Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Former A.G. Bondi Appears Behind Closed Doors In Epstein Home; Federal Judge Halts Work On DOJ's "Anti-Weaponization" Fund; Source: Trump's Situation Room Meeting On Iran Has Ended; CNN Reports Exclusively From The Scene Of Laos Cave Rescue. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired May 29, 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: Yeah.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Every guest that we booked dropped out.

KEILAR: Yeah, but that's because the guests needed to have issues so that the villagers had hope sailing. Hope getting out and we'll continue to watch that story as will Kasie Hunt.

THE ARENA 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, former Attorney General Pam Bondi has just wrapped up a closed-door interview with the House Oversight Committee, where she forcefully defended the Justice Department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Democratic lawmakers who were in the room say Bondi repeatedly asserted that her successor, the acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, was largely in charge.

In a moment, I'm going to talk with one of those Democrats, Congressman Ro Khanna will be here. Outside of the room, a group of women who survived abuse by Jeffrey Epstein called on Bondi to provide the public with more information, including why the Justice Department says there's no need for any further investigation of Epstein or his alleged accomplices.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIZ STEIN, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: The Department of Justice is simultaneously telling the American people that there are no additional investigative leads worth pursuing.

We can see with our own eyes when we look at the Epstein files that this is not true. These files contain leads, names, connections, friendships, patterns, witnesses, travel records, financial relationships, and institutional failures. In any other sex trafficking case of this magnitude, those leads would be aggressively pursued.

But in this case, they have not been. And as citizens of this country, we should all be asking why.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. Let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA.

One of the lawmakers who was in the room with Bondi, Congressman Ro Khanna, is standing by for us.

But first, let's start with CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid.

Paula, you've got some reporting on what Bondi said behind closed doors.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Well, Kasie, as you know, this is a much anticipated appearance by Bondi because she has faced a torrent of criticism for her handling of all things Epstein, from her promise to release a client list that DOJ eventually said didn't exist to the release of the Epstein files that failed to redact victim names and other sensitive information.

The Democrats say behind closed doors, she tried to place a lot of the blame for these mistakes on the now acting attorney general, Todd Blanche.

Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): It is clear in justice this -- this part of the of the interview. That she continues to push all of the investigation and the blame on Acting A.G. Todd Blanche.

She said, and I quote, "Acting A.G. Blanche was managing the entire investigation," end quote. And what you're going to hear in that interview and what she's saying here in her words and remarks is that it was Todd Blanche, the current acting A.G. that was leading the Epstein investigation. And quite frankly, all of the mistakes that we saw, the redactions, not protecting survivors, she continues to push that back onto the Acting A.G. Todd Blanche, who, by the way, was Donald Trump's former personal lawyer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: Now, after the hearing wrapped, Bondi shot back on social media, saying that was not true. And it said she praised Blanche's Herculean efforts and also had kind words for his current performance as acting attorney general.

Now, she's the 13th witness that the committee's interview so far in its investigation into the Epstein case. Now, it does appear, though, they are turning their sights to Blanche and potentially FBI Director Kash Patel to have them come in and answer questions. But as you noted, because this happened behind closed doors, it was not recorded, it was not broadcast.

We really have to wait until the committee releases that transcript to know exactly what she said.

I also want to address those photos of her that you showed. She has a bandage across her neck. She is currently receiving treatment for thyroid cancer, and she tells me she had surgery just a few weeks ago.

HUNT: All right, Paula Reid, thanks very much for that reporting.

Joining us now in THE ARENA, one of the lawmakers who questioned Bondi, Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California.

Congressman, thanks very much for being back with us. Always good to see you.

Let's start with what you heard from the former attorney general, Pam Bondi, behind closed doors.

What did you ask her? What did she say?

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Well, first of all, on a human level, I wished her well in her recovery from cancer.

What we wanted here was just answers to help the survivors. And what she told us is that Todd Blanche was really managing the whole thing.

[16:05:03]

So we need to ask Todd Blanche questions.

She also told us, surprisingly, that the FBI scrubbed a lot of the documents or held a lot of the documents before they got to the Justice Department. That means that we need to ask the FBI questions. That means that we need to ask Kash Patel, why were those documents redacted or what documents were missing?

