Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Soon: Hearing On Whether Trump Violated Order To Halt Deportations; Schumer Book Tour Rescheduled Due To Security Concerns; Miller: Judge's Order "patently Unlawful," But No Violation By Trump. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired March 17, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:02]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Are you buying that?
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: I don't know. This is like this falls under a subgenre of people going overseas and acting like morons for like, LOLs and likes.
KEILAR: When they could just stay here and act like morons.
SANCHEZ: Indeed, it affects fewer people -- fewer baby wombats. Yeah.
KEILAR: Oh my goodness. Well --
SANCHEZ: You had a chance to do the Australian accent that you did in commercial break and you didn't do it. You want to try --
KEILAR: No, I don't want --
SANCHEZ: -- tossing to Kasie Hunt.
KEILAR: I was born there and I'm afraid of messing it up. I'm going to toss to THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
SANCHEZ: Hey, mate.
KEILAR: Good bye.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's Trump versus the courts.
Let's head into THE ARENA.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: A federal hearing begins soon on whether President Trump violated a court order blocking the mass deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members.
Plus, new security concerns for Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer as fellow Democrats fume over his surrender in the shutdown showdown with Republicans. I'll ask Congressman Ro Khanna about the gaping split within his party. And the new chairman of the board takes a bow? What's it look like for the president to visit the Kennedy Center today as patrons and performers protest his takeover there?
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Monday.
A new showdown between the Trump White House and the judiciary could come to a head in court just about an hour from now, as the president tests the boundaries of his power and the law with a strategy that seems to be "act now, ask later".
At 5:00 p.m. Eastern, a federal judge is set to hold a new hearing on the deportation of hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador over the weekend, under a centuries old, rarely used wartime power. The question before the court, did the White House intentionally defy the judges order to stop the deportation and turn the planes around while he considers challenges to the president's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This administration acted within the confines of the law again within the president's constitutional authority, and under the authority granted to him under the Alien Enemies Act. We are quite confident in that, and we are wholly confident that we are going to win this case in court. All of the planes that were subject to the written order, the judges written order, took off before the order was entered in the courtroom on Saturday.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was the White House press secretary just hours ago.
And here's what White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said just moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: The actions of the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Defense were not in conflict with the judge's order. But at the same time, it is also true that the judge's order was patently unlawful. Beyond unlawful, it was an outrageous assault on the Constitution, an outrageous assault on the sovereignty of the nation and on democracy itself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The administration repeatedly denying that it violated the judge's order. The -- the president's immigration czar, though, had sounded pretty defiant earlier this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: We're not stopping. I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Okay.
Team Trump eager to boast about deporting people that they call foreign terrorists. They got some help from El Salvador's authoritarian president who posted this video of the deportees. It was cut. I mean, let's be honest, it looks like a Hollywood movie trailer.
And when the judge ordered the deportations to stop with planes, apparently in mid-flight, El Salvador's president responded to the news by posting this -- Oopsie. Too late. With a laughing with tears emoji.
As for President Trump, he claims he was just doing what was necessary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I can tell you this, these were bad people. That was a bad group of as I say, hombres. That was a bad group when you look at them. And you look at the crimes that they've committed, you take a look.
You don't get any tougher. You don't get worse than that. You understand that? But you'd have to ask the lawyers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Ask the lawyers. This suggests that the president was simply acting now and asking about the legality later?
And it's worth noting that he repeatedly on the campaign trail told us exactly what he was going to do as president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I will invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to target the migrant criminal network. And it is a bad one.
Think of that 1798. Oh, it's a powerful act. You couldn't pass something like that today.
You know, 1798, that's when they ran the country a little tougher than we run it today.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798. See how far back we have to go? Because they didn't play games back then.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[16:05:04]
HUNT: All right. My panel is here.
But first, we want to get to our correspondents. CNN's Jeff Zeleny is going to be live for us from the White House and CNN's Katelyn Polantz is covering the critical hearing is set to take place in less than an hour in U.S. district court.
And that's, of course, Katelyn, why we're going to start with you. I understand we just got a new filing from the Department of Justice outlining how they're planning to argue in this hearing. What have we learned?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: How they're planning to argue, and that they are telling the judge they don't want to have this hearing. This filing came in about an hour ago, and the Justice Department said to Judge Jed Boasberg, he's the chief judge over at the district court in Washington, that they're warning him in the big picture. Don't overstep your authority. We believe the presidency has quite a lot of authority here. But they also are telling him, we're going to give you all of the facts as we see them right now. Please don't have this hearing.
Judge Boasberg, he came back pretty quickly and said, no, it's on 5:00 p.m. We're going to discuss this.
