Return to Transcripts main page

The Source with Kaitlan Collins

U.S. And Iran Sign Agreement But Document Not Public; Newsom Claims Trump's DOJ Is Investigating Him And His Wife; Trump Touts "Incredible" White House UFC Fight At G7. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired June 15, 2026 - 21:00   ET

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

[21:00:00]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ISA SOARES, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Rama has vowed to push past the concerns of the thousands of Albanians who have come out in protest, claiming the project will transform the country for the better.

But with demonstrations going into their third week, it's hard to see this Flamingo Revolution backing down.

Isa Soares. CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. I'll see you tomorrow.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: I'm Kaitlan Collins. And tonight, THE SOURCE is coming to you live from Geneva, Switzerland, as President Trump is gathering with the leaders of the world's biggest democracies and economies just over the border in Evian, France, tonight.

The President kicked things off with a big announcement that sources say has raised more questions than answers, not only for leaders here, but also back in Washington.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'm very happy to say very -- signed, the deal is all signed.

But I think a lot of great things are going to happen in the Middle East right now. And very importantly, the oil is plummeting down and the stock market is shooting up like a rocket today, like record kind of numbers, and the oil has taken its biggest plunge, and we're into the low numbers.

The Iran deal that we made is going to bring a lot of -- a lot of success to the world because, the oil was really clogged up there for a while. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Beyond setting another 60-day window for more talks, what exactly the two countries have agreed to here, still remains to be seen.

Even Republican senators are reacting with caution tonight. Quote, "We all have questions. No one's seen it," according to Senator James Lankford. Shelley Moore Capito added, quote, "I just want to see the specifics." And Steve Daines added, "I haven't seen all the details on it yet."

Well, that's because the administration hasn't released the actual document yet. Sources in the administration did say, to reporters earlier today, that it will be released in the next 24 to 48 hours, without explaining the hold-up, as the President himself suggested it would be released by the end of this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Mr. President, when will the text of the MOU be released?

TRUMP: I think pretty soon. I would say -- I mean, I want it to be released because it's a very powerful document. It's not like the Obama document, which was just a terrible document. This is a very powerful document, and I want it to be released. So, probably pretty soon. I would say, after -- sometime after Friday.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: While the President described the document as quote, Very powerful. When he compares it to the JCPOA, which was negotiated under the Obama administration, that deal, which took 18 months of painstaking talks, was a 159 pages.

The Vice President, who is not selling what has been signed so far as any sort of final deal, explained why this document is about a 157 pages shorter than that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JD VANCE (R), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: So, the MOU, Jake, is about a page and a half. So, it is a very general document, but this has been very much part of the conversations that we've had with the Iranians. And on a number of issues, we are going to have to figure this stuff out during the technical negotiation phase.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Now, the stuff that sources say still needs to be figured out includes how the United States will ensure that Iran keeps any promise about not restarting its nuclear program, whether or not Iran will get any of the billions of dollars in frozen assets before that 60-day clock starts, or after, and also if Iran will have the power to impose some sort of toll on ships that are going through the Strait of Hormuz. When it comes to that, the President posted today, quote, "Ships are starting to move, many loaded up with Oil, out of the Strait of Hormuz."

In front of the cameras, in France, he conceded it might still take a while.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: On Friday, it will be completely opened.

Sometime after Friday. Because the Strait opens completely -- it's open now. But it opens completely -- we'll have all the mines knocked out, for the most part. We have a lot of lanes right now already.

REPORTER: Mr. President--

TRUMP: So, I think -- I think sometime -- I think sometime in the very near future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:05:00]

COLLINS: For now, the companies that track those ship movements, they tell CNN, they haven't actually seen significant movement from the hundreds of ships that so far have been trapped in the Persian Gulf during this war.

We know the President, the Vice President, and Iran's lead negotiator, all signed on to this new document, electronically.

