Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Trump: Agreement With Iran Has Been "Largely Negotiated"; Potential Deal Calls For Unfreezing Of Some Iranian Assets; Rubio Defends Iran War, Objectives Have Been Met. Trump Tested as Testy Texas Primary Ends; Is GOP Revolt over $1.8B Fund Sign of Deeper Cracks; Black Dems Tank College Sports Bill over Redistricting. Aired 8-9a ET

Aired May 24, 2026 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:34]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(MUSIC)

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Strait deal? President signals an end game.

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATES: Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon.

RAJU: But as Iran disputes the details, what has been agreed upon and the mess in Texas after Trump throws another Republican to the wolves.

How upset were you about the news?

A nasty primary reaches its conclusion.

KEN PAXTON (R), TEXAS SENATE CANDIDATE: I think it creates a slight bit of momentum, don't you?

RAJU: But could Trump's move hand Texas to Democrats? Plus, open revolt as GOP senators break with Trump?

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): This is just stupid on stilts.

RAJU: President gets an earful in his swing district.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Go home to mom.

RAJU: But will he listen to the alarm bells?

INSIDE POLITICS, the best reporting from inside the corridors of power, starts now.

(MUSIC)

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RAJU (on camera): Good morning. And welcome to INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY. I'm Manu Raju.

So after 85 days, is the Iran war about to end, or will a potential deal collapse yet again? And how much pushback will the president get, including from his own party? After urgent talks this weekend with his national security team and leaders of Gulf nations, the president made his most definitive statement that a deal with Iran has been, quote, "largely negotiated", with a regional source telling CNN the deal is expected to unfold in two phases with the Strait of Hormuz opening and negotiations over nuclear issues coming later.

But Iran's state affiliated news agency is disputing the president and says his claims about the strait are, quote, "not true" and are, quote, "inconsistent with reality."

So what is the reality?

CNN's Fred Pleitgen joins me now.

So, Fred, what are you hearing from your sources in Iran? And what are the actual sticking points? And is there a deal that is within reach?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Manu.

Well, actually, I was just speaking to a senior Iranian source who also said that there has been significant progress that have been achieved, especially over the past couple of days, but there are apparently still a few sticking points as to how things move forward. If you look at what the sort of state of play is, first of all, the Iranians are also saying that indeed they think that this is or they -- say that this is going to be a two-phased approach to all of this.

We're on the one hand, theyre going to try and achieve a more general memorandum of understanding to stop combat operations, to essentially end the armed conflict between the United States and Iran. That would also entail the United States lifting its blockade and the Strait of Hormuz, most probably opening more than it has before.

What President Trump, of course, said in Truth Social last night is that the strait will be opened. Iranian officials said the strait is open. But at the same time, of course, it is governed by the Islamic Republic of Iran and specifically by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps navy. So they say that those rules are going to be set in place.

But at the same time, they do also insist that the waterway is open to maritime vessels that comply with the Iranian rules that will be set forth on the ground.

For the Iranians, what they also want is they want the unfreezing of certain assets that, of course, have been confiscated over the past couple of years. And then also, one of the things that, of course, we very important for the Iranians, if the United States lifts that blockade, is that they would then be able to freely export their oil and other goods once again.

So the Iranians are saying things are very close. They certainly do agree with that assessment. But at the same time, they do say that there are still small but very important points to be dealt with.

RAJU: Yeah. And how long will those important points be hanging over the two sides? The big question here as well.

Fred Pleitgen, thank you so much for that reporting.

And let's break this all down with my excellent panel. "Bloomberg's" Jeff Mason, Tia Mitchell from "The Atlanta Journal Constitution", and CNN national security analyst Beth Sanner.

Good morning to you all. Happy Sunday. Thanks for being here on a holiday weekend.

Beth, you've had a long career in national security. You understand these issues better than pretty much anybody. So I'm so grateful that you're here. The administration was negotiating with Iran before the war began. Now the administration is negotiating and laying out the terms that we're seeing here.

Is it clear to you what exactly the United States is getting that they were not getting before the war?

