Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Number of Independent Voters Growing?; Attack on UFC White House Event Foiled?; Interview With Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL); Concern Over Iran Deal?. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired June 16, 2026 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:02]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: And thwarted attack. The foiled plans to allegedly attack the UFC fight on the South Lawn of the White House. We have new details just coming in.

Welcome to 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.

Happening now: President Trump and world leaders are just about halfway through their second day of the G7 summit, and much of the focus certainly is on the new U.S. agreement with Iran. The president says he will share details probably in a couple of days, even his Republican allies, though, in the meantime, his allies in Congress are demanding more information.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Axios is reporting that there are doubts even within the Trump administration. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio all reportedly voicing concerns.

The next phase will revolve around 60 days of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. And, surprisingly, the president predicts that round will be easier. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They will not develop, purchase, buy or any other thing, they're not going to acquire a nuclear weapon. If they do, all hell will rain down on them, and they're not going to do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: And new this morning, U.S. intelligence has assessed that Iran will be able to weaponize the Strait of Hormuz at will from now on, that according to three sources.

CNN senior national security reporter Zachary Cohen is here with us. He's been working on this story.

Take us through what you're learning. ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, Wolf,

these recent U.S. intel reports really do underscore the lasting impact of President Trump's decision to launch this war without fully accounting for Iran's willingness to shut down this Strait of Hormuz.

Obviously, that happened days into the conflict after the U.S. and Israel started these combat operations. But we're told that now, going forward, now that they have proven they can do it, now that it's had such a significant impact on their ability to counter the U.S.-Israeli strikes, that they can effectively shut it down on and off at will going forward, and that they're really emboldened to potentially look at using this lever in the future as well.

And so that's something that the U.S. intelligence community believes would happen regardless of whatever framework agreement is ultimately signed once we see that text. Obviously, President Trump has really emphasized that the primary objective of this temporary MOU is to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

But even if Iran agrees to do that, to allow ships to flow back through the Strait of Hormuz at a relatively normal clip, that the intelligence community believes that they now believe they have a new weapon, ability to impact the global economy in a really devastating way and one that they could look to exploit going forward.

BLITZER: And are there options now that are being discussed in the U.S. military and intelligence community about what the U.S. would do if Iran were to try to do that, close, shut down the Strait of Hormuz?

COHEN: Yes, Wolf, I'm told that-, basically, since this war started and since the Strait of Hormuz was initially closed, that the U.S. intelligence community was really scrambling to try to understand when Iran would try to do this again in the future.

And that's something that's based on the initial assumption that Iran, because it would -- this move would hurt Iran as bad, if not worse, than it would hurt the world, that Iran would never go this far. But, obviously, that -- the fact that they did really did change the entire calculation, and that's something the intelligence community is working very hard to really get their arms around, even as these negotiations are ongoing.

BLITZER: We will see what happens.

All right, thanks very much. Excellent reporting, Zach Cohen, appreciate it.

BROWN: All right, and, for more, let's bring in Republican Congressman Carlos Gimenez of Florida. He serves on the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees.

Nice to have you back on the show, Congressman.

So, first off, what is your reaction to this new reporting from CNN on Iran's potential lasting power over the Strait of Hormuz? REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ (R-FL): Well, look, it -- Iran would have figured

out eventually that they had that ability to close the straits for a while.

But, also, the countermeasure to them closing the straits would be for another naval blockade to stop any shipments of Iranian oil going anywhere. And so, if they do that, then we need to reestablish the naval blockade. And, also, they have an Achilles' heel. The Achilles' heel is Kharg Island, which is out there, can be destroyed at any time by not only the United States, but also the Arab countries.

And so this is going back to Cold War diplomacy, which is mutually assured destruction. I would have rather had seen us demonstrate that we can open the straits regardless of what Iran does and kept the pressure going and -- before we settled on these negotiations.

[11:05:05]

But we have a deal. I don't know what the deal says. And so we're anxiously waiting to see what are the details of that deal and what are the safeguards of that deal and the verification process for that deal.

BROWN: Why do you think the administration didn't use the military might it has to show Iran that it can reopen the strait in the way that you said you would like to have seen?

