'This Week' Transcript 4-19-26: Amb. Mike Waltz, UAE Minister of State for International Cooperation Reem Al Hashimy, Rep. Ro Khanna & Mentalist Oz Pearlman
This is a rush transcript of "This Week" airing Sunday, April 19.
A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, April 19, 2026 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the "This Week" transcript archive.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JONATHAN KARL, ABC “THIS WEEK” CO-ANCHOR: Shots were fired in the Hormuz Strait over the weekend, but President Trump just told me he still thinks he can get a peace deal with Iran, saying it will happen, quote, “one way or another. The nice way or the hard way.”
“THIS WEEK” starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Breaking point.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes, we have very good conversations going on.
KARL: President Trump says a deal is within reach. But if talks fail, so could the ceasefire.
TRUMP: But maybe I won’t extend it. So, you have a blockade and, unfortunately, we’ll have to start dropping bombs again.
KARL: Iran targets ships in the Strait of Hormuz as the U.S. blockade continues.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is U.S. Navy Warship 115, request you return to original port of call.
KARL: The war’s impact hitting at home.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): And as a direct result of the costly and reckless Republican war of choice, gas prices have skyrocketed.
KARL: This morning, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Mike Waltz, and a view of the war from the country that has been attacked by Iran more than any other. And Congressman Ro Khanna, on where the Democratic Party now stands on Israel.
A holy war of words.
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think it’s very, very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology.
KARL: And the roundtable on Congressman Eric Swalwell resigning in disgrace. Could he be charged?
And the magic of mind reading.
OZ PEARLMAN, MENTALIST: The difference between mentalism and magic is that I don’t do sleight of hand. I do sleight of mind.
KARL: We speak with mentalist Oz Pearlman as he prepares to get inside President Trump’s head at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: From ABC News it’s “THIS WEEK.” Here now, Jonathan Karl.
KARL: Good morning. Welcome to “THIS WEEK.”
Seven weeks into the war with Iran, we begin with two wildly divergent descriptions of what’s going on. To hear President Trump describe it, we are on the verge of a real comprehensive peace in the Middle East. On Friday, he told me a deal could come as soon as this weekend. He says the Iranians have agreed to give up their nuclear materials to never again enrich uranium and to fully open the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump told me, in one of three conversations over the past 48 hours, that the Iranians and the Americans would work together on removing Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium, what he calls nuclear dust, and that it would be brought to the United States. He also said he expects to have a lasting peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon.
And just a short while ago this morning, he told me that even though Iran has committed what he called a serious violation of the ceasefire by firing on two Indian ships in the Strait of Hormuz, he still thinks a deal will happen. Quote, “one way or another. The nice way or the hard way.”
If everything in the deal he has described comes together, or even if some of it does, it could be a truly historic moment in the Middle East. But that is a big if. This morning, a top Iranian official said there are still, quote, “considerable disagreements.” The biggest questions are whether the temporary ceasefire is holding and whether the Strait of Hormuz is actually going to reopen.
And just minutes ago, President Trump announced that there will be another round of peace talks beginning tomorrow night in Islamabad, saying that he is “offering a very fair and reasonable deal.” And that if Iran doesn’t take it, he will, quote, “knock out every single power plant and every single bridge” in their country.
I’ll be talking to the Trump administration’s ambassador to the United Nations and former national security adviser Michael Waltz. And I’ll be joined here in the studio by a senior official from the Arab nation that has been attacked by Iran more than any other.
But let’s start with two people who can help us understand what is happening right now in the Middle East. We have ABC's Steve Ganyard, who has been watching the Strait of Hormuz, and Karim Sadjadpour, one of America’s leading experts on Iran.
Karim, let me start with you. I know you, this morning, were listening to the speech by the Iranian speaker of the parliament, who the Trump administration says they’ve been talking to, and see as the leader they can deal with. What message are you hearing from the Iranians right now?
KARIM SADJADPOUR, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE SENIOR FELLOW: Well, I think we started a debate within Tehran between those who want to continue to resist the United States and do not trust the United States. And those who argue, listen, we’ve prevailed. This was a war of regime change for the United States. Weve
survived. Let’s consolidate our gains now.
And the speaker of parliament in Tehran, Ghalibaf, was trying to make the case to people that we’ve survived, we’ve prevailed. Now is the time for compromise.
KARL: But he’s also saying there are significant differences that remain. Talking to President Trump, he sounds like a deal could be hashed out tomorrow. The Iranians don’t do anything quickly.
SADJADPOUR: From 1979 to the present, Jon, we’ve -- Iran has made perhaps only three major compromises. They’ve only come after months, sometimes years of very difficult negotiations.
KAR: And, also, we’ve heard some conflicting messages. So, the foreign ministry spokesperson said the Strait is open. Then we heard, you know, from the military saying that it’s not. Who’s actually -- who’s in charge?
SADJADPOUR: Power in Iran essentially now lies with the Revolutionary Guards. But the Revolutionary Guards are not monolithic. You have forces who they call themselves principlists (ph), loyal to the principles of the 1979 revolution, which are death to America and death to Israel, and forces that are more pragmatic, who say, listen, if we want to preserve this revolution, we need to start to put our economic and national interests before revolutionary ideology.
KARL: All right, Karim, thank you.
Now, Steve, help us understand that there were -- the Iranians shot at two Indian flagged vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. What happened?
