Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Marathon Debate Underway In Senate On Trump Agenda Bill; Interview With Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) About Trump's Agenda Bill; New Nuclear Watchdog Assessment Of Iran Strikes; Mamdani Shakes Up Dem Politics With NYC Primary Win. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired June 29, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR: It was a long night last night as well. But here's a little bit of how the process is going to go. It could take up to 20 hours to get through the debate portion with each side having 10 hours of time they can use. Then the Senate would begin its, quote, "vote-a-rama," which is another lengthy process where lawmakers are going to propose and vote on a series of amendments.

So if you're tuned in now, buckle up. It's going to be a long ride.

Joining me now live is CNN senior writer Tami Luhby.

And Tami, thanks for taking the time. Look, many Democrats, a few Republicans are concerned about how the mega bill would leave nearly 12 million more people uninsured. That's according to the latest Congressional Budget Office analysis released today. But what in the bill will cause so many people to lose their health insurance or at the very least, have it threatened?

TAMI LUHBY, CNN SENIOR WRITER: Well, the CBO came out today and said that nearly 12 million more people will be uninsured by -- in 2034 because of the bill. They haven't broken out exactly why, but looking at their analysis of the House bill, by far it's the Medicaid work requirements. Now, the bill would actually make multiple changes both to Medicaid and to the Affordable Care Act. But it is the work requirements that would have the biggest impact.

The House bill, for instance, in the House bill, it would cause almost adding the work requirements for the first time in Medicaid's 60-year history would leave about five million more people uninsured. And the Senate bill actually goes even further.

JIMENEZ: Yes. For families with kids that are 14 and under, as opposed to just kids in general, right?

LUHBY: Right. So the work requirements would apply to able bodied adults, you know, generally ages 19 to 64. There are exemptions for people, for parents in the Senate bill, for parents of younger children, for people with disabilities, you know, et cetera. But the major difference between the House bill and the Senate bill is that the Senate bill would require parents of older children to work, and this would be a mandate that would be 80 hours a month. And it's not only work, it could be work, it could be community

service, volunteering. It could be going to school, it could be participating in job training.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, one of the other things in this bill is that it does make it a lot harder to get approved for and re-enroll in Medicaid. I mean, at the very least, by swamping and, you know, more frequent check-ins on work requirements, which could come with paperwork. How difficult of a process is that expected to be for people here?

LUHBY: That is actually one of the main reasons. The paperwork is one of the main reasons why, you know, experts and others, consumer advocates are so concerned that the work requirements will cause so many people to lose their coverage. Not everyone on Medicaid is working, but many people are. However, some of those people who are working may still have trouble navigating the process of reporting those work requirements -- reporting those hours, and fulfilling the mandate.

So there's a lot of concerns that people who are working and who should qualify will either not be able to enroll or not be able to renew their coverage. And we know there was a short period of time in 2018 when the Trump administration allowed Arkansas to institute work requirements, and within a few months, 18,000 people lost their Medicaid coverage in the state before the effort was stopped by the courts.

And also, Georgia now has a work requirement for certain Medicaid enrollees, and there are many fewer people who have enrolled than the state expected. In large part because people have had trouble satisfying or not necessarily satisfying in terms of working, but satisfying in terms of the paperwork to show that they could actually -- that they could actually gain coverage through Medicaid.

JIMENEZ: Got it. You know, another aspect that some senators have concern over is the Senate bill as it stands now estimated to add nearly $3.3 trillion to the deficit over a decade versus the $2.4 trillion for the House bill. How did we end up with that different amount, and how significant of an impact actually is this?

LUHBY: Well, I spoke to Marc Goldwein at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, who is a longtime government watchdog, and he had said, he summed it up as saying that the Senate bill has more tax cuts and less -- and it has less spending cuts and fewer revenue raisers, which is why there's such a big difference between the House bill and the Senate bill.

One of the notable differences is that the Senate bill would have three different business tax credits from the -- business tax breaks from the 2017 Trump tax cuts, it would make them permanent, and that would cause the deficit to increase.

[18:05:09]

That's why the Senate number is larger. But it has a major impact on the country's fiscal health. And we'll also have an impact on people, because one of the things the CBO looked at in the House bill, again, is that it would -- that adding so much to the deficit would cause interest rates to rise. And we all know that people are already suffering with interest rates, particularly in trying to get mortgages.

