Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

U.S., Iran Work To Resolve Disputes In A Deal To End War; Now: Final Full Day Of Campaigning In Texas Senate GOP Runoff; Pope Leo Warns Of A.I. Risks In First Major Theological Document. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired May 25, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:04]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Don, you have a great job as you get to commentate on all of them.

DON RIDDELL, CNN WORLD SPORT: Not so bad, is it?

KEILAR: Not so bad.

THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.

(MUSIC)

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone.

Welcome to THE ARENA. Kasie Hunt is off. I'm Boris Sanchez. It is great to share this Monday with you.

Right now, a deal between the U.S. and Iran seems close at hand, but major sticking points remain and nothing is certain. U.S. officials tell CNN that negotiators are hung up on key demands from each side. The U.S. wants Iran to give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, while Iran wants the U.S. to lift economic sanctions and release billions in frozen Iranian assets.

Our sources say there is optimism that the two sides will resolve these issues relatively soon. And today, President Trump is sounding confident, he posted, quote, "Negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran are proceeding nicely. It will only be a great deal for all or no deal at all -- back to the battlefield and shooting, but bigger and stronger than ever before -- and nobody wants that," end quote.

Democrats in Congress are already pushing back, arguing that domestic politics are forcing the president's hand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): The president is going to take any deal he is offered because he understands the absolute political toxicity of Americans each and every day, paying $1.50 to $2 more for gasoline than they did before this war started.

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): This week, nation has put America in a stalemate, and Donald Trump is being played as a fool that he is for getting us into this in the first place.

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Prices are going up, interest rates are going p, and we're mired in this conflict with Iran. It sounds to me like what this agreement will do is take us back, really to the pre- war status quo.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: It's not just Democrats, though. A number of Republicans have voiced their own concerns about the potential deal, including the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker, warning that it will, quote, "be disaster. Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught," end quote.

The administration is responding to those concerns with a simple, familiar message, "Trust in Trump".

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: As the president said, he's not in a hurry. He's not going to make a bad deal. I mean, the president is not going to make a bad agreement. So let's see what happens.

So, look, the president's not going to make a big deal. He's just not. We should all be very confident that were not going to have -- we either going to have an agreement or we're going to have to deal with it another way. We would prefer to have a good agreement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA.

Our panel is with us, along with CNN senior White House reporter Kevin Liptak.

Kevin, take us through your new reporting on what is holding up the deal from being finalized.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Right. Because it did seem at points over this weekend that a deal was actually imminent, but it seems now as if the two sides are still somewhat bogged down on the wording of very vital points of this agreement. You know, the future of Iran's nuclear program, the financial relief that the U.S. might be willing to provide Iran if it agrees to this deal. You also hear about issues of Lebanon and Hezbollah coming into the discussions here and what American officials say is that it could potentially be agree agreement is finalized.

Part of the hold up they say, is that virtually every word that has changed in here has to be run past the Iranian supreme leader. That can take an extraordinary amount of time because he's believed to be in hiding. So this is something of a pained process, even if it is one they believe will eventually result in this memorandum of understanding.

You know, the way I understand it is that this would end the hostilities. It would lift the constraints that are currently on the Strait of Hormuz, which is obviously something President Trump is very intent on. But it would put off until a future date, the discussions over the thorniest issue, which is Iran's nuclear program. And you listen to the explanations from both sides over the last 24 hours, it does seem as if they are clashing on what exactly has been agreed to, you know, a U.S. official said that Iran had agreed in principle to disposing of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. The Iranians say that they have not discussed any details of their nuclear program so far. The Iranians also want to hear more specifics about san sanctions relief, about assets that might be unfrozen.

But what the U.S. says is that they need to see progress on the nuclear front before any of that happens. They're using the refrain "no dust, no dollars". Obviously, President Trump refers to the stockpile of uranium as the dust. So, how all of that gets resolved remains to be seen.

President Trump also, I think, importantly, very intent on tamping down over the last day or so on any comparison to the Obama era nuclear deal, which he withdrew from, which he criticizes almost daily. He also, I think, very interestingly put a new layer in these talks earlier today, saying that the countries who are involved in all of this should join up in the Abraham Accords, which are the normalization agreements with Israel, but for a whole host of reasons, Boris, that doesn't sound like it's going to happen any time soon.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, it would certainly be surprising.

