Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Farewell Musk; Trump Announces Doubling Of Tariffs On Steel Imports; Supreme Court Allows President Trump To Suspend Deportation Protections For Half Million Immigrants; After Losses. Pres. Trump Ramps Up Attacks On Judiciary; Trump On China: "So Much For Being Mr. Nice Guy!"; Todd Chrisley Speaks Out For First Time Since Pardon: Praises Daughter Savannah For Pushing For His Release And Her Mom's; Caves, Other Hideouts Being Searched For Fugitive Ex-Police Chief Who Escaped Arkansas Prison; Taylor Swift Buys Back Masters Of Her First 6 Albums. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired May 30, 2025 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TIPHAAINE AZIERE, BRIGITTE TROGNEUX'S DAUGHTER: Not everyone would have asked us first, but he wanted to know if we could accept it.
SASKYA VANDOORNE, CNN SENIOR PRODUCER IN PARIS: In 2017, that bond became campaign material. A modern, glamorous French love story. But some say that over time, that image has worn. After the shove, they made a show of unity hand in hand on the streets of Hanoi.
EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): We are in the middle of bickering and rather joking with my wife and I'm surprised by how this becomes a kind of geoplanetary catastrophe.
VANDOORNE: Whether it's a kiss in Jakarta or a shove in Vietnam, every moment fuels the story. In a country that once prides discretion, the president is finding it harder to keep his private life after the spotlight.
Saskya Vandoorne, CNN, Paris.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: And thanks for joining us.
Anderson starts now.
[20:00:42]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, HOST: Tonight on 360, the President says goodbye to Elon Musk and later says hello to a doubling of steel tariffs, which could make everything made of that stuff a lot more expensive for you.
Also tonight, COVID confusion as the Health Secretary says no to COVID shots for kids, but the CDC says otherwise.
Later, the remarkable story of how Taylor Swift won the fight to take back control of the best-selling songs she created.
Good evening to you. Jim Sciutto here in for Anderson tonight. And first up tonight, Elon Musk's Oval Office sendoff and the impact he made in his 130 days on the job. Takeaway number one, goodbye isn't really goodbye.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Elon is really not leaving. He's going to be back and forth. I think I have a feeling.
ELON MUSK, ENTREPRENEUR, OWNER OF TESLA AND SPACEX: Well, I expect to continue to provide advice whenever the President would like advice.
TRUMP: I hope so.
MUSK: I mean, I'm yes, it's -- I expect to remain a friend and an adviser. And certainly if there's anything the President wants me to do, I'm at the President's service.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Takeaway number two, leaving aside all the upheaval and job cuts and all the rest of the human impact, his cost savings as head of the Department Of Government Efficiency, DOGE have fallen far short of his promises.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOWARD LUTNICK, U.S. COMMERCE SECRETARY: How much do you think we can rip out of this wasted $6.5 trillion Harris-Biden budget?
MUSK: Well, I think we can do at least $2 trillion.
LUTNICK: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Two trillion dollars, that was Musk on the campaign trail last October. Here he is in January.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUSK: I think we will try for $2 trillion. I think that's like the best case outcome but I do think that you kind of have to have some leverage. I think if we try for $2 trillion, we've got a good shot at getting one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Well, by April, that $1 trillion had shrunk again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUSK: I'm excited to announce that we anticipate savings in F.Y. 26 from reduction of waste and fraud by $150 billion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: It's not a trillion today, though, he was back to a trillion. But now, with no time frame for those promised savings.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUSK: I liken it to sort of Buddhism, it's like a way of life. So it is permeating throughout the government, and I'm confident that over time we'll see $1 trillion of savings and reduction in $1 trillion of waste and fraud reduction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Take away three from his departure. He did not make himself popular doing that job. Recent polling shows his favorability underwater by 21 points, 38 percent to 59 percent. Take away five from today he's not keen on being asked about reporting today in "The New York Times," billed is revealing that, "his drug use was more intense than previously known."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUSK: "New York Times" is that the same publication that got a Pulitzer prize for false reporting on the Russiagate? Is it the same organization?
TRUMP: I think it is.
MUSK: I think the judge just ruled against "New York Times" for their lies about the Russiagate hoax, and that they might have to give back that Pulitzer prize, that "New York Times" let's move on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: So there was that answer. The President, meantime, spoke on a wide range of topics. He said he would look at the facts before considering a pardon for Sean "Diddy" Combs, who is currently on trial.
