Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

U.S. Releases Official Agreement With Iran; Trump Upends DNI Confirmation Hearing, Tells Clayton Not To Show; Trump-Backed Candidate To Face Ossoff In Critical Senate Race. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired June 17, 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: Then he texted me back, "Oh, boy."

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Oh, boy. It's so nerve-wracking. There's, like, a whole stadium.

SANCHEZ: It is. You had a chance to throw a first pitch at a Nats game.

KEILAR: Yeah.

SANCHEZ: You almost hit a kid.

KEILAR: I didn't, but they put kids behind home plate, so if I messed up, I would have.

SANCHEZ: They set you up for fair.

KEILAR: Thank goodness.

You know who's really good at baseball? Kasie Hunt and THE ARENA with her starts right now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. Kasie Hunt is off. I'm Pamela Brown, and it's great to have you here with us on this Wednesday.

And as we come on the air, striking new details about the agreement reached between the United States and Iran, leading to some big questions today about who's getting the better end of the bargain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The deal we reached with Iran on Sunday will be signed shortly, tomorrow, maybe the next day.

Subject deals, all my whole life is all about deals.

It's my hope that the peace agreement will be the beginning of a much larger deal all across the Middle East. We're very close. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: President Donald Trump today touting this new agreement and a 41-minute long meandering statement at the G7 meeting in France. Following the speech, the White House released the official text of the 14-point memorandum of understanding.

As a baseline, this agreement puts an end to fighting and begins a 60- day window for negotiations on a final comprehensive deal. But there are some other points and details that we'll get into.

Here are some major takeaways to start with. The U.S. will end its naval blockade, and Iran will allow ships to transit the Strait of Hormuz toll-free, at least within that 60 days. The U.S. will terminate sanctions on Iran and has agreed to release Iran's frozen money. The U.S. has agreed to, quote, "undertake with regional partners to develop a definitive mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development," end quote. That is key.

And then there's the question of Iran's nuclear program. Iran, quote, "reaffirmed," end quote, that it will not pursue nuclear weapons, while its overall nuclear program will remain at, quote, "the current status quo", end quote.

And the U.S. and Iran have agreed to resolve the issue of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, although the details of that and so much more are yet to be hammered out.

So some of the more complicated issues we're still waiting to see what kind of an agreement they can come to here.

A senior U.S. official tells CNN that President Trump and his team are willing to walk away from the next round of talks if they believe that the Iranians are not negotiating in good faith, something the president himself publicly hinted at earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Then it's a memorandum of understanding. If it doesn't get done in 60 days, it's all right. We go back to bombing. You know, I don't want to do that because it's so good. But we might have to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right, so let's go off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel is here, along with CNN White House correspondent Alayna Treene. She joins us live from Versailles, France.

Alayna, you were part of the team that obtained the draft copy of the U.S.-Iran agreement. Now that the official text has been released, take us through it and what else you're hearing from the administration about it.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I do want to just start at the top, since I'm sure there's people wondering why I'm here at the Palace of Versailles. We just saw the president actually arrive, Pamela, who shook hands with the French president, Macron, his wife, Brigitte Macron. The president said this is a beautiful place, and Brigitte Macron is a beautiful woman. They now have headed inside and are going to have a dinner, just to give you a sense of how he's ending this three-day summit here in Europe.

But to get to your question about the text of this memorandum of understanding, look, it is pretty vague. There are some details, as you laid out, on some of these specific different revisions. It's 14 points. But so much of the thorniest issues are really being weighted to resolve or, you know, being held off to be resolved in the 60-day period for these highly technical talks.

Now, one thing that's been really interesting, particularly when it comes to these nuclear discussions and the language they have in there about Iran's nuclear program. You mentioned what the text says. It's really only one paragraph.

I've had extensive conversations, Pamela, over the last couple of days with some of the officials, including those who have been involved in these negotiations with the mediators and the Iranians. What they have told me is that don't read too much in two of these agreements. One U.S. official, I should say, said, you know, we have an understanding with the Iranians. They've been telling us positive things in the back-channel conversations that they've been having that led them to believe that there could be an agreement, particularly when it comes to nuclear and the issue of the enriched uranium still in Iran's possession.

We've heard a senior Trump administration official today on a call with reporters as they were reading out the text of this agreement, call this a gentleman's agreement of some sort, that the U.S. and Iran have reached some sort of gentleman's agreement on what is to come.

