Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump: We'll Be Hitting Iran's Pickaxe Mountain "Pretty Soon"; Trump Downplays Chinese Election Interference Days After Describing A Breach Of Historic Proportions; Blanche Confirmation Uncertain As Two GOP Senators Make Demands. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired July 21, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What they do not plan to do is in any way to disturb the wreckage or the remains of these folks who lost their lives so many years ago, so very tragically.
John.
JOHN KING, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Tom Foreman, thanks so much.
And the news continues. "THE SOURCE" starts right now.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight. As the United States strikes Iran for the 11th night in a row, the President says Pickaxe Mountain may be next. What it is and why it's so important.
I'm Brianna Keilar in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, President Trump is warning of a potentially imminent attack on one of the most mysterious places in Iran that comes with a mysterious name to match. Deep underground beneath Pickaxe Mountain, yes, that is what it's called, is a heavily fortified facility believed to be the centerpiece of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
It's located about a mile south of the Natanz nuclear facility in central Iran. And if that name sounds familiar, it's because Natanz is one of three nuclear sites where the U.S. has used so-called bunker buster bombs to penetrate deep enough, inside the mountainside, to severely degrade or destroy what lies beneath.
But the site at Pickaxe is buried so deep that the U.S. hasn't tried to attack until now. Six years ago, Iran told the U.N. Atomic Energy Agency that the facility would eventually be used to assemble centrifuges that make nuclear fuel. But now, sources say, Israeli intelligence believes that eventually has arrived, and Iran has moved its advanced centrifuges and part of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium to Pickaxe.
President Trump was asked today about that intelligence and gave this ominous response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Do you believe that Iran has moved nuclear centrifuges into Pickaxe Mountain?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: They may have. We don't have it on record. All we do is read the fake news. You know, we see the -- the news is so wrong so many times, so, you know, maybe -- maybe this one they have right. But it's OK. It doesn't mean anything unless they have the material.
You're talking about the centrifuges?
REPORTER: Yes.
TRUMP: Yes, it doesn't mean anything unless they have the material. They don't have. We follow the material. That's where the action is. And we'll be hitting that area very -- probably pretty soon, and there's not a--
REPORTER: And--
TRUMP: --not a thing they can do about it. Normally, I wouldn't say that. If I thought they could do something about it, I would never say that. But we'll be hitting that area pretty soon, and -- and very heavily.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Sources say Israeli intelligence has been closely monitoring Pickaxe Mountain for months, and this raises three important questions: How good is this intelligence? Can U.S. bombs even penetrate this deep? And will any amount of bombing convince Iran to stop digging in and start negotiating again?
The President today snapped at a reporter who asked about that last part.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. President, there are no signs that Iran is ready to stop fighting. So, what is the plan?
TRUMP: Well how do you know there are--
REPORTER: Is the plan to just keep bombing until they give up?
TRUMP: How do you know there are no signs? Why, do you know something that I don't know?
REPORTER: Well, they continue to attack our allies and kill Americans.
TRUMP: You don't know what the dialog is behind the scenes that they want to meet desperately to try and end it because they're getting decimated. You don't get that when you listen to your fake station. But you don't know. You don't know anything.
REPORTER: So talks are still possible? Likely?
TRUMP: You know something that I don't know? You know something I don't know?
REPORTER: Well, tell us.
TRUMP: I will tell you. They want to desperately meet. And until they're ready to meet in a meaningful way, we have no interest.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Now the President can swat away reporters all he wants, but his Defense Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs can't play that game with Congress.
And both Pete Hegseth and Dan Caine came under intense questioning today before the Senate Appropriations Committee about the war, and the Pentagon's request for $87.6 billion to fund the fight against Iran.
The fiery hearing included this tense exchange with Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Now, what happens if we come home and end the blockade to the world?
GEN. DAN CAINE, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: Sir, Iran has the potential to continue to be a threat and we will need to prepare military options to do that.
KENNEDY: Will they toll the Strait?
CAINE: Sir, that's a hypothetical question, and I don't know the answer to that.
[21:05:00]
KENNEDY: Oh, it's not hypothetical. You come home -- we come home, it's not going to be hypothetical. You know that, General, and I do too. And I appreciate your discretion. But we're down to it. We need some hard answers and some straight talk.
What'll happen, Pete?
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Senator, I would -- I would agree with the Chairman. But the likely outcome is they would try to impose their will on the -- on the waterways in ways that -- that the world would not like.
KENNEDY: Would they toll it?