Kevin Liptak, live for us at the White House, thank you so much.

Lets talk to our panel here in THE ARENA. Chief Washington correspondent for MeidasTouch Network, Scott MacFarlane is with us, as well as "Semafor's" White House correspondent Shelby Talcott. We've got former DNC communications director Mo Elleithee and Republican strategist Melik Abdul.

We're also joined by White House correspondent for "The New York Times" and CNN political and national security analyst, David Sanger.

Great to be with all of you.

David, I want to start with you because as Kevin just walked us through these sticking points, it seems like deja vu. These are the same disagreements that we had a month and a half ago or so. Do you see this as actual progress or more of the same?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, if it seems like deja vu, it's because it is. These are the issues that people were stuck on in February when the negotiations were cut short by Israeli and American decision to launch the military attack on Iran to begin with.

I think that what's changed here is that both sides desperately need to get the strait opened. The Iranians are feeling that they are at the edge of economic collapse. So it's not at all surprising they need to get this going again. And the Americans see, as Kevin pointed out, that with gas prices at these levels, this could be a disaster for Republicans. So that piece of it, the straight, I think both sides are equally motivated.

But then when you get to the larger negotiation, the administration believes it's going to happen for some reason or another in 30 to 60 days. You'll remember that during the Obama era, when the same issues or very many of the same issues were up there, it took nearly two years because it's really complicated. You need inspection regimes and so forth. It's -- and the two sides can't even agree on how to identify or define what the nuclear program is.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, or the order that these steps come in. Shelby, President Trump seemed like he was trying to preempt criticism that whatever deal he strikes, or at least the terms that we're aware of now, mimic the JCPO and specifically the idea that there is going to be unfrozen Iranian assets that are handed over. He's criticized former President Obama for releasing $1.7 billion of frozen Iranian funds.

How does the White House sell this?

SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Yeah, I mean, I think that's what they're discussing right now as they're discussing with the Iranians whether or not they're going to be able to make a deal.

One other aspect that they're certainly discussing is how to message this, right? Because part of the big thing that I have heard from Republicans who support the president even not even just Democrats is well for the past year and a half we've heard from President Trump that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and what this deal would effectively do is kind of kick the can down the road is the argument from some of these Republicans who are critical about this which raises the question from even Trump allies of, well, why did we get into this war to begin with.

So one of the challenges is not just going to be coming to an agreement with Iran but selling it to the people as a win.

SANCHEZ: And selling win as we're punting on a discussion over enriched uranium is tough when you have dead U.S. service members and the world economy at a standstill effectively.

SCOTT MACFARLANE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, MEIDASTOUCH NETWORK: People will be forgiven for having a Chicken Little experience here since the ceasefire took effect April 7th. These deals seem to come and these deals seem to go. There is such a big difference between an agreement in principle and an agreement in reality. Anybody trying to navigate a chore list with their kids can tell you the difference between an agreement in principle and an agreement in reality.

And here's the disorienting thing for Congress, Boris. The president is to put it charitably, prone to hyperbole. Random capitalization, lots of exclamation points, lots of descriptions of things is the greatest ever or people have never seen this before. So it's sometimes difficult to navigate when they're really on the doorstep or when he's trying to nudge them toward the doorstep.

According to President Trump, this was settled about a month and a half ago when he was tweeting that Iran had agreed to give up the enriched geranium. Melik, it appears that there are some cracks forming in Trump's base and support for this war specifically. And I want to play some sound from Megyn Kelly who is discussing this issue.

Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGYN KELLY, HOST, "THE MEGYN KELLY SHOW": It's stunning to me that the people who voted for the man who said over and over, not only no new wars, but no war with Iran, no Middle East wars, and specifically over and over said Iran, and also said the Democrats are going to get us into a war with Iran.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, he did. Yeah.

KELLY: That the people who voted for him, that was not a small thing. That was not a throwaway line. That was a massive part of his campaigning and his promising that those people on a dime were like, yes, we're pro war with Iran.

[16:10:08]

Yes. Iran cannot have nuclear weapon. We all know that that's a lie. It's so obvious that that's a lie to get us into this conflict, that they were not on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: What do you think the impact of the base would be? If we wind up seeing the kind of deal that Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Roger Wicker are warning about?

