Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Suggests He hasn't Dropped the "Anti-Weaponization" Fund; Bessent Says He Once Told Bill Pulte He "Was Going to Kick His Ass"; Soon: House to Vote on Limiting Trump's Iran War Powers; Trump: Would Meet Iran's Supreme Leader if Things "Work Out"; Report: A.I. Drives Layoffs to Highest May Total Since 2020 3-3:30p ET

Aired June 03, 2026 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: So, is the fund not done? President Trump now suggesting he isn't giving up yet on the idea of an anti- weaponization fund, one that could be used to pay his allies millions of dollars.

Plus, the House to vote on a resolution that could force the President to make a decision on the war and possibly ask Congress for permission to keep fighting Iran.

And how many jobs are being lost to A.I.? A new report suggests the technology is driving layoffs to numbers that we haven't seen in years.

We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

The Trump administration's nearly $2 billion so-called anti- weaponization fund may not be dead after all. Yesterday on the Hill, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche assured concerned lawmakers that DOJ is, quote, "not moving forward with the fund, period." That was a quote. But on the same day President Trump said this during a podcast interview with the New York Post.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The anti-weaponization fund, have you dropped that?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, a court ruled against it. These were many great people and I gave them pardons. I'm very proud to have given them pardons and I think they should be reimbursed for a crooked government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: CNN's Kristen Holmes is live from the White House and with the latest on this. Kristen?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And Brianna, I mean, we've heard him say things like these courts ruled against it but we're going to fight it tooth and nail, and he's not saying it there, but I do think this lines up with the reporting that we had on Monday. This idea that President Trump still believes in this fund. He still wants a fund to exist to try and reimburse people who were put through January 6 or other events of so-called political weaponization.

And that's likely why we heard from White House officials back on Monday that some people were still just considering this a pause. It's also likely why you heard Todd Blanche say he wasn't going to put this commitment into writing saying now that the courts have stopped it and the DOJ are going to abide by the courts, they've stopped -- they've dropped this, period, but not committing to writing this down because everyone in Trump White House and the Trump administration knows that if President Trump was to really push this matter it's likely it could come back up again.

And right now, we were told President Trump understands the political ramifications that this is not the best time but as I noted people say he still really fundamentally believes in this fund.

KEILAR: And Kristen, I know that we think that most hearings on the Hill are pretty interesting because we are bizarre Washington types, right? But there was actually a hearing today that I think there was a moment that anyone would have found quite dramatic and this involved the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and what he said about Bill Pulte who's been in the news lately he's the head of the FHA and he's being appointed to be the acting director of National Intelligence. Tell us what happened here.

HOLMES: Yes I mean one of the things that we reported months ago is this scenario, this situation that happened at the executive branch which is an exclusive club for MAGA allies here in Washington, D.C. where essentially Bill Pulte and Scott Bessent almost came to blows. And he was asked about that today just take a listen to this exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Did you actually tell Pulte you were going to punch him in the face?

SCOTT BESSENT, TREASURY SECRETARY: No, sir. I actually said I was going to kick his ass.

TILLIS: Good. Okay, good. I share the emotion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Now, one thing I will note is that the reasoning behind this we were told at the time from sources close to Bessent, from sources who were there, was that Bessent was accusing Pulte of going around him to President Trump of bad-mouthing him to President Trump. And that is a complaint that we've heard a lot of people here in the White House and the West Wing in particular talk about when they talk about Bill Pulte that he kind of circumvents the system.

Now, I will say Bessent also went on eventually to add essentially there's no hard feelings and that he had called and congratulated him on the new job.

KEILAR: I wonder what else he said though, just curious, just wondering. Kristen Holmes live for us from the White House thank you. Boris.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We're also watching Capitol Hill where just minutes from now the House is expected to vote on another War Powers Resolution potentially limiting President Trump's ability to conduct military strikes against Iran. CNN's Manu Raju was live on the Hill for us.

Manu, you just spoke with House Speaker Mike Johnson about the vote. What did he say?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I asked him about the likelihood that this could be the first time that the House passes a bill to check President Trump's powers on Iran. Remember, right before the Memorial Day recess, it appeared that this bill was going to pass the United States House, but then Republican leaders abruptly decided to recess the House, delaying this vote until now.

[15:05:05]

And this afternoon, we do expect that there will be enough votes to send the President a message. It will unlikely pass the United States Senate, or much less get the President's signature, but it will send a message that there is a bipartisan support for reigning in the President. I asked the speaker why he opposes Congress asserting its power on this issue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I -- I think it is a -- a very dangerous prospect to take away from the administration and the Commander-in- Chief right now the ability to negotiate. That's what this does. It -- it weakens us, our position and our leverage in negotiation on the peace in that situation.

Operation Epic Fury is concluded.

RAJU: Shouldn't you guys have a check on it? Why doesn't Congress assert its authority here, its constitutional authority?

JOHNSON: You know -- you know, this question could have been asked at any time over the last half century when Congress has not passed War Powers Acts, when presidents like Barack Obama were dropping bombs and missiles all around the world.

