Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Suggests He Hasn't Dropped "Anti-Weaponization" Fund; Trump Takes Questions At The White House; Key California Races Remain Close As Vote Counting Continues. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired June 03, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: I'd love to be shot out of a cannon into the sea at 90. That'd be a blast. If people are living longer than ever, maybe I can actually do it.
That's not my dream.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: No, no, I'm going to try to make it, I'm going to try to make it happen.
SANCHEZ: You will light the fuse.
KEILAR: I will shoot you out of that cannon, Boris.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
SANCHEZ: Thanks for joining us.
(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 Wednesday.
Right now, President Donald Trump is once again on a collision course with Senate Republicans as he fights for one of his most controversial policies ever.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INTERVIEWER: The anti-weaponization fund, have you dropped that?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, a court ruled against it. But just so you understand, these are people that have been decimated. These are people that lost their lives over nonsense. And these were many great people.
And I gave them pardons. I'm very proud to have given them pardons. And I think they should be reimbursed for a crooked government. The government was crooked.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Okay, so the president seems to be saying the Justice Department is not dropping its so-called weaponization fund. Now, why is this interesting? You may remember that on this very show yesterday, which is the same day that the president said that in that taped interview.
The acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, who is, of course, the person charged with overseeing this fund -- well, Todd Blanche said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: So look, we're not moving forward with the fund.
We are not moving forward with the fund, period.
We are not moving forward with the fund.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not moving forward ever.
BLANCHE: Correct. We're not moving forward with the fund.
We're not moving forward with the fund.
We're not moving forward with the fund.
We're not moving forward with the fund.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Okay, so with that assurance, Senate Republicans are now planning to vote on President Trump's biggest agenda item. It's $70 billion in funding for immigration enforcement.
But the anger over this DOJ fund could still derail everything. Today, GOP Senator Tom Tillis announced he plans to introduce an amendment that -- to this immigration funding bill to permanently shut down the fund.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I think even DOJ knows that this was a bad idea. And what we need to do is provide finality.
SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): In general, I support what Senator Tillis is trying to do to make sure that the weaponization fund is not just mostly dead, that it's truly dead. I want to make sure it's not mostly dead. I want to make sure it's completely dead.
TILLIS: We got to either eliminate it, streamline it, guardrail it. It can't go in its current form. And if that's the only choice we should have, we should eradicate it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Okay. On that note, let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.
White House correspondent for "The New York Times", CNN political analyst, Zolan Kanno-Youngs; CNN senior political commentator, former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger; Democratic strategist and a former senior advisor to the Biden and Harris presidential campaigns, Adrienne Elrod; and former Trump White House communications director, Mike Dubke.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
Congressman, you know, we were live on the air yesterday when Blanche said that. Then, of course, there's this taped interview with the president where actually the weaponization fund, he says, is still potentially a live ball. But this does seem to be an area where we're seeing some serious backbone from, admittedly, senators that are on their way out, but Republican senators nonetheless.
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, but they're the bravest ones. By the way, I'm in a great mood today, so I'm not going to let anything kill my mood. I just want to say that.
HUNT: I'm really great that you're here to share part of your day with us.
KINZINGER: I'm happy about this. No, look, I think -- I think it's pretty clear that probably in Blanche's mind this is done, and I think it is.
But I do think there is reasonable caution to say, from Tillis' perspective, we need to prohibit this because, look, the president clearly wants this. This is not just has he pardoned the people that did his bidding on January 6th, now he's going to reward them.
He wants to bring it back. There's ways probably to bring it back. And once the Senate, once this reconciliation bill passes, you run out of levers to stop it, at least until the next must-pass bill.
So they should still do it, although I'm not sitting here thinking that it's going to necessarily pop back up again anytime soon.
HUNT: Let's watch a little bit more of what Tom Tillis had to say about this specifically. He also, in here, is talking as well about the pick for Bill Pulte to be the acting director of national intelligence.
Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TILLIS: People in the administration need to understand math. They need to understand timing. My God, you put forth this restitution fund when we're trying to get Homeland Security funded for three years, and you put an incendiary attack dog like Pulte out on the agenda while we're trying to get 702 authorized, and he would be one of the major users of it? It's like whoever these people are in the White House need to get the hell out of the White House. I am tired of amateur hour.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Zolan, fighting words there. Not going over well in the White House, I'm sure.
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It also does sound like a senator who will soon leave Capitol Hill as well, and it's a bit unleashed and more candid than we usually see.
[16:05:01]
HUNT: I'm tempted to say no Fs to give. Right.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Go ahead. No.
But I do think, look, Tillis has been critical of the administration for some time now, but we are seeing more elected officials, Republicans, that are feeling comfortable with the way things are going, and I think pushing back against the president. It is interesting that the more success he has basically in these primaries with his picks, his endorsed picks, beating another establishment Republican that's been in Congress, he also kind of feeds into this pipeline of another Republican willing to criticize some of these measures that they consider to not be overall great for the overall party.
Also, we're talking about the fund right now, just to go back to this anti-weaponization fund in the White House's words. One -- just the only thing we've seen in writing is that they would essentially abide by the court order, right? Yes, we've heard Blanche say it's over, but the only thing you've seen in writing is that they would abide by the court order.
Only in this Trump era would that be so significant. And also, it's worth noting the provision in there as well that the IRS basically wouldn't be able to scrutinize the president or his family's taxes -- that's still out there, which provides a real political opportunity for Democrats to basically say, look at this, the president's taxes are shielded, even while you have this economic anxiety. It's a really interesting dynamic.
HUNT: Congressman, what is the dynamic with that in terms of, I mean, people have been more willing to speak out about this anti- weaponization fund, but they're more silent on what Zolan's talking about. Why?
KINZINGER: Yeah, well, that affects the president personally. So, if you go after the president and his businesses personally, he's going to be upset about that.