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think this is the main point. You know, we've been at this point of a dilemma, right, where there are no good choices now.

[08:05:02]

And what we're solely negotiating at this very point is a return to the status quo ante on the Strait of Hormuz. That's what this is about, and then pushing everything else off. So think about that. We've had a war and now we're only talking about how to put it all back together again to what it was before the war and what the Iranians have told us, as Fred pointed out, is that they're not agreeing to that.

And so, you know, really, I feel like this deal might not come through. We're not there yet. It is, and only a memorandum of understanding. It is not a deal. And everything depends on whether they can get what Rubio said very clearly yesterday. We cannot have Iran control the Strait of Hormuz. Iranians are begging to differ. So, not a great position.

RAJU: And, you know, one of the things that the Iranians have been demanding is to unfreeze their assets has been part of that. Isn't that essentially what the Obama administration agreed to, that, you know, that Trump has been criticizing them over?

SANNER: Absolutely. I mean, a lot of this is the same, very same things that JCPOA was criticized for. It was criticized for unfreezing some sanctions. It was criticized for not including Iran's missiles and their huge missile program. This would not do that, according to all reports. It criticized -- it was criticized for having time limits. Well, everything we've heard about the enrichment part of this would only be within a time limit, right? So, the devils in the details here. There is a possibility of the

nuclear part of this being better if they stick to some of their demands. But I think that, you know, this is two to tango. And the Iranians right now are feeling so much juice out of this.

And you look at what the Iranian military spokesman put out yesterday as their meme, and it was Donald Trump, on his knees, bowed head in front of the supreme leader.

RAJU: Uh-huh. That tells you a lot about how they view things.

Let's hear from what the secretary of state said in India this morning about this, and compare this to what how he messaged what the United States objectives were heading into this war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUBIO: The president made the decision to go after them, take away their missiles, take away their navy, take away their drones, take away their ability to make those things so that they can never have a nuclear weapon.

We were going to destroy their navy, which we have done. We were going to significantly reduce their ability to long range to, to, to launch ballistic missiles, because that was the conventional shield they were trying to hide behind. And we've achieved that objective and we were going to do damage to the defense industrial base. So they couldn't rebuild all of these things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: And so the first comment was from March 3rd when he said, take away their missiles, their navy, take away their drones. Today, he's talking about reducing -- significantly reducing their ability to do that.

Is there a shift here in what they consider the successful military campaign?

JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE & WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: I mean, I think it's fair to say there have been shifts throughout this entire process, starting from the very beginning when the president announced the war on in a video that he posted on social media. It's been -- it's been a constant sort of up and down about what they want to achieve.

The one mostly consistent thing that they have said and that the president continues to reiterate, is that he does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. But that, again, is some of the poses more questions than answers right now about what this deal will do, because, as Beth rightly pointed out, what it sounds like its going to do is largely go back to the status quo and table discussions about Iran's nuclear ambitions and will a final agreement have the kind of verification or the kind of checking that the JCPOA, which was the agreement agreed under the Obama administration that Trump withdrew the United States from, have in the end -- TBD. RAJU: Yeah. And this is where Trump's goals in the Iran war regime

change. There's -- there's a different leader question about whether that's actually a regime change. That's -- it doesn't seem to be the case, given that it's the same family, of course, in charge of Iran, permanently stop the nuclear program, doesn't clear, doesn't clear that that's going to happen, at least not quite yet. Get nuclear dust. Those were his goals going in.

TIA MITCHELL, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Yeah. And I think we should also remind viewers that this war began months after Donald Trump said he had already obliterated Iran's ability to have nuclear weapons. So there's been so much inconsistency from the beginning of the war. And I think that a lot of people, you know, I think in general, the idea of removing Iran as a nuclear power would be popular.

But when you look at what the war has actually produced, particularly domestically, with the high gas prices, with the fertilizer prices really affecting farmers and producers, its like, what exactly have we got out of this?

[08:10:00]

And then when you show that his, his three main goals perhaps are not being accomplished, what was all of this for? And it seems like it really -- well, it has taken a toll on the American people without right now anything to show for it.

