Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Stocks Rally Despite Tariff Fears, Capping Tumultuous Week; Judge Rules In Deportation Case Of Mahmoud Khalil; Trump Using Executive Orders To Exact Revenge On Foes. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired April 11, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news, right now on CNN.
Let's head into THE ARENA.
Seconds before the closing bell, Wall Street about to wrap up one of the most volatile weeks in modern history. The markets going through the day, up and down, then up again as investors weigh what's next in the president's global trade war.
Also this hour, a tense hearing in federal court. The Justice Department defying a judge's order in the case of a Maryland man unlawfully deported to El Salvador.
Plus, more big law firms bowing to pressure from President Trump, agreeing to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in free work after threats from the president.
Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Friday. We made it, I think.
As we come on the air, we're nearing the end of one of the wildest weeks on Wall Street ever. We're standing by for the closing bell, while Wall Street is heading for a close in positive territory after days of tumultuous swings on fears over tariffs.
In the 129-year history of the Dow, its closed higher or lower by 1,000 points, just 31 times. Four of those times have happened in the past week. And what's next depends on what happens between these two men, President Trump and President Xi, the leaders of the two biggest economies in the world.
And so far, after China increased tariffs on the U.S. overnight, after the U.S. increased tariffs on China the day before the White House today, saying this about whether the two sides are even talking.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I'm not going to comment on communications that are happening or may not be happening, or either way --
[16:00:02]
REPORTER: Why is he optimistic that China's going to make a deal or wants to make a deal, if they're not talking? Where does that optimism come?
LEAVITT: He's optimistic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The leader of China today, talking to the U.S., at least indirectly, saying today, quote, there are no winners in a trade war and going against the world will only lead to self-isolation. A statement from China's commerce ministry being a little more blunt, saying the U.S. is, quote, turning itself into a joke.
Back at home today, there's renewed skepticism from investors and business leaders that this global trade war isn't going to be as easy to win as the president says it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LARRY FINK, BLACKROCK CEO: I think we're very close, if not in a recession now. But I believe all the uncertainty is really making everyone pause and
everyone wait and see. And so, I think you're going to see some across the board with just a slowdown until we have more certainty.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Whether we are in a recession right now or not, Americans are rattled just as much as stocks have been for the past week and a half.
There's a new measure today of how people feel about the economy. It basically looks like this. The index of consumer sentiment plunging to the second lowest reading on record since it started back in 1952, lower than anything we saw during the Great Recession.
And just like last month, everyone is feeling like this. No matter your age, how much you make, where you live, if you're a Democrat or a Republican, and independent, you get the gist. One big factor in how people feel is what is in their wallet. And the president's tariffs are looking to cost you even more. About $4,700 a year, according to research from the Budget Lab at yale. That's up another $300 from the estimate that they put out just two days ago, before the escalation between the U.S. and China. And to prevent those numbers from going up, all we have to do is get about 150 separate trade deals in the next 88 days.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JON STEWART, PODCAST HOST: What is the rush? It's been two months. What about trying to negotiate trade deals prior to killing the hostage and then asking for ransom? It's -- I don't get it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Quite a world we're living in.
Our panel is here to weigh in. But first, I do want to start with CNN chief domestic correspondent Phil Mattingly, along with our chief national affairs correspondent, that's the man you see there, Jeff Zeleny, who is standing by at the White House.
Jeff, first to you. They keep -- keep saying we should trust Trump, trust President Trump. It doesn't seem like Americans right now are actually extending much trust in in what is going on. What are you hearing behind the scenes?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Kasie, there's no doubt that Americans voted for Donald Trump again, send him back here to the White House to bring down prices to stabilize the economy. But at the end of this very tumultuous week, you wonder if that is on the mind of voters. I mean, there are other metrics, including the -- the American consumer confidence sentiment. It is, at a lowest level, one of its lowest levels since the 1950s.
Other metrics as well, of course, the market has been very volatile down significantly than up a bit. But look, the bottom line to all of this is the president and the White House. The administration is banking so much now on this tariff policy after backing off earlier in the week, which was not part of the original plan, as we know, but a bit of a plan given the conditions in the bond market and the other financial markets. The presidents have pivoted, and that's what presidents have to do in these situations.
But the question now is going forward and this China trade war, it deepens by the day. So as that unfolds and as higher prices are undoubtedly going to be landing on people's doorsteps on a variety of things, what does the administration do then? So, yes, trust. That is what the White House press secretary repeatedly told me when I asked her, you know, why is consumer confidence so low? She said, trust the president.
So that is one thing that we will see. But look, the bottom line to all of this is the president has, you know, made a career of himself calling himself a deal maker. Now, this is perhaps the highest stakes of all. But again, that China trade war, which is escalating is very worrisome for many -- Kasie.
