Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Threatens Harvard's Tax Exempt Status As It Defies His Demands; Now: Hearing In Case Of Man Mistakenly Deported To El Salvador; Biden Speaks Out. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired April 15, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:02]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Apparently, the woman was able to use her sports watch from the side of the cliff to call 911. She is lucky that those folks were there in time to help her out. As she was gripping the side of that cliff.
Hey, thank you so much for joining us this afternoon. We very much appreciate it. Jessica sends her regards.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts in just about seven seconds or so.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's President Trump versus Harvard.
Let's head into THE ARENA.
The White House demanding an apology from Harvard University. President Trump threatening its tax-exempt status as the university defies the administrations demands.
Plus, the president's refusal to seek the return of a Maryland man wrongly deported to El Salvador, being tested in federal court this hour.
And former President Joe Biden is about to deliver his first big public speech since leaving office. Will that help his party?
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Tuesday.
As we are watching a rapidly escalating showdown, the president of the United States pushing the bounds of his executive power farther and farther across so many realms of American life, including the courts, the legal profession, the media and elite education.
Now, he's going head-to-head with the nation's oldest and wealthiest institution of higher learning, Harvard University.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Unfortunately. Harvard has not taken the president or the administration's demands seriously. (END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The White House is taking on Harvard after it became the first of the elite universities to defy the administration's efforts to take on so-called woke campus policies, restrictions that the university says amount to unacceptable limits on freedom of expression.
Last night, the administration froze more than $2 billion in federal grants to the university, and today the president is threatening Harvard's tax exempt status, suggesting in a post on his truth social platform that it should be, quote, taxed as a political entity, end quote, unless it acts in, quote, the public interest.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: When it comes to Harvard, as I said, the president has been quite clear they must follow federal law. He also wants to see Harvard apologize, and Harvard should apologize for the egregious antisemitism that took place on their college campus against Jewish-American students.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Trump officials portray their fight against the most prestigious and liberal universities is an effort to combat antisemitism. After contentious campus protests against the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, Harvard sees the battle differently. Its president declaring the university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.
The former U.S. treasury secretary and the former president of Harvard, Larry Summers, put it this way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LARRY SUMMERS, FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY: This is an attempt to impose the kind of regulation on Harvard that is imposed by government on universities, in countries that we don't think of as democracies, countries that don't have free speech protections.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: In other words, Summers is suggesting that President Trump is acting like a dictator. Or as our colleague Stephen Collinson put it today, an elected authoritarian, like the guy that Trump all but embraced yesterday, El Salvador strongman -- strongman Nayib Bukele, who backed Trump during his visit to the Oval Office by publicly refusing to return a wrongly deported Maryland man to the United States.
Trump even finishing Bukele's sentence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NAYIB BUKELE, PRESIDENT OF EL SALVADOR: There's something broken.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The liberal establishment, but they're not running things anymore in this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So back to where we started, the president waging a war against that liberal establishment well beyond Harvard and the Ivy League, taking on the media and the courts.
In fact, this hour, we are following another test of the president's push back against the court system. A hearing on the fate of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He is, of course, the Maryland man now held in El Salvador's mega prison. It's getting underway in federal court right now. We'll be watching it through the hour and bringing you the latest there.
But let's start with our panel, CNN contributor and co-host of "The Interview" podcast at "The New York Times," Lulu Garcia-Navarro; CNN political commentator, Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson; former senior adviser to both the Biden and Harris presidential campaigns, Adrienne Elrod; and CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings is here.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you very much for being here.
Kristen Soltis Anderson, I want to start with you on the big picture for Harvard University, and the way that the administration is doing this because, you know, there's $2 billion already on the line. There are billions more that could be affected, those grants funding things like cancer research.
But of course, there has been that explosion of protests. We've seen many antisemitic incidents on a lot of these campuses.
[16:05:02]
And this has become a real lightning rod on the right.