And the President did confirm there is going to be a ceremonial signing, here in Switzerland, on Friday. Though, he made a point, as he was sitting next to the French leader earlier, that he likely won't be around for it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: JD is coming in for it. He was originally going to do it. I'll probably be gone by then. We're having dinner in a day and a half, right? We're going to be staying quite late. So, I may be involved, I may not. But JD was coming in for that, specifically.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: My first source tonight is Iran expert, and CNN's Global Affairs Analyst, Karim Sadjadpour.

And Karim, it's great to have you here. Because, I noticed you called this MOU, a Memorandum of Misunderstanding. Tell me what your assessment is so far, and why you think that.

KARIM SADJADPOUR, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: Well, I think Kaitlan, that the two parties fundamentally disagree about what this agreement is about. The Iranian regime believes it's going to retain its control over the Strait of Hormuz. It's not planning on making meaningful nuclear compromises, and it's not talking about making any concessions when it comes to issues like their missile program, their regional proxies, or the identity of the system.

Whereas for the United States, I think that the Trump administration is now talking about a totally different kind of deal. It's not just a nuclear deal. In essence, what Vice President Vance was talking about today is a grand bargain between America and Iran, a transformative deal, which would be almost like a Nixon to China event, a rapprochement between the United States and Iran. And I'm personally very skeptical that this regime is prepared to make that kind of deal with the United States.

And for that reason, Kaitlan, the document they're talking about is very short. It's not a long, detailed nuclear document. It's probably a few pages about how we can get a grand bargain.

COLLINS: If it's so short, why do you think it hasn't been -- why don't they just release the text? Why do you think?

SADJADPOUR: I suspect there's internal disagreement within the Trump administration, between those like Secretary of State Rubio and others who are probably skeptical, who believe that this is still a revolutionary regime whose identity is premised on hostility toward America and Israel. It needs America as an adversary for its own internal legitimacy. That ideology is the glue that keeps the security forces together. So, I suspect there's skeptics within the administration as well, and they're still trying to work that out.

COLLINS: Back in March, shortly after this war started, the President posted and said, there will be no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender.

How far from that is what we're talking about right now in your view?

SADJADPOUR: It's totally different. Instead of an unconditional surrender, what the Vice President said today, on Jake Tapper's show was, how do we bring Iran back into the international community? They're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in investment inside Iran, about totally different U.S.-Iran relationships. So, it's a 180-degree difference than the policy of four months ago was -- which was war to implode the regime.

But in both cases, they're going for the home run, they're trying for a totally transformative relationship with Iran, which is very different than Obama's nuclear deal, which was kind of a very detailed, painstaking, focused deal on just the nuclear program.

COLLINS: Yes. And obviously, so many questions about just the length of this alone, and what the next 60 days entails.

Karim Sadjadpour, always great to have you. Thank you for joining us here tonight.

SADJADPOUR: Thank you.

COLLINS: Also, here with me are my political sources.

David Axelrod.

And David Urban.

David Urban, I'll start with you because, it's pretty clear Republicans are skeptical of this. I mean, Erick Erickson, a conservative, posted that he believes Trump has surrendered to Iran. Lindsey Graham, a major ally, says he is somewhat concerned that Iran's view of this agreement seems different than what the American team is claiming.

Would it be helpful, in your view, if the administration just released the text of this agreement now?

[21:10:00]

DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes, Kaitlan, so I think everyone has a right to be concerned. This is a regime that's chanted Death to America for the past 50 years, roughly, and there is no universe -- you know, Reagan's famous Trust, but verify. There is no trust here. There is no -- there is no reason to trust these folks.

The theocracy that runs this country has proven time and time again that it wants to destroy the West. And so, suddenly to expect them to sit down and negotiate in good faith, you know, is it's hard to believe and hard to understand.

So, I'm not quite sure what this page and a half says. I am equally skeptical as Erick Erickson and others. I think that this is, you know, we've got a long way to go, if Iran does turn over their nuclear dust and vows never to have a nuclear program.

Look, that -- in the JCPOA, there was a line that said, Iran pledges never again to have a nuclear program. And guess what they did? They ignored that line, they kept going. So, just because it says it on a piece of paper doesn't mean anything. This regime has proved time and time again that they're not trustworthy. So, the proof is in the details that -- you know, that's what's going to really play out here. And as Axe knows, his boss negotiated long and hard to get something that the Iranians still didn't follow through on.

