Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Sources: Trump Considering U.S. Strikes On Iran Nuclear Sites; Trump Contradicts His Spy Chief On Iran's Nuclear Program; NYC Mayoral Candidate Arrested By ICE At Immigration Court. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired June 17, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: But quickly, within minutes, as they are getting all these different datapoints, they realize that none of them were to any residential buildings, most of them fell in open areas, one hit a car park in Tel Aviv.
And the reason why we are seeing fewer of these missiles actually getting through Israel's air defenses, according to Israeli military officials, is because they say that they are damaging those Iranian ballistic missile launchers, inside of Iran, and that is degrading the Iranians' capability to fire large barrages of missiles, and fewer of them then getting through those air defenses.
Anderson.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: All right. Jeremy Diamond, thanks so much. We'll continue to follow it.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Tonight, in the White House, President Trump is weighing a U.S. military strike on Iran, a decision that is a consequential one that is also dividing his MAGA base.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
As we come on the air tonight, here in Washington, all eyes are on the White House, from Tel Aviv to Tehran. The world is really waiting for word from the American President, while the skies over both cities look and sound, like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(VIDEO - SIRENS BLARING - TEL AVIV, ISRAEL)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Warning signs in Israel, for waves of incoming missiles from Iran, most intercepted by the Iron Dome. Though some, as we've seen play out in recent days, are getting through.
There are also new explosions, in Tehran, as Israel is warning an entire district of that city to evacuate tonight. Our sources are telling us that at the White House, President Trump is
weighing using U.S. aircraft and bombs to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. A senior Israeli official says they're also waiting to learn whether or not the President is going to help them achieve their goal of destroying Iran's nuclear program.
The President huddled with his National Security team, in the Situation Room, for over an hour today, on this very issue. You can see Generals and Cabinet Secretaries entering and then leaving the White House complex, throughout the day, as the White House confirmed that also behind-the-scenes, the President was on the phone with the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, though neither the administration nor Israel offered a readout of what was said.
We didn't see the President in front of the cameras today. But when we questioned him, overnight, about where he stood on Iran, this is what he told us on Air Force One.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I've been negotiating. I told them to do the deal. They should've done the deal. The cities have been blown to pieces... lost a lot of people. They should've done the deal. I told them, Do the deal. So I don't know. I'm not too much in a mood to negotiate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The President took to Truth Social, before a meeting in the Situation Room today, where he wrote this. Quote, "We now have complete and total control over the skies of Iran." The key word there is the first one, We.
He followed that with, We know exactly where the so-called "Supreme Leader" is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out... at least not for now.
And then, in all-caps, the President demanded, quote, "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER."
If the President does order a U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, there are still major questions, this evening, about what could follow, including whether that U.S. strike would be guaranteed to reach Iran's most precious nuclear sites, which are built into mountains, deep underground.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Is there any guarantee that if the U.S. did get involved militarily, that a U.S. bomb could destroy Iran's nuclear program and facilities?
TRUMP: (inaudible) you know that. Look at you, right? There's no guarantee. But you're saying a guarantee on what?
COLLINS: Do you think if the U.S. got involved militarily, it would actually wipe out Iran's nuclear program? Or where's your assessment of that?
TRUMP: I hope their program's going to be wiped out long before that, but they're not going to have a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I want to get straight to CNN's Anderson Cooper, who is live in Amman, Jordan, tonight, where missiles have been passing overhead.
Anderson, obviously, I should note the reason you're there. The airspace over Israel is closed, as you're making your way there, you have to drive to actually get there. What are we seeing and hearing on the ground over there tonight?
COOPER: Yes, I think a lot of people, in this region, are just -- are waiting and watching to see what President Trump decides, what the U.S. decides to do. I mean, that is -- that is the story of this night. And we have seen this back-and-forth missile barrages, some incoming to Tel Aviv.
As we landed here several hours ago, driving in from the airport, you could see Jordanian air defenses, what we were told were Jordanian air defenses, activated. Couldn't see interceptions, but we did see the air defenses activated in the skies over us.
[21:05:00]
And then around the same time, we saw in the skies, over Tel Aviv, interceptors as well. No reports of significant damage there, certainly no casualties. Jeremy Diamond has just been -- I was just talking to him. No reports, right now, of casualties in Tel Aviv.
The question, of course, what is the U.S. going to do? Will there be a direct strike against that Fordow facility? That is of the two facilities, the Natanz and the Fordow, as you know, and just you've been reporting, that is the one in that -- in that inside that mountain, which can really only be reached by these bombs which the United States has, and the delivery mechanisms that the United States has. It would require more than just one. It would be successive waves, from what we understand.
But there's a lot of questions tonight about, and no one seems to know the answer for sure, about what Donald Trump is going to decide to do.
COLLINS: Yes, and the Israelis, the officials there seem to be treading very carefully to not seem like they are pushing him into anything, though they very clearly want the United States to get involved here.
Anderson, thank you. We'll check in with you as news warrants throughout the hour.
And with that as the backdrop, I should note that here in Washington, there is a growing divide, among the President's supporters, about the question of a possible foreign intervention by the United States.
