Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

U.S., Iran Trade Strikes In 13th Straight Night Of Attack; Trump Weighs Risks Of Deeper Conflict With No Clear Endgame; Laura Loomer Blames Russian Propaganda For "Brainwashing" GOP; Maine Democrats To Officially Tap Troy Jackson To Replace Platner; Secret Service Prepares For Second Press Dinner After Attack. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired July 24, 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]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN CO-ANCHOR, THE SITUATION ROOM: Good work, David Goldman, as usual. Thanks very much. And to our viewers, if you need David to make it make sense, email or send us a selfie video of your question to makeitmakesense@cnn.com. And to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning. You can always keep up with us on social media @wolfblitzer and @pamelabrowncnn. See you back here Monday morning, every weekday morning, 10 a.m. Eastern for two hours. Inside Politics today with our friend and colleague Jim Sciutto, filling in for Dana Bash, starts right now.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: No way out, President Trump searches for a strategy as the war with Iran nears the five-month mark. Can the U.S. bomb Iran into submission?

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

So, let's call it what it is. The U.S. and Iran are back in a full- scale war. For the 13th straight night, U.S. forces pounded military targets inside the Islamic republic, while Iran launched attacks on U.S. assets in Bahrain and Jordan. One question throughout the war has been how much Iran is being helped by Russia and China? U.S. intelligence has found they have supplied targeting information and other support.

But just a few moments ago, the president posted this on Truth Social. President Xi told me that he would not, under any circumstances, give or sell weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Considering our relationship, I take him at his word. The same he said about Vladimir Putin. Therefore, two major countries that people speak of often in terms of Iran are, in my opinion, not participating. If they did, it would be very bad for them. Quite a remarkable statement.

I'm joined now by a terrific group of reporters. Kristen, if I could start with you, here we are again with the president threatening a widening of the war after many times, as you reported, he said the war is won, the war is over. Is it your sense from speaking to White House officials that the president feels trapped at all in this? KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: President Trump is never going to admit that he feels trapped or that he made a mistake, even to his closest advisors. But it is clear that anyone in the White House feels as though they are backed into a corner, and they understand what each pathway out is going to look like.

One, this idea of continuing these consecutive bombings every single night. I mean, we have now learned that CIA assessments have shown that this bombing isn't actually going to move the needle in terms of Iran getting back to the negotiating table. So why are we doing it, and what are the other options?

There really doesn't seem to be another option to break this impasse other than President Trump escalating this war. But anyone that you're talking to within the White House knows and has reiterated, they do not want to do that. They don't want to do boots on the ground. They don't want some kind of escalated military action. Everybody wants to be done with this war and actually focusing on anything else, particularly as we get closer to the midterms. But it just doesn't seem likely that there are that many options here.

SCIUTTO: Yeah, and you have economic pain already. We're watching the gas price ticking up again, not quite at the wartime high, but it's at $4.11. It had been 4.56, but pre-war, listen, it was below $3. And Tia, when you speak to folks in the oil markets, they're talking about how -- if this continues, you get to supply shock territory. And particularly when you have Iran attacking not just shipping through the Strait, but also the Red Sea. That's quite deliberate. This has enormous economic, but also political implications for the president.

TIA MITCHELL, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Yeah. Because at the end of the day, this is trickling down to American people as they pay more at the gas station. We're hearing from farmers, you know, the whole thing with the fertilizer. They're not getting it. That is causing their prices to go up. That they pass along in theory to consumers. So that is just contributing to the unpopularity of the war.

And then we get into the service members who are being killed and injured. Also, on top of that, the lack of transparency, the lack of a plan, the lack of updates, the lack of an exit plan, and it's just disastrous, quite frankly, politically. Members of Congress know that the fact that you have Republicans voting with Democrats to pass war powers resolutions, one passed in the House.

It did in the Senate, but the sentiment is there. It is a problem and it's real. Like it's not just politics, though. I think we can't just -- we can't let the politics gloss over the real impact on people, and of course, the human impact on our services.

ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK TIMES: People are feeling this. Is what you're saying, right? Like there's at times where the president tries to almost talk himself out of these sort of intractable situations, but people can feel those gas prices. They see the images of service members coming back to the United States and their families grieving as well. And we see this reflect in the polling numbers as well for the approval of the president, approval over the economy. We see this.

[12:05:00]

You mentioned those four Republicans that also joined in that vote with the war resolution, the entire war resolution act as well. And thus far, the White House's response, the president's response has been to almost sort of at times play down the war, right? Call it a skirmish. Say we already won, which of course is a series of conflicting messages as well when it comes to the escalation we're seeing overseas. But it's not working because again, people can feel the impact.