The other thing, and I mean, I understand this very well, if you come out against the president on one thing and you say, like, I'm against the anti-weaponization fund, you better spend the next month finding everything the president does and liking it and supporting it so that you can erase the one time you turned against him. So, I think to expect most of these people to be against both of those is probably a bridge too so far.
HUNT: Mike?
MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, I think a couple of things are happening here, and you guys have landed on it. This is some short-term pain for long-term gain in the president's mind on the primaries. But right now what we have happening is most of the primaries, we had a bunch yesterday, most of the primaries are over.
So, where Republicans were reluctant at the beginning of the year to push back on this White House, they have a little bit more leeway now. They can't be punished by having somebody to run against them. We're now in the final five months of the midterm elections.
And the one thing I would take issue with is, I think when this first -- this anti-weaponization idea first came out, the thing that Republicans objected to the most were the provisions that were the IRS provisions on the Trump family, the Trump organization. That kind of has gone quiet because we've had these other court rulings.
But if they do vote on Tillis's amendment, I bet you 20 Republican senators stand up and vote against it. I think there's enough momentum there already. The president needs to be a little careful here because he's going to have a big loss.
HUNT: Well, let's put that question to the man who probably has the latest and greatest information. In fact, I shouldn't say probably does, definitely has the latest and greatest information on how those votes might break. And that is CNN chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju, who's standing by for us at Will Rogers on the Hill.
Manu, what's the status of the vote on this and the pending risks for the White House? Because, of course, this opens up the floor, essentially, in a way that's relatively rare.
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, look, actually, right now, just moments ago, the Senate just voted to open up debate on this major immigration funding bill by a vote of 53 to 46. It went along essentially straight party lines. One Democratic senator, Michael Bennett of Colorado, did not vote. The rest voted along party lines. So what does that mean?
This bill would provide $70 billion to fund President Trump's immigration priorities. But because of the process that they are undergoing here, which is to avoid a Democratic filibuster in the United States Senate, use a budget process on Capitol Hill that is not subject to the filibuster, meaning get passed by a civil majority along straight party lines.
And that also means the strict rules in the United States Senate that usually require a full 100 senators to agree on an individual vote on an amendment. Those are out the door. That means that any senator can offer any amendment that he or she wants or as long as they want until they get so tired that they decide not to offer any more amendments. And so this is a very treacherous moment for a number of issues for this bill and for that weaponization fund, because, as you just noted, Tom Tillis is suggesting that he wants to have an amendment to this bill to try to derail that weaponization fund.
Other Republican senators could agree with that. And Democrats plan to offer vote after vote after vote on this issue and other politically toxic issues.
The question is going to be, will there be enough Republicans who break ranks in the 53-47 Senate? That would require four Republicans to vote yes to adopt an amendment to this bill.
And if that is adopted, the bill, it could threaten its chances in clearing the Senate or the House or getting President Trump's signature.
So this is why this is a very complicated moment and why you heard Tom Tillis there saying he cannot believe the White House, the Justice Department put out this weaponization fund just as they're trying to get this bill passed, because now it is opening the door to potentially seeing this bill fall apart. It's been delayed now for a couple weeks over this, but can it survive because of this fund still being out there and because of the efforts to try to kill it, how will that impact the ultimate legislation?
That's going to be the big question on the Hill here over the next 24 hours as we open up the door to a flurry of amendments that could threaten some of President Trump's top priorities.
HUNT: Manu, do you think the Tillis amendment is going to get a vote?
RAJU: I think it will get a vote. The question is going to be if it is subject to a 50-vote threshold or a 60-vote threshold because of the uniqueness and the peculiarities of the Senate's budget rules. That's something that the parliamentarian, the official rules keeper of the Senate will have to decide. But if it's a 50-vote threshold, that means it could potentially get adopted.
HUNT: I was going to say, do you think it would get 60 votes?
RAJU: Sixty, I doubt. Fifty, I think, is very, very possible.
HUNT: All right. Manu Raju, of course, on the Hill -- Manu, always good to have you. Thank you.
Adrienne Elrod, I mean, this is, of course, a massive opportunity for Democrats. How best to take advantage without potentially risking squandering what advantage may exist?
ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: No, it's a great question.
But to an extent, we don't really have to do much. We sort of sit back and get the popcorn out and watch these guys. And you're finally seeing people like Tom Tillis, who was noted earlier, has been anti- Trump and has taken on Trump a lot over the past year, year and a half.
And now you see Bill Cassidy. I think John Cornyn is going to join this small but increasingly popular clique of anti-Trump Republicans who are leaving the Senate. So to an extent, we just have to sit back and watch.
And it only helps us going into the midterms to not try to find bipartisan consensus when you've got stuff like this anti- weaponization fund on the floor.
HUNT: So speaking of John Cornyn, Congressman, your newly adopted home state of Texas, Cornyn retweeted this quote from the Wall Street Journal. The way to ensure the Trump retribution fund is more than mostly dead would be for Congress to put a stake through it.
And of course, the picture there is no cash for criminals. I mean, pretty straightforward.
KINZINGER: Yeah. I mean, it's very straightforward. By the way, you have to be like four generations in Texas to actually be a Texan, I've learned.
But no, I think it's clear they're speaking out. That's very important. I think what Mike said about the fact that we're getting past primaries is really important.
And what I think the president, and if I'm giving him honest advice, what he needs to be careful about is I think he has about a five month window to do whatever he needs to do for the rest of his term, because clearly, the Democrats will probably take the House. And it becomes a defensive play at that point.
HUNT: Let me press pause for you. And I'm sorry, you can finish that thought in a second, but we got to go to the president.
He's taking questions in the Oval Office. Let's listen.
TRUMP: And what he always explained to me, I said, all right, so we'll do that. But we've been hitting him pretty hard a little bit. So there is a reason for certain things.
And there's usually a reason that (AUDIO GAP) greatest military in the world, but some people would say they were slightly provoked because we took a strong action for a different reason.