HUNT: Yeah, high stakes indeed.
And, Phil Mattingly, one of the things that we've been focused on this week, one of the things that helped convince the president to shift course pretty quickly was what was going on in the bond market and the market for U.S. treasuries.
We heard from Jamie Dimon, business leader today, about what we might see there going forward. Are we out of the woods here?
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. If President Trump referred to the bond markets as yippy at one point when he had to step in, Jamie Dimon calling them a potential kerfuffle in the future.
[16:05:02]
Word choice has been an interesting almost as great as the emoji use, Kasie, utilizing the show. HUNT: Thank you.
MATTINGLY: I think, one, don't anybody make predictions right now? And I certainly never would. I think the reality is, is today was actually a really good window into where everything stands to the extent that's possible. Going into the day and overnight, there were significant concerns that despite the pause, the kind of uncertainty and potential tumult in the treasury markets were coming back fast. And they had been throughout a lot of the morning.
In the morning, you get terrible consumer sentiment, you get good inflation numbers, you get earnings calls with CEOs saying some formulation of uncertainty and volatility about 350 times, markets kind of all over the place, certainly down for most of the day.
And then you get a fed official saying markets are functioning and if necessary willing to step in. And then you get the White House press secretary saying the president still wants to deal with China. And now we're here.
What that means is that no one really knows. And I think the concerns are very real. The treasury secretary still keeping a very, very close eye on the government securities, watching where that goes, the yields on those while they've settled a little bit, they are still higher than I think people want them to be. What matters right now is some level of certainty, the only way to get it. When I've been talking to traders throughout the day, they need some deal, some type of deal with the negotiations that are ongoing.
Whether that's going to happen or not, they seem confident, but we'll see.
HUNT: Yeah, we will see, indeed. There's a -- there's a lot of money riding on the answers to these questions and a lot more than that, quite frankly. Jeff Zeleny, Phil Mattingly, thank you both very much. Youve been with us all week. Really appreciate it.
Let's get to our panel, CNN political commentator Jonah Goldberg; Chuck Todd, the host of "The Chuck Toddcast"; Maryland Democratic Congressman Glenn Ivey; and former Republican congressman and speaker pro tem of the House, Patrick McHenry. We're also joined by "Shark Tank" host, chairman of O'Leary Ventures, Kevin O'Leary.
Thank you all for being here.
Chuck Todd, let me start with you, big picture on this week, because, I mean, there have been a lot of weeks of history that you and I have covered often together --
CHUCK TODD, HOST OF "THE CHUCK TODDCAST": Yeah.
HUNT: -- when Donald Trump has been in the White House. But this one may end up being one of the most history making.
TODD: It could. You know, the comparison I'm making right now is that, as is the comparison to the week that I think was the beginning of the end of the Biden presidency, which was the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan because this week could have that kind of impact. At that point, once Joe Biden lost the competence question of people because the Afghanistan issue really hurt him harder, because the core competency voters thought Joe Biden had was on national security.
So, when it was like, whoa, he's messing that up, it started to erode confidence in everything else.
HUNT: It was a major turning point for turning presidency.
TODD: Big turning point, and it never -- he never recovers from it.
This week for me feels similar to that, that this is Donald Trump's Afghanistan moment because the core competency voters had with him was, oh, but the economy. You may have had all these other things, but boy, you know, this guy. You know, the economy was pretty good in Trump. 1.0 and that's what I want back. I want that economy back.
And he's botching the one thing that voters, even those that were not big fans of, maybe his national security or his character issues, they thought he had this. I think what makes this potentially so politically damage -- damaging to him is that it erodes what was a perceived core competency as far as the voters were concerned. A lot of us kind of expected this erratic issue, and we kind of know his history of tariffs. But I think he had -- he had -- the vast majority of voters who were not sitting there focused on his obsession with tariffs since 1987, I think are shell-shocked by this.
And I think this is why you're seeing these consumer confidence numbers across the board start to go down because you're like, oh, oh. This guy, he messed that up. This could be a moment. We look at it, he never ever politically recovers from this moment.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, look he ran on tariffs, right. But I think there were a lot of people --
TODD: Sure, but he ran on the economy.
HUNT: Right. He ran on the economy. And also, the difference between some tariffs on China aimed around manufacturing and tariffs across the board. Our allies very different.
And to that point, Kevin O'Leary, your name was invoked at the White House press briefing today. Let me play that moment for you. I'm sure you've seen it, but our viewers might not have. Let's watch what happened in the briefing. I want to ask you about it on the sidewalk.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What do you say to people like "Shark Tank's" Kevin O'Leary who say you guys simply haven't tariffed China enough?