So rising interest rates and, you know, an increase to the deficit and an increase to the national debt is not the direction that most people want the country to go.

JIMENEZ: Tami Luhby, always appreciate the time and insight. Thanks for the reporting.

All right. Joining me now is one of the key liaisons between House and Senate Republicans on this bill, Oklahoma Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin.

And Senator, thank you for being here. Really appreciate it. Look, Senate Republican leaders cleared the first major hurdle last night, passed that key procedural vote. I know there's still a long way to go here before making it to President Trump's desk in theory by July 4th. But based on where you are in the process right now, do you see that timeline as realistic?

SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): Oh, absolutely. We will, you know, I know you mentioned earlier in your show that we have 20 hours of debate. It won't be full 20 hours. The Democrats will take 20 hours. We'll probably take two. That means we'll start the bill anywhere between 1:00 and 3:00 in the morning on Monday -- this coming morning. And then we'll just stay on it.

Vote-a-rama is a no holds bar amendment process, meaning that you can put as many amendments on, but you can't ever quit voting. You got to continue moving. And when everybody wears down, then vote-a-rama stops. So I feel like we'll probably go through Monday evening, maybe into Monday night, then we'll give the -- we'll do the final passage on one big beautiful bill, send it to the House, and they'll probably vote on it maybe Wednesday or Thursday and be at the president's desk by Friday, July 4th.

JIMENEZ: You know, if only it was that simple. We'll watch for that. We'll watch for that timeline.

MULLIN: It sounds that simple, but there's a lot --

JIMENEZ: Yes.

MULLIN: There's a lot of work to do between that. But we've been working like this since September because we knew we were going to win the election. And in November we got a mandate by the American people. They wanted a different government. They wanted a different direction than what the Biden administration took us. And that's what we're doing. We're delivering for the American people.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, one of the dynamics we've been watching Republican Senator Ron Johnson, for example, he's had concerns about how the bill would affect the national deficit. He told reporters yesterday after the vote that he and others on a similar deficit pursuit had worked out a deal on an amendment that would further cut Medicaid. But he wouldn't say whether he would back the final bill if that amendment isn't adopted.

So do you have any details on that deal and where do negotiations stand with some of these lawmakers who are on the fence about backing a final bill, depending on their specific amendments, like Johnson?

MULLIN: Yes. So this is -- this is common, right? We have a lot of people with a lot of opinions and we're good with that. Everybody wants to make this bill better and we're OK with that because there is no perfect bill that's ever come out of Congress. This is a very good bill. It definitely moves us in the right direction and gets America back on track, and pushes forward that American first agenda.

But at the same time, when you have an idea or you have an amendment, you got to get the votes for it and we got to pass a bill that will get 51 votes on the Senate floor and get the magic number in the House. You know, we usually say 218, but last time they passed it with 215. So whatever we can do to improve the bill, we'll do it. But at the end of the day, it's all about the votes. It's about counting the votes.

So Ron Johnson has worked very hard. He's been very passionate. He's made great improvements already on the bill. And I believe maybe if we can pass this amendment, we can even do a little bit better. You know, and if you talk about what details are on it, we're still looking at that amendment because we have to make sure it passes the Byrd Rule. So it's not finalized yet.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, just to get to the core of Senator Johnson's concerns here, the Congressional Budget Office put out their analysis of the Senate version of the bill today. Their latest estimates that it would add nearly $3.3 trillion to the deficit over a decade. I mean, how do you begin to address some of Senator Johnson's concerns, or even some from your constituents who say, well, hey, I want you to send that number in the opposite direction?

MULLIN: Well, we are sending it in the opposite direction. What this reflects is CBO saying that making tax cuts permanent will add to the deficit. But they were -- they also said this in 2017. They said that the tax cuts we put in in 2018 would cause $150 billion deficit over 10 years. And what happened by 2019, by the end of 2019, we actually completely reversed that and saw a surplus of $150 billion.

They're saying the same thing here. If we make it permanent, not 10 years, but we make it permanent, that that's where the biggest part of the deficit spending is.

