Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Markets Close Down, Rally Evaporates As White House Doubles Down On China Tariffs; U.S. Tariffs On China Set To Rise To 104 Percent At Midnight Tonight; U.S. Supreme Court Hands Trump Two Wins In 24 Hours; White House On Musk-Navarro Spat: "Boys Will Be Boys". Aired 4-5p ET
Aired April 08, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA.
It's wonderful to have you with us on this Tuesday as another wild day on Wall Street, about to end a morning surge and burst of optimism wiped out by the steep new U.S. tariff on China.
As we await that closing bell, let's go to CNN's Matt Egan.
Matt, you have been following this all day long. What does the market look like right now? How did we get here?
MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Yeah, Kasie, I think it's finally dawning on Wall Street that this trade war could get much worse in the coming hours.
U.S. stocks started the day with a burst of optimism. The market surged higher. The Dow was up almost 1,500 points, nearly 4 percent. Traders were scrambling to buy beaten down stocks, and they were hoping that there would be some progress on -- on trade deals. And maybe these tariffs would not go into place.
But now, those gains have completely vanished. Markets ending the day near the lowest levels.
[16:00:00]
And this is really being driven by the trade war, right? The fact that the White House is basically tripling down here, that they confirming that the president will, in fact, impose massive tariffs on China. Tariffs set to go to at least 104 percent, unthinkably high. When you realize that were talking about the world's two biggest economies, the U.S. imports a lot of electronics and smartphones and toys and clothes from China. And now, those -- all those items are going to face very significant tariffs.
And the message from the market the last few days and weeks has been pretty clear, right? Investors are worried that if you increase tariffs this fast, this high, it could really damage the economy, that it could even cause a recession. So, any time, Kasie, we've seen even just a hint of progress in trade negotiations, we've seen the market go up. And any time that the trade war has escalated, we've seen the market go down.
HUNT: Yeah.
EGAN: And so, investors are increasingly concerned about what's going to happen next in this trade war.
HUNT: Yeah, for sure.
All right, Matt Egan, where, of course, taking a look -- taking in these numbers, finishing the day on the Dow, the S&P and the Nasdaq in the red after, of course, that morning rally.
Matt, very grateful for your reporting to start us off. Thank you very much.
So, how did we get here? Today's up and down driven by investors who are desperately trying to parse every word, every gesture, any white smoke from the Trump administration. Markets were up this morning, seemingly on the hope that negotiations to at least defuse parts of this trade war were showing promise.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: I think that right now, we're managing a massive number of requests for negotiations.
JAMIESON GREER, U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: Nearly 50 countries have approached me personally to discuss the president's new policy and explore how to achieve reciprocity.
SCOTT BESSENT, TREASURY SECRETARY: I think we can end up with some good deals.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Countries are falling over themselves to reform their unfair trade practices and free open their markets to our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: But it all started to come crashing down as that was unfolding. The White House press secretary -- press secretary you saw there stepped to the podium. The market started to plummet as she began this briefing, insisting that those massive tariffs against China are, in fact, set to take effect tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: The Chinese want to make a deal. They just don't know how to do it. But the president will be implementing these 104 percent tariffs on China tonight.
REPORTER: Under what conditions might he consider lowering tariffs on China at this point? LEAVITT: It would be imprudent of me to tell you those conditions here
from the podium.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So as we take in another wild day with the street, hoping for a change, we're left here with the overarching question, is the American economy running out of time for the president to change his mind?
The CEO of the massive investment firm BlackRock said yesterday that we might be.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LARRY FINK, CEO, BLACKROCK: The economy is weakening as we speak. Most CEOs I talked to would say we are probably in a recession right now.
MODERATOR: Right now?
FINK: Right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: And let's remember, Main Street hasn't really started to grapple with the impact of these tariffs. Here was one car dealer's plea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM MAOLI, OWNER, CELEBRITY MOTOR CAR COMPANY: If I had a chance to sit down with the president right now, and I would actually tell him to please reconsider your position, I just think he has to pull back a little bit here. I think I think he has to soften the blow for the consumers. And, you know, the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: And if Trump doesn't do that, well, unlike many or maybe even most times in politics, in this case, there is very clearly only one person to give the credit or the blame.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVE PORTNOY, BARSTOOL SPORTS FOUNDER: Orange Monday, don't call Black Monday. It's orange Monday. This is -- this is Trump's tariffs have absolutely decimated the market. I hate this. I hate that I've lost 20 million.
HUNT: Do you think it's Donald Trump's economy now?
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Oh, I think it is. There's no question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: No question.
Our panel is here. Former Democratic congresswoman from Illinois, Cheri Bustos; Scott Jennings, former political director for Senator Mitch McConnell; Mark McKinnon, the former adviser to George W. Bush and John McCain; and Annie Karni, "New York Times" congressional correspondent and the author of the new book "Mad House", which I do highly recommend. I've only just started it.
