Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Says He Faces Choice: Make A Deal Or "Annihilate" Iran; New CNN Poll: Trump's Approval On Iran Handling Drops To 26 Percent; Trump Defends White House Press Ban, Claims Coverage Of Iran War "Very Dangerous For Our Country"; Kamala Harris Holds Roundtable With Abdul El-Sayed In Michigan. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired September 22, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:01]
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Back to you guys.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Elex Michaelson, may the force be with you. Thank you so much for that report.
And thank you for joining us this afternoon.
"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.
How would you be able to say that?
(MUSIC)
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's great to have you with us on this Tuesday.
Right now, the war with Iran nears the seven-month mark. New CNN poll shows the American people hate it more than ever. And President Donald Trump says he faces a major decision.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Will the deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again.
They're waiting to see how I do in the midterm election. What they don't realize is that I'm not running. The Republican Party is running, and I'll be helping them. But I am not running.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I am not running. That's a different message than the pretend I'm on the ballot, which we had heard in recent weeks. Of course, the U.N., a very different crowd than a MAGA rally. But still, Republicans might hope that voters listen when he says he's not running.
A new CNN poll released today finds that just 26 percent of Americans approve of President Trump's handling of the war. That is down from 33 percent in March.
Perhaps most concerning for the president's party, much of that decline comes from within the GOP. When the war began, 73 percent of Republicans approved of his handling of it. Now, that number down to 60.
And when you dig deeper, Trump is actually underwater on Iran with Republicans under 45 and with those who don't identify as MAGA.
Of course, this all comes at the same time that President Trump is banning CNN and other news outlets from the White House, trying to stop us from doing our jobs. And the president's decision is having an impact on him.
At the UN General Assembly, President Donald Trump would normally be the center of attention. You'd see all of his meetings, hear all of his comments played on every major news network. But that is not happening today because he kicked out one of the members of the press pool that has for decades traveled with the president everywhere he goes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESEPONDENT: Mr. President, two-thirds of Americans, two-thirds of Americans don't think the U.S. is winning the war with Iran. When will it?
TRUMP: It's an honor to be here. I'm surprised that CNN is here covering me.
COLLINS: The United Nations allowed us in, sir.
TRUMP: You should not be here covering me. You said you weren't going to cover me. You shouldn't be covering me.
COLLINS: Two-thirds of Americans don't think that the US is winning the war with Iran. When will it end?
TRUMP: We're making a lot of progress. Our country is doing really, really well. Thank you very much.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is going to be here, but we're going to get started with CNN chief national security analyst, Jim Sciutto, who is at the United Nations.
Jim, always good to see you. What has been the response to the president's comments on Iran? Quite a strong word he used.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: It is a strong word, but it's not a new word, right? That threat, I mean, he's threatened this before. I remember being in Israel in April when he used that language, we're going to bomb Iran back into the Stone Ages. So, it's not clear to me from speaking to diplomats present here whether they buy that threat, frankly.
In fact, they see a U.S. president who is interested in ending the war, winding it down, who is concerned about rising and still quite high fuel prices around the world, and is restricted to some degree by the depletion of U.S. munitions and not quite the exhaustion, but one could say overextension of U.S. forces in the region.
So, if that threat was somewhat credible, perhaps back in April or more so today, it is less so. And it's interesting though that quite soon after he used that word, Kasie, the president had his own people meeting with Iranian, the Iranian delegation here in New York and saying that those meetings went very well.
It's still coupled -- you know, this offer of diplomacy is still coupled with the threat of military action. But from the perspective of folks here who have come to New York, they're not sure -- they're not sure that -- there's a lot behind that threat at this point. Now, the President has surprised before. He surprised a lot of people by going to war in February. But it's a different situation now, seven months later.
And the Iranian regime has shown the ability to at least resist an enormous amount of military pressure. It strikes me that the administration is throwing its lot more in with economic pressure at this point, hopes that the economic blockade of Iran will do what military threats like annihilation have not done so far, and that it's that economic pressure that will ultimately bring Iran to the table.
[16:05:12]
HUNT: All right. Jim Sciutto for us at the United Nations. Jim, thanks very much for that report. Always appreciate it.