COL. STEVE GANYARD, U.S. MARINE CORPS (RET.) & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR Those are the last two ships that tried to get through the Strait. As of this morning, we’re seeing no traffic move through. So, you can see one of the Indian tankers as it moved up, trying to go through the Strait. So, this is Iranian oil that the Indian tanker just bought. And they get up to here --
KARL: From Iran?
GANYARD: From Iran, and they get told to turn around. So, the tanker captain said, hey, what the heck? It’s your oil that I just bought from you. So, this was the last attempt.
But you’ll notice the track that it was on, Jon. The Iranians have been pushing the normal track out of the Gulf through these two islands here, because they’re tolling. They’re charging up to $2 million per ship to go through this. This is something that the Iranians want to continue to do. But it’s a U.S. red line. No tolling. Freedom of movement. That’s going to be the red line that the U.S. still has to resolve.
KARL: It’s just astounding. They bought oil from Iran, and they were stopped by the Iranians who started shooting at them.
Anyway, let -- what is it going to take to open the Strait of Hormuz, for shippers to be confident that they can go through?
GANYARD: A couple things have to happen. One, these small boats that we saw attacking the Indian freighters yesterday have to stop their attacks. So, the Iranians still have hundreds of small boats, some of them in caves, that they can attack shipping within the shipping lanes. So, if they do that, the insurance companies that are ensuring all these tankers back here are going to say, you’re not moving until we know that we’re not going to get attacked.
The other --
KARL: And these lines we’re seeing, this is what it looks like in a normal time.
GANYARD: This is what is normal. This is the normal, just north of Iran, this is the normal track. This is the track that has been pushing up so that the Iranians can toll. But once they get the fast boats stopped, don’t attack us anymore, there’s the other question of mines. Apparently, the Iranians have lost track of where the mines are that they put in the water. So, the U.S. Navy, after the shooting stops, has to bring in its very sophisticated de-mining equipments. Think underwater drones. Still untested in combat. To get all that kit in, it’ll be about a week. Then to clear these lanes, about a week outbound, a week inbound. That’s three weeks. If they find any mines at all, you can double that timeline.
So, even if we get everything, if peace breaks out today, it’s going to be weeks, if not months before this mess starts to get unclogged.
KARL: Meanwhile, there’s this U.S. embargo stopping all Iranian ships from getting in. Explain how that works.
GANYARD: Indeed. So, if you take a line here from the Pakistan-Iran border down to this point of land in Oman, this is where the U.S. is running this blockade. We’ve got about 22 ships in the region. We could probably do it with about half of that. So they’re getting help from aircraft, from satellites. So, we’re tracking all these ships that are trying to or are going up to the line here. So, we can do this indefinitely.
The thing that’s most interesting is, that there are reports out there now saying that the U.S. will board and seize any Iranian oil anywhere in the world. Ninety percent of the Iranian oil goes to China. So, if we board a ship, it will most likely be Chinese oil, just weeks before President Trump is supposed to meet with Xi Jinping in Beijing.
KARL: Sounds like a complicating factor.
Steve, thank you very much.
Let's bring in the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, for the latest from the Trump administration on this.
Certainly a consequential morning here, Mr. Ambassador. These talks are going to be tomorrow night in Islamabad. Who's going to be leading the U.S. delegation?
MIKE WALTZ, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Well, as the president announced, the vice president, with our key negotiators, looks like they are going to head out for another round. And I have to remind everyone, these are the highest level engagements between the United States and the Iranian regime in the 47 years since it first came to power and, of course, took 66 Americans hostage.
So it's incredibly significant, as is the first high-level direct engagement between the Is -- between the Israelis and the Lebanese governments for the first time in decades. So I don't think anyone can say President Trump isn't putting diplomacy first. Of course, that is backed by significant and very real and very capable military power.
KARL: That ceasefire expires on Wednesday. Will it -- will it be extended if there isn't a final deal coming out of these talks?
WALTZ: Well, that's ultimately a decision for the president, but I think the outcome of these talks will be incredibly consequential. And as the president has stated, he is prepared to escalate, to de-escalate. He is prepared to actually board and turn around Iranian ships even as far east as the Pacific Ocean.
Press -- Secretary Bessent, our treasury secretary, announced Operation Economic Fury, where we're taking additional economic measures to continue the maximum pressure campaign against the Iranian economy, which is an absolute freefall in terms of its currency, its foreign currency reserves, its ability to perform basic functions.
And, of course, we have a full court press here at the United Nations where we're seeing our Gulf Arab allies in particular truly united, pushing forth a resolution that a U.N. record, 135 nations joined us in condemning Iran's attacks on ports, airports, civilian infrastructure, even neighborhoods, to the tunes of thousands of missiles of drones in civilian infrastructure.
So, Iran's never been more isolated. Its economy is in freefall. It truly has no cards.
And the president's objectives and red lines have been very clear. It cannot and will not ever have a nuclear weapon.
KARL: So the Iranians said they were reopening the Strait of Hormuz. It's not reopened. We saw them firing on an Indian -- two Indian ships.
What makes you think you can trust the Iranians even if you can arrive at a deal coming out of these meetings? What makes you think you can trust them to abide by it?
WALTZ: Well, the -- the Iranian command and control and government is in absolute disarray because of the devastating attacks across its leadership.
You're right. You heard the Iranian foreign minister say it's open, and then the IRGC step in and say, "No, it's closed."
Regardless, it's the blockade, the U.S. Navy and President Trump who's ultimately deciding what gets in and out. So he has completely turned the tables on Iran's attempt to hold the entire world's economies hostage on its attempt to punish the world as a result of this dispute over its nuclear program.