Thank you all for being here today.
Mark McKinnon, I want to go to you on the big picture again. I mean, it's deja vu all over again, right? We were sitting here yesterday. We were looking at the markets riding up and down on this, this hope beyond hope. There does seem to be some faith out there somewhere.
Some people are convinced the president's actually going to change his mind. It's becoming increasingly looking like that's just not the case.
MARK MCKINNON, FORMER ADVISER TO GEORGE W. BUSH & JOHN MCCAIN: Well, and the key to not being the case is the big kahuna. There may be a bunch of countries out there knocking on the door, but China's not one of them. And remember those Chinese finger traps where you get your fingers and you couldn't pull them out? That's -- that's increasingly where were headed.
I'd like to quote the credible source of news, X, Spencer Hekimian, who really nailed it here.
[16:05:05]
He said, who has a higher short term pain tolerance? Person A, governs a democratic society addicted to consumption with zero tolerance for inflation, is going to witness immediate shortages and price increases, have zero capacity to reroute the lost imports into domestic production in the short term is an -- is in an economic war with every country on earth simultaneously, or person B, governs an autocracy autocratic dictatorship with zero dissent allowed, oversees a society that inherently believes in self-sacrifice for the greater good of the motherland, trying to ramp up domestic consumption and could easily stimulate consumers domestically to buy otherwise to be exports or -- and is in an economic war with one country on Earth. Who would you bet on that?
HUNT: That -- that seems very long, but very clear.
MCKINNON: Thank you, Spencer.
HUNT: I have to say.
Congresswoman Bustos, one of your longtime friends reminds me that you used to represent Peoria --
CHERI BUSTOS (D), FORMER ILLINOIS CONGRESSWOMAN: Yeah.
HUNT: -- which is, of course, something we often shorthand here in political coverage. Well, what do people feel like about this in Peoria? How is it playing back home? How is it playing where you're from? BUSTOS: Well, interestingly, about Peoria, whether it plays there,
when I served in Congress for five terms, shared Peoria with Darren LaHood, a Republican. So, you had about a third of Peoria that was represented by a Democrat, two thirds of it represented by a Republican. So bipartisan.
Well, here's how it's playing there. We have the biggest agricultural research lab in the entire country that is under the USDA.
There are -- those folks with PhDs studying the impacts of climate, et cetera on crops, they're losing their jobs. We had close to 10,000 family farms in this congressional district that I represented. They're very, very concerned about this trade war. The last trade war under President Trump in the -- when he was in his first term, we had to bail out farmers to the tune of $27 billion.
That account that was used to bail those folks out is down to about $4 billion. So, I don't know where the bailout is going to come from this time, but a lot of concern all over the place where I'm from.
HUNT: Well, worth noting that those tariffs at that time, much less significant than the tariffs this time.
Scott Jennings, welcome back to -- to defending something that you obviously had argued against, the Republican Party had argued against for many years. I want to show you what Senator Ted Cruz, who has actually been out there really criticizing the president on this. And, of course, he and Donald Trump had it out in 2016, but he's been a supporter since.
Here's what he said earlier this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): There are voices in the White House that want high tariffs forever. There are angels and demons sitting on President Trump's shoulders. Who does he listen to? I hope he listens to the angels.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean --
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, look, I don't think -- he's going to change his mind. But what I think has to happen next for the markets to rebound and to believe that there's a future here is.
For these 70 countries who are calling up, supposedly and asking for deals -- we're going to need to see some activity on that. I think it was great that the secretary of the treasury, Scott Bessent, has been talking about all these calls that are coming in. They're going to have to put something on the board, whether it's Japan or Vietnam or one of these other countries.
HUNT: What about the E.U.? JENNINGS: Well, I mean, that would be a big one. It strikes me that's
a much more complicated conversation. But one of these countries that's an ally that's called up and said, we'd like to make a deal, if there's something to be done, they're getting that out into the water. It strikes me, would give everybody confidence that deals can be made, because right now, all we have, the only new evidence we have is the escalation with China.
But if there are deals to be made with our allies, getting a couple of those out there rather quickly, I think would -- would calm a lot of nerves.
HUNT: Annie Karni, what are you hearing from, you know, members of the House of Representatives are usually a good barometer because they actually have to face the voters every two years. It doesn't always lead to the best decision making, but at least you can kind of put your finger in the wind a little bit and figure out where people are. What is the level of panic among, especially House Republicans?
ANNIE KARNI, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: It's pretty high. I mean, people are on edge. They have -- they're trying to balance their support for Trump because, you know, it's his party, really, with their anxiety about what's going to happen to their constituents, then what they're hearing from back home. And we're actually -- it's not even just the House. We're seeing like a Senate bill, like sponsored by a number of -- of Republican senators, that would provide a pathway to cancel the tariffs within 60 days. And the White House has said they would -- Trump would veto that.