Of all of the things that we have seen happen so far this week, you know, the number of things that certainly Democrats are basically apoplectic about. How do you see this confrontation with Harvard and other elite institutions fitting in?
KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So, a confrontation with an institution like Harvard is one where Trump has picked a very ripe target. Confidence in higher education has really been plummeting in this country over the last decade.
Even as recently as 2015, Gallup found that a majority of Republicans said, when you ask, do you have confidence in higher education? They said yes. And those numbers have fallen. They've fallen precipitously for Republicans, but also for Democrats.
And I think part of the problem is, to quote office space, the question of, what is it you would say you do here? That for a lot of institutions of higher education, that's not a question that they've clearly answered. And so, when you ask people, why don't you have confidence? They think
they've veered too far off mission. Some of these institutions, as you noted, they contain multitudes, right? They do great things like cancer research, but they have other things that I think a lot of taxpayers may be saying, I don't know if I want to fund this.
Trump has sensed that and that's why he views them as such a good target.
HUNT: I will say, Lulu, these institutions of higher learning have educated an awful lot of the bipartisan people who come here to Washington and end up in positions of power.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I was about to say, it's always surprising to me that. Harvard is like, put as this kind of liberal bastion when you think about the -- a number of Republicans and Wall Street executives who have gone there.
HUNT: Yeah, well, we can put up a number of the Trump allies who attended Harvard. Now, I will say that the youngest of those that you see on your screen are about my age. So they're elder millennials. So perhaps a lot has changed in the intervening time.
But I think I -- actually I really take Kristen's point, right, for the middle of the country, beating up on Harvard is not a problem for them, right? But on the other hand, there does seem to perhaps be some hypocrisy going on as well.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, I think to Kristen's point, and we saw this with the DEI fight, there was a reason that they did that first with Harvard, affirmative action, et cetera. Harvard is a ripe target. You -- if you've never been there and you always know people who've been to Harvard, they'll tell you in the first five seconds that they went to Cambridge. They were in Cambridge. It's very annoying to the rest of us.
HUNT: Yeah. It's -- no, they went to a college outside Boston. I actually went to Cambridge, the original for graduate school. So --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: There you go.
HUNT: Some people will say this to me. I'm like, I'm sorry. I'm not as -- I'm not as high -- highbrow as those of you who went to the second Cambridge.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: So, you can see, just even in our conversation, it brings up some animus. But there -- the wider context within which this sits is, of course, what is the purpose of what the administration is doing here. And we know from Chris Ruffo, from Project 2025 and other ideas that have been put out there that they want to really take down anything that is viewed as the, quote/unquote, liberal establishment.
And so, what the administration asked of Harvard wasn't just about antisemitism. They asked things that were about who they admit, who gets tenure, things that are, quite frankly, not the remit of the federal government. And if you think about how Republicans have accused Democrats over and over again of weaponizing government, of weaponizing the federal government here, were seeing this administration actually push into something that has never really been done in the same way before.
HUNT: I mean, Scott Jennings, that seems like a fair point. I mean, if Democrats were doing this in a way that, you know, conservatives felt like was taking on some of their interests in these higher institutions, I feel like I would hear you talking about, hey, government is supposed to be more limited.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Why would Democrats be complaining about Harvard? Like 96 percent of the political contributions from the faculty go to Democrats from Harvard. There's no diversity of thought among the faculty there.
And -- and, by the way, I should say, I've had some experience with it. I was a fellow at the IOP. Kristen was as well. I taught a class at the Harvard Kennedy School for a number of semesters. I had a good experience, but I think --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But no diversity of thought, apparently.
JENNINGS: But I think in recent years, particularly since October the 7th, the civil rights of these Jewish students on campus have clearly been violated. I don't think the university, Harvard, Columbia, a lot of these other ivies have taken near enough steps to protect these students. They've been chased around campus, barred from buildings. Buildings have been taken over.
I mean, it's ridiculous what's going on. And here's the deal -- they take federal money. They have a $53 billion endowment. They take federal money. If you want to continue to take federal money, you're going to have to listen to the people who dole it out. And that's the Trump administration who are standing up for these Jewish students.