GIMENEZ: I think that it would have taken some time to do that. I thought we were on our way.

I mean, we were -- the president said that a number of ships were able to make it through the straits escorted by American warships, et cetera. And we needed to degrade more of their capability to hit those ships in the strait. And I think we could have done that. It's just a matter of time.

And so I think the president wanted to get this over with as quickly as he could. Look, the number one -- there are two issues that we have to make sure are in this deal, number one, Iran never, ever has the ability to acquire a nuclear weapon. That's foremost in my mind.

Second is that Iran will never close the Straits of Hormuz, that the Straits of Hormuz need to be open to commerce without any tolls. Those are the top two things that we have to get out of this deal, and then a verification process.

And we also have to keep basically our hands around their throat economically, so that any time that they stray from that deal, that we can tighten economic sanctions, maybe reimpose a blockade, but that Iran has to understand that we have the will to do that. And we have to demonstrate that we have the will to do that.

And then, hopefully, they will act accordingly. I don't trust them at all. The only way to deal with Iran is through the use of strength and force to force them into compliance. Let's see what this deal says about that. BROWN: So you don't trust them at all.

GIMENEZ: No.

BROWN: The Trump administration has emphasized how the U.S. military has degraded Iran's capabilities, its arsenal with its navy and missiles and drones and so forth.

But CNN is still reporting, in the latest reporting from Zach, that Iran still retains a significant portion of its weapons stockpile, including missiles, drones and missile launchers. Given what you just laid out there, you say you don't trust them, does that worry you?

GIMENEZ: Yes, it worries me. I think we should have just finished a job. I think we were 75 percent of the way there, and we should have just destroyed it all.

I think some of it -- some of their missiles and stuff lie underground. They may not be able to get to them for a while because probably the entrances have been blown up. But, yes, I would have wished that we could have gone a little bit further to degrade their military capability.

I don't have all the intelligence that the president does. I know the president would rather use diplomacy than war. And he's always been giving second chances, et cetera, to get -- have diplomacy at least work. I want to make sure that diplomacy did work. And so that that all will come out when the details of this deal come out.

Again, for me, it's verification, very strict verification guidelines, and the fact that Iran will not now and will not in the future have a nuclear weapon and that there will be free flow of commerce through the Straits of Hormuz.

That, to me, is a must-have in this deal.

BROWN: It's interesting, because President Trump just said that he believes this next phase, the 60-day negotiation, will be easier. Do you share that confidence?

GIMENEZ: No, I do not.

I think that, once you take your boot off their neck, that they feel strengthened, and the Iranians are really good negotiators for their own position. And as we ease up on some of the leverage that we do have, I think they will feel emboldened. And I, frankly, think they will move the goal posts.

I have seen this too many times. It's 47 years of these guys. And so it's the same movie. I have seen this movie over and over again, and so more than I have seen "The Wizard of Oz," OK? And so, no, I don't share that same confidence that he has. Maybe he has some information that I don't.

And I want to be proven wrong. I want to be proven wrong. But I will be lying to you if I said, yes, yes, I think everything's going to be great. I have just -- I have just seen this stuff happen way too many times with this regime. And so the proof will be in the pudding, and then the proof will be with the final results. So let's see what happens in 60 days.

We always have the option of going back to a show of strength, but I hope that and I expect that none of our capabilities will be diminished during the 60 days, that we keep our forces there, and that we can turn on the spigot any time we want.

[11:10:02]

BROWN: There is also the added layer of whether Iran will get anything in return in terms of cash, right? President Trump pushed back on reports that his administration is considering a $300 billion fund for Iran as part of an agreement in the war.

Here's what Vice President Vance said yesterday. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ED O'KEEFE, CBS NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: The Iranians are saying that they're going to have access to a $300 billion reconstruction fund. True or false?

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, Ed, that's the sort of thing they could have access to funded by the Gulf Coast Coalition, so long as they honor their end of the obligation.

We absolutely are open to the Gulf Coast countries investing in the reconstruction of Iran, but only if Iran ends their nuclear program, ends their enriched stockpile of material, and is really open to an inspection and enforcement regime that gives the American people confidence they're never going to have a nuclear weapon.