Look at this remarkable exchange. We're going to play for you here. Republican Senator Ted Cruz, and Tucker Carlson, on this very issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, AMERICAN COMMENTATOR, HOST, "THE TUCKER CARLSON SHOW": How many people live in Iran, by the way?
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): I don't know the population.
CARLSON: At all?
CRUZ: No, I don't know the population.
CARLSON: You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple?
CRUZ: How many people live in Iran?
CARLSON: 92 million.
CRUZ: OK. Yes, I--
CARLSON: How could you not know that?
CRUZ: I don't sit around memorizing population tables.
CARLSON: Well, it's kind of relevant, because you're calling for the overthrow of the government.
CRUZ: Why is it relevant? Whether it's--
CARLSON: Well, because--
CRUZ: --it's 90 million or 80 million or a 100 million, why is that relevant?
CARLSON: Well, because if you don't know anything about the country--
CRUZ: I didn't say I don't know anything about the country.
CARLSON: OK. What's the ethnic mix of Iran?
CRUZ: They are Persians and predominantly Shia.
CARLSON: What percent?
CRUZ: OK. This is cute. OK--
CARLSON: No, no, no, it's not even -- you don't know anything about Iran. So, actually, the country--
CRUZ: OK. I am not the Tucker Carlson--
CARLSON: No, no, no, but--
CRUZ: --expert on Iran, who says--
CARLSON: You're a senator who's calling for the overthrow of the government--
CRUZ: Hey you're the one who claims -- you're the one who claims--
CARLSON: --and you don't know anything about the country.
CRUZ: No, you don't know anything about the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Deeply revealing.
Joining me tonight is Republican senator, Tim Sheehy of Montana, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, and served as a Navy SEAL.
I'm not going to ask you the population of Iran, since you just saw that. But that does show people the divide that is happening, in your world, over what the President should do here. What do you think he should do? Do you support strikes on Iran?
SEN. TIM SHEEHY (R-MT): Well, it's not my world. It's our world. The truth is, there are deep divides, across the spectrum, on both sides, about what we do here.
Let's be very clear. The Democrats have been deeply divided over whether Israel has a right to exist as well. You know there've been Democrats calling for--
COLLINS: Yes, but the Democrats aren't in power. The Republicans are in power.
SHEEHY: No, I'd argue, you know--
COLLINS: So, what are the Republicans going to do (ph)?
SHEEHY: --that they have almost half the Senate, and half the House. So, the Democrats have a lot of power right now. They have the power to do a lot of things.
But back to the point is, what do we do right now? And the truth is, Iran has been a pernicious adversary, a brutal, savage adversary, of America, and Israel, and the Western world, for 45 years.
I mean, prior to 1980, Iran was a symbol of what the Middle East could be in this new era of oil wealth that was cascading across the region. Freedom, opportunity, innovation.
When this regime, this brutal, murderous regime, took over in 1980, which started, by the way, with taking hundreds of Americans hostage, at our embassy, we've seen nothing but murder, attack, terrible, terrible oppression from this regime, for 45 years. And nowhere is that more apparent than right now in Israel, as they launch their entire fleet of ballistic missiles to wipe a nation off the map, so.
COLLINS: But why strike now? Well, first, do you support these strikes?
SHEEHY: Well, first of all, I didn't say we should strike.
COLLINS: Do you support strikes?
SHEEHY: I support what Israel is doing, 100 percent, and I think--
COLLINS: Do you support strikes by the United States, if President Trump decides?
SHEEHY: I don't think we need to be -- get directly involved, because I think we've been very directly involved in the region for 25 years. I think what Americans have spoken very clearly about is, is We don't want more war in the Middle East.
Now, I think our ability to help Iran -- excuse me, to help Israel, be precise and successful in their strikes in Iran is key. Now, if that means providing them the equipment to do so, intelligence to do so, the specific bombs and platforms to do so, I'm totally supportive.
But it's very important that we draw a line in the sand that the American people have made very clear, they don't want us going to war anymore in the Middle East. They don't want boys and girls from their American families on the ground there. They don't want to get drawn into prolonged conflict. But I think it is in our interest, it is in the American people's interest, to see Iran put back in the box.
They can stop this tomorrow, just like--
COLLINS: But can you explain--
SHEEHY: --Hamas could have stopped their war in Gaza. They can stop it tomorrow by giving up their nuclear program.
COLLINS: Where -- where is that distinction in supporting Israel as it strikes Iran, and the United States striking Israel? You're saying you don't support the President having--
SHEEHY: It was a very clear distinction. I mean, that distinction is not hard at all.
COLLINS: --U.S. bombers go and strike those facilities?
SHEEHY: I mean, how is the distinction hard between having Israeli forces do the job versus U.S. forces? That's a pretty clear distinction to me.
COLLINS: Well, I just -- it wasn't clear in how you are -- how you answered it, at least not to me. I just wanted to make clear. You're saying you do support the United States giving Israel support and whatnot, but you don't support the United States actually going over there and striking their nuclear facility?
[21:10:00]
SHEEHY: Well, I mean, that decision can be made by one person and one person alone, right now. The President has to decide, Am I going to send American bombers, and American technology, and American servicemen, to carry out this strike? If so, that's his decision. And I think if he decided to do so, I'd support him.