If they want to give up the federal money, you can create, I guess, the culture of all the culture of hate that you want, and that's fine. But right now, they're entangled with the federal government, and they're going to have to deal with the president.
HUNT: Adrienne, I mean, I will say what the what the what the Trump administration is trying to do goes well beyond the antisemitism question.
And the points that are very well taken from you. And I have spoken to a lot of Jewish students and families who are concerned about their Jewish students on these campuses. It is -- there are absolutely challenges there. But this is also DEI. It's hiring admissions. You know, it is looking at some of the viewpoint diversity.
[16:10:03]
That seems like something we could argue about. But how do you see it?
ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, first of all, I think Kristen is exactly right that this is something that -- this is where Trump is really good, his instincts are good. He knows he is delivering basically red meat to his base by saying, I'm going after a liberal institution like Harvard.
I also agree with your point that what would happen if Republicans, all of a sudden, if Oral Roberts University or some of these super conservative Republican leaning organizations were, were also targeted by Democrats? So, it goes both ways.
I think the bottom line is this, this sets a dangerous precedent. If Harvard caves on this, which so far they have not, they've stood very firm and strong. If they cave on this, this sets a very dangerous precedent for universities. Universities are not as well-funded as Harvard.
Harvard is the wealthiest university in the country. But what if we start going down the road with some of these universities that could be targeted, that don;t have the endowments that Harvard does?
So, I think, in the words of Barack Obama, who tweeted last night, you I applaud Harvard for -- for standing strong against unlawful and ham- handed attempts by Donald Trump to stifle free speech and public education, and I think that that's the point that Democrats need to keep continue to drive, but anyone who wants to support the freedom of education.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And the only thing I'll say, you know, to Scott's point, is as follows. He said he'll have to tangle with the president if you get federal money. Thats assuming that somehow this federal money is the president's.
And in fact, this federal money is the people's, and it is the people who pay taxes. And the idea that the federal government is that you are supposed to actually, you know, look at the people of the United States and try to deal with them fairly just because.
JENNINGS: They elect to be stewards of their money, the president of the United States.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes. But nobody --
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Technically, it's Congress.
JENNINGS: Who has to spend the money? Who has to cut the checks? Who has to cut your check? Who has to faithfully execute the laws of this country? It's the president.
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: This president is trying to weaponize the federal purse strings. And the reason that this president is trying to weaponize the federal purse strings is for political reasons.
Now, you can agree with those political reasons, and you cannot agree with those political reasons. But poll after poll is actually saying that what the American people actually care about is their pocketbook and their purse strings. Issues like DEI, issues like all these other, you know, things that they're getting involved in, that polls very, very low. Theres just a poll that came out from UMass, 2 percent, 3 percent of the Americans care about these issues.
This is something that Donald Trump is investing in.
JENNINGS: Do the Jew students care about it? Do their families care about it?
He's standing up for people who have no advocates on these campuses. Nobody on these campuses will stand up for them because it's not in vogue to do so on the campus. Trump shows up and stands up for the kids, and that's why they're upset.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: This is a wider issue than antisemitism.
ELROD: Absolutely. I think we've --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: This is not about antisemitism.
ELROD: We certainly stand with the Jewish students.
JENNINGS: The only people who don't make it clear are the Harvard people, the ivies. They don't make it clear. They don't make it clear.
ELROD: I think we can all agree that that not all of these --
JENNINGS: We're here. They're there.
(CROSSTALK)
ELROD: -- handled this. But to Kasie's point, this is a much bigger, broader deal and attack that Trump.
HUNT: So here -- here's actually -- let's -- let's kind of underscore the degree to which this is potentially broader than this one piece. And this is some reporting from Mike Bender, Alan Blinder, Jonathan Swan over at "The New York Times". They're reporting about a lunch in the private dining room outside the Oval Office on April 1st. Okay, so this is several weeks ago.
