Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Republicans Focusing on Budget Bill; Zohran Mamdani Wins New York Mayoral Primary; Iran Nuclear Program Only Set Back Months?. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired June 25, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Happening now, breaking news: Could be limited or could be very severe. That's what President Trump just said about the early U.S. intel assessment on damage done to Iran's nuclear sites from U.S. strikes.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown, and you're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BLITZER: And we begin this hour with more on the breaking news. Only minutes ago, President Trump wrapped up his news conference to conclude the NATO Summit in the Netherlands, and he strongly rejected an early intelligence assessment of the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

BROWN: Seven people briefed on this assessment, which, again, is very early, tell CNN the damage is limited and will set back Iran's nuclear program probably only a few months.

Now, the president says the strikes have been -- have set back Iran's nuclear program by decades. And, this morning, other experts and officials are also weighing in. There's all kinds of assessments coming in. We're following all the latest developments.

Let's begin with CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.

All right, Kristen, clearly, the president was in the mood to talk and answer questions today. And we should point out he unfairly represented CNN's reporting, trying to claim that it was somehow disparaging members of the military who were involved in this operation, which is not true.

Tell us more about what the president said.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, they want to tie this to the military, saying that that's why or that's what happens when you put out this kind of intelligence, it's undermining the military. And obviously that's not what we're doing. And it should be noted that

President Trump himself conceded that this early intelligence report existed, one, and, two, said that the results could be limited. Now, he also said that they could be severe. But we have been reporting that this was an early intelligence assessment.

We know that there is more to come. He also railed against the assessment, said nobody was on the ground. Again, more of what we have said. We know this is preliminary and we know that there will be more assessments as the time comes. This was the one that was done by the intelligence arm of the Pentagon.

But I also want to talk about what's next, because he also talked a little bit about his conversations with the Iranians, saying that the United States is meeting with them next week. He was asked specific questions about getting to an Iran nuclear deal. He said he might not need to put it on paper because they'd already decimated their nuclear program.

Well, I'm here to tell you that they're going to put something on paper if they do make a deal. I have talked to a number of administration officials. When they sit down with the Iranians, there's going to be an actual deal made. It's not just about decimating the potential nuclear program, because they want to talk about making sure Iran is not going to enrich uranium down the road.

The other thing President Trump mentioned was that he thought that it was impossible that the Iranians moved the enriched uranium out of the location beforehand, saying that they knew that we were coming, and so nobody wanted to be in that location, so no one would have moved it out of the way.

Clearly, again, we are going to wait until we see those intelligence assessments to see how that really broke down. But moving on from Iran, because I do think there was a really significant piece of news made when it came to Vladimir Putin and the conflict and the war in Ukraine, he essentially said that Putin has been more difficult than he imagined to deal with.

And then he also said this. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Mr. President, Secretary-General Rutte has described President Putin as an adversary, a threat, an enemy. Do you view him the same way? And, in addition to that, you mentioned General Caine, your chief of staff, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: General Caine.

QUESTION: Yes. He has said that Mr. Putin has territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine. Do you view that in the same way?

TRUMP: It's possible. I mean, it's possible. I know one thing. He'd like to settle. He'd like to get out of this thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: It's possible that he might have territorial ambition beyond Ukraine. That's not something he's really -- President Trump has really answered before.

In fact, he has said things like, I don't know about that. I don't think so. This conversation about Putin was much more direct. He at one point also said that he'd been surprised at how difficult it was to get this done because of Vladimir Putin. You heard him there saying that he hoped that he'd settle and that he was told by Putin at one point that he wanted to settle.

Unclear what exactly he means by settle there. But I will note that right before coming into this press conference, he had sat down with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and he came out of that meeting touting their relationship, saying that it was a good meeting, not something that we have always heard from President Trump after he's talked to Zelenskyy, so possibly some movement there.

But, of course, he said that he would end that conflict in 24, 48 hours and it's still ongoing. But we will see what happens next.

[11:05:01]

BROWN: Yes, it was an unusually candid assessment from President Trump about the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, talking about how difficult it's been. It's been more difficult than he expected.

Back to Iran, Kristen, we're getting some other assessments from other countries in terms of the level of damage done on the strikes on Iran. And it is notable, because even President Trump himself talks about how inconclusive the early intelligence report from the U.S. is, but yet he is very certain in his assessments.

On our screen here, we have four different assessments coming in about the strikes. What's going on here? What are they saying?

HOLMES: Yes, so we have the various different countries, and then we also have our obviously early U.S. intelligence assessment.

