Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Trump: Iran "Will Pay Many Times Over" For Killing U.S. Troops; FBI: Man Accused Of Attacking NYC Federal Building Is An "Anti- American, Anti-Government Extremist"; Warren Endorses El-Sayed In Michigan Democratic Senate Primary. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired July 20, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:15]

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Monday.

As we come on the air, President Donald Trump is issuing a new threat to Iran as war escalates across the Middle East. The president, posting this afternoon, quote, "Every time Iran kills an American soldier, they will pay for that killing many times over," end quote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We feel very badly, but, you know, those great people, those great patriots who are out there fighting that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Iran has been very, very badly damaged. They've lost everything, almost, militarily. They've got very little evidence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: The President's latest threat coming after a weekend in which the United States and Iran traded deadly airstrikes with Iranian missile and drone attacks, killing at least three American service members.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)

HUNT: This morning, the Pentagon identified two soldiers killed in that Iranian -- deadly Iranian missile strike on an air base in Jordan. Private Isabella Gonzales of Texas was just 19 years old when she was killed on Friday. And First Lieutenant Tyler James Feehan of Georgia and Hawaii died on Saturday. He was 25 years old.

A third yet unidentified service member was killed in northern Iraq. A fourth is missing in Jordan. Those deaths, the first for the U.S. since March.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: You said at the start of the war it would be four or five weeks.

TRUMP: Well, you keep hitting me. This is a far bigger job that we're doing. We were doing a little job of stopping them from having a certain capability. Now we're just ending it.

So it's really not the same thing. What we're doing now is we're ending. any chance where they could have a nuclear missile. If you look at it, after a week and a half, not four weeks, a week and a half, two weeks, we stopped them from probably, but I don't want to have the word probably.

Thank you very much.

REPORTER: Thank you, sir.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here, along with CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.

Kristen, always good to see you. What are you hearing from the White House about what's next?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, right now, President Trump seems to be focused just on payback when it comes to Iran. Now, we did just learn moments ago that mediators have floated this idea of a 10-day ceasefire, but the U.S. is playing down any prospect of President Trump actually agreeing to the ceasefire.

And just to give you an idea of what one U.S. official told our Kevin Liptak said, Right now, President Trump is focused on making Iran pay for their violation of the MOU and their continued acts of terrorism in the Strait of Hormuz. Again, not referring to whether or not he would receive or even take part in any kind of ceasefire.

Now, as we have noted, President Trump is now actually considering widening the war on Iran. As he is weighing his various options, the U.S. is sending more military aircrafts to the Middle East from European Air Force bases. That includes F-16s, F-35s, as well as these aerial refueling tankers.

We have seen nothing but an escalation between these two sides. But comes to this potential, this floated idea of a ceasefire, this would be to lessen the tensions that we are seeing, specifically as we've seen both sides more willing to go after civilian infrastructure.

Now, part of this ceasefire, which is unclear how far along this proposal is, would include lifting some of those restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz, which has been really the focal point all of this, but it still is very unclear what President Trump's next move is. You're going to see a lot more angst, a lot more anger, specifically coming off of a weekend in which we, the United States, lost more troops.

All right, Kristen Holmes for us at the White House. Kristen, thank you very much for that.

My panel's here in THE ARENA, CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams; Republican pollster, CNN political commentator Kristen Soltis Anderson; former communications director at the DNC, Mo Elleithee; and former Trump White House communications director Mike Dubke.

We are also joined by former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, the retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.

General Clark, I'd like to start with you because, you know, I think for a lot of Americans who have listened to the president talk about how he has obliterated the Iranian military capability over the course of this campaign that he has been waging. Now we are seeing American deaths and no real clear way forward.

[16:05:00]

What do you think is the way forward here? And just how potentially explosive is the current situation?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: I think the way forward is to regain control of the Strait of Hormuz. That's the center of gravity of the campaign. And this is actually what Admiral Cooper at the Central Command is doing. Every night, you see these reports of strikes in Bandar Abbas and elsewhere on the shores of the Gulf. There are some other strikes elsewhere, but those are the major -- that's the major effort.

The American public doesn't see it. It's not explained very well and probably intentionally by the Pentagon, but that's the effort. Now, how long does it take? Two weeks, four weeks, six weeks? And then you've got to be able to continue to hit pop-up targets, like a group of Iranians with a truck that runs out and launches a drone.