You're hearing a lot of critics argue you can't really take Iran's word for it, and that has really been something I'm told as well. that behind the scenes in recent weeks, some of the top officials of the president's national security team, people like the CIA director, John Ratcliffe, like the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, have raised reservations about whether or not Iran is really going to be able to honor its commitment.

[16:05:05]

So this leaves a lot of this to be decided down the line. But we'll see. And as you mentioned, we did hear the president kind of argue that if Iran doesn't live up to the commitments laid out in this agreement, then he will continue his bombing campaign. So we really have to see where this goes.

Next up, of course, after all this, is going to be that formal signing ceremony on Friday. The vice president set to attend. It'll be in Switzerland, Pamela.

BROWN: All right. Alayna Treene, thank you so much. And our panelists here in THE ARENA, CNN political analyst, national

political correspondent for "Axios", Alex Thompson; CNN political director and Washington bureau chief David Chalian; CNN political commentator, former DNC communications director, Xochitl Hinojosa; and Republican strategist Melik Abdul.

And we are also joined by CNN global affairs analyst Brett McGurk.

Brett, I know you have been really looking into this agreement, and it says a lot in terms of what the U.S. will do, from ending the blockade to ending sanctions and allowing Iran to export oil. I wonder what your takeaway is. Who is getting the better end of this at least preliminary agreement?

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Oh, clearly, by the text of this deal, Pamela, it's Iran. I mean, if you -- I think this demonstrates, and the president kind of alluded to it today. He said he didn't want to be President Hoover, didn't want to have a Great Depression. It just shows that this leverage point in the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened in the past and has been a theoretical possibility, they used it, and they used it very effectively, and frankly, it worked. It worked.

And I think if you go back to April, the president announced a ceasefire and the Strait of Hormuz would open. Today, they announced a ceasefire, and the Strait of Hormuz will open with very significant concessions to the Iranians, such as waiving all oil, petrochemical, banking sanctions, the kind of stuff Iran has always wanted. It really returns to they can trade their oil at market prices, which has not been the case really since the Iran nuclear deal.

Now, I will say one thing. I mean, there's a provision in the deal that Iran's nuclear program has to remain its status quo. And because of the military operation last year, a year ago at this time, which I think was more limited and obviously far more effective than this most recent campaign, Iran's nuclear program is pretty much knocked out. They're not enriching uranium. So you could say this kind of locks that in place.

But the incentives you would want for a broader negotiation to really manage this issue long term, we've kind of given a lot of that away. So I'm skeptical that we can get there in these 60 days. I know the White House is saying there's some gentleman's agreements with Iranian officials. I hope that can be true.

In my experience with the Iranians, what is put on paper is really what matters. And we'll see what comes of these talks. But right now, to your question, if you just add up the puts and takes of this document, Iran is getting a lot, and all they're committing to is not to fire at ships in the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days.

BROWN: And it was interesting, because on one hand, you had the president saying that he wouldn't hesitate to restart the bombing campaign on Iran if it doesn't hold up its end of the agreement. But on the other hand, he made it very clear he is worried, as you pointed out, about what this war has done to the economy, what it could do, talking about he didn't want to start a Great Depression in America, talking about the stock market and what happens every time he says bombing will continue or not, and how the stock market responds accordingly.

What kind of message does that send to the Iranians as they kick off this 60-day period for negotiations?

MCGURK: It reaffirmed -- what the Iranians think about the United States, and I've heard this from them directly across the table, we're very short-term, they're long-term, and they believe that -- we talked about two clocks earlier in this war, and our alarm clock went off because of the macroeconomic pressure that was building through Iran's threats to the Strait of Hormuz.

That was their strategy. It worked. We tried our blockade to build economic pressure inside Iran, which was working at compounding. But ultimately, we decided to basically concede to their demands to get that strait open. I mean, that's what happened here. And now we'll have to see if these talks that are going to start perhaps on Friday can lead to a more durable agreement.

But again, I'm doubtful of that, Pamela, but we'll, you know, you never know.

BROWN: We'll see.

And before we get to our panel, I just want to ask you one other question that you would be an expert on. All of this started, of course, because of Iran's enriched uranium program and the U.S. making sure that Iran never has access to a nuclear weapon. And in this text released from the White House, it says there will be a minimum methodology as it pertains to the enriched uranium. What does that mean exactly?

MCGURK: I think what we heard from senior U.S. officials today is that Iran's agreed at the base case to down-blend that material. This is the buried enriched uranium, which was buried last -- agreed at the base case to down-blend that material. This is the buried enriched uranium, which was buried last summer in those strikes.

