Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Poll Numbers on Trump; Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) is Interviewed about Iran; Hany Farid is Interviewed about Deepfakes; Remembering Alan Greenspan; Liliane Burkhard is Interviewed about the San Andreas Fault. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired June 22, 2026 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:34]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: The breaking news this morning, Vice President J.D. Vance says Iran has agreed to allow nuclear inspectors back into the country after the first round of talks in Switzerland aimed at turning last week's memorandum of understanding into a permanent deal.

This morning, we're also getting a new look at polling on how Americans are feeling about the war and whether the United States is getting what it wanted out of it.

CNN's chief data analyst Harry Enten joining us now with a look at this.

So, how do Americans feel so far about how Donald Trump is doing with Iran?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: You know, they disapproved of him a month ago. They disapproved of him two months ago. And they still disapprove of him. I mean the polling is quite steady despite, oh, let's see, this is interesting.

SIDNER: Uh-oh. Hold on.

ENTEN: You want to see if we can -- oh. Oh.

SIDNER: I think -- I think we need to reboot, which means turn it off and on.

ENTEN: Maybe. We might need to do that.

SIDNER: Whatever that is.

ENTEN: Oh. Can we try? No, it doesn't seem to be --

SIDNER: Come on, people, it's Monday.

ENTEN: We got pen. We've got pen working. Well, we could toss it to John, or I could merely say this, look, people disapproved of Trump two months ago. His disapproval rating was 64 percent. Last month it was 66 percent. And this month it is the same, 64 percent.

SIDNER: OK.

ENTEN: So, what we're talking about is that Americans, you can pay attention to me here, Americans still disapprove of the job that Donald Trump is doing on Iran. And 75 percent of independents disapprove of the job that Donald Trump is doing on Iran.

So, regardless of any deal that was made, the American people still disapprove of the job that Donald Trump is doing on Iran, despite whatever he's doing.

SIDNER: If you ever wondered if Harry didn't have all these numbers just bouncing around in his head, now you know. He doesn't even need the board.

ENTEN: No.

SIDNER: He just needs a chalkboard.

ENTEN: No.

SIDNER: And it's all good. And that is why we --

ENTEN: Oh, look at this.

SIDNER: It works!

ENTEN: Hey-oh!

SIDNER: Hey-oh!

ENTEN: We did it. We did it. And I got the numbers right.

SIDNER: You did.

ENTEN: Disapprove of Trump and Iran in April, it was 64 percent. Now, in May, it was 66 percent. And now it is 64 percent. And the 75 percent of independents disapprove of Trump on Iran. The bottom line is this, no matter what deal has been made, the clear majority, two- thirds of Americans, still disapprove of the job that Donald Trump is doing when it comes to that conflict.

SIDNER: Let me ask you one more question. You know, when Americans look at this, do they think that Trump agreed to this deal and that he accomplished his goals, that he thinks, hey, I got this right?

ENTEN: Yes. OK. So, why did Trump agree to the deal? Well, it's simply this, why Trump agreed to the Iran deal? Wants the war to end or think the U.S. met its war goals. Look at this, 66 percent of Americans simply think he wanted to end the war. And even among Republicans, his own party don't think that, in fact, the Trump administration met its war goals. In fact, they think he wants to just end the war. So, this idea, hey, we won, everyone, we won, the American people don't think that is exactly what happened. What they think happened was, Iran was fighting back. America looked at the chance of victory in terms of what Trump initially laid out as the chance of victory. They did not think that that was possibly going to be accomplished. We're talking about two-thirds of Americans and even a majority of Republicans did.

SIDNER: Yes. A lot of people looking at the Strait of Hormuz and saying, it was open before, they just want it back open --

ENTEN: Yes.

SIDNER: Because we're all being affected by it.

Harry Enten, it is a pleasure, sir.

ENTEN: It is a pleasure. We'll come back later this week, and we'll try and make sure all the tech is working.

SIDNER: Went through the whole thing.

John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Harry Enten, turned the Mughal wall into a magic wall before our very eyes.

SIDNER: Yes.

ENTEN: I try. You know what? I try my very best.

BERMAN: You are magic, my friend.

ENTEN: I did --

SIDNER: It.

ENTEN: Uh. Yes, there we go. And, it. There we go. I did it!

BERMAN: Very good. Thank you so much.

ENTEN: Thank you.

BERMAN: With us now, who has been waiting very patiently, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell from Michigan.