Ours said, the U.S. intelligence said strikes did not destroy the core components of Iran's nuclear program. Then you have what President Trump has said over and over again, that the U.S. strikes on Iran nuclear facilities caused -- quote -- "total obliteration."

Then you have Iran's assessment. This was someone who came -- a spokesperson came out and said that the nuclear installations were -- quote -- "badly damaged." And then you have the Israeli assessment. And that came from the Israeli Atomic Energy Agency. The White House was promoting this statement. You heard President Trump there talking about it as well, saying that the U.S. strike on Fordow destroyed the site's critical infrastructure.

So, again, I think the larger picture here is this. We have said since the day of the strike that it was going to take time to assess the damage that was done. This intelligence reporting that came from our intelligence reporters who put this out, this early intelligence report, is an early assessment.

These are other assessments that we're seeing, but still early, because one of the things that we know has to happen is that there are aerial views. Then there are also on-the-ground intelligence. There are different groups that are going to be on the ground. So this is all painting a larger picture, which will eventually be able to say what actually was damaged and what actually occurred the night of those strikes.

BROWN: All right, Kristen Holmes, thank you so much -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And it was interesting. Right at the beginning of his nearly one-hour news conference, Pamela, the president said, this was a massive precision strike against those three Iranian nuclear facilities. And he repeated it was very, very successful and obliteration occurred, obliteration.

BROWN: Yes.

BLITZER: He keeps saying the U.S. obliterated the Iranian nuclear capability.

BROWN: And it's worth asking how he can be so certain about that.

BLITZER: And as I said, he kept calling it the 12-day war. "We think it's over" as a result of what the U.S. did with those airstrikes, those B-2 bombers that went in there.

BROWN: Yes.

BLITZER: So I thought that was significant.

BROWN: Certainly.

BLITZER: I want to get some more analysis right now.

Joining us, the former NATO supreme allied commander, the retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark.

General, you heard President Trump double down on his claims about the U.S. strikes in Iran, calling the nuclear facilities totally inoperable right now. The report casting doubt on that claim was from the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, an agency you and I know well.

How reliable is DIA information?

WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: I think it's good information, but it is early, Wolf.

And one of the things you always learn in this business is first reports are -- they're always wrong. So we don't know if this is correct. We don't know exactly about the materials that may have been removed from the site. We don't know whether there are rooms inside Fordow that were protected. We just don't know enough. So it's what Kristen said too. We have got

to have some on-the-ground assessment there. Is there radiation leaking from the site? Well, that would be a pretty good indicator that we did hit it, but we don't know that.

As far as we know from our aerial surveys and defense intelligence collection, there was no radiation that came out from the site, so we just don't know. But the point is that where are we going with this? So I hope there will be an agreement. I hope the agreement is correct, and I hope that President Trump is correct that this is the end of it.

But just getting an agreement that they're not going to get a nuclear weapon doesn't solve the problems in the Middle East. We have been successful in every military operation, and so are the Israelis. There's still war in the Middle East.

So why wouldn't we want to use this intervention to get a broader agreement from Iran than simply, we won't enrich?

BLITZER: General, I want to play something that President Trump also said about where he is getting his best information. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: A report that wasn't finished. We're talking about something that took place three days ago.

QUESTION: I understand. That's our -- an initial assessment. So what is your...

TRUMP: The report was done three days ago.

Wait a minute.

QUESTION: Yes.

TRUMP: They didn't see it. All they can do is take a guess. Now, if you take a look at the pictures, if you take a look how it's all blackened, you know the fire and brimstone is all underground because it's granite and it's all underground. You don't show it.

[11:10:05]

But even there, with all of that being said, the whole area for 75 yards around the hole where it hit is black with fire.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, General Clark, what's your reaction to the president not only saying what he just said, but also citing Israeli and Iranian information and perhaps suggesting they have better information than the U.S. intelligence community has?

CLARK: Well, the Iranians may have better information, but you can't always trust what the Iranians said. The early reports from the Iran were, hey, we got all our HEU, highly enriched uranium, we got it out, so you didn't do anything. And now they have come back and said, oh, it's really bad. They have a motive for saying that.

As far as the Israelis are concerned, unless there are Israeli agents on the ground or penetrating inside the Iraqi government, which is possible, but unlikely at this point, after all that's going on, their information is basically no better than ours. So I think we just have to wait on this, Wolf.

BLITZER: I think that's a good idea, wait and see what happens.

CLARK: Yes.

BLITZER: The president also compared the U.S. strikes on Iran, General, to the World War II nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What do you make of that comparison?