He also lashed out at China on trade and had this to say about Joe Biden, who made his first public appearance today after he was diagnosed with late stage metastatic prostate cancer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I mean, he's been a sort of a moderate person over his lifetime, not a smart person. But somewhat vicious person. I will say, if you feel sorry for him, don't feel so sorry because he's vicious. What he did with his political opponent and all of the people that he hurt, he hurt a lot of people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Afterwards, the President traveled to Western Pennsylvania for a campaign style rally at a U.S. steel rolling mill near Pittsburgh. He came to tout what he's calling a new partnership between U.S. Steel and Japan based Nippon Steel. But he made news by announcing a doubling of tariffs on steel imports.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're going to bring it from 25 percent to 50 percent, the tariffs on steel into the United States of America, which will even further secure the steel industry in the United States. Nobody's going to get around that. So, were bringing it up from 25 percent. We're doubling it to 50 percent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: The President just outside of Pittsburgh with CNN's chief White House correspondent and anchor of "The Source," Kaitlan Collins, joins me now. And, Kaitlan, I wonder why target steel now? And is perhaps this a projection of strength as China defies his tariff pressure?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: I think it also just goes into the mindset that the President has when it comes to how he wields his power on tariffs generally.
Steel, aluminum have always been at the forefront of this fight for him. He imposed tariffs on this when he was in office the last time around. It was a huge issue and you know, point of pride for him at times. And when he got back into office this time, he quickly raised the tariffs and reinstated them in other places where they had been lowered or eliminated.
And so, to hear him tonight announcing this, though, does really shed light into his mindset of how he's approaching these numbers, not always through a mathematical concept of what does he believe is actually going to be the most punishing for other countries, the most beneficial for the U.S., he said to the audience there in Pennsylvania that he had debated whether or not to do 40 percent, but then ultimately decided on 50 percent without saying really what the reasoning behind that was and it just shed some light into how he approaches tariffs.
Though the steel aluminum tariffs have been the longest standing ones that he's put in place. They were not struck down by a judge earlier this week and then reinstated like the others, because of the way that he imposed them essentially went the route that that is within his scope of authority.
SCIUTTO: Yes and listen, when you talk to the folks currently negotiating with the U.S., one thing I consistently hear from them is they just don't know where the tariffs are going to be on any given day or any given week.
COLLINS: Yes,
SCIUTTO: I wonder about that Musk moment. Why was it so important for he and Trump to show that kind of united front, even as he was leaving? And is that united front real, or is this sort of a bigger separation?
COLLINS: I talked to some sources about this, as all of the stories have been percolating over the last several days about Musk finally departing, officially departing and doing the paperwork even as part of his offboarding process and what that looks like. And a lot of it had to do with the President's perception as he was watching the coverage of Elon Musk and his departure and wanting to shine a light on the work that he did at DOGE. You heard the President as he started out there in the Oval Office, reading off of the things that had been funded by the government, that that they now are no longer funding because they don't believe that they're useful to the government. The problem is that it doesn't add up to the trillion dollars that Musk came into the White House, assuring voters that he was going to be able to do.
I mean, remember, there was talk at one point of cutting checks to voters with all the money the government saved. There was no mention of that inside the Oval Office today. And so, while I do think the relationship between President Trump and Elon Musk is still solid, he still likes him and seeks out his advice. And, you know, just had him in there the other day when the South African leader was here. The cabinet secretaries who were there in the room noticed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent -- they have not had so rosy of a relationship with him. And so maybe the President is not eager to see him go. But certainly a lot of people inside the west wing have no issue with To DAY'S departure.
SCIUTTO: And maybe some of his Tesla shareholders as well. Kaitlan Collins of course, we'll see you at the top of the next hour for "The Source."
Perspective, now, on Musk's farewell appearance in the Oval Office today from two of our political analysts from "The New York Times," investigative reporter David Fahrenthold and white house correspondent Maggie Haberman. Good to have you both here on a Friday night. Maggie, first to you. Is this an actual departure of Musk from the Trump orbit or stage one to some agreement, perhaps to please his concerned investors.
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's definitely -- from the orbit, but it certainly is a sort of unexpected departure from the White House. Musk had indicated to reporters at the White House a couple of weeks ago that he would continue doing government work every couple of weeks for a few days. Now, that suddenly seems to be over and exactly why we don't know. This was expedited this week.
What I do think its emblematic of is, yes, I think that Musk wants it to be known, and I think Trump wants it to be known that they are not parting on bad terms. I do think that Musk will continue to talk to Trump when he wants to. Trump is fascinated by wealth, equates it with intelligence. Musk is said to be the wealthiest man in the world. But I do think it's actually emblematic of something else, Jim, which is that Trump has really made an effort not to shove people off on ice flows out of his world this time, as opposed to so many toxic firings last time. I don't think he wants a lot of scorched earth.
