Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Trump Sends Iran Deal Text Back; Trump Wants MAGA Rally to Replace Concert; Rep. Johnny Olszewski (D-MD) is Interviewed about Supreme Court Limits. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired June 01, 2026 - 06:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:33:00]

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everybody. I'm Audie Cornish. I want to thank you for joining me on CNN THIS MORNING.

It is half past the hour. And here's what's happening right now.

So, this week, the Supreme Court starts a busy final month of their current term. We're still waiting on 26 pending decisions, including the ruling on the Trump administration's efforts to end birthright citizenship.

And Congress returns this week, with Republicans still trying to advance a massive immigration enforcement package, including tens of billions of dollars for ICE, border patrol detention centers and deportation operations. The White House pushed for a June 1st deadline, but Senate Democrats left last week without a deal.

And over the weekend, renewed strikes between the U.S. and Iran. U.S. Central Command is saying the U.S. carried out, quote, "self-defense strikes" against Iran after it downed a U.S. drone that was operating over international waters. Now, this comes after President Trump sent back the memorandum of understanding text with changes to Iran. Officials say Trump insisted on tougher language surrounding Iran's nuclear commitments and its pledge to open the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson issued a response to the changes, saying messages are being exchanged between the two parties with, quote, "deep suspicion and skepticism."

So, here in the group chat, Becca Wasser, she is the defense lead for "Bloomberg Economics."

Welcome back.

I want you and Francesca to compare notes. What do you know about what Trump wants changed from the proposed language of the Iran deal?

FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, "USA TODAY": So, there's a few things. This first starts with the enriched uranium, right, which has been the debate the entire time is, does the U.S. go in and get it? Does Iran turn it over? Is Iran ever allowed to have a nuclear weapon? And oh, by the way, the president threw in this weekend, they can't buy one either because purchasing one is something that would also be ruled out as part of this deal.

CORNISH: Right. So, this had come up for a time people would say, OK, Iran, you can't enrich, but you'd be allowed to buy what you need, should you need it, as long as you don't have this capability.

[06:35:09]

Am I getting that right?

BECCA WASSER, DEFENSE LEAD, "BLOOMBERG ECONOMICS": Yes. It's quite complicated. But I think it just really boils down to, even though there has been some mixed messaging from President Trump about, you know, what his goals were with this war, what is allowed, what is not allowed, he has been very firm as of late on this issue of Iran's highly enriched uranium, that that cannot remain in Iran because he believes that that is the quickest pathway to an Iranian weapon. A nuclear weapon. So, that essentially means that he is almost not allowing Iran to have a nuclear program. Even a civil nuclear program. But, you know, to your point, it is the open question of, how does that happen? Because Iran is not willing to negotiate on that point.

CORNISH: Yes. And Iran has always said that they should, at the very least, have a civil nuclear program so that they can generate power, et cetera.

WASSER: Yes. Yes.

CORNISH: I want to play for you something. This is Senator Chris Coons. Because he is skeptical about whether this deal will be enough to stop Iran in the future.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): While we can use our technological superiority to bomb big factories in Iran, we're not going to be able to stop them from having the power to use their mines to close the Strait of Hormuz and their drones to attack us and our allies. We're going to need a tough deal to actually address this new capability that Iran has demonstrated in this war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: There's sort of two goals here now, because these strikes have effectively created a scenario where the Strait of Hormuz is closed, right, under double blockades and finding the balance of which one would make it a win out of the deal. How are people seeing this who are watching it?

WASSER: Listen, I think President Trump can try and spin a wheel -- like a win if he wants out of anything. But I think what we are seeing is the new normal. Iran has enormous leverage over the Strait of Hormuz. That is not going away. The types of exchanges that we saw with the, you know, the MQ-9 Predator -- sorry, the MQ-1 Predator getting shot down over the weekend. Iran responding with fire and missiles on Kuwait. That's the kind of skirmishing that we're going to see, even if there happens to be a deal, because the ceasefire deal is just kicking the can down the road. It is not solving any of these long-standing issues. And to me, that new normal looks a lot like a protracted conflict where we're going to see continued fighting for years to come.

CHAMBERS: Well, enter Europe, I was going to say, because then we saw over the weekend that Emmanuel Macron is now saying, this is why Europe needs a seat at the table, because if we're going to help police the Strait of Hormuz afterwards, or at least, you know, make sure ships can get through, then we need to be part of whatever negotiation or deal is taking place. This is really important because we expect the president to head to the G-7 here in just two weeks, and this will be the number one issue, assuming that we still don't have a deal, he's going to get a lot of pressure from European leaders who he has accused of not having done enough in the first place to help the U.S. out with this war.

