Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), Is Interviewed About Trump Arrives In France For G7 Summit After Reaching Iran Agreement; DHS Secy. Refuses To Rule Out ICE Agents At Polls For Midterms. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired June 15, 2026 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:06]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And let's begin this hour with the breaking news. Just minutes from now, the President of the United States will be formally with Emmanuel Macron, the French leader, at the G7 Summit. And he spoke to reporters just a few minutes ago. I want you to hear what he had to say. Actually, we will play that for you shortly. That's coming up.

We're learning the agreement with Iran was signed digitally yesterday. A formal signing ceremony is scheduled Friday in Geneva, Switzerland, not far from this G7 Summit in France. The agreement could lead to ending the war with Iran. It would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and lift the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports. But there are still so many questions remaining to be answered.

CNN's Alayna Treene is in Geneva, where Air Force One touched down just a little while ago. Alayna, just a short time ago, the President posted that ships are starting to move out of the Strait of Hormuz. What else can you tell us?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. The President, eager to tout, I think, what is this new agreement between the United States and Iran at a time, of course, when he is about to meet with several European leaders, many of whom, Wolf, that he had clashed with openly regarding this war, and specifically what he argued was their refusal to help the United States in reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

I do want to note, we are actually just seeing images now of the President arriving in Evian-les-Bains, getting out of his motorcade and greeting some of the people there in France. But to get back to what we are hearing about this agreement, I think there are a lot of questions, many I have included, that I've been going to my sources about, about what exactly this agreement looks like. We have not yet seen the text.

We did hear the Vice President, J.D. Vance, say this morning that he is hoping that they can release the text this week. But what we do know, isn't it, Wolf, is, one, really this desire to dismantle Iran's nuclear program that was always going to be a key provision of this. They also say that in the agreement, and this is according to U.S. officials, in the agreement is a provision to allow the United States to go in to retrieve the highly enriched uranium still in Iran's possession and to destroy it on site.

Then also there's these big questions about the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and when that will happen. We did hear the President argue yesterday that it would be reopened following the signing ceremony on Friday here in Geneva. But Vance, when speaking this morning with CNBC, argued that whether or not it will actually be a toll-free Strait of Hormuz, that's going to be part of negotiations down the line. Listen to how he said it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, our expectation is that the Strait is going to be opened in a toll-free way for the long term, and that's the sort of thing that we're going to figure out in these technical negotiations. You know, there are a lot of very important details to figure out that we're actually going to sit at the table and discuss together and figure out a path forward on these details.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: Yes, so look, as you heard there from Vance, far less forthright than what we have heard really from the President, insisting that there will be no tolls on the Strait moving forward. Vance, as you heard him say there, saying that this is going to be part of those highly technical talks that take place in that 60-day period following the signing, where they're really going to have to talk about the specifics of how to implement the deal, of how to go in and retrieve and destroy that highly enriched uranium, about how to make sure that there are the right enforcement mechanisms in place, all of that still to come down the line.

But again, I think from the conversations, Wolf, I've been having with officials, they really do argue that this is something the President wanted. He wanted to head into this G7 Summit with a victory in hand and the Iran war. And that's how they are likely going to be framing it, even as there are many questions that persist about the timing of when this is going to be implemented, questions about monetary compensation, something Iranians said needs to be, you know, funds unfrozen need to be happening before those 60-day talks can take place, hearing different things from the U.S., the U.S. arguing that there will be no monetary compensation for Iran until they begin to comply with some of the main objectives of that MOU.

So a lot of questions I think that's still to be had. Hopefully, in moments when we see this bilateral meeting between President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron, we will be able to get some answers out of President Trump. We'll see. But we're staying tuned for that now upon his arrival there in France. Wolf?

BLITZER: All right. Alayna Treene in Geneva for us, Alayna, thank you very, very much.

I want to get some analysis right now and bring in the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Republican Congressman Brian Mast of Florida. He's also a U.S. Army combat veteran and a Purple Heart recipient. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for joining us. And, of course, thanks very much for your service to our country. Have you, as the head of the powerful congressional panel with jurisdiction over these foreign policy matters, have you yet seen the actual text of this framework deal between the U.S. and Iran?

