[0:00]A ceasefire on life support. President Trump warns more military action is coming saying Iran has to quote pay the price.
[0:10]Democrat Graham Platner prevails in Maine's Senate primary. The match-up between him and Republican Susan Collins that could determine the balance of
[0:19]power in the Senate. And Bill Gates testifies before the House Oversight Committee about his relationship with the late Jeffrey Epstein. One of the
[0:28]committee members joins me here. Hello and welcome. I'm Nancy Cordes in
[0:42]for Major Garrett. Welcome to The Takeout. The fragile ceasefire between the United States and Iran appears to be crumbling. Iran's downing of a US Apache helicopter has ignited a series of
[0:53]strikes in the region carried out by both sides. On social media this morning President Trump said the Iranians have quote taken too long to negotiate a deal
[1:03]and will therefore pay the price. In the Oval Office today he said those strikes are coming soon. >> We hit them hard yesterday. We're going to hit them again hard
[1:13]today. >> Now it's important to remember how we got here. Trump launched this war on February 28th with the promise that it would be swift. It's a promise he's been
[1:24]reiterating again and again ever since. Take a listen. >> Right from the big beginning we projected four to five weeks.
[1:33]But we have capability to go far longer than that. >> I think there's a very good chance we're going to end up in a deal. And so we're giving it five days and then we're
[1:44]going to see where that takes us. So we estimated it would take approximately four to six weeks to achieve our mission. 26 days in we're extremely
[1:54]really a lot ahead of schedule. We were going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We're going to bring them back to the stone ages
[2:04]where they belong. >> In early April, President Trump announced a temporary ceasefire and over the next two months he's been insisting
[2:15]a peace deal is close at hand. Here for example is May 23rd. It reads in part, "Quote, details of the deal are currently being discussed and will be announced shortly."
[2:26]On June 1st, the president said, "Quote, talks are continuing at a rapid pace." Yesterday, just after midnight, Trump said this about a peace deal. >> And then the strait will open up right
[2:37]away. It'll open up immediately upon signing which could be in two or three days. >> And yet today, just 24 hours later, he insisted the opposite. He said the
[2:47]Iranians are dragging their heels and quote, "Playing the US for fools." So, the Strait of Hormuz is still closed, oil prices are up, and the Middle East remains a battleground.
[2:58]Ed O'Keefe joins us now from the White House to help us parse through all of this. Ed, good to see you. What should we make of the president's sudden about-face on the likelihood of a deal?
[3:09]>> Well, uh you know, as you just played out, this has a way of going back and forth between diplomacy and the threats of attack. And just a little while ago, the defense secretary was in Central
[3:20]Command down in Tampa, Florida reiterated in part that they're going to have tap tap tapping bombs on key facilities in Iran from the United States of America, he said. And that's
[3:30]not because we want to have to restart. We don't want to have to restart the war. It's because uh they're set to set the terms of this, he said. Those strikes that will happen tonight will be strong, they will be clear. And if they
[3:41]have to happen tomorrow night, they will be strong and clear. So, even the threat of it happening tonight may get put off for some reason, uh whether that's the weather or some other operational decision. You heard the
[3:52]defense secretary just a little while ago reiterating that it looks as if there will be some more military action in the coming hours. And it comes, the president says,
[4:02]because Iran just continues to slow walk the agreement. As the president has said repeatedly, they have paperwork that would in essence end their nuclear program.
[4:11]He says they Iran would agree to hand over the nuclear material or the powder, the substances the president calls it, to the United States. And then all Iran has to do is sign that deal and they're
[4:23]refusing to do so. >> Uh Ed, in the Oval Office today, the president said something I haven't heard before about the US secretly removing
[4:34]oil from the Persian Gulf. Let's listen to that and then I want to ask you about it. >> Yeah. >> We've been taking out millions of barrels
[4:45]of oil. Millions of barrels. Every night took out oil. But that one I'm going to tell you because they just figured it out. So now that they figured it out, I can
[4:55]tell you. It was very hard for me. I wanted to say it so badly, but it was I didn't want to ruin it. But it was very hard. But millions of barrels of oil has come out. And that's why it's at
[5:06]85, 90 dollars a barrel instead of 250. >> So millions or billions of of barrels of oil have come out. What do we know about this secret oil operation?