And so, we're going to be watching at 5:00 exactly how Judge Boasberg handles this. Does he deescalate things in the way that the Justice Department wants him to, not bring up the possibility that this is a courts versus Trump presidency moment right now.
He also, though, is already saying what he wants to do. He wants answers to specific questions about timing and about the flights that were taking off with people who were being deported from the United States.
There's a question of whether the written order, the Judge Boasberg put in the court docket on paper, if that's the one, that where the timing matters, or if there's one earlier than that, the Justice Department says were looking at what was on paper and the flight that took off after the paper was written by the judge. The order was given on paper that flight after did not carry any detainees who would be in violation of the order, or who would put the Trump administration in violation of the order.
This is what they wrote. Written orders are crucial because they clarify the bounds of permissible conduct. The courts written injunction, which issued at approximately 7:25 p.m. Eastern Time on Saturday, properly did not seek to interfere with the president's Article Two powers to conduct military operations overseas by directing the return of aliens associated with the designated foreign terrorist organization who had already been removed from United States' territory. Even though the written order did memorialize other, narrower oral directives from the hearing.
So translating that, the Justice Department says we haven't done anything wrong. We have followed the orders.
I guess we will hear what else they have to say at 5:00, and how the judge responds.
HUNT: Yeah, very interesting. Katelyn, thanks for that.
Jeff Zeleny, can you help us understand on the political side of this? I mean, Katelyn seems to have outlined there how the president's Department of Justice is going to argue this in court in saying that they didn't defy the order.
But we showed you what Karoline Leavitt, Tom Homan, and Stephen Miller have all had to say through the day. Homan said, we don't care. You know, we're going to do this regardless of the courts.
Karoline Leavitt is saying what we did does not defy the courts, and Stephen Miller is saying, well, basically the court is doing unlawful things, but also we didn't defy the courts either. What is it and what are they doing here?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kasie, one thing is clear a through line there. And I just came from that briefing with Stephen Miller, and he also made the point that you made just a few moments ago about how President Trump talked about this again and again and again on the campaign trail.
And Stephen Miller makes the point, of course, he has been a long, long time adviser to the president, particularly on immigration issues that Donald Trump has talked about this for a long time.
Now, that does not mean that they still cannot be in a legal trouble here. But one thing is a little unusual at the White House. They are making clear that they are not essentially ignoring the judges order. They are drawing the distinction between that written order and the timing as Katelyn just talked about, versus a verbal order that the judge gave earlier.
In a White House briefing today, Karoline Leavitt said, you know, verbal orders do not have as much weight, that -- we'll see what the judge says about that in the next hour. My guess is he will not agree with that.
But look, the bottom line to all of this, politically speaking, the White House, the president, they believe they are on solid ground because he talked about this. He promised this. And this is exactly what he's doing.
But the bigger question is, is this the case that will end up at the Supreme Court? Is this the executive authority case that will be tested ultimately or not? We shall see.
But as of now, the White House is making clear, even though they don't like the order they are, saying that they are not ignoring it, which of course, that would sort of open the door to a constitutional crisis.
[16:10:03]
And that is not what they say is happening. HUNT: All right. Jeff Zeleny, Katelyn Polantz, thank you both very
much for that reporting.
And now our panel is here, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams, CNN anchor, chief political correspondent Dana Bash, former Democratic Congressman Mondaire Jones and former Republican congressman Peter Meijer.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here today.
Elliot, we got to start with you, because you got to -- this distinction that they are making between an oral instruction from the judge and the written order from the judge, is there actually any merit to that?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I have never seen an argument like that made. If a judge says you're guilty, if it's a bench trial, you're guilty, right then, regardless of whether the judge memorializes it in writing.
If the judge says, I hold you in contempt of court, if the judge says, I sentence you to ten years in prison, all of those things have weight on the judge's words.
Now, of course, a written ruling has, you know, it explains things and so on. But I've never seen appeared in front of dozens of judges, clerked for two of them. When they say something, it has the weight of a ruling in court, full stop. So I'm curious to see what happens with this hearing and where they go at that point.
HUNT: Yeah, Congressman Meijer, as the Republican at the table, you obviously have -- you know, originally came from a district where you had to talk to Democrats and Republicans, right? Appeal to them.
I'm really curious what you think about what we saw over the weekend in terms of -- I mean, there are Republicans who are out there saying, you know, come at us. Democrats criticize us for deporting, you know, criminals, right? Members of criminal gangs. But that said, this standoff with the court is remarkable.
And there are Americans who still can't afford gas and groceries and other things. And this is, of course, what the -- what the Trump team is focused on. What's your read of this? And do you think they're doing the right thing?