So I don't really see that this is the moment where a Republican Party that has fallen in line with Trump at every turn, like, would vote to override a veto, which is how Congress could actually do something here, that seems like theoretical only. But there's concern. And this is, you know, another loyalty test for Republicans on the Hill. And I think that this is a tougher one than most.
HUNT: Well, and to that point, Mark, John Thune, the majority leader in the Senate, seemed to suggest that this bill is has no future for that -- basically, for that reason, that he's not going to put it on the floor.
[16:10:04]
MCKINNON: Well, he's not going to put it on the floor and have to get through the house. And then you've got a White House veto waiting for it. So that seems highly unlikely.
On the other hand, you know, I think when things go from bad to worse and getting worse than they are right now is really bad. You know, people are going to are really going to try and look for some alternatives and some pressure that they can apply somewhere, somehow.
HUNT: Yeah. Scott, I think this is going to be the first time I've ever referenced Mr. Beast on TV.
JENNINGS: Oh, my kids love it. I don't even know what this is. They talk about it all the time. He
has a candy bar and a YouTube channel. Thats all I know.
HUNT: Well, and it's a massive YouTube channel. He's apparently one of -- I am told by my producers that he has one of the top three people on TikTok, and he does have a chocolate bar. And here's what he said on Elon Musk's platform X about his chocolate bar. He says, ironically, because of all the new tariffs, it's now way cheaper to make our chocolate bars. We sell globally, not in America, because other countries don't have a 20 percent tariff on our cogs.
Now he seems to be in subsequent tweets referring to cocoa, the price of getting cocoa that goes into the chocolate bars has now gone up because of these tariffs. This is the universe, and you know, the sort -- the guy that labeled it orange Monday, that's Dave Portnoy, another one of the members of this sort of manosphere that, you know, Donald Trump really tapped into to win the election. I mean, he does not seem to be winning friends and influencing this group of influencers at the moment.
JENNINGS: Yeah. Look, these guys are living in the short term, and Donald Trump and his team are trying to live in the long term. I mean, their explanation for this is, is that we've been treated unfairly for a very long time. The American middle class and the working class of this country have been treated unfairly, and seeing their jobs shipped overseas, and they're going to rebalance the scales out there and it's going to take some time. Jobs are going to come back to the United States. Wages are going to go up, and we're going to start making stuff here again.
That's a long term argument. And they're up against people who are feeling obviously short term anxiety.
I'll tell you one other thing. I think the White House really has to impress upon the Congress. We have to have tax cuts now. Permanency on the individual tax cuts. I would be calling for a zeroing out of capital gains. I'd be calling slashing the corporate tax rate.
I think one way to balance the ledger here and calm the nerves, in addition to getting some deals on the board -- cut taxes, bring taxes down domestically.
MCKINNON: The problem is it's not just a long-term bet. It's just magical thinking. The notion that we're going to bring manufacturing back to this country just because we -- we changed tariffs. I mean, manufacturing left for lots of other reasons. And the notion that we're going to start making tennis shoes here in this country is, is, is just not going to happen.
JENNINGS: Well, we already have a huge number of investment announcements from private corporations just since Trump took office. I think they're up to like $11 billion or something. I mean, more I think more private investment announcements already under Trump than they had for four years under Joe Biden.
So, there is some evidence that they call it the Trump effect is causing people to say, well, maybe we should make some things in the United States. Will we make all the things we need? Probably not. But could you stimulate some production and manufacturing in the United States? And we come from the middle of the country. Of course you can.
MCKINNON: Well, and that's what the CHIPS Act was designed to do. But the problem is that this didn't all happen because of tariffs. It happened because of globalization. And I just don't think you're going to ever put that genie back in the bottle.
JENNINGS: Well, look, I think that there are people out there who lost their jobs, have seen their communities shrivel up and nearly die. People who grew up with parents that lived a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle, based on the idea that we could make stuff here, that we could mine stuff here, that we could, you know, have communities and economies locally that provided families a chance to leave a better opportunity behind for their children. That has gone away for a huge amount of America.
MCKINNON: No question.
JENNINGS: And what the president and his team are trying to do is re- stimulate that idea. I'm not arguing we're going to go back to the industrial revolution here, but there is no doubt. I just think some things could be --
MCKINNON: He sold false hope to those people that he could bring it back just like that.
JENNINGS: Well, it's not going to happen just like that. But that's -- that's the point of the debate you have. People here are screaming about short term market fluctuations, and you've got a White House that's arguing about the need to restructure the economy over the long term. And in politics, long term versus short term debates. Sometimes you know what happens in the middle of them? Elections. And we'll find out next year.
MCKINNON: We don't have elections. They can wait a lot longer.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, Congresswoman, is it -- is it false hope or is there something to what Scott's saying?