Thank you so much for being with us this morning. We're lucky to have you here. And we know everything will work with you.

Harry was just talking about the polling on Iran with a majority of people polled thinking that the president's Iran goals, war goals, were not met. How much do you think the goals here were met?

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL (D-MI): Well, good morning, John. I've never understood why we went into Iran when we went into Iran. What the goals were then. And we've seen a steady deterioration in a number of circumstances from, as Harry mentioned, and others. Harry did make me laugh. I needed a laugh this morning. The Straits have been closed. It's, you know, like they seem to be closed open on an hourly basis.

[08:35:01] I was very, very, very concerned about -- look, a nuclear Iran is a danger to the world. Let's all be very clear on this. And the current regime that we have may be more brutal than the previous regime when we went in. I mean they kill people. People are not living in good circumstances. And then we see -- saw the war in the Mideast extend to more -- a lot of violence in southern Lebanon, neighborhoods being destroyed. There's a lot of violence.

So, I -- and I -- this morning, when the vice president at least said that they had agreed to inspections, I want a briefing this week. Everything I learned, I'm learning from you or I did hear from the vice president at his press conference this morning. But I don't know that we're any better off, and I'm not sure where we are to be perfectly frank.

BERMAN: You mentioned the vice president. I mean how much faith do you have in the vice president and in the president and his team to negotiate here?

DINGELL: Well, I mean, the vice president made it clear, he was only there for a day. You know, these negotiations have not been -- it's just -- it is not clear what's happening, what's not, who's speaking for America, who's not, who's got the upper hand. Congress has not been briefed. I want to be really clear about this.

We're back in -- the House is back in session this week. The senate was in last week. I want to see what we are being told. But, you know, I'm just going to go to the president himself. How many times have we been told, in the last few months, the war is over and there's bombing within the next few hours? How many times have we been told the Straits were open and within an hours we're told the Straits are closed?

So, I think I'm like many Americans, not even clear what the real situation is, what's been negotiated or whether it will hold.

BERMAN: Shifting gears here for a moment. Congresswoman, if I say Washington, D.C., Reflecting Pool, the Reflecting Pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial, if I raise that subject, what do you say?

DINGELL: (INAUDIBLE). (INAUDIBLE). That's all anybody talked about at home this weekend. It became -- we have -- I mean it's not -- it's very sad, actually, as we do go into the 250th. And, you know, the 250th is a time that all of us should remember how lucky we are to live in this country and what our forefathers put into that Constitution.

So, he wanted it a flag blue. I don't know what's happened. Algae is a real problem. And it is in Michigan. It is in the Great Lakes. So, maybe people will study it and understand what he did to the Reflecting Pool, which is part of the beauty of Washington. I don't like that it's there. I'm more worried about it when it's in our waters nationwide.

BERMAN: Yes, you -- you said you were home this weekend and everyone was talking about it. I mean what were people saying to you about the Reflecting Pool?

DINGELL: I mean, they were like outraged. They were laughing. How did it happen? How do you do a no bid contract? It's disgusting. What are they doing? A lot of people, believe it or not, were outraged that an Olympian had been arrested. So, it -- I have to tell you, I would tell -- you know me, when I'm home, I'm a lot of places. And at the Canton Festival, a bunch of kids brought it up to me. What does it mean? How did it get there? How does it happen? And I've heard about it throughout the district all weekend.

BERMAN: It -- I agree. I mean, I heard about it all weekend too in places you would never think that people would be discussing it. Somehow it's cut through.

I want to talk a little bit about presidential politics. Obviously, there are a lot of Democrats who are going to throw their hats in the ring sooner or later to run for president in 2028. Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, absolutely one of them. He admits he's considering it and is more or less running already. He's talking about former President Biden in a way that seems to be different than many other Democrats.

Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): His experiences mirror so many of my fathers. I see my father in so many ways, the way I see President Biden. That's one of the reasons I was so loyal to the end. And I -- I'm happily will take the arrows on that and defend that.

And we'll continue to build on the legacy, I would argue, of our former president, who I think was one of the most successful presidents in the last century, and that is Joe Biden. And I will defend that to my grave.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: So, that first interview was with Alex Thompson of "Axios." That second, Jon Karl of ABC News. And Gavin Newsom talking in very flattering ways about President Biden, which you do not hear, frankly, from a lot of Democrats considering running. How helpful do you think a Biden endorsement would be in 2028?