O'KEEFE: Right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: There's also the question of Iran's frozen assets, which France seemed to leave open to releasing in interviews yesterday.

I wonder what you think of that. Are you comfortable with Iran having access to any monetary reward as we look ahead to a potential deal?

GIMENEZ: I mean, with -- as long as they exhibit good behavior and then we can verify that good behavior.

To me, it's the verification process, I mean, to make sure that they are actually complying with the terms of the deal. Then you reward good behavior and you punish bad behavior. And that's what we need to do.

And so if Iran says, hey, it's better for us as a country, even better for us as a regime, OK, to guarantee our existence, which is really the number one goal of that regime, is to stay alive, it's better for us to act well and we will now start receiving this money. And then as long as we start investing that in improving the condition

of the Iranian people, then I guess that's something that we can work with. But, again, they have demonstrated time and time again that they're not trustworthy. And so that's why the verification process, how are we going to make sure that they are actually complying with the deal?

How are we going to make sure that they're not building new ballistic missiles? How are we going to make sure they're not enriching uranium in one way or another, or obtaining uranium, enriched uranium, in one way or another? The verification process, to me, is going to be key to this whole deal.

BROWN: Right.

GIMENEZ: And it has to be very strong. And it can't be one, hey, we're coming in a month. No, no, it's not that. No, no, we're there in two hours, OK? And we want to be here in two hours and we're going to inspect that. We're hearing the rumblings there's something going on there.

And that's got to be the verification process we have, not some kind of advanced warning that allows them to hide whatever it is they're doing. Again, they have proven to be untrustworthy. So, in this case, unlike Reagan said, trust but verify, I say don't trust and really verify, because these guys are about the worst of the worst.

BROWN: Congressman Carlos Gimenez, thank you so much for coming on and sharing your perspective. We appreciate it.

GIMENEZ: Thank you.

BROWN: Wolf.

BLITZER: Very good interview. Thank you.

And still ahead: armed drones and gunmen. We're getting new details on the foiled plans to try to attack the UFC fight on the South Lawn of the White House.

BROWN: And treacherous flash floods sweeping the South, the millions of people at risk today.

Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM. And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:17:53]

BLITZER: Happening now: A federal law enforcement official tells CNN that multiple people, multiple people have been arrested. They're accused of discussing plans to attack Sunday's UFC event on the South Lawn of the White House.

Right now, it's unclear how far those plans had actually developed. Charges are expected to be unsealed later today. This morning, the vice president, J.D. Vance, spoke about the alleged plot on FOX. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: This is very, very dark stuff. And, unfortunately -- and we were talking about this a little bit off camera -- but this is what happens when people turn the rhetoric up so loud that disagreeing with somebody is a cause for violence.

That's the place that we have come to, unfortunately, with too much of our political rhetoric. We have got to tell everybody to tone it down. And I hate to say this, but it's true. You see more political violence and violent rhetoric coming from the left than the right these days.

Everybody has a role to cut this stuff out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, let's bring in CNN's senior law enforcement analyst the former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Andrew, what do you expect that we will all learn once these charges are unsealed today?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yes, Wolf, we will learn a lot, hopefully, when the charges get unsealed.

Typically, we get the affidavits that were filed and presented to the judge and then filed, of course, in pursuit of the arrest warrants. And it's in those affidavits that the FBI agents and other law enforcement agents lay out exactly the facts that led them to the probable cause of determination that led to these arrests.

So what we will be looking for are things like what these folks actually had, as opposed to what they talked about. So, in every one of these plots, Wolf, I can tell you that the FBI looks at a potential plotter in terms of two factors, intent and capability.

Once you have access to things like the Signal chats we have heard about, you know that their intent was very clear here. The question that remains is whether they had the capability to carry out an attack along the lines of the one that they allegedly discussed.

[11:20:02]

BLITZER: The official we spoke to said the U.S. Secret Service and the FBI uncovered messages between multiple people discussing these plans. Explain how these conversations can land on law enforcement's radar.

MCCABE: Sure.