RAJU: But it explains why there has been this reaction from the right flank of the GOP. Really, the more the hawkish flank, you'd say neocon in the -- in a different administration.

But, you know, you have Ted Cruz, you have Lindsey Graham, Roger Wicker among those really sounding the alarm yesterday about the reports of this deal. Ted Cruz saying that this would be a disastrous mistake. Lindsey Graham saying the combination of Iran being perceived as having the ability to terrorize the state in perpetuity, it makes one wonder why the war started to begin with.

And Roger Wicker, who's the chairman of the House -- or the Senate Armed Services Committee, said this would be all for naught.

The question, I guess, for you, Beth, is, what is -- what are the options here?

SANNER: Exactly, right.

RAJU: Because if he doesn't get the deal, do they have to go back to another military campaign or bombing them again?

SANNER: Yeah, right. So like the horns of the dilemma, right? Where you have go back to war or figure out a negotiated path and going back to war. The real question you have to have for the hawks is what would that achieve? Would it actually bring Iran to the negotiating table faster? Probably not -- I think it actually would push things off. I don't think it would make them more willing to negotiate. I think it would make them less willing to negotiate, because there's no way an air campaign is going to topple this regime.

And so, you leave Iran. Actually, you know, we would be in the situation with no more gas months and months later.

RAJU: Yeah. And real quickly, Jeff, will those voices, they convinced Trump to back off a deal. Those Republican critics like Lindsey Graham.

MASON: Not if he is determined to get out of this. I mean, he's worried about the politics going into November. But the politics going into November are going to continue to be rough for him, especially if his base and these conservatives have left him.

RAJU: Yeah. All right. We'll see a big, big day ahead.

And up next for us, Democratic Congressman Jim Himes, who's one of the members of the Gang of Eight, he's called this potential deal, quote, "terrible". He'll join me live to explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:16:40]

RAJU: As details of a potential deal begin to emerge, Iran's president says no agreement will be made without Iran's new supreme leader's approval. But the Trump administration is adamant that a deal is indeed close. Critics, though, say Trump is caving to Iran on this deal.

Congressman Jim Himes from Connecticut, he's the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. He joins me now and is a member of the Gang of Eight.

Congressman, thanks for being here on this Sunday morning.

There is a lot that needs to be finalized here. But if this deal does indeed lead to the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and an end to the fighting, isn't that good news for the United States

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Well, it's certainly good news, politically speaking, for the president, right? And let's be clear here. There is no deal. And anybody who has watched the Iranians and the Persians negotiate for, you know, the last 2,500 years knows that until you have a deal, you have no deal, right? What you have here is a framework.

And the reason I say that it's good politically is, of course, the president is going to take any deal he is offered because he understands the absolute political toxicity of Americans each and every day, paying $1.50 to $2 more for gasoline than they did before this war started. And inflation generally, because the Strait of Hormuz affects food prices, devastating Americans' economic well- being.

So, you know, the Iranians realized that while they had no navy and the administration is right about that. They sank the navy. The Iranians realized that they had their hand around the throat of the global economy.

And the Iranians can read the numbers, too. American consumer sentiment at record lows, in that moment, Donald Trump takes any deal he is offered. And that's -- that's where this is going to end. I've been saying it for months now. That's where this thing ends, because the political toxicity is just too much for him and his party.

RAJU: A source tells CNN, Congressman, that the potential deal includes an Iranian commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons. So if that becomes part of the final deal, would that be a significant development, in your view?

HIMES: Well, I mean, we'll have the opportunity to commit -- to compare, I should say, whatever they agreed to. And remember this, this leaked deal or this memorandum of understanding says, oh, well, we'll work out the nuclear stuff in the next 30 to 60 days. Now, remember, inasmuch as the president has said anything about why he did this, at first it was, oh, well, help is on the way for the Iranian people, thousands of whom have been murdered. Well, they get nothing out of this deal, right?

