Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

U.S. Official: "Substantial Progress" Toward Iran Deal; Deadline Day For Kennedy Center To Remove Trump's Name; Trump Renews Baseless Claims Of "Rigged" Elections; Elon Musk Becomes World's First Trillionaire. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired June 12, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:01]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A lot of people willing to bet on Elon Musk.

Hadas Gold, thank you so much for that update.

Thank you so much for sharing your afternoon with us.

"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.

(MUSIC)

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

As we come on the air, an agreement between the United States and Iran appears closer than ever. But nothing is certain, nothing is final, and major questions do remain.

In private and in public, both Iranian and American officials sound optimistic. President Donald Trump himself even reposting a tweet from Iran's foreign minister in which he said that a, quote, "Memorandum of understanding has never been closer," end quote.

As to just what is in this deal, one of our sources, a senior Trump administration official, claims Iran has agreed to all of the following points. One, that Iran's nuclear material will be destroyed and removed. Two, that Iran's nuclear program will be dismantled. Three, that none of Iran's money will be released until they meet certain milestones. Four, that the Strait of Hormuz will be opened. And five, that Iran will no longer fund terrorist groups.

That's the White House's view. Iranian media outlets, though, reporting different terms including what they call war reparations, as well as the immediate release of billions in frozen assets.

The vice president, J.D. Vance, pushed back on that, claiming, quote, "The Iranians are not receiving any cash and no funds are being released for simply signing a deal or attending a meeting," end quote.

All right. Let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panels here, along with CNN White House correspondent Alayna Treene, and CNN national security correspondent Natasha Bertrand. Alayna, you were on this call with a senior administration official

walking through this deal. What are you hearing from there?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, look, I spoke or -- I heard from them, but I also spoke with a number of other senior officials today, Kasie, all to say it is very clear that there's a ton of momentum toward finalizing this deal, and their hope really is to get this signed potentially and most likely as of now in Geneva in the next couple of days. But of course, as we have reported throughout this entire ceasefire process, nothing is done until you actually see these signatures on paper.

But just to walk through a little bit more of what you laid out, it was, you know, all the officials agreeing that the key components of this memorandum of understanding are going to be one, that they will, this commitment to not having a nuclear weapon and dismantling their nuclear program. I think the biggest provision around all of that is what they have said would happen with the highly enriched uranium still in Iran's possession.

I remind you and our viewers, that has been really one of the most crucial sticking points throughout all of this, with the officials saying that they are going to go in, the U.S. will be allowed to go in and not only retrieve it, but then destroy it on site and take it out of the country. That is one of these.

Another one, of course, being what is going to happen with monetary compensation. That has also been a crucial sticking point, particularly in the final days of these negotiations about Iran really wanting to get some of these funds unfrozen up front. The U.S. and this official trying to make clear that is only going to happen. Iran will not get financial compensation from the U.S. until they show that they are complying with these other points in this agreement.

Another very important thing I should note is that if this MOU is signed, there is a provision within it that would trigger a 60-day negotiating period for highly technical talks. That is essentially the specifics of how they are going to implement each of these different key points. And also, I think one of the big questions is the enforcement mechanism for all of this. Much of that is still to be negotiated and decided down the line, but of any sort of agreement at this point with this MOU would be a major victory for all sides.

I do also want to share what the Pakistani prime minister had shared on social media today. He said that they can confirm a final agreed- upon text of the peace deal has been reached and that Pakistan is working closely with both sides to finalize this. That's obviously important because you were hearing this from one of the key mediators throughout this entire process.

All to say, a lot of optimism here. Still a little work needs to be done, but they are arguing they're closer I have been.

HUNT: Right.

So, of course, as this all unfolds, Natasha, you and Zach Cohen, our colleague, have some new exclusive reporting on a way that this war might have unfolded but didn't, reporting on a plan to send ground troops into Iran that was ultimately paused. I mean, what have you learned?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Kasie, so this operation actually came much closer to being greenlit than I think was previously understood, and one anecdote that kind of underscores that is the fact that General Dan Caine, who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he rushed back from Europe, where he was attending a very high-level NATO meeting there, to Tampa, to U.S. Central Command headquarters on extremely short notice in order to be briefed in person on these plans that had been developed for the U.S. military to go in and to seize forcibly that highly enriched uranium that has been so critical to the Trump administration's objectives here, because that is the material, of course, that you need to produce a nuclear weapon.