SCIUTTO: Well, also promising that, you know, the prices are going to come down just around the corner, and they were ticking down a bit, but here we are back in the war, and the oil markets go in the other direction. Kristen, I have to say, I'm fascinated by the president's tweet today, absolving Russia and China of any responsibility for this war. And in that -- in that case, when he knows that U.S. intelligence has found that Russia and China are supplying help. And to that point, Pete Hegseth, when he was on the Hill earlier this week, he said exactly that. Let's have a listen, and I want to get your thoughts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN HOEVEN (R-ND): Are Russia and China helping Iran? And if so, how?

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, Senator, as the chairman alluded to, there's definitely adversary alignment attempts to do so, and there are many ways that we deter that. Some of which are -- and the depth and extent of it ought to remain classified and it should. But there are ways in which both of those countries are limiting at different levels, enabling some of the things Iran is doing. Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: So why does the president one, not tell the truth on what the intelligence shows, but also play defense for Russia and China?

HOLMES: Well, reading his tweet, and I do want to or post. I do want to note that this came out as we were coming on air, so I have not asked anyone about it. It does kind of give this illusion of what President Trump does when he's like leveling kind of a threat at, you know, saying oh, it would be really bad for them if they're doing this. I don't think it's necessarily meant to completely absolve them.

Basically, saying oh, now we have this intel, it's out there, but they've told me we're not doing anything. So, of course, they wouldn't do that because that would be bad. I do think it was stunning to hear Pete Hegseth openly admitting this, just because this is the first time that someone in the administration has. Now he was under oath, and he went pretty far, actually, saying, you know, that there is adversarial alignment, that there are different tactics, that there were different levels that they were involved in this war and it goes to show.

I mean, Pete Hegseth is almost always on message with President Trump. And President Trump has actively said over and over again that that's not happening. He talked to them about it. And Pete Hegseth and General Caine got out there and said, this is a real thing. This is happening.

SCIUTTO: And they'll sometimes make a distinction between actual weapons as opposed to parts of weapons, you know, for instance, the way -- that's the way China's played the game in Ukraine. They don't like to ship a Chinese tank to Russia, but they give a whole host of technological support that ends up in those weapons and missiles, et cetera.

I do want to ask you, Tia, because New York Times reporting this week that Iran turned down an offer from the president for a ceasefire. The president has said repeatedly that Iran is desperate to get back to the table. That would seem to indicate, no.

MITCHELL: And it's not just -- I mean, when you look at the posts on social media from Iranian leaders, the way they're sending messaging to America, they're not giving the message that they're backing down. They're giving, and you know, some of this may be playing the game, but they're showing strength.

I think they're calling the U.S. bluff. I think it shows how precarious it is to try to hash out foreign policy via posts on Truth Social, where you probably need diplomacy from people who know what they're doing and have background and have relationships, and these are the places that the current administration may have some weaknesses there with. And so, I think there are a lot of concerns on what the president says on social media, not always lining up with the true reality of what things are -- how things are going behind the scenes.

SCIUTTO: I hear you. OK. Another war, of course, we watch closely the Ukraine war, and Zolan, I'm fascinated by this quite public 180 by Laura Loomer, who, long like many in the MAGA right has been skeptical of the Ukraine war and sometimes carrying water for Russia, they're praising Russia, democratic system, all this kind of stuff. And here we are now. She's there. She's meeting with Zelenskyy. She's praising the Ukrainian fight, saying that it's quite clear, Russia is the bad actor here, et cetera.

Julia Yaffe in Puck this morning. She wrote about this. She says, it's crazy to see how many people in the GOP have been totally brainwashed. She said, blaming the Russian propaganda that's entered the Republican Party. Laura Loomer is basically saying, yeah, we were brainwashed and now I've seen the light. Why now?

[12:10:00]

KANNO-YOUNGS: Well, one, she's also one of those people that sort of helped with spreading that perception as well.

SCIUTTO: Not a passive actor. KANNO-YOUNGS: You're right, right. This is one of those people that I think, you know, was in a way fomented some of the pushback from the Republican Party when it came to supporting Ukraine. I can't pretend that I have reporting or understanding of what was the reason for the switch up here for Laura Loomer. I do find it really fascinating that Zelenskyy was compelled and felt the need to sit with her, though.

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

KANNO-YOUNGS: You know, this is somebody who does have the president's ear, has shown themselves to actually, you know, can go and say something to the president's top aides and it results in the firing of national security officials. And the idea that a wartime president could sit down also with Laura Loomer and say, this is somebody that -- this is a means to actually potentially shaping U.S. policy in Ukraine, shaping perception in the United States of Ukraine. That is a remarkable moment that really shows where the U.S. is in terms of supporting Ukraine, and just the figures that tend to persuade the president.