So they were reciprocating.
REPORTER: Mr. President, can you explain --
TRUMP: The negotiation itself has gone very well, actually. The negotiation itself has gone very well, actually. Very well.
I mean, if it happens, it might not happen. Who knows? But if it happens, it could happen like over the weekend.
REPORTER: How do you define ceasefire? TRUMP: Pretty much the way it is. It's a different part of the world.
And I'd say that part of the world ceasefires when you're shooting in a more moderate manner.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: I mean, a ceasefire there is much different than a ceasefire in other parts of the world.
Yeah?
REPORTER: Mr. President, can you explain why you decided to drop the anti weaponization fund?
TRUMP: So I love it. I think it's so important. People were -- this is a victim right here, but not only a victim, he was also a student of it.
What happened to great people, great American people, the way they were victimized, the way they were savaged. You have suicides. They killed themselves.
They went bankrupt. They were weaponized by the Biden administration, by a bunch of thugs, including Obama people. And like nobody's probably ever been.
I mean, I can think of maybe two instances in this country where they've had it to somewhere that extent. I'm not even sure it was so much. They were put in jail for long periods of time.
They were accused of things that never happened. They had prosecutors that were radical lunatics and their lives were destroyed. And frankly, we had a lawsuit that against us on the -- you know, on the anti weaponization with a judge, a radical left judge ruled against it. And we'll see how that all works out. But a radical left judge ruled against it.
But these people, their lives have been destroyed. Their families have been destroyed. Many of them. And that's -- I'm not just talking about a few people, many of them.
I'm one of them. I look, they raided my house, Mar-a-Lago. That never happened. Nobody ever thought of anything like that. It turned out that it was a total fake.
Everything about it was fake and corrupt. We have all the information here. The good advantage to sitting here is we can get information that you wouldn't get by what we have and what we are going to be showing over the coming weeks and months.
You're not even going to believe -- some of you will believe it, like CNN will believe it because they knew what was going on. They're crooked as hell. CNN is a very corrupt organization, but with a corrupt reporter standing right there, never smiles.
You never see a young, beautiful woman, never smiles. I never see a smile off her face. I see her standing there with hatred in her eyes like she has hatred because we have borders, because we have a strong military, because we cut our taxes, because we do things that everybody wanted.
And then we win our election in a massive landslide. We win 87 percent of the counties in this country. Nobody's ever heard of a thing like that.
And that's because we're doing the right job. And we took a detour down to Iran because we can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon. Under any circumstances, we can't let that happen.
So the reporters should be happy. They shouldn't be unhappy. They should be very happy.
Because you know what we're doing? We're saving our country.
REPORTER: Yes, but two questions. One on Iran and then one on your birthday, which you will like.
The first one is, are you concerned at all that the IRGC could sabotage any potential deal?
And then the second one is, you have a birthday coming up. I won't say which number, but it's a big birthday. So you're going to blow out a candle. You're going to blow out some candles on a cake, hopefully.
What are your wishes that you'd like to see accomplished for the next year in your presidency?
TRUMP: Well, I'll go in your order. Anything can happen, you know, when you're dealing with Iran, but when you're dealing with other countries. But that's a very volatile part of the world, probably the most volatile part of the world. It's very -- the people are volatile, the leadership. You see what's going on.
We've gone through three teams of leadership. It's been a -- you know, we're military. There's never been a military like what we have. We could go another two, three weeks and just wipe everybody out.
I'd rather not do that. Very easy to do. They're ready to do it. They want to do it. They want to do it.
But if we can get something done in writing which will accomplish the same thing without killing everybody, I'd like to do that. Most of my people, I think, would like to do that. Some people wouldn't, but most of them would.
But we had to take a detour as far as wishes for -- and I'm very proud of that detour, you know. By the way, just to finish off on that, we had the strongest stock market in history, and I said we have no choice. We have to do it.
I knew it would affect it, but I was very happily surprised when I saw that today we hit another stock market high. I mean, we have the highest stock market in history with a military conflict going on or a war.
Some people call it a war. Some people call it a military. It's not a big thing for us. We have a great military.
It's not a big thing for us. But if I didn't do that -- I spoke to people like Peter, great financial people, Scott, Howard, and lots of others. I said, you know, we just hit the greatest stock market in history. Everyone's 401Ks are the highest they've ever been. Everybody is making a lot of money. Costs are coming down.
You know, we took over the highest cost and the highest inflation in the history of our country. Costs are coming down. Everything is good.
And I hate to tell you this, but we've got to take a little detour and go down to a place called the Islamic Republic of Iran. And we're going to have to stop them from having a nuclear weapon. That's what we've done.
And they've agreed to the -- by the way, they -- I mean, if they sign the agreement, they will have agreed to -- we will not have a nuclear weapon or bomb. We will not (AUDIO GAP) negotiation, but in the end, we got that.
Now, we got it if they sign the paper. In theory, they're pretty close to signing a paper. We signed the paper. In theory, they're pretty close to signing a paper.
We've actually gotten along with them very well. And you know what? You saw it for the last few nights. It takes two to tango. You understand that.
We hit them very hard on something else unrelated.
[16:20:02]
And so they were responding. But -- and not -- you know, not very strongly.
As far as birthday, as far as wishes, I want us to just -- you know, we have a phrase. I think it goes down. I would think in the history of our country, maybe the history of the world, it's the greatest slogan or phrase ever. Make America great again.
That's all I want. I want to make America great again. I think we've come a long way.
I think we're the most respected country in the world right now. By far the most respected. President Xi told me I was talking about.
He's a friend of mine. He's a good man. I hate to say it because the press goes and they say, oh, he called him a good man. He is a good man.
He's -- he's for China. I'm for the USA. You know, it's like one of those things. But we do very well now with China. When I came here, we didn't -- we're not doing well with China.