[20:10:18]
SCIUTTO: Interesting, now, I know there are a lot of Republican candidates counting on Musk's financial backing in 2026. Of course, President Trump himself benefited enormously from Musk's checkbook during the 2024 campaign. Do you get a sense that his claimed step back from politics that Musk has said at times, is that real, or do we expect him to be opening up that checkbook again as new elections come around?
HABERMAN: Well, I would just make the point that he told the President's advisers that he was going to direct $100 million in spending to groups controlled by the Trump team. That money has yet to materialize, so we will see. He has spent money on house members, who back causes that he's interested in -- like rulings that he doesn't favor. I think he will continue to spend money, but I do think that it is clearly hurt his business prospects for the time being.
SCIUTTO: Yes, I mean, listen, you look at sales of Tesla, for instance, particularly in Europe, I mean, markedly down.
All right, David, so the DOGE website now is touting $175 billion in savings, that's we did the math 18 percent of the claim, $1 trillion, which is half of the $2 trillion initially claimed. Does that $175 billion figure stand up to the numbers -- the data?
DAVID FAHRENTHOLD, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER AT "THE NEW YORK TIMES": No it doesn't, in fact, about half of it is not accounted for at all, it's not itemized. Remember, they set up this thing called the wall of receipts. It was supposed to itemize every single dollar that they cut. Half of those dollars are unaccounted for just -- they're just take our word for it. And even the dollars that they do itemize, there's huge errors that cause it to be off by billions of dollars inflated by billions of dollars. There's guesswork, there's all kinds of errors in there. So, even that 18 percent, even that figure, which is a long way from what he promised, would be easy to do, that even that number seems to be wildly inflated.
SCIUTTO: And to Kaitlan's point earlier, you know, those checks that there was a lot of talk of going out to voters? I mean, if you did, they'd be much smaller checks.
Maggie, the President read off a list of claimed accomplishments of DOGE in the oval office today, including ones we know just not to be true, $8 million for transgender mice. He did not talk about very real cuts to USAID and the effects it's having in many countries around the world. At the White House, in Trump world, do they do they buy the numbers themselves, or do they just make claims and hope that people believe them?
HABERMAN: ... source of consternation for some of Trump's advisers was that Elon Musk would make statements about fraud and waste that he was finding in the Social Security network that there were examples of tons of people who were dead receiving benefits. But then he would not produce that information. And this is not me saying it, it is not David saying it. This is what people in the administration were saying and people in Trump's orbit. So, that was always a source of frustration. Those headlines were problematic for Trump politically in their minds. They are happy, as Kaitlan said, to have him go. Because, look, there are things he did that some of them are happy with. A bunch of them in Trump's world came around to Musk. Many others, however, were not so happy. Mostly he was a source of tension and he commanded this social media presence where he could intimidate any of them as well. And so I think, you know, they are happy to see this chapter end.
SCIUTTO: That's notable. So, David, I wonder, when you look at the claim savings, which we've already said are, well, at least they're not backed up. But by what we know, is there a hidden bill to come here that some of these DOGE cuts will end up costing at a later date? I mean, you think, for instance, of the nuclear scientists that were fired from the DoE and then they said actually, well, they're keeping an eye on our nuclear weapons. I mean, are there bills to come here?
FAHRENTHOLD: Yes, in a couple of different ways. One is that some of the contracts they've killed have already come back to life because the government realized, hey, this thing that DOGE killed, actually, we need that. We can't do our job without this thing.
There's also the huge amounts of expense that come with firing people, bringing them back. You know, if there's court decisions. But in the longer term, right, if you kick these people out of government, you may find that in a year or two years you've got a higher hire them back. But now they work for Raytheon, now they work for Booz Allen, now they work for a government contractor, and they're going to cost you more than they did when they were in-house.
So, I think there are lots of costs to come with this and it was all done so haphazardly. I don't think Elon Musk had any sort of plan for cutting what was not needed and saving what was really needed.
SCIUTTO: I mean, yes, that's when you have a power saw, right?
FAHRENTHOLD: Yes.
SCIUTTO: Generally it's not the most delicate cuts you're striking. Before we go, Maggie, Musk was politically for Democrats, they saw him as an enemy to rally around. And some Republicans were concerned about being too close to him. And you look at the results, for instance, in Wisconsin earlier this year. Politically, did Trump see danger here in coming elections as well?