Ultimately, though, what it has to be is Iran has the opportunity. The power's in Iran hands right now, if they give up the nuclear program. Just like the power's in Hamas' hands to end the war in Gaza. Give up the hostages, and we'll stop attacking you. Give up the hostages, we'll stop siege in Gaza.
Iran can say, You know what? Done. We're done with the nuclear program. We will -- we will -- unconditional surrender, as the President said? This can all end tomorrow. So right now, really--
COLLINS: Yes.
SHEEHY: --the power is in Iran's hands, oddly enough.
COLLINS: But you say the power is in the President's hands as well. But, I mean--
SHEEHY: Well, the decision's in the President's hands.
COLLINS: --this has reignited a debate on Capitol Hill, about Congress' power to declare war. Some of your colleagues, Republicans are circulating a resolution that they want to say that, if the United States is going to take offensive action against Iran, that Congress has to approve it first. Would you vote yes on that resolution?
SHEEHY: No, I think in this particular case -- so, first of all, I completely concur that the sole power to declare war in the United States rests with Congress. That's a constitutional responsibility of Congress. I think it's a huge error we've made, over the past 80 years, since World War II, that we have instead authorized the AUMF, Authorized Use of Military Force, we've essentially outsourced to the president, the power to declare war.
COLLINS: So that sounds like you would support the resolution--
SHEEHY: I would, in general.
COLLINS: --generally (ph).
SHEEHY: But this isn't declaring a war. This is -- this is involving ourselves in a precision strike that in, frankly, a war that's already been going on for 45 years.
We've been fighting Iran for 45 years. We fought Iran and Iraq. We fought them in Afghanistan. We've been fighting with them in Beirut. They killed 246 Marines in Beirut in 1983. They killed thousands of us, including many of my friends, in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, let's be very clear, this isn't a new front of a war. This is an adversary that we have been fighting directly for 45 years.
COLLINS: But you don't consider a U.S. strike on Iran's premier nuclear facility, an act of war?
SHEEHY: No.
COLLINS: So, you think the President can do that without Congress? You're fine with that?
SHEEHY: Yes.
COLLINS: And you're not -- it's just not clear to me. Do you -- if Trump said tonight that he wanted to do that, that Yes, U.S. service members can go over there and bomb Iran's nuclear facility? You say, yes, you support them?
SHEEHY: I mean, if that's his decision, it's his decision.
COLLINS: But do you support it as a member of Congress?
SHEEHY: If it was my decision to bomb Iran tonight, if it rested in the hands of Congress, I think it's pretty clear, we'd say, We want Israel to carry out their war. Well, we'll certainly stand behind them.
And to be clear, this isn't a new position for America to take. We've long held that there are times and places for us to fight our adversaries directly. There are time and places to let our allies do the same. We've essentially taken that position in Ukraine for three years, and no one's had an issue with that.
COLLINS: Maybe it would be new for--
SHEEHY: So, this isn't a big departure from--
COLLINS: --for the United States to strike an Iranian nuclear facility. I mean, that is something Israel has wanted U.S. presidents to help them with, for years, that U.S. presidents have often not gone forward with because it concerned--
SHEEHY: No, that's a fair assessment.
COLLINS: --call it -- a precision strike.
SHEEHY: It's also new that Iran's launching ballistic missiles at our closest ally in the region. They've been trying to sink our Navy ships in the Red Sea through the Houthi rebels.
They've been actively attacking U.S. forces, U.S. uniformed forces throughout the region, for a year and a half now, through the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah. So, it would be new in one certain paradigm. But the truth is, they've been directly killing American servicemen for years.
COLLINS: Well, and we've seen that before, and we've seen attacks on U.S. service members and U.S. assets, and we have seen the United States not respond always.
SHEEHY: Well, they responded.
COLLINS: Sometimes with sanctions.
SHEEHY: Trump took out Soleimani.
COLLINS: Sanctions and whatnot.
SHEEHY: Let's not forget that.
COLLINS: Yes, but that was--
SHEEHY: Trump killed Soleimani in an airstrike.
COLLINS: But that wasn't in retaliation. That was just in general they wanted to assassinate him, and there was questions of how they would respond.
But on the issue that Tucker Carlson and Senator Cruz were arguing, there. Do you support regime change in Iran?
SHEEHY: Regime change can only come from one place. That's the people of Iran. They have to make that decision. We've learned that the hard way, in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was part of both those wars, where we chose to change regimes. And guess what? We ended up there in a long time in a war we didn't understand, fighting for something that not all Americans agreed with.
So, regime change comes from one place. That's the people of Iran making the decision, to decide if they want to continue to live under the yoke of a murderous regime, or if they want to overthrow that regime, and return to the relative prosperity and freedom that Iran once enjoyed, 46 years ago.
COLLINS: So, you think the President should rule out regime change in Iran?
SHEEHY: Regime change is not our decision. It's not -- I mean, it's not our choice (ph).
COLLINS: Well, I mean, the President was saying today that they could take him out, that he's safe for now. I mean, he had that caveat there that obviously is not reassuring, I imagine.