And then the president kept returning to this thing of, you know, Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. And what we know about this memorandum right now is that maybe in the next 30 to 60 days, we'll talk about that stuff that, you know, again, it took Barack Obama in his -- in 2015, well over a year to negotiate a deal that the very people who are grabbing at this deal today have condemned. Meanwhile, we -- if the leaked details are correct, yes, the Iranians are going to get to ship oil. They survived. They have a supreme leader who is much more aggressive and extremist than the one that we killed. And, you know, apparently this deal may involve immediate sanctions relief.

I mean, Manu, it's hard to arrive at any conclusion other than the fact that because of the political toxicity of this war, President Trump has just surrendered.

[08:20:01]

And don't take it from me. You mentioned it before. The traditional Iran hawks, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Ted Cruz, they're going out of their minds today.

RAJU: Yeah. And the administration has said repeatedly, though, Congressman, that the U.S. essentially destroyed Iran's military, including its navy and air force and its missile capabilities. And there are some Republicans are echoing that claim this morning as well, saying this was a successful operation. So is a member of the Gang of Eight briefed on these issues? Do you agree with that assessment that their military capabilities have been significantly degraded?

HIMES: They absolutely have. Now, by the way, you said three things. The navy is in fact at the bottom of the ocean. The air force has been largely eradicated.

But the missiles -- there are still and this is really critical here. There are still thousands of usable missiles in Iran and thousands of usable drones. Okay? And that's why the Iranians to this day maintain the ability, very literally, to push a button and destroy the energy infrastructure in Qatar, in the United Arab Emirates and throughout the Persian Gulf.

So, you know, my Republican colleagues can do their little victory lap over the destruction of the Iranian navy. But it turns out that in war, you break stuff not just to break stuff like an angry four-year- old. You break stuff to achieve a strategic end.

And while they can celebrate the navy being at the bottom of the ocean, it isn't going to prevent the fact that the Iranians can still destroy the energy infrastructure in the Gulf. And that has caused unbearable pain to the American public, and therefore, from a strategic sense, this war was a cataclysmic disaster.

RAJU: But, Mr. Himes, you know, the president has said repeatedly that the United States had to act decisively, saying that President Biden, President Obama did not act decisively, did not confront the Iranian threat, which is why he did, because he says Iran was just weeks away from having a nuclear weapon. Have you seen any evidence in your briefings to back up that claim from the president?

HIMES: Yeah, no, look, it's a flat out lie. And I've spent the last decade or so watching very closely exactly where Iran has been in terms of their ability to develop a weapon. And at no point in the last decade have they been weeks away from -- from having the nuclear weapon. The intelligence community has never assessed that to be the case.

Now, that doesn't mean that they weren't some months away, right? So at some point, we're sort of arguing semantics here. The president lied to the American people when he said that they were weeks away, and when he said that they were, you know, an imminent danger to the United States.

But let's not -- let's not under-appreciate the fact that Iran, had they wanted to, probably could have assembled a nuclear device at any point in the last decade or so in a matter of some months, right?

So what do you do if you're Barack Obama in 2015? You painstakingly negotiate a deal, which results in all of the shipping of the highly enriched uranium out of the country and develop (ph) real safeguards. If you're Donald Trump who has the courage to do what his predecessor didn't, you declare a war that kills 13 Americans, that devastates the global economy, and that raises Americans gas prices $1.50. Now, this final story will be told here. Once we see this magical 30, 60-day period, what he is able to negotiate.

If he's able to negotiate Iran never having a nuclear weapon again, ever, you know, I'll tip my hat to him. But, you know, we've watched the Iranians for a very long time here, and they love nothing better than to say, yeah, we'll negotiate that tomorrow. And that's what theyre doing right now. They are playing Donald Trump.

RAJU: If this is the end of the war, Congressman, who do you think won it?

HIMES: Well, it -- you know, if -- and again, all we have right now is nothing in my estimation. You know, this is just another Iranian negotiating gambit because we don't have a signed deal. We're not watching uranium move out of Iran. We're not watching ships go through the Strait of Hormuz. So I hesitate to say who won.