So, I am -- you know, paint me skeptical.

COLLINS: Yes, well, I mean, on that front, David Axelrod.

The President did mention the Obama nuclear deal. He's claiming this one is better than that one. This is what he said today as he was sitting alongside President Macron.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: So, we had two big moments. When they terminated the JCPOA, that was the Obama deal, the Barack Hussein Obama deal. And when I terminated that, it was very important because, it was a road to a nuclear weapon. It was a horrible deal for the United States. It was a deal where billions of dollars was given to Iran.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: I mean, David Axelrod, based on what little we know about what has been signed here, what do you make of the President's comments there, comparing these two?

DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: I just want to pick up on one thing that Dave Urban said. It is true that the Iranians started a march toward a nuclear weapon again, but that happened when the deal was ripped up in 2018.

From the time the deal was signed, to the time the deal was ripped up, there's broad agreement that they complied. They shipped 97 percent of their enriched uranium out of the country. They disabled a lot of their -- of the equipment they needed to enrich uranium, and they submitted themselves to intrusive international inspections. And so, what happened was, when the President walked away, President Trump walked away from the deal, they said, OK, we'll go back to it, and they did go back to it.

And as Karim said, that deal was a very limited deal. It was aimed at doing what the President says we must do, which is prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. When we walked away from it, we then -- the problem reasserted itself, and now he's trying to solve it.

But Kaitlan, the thing that strikes me is that when -- on February 28th, when he presented this to the nation, he said he had four goals. He laid out four goals, which is to destroy their missile capacity, to destroy their nuclear capacity, to end their support for -- proxy support for terrorist organizations in the region, and to topple the regime. None of those things have been accomplished.

The reason that the President doesn't want to release the page and a half right now is because it's not going to be very impressive, it's not going to be very powerful. If it were, you better believe that he'd stay there for the signing. And the fact that Lindsey Graham is now referring to it as the agreement that Vice President Vance negotiated, tells you everything you need to know.

COLLINS: David Urban, do you think that's fair to say?

URBAN: Yes, listen, I agree with Axe. If it was good news, it would have been leaked. We'd all know about it. Donald Trump would stay around to sign and pass out pens. The fact that he is getting out of town does not bode well. Anyone with any shred of political sense knows that politicians and cameras go hand in glove, right? So, if this was something good and going to be of global significance, Donald Trump would be there.

[21:15:00]

I think that this is to be viewed very skeptically. I do not trust the Iranians. They've given us no -- look, I know what Axe said that the Iranians kind of maybe put things on pause. But they have been exporting terror through their -- you know, their proxies, whether it's in Yemen, in Lebanon. All across the Middle East, they've been nothing but an irritant to their neighbors, and an irritant is to put it mildly. I find it hard to imagine that somehow that they're now going to turn the page, and the IRGC is going to be passing out flowers.

And even the -- the money that we have sanctioned, I think it's somewhere in the $100 billion range that we've frozen since '79. The Obama administration released some of that. There's still, I think, about a $100 billion, roughly. That's the kind of the wild guess, I think. This other number, this $300 billion numbers would be, if they did all these things, you know, the Gulf nations would help cooperate in some sort of rebuilding there. But why would we want to help Iran in any way, shape or form, with this hateful theocracy still in power is just beyond me, Kaitlan.

COLLINS: Yes, I think that's a good point, especially, I mean, in terms of politicians and cameras generally, but especially with Donald Trump, who knows how to curate a moment, you know, better than most politicians, and obviously knows his way around a camera and a photo op incredibly well.

And so, David Axelrod, when you look at that. You know, one of his chief criticisms of the Obama-era nuclear deal was the money that went back to the Iranians.

And now -- I mean we had a call with officials today. They made clear that if Iran does meet certain benchmarks, unfreezing assets and sanctions relief is on the table for them.

AXELROD: Oh, and the money they're talking about is--

COLLINS: I mean, do you think it's different if they meet that--

AXELROD: And the money that's on the table is vastly in excess of what they received of money that they were owed, back when they signed this agreement in 2015.