But to your point, I promise you, I assure you, the United States doesn't trust anything. Any agreement that comes out will have to be verifiable and enforceable.
And back to my position here in the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, and its nuclear inspectors, I'm confident, will be a key part of whatever is resolved.
KARL: And if they don't agree, is the president really prepared to go back to full-on war, extending this war well beyond what -- he originally said it was going to be four, five, maybe six weeks. We're now going into week eight. Is he prepared to do what he threatened here? He said destroy every power plant and every bridge in the country?
Full-on, in-depth war extended in the Middle East, he's ready for that?
WALTZ: Well, all options are on the table, absolutely. Unlike his predecessor, President Trump doesn't publicly take options off the table and tell our adversaries what he's not going to do, therefore giving them leverage.
So, all options are on the table. We could take that infrastructure out relatively easily. The Iranian air defenses have been absolutely decimated.
And just to get ahead of a lot of the critics and hand-wringing, throwing out irresponsible terms like "war crimes", attacking, destroying infrastructure that has clearly and historically been used for dual military purposes is not a war crime.
KARL: Mr. Ambassador --
(CROSSTALK)
WALTZ: I mean, we've heard that from Democratic lawmakers.
KARL: But --
(CROSSTALK)
WALTZ: We've heard that from others, and it is irresponsible and just flat wrong.
KARL: But Mr. Ambassador, let me be clear. The president today said that he would knock out every single power plant and every single bridge in Iran.
He's not talk -- just talking about those that are supporting the military infrastructure. He's saying every bridge and every power plant in the country. That wouldn't be a war crime?
WALTZ: That would be an escalatory ladder. And if you go back in the history of warfare, go all the way back to World War II, of course we bombed and took down bridges, other infrastructure, power plants that, yes, could be used for civilian, but also are used to manufacture drones and missiles.
So, and the Iranian regime in particular and its terrorist proxies have a long history of actually deliberately hiding military infrastructure in hospitals, schools, neighborhoods, and other -- and other civilian assets. So, they are standing on -- they have no ground to stand on, number one.
Number two, they have a long history of commingling. Number three, it's perfectly acceptable in the rules of land warfare. And number four, the Iranian regime is launching drones and missiles directly into civilian homes, hotels and resorts across the Gulf.
So, this is just a ridiculous argument we've heard in the media and from the Iranians and frankly, from some lawmakers here at home.
KARL: I mean, again, hitting every single bridge, every single power plant in the country goes beyond simply those that support the military infrastructure.
Thank you very much, Ambassador Waltz. I appreciate your time this morning.
WALTZ: Thank you.
KARL: And an important clarification. I just got off the phone with President Trump yet again. He told me that Vice President Vance will not be leading the U.S. delegation to Islamabad. He said it's because of security. The Secret Service did not feel comfortable having the vice president go to Pakistan on 24 hours' notice. Its -- he added, "J.D. is great."
Now to our next guest.
The United Arab Emirates has taken more direct attacks from Iran than any other country, including Israel, in the last seven weeks of war. Joining us now is the UAE's minister of state for international cooperation, Reem al-Hashimy.
Thank you so much, Madam Secretary, for being here.
So, I want to get to that point. You have been attacked by Iran more than any other country. And we put together the numbers here. This is from the Gulf Research Center. And it shows -- look at the numbers. I mean you know them well. You have been attacked more than Israel. More than Saudi Arabia. Why has Iran aimed so much firepower at the UAE?
REEM AL HASHIMY, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES MINISTER OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION: Thank you very much, Jon, for having me.
Well, in 40 days, we were attacked a little over 2,800 -- with 2,800 missiles and drones. And for us, it's very clear that they've chosen to go down this path because we are everything that they're not. We're a model of economic prosperity. We have 200 nationalities that live there. We have religions and cultures from all around the world. We used our oil wealth to build an economic powerhouse. They used their wealth for nuclear programs that are nefarious, for missiles, drones, proxies, et cetera.
So, whereas we tried to become and have become an international, global, responsible player, they are pariah state, and they wanted to break that model, but they underestimated our resolve.
KARL: So, how concerned are you that at the end of this process, even if there is a deal, that Iran will retain the power to continue once again to attack the UAE?
AL HASHIMY: So, we're very concerned because we believe that it's really important that as part of a neighborhood that one is in, that you have neighbors that don't just launch these types of weapons against fellow neighbors. I don't know if you are aware, Jon, but over 90 percent of all of their targets was actually civilian infrastructure, hotels, airports --
KARL: So, they weren't just going after the U.S. bases or U.S. facilities.
AL HASHIMY: Not at all. And not even the U.S. bases where nothing was actually fired from the U.S. bases, right? So, they really wanted to break what it was that made the UAE special, which is this incredible model of prosperity and tolerance.
Now, what we are looking at moving forward is, how do you live with the reality of geography in a neighborhood that still holds and upholds, not just international law, but also, how are we going to be able to deal with a team in the IRGC that doesn't have such hostile intentions towards us?
KARL: So, what do you make of the prospects for these talks in Islamabad? Do you think there's going to be a deal? Do you think it's --
AL HASHIMY: Well, eventually, there's going to have to be one, but it has to be a good deal, right, because there's no point in kicking the can down the road when we're just going to end up where we started, maybe even with a more emboldened regime that wants to continue to hurt its neighborhood.
So, from our perspective, we do want to have peace in our region, but it can't be a bad peace. It can't be a peace where it doesn't address the root causes, which is Iran dealing with proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas and the Houthis having a nefarious missile and drone program, a nuclear enrichment program, being able to weaponize the straits.
