Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Trump Says Iran Agreement Is Signed But Few Have Seen It; Trump Vows To Release Iran Framework Agreement In "Couple Of Days"; Conservative Foreign Policy Hawks Skeptical About Iran Agreement; Trump Tests Endorsement Power In OK., GA., AL. Primaries; Trump, Gov. Kemp Back Opposing Candidates In GA. Primary; Trump Backs Rep. Mike Collins In Georgia Senate Primary; Newsom Blasts Probe: "Donald Trump Picked The Wrong Target". Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired June 16, 2026 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR, INSIDE POLITICS: President Trump is promising a word for word reading of the Iran agreement. The question is, when?

I'm Phil Mattingly in for Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines at Inside Politics.

48 hours ago, President Trump electronically signed an agreement with Iran. Since then, he's talked about it at formal G7 events, bilateral meetings, and press conferences. There's just one problem, nobody's actually seen it yet. And it's not just the public that's in the dark here, it's also members of Congress, even top Republicans who say they have yet to be briefed. And we're learning some of the president's fellow G7 leaders, they're in the dark as well.

After nearly two hours of discussions with Trump at a dinner last night, two officials tell CNN, some world leaders walked away just as mystified about the plan as when they sat down. In an uncertain world, one thing you always know will be there.

Kevin Liptak in a major geopolitical event in Geneva. Kevin, I mentioned that because you're very well sourced with a lot of the people that are at this G7. You've been speaking with officials. Does anyone in the G7 have more clarity on this deal?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: They're getting little hints over the course of this summit, but at this point no one has actually seen the final text, and it's not for want of trying. You know, you mentioned that dinner last night went on for two hours. There was also a lunch today that went more than 90 minutes. The whole point of it was really to try and focus on the issue of Iran and nail down on some of the specifics of what President Trump has agreed to in this arrangement with Iran.

The focus was very specifically on the Strait of Hormuz. I'm told, a number of these European leaders say that they're ready to go in with their own militaries, remove mines from the Strait, but until they actually see what this agreement entails, they can't do that, and so they're waiting for President Trump to essentially give them the go- ahead.

You know, you talk to American officials. They do say that this document will be released eventually. A number of the president's aides say privately they wish they could just get it out quickly. It's not really clear at this point what's holding it up. President Trump said today that he wanted to wait until a quote, formal moment to release it. He made that pledge to stand in front of cameras and read it word for word. He also tried to lay out, at least in his view, what is actually in the plan. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, that's where it says, it won't have one. To buy, to develop, they will not have a nuclear weapon. And I would say that's about 99.9 percent of what I wanted because we couldn't let that happen. You couldn't let that happen, and they won't have a nuclear weapon. Now, in addition to that, the Strait is going to be open toll free, and it's toll free beyond the 60 days. It's not -- somebody said, oh, it's toll free for -- no, no, it's toll free, period. When it opens permanently, it will be toll free.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIPTAK: So, toll free period. That's President Trump's explanation for the Strait of Hormuz. We heard something slightly different yesterday from J.D. Vance, who was the negotiator of this deal. He said it was the American quote, expectation that there wouldn't be tolls on the Strait of Hormuz, but that the finality of that would be determined in the future technical negotiations to come.

You know, a lot of lack of clarity in all of this. One thing that is actually pretty clear is that a number of these thorny issues have been put off to those future technical negotiations, whether it's the nuclear issue, whether it's the Strait of Hormuz, whether it's the financial relief that Iran can expect as part of this deal. President Trump actually said today that he thought those future negotiations would be easier than the first round. That's not something I've heard echoed by any official who's involved in any of this, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, that's a really great point, me either. Kevin Liptak for us in Geneva. Thanks so much. My panel of reporters and experts is here joining me now. And Brett McGurk, I want to start with you because with what we just heard from the president there. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, which is 99.9 percent of what he wanted. That was in the JCPOA.

There will be no tolls on the Strait of Hormuz period. That is not my understanding from folks that I've talked to in the Gulf region who have worked with Iran in the past, you have as well. Cut through what we do know about this agreement and what it means going into a phase two here that is not going to be easy, despite what the president says.

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yeah, Phil, there's merit and secrecy of negotiations to get an agreement, but here we have secrecy of what's in an agreement after an agreement has been announced. I've really never seen anything like this. I think, we don't know what's in this text, and you have the Iranians saying different things every day, and senior administration officials saying different things every day.

And as this goes on, as we head towards Friday with this ceremonial signing, we don't know if that's going to come together or not. Today, a big dispute about what's in the agreement over Lebanon, but the core of it is the Strait of Hormuz. I mean, at root, this is basically a deal to get the Strait of Hormuz open.