HEGSETH: Call it a toll, call it a fee, call it an exchange, call it control. They would do something that they would try to hold to that issue, yes, sir.
KENNEDY: Would they try to redevelop -- to commence development again of a nuclear warhead? HEGSETH: Part of the reason President Trump had to have the courage to do what he did after Midnight Hammer is that they didn't give up their ambitions even though their nuclear sites had been obliterated. So, this is a regime hell-bent on nuclear ambitions and President Trump's been willing to go after them.
KENNEDY: Guys, we need straight answers. We need straight answers.
Do we have the ability to destroy whatever is underneath Pickaxe Mountain?
HEGSETH: A lot of -- Senator, a lot of our capabilities are classified, but if anybody in the world can reach anything on this -- on God's given -- God's green Earth, it's the United States military.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Quite an illuminating exchange. A Republican senator losing his patience with Hegseth's answers.
Democrats also trying to pin Hegseth down with no more luck than Senator Kennedy had, and the frustration was palpable.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): You said on day 14, Iran's military had been quote, Destroyed, and quote, Made combat ineffective.
Yes or no? Was that an accurate statement?
HEGSETH: What the American military has done to the Iranian military--
OSSOFF: Will you answer the question?
HEGSETH: --is a historic military defeat.
OSSOFF: Will you answer the--
Mr. Secretary, you stated four months ago that--
HEGSETH: Bomb missiles was not a combat effective military (ph).
OSSOFF: --Iran's military had been rendered, quote, Combat ineffective for years to come.
Has Iran's military been for the last four months combat ineffective?
HEGSETH: It's been set back not just years but likely decades.
OSSOFF: You stated we had, quote -- you stated -- you stated we had, quote--
(CROSSTALK)
HEGSETH: --that the level it did before and not even close. It doesn't mean it doesn't have capabilities. SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MI): You, sir, are the failure. Not the men and women who are on that frontline, not the men and women who hold up their honor with distinction. But if there's a lack of a winning strategy, they're in harm's way, their leaders have failed them, and that's what's happening.
We have political leadership. You, you don't have a strategy. You don't have a long-term plan to actually win this war. Win the war. The men and women are going to be able to do it, but they need to have leadership. When will you show leadership?
HEGSETH: Of course we have leadership. Of course we have leadership.
PETERS: When will you show leadership?
HEGSETH: Why don't you show some leadership and stand up to your fellow Democrats who won't fund the troops, who stand and play partisan politics while you don't give us the money? You want to stand up here and talk about the troops? You won't show any political courage--
PETERS: But Secretary Hegseth--
HEGSETH: --to actually fund our department because you have Trump derangement syndrome and can't actually commit to anything meaningful.
PETERS: Secretary--
HEGSETH: So, I put this on you, Senator.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: The Defense Secretary returning several times to a fallback answer that didn't make much sense, before this exchange with Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: The disaster of what the Biden administration budgets gave us.
It was not a priority to fund the Department of Defense under Joe Biden.
Neglect of the Biden administration.
Joe Biden was--
The Biden administration was the--
And the Biden administration ignored hypersonics.
There are things.
I don't know what Lloyd Austin did for four years. I really don't.
Again, that goes back to the Biden administration.
Try to adjust the Biden budget into.
SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Obviously, sinking their ships has not affected their ability to effectively close the straits. Did you--
HEGSETH: We -- we had U.S. boats that surrendered to Iranian ships under the Biden administration. So, their navy was effective in expeditionary ways--
REED: Listen--
HEGSETH: --in the past.
REED: --we're talking about a war you started.
Your fallback to the Biden administration is just a very, very obvious excuse for what I think is probably, as you describe so often, gross negligence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: We should note. We are 547 days into the second Trump administration. And 144 days into a war that was started by the Trump administration, currently with no end in sight.
My lead source tonight was among those who questioned Secretary Hegseth today. Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.
I do wonder, Senator, after what you heard today, is it any clearer to you what the plan is going forward, or what it should be.
SEN. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI): Well, it wasn't clear what the plan was when we went into the war on February 28th, and it remains unclear. We've heard the President and the Secretary list reason after reason.
[21:10:00]
But what we can say is, this has been an unmitigated disaster. It has cost the lives of 17 service members. It has cost the U.S. taxpayers nearly $40 billion. And we're all paying the price at the pump, our farmers with fertilizer and diesel, and at the grocery store, et cetera. And we see no strategy or plan to bring this to an end.
Frankly, all wars end with a political and diplomatic solution. And if we want to protect our troops, we need to bring this war to an end. The American people do not support it. And both houses of Congress now have passed a resolution calling for an end to this war unless it is explicitly authorized by Congress, as set out in our Constitution and our laws.