BUSTOS: Well, I think what mark is saying is accurate. I mean, this is -- this is going to happen over the long term. And to your point before mark, it's the CHIPS Act, the Inflation Reduction Act. Those were all investments to actually build things in America. America again.
President Trump gets in there and he wants to do away with everything that President Biden did. So, I think we've got a lot of struggles coming ahead of us. On top of that, all of these cuts to places like U.S. Department of Agriculture that actually focus on rural America, the smaller towns.
[16:15:01]
I think, where -- there's a lot of hurt ahead. HUNT: Annie Karni, do you think the realities here of the market and
the volatility, all these questions, does it make it easier or harder for Mike Johnson to pass the tax cuts that every time I ask Scott, isn't this a problem? He'll say, but the tax cuts, right?
JENNINGS: We need them.
HUNT: They need them desperately.
Does this make it harder or easier for them to get it done?
KARNI: He has a hard job, always. I mean, he really doesn't have full control of his conference without Trump. His one move to getting Republicans in line is to go to Trump and have them -- Trump get them in line for him.
We saw this last week on a internal measure to allow proxy voting for new parents. He could not get that -- he was defied by eight members of his conference and couldn't get that passed from the House floor for a week. Came back this week. He got -- Trump got Anna Paulina Luna to stand down.
So, I mean, all of his power derives from his relationship with Donald Trump. I think the volatility and members being scared of what it means for their own reelection, possibly breaking with Trump that -- we'll see. So, I mean --
HUNT: It makes speaking with Trump a little bit riskier?
KARNI: Yeah.
HUNT: Yeah.
KARNI: Yeah.
JENNINGS: But -- but if they don't pass the president's agenda, if you're the Republican that you're going to go home and tell your Republican voters that voted for you and voted for Donald Trump and say, well, I'm the reason Donald Trump didn't get to complete his agenda. That is a major problem for you.
KARNI: Yeah, and they don't want to stand in the way of his agenda. But like, look, let's think about members of Congress as people who are motivated by getting reelected, period. If you think about them as that.
Yes. They don't want to go home and say, I stood in the way of Donald Trump's agenda. Absolutely not. I don't know a single Republican on the Hill really who wants that --
JENNINGS: One.
KARNI: -- tagged. Who?
JENNINGS: Thomas Massie, my congressman.
KARNI: Thomas Massie is a caucus of one. He's a unique individual and does not care. The rest of them care.
But I would say on -- tariffs create a new situation where suddenly, oh, am I not going to get reelected for a different reason is --
HUNT: That is my question.
KARNI: Right.
HUNT: So, I think your point is, is well taken. I -- my -- my sort of sense is, well, at least I did something to try to fix this by voting -- by voting for it.
MCKINNON: The problem is because of the way it runs up the deficit numbers, it may make it worse.
HUNT: Right, for sure.
All right, everybody, stand by. Right now, we want to know, as we always do. What are you hearing? To all my sources and friends, you know who you are.
Check your inboxes. Our question for you today, and we're going to talk about this later on in the show is Elon Musk going to pay any sort of political price, a price with Trump for breaking with him on tariffs?
You have until the bottom of the hour. Send us thoughts, tips, exclusives. If it's the wrong question, tell us what the right one is, and viewers, we will let you in on the conversation coming up later on in the hour.
Well, coming up next here, this recent winning streak for Donald Trump at the Supreme Court. So why are conservatives railing against one of the justices that the president put on the bench?
Plus, Colorado Senator Michael Bennet will be here live in THE ARENA after questioning the president's top trade official earlier on today.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:22:25]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: This was a huge, I mean a monumental victory for President Trump, the biggest legal win of this administration so far, this is a monumental colossal victory for the rule of law, for the Constitution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. So, let's explore that. The Trump administration, as you can see, is taking a victory lap today after the Supreme Court handed them two wins in the last 24 hours. The first allows President Trump to enforce the Alien Enemies Act to rapidly deport migrants. Although all nine justices agreed that people who are being deported should receive advance notice, and the opportunity to challenge their deportation before being removed.
That's something the White House says won't be a problem.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: We are going to continue to comply with the law, and we are wholly confident that every single person that has been deported under the Alien Enemies Act, every person that will continue to be deported under the Alien Enemies Act, qualifies for that deportation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The second win, just a short while ago, blocked a lower court order directing the Trump administration to rehire thousands of fired probationary federal workers.
Our panel is joined now by CNN chief legal analyst Laura Coates. Also, CNN anchor.
Laura, thanks for being here.
LAURA COATES, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Thank you.
HUNT: So, clearly, you can see Stephen Miller ecstatic over what the court had done, especially specifically on immigration. This -- that decision in particular has thrust Amy Coney Barrett into the spotlight because she partially dissented from it.
But what do you make of how the court has handled this pair of cases? Because they both seem to suggest that they are giving Donald Trump leeway to, you know, execute these policies in a way that certainly Democrats feel isn't right.