My first time when I inherited that, it was like what China was doing to us was incredible. I don't blame China. They took advantage of stupid people. Really stupid people.
So we're doing great. But the phrase, make America great again, that's all I want. Very simple phrase to think of. And I think it's the greatest in the history.
I would say that's probably the greatest phrase in the history of the world. Not only here. There's never been anything like it.
Make America great again. That's what I've done. And we've made it great.
In fact, in a way, I want to use it because I would never give it up. MAGA is too good. It's too good.
It really is the Republican Party. That's why we're doing so well. That's why we -- you know, if you look at the Republican Party from before I came until now, this is a much different party. It's a much bigger party.
We have many, many more people. And I think the thought -- the mind, the thought is much different than it was 10 years ago.
It's been -- it's amazing. A much more powerful party, a much different party, and a much more impactful party. Thank you very much.
REPORTER: Mr. President, I have two questions on Iran, sir.
TRUMP: Go ahead.
REPORTER: First, you said last week that the U.S. would go in and dig out the buried nuclear material and --
TRUMP: Yeah, with them.
REPORTER: With them?
TRUMP: Right. It's possible.
REPORTER: Did Iran actually agree to that?
TRUMP: Well, it depends on what day you're talking about. They did agree. And then sometimes they did -- they agreed. Well, that's what I'm saying. That's one of the things we talk about.
It's very overrated. I'm the one that overrated it. I thought -- to me, it was important. To other people, it's not important because those beautiful B-2 -- right here, the B-2 bombers, they obliterated.
You know, when CNN said maybe it wasn't obliteration, they knew it. I mean, before the pilots even came back home, before anybody saw the site. But then the Atomic Energy Commission went. They said it was obliterated.
That stuff is buried underneath a mountain and virtually collapsed. It's very, very hard to get it. One of the -- but nevertheless, I want to get it.
We're the only ones -- us and probably China are the only two countries that have the equipment where you can do that. So, yeah, I want to get it.
We have, at different times, had different -- I mean, they've changed their mind a couple of times.
But as it stands now, we will go in some time in the not-too-distant future. It's very safe down there. You know, we have -- with Space Force, we have cameras. Every angle of that -- of those three sites are being watched at all times. If anybody went there, we'll see exactly what's happening, and we'll blow it up a little bit further.
But as far as getting it, it's very -- the B-2 bombers did a job like nobody has ever seen. In the night, with no moon, dead darkness, at one o'clock in the morning or so, they dropped those bombs, the biggest -- just about as big a bomb as you can ever find. And it hit - it went down air chutes. It was hard to believe that they can do the technology.
It followed a beam right into the air chutes, right exploded. Very hard to get that material, but I still nevertheless want it. And I don't want to do it if we're in conflict. I don't want to put men in that kind of danger.
I remember Jimmy Carter had some bad problems in Iran with the hostages. I don't want to ever put our people in that kind of danger.
But when it's over, as of this moment, it's agreed that we will go in with them, we will get it, and we will destroy it. It will be destroyed.
REPORTER: Mr. President, my second question.
Is it possible to get to a deal with Iran, whether to go in and do that or to open up the Strait of Hormuz, without seeing an Israeli cessation of their hostilities in Lebanon?
TRUMP: I think it would. We're trying to separate it. I mean, look, it's a very different kind of a thing.
We actually spoke with Hezbollah for the first time ever. We didn't know they spoke. And they agreed yesterday they're not going to shoot. Israel is not going to shoot. We're just going to see.
But I'd like to separate it. I'd like to have a separate thing because it is separate. But Israel -- hey, look, they've been a great partner. Bibi Netanyahu has been, for me, a great partner.
For other people, not so good. For me, he's been very good. We were very effective, what we've done. And they needed us. They couldn't have done it without us, couldn't have even come close. And they needed us.
And they got us to help them with a real problem, because Iran was a real problem, a big problem, a worldwide problem, because they wouldn't have stopped with Israel. They would have blown up the Middle East. And you saw that by the rockets.
All those rockets that went to the five -- mostly, for the most part, the five countries outside of Israel, those rockets were (AUDIO GAP) they were going to blow up Israel, but they were going to blow up the Middle East. And I stopped it. And I'm very proud I stopped it.
And we also stopped it when I get -- when I term -- in the first term, when I terminated the Iran nuclear deal penned by Barack Hussein -- Barack Hussein Obama. It was one of the dumbest deals I've ever seen.
And this has no relation -- you know, I like these morons, these Dumocrats, D-U-M Dumocrats, that go on television and say, oh, well, this is just like the Obama deal.
This is the exact opposite. This is no path to a nuclear weapon. That was a absolute path to a nuclear weapon that you couldn't have done anything about. This is the exact opposite.
They gave billions and billions of dollars to Iran, including $1.7 billion, put into a Boeing 757, with the seats taken out because there wasn't enough room if you left the seats -- with $1.7 billion in cash, taken from the banks in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, and flown to Iran -- $1.7 -- in green cash, and then tens of billions of dollars given to Iran by our government.
Frankly, they picked the wrong country. But maybe we're going to be getting along with Iran. We're going to find out.
You know, there is a good possibility, I think, because without the bombing, that wouldn't have worked, without the blockade. The blockade is the most powerful thing. I think the blockade maybe has more impact than the bombing has.
But the blockade that we have -- the naval blockade is incredible. Not one ship has gotten through unless we wanted it to.
And people respect it a lot. And we'll see. But, you know, there's a chance if this really worked out, they could rebuild.
You know, it used to be a very, very good nation. You go back -- I have friends that used to -- old-timers. They used to go there and they used to do well.
They used to build in Iran. They built department houses and they built office buildings in Iran. Hard to believe, right? But there's a chance that maybe that comes back.
But whether it comes back or not, I think we have a very powerful deal that we're negotiating. The exact opposite as the Obama deal. The Obama deal was a disgrace.