CLARK: Well, it's not really the end of the war with Iran unless Iran chooses to decide that it can live with Israel.

Now, what has happened is Iran decided -- I think the Israelis went after the prison. They went after the Basij headquarters. They could have gone after regional police headquarters. The Iranians know that about 90 of their 92 million people hate the government, would love to get rid of it. And I think they saw not only the U.S. strikes, but the threat to the regime itself.

And Bibi Netanyahu was hinting about this. President Trump even sort of let the cat out of the bag at one point. And those strikes really threatened the regime's control of the population. So, as I look at it, it's like everybody decided they'd gone as far as they wanted. They didn't want to put any more chips on the table. Let's take it off right here. Let's hold on what we have got.

From the Iranian perspective, what it looks like to me, I don't see, but it's like, OK, we salvaged the highly enriched uranium. We still got our missiles. We have got some we didn't fire. We haven't blown up relationships with China or Russia. The stuff's still going through the Strait of Hormuz. And, look, we're still in charge. Let's don't push it any further right now.

And so that's -- and if you looked at it from the Israeli perspective, Wolf, it's about the same thing. They struck. They didn't expect maybe to get as much back as they did. Iron Dome didn't quite work as well as it could have. The Israeli population didn't like taking these hits. It was really disturbing.

And so, on both sides, it was like a time-out. Let's all pause this. Now that's not a bad result, but it depends on how we follow up on this. There's been so many military conflicts in the Middle East. They just dribble off. And what you have got now in Iran is a wounded tiger that's liable to strike back.

BLITZER: Yes, I think you're absolutely right, Trump once again calling it the 12- day war. "We think it's over," his words. "We think it's over." We shall see.

General Clark, thanks, as usual, for your expertise. Really appreciate it.

And still ahead, we're talking with "The New York Times" columnist Thomas Friedman about what could follow the web of conflicts in the Middle East and whether it would be better than the status quo.

BROWN: Plus, a political earthquake in New York. A young socialist is poised to represent Democrats in the city's mayoral election. We're going to find out what it could mean for the party nationally.

You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:18:56]

BROWN: A stunning upset and a political earthquake in New York City; 33-year-old State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a self-proclaimed Democratic socialist, defeated Andrew Cuomo in last night's Democratic primary for mayor, delivering a devastating blow to the former governors attempt at a political comeback.

Let's discuss this with former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Hi, Mayor. Thanks for being here.

We were just talking in the break before and you said, look, in New York City, expect the unexpected. That's what we're seeing here.

BILL DE BLASIO (D), FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK:

Yes. Pam, I am having good flashbacks. In 2013, literally six weeks before the election, I was in fourth place. And on election night, I won without a run-off. And Zohran Mamdani has done an amazing, even faster version of that exact same thing. He went from -- he was 1 percent in the first poll this year.

BROWN: Wow.

DE BLASIO: And as of last night, he was hovering around 43.

So, this is amazing. And to his great credit, I really want to say, because I think a lot of people don't know him yet, he's a very smart, incredibly hardworking guy who's got some vision. He's actually got some passion. He's got some vision. And that's what people are responding to.

[11:20:11]

It's interesting. Cuomo attempted a kind of fear-based campaign, kind of Trumpian, in my view, telling people there were all these dangers around them in New York City and they needed a strongman, whereas Mamdani said, we have to do something very different in this city. We have to address affordability in a whole new way.

And people felt it. They heard it and they emotionally responded. And that -- you saw this stunning turnout, especially in the early vote and with younger voters.

BROWN: Right. And he was up against a lot. I mean, for Cuomo, for his part, right, he had the backing of a super PAC and groups supporting him spending tens of millions of dollars to defeat Mamdani.

What does that tell you?

DE BLASIO: I think it's a real reminder to everyone out there that money in politics is really overrated. Michael Bloomberg gave Andrew Cuomo almost $10 million in the last few weeks. And it was turned into really negative, harsh, inaccurate advertising. It failed.

By the way, Michael Bloomberg himself spent a billion on his own presidential campaign and got like a few delegates to the convention. So it's so much more than money. I'm always reminded of Bernie Sanders in 2016, 2020, where message and ideas and authenticity were more powerful than all the money in the world. So that's what happened here.

Zohran is a guy who actually feels what he says. He's not perfect, but he is an authentic human being. And the voters felt he was on their side and going to do something about the stuff they were really dealing with. This would be a message, actually, I think to Democrats nationally as well, kitchen table issues.