[16:10:00]

But how that is done. And that also kind of presumes that Iran will maintain its nuclear infrastructure, because to do that you need fairly sophisticated nuclear capacity. So we'll see how that happens.

Honestly, I -- all we have here is a deal to open the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for sanctions waivers. And Iran experts have looked at this. They will be receiving revenues about $60 to $80 billion a year, given their capacity to trade oil and petrochemicals.

That's a lot.

BROWN: That is a lot.

And I want to, on that note, go to our panel for the broader discussion, because now, as we've learned through this memorandum, that they will be able to trade oil now, that the sanctions will be unfrozen. And the agreement also outlined this $300 billion plan for the, quote, "reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran".

I'm wondering, Melik, as a Republican, what you think of this.

MELIK ABDUL, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Start with me. Start with me.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: Right, because Republicans were very critical of Obama when it came to giving Iran money, right? And I wonder, with what you're seeing laid out in this memorandum, if you're comfortable with this.

ABDUL: So there are still a lot of questions. I think this was an opening salvo for Donald Trump, and probably what the White House did wrong. They kind of leaned into this as this was a real answer here.

And what we're hearing is that, well, we're going to get an answer later on. And I think if the administration had just early on talked about that this is still part of the negotiations, we probably wouldn't necessarily be here. But I think he was facing pressure, and many people have talked about the economic pressure. I think he wanted to stop that first.

Now, there's still a ways to go. And I think a number of things that is going to have to be included, whether that's the disposal of the nuclear material, the destruction of the nuclear sites, or even some of the other things that Donald Trump wanted, that has to be part of the final deal. It's not part of this deal. It has to be part of the final deal.

And if it is not part of the final deal, I think there will be a lot of criticism from inside of the Republican Party. But we're willing to give him the 60 days to see what we're able to get.

ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, there's already criticism of the deal from parts of the party. This war has managed from the very beginning to divide both parts. And now Trump has angered both sides of his coalition, both the original sort of MAGA anti- interventionists, and now you're seeing a lot of criticism from sort of like the old, you know, W. Bush school of Republicans that believe that he was committed to regime change and really changing the Iranian regime. Now they feel that he's taking, you know, a watered-down, worse version of the JCPO.

BROWN: And actually, to your point about Republicans not liking this, some of them at least, I should say, Republican Senator Bill Cassidy reacted to the agreement, writing on X, "Reagan is rolling over in his grave. This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades."

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Yeah, it's interesting. The divide that you're describing is no doubt real. And my question is, as Democrat-- this now becomes a political football to define, right? And so as Democrats, across the board today, we're sort of being like, Donald Trump lost the war, lost the war.

Does that galvanize Republicans to find a way to stitch themselves back together simply to have a unified political opposition to that message coming from Democrats? I'm intrigued to see how the Trump team tries to do that, because there are these real divides.

The biggest question, I think, here -- and it gets to what you asked Brett, Pam, which is, Donald Trump took such pains today to portray a picture of what would happen if he didn't agree to this and try to end this war. And that, to me, was like a tell that he didn't have a solid end of the war to sell, because he had to sell sort of a counterfactual, an alternative picture, rather than an actual, as you said, sort of final agreement itself.

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, and I wonder at this point whether or not there are people in the White House that have doubts about going in and starting this war in the first place. They sold us a bill of goods, and they essentially said that this would end up being a few weeks, we would be in there. I think when I raised on CNN before, this could go on until the fall.

You know, Republicans essentially said that would never happen. Now we're looking at a 60-day deal that would take us through the summer and then take us in a critical time in our nation's politics, which is the midterm elections. They're looking at a potential -- you know, if they don't get through the 60 days, they're looking at a potential either starting the clock again or trying to figure something out at the end of the summer, going into the midterm elections.

And I will say, I do think that this is going to potentially unite Republicans and Democrats for the reason that they're hearing from the American people. The American people did not want this war. Now they're seeing that they're not getting anything out of it.

Releasing funds to Iran without any concessions on their nuclear program is absolutely ridiculous. And so I think that with gas prices up, they will obviously go down if the strait is reopened, which would be a very good thing for Americans.

[16:15:02]

The reality is that they don't come to some sort of agreement where it's a full win for Donald Trump on the nuclear program in August, then yes, he has lost this war.

THOMPSON: When the Iranians, I can guarantee you, have a calendar and also know when the midterms --

HINOJOSA: They know -- they know what Trump is looking at. They know that Republicans want this to be done, and they hold all of the cards at this point, which is a terrible position for the U.S. to be in.