[16:05:29]

And so prior to this deal kind of coming together, and we'll see, of course, whether it's actually finalized, the U.S. military was seriously considering and about to move forward with this plan for potentially hundreds if not thousands of U.S. troops to essentially invade Iran, go to these nuclear sites, find this nuclear material which is buried deep underground across several sites inside Iran at the nuclear facilities. and extract it without trying to not incur too many casualties.

But of course, that was the main problem. We are told that President Trump saw with this entire operation is that it would likely cause a high, high number of American troops to be killed or wounded.

On top of that, it would likely prolong the war, given Iran's likelihood of retaliation. plunging the global economy further into turmoil. And these are all just risks that the president wasn't willing to take at that point. So while this is very much a plan that is in the books, it is still very much on the table if things do fall apart. It is also extremely risky and extremely, of course, high stakes. And it's something that the president wasn't sure that the American people would ultimately support.

HUNT: And now, of course, we find ourselves here instead.

Natasha Bertrand, Alayna Treene, thank you both very much for that reporting.

My panel's here in THE ARENA. CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams; managing editor at "Cook Political Report", Carrie Dann; Democratic strategist and former adviser to the Biden and Harris presidential campaigns, Adrienne Elrod; and former Trump White House communications director, Mike Dubke.

We're also joined by former Middle East negotiator at the State Department, Aaron David Miller.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here. Aaron, let me start with you just kind of on the big picture here,

because I think the question I keep coming back to is how what this deal would -- how is this any different than the way things were back in January before any of this started, if in fact this goes through?

AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR: I mean, first of all, it's all about the text. We can speculate all day long, but I'm reminded of what Samuel Goldwyn, the great Hollywood mogul, said that an oral agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on.

The text will be important. It's a memorandum of understanding, but this could go sideways in so many different ways, Kasie.

The broader point of thing is clear. This is a narrow deal, to open the straits gradually, ease the blockade gradually. It'll be not the end of the war, hopefully it will, but it'll be a cessation of hostilities. And every issue, highly enriched uranium, what to do about Iran's centrifuges, sanctions relief, unfrozen assets, mutual security guarantees, everything of substance. And each of these points contains a universe of detail.

And if you get to that point, we're talking not weeks, we're talking months of negotiations, and it's going to be literally a combination of root canals and migraine headaches for the American negotiators who are involved in this thing. At the end of the day, I think no matter how the administration wants to spin a win --

HUNT: Yeah.

MILLER: -- this has been a significant strategic victory for the Iranian regime, brutal, authoritarian, repressive Nonetheless, let's call it the way it is. It's been a victory for the Iranians.

HUNT: Mike Dubke, let me give that one to you because, I mean, look, most Republicans would say, the president did this, that we had bombed their sites at Isfahan earlier. We took out considerable military capability they had, drones and missiles, et cetera, preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon being the top line thing.

However, this deal does seem to be a situation where we've learned that the Iranians can, in fact, really impact global shipping if they want to. We're going to have to basically -- I mean, the administration saying we're not going to pay the money. The Iranians are saying they're going to be paid money to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

How are we better off from a national security perspective? Are we?

MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, first, it's really hard to follow that rosy picture that just got painted. I think I think there's two -- there's really two -- there's really two things to look at here one of which is the what's the domestic -- what's the domestic outcome here and I think any type of deal even with all of the restrictions and all the long-term avenues that need to be negotiated the I's dotted and T's crossed, I think having a pathway forward where oil prices can come down, inflation can come down is going to be vital to the president and the Republicans in the midterm elections.

[16:10:04]

On the -- to your broader question on the international side, I think we have been in a world of uncertainty since -- since the invasion of Israel has created this mess in the Middle East and maybe this is a chapter that is closing towards a close there, but it's messy. The Middle East has always been messy. I don't know if we're going to get anywhere better, but I think this was, in the president's view, this was a necessary step that he took.

