Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

California Governor Gavin Newsom: DOJ Investigating Me And Wife; Trump At G7 After Iran Framework Deal Announced; Trump Marks 80th Birthday With UFC Fight On White House Lawn. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired June 15, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:07]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news, California Governor Gavin Newsom says he and his wife are under investigation by the Department of Justice.

Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's great to have you with us on this Monday.

As we come on the air, California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, is accusing President Donald Trump of ordering the Justice Department to investigate him in what he describes as a campaign of retribution.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D), CALIFORNIA: Donald Trump is simply the most corrupt president in American history. He's turned the levers of government into his own personal power ministries to reward cronies and to try to jail his opponents. His personal attorney now runs the Department of Justice, which has repeatedly gone after his political enemies. One by one, anyone who has challenged Donald Trump has ended up on his hit list, and today, I proudly join that list.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: At this point, much about this alleged investigation is unclear. We here at CNN have reached out to the FBI for comment. And separately, the Justice Department declined to comment.

A source familiar with the case told us that there is not an investigation directly into Gavin Newsom, but that there are probes into people connected to him, including his wife, the documentary filmmaker and actress Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWSOM: He's coming after my wife, Jen, a public servant, a woman who's dedicated her life to supporting women and girls, someone who has done nothing wrong other than having the temerity to advocate for what she believes in. If they can't intimidate me, they'll go after the mother of our children. Donald Trump picked the wrong target. You can subpoena my records, you can investigate me, you can harass me, put my name on every and any enemies list you have, but leave my wife and family out of your personal vendetta.

I'd like to say something to my wife. These times are not normal. They're not ordinary. I love you, and I'm sorry he's doing this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Governor Newsom is, of course, one of the nation's most prominent Democrats, and he's made no secret of the fact that he's considering running for president in 2028. He has also, and perhaps because of that, frequently clashed with President Trump. Today, he claimed that's part of the reason for this alleged federal investigation, and he vowed in patriotic and political terms to fight back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWSOM: To Donald Trump, this country, this country does not belong to you, does not belong to your cronies, and we're going to fight your lawlessness. And we're going to continue to remind the people of this country of your corruption, that same corruption our founders warned us against as we move to celebrate our 250th anniversary. I'm going to keep reminding Americans of what they warned would happen if a man with no character ever held the office of presidency. So let me say it again, Mr. President, come after me. I'm not going anywhere in the country is watching.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.

We're also joined by CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid.

Paula, it's good to see you. Let's walk through what we know, what we don't know about what we're hearing from Governor Gavin Newsom.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Kasie. That video was posted by the governor roughly an hour ago. And since then, we've been on the phone with our sources. I've been speaking with sources to figure out exactly what's going on here, because obviously there are political incentives on both sides.

For Governor Newsom, it certainly serves his political ambitions to frame himself as a political enemy of the president. But we also know the Trump Justice Department has a long history of pursuing the president's perceived political enemies. When it comes to the Trump Justice Department, also possible to score brownie points with the boss by opening an investigation like this.

So here is what we know, Kasie. We are told by a source familiar that there is no investigation directly into Governor Newsom. But the U.S. attorney in California has been leading investigations into people connected to him, including his wife, over possible tax-related crimes. Now this person also said that the Justice Department's political leadership, so those are the leaders like Todd Blanche or Stan Woodward or Harmeet Dhillon, saying they were not involved in that investigation's origin, saying that had actually been prompted by a whistleblower last year.

Now, the governor's office said that federal agents have contacted people and organizations connected to both the governor and his wife, have issued subpoenas and records and conducted interviews related to years of personal and professional activity.

[16:05:00]

In recent weeks, Newsom's office says the federal probe has expanded to focus on his family and professional network.

Now we also know, sort of complicating what exactly is going on here, Newsom's former Chief of Staff was indicted back in November 2025 on federal charges alleging a scheme to steal campaign money from the former U.S. secretary of health and human services. That all stemmed from time before she worked for Newsom. Now she pleaded guilty to three of those charges last month.

But as of now, it appears based on our reporting that there are investigations into the governor's associates, but a source telling us he is not directly being investigated. But Kasie, as you and I know, after over a decade of covering these politically related investigations, certainly investigators start with associates and sometimes work towards another target.

So this is still very young in terms of our reporting. We continue to work sources, really hash out exactly who has been contacted and when.

