Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Frank Conversation at the G7; Forced to Stay in Quarantine; Election Night in America; Polls Show Red Flags For Dems In Their Plan To Take Back Congress; Venus & Serena Williams Reunite For Wimbledon Doubles After 10 Years. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired June 16, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, world leaders are in France tonight, where sources say there are frank conversations happening about the U.S. agreement with Iran, an agreement we should note that even some key allies have not seen the text of. Are we getting any closer to learning the actual details here?

Plus, an American who was exposed to hantavirus on that cruise ship says she is being forced to stay in that Nebraska quarantine facility against her will, even though she's tested negative. Angela Perryman says she's negative for the virus. Other passengers have been allowed to finish their quarantine periods at home. But Perryman says that HHS Secretary RFK Jr. personally signed an order to stop her personally from leaving. She's going to join us from her room inside the national quarantine unit ahead.

Also, it's election night in America as voters in multiple states and Washington, D.C., head to the polls. Will President Trump's last- minute 1:00 A.M. endorsement in that Georgia Republican Senate primary have an impact? Will the nation's capital select a mayor who is ready to battle with the White House? We're tracking all the key races tonight.

And a surprise announcement thrilling the sports world, Venus and Serena Williams are teaming up to make a return to Wimbledon. What we're learning about their preparations ahead of one of the most iconic tournaments.

The Lead tonight, the U.S. agreement with Iran dominating discussions with world leaders at the G7 summit in France of world superpowers, details about what's actually in the deal, an opening of the Strait of Hormuz, an investment fund for Iran, the future of Iran's nuclear program, that's all still murky ahead of the signing ceremony set for Friday in Switzerland.

President Trump fielded questions about plans to release the text ahead of Friday during the G7 Summit today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Oh, I will. Well, because I'd like to get a formal setting first before we do that. But I have no problem with that. It's a great document. Here's what it says. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: CNN's Kaitlan Collins is just over the border in Geneva, Switzerland monitoring the latest. Kaitlan?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake. There's obviously a lot of skepticism back at home over this deal given the fact that it has not been released still by the administration, despite multiple questions to senior administration officials about where the text of this memorandum of understanding is from the Iranians and from the Americans.

But here at the G7 Summit, a lot of the world leaders that the president has been meeting with, in front of the cameras and behind closed doors, are happy that there is at least some movement on this, that the president has announced this, because they all want to see this war come to an end, Jake. I mean, they've been stuck in this awkward position for the last several months where the president has basically lashed out at every single world leader that he's meeting with here in the G7 for not helping out more with this war that he did not coordinate with them on before starting it. They've been stuck in between dealing with that and also populations that are against this war.

And so for the president to come to this summit to announce that they are taking a step that he believes will bring the United States closer to ending the war on Iran is certainly something that is being welcomed by the leaders here.

And so the president himself has said that soon he believes this war could be put in the rear view mirror, as there are still so many questions facing the administration, not just about this text alone, Jake, but about also the sanctions relief that Iran is expected to get as a result of this, the potential unfreezing of their assets that they want as part of any deal that they are going to strike, in terms of also what the president has been touting, which is what are they are doing with the highly enriched uranium, and what's going to happen with the prospect of a future nuclear deal, all of that is still unknown as the president has been meeting with these world leaders here, Jake. And so all that remains to be seen.

I will note that we went up to the G7 today in France, and we actually sat down with the Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, earlier today. He is actually someone who has seen the text of this agreement. So, we did an interview with him. We talked about this agreement. He is on board with it, he says, in terms of how it's structured and what it looks like, and he confirmed what the vice president told you yesterday. It's about a page and a half long in terms of not an extended kind of an agreement.

But, Jake, just because these other world leaders have seen it, it's still notable that here we are, 24 hours since we were last talking about this, and still the administration is declining to release the text of this, and now indicating that they are going to wait until that signing ceremony that happens on Friday, with the vice president repeatedly citing the Qataris and the Pakistani mediators as the reason for not releasing that text yet, even though he acknowledged himself he doesn't fully understand why they're not releasing it yet.

TAPPER: All right. Kaitlan Collins in Geneva, thanks so much. And, of course, don't miss Kaitlan on her show, The Source with Kaitlan Collins. As you just heard, she interviewed the Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, at the G7, and Prime Minister Carney has seen this MOU and is going to talk about it with Kaitlan. That's tonight at 9:00 Eastern on CNN.