It gave them a nuclear weapon. We do the exact thing. We -- under our deal, they will never, ever have a nuclear weapon.
One of the other things that happens -- and this is important, but there's nothing more important than taking away the capability of a nuclear weapon from Iran.
REPORTER: Mr. President --
TRUMP: Wait, but one of the other things that's important, and very important, is that immediately upon signing the Memorandum of Understanding, the Hormuz Strait will open. And it'll open up quickly.
And we've already had our minesweepers there. You know, we're sweeping, as you probably have heard.
And these are underwater minesweepers. They're great. Amazing technology. They're underwater because usually when you're looking for mines, that usually means you have some dangerous characters out there. That's why so we're underwater.
But we've swept mines and we've gotten most of them, we think. So -- but the Hormuz Strait will open immediately upon signing.
Now, that's subject to a couple of areas being cleaned out also of mines, which we don't think there are any. So it will happen very quickly. And well take the southern route anyway. But immediately upon signing, we open up the Hormuz Strait.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Just to clarify on what you said -- excuse me, Mr. President, just to clarify on what you were asked earlier, is the $1.8 billion DOJ fund dead or is it on hold?
TRUMP: It's -- I'd have to ask the lawyers, I don't know. I know one thing. The weaponization -- are you talking about the weaponization fund?
COLLINS: Yeah, what's your decision?
TRUMP: The weaponization fund, as far as I'm concerned, was a beautiful thing. It was something I was -- I didn't make it, but I was -- I heard that I thought that was the greatest thing because people like you have abused our people so badly.
The fake news like CNN, like "The New York Times" and like others, have abused our people. Wait a minute. Be quiet.
COLLINS: (INAUDIBLE)
TRUMP: Have abused our people so badly and you should be ashamed of yourself.
You used to be a conservative. She was a conservative from Alabama. Can you believe it? [16:30:00]
But CNN --
COLLINS: I'm still from Alabama.
TRUMP: -- in particular, CNN does such false reporting but now they have new ownership. So maybe it'll straighten it out I doubt it, but it's hard to straighten garbage out.
But CNN has abused and others have abused so badly people. These are people that are great people, that were destroyed. Their families have been destroyed. Many suicides, they committed suicide.
People that went there to with love -- they went there with love. You know, when I made that speech early in the day, tremendous crowd. I hate to say because they'll say, oh, I was wrong on the number. But I believe it's the largest crowd I've ever spoken to by twice. The biggest crowd I think, bigger than the inaugurations, bigger than anything and there was so much love and friendship, it was the most amazing thing. People were crying
They were like, wait a minute. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish.
And those people have been abused by you and by others and by the politicians by the Democrats and dumb people. They want to have open borders.
They want to have transgender mutilization of your children. They want to have men playing in women's sports. They want to have high taxes. They turned down -- you know, they fought us on the tax bill and they fought us because they want people to pay high taxes because they're crazy
There's something wrong with them. There's something wrong with you. It's a shame.
Yeah, go ahead.
REPORTER: Mr. President, thank you so much. On communism today, you have some stern words on communism.
TRUMP: I just wrote that. Did you like it? Did you think it was well- written?
REPORTER: Well, certainly very meaningful to a lot of Americans.
TRUMP: Well, I read it. Do you want to read it? Do you have it? You could read it. It's on Truth.
I just wrote it. I just felt I've seen what's going on with communism and I see this -- come to read it. I'd love to have you. Thank you.
REPORTER: You wrote that, quote, "Communists always do well with the voters, or as they would say, the people in the early years. But in the end, the country, state or city goes to hell. Great violence proceeds at levels never seen before, and the entity dissolves into death and destruction.
TRUMP: Well, you see it happening with New York. You see it happening with Los Angeles and, well, you see it happening with New York. You see it happening with Los Angeles and parts of California.
And it's so easy. You know, I'd be the greatest in the world. Nobody would be as good as me. I'd give away everything. I could be the greatest. I would sell them. You're going to get free rent. You're going to get free houses. You're going to get free food. You're going to get free everything.
But eventually that ends and it leads to death destruction and squalor 100 percent of the time.
When I watch New York and you know, I liked him very much. He stood right here and he's been in the office a couple of times, the mayor of New York. I think he's a very nice person.
But -- and I don't know -- he's a smart guy I don't understand why he thinks it's okay for all these companies that pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes a year to leave Because you're not going to have any tax base and you're going to end up in hunger and squalor and death and destruction. I would be better than him if I wanted to go with that route.
Ladies and gentlemen, you're no longer pay rent. You're no longer have to pay interest on your mortgage. In fact, I'll end your mortgage. I'm going to cut everything. You're no longer going to have to pay for food. I'm going to give you a grocery store, and im going to give you free food.
You're no longer going to have. You're going to have the greatest life ever. Follow me. You're going to have the greatest life.
And you know what? For a couple, a couple of years, that's such a powerful -- I would be the best ever at giving it. Nobody would ever be.
I had to sell free enterprise. Free enterprise is tougher to sell but that's what's made our country great and that's why it's great again now. If I didn't get elected, we wouldn't have a country. We really wouldn't have a country. This country would be finished.
But I see what's happening in Los Angeles. I see what's happening in New York where I -- look at Chicago. You have a stupid governor, dumps -- a dumb governor, a really dumb guy. No, well, he's a failure in his family, Pritzker.
I know the family, has partners in a deal with them. I made a lot of money. They made money. We made a good partnership, but he was like an outcast in the family. He's a slob and the mayor is a low I.Q. person.
I mean, it's a stupid person in Chicago. Chicago has a case that the real chance to become great again, there's a case, great again, if we were allowed to do what we did in Washington or Memphis.
You know, I was with the governor of Tennessee yesterday and he said I want to come in He came in to thank me. I said, for what? He said what you did for Memphis. Memphis, the crime is down about 72 percent and it's going -- he said it's like a different city.