HUNT: So speaking of the fact that the Middle East has always been messy, we -- since it's Friday, a little history on Fridays, we were looking back at what George W. Bush was dealing with 20 years ago, and 20 years ago, he was reflecting on what the Middle East might look like 20 years hence. Well, guess what? Here we are 20 years later in 2026.

Let's just flashback and watch that because it is a little head spinning in many ways. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: It is conceivable 20 years from now, people would look back. on this period of time in the midst of a world in which radicalism and extremism was prevalent, in which allies such as Israel were surrounded by incredibly hostile forces, in which Iran had a nuclear weapon, in which governments were in control of these radicals who then cut off oil supplies to the West.

That's the scenario that'll happen if we withdraw before we achieve our objectives. People will look back and say, what happened to them in the year 2006? How come they couldn't see the threat? I see the threat. That is why we have got a strategy for victory in Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Of course, the then president was making a case for his war in Iraq, which would continue to stretch on. But Elliot Williams, I mean, it is. It's remarkable the things that he is listing off --

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah.

HUNT: -- when you think about where we are today and the things that we are listing off almost every day when we're talking about these issues.

WILLIAMS: It's largely the same things. And what's interesting, he's looking --

HUNT: Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.

WILLIAMS: Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. I was noting them right here, which ones -- when I did not have a check by his Iran weapon. So, good on us there.

Now, he's talking about 20 weeks in the future. I remember -- and this is the problem here -- President Trump back in February we said this would be four weeks. And if not four, then six weeks.

And I just guess the question is certainly we might have the makings of a framework right now, but certainly I, as an outside observer, and I'm sure many people around the country are just waiting for -- one, when is this going to end? But also, two, what is the straight answer here?

And it's just not clear to me that we can even trust or believe what we're hearing coming out of the White House because these deadlines keep shifting, even in the span of a matter of weeks.

HUNTT: Yeah, well, and, Carrie Dann, the idea that any of this, even if this is already signed and we don't know it yet, the timeline to the midterm elections, the timeline for inflation coming down, not a situation that necessarily is going to make Republicans trying to hang onto their seats any happier.

CARRIE DANN, MANAGING EDITOR, COOK POLITICAL REPORT: Oh, absolutely. You can talk to cogent, realistic Republican strategists who will say there is a reasonable, achievable path to Republicans holding the House, and they are sane people, and that argument always begins with gas prices coming down and a conclusion to the war.

And even if the conclusion to the war is sort of this in-between war and peace, this gray area, the idea that gas prices will still be high and also we always talk about gas prices because they're right in front of our faces fertilizer prices is a major reason that we're talking about Iowa Senate being on the Senate map. Republicans urgently need to get those prices down if they have a prayer of maintaining control of the United States House, which is a top priority of the president.

HUNT: So since we're on a little historical kick here, we also can take a look back. And this, I think, underscores, as this administration is trying to scramble this memo together, the president continues to go and say -- I mean, he's been saying for weeks now we're on the verge of a deal. This is, in some ways, a tale as old as time, at least in modern history since 1979.

This was President Obama in 2015 talking about some of these -- you guessed it -- same issues we're talking about today. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: I strongly believe that our national security interest now depends upon preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which means that without a diplomatic resolution, either I or a future U.S. president would face a decision about whether or not to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon or whether to use our military to stop it.

[16:15:01] Put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: It's worth noting that he was talking about the JCPOA, which is how we shorthanded the deal that they eventually struck with the Iranians that, Adrienne, President Trump ripped up in his first term.

ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yep.

HUNT: How are we in a different place than we were then?

ELROD: We're not. I think we're in a far worse place. And I mean, Kasie, you certainly remember this when President Obama and his team of advisors negotiated the JCPOA. It was a very tenuous process. It took a long time because there's so much at stake, and it's so difficult, as we're seeing now, and Trump is experiencing it in real life. It is so hard to negotiate with the Iranian regime.

But the deal was struck. And now I think, look, I mean, Trump is looking, he's so desperate for an off-ramp. I think he is probably regretting making the decision that he did because you're seeing him become more unhinged than normal.

He's freaking out about gas prices. He knows he's gong to have, to Carrie's point, a very unsuccessful midterm for his party if gas prices are still as high as they are.

So bottom line is, I hope we're not in the situation where we are 10 years from now, but looking back at history, it feels like the more things change, the more things may stay the same.