[18:10:07]

What's interesting to me is, is that the Democrats are actually complaining about tax cuts that we actually know will add a surplus because when we invest in our own backyards, it seems like it's spent better and it reinvests rather than when we send it to the black hole up here in Washington, D.C. But if you remember, the Build Back Better bill, it didn't do anything with taxes and it cost $3 trillion and it's still sitting out there just costing the American taxpayers and has done nothing to improve the economy.

JIMENEZ: Well, I will say, yes, Democrats and Republicans have spent alike and contributed to the deficit in different portions. And I will say some of the analyzes that have watered down, I guess, the CBO analysis does rely on I think the American economy growing at a rate that I think the White House is very optimistic about GDP growing over 4 percent, for example.

MULLIN: Right.

JIMENEZ: But some other analyzes have that a little -- I mean, I would say much lower, around 1 percent or so. So I guess --

MULLIN: Omar, remember, too, we're cutting --

JIMENEZ: Yes.

MULLIN: We're cutting $1.6 trillion in deficit spending. That's the largest cut ever in American history, $1.6 trillion we're cutting in deficit -- I mean, in deficits. And so that's huge for us. We're moving in the right direction. If we continue down this path, if we continue to see President Trump's economy come back with a -- with a roar of a lion, which is what's happening right now we continue to see the job reports continue to climb the way they are right now.

We see the growth in our GDP than what we're going to see is in two and a half years, possibly we could have a balanced budget for the first time since '96.

JIMENEZ: Consumer spending a little down as well. But I hear your point on the overall economy. It is in a good place right now as far as where it's --

MULLIN: That's right.

JIMENEZ: Where it's moving. I want to ask about the American Hospital Association, because you talked about some of the cuts we're looking at here. Obviously, Medicaid central in this, but the American Hospital Association warning that these cuts to Medicaid could undermine the ability of hospitals across America to provide critical services to everyone. And, look, one of Senator Thom Tillis' concerns here was that, was that dynamic?

North Carolina, like Oklahoma, has more than 1 in 5 residents on Medicaid or child health insurance programs. And the CBO, I know we're talking about it a lot, estimates the Senate version of the bill here would affect almost 12 million by 2034. I know you've talked about the focus of these cuts, getting rid of the, quote, "waste, fraud and abuse." But how do you ensure these cuts don't undermine access to health care for all Oklahomans, especially those in rural areas?

MULLIN: So I'm very rural. I was raised on a ranch where my kids were raised. Our biggest grocery store is Harps, and it's small, and the best convenience store we have is Casey's. And that's the only stoplight we have in town. And so I appreciate rural hospitals. I understand they're a backbone of our economy, but I also understand what Medicaid was designed for.

Medicaid was designed for those in need. We have 35 million people right now that live below the poverty line. However, we have 70 million people roughly signed up for Medicaid. Ever since Obamacare, we've seen Medicaid explode and we've had a lot of waste, fraud and abuse take root inside a system that was designed for those that need it the most.

I heard while ago you talking about the work requirement. OK, so what the work requirement does it requires an able-bodied individual with no dependents and no sickness to work, volunteer or go to school 20 hours a week. And then the paperwork that you guys are talking about, instead of having to prove your means once a year, it says, you got to prove it every six months.

JIMENEZ: Six months. Yes.

MULLIN: Now, I'm sorry, but that is not a burden. That is just lazy if you're not willing to do that. And if you're not willing to work 20 hours a week or volunteer 20 hours a week, or go to school 20 hours a week to try to better yourself, why is it up to the American taxpayer to pay for you not willing to help yourself?

Medicaid was designed to help those in need when they needed it the most. And that's what we're trying to preserve Medicaid for. We're trying to make sure it's there for those in need.

JIMENEZ: I will say part of Senator Josh Hawley's concern, and he cited a woman who wrote to him. She explained that her husband works as a carpenter. Their private insurance covers her, four of her kids, but her fifth kid has a brain condition that is under Medicaid at this point. And to her, she's worried that she'll be one of the people that slips through the cracks. I hope you're right. I hope she is not one of those folks. But there is real concern about that.

Before we go, because I know you got to go, I want to ask about your colleague, Senator Thom Tillis' his decision to not run for reelection. Obviously, he was one of the Republican nays last night. And look, as soon as that happened, President Trump was quick on social media threatening to primary him.