CORNISH: Yes. Never mind the Middle East region allies who have not exactly jumped up to be part of renewed Abraham Accords discussions.

WASSER: No. And I mean they have felt coerced into that and all of a sudden almost blindsided that there was a quid pro quo for the security within the broader gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. That was not necessarily something they were expecting.

But I think what we are really finding right now and what President Trump is finding right now, wars are incredibly easy to start, but they are incredibly difficult to just change and end, especially when the goalposts keep on shifting. And we see those goalposts shifting all the time, even just as much as yesterday when he sent back, you know, harder, you know, terms for what the negotiated MOU might be.

CORNISH: Right.

OK, I want to turn to a war we did win because it is America's 250th birthday, and the president has this concert. And several artists have dropped out of doing it. So, of ,course he said, I'll do it. Trump says we should hold a Make America Great Again Rally headlined by him, and he's calling the artists who dropped out "overpriced" and "boring."

The group chat is back.

So, I had to dig into this because I was like, how did these artists not know that this was sort of, you know what I mean? Well, it turns out, there's dueling organizers of events. There's the America's 250 Group, which is sort of a bipartisan group that got put together over many years, and they've been waiting for their moment. This was their time. And then not so fast, Freedom 250, established by Trump by executive order, and they are the ones putting on this event.

I like that even our unifying events are divided. Like, we can't -- am I the only person who's like, this is ridiculous?

V. SPEHAR, DIGITAL JOURNALIST AND CREATOR, "UNDER THE DESK NEWS": No. SARA FISCHER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA ANALYST: Completely ridiculous. But also there's -- you're seeing a bifurcation in terms of what Freedom 250 is going to put their stake in the ground versus the other group.

[06:40:03]

Notably, this UFC match seems to be very much sort of like a Trumpian Freedom 250 thing, versus something that's a little bit broader. And I think that that UFC match is -- was a turning point. As soon as people saw those big -- this big stadium, you could see it right here being built.

CORNISH: Yes.

FISCHER: It suddenly sent a big signal, a, that this is coming up really soon, b, that this is very Trump coated because it's happening on his birthday and on Flag Day.

CORNISH: Yes. That's the thing. All this time we're being told that, look, to say you don't want to participate in these things is to kind of reject a patriotic moment.

And, Becca, I can turn to you about this too because this happens with the military. And then when you get there, it actually feels very much like a political rally. Like when Hegseth speaks, I don't necessarily hear him as head of Defense. I hear him as like Trump's --

WASSER: Cheerleader.

CORNISH: Well, it sounds like campaigning, and it doesn't necessarily sound like a politically neutral thing that's celebrating America. But is that some sort of distinction without a difference?

WASSER: I mean, we saw this last year with the Army birthday parade. That felt a lot like a Trump birthday parade. And, in fact, really only went forward on the National Mall in the way that it did because President Trump wanted it to.

And so, there is this politicization of essentially American history, but also a continued politicization of, you know, U.S. forces with a lot of these events. And we might see that with the UFC event where President Trump is reportedly allowing troops to come in and get tickets for free, and trying to also use this as a military recruitment event (ph).

CORNISH: Right. Because then it turns into something --

SPEHAR: If they fit the physical standard, though.

WASSER: Yes.

SPEHAR: If they fit the physical standard that he has set forth to qualify for these tickets.

CORNISH: Oh. Wait, so you have to be hot and buff just to watch it?

SPEHAR: Yes. And in your short sleeve uniform. And have the proper waist-height ratio. This is all published.

CORNISH: OK.

Artists who are going to be at America's 250 currently performing, Vanilla Ice, currently dropped out, everyone else. And over the weekend I saw some great memes of Marco Rubio, you know, with a Milli Vanilli wig, like with a --

CHAMBERS: Yes, as a pop star. Marco's --

CORNISH: Yes, like, maybe this will be yet another job that Marco can do. Yes.

CHAMBERS: Marco's latest job. Yes, I saw those as well.

CORNISH: Exactly. Honestly, I'd watch that since he can D.J.

SPEHAR: Yes. Why not?

CHAMBERS: But now it might be a Trump rally. An actual Trump rally.

CORNISH: Here's -- yes.

CHAMBERS: Because the president --

CORNISH: That -- I didn't -- the internet's undefeated, OK?

SPEHAR: Brett Michaels (ph).

CORNISH: There's only so much I can do, folks.