HUNT: The more they might stay the same.

Aaron, I want to give you the last word here. I know you worked under Colin Powell at one point as part of a very long tenure at the State Department. I mean, how do you see where we are now as being different from -- I mean, in so many ways I think we've just shown that the challenges have remained the same for decades.

MILLER: Right. Look, I worked for Rs and Ds. I voted for Rs and Ds. The fact is, the Middle East is a place where American ideas on war- making and peacemaking, most every administration I work, with the possible exception of Bush 41, is a place where American ideas on war- making and peacemaking go to die.

And if Donald Trump will not be the last president to get drawn into this region, I'm reminded of the Eagles' great iconic song, "Hotel California". You can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave.

We have adversaries, we have allies, we have interests there, and we're stuck and trapped in a broken, angry, and dysfunctional region.

HUNT: Aaron David Taylor -- MILLER: Just got to make sure we're smart.

HUNT: Yeah.

MILLER: Try not to make it worse.

HUNT: Sorry, you cut out there for a second as you were finishing your thought.

Aaron David Miller, very on brand with the Eagles reference, I got to tell you. The rest of the panel is going to stand by. Thank you very much, sir.

Coming up in THE ARENA, two significant rulings against the president today. One judge saying Donald Trump's name has to come off the Kennedy Center's building by today. Another judge saying she doesn't believe the Justice Department when they say the anti-weaponization fund is dead and is giving the DOJ a deadline to put it in writing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:22:14]

HUNT: All right, welcome back. This is the Kennedy Center today here in Washington. You can see scaffolding and workers there as we wait to see when or even if they remove President Trump's name. A federal judge refused to delay today's deadline for his name to be taken off the building.

Another federal judge also delivered a blow to the administration today as she said she doesn't believe that President Trump's plan for his anti-weaponization fund is fully dead and issued an order indefinitely blocking the proposal. She's given the administration a week to put it in writing, something that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress he wouldn't do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would both of you now sign and release documents reversing the DOJ's position on the fund?

TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: I'm not -- we're not moving forward with the fund.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And we hope to see this in writing.

BLANCHE: Yeah. I mean, I think there'll be a transcript of what I say here, so that will be in writing.

(ENDV VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Okay. Joining us now in THE ARENA, CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz. She was at the hearing this morning.

We're also joined by CNN senior law enforcement analyst, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. Katelyn, let me start with you. What did the judge say?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, she pointed out in that clip of the acting attorney general, she talked about that and said he was not under oath, correct? And also, that there hasn't been anything that the Justice Department has said about why they won't put in writing the fact that they are stopping this fund.

And so, the message loud and clear in court from Judge Leonie Brinkema in the federal court in Alexandria this morning, it was that she just doesn't believe that the Justice Department says it's not going to try and make this fund that Donald Trump still wants happen in some way, in some way, shape, or form, even if it's not exactly the anti- weaponization fund that was already outlined of $1.8. billion of taxpayer money.

Judge Brinkema, she had some pretty strong statements in court, too, to the Justice Department attorney saying that the record just isn't there. The evidence actually shows that the fund could, quote, "rear its head in some other way".

She also said that actually, perhaps, it sounds like it still could happen, and she pointed out that Blanche has been unwilling to swear to statements before Congress. And Donald Trump, the president, has talked about how important this fund is to him, how he feels it should go into effect. And then she said when the president of the United States, he says he's going to be disappointed if something doesn't happen, that's a pretty good indicator that there's going to be some incentive or motive to make it happen.

So the Justice Department's saying the fund's not moving forward.

[16:25:02]

Judge Brinkema clearly I don't trust that. You have to tell me in writing it's dead. And also, just to underline that, to make sure it doesn't happen, Judge Brinkema put in a court order saying there is no anti-weaponization fund in any shape or form going forward.

HUNT: Andy McCabe, I mean, is there any reason to trust? I mean, do you trust that this fund is dead based on what the administration and the leadership of DOJ have been willing to say or not say?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: No. No, I probably wouldn't trust it if they had said more, but they haven't said very much, as Katelyn very capably summarized.