But we can substantially take out their ability to interfere with shipping. And this is the -- this is the main effort right now. It needs to be supplemented by isolating Iran, militarily, with no equipment coming in from Russia, China, or through Pakistan. The blockade's good, but it's not enough. So we need to expand it that way.

If we have that kind of a strategy, we squeeze this on, we will eventually move to a point where the Iranians don't feel like they're winning. I'm talking about the IRGC. They don't feel like they're winning. They will look for some face-saving measure, and we may get to the negotiated solution we want.

But we've got to be patient. We've got to be focused on this. It's not about revenge. It's not about counter-value targeting, taking out desals.

It's not about hurting the Iranian people. It's about a specific set of military objectives that are centered around the Strait of Hormuz and the shore of the Persian Gulf.

HUNT: General, do you think what we allowed under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the money that we let flow, set back our overall standing and our overall goals?

CLARK: Well, I think the fact that the Iranians made $6 billion or something can buy more stuff out of China and Russia and pay for drones and jet engines for drones and technicians to come in and give them secret information and so forth. Yeah, I think it did set us back. The basic thing is we've been through an evolution of thinking about how to deal with Iran.

And I hope now with this, as I've described this approach, if that's the approach that's taken, I hope it's strong enough and central enough that people will stay with it and persist with it, rather than going after things like oil refineries. It's okay to talk about taking Kharg Island. Sure, keep it hostage, but don't take it. It's not the critical path to success. All it does is invite counter-value targeting against Saudi and Emirati and Kuwaiti oil refineries, which is not in anybody's interest.

So that's, I think, the strategy. And the other thing that I learned when I was doing the Operation Kosovo in 1999 is you don't have to have a pause in the fighting to do negotiations. So if the Iranians want to come back to us, that's fine. But we should continue to take out their ability to interfere with the strait militarily. When we get a final agreement, that's when we stop.

But you don't do a bombing pause and give the enemy a chance to sort of regroup and rearm and get ready for you again.

HUNT: Yeah, and our latest reporting here from our Kevin Liptak at the White House is that the mediators are floating a 10-day ceasefire, but advisers here are downplaying the prospect that the president will accept that.

Kristen Soltis-Anderson, we've obviously gotten sort of the tactical rundown from Kristen Holmes at the White House and from the general. The political situation is obviously a significant piece of the president's -- or at least it has been a piece of the president's decision-making. He's tried to downplay that reality.

But I'm interested to know what you have learned from voters, considering -- I mean, we are now months into this, right? It's been longer than what the president said it was going to be when he started this campaign. And it doesn't feel all that different in that intervening time.

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So the president's numbers on this war are not great, but the only thing worse than prosecuting a somewhat unpopular war is losing an unpopular war. And that's something that President Trump is very keen to avoid, a perception that this has been for nothing.

He wants to get to a ceasefire deal that says, hey, the United States has done X, Y, and Z. That's why you see in his comments to the media him talking about what has been damaged in Iran, their nuclear capabilities, et cetera.

One thing that's a real challenge from a communications perspective for Trump is that he's got a variety of different audiences whenever he talks about this. One audience is the American public. The other audience is the leadership in Iran with whom he's trying to negotiate.

And sometimes trying to talk to both of those audiences at the same time has gotten him into trouble. A few weeks ago, you may recall the comments where he said, when I'm at the negotiating table with Iran, I'm not thinking about gas prices and things like that, which kind of gets clipped to I'm not thinking about gas prices or people's economic --

HUNT: It was American's financial situation.

ANDERSON: Yes, and so it's tough for him to be out there communicating with these two very different audiences. He's got very different objectives for both.

HUNT: Yeah, and I mean, Mike Dubke, we can put up some of the public polling that we have among Republicans on support for this. If you ask MAGA Republicans whether they back it, it looks a lot like you can see the support. So on the one side of your screen, Non-MAGA Republicans are in blue, OK? They don't think it's worth it, for the most part.

And MAGA Republicans are willing to say that it is worth it here. They're, of course, behind the president. But it's telling in some ways that this is the split.

