Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Vance Says Iran's Negotiating Position Is Still Unclear; Polls Open In Kentucky Primary As Trump Looks To Unseat Re. Massie; Vance, Blanche Defend Trump's Nearly $1.8B "Anti-Weaponization" Fund; Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired May 19, 2026 - 15:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:30:43]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Just a short time ago, Vice President J.D. Vance was taking questions from the White House press briefing room, the vice president asked about the war with Iran, and the potential still to strike a deal 11 weeks into the conflict.

Here's what he said to reporters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have an opportunity here, I think, to reset the relationship that has existed between Iran and the United States for 47 years. That's what the president has asked us to do, and that's what we're going to keep on working at.

But it takes two to tango. We are not going to have a deal that allows the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon, so as the president just told me, we're locked and loaded. We don't want to go down that pathway, but the president is willing and able to go down that pathway if we have to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Let's discuss with CNN global affairs analyst Brett McGurk. He was the former Middle East and North Africa coordinator at the National Security Council. Brett, great to see you, as always.

It sounds like more of the same.

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yes. Two to tango means the Iranians have to be willing to do that to reset the terms of the U.S.- Iran relationship. And the guys in charge now in Tehran are the types of folks who would have no inclination to do that.

So, again, I just -- I remain very cautious before a predicting. We might see a deal. And what I'm hearing from folks in the Middle East, particularly in the Gulf region, that have to deal with this every day, is no longer asking when is this going to end. When will we get back to a status quo? The question now is how do we adapt to a new normal that might go on for the foreseeable future? And that's basically, I think, where we are.

SANCHEZ: It's notable that Vance, he was asked about his view of the negotiations, the impressions that he got from the Iranians, and he said that he believed they are unclear about where they want to go. They are a fractured country. He said he's not sure if that's negotiating a bad faith or a bad communication.

But it's hard to figure out what Iranians want to accomplish out of the negotiation. It's also very possible, as we've seen in -- in our reporting and -- and experts such as yourself, that the Iranians are just trying to delay this as much as they can. No?

MCGURK: I would advise the vice president, I know exactly what Iran wants, what these guys who are in charge now want. They want the U.S. out of the Middle East region, and they want to ultimately eliminate Israel. That is the driving ideological philosophy of the system since 1979. It remains their driving philosophy.

And they are now using a leverage of the Strait of Hormuz to try to achieve those aims. So, what keeps coming back has been reported in these Iranian demands, is the U.S. pays reparations for the war, and the U.S. basically gets out of the Middle East.

We shut down our bases, which I don't think we're going to do. That's what they want. And so long as those types of people are in charge, such as Ahmad Vahidi, who's now the leader of the -- of the Revolutionary Guards, and the Supreme Leader's son to the extent he's still making decisions, it's going to be very hard to get a deal worse.

SANCHEZ: As part of the response from the Iranians, they insisted on the right to continue enriching uranium, no significant movement on the crux, the central sticking point in these negotiations.

Essentially, does the president, in order to get what he wants out of Tehran, have to use force? Is that really the only option?

MCGURK: I think, look, they're -- I'm sure they're looking at military options. It's unclear really what happened yesterday with this backing off. I think it sends a poor message to the Iranians to say, we're coming and then to back off. You do that a number of times. They start to not taking -- taking you too seriously.

[15:35:01]

Look, the pressure does matter in a negotiation. You need force and leverage behind you. Economic pressure can matter with Iran, but they can wait out -- wait this out a long time. So the blockade we have on Iran, there will be compounding economic pressure inside Iran. That'll start to bite.

There are some more pragmatic voices. They don't have much power, Boris, such as the President Pezeshkian and he kind of has to think about how to run the country. So his voice might be heard, but ultimately they're going to just -- they're going to wait this out, that's what they do.

And the question is, can we then withstand or try to adapt to the macroeconomic circumstances, such as new routes for the oil?

Again, what's happening in the Middle East now, new pipelines are being built from the east to the west, new ports are being refurbished, but this is going to take a time, and a period of years, honestly.

Over time, the salience of the Strait of Hormuz will be reduced in terms of its criticality to the global economy. That's actually a good thing in the overall balance of power with Iran.

But right now, Iran has that Strait basically closed. It's the Revolutionary Guards who have it in their hands. And like a hostage taker, they're not going to give up their, what they have.

SANCHEZ: Right.

MCGURK: If it's a hostage or if it's Strait of Hormuz, what 00 other than for a very high price, that I don't think we're willing to pay.

SANCHEZ: That wasn't the case back in early February before the U.S. launched these attacks. Just looking at the situation over Iran and these -- these timetables, the pressure that the administration's under, because it's not just that the midterm elections are coming up, but Americans are only going to deal with rising gas prices for so long.