Let's -- let's not -- let's not forget, this is a legal matter. And as the judge and Todd Blanche well know, the way we resolve assurances, promises, contracts, litigate things, particularly in litigation, is we confirm them in writing. We don't -- we don't rely on people's offhanded statements and unsworn testimony. You put it in writing, representatives of the parties sign it, and then it gets filed on the court docket. And that is what she is insisting on here. It is another indication, I'm sad to say, that of the ever expanding

loss of the presumption of regularity that the department used to enjoy in federal courts and does not to a large extent anymore because of the many misrepresentations government lawyers have made in courts across this country.

But Mr. Blanche is suffering from that now. And I should say his comments about it are kind of too cute by half. When asked, will you put it in writing, he just kind of pivots away from addressing that point. He has never come out and said, this is over, it will never come back in any form.

And that is what the judge is forcing him to do here. And I think it's a good move. Let's also remember that the filings and the representations and what happened behind the scenes in this case is currently under investigation in Florida by the judge who this was in front of for possible fraud committed by the government in the way this, quote/unquote, "settlement", which is not really a settlement, was finally arrived at.

So, yeah. There's a lot of reasons not to take them at their word here.

HUNT: And, I mean, Andy, part of this, too, is any form, right? You use that phrase, this fund is specific. There seems to be pressure from the president to just figure out how to compensate to pay people, perhaps those who went to the Capitol on his behalf on January 6, no?

MCCABE: Absolutely. I mean, let's remember, this president communicates in many different ways, even to his own subordinates, be that the attorney general or anyone else, and he has said publicly in interviews that he thinks this is an after Mr. Blanche said it would not go forward. The president has said he thinks it's a great idea and that he thinks it should happen.

And that is not just a comment in an interview. That is a direct signal to the people involved that that's what he wants to happen. And there are many ways that DOJ could try to reconfigure a fund, maybe not this one, maybe a fund that is essentially funded in a different way, maybe from settlements of other lawsuits, things like that, that could be redirected towards the January 6 convicts, former convicts, I guess I should say, now pardoned individuals, or anyone else the president desires.

So there are many reasons to think that this -- this idea could rear its ugly head once again.

POLANTZ: And, Kasie, can I -- can I even add to that? One of the things that's hanging over the Justice Department right now, and Blanche specifically, is that he is facing a confirmation proceeding, possibly somewhere in the next couple of weeks.

One of the things that was really odd in these court proceedings over this fund, both on Wednesday and today, the Justice Department had two cracks at the apple to say, that there could be or there was -- they were asked whether there would be a reason why Trump himself and the IRS haven't put in writing changing the settlement in Florida.

And both times, Justice Department said, I don't know. They could have said something on Wednesday. They also didn't have an answer today.

HUNT: All right. Katelyn Polantz, Andrew McCabe, thank you both very much for that.

Our panel is back.

Elliot Williams, how hard is it to put something in writing? My goodness.

WILLIAMS: It's not hard to put something in writing. And, you know, it's -- our legal system does not rely -- Andrew touched on this a little bit -- on hunches and vibes and insinuations. And if something, particularly after an order from a judge, if something's not going to happen, say it's not going to happen.

You know, Andrew, who's also a smart attorney here, used a complicated legal term that's very, very important here. It's this idea of the presumption of regularity, which is this idea that baked into our laws the idea that judges trust the government, that they trust -- and the law says this, judges trust things that prosecutors come into court and say reflexively and believe that they operate in good faith and deal fairly with courts.

[16:30:05]

They have lost that across the country. Judges are increasingly just not believing the assertions that are being made in court by federal prosecutors. And it's a great example of the deputy attorney general of the United States making a claim that a federal judge is simply not believing and it's not some woke left-wing judge. This is happening across the country with Trump appointed judges as well. They simply do not believe the words the Justice Department saying and aren't able to back up with their legal filings.

So, yes, if this fund is done, put it on paper. It's a one-page statement or affidavit to the court and be done with this but they won't do.

HUNT: I, Mike, political -- yeah.

DUBKE: Well, no, I was just going to say since we're talking about Andrew McCabe's comments, he did say one thing though that I do take issue with which he said the president said it is a good idea. He actually didn't. He said it was a good idea and I know we argue now about the definition of what is is in this -- in this city --

WILLIAMS: Sure.