SCIUTTO: And listen, we've seen some concrete outcomes of the president's shift on Ukraine. For instance, offering help for them to manufacture their own air defense missiles, which they're --

KANNO-YOUNGS: Reimposing sanctions on Russia as well, right?

SCIUTTO: We'll see what this -- what this next going forward. All right, thanks, guys. Coming up, Maine Democrats rally around their new champion because Troy Jackson have what it takes to knock off the always, always underestimated Susan Collins?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: 102 days to go before the midterm elections, if you could believe it. And this weekend, the main event is in Maine. The state Democratic Party will officially make Troy Jackson its nominee for Senate, replacing, of course, Graham Platner in the race to unseat Republican Susan Collins.

CNN's Jeff Zeleny is live in Portland, Maine. Jeff, I mean, let's be frank. It's been a messy month for Maine Democrats with the departure of Platner. Do they feel good now about where they are?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, it's been one of the most extraordinary Senate races of all. Of course, it started out being one of the most consequential because Republican Senator Susan Collins is the only Republican up for reelection from a state that Kamala Harris won in 2024, effectively a blue state. So that really gave Democrats hope that this was a state they could win, but boy, this primary has been extraordinarily messy.

Graham Platner, of course, dropped out after his campaign effectively just imploded earlier this month. So that has set Maine Democrats on a scramble. But as you said, this weekend they are going to meet to -- find a new nominee. There's no suspense in that. At least we don't believe there's any suspense. So, Maine Democrats are eager to turn the page. There's no doubt, but time is short here.

But as we've been talking to Maine voters throughout the week, one of the former candidates in the race here, who's a businessman in Maine, he had this to say about the state of this race.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN KLEBAN, CO-FOUNDER, MAINE BEER COMPANY: So yeah, I mean, I wish obviously -- I mean, everybody up here on the Democratic side wishes that this primary didn't play out the way that it did, and I hope we learned our lesson, so we don't do it again. But I still think Susan Collins can be beat. I think Troy Jackson can beat her.

A lot of Mainers have voted for her at one point or another over the last 30 years. I think you reach them by talking to what's actually impacting their lives, not simply demonizing, demonizing Donald Trump or demonizing Susan Collins.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: So that, of course, is the balance facing all Democrats. How much do they talk about what they will do versus effectively criticizing the president or the Republican senator here? But who is Troy Jackson? Well, that is a question that we are all going to become very familiar with. He's a former Maine state senate president. He actually ran for governor earlier this year. He lost his primary last month, but he was supported by Bernie Sanders.

He has a strong support of labor unions here as well and that allowed him to effectively sweep up the county convention process last weekend, where delegates were picked from all across Maine. We thought this was going to be a competitive race this weekend, but he was able to effectively wrap up his support. His challengers dropped out.

So, Jim, as we start this race with one hundred days to go, the race is effectively a draw. He's up narrowly in a new University of New Hampshire poll, 49 to 46 percent, but that's within the margin of error. So, Democrats are happy this race is finally beginning. Susan Collins is happy. She's had effectively a summer to herself. Jim?

SCIUTTO: Jeff Zeleny, thanks so much. My panel is back. So, Tia, the concerns going into the post Platner period in Maine were one, that you find a good candidate who could be Collins, but also do it in a way that doesn't repeat, for instance, the Kamala Harris scenario. Make it somewhat open and have Maine Democrats accomplished that.

MITCHELL: Yeah, I think so. I think you're not hearing that Maine voters feel like this was an unfair process or just a coronation. They felt that there was true, you know, abbreviated, but there was competition. There were multiple candidates, and the one who was able to get the most support among delegates in the party is the one who's going to be the party's nominee. So, I do think they've taken that off the table.

Now it's going to be, can Jackson ramp up? Can he get the enthusiasm? Can he get Democrats, not just saying he's our candidate, but he's the candidate? I'm ready to support him. I'm ready to show up at the polls for him.

KANNO-YOUNGS: The only tough thing on that is sometimes the criticism about coronation comes after the election, like, whether or not, they win or lose, right? We heard that really ramp up when Trump beat Harris, right?

[12:20:00]

SCIUTTO: Right.

KANNO-YOUNGS: That's when the criticism came and this was a speedy process. I mean, you did hear people coming out and there was some excitement of what will this convention look like? What have you, and there was an intentional effort to basically make sure that those committees, right, and those delegates were going to put forward Troy Jackson. So, there is an argument that he was still picked.