KEILAR: There was bipartisan frustration today.
What did you think of what you heard? What did you think of what you heard from Senator Kennedy?
BALDWIN: Well, look, he kept on going back to, We need answers. We need answers. That was his rejoinder.
And that's absolutely true. We do need answers. Think about the fact that this war has been going on as long as it has, and May was the last time and the first time that this administration came to Capitol Hill to talk about the war.
This was one of the few times, since then, that the administration has offered the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to a public setting, to Congress, to ask questions on behalf of the American people, and I can't tell you how frustrating that is. But we represent the people who sent us there to ask tough questions, and they seem to dodge them at every -- at every option.
When I was questioning Secretary Hegseth, I was talking about the deadliest day of this war, March 1st, when six service members perished in Kuwait, and many others were injured, including Wisconsin service members.
And this Secretary still cannot explain why we're not prepared with defenses for that in Kuwait on that day, and why we weren't prepared with the necessary medical teams and supplies and facilities that they needed, that would have potentially saved lives and treated others in a much more immediate way.
KEILAR: The President, you've heard, is threatening to strike Iran's Pickaxe Mountain heavily and pretty soon. This is a quite naturally fortified area. Is that the right move?
BALDWIN: Well, look, we didn't hear it from the Secretary or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs today, but I've been briefed that it would take thousands upon thousands of soldiers probably on the ground and have open up the potential for lots of casualties.
Look, this was a war of choice. It's never been authorized by Congress. The American people want it to come to an end.
I think that would be a devastating and incorrect move by this president. He needs to heed the call of the American people and do what he promised on the campaign trail, back in 2024, and that is to bring this conflict to an end.
KEILAR: Senator Tammy Baldwin, thanks for being with us.
BALDWIN: Thank you for having me.
KEILAR: I want to bring in some of our top intelligence and military sources.
Former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner.
And the former Deputy Commander of U.S. CENTCOM, retired Vice Admiral Bob Harward, with us.
Beth, it's an Israeli source telling us that Iranian construction -- telling the U.S. that Iranian construction and activity at Pickaxe increased after the 12-day war last summer. What can you tell us about this particular facility?
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEP. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: So, it's not operational as far as what open source would tell you, and nothing that we heard in this particular leak tells us otherwise.
And I think that this is kind of an important idea, right? It's not like this facility is necessarily up and running, but there's a lot of activity there. And so, you wonder why, right? And some of it is clearly, from what we can tell, some of the tunnels have been reinforced, so if we struck it, it wouldn't collapse as easily. This kind of activity is going on.
[21:15:00]
But Pickaxe in the future, the plan was for it to replace Natanz as a centrifuge production facility. That's what the Iranians announced. But of course, it's such a big facility. No one's ever been there. We don't have schematics. But it's a huge area, and it certainly could be expanded potentially to do uranium enrichment.
But that said, I would say that the reason it has not been struck so far in this war, not once, is in -- and we have struck dozens of weaponization facilities, of fuel production facilities, of enrichment facilities, dozens, but not this. So, it suggests to me that it was not an emergency.
KEILAR: When you say no one's been there, you mean the IAEA has not been in there--
SANNER: Yes.
KEILAR: --as they have been in other facilities.
SANNER: Yes.
KEILAR: I wonder, Admiral, as you're looking at what the President is saying here about this plan, is this something that makes sense strategically?
VICE ADMIRAL BOB HARWARD (RET.), FORMER DEPUTY COMMANDER, U.S. CENTCOM, RETIRED NAVY SEAL, FELLOW, JEWISH INST. FOR NATL. SECURITY OF AMERICA (JINSA): Well, it is important. Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow have all been destroyed. This was the back avenue and, as you noted, where they were going to do future. And we know activity there. That could be any capacity left over, anything that they brought to put in there and reconstitute. So, as we've always seen in the past, they moved to reconstitute.
And as she said, the International Atomic Energy Agency Director Rafael Grossi said we had no access here--
SANNER: Right.
HARWARD: --so we have no knowledge.
SANNER: Right--
HARWARD: And he also said, we didn't really know where all the material are, where are all the centrifuges. So, there's a big intel gap here.
KEILAR: Well--
HARWARD: Let me just add one other thing. So clearly, they're going to try to reconstitute. Now, how fast they can do that is one problem. But number two, our ability to know what they're doing, so that accelerates the need and the focus on Pickaxe because it now becomes their crown jewel for any nuclear program.