DUBKE: -- after your friend from Arkansas but --

HUNT: Hold on one second. We do -- I do have a sound bite of the president saying it is a good idea. Let's watch that.

DUBKE: Okay.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It was up to me I'd pay them the kind of money that they deserve. So me personally, I think the weaponization fund is a great idea. And so do many other Republicans.

You have to get it approved. If they get it approved, that's great. If they don't get it approved, I'd be disappointed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DUBKE: And if you go to the clip right after the acting attorney general had his testimony in the Oval Office, Trump said was.

HUNT: Right, but this was more recent.

DUBKE: Well, in fairness, he also walked out of that interview. So, I mean, that's an incomplete interview.

HUNT: I'm just saying, I'm not sure the tense is really meaningful.

WILLIAMS: In absolute fairness, that doesn't matter. Is it proper in court or not. If it ceases to exist in the way that the legal apparatus and the Justice Department is saying, then get rid of it, put it on paper and say so, but he won't do that.

DUBKE: But the telling sign for me, at least, in reading the tea leaves, is there's now chatter amongst Republicans on this thing called the National Tort --

WILLIAMS: Federal Tort Claims Act.

DUBKE: There you go. And that to me is the pivot of where this administration is going to go.

WILLIAMS: To be clear, that's not a fund individuals can file for claims against the government if they think that the government's wronged them. Try it, roll the dice, see what happens. Good luck.

HUNT: Let's see all the way along. All right, coming up next year in THE ARENA, a new report details how Democrats plan to push back on potential election interference in this year's midterm.

Congresswoman Debbie Dingell of Michigan will be here live.

Plus, Graham Platner responds for the first time to those Oval Office insults from President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM PLATNER (D), MAINE SENATE CANDIDATE: Got to say, being called a thug and the worst person to ever run for office by Donald Trump might be the highest compliment that I've ever received.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:37:16]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's a rigged election. Let me tell you, it's four days, and they aren't even close to coming up.

KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: That's how they --

TRUMP: You know why they're doing that? Because they're cheating on the election. What, do you have evidence to support that? All I have to do is look. All I have to do is look.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: President Trump's claims of a rigged election in California, prompting Senate Democrats to start coming up with strategies to stop potential efforts by the president or foreign actors to try to influence the results of the November election.

According to "Politico", Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and nine other Democratic senators met with top party election experts to game out responses to a range of extreme scenarios, including federal agents at polling locations and ballot seizures in key battleground states. They also choreographed communication strategies to combat information and disinformation around the results of the election.

Joining me now to discuss Democratic Congresswoman from Michigan, Debbie Dingell.

Congresswoman, it's always wonderful to see you. Thank you so much for being here.

Do you think that there is an appropriate level of response among your Democratic colleagues to this is what are you hearing behind the scenes about what is being planned and what your concerns are?

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL (D-MI): So, Kasie, first, it's good to see you on a Friday. Thank God it's Friday.

But these are very real issues that you just raised. And I think there's much more going on than what you just talked about in terms of the senators. We already know for a fact that this Justice Department has tried to get voting records from various different states, all kinds of information that they've got -- that are privacy.

It's private and they don't need. We already know that the president doesn't believe that there should be mail in ballots, which is one of the most fundamental ways you ensure that there's maximum participation in your democracy.

He is trying to ensure that people aren't turning out. He is doing everything that he can. And when you talk about California, California wants every person that can to participate in the election, Republican and Democrat. They give a period of time for ballots to get to the clerk's office and to be counted.

And one of the things we need to worry about is what the Postal Service is going to do on mail-in ballots that you did not mention in November. He's already threatened to dispatch ICE to the polls. That's going to intimidate people, scare them from showing up.

So every scenario is being looked at. November, he's already threatened to dispatch ICE to the polls. That's going to intimidate people, scare them from showing up. So every scenario is being looked at, and we take every potential threat very seriously.

[16:40:02]

HUNT: Congresswoman, one other piece of this, of course, is also what happens in the wake of the election when the House of Representatives is seated. And I'm wondering, what is your level of confidence in the Democratic leadership in Hakeem Jeffries? I know this is something that former leader Nancy Pelosi was very focused on.

Do you think the Jeffries team has got an appropriate level of alertness to this?

