Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Leader Of The Free World And The President Of El Salvador Both Say They Won't Return A Man When Deported By Mistake. Trump Official: Administration "Does Not Have Authority To Forcibly Extract" Deported Man; Man Charged With Arson on PA Gov's Residence Denied Bail; Trump Administration Takes Formal Steps Toward Tariffs On Chips, Prescription Drugs; Trump Administration Freezes Billions In Funding For Harvard After University Rejects Demands For Policy Changes; Carville: How To Turn Trump's Economic Chaos Against Him. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired April 14, 2025 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JASON CAROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Back at Swanton Welding, also a new generation, one hoping Trump's tactics will benefit their industry, Allison Fagerman is an 18-year-old welder who works with her father.
ALLISON FAGERMAN, WELDER: I'm hoping that it gets better and I'm sure it will. As, I feel like we're on a bumpy road and eventually we'll get to a smoother road.
CAROLL: Jason Carroll, CNN, Toledo, Ohio.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST AND CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Lots of family ties through the years in those businesses there.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. AC360 starts right now.
[20:00:31]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: All right, tonight on 360, the leader of the free world and the President of El Salvador both say they won't return a man, one deported by mistake to the other's notorious prison. And now, President Trump is talking about sending U.S. citizens there.
Also tonight, all were learning about the arson attack on the Pennsylvania Governor's Mansion with the governor and his family inside, that police are now calling attempted murder.
And later, the President's on again, off again on again tariffs could now be coming for two things we can't live without -- computer chips and prescription drugs.
John Berman here in for Anderson, and we begin tonight with the President, perhaps on a collision course with the Supreme Court over a mistaken deportation and maybe something constitutionally graver than that, if he one day does what he said he wants to do today. This has to do with the space between the words facilitating and
defying. Space, that the White House drove a truck through tonight. This all began a month ago. Federal agents scooped up a Maryland immigrant here unlawfully, but with no criminal record and armed with a judges subsequent order protecting him from deportation.
They accused him of being a member of the violent Salvadoran gang, MS- 13 then put him on a plane to El Salvador, where he has been held ever since, at a prison that is known for harsh conditions and allegedly violating human rights. His name is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and in a court filing two weeks ago, lawyers for the Justice Department said his removal from the country was, "an error."
A federal judge has ordered the man's return and demanded daily progress reports on it from the administration. Now, the Supreme Court says the administration must facilitate the effort, and that was the word they used -- facilitate, which ought to be simple enough, given that the U.S. is paying El Salvador millions of dollars to hold deportees like Abrego Garcia in the first place.
Also, given that the United States is a superpower and El Salvador is not. In addition, just a few days ago, the President said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: If the Supreme Court said bring somebody back, I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Now, the Supreme Court might not have said precisely those words "bring him back," but its opinion was fairly queer -- clear, I should say, requiring the government to, "Facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador."
In other words, help get the man back, then proceed with whatever case they may have against him under the due process that anyone in this country is entitled to, no matter who they are or how they got here.
Yet, in its daily report to the district judge this evening, the administration flat out said the government and I'm quoting here, does not have authority to forcibly extract an alien from the domestic custody of a foreign sovereign nation.
And earlier today at the White House, with the President of that sovereign nation by his side, President Trump was asked about it by CNN's Kaitlan Collins.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAITLAN COLLINS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Do you plan to ask President Bukele to help return the man who your administration says was mistakenly deported, the man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador?
TRUMP: Well, let me ask, Pam, would you -- answer that question.
PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sure President, first and foremost, he was illegally in our country. He had been illegally in our country. And in 2019, two courts, an immigration court and an appellate immigration court ruled that he was a member of MS-13 and he was illegally in our country. Right now, it was a paperwork, it was additional paperwork that needed to be done. That's up to El Salvador. If they want to return him. That's not up to us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: I should note Kaitlan joins us shortly. This is how El Salvador's President put it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NAYIB BUKELE, PRESIDENT OF EL SALVADOR: I don't have the power to return him to the United States.
REPORTER: But you could you release him inside El Salvador?
BUKELE: Yes, but I'm not releasing. I mean, we're not very fond of releasing terrorists into our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Now, which mean they may indeed be true, except the administration has shown no evidence that Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a terrorist. As for Attorney General Bondi's allegations about two court's ruling that he was a member of MS-13, that's not accurate. Enough evidence was present for the first judge in his case in 2019 to keep him in custody until his case was resolved, but subsequent judges found the evidence lacking.
