thanks, Kasie.

HUNT: All right. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. Thanks very much. My panel really appreciate you guys being here. Have a wonderful weekend.

Thanks to you at home for watching as well. You have a good weekend, too. Please spend some time -- some more time with us, THE ARENA tomorrow. THE ARENA SATURDAY will air at noon and again at 4:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN. We'd love to see you there.

But right now, don't go anywhere because the singular Jake Tapper is standing by for the lead.

Hi, Jake. Happy Friday.