HUNT: All right, Paula Reid for us with that report. Paula, thank you very much.

All right, my panelists here in THE ARENA. CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams; CNN political commentator, host of the "Off the Cupp" podcast, S.E. Cupp; former communications director in the Biden White House -- that's not right -- CNN chief political analyst, David Axelrod.

(LAUGHTER)

DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Decidedly not right.

HUNT: Former Republican congressman and speaker pro tem, Patrick McHenry. That's what I get for just reading the teleprompter.

AXELROD: Yeah.

HUNT: Was the chief architect of Barack Obama's campaigns, among other esteemed accomplishments in the political arena.

So, David, let me start with you on this. You know, I want to stipulate that we here at CNN are going with Paula's reporting right now. Her reporting is that this investigation is into people around the governor, including his wife. Now, Newsom has said this is an investigation into me, and we'll, of course, leave open that our reporting may uncover new things. But this obviously is part of the political environment in which we

are living, and Newsom decided to do what he did, put out this video, basically talking directly to voters directly to Americans trying to take on the president.

How do you view this particular point in our unfolding political drama?

AXELROD: Yeah, you know, I saw in your prompters, let's go in THE ARENA, and it's not like we were in THE ARENA already with Newsom and the president.

Look, first of all, I don't know what's going on. Maybe Elliot can discern all of this.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Oh, I don't know what's going on either.

AXELROD: I don't know what's going on. I sold my relative to the president of the Justice Department. I sold where they'd never do. I sold my -- they'll never do that stock a long time ago. And he's made it clear that he will go after his political enemies.

That said, there's no doubt that there's also -- this is a fight that's profitable potentially for Gavin Newsom. I'd be enraged if they went after my wife if I were in politics and I thought that it was politically motivated.

But there's also political profit in this. I mean, he rose to the top of the candidates by fighting with Trump, and he has signaled that he will be the biggest, baddest, trolling pugilist there is in the Democratic Party, and this just renews all of that.

So, two things can be true. He can be enraged, and it could be outrageous, but there's also profit in it.

HUNT: Political upside.

Congressman, what do you think?

PATRICK Oh, there's politics and politics, right? I mean, so look, this is important if true, right? And I think we can say that about much of what happens in our media cycle each week, right? Important if true, we don't know that it's true. We don't know the nature of it, but we do know the motivation here.

He is a candidate. This raises his profile. He's certainly in the media cycle. He will certainly be raising money or is already probably sent out a fundraising e-mail about this.

However, here in D.C., the only way we're going to be able to ascertain any more facts about this is with a deputy, the Deputy Attorney General going for the nomination and has been nominated to be Attorney General and so Blanche will be before the US Senate in the month of July, on a 12 to 10 panel where two -- one retiring, one defeated Republican senator. So you have two Republican senators that hold the sway here they will certainly have questions about this and they will certainly ascertain the set of facts, not on behalf of presidential candidate Newsom but on behalf of a number of questions that they have for this administration.

AXELROD: Yeah, like the Constitution and the rule of law, maybe they'll ask questions on that.

HUNT: S.E. Cupp, two things can be true at the same time, right?

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah.

HUNT: We need to have a system that holds people who are in public office who act improperly accountable.

CUPP: Sure.

HUNT: Right? We absolutely need to have that. It can also be true that if the system is used in a way that does not live up to the ideals of impartiality and nonpartisan acting, it's going to discourage good people from getting into the ring.

[16:10:03]

CUPP: Yeah, and we've seen that happen. We know that that's happened. But I think if there's like a -- which you all were alluding to. If there's a pie, I think the percentage that Gavin Newsom is enraged is like 10 percent. The rest is like really excited.

Like, this is exactly what Gavin Newsom wants. It's why he got dressed up, put on a tie, and stood behind the seal of the state of California and posted this very dramatic press conference because he wants to be Trump's main foil. That is good for business.

And what Trump doesn't seem to realize yet is it's bad for Trump. I'll remind people that James Talarico was pulling double digits behind Jasmine Crockett in Texas before Trump pointed at him and said, that interview you did with Stephen Colbert, that's a big problem and I'm coming for you.