LEAVITT: Look, the tariff rate on China remains where it was yesterday at 145 percent level. The president made it very clear when the United States has punched, he will punch back harder. And he hopes to make a deal that benefits the American worker and our companies that have been ripped off for far too long. And he's finally taking bold and courageous action to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, Kevin O'Leary, where are you on this right now, considering the markets would really like to see a deal between President Trump and President Xi?
[16:10:03]
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN, O'LEARY VENTURES: Yeah, I'd like to see a deal, too. But my point I'm making is there are two stacks. There's two verticals. Theres the circle of friendship negotiations with countries like England and the EU and Switzerland and Cambodia, Thailand, Canada, Mexico, where we're going to end up with some reciprocal tariff. That's so obvious that's going to happen. I don't know how long it's going to take.
China is a different stack. I've been saying and I just testified in Congress this week that I'm kind of done with this theft of IP, no access to their courts, the fact that I have to compete with them in capital markets in New York, on Nasdaq and on NYSE, where they don't even comply with GAAP. Why do we allow this?
And so instead of just the rhetoric on tariffs, I don't care about tariffs. I want this behemoth entity China, which I would like to do business with. I have nothing wrong with the Chinese people, I want to sell to them. But it is such an unbalanced playing field on just IP theft. Let's go in with 400 percent tariffs, shut down all trade until Xi comes to the table.
And not just solves on tariffs. Thats -- that's not enough. I need access to the litigation there. I want him to comply with the rules that he agreed to comply with in 2000 with the World Trade Organization. There's thousands of complaints about China, and nobody ever holds them to account.
They -- it's unbelievable what they get away with on our own domestic market. They bankrupt millions of American companies by stealing their IP. And I'm not okay with it anymore because I'm an investor.
So, I thank the president for having a discussion. But that's not enough. Weve got to solve this problem because were in an economic war with them, and they want to become the world's largest economy by stealing IP to get there.
They don't have to pay for what it costs to develop a product that I invest in. They rip off and bring back into this market at 40 percent discount to they wipe out the originator, the American entrepreneur with American jobs going to zero because they cheat and they steal. I'm done with it and I'm just pointing it out. And I'm happy to have this narrative.
HUNT: That makes a ton of sense. My question for you, I think, is one of the things that this has done in terms of the broad-based global nature against our allies and our adversaries, one of the things its done is in some ways pushed the Europeans into doing more business with China, perhaps because they view them as a more reliable partner. EVs, for example.
Do you think that the presidents actually doing damage to what you're -- you're outlining here, like what you're requesting here by potentially making it so that China is more reliable than we are?
O'LEARY: No, everybody knows the number one destination for the world's capital, more than 50 percent of it is invested in the United States of America, 49 percent of all consumption is in the U.S., 26.1 percent of world GDP is the United States. It is still the number one economy.
And if you're given the opportunity to invest in China or the United States, it's a no brainer. Every dollar goes to the U.S.
And so while the U.S. has the upper hand and let's remember something, there's a time bomb here for Trump. It's the midterm elections. But Xi's got a time bomb, too. He's got millions of workers and factories right now. Those products are sitting on ships floating in the ocean because nobody's going to buy them, because they don't have a big enough economy to consume them. Only the U.S. can do that.
So we've got a little bit of a game here, a little game of chicken, because Xi only gets to stay in power. If people have jobs, and they can feed their families. He gets a vote every day. If those factory workers have no jobs, they're going to be like a Frankenstein with torches up at the castle. It's going to be brutal. And he knows that.
So, let's have this dance. Let's go now. Let's settle this now, 400 percent tomorrow morning to absolutely lock down zero trade, zero trade until we solve this.
HUNT: All right. There's a longer conversation to be had about the nature of, you know, strongmen and Chinese Communist Party rule.
But, I mean, look, it's an interesting -- I want to put this to Jonah Goldberg.
Jonah, you are, of course, a longtime conservative, not a fan of Mr. Trump. What -- what -- what say you?
JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I have -- I think 145 percent tariff rate versus 400 percent tariff rate is sort of a tomato/tomato thing at this point. The at this point, you know, look, I mean, Henry George, the famous economist, you know, used to say that protectionism is what you do to yourself during peacetime. What others do to you during war.
We effectively have an embargo against China right now, right? Maybe it would be even tighter if we went up to 400 percent. Okay, whatever. That's an act of war.
And I'm actually okay with that for a lot of the reasons that Kevin O'Leary says, if it's part of some sort of strategy, if it -- if it's part of a plan that actually brings our allies closer to us and, and isolates China in a in a thoughtful way that doesn't crash both of our economies. And, you know, the theory of economic competitiveness between nations always kind of leaves out the fact that a complete crash of the Chinese economy would also be bad for the U.S. economy.