[18:15:04]

And my question to you is, just from where I sit, does it concern you that the dynamic seems to be, do what the president says or he's going to threaten you with the primary?

MULLIN: No, there's a whole lot more to that story, which we don't have time to get in there.

JIMENEZ: I got time. I don't know about you --

MULLIN: I don't have time, though. JIMENEZ: OK. All right.

MULLIN: But I'll just tell you there's a whole lot more behind the scenes that you're not seeing there. However, Thom Tillis, it is a -- is a guy that served North Carolina well. I consider him a friend. We may not agree on every issue, but that's why I get along with those on both sides of the aisle, too. We don't have to agree to necessarily be friends, because sometimes you can agree to disagree.

However, the decision for him not to run was solely his decision. If he wanted to, if he wanted to take on, you know, North Carolina and the decision to not support the one big beautiful bill, which I believe North Carolina supported President Trump overwhelmingly, all three times, that probably would have been a tough road to haul. But however, if he chose to run, I would commend him for it.

But he chose not to, and that doesn't reflect President Trump's threatening. That just reflects a whole lot more information that's not being out in the public.

JIMENEZ: All right, Senator, I'll have to take your word for it on that front. But if you get time for that story, give us a call.

MULLIN: Yes.

JIMENEZ: Senator Markwayne Mullin, appreciate it. Thanks for taking the time.

MULLIN: Thank you.

JIMENEZ: All right. Still ahead, from upset to upstart, why the leading Democrat in New York's race for mayor isn't just making political waves in the city, but nationally. Plus, a major nuclear watchdog says Iran could resume making near weapons grade uranium within months. This comes, of course, as President Trump continues to hail recent U.S. strikes in Iran as obliterating their capabilities, calling it a major success. We'll have the details coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:21:34]

JIMENEZ: New tonight a warning from the U.N. nuclear watchdog chief who says Iran could be within months of enriching uranium again, if not sooner. That obviously contradicts claims by President Trump that U.S. strikes, quote, "obliterated" the country's nuclear program.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAFAEL GROSSI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY: Frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there. It is clear that there has been severe damage, but it is not total damage, first of all. And secondly, Iran has the capacities there, industrial and technological capacities. So if they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: I want to bring in Norman Roule. He's the former U.S. national intelligence manager for Iran and senior adviser to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Thank you for taking the time. Obviously, we just played that sound bite from the director there. Do you agree with that assessment?

NORMAN ROULE, SENIOR ADVISER, CSIS WARFARE, IRREGULAR THREATS AND TERRORISM PROGRAM: I do, but prior to that statement, he made another statement, which is also important, which is he wasn't trying to sound alarmist. He doesn't know what nuclear material might be available or centrifuges might be available to the Iranians. It is therefore critical that the IAEA get on the ground and make that determination and put this material under surveillance, and do that as quickly as possible.

And we're now seeing the Iranians undertake activity at Natanz and Fordow to see if they can access the sites to recover what might be in those locations. If anything, the answer may be nothing is recoverable or something. So we will see in coming days and weeks what they're able to recover and what that means in terms of what program they can reconstitute.

JIMENEZ: And you know, of course, on that front, the question is, when will he actually be able to have, you know, independent folks on the ground to provide, like the IAEA, for example, to actually give a more substantive assessment? The Iranian parliament moved this week to end cooperation with them.

How significant is that when we still have, again, this outstanding question of where any enriched uranium is and if or it was moved?

ROULE: It's very significant, very dangerous. But it's also been a long time in coming. We have to keep in mind that when the International Atomic Energy Board of Governors censored Iran on June 13th, there was a criticism of the IAEA, and since that time there has been a drumbeat of activity of, of criticism of the IAEA in the press, and within recent days and weeks, the language by Iran's Foreign Ministry and press has been -- it's been simply outrageous.

I mean, you have language by the Iran's deputy speaker, by a foreign -- former Foreign Minister Zarif, saying that IAEA Director General Grossi, the man who was just on the screen, Zarif has claimed that he helped kill innocent people through the IAEA Board of Governor's report and that the IAEA remains an Israeli spy organization.

