Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Senate GOP Leader Calls on Trump to Drop $1.8 Billion Anti- Weaponization Fund; Election Denier Tina Peters Released From Colorado Prison; Trump Says Peace Talks Continues, Contradicting Iran State Media. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired June 01, 2026 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Breaking news to CNN, we're following the latest on a meeting between House Speaker Mike Johnson and President Trump at the White House. The main topic of conversation we've learned is the president's controversial anti-weaponization fund.

CNN's Manu Raju joins us live. And Manu, you just spoke to the Senate Majority Leader John Thune about this controversial fund. What did he tell you?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, he made clear his view that he does not think that this fund, this $1.8 billion fund should go forward. In large part because it has completely paralyzed the Senate from acting on the number one issue that the chamber is now dealing with, which is President Trump's priorities to enforce immigration -- his immigration policies. Roughly tens of billions of dollars in immigration funding has been halted all over demands by Republicans that the White House drop this $1.8 billion fund in no small part because the administration has not ruled out the possibility that January 6th convicts, people who are convicted of assaulting police officers, could have access to that taxpayer money.

And John Thune just told a group of us just moments ago that he said that the best way forward for the administration to move ahead on its agenda would be to drop it altogether, adding to the growing list of members both privately and publicly pushing for the White House to move ahead after it faced a serious setback in court last week over the legality of that proposal. Now, we are waiting on an official word from the White House over how to proceed, but this just shows the pressure that the administration is now under, the president himself, about whether they should move ahead of this, whether they can move ahead of this, and whether the president decides to dig in, what that may mean for getting any number of issues passed in the narrowly divided Senate and the narrowly divided House.

We do know that this was a topic of conversation that the speaker had with the president when they met one-on-one earlier today. The speaker publicly has said very little about this fund, about whether he in fact supports it moving ahead, but he has his own math problems in the narrowly divided Republican-led House with some Republicans saying that they plan to push legislation to kill that $1.8 billion fund. But the Senate majority leader just now making it very clear it is time to drop it or his agenda, the president's agenda, will not move ahead -- guys.

SANCHEZ: Manu Raj, your life worse on the Hill. Thank you so much -- Brianna.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: 2020 election denier Tina Peters is out of prison. She was released from a Colorado facility today, just weeks after the state's Democratic governor Jared Polis commuted her sentence. The governor's decision following heavy pressure from President Trump.

Peters, a former Mesa County clerk, was convicted in 2024 for conspiring with fellow election deniers to breach her county's voting machines in hopes of proving Trump's baseless claims of voter fraud. She was sentenced to nearly nine years in prison but only served about one year and eight months. Last year, President Trump granted Peters a symbolic federal pardon, but she had remained in prison on state charges until today.

We're joined now by Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser. Thank you so much for being with us. You do not agree with the governor's decision to commute Peter's sentence.

What do you worry the consequences of her release could be?

PHIL WEISER, (D) COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL: When you let someone who is a convicted criminal engaged in lawless actions and shows no remorse, free this early, you're sending a potentially dangerous message. One message, you made this point clear, Colorado is giving in to the bullying and the pressure from the Trump administration. We cannot bend the knee in Colorado. We must defend our principles, including our criminal justice system.

And secondly, whatever your motivations are for breaking the law, when you do so and you show no remorse about it, you shouldn't be given special treatment because you're connected to the president or you're somehow getting public attention. Equal justice under law is the American way.

That's the principle that I and the Republican prosecutor who co-led this case with me believe in this action by Governor Polis is an historic mistake. It was wrong. It's a sad day for Colorado today.

KEILAR: She had said after the commutation that she was sorry for the mistakes of the past. She said that she had misled state election officials.

[15:35:00]

WEISER: She's out there today basically saying she's the victim of some political weaponization and that somehow her conduct is justified. That doesn't sound like remorse to me. That sounds like someone who actually thinks that what they did was justified and the prosecution is what is unjustified.

This prosecution was about the rule of law. It was a bipartisan effort with the local Republican DA taking the lead, me, a Democrat, state attorney general, working arm in arm to fight for what's right. She cost her county millions of dollars.

She broke the law. She threatened the integrity of our elections. Those are serious crimes.

They deserve a serious sentence. Her accountability is important and she should have been much more reflective and remorseful. And that minimal statement she made, it's hard to believe given her subsequent statements she even believes it.