COATES: Well, Miller can tout it as a success, but it is more limited, and it's not quite the win they're talking about. They are requiring them to give an opportunity, and, of course, an advance notice. And that's a pretty significant hurdle if you're talking about trying to implement a quick deportation policy.
You have to give this opportunity, which means that everyone who might be deported is going to have a habeas corpus petition, which essentially means this government has wrongfully detained me. That slows down the process. That's number one.
HUNT: Can I stop you for one second there because this really interesting. Did they do that in the case of these migrants they put on these planes? Did they give them that opportunity?
COATES: They gave them, I'm told, some paper that had a number they could call but were told they couldn't truly appeal the full breadth of the decision, which means they don't have a meaningful opportunity to be heard. And those who could find a way on either a plane or a public telephone, wherever that might live, did not have a meaningful opportunity to dispute the allegations against them and have that due process.
[16:25:00]
I will say, though, on the second point, taking these two in tandem, this is a Supreme Court who has not shied around -- away traditionally from using their particular platform to decide very broad issues, whether it's a Voting Rights Act or the idea of campaign finance or affirmative action or abortion rights, and the list goes on.
But now, recently, this court seems to be concerned about either their legitimacy being challenged or about waiting for the full appellate process to unveil, which tells me that they're using these emergency motions and emergency processes much more frequently. Now, this means they're unsigned opinions, which means, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, no accountability attached to individual opinion, but also it makes it such that the court doesn't have to have a full hearing and oral argument.
And by doing so, it doesn't leave a lot of room for the appellate process. Now, one could argue that the court should just go ahead and wait and not be a part of the political decisions in the fray. But they decided at this point in time to use this in these technical reasons, no standing, which is a very important one. If you should not be the person to sue, you should not be in front of the court. But this is not the court we've seen recently, but it is now.
HUNT: Scott Jennings, can we talk about Amy Coney Barrett for a second? Because there have been a long list of headlines about -- about her, particularly MAGA being extraordinarily angry about how she's decided some of these cases, their MAGA rages at Amy Coney Barrett after she turns against Trump.
What do you make of that? And how do you see the court fitting into everything that we have been grappling with for the past? I don't think we're at the 100-day mark yet.
JENNINGS: Yeah. First, on Amy Coney Barrett, I don't agree. I think she's -- I agree with what President Trump said a few days ago. Very smart lady. Good pick. I'm glad he confirmed her when he did. That was a great stroke there at the end of his first term to get her on the court.
You know, when conservatives nominate people to the Supreme Court, we expect them to use their judgment and follow the Constitution and follow the law. Liberals expect judges to fall in line and do the political thing. We expect them to do the right thing.
And so just because she had a different opinion on this case doesn't make her any less of a conservative. And I still think it was a great choice by Donald Trump.
On the court in general, the reason conservatives and the White House are so happy about these rulings is because they let the president be the president, and the big complaint from this White House and from the Republicans is, you're out here sharing the powers of the presidency with hundreds of district court judges, potentially all over the country. And you have these activist judges trying to restrain what they see are the rightful and legitimate powers of the duly elected president.
So, these rulings are significant, even if it's only a half measure or a half win on the -- on the 5-4 decision regarding the deportations. It's still a win because they can still use the law they want to use, and letting the president manage the executive branch on who can work there, no brainer. So, this is a good day for the rule of law. And if you believe in the power of the presidency, it's a great day.
COATES: Well, it's not six and one-half dozen. The other talking about the half that's actually successful because if the court were to decide the actual substance of the issues, meaning what are the underlying legal theories, you want us to actually rule on, can the Alien Enemies Act be used in this particular way to this extent and beyond? Then you might be right one day. We're not there yet. It's a premature assessment to make.
But the court could very well find the way you're talking about. As of right now, the court has decided these cases based on issues of standing and otherwise. They've not done the full panoply of decisions. If they do, we'll know what the real logic is.
MCKINNON: I think the court that that decision did confirm the due process component of that argument, which was really important, a really important one. But I'll echo what Scott said and pick it up a notch to say that I had a lot of people that I know that were very skeptical about Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, and I said, I'm going to talk to you five, ten years from now, and you're going to be surprised at how independent these jurors are going to be over time.
And so, I think -- I think she's a great pick as well, and just very independent. Absolutely a conservative, but willing to step out when, when appropriate. Again, on most of these issues. A lot of this is just -- it's a test that the executive is trying to see how far they can take executive action. And the courts are going to say, well, you know, actually, Congress has a role here, which they think they do. They just haven't been saying much about it.
But ultimately, this will sort itself out at the Supreme Court.
HUNT: Well, some of this is that Congress has given up an awful lot of its power.