Well, that was great for James Talarico and for business. Same Mark Kelly. When Trump pointed at Mark Kelly and attacked him for that video where he was encouraging servicemen and women not to follow illegal orders, well, Mark Kelly just became a presidential nominee because that.

So he has a habit of making these guys turning them into resistance heroes and Gavin Newsom has been reaping the benefits of that and I am sure is you know looking forward to this fight.

HUNT: Elliot Williams, what does it say to you? The reporting here is that this came out of California, and that's obviously not the same as Maine Justice here in Washington. Can you help us understand the difference and what that might mean?

WILLIAMS: Yeah, so each, you know, there's 90, I believe, three U.S. attorney's offices around the country. They are, in many respects, their own little worlds. What's interesting is I thought it was going to be coming out of Los Angeles, which that U.S. attorney's office is run sort of by a much more partisan attack dog, who's made a name for himself in that sense. We don't know a ton about the Sacramento U.S. attorney. He just hasn't been out there as much.

Now, if wrongdoing is being alleged in the city of Sacramento or around it, that's the U.S. attorney's office that would prosecute or at least investigate it.

AXELROD: But, Elliot, is it plausible that they were invested -- that they're investigating the wife of the governor of California who is obviously a prominent political figure in our country and pretty quickly that the bell wasn't rung somewhere here in Washington and this didn't rise to the top?

WILLIAMS: Oh, it would be -- well, in any other normal circumstance, if the wife of a major politician were being investigated, it would be the Office of the Deputy Attorney General back here in Washington who would need to green light that just to ensure the kinds of problems we're talking about day, to avoid the kind of politicization of the Justice Department or of the system you just want to make sure that rogue folks aren't going after their political enemies and that everybody's on board.

AXELROD: And remind me who the deputy.

WILLIAMS: Thank you, Counselor. It is Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general right now.

AXELROD: Yeah.

WILLIAMS: So, you know, it's just -- you know, a few things can be true at the same time. Number one, the president does have a pattern, established pattern right now, of going after his political enemies. Number two, the standard for opening an investigation is actually very low. They simply have to have some indication that some crime might have been committed somewhere or might happen in the future.

And most importantly, we don't know much more beyond that. I think it's easy to panic in light of that first point I made about the president's history here, but you just don't --

AXELROD: But we've created an environment -- because the president has so politicized the Department of Justice, we've created an environment of suspicion --

WILLIAMS: Yeah.

AXELROD: -- that makes kind of what would be sort of fantastical seem very, very possible because he's he has fingered people. He has said we have to prosecute them. They've been prosecuted. Several of those cases have been thrown out as frivolous. And Mr. Blanche has made it clear he's willing to be an instrument of those prosecutors.

WILLIAMS: Yeah. And I will just say, and I know people who watch this program watch it every day, and they should. Something we were just talking about a few days ago is that it is well-documented that federal courts around the country do not trust the Justice Department anymore.

They're not trusting the things that they're putting on paper. They're not trusting the statements that they're making in court because of these kinds of allegations that are actually not even allegations at a certain point. It's because of the behavior that they've been engaging in since the beginning of the administration.

HUNT: Congressman, Newsom seemed particularly focused and you know when you watch this video and you listen to his comments when he's talking about his wife. That's where he sounds kind of the most angry. I mean --

PATRICK MCHENRY, FORMER SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: I don't believe anything he says same.

So like -- I'm like, it doesn't work on me and Scott Bessent's -- secretary of the treasury's insults of Gavin Newsom are particularly funny to me because they're so harsh and so cutting. He calls him Sparkle Ken, Sparkle Beach Ken doll or something like that. So it never hits me whenever he gets emotional. I think it's just fake.

But I'm not a Democratic primary voter, so I don't really matter for that.

What he's trying to do is elevate what may actually be a problem in his network.

[16:15:03]

We don't know this. We don't know whether or not this is just pure politics at play here or whether or not there is true corruption around him. When we have -- in the reporting here, that a former chief of staff went to jail, not for actions as Sparkle Beach Ken, of his administration, but related to actions that they took.

So, look, this may not be pure politics. Let's wait and see.

HUNT: It is worth noting, I think, that there was nothing in that investigation of the chief of staff that ended up connecting any wrongdoing to the governor. But that, of course, doesn't answer potentially the many questions that all of this raises. We're going to have to figure it. Wait and find out.