And as the federal district judge now in the case writes, the current administration itself has, " offered no evidence linking Abrego Garcia to MS-13 or to any terrorist activity. Not that it may matter, though, because the administration seems intent to stand on principle, at least as it sees it, as they're reading today of the Supreme Court's ruling suggests.
[20:05:16]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: In the Supreme Court, Steve, was it nine to nothing?
STEPHEN MILLER, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR POLICY: Yes, it was a nine- zero --
TRUMP: In our favor.
MILLER: In our favor against the district court ruling saying that no district court has the power to compel the foreign policy function of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Now, we should note this interpretation from Miller, who was not a lawyer, is not how most analysts see the Supreme Court ruling at all and this could all end up at the court again. But as we also mentioned, he also added a heck of a postscript -- a postscript -- the President did both on a hot mic and later, when asked about it, the President said he also wanted to send American citizens convicted of serious crimes, he later added, to El Salvador for punishment. The stuttering you see is from the video feed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Homegrown criminals next. I said homegrowns are next, the homegrowns. You gotta build about five more places.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: This was captured on the Salvadoran government's live stream as the two entered the Oval Office. And here's what the President said when asked about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: You mentioned that you're open to deporting individuals that aren't foreign aliens, brought criminals to El Salvador. Does that does that include potentially U.S. citizens, fully naturalized American?
TRUMP: If they're criminals and if they hit people with baseball bats over their head that happened to be 90 years old. And if they rape 87 year-old women in Coney Island, Brooklyn. Yes, that includes them. Why do you think there's a special category of person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Now, keeping them honest? The Constitution does. And in a moment of former federal judge joins us with her take. First, CNN's Kaitlan Collins, whom you heard questioning the President just a moment ago. Kaitlan, you were in the Oval Office meeting today. What more can you tell us about how this all unfolded?
COLLINS: Well, John, we had kind of seen the administration inching closer to this line of defense, essentially arguing that the judge here had had overstepped her bounds, that they cannot be told by a court, even the Supreme Court in this case, what they have to do here when it comes to getting this man back to the United States, as the Supreme Court rules, and it's nine and oh ruling, which the administration, the President and his top adviser, Stephen Miller, were arguing was a victory for them today.
But they had been getting closer and closer and then we saw it probably laid out the most explicitly clear in that moment in the Oval Office today, where I asked the President if he was going to ask the President of El Salvador or President Bukele, the first Latin American leader to come to the Oval Office since Trump has retaken power to help facilitate his return.
Obviously, his answer on that was quite clear in terms of seeking his return and trying to help facilitate that. And then he turned to the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, who was saying that it is really up to El Salvador. And so when I asked President Bukele to weigh in on this, given they kept repeatedly pointing back and saying that they could not force El Salvador to do anything, even though they are paying El Salvador a lot of money right now to take in the other Venezuelans and other nationals that they are sending to El Salvador.
He weighed in and essentially argued it would be preposterous. He compared it to smuggling this person into the United States, though, of course, he could willingly return him if he and President Trump both were seeking that. But the clearest takeaway as we left the Oval Office today was that they do not have any intention of returning this man to the United States.
And so, that does raise a lot of questions about what is going to happen in court next, because at one point, the President seemed to get annoyed with the repeated questions about this very matter. But this is a huge fight that is playing out in the courts right now. And the Justice Department is actually under a ruling as of this moment, John, where every day they have to report by 5:00 P.M. what they have done, what steps they have taken to get Abrego Garcia back to the United States.
And today that filing came about half an hour past the deadline, and it essentially just referenced the comments that were made inside the Oval Office today by the President of El Salvador and President Trump.
BERMAN: It's all very circular logic. Kaitlan Collins, with us tonight. We will see you at the top of the hour for "The Source" with your guests, Senator Michael Bennet. And with us now, CNN's David Culver, who recently went inside that El Salvadoran prison; also bestselling Supreme Court biographer and former federal prosecutor, Jeffrey Toobin and retired federal district court Judge Shira Scheindlin.
And Jeffrey, let me start with you, counselor. How close is this administration? And Kaitlan just outright said it, they have no intention of returning this man. How close are they to defying the Supreme Court?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: They're very close. Although, they are not quite there yet. I mean, it all depends on what the Supreme Court and the lower court is interpreting what the Supreme Court said, understand by the words facilitate and expedite, because the order unanimously from the Supreme Court to the Trump administration is to facilitate and expedite the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia to the United States.