BUSTOS: Absolutely. I mean, they're letting Donald Trump run the show. And I mean, what we're seeing play out right now there are no challenges to Donald Trump. He's -- he's the king now. So, we have to rely on the Supreme Court to hopefully make the right rulings and follow the Constitution, because Congress has abdicated that.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, Republican leaders throwing more cold water on any legislation aimed at dialing back President Trump's authority on tariffs. So, what's next? I'll ask Senator Michael Bennet. He'll be here, live in THE ARENA.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:34:19] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): The U.S. economy has gone from the envy of the world to a laughingstock in less time than it took to finish March Madness.
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): I loved your fancy Greek formula, which was basically bad math on steroids.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Whose throat do I get to choke if this proves to be wrong?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Democratic and Republican senators alike grilling the U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer today on Capitol Hill. He's one of the men tapped by President Trump to lead the ongoing tariff negotiation negotiations. And he defended the administration's tariff regime while still trying to emphasize that trade talks are in the works.
[16:35:01]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMIESON GREER, U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: Our large and persistent trade deficit has been over 30 years in the making, and it will not be resolved overnight. This adjustment may be challenging at times. I know everyone is concerned about Wall Street. I'm just concerned about Main Street.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Joining us now, one of the senators who questioned Greer, Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, who sits on the Senate Finance and Intelligence Committees.
Senator Bennet, very grateful to have you with us today.
I think my -- my top line question for you is whether you feel like, you know what the administration is trying to and is going to do here. Do you feel like their message on this is clear?
SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): I don't think their message is clear, Kasie. And thanks for having me. And I think that's why you're seeing bipartisan concern because they -- they've decided they're going to challenge the entire world at the same time. And I guess negotiate 90 free trade -- 90 trade agreements at the same time as well. That's a big piece of work to do all at once.
And you can see, for example, China and Europe beginning to say, are there -- is there business we can do together without the United States? I wouldn't be at all surprised to see, for example, China dumping stuff into the European market that they now know are not -- they're not going to be able to sell here in Washington.
You know, the point, of course, is that we have, you know, had trading relationships with parties, especially China, who have taken advantage of the United States. The question I have is whether or not we could have had a much more strategic and targeted approach, one that actually pulled in our allies as -- as allies, not just for national security, but for trade as well. And instead, what the Trump administration has decided to do for their own reasons. I don't think it's logical is to -- is to start a trade war with the entire world at the same time.
HUNT: Yeah, sir. Some of financial leaders, CEOs have suggested that there are ties between economic security and national physical security as well here, and that there are national security risks to major economic actions like this.
Are you comfortable with the way that the administration has singled out China, considering they're an adversary? Or do you see a potential national security risk to going at them this way?
BENNET: I actually think with respect to China, it is important for us to respond to decades of unfair trading on their behalf. They have been engaged in a version of state sponsored capitalism that has been really good for China, but has not been good for the United States of America.
But I think as we think about that strategically, we should be involving people, countries in our hemisphere like Mexico, like Canada. We should be involving our allies in NATO on our side. When we get into something like this, rather than trying to take on the entire world at once.
And so, I don't disagree that we've got real problems with China. I just think that they've not handled this in the most strategic way possible.
I'll say with respect to our national security, the Trump administration clearly doesn't care about the -- all of the postwar alliances that we've had. They've already done everything they can to piss off our European allies and our -- and our friends in this hemisphere as well.
They're going to find, I think, that this is a very heavy burden to carry. You can't manage the United States behind walls. And I think that's what Donald Trump is trying to do, is enact an economic moat with a wall around the United States of America. That's never worked, and it's not going to work. And it's a recipe for a recession in the short term.
HUNT: So just to -- to put a finer point on it, I absolutely have taken in your point that you can't do this all at once. We need to separate out the allies. But on this China question, I mean, these 104 percent tariffs are set to go into effect tonight. Do you support them?
BENNET: I don't support the 104 percent tariffs. I support the idea that China has been a bad actor and we should be responding to that.
HUNT: Fair enough. BENNET: I think that the tit for tat that he's involved with China now is counterproductive. Absolutely, to put it mildly.
HUNT: Sir, you mentioned the possibility of a recession, and the CEO of BlackRock yesterday said it's possible, if not likely, that we are already in a recession.
Do you think we are at the point where the whatever damage is being done to the U.S. economy by these tariffs, whatever -- I mean, the Trump administration would call it short term damage, but -- but is that irreversible at this point? If the president were to come out and say, actually, I've changed my mind, I'm going to undo all of this.
Can he?
[16:40:01]
BENNET: I don't think he's going to change his mind. I don't think he's going to undo all this. I think we have to come to grips with that.
Obviously, at some point, whenever it's convenient for the president, he will try to declare victory no matter what happens. That's what he tries to do all the time. But in the meantime, what you're going to see is capital investment freeze up at every level of our economy. That's already happening.
That's why BlackRock is saying that we may be in a recession already. And that's my deep concern for working people in the middle class in this country who are going to be on the receiving end, not so much from the cratering of the stock market, but from the fact that the economy will seize up.