KEILAR: If there is a military operation at this site, a U.S. military operation. What would that look like, and what is the difference between just hitting something that is this -- I mean, it's a huge granite structure, essentially naturally, right, to protect this area.
What is the difference between just hitting it with a bunch of missiles to try to create sort of a sense of having struck it, and actually taking it out? I mean, what is the difference between those two things?
HARWARD: Great question. And there's two environments you can create. Is this a permissive environment where we have access and can go in? Or is it non-permissive where we have to fight our way? And the same issue we're dealing with in the straits now. If we went in, non- permissive to fight, they turn those missiles and drones on our forces on the ground.
So, if you clean out the straits, and don't forget the priority right now is the straits, making sure they can't control the Bab al-Mandab. If we take care of that by eradicating their missiles and their drones. Then we can go in there with minimizing any risk. So, if we have to go in a non-permissive, go in to fight, but they can't threaten our forces from the air, then it's doable.
But it's a large operation. We've trained for this. We've done other sort of facilities practice to do this. So, we have the capability. But the environment you do it in dictates the risk.
SANNER: And I would just say that, I mean, that would be great if we could do that, but I just don't think that there's any way that you can actually eliminate the missile and drone threat. As Secretary Hegseth said today. There's a lot of underground facilities. You know that.
And it's just not -- you know, I think that the reason that they're still able to strike now is it's not just the coastal environment. You can fire a drone from way in the interior, and I just think it's going to be really, really difficult for us to get there, and that's the conundrum we have because we're working it. We're working it hard, but we're not there yet.
KEILAR: Where do you see this conflict going? I mean, we see the Secretary testifying today, Admiral. It seemed that it was unsatisfying to all the Democrats there and a number of the Republicans.
HARWARD: Without a doubt, it's unsatisfying to everybody. At the end of the day, it's in everyone's interest. The threats these missiles and drones, if they're not dealt with now, and I think this is will be a long-term threat to the Gulf and everyone in the region. And that's why a coalition needs to come together and understand this long-term threat. Their ability to control the straits and have nuclear weapons is just unacceptable to everyone.
So, we have to find a solution. It's a tough problem, and this is a tough war. At the end of the day, if we don't deal with this now, and this opportunity, and we go through another elections, we'll never have the opportunity, and it becomes a long-term strategic problem for everyone.
KEILAR: Beth, thank you so much for being with us.
Vice Admiral Harward, thank you as well. Really appreciate it.
And up next. Five days after blaming China for, quote, the largest compromise of election data in history, the President is now saying this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They do things, and we do things to them. I'll be honest, we do things to them, too. It's not a one-way street.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The People's Republic of China carried out what is believed to be the largest compromise of election data in history.
They fought like hell not to have it, Donald Trump to win, and for good reason.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: That was President Trump just five days ago, leveling serious accusations against China, in a primetime address to the nation.
And this was President Trump today on what he might do about it.
[21:25:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. President, are you planning on putting any pressure or consequences on China for what you announced about them meddling in the 2020 election? TRUMP: Well, we're going to talk to them about it. It took place a long time ago. I think China is maybe a little bit different today than it was then. But look, they do things, and we do things to them. I'll be honest, we do things to them, too. It's not a one-way street. But we'll be talking to them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: My top political sources are here.
Let's first go to Ambassador Jeff Flake.
I mean, let's do a bit of a reality check here. What consequences would a White House normally pursue for what the President accused China of last week?
JEFF FLAKE, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY, FORMER U.S. SENATOR (R- AZ): Well, certainly diplomatic pressure and then economic pressure, whether it's tariffs or whatever else. But the President is not going to go down that road.
China, as far as the information they gathered, a lot of that was publicly available. But make no mistake, China is always going to want to influence our elections. They have before, and they will in the future. So, I think that's a reality we just have to deal with.
KEILAR: So Doug, Trump's Trade Adviser similarly contorted himself around talking about consequences for China.
Let's listen. This is Peter Navarro.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER NAVARRO, TRUMP ADVISER: This isn't a story about China. It's about -- about the American refusal at the political level to safeguard our election system, and that happened because there are nefarious actors domestically who wanted that 2020 election to go in a different way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Now, once upon a time, Peter Navarro actually wrote a book called "Death by China." He's not someone you'd really expect to give China a pass.
DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, RNC: No.
And look, I think so much of what we see these days is the difference between talk and action.
If we look at the rhetoric, China's the number one actor against the United States globally.