The question really is, what is -- why did this happen? It happened because the Iranians, they scoped out Donald Trump better than Donald Trump scoped them out. They understood that they didn't -- they couldn't fight militarily and win, but they could create economic havoc by closing the Strait, and that would cause economic dislocation, here at home, in terms of higher energy costs and other costs, and that ultimately, this is an election year. He's a politician, he cares a lot about that, and he'd want to get out.

And I think -- I may have been you, Urban, that I was sitting with when this happened, and I said, look, he is going to find a pole to slide down here because, he is not going to achieve these things, and it's going to become very, very painful. They understood that, and they played the game better than we played the game, and that's why we are where we are. There was not an unconditional surrender by the Iranians. But this is a bit of a surrender by the Americans, and we'll see where it leads. I mean, I hope that something good comes of this. But there is a long history of the Iranians stretching these negotiations out.

And they still understand there's an election in November. So, they know he's not going to send the troops back in, between now and November, and start this thing up again. That is not going to happen. So, they're going to bide their time. And we'll see what happens.

COLLINS: David Axelrod. David Urban. Great to have both of you.

URBAN: The IRGC does not care about the midterms. We know that.

COLLINS: Yes, well, but -- but to David Urban, I mean, just to follow on that. I mean, they are obviously keeping an eye on how much the midterms matter here at home in terms of domestic pressure.

URBAN: Kaitlan, that's -- to Axe's point, they don't -- they don't care. They can wait, you know, they can wait and wait and wait. And the Republican Party and Donald Trump can't wait because, gas prices keep, keep going up and up and up, and it creates -- you know, the market -- incredible market instability. And so, we are on a time clock. They are not. Time is in their favor. So, this is what you get.

COLLINS: David Urban. David Axelrod. Great to have you both here tonight.

Up next. An update on another story we're following. Because the California Governor, Gavin Newsom, is claiming that he and his wife are now being investigated by the Department of Justice. My legal sources are here to weigh in on this announcement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): If they can't intimidate me, they'll go after the mother of our children. Donald Trump picked the wrong target. We have nothing to hide.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Tonight, California Governor, Gavin Newsom, is slamming the Trump Justice Department, claiming that they have launched an investigation into him and his wife, and accusing the President of targeting him because he might run for President himself in 2028.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWSOM: In recent days, federal agents have knocked on the doors of family friends and former employees.

Not because they found a crime. Because they are simply trying to find one.

They are demanding records.

They are abusing the grand jury process.

Digging through years and years of random documents.

Donald Trump isn't just coming after me because of my mean Tweets.

He's coming after me because I am considering running for President.

Because he hates that I've consistently called him out -- over and over again -- for his lies and deceit.

To Donald Trump, who I know is watching because he watches everything, I have a message for you:

You can subpoena my records.

You can investigate me.

You can harass me.

Put my name on every and any enemy's list you have, but leave my wife and family out of your personal vendetta.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:25:00]

COLLINS: However, a source tells CNN tonight that there's no investigation directly into Newsom himself, but rather the Eastern District of California is leading probes into people close to him. That does include his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, over possible tax- related crimes, as a source tells our team that Justice Department leadership that was put in place by President Trump was not involved in this investigation's origin.

Now, on Capitol Hill today, ahead of his own Senate confirmation fight to become the Attorney General, the acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, declined to answer questions about Newsom's claims.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Justice Department investigating Gavin Newsom. Can you explain that?

TODD BLANCHE, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: I'm not here to make any comments.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): This is not a news conference. This is just--

RAJU: The Governor is accusing you, of political retribution, and the President.

BLANCHE: I will say that--

GRASSLEY: Am I right Claire? This is--

CLAIRE (ph): All right, guys. No interruptions. That's for now--

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: My sources tonight are:

CNN's Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent, Paula Reid.

And CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, and former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig.