BROWN: And it is worth noting with all the comparisons with the JCPOA, in the first graph of that, it says Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. So there's a lot of pressure on President Trump to come up with something in the 60 days that is better than the deal that he has so often criticized.

And, Brett McGurk, to bring you back in on that point, I wonder, as you look at where things stand now and as you read this memorandum of understanding, is there a scenario by which Iran is actually now better off in the long run than it was before this war, despite the destruction that's happened and what's happened to its navy and so forth. We know they still have a large amount of its weapons stockpile.

MCGURK: Well, the Strait of Hormuz still is not resolved. I mean, the final text the White House put out today actually says we have a 60- day period, no tolls, but then Iran and Oman, together with regional countries, will figure out who manages the strait.

I read that to say Iran is asserting its sovereign control over the Strait of Hormuz, and they will charge, as they've been saying, fees. That is an -- that's a massive revenue windfall for Iran. It also sets a global precedent. You know, Beijing is watching this, others, about choke points, whether the Taiwan Strait or you can think about how this can play out.

So, to answer your question, Pamela, yes, potentially, potentially. We don't know everything going on in Iran, believe me. They're in economic shambles. This will give them a lifeline. We obviously had the protests earlier this year.

But if you look at where we were before this war started, in which Iran was in one of its weakest positions in many, many decades, perhaps since the '79 revolution until now, I think right now they are feeling some wind at their back and they're going to have this economic injection, which is the one thing they've always really wanted.

So this is not the outcome the White House wanted going into this. That's for sure.

BROWN: All right, Brett McGurk, thank you so much.

The rest of my panel, stand by. We have a lot more news to get to.

Coming up here in THE ARENA, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee is here with us live. Virginia Senator Mark Warner is standing by with his reaction on the latest with Iran. As well as we have the scramble on Capitol Hill today as the president derails the planned confirmation hearing for his director of national intelligence Pick.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): That is a level of chaos, incompetence. When we're talking about our national security, when we're talking about adversaries around the world, what signal does this send?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [16:22:14]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WARNER: What we're witnessing today is an extraordinary display of dysfunction from a president who seems to turn America's national security into a political bargaining chip. National security by tweet.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): I was surprised. I'm concerned that this slows down the renewal of FISA, which is vital to our national security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Lots of confusion and frustration on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill today following President Trump's surprising overnight post announcing that he would be canceling a confirmation hearing scheduled today for Jay Clayton, Trump's pick to permanently replace Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence.

And in his post, Trump accused the Senate of rushing to confirm Clayton, saying that his controversial initial pick to fill the role Bill Pulte would continue to lead the agency in the interim. He also added that he would not reauthorize FISA, a key surveillance program that expired last week without the passage of the SAVE Act.

After some confusion about whether Clayton's hearing would go on, the Senate Intelligence Chairman Tom Cotton ultimately confirmed later this morning that it was postponed. The whole saga, leaving some Senate Republicans flummoxed, telling CNN that there is a lack of clear communication from the White House and that they're concerned about the impact this will all have on the FISA talks.

The president, for his part, is putting the whole thing on Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: That's all we want. It's not a lot. The Save America Act. And that can be passed any way they want to pass it. But I'm not going to sign FISA unless it's done.

And this was like a rush act. And it was a rush act by the Democrats. All of a sudden, they want to get -- and why are they afraid of this guy? I mean, they're so afraid of him.

He'll do anything not to have Pulte go in there. He's a very capable guy, and they're worried about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right, joining us now is the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia.

Good morning, Senator.

So there seemed to be a lot of back and forth and confusion this morning over what exactly would happen with Clayton's hearing today. Could you just walk us through what happened from your point of view? Go ahead. Just go.

WARNER: It's a little confusing, but there is an intelligence tool that every president, Democrat, Republican, supports called Section 702 FISA, the ability for us to spy on foreigners talking to each other. And occasionally, there was an American that may be mentioned, and oftentimes, you don't know whether that American is a spy, a terrorist, or maybe a victim.

So it's a controversial program, but we had a bipartisan agreement. Ten days ago, Donald Trump, who's always been concerned about this program, threw this guy, Bill Pulte, who had no national security experience.

[16:25:05]

I don't think he's even having a security clearance. And his only claim to fame is he's head of our mortgage regulators. And in that job, he has disclosed private information. That Trump has weaponized against people like Tish James, the New York Attorney General, or Lisa Cook, the member of the Federal Reserve Board.