Washington is even more so if we started a little bit earlier, we're Washington you walk down the streets and people feel safe here again. It's a safe city.
If I were -- oh by the way in Louisiana, what I've done there is unbelievable because the governor, Jeff Landry, called.
[16:35:07]
He said you got to help me with New Orleans. We have a tremendous crime problem.
And I sent in our really talented people, including national guardsmen, and they did an unbelievable -- they had the safest. They said they had the safest. We just ended about three weeks ago. They had the safest Mardi Gras they've ever had.
I could do that in Chicago. But you have to have the support of a governor. You can't have a slob that says, you know, we don't want it.
People get murdered and he says it's fine. They lost five or six people last week and they said that's fine. They're not going to lose five or six people.
And I would make Chicago so good and so safe. It's got potential. The longer it goes, the harder it is to fix.
And San Francisco, we could do such a good job. My friend said, please let the mayor, he's a liberal guy. Nice guy. I talked to him. He wants to make San Francisco good. And he's trying very hard.
I said, look, I can do it much faster than you. Please let me have a time. I mean, I spoke to the mayor and some very important people asked me to give him a chance because I'd like to see if he could do it And he's doing okay, but he -- I could do it much faster much better and we can remove -- don't forget 2 percent of your people create 90 percent of your crime That's a great number because 2 percent of the people you can take care of it was 90 percent of the people. That's so good.
But 2 percent in Washington, right here in D.C., we removed close to 5,000 hardline criminals, many came in through the Biden open border. We removed him from Washington, D.C. and it's one of the reasons that we're so safe now.
We have a great beautiful place. Again, the fountains are almost all open. You're going to have the reflecting pool opened within hours. I mean, literally, within hours. The water starts pouring in tonight. It's going to be beautiful. You haven't seen that since 1922. Think of that, 1922 it hasn't
worked, never worked. From the day they built it, it never worked. But you're going to see that.
And people are all thanking me because Washington is beautiful again. The parks are open. We changed the grass, you know grass has a life also. Like people, grass has a life and that grass hasn't been changed in 70, 80 years. It died many times over.
We have beautiful grass, beautiful parks, beautiful everything. We don't have people living on it and Washington, D.C. In a matter of 14 months, Washington, D.C. is like a different place. If people are coming in, you know, you -- the restaurants were all going out of business as you know, because you use the restaurants and now the restaurants are hot as a -- in fact, if anything, we don't have enough restaurant space. They're all reopening.
It's -- it's become vibrant. It's a beautiful thing to watch and I am honored that I've been able to do it to our nation's capital.
Thank you very much, everybody.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, thank you, thank you, press. Thank you, press. Thank you, press. Thank you, press. Thank you, press. Thank you guys.
HUNT: All right You have been listening to President Donald Trump taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office.
Just to note, our colleague Kaitlan Collins was in there with our colleague Kit Maher as he had some words about this network. Kaitlan did note that she is still from Alabama. Well, the president seemed to suggest that she no longer was.
We appreciate their professionalism.
To the content of what the president said about his weaponization fund, he was asked directly is the weaponization fund on hold or is it dead? And he said this, quote, "I'd have to ask the lawyers. I don't know."
So that was the conversation we were having before we started listening to what the president had to say.
Congressman Kinzinger, what was your reaction to the president?
KINZINGER: I mean, he clearly wants it to still exist and he doesn't want to answer that question And I think if he just said yeah, I could still be on that would create a whole bunch of problems. They're I think looking for any ways to do it, you know?
But he -- he also had part of it where he was just talking about the victimization of the January 6th perpetrators. And I'm sorry, but he is so obsessed with 2020. He's obsessed with January 6.
I was ready to move on after he got reelected. He's the one that keeps returning to it and he talks about how some of these people took their lives and everything which, of course, we know -- that's awful. But so did members of the police force.
HUNT: I'm just going to say, law enforcement officers --
KINZINGER: I was in the capital as it was destroyed by this mob and he keeps defending them and I don't understand it.
HUNT: And I think, Zolan, and I mean that -- that was -- you know, that's the thing certainly that I kept coming back to him and I was at the complex that day, too, that they refused to rule out that people who were convicted of beating cops would have access to this fund.
[16:40:03]
I mean, that was still on the table.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Right.
HUNT: And that's not obviously what many Republicans on Capitol Hill are saying about why they're opposing it necessarily. Some of them are saying a version of it. But I think it's worth remembering that those cops were there to protect those members of Congress.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Yes, yes. And the White House and the administration still has not ruled out that taxpayer money could go to some of those people that rioted that day and assaulted police officers, as you're noting.
You also do have January 6 rioters who are going on the record hoping that this fund stays alive that it keeps in existence and that they do get paid here. So this is very much a part of sort of the tension and the anxiety that that you have, you know, elected officials feeling about this fund. Absolutely.
HUNT: Well, and Enrique Tarrio who is, of course, convicted of seditious conspiracy told PBS that "I believe even if this fund is killed in courts or at the congressional level, the president will find a way. There are other options."
I mean, Mike Dubke, what's the president kind of doing here? Because he also said that It wasn't him who did the fund essentially that other people did it for him. He said I didn't do it, but he said, "I love it." That was the first thing out of his mouth at the top of this news conference. I mean, what's going --
DUBKE: Look, I think he's distancing himself -- he's not distancing himself away from the thought of the fund. There is a outside of January 6, you can make the argument that the both in Republican and Democratic administrations the government has been weaponized against -- has been weaponized against citizens, creates a chilling effect when a government agency investigates someone for instance or leaks an IRS -- their IRS tax returns, as another instance.
So outside of January 6, you can make an argument --
HUNT: My understanding is that person is held accountable, the person who leaked Trump's tax returns.
DUBKE: I'm talking about -- I'm not just talking about Trump, I'm talking about multiple people and organizations that the government both in the Biden administration and others have gone after. So let's just set that aside for a second.