CHAMBERS: But it might actually be a Trump rally because, to your point, the president's now saying, oh, OK, it's OK, I'll do it myself. And so, if he gets up there it could be --

CORNISH: But he can say, I'm the president celebrating the 250th anniversary. This is somehow not political.

CHAMBERS: Sure. But I'm saying that, at that point, when it becomes the president speaking, then you are more likely, I think, to get people who are going to show up, who are going to be Trump supportive MAGA --

CORNISH: Even with America's troops in the audience?

CHAMBERS: A MAGA-supportive audience when it's the president who's out there speaking on the lawn.

SPEHAR: He doesn't speak in a bipartisan way. So, of course, if you're going to come and watch President Trump speak, he's going to talk only to his MAGA base as if he's on the campaign trail. He never made that flip that presidents often make to, OK, campaigning is over, I'm now the president for everyone.

The thing I'm missing right now, because I would love to go to an America 250 event. Like, I love all of that pomp and circumstance. Is when we did the 200th in the '70s, man, did they have cool stuff going on.

CORNISH: They did. They did.

SPEHAR: They recreated the Boston Tea Party to protest the (INAUDIBLE).

CORNISH: They did.

SPEHAR: Queen Elizabeth came. New Jersey did a 1776 lottery.

CORNISH: Can I put something out there, though? We're talking also a period of time when the political divisions, Ford, et cetera, there was a real sense of, like, we got to sew this thing back together.

SPEHAR: Yes.

CORNISH: And that was led from the White House. And so there was much more. I talked about this last week. If you go to the National Archives, you look at the material from the 70s, it doesn't have anyone's face on it.

SPEHAR: Right.

CORNISH: It's a very different approach than what's being taken now.

FISCHER: Yes. And there's a huge difference, too, in the role that corporate America is playing this time around versus last time around. Last time around, corporate America didn't feel the same kind of political pressure --

CORNISH: Yes.

FISCHER: To speak up around, not just politics, but things like American history. Now that is table stakes if you are a corporation. You need to be seen on issues --

CORNISH: Yes. They had to donate to both organizations.

FISCHER: Yes.

CORNISH: They've been hit up twice.

FISCHER: What's been fascinating to me, though, are the ones that are unabashed about supporting Freedom 250. I think about Meta, which has Dana White, the CEO of the UFC, on its board.

CORNISH: Is Mark on the bill, because I know he's a fighter of that.

FISCHER: I don't think he's --

CORNISH: No.

FISCHER: I don't know, but I know that they're hosting events with UFC leading up to this.

CORNISH: Yes. FISCHER: And I think that just as a perfect example that shows corporations are going to play a much different role in supporting some of the president's agenda this time around, which is partizan coded versus the 70s that you reflect on.

CORNISH: OK. Well, Becca, thanks for playing on this one. I really appreciate it.

Next on CNN THIS MORNING, we're going to talk term limits. People are asking whether or not the Supreme Court justices should have them. Congressman Johnny Olszewski says yes, and he's going to join us live.

[06:45:02]

Plus, Pete Buttigieg is showing up in races across the country. Is he helping Democrats? Is he helping himself? Is he running? All the things we'll ask in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CORNISH: So, in just a few hours, the Supreme Court kicks off what should be a busy final month of its current term. They're expected to issue decisions on 26, that's right, 26 pending cases by the end of the month, including key decisions on voting rights, birthright citizenship and the president's effort to fire federal officials. The final month comes as some in Congress are now pushing for term limits on the justices who serve lifetime appointments.

[06:50:01]

One of the lawmakers pushing for the change, Congressman Johnny Olszewski, Democrat of Maryland.

Congressman, thank you so much for being here.

REP. JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI (D-MD): Good morning.

CORNISH: So, I have been hearing this conversation on the left for a very long time, either expanding the court or, as we talked about here, adding some sort of term limits. Can you talk about why you have an actual proposal for this, which seems, you know, pretty far away since we're not even at midterms?

OLSZEWSKI: Yes, it's the ROBE, the Reform of Bench Eligibility. It's a constitutional amendment that would institute 18-year term limits, supported overwhelmingly by Americans of all stripes, Republicans, Democrats, independents. And I'm putting it forward because the court is really facing a confidence of crisis and a confidence of credibility. Because you see both justices who are aligning on ideological lines, overturning decades of legal precedents, and then doing so at a time where there are also incredibly large, ethical questions about how they're operating. And so, I think this is a good way to address that and hopefully --

CORNISH: But can I ask, is there -- is there a way to deal with those ethical questions? I mean it's a lifetime gig for a reason. And there's going to be people who say, certainly Republicans who say, look, Democrats don't like it now because it's not going their way.