PETER MEIJER (R), FORMER MICHIGAN REPRESENTATIVE: Right. I mean, if I'm Donald Trump, I want to be defending sending dozens of Central American criminal cartel members out of the country.
I mean, this is just the easiest possible layup that you could just, like nice and slow down the middle, anybody. It's practically T-ball, how simple this is from a political standpoint.
Now, obviously, the legal nuances are myriad. You know, I am by no means an expert on the Alien Enemies Act. I think the Trump administration has been fantastic for educating Americans about our long and diverse constitutional history. But from a political standpoint, I mean, this is doesn't get easier than this.
HUNT: Dana Bash, big picture?
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think that the second part of what Stephen Miller said in the sound bite that you played is perhaps the most important for us to keep our eye on.
And that is, yes, the consistent argument at the White House today is we didn't defy the judge's orders. You know, you talk about the written versus the oral decision by the judge. Just put that aside for a second.
The second part of what he said was, but even so, it's not up to the judge. The judge said -- it's not up to the judge. What the judge said was not right and not constitutional.
This is a pattern from Stephen Miller. I just pulled up a tweet that he sent out. I think it was last week about what he considers judges overstepping in all of these areas where they're really trying to push the bounds of executive power, he said. Under the precedents now being established by radical rogue judges, a district court in Hawaii could enjoin troop movements in Iraq.
This is so clearly the kind of thing that Stephen Miller and others have spent four years, while Joe Biden was in office, refining and refining again and refining again. If they got the chance to go back in, they were going to push the limits of executive power, and they were going to make the arguments intentionally to go straight up through the courts.
HUNT: Well, and, Congressman Mondaire Jones, let's talk for a second about the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. We can put it up on the screen.
And it says, whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, right? So that sets out the conditions under which this act is to be used.
What how do you look at kind of what Dana was just laying out there in terms of this is groundwork they laid. This is these are arguments. They said that they were going to come in here and do it. Democrats are quite honestly struggling to push back.
What should they be saying and doing right now?
MONDAIRE JONES (D), FORMER NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: The good news is that none of us on this panel has to be a lawyer to get to the right result on this. That the operative question is whether the Trump administration defied a ruling of a judge. And the answer, apparently, is yes.
And you've got individual people, whether it is the White House press secretary or -- or Stephen Miller or Tom Homan who really gives the whole game away whenever he gets on television, they give an interview saying, we actually don't care what the what the law is. I mean, we're going to do this, judicial decrees be damned. And so, you know, we don't have to get to the merits of whether the
statute itself was properly invoked by this administration. You know, one of the most conservative -- I'm not a Republican, but one of the -- I had thought that one of the most conservative principles out there was compliance with the rule of law.
[16:15:09]
And -- and here, we have a major step in the direction of an autocracy where a White House is defying that ruling because judges in -- judiciary is only as powerful as the people who submit to the -- to the power to the authority of judges.
HUNT: Congressman, you look like you're struggling to keep your words inside.
MEIJER: I'm trying to be funny. I mean, this is clearly a case like the distinction between an oral versus a written order, the timing. The plans are already in the air -- no, I'm just saying there's a lot of logistical components here.
If the Trump administration said, okay, the Supreme Court made their decision. Let them enforce it. You know, if they essentially did the same thing that Joe Biden did with the student loan debt repayment, and, you know, then that would be a different equation, right?
I mean, right now, it's still a lot of balls in the air. Obviously, were awaiting this hearing. So I think it's a little premature to again --
JONES: I mean, the press secretary is supposed to speak for the White House, right? I mean, you got the ICE guy, you know, the Tom Homan, he's supposed to speak on behalf of the administration.
MEIJER: Yeah, but it's the lawyers who are arguing in court, right? Because we have two different levels here. There's the legal, there's a political. We're waiting on the political or on the legal.
WILLIAMS: And that's a really important point. Two things can be true. And let all within the sound of my voice take heed. It can be the case that we do not want members of violent gangs in the United States.
And it is a strong political point for a president and his administration to make that point. It can also be the case that removing those people happened in violation of federal law. You know, this -- the fact that this -- the Alien Enemies Act has only been invoked three times in American history, all in the context of declared wars, World War I, War of 1812, and World War II is significant in and of itself, and so it is an aggressive manner that that they're pushing and how they did it.
And there's an open question as to whether they violated the judge's order, that can play out in a court. But I think we can -- we can and should all agree that the underlying goal is a -- is a reasonable one, and they're pouncing on that and making that the whole story. And I think, by the way, you're both in agreement on that. MEIJER: I love the agreement on that, yeah.
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JONES: By the way, there is some dispute over whether all of these people are gang members. That's -- that is something that would get litigated in the course of due process being afforded to these individuals. But you can't just take the White House's word -- not this White House especially. You can't take the word of any White House.