I mean, that, I think, is a really serious tool that the Iranians have taken forward, which is to hurt cities from Des Moines to Delhi in spiking up fuel prices and spiking up food prices. They don't have the right to do that. And that's why what the president has put forward, which is to not allow them to take over the straits, is going to be really important moving forward.
KARL: And you -- I mean, they're your neighbors. You opposed this war in the beginning.
AL HASHIMY: Yes.
KARL: You wanted a negotiated agreement in the beginning. Do you think that the Iranians, as the regime now stands, can be trusted to keep commitments, even if they come to an agreement?
AL HASHIMY: Look, trust is earned, right? And what we've seen so far has been a pure demonstration of a lot of hostility. So the onus is really on them to demonstrate that they are not going to be going forward in the way that the trajectory has been so far.
But trust is earned, Jon, and we are -- we are not fools. We've seen them even before February 28th, when this started, a couple of weeks before that, one of our senior ministers was in Tehran talking through how are we going to be able to deal with, as I said, the realities of geography. Right now, they're going to have to really step up in a significant way for us to be able to believe what they say again.
KARL: President Trump has said that there has been regime change in Iran. I mean, obviously, the supreme leader was killed. A lot of the other leaders were killed. You don't think there's been a regime change in Iran?
AL HASHIMY: I know that personalities have changed. Right? You have different characters that are currently in place, but how has that changed the character of the Revolutionary Guard? That's yet to see. Doesn't seem very hopeful, though, right now.
KARL: And let me ask you also about this threat that he's made to take out every bridge and every power plant if there isn't an agreement. Are you concerned about that?
AL HASHIMY: We believe that maximum pressure is what actually takes you forward, dealing with the Revolutionary Guard, whether it's military, whether it's economic pressure, which is why that piece is going to be critical now that they've weaponized the straits, the tolling of vessels, the fact that they are able to have another amplified revenue source, those are all things that need to be tackled.
Ultimately, we don't want to hurt the Iranian people. That's very important to mention. But at the same time, it's the Revolutionary Guard that have taken forward a military stance and a posture not against the U.S. and Israel alone, but against the very neighborhood that they operate in through the Gulf states.
KARL: All right. Madam Minister, thank you very much for being here. Really appreciate your time and your perspective.
AL HASHIMY: It's a pleasure. Thank you, Jon. Thank you so much.
KARL: Thank you.
AL HASHIMY: Thank you.
KARL: Coming up, has the war in the Middle East broken the U.S.-Israeli relationship beyond repair? Some Democrats think so. We'll hear from one of them when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: We're joined now by Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California.
Thank you for being here. Really appreciate it.
REP. RO KHANNA, (D) CALIFORNIA & ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE MEMBER: Always good to be here.
KARL: So, I know you've obviously been adamantly opposed to this war in the first place. What do you make of this latest development, though, another round of peace talks?
KHANNA: Well, they said they want to escalate to de-escalate. They've escalated to devastation. I mean, you have the pope lecturing America about possible war crimes. You have the president, as you pointed out, threatening to destroy all power plants. I didn't think we would ever get to that point.
You have the Strait of Hormuz that is now blocked. This never happened before the war. What have we achieved? Gas is up from $2.30 to four bucks.
You have now Iran having a more hardline regime, as we just heard. And all our allies, like UAE, being hit. I mean, we've created devastation, and we're being lectured by the pope.
KARL: But let me ask you. You've called the war -- I think I have this correct -- the biggest blunder in American foreign policy in the 21st century.
If this gets to a resolution, I mean, if they actually -- and I know that's a big "if" -- but if they actually get to a resolution where Iran has given up its nuclear program and, you know, there is a peace deal, maybe even a peace deal with Lebanon, are you prepared to revise that and say that they actually got something out of it and it wasn't a blunder?
KHANNA: If we actually achieve something. But the enriched uranium is still there. We have a more hardline regime there. Khamenei Jr. actually wants to develop nuclear weapons.
Does anyone believe that we actually have more leverage over the Strait of Hormuz? We have less. China has more influence in Iran.
And we've lost our entire moral credibility. We have a president of the United States threatening to wipe out Iranian civilization, and people think it's normal?
And then you have a situation where our troops are at risk, where a president who campaigned on peace is spending now $400 billion to spend more money on these wars. Why aren't we spending that on healthcare here, jobs here, childcare here? Why aren't we addressing the needs of the American people?
I'm Team America. He seems to be more obsessed with the Middle East.
KARL: So let me ask you about Israel. You were one of 40 -- 40 -- I mean, you're not in the Senate, but there were 40 Senate Democrats who voted to halt the sale of military equipment to Israel, something you agreed with clearly.
Is the Democratic Party no longer a pro-Israeli party?
KHANNA: We're a party that believes in two states and peace. But let me tell you what we're not for. We're not for aid to Israel. They've got a $45 billion defense budget.
Why are we giving them money? Why aren't we providing it for healthcare here? Why aren't we providing it for childcare here?
By the way, that's not just an issue on the Democratic Party. You look at Republican voters under 50, they agree with me.
And then you look at what the devastation was in Gaza. Why aren't we doing the Arab Peace Plan? Which, by the way, the UAE foreign minister has supported of two states. You'd have a Palestinian state and a -- which is demilitarized -- and an Israeli state.
That's what we are for. We should be for peace and we should be for justice in that region.
KARL: But that seemed to be a big moment to see the vast majority of Democrats in the Senate say no more military sales right now to Israel.
KHANNA: Well, what they said is no more bulldozers --
KARL: Yeah.