My panel's here, former deputy Pentagon press secretary under President Biden, Sabrina Singh, former National Security Council official for every president that I've ever heard of, Brett McGurk.

[18:05:05]

Brett, we haven't yet seen any text of this deal, but based on everything that you have heard, what are your initial thoughts?

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: It seems from what we're seeing that we are paying a lot and making massive concessions of things that Iran has always wanted to solve a problem that was not a problem before the war started. I mean, that's kind of --

TAPPER: Opening the Strait of Hormuz?

MCGURK: that's basically the baseline. So, what is -- what The Wall Street Journal's reporting, and others, is that we're agreeing to waive all sanctions on banking and oil trade and all sorts of things which will be, if you do back of the envelope math, a billion dollars a week or so for Iran.

So, they will be receiving an influx of funds, which I think you got to then ask yourself how is it then possible to try to maintain the leverage to get this -- the nuclear commitments in this 60-day period? Because, so far, as we haven't seen this text, there's really no commitments from Iran, as I understand, other than perhaps for 60 days to let ships pass through the strait.

And even there, I think what is also troubling is it's unclear whether you're returning to the status quo antebellum, meaning before the war, and this is an international passageway, or if Iran is now asserting basically its sovereign domain over the strait, and that it'll charge fees as this 60-day period ends.

So, a lot of questions but at bottom line, I think I had said that we had a stalemate in the strait. There were three options. You could concede, basically cave to Iran's demands, you could try to endure the situation and endure the macroeconomic pressure, or you could militarily try to reseize the strait which was risky. It appears that the president made the decision to basically concede.

TAPPER: And declare victory, yes. And, Sabrina, Vice President Vance was on the show yesterday, and I started asking him, is there anything in this agreement to restrain Iran's ballistic missile capability and production or their funding of groups that the U.S. considers terrorists, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the short answer is no. But I guess the agreement says that we expect Iran to comport itself in a manner befitting the community of nations in a regional stability. Is that going to be enough, though?

SABRINA SINGH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, I mean, what's interesting is the objectives that were stated at the beginning of this war, which we know changed sort of over time, one of them was the ballistic missile capabilities that Iran retains and, of course, their support for proxy groups.

And now that's sort of fallen off. I mean, this agreement that's 14 points, a page and a half, I mean, I think I have grocery lists that are longer than that, really is trying to return the Strait of Hormuz to what the status quo was before the war, and that was something that was never even a factor when this war started.

I also thought what was interesting in your interview with JD Vance was that he said this is a general document. Brett has talked and all of us have talked, you know, so much about how good Iran is at negotiating. They want to draw this out. And so a general document when you're not going through the painstaking details of what they're -- who's going to get the highly enriched uranium when it comes to their nuclear program, all of those details, and then, of course, the proxy groups, the ballistic missile program, and that's going to be negotiated over 60 days, I mean, that's quite aspirational.

And so, I just don't see how that gets done without really going through the details, and we just don't have them yet.

TAPPER: And our Pentagon our excellent Pentagon reporter, Zach Cohen, was on earlier talking about how the intelligence agencies think now Iran knows that they have this card to play in shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. Before, it was always theoretical. You guys would war game it out.

SINGH: Yes.

TAPPER: And it would be like, well, they might do this. Now, they know, we can do it. It doesn't cost that much to do. We just needs a few drones and a few missiles.

I asked Vice President Vance about this, about what makes you think that now, you know, that Iran, having rebuilt their military, will not do this even while they're doing this now with a decimated military. Here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: One of the reasons why they made this agreement is because they recognize they're losing that leverage over the Strait of Hormuz. That's a card they can play. They played it once, but you can't play it every day indefinitely or you start to lose it. And I think they saw that that leverage point was getting weaker and weaker, which is why we've been able to strike this agreement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Brett? Well, look, I have great respect for anyone trying to do a deal with Iran. It's hard. This is really hard work. But if that was true, you do a -- we'll lift our blockade and we'll let traffic go through the strait, you don't have all these other upfront benefits which appear to be in the deal.

What I also find troubling about some of the things the vice president's saying is that he seems to be saying that we are transforming our relationship after 47 years, that Iran is turning a page in their relationship with us. I have to say, I study what Iranian officials are saying, what their state media is saying. There is zero indication of that.