They are clearly not doing anything to try to return him, and they are simply saying it's out of our hands. It's up to El Salvador as if they have no control or influence over what El Salvador does, when, as we all know, that is not the case. BERMAN: So judge, the Supreme Court ruling, it was muddy. I mean,
everyone who's read it says this is a muddy ruling. To what extent is the Supreme Court responsible for creating this space for the White House to drive through?
[20:10:26]
SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, FORMER U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: Yes, I think the Supreme Court is responsible to some extent, because they diced words like effectuate, facilitate, remanded to the district court said. Explain what effectuate means. That's all nonsense.
What we have here is a defiance of the Supreme Court's order. The Supreme Court said, facilitate his return and expedite it. Do it quickly. And they're not doing that. So, it's defiance, which puts us on the edge of a constitutional crisis between the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch. And I really do believe that because the Supreme Court nine-zero said do it.
Now, they muddied things a little bit by saying, well, when it comes to foreign policy, that belongs with the executive and it does belong with the executive, but this isn't' foreign policy. This is the court's directive, bring this one man back.
BERMAN: Well, what do you think they meant, though, when they said, when they sent it to the lower court judge, they said be mindful of the fact that the Executive Branch has control over foreign policy.
SCHEINDLIN: You know what I really think? I think you do things like that to get unanimity. You want a nine-zero opinion, you have to compromise the language. And some justices must have said, well, let's be sure and remind them that the Executive Branch governs foreign policy.
TOOBIN: I don't even -- excuse me. I'm sorry. -- I don't even think that what the Supreme Court said was all that ambiguous or muddy. I think facilitate and expedite means at least make some effort to get this guy back and they have done nothing. And in fact, all they have done is chuckle in the Oval Office, as the President of El Salvador says, were not bringing him back. And they're delighted by that answer.
SCHEINDLIN: And the easiest thing to do is we've got the President of the United States, the Big Guy, simply tell the little guy, we need this guy back.
BERMAN: And there's no question if he did that, he would be back --
SCHEINDLIN: Of course, absolutely.
BERMAN: I think that is safe. Everyone can agree on that. David Culver and you've been to this prison twice and you were watching this event very closely, and you saw in that room someone who most of us would not recognize, but you think is key in all of this, who?
DAVID CULVER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. John, yes. His name is Gustavo Villatoro. He's the Public Security and Justice Minister in El Salvador and he didn't even speak today in the Oval Office. He sat just a few feet to the right of President Bukele.
But if you think of President Bukele is the one who holds the ultimate power in El Salvador, that's true. Then the person who holds the keys to unlock CECOT would be Villatoro. And the reason I point him out is because I spoke with him late last week, and he wouldn't speak specifically about Abrego Garcia's case, but what he relayed to me was fascinating.
Essentially, showing just how intentional and deliberate the coordination is between El Salvador and the U.S. when it comes to the deportees. John, he said that they are actively sending criminal records and all sorts of data to U.S. Law Enforcement, and that these deportees that arrive in El Salvador, particularly those who have a history in El Salvador, are not random, he said, we know exactly who's coming into our country. And in fact, in many cases, we have sent the criminal records and said, this is who we want, send them over -- John.
BERMAN: Very interesting, a coordinated effort. It really does seem, based on your reporting, David. Jeffrey, we did hear the President on that hot mic saying that he wants to send U.S. citizens to El Salvador, urging the President to build a bunch of extra prisons -- remotely constitutional?
TOOBIN: Not as far as -- I'm aware, you know, there are laws about how we punish people in this in this country, you know, Title 18 of the United States Code defines criminal laws in this country, defines the kinds of punishment. And it is there is not included in Title 18, send someone out of the country, much less to a hellhole prison in another country. It just doesn't exist that law -- that authority.
SCHEINDLIN: I totally agree. You cannot do that. But this President seems to want to push the limits of power and see how far he can get.
BERMAN: And also, Judge, let me just ask you about Stephen Miller, the non-lawyer we heard in the White House there making the claim that the administration did not make a mistake by sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, despite the fact that they have admitted as much in court filings.
SCHEINDLIN: Correct, and as you pointed out, there's no evidence that this man is a member of the one gang or the MS-13 gang, neither of them. There's no proof. There's no evidence. But this people seem to be operating on innuendo, not evidence. So it was wrong and they admitted it was wrong and there's no way out of that.