[20:15:04]
HABERMAN: They all see some risks in the coming elections. But it's really not about, you know, if we get rid of Elon Musk, then everything is going to be fine. I mean, this is Donald Trump's government. He is going to be judged on that, House Republicans, the Senate Republicans are going to be judged on that. But certainly he was an easy attack headline and target for Democrats for the reasons that we just talked about the things that he was talking about, cutting the language that he would use, describing people who receive Social Security, as I think fraudsters was his term. That's just not seen as politically wise or advantageous. I don't think anybody is going to hold him at that much of a distance. He is still a big star on the MAGA right but we are entering a new phase.
SCIUTTO: Yes, listen, Social Security recipients, seniors, they vote -- folks are aware of how they feel. Maggie Haberman David Fahrenthold, thanks so much to both of you.
Breaking news now in some confusion tonight surrounding who the government thinks should be vaccinated against COVID. Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., U.S. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: As of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: That was Tuesday. Yet today, at the CDC, the shots remain on that schedule for children. They are now listed as recommended, but only after consultation with the health provider. They are still, however, on that list.
Joining us now, Michael Osterholm, he's director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.
Michael, good to have you on.
DR. MICHAEL OSTERHOLM, DIRECTOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA'S CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH AND POLICY: Hi, Jim. Good to see you.
SCIUTTO: So, so first, just the most basic question here. Who's right? What is the science and the data show as to whether this shot should be recommended and taken for children?
OSTERHOLM: Well, first of all, let me just take a step back because there's actually a story to tell before you even get to that question. And that is how did they come about determining either the press conference they did a week ago or the one that the 58-second video you just showed parts of? How did they come to their data to say that, in fact, these vaccines shouldn't be given and they didn't have any data. There's no science whatsoever. This is a basically a policy issue of where this administration is trying to punish mRNA vaccines and trying to keep the public from getting that.
And remember, Mr. Kennedy said it is hearing for confirmation he would never take a vaccine away from anyone. And he's doing exactly that. And these are vaccines that have saved lives, both in pregnant women and young children, and still should be available.
SCIUTTO: And we should note in the first Trump administration, he claimed credit right for Operation Warp Speed to help get these mRNA vaccines quickly out to the public here. I wonder, as someone like yourself who studies public health policy, does the confusion have an effect, right? Because we see that to some extent, for instance, with measles, because of confusing guidance, the take up rate drops and that allows that brings you below that threshold for herd immunity here. I mean, you know, the question is, is confusion by itself dangerous?
OSTERHOLM: Absolutely it is and on top of that, this confusion has only been enhanced by flooding the zone every few days with some new controversy that raises the question is there may be something wrong with this vaccine? Again, let me come back and say there is not. And in fact, these vaccines have been life-saving. They've reduced the incidence of long COVID and we have clear and compelling data showing in pregnant women the increased risk of dying during your pregnancy with COVID, when you're not vaccinated versus being vaccinated.
So, I think the challenge we have right now is we have a system in place that's worked very well with the FDA and the CDC and outside experts to review the information and to make these decisions. They just suddenly made this up on their own and even in the first press briefing of a couple of week and a half ago, they acknowledged the only two people that had anything to do with writing that new paper that says, you know, we no longer want these vaccines to be available we're just two people. There was no consult whatsoever. This is what's got to stop. This is dangerous public policy.
SCIUTTO: Yes, that's an assault on the way science is done -- science and medicine, Michael Osterholm, thanks so much for joining.
OSTERHOLM: Thank you very much.
Just ahead, President Trump intensifies the trade war with China and next, a new salvo in the administration's war on judges. Even Trump appointed judges who say no to this administration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, DEPUTY CHIEF-OF-STAFF FOR POLICY AND HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISER: Democracy cannot function. In fact, democracy does not exist at all if each action the President takes foreign policy, diplomatic, military, National Security has to be individually approved by 700 district court judges.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:24:20]
SCIUTTO: Today's Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a big win, allowing it, for now to suspend a Biden era humanitarian parole program, which has allowed half a million immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to temporarily live and work in this country.
Victory aside, the President remains at war with the Judiciary overall. Last night, he lashed out online against judges, also against the conservative federalist society, which helped him pick many those judges, quoting him now, "I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use the Federalist Society as a recommended source on judges. I did so openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real sleazebag named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America and obviously has his own separate ambitions."
Also, one of his top advisers had this to say when CNN's Pamela Brown spoke to him after acknowledging today's win on immigration, asked him why the administration cannot accept the losses.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST AND CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Whenever a judge rules against this administration, you say they're going rogue. Do you think a judge should just rubber stamp what your White House does? If not, what checks and balances do you think should be in place for this White House?