All right. My panel's here in THE ARENA. CNN political director, Washington bureau chief, David Chalian; chief Washington correspondent at Puck News, Leigh Ann Caldwell, CNN chief political analyst and former senior advisor to President Obama, David Axelrod; and the former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, Marc Short.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
David Chalian, you've had a busy few days. Absolutely nothing, of course. But these new poll numbers really, you know, underscore the pressure that the president is under. They could help explain some of his actions. But walk us through what you think the top lines are here and what you'd point us to.
DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Well, the top line might be something that's, like, obvious to most of our viewers, that this launching this war in Iran has been nothing but a total political loser for President Trump and a weight around his party's necks as they're heading into the midterms. He's at 26 percent approval on his handling of the war. Think about how often you've seen a number as low as 26 percent in anything.
And I'm so glad you highlighted that what we've seen in the decline among Republicans, that is what's driving this. This war wasn't popular at the start. It's gotten less popular, and it's getting less popular in large part because Republicans, his own party, are fleeing him on this issue of, you know, major national and international importance.
HUNT: Yeah, well, and I mean, David Axelrod, this was the GOP Senate candidate in Iowa, okay, who says this: Iowans are being squeezed and shouldn't have to foot the bill at the pump or at the checkout line for the war in Iran. These actions to lower costs are needed ASAP, and the war needs to be brought to a successful and immediate end.
DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: She had a chance to vote on that the other day, and she didn't. She sided with the president. And this is sort of the vice that people are in. Do you stick with the president who's supporting you with his money, who has sway with the base, or do you move away?
I think what was interesting to me about this speech is that in one breath, he's talking about annihilating Iran. And then two hours later, he's saying, my people met with them. We had a really good meeting. Usually, if there's a good cop/bad cop routine, the same guy isn't the good cop and the bad cop in the same scene.
But this was completely different. And it adds to the confusion about this whole situation here.
HUNT: Yeah. Marc Short, our friend Jonathan Martin over at "Politico", fellow banned media organization, "Politico", wrote this today in his column. Quote, "The bottom's beginning to fall out, one House Republican from a blood-red district told me. Trump is even underwater in this lawmaker's seat, which the president carried overwhelmingly two years ago. We have money that we've never had before, but they have every strategic advantage in their direction, and the president has made it worse. Nobody in my district cares about the Kennedy Center, Arches, or the reflecting pool, all of this nonsense."
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well, look, I think that it's an incredibly challenging environment, obviously for Republicans across the country. I think one of the things that we're assuming here is if the president is very invested in what the midterm turnout is. And logically, you think he would be because of what he experienced after the 2018 election and being impeached. And people feel like he doesn't want to go through that.
But I don't think the evidence is there that he really cares about Republicans' plight in the midterms. I think he frankly enjoys jousting with Jeffries and Schumer more than he does fighting with Johnson and Thune. And so, I think that creates a very big dilemma for a lot of Republicans who have been very invested in his success and have perhaps tolerated a lot of policy differences that they normally wouldn't tolerate.
And I think when you're talking about Ashley Hinson, the reality is that she's gone along with his trade policy. That trade policy has created a lot of problems for farmers across America. They've walked the line, but he's not going to be there really to help them out.
AXELROD: I just want to add one thing. I'm sorry.
HUNT: Yeah, go ahead.
AXELROD: When you think about when the history of this administration is written, there'll be two decisions that I think will tell a lot of the story. One will have been Liberation Day and the tariffs now exacerbated by the situation with Canada. And the other is this war, both of which have cut a swath through deep red parts of America, farm areas, small towns, manufacturing areas.
And, you know, that was predictable, and we've known that for some time. But he has made it worse. And I think today he was trying to assure people that the end is near, the day after the midterms. I'm not sure people believe that anymore. The poll certainly doesn't reflect that.
LEIGH ANN CALDWELL, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, PUCK NEWS: Yeah, you touched on exactly what I was going to say in a place like --
AXELROD: I was reading your name.
CALDWELL: I know you were reading what I was writing.
In Iowa, they are getting the brunt of this -- high fuel costs, high fertilizer costs, the trade war.
[16:10:02]
This is really impacting Iowa and we saw that in a poll that came out today, in addition to the CNN poll, the Marist poll that showed Ashley Hinson down eight points behind Democrat Josh Turek there in that Senate race, which was --
CHALIAN: We should note that doesn't look like any other Iowa poll.