MELIK ABDUL, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: So I think what people like Megyn Kelly, you know, these are more opportunists than I would consider people who are part of the base. She's had many criticisms of Donald Trump. So what she said there really isn't surprising to me, but I think the larger people who we should be looking at are my home state senator, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, because those are valid concerns.

And I think that the Trump administration, very early on, they didn't take seriously enough how the American people, and especially Trump voters, would feel about this. It's not just how MAGA feels, how the 77 million who supported Donald Trump also feels.

And so I think that the Trump administration is having a very difficult time in how they message this very early on. But the thing that Wicker and many others make clear is that there cannot be a situation where a Iran is able to enrich uranium, have a nuclear weapon that is something that theyre focused on, and no deal. They were saying last night that we were kind of close to a deal. If the -- if the deal with the nuclear weapons, if the Strait of

Hormuz, if that's not part -- that's the biggest part of the deal. So you cannot be almost there if those things are not taken care of.

Trump has to answer those questions, and he's going to hear from more Republicans as we go on, I'm sure.

SANCHEZ: He's hearing from somebody that he helped defeat in Kentucky in a primary. Thomas Massie has been talking about what you were noting -- the economic impact of this shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz on voters.

Let's actually listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): My constituents are hurting. Gas is almost $5 a gallon. Diesel is almost $6 a gallon. And the farmers here in Kentucky can't afford to fertilizer to put on their fields. So heck yes, I would support it. We don't know what the terms of it are, but if Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz are crashing out last night, I'd say it's probably a pretty good deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Massie seems to be leaning toward supporting this deal because it opens the Strait of Hormuz. It'll bring gas prices down. Is that something that Democrats should also get behind?

MO ELLEITHEE, FORMER DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Look, I think everybody wants to see an end to the war. I think everybody wants to see an end to the hostilities and wants gas prices to come back down. I don't know that we are any closer to that today, though.

To everyone else's point, this is not an actual deal. It does kick the can down the road on the thing he said was the most important. And what they have teased that they are getting towards sounds kind of like where we were at the end of the Obama administration with the JCPOA before Donald Trump tore that up.

So, the question is like, do we actually have a deal? And if we do like, aren't we just going back at an enormous cost in American lives and treasure to the thing that you tore up in the first place? I don't know how, even if, even if and when we do get to a deal, I don't know how its all going to sit with the American people because they clearly didn't like this war. They didn't like any of the many rationales that he gave for going into the war. And we're not really getting anything out of it.

SANCHEZ: David Sanger, I want to go back to you to pick up what Kevin Liptak was discussing, the idea that Trump put out there, that all of these nations involved in the deal, that these allies and adversaries in the Gulf should immediately join the Abraham Accords. I mean, it doesn't seem likely that that is going to happen for myriad reasons, David. SANGER: Well, you know, the -- you know, the old saying, if you've got

a big problem, enlarge it. Well, that's what he's just done with this. There was obviously an effort underway to expand the Abraham Accords in his first term, and I think it was one of the biggest foreign policy accomplishments of his first term, perhaps the biggest that he got, the Abraham Accords going.

There was an effort by the Biden administration to expand it and include Saudi Arabia, which would be obviously the biggest addition. And they were in the midst of negotiating that when the October 7th attacks by Hamas on Israel happened, the terror attack. And that froze, froze that.

The Saudis are in no hurry. And many of the other countries are not either until they resolve the issue of whether there will be a Palestinian state and so forth. It strikes me that the president is probably complicating what's already, as you could tell from this discussion and enormously complex agreement, if he's then going to add on that everybody who signs on has to become a member, a signatory, right away, of the Abraham Accords.

[16:15:09]

I think he's trying to take an agreement that clearly is an effort to get him out of a bad spot and turn it into a way to go remake the Middle East. It's an admirable ambition, but it may make this an even more complex issue.

SANCHEZ: David Sanger, thank you so much for being with us.

The rest of our panel is going to stand by. We have plenty more to discuss.

Coming up in THE ARENA, we're going to talk with a member of the House, an Afghanistan War veteran, Congressman Jake Auchincloss, about the war with Iran, and if we are any closer to a deal.

But first, the extended and bitter battle in the Republican senate primary in Texas about to be over. President Trump again going after incumbent Senator John Cornyn, calling him disloyal in the final hours of the campaign.