SHEEHY: Sure, the President wants to negotiate. The President likes to know that all the weapons are on the table in a negotiation. So, frankly, I think he's handling this perfectly. I think he's making it clear, like he has in most of his other negotiations, that anything is on the table.
But I think he's also been very clear that he doesn't want to be opening up new fronts of war anywhere, but especially in the Middle East, where we've been, frankly, fighting non-stop for almost half a century.
COLLINS: Is a strike on Iran, would that be in a line with America First, in your view?
[21:15:00]
SHEEHY: I think it would. I mean, 30 percent of global trade flows through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. If Americans like cheap T- shirts, and cheap gas, and going to Walmart to get key cheap commodities. Right now, global trade underpins the economy we've come to expect. So, America First means we have a strong economy. America First means we're protecting our interests.
The truth is the Straits of Hormuz, the Red Sea, which the Houthis have effectively shut down for safe passage, and the Suez Canal, the American economy, which by extension, is the global economy, heavily relies on the sea routes that, frankly, are quite central, and that Iran has a great degree of control over, so.
COLLINS: Right, and obviously, we've seen issues with that for months, not just now.
SHEEHY: Exactly right.
COLLINS: Senator Tim Sheehy, thank you for your time tonight.
SHEEHY: Yes, great to see you.
COLLINS: Up next here on CNN. We talk about that nuclear facility. It's built deep inside a mountain. It has a wide security perimeter. The Fordow plant has long been at the heart of concerns, over Iran's nuclear ambitions. But there are real questions about what a strike would do to it. My military sources will join me next, about what we do and don't know about a secretive, heavily-guarded complex.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:20:00]
COLLINS: Tonight, as President Trump is weighing U.S. military action in Iran, including strikes on its nuclear sites, the United Nations' top nuclear watchdog tells CNN that the country's nuclear capabilities have been set back significantly.
Waves of Israeli strikes, over the last several days, starting last Thursday night, have resulted in damage to several of Iran's nuclear facilities, as you can see here.
The International Atomic Energy Agency says the Natanz nuclear site is the worst-hit, the aboveground uranium enrichment facility has been completely destroyed, and those underground centrifuges are malfunctioning.
But there is that one secretive Iranian facility that so far has remained unscathed. We've been talking about this. It is the Fordow nuclear site. And the nuclear layer is built 300-feet deep inside of a mountain. It's believed to hold thousands of centrifuges, working to enrich uranium that could ultimately be used for bombs. It could be a potential top target for the United States, should President Trump choose to strike Iran.
One of the most deeply-sourced journalists in the regions joins me -- in the region joins me now. That's CNN Political Analyst and Global Affairs Analyst, Barak Ravid.
Alongside the former Commander of the Combined Maritime Forces, leading U.S. operations in the Middle East, Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan.
And it's great to have you both here.
And Barak, just I want to start with you, as we've been going through this, almost every night, since Thursday, about what's happening. What are you hearing from sources tonight, about where the President's head is at, and how everyone in Israel is watching this decision.
BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, AXIOS: Good evening, Kaitlan.
So, President Trump spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu, earlier today, after he finished his Situation Room meeting with his top National Security team.
And at least from what I hear from Israeli officials, the overall impression on the Israeli side is that a U.S. strike on Iran is not an if, it's a when. And it's not -- and when they say when, it's not next year. It's something that is much closer. And the feeling on the Israeli side is that Trump has made a decision to join the war, and it's just a matter of time until it happens.
And I think if you read Trump's Truth Social account, and what he wrote there today, it seems that he made a decision.
COLLINS: Vice Admiral, if that is the call here, that it is not a decision of if the United States should strike Iran's nuclear facilities, but when that will happen, based on Barak's reporting, can you just walk us through what that looks like?
As we see the top generals, and military officials, who serve under the President, in the Situation Room today, what are they -- what are they going through? What does that look like right now, behind-the- scenes?
VICE ADM. KEVIN DONEGAN (RET.), FORMER DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND, DISTINGUISHED MILITARY FELLOW, MIDDLE EAST INSTITUTE: Yes, well, first, thanks for -- thanks for letting me be on the show.
And let me start with by saying, I don't know what Barak said is true, right? I don't know that we're on a road to the United States taking that action.
COLLINS: Sure.
DONEGAN: But what you can see the United States doing, and what you can see General Kurilla doing in CENTCOM, is he's certainly arranging the forces of the United States to do two things.
You've seen a lot of reporting of forces move into the region. And those forces are there to do a couple things. One, to ensure that we can protect our forces. And the second is to provide a deterrent for what the President has said he doesn't want to happen, which is attacks on U.S. troops.
And the third reason is, is to have forces in the region that allow CENTCOM to provide all options for the President, with one of the options, of course, being what Barak was talking about, which was the U.S. getting involved in in some way, which could include taking out the nuclear site, in Fordow.
But that's not a foregone conclusion. Those forces that are deployed can do all three of those things, and that gives quite a range of options to the President.