[12:05:00]

And we are clearly making some significant concessions to Iran in order to do that, but there's a dispute about whether the Strait of Hormuz goes back to status quo ante ballot, meaning how it was before the war. Or if Iran, as it is asserting, is asserting that it will now basically manage the Strait of Hormuz with Oman, which is a completely different situation than the -- for war. So, this agreement basically solves a problem that was not a problem, and that in itself I think is problematic.

Look, if there's an agreement of negotiated agreements, even difficult agreements. Sometimes you get to the point of negotiation. Do we do this deal or not? There are areas that are uncomfortable. You have to ask yourself, is this the best alternative to lack of an agreement? And I think the administration decided, given their options, military escalation probably wasn't going to work, maintaining the status quo.

I think they were hearing from economic advisers that the macroeconomic pressure is going to build as the demand increases through the summer on oil. So, they decide to go forward with the deal, but they're not putting it out, which I think tells you something about what's actually in the text.

MATTINGLY: You had a really great column yesterday, one of many that you've rolled out with a level of prolificness. If that's a word, that's a little annoying as somebody who also tries to write on a regular basis, where you kind of frame this in relation to one of the negotiations you had over prisoners held in Iran, and the way Iran kind of takes something of value and then sets a new baseline for where talks are here. Is that kind of how you view the Strait?

MCGURK: Yeah, I see Iran. I got to give Iran some credit here. They basically took the punch from this initial phase of the war, which I did not -- did not have clear objectives and they went back to what they know. The way that they collapse that power imbalance and neutralize the power imbalance with us is they take something that we want, often human beings and hostages.

They've been doing this since 1979. I've done hostage negotiations. What's so tough about it, Phil, is if you are a hostage holder, I don't really have any leverage unless I have a rescue operation, which I don't, other than to try to meet your price at some -- at some level I can stomach. That's what they did here at the Strait of Hormuz. They didn't seize it, but they control it by threats with drones and missiles, and they set the price.

And what I am seeing here is this dribbles out, we appear to have basically met their price. So, I think we're going to lift by seams. We're going to lift oil sanctions, meaning that Iran will be trading its oil at market prices. That's about over these 60 days. Do the back of the envelope math, about $8 billion in revenues. I think some frozen assets are going to be released. Those are those pots of money were part of negotiations and prior hostage negotiations.

Even having Qatar kind of doing the mediating, I've done hostage deals, which Qatar is the mediator. So, this seems to Iran went back to his playbook. Let's take control of an asset here, the Strait of Hormuz. They actually did it, they always thought they could do it, they did it, and they set the price, and it appears that president decided basically to concede on many of Iran's points. I suspect when we get this text, that's what we're going to see.

MATTINGLY: Jamie, one of the things I find striking here is in a Republican party where diverging from the president or even questioning strategy is not something you see a lot publicly. On the issue of Iran, with Iran hawks specifically, they are willing to come out and raise objections or concerns, particularly as it pertains maybe to Israel and Lebanon, where this deal is actually going here.

And you can kind of roll through what our colleagues and other Capitol Hill reporters were getting yesterday. John Cornyn, there's no doubt that the Iranian regime will rebuild and continue to pursue nuclear weapons. Lindsey Graham, I expect it will not be a perfect deal. Perfect deal for me is regime change. Mark Levin, an ally, if it is a great outcome for peace, then release it. Erick Erickson, Trump surrendered to Iran.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. No question. It took a while for some of these Republicans to get there, but they're here. Look, big picture, they know this war is not popular with the American public, and where we are is not popular, and there are midterms coming up, but I just think to go back to your point about Iran. President Trump said over and over that Iran was desperate to make a deal. I think what we're seeing this week was President Trump was desperate to make a deal, and this, whatever it ends up being, we haven't seen the details.

But when I talk to Republicans on the Hill, when I talk to national security experts, it is unclear that we will have achieved anything by the end of the day to go back to the Strait of Hormuz. One intelligence source said to me, quote, are we better off than we were before the war? Right now, we don't have any evidence of that, and Iran's ability to close the Strait going forward makes this a whole new world.

MATTINGLY: That's a pretty damning contrast, especially heading into an election season that's hard for the administration, I think, to argue against on some level.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I mean, for sure, there's no doubt that the impetus to reach a deal is the timeline of the midterm elections, and that is President Trump's timeline. That's not the Iranian timeline. They have all the time in the world in some respects, as we've seen.

[12:10:00]

So, look, I think what we're seeing as we near the end of this memorandum of understanding here, let's not even call it a deal, is that the administration once again is failing to make a case like they did at the very beginning of the whole reason for going. So, that's why there's some confusion, I think, in the American public and their allies as well, is because they haven't done a great job of bringing people along here. And the vice president yesterday did his best across the networks, explaining, but it's a page and a half, and he is going to be left there to sign the deal, and I'm just trying to think back.