Stay with us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Well, I don't know how much more with him I could be than 99.3 percent of the time. I cant -- I can't interpret what's in the president's mind.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:20:30]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CORNYN: Ken Paxton, as you know, is a flawed candidate. He's got scandal that follows him everywhere. If James Talarico, who raised $2,627 million in the first quarter of this year alone, if he gets the chance to litigate all of these issues in the general election when there's just not Republicans voting, I think that the seat's very much at risk.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: All eyes are on the lone star state tomorrow as voters head to the polls in Texas to nominate a Republican candidate for Senate in a runoff election. Incumbent Senator John Cornyn will face off against Trump endorsed Attorney General Ken Paxton in a race that's divided the party and put the president at odds with Senate Republicans.

CNN correspondent Arlette Saenz is live for us in Texas.

And, Arlette, you've been speaking to voters ahead of tomorrow's runoff. What have they shared with you?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, Texas Republicans will soon deliver their final verdict in this runoff between Senator John Cornyn and State Attorney General Ken Paxton. You know, we talked to a mix of voters today, some who said they were supporting Cornyn and others who said that they were with Paxton. But President Donald Trump's endorsement is expected to hold a lot of sway, particularly with MAGA base voters here in the state of Texas.

Paxton had already had a lot of support from that MAGA base, and he is hoping that this endorsement from the president will push him over the finish line.

Now, for John Cornyn, this is really his last stand. He has represented this senate seat since 2002. And a bit earlier today, he said that he believes that Texas Republicans are independent. Theyre free thinking and will make up their own minds about this election.

But one argument that Cornyn has really used against Paxton is that his political baggage, those personal and political scandals that he survived here in the state, that that will drag down Republicans come November.

But in talking to voters today, including some Cornyn supporters, they believe that Paxton will still go on to defeat James Talarico if he becomes the GOP nominee. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: Would you vote for Paxton in November if he is the Republican nominee, or would you consider James Talarico?

RANDY MARSHALL, CORNYN SUPPORTER: No, I'd be Paxton then -- die hard Republican.

BOBBY WAITE, CORNYN SUPPORTER: I think we're ready enough that it doesn't matter whether it was Paxton or Cornyn. Whoever the Republican is, is going to win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: Now, some Republican senators back in Washington have been very frustrated with President Trump's decision to endorse Paxton. But Paxton has argued he believes that the party will unite around him if he does, in fact, become the nominee tomorrow. Paxton has really tried to turn a page. He has stopped airing negative attack ads against Cornyn and is turning his focus right now on the Democratic nominee, James Talarico.

At his campaign events last week, he was road testing some of the messaging that they could use against Talarico in the general election, describing him as a radical, using nicknames like Tala- freak-o and Tofu Talarico. That all stems from some past comments that Talarico had made about the need to reduce meat consumption. Even the president has gotten in on this, saying that Talarico is a vegan, which is just not true.

Talarico has lightheartedly pushed back against that, but he really is offering Democrats here in the state one of their best chances, they believe, to potentially flip this seat blue come November. But first, those Republican voters will have to weigh in on this primary, deciding between a long standing senator in John Cornyn and the favored candidate of President Donald Trump in Ken Paxton.

SANCHEZ: Arlette Saenz in McKinney, Texas -- thank you so much for the update.

Our panel is back with us now.

Shelby, Republican senators are fuming about this decision by Trump to back Paxton. This is North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): They called Paxton ethically challenged just to call Jeffrey Dahmer suffering from an eating disorder. This guy is an empty suit and will do us no service by being in the U.S. Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Invoking Jeffrey Dahmer. Quite, quite the criticism. Do you think President Trump miscalculated given Cornyn's popularity among his Republican colleagues and Paxton's unpopularity?

TALCOTT: You know, it depends on who you talk to. If you talk to some of these Republicans in Congress, they say yes. They say it's going to take a lot more money in order to get Paxton over the finish line. They say Cornyn was a safer bet.

But when I talked to administration officials, they are unsurprisingly insisting that the president has made the right choice.

[16:25:03]

They say, look at the poll numbers. Paxton is going to win.

I've talked to people who are involved in this race who say, you know, Texas is Republican. We're going to be fine, essentially. And so, there's less concern internally than I think there is when you talk to Republican lawmakers.