That is something that has to be litigated, that has to be vetted in a court of law. Whether somebody is a gang member, whether a tattoo is actually a gang, is gang paraphernalia versus something innocuous.
BASH: Just like you --
MEIJER: -- the standard would be lower.
JONES: Yeah.
BASH: Yeah, but just as you were saying, the whole idea of deporting violent gang members, it is. It's a -- I'll use a different sports metaphor. It's a layup. I mean, it really is. Which is why during the campaign and even up until now, when you heard the president and his top aides talking about mass deportations, they, over and over said, were going to start with the most criminal among us, but we don't have any evidence of who the people really are and what their backgrounds truly are.
HUNT: All right, everybody, stand by.
Right now, we want to know, what are you hearing? To all my sources and friends, you know who you are. Check your inbox. Here's our question for you today. Who should lead the Democratic Party?
You know why we're asking you. You have until the bottom of the hour. Send us your thoughts, tips, exclusives. If this is the wrong question, I don't think today it's the wrong question. But we always say, if it is, let us know why. Well let you in on the conversation later on in the hour.
Coming up next here, the bad headlines do keep piling up for Democrats. What our new CNN poll says about the party as members grapple with whether to keep or oust current leadership. We're going to talk about all of it with California Republican member of the progressive caucus, Ro Khanna. He is live with us right here in THE ARENA.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:23:07]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back into THE ARENA.
The Democratic Party's self-destructive show will not be going on the road. After intense backlash from inside his own party to his reversal on the Republican spending bill, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer postponed a planned book tour, a series of events citing security concerns after local progressive groups planned protests.
Schumer, for his part, defended his actions in an interview with "The New York Times".
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): I knew this would be an unpopular decision. I knew that. I know politics, but I felt so strongly as a leader that I couldn't let this happen because weeks and months from now, things would be far worse than they even are today, that I had to do what I had to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. I am joined now by Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna.
Sir, thank you very much for being on the program. I appreciate it.
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Thank you, Kasie.
HUNT: So let's start there with Senator Schumer. Do you think he did what he had to do? Did he do the responsible thing or did he make a mistake?
KHANNA: Well, he made a mistake. And there's deep disappointment among many Democrats who are fed up with the old guard. Here's the issue. No one wanted the government to shut down.
But what we wanted is there to actually be a negotiation with the Trump administration, so they would commit to not closing Social Security offices, so they would commit to not firing veterans, so they would commit to not unilaterally cutting USAID or NIH funding for cancer research. And we didn't get that. And that really is the frustration that there was not any effort at a tough negotiation.
HUNT: But didn't that ship sail when Mike Johnson, Speaker Johnson got his conference together and passed the passed the bill with only Republican votes in the House?
KHANNA: No, because, of course, we also had the Senate. And I think Senator Schumer, many of us in the House wanted him to say that here are some of the concessions we want.
[16:25:04]
I mean, we don't have to get all of the concessions. We understand that were in the minority in the House and the Senate, but they wanted to force Trump to be in the negotiating table, because a lot of the actions that the Trump administration are taking are unconstitutional.
Now, no one wanted a shutdown. And I understand Senator Schumer's point, that it could have been worse if there was a drawn out shutdown. And that would have hurt a lot of people. But what we wanted is to have some toughness, to have negotiation and some concessions, and we feel we didn't get that opportunity.
HUNT: Do you think that senator Schumer should be replaced as the leader of Senate Democrats?
KHANNA: Well, that's not my place. Look, that's for the senators to -- to figure out. And certainly the senators aren't going to care what some house member thinks about that.
But what I do think is that a lot of us, our leadership and all of us have to step up and be more creative and bolder in thinking about how we take on the Trump administration's unconstitutional actions. And the other place where I respectfully disagree with Senator Schumer is, he said, the only problem in "The New York Times" interview was that we weren't bragging enough of what we've done. I think we've got a deeper problem in this country. People think the last 50 years of politics have been broken. The status quo is broken, that income inequality has soared, that jobs have been offshored. And we've got to offer an actual vision for economic transformation, not just say, we've got to sell the status quo better.
HUNT: You know, it's interesting you put it that way, sir, because recently Steve Bannon appeared on a podcast with the governor of your home state of California, Gavin Newsom, and had some kind words for you as an economic populist. What was your reaction when you heard that? Or are you happy to have praise from Steve Bannon?
KHANNA: Well, I appreciated his point that we should be taxing the wealthy more, that we need to call out the corporatism that led to the offshoring of jobs that led to wages being -- being depressed, that led to the hollowing out of industry. We lost steel in this country, aluminum, shipbuilding, pharmaceutical manufacturing.