If you look at our actions, turns out that Canada is the biggest threat that we face, apparently, which I think is a surprise to a lot of people. But the tariffs, the tariff numbers tell us, it's French wine and it's Canada. Like, those are our number one and two enemies, and it's -- it just doesn't make sense to voters.
And it's why -- it's one of the reasons that Trump is struggling here because there doesn't seem to be a coherent strategy other than cast aspersions on elections. And meanwhile, you're raising prices on what Americans are spending on everything. And ultimately, that goes back to the biggest vulnerability Trump has, and Republicans on the ballot, which Trump isn't, come November.
KEILAR: Let's talk about this story out of New Jersey.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, PUBLISHER, THE ROOT, OBAMA WH SENIOR POLICY ADVISER, NATIONAL COALITIONS DIRECTOR, BIDEN-HARRIS 2020: Yes.
KEILAR: We have to talk about this. New Jersey's Democratic governor announced today there was this quote, Serious software glitch, and this led to 6,000 non-citizens being accidentally added to the state's voter rolls through no fault of their own, is what Governor Sherrill said. She said, 400 of them cast improper ballots in recent elections. It's actually a glitch that was found and fixed in 2024 under the previous Democratic governor, but it was never disclosed.
Ashley, how concerning is that?
ALLISON: Well, one, I think it's important that the current governor is actually telling the American people it was a glitch.
I think the thing that is important is that it wasn't the intention of the voter to do something improper. And a lot of times when people talk about the voter fraud that doesn't really exist in this country, they seem as though there are bad actors out there trying to manipulate our system, and it was just people who were accidentally added to the roll.
So, I think it is good that it worked. It was -- it happened. It was corrected. It was identified. And it shouldn't happen again. And they should make sure there's checks and balances in there -- in New Jersey and across the country, as there are, so it doesn't happen again.
KEILAR: But Kate, if Democrats open themselves up to criticism here, have they sort of fallen into these allegations that Trump makes, even if it's not exactly what he's talking about?
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, BIDEN WH COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, I think Sherrill's response is actually indicative of the fact that the system works. I mean, as Ashley said, these are people who checked that they were not citizens. These were not people who were trying to perpetrate some kind of fraud and vote illegally. There was a glitch in the software that allowed them to vote--
(CROSSTALK)
KEILAR: They improper--
BEDINGFIELD: --and it's serious, and -- and as--
KEILAR: Improperly cast ballots, 400 of them.
BEDINGFIELD: And as soon as Mikie Sherrill was made aware of this, she made--
KEILAR: Wait, no, no, no. Kate. Kate, that's not what happened.
HEYE: Right--
BEDINGFIELD: --she made it transparent.
KEILAR: The previous--
HEYE: I think it's Phil Murphy, right?
KEILAR: The glitch was found and fixed--
ALLISON: Former.
BEDINGFIELD: Right. I'm saying that Sherrill -- right, and when Governor--
KEILAR: Sure.
BEDINGFIELD: So, when Governor Sherrill was told about it, she made it--
KEILAR: But what about Murphy?
BEDINGFIELD: Well, Governor Murphy is no longer in office. We're also talking about 400 people here. Let's look at the scope of the numbers here. We're talking about 400 people who, through a software glitch, were able to vote improperly.
Now, if you look at the number of ballots cast in this country, and you look at the number of ballots that are cast fairly, that are cast through a system that does not allow the perpetration of fraud, the idea that -- the idea that this is somehow walked into Trump's framing, I just think it's not -- is not borne out by the fact. Sure.
ALLISON: But I hear what you're saying. Because, if Governor Murphy knew this happened, he should have said it and told the American people.
BEDINGFIELD: Certainly. Certainly.
[21:30:00]
ALLISON: Because it is when people are not honest with their constituents or the public, it does allow for concern in our systems, and it does, at times, make it seem like what Trump is saying may have some validity.
But what Trump is saying is not what is actually happening in New Jersey. Those individuals having voter ID would not have stopped them from being able to register to vote because they didn't try to. They were put on the rolls.
BEDINGFIELD: Right.
ALLISON: And it wouldn't have stopped them from actually voting, so.
HEYE: I just think--
BEDINGFIELD: Yes.
HEYE: I think we know that in 2026, 400 people who voted. There are more than 400 text groups going on right now about this very issue. And in a state that has a -- a state I was born in that has a huge history of corruption, really a big mistake by Governor Murphy.
KEILAR: What do you think, Ambassador?
FLAKE: Well, it's a big mistake, certainly, and I think any allegation or any evidence of wrongdoing here needs to be investigated and dealt with. But I can tell you, I have a lot more confidence that it'll be solved at the state level than at the federal level.