MILLER: When you say, do we think district court judges should rubber stamp each action, there is a premise that is built into that that is absurd.
The President is the sole head of the Executive Branch. He's the only officer in the entire government that's elected by the entire American people. Democracy cannot function in fact, democracy does not exist at all, if each action the President takes foreign policy, diplomatic, military, National Security has to be individually approved by 700 district court judges. That's democracy? So if there's 15 communist, crazy judges on the court, that each of them, as a team working together, can block and freeze each and every executive action.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Joining us now to people who know the Constitution, CNN legal analyst, former deputy assistant attorney general Elliot Williams and Carrie Cordero senior fellow at the center for new American security. Good to have you both here.
Elliot, he seems to forget the constitution and the separation of powers et cetera. But we should note, Trump loves judges when they go his way and hates them when they go against him, regardless of who appoints him. It's a quite clear pattern.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And it's a pattern that stretches back to his first term. Now, you know, Jim, pulling back. It has a profound effect on how the country sees the Judiciary. Really, the rule of law does not work unless people have faith in the institutions that serve them. And when the President routinely attacks courts, when he loses, people start to lose faith in that now. Look, Pew Research Center has done a ton of research on this over the years, and people have lost faith in institutions generally. But courts can't function and can't serve the country well. People don't trust them and the President really is just feeling that.
SCIUTTO: To your point, institutions across the board, the FBI, the CIA, Congress, the media, right? I mean, these are all subjects and you see that that confidence fall. Carrie, we mentioned that for all the complaints from Trump, he actually got a win today from the Supreme Court regarding deportations of certain migrants. Is this a lasting win for this administration?
CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, what he's doing is on immigration issues. He's using every potential lever that he has to implement his policy priority on immigration and border security. And so, this is one aspect of it. So, this -- using overturning the parole that was done during the Biden administration for this subset of migrants that came in this one, the Supreme Court said, okay, were going to let that policy decision go forward. But there's a whole host of immigration ways that the administration is trying to implement its immigration agenda. And so each of those cases is handled in a different way, whether it was the Alien Enemies Act or other provisions of law that the administration has tried to use.
So generally, immigration is an area where the executive has a lot of power. And so, this was one example in this case today, where the policy is able to go forward. And during the Biden administration, there were challenges in court against policy efforts that they tried to do as well. So immigration is such a difficult issue right now and such a high intensity political issue that decisions are being made are going to be challenged no matter what.
SCIUTTO: Elliott so far, the President has not gone after his Supreme Court appointments so far. Are you confident that remains that way? Because there have been times his own appointees have gone against him.
WILLIAMS: I am not confident because both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett have with some regularity, not all the time, but with some regularity, sided with the liberals on the court in ways that were adverse to the President of the United States. So, I would not be surprised to see the President, you know, attacking them. The President has a vision of courts as serving him. And when they carry out his political vision, Stephen Miller talked about that a little bit, that merely because things are politically popular, therefore the courts ought to get in line. That is simply not how courts work.
SCIUTTO: And the way he -- I mean, he says he hates America, right? Leonard Leo.
Carrie, before we go, I know the rhetoric against judges and justices gives you particular pause, as it does many in the profession, because of their safety. Does it add to the danger that that kind of rhetoric to come from the President?
CORDERO: Well, I think it absolutely does. You know, we're in an environment right now, as you know, Jim and Elliott, that the threats against judges have really skyrocketed. So, the Marshals Service, which protects them, has had to deal with hundreds, just this year, and this time of year hundreds of threats that they've had to investigate for judges and judges at all levels, whether it's a district court -- the district court judges all the way up to Supreme Court justices. [20:30:34]
So it's a -- and judges that are appointed Democratic presidents, and judges that have been appointed by even President Trump himself, and justices.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
CORDERO: So the threat environment is a real concern to courts, a real concern to the country, and should be a real concern to members of Congress, who really need to think about whether they can do more to fund the Marshall Service, whether there's more resources that need to be put to the court. But you can't have a functioning court system if the judges and their families are under threat.
SCIUTTO: Yes. And listen, that three-judge trade panel, for instance, you know, one Trump appointee, one George W. Bush appointee.
Elliot Williams, Carrie Cordero, thanks so much.
Next, why the president is now telling China it's no more Mr. Nice Guy, those were his words, on trade.
Later, taking note literally of how Taylor Swift got the rights to her music, all of it, back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:36:12]
SCIUTTO: Even before his announcement tonight that he would raise tariffs on steel to 50 percent, double them, in fact, President Trump was turning up the heat on his trade conflict with China in an early morning social media post, writing, quote, "China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, has totally violated its agreement with us." Adding, "So much for being Mr. Nice Guy."