President Trump floated an astounding proposal. What if the government simply canceled every dollar of the nearly $9 billion promised to Harvard University? What if we never pay them? Mr. Trump casually asked, according to a person familiar with the conversation, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the private conversation. Quote, wouldn't that be cool?
And Scott Jennings, I want to put this to you because one of our fellow CNN colleagues, Ron Brownstein, has a column out just a few minutes ago kind of looking at -- and I realize we've been having a political conversation. It's an important conversation to have, but this is a brass tacks conversation. The argument that Brownstein is making about the competitiveness of the United States in medicine and technology, which is where a lot of this money goes, right?
And these are not the departments, by the way, that many Republicans want to reform, like where they -- you know, the Arabic studies at Columbia University, et cetera, right? These are science, technology -- often, you know, graduate level work and things like that.
And he quotes someone who says that these universities have partnerships with businesses, and it is the fundamental economic geography of the high value, advanced industry system in America.
Now that the Trump administration is threatening to stall this economic agenda -- engine by terminating research grants for major universities and argues that this is actually a huge national security problem.
Do you think that that's correct?
JENNINGS: I think as a political matter, if you went out and argued that to the American people right now and said, well, we're just not going to make it as a country unless we give $9 billion to Harvard, that's sitting on 53 billion, you'd get your kicked. I imagine, in a political campaign.
Now, don't misunderstand. I wish Harvard would actually work something out here.
[16:15:00]
I do agree that these universities are important. They do important work, but I don't agree that we need to continue to fund people who won't listen to us when we say, you have problems. I would argue that it's a national security problem, that these ivy league colleges are turning out people who fundamentally hate Western civilization. But, you know, there's points to be made here and they need --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Scott, isn't the way that this normally works is that if you have a problem with Harvard University, then there is a system in place to actually adjudicate it, to discuss it, that there is a negotiation, there is not an arbitrary, you know, kind of pulling of the plug from one moment to the another saying, actually, cancer research. Poof, gone. Actually, all that cutting edge medical technology that you were working on. Poof. Gone. Because I had a lunch and I thought, wouldn't it be cool that I pulled $9 billion from Harvard University because they're easy pickings.
That is not the way that the system has worked here. If it was actually in good faith, they would have gone to Harvard and said, you know what? I think you have a problem with X, Y, or Z. Let's talk about it. Let's see how we can how we can deal with it.
JENNINGS: Well, I think people in Republicans in Washington especially, have been communicating to the ivies that they do have a problem for months and months and months. Let's go back to the Elise Stefanik hearing. When she dragged all these university presidents before Congress, they knew and have known for months that they have a problem with people who are sick and tired of the runaround on antisemitism, on these.
HUNT: We unfortunately have run out of time to play that. I do actually have that moment where Elise Stefanik asked Claudine Gay, does calling for the genocide of jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no? And she would not answer.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And she doesn't have a job anymore.
HUNT: Very difficult moment for everyone.
All right, stand by. Right now, we do want to know, what are you hearing? To all my sources and friends, you know who you are, check your inbox. Here's our question for today. We haven't talked about this quite yet, but Joe Biden is returning to the political stage tonight. We want to know, is that going to help? Is that going to hurt? This is going to happen next hour.
You have until the bottom of the hour to send us your 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 later on in the hour.
All right. Up next here, news coming on that court hearing happening right now in Maryland, what Trump administration lawyers are saying about the man that was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
And later, Congresswoman Jahana Hayes will be here, live in THE ARENA.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:38]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PROTESTERS: Due process!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: This is the scene in Maryland right now. We are following this tense face-off that's happening, unfolding right now inside that courthouse. Trump, DOJ lawyers going before a federal judge as the administration is facing increased scrutiny over a man that they acknowledge they mistakenly deported to El Salvador. In a Supreme Court ruling ordering the White House to, quote, facilitate his return.