[5:17]>> We have asked here at the White House today what exactly he meant by that. They have not clarified. This in some ways, Nancy, sounds a little bit like early on during the conflict when he suggested that Iran had allowed a
[5:29]handful of vessels to get through the strait. And then there was a dispute about whether or not that had actually happened. Here again, the president may be speaking, if not out of turn, at
[5:39]least perhaps not entirely accurately about what has transpired. There's no evidence that that may have happened. But again, should they choose to reveal that information, we're happy to have it. And it came during a pretty lengthy
[5:51]exchange with reporters today regarding Iran, regarding inflation, the fact that it's hit a record high here for the last 3 years, driven by increased gas and
[6:01]food prices, all driven by the blockade there at the street. >> And President Trump saying he likes the inflation. We're going to get into that a little later in the show. Ed O'Keefe
[6:11]at the White House. Thanks so much. We're going to turn now to CBS News national security contributor Sam Vinograd and CBS News chief Washington
[6:20]analyst Robert Costa. Good to see both of you. Bob, I want to start with your recent interview with the vice president J.D. Vance and more of what he had to
[6:30]say about the conflict. Let's take a listen and then I'll ask you about it. >> What's your up-close assessment of how Prime Minister Netanyahu has handled his
[6:41]relationship with President Trump and the United States? >> Well, I think Prime Minister Netanyahu, look, he he governs a country that has obviously been a very close partner of
[6:51]the United States. But even when we've been close partners, sometimes we have interests that are perfectly aligned and sometimes we have interests that are misaligned. And what I've what I've seen
[7:01]with with the Prime Minister is that he aggressively asserts the interests of his country. Sometimes that means we're on the same page and sometimes it means that we're not. And I think that our job as an administration and certainly what the
[7:13]president has done has been very clear about what is in our best interest. We have to fundamentally be focused on what is in the United States' best interest. So, they've been a great partner in a
[7:22]lot of ways, but we also have to focus on what is in America's best interest and where that diverges, we unfortunately, for the Israelis, have to choose the side of the American people, which we always do.
[7:33]>> Do you believe the Prime Minister has made any mistakes in how he's worked with the United States on Iran? >> Look, he's he's certainly gotten some things wrong, but fundamentally
[7:43]>> Well, I think that those conversations sometimes are better left in private. But, what I would say is that he's been a good partner. We're going to keep on working together, but where interests
[7:55]diverge, the United States is going to pursue the best interest of our nation, and that's how it's going to be. >> A very careful answer, Bob. >> Very careful and revealing about how
[8:06]he's trying to navigate being President Trump's biggest booster as the president seeks a peace deal, and as the president deals with Prime Minister Netanyahu. But, it's evident in the conversation we
[8:17]had on Tuesday morning that Vice President Vance is both President Trump's ally and governing partner, but also someone who has his own world view. And he has his own foreign policy
[8:28]outlook. Not that he's articulating and advocating uh but it's been reported that the president has said publicly even that J.D. Vance has a philosophically different view of
[8:39]military intervention in places like the Middle East. And they grapple with that behind the scenes, and you see him grappling with how to handle maybe his own weariness of Prime Minister
[8:50]Netanyahu on some fronts saying he's made some mistakes, but not wanting to call him out too much that it would rupture the fragile relationship. >> Here's another place where Vance and Trump diverge. President Trump keeps
[9:01]insisting, maybe not today, but a lot of times in the past, that a deal is right around the corner, a day away, two days away. J.D. Vance told you it could be months. Does that
[9:12]>> Or days. Either one. Uh so, you know, does that, you know, more cautious approach, does that create any tension behind the scenes between these two men? >> Well, it certainly creates a political
[9:23]tension, perhaps not between those two, but for the Republican Party. That's why I asked Vice President Vance, do you believe a deal is going to happen before the midterm elections? Because when I talk to Republicans on Capitol Hill,
[9:34]they don't want this issue lingering over them as they face voters in November. They want a deal or some resolution so it doesn't seem like the Trump administration and Republicans in
[9:44]Congress have been ineffective. >> Sam, this latest round of hostilities between the US and Iran happened after Iran took down an Apache helicopter that
[9:54]was flying on the Oman side of the Persian Gulf. What do we know about how that came about, whether it was intentional or an accident?
[10:04]>> Well, perhaps importantly, we don't know a lot. As you just mentioned, we don't know whether an Iranian Shahed drone, which is basically a pre-programmed one-way drone, was intentionally
[10:16]programmed to hit the Apache helicop- helicopter or if it was an unintentional collision. That matters because if Iran is purposely targeting US military assets, particularly over Omani
[10:27]territorial waters, that really points to the fact that the ceasefire is in name only. I will say this ceasefire, as you said in your opening, is on life support. This either intentional or
[10:38]unintentional collision or targeting of the US Apache helicopter comes after Iran has been launching a lot of strikes in the region and the US has certainly and Israel have launched strikes into
[10:49]Iran, but Nancy, war is complicated. We are still at war with Iran and even with the ceasefire in place, there are a lot of military assets flying in the skies,
[10:59]operating at sea and otherwise. And so, in this very fraught environment, there are going to be collisions. There are going to be unintended consequences and managing those reverberations is getting
[11:10]increasingly difficult. >> President Trump made a really interesting promise in the Oval Office today. He said that Bill Pulte is not going to be the director of National Intelligence, the acting director, for
[11:21]very long, that he's going to replace him once he starts. He hasn't even started yet. Is that going to be enough to mollify Republicans who say Pulte has
[11:31]no intelligence experience whatsoever." >> Well, I worked with three directors of national intelligence and many cabinet officials and I will say that you can do a lot of damage in a very short amount
[11:42]of time. You can do a lot of damage in terms of signing memoranda, getting rid of offices, employees, redirecting resources. And so, Bill Palti being in office as acting director of national
[11:54]intelligence for 1 day is worrisome enough, let alone several weeks. >> Samantha Vinograd, thank you so much. Robert Costa, appreciate it. Great interview. Good to have you both with us.