The president was asked about this today in the Oval Office, and here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They violated a big part of the agreement we made. If you read that whole statement, I was very nice to them. I helped them because they were in trouble with the stoppage of a massive amount of business. But I'm sure that I'll speak to President Xi, and hopefully we'll work that out. But, yes, that's it -- that's a violation of the agreement.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
SCIUTTO: Left unsaid exactly how China had violated an agreement with the United States. However, administration officials tell CNN that part of the reason was due to China's decision not to ease export restrictions, in particular, of rare earth minerals to the U.S. Joining me now is Daniel Kritenbrink, he's a partner at the Asia Group and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs under the Biden administration, also served as ambassador to Vietnam during the first Trump term.
Good to have you on. Thanks for joining.
So the reason for this blow up was that China did not abide by an agreement to lower restrictions on rare earth minerals. Was that because they're breaking the deal, or the deal wasn't exactly clear?
DANIEL KRITENBRINK, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO VIETNAM: Well, I think it's a bit of both, Jim. I mean, look, for the Chinese, they look at the United States and they believe they're locked in a long-term struggle --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
KRITENBRINK: -- competition with the United States, right? And so they're not surprised that the U.S. would take steps against them. But I think they learned under the first Trump administration, if you're hit by President Trump, you have to respond tit for tat, eye for an eye, and that's what they've done. But after they did that and proved to their people they could do so, I think they had scope to cut that deal in Geneva.
Now, the U.S. side is clearly dissatisfied. The agreement in Geneva was a bit vague. It said that China agreed to remove the countermeasures it had taken against the United States since April 2. The U.S. believes that should include rare earths.
I think from the Chinese side, they would say the United States continues to carry out a number of punitive measures against us.
SCIUTTO: Right.
KRITENBRINK: And that also goes against the spirit of Geneva.
SCIUTTO: What is China's perception as to who can wait out this trade war longer? Do they believe they can take more pain than the U.S. can?
KRITENBRINK: Well, I think they probably do. And certainly that's been their rhetoric. They've shown a lot of swagger, a lot of confidence and resolve. They said that they can endure pain longer than the United States can. They can eat bitterness better than the United States can.
But despite all of that swagger, Jim, there's no doubt that the Chinese people endured a lot of pain from this trade war. The Chinese economy still faces severe headwinds. And so after showing that resolve again, showing that resolve, I think they felt like they had the space to cut a practical deal, and that's why they did.
SCIUTTO: Now, the Chinese, I'm sure, are watching U.S. court decisions as closely as you and I are watching them. Do they look at these court rulings, particularly the one two nights ago that restricted -- KRITENBRINK: Yes.
SCIUTTO: -- Trump's tariff ability, and I know it's been stayed, but do they look at that as a signal that Trump actually will have less leeway to impose tariffs over time than he thinks or than he threatens?
KRITENBRINK: Well, they might, and it certainly doesn't help U.S. leverage. But, look, I think the Chinese will be smart enough to take a wait-and-see approach. And whatever happens with the court rulings, it's clear to me, and I'm sure it's clear to Beijing, President Donald Trump will continue to use tariffs, even the tariffs that are not impacted by the court rulings --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
KRITENBRINK: -- as leverage against China. So they know that the court rulings in and of themselves are not going to change the dynamics of the game.
SCIUTTO: Donald Trump seems to -- and he says this frequently, he's like, I'm good friends, I've got a relationship --
KRITENBRINK: Yes.
SCIUTTO: -- with President Xi. We just got to get on the phone, we'll solve all these things.
KRITENBRINK: Right.
SCIUTTO: Is that pie-in-the-sky thinking from his, because in my experience, my understanding is that you don't get the principles together until the dirty work's been done at a lower level. I mean, there's some talk of a phone call --
KRITENBRINK: Yes.
SCIUTTO: -- but is that going to paper over these differences or solve any of these problems?
[20:40:11]
KRITENBRINK: I don't think it will paper over them. But look, I hope that there would be leader-level diplomacy. I think since 1972, leader-level diplomacy has been the key aspect of managing the U.S.- China relationship. But I don't see any Chinese official who would dare to agree to a summit without good preparatory work being done.
I could, however, Jim, see a phone call in the near term. There's long precedent for that, leaders get together, they talk about the way forward, impart some momentum in the talks, turn it over their team -- to their teams. I could see that happening, but a summit seems a long ways away.
SCIUTTO: Do you find that -- because I've heard this from other teams currently negotiating with the U.S., from Canada -- KRITENBRINK: Yes.