Ahead of the hearing, the wife of Abrego Garcia had this message for the administration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNIFER VASQUEZ SURA, WIFE OF KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA: As we continue through holy week, my heart aches for my husband, who should have been here leading our easter prayers. Instead, I find myself pleading with the Trump administration and the Bukele administration to stop playing political games with the life of Kilmar. (END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. CNN's Priscilla Alvarez has been following the story for us.
Priscilla, the hearing started at the top of the hour just before it started. We learned that they've shaken up the DOJ team. What have we learned?
PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it has been a tense hearing so far. Just as the other court hearings have been on this very case. The federal judge has been frustrated multiple times by the Justice Department and what she sees as their lack of answers.
Well, that is happening right now as well. She is indicating that she is unsatisfied with what the Justice Department has provided so far when it comes to facilitating the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, that Salvadoran national is that, as you mentioned, was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. That, of course, according to the Trump administration.
Now she is saying here, I'm going to quote here that there will be no tolerance for gamesmanship or grandstanding. She goes on to note, in this back and forth with the Justice Department, that she needs evidence. She needs a record of what exactly they're doing. She says, for example, quote, I do need evidence in this regard because to date, what the record shows is nothing has been done.
Now, in the course of this back and forth with the Justice Department, the Justice Department attorneys have also raised that Oval Office meeting yesterday between President Trump and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele where we heard there that the El Salvadoran president is not going to bring him back or return him to the United States.
Well, that was cited in filings by the Justice Department. It\s also been cited in the course of this back and forth. And she was quite stern on this matter. The federal judge, that is, she says, quote, I don't consider what happened yesterday as really evidence before this court yet.
So, what is all leading to is essentially she needs it in writing. She needs it as a record to the court. What happened in the public forum is not what happened in the court. And she wants more answers from the Justice Department. And, Kasie, I have been attending some of these hearings, and this has been a through line over the course of this case where the federal judge has been asking for more information from the Justice Department as to how they will facilitate the return. And she has -- and she has been stonewalled by the Justice Department over the course of -- of that questioning.
Right now, this is still ongoing. So, we'll be getting more developments in the coming minutes. But this is still a judge who is clearly still frustrated and wants a record to be established of how exactly the administration is moving to return Abrego Garcia -- Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Priscilla Alvarez reporting for us -- Priscilla, thank you very much.
So, of course, the administration insists that they are following the law.
[16:25:02]
Here's what the Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We're very confident that every action taken by this administration is within the confines of the law, and we continue to comply with the court's orders. And you have seen that. And the president made that clear yesterday in the Oval Office.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: This all following Trump's Oval Office meeting with the president of El Salvador, where both the White House and President Bukele made clear that Abrego Garcia will not be returned to the U.S. and that was reiterated just moments ago by the border czar, Tom Homan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: Now, the court said, we've got to facilitate, we'll facilitate. But -- but -- but El Salvador has full authority on this. Again, a terrorist threat. Now we -- now if somehow he comes back and that happens, he's going to be detained and removed again. He's an MS-13 gang member based on our intelligence and El Salvador's intelligence, he will be detained and he will be deported.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Joining our panel now, CNN's Supreme Court analyst, Steve Vladeck.
Steve, I actually do want to start with you, because there are so many questions about this word, facilitate the return, and there are questions about what the Supreme Court can, should, will do in this situation. What they were actually saying the administration needs to do if this continues to be the case, that there is this, you know, very high stakes game of not it between the El Salvador and American governments.
What -- what position does that put the Supreme Court in?
STEVE VLADECK, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Yeah. I mean, Kasie, it puts the Supreme Court into a pretty sticky position because now, the question is going to be when the court ordered the Trump administration last Thursday night to take steps to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, you know, it surely meant more than nothing. It surely meant, you know, staging more than just staging a -- of Oval Office photo opportunity where Trump and President Bukele could both point at each other and say, you know, you handled this. No, no, you handle this.
But, Kasie, the question is, what can the court do? And so, Priscilla's point is so important here. Theres a big difference between what Karoline Leavitt says from the podium in the press briefing room and what lawyers say in court. The latter is under penalty of perjury.