But at the bottom -- but let's remember what the president said the objectives were. At one point, it was regime change, right? Well, we did change the regime to a much worse regime, right? At another point, it was help is on the way for the Iranian people. The Iranian people continue to live under one of the most appalling regimes on the planet. And one of the objectives was making sure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon.

Watch this space. If the president achieves that, that'll be real. But again, in the meantime, you know, American consumers have badly, badly suffered from a president who said, remember, he got elected because he said, I'm not going to do a dumb war in the Middle East, and I'm going to lower your prices. And he did the exact opposite.

RAJU: All right. Congressman Jim Himes, we're going to have to leave it there. Democrat of Connecticut, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Thank you for being here. Really appreciate your time this Sunday morning.

RAJU: Thank you, Manu.

RAJU: Up next for us, Texas heads to its runoff in just two days. Now, the president has weighed in.

[08:25:03]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: How upset were you about the news?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJU: For Republicans, it's gone from don't mess with Texas to what a mess in Texas. Tuesday will cap a bitter primary fight that could see Republican John Cornyn's career of more than two decades in the Senate come to an abrupt end, despite him and his allies spending roughly $100 million in the race, in large part because President Trump got off the sidelines and backed Cornyn's foe, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, defying Senate Majority Leader John Thune and others who essentially begged Trump to endorse Cornyn, whom they view as more electable.

I caught up with Cornyn and asked him why stay in the race after Trump backed Paxton.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Only Texans get to vote, and we've had two days of early voting. It looks very encouraging, and I believe that we still have a very good chance of winning in the race.

RAJU: Do you think that you're a better candidate, that means that you think there's a chance he could win because Trump just said that he believes that Paxton could win?

CORNYN: I think it's a toss-up. And I also think he's going to be --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He's going to make it --

CORNYN: -- he's going to be a drag on down ballot races that are important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: All right. My panel is back and Semafor's David Weigel joins us as well. Good morning to you, David.

So this race, the reason why Republican leaders are just, you know, pulling their hair out because they have been begging Trump to help Cornyn and he decided to wait until the last minute to back Paxton.

And the amount of money they burned through 91 million bucks it through so far from the run -- from the primary, through the runoff. And the runoff, of course, is the top two finishers in that March primary, the top two being Paxton and Cornyn. $22 million in the last six weeks just from the Cornyn side alone.

That could be all for naught here, because Cornyn may not make it through, and they could leave Paxton, who will be very badly bruised in the aftermath of this campaign.

Is there any way, in your view, Cornyn could pull off an upset here?

DAVID WEIGEL, SEMAFOR NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER: There is a way that he that he could do that. There are people who have survived the Trump and the Trump non-endorsement before in Texas before.

But the president's mind is not very mysterious. He -- it is hard for him to believe that James Talarico can win in Texas. It's hard for him to believe when people tell him that the polls are close in Texas, that they're right.

When the president believes that, for example, California went his way three times, but it was stolen. I can't read his mind, but he seems to repeat it a lot, and he believes and you can already see the NRSC moving towards this messaging that Talarico can be branded as such a woke, unserious left-wing candidate, that Paxton will be fine.

He believes Paxton will be fine, just as he believed that other candidates who -- that Herschel Walker would be fine. This is -- this is not new for them.

Its watching them fail to adjust to the president's expectations and his reads of the electorate is a little bit preposterous after ten years.

RAJU: Yes. But the NRSC is a Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, along with Cornyn, have been just bashing Paxton relentlessly for months. The question is how badly bruised he will be in a general election if he is the nominee.

Paxton has already shifted his messaging to the general election, believing that he's going to win on Tuesday. You can see here saying that they changed their TV traffic to focus on beating what he calls the leftist lunatic in the fall. Of course, referring to James Talarico, the Democratic nominee there.

Cornyn, though he's not going down without a fight. He said, I know you're desperate to avoid accountability, Ken. He said, we need a few more days to burn in the fact that you plea bargained with a child sex offender. He goes on to attacking him on other issues as well. He's going down swinging.