[16:15:05]
You have to have some thoughtfulness in this. Instead, we have policy making on any given day, as if Donald Trump had a bad dish of clams the night before and has a different idea every single day. And then -- and then his people have to come out, sweeping it up as if it's all part of some plan, when there is no plan.
HUNT: Is there a plan?
PATRICK MCHENRY (R), FORMER FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: This is the reason why the president announced tariffs on all these other countries. He tried the first time around to negotiate with China and the rest of the world, got the economic benefit of a better trading relationship with China. So, what the president attempted to do here with the first announcement was to say, you need to be with us. We're going to cause you economic pain unless you're allied with us, backing off of those tariffs gave them a separate relationship with China.
And now, we've got to go cut individual deals. This is a much more complicated thing, even though what we've seen in the markets is obviously chaotic and bad. And when you have Larry fink, who has the best pulse of the global economy of any American, say that this is, you know, were in a recession, we've got to believe him.
But the consequence here is that the negotiation with China is going to be much more complicated in the next 90 days as a result of the pause on the secondary tariffs on these other countries.
HUNT: Yeah, Congressman, to circle back to Chuck's point, obviously, Democrats would love to retake the house in the midterm elections. I have to say, everyone I'm talking to thinks that this could be exactly the type of moment that Chuck is talking about, and that that's what's -- what's in the cards. How do you see it?
REP. GLENN IVEY (D-MD): I think it might actually be worse in Afghanistan was for Biden because this is what he did here, impacts everybody. You know, I had heard some guy talking the other day who said, my 401(k) is now a 101K, and it's not just people who have stocks, it's people who are worried about, you know, going to the grocery store and things are going to cost double what they used to.
So, when you're touching everybody's life like that, they pay attention to that. And as Chuck pointed out, this is what he ran on. Everybody -- the central factor in the election, I think, in 2024, was you're going to put more money in my pocket or take more out. He's taking it out, even though he promised to put more in. And he's putting and he's taking it out for inexplicable reasons.
So, when he -- when he took on the whole world at the same time, which looked crazy, I think to most people they were like, even if you agree with the arguments about China what? Why are we mad at the UK? Why are we mad at, you know, these other countries? And there's no good explanation for it at the American consumer level. And the other part now is there's -- there's two levels of discussion
going on. Theres this sort of macroeconomic debate which drives the tariffs and all the, you know, all the data. Thats the same mistake Biden made because the micro piece is I don't care about all that. Can I -- can I pay my rent this month? Can I get milk? Can -- do I have to pull my kid out of college?
That kind of stuff. And he's not doing anything that addresses that other than saying there might be pain.
MCHENRY: By the way, that's a -- that's a message for both Democratic and Republican strategists. What you just said.
IVEY: Yeah.
MCHENRY: How do you feel about the economy? What's your lived experience? What do you -- what -- how do you experience this in the grocery store? When President Biden said, eh, ignore your lying eyes, right?
IVEY: Yeah.
MCHENRY: Ignore your experience. It's not a great sales pitch.
And ignore the fact that your 401(k) did this topsy turvy, insane thing in the last two weeks and go be okay about it. Thats a sickness. Ignore it.
TODD: By the way, this is the same -- these are the same people that have encouraged us. We have a tax system that encourages us to save money for our kid's college. In these -- because the other numbers out there are 529s.
IVES: Right.
TODD: And you have a lot of those. And this is the squeeze class.
And here's the real problem that Republicans have, the people that care the most about the 401(k) and the 529, they're all over a certain age and they vote.
HUNT: Yes.
TODD: They vote in midterms. They show up and vote. Some of these other folks don't show up and vote, but those people do. And that's another --
HUNT: They do for sure. Kevin, I want to give you the last word in this conversation. Weve obviously talked about your point about China. Congressman McHenry invoked Mr. Fink's name here in terms of us being in a recession or not. As you said, you are an investor. Do you think we're in a recession? What does that mean?
O'LEARY: No, no, I have investments in 52 private companies. You know, the majority of jobs created in America are companies between 5 and 500 employees. I see their sales tear sheets every week. Those are fantastic job numbers last Friday.
We have low inflation. I'm looking at my sell through. We're looking at all the stuff were going to be doing in the holiday, because we're actually building for that now. We're not in a recession.
Look, I know everybody's gnashing their teeth. By the way, the market corrected over 20 percent, that happens all the time. And maybe you want to blame it on tariff wars. We have corrections in the S&P constantly almost every 18 months. That's the nature of the market. It doesn't mean were going into a recession.
Now look, unfortunately, there's volatility here. And I disagree with Chuck. I have a lot of respect for him.
This is not some seminal moment for Trump. At the end of the day, it's just the beginning of a dance.