But this has certainly divided some of President Trump's staunchest supporters and really caused a problem for him on Capitol Hill, not just with this specific issue, but with the ballroom security funding, with a whole host of other things that he's trying to get passed. I think Republicans are frustrated and maybe using that to, to sort of double down on that frustration.

SANCHEZ: And one of the criticisms has to do with how much more money they might have to spend now in Texas, as opposed to other states where it seemed that Cornyn was the conventional choice. And as you heard him say in the soundbite before the break, he voted alongside Trump 99.3 percent of the time.

Why do you think Trump is going after Cornyn specifically?

MACFARLANE: I've covered John Cornyn since early in his first term here in Washington. It is disorienting to hear him called disloyal to his party. He was a whisker away from being the Republican Senate leader right now for two different terms. He chaired the Republican Senatorial Conference Campaign operation. He was in charge of leading the party, the one break he seemed to have with his party was early in this most recent term, 2022, when he was the Republican voice for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which changed some gun laws in America. That was viewed negatively back home in Texas, at least early in the term.

Here's the thing, though -- whether or not Ken Paxton wins this race, there is a consequence for the party having Paxton as the nominee. You mentioned the money. They're going to have to marshal a lot of money to fight this fight. But there are also a couple competitive U.S. house races on the southern border. Republicans thought they had gerrymandered those red. I'm not sure they have. But a deflated party could make those even more competitive for Democrats.

SANCHEZ: Melik, I wonder from your perspective, which would be the easiest candidate to run on? Who are you hoping wins tomorrow to bolster Republicans' chances to keep Texas red?

ABDUL: Well, I am going to be one of those to put some respect on Cornyn's name. You're right, Cornyn was not just the NRSC chair. I believe Cornyn was this -- he was the Senate Majority Whip Cornyn.

And this is one of the things that people understand when it comes to this. This isn't an issue of loyalty at all. This is Donald Trump deciding that he was going to throw red meat to his base, because technically, there is no good reason for Donald Trump to choose Cornyn over Paxton. You named a number of those.

But one of the things and if you ask Republicans themselves across the board, online and otherwise what they say, they'll tell you, Cornyn didn't support the SAVE Act. Do you know what? Cornyn actually co- introduced the legislation for the SAVE Act with Chip Roy, and I can't remember the other senator who was buying them.

So they have this notion of Cornyn that is just simply not true. So Donald Trump is giving red meat to the base. It has nothing to do with the Republican Party itself. This is just red MAGA meat.

And I will say this Donald Trump won a coalition with 77 million people. Now we're questioning what's getting ready to happen in a place like Texas because of the redistricting. And we don't know whether or not those Hispanics who showed up in 2024, if theyre just going to stay home or simply vote for the Democrat candidate, and that person could be Talarico.

SANCHEZ: Mo, I wonder if you think Talarico is now poised to do what many before him have tried and failed to do, which is to flip Texas blue. Given this fighting among Republicans. I mean, you heard some of the folks there. Theyre fairly confident that no matter who the name next to the R is, the R is going to prevail.

ELLEITHEE: Yeah. And I hope Republicans keep thinking that. I hope they walk around with that sort of confidence, right? Because that's what makes you sloppy.

And in a race like this, in a year like this, where the president and his party are facing real political headwinds, I don't think anybody can take anything for granted. Texas is a tough state for Democrats, but Talarico is in it and he's got resources. He's run a very strong campaign up until now.

I would argue he may be the best statewide candidate. Democrats have put up in Texas in a very long time. I don't think Republicans can afford to take this race for granted. And I think to your point about the down ballot races, those congressional seats along the border, the Trump coalition feels now more like a blip than it was some sort of major realignment after the last election.

And if those voters start staying home or going back to past -- past behavior, it could be a very good night for Democrats in Texas.

SANCHEZ: From one senate race to another, Mo, I want to ask you about Maine because Bernie Sanders is headed there tonight to rally alongside Senate candidate Graham Platner, no stranger to controversy. Platner's campaign has had a number of issues, leading several key Democrats to withhold their endorsement of him.

[16:30:05]

What message does it send to the party if he winds up succeeding in November?

ELLEITHEE: That a lot of Democratic primary voters are fed up with the establishment, that a lot of Democratic primary voters are looking right now for the person who takes on the status quo and who will be seen as a fighter. There are a lot of Democrats out there right now who are have a lot of anxiety about Graham Platner and some of his past statements, and I think they could be problematic for him in the election.