COLLINS: Barak, are Israeli officials surprised at -- if this reporting bears out? And obviously, I should note, we've seen President Trump approve strikes on Iran before, and then pull back on it. He did it in 2019, after they downed a U.S. surveillance drone. I'm not saying that will happen here. But just as we're carefully watching to see what this looks like.
Are Israeli officials surprised that the President has gotten to this place, given it was just weeks and months ago that he was saying, This is not what we're looking to do. We want a diplomatic path?
RAVID: So actually, I have to say, and this is something very interesting that when you talk -- when I spoke to several Israeli officials, they said that during the -- over the last few weeks, they did not get the sense that Trump is against a military strike on Iran. But they got the sense between the lines that not only that he supports it, but that eventually he will go along with it, and will join the strike.
[21:25:00]
More than one Israeli official told me that Trump gave the gave Israel a full greenlight to go ahead with their attack, and that he hinted that if the need -- if there will be a need, he will also be ready to consider joining in.
And I think when he said a need, he's talking about taking out the nuclear facility in Fordow, which does not -- the U.S. military does not need to do a lot. It just needs to send a few B-2 bombers with the MOP bombs, the 30,000-pound bombs--
COLLINS: Yes.
RAVID: --and drop some of them on the facility in Fordow, and that's what the Israelis want.
COLLINS: But this is where I have been kind of thinking about, Vice Admiral, and we questioned -- I questioned President Trump about this last night on Air Force One. Which is, so say, the President does go along with this, and he does agree, and what Barak just laid out there does happen, where they use these B-2 bombers, and these massive bombs that that the United States has? Can it be destroyed by using these 30,000-pound bunker busters, as they're called? Is there a guarantee that that will be successful, I guess, is my question.
DONEGAN: Well, first, Kaitlan, let me just say that for quite some times, and including all the time when I was in CENTCOM, this is a military objective that we've been planning and practicing since that time. And matter of fact, weapons and tactics and techniques and procedures have been developed to ensure that if we were ever called to do an action like that, that it could be successful.
Now, at the same time -- at the same time, I'm not so sure that just because the President says that he's going to support Israel, in what they're doing, that he's going to take part in that action, to take it out. Because I fully believe that Israel, in what they said, from the very beginning of this event, that they would not leave Fordow untouched, right? So, there's other methods you can also get at Fordow, with -- it doesn't involve us.
Now, one thing to think about, Kaitlan, is what happens after that would happen, right?
COLLINS: Yes.
DONEGAN: So, if the U.S. does that attack, then a bunch of other missiles of Iran come into play, right, that are shorter range, that haven't been taken out by the Israelis, that can certainly range U.S. facilities in the region, and they have -- all that has to be accounted for, in a decision like we were just describing.
COLLINS: Yes, it is not an understatement to say it's a massively consequential decision.
Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan, great to have your expertise on this tonight, truly.
Barak Ravid, always great to have your reporting.
Glad to have you both.
RAVID: Thank you.
DONEGAN: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: And as the President is weighing what to do, or we're waiting to learn what he has decided here, he did dismiss something that his own Director of National Intelligence testified to about, where she believed Iran's nuclear capabilities are. What the President said about Tulsi Gabbard on Air Force One, next.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As President Trump huddled with his National Security team in the Situation Room today, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was seen arriving at the White House, as you can see here. This was just hours, after the President disputed what his spy chief has said, regarding intelligence, about whether or not Iran is actively building a nuclear weapon.
First, listen to what Director Gabbard testified, just this past March, on the status of Iran's nuclear program, while noting that it was enriching uranium that could ultimately be used for a nuclear arsenal.
And then listen to what the President told me, on Air Force One, overnight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.
COLLINS: How close do you personally think that they were to getting one? Because Tulsi Gabbard--
TRUMP: Very close.
COLLINS: --Tulsi Gabbard testified in March that the intelligence community said Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon.
TRUMP: I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Gabbard insisted that she and the President remain on the same page today.
But this comes after CNN has confirmed, Gabbard was not present at Camp David, last weekend, where the President convened several members of his National Security team, to talk about their strategy on Iran, if Israel was to strike. Days later, Israel did launch those strikes.
My key source tonight is Maggie Haberman, White House Correspondent for The New York Times, and Author of her new paperback, "Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America" that is now out.
And Maggie, when you see Director Gabbard, I mean, she was quite clear in the testimony to Congress. But it was notable to see how dismissive, I guess, is the best way to put it, President Trump was, of that analysis from the intelligence community.
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes, and Kaitlan, Gabbard pointed out that, you know, if you read the fuller statement that she gave, she did say that enrichment levels are at their highest for any non-nuclear state.
COLLINS: Yes.
[21:35:00]
HABERMAN: And so, and the higher -- highest levels that they've been. And that is true.
What I was struck by A of, you know, he just was -- he was publicly dismissive that just is what it is. But what I was also struck by is he was saying, This is what I think. You asked him about his opinion. He made very clear his opinion.
I was struck by that in part because, as my colleagues and I, Jonathan Swan, Mark Mazzetti, and Ronen Bergman, and several others reported today, that contrary to what the Israelis were saying, there was not some new piece of information that appeared to point to some acceleration, at least that the U.S. intelligence officials were aware of, but that it was clear that Netanyahu was moving ahead with a strike. And so that's where we are.