People will not make new investments in plant and equipment and in infrastructure. And by the way, that's not just foreign capital. That's capital in the United States at all, which can't possibly deal with the level of uncertainty that Donald Trump has created now.
And we've seen it before. We saw it as recently as COVID. But the difference between COVID and what we're facing now is this is a purely self-inflicted wound by the president of the United States. That makes it very different.
HUNT: So, sir, I want to talk politics with you briefly as we wrap up here. Kamala Harris was, of course, the presidential nominee in the end, after President Biden dropped out of the race. And she recently was addressing a crowd. And she sort of joked, but she said to them, you know, Donald Trump got elected. I told you so. I told you this would happen.
Do you think that's the right way to talk to voters?
BENNET: I think that it is important for the Democratic Party to understand why Donald Trump got elected twice. And I blame Donald Trump for lots of things. I blame him for -- for starting a trade war with the entire world. I blame him for abandoning Ukraine and for eroding the NATO alliance.
The one thing I don't blame him for is getting elected president twice. And the Democratic Party needs to think very hard about how we were repudiated in such a way that allowed basically a reality TV star with the record Donald Trump had, which included, by the way, the reversal of Roe versus Wade, the first civil right that's been taken away from the American people since Reconstruction.
And that's not his fault. It is our fault. And it is because we were unable to see the effect of this economy on working people all across our country, and the sense among people that no matter how hard they work, their kids were not going to live a better life than they lived.
That is what we need to be focused on as a party. And if we do, we'll come back in part because no one wants the chaos that Donald Trump represents.
HUNT: All right. So very briefly, you're running for governor of Colorado.
BENNET: Today is not the day to talk about that. But I'll let you know. As soon as -- as soon as I know, you'll know.
HUNT: Keep us posted.
BENNET: Thanks, Kasie.
HUNT: Senator Michael Bennet, thanks very much. I appreciate it.
BENNET: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next, what the White House is saying today about a very public back and forth between two of the president's top advisers.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Elon Musk actually referred to Navarro today as being, quote, dumber than a sack of bricks.
Are you at all or is the administration, the president at all concerned that this is maybe impacting the public's understanding of these tariffs? It might be messing with the message on it?
LEAVITT: No. Look, these are obviously two individuals who have very different views on trade and on tariffs. Boys will be boys, and we will let their public sparring continue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Boys will be boys. That was Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt's response to the ongoing feud between two of President Trump's closest allies, the trade adviser Peter Navarro, and the billionaire Elon Musk jabbing, that's sort of a polite word, at each other over the president's tariff policy.
Here is what Peter Navarro said on Monday that seems to be the start of it all.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER NAVARRO, WHITE HOUSE SENIOR COUNSELOR FOR TRADE & MANUFACTURING: When it comes to tariffs and trade, we all understand in the White House and the American people understand that Elon's a car manufacturer, but he's not a car manufacturer. He's a car assembler.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That comment apparently did not sit well with Musk, who replied to a clip of that interview this morning. He called Navarro a moron. Five minutes later, he said he was dumber than a sack of bricks. The White House press secretary also commenting today that this public back and forth is an example of the administration's commitment to a diversity of opinions and transparency.
MCKINNON: It's a DEI of opinion?
BUSTOS: Good spin, Mark.
MCKINNON: The last time we heard boys will be boys was Billy Bush and Donald Trump.
KARNI: I was thinking the locker room, reminds me of locker room talk.
HUNT: Gosh. Yeah.
Well, look, this has gotten worse in the -- in since this transpired. And Alayna Treene -- our Alayna Treene asked that question because since, Scott Jennings pointed out that --
JENNINGS: I have my hand on the pulse of insults, economy, anything, in Washington, D.C.
HUNT: Yes, apparently. And this is playing out on X. Musk said I'd like to apologize to bricks for calling Peter Navarro, and he used a much nastier word than Navarro. Dumber than a sack of bricks that was so unfair to bricks. I mean --
JENNINGS: Well, Navarro, first of all, if I were going to start a business, I would call Elon.
[16:50:01]
That's number one.
Number two. Navarro was wrong. Teslas -- he was insulting Teslas and Teslas are the most American made car.
HUNT: Yeah, we can put that up.
JENNINGS: And -- and it's -- it's like one of the great American manufacturer -- automotive manufacturing success stories. And so, to go on -- and so, obviously, he insulted Elons cars unfairly. Elon responded.
I'm not sure if any of this serves the president very well. But ultimately, you know, they -- I guess -- I guess the White House is content to let them fight it out in public.
HUNT: Yeah. Well, I mean, and that's the question, right, Mark? Like, Donald Trump doesn't really like disloyalty from basically anyone else.
MCKINNON: No --
HUNT: But he seems willing to put up with it from Elon.