CALDWELL: Exactly. Which is why it was actually so surprising to me. It could be an outlier. But this was also the red seat that Democrats were most wishy-washy on, that they thought it was going to be the closest. And, you know, we'll see if that poll stands on Election Day, but it is a sign that, you know, based on what Jonathan Martin wrote, the ground could be falling out from Republicans.
I reported last week on Democrats, House Democrats, do not have any polling showing any of their Democratic incumbents losing behind at all right now. That includes Shomari Figures in Alabama's redistricted district that's a Trump plus 14 district. That includes Darren Soto in Florida and a new redistricted Trump plus 18 district. And so that is how the map is looking now.
SHORT: It suggests it's not an outlier, as you saw similar comments from Zach Nunn. You saw similar comments from Miller-Meeks. You even saw Grassley this week call for the asinine export ban on diesel. And so, it's clear that across Iowa, they're feeling the pinch.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, David Chalian, if you look at that swath of the Midwest that Axe was talking about, I mean, I'm not saying that these Senate races are necessarily going to be in play when we're all sitting around a table like this on election night, but all of a sudden we're talking about Nebraska and Kansas, certainly about Sherrod Brown in Ohio, certainly about now Iowa, all the places that -- I mean, I think we probably thought were a foregone conclusion for Republicans for a while.
CHALIAN: Yeah, I mean, you know, yes, there are some deep red territory where the Democrats feel they actually have a shot in those Senate races, there's no doubt about that. I was thinking about the night that we're going to sit around a table on election night recently and started thinking through, I printed out a list just to have at the ready of just districts that Trump won by 10 to 20 points, just in that range of Trump, because I think there's the potential that we're going to see some of these deep red places -- you know, flip to the -- I mean that's what makes a wave election is when one party can go deeply into the territory of another party and come out ahead and we may be seeing that across the country.
AXELROD: The question is, you know, I think the Republicans are in a very bad spot, and they recognize that. And their antidote to that is to just spend like crazy. And the question is, does, you know, a torrent of negative advertising turn around the natural course of things?
CHALIAN: In some places, maybe.
AXELROD: Yeah.
CHALIAN: But maybe not ever.
AXELROD: But the history of it, it suggests that the waves overcome all, that the natural power of those. So, we'll see what happens.
HUNT: I mean, David -- David Chalian is the numbers king at this table. I tend to rely more on sort of the mood of the conversations that I'm having with people kind of across the spectrum. And there does always seem to be a point in any election where the momentum starts to swing in the direction that is going to be remaining in on election night, and that that direction is often where we see things land. I mean, you saw this obviously in 2016 when Trump were going back and forth and those events right at the end really started to change that pretty directly.
Do you think we're at the point where we seem to be in this moment where Jonathan quoted somebody saying, hey, the bottom is falling out, right? The momentum is moving in one direction. Is it too late for Republicans to reverse that?
AXELROD: Well, look, I would reserve judgment for a week or two to see how this torrent of spending, if it starts turning any numbers in a kind of pattern, but -- I mean, I think that there is nothing in the natural world that would turn these numbers around right now. Diesel prices are still going up. Gas prices are still going up. The
war is still a quagmire. The things that are driving this are still driving.
And so, you know, I think the big question is when these Republicans register their disapproval, as you noted here, does that translate into further lack of enthusiasm? Because the more Republicans are disinterested in turning out, the bigger those margins are going to become.
HUNT: What do you think, Marc?
SHORT: Look, I think it's hard to change the narrative at this point. I'm not as convinced that the money matters the way it used to. I think there's so many different ways to get your message out.
But I do think that for Democrats, there is a risk that they have nominated some Democrat socialists that are so far out the mainstream that there are a lot of voters who want to send a message. They may not want to actually have socialists in office. And at that point, they may say, hey, look, the message is getting across. I better come out and vote because I actually don't want a socialist in office.
CALDWELL: But I will say, in a lot of these battleground races, there's not a socialist that is actually running. So, for a lot of these voters, it's theoretical. I think that it is a question of if the Republican message is going to work.
[16:15:04]
But I think that the question is will it work even if that is not --
(CROSSTALK)
SHORT: There's a lot of Republicans who are disaffected right now who are less excited to turn out to vote and may stay home. If they feel like the risk is that there'll be socialists elected in other races across the country, that may spur them to come out. And it's not just It's Colorado, it's Michigan.