And Paula, as we look at this. Obviously, it's a shocking announcement for Gavin Newsom to come out and put this video out. It reminded a lot of people of Jay Powell putting out his own video, talking about the subpoenas his office got. What are your sources telling you about this investigation, and when exactly it started?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Because -- and the origin story here, it's a little murky, the timeline because, there are multiple investigations related to the Governor that all tie in here.

I think the most surprising thing in our reporting is that even though Trump officials have every incentive to claim credit for starting this, they say that the political appointees at the Justice Department were not involved in the origins of these investigations.

We know, one of the investigations into Newsom's former chief of staff that has ties all the way back to the Biden administration. But the investigation into Newsom's wife appears to have begun last year. And we know that there's been recently a flurry of activity, outreach to his associates.

So, regardless of who started it, it's clear that the Trump Justice Department is pretty active, but it's unclear where this is going to go.

COLLINS: I mean, Elie, as a former DOJ prosecutor, what is your sense of Newsom's claim that he is another target of Trump's retribution.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Well, based on what we know right now, Kaitlan, I think there's serious reason to doubt the narrative that's being offered by Gavin Newsom, which is that he is being specifically targeted, by Donald Trump, for political retribution.

Now, to be sure, it is a fact that this administration has done that, time and again, from Letitia James, to Jim Comey, to Jerome Powell, to Mark Kelly, on down the line. But based on the facts we know here, we don't know everything, it does not appear that that's what's happening here. First of all, very importantly, as Paula said, the reporting is that this investigation did not initiate from Donald Trump or even from prosecutors in D.C.. So, not from Pam Bondi, when she was A.G. Not from Todd Blanche. Rather, it arose organically from the U.S. Attorney's Office, out in the Eastern District of California, based on a whistleblower complaint, reportedly, which is a normal way that cases start.

And second of all, if they are in fact investigating people around Gavin Newsom, as Paula just reported, then sure, you would expect people to be -- Feds to be knocking on doors and asking questions to people around Gavin Newsom.

So, I think the narrative that he offered up today is self-serving and a bit overly simplistic, given the actual facts as we know them.

COLLINS: Well, Paula, you mentioned these other investigations. His former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, was indicted, last November, on federal charges, alleging involvement in a scheme to steal campaign money from her former boss, that's Xavier Becerra, who is now running to replace Gavin Newsom as governor.

Do we know how, if at all, that case is playing a role in all of this?

REID: Look, Kaitlan, any time you have anyone who's been that close to you, knows that much about you, who has an incentive to provide the Feds with information? You need to be nervous. So, that's certainly something to consider here. But it's unclear that she has provided any information that's been material, so far, in this investigation.

But it's also why it's complicated to pinpoint exactly when this started or who is cooperating, you know, even sources close to the Newsoms, it's not exactly clear what kinds of records they have received. They just have indications about what has been sought and what the government has, based on what they have learned from associates. So, again, that should be a concern, but there's no indication at this point that she is the origin of all of this.

COLLINS: I mean, Elie, I think Paula makes a good point, that if they could claim credit for this, I mean, the Trump administration, this is, you know, a way that they have earned goodwill and good standing with the President, is to say, Look how we're going after your enemies.

And Bill Pulte is this Housing official who became acting -- or is supposed to become acting Director of National Intelligence because, he went after people like Tish James and these people that the President wanted prosecuted.

I mean, what would that say in terms of, of Newsom's claims?

[21:30:00]

HONIG: Yes, I think it's a really good point. I mean, we've seen people be rewarded professionally with promotions and nominations because they've taken credit, and claimed credit, for these type of vindictive prosecutions. Right? Bill Pulte is a good example.

To some extent, Todd Blanche burnished his own resume to become now the nominee for Attorney General by offering up this type of case to Donald Trump. The prosecution of Jim Comey, for example, which I think is deeply flawed is something that Todd Blanche was very proud of, and boasted about, and shortly preceded his nomination.

And I do think the fact that there is nobody publicly, politically, taking credit for this, and that it does seem to have arisen from normal prosecutors, out in California, is another indicia that this is a more or less normal investigation, and does not fall in the category that I would consider politicized prosecutions.

COLLINS: Elie Honig. Paula Reid. Obviously, we'll stay on top of this and continue to follow this investigation wherever it leads.