So, I'm glad that they fixed it. They should have been far more transparent about a serious issue like this. I'm glad that it's fixed. And I have confidence that states and local governments around will fix these issues better than the federal government.
KEILAR: Everyone is sticking around. We have much more to talk about.
Up next. The midterms, they're just 105 days away. But President Trump keeps insisting they have no impact on his Iran war plan, even as the cost of the war skyrockets.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Do you believe that Iran is trying to impact the midterm elections by threatening the Strait of Hormuz?
TRUMP: Probably. They won't have any impact on me. I'm just going to do the right thing. I don't view it as, Gee, we're having an election in a period of time. You know, everyone says, Oh, I'm doing something before. No. The election, I can't think about that having to do with this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Tonight, President Trump continues to dismiss the idea that the upcoming midterms impact what he does next in the war with Iran, which is now in its fifth month and has cost taxpayers more than $37 billion. Republicans on the ballot this November might find it a tough sell to voters.
My political sources are back to talk about this. So, there's this new Washington Post-Ipsos poll, Doug. It has Trump's disapproval on Iran now up to 69 percent. And when Americans are asked to weigh the cost versus the benefits of the war, 68 percent say this war is not worth fighting. How are Republicans in Congress, running for Congress, looking at that kind of thing, going into the midterms.
HEYE: They're really scared, and they're scared because when you say, Is it worth the price? It's the price that voters are paying every day, not just on gas, but everything that is then delivered on a truck.
And the President still has never given what he should have at the State of the Union, which is a, Here's what we're doing, here's why we're doing it, here's how we're going to define success.
We're months into this, and we still don't have those answers. And I think the real challenge for Trump here, which means for Republicans, isn't just the economic question. But we know polling and popularity of things like this only goes down over time, and it didn't start in a good place.
KEILAR: Yes, the price is paid in so many ways economically, and most importantly, I think we saw it really driven home this weekend. We're talking about our service members, of course. Four of them lost over the weekend, and actually 18 now total, including those four.
Today, the President posted he actually put on social media comparing death toll numbers to previous wars. This is his post today. I mean, it's hard to look at, to be honest.
ALLISON: Yes.
KEILAR: Are Americans going to accept this kind of comparison?
ALLISON: Unfortunately, I think that the folks who are fully aligned with Donald Trump don't care about a post like that. This is actually not the most tasteless thing I've seen. It's pretty -- it's up in the top three, I would say. But he does things like this often.
I also actually rarely do, but I actually believe the President, when he says, he doesn't care, actually, the political impact, I think he is not doing it because he thinks that he's right. I think he's just doing it because he has the power to do it and wants to see what will play out.
But there are people who are on the ballot that have Rs by their names that will suffer, and they do care. And the best way for them to ensure that a post like that doesn't happen, or potentially they win their race, is to stand up to him.
There was a Senate hearing today about the appropriations, about trying to stop funding for this war that we don't know how to -- why we're in or how we're going to get out or what the success looks like. And probably, most of the senators will vote for it, will accept it, won't push back. Some did. But unfortunately, enough are not standing up to this president, saying, You should care because every life that -- it was listed on that post that a service member that we lose matters.
KEILAR: Yes, and also the ones who were injured. And my colleagues here at CNN have done some tremendous reporting on that to find out that the Pentagon has really been slow to disclose the number of troops who've been injured.
A Pentagon spokesperson, Sean Parnell, posted this on X. He said, Nearly 100 service members were deemed to have some degree of injury since July 7, 2026, 96 percent have returned duty. They are determined to get back in the fight. He said, The vast majority of injuries experienced were minor concussions.
[21:40:00]
I think it's really important that we have to note that when you talk to medical experts, neurological surgeons -- the American Association of Neurological Surgeons specifically points out, There is no such thing as a minor concussion.
And I've interviewed a lot of service members--
BEDINGFIELD: Yes.
KEILAR: --who go right back into the fight--
BEDINGFIELD: Yes.
KEILAR: --and later end up having emergency neurosurgery--
BEDINGFIELD: Certainly.
KEILAR: --for what they thought was just a headache.
What is the peril of what we've seen is a pattern of downplaying this kind of injury?
BEDINGFIELD: Well, downplaying the sacrifice of American soldiers in any way, in terms of the time they spend away from their families, in terms of injury, in terms of as we were just discussing, loss of life. It's appalling.
