Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

White House: FBI investigating Leak of Preliminary Intel Assessment on Strikes; White House: Intel Shows Total Obliteration of Iran Nuclear Program; Details Emerge of Secret Diplomatic Efforts to Restart Iran Talks; Interview with Sen. Angus King (I-ME): Senate to Receive First Classified Briefing of U.S. Attack on Iran. Aired 1:30- 2p ET

Aired June 26, 2025 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00]

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: ... with it, and we need to get to the bottom of it, and we need to strengthen that process to protect our national security and protect the American public. Mary Margaret, go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Karoline. You just laid out a lot of different stories about disinformation that Natasha, excuse me, that Natasha Bertrand had pushed during her time at Politico and at CNN. Why would any member of the Trump administration leak anything to her?

LEAVITT: Well, again, as I just said, we're investigating who that leaker was. It could have been someone in the intelligence community, or it could have been someone on Capitol Hill who had access to this document. We are -- the FBI is searching for that person.

Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks, Karoline. The president --

LEAVITT: And clearly it was done to undermine the president, to answer your question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I'm sorry, I really wanted to follow up on that really quickly. Before the strikes on Iran, we saw a number of other leaks about Tulsi Gabbard, the Vice President, Vance. Is there an effort to divide the president's team when it comes to these leaks, and which reporters they choose?

LEAVITT: I do believe there's an effort on the outside of this building to try to divide the president's team on the inside. And sometimes you have to look at these headlines and laugh because I've been in meetings where I know these things are absolutely not true. And again, we do our best here, I believe, to try to push back and correct the record with all of you, but there is fake reporting. That's just the reality of this country, unfortunately. But I can assure you the president's team is strong, especially the national security team. Everyone is very proud of the president, of our commander-in-chief and of our military for the successful operation that took place on Saturday night.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks, Karoline. The president was obviously very pleased with getting his NATO allies to increase defense spending. He's made the same demands of Asia-Pacific allies of the United States, including Australia, where I'm from.

How does the NATO result impact negotiations with Asia-Pacific allies? Does it, per se, strengthen the president's resolve to say, well, you know, our NATO allies have done it, now you need to do it too?

LEAVITT: Yes, I mean, look, if our allies in Europe and our NATO allies can do it, I think our allies and our friends in the Asia- Pacific region can do it as well. But as for our specific relations in those discussions, I'll let the president speak on those.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And can I just ask as well, when he had to leave the G7 early, he missed out on a number of bilateral meetings that were scheduled with other world leaders, including the prime minister of Australia. Obviously, President Zelenskyy, he's managed to meet since then. But are there plans afoot to make up for those meetings with the world leaders that he missed out on?

LEAVITT: Yes, I think many of those world leaders understood the situation happening in the Middle East and the urgency and the need for the president to get back to Washington to monitor that situation. And obviously, that was the right call, considering the success of not only the operation on Saturday night, but also the ceasefire that the president has since brokered on behalf of not just our country, but the entire world, frankly. But he has made up a couple of those meetings, and he has had direct phone calls with some of those leaders he was supposed to meet with as well.

Not all. Ed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yes. Thanks, Karoline. So, to clarify on trade, so what happens to the countries other than China on July 9th?

LEAVITT: That's a decision for the president to make, and I will let him make it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. And secondly, so now that oil is just about upper $60 a barrel, when's the administration going to start refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

LEAVITT: That's, again, a decision for the president to make and our Secretary of Energy. There's no imminent plans to do that, from what I understand. But as you have seen with the plummeting of oil prices in this country, it's because this president and our Department of Energy have really tapped into our resources here, and we have an increase of supply, unlike the previous administration that totally hampered our domestic energy efforts but totally robbed and drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

So, when the time is right, the president will make that decision. But right now, we are utilizing the resources that God blessed us with right here in our country to produce energy for our people. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And one more on the one Big, Beautiful Bill. Does the president believe the parliamentarian of the Senate should be removed?

LEAVITT: I haven't spoken to him about that, and I'll let him speak on it. However again, he knows this is part of the process and the inner workings of the Senate, and he wants to see this bill done. And he remains very much engaged in these conversations and in this process with lawmakers in both the Senate and the House side, and the whole White House does as well.

In the back. Yes, Libby.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Karoline. Earlier today, the president stated that these photos out of Fordow that were showing nuclear materials being removed, suspected of showing that, were just concrete workers. What intelligence is that based upon?

LEAVITT: Look, the president shared that statement with all of you, and I already answered the question about whether uranium was moved prior to the strike, and the answer is no.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is there a chance that the DIA report becomes public at any point?