And so I think what we're likely to have here is the Islamic Republic will maintain their ideological direction, led by the Revolutionary Guard, and they will take the resources they gain from this deal and reestablish their missile network and their proxy network.

[18:10:05]

Again, what they've done, this isn't just a problem for President Trump, it's a problem for every president.

TAPPER: Yes.

MCGURK: This is really hard. That's why it's such a horrible, wicked problem. But that's what I expect we'll see. And that's why I think this is not likely to succeed, frankly. This will probably fall apart.

TAPPER: And I know you're hoping the opposite, but, yes. And then, of course, the question is if this is entirely focused on the nuclear component, how are we going to make sure that they're abiding by their agreements? What about the inspections of the nuclear dust underneath all that rubble? Sean Hannity asked Vance about that last night. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Let's talk about any place, anywhere, anytime U.S. inspectors. Is that part of the deal?

VANCE: Yes, that's absolutely something that we are negotiating over, Sean. That's one of the final details that's going to be figured out here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: It seems like a pretty important detail that has not been agreed to.

SINGH: When your entire mission for the start of this war was to address the nuclear program, and you can't answer the question of how you're going to address the nuclear program and whether that means U.S. boots on the ground, I think that's a real problem. And I think that's why you're seeing on both sides of the aisle people saying, we need to see the text. And it's interesting that Mark Carney has seen the text before some of our members of Congress have.

TAPPER: Yes, exactly. Sabrina Singh, Brett McGurk, thanks to both you.

President Trump says he's going to send the new Iran agreement to Congress for review. Okay. If the text is being kept from members of Congress, some allies, what are the odds that every lawmaker's going to get to see it before it's released to the public? Well, I'll ask the first Iranian American Democrat ever elected to the House next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I've never even thought about it, but I will. I will send it to Congress. I like the idea. I like the idea. Send it to Congress, please, all right?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Back in the World Lead, President Trump this morning at the G7 Summit of world superpowers committed to sending the text of the U.S. agreement with Iran to Congress for review, though he did admit that the idea was not the first thing on his mind.

Joining us now, Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari, Democrat of Arizona, she's the very first Iranian American Democrat ever elected to the House. Congresswoman, thanks for joining us.

So, President Trump says he's committed to sending the deal your way, to Congress. Do you think you're going to get to see a copy of the text before the deal is signed on Friday?

REP. YASSAMIN ANSARI (D-AZ): I don't know, Jake. I mean, no part of this war has been -- has gone through Congress, whatsoever. This has been an illegal war. It's been catastrophic from day one when Trump started it in February, and he has bypassed Congress at every turn, and now he is desperate and stuck in this situation. And even the Senate majority leader says that he has not seen anything about this deal yet.

So, of course, now he wants to send, you know, potentially send this part of it to Congress. But I think that, ultimately, he has taken on this war by himself and this -- the blame for all of it is on Donald Trump.

TAPPER: What do you wish were in this deal that you haven't heard is?

ANSARI: The issue is that this war never should have happened to begin with. None of the objectives that Donald Trump tried to lay out, he changed the objective many times, as you know, as did Marco Rubio, as did J.D. Vance, whether it be destroying the nuclear program, whether it be regime change, whether it be the missile program, none of those alleged objectives have been reached.

We literally have a more combative, more hardline, younger regime in Iran. The nuclear program is not destroyed. What this deal is, at least what we have heard from what's been leaked, is that there is a deal to then talk about a nuclear deal.

The other piece that is blatantly missing in this deal is anything that has to do with human rights for Iranians. As I've talked about many times, back in January, thousands of Iranians were massacred. Donald Trump claimed, quote/unquote, help is on the way. He actually said that many times, and people believed him. And not one thing in this deal has to do with releasing political prisoners. There's U.S. citizens in Iran's most notorious prisons. They are still conducting political executions. There's really no guardrails on stopping the funding of terrorist organizations.

I think it's abysmal, but I want to be clear, this war needs to end. We need to cut our losses. It's been catastrophic from the beginning, and it's really destroyed the U.S.'s reputation on the world stage.

TAPPER: I want to get your reaction to something President Trump said today. And then after that clip from today, I'm going to run something that he said on the night when he announced the military operation against Iran.