And I think that there is a clear -- this is a clear suggestion that the Pentagon, the White House, they know that the war is unpopular. They know -- they see the polling. They know that Americans across the country are saying, What are we getting out of this? Why are we doing this? What is the goal? You haven't really told me why we're doing this. Your reasoning shifts. You told me last summer we'd obliterated their nuclear program. Now it's, Well, we're going to continue air strikes because we have to continue to hobble their nuclear capabilities.
They're not being forthcoming, and they're subjugating the service of men and women in uniform to their political interests. And when you're already looking at an incredibly unpopular war, looking like the -- like you don't care about the sacrifices that our soldiers are making? It's not a way to build support for your war. So, I -- you know, as we're moving toward November, we increasingly see people say, they don't support what the administration is doing in Iran, and I think that is going to continue to be a problem for, as Ashley and Doug were saying, for the Republicans who are on the ballot who are going to face the voters in now four months.
KEILAR: Ambassador. How are you seeing this?
FLAKE: Well, I would challenge the notion that the President doesn't care what the voters think.
He's always been cavalier about the service of our service members back from the time of criticizing John McCain for his service.
But he does care about what the voters think, and I think the most candid moment was when he said he didn't want to be another Herbert Hoover, and that's why they launched into negotiations, which, in the end, factored terribly because it simply gave Iran, I think, about $7 billion in revenue when the MOU was implemented to begin with. But now, we're just in a bad place.
I think the President does know this is going to hurt deeply in the midterms, but he doesn't know how to get out of it. There are just no good ways out.
KEILAR: What do you think about this kind of communication? I mean, as we understand and you understand, having served in Congress, these service members they do put their lives on the line. And when voters, when citizens believe that the mission is worth it, it does seem that they will accept that there is some risk.
FLAKE: Right.
KEILAR: When there's this diminishment, kind of, of what the risk is or what the cost is, does that tell you something about what the administration is signaling? How are you viewing that kind of diminishment and the objective of that?
FLAKE: Well, I think some of the questions from senators today hit right on that: Did we just miscalculate here?
And Americans won't take that well. We saw that in the last administration with the pullout of Afghanistan. I think 17 service members were -- or 13 were killed there, and Americans did not take that well because they thought that we did a bungled job of getting out of Afghanistan. Here, they're likely to think the same thing.
The President keeps saying that Iran has no capability. We've taken out their air force, their navy, their missiles.
And then, they do damage and actually kill American service members.
So no, this isn't going to go over well. It's not now, and it, as we get closer to elections, it's not likely to go over well there.
KEILAR: Ambassador. Doug. Ashley. Kate. Thank you so much to all of you. Really appreciate the conversation tonight.
And up next. CNN reviewed more than 400 pages of newly-released written responses from Todd Blanche, President Trump's pick to lead the Department of Justice. Is what he said enough to convince those two crucial Republican senators to go ahead and confirm him?
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: Tonight, Jay Clayton, President Trump's pick for Director of National Intelligence, is one step closer to confirmation, after a Senate panel voted to advance his nomination.
But Trump's Attorney General pick, Todd Blanche, is still facing roadblocks from two Republicans, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas, both threatening to tank Blanche's nomination unless he addresses their concerns.
After CNN reviewed more than 400 pages of newly-released written responses from Blanche, it appears that he still hasn't given the senators what they want. While Blanche repeatedly made assurances that Trump's $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund is dead. He confirmed that Trump's immunity from past tax issues is still in effect, and that's a key sticking point for Cornyn.
When it comes to the DOJ's independence, that's a concern raised by Tillis. Here's what Blanche said last week.
[21:50:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Department of Justice is under the executive branch.
My obligation is to the American people and the rule of law.
That being said, I am a member of the -- of the Cabinet of the President of the United States.
KENNEDY: Are you and President Trump friends?
BLANCHE: I'm his lawyer -- was his lawyer, and now I'm the Deputy Attorney General.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: My legal source tonight is Tom Dupree, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
Tom, great to have you.
What stands out to you about these answers, this kind of follow-up that Blanche gave? TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, what stands out to me about his answers is that Todd Blanche is well aware that he has to walk a very fine line here.
On one hand, he needs to give the senators, to the extent he can, the assurances that they're looking for, attest to his independence from the President.
On the other hand, he can't come out and say, I'm going to be independent from the President because then the President might pull his nomination. He knows the President doesn't want total independence.
So, I think Todd Blanche knows that he's got to, on one hand, satisfy the senators for what they're asking him for, but do so in a way that doesn't compromise his standing with the President and possibly cause the President to pull his nomination.