Now, I have a very different vision than Trump advance on how we rebuild advanced manufacturing, how we renew Americas economy, but to the point that there's a hole in our ship and that we made a colossal mistake over 50 years and the deindustrialization of this country was correct. And I appreciated Steve Bannon saying that.
HUNT: Sir, who do you think is the leader right now of the Democratic Party?
KHANNA: Well, look, I think its Hakeem Jeffries by virtue of the fact that he's the only one elected in that position in terms of a congressionally elected leader, I guess, you know, I think Senator Schumer has disappointed a lot of people. And so I think people are looking to next generation leaders like Hakeem Jeffries.
There are a lot of other great voices, you know, a dozen or 20 of them who will run in the future for national office. But right now they aren't elected to anything. So if you look at who's actually elected, it's Hakeem Jeffries.
HUNT: All right. I guess the challenge then is winning elections, right? Congressman Ro -- go ahead, go ahead.
KHANNA: Well, no, I mean, look, I think were going to have -- you know, I was concerned when I saw that CNN poll of Democrats at 30 percent. And then, you know, I looked at when the last time was that we were at 30 percent, 1991. And we then we had Bill Clinton.
So we've got great voices, great talent in our party. I'm confident they're going to come back. I'm confident were going to win in 2028, especially given the eroticism of the Trump economy. But first, we've got to elect Hakeem Jeffries, speaker, and our focus, all of us should be how do we make him speaker? And that's, I think, what can unify the party.
HUNT: All right. Congressman Ro Khanna, very grateful for your time. I hope you'll come back. I really want to spend some time talking to you about Silicon Valley and Elon Musk. We've got so much ground to cover.
Thanks for today though. I really appreciate it.
KHANNA: Look forward to it. Thank you.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, the Justice Department getting ready to head into court to answer questions about whether the administration violated a judges order. We're going to talk with White House deputy chief of staff for policy. Stephen Miller is standing by.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:33:26]
HUNT: All right. Back now to our top story. The White House defending its actions of the mass deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members.
Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, is here with me now.
Stephen, thanks very much for being in THE ARENA.
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: Glad to. Thank you.
HUNT: So you called the judge's order just earlier today, quote, patently unlawful, end quote, and said that it was an assault on democracy itself. Does that mean that the administration is ignoring this order? And might you ignore future court orders that meet the criteria you laid out?
MILLER: The president of the United States and his administration reserve all rights under the Constitution to conduct national security operations in defense of the United States. The Alien Enemies Act, which was passed into law by the founding generation of this country, men like John Adams, was written explicitly to give the president the authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States.
That is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict, or to restrain any way. You can read the law yourself. There's not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review. HUNT: So, Stephen, when you -- when you say that this person has no
authority at all, this is how our system works. It starts with these judges. And then continues up.
At what point does it become, in your view, legal for the justice system to be looking at this and making a judgment?
[16:35:05]
And I fail to see how there's any other way but to start with where were starting here before you get to eventually the Supreme Court.
MILLER: Well, so first of all, there's a -- there's a term in law, justiciable. This is not justiciable. In other words, this is not subject to judicial remedy.
When the president is exercising his Article Two powers to defend the country against an invasion or to repel a foreign terrorist that is unlawfully in the country, he's exercising his core Article Two powers as commander in chief.
HUNT: If Venezuela invading the U.S.?
MILLER: This is -- this is a very important point. This is a Title 50 authority. It's a commander in chief authority.
So, just to ask you a simple question. You talk about how the system works. Does a district court judge have the right to direct or enjoin troop movements overseas? Yes or no?
HUNT: Well, Stephen, my question --
MILLER: Oh, no --
HUNT: If you can answer my question first --
MILLER: In other words, the --
HUNT: Is Venezuela -- is Venezuela invading our country in a way that would apply in a way?
MILLER: TDA, so under the -- so I'll answer yours and you'll answer mine. Under the terms of the statute, Tren de Aragua is an alien enemy force that has come here as detailed at length in the proclamation at the direction of the Venezuelan government. The statute says that a president has the ability to repel an invasion or predatory incursion that is directed --
HUNT: By a state or a government, right? Are they a state or a government?
MILLER: Yes, this would be -- yes, it is -- it is documented. The TDA was sent by the Venezuelan government in the proclamation.
And here's an even more important point. Under the Constitution, who makes that determination? A district court judge elected by no one or the commander in chief of the Army and Navy? The president and the president alone makes a decision of what triggers that determination.
HUNT: So, do you think we are actually at war with Venezuela, the nation state of Venezuela?
MILLER: You're not hearing me and you're not understanding me. Read the statute. Alien enemies act 1798. It says if a predatory incursion is perpetrated by a foreign government. So it lists the three qualifying actions, it could be an act of war.