RAJU: AUMF for Iraq and Afghanistan?

JOHNSON: This -- this -- this operation was immensely successful. The objectives that were well-defined were achieved. The President is now in the process of -- of concluding a peace agreement, and we have to allow him the latitude to do that. And I -- I think a War Powers Resolution right now is a very untimely and a very -- a very negative and dangerous thing for the country. (END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: But even if this does pass the United States House, its chances in the Senate will be difficult to get it over that chamber's -- the hurdles that are facing that chamber. But there are a growing number of Republicans in particular who want to send a message to the President. We are seeing growing GOP support on the Senate side as well, and the question will be, if this continues to drag on, will it be ultimately enough to pass both chambers of Congress and force the President to veto this? But a sign here in just a matter of about an hour or so, a message could be sent to the White House that a bipartisan House majority wants to end this war in Iran without Congress' say. Boris.

SANCHEZ: We'll be watching that vote closely.

Manu Raju on the Hill, thank you so much.

Up ahead, President Trump says he would like to meet with Iran's supreme leader and says, quote, "We're getting along quite well." The latest on talks to end the war.

Plus, is A.I. coming for your job? A lot of folks asking themselves that these days. A new report reveals the industry's already hit with heavy layoffs because of the new tech.

And later, new polling show support for same sex marriage is dropping. What's causing this change when we come back?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:11:59]

SANCHEZ: The ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran is under renewed strain today as new strikes are launched by both sides. In a new interview with the New York Post published today, President Trump says that Iran's supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, was involved in recent negotiations, with Trump saying that he and the Supreme Leader, quote, seemed to be getting along quite well, adding that he hoped to soon meet with him. This, despite the Ayatollah still not having been seen in public or heard from directly since the start of the war.

Let's discuss with retired U.S. Army Major Harrison Mann. He's a former Defense Intelligence Agency official, now the associate campaigns director of Win Without War. \

Major, thanks so much for being with us.

Before we get to any potential meeting between the president and the new ayatollah, I want to ask you about some new CNN reporting from Alayna Treene and Kevin Liptak. Iran is apparently communicated to mediators that they want some form of financial compensation as soon as both sides agree to this initial memorandum of understanding. Wouldn't the U.S. lose significant leverage by offering that? What is the likelihood that that happens and that there's still this extended phase of negotiating details of enriched uranium and nuclear proliferation?

MAJ. HARRISON MANN, U.S. ARMY (RET.): I think the demand for immediate compensation or unfreezing of assets comes from the lack of trust between the two sides. The Iranians want something that can't be reversed, right? Lifting sanctions, that can be reversed overnight. Withdrawing troops or ships, that can be reversed, maybe not overnight, but -- but pretty quickly if Trump changes his mind.

So, they're looking for something both that they can take back to their population to show why they've made a deal with the country that's been bombing them on to show that Trump's actually serious about following through on the deal.

Does the U.S. lose leverage? I think there's up to a hundred billion dollars in different frozen funds, so you don't have to release all of it at once. You could still maintain some of that to further negotiations. And, you know, ultimately, even though I think the Iranian government can weather continued war, at least they believe they can, you know, this -- this blockade and the threat of further military action is still some leverage. Even if the Iranian leadership is confident, you know, in their prospects, if fighting at full scale resumes again, they would rather have a permanent peace deal that they can trust. So, the U.S. will maintain that sort of leverage.

SANCHEZ: I wonder, one of the complicating factors is that President Trump wants to secure a deal that at least can be presented as being superior to the JCPOA. And I wonder if there is some avenue by which the United States, whether through its partners in the region, could actually offer this kind of incentive and still have the sanctions that the U.S. has put on in place, even perhaps reinstating some of the oil sanctions that have been lifted on Iranian oil since the war began and the Strait of Hormuz got shut down.

MANN: I think ultimately, when Trump wants to take a win, he's going to accept one.

SANCHEZ: I see.

MANN: You know, his, his detractors, which are, you know, they deserve to be criticizing for this, are going to criticize him when he ends this war, no matter what, because it was pointless, because of all the unnecessary death and economic, you know, catastrophe that that came from it.

[15:15:10]

And so, I really don't think that's what's keeping the president from making a deal.

You know, he -- he has in the past, think of like USMCA., he has no problem repurposing an old deal, giving it a new name and say, saying -- saying this is the best deal we've ever done. I don't -- I don't think he could really -- I think he could do that with the JCPOA if he wanted to. I unfortunately still think we're in a stage where he's not really serious about ending it because he personally doesn't feel enough pressure. SANCHEZ: So, I worked at the White House during the first Trump administration, and I remember hearing from folks inside the administration that the President was considering hosting members of Al Qaeda at Camp David to talk through and -- and finalize the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. That plan ultimately got scrapped in part because I think the image of having Al-Qaeda members, or rather, I should say ...

MANN: Taliban.

SANCHEZ: ... Taliban, correct, an important clarification and correction. Member -- either way, having members of the Taliban at Camp David sent the wrong message. Do you think he's serious about potentially meeting with the Ayatollah? Do you think that he recognizes what message that would send? Or is this just flattery and a step to try to secure a deal?