SCIUTTO: Well, one of the concerns, of course, with speed or too much speed, right, is that you don't get proper vetting, and you know, you had those concerns with Platner. Now you do have some stories coming out, The Times, CNN, about Platner's temper. Let's be clear, this is not Platner -- sorry about Jackson's temper, not Platner. Platner level stuff considering what he was accused of. But as you look at this, Kristen, are these vulnerabilities for him?

HOLMES: I mean, anything's a vulnerability. This is going to be a really tight race. As you said yourself, Susan Collins is constantly underestimated. She is somebody who has been falling behind in the polls before, and then only to come out on top, and to come out on top by a healthy margin. So, we'll see what happens in this race. We know Republicans are going to likely pour a lot of money into it. They need to keep this seat.

I mean, the only hope at this very moment that Republicans feel that they have is holding on to the Senate. They feel like, for some, you know, for the most part, they're probably going to end up giving up the House. So, this is going to be a tight race. And you heard there from the businessman. I mean, people are watching it very closely. People in Maine are invested. So, we'll see how it plays out.

SCIUTTO: So, let's look at more broadly what voters care about as 102 days to election day and we'll put up the graphic here. But it's quite clear that their number one interests are different from the president's. You know, look at war in the Middle East down at 4 percent, elections, election reform down at 2 percent. But again, economic problems, government, poor leadership, ethics, moral. I mean, these are issues, Tia, that the president does not seem to be focusing on.

MITCHELL: And their issues like, look at immigration is, you know, a distant third, but it's third. That used to be one of President Trump's top issues. Now he is starting to poll, you know, lower on immigration. They -- voters are starting to turn on him on that topic. And again, he won based on a platform of turning around the economy, bringing down the price of goods, addressing the top concern that voters had in 2024. They still have it in 2026. And a lot of voters don't think Trump has done enough to focus on that. They think his focus has been elsewhere on things they don't care about as much.

SCIUTTO: Zolan, do Democrats, who's -- let's be frank, I mean, granted the generic ballot looks good for them compared with Republicans. But when you look at favorability, I mean, Democrats not particularly loved by the American people today. Are they -- are they finding their message and finding the people able to deliver that message?

KANNO-YOUNGS: When you would talk to Democratic voters in the last presidential election, the thing that became very clear is being anti- Trump is not enough, right? Whether you actually need to develop a consistent alternative message. We have seen momentum in some areas, right? A sort of outside establishment, focus on the working class, upending the status quo.

But to this point, we have not seen something consistent across the nation. There's been something different depending on how blue of a city you're in, how blue of a state you're in, which also you could argue is strategic.

SCIUTTO: That makes sense. Kristen, the president seems to have narrowed down on his message, which is going to be they're all communists. Are we going to be hearing more of that in the coming weeks in --

HOLMES: Of course. I mean, this is -- they believe that they got somewhat of a win in the sense that you got some of these far-left candidates, self-proclaimed democratic socialists. That gives them a little bit of leverage in their messaging, which they were going to do regardless. Their messaging was going to be no matter what going into this. Yes, things aren't great right now. We understand that, but it's so much better than if Democrats were in office because Democrats are radical.

So, this was somewhat for them a gift that there were some people who were further left who were put into office, and you're going to hear President Trump doubling down on that as well as members of the administration. I mean, part of their big campaign push is going to be all of these cabinet officials out in different areas talking about this.

SCIUTTO: I mean Rubio is making connections between, you know, communists in Cuba and apparently a communist invasion in the U.S. Thanks so much. Stand by, coming up next, unifying yet vicious. That's what to expect from President Trump's speech tonight at the rescheduled White House Correspondents' dinner. Brian Stelter will be here to preview a night that will have tension on the menu.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Tonight, the White House Correspondents' dinner returns a much smaller affair, a new location, and significantly bolstered security after April's event was upended by a gunman, breaching the security checkpoint and opening fire. However, some things will be the same, including a scheduled speech by President Trump. This was the president's take in the aftermath of April's dinner?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I was all set to really rip it, and I said to my people, this would be the most inappropriate speech ever made if I said what. So, I have to save it. I don't know if I can ever be as rough as I was going to be tonight. I think I'm going to be probably very nice. I'll be very boring the next time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: But today's new official White House preview, a quote, combination of unifying yet vicious. CNN's Brian Stelter joins us now. I mean, can you be unifying and vicious? I don't get it.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: I've never heard a speech where someone's unifying and vicious, but maybe we will tonight. This is definitely not going to be a kumbaya moment, though. There's no way it can be because the tension is inescapable. The push and pull between the president