HUNT: It does say in the very beginning there has to be a declared war against a nation or a state. That's what it says.
MILLER: No. Wrong. Look up the statute. It's on my account on social media --
HUNT: That's actually where we found it here.
MILLER: The -- yes, it says or a predatory incursion or an invasion. The statute delineates three criteria for triggering the Alien Enemies Act.
One is an act of war, which, by the way, an invasion is an act of war. But put that aside. One is an invasion, which this is. One is a predatory incursion, which this is.
So it actually meets all three statutory criteria. But with respect to this particular statute, it's the proclamation is utilizing the incursion and invasion language in the statute.
HUNT: OK, so --
MILLER: But -- but this is a very important question because. No, no, no. Hold on. This is a very important question. You said the way our system works is the president of the United States commands the armed forces of the country, commands the foreign policy of the country, and that's subject to district court review. That is fundamentally untrue.
HUNT: I never said that, Stephen. I did not say --
MILLER: Never been true.
HUNT: This was not a military operation. I mean --
MILLER: A district court judge can no more enjoin the expulsion of foreign terrorists to foreign soil, that he can direct the movement of Air Force One than he can direct the movement of an aircraft carrier than he can direct Marco Rubio to engage.
HUNT: Do you think the Supreme Court has any say over this or not? Like, does the Supreme Court of the United States have any say over the things that you were just outlining right here?
MILLER: I believe what the Supreme Court will say is what I just said, which is that the presidents conduct here is not subject to judicial review --
HUNT: OK. But you are you are acknowledging that they do, in fact, have a say here.
MILLER: Well --
HUNT: Even though you think they may agree with you.
MILLER: Well, we are expecting is the Supreme Court to say what has always been the case, which is when the president is using his powers as commander in chief. Those determinations are not subject to judicial review.
In other words, the president's designation of Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization and as an alien enemy are part of his inherent plenary authority. There is no way --
HUNT: So, at what point --
MILLER: There's no way.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Stephen, how are you and the courts going to gain power?
MILLER: Hold on. How are you going to expel illegal alien invaders from our country who are raping little girls, who are murdering little girls, if each and every deportation has to be adjudicated in a district court judge? And that means you have no country. It means you have no sovereignty. It means you have no future.
It is fundamentally incompatible to have a country and have individual expulsions adjudicated by a single district court judge. It's impossible --
HUNT: I'm just trying to figure out at what point in the system do you -- because what does the Trump administration believe? Because we do have separation of powers in this country. I hear what you're saying. You're saying the district court does not have authority --
(CROSSTALK)
MILLER: Yes, separation of powers.
HUNT: Stephen, let me finish --
MILLER: This is the judiciary interfering in the executive function, that is the separation of powers. That is the separation of powers.
HUNT: Did you ignore the judge's order here because you thought you could?
MILLER: So the judge's order and the actions taken by the Departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security are not in conflict. And the Department of Justice has been clear that they are not in conflict. But I think --
HUNT: So you think that you did go along with the order that the judge put out? You do not think that the Trump administration defied this order?
MILLER: As the Justice Department said, there is no conflict between the judge's order and the actions taken by the departments I just listed. But I'm making a deeper and more fundamental point. The district court has no ability --
HUNT: So, yeah. I mean, if you don't have to follow, why didn't you?
MILLER: The district court has no ability to in any way restrain the presidents authorities under the Alien Enemies Act or his ability to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States.
Let me paint a picture for you. President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio had engaged in intensive diplomacy to obtain a bilateral security agreement with the nation of El Salvador. If a district court judge can enjoin that bilateral security agreement, then we do not have democracy. We do not have a foreign policy.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: I've heard you say this. Did -- did you ignore that? Did the administration ignore the order from the district judge? It's a simple question.
MILLER: I've answered -- and I've answered it. I've answered it because the department of justice has made a filing in the court.
But let me make another point. The judge in this case put the lives of every single person on those aircraft at risk. Did he know how much fuel was in those planes? Did he know what the flight conditions? Did he know the weather conditions? Did he know how many crew hours that he knew the need for crew rest? Did he know any of that?
No.
HUNT: OK.
MILLER: This judge violated the law. He violated the Constitution. He defied the system of government that we have in this country.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: -- because that does seem to be what you're arguing here.
MILLER: And, by the way, the same -- these same district court judges didn't do a thing to stop Joe Biden from flooding this nation with millions of illegal aliens. Do these district court judges didn't issue any injunctions to save the lives of Jocelyn Nungaray, Laken Riley or anyone else?
HUNT: Is the White House above the federal courts? Is that what you're saying?