TOOBIN: But they do now appear to be trying to change that. I mean, what Stephen Miller said was, as the judge said, 180 degrees different from what the U.S. attorneys, the lawyer for the United States said in court. But they are now trying to present Mr. Abrego Garcia as the criminal that the government acknowledged just a few days ago that he wasn't.
[20:15:11] BERMAN: Can I just ask, you both seem to agree the Supreme Court may
have been more deliberate in its language than a lot of people aren't, you know, analyzing here. What do you think the Supreme Court thinks about all this? What do you think the Chief Justice thinks when he sees this man not being returned?
SCHEINDLIN: I think they're very, very cautious and they don't want a confrontation with the President. That's why the language is so cautious, but I think they want him returned.
TOOBIN: Well, but I also think they do not want an international confrontation that they causes. And they will be very deferential if El Salvador says we are simply not turning him over. I bet this Supreme Court will say, well, there's nothing that can be done in that case.
BERMAN: You don't think this man is coming back?
TOOBIN: I don't think he's coming back, basically --
SCHEINDLIN: I'm still hopeful.
BERMAN: Judge, Jeffrey, thank you both. And our thanks to David Culver as well.
Next, the latest on the absolutely horrifying story, which could have been so much worse involving Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, his family and police say a murderous arsonist armed with Molotov cocktails and a hammer.
Later, all were just now learning about plans underway to impose tariffs on computer chips and already expensive prescription drugs.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:20:41]
BERMAN: Breaking news tonight: The man accused of an arson attack on the Pennsylvania governor's official residence while Governor Josh Shapiro and his family slept inside, has just been arraigned. Cody Balmer did not enter a plea. He was denied bail.
Around 2:00 A.M. early Sunday morning, Shapiro, his wife, and their four children were evacuated as the historic home was on fire.
No one was injured, but the fire caused significant damage. Video surveillance showed someone believed to be Balmer, climbing a fence before breaking into the home. He then allegedly threw two Molotov cocktails and somehow escaped authorities, only to turn himself in hours later.
According to a law enforcement affidavit, Balmer said he would have "beaten him," beat Shapiro with a hammer if he had found him.
For more, I'm joined by CNN chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller and former FBI Deputy Director and CNN senior law enforcement analyst, Andrew McCabe. Andy, what stands out to you most about this attack and the suspect?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, John, I think the thing that jumps out to most law enforcement professionals is the unbelievable scope of the security failure here is just hard to get your hands around.
So, many things happened, and each one of those things should never have happened if there was an adequate security plan and surveillance and technology in place. He got over the fence.
If you have a security fence, the purpose is to keep people out. If someone comes over it, that's a failure. He gets across the property despite the fact that he's seen on video and he's not interdicted. He gets up to the residence and is able to break a window. That should never have been possible.
He, of course, deploys an IED, sets the building on fire, moves to a second window, breaks that one, and gains entry into the residence. This is the sacrosanct, you know, the inner sanctum of the security plan inside the residence where the Governor and his family live. He deploys another IED and then leaves the scene, is able to traverse the property a second time and go over the fence in the same place he came over the first time, all without being interdicted or stopped at any point.
So, not a single one of those steps should ever have been possible. They all happened in succession here. So they have a really -- a very thorough security review, I think, on their hands when this case is wrapped up.
BERMAN: John, what have you been learning from your sources about all this?
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, we've learned a little bit more recently, which is apparently the Capitol Police, which is responsible for patrolling the perimeter of the Governor's Mansion, outside the fence, John, sees an anomaly. There's a utility pole. It has some cables that extend from it and there's another object, and they call that in and say, look, it appears there's a possible breach of the fence.
Now, when they transmit that information, it goes to the Pennsylvania State Police security detail that patrols the inside of the perimeter, the Governor's detail. And they send people out to say, okay, where's this breach in the fence? Is there somebody on the property?
Now, Josh Campbell in his reporting and other sources have said that State Police have reviewed the video and they can see security people walking the grounds looking for any potential intruder while the intruder is hiding nearby.
So, apparently while they were looking for him, he moved forward. But then comes to their attention is a fire has broken out in the house. At that point, all efforts to search for the intruder are shifted to let's get these people out of the house. Let's get the Governor and his family out. And at that point in the confusion, the video shows that the intruder left the same way he came where that fence was compromised by this other object.