[12:04]Graham Plater prevailed in last night's Maine Senate Democratic primary despite more than a week filled with controversies. He's now going to face off against Republican Senator Susan Collins in a race that could determine
[12:16]which party controls the Senate. He beat out Governor Janet Mills in a landslide winning nearly 72% of the vote. Mills, of course, suspended her
[12:26]campaign in April, but her name did remain on the ballot. CBS News political director Fin Gomez is here with more. Fin, great to see you. So, Plater wasted no time attacking Collins during his
[12:38]victory speech last night. Let's take a listen to that. >> Susan Collins may have started may have started her career decades ago
[12:48]in Washington with good intentions, but she has become just as spineless and corrupt as the establishment she now serves.
[12:59]She got elected promising to protect Roe v. Wade only to turn around and put on a justice for the justice of the Supreme Court who
[13:09]overturned it. She lied to us. >> Plater also acknowledged some of his own controversies. He said people can change. Fin, what does the Susan Collins
[13:20]re-election strategy look like now that the primary is behind us? >> Uh Nancy, I think it's important to remember that Susan Collins has faced tough, tough matches before, tough
[13:31]elections before, and has won. If you go back to 2020, she faced Sarah Gideon, and at that time, if you recall, Democrats were very confident that Gideon could pull off that win. Uh, she
[13:42]was Collins was outspent about two to one and just about every she she overperformed just about every poll to win in that race. That's something like
[13:54]I think she won by eight points. Uh, and that's in that race, President Trump lost Maine by nine points. She is a formidable candidate and has won five statewide elections by
[14:05]building a coalition of Republicans, independents, and and some moderate Democrats. So, I think expect her to lean heavily on her record, her seniority in the Senate, and her reputation as a dealmaker in the Senate.
[14:17]At the same time, national Republicans are already signaling that they plan to keep the focus on Platter's controversies. In fact, a CBS News has obtained an NRSC memo that is the
[14:28]campaign arm of Senate Republicans and warns Republicans not to underestimate him. He is he is out-raised her at this point. The memo also notes that despite months of months of negative headlines,
[14:39]he still won the primary decisively. So, Republicans clearly see him as a serious threat. But why does this race matter so much? It's because Democrats see this as
[14:49]a must-win pick-up opportunity on the midterm map. They need to to flip four Republican held seats, and if they don't
[14:59]win Maine, it'll be a very, very steep uphill climb to make that happen. Nancy. >> That's going to be a fascinating race to watch. Finn, I want also want to ask you about the South Carolina governor's
[15:10]race. That was another one people were keeping an eye on. Congresswoman Nancy Mace did not advance in the GOP primary, and the president's pick, the lieutenant governor, she didn't win outright. She
[15:20]goes to a runoff. Is that just because this was a crowded field, or was there something more going on? >> Uh frankly, it was because of his endorsement. If you see If you see throughout this midterm cycle uh during
[15:31]this primary part of the cycle uh in in the Republican primaries, he his for the most part his his endorsement has had a significant impact. And in this crowded
[15:41]field of five of five candidates, uh uh uh Pamela Evette, the lieutenant governor governor, excuse me, she and uh the attorney general Alan Wilson uh
[15:53]made it to the runoff that's going to be held on June 23rd. Uh one person who did not make it was Nancy Mace who had a fallout uh with the president after her push to uh uh the release the Epstein
[16:03]files, of course. Uh but uh it again shows that his the power of his endorsement has serious sway uh in these Republican primaries, Nancy.
[16:13]>> Finn Gomez wrapping it up all for us. Thank you so much. Two of Graham Platner's ex-girlfriends spoke with the Free Press about the reactions to their claims about the
[16:25]Senate candidate. One of the women was Jenny Rasico, who is a Democrat. She said, quote, "I have seen many people around me who loudly supported the Believe Women movement now having to
[16:37]ignore and make excuses for Graham's behavior." The Platner campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Press. He previously told the New York Times he was far from a perfect
[16:49]boyfriend in the past. Audrey Foulberg is a Washington correspondent for the Free Press, and she joins me now to discuss her new piece. It's so good to see you, Audrey. >> for having me.