KHANNA: -- that are destroying Palestinian villages. It's unjust.
I mean, the young people in this country -- when I met Netanyahu years ago, I said to him, Mr. Prime Minister, you may have won the battle, you've lost the war, because you've lost the next generation in America. We don't think you're acting morally.
We have a sense that people in Palestine, they deserve justice. They deserve a state. And yes, we need to have a secure Israel, but not an Israel led by Netanyahu, who killed 70,000 people in Gaza, not an Israel that is going to be raining bombs in Beirut, and not a prime minister sitting in our Situation Room.
Let me tell you what a Democratic president's never going to do -- an Israeli prime minister is not going to be sitting in our Situation Room telling the American president what to do. Only Americans will be in that Situation Room.
KARL: You went further than even most of your Democratic colleagues. You called for a stop of funding for defensive weapons to Iran, including Iron Dome, which is something you had supported. Remember, you and I spoke about it on this show not all that long ago. You said it was something that protected not just Israelis, but also Palestinians.
KHANNA: I'm for the Iron Dome technology. I'm glad UAE has it. I'm glad Israel has it.
KARL: But you don't think that we should give it to Israel anymore?
KHANNA: Why? Why can't they afford it with $45 billion? Even Rahm Emanuel agrees with me.
I mean, why are we subsidizing one of the richest countries in the world? They have health care for all their people. Why aren't we putting that money in our communities for our jobs?
Do I want them to have Iron Dome? Absolutely. I want any country to have Iron Dome to protect their citizens. But the free ride is over. They're not going to be getting American tax dollars, and they're certainly not going to be dictating to the American president. The American president will call the shots.
KARL: And very quickly, it's an election year in Israel. If Netanyahu is removed and he faces a tough re-election battle, new leader in Israel, does that change your view on this?
KHANNA: It doesn't change my view on aid. It does change my view about how we will cooperate or not. I mean, they should recognize that this relationship is going to depend on them fighting for justice, recognizing a Palestinian state, working towards peace, and actually not insulting the American public and the American president.
I mean, the American people understand that we have gotten into wars in the Middle East. They're tired of it. They're tired of our money going there. They want us to focus on the economy here at home.
KARL: All right, Congressman Ro Khanna, I really appreciate your time. Thank you.
KHANNA: Thank you.
KARL: Up next, he's the spiritual leader of 1.4 billion Catholics. So why did President Trump call him weak on crime and terrible on foreign policy? We'll break down the president's feud with Pope Leo after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: And let’s bring in the roundtable. Former DNC chair Donna Brazile, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and “National Review” editor Ramesh Ponnuru.
So, I mean, let’s start with the pope and J.D. Vance. First of all, Governor Chris, did you ever think we’d see the vice president tell the pope to be careful when he talks about theology?
CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) FORMER NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: You know, no, I didn’t. And especially this vice president, who is, you know, now a Catholic convert.
Early on in your Catholicism, taking on the pope probably isn’t the greatest thing in the world. But, you know, J.D. Vance is following, as he always does, the lead of Donald Trump. He cannot get out from Donald Trump’s back. He cannot ever do anything that isn’t completely 110 percent supportive of what Trump says.
But here’s the problem, he’s leading himself to a real, real political problem for himself. Donald Trump knows about as much about the Catholic Church as my phone does, OK. This --
KARL: There’s not a date on that phone. Come on.
CHRISTIE: This is -- this is a guy -- this is a guy who knows nothing about religion, has no religious basis at all. Ramesh and I were speaking in the green room about the time when they asked him about which one he preferred, the New Testament or the Old Testament. He goes, well, I like them both. I like them both. You know, this is a guy who’s a fake. He’s a phony. And J.D., have a little advice for you this morning, don’t be following a phony on issues of religion and taking on Pope Leo.
The other complication here, Jon, is, this is the first American pope. So, American Catholics not only follow him as Catholics, but they have a great pride of ownership in this pope.
DONNA BRAZILE, FORMER DNC CHAIR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.
CHRISTIE: And so it’s personal on top of being theological.
BRAZILE: Yes.
CHRISTIE: And so, I think this is a real problem politically for them. Catholics are not going to forget that this president, and my party’s leadership, has taken on Pope Leo in a really, really gross way.
KARL: I mean, I think -- I think he’s the first pope that’s a White Sox fan.
CHRISTIE: Well, there’s so few White Sox fans, Jon, that’s not --
KARL: So -- but I want to play it because Pope Leo actually addressed this whole controversy, even unprompted. It was very interesting, talking to reporters on his plane. He’s in the middle of a of a trip to Africa. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
POPE LEO: The talk that I gave at the prayer meeting for peace a couple days ago, it was prepared two weeks ago, well before the president ever commented on myself and on the message of peace that I am promoting. And yet, as it happens, it was looked at as if I was trying to debate again the president, which is not my interest at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: And J.D. Vance saw that and said, OK, we’re all fine. He put out a post on X saying, in part, “Pope Leo preaches the Gospel, as he should, and that will inevitably mean he offers his opinions on moral issues of the day. The president and his entire administration work to apply those moral principles in a messy world.”
So, he said, the pope agrees, we’re not -- we’re not at -- fighting with the pope. But they are fighting with the pope.
BRAZILE: You know -- you know -- you know, Jon, I agree with Chris. I’m a lifelong Catholic. I come from a very solid Catholic family on my father's side. My mother converted to Catholicism, raised us in the Catholic Church. And throughout my adult life, I still travel with my rosary beads. I have in my wallet, not only a little card with the last pope, Francis, but Leo.