MIKE DUBKE, FOMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, it's actually quite unusual, because you'd think the neocons would be part of the part of the regular Republicans, the non-MAGA Republicans, yet they seem not to be willing and wanting to be involved in this conflict. You know, when you have an always-on presidency, and I think that Kristen was alluding to this, in terms of communications, it's really difficult for the president to have multiple audiences. He has to think of all the audiences that he's talking to at once.

The other problem is, and I feel this, and this maybe is more of a feeling than anything else, but the -- and I'm curious on the polling numbers, but the polling numbers I've seen for some Senate candidates, the high water mark of angst was in April for the American people, where there was really just, the negatives on Trump were through the roof, even in states that are ruby red.

And that has eased back down, and I'm wondering if we're going to get back to that, because there seems to be, this, oh, now we're business as usual in Iran, and there doesn't seem to be that same level of unease that we saw in April. And I don't know how that will translate.

Now, I think $4 gas is going to be hurtful. And I think when you lose service members, which it's been remarkable that we have not lost more, even in normal operations. But I think when American lives are on the line and gas prices are going above $4, I'm wondering if we're going to move back towards April.

ELLIOT WILIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah. You know, all this talk about the audiences that President Trump is speaking to, there's one audience that he's not speaking to, and that's Congress. And there's great reporting in "The New York Times" in the last couple of days about frustration among congressional Republicans about being kept in the dark about what's happening here. And we forget that Congress is the most powerful branch of government. That's why they put it first.

DUBKE: They forgot that too.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: But, but, but, but needless to say, how long is all this going to take? How much is it going to cost? What is the toll and what's -- where's the oversight? These are all questions that aren't being answered by Congress.

Now, whether that's Congress's fault for ceding that ground to the president, or if the president's just taken it, that's something that's missing from all of us.

MO ELLEITHEE, FORMER DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, and they're the ones that are going to feel the political price --

WILLIAMS: Yes.

DUBKE: Oh, absolutely.

ELLEITHEE: -- right in this midterm.

And, you know, I'd like to think you guys are right that he's thinking about the multiple audiences. But sometimes listening to him, I just wonder if he actually knows what he's doing here at all because there doesn't seem to be a strategy. He's been saying the same thing over and over since day one. How many times has he told us that he has completely obliterated and degraded their capabilities, going back to last summer, during the first wave, the first strikes against Iran?

That doesn't seem to be the case. He keeps talking about how badly Iran wants to come to the table to negotiate a deal. Iran keeps saying, we're okay right now. We're driving this right now.

DUBKE: They're saying that. I think that's the wild card here. They don't know who to negotiate with. I mean, I think that's part of the problem. They might get an answer. Yeah. ELLEITHEE: Exactly. I think the challenge is this is a president who had -- does not seem to be able to clearly articulate a strategy in this case, and Americans are now as you put it, dead service members and higher gas prices.

HUNT: Yeah, well, General Clark, can you give us a sense of how at risk you think our service members in the region continue to be? Because some of the initial reporting in the wake of, you know, when we had those deaths and injuries in particular early on, in some ways there was an underplaying of the impact that the Iranians have been able to have on our positions across the region.

Now, of course, we've had these tragic deaths. How much risk is there, even if the president were to not send any people in further into harm's way than they already are? CLARK: I think there's always risk in something like this, and obviously the Iranians want to do as much damage as they can. I'm worried they're going to suddenly mass a bunch of missiles against a base with helicopters or refueling aircraft on it and try to create something like the Tet of 1968, a big mistake, and turn everybody against what we're doing.

You can't downplay the risk. You have to work through the risks. Okay, there were some mistakes made early on.

But, Kasie, I want to just say one more thing about the risks.

HUNT: Yeah.

CLARK: And, you know, we've watched this war in Ukraine go on for about four years now. And one of the things is you see is the Ukrainians don't tell you every time they've lost a soldier. This is something we started during the Vietnam War.

We didn't say that during World War II. We didn't say, well, we had a battle at Kasserine Pass in 1943, and we lost 847 people and killed. And, you know, we didn't say that. We said we got to win this war.

Now, I think we've got to be realistic here. Yes, there are risks, and it's a terrible thing to lose troops, and it shouldn't happen. The commanders are held responsible for it. But we on the outside shouldn't expect to know everything that's happened to our own force, because the Iranians don't know. They launched missiles.