BERMAN: Andrew, we don't have a motive yet, but Balmer is charged with terrorism. How do authorities get to that charge?
MCCABE: Well, he's charged with terrorism at the state level, which makes sense and is possible in Pennsylvania. It's actually not possible at the federal level because, as we know, domestic terrorism is defined in federal law, but it's not actually a crime. There are no criminal penalties for it.
Under the federal definition, it's pretty clear that this was likely an act of domestic terrorism. There are three parts of the statute that have to be satisfied. It has to be a violent felony committed in the United States and then the last element, it has to be -- the offender has to have had one of three required motivations or intents in committing the crime.
It's pretty clear that what Balmer did here would likely fit the third of those intents, which is affecting the course of government through an assassination or the use of a weapon of mass destruction. The IEDs would qualify as a weapon of mass destruction.
But, John, to make the final determination, you'd have to have really more evidence about what this guy was thinking, what his motivation was.
Maybe you might know that from his pre-arrest statements or potentially some post-arrest statements, but those facts have not been revealed publicly just yet.
[20:25:44]
BERMAN: So, John, place this in the other attacks we've seen on homes of politicians, the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband or the Michigan governor's, you know, the kidnapping plot against the Michigan Governor.
MILLER: I mean, the kidnapping plot against the Michigan Governor, Gretchen Whitmer was an organized event involving 14 people, nine of them have been convicted and sentenced to lengthy terms, but this came with planning, training, surveillance, reconnaissance.
If you take the Pelosi event in this event, they are much more similar to each other. You've got disorganized offenders who basically wander haphazardly through layers of security. And, you know, both of whom are armed with a hammer, both of whom have a background with, mental illness issues, both of whom are deep in the internet chat rooms and ideological spaces that they're exposed to these calls for violence and so on.
This is an event where you look at the guy, John. What did he do? He got inside. He set the fire, he made his escape. And what was the next thing he did? He was frustrated that he wasn't going to get credit for all of this. He wanted that attention.
First, he had his girlfriend tell the authorities it was him. Then he showed up at Pennsylvania State Police headquarters and said, I'm the guy, talk to me.
BERMAN: It is something -- could have been a lot worse. Some of those pictures, very scary, from inside the mansion. John Miller, Andrew McCabe, thank you both so much.
Next, we have more breaking news on the tariffs we could all soon be paying on the chips that go into computers and the already pricey drugs that go into us.
Also, breaking with potentially billions in federal funding on the line, Harvard reveals whether it will give in to the Trump administrations demands on DEI and more, and just moments ago, the administration responded.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:30:16]
BERMAN: So new whiplash tonight over the fate of the global economy, the major U.S. stock indexes ended the day up a little less than one percent. They were up. Investigators appeared to be encouraged by news over the weekend that President Trump would exempt some tech products, including smartphones, computers, and components, like semiconductors from his new tariffs.
But would the market have had an even better day if the president himself hadn't subsequently poured cold water on the whole thing?
Mr. Trump posted online yesterday that nobody is getting off the hook. And that additional tariffs on what he calls the whole electronic supply chain are still a possibility.
And late tonight, breaking news from Reuters and "The New York Times" that the administration is indeed taking formal steps to impose tariffs on the pharmaceutical and semiconductors sectors.
Here to make sense of it or try, Richard Quest, editor-at-large at CNN Business, an anchor of "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" in CNN International. And Ana Swanson, reporter on trade and international economics for "The New York Times."
And, Ana, let me just start with you on this news, because it was a formal step taken by the Secretary of Commerce investigating the national security impact on pharmaceutical and semiconductors. What exactly does this mean and how quickly will tariffs follow?
ANA SWANSON, REPORTER ON TRADE AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes. So this starts a process where the Trump administration is going to investigate whether imports of both drugs and computer chips and products that have computer chips in them are a threat to U.S. national security. And then that could results in tariffs, at some point, down the line.
We don't know exactly how long that investigation will take, whether that will take, you know, just a matter of weeks or longer. But the president has signaled pretty clearly that these investigations are going to result in tariffs. So that is certainly something we expect to see.
BERMAN: Yes. To that end, Richard, let me play something the president said in the Oval Office today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We don't make our own drugs. Our own pharmaceuticals. We don't make our own drugs anymore. The drug companies are in Ireland. And they're in lots of other places, China.