AXELROD: They are playing rent socialists, so they're transporting these New York socialists all over the country.
SHORT: Whose are they?
AXELROD: The Republicans.
SHORT: Who guys are the ones nominating and electing them, David?
AXELROD: One thing that's interesting about polling is I've seen a number of polls now in which people are asked, what is your greater fear? Is it that socialists will take over the government and take us in the wrong direction, or that Republicans will stay in control and there'll be no change in policy.
And that second argument has been consistently winning, which is not surprising in a midterm election in which the Republicans have the White House.
HUNT: Right, and control of the House and the Senate.
All right, coming up next here in THE ARENA, a judge has ordered the Justice Department to respond to the lawsuit challenging President Trump's banning of news outlets from the White House. That filing could come at any moment. We're going to be live with the latest.
Plus, some Democrats have said "no, thank you" to campaigning with former Vice President Kamala Harris. Ahead, why Abdul El-Sayed is welcoming her to Michigan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABDUL EL-SAYED (D), MICHIGAN SENATE CANDIDATE: Look, we have an extremely diverse, very large state. And as we look at building the coalition that's going to defeat Mike Rogers, that's going to bring down our gas prices and, God willing, end this ridiculous war, we've got to bring as many folks in as we possibly can to take on the challenges that we face.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right, breaking news, any moment now, we are expecting the Justice Department to respond to a First Amendment lawsuit filed by CNN, MS NOW, and "Politico" against the Trump administration. The lawsuit is, of course, a response to the president's banning of those three outlets from the White House.
All of this coming ahead of a much anticipated hearing tomorrow between the two sides. CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz joins me now.
So, Katelyn, what do we expect to hear from DOJ?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kasie, we are going to be hearing the initial defense of what the president has done here from the Justice Department representing the White House and Donald Trump himself. We don't know exactly what the legal arguments will be, but there have been a couple things that have happened in the past and also just this past weekend with Donald Trump saying he was blocking CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from White House access to be able to cover them, that can look at to give us an indication of where the Justice Department may stand.
One of those things that the president has said, as well as some others in the administration, they have tried to indicate that this was a decision based on national security, that the president didn't want these outlets covering him at the White House because of a national security reason. Look for that sort of argument.
But the real meat of this in court is -- may look at that argument, but it's going to be looking at what exactly happened Friday whenever the president said he was banning these outlets. He made quite clear it was because he did not like, quote, "negative stories that they were publishing. That's where a First Amendment argument is going to come in.
And we already know that the news outlets are arguing to this judge, and courts have found repeatedly that the White House can't just ban journalists because he doesn't like their coverage, he doesn't like their viewpoints, he doesn't like what they're doing, their exercise of the First Amendment. The Justice department is very likely going to try and move this conversation away from the First Amendment, away from that constitutional protection of the press.
We've seen them do that several times in the past with other cases where they have had to defend revoking the press credentials of people like Brian Karem, the Playboy magazine correspondent, Jim Acosta, the CNN correspondent at the time. courts restored both of those press passes ultimately because they were not given due process. So the conversation had changed away from the First Amendment. It was about whether there was enough notice given. There should be some discussion around that as well in the Justice Department's filing.
And then finally, one of the things that the Justice Department has argued in the past, and I found this really notable in a recent case where the Associated Press was purged from the press pool covering the president in private spaces like Air Force In that argument, the Justice Department just a couple months ago said that the president should have absolute control and discretion over presidential spaces, look for something very similar to that, although the filing, it's not in yet. We'll be watching when it comes - Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Katelyn Polantz for us -- Katelyn, thank you very much.
All right, let's bring in Michele Goodwin to join our panel. She's a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University.
Michele, always great to see you. Thank you so much for being here.
I'd love for you just to weigh in on what you think you heard Katelyn lay out what we may hear from the Justice Department, what your thoughts are on how these arguments may go forward in court.
MICHELE GOODWIN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Well, the Trump administration has a high hurdle to tackling this, and presumptively, they will lose because there is a very strong First Amendment freedom of the press tradition in the United States, cases that have been vetted before the United States Supreme Court dating back to 1931, using a framework called prior restraint, meaning that press may not preventively, presumptively be removed or not allowed to report on things simply because government, whether state or federal, believes that there will be something that is unfavorable.