HUNT: All right. Well, tell you what. Come back in a month when we got the next round of inflation and job numbers because, you know, hey, if you're right, we'll -- we'll give you credit. And if you're wrong, we'll -- we'll dissect why. Thank you very much, Kevin, for being on the show. I really appreciate it.
All right. Coming up next here, a big pair of big court cases unfolding today, including a tense hearing over the man that the Trump administration mistakenly deported to El Salvador. And breaking news just coming in from one of those cases about whether a Columbia University activist can be deported.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:25:01]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back. We have breaking news in two big deportation cases that we've been following today.
A judge in Louisiana has just ruled in the case of Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil.
Let's get straight to CNN's Paula Reid.
Paula, what happened?
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So, Kasie, just a few moments ago, we got an update from this hearing in Louisiana where, as you said, the judge has ruled or determined that Khalil is removable from the U.S. and that means that he can be removed from the U.S., either due to a violation of immigration law or lack of immigration status. It's unclear exactly the basis of this finding.
The U.S. government has accused him of being a supporter of Hamas. Now, the judge demanded the government put forth evidence, and they submitted a two-page memo from the secretary of state which outlined reasons for deporting him. Mostly focused on protest activity, saying that, quote, his beliefs, statements or associations would compromise U.S. foreign policy. Now, in order to facilitate this deportation, they are relying on a
rarely used law which gives the secretary of state wide authority. So, we are still awaiting additional updates from that hearing down in Louisiana.
HUNT: And, Paula, can we talk a little bit about the Maryland man who was mistakenly deported? Where does that case stand today?
REID: Well, there was a hearing earlier today, Kasie, and it was drama. It comes after last night, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the government needs to facilitate his return to the U.S., but the Supreme Court did not explicitly affirm or uphold this lower court's ruling, saying he must be returned to the U.S.
And here the judge was asking Justice Department lawyers for details about what steps they've taken to facilitate his return. They could not -- would not provide that information. They also would not say where he currently is.
Very tense exchanges between these Justice Department lawyers and the judge. So, there were signs and homework. They now need to provide the court with daily status updates on what they're doing to facilitate this removal.
But, Kasie, we know this happening, but there's a larger battle between the administration and the courts and the administration trying to buck judicial oversight or any restraints on the president's agenda or attempts by lower court justice to tell the administration what to do.
And look, last night, the Supreme Court, they had an opportunity to affirm this lower court judge. Instead, they put forth this ambiguous ruling where both sides are declaring victory and it's not surprising that these government lawyers sort of exploited that ambiguity in today's hearing.
HUNT: All right. Paul Reid, thanks very much for that reporting. Really appreciate.
And, of course, all these cases raising enormous questions about civil liberties as President Trump has previously floated the idea of perhaps deporting American citizens.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I have suggested that, you know, why should it stop just to people that cross the border illegally? We have some horrible criminals, American grown and born. I think if we could get El Salvador or somebody, but to take them, I'd be very happy with it. But I have to see what the law says.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: I have to see what the law says. Here was how the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded when she was pressed about that moment a little while ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: The president has said, if it's legal, right? If there is a legal pathway to do that. He's not sure. We are sure if there is. It's an idea that he has simply floated and has discussed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: An idea that he has simply floated.
And, Chuck Todd, you reacted rather strongly to what Trump has said on Air Force One.
TODD: Yeah, well -- you know, if it's legal. I mean, deporting American citizens? I mean, it -- look, there's no possible way it's legal at all. So, I mean, I -- you know, there is a challenge I think sometimes with covering Donald Trump. Donald Trump is somebody, I compare him to the -- to "Anchorman". There's a scene in "Anchorman", right, where the women go, you know, he'll say anything you'd put in teleprompter, anything.
Donald Trump will accept any premise. You go up to him right now and say, you know, why isn't Japan a state? We won that war. We dropped two bombs. What are we doing?
He'd say, huh? You know, you're right. And so, then, what's the headline? Oh, Donald Trump's thinking about annexing Japan.
Like, this is the challenge in covering Trump, right? He will accept any premise. You can get a headline out of it. Yeah. I'd like to deport American citizens. Hey, would you deport Chuck Todd? Yeah, I'd love to deport that guy, right?
Like, and, you know, so I say this because I think it goes back to this whole thing. When do you -- when do you raise the five-alarm fire on something like this? And when do you, like, not waste time on it? And that's -- I think this is one of those stories.
MCHENRY: And we've had ten years of five alarm fires about every comment, which means the American people are exhausted and they don't care.
TODD: Well, they don't hear it anymore.
MCHENRY: They elected Donald Trump to do two things -- get the economy right, which we had our first segment on, and the ramifications of that are serious. And to secure the border.
And those that are crossing the border illegally will see what the president is doing, what this administration is doing, and they will make a decision to not cross.