But a lot of voters, its really interesting to see how many voters are saying we are willing to overlook that, because D.C. Democrats have let us down for far too long, because we need someone who can stand up and fight for us. And Platner presents that, despite all of his challenges, that's what he presents. And it's paying off for him so far.

SANCHEZ: Any thoughts?

ABDUL: And that actually sounds like Donald Trump 2016. There were people who were frustrated with the system. They're willing to forgive, much like they forgave in Virginia with the Jay Jones, I believe the attorney general candidate, comments that he made. People are frustrated and they're willing to actually forgive things. And I'll say something about Talarico, and this is just a message to Republicans -- remember, we characterize Mamdani as the worst thing ever. And he ended up in the White House standing next to Donald Trump with Donald Trump, giving him compliments.

Don't rule out Talarico, just like we did Mamdani.

SANCHEZ: Wow. Well, coming up, much more to discuss. Pope Leo's new fight, his major new warning on what he says needs to be disarmed.

Plus, the bipartisan movement in the House to stop taxpayer money from being used as part of what Trump calls the anti-weaponization fund. We'll discuss next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TOM SOUZZI (D-NY): Nobody supports this idea, especially in the context of all the problems Americans are facing with the cost of living. They don't want to see a $1.8 billion fund to pay people that beat up cops.

So it's wrong. It's stupid, whatever you want to pick. But it's our job in the Congress, in the Senate and the House, to hold the executive branch accountable. Now, people have been clamoring for that for a while. I think the dam is finally starting to break.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:36:36]

SANCHEZ: Welcome back.

We're following the latest developments on the negotiations to end the war with Iran. President Trump says the talks are proceeding nicely, as U.S. officials tell CNN that there are disputes over language on Iran's nuclear program and the lifting of sanctions.

Joining us now to discuss is Democratic congressman of Massachusetts, Jake Auchincloss. Congressman, thanks so much for sharing part of your Memorial Day with

us.

We're now 80 days into this war. At this stage, I wonder what your level of confidence is that the administration can negotiate a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but also to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D-MA): Boris, good to be with you again.

Rather than express my own words, which would be repetitive, because I've been clear since day one that this war is illegal, foolish, and expensive, I'm actually going to use the words of Republicans who have been weighing in, in the last 48 hours. Four current senators, two former cabinet officials have said the ayatollahs will have won a significant victory. This is a disastrous mistake not worth the paper it's written on, makes Iran a dominant force. Iran will hold all the cards and the strait we are paying them to build a nuclear weapon and terrorize the world.

Of course, that's Republicans who are trying to watch their words out of a sense of supplication to the president. What Democrats are saying is not fit for cable TV. This is a catastrophe. This has been operation epic failure.

SANCHEZ: I wonder when President Trump says that the Middle East countries that sign on to this deal should mandatorily be part of the Abraham Accords, that set of treaties that normalizes relations with Israel? Do you think that would be a positive step? Is it actually realistic or is it a distraction?

AUCHINCLOSS: I support the Abraham Accords. I think the Abraham Accords were a credible achievement of the first Trump administration. And I don't know what that sentence means, though.

The challenge with the Abraham Accords expansion is not that these countries share an aversion to Iran. They always have. The challenge with the Abraham Accords has been getting Saudi Arabia on board, given challenges in the West Bank and ongoing attacks against Israel and its right to defend itself.

So, the Abraham Accords expansion runs through resolving West Bank issues, not on trying to foment further aversion to Iran, which has always been there.

SANCHEZ: I want to ask you about the Justice Department's so-called $1.8 billion weaponization fund, because Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick and Democratic Congressman Tom Suozzi introduced a bill last week to stop taxpayer dollars from going to that fund.

Do you see congress realistically bucking the administration on this? Because my understanding is that this fund isn't overseen by Congress. This is something within the executive branch, right?

AUCHINCLOSS: Well, the president was very careful to negotiate that this is what happens when you appoint your personal attorney to be the attorney general of the United States, is that you create these slush funds for friends, for family, for felons like this weaponization fund has become.

Congress absolutely should exert oversight over this. I hope Republicans find a spine not betting on it, given our experience over the last decade. But it would certainly be an important win for congressional oversight of the executive branch, which has waned in recent years.