[16:59]>> Absolutely. So, uh tell us a little bit about what uh these women had to say to you, how they're feeling about the reaction to them coming forward. >> Well, thank you so much for having me. I
[17:10]mean, this has been one of the biggest pieces in one of the biggest Senate races of this cycle. This huge expose drops in the New York Times last week. One of the most fascinating things that happens here is, you know, these women
[17:22]are kind of they it takes a lot for them to come forward to the New York Times and a couple of them are kind of frustrated by how they're portrayed. One of them is a woman named Lindsey Fifield. She is a Republican that is
[17:33]featured very prominently in the piece. Um, so she kind of, you know, spoke to the New York Times under the assumption that other women's kind of accusations or experiences with Grant Plathner would be featured a little bit more
[17:44]prominently. But what me and my colleague Frannie Block in the Free Press were really interested in gleaning from her was her reaction to how Democratic operatives and lawmakers were talking about this. You know, one thing that really caught my eye was Sheldon
[17:55]Whitehouse. He's a senator, um, you know, from the Northeast and he said he was quote not impressed by the allegations that were outlined in this piece. And, you know, that kind of raised a lot of questions about, okay, what do you mean impressed? You know,
[18:05]obviously it takes a lot for women to come forward about negative experiences that they've had with someone. Um, and so I think moving forward, you mentioned those commies, excuse me, comments from Jenny Rasico. You know, she's a lifelong
[18:17]Democrat. She described an experience that she had with Plathner where he allegedly came to her house very blackout drunk, she alleges, and had a very unsettling experience, so unsettling that she, you know, cut off
[18:29]contact after that. And so I think, you know, part of his appeal on the campaign trail is that these he's a changed man, but I think a lot of women who've dated him are really kind of sounding the alarm on whether that's true.
[18:40]>> Right. That's one of the things he said in an interview this morning is that he's changed because of his relationship with his wife. Um, you uh, were able to look at some diary
[18:50]entries from Fifield, from I think 2016. What did they say and did they match up with what you had heard from Rasico as well? >> So when we were reporting this for the
[19:01]Free Press, one thing that we really wanted to do was speak to her friends at the time. We reviewed messages that she had with them, spoke to friends and and what you know, they talked about how she had been really open about his mental
[19:12]health struggles at the time and how she was trying to help him through that. But those diary entries were really revelatory in you know, talking about how emotionally turbulent this experience was for her. She opened up in
[19:23]those diary entries about having to break a lease to put physical distance between them. You know, in the New York Times expose they got her on the record speaking about how according to her at one point you know,
[19:34]he put her twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her in a room and held the door closed which is something that's kind of a pretty disturbing anecdote from someone, right? And so I think moving forward thinking about this
[19:44]midterm cycle, Democrats have all this enthusiasm. Trump's numbers are obviously sinking. They're very you know, looking forward to this cycle. But are they really going to that willing to take a risk on
[19:55]candidates like this who have so much baggage, who may appeal to the working class they think, but is it really worth it to make that bet on such a risky candidate? >> One of the things that has frustrated Fife Field is she said that there was
[20:06]more scrutiny she felt on her politics, her views than on the claims that she was making about Grant Plater. Are these women
[20:16]happy now that they came forward or do they regret it? >> You know, I think they have a lot of peace that they were able to kind of give us their peace of mind about the reaction not just
[20:27]you know, from people on the internet but also Democratic politicians. You know, both of the women that we spoke to Lindsey and Jenny were just horrified by a lot of Democratic operatives who are just kind of waving these allegations
[20:39]away. They're saying you know, it feels kind of Lindsey told us it feels like we're in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s. You know, why are we still picking apart women's lives who come forward? You know, obviously you need to disclose
[20:50]in a in a piece that what someone's political affiliations may be. But what she wanted to emphasize to us is she's happily married. She has two children. She didn't come forward because of her political
[21:01]affiliations but in fact in spite of them and there really was a personal cost to her coming forward. >> Well, it was a fascinating piece. Really amazing you were able to talk to both of these women. Audrey Fahlberg from the Free Press, thank you so much for joining us.
[21:12]>> Thanks for having me. >> Appreciate it. Still to come on The Takeout, Bill Gates testifies before lawmakers investigating Jeffrey Epstein. House Oversight Committee member Stephen Lynch joins me
[21:24]next. Also, Meta is launching what it's calling America's Workforce Academy. Premise is simple, pass a five-week free
[21:36]course and automatically get a job with one of its partners. That sounds interesting. Plus, inflation tops 4% to reach its highest point in more than 3
[21:46]years. We're going to explore why. The Takeout returns in just 60 seconds. All right. Welcome back to The Takeout. Microsoft
[22:01]co-founder Bill Gates testified before the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating the late Jeffrey Epstein and his relationships. In the closed-door interview, Gates told
[22:11]lawmakers he had no knowledge of the deceased sex offender's crimes. He also said he was never interested in a personal relationship with Epstein and
[22:21]never went to his island, his ranch, or his home in Florida. Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Stephen Lynch joins us now. He's a member of the House Oversight Committee
[22:31]and he was at Gates's closed-door testimony. Congressman, it's so good to see you. Tell us everything. How long did he testify for? What was his demeanor and what did you learn?