The idea that you're going to cross illegally, and you're part of a tough gang in a very nice suburb of Los Angeles is not part of being a tough gang in El Salvadorian prison, right? So, the behavioral change here is what he's going for. And the headlines actually do drive behavioral changes here.
And the fact is he is attempting to do something at the southern border that has wide support by the American people to rationalize this. Not a headline like this, but the substance and reality of securing the border.
HUNT: Congressman, the Maryland man is actually one of your constituents.
IVEY: Yeah.
HUNT: No. I mean, is there anything you can tell us about his family, about where this stands? I mean, this judge repeatedly asked today a very simple question. Where is he? And they couldn't answer it.
IVEY: Yeah. And I've appeared before her, and she's going to be very persistent. She's very smart. So, I don't think they picked the right court to try and do this.
But, you know, the family's been very persistent too. But I think at the end of the day, I thought what the Supreme Court basically had said was he gets a day in court. Now, the particulars about how to bring him back, the court didn't specify on those and left those to the district court judge to do. But they said, you know, he gets a day in court.
So I'm not sure what this dance is that the administration is doing right now. And I'm particularly surprised at the refusal to answer where he is. I mean, why would that -- why would answering that question possibly --
GOLDBERG: I have a theory about that, which is that I think the administration, if they thought it could get away with just bringing this guy back and then be done with this, they would do it. The problem is they keep saying they have no control over anybody in that prison.
And so, if they follow this order on this guy, that then opens the door to say they have control over all of these people and have jurisdiction on them, and they have this argument that says, no, they're out of your -- out of our jurisdiction. And so, they don't want. It's the camel's nose under the --
IVEY: Yeah. But the problem with that is --
GOLDBERG: There are a lot of problems with especially.
IVEY: Yeah, the fact that they're in the jail, they've signed essentially a contract.
GOLDBERG: Yeah. No, I agree.
IVEY: And we have extradition laws. I mean, it's not like this is something new that has never been done.
TODD: The Salvadoran president going to be here Monday.
IVEY: Yeah. He's coming. Put him on -- put him on the plane with him.
TODD: I was going to say, if this -- considering all the other political problems that this White House has chosen to accumulate right now in the economy, this seems like a pretty easy thing to just get done and put behind you. I sort of I'm trying to figure out why. I mean, you gave an interesting explanation why they're fighting this.
HUNT: Well, it's showing weakness anywhere.
TODD: I get that, but it's sort of like sometimes you've got to know when to fold them.
HUNT: All right, coming up next here, the governor of West Virginia will be here live in THE ARENA. How the trade war is impacting his state and whether he thinks the policy is wild or wonderful.
And later, the $600 million announcement today by the White House. And what it means for the president's pressure campaign.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:37:33]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It could be like COVID. And then next week they jump to ten bucks a piece.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right now, it's -- it's -- everything's up in the air. We don't know what to expect yet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a guessing game.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Away from Wall Street, Main Street businesses across the country are also navigating the back and forth of Donald Trump's tariff war. Those businesses, customers, their consumers also feeling apprehensive, consumer sentiment plunging 11 percent this month, according to the latest survey. That's the second lowest reading on record going back to 1952, even worse than it was during the Great Recession.
Joining us now to discuss is the Republican governor of West Virginia, Patrick Morrisey.
Governor, I'm so grateful to have you on the show. Thank you very much for being here.
And I do want to show you one --
GOVERNOR PATRICK MORRISEY (R-WV): Kasie, it's great to be with you. Thank you.
HUNT: Yeah, of course.
I want to show you one other figure as well as we -- I want to get your perspective on how this is affecting consumers and businesses in your state. The median West Virginia household income, about $57,000, $58,000. The expected annual cost of tar -- of these tariffs per household, estimated by the Yale Budget lab at $4,700. That is an 8 percent on average chunk of most West Virginians budgets.
Do you think that that's the right thing to be doing right now?
MORRISEY: Look, I think what when you look at what President Trump is trying to do for our economy, I want to urge people to go back to when he was president, came in in 2017. It was some of the more prosperous times that we've had in our country. So, I think when President Trump came in, he said, look, I'm awfully tired of all these countries that are ripping us off. I'm going to do something about it.
When you engage in that kind of strategy, there's some short-term issues. I think you're seeing some of the countries react and then ultimately lower tariffs and come in for negotiation. Obviously, some countries want to hold the line, but I think that long term you need people that are going to step up and who have a bold economic strategy. I can tell you that President Trump's policies overall are very good for West Virginia. I know I was with him the other day at the White House, where he's trying to allow West Virginia to mine a lot more coal and make sure were improving in that area.
He knows the importance of American energy independence. And in fact, if we think in terms of inflation and we think in terms of the nature of the economy, it always starts with foundation, affordable, reliable energy.