And then finally, when pressed on whether some of the individuals should be prosecuted, whether they should be investigated, she deferred to Jay Clayton, who's the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. And so, we need to ask him what is going to happen to the people who raped or abused or trafficked the victims.

HUNT: Did she have anything to say about what kinds of documents, what sort of information the FBI withheld from DOJ?

KHANNA: She did not. But what was very surprising is she said that some of the documents were withheld by the FBI. As you know, Kasie, because you've been covering this for a long time, in March of 2025, the FBI first scrubbed those documents. And the law that Thomas Massey and I passed, the Epstein Transparency Act, required all of the documents to be released, particularly the survivor's statements to the FBI in 302 forms where they named names.

It turns out that when the Justice Department got those documents from the FBI, a lot of it had already been redacted or missing. And so, some of the answers that we need are with the FBI director.

HUNT: So does it stand to reason or is it your understanding then that the FBI withheld interviews with survivors where they talked about the people who abused them and named their names? That's part of what the FBI withheld?

KHANNA: They either withheld them, there's some documents that were missing, or they redacted them so that by the time the Justice Department got them, they were already all redacted.

Now, the Justice Department did additional redactions, and they showed members of Congress unredacted versions of what the Justice Department had redacted. But even members of Congress were seeing documents fully blanked out, which the FBI had done.

Why does this matter? Because the survivors named the names in the 302 documents that the FBI had already redacted.

HUNT: And did she have any explanation for why Blanche was so involved, why he had so much control, especially considering it was she who initially held those public events where she spoke with people who were invested in it, and she went and famously said that she had the client list on her desk?

KHANNA: She just said that this is -- the responsibility she gave Todd Blanche. Look, she wanted to say this is Todd Blanche. This is Kash Patel. This is Jay Clayton, which means that they need to come before the committee and answer questions.

I have much less of an interest in making this about the people in the Trump administration. My concern is why are the people who raped, abused, and sex trafficked these survivors still out there facing no consequences?

I get texts, Kasie, almost every day from a survivor saying the names are in the files. Why are they not being investigated? Why are they not being prosecuted? And I feel a personal responsibility to the survivors.

And so this is not gotcha, I wasn't out there to try to get Pam Bondi. I'm trying to understand what is it going to take to get investigations and prosecutions to move forward?

HUNT: So speaking of these names, you have worked extensively with Republican Congressman Thomas Massie on this issue. And he, of course, lost his primary after the president targeted him in his Republican primary. Massie has since said that he plans to name names before he leaves office.

Do you have any idea what the plans are for that? Do you plan to participate? Do you know how he might do that?

KHANNA: I do not know. I haven't talked to him about this matter since he lost. The reality is that the survivors have told us through lawyers some of the names.

My view is it'd be much better to get the documents out rather than relying on survivors to do that. But I will talk to Thomas.

What I can tell you about Thomas is he's got seven months still in Congress, and he's as committed to this issue as I am. He's had survivors break down in tears in his office. And this is personal for him. And we're going to do everything we can to expose the people who did wrong.

HUNT: All right. I know -- I want to switch to politics briefly because you're in South Carolina planning to attend Congressman Jim Clyburn's famous fish fry.

It is well known as a stop on a presidential campaign tour.

[16:10:04]

Obviously, we're still heading into the midterm elections here. But what do you hope to accomplish by attending there?

KHANNA: I'm honored to be invited by Mr. Clyburn. I'm particularly honored to be invited now when South Carolina showed the nation that they could stand up for freedom and black Americans' right to freely choose their own representatives.

I'm going to make two points that you have a modern day Dred Scott court that is taking away Black Americans right to freely choose their representatives and that we need term limits on this court and we need to expand this court and that the Democrats need to campaign against this court. And what South Carolina did in preserving Jim Clyburn's district and getting Republicans to push back against the Supreme Court's decision is a model for the Deep South.

HUNT: One other thing that you said recently, as again, we look ahead to who may lead the Democratic Party into 2028, when you did this interview with "The Bulwark", you said this, quote, "No one who voted for the Laken Riley Act should have any role in the future leadership of the Democratic Party in this country. It's disqualifying, just like the Iraq war vote."

Now, some of the people that voted for the Laken Riley Act, Ruben Gallego, Mark Kelly, Jon Ossoff, Raphael Warnock, Alyssa Slotkin -- you think all of those leaders should be disqualified from being the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party on that basis?