Up next here for us on THE SOURCE. We're hearing from Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, they have real questions about what has been signed with Iran.

Also, the Vice President is now making new comments tonight that are also raising more questions.

Senator Chris Murphy is going to join me, right after the break.

[21:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, 44TH U.S. PRESIDENT: 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Former President Barack Obama there, expressing his own doubts that the administration has gotten a better deal than he did with Iran.

Here at the G7 Summit in Europe, the President is going to try to ease the concerns of world leaders that he's meeting with, over the terms of his new temporary memorandum of understanding. Many of them, leaders that the President has lashed out at for not getting more involved with the war and the Strait of Hormuz, as this has been going on.

Tonight, so far, only a handful of people truly know what are in the specific details of this agreement. Officials tell us that we should expect the full text to be made public in the next 24 to 48 hours, though the President said today it would be released sometime after Friday.

Joining me tonight is the Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. And thank you, Senator, for being here.

What is your sense of why the full text of this, if it's only a page and a half, as the Vice President says, has not yet been made public.

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Well, there are a number of possible explanations.

The first is that there's actually not an agreement. The reporting has been that the explanation of the agreement by the American side is very different than the explanation by the Iranian side. And so, there may not actually be agreement on the terms, or at least what the terms mean.

It could also be that the President just wants to delay people learning the facts. This agreement looks essentially like a surrender. These are Iran's terms. They are getting sanctions relief. They make no new commitments on their nuclear program, no pledge to give up their missiles or their drones. And it seems to imply that they will continue to control the Strait of Hormuz. Maybe during this period, they won't toll the ships in the Strait. But the fact that the agreement has to say they can't, implies that they, in the future, have control of that body of water.

So, it's an embarrassing document. It's a humiliation of Trump by the Iranians, and that might explain why they're trying to keep it in.

COLLINS: Well, I mean, one person who has been out, everywhere, talking about this is the Vice President himself, arguing that it's a good deal, arguing that the President is not going to sign on to a bad deal.

Just a couple of moments ago, he was talking about what happens when it comes to Iran's nuclear material, and he said this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: And they're agreeing never to enrich?

VANCE: They're agreeing, right now, to eliminate the enriched stockpile. And if they don't get to a point where they agree to stop enriching, then they don't get the other benefits of the bargain. That's the way this is set up, is a lot of the technical details we're going to figure out over the next month, over the next two months.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: What do you make of that?

MURPHY: Well, it sounds no different than the nuclear agreement signed by President Obama. In that agreement, Iran promised not to develop a nuclear weapon. They sent 99 percent of their enriched material out of the country, and they made an agreement to not enrich beyond 3 percent. So, I don't hear anything yet that is different.

But of course, by definition, any agreement Trump gets will be worse than the JCPOA. Why is that? Because when Trump pulled out of the agreement, Iran was able to move from 3 percent to 60 percent. Iran now knows how to get enriched uranium to a point where it is essentially nuclear grade. Trump did that. Trump literally pushed the Iranians to the point where they had that ability, and we can't put that ability back in a box. We can't erase that knowledge.

So, even if this agreement does commit the Iranians to go back to the JCPOA levels of 3 percent, they now know because, of Trump, how to immediately get to 60 percent, the minute they want to rush to a bomb.

[21:40:00]

COLLINS: The administration's argument to that is, Well, no matter what's been signed here, it's still better than the JCPOA because of the bombing of the nuclear sites, and the military campaign that's been carried out. What do you say to that?

MURPHY: Well, there's no evidence that that's true. The fact of the matter is, Iran can pretty easily rebuild these sites within a matter of months, maybe some of them might take a year more.

But, listen, I just don't think there's any chance they're getting an agreement here because, Iran has more leverage than ever before, not less. Iran has now taken America's best shot, and they have survived.

In fact, the regime that is in charge now is likely more capable and more lethal than the one that we assassinated. They have proved to the world that they have the ability to close the Strait, and nobody can do anything about it. They are getting sanctions relief before we sit down at the negotiating table, so we have less sanctions relief to give them. So, it just appears that we are being set up for failure in this negotiation.