[22:42]>> Well, I think it was in total it was probably 4 hours that he was before the committee. We we we rotate. Republicans have an hour, then Democrats an hour. We go back and forth, but
[22:53]I I thought he was responsive to to our questions. He was cooperative in that sense. He didn't try to avoid things. He did uh, Gates did push back on a couple of uh,
[23:04]emails that uh, that that were sent uh, by Epstein, but but to Epstein. So, he had never seen them. So, there were some implications that he he
[23:16]had engaged in some wrongdoing that that uh, that could not be substantiated. >> Did you find it believable when he said that he didn't know anything about
[23:27]Epstein's crimes and that he didn't seek to have a personal friendship with Epstein? >> No, he he actually did uh, concede that
[23:37]he knew that there were crimes committed. Uh, he he when I asked him about, you know, I said, "Now, uh, when you met uh, Epstein." I said,
[23:47]"He was already a registered sex offender." So, uh, he said, "I I was not aware of that, that he was a registered sex offender." But, he said he knew he had a past and and that there were
[23:58]crimes involved. He had been uh, given information relative to that. There was also a piece of this that was uh, you know, there was an element of of blackmail that that Epstein used against
[24:10]him. Uh, Epstein had had basically found out from some of uh, Gates's staff that he
[24:19]had had a couple of extramarital affairs and he was sort of hanging that over over uh, Gates's head. I I think eventually Gates came out publicly and
[24:30]and spoke with his wife and explained to her what he had done. So, uh, when that when that transpired, uh, Epstein went on to something else saying that he was going to,
[24:42]you know, uh, disclose uh, some some allegations that that he had contracted uh, an STD from some Russian girls, but there was there was
[24:53]no uh, there was no record that that could be substantiated. >> What did you make of Epstein's claim that one of the reasons that he was in communication with Epstein was because
[25:04]he wanted his help setting up a donor-advised fund. I mean, this is one of the richest men in the world. You would imagine he'd have an entire financial team at his disposal to do a
[25:16]something as simple as setting up a DAF. Why would he even need Epstein for that? >> Right. Right. Well, that was the the that was really the pitch that that
[25:27]Epstein gave him. He He He went to Gates, just like he went to Les Wexner, right? He was trying to get him to to allow him to handle the funds. That
[25:37]That's the business he was in. So So Epstein went to First, he sought He sought people around uh
[25:47]Gates to introduce him to Gates. So there were several people that kind of steered Epstein towards towards Gates and made those connections.
[25:58]But it was it was really Epstein that was trying to get access and and and control of the ability to invest some of those funds that Gates
[26:08]had outside of his foundation. And he was promising Gates that he would bring other money into the picture and that it would it
[26:18]would amplify the effect of what he was doing already on his global health initiative in Africa and elsewhere. So So that was that was
[26:27]Epstein's game. And uh at the end of it all, Gates, I think, with and and and I think Melinda Gates had a lot to do with this. Melinda Gates said, "No, you're not
[26:39]doing business with that guy. I don't want to see Epstein, you know, around here anymore." So she She was actually protecting Bill Gates in all of this.
[26:49]And I think I I her her caution and her alarm really made the difference here that that deal did not go through. To her credit.
[27:00]>> So, if we pull back, what is the significance of what what Bill Gates told you today when it comes to the
[27:09]committee's understanding of the way that Jeffrey Epstein operated? >> Okay, so there were a lot of very cryptic emails back and forth that we
[27:21]couldn't quite make sense of. And and so we asked him about a lot of those. Out of that that clarification by by Gates, we were able to identify
[27:32]probably three or four people that we need to talk to next. And and they were aware of Epstein's activity and
[27:41]and did not disclose that fact to to Gates. So, of course this is a this is an 18-year saga from when he first when when Epstein first started abusing young
[27:52]women till till when he took his own life. So, there's there's a long trail of carnage along the way here and we're we're trying to go through. We've only got the first 3 million documents, right? So,
[28:04]there's another 3 million documents that we're going to have to go through as well till we get to the bottom of this. >> Well, well it must have been a fascinating 4 hours. We appreciate you telling us all about it. Democratic Congressman Stephen Lynch of
[28:15]Massachusetts, thank you so much. Appreciate it. >> Thank you, Nancy. Thank you. >> Meta launches a trade academy that guarantees graduates a job. Up next,
[28:26]president of the National Urban League Marc Morial, who is teaming up with the tech giant to run the program, joins me live. You're watching The Takeout. One of the biggest tech companies in the
[28:45]country is trying to give blue-collar jobs a boost. Meta has created free 5-week training courses called America's Workforce Academy. It aims to solve
[28:56]shortages in jobs like fiber technicians, welders, plumbers, and electricians. The workers would help build data centers and then be
[29:05]guaranteed a job in a skilled trade once they complete the course. Uh to talk about this, I'm joined now by Marc Morial, who's president of the National Urban League, which is a pioneering
[29:16]partner with Meta on this project. Mark, it's great to see you. Thanks so much for joining us. Tell me a little bit about why you decided Absolutely. Tell me a little bit about why you decided to get involved and how many jobs we're
[29:27]actually talking about here. >> We have a crisis uh America in that literally hundreds of thousands of jobs
[29:37]available. Uh but we need to reskill, upskill many of our workers. That's number one. Number two, for for the work in the communities that uh we work in all across the nation, you've got a 6.6%
[29:49]black unemployment rate, uh much higher than it's been in quite some time, along with a 5% Latino unemployment rate. We want to ensure that these communities have
[30:01]access to these jobs. Now, I like this training program because you get an offer before the 5-week training program and then the tuition, uh all of the
[30:12]lodging and the expenses associated with the training, plus a daily stipend, uh are provided to the people in the program. So, this is a I think an approach that we've long championed,
[30:22]uh and we'll be recruiting, encouraging people in the communities we serve, uh to sign up for this program and participate in this. Uh we have a jobs crisis in America, uh and we need to
[30:34]match uh these open jobs with people and help them skill up to take these jobs. >> What are the qualifications required for the training program?