KEILAR: When Polis was censured by the Colorado Democratic Party, a spokesman for him said, quote, "Sometimes the right thing isn't the popular thing with everybody. Democracy is strongest when disagreement is met with debate and dialogue, not censorship." What do you say to that?

WEISER: I say that disagreement is healthy. It is part of the democratic process. But the Democratic Party in Colorado is expressing a point of view that this action was wrong and that this action should not have been taken.

And I agree. Governor Polis should not have taken this action. We can have lots of different debates.

But what we shouldn't debate about is whether or not to apply the rule of law consistently and fairly. There was an ongoing legal process to determine that everything was fair. The conviction was upheld.

There was a question raised about the sentence that could have been dealt with by the district judge. Governor Polis inserted himself in this process. That was a mistake. That was wrong. And it's being called out as such.

KEILAR: You're running for governor. If you win, you'll have to work with the Trump administration in some regards, no doubt. An administration that you have called bullying.

How would you plan to do that?

WEISER: I believe that we are strongest -- we are on solid ground when we operate based on principle. And what's so problematic about this Trump administration, which I call bullying and lawless for good reasons, is that they are willing to break the law, to withhold required funds like SNAP benefits for 600,000 Coloradans.

The Agriculture Secretary withheld that food assistance as part of the campaign to get us to release Tina Peters, I fought back in court. We won in court. We got that food assistance restored.

I stand strong on the following principle. If you break the law and harm us, we're not going to take it. If and when this administration acts lawfully, acts responsibly, we can work together.

But the level of lawlessness, corruption, and attacks on the Constitution that we're seeing, they are historic. I want to be our next governor to stand strong. For those who want to join us, Philforcolorado.com is where you can learn more. We have work to do here in Colorado.

KEILAR: You told Colorado Public Radio a few days ago that you see five distinct threats to democracy, one of which is partisan redistricting in ways that you feel are unfair and encourage extreme partisanship. You do support a Colorado constitutional amendment that would allow mid-cycle redistricting in Colorado if other states redistrict more than once per decade. Is that really fair, though, to Coloradans, many of whom are Republicans and won't have representation because a potential map here -- the potential map here could be seven seats for Democrats versus one for Republicans?

WEISER: We should have a national commitment to once per decade districting. It used to be a norm. Everyone expected it.

And now, painfully, this president, like so many other norms --

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: I hear you, but you're running for governor. You're running for governor for Colorado, right? To represent all Coloradans, Republicans and Democrats.

And this is a map that would not represent them. I think when you're looking at other maps in other states where it's the opposite and you don't see Democrats proportionally represented, you and other Democrats say they're not being represented as they should be. This map -- are you representing them fairly, Coloradans, the people that you are running to represent?

WEISER: I don't believe it's fair that other states engage in mid- cycle redistricting, reflecting whatever changes they're doing, and Colorado sits on the sidelines. Colorado has to do our part to make sure that we are not simply disadvantaging one party because another party is breaking the rules, breaking the norms.

[15:40:00]

If we're seeing what we're seeing in Florida, in other states, Colorado can't sit on the sidelines. Going forward, yes, we need a new system where a national rule says once per decade.

We don't have that. We have Florida doing what it's doing. Colorado can't be silent.

KEILAR: Attorney General Phil Weiser, thank you so much for being with us. We appreciate it.

WEISER: Thanks, Brianna.

KEILAR: Coming up, President Trump contradicting Iranian state media says that talks with Tehran are on track and advancing at a rapid pace. We'll have the latest next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:45:00] KEILAR: At this hour, President Trump is pushing an upbeat and contradictory message about peace negotiations with Iran. Just a short time ago, he posted on Truth Social, "Talks are continuing at a rapid pace, with Islamic Republic of Iran."

SANCHEZ: But the statement came not long after Iranian state media reported that Tehran was suspending talks with the U.S. as protests over Israeli strikes on Hezbollah targets in Lebanon.

Let's discuss with Michael Allen. He's a former special assistant to President George W. Bush for national security. Also the former senior director for counterproliferation on the National Security Council. Michael, if you are hoping that a deal between the U.S. and Iran comes together, this back and forth as it's supposed to be being finalized is not what you want to see.

MICHAEL ALLEN, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO GEORG W. BUSH FOR NATIONAL SECURITY: Yes, I don't think we have a meeting of the minds on substance or even the process going forward. It's very confusing, I think, when one side or other says we're getting close to something or we have an agreement in concept and then it's immediately countermanded by the other side. So I think this tells us we're far away from having something lasting that would keep the straight open and prescribe a path to getting the nuclear material out of the country.