And the embargo on the Persian Gulf or -- or the Gulf of Oman, as you noted, it's going to take a while to really have a -- a deleterious effect on Tehran.

Ultimately, do you think the United States went into this without fully understanding the importance of the Strait of Hormuz and how much leverage seizing it would give the leadership into Iran?

MCGURK: I think, of course, like President Trump has done something no President has done before. He's -- he's taken the Iranians on directly.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

MCGURK: Every other President has dealt with this very serious vexing problem in other ways. And one of the risks of taking them on directly is this is a Strait of Hormuz.

Now, I thought what the president did in June against the -- the nuclear facilities was very smart and will manage to contain the fallout.

In this operation, on the first night when the Iranian leadership was eliminated, that means Iran immediately goes to their kind of total war strategy, which includes the Strait of Hormuz. So it should have been anticipated. It should have been anticipated.

We do have military plans to -- to basically control the Strait of Hormuz and -- and secure shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. This has been developed over years through CENTCOM.

What makes it difficult is the new asymmetrical modes of warfare and drones that can fly over a thousand kilometers whole new game. So we're working to figure that out. That's why I just go back.

I think this is going to last for some time. And I think we have to look for ways to ameliorate the macroeconomic fallout.

One of the worst things to do here would just be to back off because then the Iranians have basically asserted themselves in the Strait of Hormuz and they will just hold on to it in a major way. That would not be a good outcome. So we're in a tough spot, Boris. Tough spot.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

MCGURK: We're in a tough spot. Hope there are going to be a diplomatic breakthrough, but again, very doubtful. I think this is going to go on for some time. We might see a return to the military campaign, but I -- I don't know.

I just think you've got to keep the economic pressure on, try to look for some -- some diplomatic openings, but be ready to settle in and see this through.

SANCHEZ: Wow. Brett McGurk, appreciate the expertise. Thanks so much.

Coming up, Republican senators reacting now to President Trump's surprising endorsement in the Texas Senate primary. Why they say the president's pick could cost Republicans a critical seat in the U.S. Senate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:40:53]

SANCHEZ: Voters in the six states are heading to the polls, but President Trump seems fixated on one primary over all others today. He's hoping that voters in Kentucky bust one of his biggest critics, long-time Republican Congressman, Thomas Massie. Remember, Massie has spoken out against the war with Iran.

He's also worked alongside Democrats to force the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files against the president's wishes. His loss would signal to Republicans that push back to the president comes at a price.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: But apparently so too can loyalty, because President Trump has just endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over incumbent Republican Senator John Cornyn in next week's Texas Senate runoff election.

It's a potentially devastating blow to Cornyn, who boasts a 99 percent voting record with President Trump and who just last week introduced a bill to rename a Texas highway after Trump.

Let's go to CNN chief congressional correspondent, Manu Raju. Manu, what are you hearing from Republican lawmakers?

MANU RAJU, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Senate Republicans believe this is the worst possible outcome in a race that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars to help the eventual Republican nominee.

And it could go sideways, could eventually cost them a seat, could potentially cost them the Senate, which is why Senate Majority Leader John Thune had been begging President Trump to get behind Cornyn believing he is a much stronger candidate in a general election that Ken Paxton, whose number of liabilities from his past.

And that's why when I asked John Thune today about the impact on this -- on this state, on the overall map, he tried to look past Texas and say there were other possibilities for the Republicans to hold onto the Senate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: How much harder the needed to do the majority -- how much harder the president's decision here made it for you, the number one job to keep the Republican majority, given your concerns about Ken Paxton's viability as a candidate?

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): We -- we look at, you know, lots of races around the country and the majority runs through a lot of different states. We have 24 seats up this time, the Democrats have only nine, so we've got a lot more ground to defend. We also have a couple of offensive opportunities.

So, you know, one state doesn't determine the outcome of this election, but obviously, we care about every state and we care about helping see our incumbents succeed. When it comes to winning elections, it starts with quality candidates. Then you've got to have them a record of accomplishment to run on.

[15:45:15]

And I'm very confident we'll hang on and maybe even expand the majority of the United States Senate.

RAJU: Is Ken Paxton a quality candidate -- Ken Paxton a quality candidate --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did President Trump give you a heads-up beforehand or did you find out (INAUDIBLE).

THUNE: I -- I found out I think where everybody else did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So Senator Majority John Thune in the dark over this announcement despite his lobbying here. And -- and one of the reasons why President Trump endorsed Ken Paxton he said that Cornyn was not with him when, quote, times were tough, apparent reference to the post-January 6th fallout when Cornyn did criticize President Trump but did vote to equip him in his impeachment trial.