What I think the president was doing right now I think he realizes I think his administration has told him you're going to lose this vote on Capitol Hill. And so he's creating a situation in which I'm -- you know, I'm -- I'm -- I love the fun. I'm great about it but if it goes away, you know, that's just what is going to happen.
My bigger question is if they if they pass this bill on border security and the language is in there about getting rid of this anti- weaponization fund, does he veto the bill because he loves it so much? I don't think so, but that's a -- that's an open question for people to talk about.
ELROD: Look, I mean Kasie did I understand that we've had funds that there have been other funds and administrations But not to reward people who stormed the Capitol on January 6, which is exactly what this is.
DUBKE: Which is why I said outside of January 6.
ELROD: Which is why the American people are so turned off by Donald Trump why he's failing with independence why he's under 40 percent consistently.
HUNT: Yeah I think it's worth noting that you know Republicans who otherwise have really struggled to stand up to the president of their own party start to speak out publicly It's really about the political realities that are surrounding them, which is, you know, they're reflecting the political unpopularity of the idea. It wasn't just you know, something they thought of all by themselves.
All right. Coming up here in THE ARENA, the California cliffhangers, reality star Spencer Pratt still in the race for L.A. mayor, at least for now. Plus, could a Republican be elected governor in the biggest and bluest state in the country. One primary candidate already looking ahead to November.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE HILTON (R), CANDIDATE FOR CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR: Democrats, after 16 years of total control of everything in California, all the statewide offices, both chambers in this legislature, every big city, every big county, the state supreme court with a 6-1 Democrat majority, they've gotten used to power. I think they've got a little bit arrogant and they assume that they're going to be in power forever.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:48:16]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILTON: Change is coming to California and it's long overdue.
XAVIER BECERRA (D), CANDIDATE FOR CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR: I sued Trump more than a hundred and twenty times before and I won and I won and I won. And Anyone who wants to come at California will have to go through me.
TOM STEYER (D), CANDIDATE FOR CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR: Together, we put the corporations on notice and now, we just have to be patient.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Two of the three men that you saw right there are most likely going to be on November's ballot for California governor. Now, we don't know which two yet because California notoriously takes forever to count votes. Biden's former health secretary, Xavier Becerra, former Fox News host Steve Hilton, and billionaire Tom Steyer battling it out for the top two slots with Becerra and Hilton currently emerging as frontrunners.
In the state's largest city another fascinating primary race still too close to call. The current Los Angeles mayor, Karen Bass, will advance to the November runoff, but it's still unclear whether she'll face progressive candidate Nithya Raman or Republican Spencer Pratt. You recognize him from reality TV. He is currently leading Raman by about eight points.
Pratt's surprise surge was fueled by his celebrity and by his viral videos. He shook up the race by tapping into very real frustration among voters about the city's management. Some of them sharing this about their vote.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEN MORRIS, L.A. VOTER: I voted for Nithya Raman thinking that maybe some new leadership might be good for the future.
THOMAS CONTRERAS, L.A. MAYOR: I'm personally not that biggest fan of Mayor Bass. No more TV stars, please. No more reality stars.
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You as a Democrat are voting for Spencer Pratt.
[16:50:00]
GILBERT, L.A. VOTER: Yes, sir.
MICHAELSON: Why is that?
GILBERT: I do like his approach for the homelessness.
SHEILA FOLEY, L.A. VOTER: I'm just hoping it ain't Karen. She clearly doesn't care about nobody.
MICHAELSON: Why voting for Spencer Pratt?
JONATHAN ORTIZ, L.A. VOTER: He has new views.
ADAM VENRICK, L.A. VOTER: Anyone that'll keep Spencer Pratt's fascist ass out of office.
JANE, L.A. VOTER: I guess I'm going to stick with Karen Bass.
DARIAN HATCHER, L.A. VOTER: I just want to see a change. That's all.
KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: But not Spencer Pratt kind of change?
HATCHER: Not the -- not the reality TV star never held a job kind of change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Those types of interviews are called man on the street and they always produce some gems.
Joining our panel here in THE ARENA, CNN chief political analyst, former senior advisor to President Obama, David Axelrod.
David, I'm sure you have seen many an MOS as we call them here in the business, about candidates you've worked with.
What stood out to you?
DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: It's the best, yeah.
HUNT: For sure. I won't share the abbreviation that that was shared with me early in my career. It could stand for a number of different things.
But, David, what did you what stood out to you about the primaries because we saw them across the map here, right? Obviously, California, a big test of whether or not one party leadership frankly is effective. But when we think about what the landscape is going to look like in November where the country is going writ large, I know you had been watching some of the races in Iowa in particular. Why?
AXELROD: Yes Yeah, I think California had the sizzle but Iowa had the beef because I think those races are more likely to impact on the entire country.
For the first time in a very long time, I think Iowa is going to be a very competitive state. I worked in two presidential races when we won. I've worked for Democrat governors who won in Iowa.
But for the past decade or more, it's been a Republican stronghold Trump won by 13 points. I think this is -- things are changing there and they're changing because of Donald Trump and let me say parenthetically because I'd hate myself if I didn't say it -- I've been in and around journalism all my life and I worked with journalists when I was in the White House, didn't always love the questions I was asked but understood why they were being asked.
And I've never met a more assiduous professional and honorable journalist than Kaitlan Collins and the reason she irritates the president is because she asks the hard questions that need to be asked and there are a lot of hard questions that Americans are asking right now, particularly about the economy. And Iowa, more than any state, has felt the lash of his tariffs, the impact of the war. It has decimated the farm economy there.
And so you see a president who won by 13 points who is now underwater in that state. And I think that showed up a little bit yesterday when his chosen candidate for governor lost a primary, which has not happened anywhere. And I think you see it in the polling about these races.