Coming up next here in THE ARENA, a prominent Democrat from California's congressional delegation is here. Congressman Ro Khanna will join us live.

Plus, what a top administration official is refusing to rule out in this midterm -- this year's midterm elections.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Are you willing to rule out sending ICE agents?

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: No, what I said is that we would only be there if a threat is arise. But --

HUNT: So you're not ruling it out?

MULLIN: No, keep in mind, why would ICE be there? Because only people who should be voting there is American citizens. There shouldn't be any immigration enforcement. So this should be a deal for any immigrant.

HUNT: So why would there be a circumstance that we need ICE agents?

MULLIN: So say -- keep in mind, ICE agents are there to flex if we need to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:20:45]

HUNT: All right, welcome back.

We're continuing to follow breaking news that the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, says the Justice Department is investigating him and his wife. Newsom claiming in a video posted online that in recent days, federal agents have knocked on the doors of his friends and former employees and are digging through, quote, "years of random documents".

Joining me now is Democratic Congressman from California Ro Khanna.

Congressman, thanks very much for being here. I'd like to start just by getting your reaction to what Governor Newsom says, that President Trump's Department of Justice is investigating him and his wife. What's your response?

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): They should leave Jennifer Newsom out of this.

I mean, she's an advocate for women and girls. I don't like when people come after folks' families. And here you don't have any credibility with the Trump Justice Department. They have engaged in retribution against Adam Schiff. They've engaged in retribution against Comey.

They have no credibility in the release of the Epstein files, which Thomas Massie and I have been pushing. You had J.D. Vance and Pam Bondi orchestrating a cover-up on that.

So the fact is in this country we shouldn't be politicizing the Justice Department.

HUNT: Congressman, stipulating that right now we know about this investigation solely because the governor says that it's happening. The DOJ has declined to comment. The FBI has declined to comment. In fact, Todd Blanche, who has been nominated to be attorney general, is now meeting on the Hill with Chuck Grassley, the head of the Judiciary Committee. Manu Raju naturally was standing outside the meeting and asked him at the top, and Blanche said that he cannot comment on this.

All of that aside, do you think that there's any way if this investigation is happening as Newsom says it is, that it's not politically motivated, that it's legitimate.

The problem is the Trump administration has no credibility. So the first thought that comes to mind is here's a governor, our state's governor, who has been a prominent critic of Donald Trump, and suddenly, he's saying that his wife is being investigated. The reality is as your panel said, that any time you have a high-profile politician, if the U.S. attorney was having an investigation, it would go up to the Department of Justice and they would have to greenlight it.

And here you would want to have extraordinary evidence to first be presented and make it clear that there was something legitimate. Otherwise, the presumption is that Donald Trump has said to the Department of Justice, go after my critics.

HUNT: So, sir, it's no secret. You've made no secret of your own presidential ambitions in 2028 in what is set to be a really crowded Democratic primary. Does a DOJ investigation into a top potential rival of yours make that person a better, stronger candidate for president in 2028? Does this help Newsom run for president and hurt you?

KHANNA: I don't look at the politics of this. I just don't think you should have people's families in it.

I mean, the governor and I have differences on issues. But let me tell you, I don't believe that -- his wife should be subject to this kind of political retribution. And if there was anything legitimate, they should have come and expressed that and presented that evidence. But you have a Department of Justice that has targeted California, that has targeted our leaders, and that this is not going to be something that's going to divide Democrats.

HUNT: Congressman I want to turn to some of the other issues of course facing you as a congressman on Capitol Hill. You mentioned the Epstein files and that, of course, has been something you have focused in on and there are some significant questions about where we go from here. We just heard you just heard the committee heard from Bill Gates.

I wanted to ask you if you learned anything from that meeting that was illuminating to you that you just heard the committee heard from Bill Gates. I wanted to ask you if you learned anything from that meeting that was illuminating to you that added new information you didn't have before.

KHANNA: Well, I understood why Bill Gates was affiliating with Epstein, and he was very honest about it. He said that He was being introduced by Epstein to other billionaires, and he was trying to raise money for foundations. And the reality is he felt shame about that.

But this is why I coined the phrase Epstein class. There were a group of people who basically excused Jeffrey Epstein's behavior, knowing he was a convicted sexual abuser, because they wanted his network. And this is why we need to have accountability.