SCIUTTO: -- from Europe, this fear that, OK, let's say we do get to a deal. If we get over all the obstacles in the way, of which there are many, will that deal last? Can I trust what this administration signs, or will I be surprised in three months, six months, nine months down the road? Is China and our other trading partners in Asia thinking the same thing?
KRITENBRINK: I think it has a real impact. Look, friends in Asia, whether you're in China or elsewhere across the region, they're used to being practical.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
KRITENBRINK: They can engage in transactional deals with the United States and others, but they want to know, will they last if we cut a deal? They're also worried as well, it's not just the tariffs that we've been focused on here, the reciprocal tariffs. There are 232 investigations, 301 investigations.
So any deal that China or others -- other partners were to cut could be undermined by those subsequent investigations and their outcomes, and they're worried about that as well.
SCIUTTO: Finally, from a big picture perspective, you do have folks in this country, and not just Democrats, but Republicans, who are concerned that this affects America's standing in the world, this kind of back and forth and constant changing of tariffs, and basically picking fights not just with your adversaries, such as China or competitors, but also your closest allies.
In Asia, is this damaging America's standing? Because the impression of the Trump administration is we're finally being tough, everybody respects us. Is that true?
KRITENBRINK: Look, partners want consistency, they want constancy. They want to know can they rely on the United States. So I think that is the most important factor that we're facing right now. And anything that undermines that, I think, does harm our standing in the region.
But, look, where we stand now, I think our partners know they need the United States, they want the United States engaged, they're prepared to cut deals. And so, if the Trump administration is willing to cut deals with our partners in Asia, there are deals to be had.
SCIUTTO: That's interesting from their perspective, is that, yes, deal makers, right? Let's find a way.
KRITENBRINK: Absolutely.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
KRITENBRINK: Absolutely.
SCIUTTO: But as long as it serves both of our interests. KRITENBRINK: It has to serve both of our interests. You know, partners, many partners have told us they're willing to cut a deal, but it has to benefit both sides.
Dan Kritenbrink, thanks so much for joining and walking us through it all.
KRITENBRINK: Thank you, Jim. Appreciate it.
SCIUTTO: Still ahead, the latest on the manhunt for this former -- fugitive former police chief who'd been doing time for rape and murder until he snuck out of prison wearing a makeshift law enforcement uniform and now could have a world of places to hide.
Plus, Todd Chrisley talks about his pardon and new freedom with help from one of his daughters.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
TODD CHRISLEY, PARDONED BY TRUMP: It's a blessing, and then your heart breaks because your child has been placed in that position to fight for you when, as a parent, you're supposed to fight for your children.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:48:02]
SCIUTTO: Reality TV star Todd Chrisley spoke out for the first time today in Nashville about the presidential pardons that he and his wife, Julie, received this week. In 2022, they were both sentenced to federal prison for tax and bank fraud. He was serving a 12-year sentence. She was doing seven.
After thanking the president and pardon czar, Alice Johnson, he praised his daughter, Savannah, who pushed for their freedom for years.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
T. CHRISLEY: For any parent to see their child fight this hard, it's a double-edged sword. It's a blessing. And then your heart breaks because your child has been placed in that position to fight for you when, as a parent, you're supposed to fight for your children.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
SCIUTTO: She said it felt like a dream to have her parents home and also said this.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
SAVANNAH CHRISLEY, PARENTS PARDONED BY PRES. TRUMP: I think the biggest misconception right now is that I either paid for a pardon or slept for a pardon. T. CHRISLEY: That's something I would do (ph).
S. CHRISLEY: Or, like, that's the biggest misconception right now. And if people knew the countless hours and the money and the time that I spent going to D.C., literally, with not a meeting scheduled, and I just got on a plane and went and said, I'm going to be in the right room at the right time and meet the right people.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
SCIUTTO: Now to northern Arkansas, authorities there are still searching for a former police chief who just walked out of prison where he was serving a long sentence for rape and murder. His name is Grant Hardin, that's him, last Sunday, wearing a makeshift law enforcement uniform when he snuck out.
All week, the FBI and other agencies have widened their search in and around the Ozark mountains where hundreds of caves and vacant buildings supply plenty of potential hiding places. Another advantage, his knowledge of law enforcement tactics. The FBI is offering a reward of up to $20,000 for information leading to his capture.
Joining us now, CNN Law Enforcement -- Senior Law Enforcement Analyst and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Good to have you on.