So this is why I think we're seeing in this afternoons hearing, Judge Xinis really try to push the government to say on the record, what steps have you taken, what steps have you not taken so she can figure out what else she might try to order the government to do before this goes back up to the appeals court, to the Supreme Court.
HUNT: So, this is just coming in here to CNN, speaking of the appeals court. The judge says that she's prepared to issue an order to expand on her definition of the word facilitate. And the Department of Justice is asking if they can stay that on an appeal. And the judge says, quote, the Supreme Court has spoken. My order is clear. It's direct. There is, in my view, nothing to appeal.
Scott Jennings, this is all -- I mean, we've talked again a lot about the politics of fighting on these various issues and the way that the administration has, you know, standing with Americans in terms of fighting illegal immigration and particularly criminal behavior in those instances. But they have also acknowledged this man was taken away. And now, the president has floated the possibility that, quote/unquote, homegrown criminals could be taken and deported.
Where? Where is the line for you? Where is?
JENNINGS:" Well, on this case of Garcia -- I mean, they have a point of view, which is, A, a court cannot compel them on foreign affairs matters. And they think that's what they got out of the Supreme Court. And B, you know, they just very calmly lay out the facts. It was an illegal alien who came here from El Salvador. They sent him back to his country of origin. They reject the idea that he never had due process because he, in fact, did go before immigration judges.
HUNT: Well, those judges said he specifically couldn't go back to El Salvador. He could be deported.
JENNINGS: Because -- because why? Because why? Because he said he was in danger from a gang that hasn't been present in El Salvador for the last five years. Theres more of them in L.A. than there is in El Salvador.
HUNT: All I'm saying is, that's what the court said. They could have actually stripped that before they did this. They didn't do that.
JENNINGS: But the point is this and what Homan said is what they maintain. Okay, fine. Well facilitate it. Which means if he comes here, we'll facilitate that, and we'll facilitate it by arresting him.
And one of two things will happen. We'll send him right back to El Salvador, where he came from, or some other much worse place. But there's no future where he, as an illegal immigrant with an existing deportation order, finishes out living a happy life in the United States. In their view, it's not going to happen.
So, the line here, they believe they're on the right side of immigration law, and they believe they're on the right side politically --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Was it quite a thing as well. I mean, just to just to keep going with you here on this a little bit like, okay, maybe they send him to a, quote/unquote, worse place, but he, you know, he's at risk of death in El Salvador and he's in prison, right? Like they deported him to a prison. And the court keeps asking for evidence that he committed -- perhaps he is a member of MS-13, but they haven't. The government hasn't been able to show that yet, right? Every time the judge has asked for evidence, the judge -- no one has been able to actually provide it.
[16:30:02]
It's just kind of a lot of, you know? So again, when you expand, when you take this to its logical conclusion, when the president is now saying, well, homegrown criminals, this idea that you're going to take people and just send them to a prison overseas?
JENNINGS: What he said yesterday was, we're looking into the legality of it. We're looking into the laws. Pam Bondi is looking into it. So, it was a non-definitive statement.
But the point they're making, the political point they're making is quite clear. If you are a violent person, if you've broken our immigration laws, we're here to keep Americans safe.
And our opposition is apparently currently organizing congressional delegations to go to El Salvador to try to bring illegal aliens back to the United States. It's politically crazy.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Scott, he has not been criminally charged. What about due process? That is a constitutional right that anyone in this country.
JENNINGS: If you want to die on this hill, be my guest. It's political malpractice to send Democrat members of congress to El Salvador to retrieve illegal aliens.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: It's his senator from his state. He's from the state of Maryland. He lives in -- he lived in Maryland.
HUNT: All right. Just one second.
Steve Vladeck, jump in, please.