KHANNA: Well, they should have to explain at least why they voted for it. It was a terrible vote and I didn't mean to personalize it.

But the reality is that it allowed for deportation without due process. And when Trump came in, we had Democrats voting for Laken Riley. And then you see ICE on the streets engaged in mass deportation, separating kids from their parents.

I guess as a son of immigrants, this is very personal for me. I am tired of a Democratic Party that apologizes for immigrants. I'm tired of a Democratic Party that throws immigrants under the bus.

And I believe the Democratic Party should have a moral conviction that we're not going to allow for this mass deportation. We should abolish ICE. We should have a new immigration enforcement agency.

And so, yes, I do believe that that vote was a very, very problematic vote that led to Trump's mass deportation.

HUNT: The Laken Riley Act was specifically aimed at immigrants who had committed crimes, though, different from mass deportations. Do you not see a distinction?

KHANNA: Well, I believe that those who've committed crimes, violent crimes, should be deported. But they should be deported based on due process and trials.

What happened at Laken Riley -- said that you could just deport people without having the due process and trials. So they used that framework to start to target people who were Latino or who looked like immigrants.

And what people got caught up in this who were not violent criminals. Why? Because they eliminated due process. It was a permission structure to Donald Trump saying we give you the authority to violate rights of people who are immigrants.

It was capitulation. It was opportunism because Donald Trump had just won on this issue. And by the way, I was on Bill Maher and got booed almost when I said that I was going to vote against Laken Riley at the time.

But it mattered in terms of conviction. And for me, this is personal. My parents immigrated here from India.

I was born in 1976 in Philadelphia. I've seen the life of many immigrants.

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: And many law-abiding immigrants, of course, have contributed much to our country.

KHANNA: They have. And there are people who, some of whom, like my parents, came here on a student visa and green card. Others came here who were undocumented but who've been here for years.

And they're paying taxes and they're working in agriculture. They're working in a small business. And now, you want to have -- to deport them --

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: But, again, the distinction is violent criminals, right? I mean, Lake and Riley was about violent criminals.

KHANNA: Sure, but it was saying that you could call anyone a violent criminal and deport them without due process. If they said that we want to have due process and if someone is a violent criminal, let's deport them. I have no problem. I support getting violent criminals off our streets with due process. But when you take away the due process, you basically say that ICE can say to someone, "You're a violent criminal, we're going to get rid of you", and there's no recourse. There's no system of law.

So it created the structure of authority with ICE that gave them impunity to do terrible things.

[16:15:01]

And that's why I have such a problem with that -- with that law.

Now, if people who voted for it come and say, you know, mea culpa, and they say, I understand that it was a wrong vote, and I'm now committed to standing up for immigrants, fine. But they at least have to reckon with that issue.

HUNT: All right. Congressman Ro Khanna, with an interesting test going forward -- thank you, sir, very much for your time today. I appreciate it.

KHANNA: Appreciate it.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, breaking news, a federal judge has ordered the board of the Kennedy Center to remove Donald Trump's name from all of its buildings, materials and web sites. But will they comply?

Plus, dangerous and daring rescues set to resume in just hours. CNN is the only news team on the ground near that cave in Laos. We'll show you what we saw and heard as the first man was rescued.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They're coming out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They're coming out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:20:19]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: It is not unprecedented and it was done to address something that had never happened again either. So there is an unprecedented nature of what we did yesterday in response to years and years of weaponization. Just to correct a few things, there's no limitation on the -- on the claims.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: The Trump administration's nearly $1.8 billion anti- weaponization fund is already facing legal challenges. A federal judge temporarily blocked the administration from establishing the fund or processing any disbursements, at least until a hearing is held next month.

And it's not the only legal blow the administration was dealt today. Another federal judge said the Kennedy Center board violated the law by adding President Donald Trump's name to the cultural institution and blocked the center from closing its doors for a years-long renovation.

The judge ruled that in the next two weeks, officials must remove signage from the Kennedy Center that includes Trump's name and update its website to remove all references to the name Trump Kennedy Center.

All right, my panel is here in THE ARENA.

CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams; ABC News chief global affairs correspondent Martha Raddatz. She is the author of a new book, "The Hero Next Door: Stories of Patriotism and Purpose". We're going to talk about that coming up in the show.

We're also joined by CNN political commentator Xochitl Hinojosa and Republican strategist Matt Whitlock.

Also new to THE ARENA, Matt, welcome.

Martha, so grateful to have you here.

Elliot Williams, I want to start with you on this legal question, right? Because two blows here, four as a Trump administration. Can you walk us through -- I mean, let's start with the weaponization fund, although I know you're also, you like talking about the Kennedy Center.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I like talking about the Kennedy Center. I like talking about the Kennedy Center.

HUNT: But what stands out to you about these rulings and what they mean?

WILLIAMS: Look, it's -- there's a continuing pattern that's since January 2025 of things that are politically popular to President Trump and his base, but are just not on solid legal footing, the manner in which they do so. And both of these cases, when you look at them together, they're really about process, the way in which these things played out, not about whether they're right or wrong.

And so, for instance, with respect to the weaponization fund, it's a question of, was this proper? Was process followed? Who is identified and so on?

And so there's a pause on that program right there. Kennedy Center, it's the same thing. It's Congress is the -- this is what the opinion said today, at least temporarily, Congress is the entity that can put a name on the Kennedy Center.

The board of the Kennedy Center is not properly constituted as it exists right now. And the last point was that as a board, they are just not looking out for the interests of the Kennedy Center.

All of these things are process-based. None of them really wade into the question of whether they should have happened or not. And, again, this is sort of endemic to this era we're in, where the president gets an idea, decides to just put something in, rushes it through, doesn't talk to Congress, doesn't talk to boards or taxpayers or whatever else, and they get their stuff thrown out in court, and it happened again.

Now, again, all these things will be appealed. This is not the final word in any of these, but we'll see what happens.

HUNT: Well, and is this -- I mean, can you give us a sense of how far we are or aren't from potentially the Supreme Court weighing in on these things? Especially the weaponization fund seems particularly fraught.

WILLIAMS: At a minimum, months, only because, you know, any of these cases would have to go to the appeals court here in Washington first, and then to the Supreme Court. Again, there are big questions of the power of the presidency and, quite frankly, how the presidency interacts with Congress that both appeals courts and the Supreme Court have to sort out. We have not seen the end of these cases yet.

HUNT: Right. Well, Xochitl Hinojosa, I mean, you obviously have such -- you had such deep experience with the Democrats -- Democratic -- excuse me, the last Democratic administration with the Department of Justice. Which of these issues do you think is something that actually will hold up, or where might the Trump administration be on solid ground, and where are they not?

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, and to Elliott's point, what we've seen from this president is he believes he has an expanded view of the presidency, and he continues to lose in court.

The $1.8 million fund --

WILLIAMS: Billion with a B, my friend.

HINOJOSA: Billion, sorry, billion, $1.8 billion fund, because it's hard to believe, so it's hard for me to say billion -- is one of these things politically is there is bipartisan outrage. I actually don't know one person who agrees with the $1.8 billion fund unless they work for Donald Trump right now.

And it is one of those things that the arguments in the case are actually quite simple, which is that these people believe that the fund is political, in the sense that for those that are being treated poorly by the current Justice Department, where there is politicization, where they were fired because they worked on January 6th cases, where they were somehow targeted by this administration, they cannot apply to said fund because it only involves Democratic administrations.

[16:25:23]

And that is not only just against the norms of the department, but it is now what they're trying to say. It is unlawful.

And so I think that out of both of these things, the Kennedy Center one seems pretty simple, cut and dry, when it comes to taking it as only Congress can approve that. The $1.8 billion fund I think is just also politically fraught, that even if, depending how a judge rules, Congress might be doing something about this at some point, especially if this is -- we're looking at next year, and potentially the next Congress, putting a stop to this.

HUNT: Yeah. Well, Matt Whitlock, the last time you and I were working together was probably in the halls of Capitol Hill, right?

MATT WHITLOCK, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Uh-huh.

HUNT: So we have, of course, in recent weeks, talked to a bunch of Republicans, particularly Republicans who are in places that, you know, swing a little bit, right where the president may not be so popular.