DINGELL: You know, I don't know. First of all, it's a lifetime away. We got to get through this November election. I'm going to be very frank with you. You know, I am like that, John. And I do believe in loyalty. I respect that. I think too many people don't know what loyalty is these days.

[08:40:01]

And Joe Biden did a lot of good things throughout his lifetime and the end of his career had moments that none of us are going to forget.

But I want to tell you what I feel more strongly about. Yes, there are a lot of candidates out there. I want a presidential primary system that's going to test them. And I want them talking about the issues in the early primaries that are going to determine what the outcome of the election is in November. And yes, maybe that's an issue, but I think a lot of people care about affordability, about the corruption that they see in Washington, international issues. My state is always going to be a purple state for a while. I want to see people where they're talking -- and union issues. We've lost union voters. I think more important, whether someone's loyal, I do think loyalty matters, I want a process that's going to test candidates on all the issues and the ones that are going to determine the outcome in November '28.

BERMAN: Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, always great to talk to you. Frank and fun on any Monday morning. Appreciate it.

Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: So, there's a new study from Utah Valley University offering some startling insight into how people view deep fakes these days. Out of 600 test subjects, only 16 percent of them could successfully differentiate between real video and an imitation. The rest of the respondents either got it wrong or were unsure.

This is also the very subject of a "New York Times" article that grabbed our attention. Just listen to this. For more than two decades, Hany Farid has been the world's leading expert in the field of digital forensics. But in the last six months, he stopped trusting his eyes. Farid's own research had proven that most people could no longer distinguish a real photograph from a digital creation, a real voice from an A.I. clone, a real video clip from a wholesale fabrication. And lately, he was failing his own tests. "I feel like I'm going blind," he said. And he worried that A.I. was obscuring the truth, distorting reality, fracturing democracies, and slowly breaking him, too.

Back with us now is Hany Farid, co-founder and chief science officer at GetReal Security, also a professor at UC Berkeley.

It's great to have you back on.

I was looking back at our conversation, which was just a couple months ago, and that is when we were seeing deepfakes circulating at the start of the Iran War. And at that time, Hany, you told me, "we're going to be drowning in a sea of misinformation if we don't figure out how to authenticate content." And then -- and when I read this and how, gosh, candid you are about your fears here, it really grabbed my attention.

What kind of a dangerous place are we really in?

ANY FARID, CO-FOUNDER AND CHIEF SCIENCE OFFICER, GETREAL SECURITY: Yes. Well, I hate to say, but I think I was right. Two things have happened. We are drowning in disinformation and visual disinformation around Iran. And not just Iran. Iran, every global event that has been happening over the last six months. Social media is just littered with way more lies and conspiracies and nonsense than the truth. That's the reality. And as you just said, our ability, our visual ability, let alone our

emotional ability in moments of stress and highly sensitive issues happening around the world, we are just not equipped for this. We are not. You're seeing people falling for fake information, fake images, fake video, fake audio recordings. And what does that mean? I mean, it means we, as a public, don't have a shared sense of reality. We don't know what's going on. Our regulators, our decision makers have to reason about a very complex world with real geopolitical implications. And they are struggling too. And of course, meanwhile, social media is doing what social media always does, which is just profit from these lies and conspiracies.

BOLDUAN: Talk to me -- here's one quote because you were -- we were -- in this -- in this piece. I really recommend everyone reading it, especially this conversation between you and your wife that they captured. In one place you talk about how this is really -- the images you're seeing, the technology has taken you to a dark place. And you said, "I don't trust anything. Every image I see, I'm drawing lines for shadows and going -- and doing geometry in my head, trying to figure out what I'm looking at. It's over. Within a year or two, our whole visual system will be utterly useless."

Take me into -- you are the expert.

FARID: Yes. Yes, I just have to say that --

BOLDUAN: You're such an expert on this. Like, what -- what would -- could you normally decipher that is now just impossible?

FARID: Yes.

BOLDUAN: And I say this and you are the foremost expert on this --

FARID: Yes.

BOLDUAN: Let alone what we're all having to deal with knowing, you know, know nothing up, down or sideways on how to how to test it.

FARID: Yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes, so, look, for years we have been following the generative A.I. space, what the images look like, what the audio sound like, what the videos look like. And we've been doing two things, keeping track of the visual artifacts that we, as investigators, can use and then, of course, developing computational and mathematical techniques that can expose the things that this thing, our human brain, can't detect.