[30:46]>> Well, you know, it's really you don't even need high school. That's the important thing. I think you just have a a limit you've got to have desire. You've got to have the energy. You've got to want to work. Uh and of course
[30:58]there's some requirements that are going to be there, but what I want to stress is that these are not very very high and difficult requirements for people to meet because my view is
[31:09]uh these jobs that will pay well, uh that will have uh benefits associated with them are the kind of jobs that we need to be encouraging and the type of
[31:19]work uh that will be available for young people, uh emerging people. The construction industry uh is aging. The traditional people who work in construction aging. We've got to
[31:31]get communities of color. We've got to get women. We've got to get young people to understand that these are jobs with good wages, good benefits, and
[31:41]longevity. The credential that the participants in this program will earn will stay with them for their entire career. So, in the short run it may be a job on a Meta project, but in the long
[31:52]run it may be a job in the energy industry, a job uh in some other tech net technology company. So, that's the important thing. You get this skill, this skill stays with you. >> Right. We don't have a lot of time yet,
[32:04]but I wanted you to address the controversy over the fact that Meta recently laid off thousands of highly skilled workers because of AI. They say now they're creating these jobs because
[32:15]of AI, uh because of the data centers that they're building, but you know, how do you square uh these two different directions that Meta's going in at once? >> I can't speak for the corporate policies
[32:26]of Meta. Uh I lead the National Urban League. My focus is on where there's a job opportunity, I want to see it filled with people from my community. And that's where my focus is. And so, I
[32:37]think Meta should respond to that question. They can respond to it more directly than I can. Uh I'm trying to deal with a very, very high black unemployment rate, uh and
[32:46]this opportunity to be trained, uh and also uh to receive a stipend while you are being trained, is just an opportunity I don't want to see bypass our communities.
[32:57]>> Understood. Marc Morial of the National Urban League, thank you so much. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Inflation reaches its highest point in 3
[33:08]years. Up next, CBS News MoneyWatch correspondent Kelly O'Grady joins me live. You're watching The Takeout. Welcome back to The Takeout. We've got
[33:25]some breaking news. US Central Command says that US forces have begun launching additional self-defense strikes against multiple targets in Iran. In a post on
[33:36]social media a few minutes ago, CENTCOM said that they are carrying out these strikes, quote, in response to Iran's unwarranted and continued aggression. We're going to have more on that in a
[33:47]minute, but now inflation in the US accelerated in May to its highest level in more than 3 years. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, consumer
[33:57]prices climbed at an annual rate of 4.2%. That's up half a percent from just last month. And it's the first time that the
[34:06]CPI surpassed 4% since May of 2023. Let's bring in CBS News MoneyWatch correspondent Kelly O'Grady for more on these latest numbers. She has been
[34:16]talking about them all day. Kelly, that's a pretty big jump in just 1 month. What does it tell us? >> It's good to be with you, Nancy. Look, what it tells us is that inflation is moving in the wrong direction, right?
[34:28]The Fed has a 2% target. We're now above 4%. The context here, we are nowhere near where we were in the summer of 2022. Remember, we were at 9%, but you
[34:40]know, it's it's not the right direction. It's really driven by energy, of course, the war in Iran, spiking oil prices, that's trickling down to gas, but I did find a little bit of heart in the fact
[34:50]that when you strip out food and energy prices, because those things can be pretty volatile, we like to call what's left core inflation, it only rose 0.2% in the month of May. And that's actually pretty good. So, it means that energy
[35:02]hasn't seeped into the rest of the economy yet, that inflation that we're seeing, but of course, if the war in Iran does continue on, that is the fear that it would seep into the rest of the economy.