What Donald Trump has made clear is that these news organizations that have been banned it's because he believes that they do not cover him favorably, will not cover him favorably. And there is very wide latitude for the press, and that makes a lot of sense. It comes out of our First Amendment tradition. It's not that freedom of the press or freedom of speech is something that is absolute.
There are certain constraints, time, place, manner, when it comes to people and the protests that that they want to do. But this is very broad. It's been established time and time again before the United States Supreme Court that the press has very broad latitude, and simply because a government official may not like what is presented, does not give them the leverage to ban or impose certain constraints on the press.
One of the things that we just heard is that what will be made of this -- and it's an argument that the Trump administration has made since Trump came into office for the second term, which is national security threat. And this has been a very wide strategy used by the Trump administration to try to get its way on a variety of issues.
And so, we shouldn't divorce this conversation about press from, let's say, what we saw in Minnesota in the streets when Alex Pretti was killed, Renee Nicole Goode was killed. This idea that this is somehow protecting America, protecting American people. And I think we'll see more of these kinds of arguments used by the Trump administration, but it is worth noting that this is an administration that's been losing on that kind of argumentation.
HUNT: David Chalion, we obviously have seen some of the impacts of what the president has done here play out in small ways, big and small ways, whether it was Newsmax broadcasting an event where there was no audio because there was no pool microphone. The Zohran Mamdani press conference, where the mayor's office had control of the microphone, and they kept trying to dismiss the president. The president continued to not leave because the White House press pool wasn't running the show.
CHALIAN: And where the mayor called on reporters from CNN, "Politico", and MS NOW.
HUNT: Indeed, he did.
CHALIAN: Yeah.
HUNT: Indeed he did. What do you think the sort of the fallout that we have seen, what impact is that going to have, if any, on the president's thinking?
CHALIAN: Well, on the president's thinking, that's part of that question, I don't know. I can speak to that.
HUNT: Fair.
CHALIAN: I mean, the president seemed to indicate today that if a judge ruled, he would follow the judge's ruling, even if they were to pursue an appeals process. I'm not a lawyer.
Here's what I know. I know that images of this president have been far less widely distributed over the last 48 hours than is the norm because of the nature of the fact that that five network television pool, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, Fox, that are responsible for transmitting images not just to those five networks but to subscribers internationally and domestically that material goes everywhere.
That pool is not covering the president now because the president chose to ban one member of that operation CNN, and the entire pool said you can't do that, that you can't get to choose who is a pooling organization for your television coverage and not.
And I will just tell you, Kasie, over my years of covering the Trump administration we all know that one of the things Donald Trump treasures the most is that kind of roadblock television coverage of him anywhere. And so, the fact that that has been more limited in the last couple days, we'll see if that has any impact on this thing.
HUNT: Yeah, we read from one of Maggie Haberman's books yesterday on the show where he is in exile at Mar-a-Lago after he loses, and he says to his junior aides, bring in the pool. And they say, the pool, sir, is gone. The pool is no longer here.
AXELROD: Given our previous discussion about this poll and some of the things he's been doing lately, you've got to wonder whether Republican candidates are as thrilled as he is about getting maximum coverage. They may feel like it's a little bit of a break for them.
This morning, I was watching Marco Rubio, and he got asked about this, and he said, well, he feels he's been treated unfairly. And by the way, every president --
HUNT: Can we watch that, actually, David? And then I'll let you talk. Let's show it to our audience, and then we'll let David make his point. Look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: The president feels very strongly that why should I have people working in my building and in my office that I believe are not honestly covering my administration? That's how he feels.
We're not closing CNN. There aren't a bunch of police officers or soldiers kicking down the doors of MSNBC or MS NOW, whatever it's called, and arresting people and unplugging it from the grid. They're just not allowed to work from the workspace at the White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: David?
AXELROD: Yeah.
[16:30:00]
Well, that really struck me because, honestly, it's not his office and it's not his building. It is the building where the people's business is being done and where he often speaks to the country through the media. And what he's saying is, I'm going to decide who can come in here and question me. And so, you can see where the public interest is. Is the public
interest served by having only reporters who the president deems fair to him ask him questions? Is that going to serve -- the purpose of the First Amendment, which is to allow the media to probe and get to the bottom of what government is up to.