[11:05:08]

REP. BRIAN MAST (R-FL), CHAIR, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: I have not yet seen actual. I've had signal back and forth with a number of in the National Security Council. And, of course, I've had back and forth with ambassadors that are playing a role in this as well.

BLITZER: Based on your understanding of the details of this framework deal, based on what you've heard at least so far, how do you think it differs from the Obama era, what's called the JCPOA agreement, which President Trump withdrew from shortly after taking office back, what, in 2018?

MAST: I think if I were to compare today and JCPOA, the top things I would take away as differences is, one, the JCPOA allowed for enrichment. The optimistic view of this is that there would be no enrichment. So you look at the Iranian nuclear facilities of Natanz and Fordow, which had pretty much been totally destroyed.

And then you have Isfahan, which has been substantially degraded and largely destroyed, but not totally. And the conversation about, would U.S. forces go in and remove or destroy any remaining nuclear material, that's all about, there won't be a continuation of the nuclear program. So that's a very big difference.

The other very big difference would be that there's not cash in exchange for no behavior change up front. The optimistic view of this would be that the changes of behavior would be, they're not supporting those proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis that they have now acknowledged are an intrinsic part of them. They're allowing a freedom of navigation along with us through the Straits of Hormuz.

Hopefully toll-free is what everybody's looking at there. And then, of course, an end to the ballistic program, the ballistic missile program, and the nuclear program, as mentioned already.

BLITZER: While I have you, Mr. Chairman, I want to play what the former President Barack Obama said about the current Iran talks. And I should note, he made these comments to "ABC News" before the announcement of a framework arrangement actually was detailed. Listen and watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is doubtful that any agreement that arises is going to be significantly different or a significant improvement from the deal that we had in the first place and had worked for a long stretch of time before we, the United States, pulled out of it.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: So how do you respond to that, Mr. Chairman?

MAST: Everything is about change in behavior. That is the key term that I think people should focus on that are viewing this. So what is the change in behavior that we want from Iran? Those things already listed, no proxy work, freedom of navigation through the Straits of Hormuz, no nuclear program. All of that changed, number one, well beyond the JCPOA, just because of Epic Fury and our demonstration to Iran that we're not going to sit back for 47 years, be attacked constantly, and pretend as though it never happened.

Most Americans don't realize that in the 30 months prior to Epic Fury beginning, the United States of America was attacked over 350 times. We lost U.S. service members from Iran attacking us at the end of the Biden administration. Most people weren't paying attention to that taking place, but it was. This no longer goes into a situation where we don't respond. That is substantially different from JCPOA.

And then again, the two points that I already made. We're not sending them any pallets of cash without some kind of change in behavior. That has to take place. And again, it looks like an end to the nuclear program, not an opportunity to continue enriching. Those are all substantial changes.

BLITZER: When you're talking about Iran attacks, you're referring to Iran proxies, proxies like the Houthis in Yemen or Hezbollah in Lebanon. Is that what you're referring to?

MAST: In addition to Iran proper, Iran proper, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis. And I could send you after this a link of hundreds of attacks on merchant marine vessels on places like Tower 22 in Jordan, which was a proxy attack, killed Sergeant Moffett, Sergeant Rivers, Sergeant Sanders, U.S. military members. There are attacks in Syria. There are attacks in Iraq against our embassies and bases in places across those countries, ongoing.

Again, I just used the window of 30 months prior to Epic Fury over 350 attacks. Unless you were Lloyd's of London, that's ensuring the ships that were going through the Straits of Hormuz. Most weren't paying attention to it.

BLITZER: Iran, for its part, says the so-called 60 day nuclear talks will begin as part of this framework agreement once the U.S. releases billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds, while a U.S. official is rejecting that Iranian claim. Do you need a commitment in writing from the Trump administration that the U.S. will not unfreeze these funds?

MAST: I don't need that commitment. Here's how I look at unfreezing of funds. Do I want it to happen? No, not necessarily. I want maximum damage inflicted on Iran. But am I looking at it in terms of a math problem to say, OK, we destroyed a Navy. We destroyed an Air Force. We destroyed Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. We destroyed countless caches of weapons and other pieces of infrastructure. There's steel industry and so many other things. I'd say that even if they got $20 billion in cash, we're still up $300 to $500 billion on it.