[35:13]>> You know, the president was asked in the Oval Office today about the inflation rate, and he said something pretty unusual. He said, "I love the inflation." And he said that the numbers
[35:23]are great. Is there any reason why high inflation would be a good thing? >> Traditionally, when I've been in
[35:32]economics classes, Nancy, uh no. Especially when the president does want lower interest rates, he might be, as I pointed out, looking at that core number, that when you strip out food and
[35:44]energy, the 0.2% on a monthly basis is actually pretty good, but I think sort of if I'm an American at home, I'm looking at a different data point. It's that that 4.2% number that you mentioned, that headline inflation
[35:56]number, is higher than 3.4%. What's 3.4? That's how much wages grew over the past year. And you want your paycheck to be growing faster than the prices. It's actually the reverse right now, and
[36:08]that's why people are feeling crunched. >> So, the Federal Reserve is meeting next week to discuss interest rates. They're looking at these new inflation numbers. They are looking at pretty strong job
[36:20]growth for 3 months in a row. What are they going to do? >> They're going to hold rates steady. I I can almost say with 100% certainty, Nancy, we're getting no movement on interest rates. Uh it's going to be a
[36:31]tough one for Kevin Warsh. Of course, this is his first meeting as chairman. We know that the president wants lower interest rates. This high inflation number, I think, is going to create a lot of tension in the room. Not about
[36:43]what they do at this meeting, but about what they do at future meetings. They're going to hear some people say that maybe we should have an interest rate hike at some point.
[36:52]>> Kelly, we saw this a big market tumble just before closing today. What is driving this sudden sell-off? >> So, two things. There was a lot of movement in chip stocks. Remember, we've
[37:03]got that big SpaceX IPO on Friday. I know a lot of portfolio managers are taking some profits from some AI stocks that have done really well just to make room for SpaceX. But, it's also what you
[37:14]mentioned at the top, those CENTCOM strikes. The president had messaged that earlier in the day that there would be some retaliation. I was looking at the market immediately when the president said that, you started to see a
[37:25]sell-off. And it just goes back to uncertainty. Investors want an end with the war, not more questions. >> We really see the same kind of yo-yo action in the oil markets, right? Where
[37:36]the president says we're close to a deal, oil prices start to go down, then you see strikes resume, and oil prices go back up. Is there some point at which the oil markets are going to say, you
[37:48]know, we don't buy what any of these leaders are saying, what the Americans are saying, what the Iranians are saying? We're just going to, you know, hunker down and prepare for
[37:59]long-term pain in the oil sector. >> It's a really interesting question because I think you're already actually seeing a little bit of that. So, I mentioned that the markets responded in
[38:10]a fairly visceral manner when the president made those comments earlier. I was also watching what happened with crude prices, and they did rise above 90, but it wasn't this huge jump like
[38:21]we've seen in the past when you've seen some of this rhetoric. And so I do think you are having a little bit of traders saying, "Okay, we've kind of been here before. We've seen the back and forth." But I don't think that you're going to
[38:32]see oil prices unless there is some meaningful peace agreement come back to where they were before the war for months at this point. >> Kelly O'Grady, business correspondent
[38:44]extraordinaire, thank you so much for breaking all of it down for us this evening. I appreciate it. CBS News Pentagon reporter Eleanor Watson joins me now with more on the
[38:55]breaking news having to do with these renewed strikes against Iran. What, if anything, do we know right now, Ellie? >> Nancy, what we know is for the second day in a row US Central Command has
[39:05]announced more retaliatory strikes against Iran in response to that downed helicopter on Monday. This comes after the president did tease retaliation saying that the US was justified, had
[39:16]the right to hit Iran hard again, and after Secretary Hagseth told reporters just under an hour ago that there would be strikes tonight. They would be, quote, strong and clear and would be,
[39:27]again, strong and clear tomorrow if they have to strike again. He was framing the strikes as putting Iran in a position where they have to come to the table. This doesn't appear to be the same type
[39:38]of tit-for-tat strikes we've seen over the past month of the ceasefire in part because the president's language today kind of dramatically changed where he said that Iran has really taken the US
[39:49]as suckers. Previously, he said Iran wants a deal and has been on the brink of one in a potentially a matter of days. Now, he is saying that they're
[39:59]taking too long to negotiate and will, quote, pay the price. >> Right. The messaging has been all over the map. What do we know about the targets of yesterday's strikes and do we know anything about the targets of
[40:11]tonight's strikes yet? >> Tonight's strikes are again called self-defensive strikes, which were the same as last night, and last night they hit targets including radar sites, air defense
[40:22]systems, and ground control sites near the Strait of Hormuz. Remember, the Strait of Hormuz is what President Trump wants in the first part of any type of deal is to reopen, and that's where the Apache
[40:33]helicopter was when it was taken down apparently by an Iranian drone. That has brought these new waves of strikes, and again in this statement from US Central
[40:44]Command, all they said was they've begun launching strikes. Last night we got a we've completed, and so right now we're just in the initial waves, it seems. >> Overnight, the Iranians claimed that the US actually struck
[40:55]a reservoir and desalination plants. Basically, that we went after civilian water infrastructure. The US military denied that. Have they said anything
[41:06]more about that since? >> US officials have not confirmed any of that information from the Iranians, but President Trump today did not rule out that when he was asked if those types of targets could be potentially hit, he
[41:18]said, "We could do that." That's not the same type of language he was using a few months ago. He was using more apocalyptic, end of civilization language to get Iran to come to the
[41:28]table, but he is not ruling out potentially those strikes that would hit civilian targets and potentially be against the law of armed conflict.