[16:40:05]
And I know President Trump's focusing on that. So, I think overall, it's very good.
With respect to the tariffs, I just say let's give them some time. I think you're going to see some good things. But I know it's still early in the process.
HUNT: Have you not received any calls? I mean, West Virginia accounts for about half of the U.S. coal that's exported to China. Are -- are those -- those miners, those companies not worried?
MORRISEY: Well, look, I was over at the White House the other day, and a lot of the miners are excited about President Trump's policies. We talked about that because their focus is how we can start to expand the mining and the usage of coal, because they're seeing what China is doing, producing one coal fired power plant after another. So, when President Trump started talking about expanding the use of coal, when I've been working on that here in West Virginia on new policies to advance the use of data centers, that is getting them very excited. So, people know that President Trump has their back here in West
Virginia, and that they're just going to give him the opportunity to change things. Rome wasn't built in a day. I think people in West Virginia know that. And the fact that he came out with such a terrific policy to stimulate energy development, to focus on American energy independence, he's focusing on the core foundational pieces of the economy.
HUNT: The Republican budget blueprint that just passed Congress calls for deep cuts that are unlikely to be able to be met without cutting Medicare, and particularly Medicaid. Would you urge Republicans in congress to maintain Medicaid spending or to cut it?
MORRISEY: Look, I think if you look at what's happened in Washington, D.C., in the swamp over a long period of time, the folks in D.C. gorged on so much taxpayer money. And finally, what you're seeing with President Trump is he's trying to push back on that. And you see some of the Republicans in the Senate doing it. What happened over a prolonged period of time, where, frankly, sometimes from both parties has been that Washington overspent dramatically.
So now, you're seeing people step back and try to get their fiscal house in order. So overall, that's the right direction when it comes to the specifics for West Virginia, we're obviously watching it very closely. I know in West Virginia, we're putting together some strategies to deal with some changes.
Ultimately, I would ask the Trump administration to give West Virginia more flexibility so we can implement the benefit the right way, save money, yet still deliver the right type of benefit for our citizens. I think he's going to be open for that. Everything doesn't have to cost a gazillion dollars. We can run government a lot more efficiently.
HUNT: And, Governor, finally, there was a moment when you were with RFK Jr., the health and human services secretary. I want to show people the moment. It was a little bit of a tough one, but I just I'll ask you about it on the other side. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., HHS SECRETARY: Governor Morrisey, the first time I saw him, I said, you look like you ate Governor Morrisey. And I'm very happy that he's invited me to be his personal trainer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Is that the right? I mean, that's a tough message. Like, for -- for kids who may be struggling with this, for example. What was your reaction?
MORRISEY: Yeah. You know, I will tell you, we were joking back and forth before the event. And I think at the event I joked that I was going to be a major renovation project and ask him to be my physical trainer.
You know, as someone who used to be an athlete and very, very active, I can acknowledge that I may need to shed a few pounds. And I said, you know, let's take up the challenge. Weve started since then, the mountaineer mile. We're actually planning to announce it leading up to that day.
But if we could stimulate more West Virginians to get out, to walk, to get in good shape, I think that's phenomenal. And I think it's terrific that Secretary Kennedy is focusing on the nation's health in a way we haven't seen before.
I think it was meant in good fun. And I talked to him about it afterwards. And I can just say that he cares deeply about West Virginia. And I didn't take it. I didn't get offended. I will say I'm the first one to say, let's all work on this together. I'm going to try to lead by example and drop a few pounds, and hopefully you come back in six months. You come visit West Virginia and people start to see a new wave happening with the mountaineer mile going all across America.
HUNT: All right. Well, Governor Morrisey, thank you very much for being on the show today. I really appreciate your time. We'll talk to you soon.
MORRISEY: Yeah. Thanks so much, Kasie. Be well.
HUNT: All right. Up next here, the multimillion dollar deal the president just made with several law firms.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:49:11]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: In 2016, I declared, I am your voice. Today, I add, I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution. I am your retribution. This is the final battle.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The final battle.
On the campaign trail, President Trump promised retribution. And there are signs that he is, in fact, going after those he believes wronged him. This week, he signed executive orders ordering the Justice Department to look at two former administration officials, Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor.
"The New York Times" framed that move this way, writing, quote, the memos send a stark message to oppose Mr. Trump will mean risking punishment at the hands of the federal government.
[16:50:04]
Among those targets, law firms who have worked with Trump's perceived political enemies. Today, Trump announced a deal with another five firms to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono work, quote, that represents the full political spectrum, including conservative ideals.
Our panel is back.
Jonah Goldberg, to have these executive orders that specifically target two people, seemed like, you know, because of the way that the -- the news went this week, obviously, we've been really focused on the markets, but this does seem particularly noteworthy and remarkable. Do you think it is how this government is supposed to work?