LEAVITT: I don't think this administration is going to get into the habit of sharing classified, top-secret information. Those classifications exist for a reason, and I wish everyone who had the privilege of looking at these documents would respect that. Daniel.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Karoline.

[08:05:10]

You've been emphatic about the president's expectations for the one Big, Beautiful Bill to hit that July 4th deadline. You had a big meeting on Capitol Hill yesterday with the Republican Study Committee.

Did you walk away from that meeting pleased with what you heard? Did it bolster your confidence that Congress is able to meet the expectation of the president?

LEAVITT: Yes, I did. The camaraderie at the Republican Study Committee was great. Members, you know, expressed, you know, their feelings about the bill, but as we saw, the bill passed through the House, despite many people believing it could not.

So, the House is ready to receive this bill back from the Senate so they can pass it and bring it to the president's desk. So, it was a great meeting, and Republicans are very unified.

And we also talked about the mayoral race in New York City and how the victory of the Democratic primary candidate really shows how far left and unhinged the Democrat Party has become.

And Republicans truly are on the right side of every issue in this country. We are on the side of no men and women's sports, on the side of low taxes, secure borders. So, that was the topic of discussion, and the unity was strong and the camaraderie was high.

And I know everyone looks forward to being here at the White House for the bill signing next week. Sure.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thanks, Karoline. The Supreme Court ruled this morning that South Carolina is allowed to deem Planned Parenthood as not a qualified healthcare provider --

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: All right, we have been listening there to the White House press briefing as still questions abound about the intelligence showing the level of damage to Iran's nuclear program. And just making a point here, because we want to, that our colleague, Natasha Bertrand, who was singled out there repeatedly, is an excellent reporter.

And she and her colleagues who broke this story, as they did on this DIA intelligence report, they made very clear that this was a preliminary report, that it is low confidence because it is preliminary. And we should also note, it's a preliminary report that comes from the Trump administration. This is the DIA, it's the Pentagon's intel arm from the Trump administration.

The reporting stands for itself. And as we heard the press secretary there trying to attack Natasha's body of work, I do just want to note something, which is that she singled out reporting on the lab leak. And the Trump White House has asserted that COVID was originated because of a lab leak.

They assert this because of a CIA report that said a lab leak was likely. I do want to note that CIA report actually found that with low confidence in their conclusion. Low confidence, very clearly fine for them if it is fitting their narrative, not when it doesn't, but we are going to continue to report the facts.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Yes, no question. It's also important to point out that the existence of this report and our reporting of it is in no way meant to diminish the armed service members who carried out this mission as the administration continues to insist. It's not a reflection of their work or their sacrifice, but exclusively a reflection of the assessment that the Pentagon's intelligence are made of the success of this mission.

We have a panel with us to discuss. CNN's Brian Stelter, CNN's Kylie Atwood is with us, as well as retired US Army Lieutenant General Mark Schwartz. Brian, first to you, CNN has put out a statement regarding Natasha's reporting and the team's reporting, and we're standing behind it.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: That's right, Natasha was one of three bylines, three reporters with three separate sources on the initial Tuesday story. And within a number of hours, we saw The New York Times, The Washington Post, Associated Press, Fox News, and other outlets all match that reporting. So when Karoline Levitt talks about one leaker and claiming the FBI

will find that one leaker, I think it's important to note that these stories from CNN and other outlets were sourced to multiple anonymous sources, and there was not just one reporter on this story. There were many reporters on this story. Natasha does have an outstanding reputation, a great history of reporting. So I think those petty personal attacks from the White House podium, they reveal more about the White House than they do about CNN or any other news outlet in this case.

That story on Tuesday was not supposed to be the final word. In some ways, it was just the first word as more and more reporting is done about this topic. But because President Trump used the word obliterated instantly on Saturday night and has insisted on it ever since, this is now a muddy issue.

And I think we see what's going on here. Most viewers see the game that's being played by the administration. It's an attempt to attack the messenger so that people will dismiss the message.

However, we know from CNN polling and polling by other outlets, Americans are very interested in this strike. They want to know what happened. They want to get to the truth of what happened. And getting to the truth does take time. It can be frustrating, right? Boris, Brianna, you felt this the way I do.

Interest in a story is always highest when the information is lowest. And by the time we get all the information, sometimes people have moved on. That might be the case here.

But I think the petty attacks versus the professionalism of the reporters does stand out here.

[08:10:00]

And it reminds me of that old line from Washington Post ex-editor Marty Barron. Early on in Trump's first term, he said, we're not at war with the Trump White House. We're at work. And the work continues no matter what.