Trump's negotiators don't know how to do this, and Iran is stronger today than when they were negotiating with the Obama administration. So, I just don't see any way that they're going to achieve an agreement. And even if they do, it is not going to be any better than what Obama got.

COLLINS: If they do, in the next 60 days? And we don't know. If they do? Do you agree with Lindsey Graham that they're going to have to come to Congress, and Congress will have to vote on any final deal?

MURPHY: Yes, I mean, if they reach an agreement of substance, it's going to have to come to Congress for our approval.

And listen, I would be glad to be proved wrong. I will root for them to get an agreement that is stronger than the JCPOA. But as I said, I don't think it's actually possible. Because what Iran has done, since Trump pulled out of that agreement, in 2017, none of that can be put back into the bottle. Iran now knows how to build a bomb, regardless of what this agreement says. But yes, of course, all of us will look at it on its face, and if it is better than what Obama got, then yes, there'll likely be some votes for it.

COLLINS: I mean, you said earlier that a final agreement with Iran, this so far, would mean essential surrender to Iran, and that also, but we should be glad about it because, every day this insane, illegal war continues, we get weaker, and you said an end to this disastrous war is a good thing, no matter the humiliating terms.

So, are you on board with this as where it stands right now?

MURPHY: Yes, I believe both of those things are true, that this is a surrender to Iran, and that it's good that we're surrendering. Because every single day that this war went on, it was getting worse and worse for the United States, and we just don't have serious people running national security right now.

I give a ton of credit to our generals and our soldiers. But they were led into a war that they could not win. And so yes, we need to stop this war, right now, unilaterally. Because, Americans can't bear the prices, Iran is getting stronger every single day. The military mission was impossible. There was no way for air strikes to eliminate Iran's nuclear program, their drone program, or their missile program.

So, the terms are humiliating. But just keeping a war that wasn't working, going for another month, another several months, that would have been worse than the humiliation of this apparent temporary agreement.

COLLINS: Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, we'll wait to see the text when we see it. Thank you for joining us here tonight.

Coming up on THE SOURCE. The President is now praising that UFC fight that happened at the White House. But there's also growing backlash, this evening, after one of the fighters insulted the former first lady, Michelle Obama. The head of the UFC is now condemning the remark. What the White House has to say or not say about it.

[21:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We had a really exciting, I think maybe one of the most incredible evenings in the history of the White House. We had an evening, last night, with the fighters, and I was very happy. I called last night, very late last night, to congratulate you because, in the heavyweight division, a French fighter won. And I don't know, is that maybe more important than the World Cup? To some people, it might be.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: That was President Trump, earlier today, here at the G7 Summit, praising the much-hyped White House UFC fight.

But it also comes, as there is intense backlash to one UFC fighter's post-match comment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH HOKIT, UFC FIGHTER: Lastly, Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right, America?

DANA WHITE, PRESIDENT & CEO, ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP: Ladies and gentlemen, Josh Hokit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Tonight, UFC CEO, Dana White, is condemning that comment, saying, quote, I understand that the Obamas are public figures, but I'm completely against saying nasty and false things about people's families. Everyone knows my position on free speech, but I hate that kind of nonsense.

[21:50:00]

The White House has not followed suit. In a response to my colleague, Jake Tapper, the White House Communications Director, Steven Cheung, said this: Josh Hokit had a great win last night. He showed toughness and the ability to pressure his opponent both on his feet and on the ground.

Joining me tonight is my source, The New York Times White House Correspondent, Shawn McCreesh, who was at the UFC fight, last night.

Shawn, when you were there in the moment, and that happened, could you see what the President's reaction was to that comment, or how did other people respond to it?

SHAWN MCCREESH, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: We couldn't see it exactly because the press was kept on the other side of the cage, the Octagon, so it was difficult to see exactly what his facial expression was.

There was some laughter in the crowd. Dana White got in the ring afterwards and was just sort of like, Ladies and gentlemen, Josh Hokit. You know, he didn't -- he didn't condemn it or anything like that.