COLLINS: Yes, and in that shift, I mean, this is a really deeply- reported piece, in The Times today, that you and your colleagues have put out. It includes, the President having a conversation with a political ally, I believe, is what you quoted, where he told them he thought that the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was trying to drag the United States into another Middle East war.
Is that something that, despite this shift, he still seems to be wary of, based on your reporting?
HABERMAN: Look, I think he is generally wary of Benjamin Netanyahu. I think that has been the case for a long time. We describe in the piece, this is not a relationship that's built on deep trust on either side. And he had said that earlier this year.
I think that he -- certainly, people around him, a number of them, have been skeptical of that for a while, but I think that President Trump realized this was going to move forward.
And I think that Trump and Netanyahu do share a belief that Iran cannot get a nuclear weapon. And the White House pointed out, and they're not wrong, that Trump has said this over and over again, over many years. That's not necessarily the view of everybody in the anti- interventionist wing of the Republican Party.
And so, I think it's not entirely a surprise that Trump, you know, he -- the one thing I didn't mention, Kaitlan too, is he was getting frustrated with Iran. He believed that he was getting tapped along by Iran, much as he was by Vladimir Putin in these deal discussions. And so, it's not entirely surprising that he went this way. The speed of the change is still a bit surprising.
COLLINS: Well, and they're clearly -- you're seeing people -- as we were just playing that remarkable moment, between Tucker Carlson and Senator Ted Cruz, over what could happen in Iran. You're seeing this divide in MAGA.
And I thought what Vice President JD Vance shared today was notable, because he was kind of creating space for Trump to have a strike on Iran by the United States. He said, quote, that the President may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. He said, a decision ultimately belongs to the President. He said, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy, he said, But I believe the President has earned some trust on this issue.
HABERMAN: Yes, I agree with you that I think that he was creating, clearly, space for people who are hoping there is not going to be a strike to be disappointed, if we're being honest.
And JD Vance has been quite clear on where he personally is. But he is serving at the President's pleasure. He was on the ticket because the President put him there. And so, he is going to do what the administration wants. But I think that he is trying, as you say, to quell this internecine argument, because it's not quite clear where this is going.
I also thought that this has taken place under -- with the backdrop of President Trump saying, this weekend, that America First is what he thinks it should be, not necessarily a fixed point in the world.
COLLINS: Yes.
HABERMAN: And I think you're going to hear more of that going forward.
COLLINS: Maggie Haberman, as always, thank you for your reporting.
Also here tonight, two other deeply-sourced White House incidents.
David Sanger, who is a White House and National Security Correspondent for The New York Times.
And Jeff Mason, my fellow White House correspondent for Reuters.
David, the President met with his National Security team today. All eyes have been watching to see what that decision could look like. What have you been hearing from officials tonight?
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE & NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I think there's basically two paths they can take, but they sort of all end up in the same place.
One is, what you would call, coercive diplomacy. It is going back to the Iranians, one more time, and saying, Look, we put a proposal on the table. The part you didn't like was the fact that it would no longer allow Iran to enrich on its own territory. That proposal gave them a number of years to wind that down, while a consortium of Arab States and Iran built the capacity elsewhere. They rejected that.
And I think the position that the President wants to take to the Iranians is, You're going to lose the capacity one way or the other. The only question is, Do you want to do it in a negotiated, orderly way, or do you want to do it through the B-2 and dropping this 30,000- pound bomb?
Whether or not there's -- that diplomacy really takes place, I have my doubts, because the Iranians have said--
COLLINS: Yes.
SANGER: --they are not going to talk, while they're getting attacked.
COLLINS: Yes, we've seen mixed signals on that. And Jeff, as far as the White House and how the President is weighing this calculus. I mean, we were speaking to officials today, I should note, that were kind of downplaying that anything was imminent. They were saying, the President was in the Oval Office, talking, meeting with people and having those conversations.
[21:40:00]
Is it clear how much that MAGA divide in the conversation -- kind of encapsulated by the Tucker Carlson-Ted Cruz conversation, how much that is weighing on the President's decision here. Does he seem to care?
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: I thought it was striking in the conversations that you and I had together, how much that was dismissed. Because MAGA elevated, obviously, this President to a second term in office. It is the movement that he created, and it's the movement that is his political legacy when he leaves, whenever that -- you know, at the end of three and a half years.
The fact that there are divisions now, and that there -- these divisions have been bubbling up, over a couple different issues, over the last few weeks, is a new thing in the MAGA world. And I'm sure that they are taking it seriously. I don't want to downplay that. But in the same way that the President dismisses criticism from Democrats and other opponents, he seems to be dismissing that from his own team, right now.
COLLINS: Yes, and I mean, and we're trying to calculate, really, who he's listening to. There's not this huge divide, internally, like we saw in term one, I would say.
The President posted this message today, from Mike Huckabee, who is his Ambassador to Israel. I mean, it was incredibly lengthy, I don't know if we can -- we can show the full thing.
But in part, he told the President, quote, I believe -- I mean, you can see how long that message is there. Part of it, he said, I believe you will hear from heaven and that voice is far more important than mine or ANYONE else's. But basically said that the President had a chance to be the most consequential president in a century, maybe ever, and Trump shared that.