So why do we need to tell them that their missile hit five meters off dead center and only destroyed six bunkers instead of 12 or something like this? We shouldn't be giving that information out. So I'm in sympathy with the Pentagon and the commanders who say, don't release all that information.

So, yes, there's risks. And, look, by everything we can tell, we know these troops are working hard. We know the sailors have been deployed for a long time. It's dangerous on aircraft carriers, even when you're not fighting. And we've got to admire them and appreciate them. And we've got to trust the commanders to do the right thing to protect them.

HUNT: Yeah. All right. General Wesley Clark, thank you, sir. As always, really appreciate having you.

Everyone else is going to stick around.

Coming up next, here in THE ARENA, the breaking news out of New York. New video just in to CNN, showing the moment a man sets fire to a federal building in the middle of Manhattan, what the FBI is now saying about the investigation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES BARNACLE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN CHARGE, FBI NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE: I will say that 26 Federal Plaza has long been a target of extremists, of terrorists, and today the extremism was brought here. The building was attacked. Mr. Arrabaca was looking to injure people and harm people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:22:11]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARNACLE: When he was being arrested, he yelled derogatory terms to ICE, used bad words, obviously. He is an anti-American, anti- government extremist. We know that from what he said, we know that from what he has said post-arrest, and we know that from what his actions that he tried to take today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: New York City officials revealing just moments ago that a 43- year-old Army veteran is in custody after throwing an incendiary device at a federal building in Manhattan this morning. The exact moment of the attack can be seen in this video from across the street. Officials say the suspect was carrying anti-ICE material and, quote, came armed with bad intentions.

CNN correspondent Brynn Gingras is on the scene.

Brynn, what have we learned today?

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Kasie, yeah, that entire incident unfolding this morning at the building right here behind me, all caught on camera, all part of evidence that is building against Andrew Arrabaca, as you mentioned, 43 years old, according to officials. What they say unfolded was that he came to this area with a cart.

In that cart were some air-powered rifles, fired off one of those rifles, five or seven pellet shots, and then proceeded to take a can of gasoline and poured over the front steps to the employee entrance of 26 Federal Plaza here in Lower Manhattan and then light it on fire.

You can see in the video he was arrested shortly after that, and officials say he was yelling anti-ICE sentiments while he was being arrested. Also, there was a sign on his card that said "ICE off our streets". Authorities, as you said, coming to me, Kasie, in that sound bite that you played, calling him anti-American and an anti-government extremist.

As you mentioned, he is a former veteran Army soldier serving from 2001 to 2005. We know that he's actually talking to investigators. He did mention that he was willing to commit as much harm to not only the people inside the building, but anyone outside as well, according to authorities.

As of this point, charges have not been filed. But again, as I was saying, a lot of the evidence is continuing to build up. We know that they have impounded his car. They're trying to. They have impounded his car. They're trying to now get a search warrant to go through it and continuing to have discussions with Mr. Arrabaca.

We also know from investigators that they were able to track his whereabouts from the last 24 hours or so, saying that he basically slept on the street outside the Holland Tunnel. So a deep dive into his social media, into his criminal history, any encounters that he had with police, all part of this active investigation -- Kasie.

HUNT: All right. Brynn Gingras for us on the scene in New York -- Brynn, thank you very much.

I want to bring in now the Democratic senator from Vermont, Peter Welch.

[16:25:03]

Senator, thank you very much for being here.

SEN. PETER WELCH (D-VT): Thank you.

HUNT: Really appreciate your time. I want to play something that Tom Homan, the border czar, said today in the wake of this attack, as we're learning more about what this suspect was saying and doing at the time. Let's watch and we'll talk about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: To keep attacking and miscommunicating what ICE does every day, calling them Nazis -- comparing ICE to the Nazi regime, are you kidding me? There's going to be that populist that's just going to embolden to do something stupid. And I'm afraid, I'm afraid that we're going to bury an ICE agent.

For any member of Congress to keep attacking ICE and calling them fascists and Nazis, I said a thousand times, if they're a Nazi for enforcing the law, what's that make them? They wrote the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Senator, what's your response to him? Does he have a point?

WELCH: There is no place for violence. Mr. Barnacle, he condemned it. I do, too. There's a real place for peaceful protest, and that's the dividing line.