And I just think, you know, it's important to reflect upon $1.8 billion. I get it. In Washington, that can sound like monopoly money. We spend trillions on this and that.

$1.8 billion is real money. I mean, theyre cutting the clean water revolving fund that funds remediation of forever chemicals that allows us to redevelop Brownfield sites by about $1.8 trillion to $2.5 billion. And that's going to have real effect on American communities.

Imagine if this funds were taken away from January 6th rioters and spent on revitalizing water treatment facilities in our downtowns.

SANCHEZ: Do you think that there's going to be enough of an appetite in Congress for this bill to pull through, even without the backing of key Republicans

AUCHINCLOSS: Well, that's a question for Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune. It's a simple question. Do you swear an oath to the Constitution? Do you represent your constituents or are you courtiers at Mar-a-Lago?

Democrats are here to defend the rule of law and to fight corruption. That's a question for whether Republicans want to find the spine to do that. I suspect they won't. And it's going to be yet another reason why I think voters are going to repudiate them in November.

Republicans are trying to run, but they can't hide from the voter wrath that theyre going to find at the ballot box from rising costs and from obscene corruption.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, before we go, we were just talking about the Texas Senate race and John Cornyn today saying that he's not worried about Republican unity come November, no matter who wins tomorrows runoff in Texas.

Would you encourage Democrats to rally behind party candidates in November, even if they don't 100 percent agree with them? And as I asked that question, I'm thinking about you calling for Graham Platner in Maine to drop out of that race over that tattoo that he has with Nazi imagery. Would you stand behind him in order to beat Susan Collins?

AUCHINCLOSS: Oh, I think values and principles always come before party. We saw Republicans forget that lesson with Donald Trump in 2016 and how much damage its done to the country. I will never forget that lesson. I'm a proud Democrat, and certainly in Texas, I am strongly supporting

James Talarico. He's a fellow majority Democrat, which is a group of elected officials at the vanguard of reinventing this party. And we're going to see Talarico win, whether it's Paxton or Cornyn. And we're also going to see great majority Democrats like Bobby Pulido surprised this country in Texas as well.

SANCHEZ: So no weighing in on Graham Platner?

AUCHINCLOSS: I've been clear about Graham Platner. I find that tattoo and his commentary about it to be personally disqualifying. I hope Maine voters agree with me. I think it would be a mistake for the Democratic Party to think that Graham Platner's brand of the Democratic Party is what wins us durable majorities throughout this country.

SANCHEZ: Wow.

Massachusetts Congressman Jake Auchincloss, thank you so much for being with us.

AUCHINCLOSS: Appreciate it.

SANCHEZ: Of course.

Ahead in THE ARENA, a new warning from the pope and the global reaction it is getting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POPE LEO XIV, CATHOLIC CHURCH: Artificial intelligence needs to be disarmed. The word is strong, I know, but deliberately chosen because this moment needs words capable of attracting attention, awakening consciences, and indicating paths forward for humanity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:47:46]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POPE LEO: Artificial intelligence needs to be disarmed. The word is strong. I know, but deliberately chosen because this moment needs words capable of attracting attention, awakening consciences, and indicating paths forward for humanity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Pope Leo delivering a strong call to regulate artificial intelligence. In his first papal encyclical, the pontiff took the unusual step of presenting it alongside one of the co-founders of Anthropic. The document outlines his fears about mass job displacement, A.I. weapons of war and profits only going to the top while the rest of the world suffers. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POPE LEO: Artificial intelligence already touches many areas of our lives and affects decisions that shape human coexistence. It is also dramatically changing how war is waged. Like the earlier Leo, I feel entrusted to look upon another huge transformation with eyes of faith, with lucidity of reason, with openness to mystery, and with cries of the poor and the earth resounding in my heart

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Joining our panel in THE ARENA is CNN Vatican correspondent Christopher Lamb.

Chris, thanks for being with us.

The pope tying his encyclical to the work of his predecessor, Leo XIII, who presided over the massive social and economic effects of the Industrial Revolution, obviously a deliberate choice of name, but also a deliberate stance. The pope is taking publicly now.