VLADECK: I mean, Scott keeps trying to make this a political conversation. I'd like to get back to the law here. And the law here is that he was removed to El Salvador in defiance of a court order that literally said he could not be removed to El Salvador. There was an existing legal process that the Trump administration
could have followed to try to get that order wiped away. If they bring him back and Scott wants them to put him back into deportation proceedings, fine. There will then be another legal process where Mr. Abrego Garcia will have an opportunity to contest whether he is who the government says he is, as opposed to just taking the governments assertions at face value.
I think we're losing sight of have due process in this country, have due process, so that we can be confident that when the government points at one of us says, you are a bad person, you should be removed, we can have faith that the government is correct.
Without that due process, there's really nothing that separates someone like Mr. Abrego Garcia really, frankly, from any of us. And so whatever the politics, there's a rather fundamental legal principle that's getting neglected here.
JENNINGS: The - he had due process and the facts about his situation are really not in dispute. He is a citizen of El Salvador.
VLADECK: The government of the United States removed him on an administrative error.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: He's been living in the United States as an illegal immigrant.
HUNT: Can you --- can you just respond to Steve's point? I mean, he's saying that the due process was violated in that he -- sorry, Steve, repeat yourself.
VLADECK: I mean, he was removed in violation of a specific judicial order that says he's entitled to withholding of removal to El Salvador. So, the due process he received is due process that specifically said, you can't send him to El Salvador. He was sent to El Salvador anyway.
JENNINGS: The administration disputes whether that is a proper order, I guess because they say the reason he got a withholding order is not --
VLADECK: Now, they cannot do it.
JENNINGS: -- is not, is not valid.
But even so, if you want to bring him back here and ask him what other country he wants to go to, fine. But they're not going to let him live in the United States as an illegal immigrant with a deportation order. They will not allow it. I don't -- I mean, they're not going to bend on this. I don't -- I don't see any way they bend on this.
HUNT: All right. We got to take a quick break.
(CROSSTALK) HUNT: Sorry. Finish your thought. Then we're going to go to a break.
VLADECK: Sorry, Kasie. Just, you know, bringing him back and giving him a hearing is how the system is supposed to work. If the result of that hearing is he's removed to another country, fine. Letting President Trump just say, oh, you know, even though we weren't allowed to remove him to El Salvador, oh, well, them's the breaks is not how our legal system is supposed to work whatever the political costs.
HUNT: All right. We got to press pause on this conversation, but I think we're just going to pick it right up after the break, because there is so much to be said. Again, these are live pictures of this ongoing hearing about this Maryland man that the administration acknowledges was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:38:11]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
Again, we're watching these. These are live pictures outside. This hearing into the fate of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man who was mistakenly deported.
And again, so much of this hinges on what the Supreme Court has said, which is that the administration needs to facilitate his return. Let's just flashback to what was said in the Oval Office from Pam Bondi or I'm sorry, this was actually an interview that she did after her appearance in the Oval Office.
It's the distinction is facilitate versus effectuate. And we'll get Steve Vladeck to weigh in on what the law -- the law says here. Watch.
All right. It seems like we may not have that sound, but basically she says, Steve, they also said it's just facilitate. Meaning, if he wants a plane flight, we could get him a plane flight, but we can't effectuate it, meaning making it happen. President Bukele doesnt want to give him back to the United States, nor do we want him back.
Is this in line with what the Supreme Court wanted, in your view?
VLADECK: No, I mean, Kasie, if you go back and read Thursday's unanimous decision by the court, you know, the court is clear that the government has an obligation to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. The next sentence in that very short ruling talks about how the question of how the government is supposed to effectuate that return is one that requires, in the court's own words, clarification on remand.
And so, what the Supreme Court did is it said to the district judge, Judge Xinis, you know, we need more guidance from you, and the government needs more guidance from you on exactly what it's supposed to do to bring this about, sensitive to questions of, you know, foreign policy and foreign affairs. Kasie, there's no way I think you can fairly read what the Supreme
Court wrote to say that there's no obligation to effectuate, just that the district court had to provide more specificity as part of what is supposed to be going on in the hearing that's happening as we speak.