MCKINNON: I mean, when you have a very complicated, challenging, controversial policy, you rolled out, the last thing you want is two very high profiles of your members of your administration arguing about whether it's a good idea or not. So, I mean, that's just, you know, the press secretary can try and brush it off, but that's bad form for any administration.
JENNINGS: The best messenger they have, by the way, is Bessent. Bessent, the treasury secretary, someone in direct policymaking line of authority here. He's done a really good job on this. I mean, I recognize the advisers are squabbling, but the people that I talked to are really impressed and interested in what Bessent has to say on a daily basis. He seems to be the one that's doing, I think, the best job, and it feels like the White House is actually empowered him more than others to lead their messaging operation.
KARNI: I think that Navarro -- I mean, the issue here wasn't just that he was attacking Tesla. Musk has made it pretty clear he doesn't like the tariffs. He said that over the weekend. He -- and by attacking Navarro, it's almost like he's attacking Donald Trump via a lesser figure.
HUNT: Because Navarro is really driving the policy. In fact.
KARNI: Navarro is driving this policy. And, you know, some people who -- some anti-Musk forces in the MAGA world are very happy about this fight because they think that its exposing Elon to be like the globalist that he really is.
HUNT: It is the Steve Bannon critique.
KARNI: Correct. So, the Steve Bannons of the world I think are loving this. They -- they -- they think that that this will help boost Navarro and actually possibly anger Trump because this is a place where Elon Musk and Trump actually differ on the policy.
MCKINNON: And let me say something about Steve Bannon. He's like Chuck Norris. He doesn't sleep. He waits. And he's going to -- he's going to hit Elon with a sack full of quarters or a sock full of quarters in the middle of the night, and he won't know what hit him.
JENNINGS: You're going to have a quarter fight with Elon Musk. I'd think twice about it. He's got --
HUNT: I mean, he's got a lot of quarters. Yeah.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Let's -- let's look at a little bit of what Elon said about this. And you referenced what he said over the weekend. Let's watch it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELON MUSK, TECH BILLIONAIRE: I hope it is agreed that both Europe and the United States should move ideally, in my view, to a zero-tariff situation, effectively creating a free trade zone between Europe and North America. And also, more freedom of people to move between Europe and North America. So that that is certainly been my advice to the president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCKINNON: You know, despite his attacks on Navarro or Navarro's attacks on -- on Elon, the person that administration probably knows more about tariffs and international trade and commerce, having done it, is Musk, right?
JENNINGS: Oh, yeah. I mean, he's -- he's real businessman. He started real businesses, rescues astronauts. You know, he does a lot.
HUNT: He's a billionaire for a reason.
JENNINGS: Yeah, absolutely. So --
BUSTOS: I just don't know why the president though would allow one of his top guys to speak in exact opposite terms of what the president's major policy is. I mean, what CEO would put up with that?
HUNT: Well, and the other thing here, too, Scott, that we haven't touched on is the reality that Elon Musk has a lot of business interests in China, and there are some questions around that. I mean, are you comfortable with the degree to which he's tied in to? I mean, it's potentially a conflict of interest for him.
JENNINGS: Well, look, he is -- he is such a global phenomenon, Elon is, he's into so many things, whether it's cars or space or the Internet. I mean, you name it, he's everywhere. And so, I think attacks like this were unavoidable, but I think the net positive of having him involved, both in the campaign and the government is undeniable.
And obviously, he's leaving soon. I mean, he's -- he's long said he's going to be here on a temporary basis.
MCKINNON: I think very temporary now.
JENNINGS: Well, look, but that was always but that was always the plan and I -- I just -- I just think that the relentless attacks on him, both from inside of some people who support the president and from outside, have frankly, been unfair. I think he's a patriotic American. I think he's given up his time and his treasure and his trouble to elect someone and try to make him --
HUNT: Patriotic immigrant to America, right?
JENNINGS: Absolutely.
HUNT: All right. One last thing before we go. You have probably heard of fake it until you make it. What about fake it until you get caught? I'm sorry. What?
A man has pleaded guilty in California to selling more than half a million dollars in fake memorabilia.
Here is one of the things that he sold. This is a guitar that was said to be signed by the artist formerly known as Prince. Except it was totally bogus.
[16:55:02]
The same goes for this guitar that was not signed by Carrie Underwood. Both came with, quote/unquote, certificates of authenticity that were not, in fact, authentic. Most of the stuff sold came from the sports world, including this picture of the late Kobe Bryant with a fake signature on it.
But this was the picture that was his ultimate downfall. Yup. A poster from keeping up with the Kardashians. You can see it has what appears to be the signatures of Kim, Kourtney and Khloe Kardashian. Except it is a total phony.
He sold it for $200 in 2019 to someone who happened to be an undercover FBI agent. What that says about what our FBI agents are looking for when they're doing these things. But there you go.
That's going to do it for today. Thanks to our panel.
"THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right after this quick break.