And all I have to do is impose a tariff. The more, the faster they move in. The higher the tariff is very safe. It's inversely proportional. The higher the tariff, the faster they come.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Is that way -- is that the way it works?
RICHARD QUEST, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, CNN BUSINESS: Well, it's straightforward economics. If it's more expensive to make it there, you'll make it here. I mean, if you -- if the pain is greater there, you'll bring it back.
What's interesting about this is, I think the president's got a valid point that the amount of pharmaceuticals made outside of the United States is quite vast. But for valid reasons, because economically, it was cheaper.
Under the idea of, you know, where do you manufacture, that is the most economically efficient? So it was in India, and it was in the past, like Ireland, and those sort of parts.
But the U.S. has woken up to the fact that they do need to onshore or friendshore more of the pharmaceuticals back. But I'm not sure this is the right way to do it.
[20:35:09]
BERMAN: Ana, what does China think about all this, specifically, the carve out for phones and electronics over the weekend and saying, oh, it's not a carve out. But what are they supposed to take from this?
SWANSON: Well, there has been a lot of changes to tariff policy, really, you know, very substantial and kind of extreme moves unfolding over the past week.
And I think, you know, what China might take away from it is that the pain points in the United States and for the presidency are now quite obvious. It seems like the president has moved in response to turmoil in the bond market, you know, the stocks and financial market.
And also it seems like pressure from tech CEOs, concerns potentially about raising the cost of electronics for consumers.
So, you know, the president has been very resolute, very ambitious about his tariffs. But, you know, clearly, he is willing to walk them back if he's under enough pressure. And that could be a lesson for China as well.
BERMAN: That's an interesting point that he may be showing them where the United States is weak, telegraphing where they can apply some of this pressure.
Richard, a new survey more than 300 CEOs released today found that 62 percent are expecting a recession or an economic downturn in the next six months. You think it's already happening, basically?
QUEST: Oh. Look, recession inevitability, I don't know. A serious downturn? Yes. Highly likely for a recession? Very probable. Because the ingredients of this are now in there. I mean, the big mixture has been put in there. Tariffs slow down, confusion, chaos, federal government layoffs, worries about jobs. It's all now being mixed in. This is actually baking.
Life thinks something's up. He said, the economy is already slowing. It's going to be very difficult now to reverse it because consumers are seeing what's happening.
A downward spiral has begun that's going to be very difficult to reverse. And at some point, that recession becomes inevitable. I don't know whether we're there yet. I don't think anybody does. But we are well and truly on the track to it.
BERMAN: Richard Quest, Ana Swanson, thank you both so much for being with us.
Now to breaking news on the Trump administration's funding fight against some of the country's elite universities. Late tonight, it froze more than $2 billion in federal funding for Harvard.
This comes on the same day, Harvard became the first high-profile institution to publicly state it would not comply with the administration's demands for greater control over staffing and policies related to DEI and campus protests.
Just Friday, the Trump administration sent Harvard a letter demanding, among other things, audits by the federal government of all hiring and admissions, as well as a commission approved by the administration to oversee, quote, viewpoint diversity that demands appear to be even more expansive than similar ones levied on other schools, including Columbia, Princeton, Brown, and Northwestern.
In his response to the administration today, Harvard President Alan Garber said this, quote, the university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.
He also wrote the, quote, no government, regardless of which parties in power, should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, in which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.
I'm joined now by Cornell William Brooks, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and a former president and CEO of the NAACP. Professor, very good to see you tonight.
What is --
CORNELL WILLIAM BROOKS, PROFESSOR, HARVARD'S KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT: Good to see you.
BERMAN: -- your response to this pushback, the announcement from Harvard that they're not playing ball with the government?
BROOKS: Well, first of all, thank you for having me. And my reaction or response to the administration of Harvard is to commend and to congratulate them for this principal stand.
Here's what I mean. The university was faced with a difficult choice, a politically difficult choice, a financially consequential choice, but a choice made morally simple by the outrageous unconstitutional behavior of the government.
And the university made a choice between courage and capitulation, and they chose to be brave. And what I mean by that is over the course of many weeks, the university has been subject to not request for legal compliance, but demands for political ransom.
How do we know that? The university has received letter after letter with ever escalating demands, not referencing any violations of the law, not referencing any serious investigations -- investigation by the government, but asking that Harvard turn over its ability to choose scholars, to choose faculty, to choose staff, that it shutters as in close all of its DEI offices, or anything with the word diversity on it, that it literally surveyed faculty, staff, and students with respect to political viewpoint.