So, here are those two bites back-to-back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Now, you talk about regime change. I never cared about regime change. It's never a part, but I guess you have regime change.

To the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand.

When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, he says today that regime change, he never cared about it, it was never a part, but I guess you have it because I guess it's a new regime in the sense that, you know, as you noted, they're younger and they're more hardline. What's your take on all that?

ANSARI: My take is that Trump just doesn't know anything about any of the countries that he gets himself involved in. I don't think he understands anything about Iranian history, domestic politics, who even is part of this regime. He literally doesn't understand or know anything about it.

So, it is a massive slap in the face when, you know, he, again, made all these claims, help is on the way, take over your government, et cetera, et cetera. It was always bullshit, but also weeks later he said, there's a new regime, because he doesn't understand how the regime in Iran is entrenched within the military and the economy and the rest.

[18:20:09]

He just doesn't know. He doesn't know anything about foreign policy.

It's really devastating, the outcome for Iranian people. Thousands of people were senselessly killed, 13 American service members for what? Like there's truly zero benefit that anybody has gotten out of all of this.

I think and I hope that anyone who may have ever believed that an ounce of truth comes out of this guy's mouth knows now that he is a pathological liar who cannot be trusted.

TAPPER: Arizona Democratic Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari, thank you so much for joining us. I appreciate it.

My next guest was on the hantavirus-stricken cruise ship and says she's being forced to stay in the national quarantine center despite testing negative and despite other passengers being allowed to quarantine at home. Stick with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

TAPPER: Our Health Lead now, quarantined hantavirus cruise passenger Angela Perryman just wants to go home. But Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. says despite Angela testing negative and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention saying she's good to go, RFK Jr. says she needs to stay in a Nebraska quarantine facility until next week.

This new order, signed on Monday, was first reported by The New York Times, and Angela Perryman joins us now.

Angela, first of all, we're so glad that you're doing okay. We've been hearing about all of this with horror in recent weeks. Other passengers have been allowed to leave for at-home monitoring. RFK Jr. says the State of Florida will not comply with the quarantine guidance. So, what do you make of all this, and how did you find out that you had to stay for at least another week?

ANGELA PERRYMAN, QUARANTINED CRUISE PASSENGER: Well, you know, what I make of this is the CDC is asking something that's not public health policy. They monitored 19 people that returned less than two weeks before us the entire time under home monitoring with no guard. Therefore, they demonstrated that neither of -- that is not necessary, that you don't need a guard. They used the protocol that Florida wants to use for monitoring those 19 people. So, their new requirements now are arbitrary, and they're not in line with good public health practice seems to be the consensus.

TAPPER: So, what's your message to RFK Jr.? I mean, if he were watching right now, what would you say to him? PERRYMAN: What would I say? I would ask him why he's doing this, why he's not listening to the doctors in the CDC that say that home monitoring is appropriate. Why is he overriding the doctors that are professionals and do this for a living? That doesn't make any sense to me. I would ask him why.

TAPPER: They've given you no reason for this? They just did this arbitrarily and with no adherence to how other patients have been treated?

PERRYMAN: They have not. The medical reviewer's report laid out a multi-page justification for home monitoring and why that adequately supported public health, and RFK Jr.'s half-page response ordering me to stay here addressed none of that. It simply said, stay.

TAPPER: What has been -- what has quarantine been like for you? How are you passing the time?

PERRYMAN: It's like being in a prison. This facility, the National Quarantine Unit, is essentially just an administrative prison for the federal government. It's a place to put people under administrative orders. We're not sick. We're receiving no medical care. The extent of our screening is somebody looks at the display on a thermometer twice a day when we take our temperature, and delivers us meals.

TAPPER: I'm not sure what your opinion of RFK Jr. is, but this is somebody who for decades now has been ignoring the advice of medical experts and health professionals. Do you see his decision regarding you in the same light as his general behavior when it comes to scientists and doctors, how he ignores them?

PERRYMAN: You know, I see it actually as exactly the opposite of his normal position. His position always seems to be that the federal government should not be intruding on the health issues of individuals, that the federal government should not be imposing mandates on individuals or states. Yet in this case, that's exactly what he's doing.

TAPPER: Fascinating.

PERRYMAN: So it seems hypocritical.