[41:39]>> Right. There are human rights groups that have said that that would be a war crime if the US were to intentionally strike civilian infrastructure like the bridges and power plants like the president likes to talk about. We know
[41:49]you'll be covering it, Ellie Watson, and thank you so much for the update. Uh we want to go now to CBS News correspondent Natalie Brand, who is at the White House. Natalie, what can you tell us
[41:59]about these newest strikes? >> Well, we're still waiting, Nancy, to find out exactly what was targeted, but as you were probably discussing with Ellie, the defense secretary did give
[42:10]some interesting information in his remarks a little earlier with reporters traveling to him to CENTCOM in Florida saying
[42:20]that the strikes tonight would be strong and really are intended to deliver a message. He wouldn't reveal what exactly they were going to be but said that they
[42:30]were designed to advance military interests and also enhance the diplomatic position saying reiterating what the president has been saying that Iran can and still make a deal. But then
[42:42]Hegseth went on to say, you know, if Iran wants to tap the US along that the Defense Department can negotiate with bombs. And Nancy, as you've been talking
[42:52]about all day, you know, things have changed so much over the past just couple of days from Monday night when the president was saying that he thought
[43:01]Iran was two to three days perhaps away from making an initial agreement with the US to then this escalation following the downing of the Apache helicopter and
[43:12]now this escalation cycle and these latest strikes by US Central Command. >> And Natalie, what makes this latest round of strikes so interesting is that
[43:22]despite some of the president's aggressive rhetoric from time to time, it has been pretty clear that from the president on down there was not a
[43:31]tremendous appetite for restarting hostilities. And yet that is where we now find ourselves. And of course, the question is
[43:41]is the ceasefire still on? Does this basically blow up the ceasefire? No pun intended. And then of course, you've got the ongoing conflict between Israel and
[43:53]Lebanon. >> Right, of course. And that factoring into these larger negotiations. And you know, in the weeks prior to this when we saw the US saying that they had to take
[44:04]defensive action because of Iranian aggression in the Strait of Hormuz. You know, the the wording was really careful by the administration to continue to say these are defensive strikes that this
[44:15]larger ceasefire is holding and it did really seem like the president was leaving a lot of room for Iran to come to the table. And the defense secretary again in his remarks
[44:26]said that you know, the administration felt that they're very close to to reaching this deal to codifying this deal. They just have not signed it and that the US still wants to give them the
[44:37]opportunity to do that. But then again, you had this game-changing incident with the helicopter and over on Capitol Hill, you know, some Republicans are saying
[44:48]that given that the US needs to take a much stronger stance and then you have Democrats saying, "Well, this doesn't look like the ceasefire is holding at
[44:58]all." And on top of that, you know, congressional authorization should be required at this stage. >> Ellie, Natalie just brought up the
[45:07]helicopter, which is what started this whole new round of hostilities. The fact that the Iranians somehow, we don't know exactly how, brought down an Apache helicopter that was flying along the
[45:19]Omani side of the Persian Gulf a couple of days ago. Not the Iranian side, the Oman side, which makes all of this more curious. And at some points the president has suggested that this was an
[45:30]accident, that the Iranians didn't mean to do it. Today he sounded a a lot more aggressive and he was, you know, he was very accusatory. So, what have you learned from the Pentagon, if anything,
[45:42]about about the circumstances surrounding the downing of this Apache? >> Well, first and foremost, we have learned the pilots are safe and uninjured after they were rescued by a sea drone. First time that that's been
[45:53]done that we know of in a military US military campaign. How the helicopter went down is still a bit of a mystery because as you said, the president has accused Iran of attacking the helicopter, but it's
[46:05]unclear whether the attack was deliberate, some officials say, or if there was some sort of incident where the helicopter encountered the drone,
[46:16]but regardless, the drone hit the helicopter, the helicopter went down, the pilots were able to evacuate and were rescued by a sea drone. What the Apache helicopter was doing on the Omani
[46:28]side of the Strait of Hormuz is kind of part of this effort that the president talked about today that is helping coordinate uh commercial ships to get through the strait. There are still
[46:39]hundreds, if not over a thousand, ships that are still bottled up in the strait that the US has been quietly coordinating to help get out um without being threatened by Iranian missiles and
[46:50]drones that clearly still do pose some risk to the strait. >> We know you'll be covering these ongoing strikes for hours to come. We appreciate you coming down to update us on what you know right now. Thank you so much, Ellie
[47:02]Watson. And that does it for The Takeout today. The Daily Report is coming up next and is going to bring you additional coverage of these latest strikes. Thanks
[47:13]so much for joining us. I'm Nancy Cordes. See you again tomorrow.