OLSZEWSKI: Well, yes, we should also be acting on ethics reforms. And the fact that we have justices that can take lavish trips and then rule on cases before those individuals who gave them justices who don't disclose other gifts that are given to them, who are writing books and making a lot of money, who are hobnobbing with the president at state dinners. I think that ethics reform is also really important.

But what we also see are extremely partisan battles around these appointments. Justices are timing when they retire. Mitch McConnell held for months Merrick Garland's appointment and then, because of an election that was pending, and then during early voting, put in Amy Coney Barrett.

So, I think if we have regular, clear timelines for these appointments, and 18 years seems like it's still a long time where justices can and should be above the law. But what we're seeing is, this is a court that's happy to overturn law that they've established.

CORNISH: Now, to do a constitutional amendment, of course, you're going to need a lot more Democratic members of Congress, certainly in the Senate. And so, I want to ask you about that Maine Senate race.

You had Platner really being quite ahead, obviously. Kind of an insurgent campaign that Democrats hadn't really planned for. Now that another scandal has hit him, do you think he should drop out? What do you think the response should be?

OLSZEWSKI: I mean, look, as a voter, the totality of some of the reports we've heard would give me pause. But what also gives me great pause is the fact that the incumbent senator is not doing enough to stand up to Donald Trump and his corruption, who broke her own pledge to serve self-imposed term limits, which, speaking of -- speaking of term limits, and the fact that we have a president who was convicted of sexual assault, who is mentioned and accused by a 13 year old girl in the Epstein files of rape, that no one's talking about that and we're focused here.

So, yes, as a voter, it would give me serious pause (ph). This is going to be a question for Mainers to weigh. But I'm looking for candidates who address cost and corruption. And that's something Mr. Platner is doing.

CORNISH: Yes.

OLSZEWSKI: Notwithstanding the issues and (ph) the concerns.

CORNISH: But over and over again we do see candidates, whether they're backed by Schumer or the DCC, who are not the candidates their primary voters really are supporting. There seems to be a disconnect between what establishment Democrats think is the right path forward and who should be running, and what their primary voters think. And this is just the latest of them.

OLSZEWSKI: Yes, I'm an individual and I'm a Democrat that don't like Democrats meddling in primaries. That's the whole point of a primary. I think we should let the process play out, let voters have their voices heard and registered, and then we should rally around whomever those nominees are in a general election. I think the stakes are far too high for us to be divided, and for the party and for our voters not to feel like we're allowing them to weigh in and register their preferences in primaries.

And so, I actually think that we should be allowing voters to decide and not weighing in as heavily on these races.

CORNISH: All right, that's Congressman Johnny O. of Maryland. Thank you so much for your time.

OLSZEWSKI: Thanks, Audie.

CORNISH: V., I saw you nodding there. There have been so many progressive voices who are like, I'm going to put my own money in to this primary. There's a lot of meddling going on in general.

SPEHAR: There is. And we all can't wait for tomorrow to come soon enough, especially in creator land. It's not -- we're not saved by that. The thing that I think I was nodding with the congressman about is, is when he said, we need to be talking about what we're going to do for people, not what -- any kind of scandal coming up is, because there's so much getting lost in the conversations that are happening if we're trying to police and do purity culture on every single candidate. And that's kind of an issue.

CORNISH: Oh, you're going to like this next one talking about policing and purity culture.

[06:55:01]

SPEHAR: Yes.

CORNISH: We're going to talk about Pete Buttigieg, OK.

SPEHAR: Oh.

CORNISH: Because he's always out there talking. He doesn't hold a government position. It's not stopped him from being one of the most prolific midterm campaigners. On top of that, some reports see him as leading the pack right now for a 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. And Buttigieg has, of course, not officially declared he is running for president in 2028. So, we are left looking for easter eggs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REV. AL SHARPTON, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: When you ran for president, you met me and we went up, well publicized, lunch at Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem. Just so my calendar is clear, should I be reserving a table at Sylvia's? Are you -- are you going to run again?

PETE BUTTIGIEG: You save me a seat. I'll be there.

SHARPTON: All right. (END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: I mean, we all got to find a way to ask. We got to find a way to ask this question.

SPEHAR: Yes, but if he's going to Sylvia's, you've got to go to Melba's to, though.

CORNISH: You go -- well --

SPEHAR: You got to get the banana pudding or it's not, you know --

CORNISH: I joke that Buttigieg is at the opening of an envelope. Like, he goes where people are to talk.

SPEHAR: Everywhere. Yes. Yes.