I mean, this protest here was violent. Innocent people could have been killed, including an ICE agent, and that would have been absolutely horrible and absolutely unacceptable. But we do have a situation with ICE and with the policy, the Trump policy of the mass deportation that I object to and that many people do, but they do it peacefully.

In fact, Senator King authored a letter after the recent shooting in Maine. A man in a car got shot to death by an ICE agent. And he pointed out, and I signed this letter with him, that none of the reforms that we have been talking about, body cameras, first and foremost among them, have been implemented. So the real issue here is no place for violence, no matter what the so-called cause is. But there is a place for peaceful protest, and we do have a situation where there's a policy of mass deportation, roundups, and ICE agents clearly exceeding their authority.

HUNT: Do you think that rhetoric in general, like our political rhetoric, is causing this increase in political violence? And do you think it can be only ascribed to one side or the other?

WELCH: I absolutely condemn violence on both sides. Whatever side it is, it's not justified at all for any reason. And I do think the political rhetoric is heating things up.

So, you know, it's better, much, much better what Angus King did. He wrote a letter that was clear. It was explicit. He stated exactly what it is in the ICE policies that he objects to. He stated very explicitly the reforms that many of us have supported.

And Mr. Homan's in a position to implement those reforms. And keep in mind that just on -- this isn't about New York, but it is about the use of force and shooting people in the car, that the Mr. Homan had suspended that policy. Markwayne Mullins suspended that policy, and then there was a reaction by Trump and reinstated it because he didn't want to, quote, "look weak".

HUNT: Tom Homan blamed the lack of -- you had mentioned body cameras, and there has been a delay in rolling out what is expected to become a standard policy. They blame Democrats for the shutdown in the delay in getting that out. What's your response to that?

WELCH: You know, I think this blame game is just pointless. The fact is that we have a secure border. President Trump was right. Democrats were wrong on that.

Also, we have broad bipartisan support. We should deport violent criminals. We have a fierce debate and real disagreement about these mass roundups where people who have been here for years, live in the community, have families, have kids in school, get stopped and then, in some cases, killed.

So this policy is overly aggressive on the part of the Trump administration when it comes to the mass roundup and the internal enforcement by ICE.

HUNT: How would you grade the job that Markwayne Mullin is doing at DHS? I remember we had a conversation on this program when he was first nominated. You said he was competent and honest, ultimately didn't back him for the job, but do you think he's doing a good job?

WELCH: He's doing much better than Kristi Noem. Kristi Noem just had-- a lot of it was in and for herself, both, I think, the corruption we're going to see about, but also the publicity. Markwayne wants to cool tempers down. He is not somebody that fans the flames with rhetoric.

So in that sense, I think Markwayne Mullen is doing a much superior job.

HUNT: Let's talk a little bit about politics in your own party. We've obviously seen some fast-moving developments in Maine, but there also is, of course, a critical Senate race going on in Michigan. And I know you had endorsed Mallory McMorrow in that Senate race. She, of course, withdrew and left Haley Stevens and Abdul El-Sayed as the remaining contenders.

[16:30:02]

Do you plan to endorse one of those two people in that race?

WELCH: I don't, and I'm going to leave it up to the Michigan voters. And the whole debate here on the Democratic side, moderates, liberals, progressives, the bottom line for us is that all of us have to have some mutual respect and tolerance where what our agenda is, is shared. We do want to have clean energy. We do want to resist authoritarianism. We do want to have a healthcare system that's not the most expensive and least effective in the world, and we want to have kids be able to buy a house before they're 40 years old.

So those things should unite us, regardless of which strain of the party you're from. And that's incumbent on all of us. We can fight it out, but the bottom line is we've got a job to do that's about affordability, it's about giving economic opportunity to people, and it's about preserving our democracy.

HUNT: One of your other colleagues, one of your Democratic colleagues in the Senate, John Fetterman, has drawn a line, he has said, in terms of remaining in the Democratic Party. And his line is Israel. I want to play what he told my colleague Jake Tapper on Sunday. We'll talk about it on this side.

Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): If you believe the Democratic Party's future is rooted in describing Israel as apartheid state or genocidal, and they don't deserve to have our support, that forces me to say, is this really make sense for me as a Democrat?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Based on what he said, do you think he can stay in the Democratic Party? Should he?