Democrats by the way, I think turnout among Democrats and Republicans was roughly even in Iowa yesterday which tells you something more about this. Democrats nominated Josh Turek as their candidate for the Senate there. I think he has the best chance to win for that open seat and I will he comes from a part of the state. His district was won by Trump twice, his state Senate district. He has a good personal story heroic personal story of overcoming life in a wheelchair because of spina bifida.
And he's running against a very good candidate Ashley Hinson, who's a congresswoman, but she has lashed herself to Trump in a way that I think is not going to help. It helped her avoid a primary, a big primary fight, but Trump is the wind in the sail of Republicans and primaries and he's an anchor in general elections and that will be true in Iowa.
The Democrats also have a candidate for governor Rob Sand, the state auditor who I think has a -- I would favor him in that race I think he will win that race and there are several congressional districts, two, perhaps three, where Democrats will have a great chance to take seats there?
And I think that it's all about Trump. Midterm elections are about the man in the White House and I still have tire tracks on my rear end from 2010. I think Adam Kinzinger rode over me to his seat in Congress back in -- back in 2010. So I know what waves are like.
I think everything you see points to a wave. And by the way, the president's sitting there as he did today insisting how good the economy is only adds momentum to that wave.
HUNT: Congressman, your name was invoked.
[16:55:00]
KINZINGER: Yeah. No, I agree. I got a lot of mileage going after, you know, David Axelrod here. So thank you for my election, David.
(LAUGHTER) AXELROD: Yeah, you owe a dinner.
KINZINGER: I do.
HUNT: David, when you -- when you look at kind of what you laid out there very compelling. I mean, I actually remember in 2012 campaigning with Mitt Romney when he was running against Barack Obama, they felt like they needed to campaign in Iowa, right? It was considered competitive then and obviously to your point that has sort of since fallen off.
We've seen sort of time and time again that there has been nothing that will really cleave President Trump from his base of voters and some of his voters -- some of his strongest core voters are farmers in rural America. I mean, do you think that this is at the point where? Considering -- I mean, we hear some -- in sometimes in passing, but I feel like we don't focus on it enough like fertilizer prices in particular.
I mean some of these places that were most staunchly for the president are getting crushed in a way that you know, frankly, the media that is based on the coasts I think can miss sometimes.
AXELROD: Yeah, I -- absolutely. And you know, John King's done some wonderful reporting, Jeff Zeleny, too, out in states like Iowa and they've reported and they've heard from people who said, you know, we elected him because we believed he was going to help make our lives better and help the economy.
We didn't elect him to go to war. We didn't know -- we didn't expect these tariffs and we're disappointed now.
He does have a committed base and let's be clear about that The question is how large is it? And how are on -- how many people are actually going to come out and vote and that's why the turnout issue is important. Every bit of data and research suggests that Democrats are far more enthusiastic than Republicans.
And by the way, the reason I didn't focus on the California race was because I think the outcome is kind of predictable. Even if you end up with Hilton and you end up with Pratt, I think you're going to see Democrats win in a city that's overwhelmingly Democratic and they're going to win in a state that's overwhelmingly Democratic because people are very incensed about the man in the White House and that's why you hear Becerra invoking Trump's name the way he did.
Steve Hilton was endorsed by Trump and that's one of the reasons he may be in the runoff. But as I said, it was the wind in his sails in the primary. It'll be an anchor in the general.
HUNT: Yeah. Adrianne Elrod, I mean, you have worked on a number of recent campaigns. What did you see in last night's results that stood out to you?
ELROD: Well, a couple of things. I mean, first of all, I think obviously, Axelrod is exactly right. I mean, we were sort of going back and forth within the among Democrats for governor in California. A lot of people were -- you know, hovering around nine or 10 percent, but as does all usually happen, somebody prevailed and that witness case with Xavier Becerra.
And even though Hilton is also amassed a number of votes, I do think it's still going to be a Democrat who won -- win that seat.
Also, Kasie, in full disclosure, I was working for Zach Wahls's campaign And an observation that I had last night look, I think Josh Turek is a very strong candidate.
HUNT: You talk about the Iowa Senate Democratic primary, just to make sure that -- yeah, for sure.
ELROD: Yeah, sorry. I'm jumping around here.
HUNT: No, all good.
ELROD: But Vote Vets came in which a lot of people thought was a Schumer proxy PAC, including us, with a ten and a half million dollar buy in support of Josh Turek and that's just something that Zach Wahls could not compete with and it's just another example of dark money coming in, even in the Democratic primary and propping up somebody who, you know, was really running even with that before that happened.
HUNT: Do you disagree with David's assertion that Turek is the most electable against Hinson in the fall?
ELROD: I mean, I think Zack and Turek would have both been very formidable against her, but we just had a total disadvantage because of Vote Vets.
HUNT: David Axelrod, when you look at sort of the landscape broadly, one sort of feature that we are seeing is an increasing pressure to accept flawed candidates, perhaps, right? Once they clear a primary hurdle. And one thing that you and I haven't had a chance to talk about on air that I'm curious about your take on is Platner in Maine, and we're running out of time here. But do you think that he ultimately is going to be electable there?
AXELROD: I don't know. Look, Kasie, he's obviously connected with people there. He was 30 points ahead against Governor Mills, you know, who had been a popular governor in the primary and she had to drop out.
The question is whether some of these issues that have raised that have been raised about him, whether he'll satisfy people with his answers, he's traveling all over that state. The second question is, are there other shoes to drop?
But I want to make one point about this. There are questions about personal character here, and they're real, and they take them seriously. People should take them seriously.
There's also a question in this election in Maine about public character and about whether you are accommodating a system that conspires against everyday people. As they believe Susan Collins has, as a long term incumbent, or whether you'll challenge it. And that's another element of this.
HUNT: Fair enough. Don't mean to cut you off, but Jake Tapper will have all of our heads if I don't. So thank you very much. Really appreciate it.
"THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.