And everyone should be asking Blanche before he's confirmed, are you going to comply with Thomas Massie and my law? Will you release the remaining files? And are you going to begin investigations into people who actually committed this abuse or have serious allegations of that abuse? Bill Gates isn't one of those, but there are others.

HUNT: Fair enough. Let's talk briefly about the war with Iran, because of course the president has said that this agreement is signed, although we don't know the details necessarily. You posted that it was welcome news that such a deal would exist. It does potentially include significant payments to Iran.

Do you have any problem with that?

KHANNA: Kasie, I always try to be a straight shooter, and I have been for ending this war. And I have said if Donald Trump were to end this war, I would encourage Democrats to support it, and I've lived up to that. I don't view things just in partisan terms. But I will say this, that the deal he's gotten is worse than JCPOA, what Obama secured 10 years ago. We don't have the same international law commitments through the U.N., so now it can't be enforced in the way the JCPOA could have. We don't have the kind of intrusive inspections that Obama got.

Obama, they made a huge deal about it because Obama just unfroze assets. This is billions of dollars that are going to go to Iran's development, so it fails on that score. And we lost 14 service members and billions of dollars to get here.

So this should be a lesson in diplomacy, the kind Obama engaged in, and the bluster and militarism of Trump didn't work. That said, I'm glad he's ending this war. We can't continue which is increasing food and gas prices.

HUNT: Sir, we also as we were coming on the air here, there were reports of a crash in Southern California of a bomber, a U.S. Air Force bomber. Have you gotten any updates on that that you can share with us?

KHANNA: I have not. My heart goes out to all of those who are involved, and I'll be getting a briefing from the Armed Services Committee, but I just hope that people are safe.

HUNT: And finally, sir, I did want to circle back with you on the gubernatorial primary, the elections in California. We finally do have the top two candidates who are going to head to the polls. You have endorsed Tom Steyer over Xavier Becerra. Are you fully endorsing Becerra now?

KHANNA: Yes, I'm behind Xavier Becerra. I've always thought he was a decent public servant and will be a good governor. I actually just spoke to Tom Steyer today, coincidentally, and Tom was running because he is concerned about the wealth inequality, and he had concrete plans on how to get people health care, how to have a tax on billionaires, how to make sure that people could buy a house.

And he's going to be continuing to be involved in California and around the country. But I believe Becerra -- Governor to-be Becerra will do a good job.

HUNT: All right, Congressman Ro Khanna, thank you for spending some time with us today. I always appreciate it.

KHANNA: Thank you, Kasie.

HUNT: All right, coming up next here in THE ARENA, more on those developments in the Middle East, including just when the world will see what's in the tentative agreement between the U.S. and Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've done a great job, and hopefully, it's going to be a good relationship, and we're going to get along. And if we don't, we go back to where we started, but I don't think that's going to be necessary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:33:32]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Does the deal involve any sanctions relief for Iran? When would that go into place?

TRUMP: No, it doesn't. Well, they have to -- it's really a behavioral thing. If they do what they're supposed to do, that starts taking effect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: President Trump and his administration out today touting the tentative agreement between the U.S. and Iran as victory for the United States. The president is right now with global leaders at the G7 summit. You saw him there with the French president, Emmanuel Macron.

What's unclear about this impending deal is -- well, a lot. The president today said, quote, "The deal is signed," but then suggested it will likely be several days until the world learns exactly what is in it. On top of the list of questions on everyone's mind is money. Specifically, if and if so, how much the Iranian regime will get?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOST: The Iranians are saying that they're going to have access to a $300 billion reconstruction fund. True or false?

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, and that's the sort of thing they could have access to funded by the Gulf Coast Coalition, so long as they honor their end of the obligation.

So we absolutely are open to the Gulf Coast Countries investing in the reconstruction of Iran, but only if Iran ends their nuclear program, ends their enriched stockpile of material, and is really open to an inspections and enforcement regime that gives the American people confidence they're never going to have a nuclear weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[16:35:05]

HUNT: All right. My panel is back.

Congressman stipulating that we still -- you know, the details of this are not public. But you heard the vice president there basically not denying, right, that there's a world where the Iranians have access to $300 billion. I mean, how is it -- how is it plausible to argue that we're better off now than we were in February before this all started?