Here is a compilation of some comments from Republican members of Congress about the weaponization fund. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

REP. BRIAN FITZPATRICK (R-PA): You know, I represent a very independent-minded district in Buxton, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and they're going to get independent-minded representation. They don't like this fund. They don't like money going to the ballroom.

REP. MIKE FLOOD (R-NE): I do not want $1 of that going to anybody who physically assaulted police officers, period.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): I do not support the weaponization fund as it has been described.

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): I just don't know how this puppy dog will work.

REP. DON BACON (R-NE): This whole thing smells.

REP. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I don't know, but I'll do everything in my power to prevent this from being in it. Believe me.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

HUNT: I mean, that says something.

WHITLOCK: It does. I actually think -- Elliot did a fantastic job explaining the legal challenges that really aren't a surprise because of the way this was sprung. And I thought Xochitl did a great job explaining the political process.

What we saw was Republicans who felt caught off guard by this, and part of the reason that the major reconciliation package got derailed right before recess is Republicans felt like this was sprung on them, and they also felt like it wasn't explained what this is going to be.

I think there are a couple things that are important to understand. Xochitl got into this a little bit. There are protections to keep, for example, Trump family members from being eligible for these funds, anyone who committed violent crimes on January 6th from being eligible for these funds.

HUNT: Wait, I don't think that that's -- I mean, that does not seem clear at all. The administration has not ruled it out.

WHITLOCK: Well, no, but I think that there's parameters written into this. Ted Cruz did a really good deep dive explaining why Republicans are furious but also looking into the way that this has been written, how some of these concerns can be addressed. But to your point, a lot more needs to be addressed and smoothed out with Republicans before anything moves forward. And I think, as we can all agree, there's going to be a legal process for this, and if it continues to be a political anvil, I think it will be something that gets adjusted very quickly because we've got narrow majorities in Congress that don't necessarily want to wear the weight of this.

But the thing that I think is also important to understand is there was a weaponization problem in the previous administration, and people, for example, parents who were targeted by the government for speaking out in school board meetings should have some form of recourse. It just might not end up looking exactly like it was funded.

WILLIAMS: Yeah, and that recourse would have been filing lawsuits or, if they were prosecuted or indicted, to have those indictments or prosecutions thrown out.

This vague, undefined fund on the basis of a term that does not exist in American law. There's no actual legal concept of weaponization, right?

Now, we might feel it in our hearts. You might think that it happened, but you're compensating people for something that the law literally can't define. And because of that level of vagueness, that's the basis on which all this is going to be thrown out. It's just legally impossible.

And forgive me one quick thing. You know, even the comparisons the administration is making to other compensation funds are nothing like this. Those are in response to very specific lawsuits for people who were parties to lawsuits. The idea that just anybody now off the street can come in and just legally, none of this makes sense and can work regardless of what you think of it.

MARTHA RADDATZ, CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, ABC NEWS: And just legality aside, which I'm definitely not going to get into, Republicans don't want to talk about January 6th anymore. They don't want to be reminded of that. That's not something theyre heralding any time. And particularly this time, if there's compensation for those people.

HUNT: Right. And again, were talking about people who were violent on that day toward law enforcement that were protecting the building.

All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, a heroic effort rescues one man from a cave in Laos. Others still trapped, waiting to make the dangerous journey to freedom. CNN's the only news team on the ground at the site. Well bring you the latest ahead.

Plus, a Situation Room meeting that sources say lasted nearly two hours, as President Trump and his closest advisers weigh a potential peace deal with Iran.

[16:30:01]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There are a lot of details to work out, but what I mean is I think we're making progress. We'll get to a point where we could potentially sit down and settle these issues, but that requires us to make a little bit more progress. I can't guarantee that we're going to get there, but right now I feel pretty good about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right, welcome back.

We are waiting now to hear from the White House, where President Trump just finished a Situation Room meeting with advisers, including Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to make a, quote, "final determination" regarding that tentative agreement that the United States struck with Iran yesterday. Trump's decision still uncertain, unclear at the moment.

[16:35:02]

Our panel is back.

Martha Raddatz, you've covered these negotiations over the many years. What is your sense of how this deal is any different or not different or better puts us in a better position than what the Obama administration had negotiated that the president tore up. What is your understanding of the differences and what benefit we may have gotten from what the president did here?