So you're watching the Iranian government take steps to distance itself. Now, this modulus determination to cut ties with the IAEA has been approved by the Guardian's Council, a legislative organization to make sure laws are Islamically correct. And now it's up to their National Security Council to approve if they, depending on how the extent to which they cut ties with the IAEA, it will almost certainly send this issue to the U.N. Security Council.

[18:25:06] JIMENEZ: And, you know, I guess the big question is, how do officials go about finding out what the nuclear capabilities actually are or the ability to enrich uranium actually are? I mean, is there a concern? Does that raise a greater concern of, let's say, covert nuclear operations, for example, if it seems Iran wants to pull back from, again, having the cooperation of the IAEA, for example?

ROULE: It's a great point. And in the near term, it's really going to be down to three pieces. First, the assessments will be based on intelligence, and we've seen some pretty good indications that the United States and Israel, and perhaps others have excellent intelligence on Iran, although that's fragile. There's also some very good imagery that you've seen on the internet. And we can see what the Iranians are doing today at Natanz and Fordow.

And lastly there will be data that Iran itself makes available to the world to boast about what capacity it has so that it can show what it has retained. And I think that will give some picture and some indication of where things are going, but nothing will beat having the IAEA personnel on the ground and its remote sensors and its technical capacity.

JIMENEZ: Yes. Before we go, I want to ask about just the overall strategic objective here because look, the president said -- President Trump says he now dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran after the supreme leader declared victory, of course. But do you see Iran coming back to the negotiating table here? I mean, obviously that's the real, in essence, it sounds like that's what the goal would be here. You have this strike and now let's resume these negotiations. How do you see it?

ROULE: Well, in the short term Iran is likely going to maintain its previous hard line positions, which is no cessation of domestic enrichment, no closure of nuclear facilities, and no cessation of nuclear research and development. It will likely offer to introduce some constraints on activity, constraints on its nuclear stockpile and increased international oversight, but critics will insist, correctly, that this will leave Tehran with a capacity to reverse all of that overnight and bring about a nuclear weapons program.

I think at this point, Iran is unlikely to do anything that would incur another military strike by the United States or Israel. And therefore, if it were to move forward with a nuclear program, it is most likely to do so with dual use activities that might help it progress without incurring such an attack. But again, we're in very early days and Iran is in recovery mode.

JIMENEZ: Yes. Norman Roule, really appreciate the time and perspective. Thanks for being here.

And tonight on CNN, you can catch the "UNITED STATES VERSUS IRAN, A FAREED ZAKARIA SPECIAL." And Fareed takes us through the fragile relations between the two countries right now. That's tonight at 10:00 p.m. Eastern.

More news when we come back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:32:34]

JIMENEZ: All right, everyone, we're following some breaking news into CNN. Multiple firefighters have been shot in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. That's right on the border between Idaho and Washington, east of Spokane while they were responding to a brush fire, that's according to a local fire chief from our affiliate. Right now, we are still monitoring any details. We don't know the extent of any injuries right now.

Here's a look at some of the scene that, again, we're hoping to provide you more details. We're waiting for more information, but stay with CNN for the very latest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Even using the math, even using the formulas that the supporters of the bill like, the deficit will grow by $270 billion next year. This -- that's just not good if you profess to be fiscally conservative.

The bill increases the debt ceiling by $5 trillion. What does that mean? That is an admission that they know they aren't controlling the deficit. They know that the ensuing years will add trillions more. So we're adding $2 trillion this year. But we -- they are anticipating, the authors of the bill, anticipating adding more than $2 trillion next year. That doesn't sound at all conservative to me. And that's why I'm a no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: Senator Rand Paul doing the math as he said, he's blasting the president's so-called big beautiful bill on the Senate floor. That was just a short time ago. Crucially, he is one of two Republicans to vote no on that key procedural vote last night.

I want to bring in our panel. Joining me now are CNN political commentator, Scott Jennings and Maria Cardona.

Scott, I want to start with you, because, look, it's been a long weekend for everyone but for Republicans in the Senate. How confident are you that this bill can get to the president's desk by the 4th of July?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Pretty confident, actually. They're in the process now of debating it. They'll have a vote-a-rama and, you know, Senate Republican leadership feels very good about getting it out of the Senate. And when it goes back over to the House, you know, the House members are going to have to face questions. They got a short timeline. You know, the president's timeline.