HUNT: Marc, were you going to jump in?
SHORT: I think we're misreading this, Kasie. I think the President covets the coverage. of CNN and other networks. How often does he cite it in his posts? You know he watches it.
And so in many cases, what he's accomplishing through this is that his supporters see him fighting against news organizations that are perceived to have left-wing bias. And so for him, he's not going to win this. He knows that. This is not going to be a longstanding ban.
But for him, it sort of fires up the people who are his base that most dislike some of those news organizations. And he doesn't want the ban in the end, Kasie. He wants the coverage, he covets the coverage.
AXELROD: He also achieved another thing, which is many newscasts this week, and starting when he, last week when he started raising this issue, have spent a lot of time talking about it. And that's time they're not talking about diesel fuel prices and other things that are less advantageous.
And one thing he knows is how to hijack a news cycle. He's very good at it. He's very sophisticated.
HUNT: Yeah. Michele Goodwin, very briefly, the timing of this, how long this potentially stands, how relevant is that to what may unfold next?
GOODWIN: Well, it is relevant because what we see is dramatic disability of Donald Trump right now, including amongst his base. So while he is savvy in terms of media, this comes at a time in which his face is deeply concerned about what's hitting their pockets. The war in Iran has cost quite a bit and Americans are still stupefied as to why we are in that war and why their gas prices are as high as they are and being able to bring home a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk. It's really straining a lot of folks and that includes the people who are part of this base.
HUNT: All right, Michele Goodwin, thank you as always for being with us. I really appreciate it.
The rest of our panel is going to stand by here.
Coming up next in THE ARENA, Congressman Adam Smith will be here. He is the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. What does he think of President Trump's threat to annihilate Iran?
Plus, former Vice President Kamala Harris lends her support in a race that could determine control of the Senate as everyone wonders about her own political future. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: So right now, midterms, midterms, midterms, full time. occupying my thoughts, my mind, and my work. We have to win these midterms. From my perspective, '28 doesn't matter if we don't win '26.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:37:34]
HUNT: All right, welcome back.
We are continuing to follow news out of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where President Trump earlier today told world leaders that he'll either come to a deal with Iran after the midterm elections or he will, quote/unquote, "annihilate the country". That, as new CNN polling shows, that only 36 percent of Americans believe that the United States is winning the war and 69 percent believe that long-term conflict with Tehran is likely.
Joining me now is the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Adam Smith of Washington.
Congressman, thank you so much for being here. It's always great to see you.
I'd first just like to start with the president's comments here. What was your reaction to him saying these are the two options, a deal after the midterms or annihilation?
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Well, the number one biggest reaction was he's been saying this pretty much since day one of the war. This has always been his position. It's never been based in reality. He doesn't outline what annihilate means. And clearly, we don't have the capability of doing that.
So, my biggest reaction is even this far into the conflict, and I think we're, what, eight months or seven months into it at this point, he's not operating in the realm of reality in terms of the real options that are on the table. We are inflicting pain on Iran, no question, but they seem able to absorb it and bring it back, destabilize the Middle East, close off the Strait of Hormuz.
The Houthis are now doing the same thing in the Red Sea. So. I don't think his comments are based in reality, and that is deeply concerning given how this conflict has spread and the damage it is doing, not just in the Middle East, but all over the world.
HUNT: Congressman, what to you, and obviously you receive many briefings and have a deeper understanding than any of us in the more general public do, what are realistic options here? I mean, do you think it is an option to just stop everything we're doing or not? And what would you propose? SMITH: Well, two things. First of all, in any given situation, there's a best choice. It may not always be a good choice, but there's a best choice.
Second, do understand what the president is trying to do. They're trying to squeeze Iran by blockading their oil. And that's certainly having an effect. Iran's economy is suffering and the Iranian people are suffering. It's not changing the position of the Iranian regime, and very few experts think that it will.
So, look, the best option, I'm saying this since before the war, cut the best deal you can and get the hell out and stop the bombing and stop the conflict.
[16:40:05]
The disruption is incredibly problematic for us, and there is very little likelihood that continuing it is going to get it any better for us.
Look, because Trump stupidly started this war, Iran will be stronger at the end of it. I mean, that's baked into the cake at this point. They've exercised the degree of control of the Strait of Hormuz that they had not previously exercised. That gives them greater power. The Houthis in Yemen have greater power.