Zohran talked about affordability all day long, not these stereotypes that Democrats lost in social issues of one thing or another. He focused on free bus service. He focused on childcare. He focused on rent and how to lower rents. And that's what people wanted to hear about. I would argue, Pam, if our Democratic leaders in 2024 had had such message discipline and such a focus on affordability, we actually could have beaten Donald Trump.

BROWN: Well, there's a real question, though, of whether he can deliver on his promises when it comes to the city's affordability crisis.

DE BLASIO: Yes.

BROWN: Talking about making the city buses free, freezing rates on rent-stabilized apartments, raising taxes on the wealthy.

I want to go to what current Mayor Eric Adams had to say this morning about the proposals.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC ADAMS (D), MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: We're not going backwards. He's a snake oil salesman. He would say and do anything to get elected. Think about this moment. He wants to raise 1 percent -- he wants to raise tax on 1 percent of New Yorkers, high income earners. As the mayor, you don't have the authority to do that.

You know who has the authority to do that? An assemblyman, which he is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So, look, you were the mayor of New York City. How realistic are these proposals for Mamdani?

DE BLASIO: Some of them are absolutely in his control, like setting the rent levels for our regulated departments. That's where almost two million New Yorkers live. He's proposed a rent freeze.

I actually managed to have several rent freezes during the time I was mayor because the economic conditions and the facts demanded it. So that's doable. The higher taxes on the wealthy, that does require support from Albany, but this is extremely reminiscent of when I established universal pre-K, by the way, over the opposition of Governor Andrew Cuomo at the time.

We created such a groundswell for it that the legislature actually authorized the money. So in a moment where the wealthy did very, very well during the pandemic, that's the sad reality, and they're about to get a huge tax cut from Donald Trump and the Republican Congress, to say they can pay a little bit more for things like childcare or free buses is not illegitimate.

Free buses actually are existent in many parts of this country right now. It's a trend that's been found to be very effective. So I think we need to look at the facts that, whenever these bold, progressive ideas are put out there, the status quo folks will say it's impossible.

"The New York Times" did that in their editorial a week ago. They said his ideas weren't possible. They said the exact same thing about me and pre-K for all 12 years ago, and they were wrong. So I think he has the wherewithal to get some of this done and to build a kind of surge of support.

And let's face it, the guy is an incredible communicator. And that counts for a lot when you're trying to build support for an idea and get other politicians to go along.

BROWN: Right.

I think a lot of Democrats are looking at his media strategy and those short viral videos that he produced and looking to replicate that moving forward.

Former New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, thank you so much -- Wolf.

DE BLASIO: Thank you, Pam.

BLITZER: And, Pamela, there's other important news we're following, including up on Capitol Hill, where President Trump's massive legislative agenda is still under consideration by the U.S. Senate after clearing the House.

[11:25:01]

Senator Elizabeth Warren is now slamming Trump's bill as -- quote -- "economic warfare."

Let's go live right now to our congressional correspondent, Lauren Fox, up on Capitol Hill.

So where do things stand right now, Lauren?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, this is a massive question because lawmakers are now nine days from that deadline when President Donald Trump wanted to sign this bill by July 4.

Obviously, that doesn't leave them a lot of time. And right now there are some major differences they are trying to iron out in the United States Senate between some of the more moderate members of the Republican Party and some conservatives who believe that this bill is just simply going to cost too much.

Just a couple of minutes ago, I talked to Senator Rand Paul, who has been at the forefront of that fight to try to continue to include steeper spending cuts in this bill. He said he's still not comfortable with it (AUDIO GAP) unless leadership is willing to take out a massive increase in the debt ceiling. That obviously is something that leadership doesn't want to do, because this is an issue that has to be dealt with by the end of the summer, likely.

So that doesn't leave them much room to maneuver. Meanwhile, you have other Republicans who are expressing concerns about the fact that this bill may make two significant cuts to Medicaid programs, Republicans still trying to find a way to win over people like Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Susan Collins, Senator Josh Hawley, all members who have specifically expressed concerns about those Medicaid cuts.

And, of course, even if this can get out of the Senate, and the goal from leaders is to do this by the end of the week, it still has to go over to the House of Representatives. They're going to have to decide whether or not they're willing to swallow those changes that the Senate made to their very delicately crafted bill in that chamber -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Lauren Fox up on Capitol Hill, thank you very much.

Up next, lawmakers in both parties expressing frustration after the White House delayed again plans to brief them on Iran. We're talking with Republican Congressman Carlos Gimenez. That's just ahead right here in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)