But Pope Leo not only has American roots, and on the South Side of Chicago -- let's start there.
KARL: Yeah.
BRAZILE: -- you're going to really pick a fight with somebody from the South Side of Chicago? I don't do that, but also New Orleans roots.
So that is -- that is something for me -- it felt personal to see the vice-president, who's a convert to the Catholic Church, really in many ways insult the pope.
He's a calm, mild-mannered pope who served in war-torn Peru, who speaks the gospel the way it is written, who tell us -- it really admonished us to worry about the poor, to seek help, to humble ourselves.
And to see this back and forth -- it was just unwarranted.
CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) FORMER NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: But --
BRAZILE: I'm glad that the tensions are hopefully come calming down, but it was an insult.
CHRISTIE: Remember, Jon, it was the president who started this with --
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: Yeah. This is not J.D. Vance --
CHRISTIE: That's still J.D. Vance, though.
KARL: This is --
(CROSSTALK)
CHRISTIE: He’s saying -- he’s saying he's soft on crime.
(CROSSTALK)
RAMESH PONNURU, NATIONAL REVIEW EDITOR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Right, let’s reading an attack ad on crime.
(CROSSTALK)
BRAZILE: Weak on crime.
KARL: Yeah.
PONNURU: Of course, he is an American pope, but he's leading a global institution There are 300 million Catholics in Africa.
KARL: Yeah.
PONNURU: And when the pope said in Cameroon, “Woe to those who make war for selfish reasons,” he's talking in a country that has been in the middle of a civil war that has been extremely bloody.
BRAZILE: Yes.
PONNURU: And Americans -- we have this unfortunate tendency sometimes to think everything's about us. Oh, that's a comment about the midterm elections in the United States.
BRAZILE: Right.
PONNURU: And I think the pope was quite appropriately saying no.
The other thing is modern popes are against war, all right? John Paul II second was against the First Gulf War, was against the Iraq War. The George H.W. Bush administration and the George W. Bush Administration were able to disagree with that and take it in stride and not issue deranged attacks in the way that President Trump did, and that I think has set the tone for this entire exchange.
KARL: Okay, let's get to the larger issue though. What is happening? So we heard from the president. We've got another round of talks in Islamabad.
I mean, what do you what do you make of this? I mean, it's -- look, whatever is happening -- and look, the Strait of Hormuz is not open. The Iranians have made commitments they haven't kept already
But we are seeing something that we really haven't seen -- high-level talks with the Iranians about a -- you know, a comprehensive peace deal.
CHRISTIE: Look, the idea that there's talks is fine. And I -- and I think anybody would support the idea that we're talking.
But here's the problem: you've got a regime -- and we saw this earlier -- attacking an ally and friend of ours, at the UAE, at twice the level that they're even attacking Israel. They're trying to make this a regional war. They're the ones who closed down the Strait of Hormuz.
And by the way, Jon, all of this was predictable --
BRAZILE: Yes.
CHRISTIE: -- when the president decided to do this the way he did it. What do I mean? He didn't bring our allies on board off the bat, and he more importantly didn't bring the American people on board off the bat.
Every time we've entered one of those conflicts that Ramesh just -- just discussed that were initially very popular, why? Because the president laid out why we're doing what we're doing and rally the American people around him.
The problem for Donald Trump now is he's got competing interests. He knows that he needs to try to finish the job in Iran, but he knows that that hurts his party, my party in the midterms. And so he's got this conflict now where he's looking for an off-ramp to help himself politically, even though geopolitically --
KARL: Yeah.
CHRISTIE: -- the smart thing to do is to finish the job in Iran.
BRAZILE: Yeah.
CHRISTIE: And so, that -- that's his problem and this is when you govern without principle, Jon. He has no principles.
BRAZILE: But, Chris, who is -- who's going to Islamabad tomorrow, the next day? Who? The vice president? Marco Rubio? Or the two real estate developers?
The point is, is that we don't know who the United States will be sending. That's my point (ph).
KARL: I mean, it's happening very quickly.
BRAZILE: Right, but --
KARL: And we've had conflicting reports. We heard -- I mean, it was a minute, we heard from -- you know, the former national security advisor, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. saying that Vance would be leading the delegation. The president told me he wouldn't. I just got a message from somebody else saying, well, maybe he will be.
But you know, the vice president, whether or not he is going, we are seeing high-level talks. And sure, we had that with Secretary of State John Kerry during the nuclear deal negotiations under President Obama. But we have seen higher-level talks.
BRAZILE: But the Iranians -- who will the Iranians send? The prime minister, the foreign minister who said the strait was reopened, or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who said, “We're closing it and we're going to make sure it's closed”?
So, look, we don't know who's going on our side, and we don't know if the hardliners, with the backing of the supreme leader, or the pragmatists who might be running. We don't know. And that's why going into this war, we didn't have a strategy and we don’t know how it will end.
PONNURU: So thinking about the strategic question, there’s so much focus on whether the Strait of Hormuz is going to be open. But keep in mind, the best possible outcome here is a restoration of the status quo before the war started. And I think that fundamentally speaks to a flaw in the strategy here.
And the other thing is the president keeps threatening war crimes. And at a certain point, you know, I think that -- I think it's obviously horrible for the president to be doing that, but it's maybe more horrible strategically to keep on bluffing about war crimes. And at a certain point, the president's words just don't get taken seriously.
KARL: I think the pushback from the administration to that would be, if we get a peace deal, it won't be just where it was before because they will have been degraded. Theoretically, there'd be this nuclear deal, but also their missile program has been largely, substantially destroyed.