I mean, the president, after going -- talking so much about flying across the world to negotiate the end to a Ukraine and Russia, after always wanting it to be right in the thick of it. He's going to be back in Washington when that deal is actually formally signed. That strikes me as also a little bit unusual for someone who likes to be in the middle of a big deal like this. But look, I think that there is a bit of a vacuum here, and this -- the criticism from some main allies of the White House is very unusual in this administration. It's very telling.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, no, it absolutely is. Maybe fill the vacuum with a dramatic reading, inch and a half (Ph), well by Friday. We'll have to see. Yeah. You guys stick around. Brett, thanks so much. I would say read his column, but he's probably going to have another one in like two hours, so just read all of them, you'll be in a better place.

Well, coming up. Georgia is on our minds today as voters head to the polls there. How big of a factor is President Trump's 2020 obsession in this Senate GOP primary? Then Vice President J.D. Vance visits the view and goes there. He's talking race, religion, and politics. Stay with us.

[12:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: It's Tuesday, which means it's election day. We all know by now that President Trump holds enormous influence in Republican primaries and loves to endorse winners. Today, he's throwing his weight behind seven Republicans, competing up and down the ballot in Alabama, Georgia, and Oklahoma.

Now, the key race here everyone's watching is Georgia Senate, where the president threw a last-minute endorsement to Congressman Mike Collins. Now, Collins, a fierce MAGA loyalist is in a run-off primary election against former college football coach Derek Dooley, who is backed by Governor Brian Kemp.

Now, when it comes to Georgia for the president, as you probably all know, it's often about 2020. Take a listen to what he said about Dooley yesterday at an election eve teller rally for Collins.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP (voiceover): He didn't vote in 2020, and he didn't vote in 2016. Well, those are big votes for me. He didn't vote in 2020 or 2016. And he said what lost Georgia that he said that, when we had all the proof and all the evidence and everything we have right now and it's coming out on a daily basis. He said he didn't think I won the election in 2020 and I won it by a lot.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: He did not win the Georgia election in 2020, didn't win it by a lot, and there's not a lot of new information coming out every single day. With that, Dave Weigel joins the panel. Dave Weigel, I want to start a little bit bigger picture, and then maybe you can drill down as we go through it.

When you look at the list of kind of endorsements that he's got today, races that we're watching today, obviously you're watching Georgia Senate. Is there anything else that sticks out to you that you're watching as a political expert, saying like that's an interesting thing to keep an eye on with his endorsement?

DAVID WEIGEL, POLITICS REPORTER, SEMAFOR: No. And Georgia has been less susceptible to Trump's charms than some other states. Famously, in 2022 he could not get his candidates over the line in the general election, in the primary. He wanted Brian Kent to be replaced, but it didn't happen. He wanted a new secretary of state, didn't happen.

And so, he will declare victory, that's what Donald Trump does. But in the southern states where he was adopted by MAGA, these were not Trump states in the first place. He has changed the parties, but they have not been as interested in relitigating 2020 as other states. But I think he'll have enough down-ballot wins to declare victory. He will again.

I have found the limits that are placed on these candidates in the general election by supporting Trump are less about the election and relitigate in 2020. They're more about policy. And this is, you've seen Jon Ossoff already rush into the general election against either Republican, just tying them to the Trump economy.

That's also new for -- that's I should say, new for Trump, newer than talking about the elections is him not being able to run on a good economy, just claiming it's good. That's been tough for him too, claiming that 2020 was stolen, they're used to that. Claiming the economy is good when it's not, much tougher for Republicans to navigate around that.

MATTINGLY: That's a really, really good point. I think we all kind of view this through the lens of, like, oh, Kemp first, Trump version 9.0 at this point, but that's a really good element. Especially, Jeff, as like Ossoff has really surged both in the minds of Democrats, but also like people feel -- when you talk both parties are acknowledging, like, for Republicans this can be a tough one in November, no matter what. Democrats feel very good about where their race is. Talk to me about Mike Collins. Like, what should people know about the man Trump endorsed for the Republican nominee?

ZELENY: Well, he finally endorsed him. I mean, after early voting had closed, and most Republicans obviously vote on election day, so that's probably not the biggest deal in the world, but perhaps also not the biggest sign of confidence. I was told by one ally that the president simply hadn't focused on it until Sunday morning.

I'm not sure about that, but to Dave's point, Georgia has been slightly different than many other states because they have a front row seat. The local news has been the election results of 2020, and people in Georgia know well that the outcome -- was the outcome, and Joe Biden won that election, and the Republicans went on to lose control of the Senate because of the runoffs in Georgia that year. So, that gets us to Jon Ossoff now.