Where's the Israel piece of this and how do you see that going forward and causing perhaps any obstacles as the two are not aligned, Israel and the U.S.? On the one hand, I think Prime Minister Netanyahu can't be seen as not on the same page with President Trump, especially since that's sort of his main message to his people as the election comes forward. On the other hand, I think the Prime Minister feels like if there's a gathering threat somewhere, even inside of Beirut, even if he supposedly just signed up to some sort of ceasefire, he's going to feel like he needs to hit them because it's a self-defense mechanism because Hezbollah is a deadly terrorist organization. So I always feel like when Israel signs up to things, it has a bit of an asterisk by it because they're going to feel like, well, we see some terrorists, we got to go get them.

SANCHEZ: When this war started, President Trump and his allies argued that one of the goals, one of the things that they wanted to deter Tehran from moving forward was its funding and arming of proxies in the region. And yet today you have President Trump, he says they're intermediaries, having a call with leaders from Hezbollah to try to get them and Israel to get on the same page and sort of tone things down. What does that tell you about how goals for this war progressed over time?

ALLEN: Well, it tells us that we're playing a more direct role with terrorist organizations than we probably have in a while. And I guess we did the same thing more or less through intermediaries with Hamas as well. But I think it talks about, I think it most speaks to just the complications of this multi-state, multi-party negotiation that's going on. I would have thought that Iran wouldn't expressly link their concerns or their diplomacy to Hezbollah, even though we know that they absolutely funded them. But they are, nonetheless, whereas I think we would rather keep this to some sort of negotiation directly with the Iranians and not bring in other issues, which may not be extraneous, but on the other hand, just complicate things.

KEILAR: Iran wants financial relief here, right? Trump was very critical of the JCPOA and that element, right, of the interaction between the Obama administration and Iran. And yet it seems very clear Iran's not going anywhere without having assets unfrozen that are really going to change their economic situation.

But how do you see the kind of order of things, whether it's agreement or the actual unfreezing of things, how do you see that working out in a way that the president might find palatable?

ALLEN: So first assume, let's just assume they get the narrow deal, which is opening of the straits in exchange for us, you know, lifting the blockade. I think we're doing the right thing, according to the New York Times. We've begun guiding vessels through, again, that directly negates what I believe is their leverage that they have principally over us.

But assuming we get over that issue, and that's a big one, the way I think they've tried to lay it out is you only get sanctions relief or unfrozen assets as you turn over nuclear material. The more you turn over, in effect, the more money you will get. Now I hope they stick to that.

By the way, that's more of a carrot than a stick, and maybe that's where we need to go. Maybe we've just had too many sticks against Iran and they get their backs up. We can't get rid of all of them, but maybe this is a carrot.

So I hope if we get to that stage, the Trump administration is able to meter it out in such a way that it's not just some gigantic upfront payment that we don't get enough for.

SANCHEZ: Michael Allen, thanks so much for sharing your perspective. Appreciate it.

Still ahead, the future of movies might be here. How YouTubers are setting records and beating big studios at the box office.

[15:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: So we may be witnessing the dawn of a new era in Hollywood. A pair of filmmakers who got their start on YouTube now have the two biggest movies at the box office. Over the weekend, the film "Back Rooms" bested big summer blockbusters like "The Mandalorian" and "Grogu."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pull me up, pull me up, pull me up. What do you see?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All these rooms, this place builds them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Just for comparison, "Back Rooms" cost about $10 million to make. The latest Star Wars flick, a reported $165 million.

KEILAR: "Back Rooms" ended up making more than $80 million and its success is even more fascinating when you consider the fact that the film was directed by a 20-year-old, Kane Parsons. The number two film, "Obsession," has been the sleeper hit of the year. It cost a mere $750,000 to produce.

[15:55:00]

It's made nearly $150 million and some studio experts believe the film could end up earning $300 million, which would make it one of the most profitable films in history. And the film's director, Curry Barker, he's just 26 years old, wild.

Let's talk about this with Dominic Patton, executive editor of Deadline.com. This is some crazy stuff, Dominic. Tell us more about these young filmmakers and why they're finding such success here.