KEILAR: Yes, the work does continue. Let's bring in retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Mark Schwartz. General, as you have been listening, and we've got so many data points at this point about the information that we are getting, and we do have to be very clear, and you can put this into context, there is so much information that we are either A, not getting, or B is still not available because it is sensitive, because it has not been obtained.

What is your assessment of what we know?

LT. GEN. MARK SCHWARTZ, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Thank you, Brianna. Great to be with you. So I watched the entirety of the Pentagon briefing, and of course I watched with you the briefing that just took place from the White House.

And first I'll say the level of detail and the history behind the targeting that led to the weaponeering development and the actual execution of Fordow and the other sites that were hit by the United States that was provided by the chairman was exceptional. The level of transparency that he provided just reinforces, I think, the level of trust. I've known General Caine, "Razin" Kane since 2002 when we were doing the workup for Iraq.

So that was superb. The other thing I would comment on is that there's a lot of very exquisite intelligence, and I think that's the best way to categorize it from, you know, the 17 intelligence agencies that are responsible for building and developing that BDA that certainly the DIA report wasn't privy to and the individuals likely that, you know, provided the information on that preliminary report aren't available to. That is all going to come out in classified session with those that have the subcategories underneath the TS level.

That's also, you know, coming from our liaison partners and certainly the Israelis. So I, after listening to General Caine, I have a very high level of confidence that the effects that were desired to be achieved, even though he caveated it's the IC, the intelligence community's job to provide that battle damage assessment. But I have a very high level of confidence that the destruction, which is a joint term for BDA, was accomplished in Fordow.

SANCHEZ: It's important nuance to keep in mind. General, please stand by because CNN's Kylie Atwood has some new reporting. One of the things that came up in the briefing, Kylie, is when these talks that President Trump vowed would happen with Tehran would actually happen.

The press secretary is saying that right now there's nothing on the books.

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. So President Trump said just yesterday that they were going to have talks, the U.S. and Iran, next week. We haven't learned the details of when that's going to happen.

But one thing that we are learning in some intense reporting over the last few days are the details of the proposals that are being put forth, being brainstormed between the U.S. and Gulf nations with regard to what the U.S. might actually put on the table to offer Iran, to draw them back to the table.

One of the things that they're discussing is allowing -- helping Iran get access to 20 to $30 billion, and that money would go towards building Iran's civilian nuclear program, its energy, its nuclear energy program. That's something that Steve Witkoff generally spoke about in an interview yesterday.

But the other things they're discussing are lifting sanctions on Iran and also allowing them to easier access $6 billion in Iranian funds that are currently restricted. These are some very specific things that are going to be -- that are being discussed right now. None of these terms are set in stone.

We talked to White House officials who said there's a lot of proposals that are around right now. We also talked to people who have been involved in the talks with Iran before Israel started its operation against Iran, and of course, before the U.S. strikes against Iran, who said it's really unclear what's going to come to fruition here. The Iranians are also saying they don't know anything about talks happening next week.

But what's clear from our reporting is that there are active efforts, specific terms being discussed to put on the table with the Iranians when and if that actually happens yet to be determined.

KEILAR: In general, this -- how are you seeing this going hand in hand, this military action, and then this diplomatic action?

SCHWARTZ: Well, first off, you know, I don't think the Iranian regime is going to publicly announce that they're, you know, willing and forthcoming to sit down with the United States. My belief is that a lot of back channel and negotiation is taking place on the location and at least the initial talking points that are going to be discussed. Certainly, the way in which Iran responded to the attacks that took place by the United States on Saturday night against our installation in Qatar and, you know, Qatar's sovereign territory was also an indication, right?

[08:15:02]

They had to find a way to climb down from the tree. And so they picked the most well defended while largest installation, and frankly, predominantly evacuated less mission critical personnel and equipment that was under shelter.

So there's a lot of indications there that I believe the Iranians are going to come to the table. It's going to be a challenging negotiation, but certainly the demonstration of what was accomplished by Israel and then reinforced by the United States and the impact that even IAEA director spoke to earlier today, and I think Secretary Hegseth referenced his report that, you know, they're in a position not of strength and they're certainly not going to convey that publicly, right, to their domestic audience -- Brianna.

KEILAR: Yes, General Schwartz, thank you so much for being with us. Kylie, thank you so much for your reporting.

And ahead, minutes from now, senators will be getting their first classified briefing on the strikes on Iran. We will speak with Senator Angus King next.

[08:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: In just a few minutes, senators will get their first classified briefing about the U.S. strikes in Iran. The briefing was abruptly postponed on Tuesday, sparking outrage from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. At the time, the White House cited evolved circumstances for the change.