RADDATZ: Well, first of all, it's totally confusing. You hear one thing one day, you hear another thing another day. These negotiations seem to have gone a little further than they did in the past couple of months. But I keep thinking, I think it was March 31st or 21st when the president said, open the street within or we're going to bomb your power plants. That didn't happen. I went to Pakistan when J.D. Vance and just listening to J.D. Vance

again saying we think we're close. That's what they said before. So we have no idea. I mean, the president might announce any minute that he's going to accept these things.

But as to the differences from the JCPOA, I don't know what those are. I mean, can they keep enriching uranium? Can they wait 10 years? Is any money passed? Are those Gulf nations going to somehow take some sort of safety toll?

I mean, I think that's one of the things that's been floated over the past couple of months, that we certainly won't say, OK, Iran, you can make money letting people pass. They're not going to agree with that. But is there something behind the scenes we just don't know about -- the sanctions being lifted? Money has to be returned.

It doesn't sound that different, but I'm sure they're going to try and make it sound different.

HUNT: And of course, one of the big questions, the nuclear material-- the president has continually come back to that, saying that the whole point of this is that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, even going so far as to say, I don't care about the midterms when he's thinking about what to do with Iran.

I want to watch -- let's take a look at the way the president has talked about this over the course of the last couple of weeks. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have to take that nuclear dust. We're going to take it.

I don't think it's necessary, except from a public relations standpoint. We're going to get it. We have our eye on it. They say, "We can't take it. We don't have the capability of taking it." And I said, "Why?" They said, because it was hit so hard. I mean, the mountain literally collapsed on it, a granite mountain. Just so you know.

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS HOST: So why isn't that good enough?

TRUMP: Well --

BAIER: I mean, if you want, if your goal was to set back --

TRUMP: It is good enough, but you know what? It's not good enough public relations-wise.

With that being said, I want to get it. And they agreed to it, but then they took it back, but they'll agree to it eventually.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: I mean, Martha, are you clear on where the president stands on whether we can get the air?

RADDATZ: No, I mean, it's impossible to be clear about that. He says -- he says, I don't care about it. Then I care about it. We're going to get it. We're not going to get it.

But we've also heard, you know, that the nuclear facilities, it was obliterated. They said that last summer. And it clearly wasn't since they had to go in again.

So whether they go in and get the enriched uranium, or as he calls it, the nuclear dust, we just don't know. And said today, I think it was, that the U.S. would be doing that.

How's that going to work? How are we going to protect anybody from the U.S. that goes in there? I assume they can do contractors and things.

But I think It is not a deal until we see a deal. And I think the thing that's really unusual about this administration is most negotiations in the past where we're going to make a deal, they go in and they already have one set, right? There's just like two little tiny things that aren't super controversial, and then you come out and you have a deal.

But we've seen things happen with this president where he'll go and not get a deal. I mean, Kim Jong-un in the first administration, they walked out of that. That rarely ever happens that you walk out of a deal when you sent the president or the vice president in Pakistan that didn't last very long.

I do think those were serious negotiations. I was over there. But again, no deal, walked away after a certain time. They keep sending in these senior people, and they haven't yet made a deal on it.

HUNT: Matt Whitlock, has the president essentially alienated every Republican of every stripe over this? I mean, going in initially, it violated a lot of his America First supporters who didn't want to see him go to war with Iran. And now he's about to crack this deal, and you hear Iran hawks, you know. raising concerns about it, Republicans who don't want to see him do this.

WHITLOCK: I think that's a fair question. I think your reporters throughout the day have done a fantastic job of reiterating it's not over or final until the president says what the terms are, which has left a lot of us kind of in the dark about what's coming.

Last weekend, when we were in the thick of this, on Saturday, Iran through all sorts of proxies and media allies were saying, America's agreeing to this, America's agreeing to that. And then on Sunday, we got really firm terms back, pushback again from the president saying, we're still holding to these red lines.

[16:40:01]

So I don't know that he's really alienated people as much as a lot of the reporting has suggested. Most polls have still suggested throughout this that Republicans believe the president's doing the right thing. They agree with what he's doing, things like that.

I think he's held his base together on this, but I do think that the clarity there is so important. What Martha was saying is really important. We don't know what these terms are going to be. There's a huge difference between highly enriched uranium and enriched uranium. They're fine-tuned points here that a lot more details on as we get closer there.