MCHENRY: The top 100 leaders of the regime are dead. The top nuclear scientists are dead. The nuclear material is buried beneath a mountain, so complicated that we have to --

HUNT: But wasn't that buried before the --

MCHENRY: Well, it was buried because --

HUNT: It was buried by us in a previous operation. Right.

MCHENRY: Yeah. So in that way, the ground is very different on Iran's capacity to execute terror on their neighbors and including Americans. So that is a global good.

The complicated factor was the closing of the strait and the rising cost of oil. China paid the price for that. They were the country that was most impacted by the price of oil. The United States certainly were impacted by that as well.

So the strait complicated the matter, and the reason why the president closed the deal was because of that choke point that Iran had. It was a noble thing before going in. So the question now is --

HUNT: Was it unknowable, though?

MCHENRY: It was completely knowable that Iran would execute their one piece of leverage over the whole world, right, which is shipping of, you know, the disproportionate share.

HUNT: But we seem to have underestimated their willingness to do it.

MCHENRY: Yes, but also, let's learn from Ukraine. With drones, warfare has forever changed, or at least for the coming -- the coming generations. So the question here about the deal is, is this truly performance-based, meaning if they perform to the deal, they have release of sanctions relief, money, things of that sort. Is that true? Do we actually remove the nuclear material? There are all these things

that are yet to be understood, not even just with the nature of this deal, but the performance of it. And we are all, as we should be, rightly skeptical that the Iranians will perform or that we understand what is in this deal.

CUPP: I think that's really important, because Iran has been preparing for a war of attrition with us for about 20 years. They're very good at waiting. I've said this before, but if you just look at the 1980 Iran-Iraq war, Iran said no to six, seven ceasefires, dragged that out for eight years. They waited in pain, in economic pain and pressure points because they could.

And so there's so much we don't know about this deal. And just because Trump has blurted out it's done, we don't know that yet.

I will point out there's a really interesting thing happening over on the far right, the sort of MAGA alternative lane that Tucker Carlson and other folks are trying to create. Tucker Carlson was out on his podcast late last week saying that the Iran war is the worst thing any president has ever done. Now, hyperbole or not, that's what he's putting out there.

We know that Trump's the most important voice for MAGA, but if that becomes a thing amplified in the corners of MAGA that are upset with the Iran situation -- well, that could have a huge impact on 2026 and 2028.

AXELROD: Well, you've got -- you've got a split between hawks and the Republican Party, like Lindsey Graham, who uncharacteristically put out a very, very --

CUPP: Skeptical.

AXELROD: -- skeptical --

CUPP: -- statement, yeah.

AXELROD: And pinned the deal on Vance, which --

CUPP: Yeah.

AXELROD: -- tells you everything, because he doesn't want to blame the president.

But you know, it seems to me if you just lay this whole thing bare, the president went in all jacked up by Venezuela and thought that he could achieve this ambitious set of goals, which is not just to remove the nuclear material, but he said to destroy their missile program, to topple the regime, to stop the -- you know, to cut off the ties to their proxies.

CUPP: And to liberate the Iranian people.

AXELROD: Yes, and so now it seems like we may end up paying to get the Strait of Hormuz opened again, which was opened before the war started. This does not sound like the art of the deal.

HUNT: And let's watch, I mean, what the president has said in the past about money that was given by the Obama administration to Iran, because if that, you know, this is a central piece of why Lindsey Graham, for example, would not be pleased with something like this or be skeptical of it, we should say.

Here's the president over the years.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: How do you cut off sanctions and then go into a negotiation with Iran? What you do is double and triple the sanctions and go, that's why they're laughing at us.

I would have never given them back the money. I would have said, the money is off the table.

[16:40:03]

Let's start negotiating. And you know what? I would have won that negotiation.

We can't continue to make deals like that horrible Iran deal where we give them $150 billion back.

The Iran deal was so bad. We paid $150 billion to sign a horrible agreement.

We got nothing except a short-term little deal, a short-term expiring. It's starting to expire already.

Obama gave them $1.7 billion in cash -- green, green cash.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: And now of course we're talking about 300 plus here and you've got the Drudge Report you know just to for those of you that remember this from the '90s, it's -- it still looks like it always did, the Drudge Report, okay? It's one of the best things on the Internet.

Trump makes Iran great again. War for nothing, $300 billion settlement.