[11:10:17]

BLITZER: I want you and our viewers to watch and listen to what Vice President J.D. Vance said about this issue just this morning. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They say they're going to get $24 billion in frozen funds if they hit certain benchmarks. Is that true?

VANCE: Well, again, Ed, we're open to a lot of things that are on the table. But that $24 billion just doesn't appear anywhere in any of the texts that we've talked about with the Iranians. What we have said is that we're willing to talk about unfreezing assets. But a much, much bigger deal is unsanctioning their economy so long as they make the long-term commitments on the nuclear program.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the Vice President is not necessarily ruling out unfreezing assets for Iran. Are you comfortable with that?

MAST: Again, do I want to see unfreezing of assets? No. But the whole idea for me and for many others that are in the national security space is, are we equaling change in behavior? And if they are meeting conditions to change behavior with proxies, with nukes, with freedom of navigation through the Straits of Hormuz, then they want a change in behavior in return from the United States of America. That change in behavior would be unfrozen assets, potentially, or the opening up of their coastline, potentially, or a relief of sanctions, potentially. Those things are certainly on the table.

Again, conditionally on the Iranian change of behavior. That has been going on for 47 years, but obviously very intensely, as I've spoken about already, in just the years prior to Epic Fury.

BLITZER: So as you probably know, as you probably know, Mr. Chairman, the President told Axios reporter and CNN analyst, Barak Ravid, yesterday that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has, "no effing judgment" after his country recently attacked Beirut. How concerned are you about the growing divide that seems to be emerging right now between Trump and Netanyahu, supposed allies amid this Iran conflict?

MAST: Very close allies, you know, the closest of allies. That doesn't mean there is not disagreement. And that's because the leader of Israel and the leader of the United States of America look at the world in the same way, that we have to put our countries first. And so when you see Israel being attacked by Hamas in Lebanon with very significant attacks, that's something that he's paying attention to for his own population. Of course, we, as the United States of America are paying attention to where we have been attacked in the Straits, in the Gulf, our assets in the region being attacked in different places.

All of that's part of the dynamic of what makes this negotiation not the easiest thing, but being worked through with Qatar, with Pakistan, in Switzerland, by the Gulf Cooperation Council, by others throughout Europe, by the G7, who the President is meeting with. That's just an example to say these are all the players that are involved, and many of them much more involved than they let on because they didn't do anything to help the situation throughout Epic Fury.

BLITZER: The House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, thanks so much for joining us.

MAST: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: And still ahead, voter fraud crackdown. The Trump administration vowing to fight voter fraud for the midterm elections that are upcoming. What the Homeland Security Secretary said about the role that ICE agents could wind up playing.

[11:13:32]

And the federal investigation into what caused one of the deadliest skydiving plane crashes in U.S. history. Stay with us. You're in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Right now, President Trump is in Evian-les-Bains in France for the G7 Summit. In just a few minutes, he will hold a bilateral meeting with the French President Emmanuel Macron. The two leaders have had what has been described as a tumultuous relationship over the past decade or so. The two are expected to discuss the President's agreement with Iran that potentially, God willing, could end this war. We'll have live coverage of that summit meeting between Presidents Macron and Trump. That's coming up. Stand by for that.

In the meantime, there's other important news we're following, including the midterm elections here in the United States, now less than six months away, and the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security refusing to rule out the possibility of ICE agents being deployed to polling stations around the country. Here's what Markwayne Mullin had to say on CNN's State of the Union only yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: What I said is that we would only be there if a threat has arised. The only reason why we would be there is not for voter identification. It'd be because a law enforcement is needed, and the local law enforcement would be part of that conversation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: And joining us now is David Becker, the executive director and founder of the nonpartisan Nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research. David, thanks very much for joining us. I know you work with election officials of both parties all around the country. What's your reaction to the Homeland Secretary not necessarily ruling out the possibility of ICE agents showing up at the various polls? DAVID BECKER, EXECUTIVE DIR. AND FOUNDER, CTR. FOR ELECTION INNOVATION & RESEARCH: Yes, I'm not sure he was leaving the door open either, but it was a somewhat ambiguous statement. It should be very clear to every voter in the United States that federal law is extremely clear on this. It is illegal for anyone to order a member -- an armed individual, a member of ICE, a member of the military, to be at a voting location while voting is going on. The only reason they can be there is to vote for themselves.