[20:50:04]
I wonder if you had to approach this yourself. I mean, that difficult terrain in northern Arkansas, and a guy who knows how law enforcement operates. How difficult a task is that?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yes, there's no question, Jim, that those factors make this more challenging than they would the average prison break. Not that any prison break is -- or escapee situation is easy to deal with, but certainly his knowledge of law enforcement, knowledge of law enforcement tactics and approaches to things is in his best interest.
And the local environment, the prevalence of these caves and places to hide and the kind of remote quality of the wilderness there is definitely in his favor. It harkens back to the FBI's experience in searching for Eric Robert Rudolph --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MCCABE: -- the infamous abortion clinic bomber. I think maybe over a year of deployments to the mountains in North Carolina, South Carolina, northern Georgia, where you had teams of SWAT team operatives walking through the woods looking for this guy. Never turned him up.
But if you use that as your example, what got Eric Robert Rudolph caught was his need for food.
SCIUTTO: Yes. MCCABE: He was, of course, infamously found dumpster diving behind a grocery store one night by a local police officer. That same pressure is applied to Grant Hardin right now. He can hide in a cave, but he can't find food there. He's not going to find shelter there.
It's cold. It's wet. At some point, he needs to come out and go to some place or some person that's going to support him with the resources he needs to keep living.
SCIUTTO: Yes. And are there just so many cameras around these days in so many places that it makes it harder to hide when folks -- well, they know what you look like?
MCCABE: Definitely. Definitely. Law enforcement's done a great job adapting to this environment in the last 10 years or so. It's like the idea of crowdsourcing a search, right? So you have thousands, tens of thousands, you know, hundreds of thousands of people out there who, if you can get this person's picture in front of them, they're all carrying cameras, video cameras, still cameras on their telephone -- or on their mobile phones.
And so that tip line, that public tip line becomes very important because you never know when a member of the public is going to come across someone they think looks like the guy they saw on TV, snaps a picture and sends it to you. And that, you know, is a hot lead.
SCIUTTO: $20,000, how often do tips like that, you know, rewards like that and tips from the public lead to the capture of a fugitive?
MCCABE: The reward is a really interesting thing. It's not quite as relevant when it comes to just the general public that calls in tips and leads. It's really more effective in that known, identified network of associates that you know. So this person's family members, former work contacts, friends, things like that, people who no doubt the law enforcement team knows about, likely has many of those people under surveillance.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MCCABE: You're really hoping with the reward that those people will be motivated to reach out to law enforcement if they're contacted by the fugitives.
SCIUTTO: Andy McCabe, thanks so much.
Coming up next, Taylor Swift is now the proud owner again of her own work. How she got all her master recordings back when 360 continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:58:15]
SCIUTTO: Are you ready for it? Taylor Swift announced today that she now owns her entire catalog of music. CNN's Randi Kaye has more on the long journey to today.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
TAYLOR SWIFT, AMERICAN SINGER-SONGWRITER: I've always wanted to own my own music.
RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): And now she does. Taylor Swift announced the news on her website today, writing, "All of the music I've ever made now belongs to me."
Back in 2019, Swift said she'd been, quote, "blindsided" when the master recordings of her first six albums were part of the deal when her former label was sold to producer Scooter Braun.
TAYLOR: I made it very clear that I wanted to be able to buy my music. That opportunity was not given to me and it was sold to somebody else.
KAYE (voice-over): Braun insisted Swift's team was aware of the pending deal. Swift wrote on Tumblr then that the $300 million deal "stripped me of my life's work". She moved on and signed with Universal Music Group's Republic Records, which allowed her to own her future masters. She also found a way to reclaim ownership of most of her earlier music by re-recording her first five albums.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's a plan.
TAYLOR: Yes, absolutely.
I just figured I was the one who made this music first. I can just make it again.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
TAYLOR: So that's what we're doing.
(APPLAUSE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have to say it.
(APPLAUSE)
TAYLOR: So that what we're doing. So when something says in parenthesis, "Taylor's version" next to it, that means I own it, which is exciting.
KAYE (voice-over): And when Swift announced her new album "Lover" on Good Morning America in 2019 --
TAYLOR: One thing about this album that's really special to me is that it's the first one that I will own. I think that artists deserve to own their work. I just feel very passionately about that.
My contract says that starting November 2020, so next year, I can record albums one through five all over again.
KAYE (voice-over): And now Swift also owns all her music videos, concert films, album art and photography, along with unreleased songs purchased, she wrote, "with no strings attached" from a private equity company that had bought her master recordings. Swift told her fans, "This is my greatest dream come true."
Randi Kaye, CNN, West Palm Beach, Florida.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
SCIUTTO: Well done, Taylor.
The news continues. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now.