CHRISTIE: The president has given a bunch of reasons for why he went to war.
KARL: Yeah.
CHRISTIE: But the one I think, the only one that resonates with the American people is the nuclear issue. And if he does not remove all the nuclear material from Iran, then we are exactly where Ramesh said. We're back at status quo.
And we did all of this for, essentially, what we had beforehand. And if you talk to the people in the region, they're going to say they're worse off. Because Iran is now even more emboldened because --
KARL: They still (inaudible).
(CROSSTALK)
CHRISTIE: -- he also said regime change, and that didn't happen. Look, the real estate team that he sends over there, the Kushner-Witkoff team, with him as the key strategist meeting the president, they think this is a real estate deal where you threaten to pull a deal off the table, you threaten horrible ramifications, and then you all get to a bigger, a better deal somewhere in the middle.
KARL: Yeah.
CHRISTIE: That's not what it is when you say you're going to destroy every power plant and every bridge. He has said that before. The more you bluff, the less you're listened to. And the Iranians are not going to say to themselves, who cares.
BRAZILE: And meanwhile, Russia has been given another 30 days to sell it all. Again, where did that come from?
(CROSSTALK)
BRAZILE: Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary said, no, we struck this deal with just a couple of weeks, and now 30 more days to enrich Putin and their war against Ukraine. That's something that the administration should also be held accountable for.
CHRISTIE: And hurt Ukraine.
BRAZILE: Yes.
KARL: And they're looking at gas prices, they're looking at oil prices, and I mean, actually, Bessent gave a guarantee of sorts that --
PONNURU: Yeah.
KARL: -- it would be down to three dollars a barrel by September.
PONNURU: Yeah.
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: I mean, $3 a gallon for gas.
PONNURU: Congressional Republicans desperately want this in the rearview mirror, and not in the gas tank.
KARL: Right.
PONNURU: Because they see the midterms already being a serious problem for Republicans without high gas prices.
KARL: We don't have much time left, but I do want to get to Eric Swalwell, which, you know, he's -- since we last spoke, he has resigned from Congress. He's dropped out of the race. He was the frontrunner --
PONNURU: Yes.
KARL: -- for governor, Democratic nominee for governor in California. Christie, you think -- could he be on his way to being prosecuted? I mean, we've seen investigations open up in both coasts.
CHRISTIE: Look, if the allegations are true, he should be.
KARL: Yeah.
CHRISTIE: And look, I think in Republican circles, this guy was always seen as a joke, a self-promoter, and a joke, and arrogant. Little did we know, broadly, that he was also someone who engaged in some of the sexual acts that's been alleged against him by all of these women.
And now, as was typical with this town, Jon, now everyone's saying, oh yeah, we heard about that, we've known about that.
Well, why don't we start acting on it? And if he deserves to be prosecuted, he should, Jon.
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: We should say he has denied the allegations of sexual assault.
BRAZILE: Right.
KARL: -- sexual misconduct.
BRAZILE: But you know, there's something larger here about the Congress itself, as a former congressional staffer. Why do we wait until, you know, this happens before Congress say, well, we better take a look at our Ethics Committee. Mr. Gonzales also resigned this week.
KARL: Yep.
PONNURU: Yeah.
BRAZILE: And we've known about that for months. There's other members of Congress --
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: And you got two more in the --
BRAZILE: Right. But that's the --
PONNURU: We had to have both of those things happen. You had to have this conjunction, where the Republicans were willing to get rid of one person and the Democrats are willing to get rid of one person in a tightly divided Congress. And it's actually kind of a sad comment (ph), right? Because --
CHRISTIE: Yes.
BRAZILE: Yeah.
PONNURU: If you didn't have that coincidence, either one of them could have survived.
(CROSSTALK)
CHRISTIE: Yes. Two sexual harassers at once, have to go bipartisan.
BRAZILE: Fine partisan balance, yeah.
KARL: When Kevin McCarthy pulled him off the Intelligence Committee, he said, if you had seen the FBI briefing that I saw on Swalwell, this is years ago now, you know, you would see this is what we had to do.
I mean, did people not know? I mean, these are -- because these are allegations beyond even the others. This is --
BRAZILE: You know, when these allegations are raised, I think we should give them serious consideration. And I'm glad the Democrats, along with the leaders, decided it was time for Eric to go. But the House needs to clean up its act, and the Senate.
KARL: Right. Thank you, Donna. When we come back, my conversation with the man trying to get inside President Trump's head.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OZ PEARLMAN, MENTALIST: You asked me a question, what's his birthday? Are you ready? Whatever your ATM PIN code, that fake that you made up, write it down and you make sure no one can see it. Hold it close to your heart. Close to your heart. No, don't let them see. Don't let them see. Close your eyes.
SARA HAINES, CO-HOST, THE VIEW: I'm not letting anyone see.
PEARLMAN: You challenged me. You said, I'm thinking of Ken, and then you asked me, what's his last name and then you asked me what's his birthday like? How could I even know that? Watch this. Tell us, what is his birthday?
ANNA NAVARRO, CO-HOST, THE VIEW: December 25th. 12/25.
HAINES: Oh, my God.
PEARLMAN: 12/25.
NAVARRO: That's weird.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Oz Pearlman, the mentalist, shocked the hosts of "The View." I sat down with him this week in New York to see how he's preparing for what might be his biggest performance yet before President Trump and the White House Correspondents’ Dinner next weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KARL: So you're doing the White House Correspondents’ Dinner?