CORNISH: He's highly visible online. And this -- this follows what you were talking about because the, what did you call them, purity culture something.

SPEHAR: Yes. Yes. The purity culture of it all.

CORNISH: What does that mean? Because I hear that as the most vicious fight online is, who should we appeal to and is appealing to certain affinity groups or having these conversations and not trying to talk to people on the right a mistake?

SPEHAR: There's so much -- I think the thing is negative ads and negative conversation just reduces turnout. So, I think that that's the issue I have with purity culture testing and this, like, is this person a good enough moral character to run for office? Are they perfect? Are they squeaky clean?

Because when we get into negative campaigning, it just reduces voter turnout. It negs (ph) people out and they don't show up. And I think more and more we just need to be encouraging people to show up for something and making our campaigns tell us what they're going to do for real, not just big, huge promises that they know can't actually happen. Like, be realistic with me.

CORNISH: Yes.

SPEHAR: Keep it low (ph).

CORNISH: Another person on the road, AOC. Big fundraiser for people in general. This is her at a Montana rally for Sam Forstag on Thursday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): And I know, understandably, that there's a lot of suspicion around a city girl, but I also think it's important for us to note that a lot of that is intended to divide us, because what the folks and the big money don't want us to realize is that were actually, in our struggles, are far more common than our landscapes are different. (END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Yes. Help me discern here. You're smiling.

FISCHER: Well, it's primary day tomorrow.

CORNISH: Yes.

FISCHER: So, primary day is all about separating the most progressive side of the wing from the more mainstream side of the Democratic wing.

CORNISH: And underscoring that.

FISCHER: And so why you hear AOC coming out and highlighting that is because she wants to make sure that the more progressive side of the Democratic Party is winning races tomorrow. Those are the people that are going to be on the ballot in November.

CORNISH: Yes. I think I'm just surprised there's not a longer list of money makers, right? There are supposed to be a couple marquee names who you send out, who are able to do -- to kind of pull that thing. And it's a little bit like Bernie Sanders, her. I mean, does Gavin Newsom -- these big draws. Like that, to me, is indicative of what's going on.

CHAMBERS: So -- well, so part of this too, though, is that some of the marquee Democrats you're talking about are in re-election races in their own states right now. Some of our expected 2028 candidates. So, Pete Buttigieg can be out there more frequently because Wes Moore is running for re-election. Josh Shapiro is running for re-election right now.

CORNISH: Yes, he is everywhere.

CHAMBERS: No, granted Gavin Newsom is not running for re-election, so he can afford to be out there more.

But the central question that you're raising about who should Democrats appeal to and what does the coalition look like is one that they are wrestling with very hard core right now, I wrote about this last week, one of the ways that it's playing out right now is they're trying to figure out which states should vote first in the 2028 presidential primary.

CORNISH: Oh, God, this my most hated discussion.

CHAMBERS: But it matters from the perspective of the discussion that's taking place in the Democratic Party, because it's reflective for them of the demographics of the coalition as they try to win back all these swing states that they lost to Trump twice in the last decade.

CORNISH: Yes, how this would shape things (ph).

OK, I can't talk about 2028 anymore. I'm just going to, like, pass out.

So, V. --

SPEHAR: You just have to have optimism.

CORNISH: What is in your group chat, and don't say 2028.

SPEHAR: Delaney Hall. So, not anything better than --

CORNISH: Oh.

FISCHER: Mine too.

SPEHAR: I mean my whole chat, I just pulled it up right before this.

CORNISH: OK.

SPEHAR: Everybody has eyes on Delaney Hall. In particular, I think it's really amazing how creator journalists and protests --

CORNISH: And this is the protests happening outside of the New Jersey detention center.

SPEHAR: The detention center.

The cool thing to me is the way that creator-led media and legacy media are both in there showing different sides of this story and letting the public sort it out for themselves. So, some creators to shout out are, "Here's Why," Kevin and Penny does news. If you want to follow them. Obviously, CNN is down there. And I think this is where we are showing people versus power, unity, accountability before reconciliation. And I love it. I'm happy with it.

[07:00:04]

FISCHER: And talk about a state with a big contested primary coming up tomorrow.

CORNISH: Yes.

SPEHAR: Yes.

FISCHER: I just moderated my hometown's congressional debate last.

CORNISH: Oh, look at you.

FISCHER: And Delaney Hall came up multiple times because it puts pressure on Democrats to figure out how they're going to address this.

SPEHAR: Totally.

CORNISH: All right, you guys, this is great. Thanks so much for sharing your reporting. Thanks for being with us to start the week. I'm Audie Cornish. The headlines are next.