So this loyalty lapdog for Trump was going to get a promotion to be head of all of our 18 intelligence agencies and get exposed to our country's deepest secrets. Both sides, Democrats, Republicans, and the rational people inside the Trump White House said, Holy heck, we can't have this happen. It doesn't make sense.

So we've offered a half dozen alternatives on how we get out of this without trying to embarrass the president. He figured out a week ago that maybe he'd overstepped. So he decided to put forward a person that many Democrats would vote against, Jay Clayton, who is his current U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, major position.

He was moving forward. I had a lot of questions for him. But it would have been potentially a way if we would have sped up. And remember, we're talking about a Trump appointee. If the Congress would have actually approved a Trump appointee quickly, now the president is complaining about that.

So it felt like, you know, Clayton had a path forward. Middle of the night, he pulls him totally against the wishes of the Republican Senate leadership, against the wishes of rational people inside the Trump White House because he wants this guy Pulte, I guess, to get exposed to our country's national secrets.

And then, to make this even more complicated, and why I'm sure your viewers are saying, This is all wacky, and it is, Trump says, Well, before we continue this critical national security tool, I also want the so-called SAVE Act, which is a voter disenfranchisement bill, which a number of Republicans don't support. There's not even 51 of them that support it.

They would basically say to any woman, if you changed your name when you got married, a man changed her name when you got married, you've got to re-register to vote. It is an atrocious --

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: The documents, show some documents, yeah.

WARNER: -- atrocious, atrocious law that doesn't have 51 Republicans. So the idea that Trump is saying, I'm not going to protect America's national security unless you both give me somebody unqualified and allow a bill to pass that has no path, future of passage. And we're now at a point where everybody is scratching their head.

Maybe when he comes back from Europe, rational people will get to him. But this is playing -- this is playing politics.

The only last point I want to make, a harsh then, is that even though this law around FISA has expired, the communication companies are still working with the government. So we don't have a national security lapse at this point. That is the only good news in this whole story.

BROWN: Bottom line, there's a lot to pick apart here, to be clear. But Trump did announce Clayton as his nominee last week. He could have just had Bill Pulte go in in the acting role, there was no need to confirm Pulte since he was already in a position in the administration, but he did announce that.

Now, he pulled the hearing today, even though that's not a decision the president can make. Ultimately, the chairman had to make that decision. Where do things stand with Clayton's nomination at this point?

WARNER: Well, that's a great question. But let me also make clear, this job, Director of National Intelligence, was set up after 9/11 to try to make sure that our 18 intelligence agencies talk to each other.

In writing that law, we said two things. One, you've got to have national security experience. And two, if there is a vacancy at the top, the person who should come in is the acting number two, the number two. And by the way, the number two at the director is a Trump appointee that I didn't vote for, but has intelligence experience.

So this guy doesn't meet the criteria of the law. Trump is still trying to force him in, which is outrageous beyond belief, and one of the reasons why Republicans are pushing back. And the question of, is Jay Clayton still a nominee?

Think about the irony of how you let into the story and what the facts are. The fact that the Senate may expedite a Trump appointee, if he didn't want Clayton in the job, why did he put him forward, is just mind-blowing.

BROWN: Yeah, that's -- it's been a --

WARNER: It's mind-blowing.

BROWN: Quite a series of events. Since he announced Bill Pulte as the acting director of national intelligence, there's been a lot of -- that has happened since then.

I want to move on to this memorandum of understanding with Iran as we just have limited time here.

[16:30:05]

WARNER: Right.

BROWN: Have you received any word or communication about it if and when the Gang of Eight will be briefed on this?

WARNER: No. We have asked for a meeting. I am part of the group that keeps our deepest secret secret. This should not be secret. But, you know, even one thing we've got to give Donald Trump credit for, he's a good salesman.

I don't think Donald Trump can even sell this deal as a good deal for America, a good deal for our allies in the region, and that in any way, America is better off than when he started 110 days ago this war of choice.

Iran still has their nuclear capabilities, has the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, is going to get $300 billion, there's no mention of their ballistic missiles. Some of this money could go to their proxies like Hezbollah.

We have accomplished nothing that he set out to do. And I will say this, thank God he's at least, if he wants to declare victory, so we could maybe get the strait reopened and start to bring prices down.

But we didn't have to do any of this. Iran posed no imminent threat when he started this war of choice. And this will come back, I think, not just with history books, but in terms of the current analysis of this, that unfortunately, 110 days later, America and our allies are in a weaker position than when this war was started.