We got to cut the best deal we can and get out of this.
HUNT: So, looking ahead, we know, of course, that Chinese leader Xi Jinping is set to visit Washington this week to meet with President Trump. And of course, at the top of the conversation topic list is A.I.
I want to play for you something that the OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said recently when he was asked about what purpose this summit should serve, and then we'll talk about it, watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAM ALTMAN, OPENAI CEO: I think Presidents Trump and Xi would get the Nobel Peace Prize together if they could agree on something that should be easy to agree to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That Trump and Xi could get the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, I sort of hear in that a play to the audience of one that is President Trump. Do you think he's being straightforward or disingenuous there? What do you make of it?
SMITH: No, I mean, I think he's being straightforward. I think there are legitimate concerns about where A.I. is going. China and the U.S. are driving that ship. If China and the U.S. were to begin to go down the path of controlling it in a better, more intelligent way, I mean, it could be incredibly impactful for the world. I mean, there are other problems. Certainly, we talked about Iran, the
Ukraine war, is that spreading? The trade wars that are going on. But right now, I think where A.I. is going and the impact it's going to have on the world is pretty close to the top of the list.
And again, China and the US are the powers behind it. So yes, I think if they could get some sort of agreement to get that on better footing so that, number one, we felt like it was not concentrating wealth, taking jobs away from other people. And number two, it wasn't going to risk destroying humanity. Yeah, I think that would be a really big deal.
HUNT: It's a fair point.
Last week, and this I think underscores these points about A.I. and humanity, CNN reported that an intelligence report that was partially generated by A.I. almost led to an attack on a Chinese ship that would have been totally unwarranted. Are there other examples of this happening that you are aware of in classified settings?
How common is this? How big of a risk is it?
SMITH: I've not seen any other examples of it, but certainly look, there are risks and it's not like humans haven't acted on bad information and made mistakes before as well. But yes, A.I. takes it to another level. There's, you know, no, no human in the loop, as they say.
And yeah, no, I think there are risks if you allow it to go off on its own without checks, just like, you know, on the human side, you wouldn't want not. Just like I was going to say, on the human side, you don't want just one person to be in charge of making that decision. The difference here is this moves in the blink of an eye, whereas humans take a little longer to make mistakes.
HUNT: Fair enough.
All right, Congressman Adam Smith -- sir, thank you so much for being here. Always love having you. Hope you'll come back soon.
SMITH: Thanks, Kasie.
HUNT: All right, ahead here in THE ARENA. AOC says that she hears all the 2028 chatter and now has some answers for us. A new interview offering the most insight yet into her potential presidential run.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[164:48:12]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: I'm here to support Dr. El Syed. His will be a voice, Abdul's, that is a voice representing the people of this state, and it will be a national voice. And I have no doubt that he will carry with him into that office the partnership, I didn't say the voices of, the partnership with the people in this room.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, that was former Vice President Kamala Harris there campaigning with Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed in a state that could very well determine which party controls the Senate. The pair are holding a roundtable focused on Black maternal health in a show of unity after a bitter and divisive primary earlier this summer.
The timing of the event also comes as some other Democratic hopefuls have distanced themselves from Harris by publicly uninviting her from campaigning with them.
My panel is back.
David Axelrod, what do you make of I mean, there's some unique politics in Michigan that mean it makes sense for Harris to go and try to bring the black community together with Abdul al-Sayed's supporters.
AXELROD: Yeah, there's a different Black community, Black vote there, and he underperformed in his primary there, and that is a place where he needs to make up some ground, so it makes a certain amount of sense.
It also makes a certain amount of sense that Democrats who are trying to win in states that are harder to reign for Democrats might not want her to come, and not just because of anything about her so much as that she is associated with the past and they're trying to push forward and they don't want to relitigate the 2020 election.
HUNT: David Chalian, how does this cut?
CHALIAN: Well, hat I think is so interesting about this is given the sort of crosscurrents in 2024 with Biden-Harris in Michigan.
[16:50:04]
Remember, this was like, you had that movement during the primary season that the president was dealing with because of what he was doing as it relates to Israel-Gaza, and there's a big sort of pro- Palestinian, Arab-American community in Michigan.