I do think that Secretary Rubio's tried to continue to keep that fine point on those red lines, but the proof will be in the pudding. And also the biggest challenge, sorry for talking so long, is the fact that we don't know who can actually sign off on a deal here. We have so many different factions in Iran that want to speak for the power centers, and that's a challenge the administration continues to try and navigate, but it's tough.

HUNT: For sure.

I want to turn now and talk a little bit about the reason Martha is here is because the new book that she has out called "The Hero Next Door: Stories of Patriotism and Purpose".

And Martha, it's a remarkable book because you spent time with some of the -- it is a very small piece of our society now who is carrying the burden for all of us of keeping us safe, of fighting our wars abroad, of answering the call when bad things happen. And it's a smaller portion than it has been in our nation's history.

Can you talk a little bit about some of the people that you spoke to and why hearing their voices is so important in the divided political moment that we're living in?

RADDATZ: Well, I think one of the reasons I wrote this book is because I have known some of these people for more than 20 years.

And I think we have to remember this is the 9/11 generation of warriors and those on the home front who support them. The reason many of them signed up is because of 9/11. And I think we've forgotten that. And in many ways, we've kind of forgotten them.

It was the thank you for your service generation very early on when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now those wars are over. The people who fought those wars may have lost legs. They still don't have legs. Others have PTSD. They still do.

So I think their courage since then -- and this really, truly is a book of hope, and I think it's something we can all learn. It is about humanity. I feel like these people have been a gift to me. And they can bridge a divide.

You look at them. We never talk politics. We never talk about the wars in general, like, was that worth it? Was it not worth it? They did the best they could. They follow the orders. They went in there because they support and defend the Constitution.

And what they have done now, Derek Herrera, for instance, who is a Marine raider paralyzed from the chest down, is doing remarkable work, ended up going to business school, started a business that can help other paralyzed individuals. Derek said, "Look, I have a unique ability now. I lost the use of my legs, but I can do something good. I can continue to serve."

But I really think it's important and I really think it's hopeful that the very least we can do is understand why they go to war, understand why they volunteer and know their stories because truly they have inspired me. I feel like I'm a better person. I feel like I can relate to people when I get up in the morning and it's like, oh, this day may be really challenging for me.

I think of Derek, I think of Mark Little, I think of Rocco Armanda, who helped save the life of my colleague, Bob Woodruff.

He's a brain surgeon, and he now goes regularly a couple of times a year to do brain surgery in Ukraine. I watched him do that, which I don't recommend, but he is now saving the lives of people in Ukraine. He's out of the Army, and he found a purpose, a patriotic purpose that helps him serve.

So I personally believe we should all try to contribute someday -- each day to America to try to do something good, to try to be good citizens and serve.

HUNT: There have been some politicians who have raised the idea not of a draft necessarily, but of civil service, right, for all Americans. Do you think that that's something that the country would benefit from?

RADDATZ: I do, but I don't think I see a way forward with that. Stan McChrystal, General Stan McChrystal, I know that was a big issue with him and wanted so badly for that to happen.

It's very, very complicated for that to happen. It would take a very long time, and I'm not sure it would have the support, but I do.

So, I do think it would be great, but because that hasn't happened, serve in some other way, and I really don't care whether it's, you know, baking a pie for 20 veterans or people in a senior home. What -- whatever it is -- you should try to find purpose in your life and you will find how to do that from reading about these people.

I keep saying I don't want people to just buy the book. I really don't. I want them to read it. I think you will be touched and I think you'll feel good at the end of it that we have people like that.

HUNT: Something to live by.

RADDATZ: Thank you.

HUNT: All right. Martha Raddatz, thank you so much.

[16:45:01]

RADDATZ: Thank you. HUNT: It's an honor to have you.

And, of course, the bar -- the new book is "The Hero Next Door: Stories of Patriotism and Purpose". You can get it at your local bookstore now.