And they're going to have to face a question, which is, do we really want to say no to the president's agenda? Do you really want to say yes to the largest tax increase in American history? Do you really want to say no to all the investments in border security? And so, for those reasons, and ultimately, I think the president's own political capital and political muscle, yes, I do think they can get it to his desk by the 4th of July.

[18:35:02]

JIMENEZ: And look, Maria, we've been watching senators on the floor now in the debate portion, but they delayed the process, Democrats did, by forcing the Senate clerks to read the whole thing out loud. I was talking to Senator Amy Klobuchar yesterday, and she said that she really just wanted the American people to have the chance to hear about it.

But my question to you is, do you think that actually helped accomplish anything? What do you think their main message should be right now during the debate portion of this process?

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I do think it helped accomplish one very important thing, Omar, which is to continue to open the eyes of the American people, and frankly, some of the senators who were in that room and members of Congress who have no idea what's in this bill. And so I think what it helps Democrats do and what Democrats are going to continue to do is to underscore just how horrible, ugly, disgusting and hurtful this bill is to the American people.

It is a huge betrayal by Donald Trump to the very people who gave him their vote thinking that he would bring down costs, that he would help them make ends meet. And in fact, he's doing exactly the opposite.

Omar, this bill would be the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the United States, from middle class families and low-income workers to the most wealthy in our country and to billionaires. And so the fact that millions of people, up to 15 million people will lose health care coverage, millions more will lose food assistance, Republicans are literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry kids and so many more really gross pieces are in this legislation.

And so the more Democrats can underscore this, the more that the polling is going to go down the drain. The vast majority of Americans already do not like this bill. More than two thirds of Americans, when they hear more about it, that shoots up to three-fourths of Americans do not like this bill. So, you know, I agree with Scott. It most likely will get to the president's desk, but it is not a done deal, especially if Republicans really dig into this and ask themselves, why are they screwing their own most vulnerable constituents?

A lot of the people that will be hurt in this bill live in red states. So that's going to be a big question that they're going to have to answer from their voters.

JIMENEZ: And Scott, just on Maria's point a little bit that, you know, look, the bill hasn't polled well. NBC News poll, FOX News poll, Kaiser Family Foundation poll. There definitely does seem to be a sentiment out there that, hey, maybe this isn't the best thing for me. I know President Trump is a fan of it, and I know Republicans believe that this is the best way forward. But do you worry that pushing this forward and obviously checking off a major portion of what would be President Trump's agenda here could threaten vulnerable Republicans in the midterms when we get to that point?

JENNINGS: No, I'm not worried at all because, look, there are some key things that have to happen. Number one, we are facing a situation where the 2017 tax cuts will expire if action isn't taken. This bill is essentially a tax bill. And they're going to keep those tax cuts and make them permanent. So that keeps the tax burden low for everybody who pays taxes in the United States. That's a good thing.

Number two, they're investing heavily in border security. And just by taking office, President Trump has already effectively closed the southern border. And so now they're going to lock in those border gains by investing heavily in our southern border security infrastructure. This is a good thing. And this is essentially what the president ran on, lower taxes and a secure southern border. So it's his agenda.

And he won the national popular vote and the electoral college running on that agenda. So no, I'm not really worried about passing the bill. I'd be more worried about not passing the bill and seeing a massive tax increase. I also think this welfare reform that they're doing is much, much needed. I mean, they're going to make sure that illegal aliens, for instance, aren't getting free health care benefits from the federal government.

I think it's a highly defensible bill. I think Republicans can run on it. They can tout it. But at the end of the day, keeping taxes low and securing the border, this is essentially how Donald Trump got reelected. And this is his agenda. And I think that's what Republicans are going to wind up doing is voting yes on the agenda that the American people asked for last November.

JIMENEZ: Well, still a ways to go before we get to that point. We know some Republican senators do have some concerns over it at this point, but the process still well underway.

Scott, Maria, stay with us. We got to take a quick break. But next we're going to talk about the man poised to represent the Democrats in New York's next race for mayor, who is also sparking conversations about the future of the Democratic Party. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:44:22]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: You are a self-described Democratic socialist. Do you think that billionaires have a right to exist?

ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: I don't think that we should have billionaires, because frankly it is so much money in a moment of such inequality and ultimately what we need more of is equality across our city and across our state and across our country. And I look forward to work with everyone, including billionaires, to make a city that is fairer for all of them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: That was New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. The 33-year-old self-proclaimed Democratic socialist's success this week shaking up Democratic politics not just in New York City.

I'm bringing our panel back, Maria Cardona, Scott Jennings.

[18:45:02]

Maria, I want to start with you, because, look, we've heard from even folks like House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, for example, holding off on any endorsement just yet, essentially saying he wants to know more. But what are your thoughts on Democrats, some Democrats' hesitation with Mamdani? Do you have any concerns?

CARDONA: I don't have any concerns. And here's why. Because I think what Democrats need to take from this massive earthquake of what just happened in our politics is the tactics and the approach that Mamdani used. He focused on the number one issue for New Yorkers, and frankly, it's the number one issue for people across this country going back to our last discussion, which is affordability.

The cost of living for people in New York has gotten impossible. And what Mamdani did was he focused on that like a laser. And he talked about how he is going to help bring down costs so that New Yorkers who love New York can actually live in New York, can raise a family in New York, and can get ahead in New York, which is not happening at the moment. And clearly, that message was something that inspired so many.

And so Democrats need to take the tactics that he used. He's young, he's dynamic. He is blunt. He went everywhere. He talked to everyone. Frankly, he kind of took a page from the Trump playbook. Right? He didn't back down from any kind of discussion. He went on every show. He talked about every single difficult question that was posed to him. And he talked about how what he wanted at the end of the day was to make life affordable for people in New York.

So Democrats can take those tactics, focus on their own politics, which won't be the same issues as Mamdani necessarily, especially if you live in a swing district. But use those tactics. Talk to your voters, be open and be authentic. That is clearly the key message here.

JIMENEZ: And Scott, on that point, I mean, even folks like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene have emphasized they don't agree with Mamdani here, but they appreciated him talking about the economy and the way he connected with voters. And my question, I guess, for you is, you heard at the top of the segment, Mamdani told NBC he doesn't think there should be billionaires.

Despite any authenticity, do you think that kind of messaging hurts Democrats nationally as you strategize on the Republican side? Democrats, by the way, who still, in many cases trying to pick up the pieces after 2024.

JENNINGS: Yes. If I were Maria, I'd want to talk about tactics, too, because to talk about this guy's record and his ideas would absolutely sink the Democratic Party. I mean, in one, on the one hand, he says, I don't think there should be billionaires. And then 10 seconds later he says, but I want to work with them to make sure there's, you know, equality across the city. Working with them is a euphemism for taxing them into oblivion. That's number one.

Number two, he's also said he wants to tax people based on their race, which is one of the most radical things I've ever heard. Number three says he wants to defund the New York Police Department. Number four, I think he wants to empty the jails of violent criminals. If you want to destroy New York City, this is the person you would elect.

Interestingly, in the post-election primary voting analysis, it was these rich white liberals that supported Mamdani. The working class supported other people, but it was these, you know, rich white liberals in New York City that supported this guy. Of course, they're the only ones that can afford to leave when he destroys the city. So I think as long as the Democrats are committed to this sort of radical socialism, hateful, radical socialism that's designed to divide people and destroy families and destroy communities and destroy New York City, you know, I don't live in New York, I live in Kentucky. If they want to destroy their city, that's fine with me. Nationally for the Democrats, it's a huge disaster.

JIMENEZ: And Maria, just your response?

CARDONA: But see that --

JIMENEZ: Yes.

CARDONA: Yes. Scott's answer just now proves just how nervous Republicans are about Democrats taking the tactics that Mamdani used. And then focusing on the number one --

JENNINGS: I'm not nervous. I live in -- I live in Prospect, Kentucky. I'll be fine.

CARDONA: Which is affordability. And using those tactics, Omar, to make Republicans pay for the massive, huge, gross bill that they are about to pass that screws working class voters and puts all of that money into the pockets of billionaires.