TIA MITCHELL, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Yes. Cornyn is going down swinging. But I think it's so interesting that Donald Trump felt so compelled to endorse at all. Like he was in the final days. The primary is coming up. He could have just stayed silent.

All of the -- you know, John Thune and the Republican Party, the campaign committees said, please stay out of it if you're not going to endorse Cornyn. And he just could not resist.

I think he's feeling so buoyed by the fact that his endorsements in other primaries have come pushed his preferred candidate over the line, that he thinks he can do the same for Paxton.

But the question is, you know, in this race, yes, Texas has been hard for Democrats to win. But there's a first time for everything. Ask Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock.

And so the question is, has he now put Texas in play?

RAJU: Yes. And just to talk about the Trump state of mind, the calculation to do this.

Look, again, he could have done this months ago.

(CROSSTALKING)

RAJU: He could have made it decided -- he could have gotten behind Paxton months ago and tried to force Cornyn to -- into an early retirement or got behind Cornyn and made sure that he cleared the field for him and saved all that money that I showed you earlier.

This is what Trump said in his Truth Social post. He said "Cornyn was not supportive of me when times were tough." It seems to be referring to some of the criticism that Cornyn gave towards Trump after January 6th because Trump voted to acquit Trump in the impeachment trial and voted virtually for everything Trump has wanted.

[08:34:45]

RAJU: But he also said that he was very late in backing me. In what turned out to be a historic run for the Republican nomination. That was in 2024, when Cornyn backed him after New Hampshire.

Here's a flashback of what Cornyn was saying at the time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CORNYN: You have to appeal to a broader segment of the population in a general election. And President Trump seems to have a -- have a loyal support in the primary, but not so much in a general election.

I think it's important to unify behind a candidate. And I respect the voters choice in Iowa and New Hampshire after primary, there needs to be a broader appeal than just to primary voters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: I mean, it's pretty measured analysis there but obviously -- I don't know. Is that the reason why Trump decided to bolt on Cornyn for that kind of mild criticism?

JEFF MASON, BLOOMBERG WHITE HOUSE AND WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Newsflash, President Trump holds a grudge.

RAJU: Breaking news.

M1: It doesn't matter how mild that criticism is. If there's criticism, it is on his radar and he keeps it in the back of his head.

What is remarkable, as we've all really just been saying, is that he held on to it for so long and didn't -- and didn't just go with Paxton from the very beginning.

And that seems to indicate that he was at least aware of the political downsides to this endorsement. But he's ready. He's willing to take it to potentially bring down someone else who hasn't always been on Team Trump.

RAJU: Just look at the poll right now about where things would stand in a general election. Pretty much dead tied, no clear leader between Paxton and Talarico or Cornyn and Talarico.

And the question is, how much will Democrats put in to help Talarico in a general election?

I asked Schumer that this last week. I said, will you spend as much money as it takes to win in Texas? He would not say directly.

Are they willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to push Talarico over the finish line here?

WEIGEL: Well, Talarico has been breaking Democratic fundraising records in Texas. So that's part of the calculation, is that this candidate is a phenom. He can go on podcasts and raise $500,000 in a pop that they won't need to. That they're going to put their money in other states and make Republicans put another 100 million in the meat grinder to stop the small dollar fundraising.

There's not many candidates they have this cycle who are able to just turn on the money machine like he is. So I think that's part of Schumer's calculation.

RAJU: Yes, well see what he decides to do. He didn't answer that for a reason, because I don't think they quite know just yet.

All right. President Trump's ironclad grip on the Republican Party shows its first signs of cracking in nearly a decade. We'll get into the Republican rebellion. That's next.

[08:37:11]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJU: Many Republicans are confronting a new political reality. Staying in line with President Trump may not align with their political survival, as was evident during last week's GOP revolt over DOJ's $1.8 billion compensation fund, the pushback over his White House ballroom project and outcries over his call to defeat sitting GOP lawmakers.