PEARLMAN: I sure am.
KARL: Why?
PEARLMAN: Why? I think --
KARL: I know it's not because of how much they pay you. I mean, I used to run that organization.
PEARLMAN: Are you reading my mind right now?
KARL: Yes, yes, yes.
PEARLMAN: I think it's an incredible opportunity just in terms of being in a room full of skeptical journalists. That is my bread and butter, to amaze people that like getting to the bottom of things. And I think just in terms of the opportunity of seeing, you know, just the eyeballs that are going to see this and the chance to create an incredibly memorable moment with the most powerful person in the world.
KARL: I mean, Trump is going to be there. I mean, that's what he says.
PEARLMAN: Yes.
KARL: He's been at the dinner. He's never been there as president.
PEARLMAN: Right. And people, when I was booked, which, you know, kind of the details of how this works, it was several months ago. And they said to me, it's unprecedented. President Trump has never attended one of these while in office, so he probably won't. And I, at that first call, said he absolutely will. And they go, how do you know that? And I go, you know what I do for a living, right? I get people to do certain things.
KARL: So you see this as a big -- I mean, look, you're big. You've like, I mean, you've broken through. I mean --
PEARLMAN: I'm not big enough.
KARL: I mean, my God, but you think this could be --
PEARLMAN: This will be a career defining moment.
KARL: For you.
PEARLMAN: Career defining. This has the potential. You never know what will happen. So I want to explain to you, you know the president. You know the president.
KARL: Oh, yes.
PEARLMAN: There is no world in which I can get him to do what I want that he doesn't want.
KARL: You're not political. I mean, I looked, I tried to find any evidence of anything of you political.
PEARLMAN: I'm not publicly political.
KARL: Yes.
PEARLMAN: Yes. I mean, privately I have opinions, but publicly two things. One, for this specific event and in life in general, I was brought on to not be political.
KARL: Right.
PEARLMAN: My job is not to come in and roast. I don't think that's what I was brought in for. I think I was brought in to unite, unite in a sense of wonder and amazement. What do I do? I do things that blow you away, that you get to laugh, wow, gasp, and feel like you're a kid again.
KARL (voice-over): Before the interview ended, Oz did a couple of tricks on me.
PEARLMAN: Let's picture the scenario. You're selling a used car.
KARL: Right.
PEARLMAN: OK? You're selling a used car, and I need this to be something I know that you do in the moment. You make up -- what, make up a number for this car. See right now in your mind what's this car? But give me the number that you're listing it for.
KARL: OK. Yes, yes.
PEARLMAN: Say it. Say the number.
KARL: $35,000.
PEARLMAN: $35,000?
KARL: Yeah.
PEARLMAN: Spontaneous?
KARL: Yes.
PEARLMAN: All right. In your mind, you don't -- you know you won't take $35,000. That's what you listed it for.
KARL: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm asking.
PEARLMAN: So watch this.
KARL: Yeah.
PEARLMAN: Here we go. Think in your mind of how far down you'll go, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. Shuffling of the feet, a little bit awkwardness.
(LAUGH)
KARL: Yeah. You might not get this one (ph).
PEARLMAN: Yeah, probably not, probably not.
(LAUGH)
KARL: Right.
(LAUGH)
PEARLMAN: Close your eyes. What did you end up on when we shook hands? We went in for the handshake and said, I'll accept it. What was your final lowest number you would have accepted?
KARL: $22,499.
PEARLMAN: $22,499?
(LAUGH)
KARL: I'm out of here. Go on.
So, how do you -- I mean that's -- OK.
(CROSSTALK)
PEARLMAN: What color was the car? What color was the car?
KARL: You know, it was.
PEARLMAN: Make up, what color?
KARL: It was a burgundy. It was like a burgundy color burgundy.
PEARLMAN: Burgundy?
KARL: Yeah. Yeah. So it wasn't like a -- it wasn't a red car.
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: It was dark, like a thick red.
PEARLMAN: It wasn't -- it wasn't red. It wasn't reckless. It feels to me this is, based on the number --
KARL: No, no.
PEARLMAN: No, no, hold on, is domestic. It's a Mustang, isn't it?
KARL: Yeah.
(LAUGH)
KARL: Yeah, it is a mustang. What year is it?
PEARLMAN: What year is it?
KARL: Yeah, I mean, come on.
(LAUGH)
PEARLMAN: Hold on.
KARL: Yeah.
PEARLMAN: What year is the car?
(LAUGH)
KARL: I mean that's unfair. I'm being unfair to you. I mean that's insane. You knew it was a Mustang.
PEARLMAN: 1968 isn't it?
(LAUGH)
KARL: '68, that's the last of those classic Mustang.
PEARLMAN: I knew it. I knew it.
KARL: That's why the price is high.
(CROSSTALK)
PEARLMAN: Yeah, you know, I would go $27,500.
KARL: Yeah.
PEARLMAN: I'm a better negotiator than you.
KARL: Yeah. Yeah. And it's in pretty good shape. I mean, I never -- I don't own it, but you know.
PEARLMAN: That's pretty good. That's pretty good.
KARL (voice-over): And when it was over, I brought Oz into the ABC Newsroom in New York where before long, he attracted a crowd. Got inside the heads of a couple of my colleagues.
PEARLMAN: It's Pele (ph), isn't it?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, wow.
(LAUGH)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wow, that was it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KARL (on camera): We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: That's all for us today. Thank you for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Check out "World News Tonight." Have a great day.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
Popular Reads
ABC News Live