[08:45:02]

And what we've been seeing over the years, months, weeks now is that this thing, the visual system, is becoming less and less reliable because the images and the audio and the video are getting so good. So, the things that used to be artifacts and inconsistencies and errors in the generation are just gone.

Now, it doesn't mean that the computational and mathematical techniques don't work. They do. They -- we have to keep innovating, of course, there. But it means this thing, this thing that we, the average consumer, uses when they consume information online has become less and less reliable. And that is startling to me because the fact is that, for better or worse, most Americans get their source -- their major source of information from social media.

BOLDUAN: Hany, can I ask you a really quick. So, you talked about regulators. Where are -- like, are regulators just paying attention? Are A.I. companies taking note? In absence of that, what do we and should we do?

FARID: Yes, I think there's a little bit of good news here and a little bit of bad news. The good news is, I think regulators are paying attention. We are having conversations, both here and abroad, in the E.U., in the U.K., in Australia, in Canada and elsewhere. I don't know that regulators can move fast enough to keep up with the pace of Silicon Valley and the A.I. companies, but at least we're having the conversations.

Now, on the A.I. companies, there's good news and bad news. Some companies are being very good citizens. Google, for example, will now embed an invisible watermark in every single piece of content that they create, which allows people like me and you to detect that content downstream. OpenAI announced a similar effort. Apple announced a similar effort. Other companies, of course, are not doing that. So, we have to put pressure on those companies.

So, I think that there is a realization that this is not OK if we can't figure out what's happening in the world. I think the responses are slow, but at least there is a response.

BOLDUAN: Yes. And at the same time, right, a lie can travel the world -- travel around the world three times over before the truth even can put on its pants.

So, Hany, it's great to see you. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Sara.

SIDNER: That was interesting. Thank you, Kate.

Take a look at this. An early and unexpected fireworks show when a stand -- yikes -- catches on fire.

And a brazen bear caught on camera sneaking into a police station parking lot. What are you doing, buddy? Details ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:51:22]

BERMAN: All right, the breaking news this morning, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has died at the age of 100 years old. He was one of the most impactful financial minds, really, in U.S. history. He served five terms as Fed chair under four presidents starting in 1987 under Ronald Reagan. CNN's Erin Burnett on his life and legacy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): When he left the Federal Reserve in 2006 after 18 and a half years at the helm, Alan Greenspan was a legend.

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: He has dominated his age like no central banker in history.

BURNETT (voice over): First appointed Fed chairman by President Reagan, Greenspan oversaw some of the markets most tumultuous times. Just two months into the job, on October 19, 1987, the U.S. stock market crashed, plunging 22 percent in one day. Black Friday. Greenspan was credited with reassuring investors and later helped steer the U.S. economy through an Asian financial crisis, the dot com bubble implosion and the September 11th terror attacks.

But after he left the Federal Reserve and the subprime mortgage meltdown threatened to collapse the world economy, some praise turned to blame. Critics said Greenspan's policy of low interest rates fueled the housing bubble, and argued that he failed to rein in risky mortgage lending.

ALAN GREENSPAN, FORMER FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: Do I like people making unkind remarks about me or my colleagues or things? Of course I dislike it But that doesn't make it true. And the fact that other people have misunderstandings of how the world works, I'm not going to fret about that. It's not my job.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you solemnly swear?

BURNETT (voice over): Called before congress in 2008, Greenspan didn't admit fault, but acknowledged the free market let him down.

GREENSPAN: I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, was such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders. That, as I said, shocked me. I still do not fully understand why it happened.

BURNETT (voice over): Born in 1926 in New York, Greenspan first pursued a career in music, touring with a swing band before giving it up to study economics.

GREENSPAN: Looking back in retrospect, I kept taking the right path all the time and ending up where I never expected to be.

BURNETT (voice over): He became a consultant on Wall Street, later advising Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan.

ANDREA MITCHELL, ALAN GREENSPAN'S WIFE AND NBC CORRESPONDENT: Hello, everybody.

BURNETT (voice over): Greenspan also found time for love, marrying NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell in 1997. As Fed chief, his words were carefully chosen and often sphinx like, but he always moved markets.

In 1996, wondering if stocks were overvalued, Greenspan posed this question during a speech in Washington.

GREENSPAN: How do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values?

BURNETT (voice over): Within hours, stocks around the world sold off, cementing his reputation as a global economic force.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The testimony you are about to provide --

BURNETT (voice over): In 2010, Greenspan himself offered this assessment of his career in public service.