MANN: I think in one sense, he actually is serious, like he would, he would do it if there were an opportunity. And I think honestly, Trump looking for some kind of big handshake photo op moment with Khamenei -- Khamenei Jr. would be the strongest, or one of the strongest, indications we could have that he's serious about ending the war.

He -- he really does not have any of the kind of normal aversions that -- that other D.C. folks do, right? He just said the other day, hey, I had a great call with Hezbollah.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

MANN: He has no trouble saying he's negotiating with Iranian government. I mean, you -- you may remember early in this Trump term, he got a little bit of trouble for this, but one of his negotiators was like, hey, I had a great call with Hamas.

I don't think they're as worried about violating those kind of norms. He probably said the statement to the New York Post, I think kind of an offhand way. But I think when he's actually ready to make a deal, he will want some kind of big in person moment. And remember, he really likes the idea of -- of making historic achievements, right? Being the first president to, to make a deal with an Iranian ayatollah, of shaking hands with him.

So, I think he -- he would not really agree to a deal that doesn't involve him in kind of a personal heroic role opposite the running counterpart.

SANCHEZ: It's one thing for the President to sort of suggest this. It's a whole other thing for the Ayatollah to potentially accept this, given that, I mean, since 1979, the Ayatollah and Iran generally have been about being anti-West anti-U.S. That's what the revolution was founded on. Do you think this new ayatollah would accept?

MANN: Well, yes, it's important to remember. Trump killed his father ...

SANCHEZ: Right. MANN: ... killed other family members, possibly grievously injured Mojtaba Khamenei himself. And so, I think right now they're not -- they're not ready to talk about that, especially, you know, from their point of view, it's going to look like a grand concession right now, given the fact that they don't trust Trump at all, given the fact that the forces continue to fire each other, given the fact that Trump doesn't really look like he's really in a rush to end the current kind of standoff in Hormuz. I don't think we're going to see that anytime soon.

If the Iranians felt confident that this was for real going to be the end of the war, I think they might be willing to meet. But I think Trump has a lot of trust building to do before we can get there.

SANCHEZ: Major Harrison Mann, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it.

Still plenty more ahead. The impact of A.I. and the job market, a brand-new economic report showing the industries that are already seeing layoffs.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:22:19]

KEILAR: A new report is showing just how hard artificial intelligence is hitting the jobs market. It's finding AI drove the number of layoffs to the highest May total in six years. CNN Senior Reporter Matt Egan is here with the details. Break this down for us, Matt.

MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Brianna, unfortunately, there was another flurry of pink slips that were handed out in May, and yes, you can see the fingerprints of artificial intelligence. Now, this is coming to us from outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, and they're reporting that U.S.-based employers, they announced about 97,000 layoffs last month. That is a 16 percent increase from April, and as you mentioned, this is the highest May total since 2020 and back when COVID was crippling the economy.

And when you look at the trend, you can see there was this big spike last spring. This was when DOGE was really slashing the federal workforce, also when the President rolled out his global tariffs. Thankfully, announced layoffs, they have come down since then, but they are up three months in a row, and they do remain elevated.

So, where are these announced layoffs? Well, pharmaceuticals, finance, this is FinTech. They're about 5,000 to 6,000 each, almost 7,000 in transportation. But look at technology. That really stands out. Almost 40,000 announced layoffs there alone. That's the highest in any month for the tech sector in three years, and that's notable because we know tech is adopting artificial intelligence very aggressively, and Challenger found that A.I. was the leading reason why employers announced layoffs in May for the third month in a row.

This was the highest total for any month since Challenger started tracking this about three months ago. And when you look at the trend for announced layoffs that are being blamed on A.I., you can see this trend is clearly going in the wrong direction, right? So far this year, companies have announced almost 90,000 layoffs that they blamed, at least in part, on artificial intelligence. That far surpasses the total from last year, and we're only not even halfway done with this year.

However, what's less clear is how many companies are actually laying off workers because of artificial intelligence, and how many are just saying that because it sounds better than telling shareholders customers just aren't buying our products as much anymore. So, there's a lot of debate over that, and Goldman Sachs has said that they found pretty limited impact so far from artificial intelligence on the labor market.

And it's also worth noting there are some other indicators out there that paint a more positive picture about the economy and the job market. For example, jobless claims, they do remain low. That's one that economists pay very close attention to. Job openings, they rebounded in April to a nearly two-year high.

[15:25:04]

There's now more job openings than job seekers. We haven't seen that since June. And private hiring in May rebounded to the fastest pace that we've seen in 16 months.

So, there is a bit of a mixed picture here, and Brianna, hopefully we get some more clarity on Friday when the official government jobs report for the month of May gets released. Back to you.

KEILAR: All right. We'll see you on Friday. Matt Egan, thank you.

Ahead, the agonizing wait in California. Two important races still unsettled after Tuesday's primaries. The big takeaways there, and five -- and in five other states that voted when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)