[20:40:16]
Now let's be very clear about that, John. Think about this. Imagine the government saying to Tesla or Ford, IBM or Apple, we suspect that you may have violated the law and we want the ability to micromanage your business to conduct a survey of all your employees to find out whether they are moderate, conservative, or liberal.
This is government overreach in the extreme. It's micromanagement in service of autocracy. It's unfair.
BERMAN: But the government, and that would be the Trump administration would say, if you want our money, you need to play by our rules. What do you say to that argument?
BROOKS: And what I say to that is we have a wonderful constitution that contains a First Amendment, which this government, this administration, is violating. This is to say the government does not get to dictate a political ideology. It does not get to determine whether faculty or staff or too liberal, too conservative, to this, to that. The First Amendment has a little something to say about that. In addition to that, the government is exceeding its authority under Title VI. Title VI is that law which says, you can't use government funds to discriminate. This is a law that was brought into being as a consequence of the blood sacrifice of civil rights workers and African-Americans.
And this administration has taken that law, turned it upside down and used it to try to micromanage Harvard and essentially make it a satellite campus of the now defunct Trump University. This is outrageous.
BERMAN: And but even if you buy your arguments and even if you admit that the administration is trying to micromanage Harvard University, it is their money. How much will the absence of that money impact Harvard?
BROOKS: Well, first of all, let's -- John, I want to be very clear about this. It's not their money. It's the money of the American taxpayer.
BERMAN: Fair.
BROOKS: So we will be very clear about that. And Harvard uses taxpayer money to do research on Alzheimer's, to do research on all manner of illnesses, to advance human knowledge, to send teachers in the communities to teach.
The point being here is the government, as in the Trump administration, doesn't get to use taxpayer dollars to violate the First Amendment. So we have to be very clear about this.
This is unlawful. When you read the president of Harvard's letter, Alan Garber's letter, it makes it very clear. Harvard is not refusing to comply with the government demands, simply out of a matter of personal prerogative, institutional prerogative. It is not doing so because the demands themselves are unlawful. They are unconstitutional.
This is not the way government is supposed to behave. And if this were done to any major corporation, everyone would understand, you don't really get to micromanage business.
I was a lawyer in the United States Justice Department. I served as presidency of the NAACP. I've overseen federal investigations with serious settlements and demand letters. This is not that. This is -- this is literally political ransom.
BERMAN: We will see if any other of these universities or maybe law firms find the courage that Harvard just took.
Cornell William Brooks, thank you so much for being with us tonight. Appreciate it.
BROOKS: Thank you.
BERMAN: Up next, legendary democratic strategist James Carville breaks down how he thinks Democrats should seize on the economic chaos and uncertainty caused by the Trump administration.
Plus, histories made in the skies above Texas, a history of a kind. Also, one heck of a commercial. All the details on this celebrity crew that went barely into space.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:45:48]
BERMAN: While President Trump's trade war with China and on again off again tariffs continue to rattle markets and spread economic uncertainty, my next guest views it as an opportunity for his party to seize the moment.
James Carville, legendary democratic strategist who coined the phrase, it's the economy stupid. James has a new op-ed out in which he thinks his party should be what he outlines what he thinks his party should be doing to counter the president.
He writes, quote, in what will certainly be recorded as one of the most ignorant acts of political leadership in American history, the president of the United States has now willfully damaged the global economy with his tariff chaos.
The path to stabilizing and strengthening the country starts when Democrats can take back the economic narrative from the Republican Party and persuade the majority of Americans to close the book on the Trump chaos.
And James Carville joins me now. You say this is an opportunity for the Democrats. How do they seize it?
JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Right. Well, I -- so right now, the image of the party is in the 20s. We had a battle action. People think that we're irrelevant and we're not part of the equation here. So we have a chance for a second introduction. We should take that and be on the side of people that are trying to make it and not pretty much lay out what I thought in the piece that this is a real opportunity for Democrats to get about a definition and to tell people who they really are, and not a bunch of cultural loonies, wandering around the left field somewhere, but people are really connected to the lives of families throughout the United States. I do. I think it's a marvelous opportunity for Democrats.
[20:50:24]
BERMAN: What's the right way do you think for Democrats to talk about the tariffs? And what's the wrong way for Democrats to talk about the tariffs?