[11:20:21]

And so this is just not going to happen. Voters should feel very safe that this is not going to happen. There might be some who are scared of the will of the voters and would like people to fear that ICE or troops might be at the polls, but it's just simply not going to happen. A court would block it right away.

And remember that early voting is available in 47 states and D.C. In over two-thirds of the states, people can vote by mail without an excuse. So it'd be really hard to target individuals because people get to choose when and how they vote in this country, which is a very good security feature.

BLITZER: The Secretary, Markwayne Mullin, says the immigration agents would not be there for voter identification. Are you concerned at all that their presence alone could potentially scare away naturalized U.S. citizens who certainly have a legal right to vote?

BECKER: I'm concerned that the fear of their presence could do that. I think there's a lot of people in this country, you know, we're very divided. There's strong political feelings, but we are seeing very high turnout in the primaries. And hopefully that fear won't overcome people because, again, that fear is not supported by actual policy or behavior. We are not seeing ICE or troops at the polls. I am 100 percent confident we are not going to see it in November.

And if it's tried, it'll be blocked by the courts right away. In fact, there could be a political backlash against that. So I think it's a lot easier to get voters to fear something and hope that they will self-suppress, decide not to turn out and vote in a midterm election. But what we're seeing is voters are voting with confidence. We're seeing generally very high turnout in the primaries so far, and I expect we'll see high turnout in November.

BLITZER: That's encouraging. The Trump administration continues its push for what's called the Save America Act. That's a federal bill that requires voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. Critics say it's already illegal for noncitizens to vote and that millions of people who do have a legal right to vote could be forbidden because they don't necessarily have the appropriate documents to prove they're U.S. citizens. You're a former voting section attorney in the U.S. Justice Department. Do you view this measure as necessary for election integrity?

BECKER: So we do know that noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare in the United States. And that's not just me saying that, although my organization has done research into this and what the states have found as states are looking for noncitizens. The Trump administration has found this. They have reviewed over 60 million voter records from states that have voluntarily shared that data with them. And even with the limited data that the Department of Homeland Security has, which is incomplete, they've been able to confirm that 99.97 percent of all of those registered voters are citizens, are documented citizens. So we are just not seeing this as being a major problem at all. The Save America Act is an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

And it goes farther than requiring documentary proof of citizenship. It actually requires that every single American would go into an election office anytime they have a registration transaction, meaning when they move, when they change their names, when they come of age. And they'd have to show, dig up their citizenship documentation and show it again. They'd have to repeatedly show their papers to government, even though government has already seen them in most cases. So this is kind of a show me your papers act. It's getting people to work for government rather than government working for people.

And fortunately, I don't think Congress has much of an appetite for this. We've seen this come up multiple times. I don't think there's a realistic path for this passing.

BLITZER: And David, while I have you, I want to quickly also ask you about some new proposed rules for the U.S. Postal Service. If courts let stand President Trump's executive order, the Postal Service won't deliver mail-in ballots to states that don't hand over voter lists to the federal government. What's your reaction to that?

BECKER: Yes, these rules came out just a couple of weeks ago in response to that executive order that's being challenged in two federal courts in five different cases currently being considered. I expect it to be blocked. But these rules would, in fact, do as you suggest. It would say that the Postal Service wouldn't accept for delivery ballots from states that don't match a DHS magic list or if the states refuse to comply with this executive order, which is not really for the President to decide.

The Congress can pass a law that would require this, but the President doesn't get to set election policy, dictate that to the states through the swipe of a pen. And so I expect the courts to block it, but this rule is very disturbing, and it comes on the eve of a midterm election. So even if it were a good idea, even if it were something the President had power to do, it simply can't be implemented right now.

[11:24:57]

The states don't have the time to redesign their mail ballot envelopes as required by these rules, to collect their data and somehow submit it to the Postal Service, who isn't competent to review this data. I mean, we're giving more responsibility to the Postal Service, which is already having trouble meeting its current responsibilities with its current budget. Hopefully, these are going to be blocked by the courts, and we'll let the states do the good job that they always do with these elections come November.

BLITZER: All right, David Becker, thanks so much for joining us. Thanks for the important work your organization is doing. I appreciate it very much.

BECKER: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: And we're standing by for President Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron's meeting at the G7 Leaders Summit. They're expected to give remarks just moments from now. We'll have live coverage. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)