MILLER: What I'm saying is that what you said, there's a separation of powers. The -- the -- the judiciary exercises judgment and relief.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Stephen, I don't speak to the White House. You are here to speak.
MILLER: I will do.
HUNT: You're here to speak for the White House.
MILLER: I will.
HUNT: I just want you to answer that one simple question. OK?
MILLER: Ready? Here we go. Under a proper reading of the Constitution, district court judges provide relief to individual plaintiffs seeking relief. District court judges do not have the authority, as a general matter, to enjoin the functioning of the executive branch, but their authority is at its lowest point when the president is exercising his powers as commander in chief.
And I asked you a question, you never answered it. Can a judge enjoin troop movements overseas? Can a district court judge enjoin troop movements overseas? Yes or no?
HUNT: Stephen, I am not going to get into the -- the --
MILLER: Just say no and then you'll know that I'm right.
HUNT: This is a separate question --
MILLER: Just say no and you'll know that I'm right.
HUNT: Okay. We're not talking about other -- other troops --
MILLER: The president --
HUNT: I need to ask you about something else --
MILLER: The president issued a proclamation delineating in detail how the Venezuelan regime sent this gang, this terrorist organization, to our shores. And by the way, and I love being here, but all the outrage that we are seeing from the Democrat Party and from the corporate media, none of that outrage was expressed when little Jocelyn Nungaray was tortured and beaten to death.
HUNT: Stephen, I am not here --
(CROSSTALK)
MILLER: None of that outrage was expressed when our nation was flooded by illegal aliens.
HUNT: I have just been simply trying to get a simple answer to a simple question. No outrage necessary.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: But I need to ask you one more question. I'm going to have to let you go --
MILLER: I am outraged that you have Democrats defending Tren de Aragua instead of celebrating President Trump expelling these terrorists from our midst. And I'm glad for the opportunity to explain how the separation of powers does work.
HUNT: OK.
MILLER: If the president has to litigate every national security action with 700 district court judges --
HUNT: So, let me ask you --
MILLER: -- that we don't have a functioning democracy.
HUNT: -- one other question about the president's power today. It's on a slightly different topic, but we saw President Trump's comments about the use of the autopen, the pardons that President Biden signed. And I just want to know from you, has President Trump ever used an autopen to sign official documents, either in his first term or since he took office a second time?
MILLER: Well, I've seen President Trump hand sign every executive order my whole time and every part --
HUNT: Have you ever seen him use an autopen for him?
MILLER: -- of my whole time working for him.
But more -- President Trump signs every single critical government function document. But here's the more important point about that. Even more important, the more important point is that President Trump personally directs every single federal government policy.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Right, but has he ever signed anything with the autopen?
MILLER: To my knowledge, every single executive order, every single proclamation, every single major government action, every single thing that affects the lives, safety and livelihoods of the American people that comes out of the executive office of the president, he has signed.
[16:45:05]
But more importantly, he has directed --
HUNT: He signed without the autopen?
MILLER: He has briefed, he has been involved in.
HUNT: OK.
MILLER: And this is the most important point. It's not just that Joe Biden used the autopen, is that he didn't know it. He was not briefed on it. He was not aware of it. He did not approve it. He was not mentally aware of what the government was doing.
HUNT: Well, if we're -- we're talking about the legality of something signed with the autopen or not, I'm just trying to figure out if there's anything President Trump signed.
MILLER: The key point -- the key point is it feels like you're missing it.
HUNT: Stephen, I'm so sorry we're running out of time here. I do appreciate how much time.
(CROSSTALK)
MILLER: Joe Biden didn't know what was being signed in his name.
HUNT: All right.
MILLER: That's the key point.
HUNT: I understand. I understand what you are saying. I do appreciate you coming on to explain your point of view.
Thank you very much for being willing to be here. And --
MILLER: Thank you.
HUNT: I'm sure we'll talk again at some point soon. Thank you.
MILLER: Look forward to it.
HUNT: All right. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:50:13]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back to THE ARENA.
I want to talk a little bit about what we just saw. Elliot Williams.
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
HUNT: We're going to put the -- the statute up on the screen here for a second. And just hoping that you can kind of give us some clarity about what the law says and what it doesn't.
WILLIAMS: Sure. A couple things -- even before we get to the Alien Enemies Act of 19 -- 1798, let's just talk about 11th grade history. Three words everybody has heard, Marbury versus Madison.
HUNT: Has everyone heard it?
WILLIAMS: Well -- well -- well --
HUNT: They should have.
WILLIAMS: It was on the AP. Sorry.
No, but here's the thing -- the Supreme Court rules in 1803 that that the Supreme Court, pardon me, has the authority to review the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government -- of government, Congress and the White House. The president's actions can be reviewed by a court that is basic American history.