SANGER: Yes, it is interesting that President Trump's never been shy about sharing on Truth Social praise of his decision-making.
But this is probably the most consequential foreign policy decision he has had to make in some time, and--
COLLINS: Why so?
SANGER: Well, the results of it are not that obvious. If the -- if the President had his way, if he needs to take out the Fordow plan? He wants to go up, have their airstrike, be done with it.
But the fact of the matter is, the Iranians get a vote, and they may or may not attack back on American forces, in which case you could get engaged in exactly the kind of Mideast war that JD Vance and Tucker Carlson and everybody else have been talking about.
It's also not clear that by destroying a facility like this, and the Natanz facility that's with it, that in fact, that's the end of the Iranian nuclear program. History suggests that countries that are forcibly attacked like that, frequently take their program underground. The Iranians may well conclude from this, You know we should have rushed and build -- built a nuclear weapon earlier--
COLLINS: Yes.
SANGER: --because we wouldn't have gotten attacked.
MASON: And I would just add that the comp -- the politics of all of this are very complicated for him. Not only the fact that MAGA is divided on it, but the fact that he has presented himself as essentially a Peacemaker-in-Chief. And going into war, after all the criticism that he has delivered at previous presidents for going into war, would be a -- be something that he would have to sell in a way that he hasn't had to sell before.
COLLINS: Yes, that's a great point.
Jeff Mason. David Sanger. As always. We will wait and see what the President decides.
Up next. New York's Comptroller and mayoral candidate was released from federal custody, after being detained by ICE agents at an immigration hearing today. One of his opponents, in that closely- watched race, will join me, right after this.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: With just a week to go before New York City voters cast their final primary ballots for Mayor. Today, Democratic primary candidate, Brad Lander, was arrested by officers, at an immigration courthouse, in Manhattan. He was taken into custody, after he tried to escort a migrant that agents were trying to arrest.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRAD LANDER, NEW YORK CITY COMPTROLLER, NYC MAYORAL CANDIDATE: Can I see the warrant? I will let go when you show me the judicial warrant. Where is it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir.
LANDER: Where is the warrant?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, I have it in my hand here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You all shut that feed (ph).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was -- Lander, let's go.
(CROSSTALK)
LANDER: Let me just see the warrant, and I will let go.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean--
LANDER: Let me just see the warrant, and I will let go.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But -- no.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Take it -- take it -- take it (ph).
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Step down.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Step back. Step back. Step back. Step back.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have the authority--
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hands behind your back (ph).
LANDER: You don't have authority to arrest U.S. citizens.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Step back, sir.
LANDER: You don't have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please stay back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Lander is the City's Chief Financial Officer, and he was detained for several hours before being released this afternoon. He said he wanted to bring attention to the increasing number of migrants, who have been arrested after they appear for immigration hearings. The Department of Homeland Security says that he was arrested for assaulting law enforcement and impeding federal officers.
Hundreds of people showed up at the courthouse, to protest his arrest. That includes his primary opponent, and my next source tonight. New York Assemblymember, Zohran Mamdani.
And it's great to have you here.
I know you've condemned Mr. Lander's arrest. I do wonder, when you look at this, holistically, between this, Senator Padilla at Secretary Noem's press conference, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka at an ICE facility in his state. Do you think this is an effective way, for Democrats, whether intentionally or not, to communicate on this issue?
ZOHRAN MAMDANI, NYC MAYORAL CANDIDATE, NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLYMEMBER: I think it's an opportunity to showcase what's happening across our country each and every day.
And we know that as New Yorkers, what we see ICE agents doing, as masked men in unmarked cars, pulling up on New Yorkers, be it at their regular check-in at Federal Plaza, or in their apartment building lobby, is terrorizing this city and this country, and frankly, attacking the very fabric of what makes so many of us proud to be Americans.
And I'm thankful to see Comptroller Lander have been released a few hours later.
And continue to be anguished about the so many New Yorkers who are languishing hundreds of miles away tonight, from their families, as they sit in an ICE detention facility.
COLLINS: What would you say to someone who looks at what happened today, and sees it differently than you do, and say, Well, if someone is here illegally, and they're at the courthouse, and they get arrested for that very -- for that very act, for being here, illegally, that someone like Mr. Lander should not be able to step in and impede law enforcement from doing their job?
[21:50:00]
MAMDANI: What I would say is that what we're seeing with so many New Yorkers is that they're showing up for their regular immigration check-in. And this was what we saw with Comptroller Lander. He was accompanying someone whose case had just been dismissed, and then there were ICE agents who were refusing to show that judicial warrant signed by a judge, when seizing that very person.
And this is something that is top of mind for so many New Yorkers. Because today, there is another New Yorker, named Mahmoud Khalil, who is languishing in a Louisiana detention facility for no crime at all. Even though the courts have found it unlawful to continue detaining him, he sits in that prison, because for Donald Trump and his authoritarianism -- his administration, laws are mere suggestions, they are not things that they actually have to follow.