WILLIAMS: Yeah I you know it's a fair question not just are we better off today than we were on February 28th? Are we better off today than we were in 2015? And your points are well taken, Patrick, I get it.

However, do we have reason to believe that Iran had a nuclear weapon back in 2015? No. Did Iran have a nuclear -- does Iran have a nuclear weapon now? No.

And I'm just wondering, given all things, having lost a lot of his base potentially, all of the harms in the American economy now, was this all worth it? AXELROD: Yeah, American people have sacrificed here and for what? But just -- and I want to leave time for you to say whatever you want to say about this, but you go back to the agreement of 2015, what he's asking for sounds very much like what was negotiated in 2015.

Let's just remind people what was negotiated, 97 percent of their enriched nuclear material shipped out of the country. Their -- much of their equipment to enrich their uranium was mothballed, intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Association. So we knew what was going on.

All of that went out -- and there was no evidence. They had enriched material up to three and a half percent, not the 80 or 90 that they need to get to a bomb. And all that went out the window when President Trump ripped up the deal back in 2018.

So, this is a saga that goes back to that decision. I would have welcomed him. That was a narrowly focused agreement that had an expiration date, as apparently this one will. I would have said, go ahead and see if you can get a better deal. He just ripped up the deal and walked away. They started enriching again, and then we got to the position that we're in.

So, to me, the Trump saga relative to Iran begins at that moment.

MCHENRY: Well, the clear standard that the president laid out is that whatever this deal is, or whatever the inevitable deal is that we see with Iran, has to be better than the President Obama deal in 2015. That's what the president said repeatedly. That's what the whole administration said repeatedly.

And we will have to judge, based off performance, whether or not that is in fact true, just by their own words. I think that's a reasonable --

AXELROD: But what we can't do is take the president's word for it, because he will call any deal that he gets better than --

MCHENRY: That's why the release of money is contingent upon Iranian action. That's what we've heard from President Vance and the administration so far. That's basically all we know.

AXELROD: It's vice president.

(LAUGHTER)

MCHENRY: Not an endorsement, you know.

HUNT: Fair enough.

All right, ahead here in THE ARENA, the night the White House turned into the fight house.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANA WHITE, UFC CEO: This is a -- that was a unique, cool experience. REPORTER: You don't think there's a chance the president says, that was good, let's do it again next year?

WHITE: There -- I can't afford it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:48:13]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WHITE: I can't afford it. There's no (EXPLETIVE DELETED) way we can do this again. This was -- I'll never do the sphere again and we'll never do this again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Seems President Trump's White House Fight Night won't be returning anytime soon. That, according to UFC president and CEO Dana White. The event cost roughly $60 million to stage. It was organized to commemorate America's 250th birthday and the president's 80th. And that's what Sunday marked.

At one point, the crowd started to sing Happy Birthday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CROWD SINGING "HAPPY BIRTHDAY")

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Now, if you're old enough, you may remember that that does evoke a very different time when "Happy Birthday, Mr. President" was sung.

But anyway, joining us now here in THE ARENA, sports journalist, CNN contributor Cari Champion. She's host of "The Cari Champion Show".

Cari, it's always great to have you.

We were actually talking about this in the break just because, you know, the spectacle, the nature of this, what we saw play out at the White House last night not something that we're used to seeing at the White House. What was your reaction to it and of course there were some unpredictable moments as well that have traveled shall we say?

CARI CHAMPION, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah, it did not feel like what it was touted as. It was supposed to be a celebration, as you mentioned, a 250th anniversary, a birthday celebration for the country, a birthday celebration for the president. And it felt really like a Trump rally.

I got to be honest with you, the people there didn't seem to be celebrating in a way that felt like it was unifying the world. And I thought that's what we were supposed to be doing.

And as I'm watching this event, and by the way, if you want to talk clear sports, these are for the sports fan.

[16:50:03]

Yeah, the fights were great. Dana White did what he was supposed to do, which is be a great promoter. But let's be honest, at the very end, we didn't need Josh Hokit to say that "Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right?"

And not only did Joe Rogan not acknowledge it, the announcers didn't acknowledge it and everyone went on as if it was no big deal. And then we see people talking about it afterwards like, oh, OK, well, yeah, it was just a joke, like calm down, freedom of speech.