All right, ahead here in THE ARENA, see the incredible moment a man is pulled from a remote flooded cave in Laos after being stuck there for a week. CNN is the only news team on the ground and I'm going to speak to an expert in cave rescues about the dangerous mission to save at least four others.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Directly below us is where this cave rescue is unfolding as we speak. And you get a sense of just how dangerous and rugged this mountainous jungle terrain is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:50:06]

HUNT: All right. Breaking news, in just a few hours, a rescue team in Laos will resume their operation to save villagers trapped in a remote cave. This was the moment when one survivor was safely guided out earlier today amid dangerous conditions. Four villagers are still trapped inside. Two others believed to have entered the cave are also missing. The rescue team says that they've not had contact with that group.

CNN is reporting exclusively from the scene this morning. Our correspondent Will Ripley was on the phone with a rescue diver inside the cave when he heard that a villager was coming out. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are they coming out? RIPLEY: So --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're coming out.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.

RIPLEY: They're coming out is what he said. So obviously, it was -- it was kind of chaotic there.

We had talked to him for about 10 minutes. He was explaining to us how they've been working with the villagers trapped inside the cave, actually having them put on wetsuits and train with diving equipment because even though they've managed to drain some of the water, he said the water levels are still very high. So they've actually had to teach them how to dive through the water while holding onto the legs of the expert divers that are in there to try to rescue them. They also said the water underground is ice cold. And so, it's

obviously very difficult, very perilous. But right at the end of that conversation, you heard people in the background on the phone call saying "they're coming out, they're coming out," and then the phone cut off. So obviously they're busy inside the cave right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. Joining me now is Gretchen Baker. She's a national coordinator for the National Cave Rescue Mission.

Gretchen, thank you so much for being here with us.

Just remarkable scene that Will Ripley is there covering. And of course, we just heard him talk through how these villagers have been diving to try to save each other. Can you help us understand what goes into this type of training? What are these people facing trying to execute these rescues?

GRETCHEN BAKER, NATIONAL COORDINATOR, NATIONAL CAVE RESCUE COMMISSION: Sure. Cave rescues are not very common occurrence, but they are one of the most difficult types of rescues to do in the world because the environment is underground where there is naturally no light. There is no communications with the surface. The spaces can be really tight and in the case of this cave, there is water that is flooding it.

So, all those in combination make it a really challenging situation. So it's delightful and kudos to those rescuers for getting that first person out of the cave.

HUNT: We're hearing that some of these people who are trapped may be developing health problems after having been trapped in this cave for so long. How does that complicate efforts?

BAKER: If you are in a cave, it is nearly 100 percent humidity. And so, that is just really moist air that you're in all the time. You can't really escape it. It's also -- looks like it's very muddy in that cave and so that is going to be contributing to hypothermia because when you're in that moist cool air and you can't move a whole lot because you're trying to stay out of the water, you just get cold.

And so, over time you get colder and colder and that can make it harder to move, which would make harder to get out of the cave and also just the hunger. I get hungry after a day of not eating and to think that they've gone multiple days without eating, it's just -- it's amazing that they are able to be smiling and that they are -- yeah, it looks like a good attitude there.

But it's going to be a challenge because their bodies are breaking down without the food, without clean water, being in that cooler environment. And so, they have to overcome all those things to get out of the cave through very narrow passage.

HUNT: Is there an impact from the lack of light for such a long period of time? BAKER: I think the biggest impact of a lack of light is not a physical impact, but rather a mental impact because it is really a weird feeling when you turn off all the lights and you can't even see your hand in front of your face because it is so dark. And so they have probably been trying to stretch their lights as long as possible. Maybe only having one person have a light on for a while and maybe just they have periods where they all turn them off and then they to conserve batteries.

But it is -- it's a challenge when you're like, oh, you get almost a sense of claustrophobia even if you're in a bigger space and you don't have any light.

HUNT: What's your biggest concern here? As of course we expect these rescue operations to resume in the next few hours.

BAKER: There are multiple concerns here. The rescuers have been very brave dealing with all of these challenges, but they are supposed to be more rain coming and so the water levels could rise in the cave, which means that perhaps the rescuers will have to take out the patients through longer passages that are underwater.

[16:55:07]

And that can be super hard.

HUNT: Super hard indeed.

All right. Gretchen Baker of the National Cave Rescue Commission, thanks very much for spending some time with us today. Appreciate it.

BAKER: Thank you.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(AUDIO GAP)

HUNT: That you'll join us.

But don't go anywhere right now. Pamela Brown is standing by for "THE LEAD".

Hi, Pamela. TGIF.