TAPPER: Well, I'm so sorry you're going through this, and we're all sending you our best, and we're glad you're healthy. Angela Perryman, thank you so much.

PERRYMAN: Thank you.

TAPPER: A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services tells us in a statement, quote, Secretary Kennedy specifically considered the medical recommendation before deciding to continue the current order consistent with Director Bhattacharya.

The Andes virus has a 40 percent fatality rate, 40 times that of COVID-19, and a known incubation period of up to 42 days, during which anyone exposed to this disease can become symptomatic and transmit it to others. In the absence of proper home monitoring by state authorities, the administration's quarantine order is necessary to ensure both Ms. Perryman's and her community's well-being, unquote.

Vice President J.D. Vance appeared on The View earlier today. He fielded questions not only on the Iran deal, but on inflation and the Epstein files. One of the ladies of The View who questioned Vance will join us next.

[18:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, while President Trump is away at the G7 Summit in France with world superpowers, Vice President J.D. Vance remains stateside embarking on a media tour for his new memoir. Vance's media push began this week with back-to-back interviews, including an appearance here on The Lead, where we focused on the Iran deal.

This morning, the vice president made his highly anticipated debut at the hot topics table, joining the ladies of The View on ABC.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: We inherited an affordability problem. We're doing a lot to make it better. I was a critic of Donald Trump back in 2015 and 2016 in the Trump administration.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. What happened?

VANCE: Well, Joy, a little humility, actually.

I don't know what the documents you're talking about. But I'm telling you, we are --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let me go to break.

VANCE: Sure.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let me go to break.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Just a little taste there. Here to discuss is one of the co- hosts of The View, our good friend, Alyssa Farah Griffin. Alyssa, thanks for joining us.

So, I think it's fair to say President Trump has a contentious relationship with ABC and The View specifically. Vance called today's appearance on The View entering the lion's den, which underscores just how striking it was that this interview even happened.

[18:35:01]

As a host, what stood out to you the most, do you think? ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Listen, it was actually my first time meeting J.D. Vance, which is kind of incredible because I worked for Mike Pence, Trump's former V.P., for most of his first term. I was curious to see which J.D. Vance was going to show up. Was he coming to try to own the libs and get viral moments, or was he coming to reach a daytime audience of mostly women that skews the political spectrum? And I think we got the latter.

He was there to answer hard questions. He went multiple rounds on Epstein, on the economy, on immigration. And I think that it stands out to me as we're starting to think about 2028, and he clearly has ambitions. He needs to be able to distinguish himself from Donald Trump without disagreeing with Donald Trump.

So, I think today was sort of a preview of that, where he's trying to soften the tone. He's walking back some of his own comments, like the cat ladies comment, to show that, yes, while he supports MAGA, he's going to defend the president, he's a softer touch on Donald Trump. Interesting to see if that's going to work, but I was overall very impressed with him stylistically.

TAPPER: The vice president also tried to explain away the president's, shall we say, puzzling comments about how he loves inflation. Let's run that clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You know what I really love? I love the inflation.

ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Trump said he loves the inflation.

VANCE: What he said, Ana, what he said is that he loves the fact that the inflation is going to come down when this war is over. That's what he said.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's not what he said.

NAVARRO: Are you his interpreter or are you his vice president?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, what he actually said, the president, was, I love the inflation. I love that it's going to come down afterwards. But he did say he loved the inflation. What do you make of the vice president's answer?

GRIFFIN: Listen, so I started by asking about the economy, which led to that question, and he acknowledged that people are hurting. He acknowledged that the economy is lagging, that inflation is too high right now, though he pointed to the fact that it was higher under the Biden administration, or for much of the Biden administration.

But even that is a break with President Trump, who really does not acknowledge any economic suffering that the American people are feeling. So, I think that, you know, was smart of him as a move to be -- to acknowledge, you know, with the background that he came from, that people are hurting. He danced around, you know, answers on solutions a bit other than gas prices. But I did think that was a noticeable break.

And then on Epstein, I mean, a huge story that we know this White House has been very concerned about, he did not call it a hoax. He did not dismiss it the way President Trump has. He said -- he even called himself a conspiracy theorist when it comes to Epstein, and leaned into saying he wants maximum transparency. I thought that was notable as well.