With us now, someone about to attend this classified briefing, Senator Angus King of Maine. Senator, thanks so much for being with us. How confident are you that as the president, the CIA director and Israeli intelligence have suggested Iran's nuclear program has been obliterated?

SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Well, I think that's the primary question we're going to be asking today. What intelligence do they have? And in reality, the intelligence is going to be evolving.

There's no way to tell with the instant replay, if you will, instant analysis, the extent of the damage. And of course, the unanswered question that can only be answered by further intelligence is whether nuclear material was moved from these various sites to somewhere else in Tehran or in Iran that could be of danger in the future.

The two questions I'm looking for is, A, what do we know about the effectiveness of the strikes?

And B, what do we know about the intentions and inclinations of the regime in Iran?

They can react one of two different ways. They can say this was pretty bad. Let's give this up. We can get sanctions. We can get some money. We can become a normal country and move forward. Or they can look at Kim Jong-un and say we need an insurance policy. We'd better race to a bomb.

And those two things are obviously of enormous consequence. And I should say, Boris, nobody's questioning the bravery or the skill of the pilots and the personnel that were involved in the strike. The question is, how effective was it?

And that's a question that will hopefully be addressed this afternoon with some more or less definitive intelligence. And then what do we know about where Iran goes from here?

SANCHEZ: On the question of that insurance policy, as you referred to it, the Iranian parliament voted to end cooperation with the UN's nuclear watchdog. It's expected that that is going to get signed into policy for Tehran. I wonder if that gives you an indication of where this might be headed. If diplomacy is still possible or you think the Iranians are determined to go the way of North Korea.

KING: Well, you got to realize Iran is significantly weaker now than they were just six months ago. The dismantling of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the fall of Assad in Syria, the dismantling of Hamas in Gaza, all of those are the Iran proxies that have been the most dangerous. They still have the proxies in Iraq that are dangerous, but they're on their back foot.

And really, they have a fundamental decision to make. Do we want to join the community of nations, be a prosperous country in the Middle East, or do we want to continue on this, I think, futile path that they've been on? But they may feel that they have to race to a bomb, and that's what -- I think that's one of the things that we really have to be concerned about. It would be great if this strike on Saturday night convinced them that that was a fruitless path, but we can't rule it out. They might have moved some, and there's some indication they may have moved some of that uranium, and as you may know, they were only weeks away from enough fissile material to make a rudimentary bomb. And so this is a dangerous moment.

I'm certainly rooting for diplomacy and for sensible people in Tehran to realize it's in their long-term interest to get off of this track that they've been on for so long.

SANCHEZ: Senator, to your point about the preliminary indications that Iran may have tried to take steps to move some of that enriched uranium, the president and the White House have tried to knock that down, President Trump saying that it would be too sensitive of an operation, that it would essentially be impossible. Given that disparity and the fact that the administration has tried to move to limit intelligence sharing with Congress soon after this leak of the preliminary DIA report, are you concerned at all that the information you're about to get in this classified briefing may be politicized?

KING: Yes, I am concerned about that.

[08:25:00]

One of the signals is that Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, is not going to be at this briefing. She's in control of the whole intelligence apparatus.

We are going to have Director Radcliffe from the CIA, but the fact that she's not here gives me some concern. But I'm not willing to say, oh, they couldn't have done it. I want the facts. The job of the intelligence community is to seek the truth and tell the truth, and telling the truth, I think, to the American people.

And one other additional point, Boris, regardless of the success or lack thereof of this strike, and it does look successful, I'm still concerned about the idea that one person can make this decision to take this country into war. The framers of our Constitution didn't think that was a good idea. That's why they put the war power in Congress. And I don't care if it's the Archangel Gabriel or Donald Trump or Joe Biden. I worry about one individual having this power that could plunge a country into war without any consultation with Congress, let alone a passage of some kind of authorization.

SANCHEZ: Senator, we're very limited with time, but before we go, you've called the so-called Big, Beautiful Bill the most regressive and harmful piece of legislation you've ever seen. Is there any adjustment that could be made to it that would alter your position?

KING: Yes, I have a really simple response to this. If they restricted the tax cuts to only people making less than $400,000 a year, there would be no need of the cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. Pretty straightforward.

Let's give a middle-class tax cut and not devastate our hospitals, our communities, and millions of people who rely on Medicaid and SNAP for staying alive, frankly. So I think there's a solution here, and I hope my Republican colleagues will accept it. Otherwise, what we're doing is literally taking food out of people's mouths to give a tax cut to a millionaire. To me, that just doesn't make sense.

SANCHEZ: Senator Angus King, thank you so much for the time and perspective. We appreciate it.

KING: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Stay with CNN. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END