BROWN: And let me just follow up with that, because the administration has made very clear, this is all preliminary. This is just a memorandum of agreement. This is not the final deal. They have 60 days to do so.

Are you willing to give them the space and the time to come up with a deal that actually could be of more interest to America?

WARNER: Well, first of all, during this interim period, it appears that we are taking off most of the sanctions. Iran will be able to sell oil. I'm not sure how much of the $300 billion they're going to get. I would love to be proven wrong. If Donald Trump actually finds a way to permanently extract all of the enriched uranium from Iran during these next 60 days, and ends up with a deal that's better than what Obama had 10 or 12 years ago, I will salute that. There is not anyone in kind of national security circles that expect that.

And again, please, for your viewers, don't take my word. Look at the reports, and I've not talked to either of these gentlemen, but Secretary Rubio, the Secretary of State, Director Ratcliffe, the head of the CIA, at least in press reports, are expressing real concerns that you can't trust the Iranians.

So, we'll see. I hope I'm wrong on this. I fear I'm not, and I fear that, you know, how we are viewed around the world, and frankly, Iran will be able to say they took on not only America, but Israel as well, and played them to at least a tie. That's not good for us.

BROWN: All right, Senator Mark Warner, we'll see how this all plays out. Thank you so much for coming on.

WARNER: Thank you.

BROWN: And up next in THE ARENA, day one of the general election campaign and one of this year's biggest midterm races, what both candidates are saying and doing today in the battle for Georgia Senate seat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE COLLINS (R), GEORGIA SENATE CANDIDATE: So listen now, hop in, buckle up, and get ready. Y'all, this truck is fired up. We're going to keep the hammer down all the way to November.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:37:57]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: House Republicans will not be taking up congressional or legislative redistricting maps for the 2028 election cycle during this special session.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Leading state Republicans in Georgia met with cheers today after the state legislature rejected Governor Brian Kemp's calls for 2028 redistricting. Those leaders, notably, though, did not rule out revisiting the issue later this year.

And this all on the heels of a set of crucial runoff elections in Georgia last night, where Republican voters bucked Trump's pick for governor. But what would the president's preferred candidate, Congressman Mike Collins -- to face off against Democratic incumbent Senator Jon Ossoff in one of the year's most competitive Senate races.

My panel is back to discuss this.

So there has been a lot of talk about this race for Jon Ossoff, that this could be a prelude for a potential presidential run. I'm wondering, Alex, what you're hearing from your Democratic sources about this and how Ossoff could match up against Collins?

THOMPSON: Well, Ossoff is in incredibly powerful position. He has a huge head start on fundraising. If you look at the prediction markets, he is overwhelmingly the favorite. And honestly, the gubernatorial candidate, Keisha Lance Bottoms, could be riding his coattails in a similar way that Ossoff rode Raphael Warnock's coattails back in their first election in 2020.

You know, if you have a commanding lead in one of the most important swing states in 2028, that gives you a huge argument to be the most electable candidate. And often, you know, a lot of these presidential primaries do come around to a lot of people trying to find the most electable person for the office.

So that is why my understanding is Jon Ossoff has not said anything internally about a presidential run, but there are clearly a lot of Democrats that want him to start thinking about it more and more.

BROWN: And he was quick today to release a new attack ad against Collins. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AD NARRATOR: This is Mike.

COLLINS: I'm a conservative, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Trump, God- fearing, truck-driving outsider.

[16:40:00]

AD NARRATOR: Well, sort of. Let's see what's actually under the hood.

Truth is, Mike took over his dad's trucking company and followed in his footsteps straight to Congress. His rich daddy, a former congressman and career politician.

You see, Mike's not a working trucker. He's a man who rode his daddy's name from business to Congress, a politician who voted to hike our health care costs and defund rural hospitals so he could take care of billionaires and himself, a lackey who's in lockstep with all of Trump's chaos.

So the next time your grocery bill climbs, you pay more to fuel your car or your kid's school loses funding, you can thank Mike.

TRUMP: Thanks, Mike. Great job you're doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: I wonder what you think about that and what Republicans' confidence level is in this race, also given the fact that Collins has significantly less cash on hand heading to the general?

ABDUL: Well, even going into this race, there were concerns about whether or not Republicans could actually win the seat. It's interesting, with the juxtaposition of Ossoff himself, because he did write on Warnock's coattails, he's in a much different position now, and even Democrats are looking at him differently.