TAPPER: And on that topic of Epstein, Vance confirmed the reporting by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan in The New York Times that White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles privately described Vance as a conspiracy theorist. Here's that clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: I love Susie, but, absolutely, she thinks I'm a conspiracy theorist on the Epstein stuff because I think that it's crazy that you had this guy, who was clearly a sex predator, who was hanging out with a lot of very wealthy and powerful people. Like that really bothered me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It sounds like you believed that there would be men in the files who would be held accountable.

Why haven't we seen the release of over 2.5 million additional Epstein file documents? It seems like you are someone that is on the right side of history on this.

VANCE: We're not holding anything back. Some of those things are like the courts have to order you to release them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That exchange, do you think, do you think it further highlights tension and push and pull inside the White House over the handling of the Epstein files, because what the vice president's saying there is not what the president would be saying facing those same questions?

GRIFFIN: 100 percent. The president's called it a hoax. J.D. Vance is very in tuned with the base, and he understands that there's a massive rift within the MAGA base over Epstein and feeling like this White House has not handled it properly. So, I think he leaned into the fact that he does think it's very real. Though he created distance between Donald Trump and allegations. He did seem to call for transparency.

And there's a part at the end of this exchange that I think you could miss it if you weren't paying attention closely, but I asked him about some of this reporting that there may have been White House Situation Room tapes that were potentially leaked to The New York Times and led to this reporting by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan about this meeting. And I said, are you concerned that these tapes may have leaked to press? And he said, yes, he is concerned. TAPPER: Alyssa Farah Griffin, thank you so much. Good to see you.

GRIFFIN: Thank you.

TAPPER: Voters in four states and Washington D.C. are casting their primary ballots today. Our panel's here next to break down the key races and see what kind of impact President Trump will have on the results.

Stay with us

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

TAPPER: I don't even have to call for the election jam anymore. It just plays. It's time for our Politics Lead now.

Voters in Alabama, in California, in Georgia, and Oklahoma, and right here in the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., are headed to the polls today, serving as yet another test of President Trump's influence on the Republican Party. He has endorsed seven Republicans competing up and down the ballots.

The major contest we're watching right now is the Georgia Senate Republican runoff, a race that the president was late to get into. He eventually threw a last-minute endorsement, 1:00 A.M., to Congressman Mike Collins, a fierce MAGA loyalist who's running against former college football coach Derek Dooley, who's backed by Republican Governor Brian Kemp.

Georgia, of course, a rather touchy subject for President Trump. Here he was yesterday talking about Dooley at a tele-rally for Collins.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: He didn't vote in 2020, and he didn't vote in 2016 when those were big votes for me. He didn't vote in 2020 or 2016. And he said what lost Georgia that -- he said that -- when we had all the proof and all the evidence and everything we have right now, and it's coming out on a daily basis, he said he didn't think I won the election in 2020, and I won it by a lot.

[18:45:10]

TAPPER: Just a quick fact check. Cooley's right, he didn't win. Trump didn't win. Just again, Trump didn't win.

Let's talk about all this with Geoff Duncan, former Georgia lieutenant governor. A Republican who ran for governor in the Democratic ticket, did not win.

Geoff Duncan, Congressman Collins, plagued with controversy. He falsely claims Trump won Georgia in 2020. He's been accused of posting racist and anti-Semitic content on X or Twitter. He's under investigation by the Ethics Committee for possible misuse

of taxpayer funds. If he prevails as the winner tonight, what does that tell you about Trump's grip on the Republican Party?

GEOFF DUNCAN (D), FORMER GEORGIA GOVERNOR CANDIDATE: Well, I got to go back to that endorsement by Trump. That good old truth seems to poke its head up again about that 2020 election.

Yeah, look, it tells a lot -- I mean, the goal here for Republicans is to beat Jon Ossoff, and they've got to make sure they've got the right candidate, the right message. Jon Ossoff has done a good job. He's stayed out of kind of the partisan fray. He's been a constituent services master. He's been a great communicator.

So they've got to make sure they've got their best hand forward, and they're handing on a silver platter a tremendous amount of talking points in that election in November if Mike Collins is a nominee. It's also surprising to see how much effort Brian Kemp has put to supporting Derek Dooley. He's literally been on the road with him for months, almost a full year traveling the state.