WELCH: I do. I do. John Fetterman is a down-the-line supporter of Israel. We know that. And many of the Democrats have raised real questions, myself included, about the Netanyahu government and what it's done in Gaza, what it's doing in the West Bank.

But John Fetterman has been an incredibly good, solid Democrat on economic issues that make a difference to Pennsylvanians and make a difference to everyday folks in this country. And he's voted with the Democrats over 90 percent of the time. So he is in a minority, I think, on our side, on Israel. But he is

very much with us on economic issues.

HUNT: Do you think the Democratic Party will end up saying in its platform that Israel is an apartheid state?

WELCH: No, I do not.

HUNT: Fair enough.

Senator Peter Welch, thank you so much, sir. Really appreciate your time.

WELCH: Thank you.

HUNT: All right, coming up next here in THE ARENA, more on one candidate and his weekend with Bernie. Abdul El-Sayed picking up a big endorsement today after rallying with some of the biggest names in progressive politics, now just days before early voting starts in that crucial Michigan Senate primary.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ABDUL EL-SAYED (D), MICHIGAN SENATE CANDIDATE: If you heard, Democrats are really worried. And, you know, they like to pretend that they're worried that I might not win. But actually, the real worry is that I might actually win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:37:24]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): Michiganders deserve a senator who will fight for you, not for special interests running millions of dollars in TV ads to buy this seat. And make no mistake, Abdul is the only candidate in this race who can build the grassroots movement needed to win in November. For money in your pocket, to get money out of politics, and deliver Medicare for all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed notching a key endorsement from Senator Elizabeth Warren today ahead of the closely watched August 4th primary, where he'll face off against establishment favorite Haley Stevens. The race has been dominated by issues like Israel and campaign funding, creating a split between two very vocal factions of the Democratic Party. Also backing El Sayed are progressive firebrands, like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders, who over the weekend sought to create a contrast between the two Michigan candidates.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): In all due respect to Congresswoman Stevens, everyone knows that this is not an election between her and Abdul El-Sayed. This is an election between Abdul and the billionaire class.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): You deserve a politics that treats the disease and not just the symptoms of what brought us Donald Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right, my panel's back. We're also joined by former Democratic Congressman Joe Crowley of New York.

Congressman, you, of course -- apologies for coming to you with a bite from AOC, who, of course, you lost to. But it does make you the perfect person to ask about this because you've been there. You've seen this kind of primary campaign. Of course, the difference is that, you know, you're from very blue New York. This is a race for a purple state in Michigan. And, of course, you're seeing this fight play out inside the Democratic Party.

What do you think is the most important piece of what we're seeing here, and what are the stakes?

JOE CROWLEY (D), FORMER NEW YORK CONGRESMAN: Well, I think that Democrats, all Democrats, if we really consider ourselves Democrats, have to keep our eye on the prize, and that is winning the Senate for Democrats in November. The more damage we do to each other in these primaries where we attack each other.

And looking at, you know, the Stevens side as well as the Abdul El- Sayed side, they're all part of the coalition that we're going to need in order to be successful in November.

[16:40:01]

So I do worry about a lot of the rhetoric I've heard in past primaries, including my own, And so I think we need to be mindful that whoever that person's going to be, we're all going to have to be able to get behind and support in this November election.

HUNT: Yeah, I was going to say, did it surprise you that, I mean, Bernie Sanders basically attacked Haley Stevens as being part of the billionaire class? I mean, that's the attack he, you know, levels it -- he's going to try to level at Republicans once they've got a nominee.

CROWLEY: You know, Bernie has been about cancellation throughout his entire career, labeling people -- you know, corporate Democrats, the billionaire class. I mean, this is the same old rhetoric we've heard about attacking Democrats. You know, clearly Stevens is not a millionaire. She's not a gazillionaire or a billionaire.

And so, she's a hardworking Congresswoman. It's dismissive of her to suggest that it's not about her. She has a record. She's been in the Congress. She's taken votes.

That is certainly open for Abdul El-Sayed to go after. But this idea of attacking Democrats who may very well be a colleague of Mr. Sanders or Bernie Sanders in the future, I don't think it bodes well for our party.

HUNT: Mo Elleithee, would you agree with the way the congressman is putting this? And I think it is worth noting. I mean, Haley Stevens has had her own challenges as a candidate. She had a video go viral where she's saying, you know, stick it to them. And she was mocked online.