As far as the ad is concerned, the idea that Democrats are running ads talking about someone's wealth or talking about how someone came into business, that's not surprising. They've run that same against Donald Trump. So we're not really concerned about those type of ads because the idea is to point him as being out of touch. I think that there are some other things that Collins will have to worry about, but this idea that you're going to be able to paint him in a state like Georgia, because to me, I thought that that was a good ad in favor of Collins himself, talking about how he grew up.

Democrats are going to try to run that against him. I just don't think that that's going to work in a place like Georgia.

HINOJOSA: Well, and I think that Jon Ossoff obviously is in a very strong position. He did tell the local paper there that he's not going to run in 2028 and I will say I think that Democrats are really going to struggle going into 2028 because many of the strong candidates that have won in red states are in the Senate and taking them away from a very if we win the Senate and taking that seat away and potentially having a Republican fill it is going to be something that Chuck Schumer and Democrats in the Senate really talk about because do we think that Jon Ossoff or Raphael Warnock or others or Mark Kelly or others will leave their seat in a potentially really tight margin after the midterm elections, I'm not sure.

And some of them can actually run and still keep their seats. But if for some reason they're on a ticket or whatever that is, that cannot play well for them. So I do think that on this issue of like tying him to Donald Trump, et cetera, I mean, I think that with Donald Trump's approval rating so low at the moment, I -- it is, I mean, it is a gift to have a sort of endorsement from Donald Trump if you're trying to appeal to a moderate electorate, especially when prices are so high. So I think a lot of Democrats will be doing that.

CHALIAN: And I would just say, that add to me was less about Donald Trump. And I take your point about -- they may not, voters may not respond to the upbringing or the fact that his father was a congressman. But what I do think Ossoff understands better than almost any midterm candidate on either side of the aisle is this messaging around the anti-elite, anti-establishment, broken, rigged system. That is, that's the stuff that's going viral, and it is exciting Democrats.

And that's what that's about, is that ad is fitting in with what he's doing every day on the stump by being like, this is a ruling class in Washington, and it has nothing to do with your concerns. That seems to be a resonant message.

HINOJOSA: Corruption seems to be polling well in a lot of these states ahead of the midterm elections. And you're going to continue to see candidates in some of these red or purple states talking about the elite, talking about the Epstein class, talking about corruption overall, that seems to be something that voters in Democratic polling really care about.

BROWN: Yeah, also culture wars.

THOMPSON: I was going to say, one other note in that ad is 18 months ago Donald Trump won Georgia and now, Jon Ossoff is confident that tying the Republican to Donald Trump is actually going to hurt them and that's just a sign of how his political standing has fallen last 18 months.

BROWN: Yeah, that's a fair point. All right, thank you all so much.

Ahead in THE ARENA President Trump says no deal is final until it's final and he knows who to blame if the framework agrees with Iran falls apart.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: This way, if it works out, I'm going to take the credit. If it doesn't work out, I'm blaming J.D. You better be careful, J.D.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:48:49]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: There's some element to this where you send the vice president. If it works out, great, you'll look like a genius for sending him. And if it doesn't work out, it's the vice president's fault.

TRUMP: I like that idea, sure. This way, if it works out, I'm going to take the credit. If it doesn't work out, I'm blaming J.D. You better be careful, J.D.

He's going to turn his plane around and get the hell out of here. Yeah, I like that idea. I think it's a good idea.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: President Trump seemingly joking there about throwing the vice president under the bus if this deal with Iran falls through. But it isn't the first time he's made this particular joke about an Iran deal. Back in April, the president said this with Vance in the room.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: So if it doesn't happen, I'm blaming J.D. Vance. If it does happen, I'm taking full credit.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right, my panel is back to discuss a joke or a warning to the VP or both.

HINOJOSA: Well, I also think it's interesting that Vance strategically got out there previously that he opposed strikes, right? And so I do think it is like this interesting dynamic that J.D. Vance currently faces, because he goes out full force in support of the war, says Congress has no role, which they do, in approving the war and when you go to war.

[16:50:07]

But yet, at the same time, if he's going to run for president with the vast majority of Americans opposing this war, this is a very sticky situation for him. So I find all of this commentary funny, but J.D. Vance has a political problem on his hands if he does decide to run for president.

BROWN: And remember, when this war first started, he was pretty quiet. And then he said this in March. Let's listen to the sound.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Whatever your view is, when the president of the United States makes a decision, it's your job to help make that decision as effective and successful as possible. And so the president said this yesterday, if you are on the team and you can't help implement the decisions of his administration, he has the right to make those decisions, then it's a good thing for you to resign. And I think that's exactly right.