TAPPER: In the House race for New York's 13th congressional district, there is a progressive PAC out with a new ad attacking the candidate who New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has backed. Take a look.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

AD NARRATOR: It will take all of us, one team, to win. But Darializa, she's not with us. She doesn't say (EXPLETIVE DELETED) ICE. She says (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Kamala Harris.

She doesn't attack sexual abuser Trump. She calls Joe Biden one.

So if Darializa's not playing with us, who's she passing the ball to?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So this gets at the dynamic that some of these candidates are so far left, they attack Democrats more than they attack Republicans, and this is a progressive PAC that's basically saying it's cool to say F ICE, But this woman said F Kamala Harris. And it's cool to say Donald Trump is such and such, but this woman said it about Joe Biden.

It's kind of an interesting push and pull in the Democratic Party. What do you make of it?

DUNCAN: Yeah, I think both sides are structurally broken, right? I've got the unique angle. I've run as a Republican, I've run as a Democrat, and I see the same structural break. They can't -- they can't get out of their own way in these primary processes, right? They want to just be purists in the primary and knowing that the end game is to win the actual election.

And certainly, I think there's another interesting data point out there. There's so many people that resonate them or identify as independents and the mistake I've made over the years, certainly learning from those mistakes, is that those independents don't necessarily mean they're moderates. They're still ideologically strong in one camp or the other. They just might be one or two issues away from being a purist.

And so trying to figure out how to navigate this, and I don't know what the answer is. I feel like both parties are just running the definition of insanity out over and over again.

TAPPER: Also joining us now is Dave Wasserman of "The Cook Political Report".

And Dave, we are seeing some warning signs emerge for Democrats even with Trump remarkably unpopular and when you look at recent polls the Democratic Party is shy of their generic ballot benchmark in past midterm years when a Republican was in the White House.

In 2006, generic Democrat was up 11 points over generic Republican. 2018, up 10 points. Now, it's only up five points and this should be even more of a red flag giving all the redistricting that's happening in favor of Republicans.

Why is this happening do you think?

DAVE WASSERMAN, SENIOR EDITOR & ELECTIONS ANALYST, COOK POLITICAL REPORT: Jake, in the historical context, the race for the House should not even be competitive when you have a president who's underwater in his approval by 20 points, according to our tracker. But Trump's lead or Trump's deficit in terms of his approval has fallen by more than Democrats lead in the generic congressional ballot has widened.

And Democrats on average have a lead of about six points. If you gave Democrats every House seat that either voted for Kamala Harris or voted for Donald Trump by six points or less in 2024, they'd only end up with 220 seats, which is just two over the magic line of 218 when you factor in all the redistricting that has benefited Republicans.

So this race for control of the House is genuinely competitive, although I still give Democrats an advantage.

TAPPER: A new CNN poll shows an increasing number of Americans dissatisfied with the two major political parties. Forty-seven percent of the electorate consider themselves independent. That's nearly half the country.

What do you make of that, Dave?

WASSERMAN: Well, we've seen a rise in the share of Americans who call themselves independents for many years now.

[18:50:00]

Some of it is that Democrats are frustrated with their own party, and Democrats only have about a 30 percent favorability. So there are a lot of left-leaning voters who dislike Donald Trump who don't want to call themselves Democrats. But the key is, when you look at these congressional polls, Democrats have a lead of somewhere in the range of 48 to 42.

And that means that there are still about 10 percent of voters who, even though they've made-up their mind on Donald Trump, they haven't been sold on Democrats as the alternative yet. And even though that group of undecideds on the congressional ballot. they dislike the president on average, they still need convincing by Democrats, and that's where candidate quality in these Senate and House races is going to be so important.

The race is on to define the challengers on the Democratic side, and Republicans are in stronger financial position than they were eight years ago.

TAPPER: Dave Wasserman and Jeff Duncan, thanks so much.

One of the greatest duos ever will be making a surprise return to the biggest stage in tennis. We're talking about Venus and Serena, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:55:14]

TAPPER: A dream team reunion. Venus and Serena Williams headed back to Wimbledon. The tennis icons have accepted a wild card into the doubles draw, marking their first Wimbledon appearance as a team in 10 years. Winners of six Wimbledon doubles titles, the sisters have not played in the tournament together since winning it all in 2016.

Let's bring in CNN sports analyst Christine Brennan.