But some are gambling that Trump could help them in November, like Congressman Mike Lawler, one of just three Republicans in a district carried by Kamala Harris in 2024 who stumped with Trump on Friday in a suburban New York district.

My panel is back.

Now, the Lawler calculation is an interesting one because he is one of the three Republicans who are from Kamala Harris districts, and I asked him why stump with Trump? You know how unpopular he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Look, my district obviously is a swing district, but it's also a district that President Trump moved significantly to the right in 2024.

Rockland County is a county that saw the biggest change in support for President Trump across the entire country. And that's where I've lived my whole life.

RAJU: So you can see the campaign ads now, say Trump, Lawler, Trump, Lawler. Isn't that going to hurt you?

LAWLER: Manu, they're going to run those ads no matter what, aren't they?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: What do you -- MITCHELL: I mean, you know, to his point, no matter what. But when you

give them fresh Trump-Lawler material for those ads, I think they're going to be perhaps more impactful than someone like a Bacon or a Fitzpatrick who can say, you know, yes, I support the president to an extent, but here's where I can be independent.

Here is where I can speak to some of the constituents in my district who may not want someone so closely aligned with the president.

RAJU: He's making the calculations this is a base election. That's what he's --

(CROSSTALKING)

MITCHELL: Yes, that's what he -- And that's interesting in a swing district. That's interesting in a year where the president's approval ratings are so low and most Republicans think that being too aligned with the president will be, you know, will be harmful to the Republican Party in the general election in those swing states and swing districts.

So he's making a calculation that goes against a lot of the conventional wisdom about a midterm election when the president is so unpopular.

RAJU: Let's talk about what we saw this past week, which are all these breaks with the president and his own party. This has just been intensifying just over the past week. I mentioned several of them here in the intro.

We saw more Republicans vote for that war powers resolution as well.

Jeff, you covered the White House. Are they concerned about this -- what they're seeing is really a fraught relationship with their own. Probably the worst situation they've been in with the GOP in Trump's second term.

MASON: Yes, I think that's true. President Trump was asked about that. I was in the Oval Office with him.

[08:44:47]

MASON: I didn't ask him this question, but he was asked about whether he'd lost control of Senate Republicans. And he said, I don't know.

And I mean, that said, I'm not sure he's particularly worried about it. And I think there's a reason for him not to be based on precedents, which is sometimes there's a little bit of pushback.

Last week counts as maybe more than a little bit, but his party always comes back to him.

RAJU: Yes.

And that's why he does what he does. He just assumes they're going to eventually come back, which is why he does things like talk about the weaponization fund, talk about the ballroom, focus on things that perhaps are for his own legacy, dealing with things, wiping away, whitewashing what happened with January 6th. We saw several steps happening last week in that regard as well.

And this is what Sarah Binder (ph) of George Washington University told "The New York Times" about this in a piece that they did. She said, with less than three years left in office, he seems comfortable burning whatever political capital he has in order to leave his legacy, even if it drags his party down in the process.

WEIGEL: Yes, and look at what Lawler's reelection case should be from his perspective. What would he like it to be about? It's about I worked with anyone, the president, Democrats, to get the SALT cap lifted. That's not what the elections going to be about.

There is voter frustration about the economy. There has been -- and the president keeps giving Democrats a very good counterpunch to that, which is that he is not focused on the economy.

He is focused on the ballroom. He's focused on weaponization fund. He's doing $1.8 billion for these people. What about you?

And it's almost an inversion of what worked so well for Republicans in 2024. Look at all these things Democrats are distracted by when they should be looking at you and worried about your interests.

The president, he's following the path of a lot of presidents who have been distracted by foreign policy and not talking about the economy in ways that make sense to people.

And when he does, he's very Panglossian that everything has been fixed and gas is still $2 when it isn't.

So no Republican is breaking from that, that message in a way that takes this Democratic argument away. Look at what he's doing instead of making things cheaper.

MITCHELL: I just think that it's so interesting what caused Republicans to finally stand up. You know, it wasn't January 6th. It wasn't the COVID-19 and the lack thereof of a national plan. It was, you know, more personal.