DOMINIC PATTEN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, DEDLINE.COM: Well, I think Brianna, in many ways, the reason they're finding success is they have a great audience that's already there for them. Both Parsons and Barker, as you guys mentioned in the intro, started out on YouTube. In fact, "Back Rooms" had a long history, sort of on Reddit chats and then evolved under Parsons to "Greater Heights" as a series and then to this movie.

But the most important part, I think, here is there is a generational shift happening. Some of the biggest stars in the world are not the people that we talk about. All respect to the Tom Cruises and the Julia Roberts and everybody else there, but when you talk to certain people, they're talking about people like Mr. Beast. They're talking about people like these guys. They're talking about people like ellieV and her Lego buildings on YouTube. And that's where the viewership is.

Remember, when Netflix was trying to buy Warner Brothers, what they talked about was we need to scale up so we can compete with YouTube. That is where the eyeballs are. It's not just cat videos, which people have been saying for years. It's real time being put in here.

But I will also say this. It's important to remember. These young filmmakers and it's remarkable. Parsons' film, in fact, "Back Rooms" made a hundred and eighteen million dollars worldwide. So this isn't just an American thing.

This is a global sensation happening. But the baton always has to pass. And this is the time. SANCHEZ: Both "Back Rooms" and "Obsession" are horror movies and they seem to have funny origin stories in that "Back Rooms," as you put it, was essentially this 4chan post that evolved and "Obsession" was like a riff on a Simpsons episode. Is there something specific to that and the buzz that these horror films are generating that is converting to ticket sales?

PATTEN: Boris, horror almost always does well. Now, any genre has a face plant now and then. I would actually say "Back Rooms" is more like a psychological sci-fi thriller, but it works in the same means of genre when you really look at it. Horror has a great market. I mean, that is as we're going into the summer. That's a good summer sensation because that is certainly a lot like live sports. It's the only place you can get the jolt.

But I would also say, too, as we look at that, let's not put the cart before the horse too much here. We often love to and certainly a deadline and everywhere else. And our Anthony D'Alessandro has done amazing analysis on the box office of this. But we always like to look at these things and predict the future and all the agencies and everyone's getting on board. But remember, we've yet to see the big YouTube drama breakout.

We've yet to see a really big, sustained comedy breakout, horror, sci- fi, action. These are good established genres and they're perfect for the summer. But let's see what happens as we're moving forward on some of these projects as they expand their scope.

That might be where the rubber really hits the digital road.

KEILAR: Yes, that's sort of the opening, perhaps alert to all those young filmmakers out there on YouTube. So I wonder, though, during COVID, there was all of this talk about, you know, movie theaters going to be gone for good. Well, are they coming back, Dominic?

PATTEN: Oh, absolutely, Brianna. I mean, look, movie theaters, like vinyl records, I hate to tell you, are like rock and roll. Their death has been widely reported and mistaken.

It is not happening. But then what they are becoming is a change. Remember, Hollywood, the media industry is nothing but change.

Unless you still have people in your family who still want to talk about going from silent to talkies, pretty much change is the constant in our in this industry. So I think in this what we're seeing is the movie theaters are becoming much more the holding grounds in the venues for the action movies, the horror movies, the big movies like that. Now, we have seen things like "Project Hail Mary," which was definitely an outliner and how great it did.

And perhaps drama is coming back. But drama seems to have found its home on streaming or in smaller venues, but certainly some of the box office. And let's be careful when we look at this. If you really want to trace some of this -- and I mentioned our Anthony D'Alessandro, one of the heads of our film department, he wrote about this. A lot of people look at this origin of this shift is when the

Minecraft movie did so well a little while ago, that was turning it around, saying that you could take something of a 21st century product, IP, intellectual property, so to speak, and actually turn it into a commercial success because there's been many failures over the years. That has been where I think we found the real change here.

The question is, is it sustainable? I say yes. Is it going to evolve? Probably so.

[16:00:00]

And look, nothing says I love you, Hollywood, like cold, hard cash.

SANCHEZ: It's true. Dominic, before we go, yay or nay, the finale of Euphoria, what do you think?

KEILAR: Literally, yay or nay, that's all we have time for.

PATTEN: Oh, I loved it. I'm down. I am euphoric over the end of Euphoria for one reason, more for two reasons.

One is really well done. And secondly, nice way to just end it. If you're going to end it, go large or go home.

KEILAR: They went large. All right. Big debate on this. We'll bring it to you tomorrow. "THE ARENA" with Kasie Hunt starts right now.

END