So there are many ways that these sorts of discussions can come to law enforcement's attention. In this case, according to reporting, the -- one of the prime suspects was the subject of a report from his parents to local police. They were concerned about his weapons purchases and the fact that he'd

been in contact with many people online. And I think it was that initial tip that likely led to some of this investigation. That tip came in on June 10.

So, again, those sorts of communications are very valuable to investigators, because they show you the intent of the people involved. And they also identify more people that may have been involved in this conspiracy. And that seems to be how we get to the number of 20 or 23 people that the government says they have connected to this plot.

BLITZER: And it's interesting, Andrew, because we're told there were arrests across four federal districts. What type of coordination is needed in a case like this across multiple states, for example, to track and eventually thwart a potential attack?

MCCABE: It's a complicated and high-risk operation. You want to collect as much evidence as you can. So you have to let the plot develop to a certain extent, but you cannot let it get out of control.

You can't let this happen. In this case, where you had agents and agencies in multiple states working, that coordination is challenging. But I will say they're very, very good at it, because we have literally been doing this across decades now in the post-9/11 period, particularly with the help of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which are all over the country.

So that kind of coordination, although it's -- it requires a lot of effort, law enforcement is particularly good at it. It also requires coordination among these offenders. You have people allegedly participating in this plot across different states.

The question is, were they really plotting? Was this something that was going to happen? Or was this kind of the ideation, the kind of puffing of people who say crazy things online? But we will learn more about that when the charges get unsealed.

BLITZER: Andrew McCabe helping us understand what's going on, thank you very, very much -- Pamela.

BROWN: All right, Wolf, coming up here in THE SITUATION ROOM: brand- new polling on how Americans are leaning politically as voters head to the polls in crucial primaries that will test the power of the president's endorsement.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:27:10]

BROWN: Well, new this morning, a CNN poll shows barely half of Americans consider themselves to be Democrats or Republicans. In fact, 47 percent say they're independent. That's the highest percentage that CNN polling has found in more than a decade. And it comes as voters in four states and the District of Columbia head to the polls for key primary elections and run-offs.

So let's bring in our chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny here in THE SITUATION ROOM.

What is driving this independent growth spurt, Jeff?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pamela, a lot of it is just dissatisfaction with both political parties. And younger voters just are not aligned with the Democratic Party or the Republican Party like their parents or grandparents might have been.

But it is a fascinating new look. Really, for the first time in more than a decade, 47 percent of the population is not identifying as Republican or Democrat. And that's a big change from the first time that the president was elected.

But when you also look at the 2024 election, when President Trump was elected, that number has changed significantly since there as well. Identifying as Republicans, 34 percent then, now only 28 percent. So Republicans are definitely feeling the brunt of this bad brand, if you will.

But, overall, younger voters simply are not identifying with either party. So this could have major implications for politics going forward here, so a really interesting look at one of the biggest changes of politics in our time.

BROWN: Yes, so does it create more of an opening for an independent candidate to run?

ZELENY: I mean, you would think so, but, look, the -- both parties are so entrenched, it's unclear when that will happen.

But I do bet, in our lifetimes, hopefully in our coverage lifetimes, we will see a third party or an independent candidate. But if you look at those numbers right there, there's still more -- it's pretty evenly split when you press voters, like which way do you actually lean, Democrats and Republicans?

But that 25 percent that don't line either direction, that means that those voters are up for grabs. But, overall, there's just a dissatisfaction with the branding of both political parties.

BROWN: Yes, and this all comes as voters are voting today for key races and run-offs today, right?

You have Georgia, the two key run-offs for the GOP, Senate and governor's races. What are you keeping a close eye on?

ZELENY: I think Georgia is the most interesting races that we're watching today. There's a run-off race in the Senate contest there.

Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff, he's the only Democratic senator who is effectively from a state that Trump won, a red state. So he's going to find out who his Republican primary opponent is going to be -- or his general election opponent is going to be. President Trump weighed in on this. He endorsed Mike Collins, who's a

member of Congress. He's running against a former football coach, Derek Dooley, there. So we're keeping an eye on that, as well as the governor's race in Georgia. That is something that is also very interesting.

Rick Jackson is a billionaire businessman. He has spent about $100 million in this race. He's running against the lieutenant governor, Burt Jones. Trump has endorsed there as well.