CARVILLE: Well, I mean, the right way to talk about them is their attacks on people that are trying to make it, people that are struggling that have one opportunity in this country, that are trying to get educated, they're trying to prove they're out in life. These tariffs are just going to clobber them and set them back. And that's not the way to go about this at all. They're completely thought out.
And if you look at savings accounts at a 4019(ks) or anything that Americans have, they're taking a hit as a result of this. And the markets don't like it. The economy is weak. Let's see what the growth numbers here are coming up to the first quarter and see what the second quarter is. I suspect they're probably not going to be that great.
But let's see, I don't -- and most people feel like they've fallen behind in January 20th and for good reason.
BERMAN: Should Democrats talk about the markets?
CARVILLE: Well, I don't know if you have to talk about them. I think people see them. I think -- I see -- I think -- I think most people see them every day, but you can certainly say it as a complete lack of confidence in what we've been presented with from, you know, Wall Street to Main Street.
I mean, there's a thousand ways that you can articulate that that connect with people. We shouldn't be just a party of markets, although the markets do significantly better than the Democrats and Republicans. That's an absolute fact.
But I think that we ought to focus more on how this is whipsawing the talk of these tariffs and whipsawing American families and make it more difficult for them.
And, you know, a declining market doesn't make it very easy for a police woman or a school teacher or, you know, a guy that runs a dry clean or anything. It's tough out there and we should acknowledge that and tell people we're on their side.
BERMAN: So you saw today that the president was in the Oval Office with the president of El Salvador. More or less refusing to try to get this El Salvador migrant back to the United States who the administration admitted was sent there in error. This may or may not be a fight with the Supreme Court.
But my question is to what extent do you think now, now that the tariffs have really pulled down as approval rating, the president would be, rather be focused on deportations and immigration and get the press for that than have it focused on the tariffs?
CARVILLE: So let me get this straight. This guy was here legally. There are a lot of people here that illegal that really contribute to the workforce, could provide productivity. He was doing nothing wrong. He was in a parking lot.
He had a child -- had child in the backseat. He was sent to El Salvador. The district court said he has to come back. The appeals court said he had to come back. The Supreme Court said he had to come back. There's not a single judge that has looked at this and said he'd come back.
And so the administration said, we're just not going to bring him back.
Well, that is the very essence of a constitutional crisis. When you have an order from a court that's not that it needs to be ratified, you know, John, you're a little young, but in 2000 at the turn of this century, the Supreme Court, without a good reason, just went off and stole an election.
And you know, we did, we said, well, the Supreme Court has spoken. And this is -- this is not something that's a minor thing where you just ignore a court order.
And this tinhorn coming in here in the White House and them refusing to pay attention to a legitimate order issued by American courts. This is not going to end well, unless somebody gets this guy back in his country where he belongs. And he's got nothing to be in a -- in a prison anywhere. And it's a -- it's a real shame.
BERMAN: It may all be. But in 20 seconds or less, do you think the administration would rather have that fight than more focus on tariffs and wild swings in the markets?
CARVILLE: Well, you know, sometimes you got to -- you got to fight on two fronts. And you can fight on an economic front, but also this is such an egregious trespass of justice that you just can't say, well, if we'll just for path at a higher ground and talk about egg prices and forget about this guy, well, I'm not for that.
I don't -- I think what's happened here is a -- is a really a fence against the nation. It's a fence against the Constitution. It's a fence against order. You just can't let this go.
I'm sorry, it might not be the most politically productive thing in the world, but sometimes you got to just get a backbone and take a stand.
[20:55:03]
BERMAN: James Carville, I appreciate your time. I appreciate you suggesting I'm too young to have been --
CARVILLE: Thank you.
BERMAN: -- alive for the 2000 election. Thank you very much.
CARVILLE: You got more hair than me. Give me some, dude.
BERMAN: Still to come. We're going to tell you what pop star, Katy Perry, did when she, T.V. anchor, Gayle King, and others rocketed a whopping 62 miles above the earth. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BERMAN: How do you make people pay attention to the tenth or eleventh flight of a spacecraft? Molly, you put Katy Perry on board among others. A celebrity crew on the short 10-minutes journey into space aboard Blue Origin backed by Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos.
Also among the six women crew were T.V. anchor, Gayle King and Lauren Sanchez, a former T.V. anchor, now engaged to Jeff Bezos.
King says Perry sang "What a Wonderful World" while they floated in space. Who can argue with that?
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