DINGELL: I want to be very blunt with you that Joe Morelle, who is leading this effort for the House, has got some of the top experts in the country. He is preparing for every scenario and has been meeting for months and years, meeting with all the members to talk about it as well.

Hakeem Jeffries knows the threats and is ensuring that we are doing what we need to do to step up and make sure we are prepared.

HUNT: Let's talk a little bit about some of the Democratic politics we've seen unfold in the last week, which, of course, was playing out particularly in the Maine Senate race. Graham Platner, of course, now leading the ticket there against Susan Collins.

Does what he represents -- is that the future of the party? Is that the way the party wins?

DINGELL: So I want to say several things. I agree with him that having Donald Trump go after you was probably -- I've been on -- I am on that list and it's not a pleasant place to be. But look, I have some issues with him. I'm clear about that. I've spent my whole life fighting domestic violence and sexual violence and things that he said.

You know, I can't say that they don't bother me. But having said that, I'm also going to tell you that the man in the White House is guilty of far worse than Graham Platner is. And we need to make sure that there's a system of checks and balances in place on what is happening in this administration.

So, you know, I think that this country, a democracy, has people representing all kinds of different people. It's a representative government, and it represents Americans of all kinds of different stripes. So the people of Maine spoke. That's who the Democrats nominated to be their candidate. And that's what representative government is, representative of all kinds of people.

HUNT: And of course, he did have support -- excuse me -- from the progressive wing of the party, Michigan has its own very high stakes primary. I know you've come on and told me before who you think is up or down. Where do you think things stand in Michigan right now, considering how intense that race is?

DINGELL: Look, as you know, I'm not endorsing in that center primary because my job is to pull everybody together in August and focus on winning in November. I think, and I've said this, And I've actually seen polling again, there's several different polls that shows this is a very competitive race. Particularly between Haley Stevens and Abdul El-Sayed. In most polls Mallory is -- other than her own -- is trailing pretty far down.

But having said that. All three have very significant television buys right now. It is almost two months, seven weeks, eight weeks, until the primary, and a lot can happen. This is ground zero. Everybody knows we're ground zero in this country. And it's going to be a very intense two months, and it is a very competitive race.

HUNT: And can any of those three keep that seat in Democratic hands?

DINGELL: Any one of them. I'm going to say that to you. We are going to focus on winning in November.

HUNT: All right. Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, thank you. Always appreciate you being here.

DINGELL: Thank you.

HUNT: All right. Ahead here in THE ARENA, the rich get richer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELON MUSK, CEO, SPACEX: If people had told me this was going to happen, I was like, man, you must be smoking some really good crack because I think this company is going to fail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:48:43]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Million dollars isn't cool. You know what's cool?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A billion dollars. That shut everybody up.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: Well, that's dated. That was an iconic scene from "The Social Network".

Elon Musk is now the world's first trillionaire. This morning, SpaceX launched on Wall Street with a historic public offering. To put Musk's massive wealth in perspective, think about what you were doing two weeks ago. That's about a million seconds. A billion seconds puts us all the way back in 1994. One trillion seconds ago, yeah, we're back in the Ice Age, 29,000 BC, predating recorded history.

That still hasn't put things in perspective. If you were to spend a million dollars a day, it would take 2,740 years to spend $1 trillion.

CNN contributor and tech journalist Jacob Ward joins our panel.

Jacob, thank you for being here.

Some other things that are now worth less than Elon Musk. All commercial and residential property in Houston. All new U.S. vehicles purchased in the US in 2025. Every professional sports team on the planet. The economy of Manhattan. The economies of most countries.

Jacob, this is a lot of money and, you know, SpaceX was never assured to be any sort of success. It has turned into something quite remarkable. But so much of this money is a bet on the future, no?

JACOB WARD, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It absolutely is. I really like all of this good -- this is good, nerdy stuff. I love the, like, go back a trillion seconds comparison. Mine was going to be you can't count to even a billion in your lifetime if you literally spent every waking day just counting one, two, three, four. Yeah, it's an outrageous amount of money. And you were talking about things that are worth less now.

I think one thing that's worth less now is the opinion of qualified economists and business professors, all of whom would tell you that this business makes no sense, right? SpaceX as a rocket company was a financially deranged idea, right?