What was really screwed up about it, to my mind, was that this guy had the nerve to sit there and say that, while he was standing in front of the house that Michelle Obama lived in with her husband, her daughters, and her mother. It just made it really the disrespect seem kind of off the charts.

COLLINS: Well, it also made me think about -- I mean, that's a great point. But it also made me think about how the White House responded, after Jimmy Kimmel made that joke about Melania Trump, calling her an expectant widow. I mean, that led the President to say that ABC should fire Jimmy Kimmel. I mean, they have taken those comments very personally.

I wonder what you make of the fact that the White House is not even going as far as Dana White is, to say that those comments are unwarranted. MCCREESH: Yes, I thought about the Jimmy Kimmel thing too. There's definitely a double standard with MAGA. But I'm not surprised that they're condemning the guy's remarks. It's just not their style, right? They almost never apologize. They are just sort of following Trump's example. It's not what they do.

COLLINS: What else stood out to you about the fight, just being there on the lawn in that environment? I mean, obviously we watched it. But to be there, what was it like?

MCCREESH: Yes, you definitely missed a wild night at the White House, Kaitlan. It was -- it felt more like a movie than real life. The production quality was incredibly high.

What was striking to me was how much they used the White House, not just the lawn. They had the fighters, walking through all these different rooms in the residence, and coming out of all these different entrances, and they were warming up, barefoot, in the Indian Treaty Room, in the Executive Office Building, and it was like the whole thing became this set.

And it just made me think about, Trump has been doing this sort of thing, actually, for half his life now. It was his 80th birthday, but he's -- he became a fight promoter when he was about 40-years-old, with Mike Tyson in Atlantic City, and then later on, Vince McMahon in WrestleMania, and this is what he does.

And so, even though it felt totally unprecedented to be at the White House, witnessing this, it was very, very Trumpian, and it felt sort of like the culmination of a series of moves he's been making his entire life, just with a much bigger stage and a totally surreal context.

COLLINS: What stood out to you about who was there watching alongside him?

MCCREESH: Well, his -- all five of his children were there, and all of his grandchildren, except for Tiffany's baby. So, the Trump clan was really there on the lawn. And then, you know, it was this sort of usual cast of characters of media billionaires who want to be in his good graces, and Republican congressmen. I saw Mark Zuckerberg, I saw -- David Ellison was there.

And I think, it's this interesting thing where the sport itself and the spectacle of it, and the dirt bikes, and the cage match, and everything feels very sort of populist and lowbrow, and like Trump's connection with sort of American tabloid instincts. And yet, the event itself was more of a crystallization of him being cocooned with all of these sort of billionaires currying for his favor, and cryptocurrency advertisements, and money-making, and it being fundamentally out of touch. And so, it was sort of an interesting mix of the two things.

COLLINS: Yes, that's a good point.

Shawn McCreesh, it's always great to have your reporting. Thank you for joining us. And we'll be right back here, live, from Geneva.

[21:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: We are following some awful news tonight, as officials have confirmed that eight crewmembers are dead, after a B-52 bomber crashed shortly after takeoff from Edwards Air Force Base, just northeast of Los Angeles, today.

You can see the aftermath on the Base's runway here. It's a crash that left massive black scars or plumes of smoke in the air. It's even hard to make out any distinct parts of the wreckage from what we can see so far.

Officials have told us that this was a routine test mission of the B- 52. It's one of the Air Force's oldest aircraft that are used for bombing missions. And officials say right now, it still could be months before they know for sure what went wrong.

[22:00:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COL. JAMES HAYES, DEPUTY COMMANDER, 412TH TEST WING, EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE: It took off, and immediately after takeoff, crashed and burst into flames.

After reviewing the footage of the crash, it was deemed that this was an unrecoverable crash and unsurvivable.

At this point, we don't have any indication as to what the cause was of this. We won't be able to release that information, and we don't have an ability to get that anytime soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: We will keep you updated on what we learn about that investigation. But that crew and their loved ones are in our thoughts and prayers tonight.

Thank you so much for joining us here on THE SOURCE.

"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.