GREENSPAN: I was right 70 percent of the time, but I was wrong 30 percent of the time. And there are an awful lot of mistakes in 21 years

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BOLDUAN: On our radar this morning, a Texas family is searching for answers today after a Tesla slammed into their home, killing a 76- year-old woman, a grandmother, inside.

[08:55:02]

Authorities say the driver told deputies that the car was in Tesla's autopilot mode at the time, though it's not clear if that means it was in full self-driving mode. Security video from a neighboring home appears to show the car speeding down the residential road moments before a loud crash is heard.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We saw a car flying by down the street, and all we saw was them going about 60, 70 miles per hour. And the next thing we know is, we hear it hit that curb in that driveway, and it ran into the house.

JENNIFER BARBOUR, VICTIM'S DAUGHTER: She was pinned against the wall because he pushed her fridge like against her in -- in the whole place that we have in the living room.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: That poor family. Five other people, including three young children, live in that home, which is now, as you can see, boarded up. Investigators say the driver was cooperative, showed no signs of intoxication. No charges have been filed, but an investigation is underway.

And a fire at a fireworks stand created a very dangerous situation in Oklahoma this weekend. Just look at this. And you see the fire crews are already on the scene there. The flames set off a chain reaction of sorts in this large supply of fireworks that were for sale. Thankfully, no one was hurt. It did take crews about 20 minutes to put the fire out and get it all under control, though, Saturday night. My gosh, Sara.

SIDNER: Geesh.

BOLDUAN: I know.

SIDNER: That -- I mean, it's pretty. Am I allowed to say -- I mean, it is. It's pretty but dangerous.

BOLDUAN: Pretty from the distance. I'm not thinking that fireman that's pulling a hose towards it is feeling very enthralled with it.

SIDNER: No. Good grief. Yikes.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

SIDNER: All right, from that firework thing to this.

A new study shows the San Andreas Fault that has threatened the big one in California for decades is at its highest stress levels in a thousand years. The risk of a major earthquake in southern California rising as researchers see the critically stressed state of the fault systems along the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults.

Joining me now, Liliane Burkhard. She is the lead author of the San Andreas Fault Stress Study.

Extrapolating this, does this mean that a major earthquake is imminent in southern California, or can you go that far with what you're seeing?

LILIANE BURKHARD, LEAD AUTHOR, SAN ANDREAS FAULT STRESS STUDY: Well, I would avoid the word "imminent." You know, we know there will be an earthquake coming. The USGS puts the risk in the next 30 years at 75 percent. So, but we cannot make predictions or, you know, a more precise forecast like that.

But there is a large earthquake coming at some point. And we've seen, you know, through history that these -- the San Andreas Fault is capable of very large earthquakes.

SIDNER: What does the research say about just how damaging a quake would be, considering how stressed these faults are?

BURKHARD: Well, we specifically looked at the Cajon Pass, you know, as a junction between the San Jacinto Fault and the San Andreas Fault. And there's a lot of critical infrastructure that is going through Cajon Pass itself. You know, you have the interstate, you have the railroad, you have power lines, you have aqueducts. And so an earthquake hitting both fault systems could be quite substantial and also rupture a very large area.

The last earthquake in that region was in 1857. And that was a magnitude 7.9. So, that can shake, you know, up to over a minute. And people just need to be aware that, you know, we know in southern California, we live in earthquake country.

SIDNER: Yes.

BURKHARD: So, it's always good to know these risks and be prepared.

SIDNER: I've been through a few earthquakes, having lived in southern California quite some time. I do -- and we should mention, the Cajon Pass takes you from, you know, southern California all the way to Las Vegas. I've driven it many, many times.

Can you -- can you give us a sense of just how you're able to detect this? What scientific tools are in place to be able to watch this? And I know you're sometimes able to give some warning when there's going to be an imminent quake.

BURKHARD: Well, you know, I'm an earthquake modeler, so we fed a thousand years of earthquake history into a computer model to then calculate the stresses that have built up over time to see if there's some sort of stress threshold. So, the science here just informs us where these more stressed regions could be in southern California.

But practically speaking, there's a lot of things in place that the USGS has done. There's also an app, a shake alert, that you can download, and it might give you some early warning, a few seconds, but were working on that to make it even better.

[09:00:03]

SIDNER: I have used that shake app, and it does actually work. It has actually worked in the last one. It was very small, but it