[12:20:00]

He is a Democratic senator who should have the toughest race of his life ahead of him, and he does not, at least at this point, he's the only Democratic senator from effectively a red state, red to a purplish state, who's up for re-election this year. So, look, a lot of admirers of Jon Ossoff, and they're coming out of the woodwork, are talking about 2028. He needs to win this election in November, and it's still Georgia, so it's not going to be the easiest thing, but he is running against the Trump economy, like you said.

So, if Mike Collins is the winner, the congressman, slightly easier, obviously, he has a voting record, he's voted for everything the Trump administration really has asked him to do here. But this race is going to be much more about Jon Ossoff, the Democratic incumbent, than whoever he ends up running against.

MATTINGLY: Yeah. It's a really great point. And just for -- we put this up on the screen, like Mike Collins, at least in Washington, is as well known for what he puts on Twitter, or what his staff puts on Twitter as anything else. It's like the memeing thing of, like, oh, you just don't get it, but you do kind of get it when it's like xenophobic and somewhat racist and really toeing the line on anti- Semitism. Sometimes there's also this ad, which I think is probably more about how he got the endorsement, especially when you heard what Trump said at the tell rally than anything else. Watch?

(PLAYING VIDEO)

MATTINGLY: Yeah. So, still, if that's he hasn't done that yet, if that's the -- if the goal was to shoot things to get the 2020 to change the, he hasn't done that yet.

GANGEL: No. And I'm not sure that that's going to help him get there. The one thing I do know about this race is a lot of money is going to come in to this race, whoever wins. And I'm not sure that in this case, to your point about Georgia, the big MAGA loyalist will be quite as tough for us have to go up against. MATTINGLY: Yeah. I think it's a really important dynamic to watch, right? Guys, stick around. Gavin Newsom's presidential ambitions, they're no secret. But will a proven to Newsom's wife by Trump's DOJ slow it down? They're actually fueling.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: California Governor Gavin Newsom says, he and his wife are the latest victims of Donald Trump's politicized Justice Department and he plans to fight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): Donald Trump, this country, this country does not belong to you, does not belong to your cronies, and we're going to fight your lawlessness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: A source familiar with the matter tells CNN that Jennifer Siebel Newsom, Newsom's wife, is the target of a probe into possible tax-related crimes alongside other people connected to Newsom. To be clear, no one wants to find themselves under federal investigation, but if you're a possible Democratic presidential candidate, maybe there are worse things. Jamie Gangel, if you look at, I think the immediate thing that comes to mind is Mark Kelly, who I think his campaign fundraiser was not mad when he became a target?

GANGEL: Right. I believe I immediately got for Mark Kelly. You know, we're all signed up for these things of fundraising. Look to your point, no one wants to be under investigation, no one wants their wife to be under investigation, but Newsom has played it well. He got out in front, he has had the first round on spin, and politically fighting with Donald Trump is good for business if you're a Democrat.

Garry South, who's a California political strategist, who has been around forever. He offered me my first job. I never -- I didn't take it, but he said it's a badge of honor and it is. So, this is a political win, at least for now. For Newsom, being on Donald Trump's enemies list, helps you raise money.

MATTINGLY: Can we pull up the quote that Jamie is just referencing? We didn't actually structure it this way.

GANGEL: I'm sorry.

MATTINGLY: No, no, it's perfect. This is how aligned we are. It's like osmosis. Persecution by Trump, or even prosecution by his weaponized Department of Justice, is a badge of honor to Democrats, kind of like the political version of a Purple Heart. I don't know about that last part, but this idea of, hey, this is -- if he wants to run '28, this is a thing he definitely. To Jamie's point, got out in front of it, was the one who made the news to start with.

Walk us through what we know about, like, is this clearly a case of weaponization? We can pull up the list of, like, very clearly targeted individuals who have been indicted or under investigation or public calls to investigate. There's no shortage of them, but there's also been some that legitimately we're doing things wrong. Do we have any sense of where this is?

WEIGEL: Yeah. The John Bolton situation is one that comes to mind. We have heard this started before Trump was president again, started Joe Biden's Department of Justice. However, backing up a little bit further, we've seen this, we did this president pardon people, and we have -- we can speculate whether the DOJ has really used all of its power, U.S. attorneys have used their power to take on certain cases against Republicans.

The president has reduced the overall trust that when main justice comes after you, that it is apolitical. What we know, people who left the administration or left to justice for other jobs for that reason. And so, there's a little bit of fruit from the poison tree whenever there's a new investigation by this Justice Department.

The other thing I've heard, kind of gallows humor from Democrats, is a wide expect that other Democrats with ambition might be targeted by the DOJ, might be audited, from that -- from that same lack of trust in the administration as Donald Trump is running it.

[12:30:00]