HUNT: Yeah, and lots of white progressives at universities.
CHALIAN: And lots of white progressives at universities as well who are aligned with them, and they were crosswise with the Biden-Harris administration, and with Abdullah-Sayed, quite frankly. And so, to see his need to shore up African-American support despite their differences on what was a major issue in '24, there is just an interesting you know, your political needs change by the moment, and that was on display today.
HUNT: Yeah.
David Axelrod, one other piece of this conversation, of course, because, you know, we're looking to 2028 in part when we're talking about Harris, is Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who did a lengthy interview with "The New York Times" that actually gave some insight into her thinking. She was, it seemed, relatively candid with the paper, who sort of described her demeanor as almost not strategic, but instead probing, was how the reporter characterized it.
And she said this, quote, "Pretty candidly, I think about my identity. I'm not naive to the fact that we are living under a very regressive administration, and I happen to be a woman, and I, you know, happen to be Latina. And I think that there's a lot of conversation about electability, and I don't shy away from those realities."
And she also, David, said, there's an argument that some make that it is a very unique political window, and oftentimes in politics you do only get one shot. And you don't. And just in life in general, life doesn't wait for you to be ready for things. Sometimes life just makes things ready for you.
AXELROD: Yeah, I think those are two distinct things she's thinking about, and she's absolutely right. If you look through history, it's usually the candidates who decide to wait who end up regretting it than the candidates who go.
I mean, I remember the many people who urged Barack Obama to wait, and he said to us, I don't think I'm going to be a better candidate if I marinate in the Senate for another 10 years.
You know, he says sometimes you got to choose the moment.
HUNT: Look at him now.
AXELROD: But I think she's also making a very -- you know, she's certainly a committed progressive. She's also pragmatic, and I think what she's saying is better to be in the United States Senate, perhaps in the House, but more likely in the Senate and being involved in these issues than run a race for president and lose.
And so, I think she's trying to game out whether what her chances of not just being the nominee, but actually getting elected would be.
CALDWELL: She's obviously very introspective in thinking about this very deeply about she has choices and what she's going to do. You know, I wrote a piece a couple of weeks ago about her where people close to her said that everyone looks at this. We all look at this through the political calculations.
Can she win? Is she up? Is she down? Is now the right time or not?
But there's also a personal dynamic, too. And that is weighing very heavily on her, too. Part of that came out in "The New York Times" piece today. She's at a point in her life, she's 36, 37 years old.
HUNT: She froze her eggs very publicly.
CALDWELL: She froze her eggs and that is absolutely playing into her what career and political decision she makes. HUNT: Go ahead. No, David, go ahead.
AXELROD: No, I was just going to say, absolutely. I spoke with her in the spring at the University of Chicago and yes, I think that she wants to have a life. And one thing about running for president of the United States is you surrender your life, essentially to the enterprise. There's no sort of halfwaying it.
And so, I think this is very much a part of her decision. One thing about her political appeal and power is she's pretty transparent about her thinking. She's very forthright about what she's thinking. And this piece was interesting that she just sort of laid it all out there.
HUNT: Yeah, although she can be pretty reserved and private and doesn't have necessarily deep relationships with reporters like some other people who are thinking about this do, but she is very strategic.
AXELROD: She usually communicates directly with people.
HUNT: Right, exactly. Mark, I mean, she's obviously someone who is perceived as being far to the left, her approval rating among Republicans is basically zero, but she does have the power to command the microphone and the culture in a way that not all politicians do.
SHORT: Well, look, I think that's true. She's certainly somebody-- she's where the energy is in the Democrat Party right now. I don't mean to break up the love fest, but at the same time, Kasie, I think that our party is going to have a lot of divisions come out this midterm. There'll be a few things that unite our party, like having AOC at the top with a ticket for Democrats.
HUNT: Yeah. All right.
On that note, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks to my panel. Really appreciate all of you being here. Thanks to you at home for watching as well. Really appreciate you.
Don't forget, you can now stream THE ARENA live. You can catch up whenever you want. It is all in the CNN app. You just scan the QR code below.
You can also catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. You can follow us on X and Instagram. We are @TheArenaCNN.
But, of course, don't go anywhere because Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Jake, I feel like we need a QR code that just goes straight to Philadelphia Eagles victories.