We're going to create a UPS for space. We're going to carry stuff into orbit for the government. That was a crazy idea.

And he almost didn't pull it off. They only got to like their fourth rocket launch and they were going to run out of money. They weren't even going to be able to get that thing off the launchpad. They weren't able to go any further if they get it off the launch pad and it worked and now here we are.

The thing is this company was a great business. It -- in 2024 turned quite a profit considering that it put like $9 billion into making all these rockets. So he pulled it off.

Now though, Kasie, he has basically stapled this incredible money loser xAI, his AI competitor to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and the rest. He's stapled that to this successful business and as a result is absolutely crushing its balance sheet. Suddenly, a company that was profitable is going to be losing billions

of dollars a year as it admits openly in this S1 filing and yet, here we are. Here's a company that says it's worth $1.7 trillion and thinks that it has an addressable marketplace of $28 trillion.

So these are fantastical numbers, and they're attached, I would argue, to a pretty fantastical balance sheet when you looked at it from a traditional business perspective.

HUNT: Yeah. So, Carrie Dann, I mean, look, stipulating We, as human beings, need people who are willing to think big and do crazy things to make humanity reach heights we've never reached before. However, our politics are crashing all of this into the ground at the moment.

You know Zohran Mamdani saying billionaires shouldn't exist. I mean, Bernie Sanders -- I covered his campaign. I can't even tell you the number of times I heard him say to the billionaire class. You know, the billionaire class basically shouldn't be there.

This is really animating voters right now. And in some ways, that makes Musk's -- this achievement that he has made pretty significant in the political landscape.

DANN: Right. Bernie Sanders is going to have to update talking about the millionaires and billionaires.

WILLIAMS: Trillionaire.

HUNT: Trillionaire period.

DANN: But actually, Kasie, I think that there -- there's part of this is about the average American versus Elon Musk, right? But I think that there's a more important crisis to talk about, which is, there's a stat that I carry around in my head that lives rent free in my head all the time, which is half of Americans, if faced with $1,000 unplanned expense, would have to go into debt to cover that, $1,000. That's like your fridge breaks, your kid breaks their arm, and that's half of Americans.

In this town, there's a lot of people who will go out tonight and drop that on dinner. I think that income inequality, more so than I want to be a trillionaire, there's so many Americans who are feeling like I'm not seen by these people who have no concept of what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck, which is half of people in the country. I don't think they begrudge people their success, but they just want to feel like being comfortable is within their reach.

WILLIAMS: You know, part of what made Trump and successful as a politician, at least a decade ago, was the aspirational idea for many people that, wow, this is someone I look up to and aspire to be, and that's what a wealthy person is and looks like.

Now, you mentioned Mamdani and Bernie Sanders, but there's also a lot of voters in the country, I think, who do not think billionaires should exist and actually are quite resentful of folks like this and not seeing it as something aspirational, but something almost like class warfare in many ways. and it's just a different America now. This is not embraced as Carrie was saying by many people.

HUNT: Yeah. Jacob Ward, we got about 20 seconds left but Elon Musk's wealth grew more today than Jeff Bezos's entire current net worth. That's another stat for you.

WARD: Yeah, it's an insane thing and to the point that all of you guys are making, I think it's a good one, is there's no democratic input here. Elon musk controls 82 percent of SpaceX. Even a multi- billionaire today who owns about 1 percent of that company has said -- he was interviewed by "The New York Times" -- that he's got no input here essentially.

[16:55:08]

This is a guy who I think -- we could really think of this as a sovereign company that's what we're seeing being launched here today.

HUNT: Sovereign company a sovereign company with more money than many countries in the world.

Jacob Ward, thank you always, my friend, really appreciate it.

All right. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. Thanks very much to my panel. Have a wonderful weekend.

Thanks to you at home for watching as well. Have a wonderful weekend.

You can watch much more of THE ARENA tomorrow. THE ARENA SATURDAY airs at noon and again at 4:00 p.m. right here on CNN. Be sure to join us.

You can also join me Sunday morning right here on CNN at 9:00 a.m. for "STATE OF THE UNION".

And in the meantime, Phil Mattingly is standing by for "THE LEAD".

Hi, Phil.