If Democrats across the country, no matter where you run, no matter what district you are in, if you take that message about how Republicans are choosing wealth over your health and they do it on social media, on podcasts, on YouTube channels, on CNN, on the radio, everywhere, in town halls. If they walk their districts the way Mamdani walked Manhattan and they focus on that message, they are going to win. And Republicans should be nervous.

JIMENEZ: I got to leave it there. [18:50:03]

JENNINGS: Nobody is going to be able to walk Manhattan after he defunds the New York City Police Department, Maria. I wouldn't advise walking Manhattan after he gets rid of the police force.

JIMENEZ: Just to, just to jump in.

CARDONA: No. You know, he's not going to do that.

JIMENEZ: Just to jump in, hold on. Hold on. Mamdani advocated for defunding NYPD in 2020. He has since said his goal is reform, not defunding.

CARDONA: Exactly.

JIMENEZ: And then also, just --

JENNINGS: You guys are doing that again.

JIMENEZ: One more. No, it's just --

JENNINGS: It's the old Harris playbook.

JIMENEZ: Just one more thing, point of order. He just said he didn't want to tax white people specifically, just higher income neighborhoods that do happen to be majority white.

Scott --

JENNINGS: He literally wrote it in a statement, Omar. He literally wrote it down. Are you letting him get off the hook?

JIMENEZ: It is why -- no, I'm saying, I am saying that he said that, but not on the basis of race specifically. I'm not saying he didn't say that.

CARDONA: That's right.

JIMENEZ: He did say that.

JENNINGS: OK. I think you need to re-read it.

JIMENEZ: But not on the basis of race specifically.

Scott, Maria, always a pleasure. Thanks for being here.

CARDONA: Thank you so much, Omar.

JIMENEZ: Next, if that wasn't enough fireworks, 4th of July forecast ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:55:39] JIMENEZ: All right, welcome back, everyone. Tonight, millions across the Midwest, Central -- Central Plains, excuse me, are under a severe storm threat with damaging winds, large hail and possible tornadoes expected.

I want to bring in CNN meteorologist Allison Chinchar who has the details.

ALLISON CHINCHAR, CNN METEOROLOGIST: More than 40 million people are under the threat for severe storms today. Mainly focused across the Midwest and into the Central Plains. Now, we could still see some isolated scattered showers and thunderstorms across other areas, but the main target for those severe thunderstorms is going to be in this yellow shaded area you see here.

That includes Green Bay down through Des Moines, Kansas City, and back across portions of eastern Colorado. The main threats are going to be damaging winds with gusts of 60 to maybe even 70 miles per hour, and also the possibility for some large hail. And yes, we cannot rule out an isolated tornado.

But it's not the only area. We also have this small portion of the mid-Atlantic that could end up seeing some of those strong to severe thunderstorms. Now, the timeline for a lot of these, it's already been ongoing today, but we're really going to see that line in the Midwest ramp up tonight. We're talking 8:00, 9:00, 10:00 p.m. this evening. And the unfortunate part is it's going to continue through the overnight hours. So make sure you have a way to get those emergency alerts on your phone to wake you up.

If some of these storms that are rolling through at 2:00, 3:00, 4:00 in the morning, it can wake you up in plenty of time. Even going through the rest of Monday afternoon, you're going to see lots of those scattered showers and thunderstorms continuing across portions of the Midwest, especially around the Ohio Valley and into the Tennessee Valley.

Now for some of these areas, this is not just one day of rain. It is day two, day three, and in some cases it is multiple days of strong to severe thunderstorms, which means that ground is already saturated from previous rain. And now we're adding more rain on top of it. So because of it, there is also the potential for some flooding. Any of the areas you see shaded in green have the potential for flooding, but the real target point is going to be right here in the yellow shaded area, including Kansas City, where we could be looking at several more inches of rain on top of what they've had the last few days.

JIMENEZ: All right, Allison Chinchar, thank you so much.

Ahead, we're still following breaking news out of Idaho, where as we are learning, several firefighters were shot while responding to a fire. We'll bring you those details when we have them.

And senators are locking in for what could be a long night on Capitol Hill. This is a live look, you're looking at Senator Bernie Sanders, as the president's domestic agenda hanging in the balance, debate underway. We're going to tell you what we're learning about his policy mega bill and what its passage would mean for the entire country. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)