She's now leaning into that. There's new yard signs that say, stick it to them. She's basically trying to, you know, co-opt it for herself. But what do you see here?

ELLEITHEE: Yeah, I mean, If you go back and you read the heart of Barack Obama's campaign speeches in 2008, he was running against special interests that were, you know, holding back regular people. Eight years later, the heart of Donald Trump's campaign message was running against special interests in a lot of ways.

The American people, I think voters, for quite some time now, at least a couple of decades, have been saying, the establishment is failing us. And that's in part, I think, because the establishment isn't responding to them quickly enough, forcefully enough.

I think what this race is -- this is not a left versus center race at all. None of the races we've seen -- very few of the races we've seen this primary cycle are left versus center. It's inside versus outside. It is who can be seen as the most effective fighter, not just against Donald Trump, but for me. They want someone who sounds bold.

Now, a lot of these insurgent candidates have co-opted the bold lane. There is a history. of more moderate, centrist, even establishment candidates who can sound bold. Bill Clinton in 1992, Barack Obama in 2008, were able to come across as bold. And I think a lot of voters are reacting right now to an establishment class in Washington that feels too timid.

ANDERSON: But there's a difference between saying you're going to fight and having a track record that shows you fought. And I feel like there are so many echoes in what's happening right now in the Democratic Party and something that happened in the Republican Party a decade and a half ago, which is you had folks who had been in office, they were incumbents, and they had records of putting some points on the board here and there for the conservative side. And very often, they got taken out in primaries by folks on the outside who said, you have not put nearly enough points on the board for the average guy or for conservatism or whatever it is. So put me in.

Now, what voters find when they put those outsiders in is sometimes those outsiders can talk a good talk, but they can't walk a good walk. And Republicans went through that. ultimately, I think, is part of what led to Donald Trump coming in and saying, okay, you're sick of all these people saying I'm going to fight for you, and then they don't actually do it. You know who does stuff? I do stuff.

And so to what extent does this lead to the Democratic version of Trump? I don't know. I'll leave that to the Democrats to figure out. But I think there is a difference between somebody who says, with bold words, I'm going to be a fighter, but does not have a track record of doing as much, and somebody who's actually put points on the board.

WILLIAMS: And moreover, they get to Washington and realize that in order to function in Washington, part of what they have to do is make the deals and work with others in the way that turned off those kind of activists.

ANDERSON: The swamp gets to --

WILLIAMS: Gets to everybody in the end.

HUNT: Congressman, did I hear you trying to get in there?

CROWLEY: No, I'm just thinking though that, every election is about change, right? If you can't establish yourself as a change candidate, you're not going to win the election. So every time that, you know, what I would describe as the social Democrats. when they, when they've come to the foray, they present themselves as the change candidates. Much of their ideas are old ideas, but they're new people saying them.

And I think that's what they have to do in order to kind of create the opportunity for them to be, to win. Let's keep in mind, but they're new people saying them. And I think that's what they have to do in order to kind of create the opportunity for them to be, to win.

Let's keep in mind that in 2024, we had an election in Michigan where the Democrats, Slotnik --

HUNT: Slotkin, yeah.

CROWLEY: -- won by less than 20,000 votes in Mike Rogers. This is not a slam dunk state for Democrats. And Republicans have voted statewide before for Republicans, and that's what we Democrats have to keep in mind.

HUNT: Yeah, I mean, it was a Trump state, Mike.

DUBKE: Yeah, well, look, governing's really hard. That's what a lot of people find out when they come to Washington. But we're witnessing a Democrat civil war right now, I think, between the Social Democrats and whether you want to call them, you know, establishment Democrats, whatever it may be.

And it doesn't really matter in New York and Colorado when the Social Democrats win those primaries, because those states are going to stay in Democratic control. It matters in states in Michigan, and I think that's what you all are pointing out, and former Congressman Crowley is saying the exact same thing, that Michigan will be a test.

Mike Rogers barely lost. We'll see how it plays out this year. But it's a civil war right now, whether they like it or not. ELLEITHEE: I mean, to your point, most of the competitive primaries we have seen so far this cycle, that more insurgent voice has won in the bluest of districts. They are taking blue districts and turning them bluer. This is our first real test.