KEILAR: He's also dealing with things he's said in the past, for instance, to Steve Bannon. And senators had asked him about that.
Quote, During an interview on Steve Bannon's War Room podcast on April 18, 2026, you stated that there's this model out there that somehow the Department of Justice is independent from the President of the United States. That is not true. And that he compared the Attorney General to other Cabinet officials who are not independent of the President. Do you stand by that statement?
His response was, Yes.
You worked at DOJ. What do you think of that answer?
DUPREE: Well, I would say that in a constitutional sense, he's right. If you look at the Constitution, the Attorney General is part of the executive branch. There's no separate branch for the Attorney General.
At the same time, the Justice Department has a long tradition of independence. Attorneys general have long viewed themselves and all the decisions they make, whether prosecute someone, all of that, as separate and apart from the president. In fact, you would have firewalls to prevent political considerations from tainting prosecutorial decisions. So, there is a long and hallowed tradition of independent attorney generals in the United States. President Trump doesn't like that tradition.
So, I think that's an example where they're pushing Blanche on things he said in the past. Blanche knows he can't go back on what he said, but at the same time he doesn't want to say things that tell the senators he's not going to be independent. It's a fine line.
KEILAR: Do you think he's going to be confirmed? And what is your thinking on that? Why?
DUPREE: I do think he's going to be confirmed. I think he has, in large part, satisfied the concerns that Senator Tillis had raised. For example, Tillis had wanted him to meet with the Epstein victims, which he did.
I don't know if he has fully satisfied Senator Cornyn. I think Cornyn's going to be the tougher battle for Blanche. The thing Cornyn is very interested in is this weaponization fund and the IRS immunity, and I don't think there's much wiggle room for Blanche on this. He said that the weaponization fund is dead, but he stopped short of saying, It'll never be resurrected, it might never come back in some later date in some different form. So, I think there, he's got a much finer line to have to walk, and it remains to be seen whether he's ultimately going to be able to satisfy Senator Cornyn.
KEILAR: Dead, but maybe a zombie, I guess, I don't know.
DUPREE: You got it. Yes.
KEILAR: So separately, I want to ask you about some comments from the FBI Director, Kash Patel. This is something that he made to Fox when it comes to the Nancy Guthrie case. He speculated that there might be missing doorbell surveillance video because of the investigative timeline, where the FBI was, he said, Kept out of the case for days.
He said, We were looking for the needle of all needles in all haystacks because, since she didn't pay for it, they didn't record that data... But there was a chance that it was located in their cache just before it was being deleted.
We have to be clear that a lot of this is speculative, right? Nancy Guthrie has not been found. This is a family that is deeply traumatized. There's no definitive evidence that there is missing video from Guthrie's Nest camera in this case.
What do comments like this do to the integrity of this investigation when you have the FBI Director saying that?
DUPREE: Yes, it's hard because this is why typically you don't have FBI officials commenting on evidence during an ongoing investigation for this reason. Because, it's frankly hard to make of what the Director is saying.
In other words, it sounds like maybe there's some video missing. We don't know if it should have been there. We don't know why it's gone. We don't know when the FBI got it. There's just too much information, we don't have to be able to draw conclusions. And that's why I think the FBI would be well-advised to kind of keep those sorts of things under wraps to the extent possible. Be transparent, but at the same time, don't put all the evidence out there until they're really prepared to address its significance.
KEILAR: Tom, great to have you. Thank you so much.
DUPREE: Thanks.
KEILAR: Up next. The Source Code. We're giving you a number at the center of a story in the news. Can you guess the story? Tonight's Source Code, there it is, 74, and we'll be right back with the answer.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: Tonight's Source Code is 74. That is how many years it's been since a Pan Am flight crashed into the ocean off Puerto Rico, and how many years it took to locate the wreckage.
A search team working with the Discovery Channel found it about five miles offshore, 2,000 feet below the surface of the Atlantic, using an underwater drone with sophisticated sonar technology. It captured extraordinary images like this one of the nose of the plane. You can still see even the iconic logo.
[22:00:00]
Everyone survived that initial crash on April 11th, 1952, but the passengers had not been briefed on emergency evacuation procedures, and it led to panic and confusion. Many passengers refusing to leave the plane, staying buckled in their seats. Survivors later said, some were worried about rough seas and sharks. The plane sank in less than three minutes.
The Coast Guard and Air Force saved 12 passengers and five crew members, but the other 52 on board died. And that tragedy led to pre- flight safety demonstrations that we all get before every flight today.
Thank you for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