It's fine to disagree. But once the president makes a decision, it's up to everybody who serves in his administration to make it as successful as possible. That's how I do my job. And I think that's how everybody in the administration should do their job, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So he has become, since then, really the face of this war, right? He's going to be there signing on Friday. How does he distance himself, though, from this come 2028, given all of his past comments, too, and the unpopularity of the war?

ABDUL: He's going to have the same problem that every vice president, including Kamala Harris, had.

BROWN: Yeah.

ABDUL: Remember, she was the border czar. That hung over her head. And I know that Senator Kennedy from Louisiana, my fellow Southerner, will be able to appreciate this because we have this saying down South. It's called making a cat's paw. And essentially what it is that that's when someone sets you up.

And Donald Trump is setting him up.

BROWN: I get a cat's paw. I've never heard that.

ABDUL: Yeah, you know, Donald Trump is, this is a setup for Donald Trump, much like the borders are. Now it may not be intentional, but this is something that's going to hang over his head, and notably, the articulate person that everyone like me and other people love, Marco Rubio, has been silent throughout this. They put out J.D. Vance, and I think they did that for a reason.

BROWN: Yeah, this only adds -- hold on really quick. I want to get to this because it adds to the Rubio-Vance talk around 2028. And so I want to play and then let you talk, Alex, and get your reaction to how Trump has responded to who would be the best successor.

Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Do you view Vice President J.D. Vance as your successor, the Republican nominee in 2028?

TRUMP: No, but he's very capable. It's too early. We're just starting.

BAIER: Right.

REPORTER: Do you agree that the heir apparent to MAGA is J.D. Vance?

TRUMP: Well, I think most likely, in all fairness, he's the vice president. I think Marco is also somebody that maybe would get together with J.D. in some form. I have two people that are doing a great job. I would say one is slightly more diplomatic than the other. I think they're both of very high intelligence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Where do you think he stands now, you think?

THOMPSON: Well, you go back to that first clip, and Marco Rubio is a hell of a poker face, because that guy was completely emotionless.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: He wanted to laugh, yeah.

THOMPSON: While Trump was making those cracks about J.D. Vance. You know, Donald Trump has been unapologetic about pitting these two people against each other.

There was a report, and actually, it was just this morning about the forthcoming book by John Swan, Maggie Haberman, where Trump was quizzing Rupert Murdoch about J.D. Vance. And Murdoch was like, I think Marco's brilliant, but J.D. Vance could be great.

And Donald Trump is really, he is shoving J.D. out onto the world stage and saying, OK, fix it.

BROWN: And how do you think he's doing? I'm wondering for your perspective?

ABDUL: J.D. Vance?

BROWN: Uh-huh. ABDUL: I don't think that J.D. Vance is ready for prime time. I said this even when he was chosen as the V.P. pick. I think that Marco Rubio is a much more capable V.P. And Donald Trump, the question of a successor, Donald Trump won't have a MAGA successor. I think that Donald Trump, it's one of one.

And so he won't have any successor. I think that's why someone like a Marco Rubio, who comes to the job itself with his own, you know, history in the Senate, J.D. Vance simply doesn't have that. He's going to need MAGA to win Rubio would not.

BROWN: How do you see it, David?

CHALIAN: Well, I don't know that we're ever going to get to see the J.D. Vance versus Marco Rubio primary. I'm not sure that that will actually take place. But I am so curious to find out, Donald Trump, as we see through all this primary season, has a real ability to steer this next 2028 GOP presidential primary. And if he chooses to do so, because I think it's a conflicting thing, he would like to anoint a successor and make that part of his legacy, no doubt, and make sure the MAGA movement continues with the person he lays his hands on.

But you know what else Donald Trump likes? He likes to watch a fight happen between them and invite that. And I think that's going to be a tension we're going to see that the president has throughout this whole process.

THOMPSON: Because they know the most important factor in the 2028 presidential race is who Trump endorses.

CHALIAN: Without a doubt.

THOMPSON: You just saw that dynamic play out in Texas, and you could see it play out in 2028.

[16:55:00]

BROWN: Yeah, in Louisiana.

All right, we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: All right, thanks to my panel. And you can now stream THE ARENA Live or catch up whenever you want in the CNN app. Just scan the QR code below.

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

"THE LEAD" anchored today by Phil Mattingly, starts right now.