So, the idea that somehow there's a class of actions that cant be reviewed as nonsense. Think about everybody who lived through the 2000 knows that the war on terror was litigated in the courts over the actions of the executive.
JONES: Isn't that crazy that Stephen Miller doesn't know that? Isn't he a lawyer?
BASH: He knows that.
WILLIAMS: Okay, so -- so that's --
BASH: He knows everything --
WILLIAMS: And then --
BASH: That we're talking about. He knows all the facts.
WILLIAMS: Fine. Then on the specific point within back to the Alien Enemies Act and he does. He's selective in the part of it that he pulled out where it says an invasion or predatory incursion, right?
But the next line says threatened against the territory of the United States by a foreign nation or government. He is imputing the sort of role of the Venezuelan government to this criminal gang, and certainly in the proclamation that they lay out, you know, the White House does say this gang has ties to government.
Sure. But you got a real uphill climb to say that because there's this really violent street gang or even violent international gang in Venezuela, that it is an action of the Venezuelan government. That's a stretch.
MEIJER: But -- but the idea of a stretch in national security. I mean, that's our entire legal justification for the war on terror.
WILLIAMS: Right.
MEIJER: It was post-9/11 authorization for use of military force, right? Like it was perpetrators of 9/11 and associated forces were attacking groups that didn't even exist on 9/11. So the I -- so but I think you made this point earlier that this has been long in the preparation.
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MEIJER: Yes. Not in a malicious way, in my view. As in they had their ducks in a row coming in -- wanting to tee up this court challenge to get that same understanding, because a traditional deportation process can take up to three years. Given how many folks we have in this country illegally and some of their campaign promises, you know, that is far too long. We have far too few immigration judges.
So whether or not this is a tool is something that, you know, and he did mention on the district court, but also very much understood the Supreme Court.
WILLIAMS: I'm sorry.
BASH: So just real quick, it's beyond immigration though.
WILLLIAMS: Yeah.
BASH: And we have to keep in mind every single time we see a development where we go, oh, can they really do that? We don't know the answer, but they are trying. This is a very dedicated strategy in order to test the bounds of executive power. And they're going to keep doing it on immigration and everything else.
JONES: And they'll use -- and they'll use unpopular examples to -- to expand executive power. And we as people of good conscience should be vigilant, regardless of the facts of the case, in enforcing the law.
HUNT: I have to -- I have to do this. We got to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:58:03]
HUNT: All right. Earlier in the show, we asked sources and friends who should lead the Democratic Party. We got some interesting responses.
One Biden White House staffer throughout this name. You know, who impressed me on State of the Union night? Maxwell Frost, not saying he should lead at the ripe old age of 27, but he was a really polished speaker.
But then there was a reality check from this former Democratic Senate staffer. The Senate Democrats are truly operating like the Polish cavalry in 1939. They're fighting past battles with old tactics and under old rules of engagement.
Dana Bash, one source also said the reality here is that Democrats aren't going to have a leader until they get a presidential nominee.
BASH: No, I mean, that's true. The question at this point is who, if anybody, the party can rally behind. And I think the answer is maybe nobody. I thought that Ro Khanna, when you asked him that question, the fact that he immediately said Hakeem Jeffries because he's the only one elected by the Democrats in Congress, Chuck Schumer was elected by the Democrats in Congress. So I thought that was kind of telling.
HUNT: For sure. Who do you think? JONES: Look, I think we've got a deep bench. To Ro's point, many of
those folks are actually not in federal office right now. But they're like working their way up. We got some great governors to be sure.
I mean, Andy Beshear, Wes Moore, Gretchen Whitmer, I think it's too early to -- to identify a single person. The party, frankly, has to rally around that person.
But I think it will be someone who is not ideologically polarizing, someone who will likely be moderate though economically populist, and not off the progressive flank.
HUNT: Who would? Who would they?
MEIJER: But you have to have someone who's not boring in order to do that, and everyone's boring. They're all boring.
I do not know when I woke up in the Republican Party became the cool party. There are qualifications to that.
BASH: But they didn't have your hair.
HUNT: We have gotten some -- I have gotten some notes about your hair. Actually, people seem very impressed.
MEIJER: I'm very pale and I blush, but I appreciate it.
Jared Polis is a name that I don't hear enough. I mean, I just think he's an interesting guy who actually has ideas as opposed to just triangulating to the center of where everyone thinks that they're supposed to be, which just reads as inauthentic and boring.
HUNT: Yeah. It's a very interesting point about Polis. He's been cutting an interesting figure.
All right. Jake Tapper is now standing by. He's got THE LEAD coming up next.