CHRISTOPHER LAMB, CNN VATICAN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it's very significant because Pope Leo said soon after his election that A.I. would be a priority for him. And he said that his choice of Leo as a name was directly linked to the last pope, Leo XIII, who did issue a very important document on the developments following the industrial revolution, calling for protection of workers, a fair wage and seeking the church to respond to that revolution.

[16:50:04]

And Pope Leo sees what's happening with A.I. as another revolution. And he wants the church's voice to be heard. And I think what's different, though, from 135 years ago is that Pope Leo had today with him presenting the document, a figure, a senior figure from A.I., Chris Olah, who is in charge of a company or is a co-founder of a company that is developing this technology. And, you know, in the past, encyclicals were not always breaking out of the Catholic Church's boundaries. It was often the church talking amongst itself. Whereas Leo wants his document to really resonate with policymakers, with those developing A.I. technology.

And, of course, he took the decision to personally present this encyclical, which is the first time that a pope has done that for such a document. And an encyclical is a major theological text. It's a high level of papal teaching, and Leo really wants it to influence the debate about the development of A.I.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. Chris, please stand by for us.

Scott, what did you think of Chris Olah being there? One of the co- founders of Anthropic. Anthropic, which has had a bit of a tiff with the Trump administration and the pentagon over their wanting to use artificial intelligence, the model that Anthropic is.

MACFARLANE: His appearance there makes a statement. The pope's statement, though, is quite striking. He makes this Tower of Babel reference that we don't build things that reach toward the heavens, beyond, beyond the grips of earth. And that's not a casual reference when it comes from the pontiff.

And he used certain terms to describe the danger of A.I. that are parallel to the words inclusion and equity. This must be accessible to people. And I know in Trump 2.0, the terms inclusion and equity are politically maligned.

The pope invoked them in a powerful way. And I think he's also channeling the voices of any number of young people who are petrified of this, dispirited by this, worried what this means for their future. Pretty silent on the home front from political leaders here. It's nice to see the pope talking about it.

SANCHEZ: As you were talking about those college students, I couldn't help but think of all those videos of graduation ceremonies and people booing at the mention of A.I.

Shelby, the pope spends a lot of the document talking about war and his specific concerns about the use of A.I. and he writes, quote, sometimes there is talk of artificial moral agents as machines were able to distinguish between right and wrong with greater consistency than a human being. Yet moral judgment cannot be reduced to calculation. Therefore, it's not permissible to entrust lethal or otherwise irreversible decisions to artificial systems.

The pope, no stranger to criticism from this administration. How do you think they'll receive this?

TALCOTT: Yeah, I mean, I think the Trump administration, unsurprisingly, will be frustrated by this. This administration has taken a bit more of a hands-off approach so far in the A.I. debate. They were supposed to sign that executive order last week. That was delayed after calls from people like David Sacks.

And so, theyre certainly listening to people in the A.I. industry and pausing some of the regulations that they might have otherwise put in. And so the pope's comment is kind of in direct conflict with that decision.

But on the war comments specifically, you know, I do think its going to strike a nerve within the Trump administration because right now, in particular, when we have gone through the Iran war, we have gone into Venezuela. There is a big question about re, you know, getting more stockpile, getting more munitions, making sure that we have the advantage to take on, for example, if we get into a conflict against China.

And a lot of those conversations are happening around the question of A.I. and how can we advance these technologies. And what the pope is saying is we need to pause on that.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, Chris, before we go, it struck me that Pope Leo apologized for the church's role in slavery. What do you make of the timing? LAMB: Well, I think it shows that this encyclical is not just about

technological questions around A.I. It goes much further than that. And that apology for the church's reticence to denounce the scourge of slavery was very significant.

And he also believes that that at this time of A.I., there are new forms of slavery developing. And he wants the church to be on the front foot and condemning those standing against those new forms of slavery. But he does believe it's important for the church to be honest about its own failings of the past.

And I thought the decision to apologize for the church not being quick enough to condemn slavery was a very significant part of this document.

SANCHEZ: Christopher Lamb at the Vatican, thank you so much.

[16:55:00]

Stay with CNN. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Thanks so much to our esteemed panel for today's conversation. You can now stream THE ARENA live or catch up whenever you want in the CNN app. Just scan the QR code that's right there.

You can also catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast and follow the show on X and Instagram @TheArenaCNN.

Pamela Brown is standing by for THE LEAD.

Hey, Pam.