Christine, last week you predicted Serena would return to Wimbledon in singles. Are you surprised that she's returning in doubles and with her sister?

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, CNN SPORTS ANALYST: Not surprised about the doubles part because that just makes more sense since she has been doing a few doubles matches. I guess there's still one wild card left in singles, but she said today, no, not doing that. A little bit surprised about that they're doing this, but then again, you think about it, Jake, it makes sense.

Venus has kept playing. She's had wild cards in singles over the last few years. Venus actually turns 46 tomorrow.

TAPPER: Wow, unbelievable.

BRENNAN: Serena is 44, added up, 90 years old, together. It's truly a remarkable story.

So, you know, they've had great success. 14 Grand Slam titles together in doubles, six of them, as you said, at Wimbledon. This is the place they love the most. Serena's won seven Wimbledon singles titles. Venus has won five Wimbledon singles titles.

This is home. It's a home game for them, home court. And they will just, of course, the Rafters will bring it down when they show up on the --

TAPPER: How significant do you think it is for to grant a wild card to two of the most decorated players in the sport, even if they are in their 40s.

BRENNAN: Yeah. Oh, it's a no-brainer. I mean, as you know --

TAPPER: They're a huge draw.

BRENNAN: Yeah, well, here we're talking about them, right? I mean, they are the biggest names in tennis. The moment that they are showing up there, it is a great boon for Wimbledon. It's a no-brainer. The TV numbers, the attendance, the tickets, scalping, whatever will happen, to be able to watch them play, to be able to take your kids and say, hey, we saw Serena, we saw Venus.

And of course, one of the great parts of the story is Serena's eight- year-old daughter, Olympia, is the one who said, mom, go and play with Venus. I want to watch you play. And she's eight now.

TAPPER: Yeah.

BRENNAN: So she gets it. She understands. She wants to watch her mom and her aunt play.

TAPPER: So, obviously, you've made -- you've convinced us all this was a brilliant move and a no-brainer by Wimbledon. Obviously people are going to flock to the games. They're going to love it. It's going to be a fan favorite.

Here's the big question. Is it going to be competitive? How -- how much can they actually contend against the players in their teens and 20s?

BRENNAN: Right, the women who grew up idolizing the women sisters and wanting to be them someday, I think they could win a match maybe or two in terms of contending no. I think early rounds, if you want to watch them get there early, I think a round or two, even if they were to lose in the first round, just showing up I think is -- is a wonderful thing.

The way people sometimes look at older golfers and want to see them play on a senior tour. So I think they can be competitive, as I said, maybe win one or two, Jake. I do not see them winning the tournament or even getting close to winning the tournament.

TAPPER: So is this about letting her eight-year-old daughter see them play live? Is this about a final chapter? Is this opening the door to more appearances as a team? What does this signify?

BRENNAN: I think Serena is testing the waters to see if she really does want to come back as a singles player. Not necessarily to win, but as we talked last week, 116 mile per hour serve. I mean, she was sitting on the couch bored and now she's able to do this. She feels like she's playing better in the doubles that they lost today, she and a partner. So I think it's a test for her to see if she can be competitive moving forward this year and into next year.

TAPPER: So quick, To shift gears, transfer quarterback Brendan Sorsby is not going to play for Texas Tech this fall after all. He's going to enter the NFL supplemental draft instead. This is after, of course, this unprecedented legal fight over his eligibility because he acknowledged a gambling addiction. He bet on pro and college sports. He even bet on some of his own games. I think he bet on himself to win, but still.

What do you make of all that?

BRENNAN: Yeah, what a mess. This is the Wild West. This is what happens when the NCAA doesn't have any control. And the void is filled, Jake, with everyone else. And the money is extraordinary.

Gambling now allowed in sports. You've got young men, young women, but especially young men. He has over 1,000 bets, well over 1,000 that he bet on three different teams when he was playing for Indiana, Cincinnati, and then Texas Tech.

Now it's the NFL's problem to decide. At least he's gone from college sports. But this is the future, it's sad to say, of college football.

TAPPER: Christine Brennan, thanks so much. You can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Bluesky, X and on TikTok @JakeTapper. You can follow the show on X, and Instagram @TheLeadCNN.

If you ever miss an episode of THE LEAD, you can watch a show on the CNN app.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.