SANCHEZ: Manu Raju live on Capitol Hill for us. Thank you so much.

Elsewhere on the Capitol, a fiery hearing. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche grilled by lawmakers over the hefty fund to compensate those who say they were unfairly prosecuted by previous administrations. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:50:32]

KEILAR: The Trump administration is defending a controversial almost $1.8 billion effort to compensate people that believes they are victims of so-called government weaponization, including some January 6 rioters.

And today, both Vice President J.D. Vance and the acting Attorney General Todd Blanche rejected democratic accusations of a slush fund because they say that anyone can apply.

SANCHEZ: Yes. J.D. Vance from the podium at the briefing room today said that Hunter Biden should potentially apply. And while that is true, the context is important.

Documents show that Justice Department is going to hand pick the group who ultimately awards payments. The fund will also close roughly one month before President Trump leaves office.

Let's discuss with former federal prosecutor Gregory Rosen. He led the DOJ's Capitol Siege Section, the task force that prosecuted January 6 rioters.

I wonder, Gregory, what your reaction was when you heard J.D. Vance not rule out that folks who raided the Capitol would be receiving money from taxpayers.

GREGORY ROSEN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: So, I mean, I think it underscores the absurdity of the fund in the first place, right? If the idea is that this fund is supposed to be narrowly tailored to a class of individuals who is subject to, as they call, weaponization, a term that's never been defined, but and anybody can apply.

It shows that there are no standards in place. This was not thought through. The statutory mechanism is basically open for you to decide. There's not judicial authorization standards. I mean, this is an unprecedented unorthodox use of a settlement.

KEILAR: When you say the statutory mechanism is open for them to decide, you're saying that they can do whatever they want, essentially. ROSEN: I mean, the discretion that they claim that they have under this fund is unfettered. So, they -- they -- they basically believe that they can do whatever they want with the Judgment Fund, which is in fact a real fund used for settlement by DOJ during the course of legal costs.

KEILAR: There was an interesting moment today during the hearing where Blanche was asked about specifics of what the fund kind of couldn't, could not do. He said that would be up to the commissioners.

And then he was sort of pointed to the fact that he can appoint four out of the five commissioners. I think he said, actually, I can appoint five.

The point is, he has a lot of discretion in the appointing of those commissioners. How would you normally expect something like this to work? Or -- or is that even -- is the premise of my question even fair?

ROSEN: I think it's a fair question. I mean, you have seen in the past settlements or things and mechanisms like this where the attorney general or some political appointee who's been confirmed by the Senate does get to appoint individuals like this, commissioners who then adjudicate these claims.

The problem here is nobody really knows what we're adjudicating over. We're adjudicating based upon what the administration says so.

And no matter how many times they say the word weaponization, no matter how many times they sort of repeat this phrase, does not make it true, no different than slapping, you know, 1.776 as the title and the number of this fund doesn't make it any more patriotic.

SANCHEZ: I have to sort of set this up for a second because it's -- it's tangential to the announcement of this fund in that. Something was added to the DOJ release on Monday regarding this fund dated today. And it is a -- a set of additional terms.

The IRS is now barred from investigating Trump or his family for past tax issues under new terms added to this agreement. And the specific language is the federal government is forever barred and precluded from prosecuting or pursuing claims or examinations arising from matters pending before the IRS, including tax returns filed by Trump before the agreement was reached.

What's your reaction to that?

ROSEN: I mean, unorthodox to say the least. Remember what you have here is this is a settlement that has not been approved by an Article III judge.

So the conversation that happened today on the Hill where the acting attorney general constantly compared this to prior precedent and they use this Keepseagle case during the Obama administration. That was a settlement that was approved as part of a class action lawsuit involving a federal judge. There's no enforcement mechanism here. There's no standards. There is no idea on how this thing will actually operate.

And so the fact that there is an after the fact addendum to this that basically disallows the IRS from doing investigations, not only related to the administration, but I have not seen the document itself.

My understanding is it's pretty expansive in a settlement capacity where no judges taking a look at it should obviously raise concerns.

[15:55:07]

KEILAR: Yes. So many concerns today. We've been saying Democrats are calling this is a slush fund. We also had former Senator Jeff Flake, a Republican who also called it that.

Gregory Rosen, really interesting to talk to you. Obviously, this story is going to keep on going. Thanks for being with us.

ROSEN: Thank you for having me.

KEILAR: "In the Arena with Kasie Hunt" starts after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right. We start this hour with breaking news.

President Donald Trump has struck a deal with his own government, one that would protect him and his family from some investigations.

Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to "The Arena." It's good to have you with us on this --