Let me tell you something. It was disgusting and it was vile. And it's the most disrespectful thing that you can do to someone like a former first lady, Michelle Obama.

HUNT: And I want to note, Cari, I mean, we're not playing that moment on purpose, right? That's a choice just because of everything that you outlined there. And I think it's worth noting that Dana White put out a statement today and he said this, quote, "I understand that the Obamas are public figures, but I'm completely against saying nasty and false things about people's families. Everyone knows my position on free speech, but I hate that kind of nonsense."

David Axelrod, what was your reaction to what we saw on the White House lawn?

AXELROD: Well, I completely --

HUNT: In this moment, wish to speak to it.

AXELROD: I do want to say something about the Michelle Obama piece in a second, but -- look, the president wanted to have a birthday party. He wanted to be the center of attention. He threw that birthday party. Why couldn't he have done it at Mar-a-Lago?

Don't let's pretend that this is some sort of celebration of our country. And by the way, today, he said he's going to have the celebration of July 4th will be the greatest Trump rally ever. OK?

This isn't all about Donald Trump. This is about our country, and it involves all of us and not just his supporters. He doesn't understand that.

And I think that that -- you know, that's what irks me. I have strong feelings about the White House and how it should be used and so on. But leave those aside.

It's not about UFC fighting. I know a lot of people follow that. Do it somewhere else. Don't pretend that this is some sort of national celebration.

As to the Michelle Obama comment, I agree with Cari and I agree with what Dana White said. How did he feel when the president posted depictions of the Obamas as apes? He is the one who is setting the tone here.

And so let's call it for what it is. This is -- this is the president of the United States approach to political opponents and you know, everybody's following his cue.

HUNT: Congressman McHenry, I have long been a patriotic person who has believed, and this is part of why I wanted to cover presidential politics, that the president of the United States is the president for all Americans, right? Whoever is in the Oval Office is there to be an advocate for everyone that lives in the country, to govern the country for everyone who's part of it, whether you agree with him or not.

I found that premise very severely challenged on January 6 when we were all at the Capitol complex and there were assaults on the building and people breaking through the windows. And no one came for hours because the president was at the White House and he was doing nothing for hours. And, you know, I was a reporter. I was covering it.

But also as an American, your president doesn't show up for you when something is potentially threatening what's going on. That was a point when I really questioned whether the president was a president for all Americans. I'm wondering if you think that the way that President Trump has conducted politics has made it impossible for him to host and if he's hosting a Trump rally on July 4th, can all Americans celebrate that? Because we all should be able to celebrate.

MCHENRY: They should turn off the TV and go celebrate and have a cookout and have a couple beers, right? Light some fireworks illegally or illegally in your state. Like just go be an American.

HUNT: Right. We should all celebrate the Fourth. That's not my question. Is the president celebrating the Fourth for all Americans, as any president?

MCHENRY: The president was re-elected four years later. And so there are a couple of things that we should be super excited about. Coming to Washington, there is a great deal of two weeks of spectacle here in Washington, D.C., open to all Americans, regardless of political persuasion, has nothing to do with the president.

You have Freedom 250, America 250, all raising money for the celebration of our 250th anniversary. It's not about the person or the president. It doesn't have to be about that. Last night --

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: Right. Except when the president said there was going to be a rally for me, right?

MCHENRY: But that visual last night was extraordinary, except for those nasty comments about the former first lady, which should not have been said. But overall, that spectacle made you proud to be an American, even if it's a little crass compared to John F. Kennedy hosting --

WILLIAMS: It's not just about the commonness. It's not just about the crassness. That is a preview of what we are going to see for the next two weeks.

And a moment and you and I are both born in 1976, and people around us remember the unified -- the way the country was unified around the bison town.

MCHENRY: I got a name out of it.

WILLIAMS: You got a name out of it.

[16:55:00]

The difference is this is going to be Donald Trump's show in a way that is not unifying for Americans. This is the president putting his stamp on it, not for everybody.

CUPP: I also think it was just if you've seen idiocracy, which is like a documentary at this point, with President Camacho, the literal wrestler who becomes a president and they have these cage matches. It was a little close to home.

HUNT: All right. Cari Champion, thank you as always. Please do come back. I appreciate you very much.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. Thanks to my panel. Really appreciate it.

Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well. We appreciate you.

But don't go anywhere. Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".

Hi, Jake.