COLLINS: Speaking of your race. You've gotten some key endorsements from progressives, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Today, The New York Times editorial board said they're not endorsing anyone in this race. They noted that you and Governor Andrew Cuomo seem to be the frontrunners. And they described your campaign as joyful. They say that you have a fresh style.
But they also said, and these are their words, that you're, Running on an agenda uniquely unsuited to the city's challenges. That they called you a democratic socialist who too often ignores the unavoidable trade-offs of government -- of governance. And they say that you basically want the government to operate grocery stores, as if customer service and retail sales were strengths of the public sector. He minimizes the importance of policing.
For someone who's not familiar with your platform, you have, say, you want free busses, city-run grocery stores, frozen rent. How do you plan to pay for those proposals?
MAMDANI: So, there are a number of ways.
The first is that freezing the rent does not actually require the City to spend any additional money. The City has a board called the Rent Guidelines Board, which determines whether or not rents for rent- stabilized tenants increase. And the previous mayoral administration froze those rents three times. What we are proposing is to build on that precedent.
And to make busses free, it costs about $700 million. To deliver universal child care, we're looking at a cost of about $5 billion to $6 billion.
We've put forward an economic plan that would raise actually $10 billion to not only pay for our agenda, but start to Trump-proof our city, and we do so in two key ways.
We match New York State's top corporate tax rate to that of New Jersey, at 11.5 percent. That raises $5 billion.
And we increase personal income taxes on the top 1 percent of New Yorkers. These are New Yorkers who make a $1 million a year or more, and we increase it by just 2 percent, $20,000 which is effectively a rounding error when you're making that much money.
And those things, together with good government reforms, raise $10 billion a year. And ultimately, what that does is not just provide for the economic agenda we've been running on, to center working people at the heart of our politics. But also, deliver a city with excellent public services. And when I speak to wealthy New Yorkers, I hear so often that concern around quality of life.
And while I respect the dozen or so writers who make up The New York Times editorial board. I also know that their own panel of experts recommended our campaign, as the leading campaign, when addressing housing--
COLLINS: Yes.
MAMDANI: --and quality of life.
COLLINS: But on that front, on having to raise taxes to pay for this. I mean, you obviously, if you win, you would not have the power to do that. Do you think that Governor Hochul would work with you on that?
MAMDANI: I am confident of that. And I'm confident of that because when I was first elected to the State Assembly, I went to Albany, facing a different governor at that time, Andrew Cuomo, who was just as resistant at the prospect of taxing billionaires and corporations, primarily because of the fact that they were his donors, and continue to be, even to fund the public schools that he'd start for years.
And we were able to overcome his opposition, raised $4 billion in new taxes, and used that money to invest it directly into our students and our teachers in the classroom across the five boroughs. COLLINS: But we've seen Governor Hochul say, just last month that she -- there's been no increase in income tax. She said she wants to make sure that high-net-worth people know that they are appreciated in New York. She says she doesn't want to drive them from the state.
So wouldn't those two things conflict? You try and get her to raise taxes, and her highlighting that that hasn't happened while she's been in office?
MAMDANI: Well, I think what we're showcasing in our campaign is there is a hunger for a different kind of politics. And from the beginning of this campaign, we were told by many prognosticators that we would not crack 5 percent or 10 percent. And now, we've cut Andrew Cuomo's 40-point lead into a single-digit one.
And what that shows is actually there is a much larger constituency for this kind of a vision in the Democratic Party. And what we know is that even after all of these taxes were to be achieved, those same New Yorkers would be paying less in taxes than they were prior to the Trump administration's first term.
And when we look at the Fiscal Policy Institute, they find that the top 1 percent of New Yorkers leave the state at one-fourth the rate of other income categories, on the basis of fiscal policy. It's actually often on the basis of quality of life. And in order to deliver that excellent quality of life, those excellent public services, we need to fully fund them, and this is one way that we do so.
COLLINS: We'll see how this shakes out, and what New York City voters decide.
Zohran Mamdani, it's great to have you here tonight. Thank you for joining us.
MAMDANI: Thank you so much for having me.
[21:55:00]
COLLINS: Up next today. There were major challenges -- changes that were announced from Kraft Heinz. What the food giant wants to do to comply with HHS Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Before we go tonight, three things that you might have missed.
Republican Senator Mike Lee deleted those social media posts, speculating about the political affiliations of the suspect, in the deadly Minnesota shootings, something that came hours after he was confronted by Democratic Minnesota Senator, Tina Smith, who told us last night about those posts and said that he should apologize, and take them down.
Also today, Customs and Border Patrol says it has released zero undocumented immigrants into the country, late last month. A year ago, that number was at 62,000.
[22:00:00]
Some context here. Those past releases often incurred -- often occurred because facilities were overwhelmed from surges, including during President Trump's first term, and certainly during President Biden's term in office. Now with Border Patrol encounters as low as they are, the agency has not had to release people.
Also, finally tonight, Kool-Aid and JELL-O are getting a makeover, as the maker, Kraft Heinz, says it plans to phase-out artificial dyes, in U.S. foods, over the next two years. That comes as the HHS Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again agenda has vowed to crack down on artificial dyes in food.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