HUNT: Well, and I will say, I went to so many Bernie rallies in Michigan, specifically in 2016, when he was running against Hillary Clinton. And let me tell you, a lot of those voters who were there cheering for him ended up pulling the lever for Donald Trump when the general election rolled around.

Joe Crowley, always wonderful to see you. Thank you so much for coming. I hope you'll come back soon.

CROWLEY: Good to be with you.

HUNT: Of course.

Everyone else can stick around.

Coming up next, back to our top story, a live report as the Pentagon confirms the U.S. is launching more strikes on Iran.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:51:15]

HUNT: Breaking news. U.S. Central Command says President Trump has ordered a new round of strikes on Iran, the tenth straight day of such attacks, this following a wave of Iranian missile and drone strikes across the Middle East that resulted in the death of at least three American service members.

CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes joins me now.

Kristen, what's -- what are you hearing, and what is the White House hoping to achieve with these new strikes?

HOLMES: Well, it is clear now that at least in the immediate President Trump, the White House is not going to accept this floated idea of a 10-day ceasefire, given that we are, as you noted, now in the 10th consecutive night in a row of strikes against Iran.

Now, according to Central Command, here is what these strikes are intended to do. It says the strikes are designed to further degrade Iranian military capabilities used to attack commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. A reminder that this is a huge part of that memorandum of understanding and that was the ceasefire that had been underway was contingent on the idea that Iran would not attack these strait these vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, they would help these vessels cross safely through the Strait of Hormuz.

Now, this goes directly to what the White House and one U.S. official told our colleague Kevin Liptak when they were asked about the prospect of this 10-day ceasefire. They said president was going to -- the President Trump was focused on making Iran pay for their violations of the MOU and their continued acts of terrorism in the Strait of Hormuz. They also went on to say that the president will make Iran pay for recent deaths of U.S. soldiers.

So any indication that they are moving towards a ceasefire right now obviously is not headed in that direction. But we will see after this 10th day if anything shifts as we try to get more details of what's actually in this proposal.

We do know that these mediators, these countries, these Gulf countries who have been really in between the U.S. and Iran have been working to try and tamp down some of these escalated tensions, Kasie.

HUNT: Kristen, we've often talked here about kind of the president's personal feelings and how that drives decision-making and can sometimes be at odds with what others in his administration may be trying to convince him to do. I mean, do you have any reporting, or what is your sense of where the president's head is right now?

HOLMES: Well, that's really the question. We know that he's continuing to weigh options, but how close he is to actually escalating in terms of violence, in terms of U.S. military activity, that is what we don't quite know.

And one of the things that I had heard from U.S. officials, from allies of President Trump, is that he was desperate for any kind of diplomatic off-ramp or off-ramp at all. Now, part of this could be a pressure campaign to try and bring Iran to the table.

One of the things to note, we talked about this last week, is that the U.S. believes that one of their best assets is this naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, that the reason that they were reinstating it was because they believe that it was actually choking Iran economically.

So they're putting that in place. That could be yet another pressure point to try and bring Iran back to the negotiating table, specifically as you are hearing people like Marco Rubio, as you are hearing these other U.S. officials saying that diplomacy is not off the table. Even President Trump himself has said that these negotiations could continue.

So it's unclear right now whether or not he's willing to take it beyond these strikes and actually implement some of the military operations like boots on the ground to take Kharg Island, for example, or if this is yet a more of a pressure campaign that we've seen President Trump use before to try and bring Iran back to the table as they try to get out of this war.

But, Kasie, one thing is true, they do not want to be dealing with this anymore. I mean, we've seen the recent polling.

[16:55:01]

Now the numbers are up to 68 percent of Americans do not approve of this war in Iran. They are very aware of those numbers.

HUNT: Yeah, and of course, now with the news of the deaths of American service members, all the more pressing.

All right, Kristen Holmes at the White House. Kristen, thank you very much for that.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right, thanks very much to my panel. Really appreciate you all being here today.

Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well.

Don't forget, you can now stream THE ARENA live. You can catch up whenever you want on the CNN app. Just scan that QR code below. You can also catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. You can also follow us on X and Instagram, we're @TheArenaCNN.

But don't go anywhere. Phil Mattingly is standing by for the lead.

Hi, Phil.