RAJU: Yes, it was Bill Cassidy being targeted. Bill Cassidy comes back after he loses his primary and votes against Trump on the Iran war. That just shows you kind of where things are with the GOP at this moment.

All right. Coming up, the NCAA has turned to congress to help regulate the wild world of NIL. So how did the politics of race and gerrymandering upend those plans? We have details ahead.

[08:47:31]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJU: The wild world of college sports Already in a state of upheaval, over $1 million deals, transfer portals, and big boosters, is now colliding with the charged politics of race and gerrymandering.

The NCAA, along with its power conferences, have put their lobbying power behind a bill called The Score Act to establish a national standard over how athletes are compensated for the use of their name, image and likeness, or NIL.

But as The Score Act was finally set to get a vote last week in the House after months of bipartisan talks, the Congressional Black Caucus revolted and said it could not back the bill in the southeastern conference schools in particular spoke out against gerrymandering that could erase majority black districts across the south.

And the NAACP and some Democratic lawmakers, even going as far as calling for black athletes to boycott SEC schools until those universities use their power to push back against GOP states seeking to redraw House maps after the Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act just last month.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): This is a Bill Russell moment.

CROWD: That's right, that's right.

JEFFRIES: It's a Muhammad Ali moment.

CROWD: That's right.

JEFFRIES: And it's a Jackie Robinson moment.

CROWD: That's right.

JEFFRIES: And were going to stand together to make sure we bring about the type of country that the African-American community deserves and that everyone in the United States of America deserves.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Democrats, including from states with SEC schools, defended the unusual call for a boycott.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JARED MOSKOWITZ (D-FL): I totally support what the CBC is doing. Now, obviously, those athletes have a choice, right?

REP. WESLEY BELL (D-MO): I do think that there are things that are bigger than sports.

REP. SHOMARI FIGURES (D-AL): The philosophy that it's ok for, you know, black students to have representation, to run a football but can't run for office in these same states that rely on that, you know, that rely on that representation on a football field, that's something that you have to speak out against.

REP. JANELLE BYNUM (D-OR): Everything has a cost. And our kids' dignity is not for sale.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Congresswoman Janelle Bynum, who we just heard from there, was actually one of the lawmakers who co-sponsored this bill.

Now, Republicans are furious, saying that Democrats are injecting an unrelated partisan fight into a complex issue that has roiled college sports and angered fans who are desperate for a solution.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. STEVE SCALISE (R-LA): Schools are not involved in redistricting politics in Supreme Court decisions, and they tried to make it about that at the last minute. Nobody's going to play that game.

[08:54:47]

RAJU: Is the issue dead? Is it dead?

SCALISE: The issue is not dead but it's not moving forward this week. They want to stop playing games and work with us to solve problems at every school, including every HBCU has acknowledged is real. We stand ready to get to the bill across the finish line.

RAJU: What do you think about them calling for black athletes not to go to some of these SEC schools?

REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): I think that's bogus. They're going to cut their hand off that race card they keep throwing.

REP. MIKE FLOOD (R-NE): We've got to get something done in this space.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: But some democrats who have signed on to this bill, namely Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar of Texas, were not eager to talk about the CBC's decision to derail the measure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: You support The Score Act, right? You were co-sponsor of this bill. You know, there was the CBC came out. You're --

(CROSSTALKING)

RAJU: -- you're actually in favor of it, too. You see the way CBC came out against it this week. What do you think about their opposition to this?

They said that they called on all black athletes to boycott SEC schools. I mean, and they derailed this bill. Are you ok with that?

REP. VICENTE GONZALEZ (D-TX): Ask Vicente Gonzalez.

(END VIDEO CLIP) RAJU: All right. That's it for "INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY".

Up next, "STATE OF THE UNION WITH JAKE TAPPER AND DANA BASH". Jake's guests include North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker.

And this weekend, we hope your Memorial Day is a meaningful one, as we remember those who gave the ultimate sacrifice.

Thanks again for sharing your Sunday morning with us. We'll see you next time.

[08:56:17]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)