GOLDBERG: I think it's appalling. I mean, I think it's truly appalling. You know, Governor Morrisey said Rome wasn't built in a day. And he's right. It did burn down in like six days.
And the reason I bring that up is, like, you start unraveling the rule of law. You start saying that the -- the administration of law is based upon personal grievances. And when you watch Trump signing statement, it -- he wasn't talking about retribution on behalf of the people. He was talking about personal retribution for his own ego.
And it is -- it's not a bill of attainder because it's an executive order and all that kind of stuff. But I seem to recall presidents used to try really, really hard not to prejudice the justice system against somebody. And he is starting from the assumption that these people are guilty of crimes, even though he can't name what they are.
HUNT: Are you okay with it, Congressman?
MCHENRY: No. What else do I want to say? I mean, so there are a lot of things that can be true. At the same time, in the world of Trump, that there are certain actions he takes that are laudable and great and good. I can see the strategy behind him, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And then others where you're just confounded by it. I understand the law firms I do because they came after him. He views them as on the side of his -- his opponents. And you can see the larger justification around his actions, and you can see why it's doing this.
When you pick out two people that the American people don't know and the particular grievances here seem. Slight at best. And -- and it's hard to justify that. As for -- for a signing ceremony.
HUNT: Congressman, you seem to disagree with him about the law firm piece of it.
IVES: Oh, yeah. I think that's a shocking step that he's taken. And I think in a lot of ways, it undermines the rule of law and the right to counsel in the constitution, because some of the people he were -- he's punishing were people who represented jack smith, for example as legal counsel. If you start attacking people on those grounds, then people won't want to represent anybody. Even controversial figures.
And the basis of legal. Representation, availability is everybody can get counsel. And so, if you start punishing anybody who represents somebody that Trump is mad at, you're violating the constitution. So, I think it's that clear.
And, you know, this is beyond Nixonian to me. This is -- I've never seen anything this vindictive directed at attorneys. And I'm totally scared about the impact it could have.
TODD: I just can't believe there's nobody fighting back like you have the Constitution on your side.
HUNT: In terms of the firms themselves.
TODD: The firms. I feel this way. Look, I'm not going to make you answer this question. I feel this way about how traditional media companies have handled the "AP" situation. I mean, the Constitution is on your side, and this fear of looking like you're pushing back, using the constitution and you're not doing it, whether you're a law firm, whether you're a media entity or something else.
HUNT: Way above my pay grade.
TODD: Totally get it. And I'm not -- and I'm not here to -- look, I'm not here to cause an uncomfortable moment for you. I'm here to cause an uncomfortable moment for a lot of people that that are responsible for the -- for the stewardship of some of these media companies that you're letting "AP" sit out there and alone.
We all saw what happened with "AP". They -- they -- this was unconstitutional reason. There were other ways you could have said, hey, we're not letting "AP" in. But the reason they chose and uttered was clearly unconstitutional. It was an easy thing to stand for and not to sort of stand up to it and all this stuff. Law firms not doing it.
It just sort of, you know, this is, you know, if you -- if you give a mouse a cookie, you know how it ends.
GOLDBERG: Two quick points. One, I think that this started as retribution against specific law firms. Now they just like it and they're just doing it to everybody, whether there's an argument there or not. And two, these firms in some ways have no choice because clients say, you're saying I can't even enter a government building. I'm a government contractor. It's a huge problem.
HUNT: Okay. Coming up next here, something totally different. A chance to play with LeBron James.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Last but not least, starting Monday, you are going to get a chance to play one on one with NBA great LeBron James. It will only cost you 75 bucks. I'm sorry. What?
LeBron James getting his own Barbie doll. Mattel set to release a Ken doll in his likeness. Unlike other LeBron James action figures that have him in an NBA uniform, this doll keeping it cash, wearing the pregame tunnel fit.
Here's how LeBron reacted when he first saw his Barbie doll.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEBRON JAMES, NBA PLAYER: Oh, he dope. Oh. That's so cool. This is so danggone cool. I mean, he might need to do a little lifting -- a little skinny.
(END VDIEO CLIP)
HUNT: Jake Tapper standing by for THE LEAD.
Jake, it's dope. You know, you know what? Maybe we should ask them for a Jake Tapper Barbie doll.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, THE LEAD: No. That's okay. You know, I had -- I had all these LeBron James jokes I was going to make. But Phil Mattingly standing here and he started making fun of the Philadelphia 76ers in response. And so I'm just -- I feel very humbled.
HUNT: You should just pull him off the set right now.
TAPPER: Humbled and angry about it. But congratulations, Mr. James, on your Barbie achievement.
HUNT: Have a great show, Jake.