HUNT: Kristen Soltis Anderson, I mean, big picture, I have to say this situation and the idea that the government can pick people up off the street and send them to a foreign prison, has generated, you know, among even Democrats who, frankly, after the election, were pretty careful to say to me, at least privately like, and, Adrienne, you should weigh in on this too, right? That they the way that they had gone about going after Trump wasn't right. There were obviously issues like the Democrats had basically fallen down. They needed to learn why people wanted to send Trump back to the White House, et cetera, et cetera.
Those people are looking at this and saying this is in a different category than all of the other things we have seen from Donald Trump so far.
Do you get that sense?
ANDERSON: So, when I look at my data, Donald Trump's job approval rating on immigration is higher than on any other issue, and it is very intense, intensely positive among his base. When I look at things like his job approval on the economy, even among Trump voters, it's a little soft.
It is not soft on the issue of immigration. They love what he is doing. But to that end, I look at something like this and I think then put out this fire, because right now, you have the American public behind you on a lot of what you are doing. That is really tough enforcement of our immigration laws to try to clean up what the public clearly says they think is a mess that the Biden administration left.
And by leaving this kind of weird situation where we're saying, well, we don't really have any power, we got to let this other guy do it, and he doesn't want to do it. I mean, there's clearly warmth between Bukele and Trump, right? Today, he just tweeted, I miss you already President T.
Clearly, if we asked and I think Donald Trump likes to project his power to say, hey, I asked, we got this guy back so that we could go through the proper process. Maybe he does wind up deported again, but you can put this fire out rather than letting this become the dominant conversation on an issue where you otherwise have an awful lot of political strength.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But this, of course, then, is the question why are they doing this? Why are they willing to take this particular person and make this into such an issue? And what you're hearing from Steve Vladeck and any other lawyer is that they are pushing the boundaries and they're pushing the courts.
And this is what a lot of people are debating. Are we in a constitutional crisis because this went up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was pretty clear. And now, you have the lower courts trying to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling. And so by playing these games, which is what the Trump administration is, is effectively doing, nobody believes that they that tomorrow they couldn't have this man back if they so desired.
You know, Bukele is the leader of a very small, very non powerful and very poor nation. And so ultimately, this is up to the president of the United States. If he doesn't want to bring this person back, why is that?
ELROD: Yeah. Look, I'm here -- here's the bottom line. I wish President Biden's administration had tackled immigration in the first two years. I wish that they had made a good faith effort. And instead, there were a number of other challenges for major economic bills which were passed, which was also a big deal for President Biden. But the bottom line is this -- while I, obviously, you know, the esteemed pollster over here, I obviously look to you as the expert on where -- where voters are on this issue.
But I think there is a line that is crossed with a lot of Americans, especially those key independent voters who care a lot about who may care a lot about immigration. But when they see people being deported from the United States, with no due process, when they start to think to themselves, just like the attorney was making online, who's to say that they couldn't throw any of us in an El Salvador prison?
JENNINGS: Are you -- are you -- are you -- are you a citizen of El Salvador? Are you an American citizen? Did you come here illegally?
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: This isn't an immigration issue. This is a rule of law issue.
ELROD: Exactly.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: This is about the courts. This isn't about immigration. The border is about immigration. There are many other things that we can talk about that are about immigration. This is actually about the Supreme Court and the courts.
JENNINGS: Well, you and I have a difference of opinion, and the Trump administration does not believe the Supreme Court ordered them to do anything to bring him back, facilitate. And a lot of other people believe that facilitate does not mean go get this guy.
And they have said if he can get on a plane and get here, are they let him out of jail, we'll take him back. That's facilitate to them. But that doesn't mean were going to call out the seventh cavalry to go ride down to El Salvador and bring him back.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: There's a difference between deporting someone and putting them in prison. Thats also -- there's a huge difference between those two things.
HUNT: Steve, I'm so sorry. We are going to have to -- to take a break. And I will also say to what you were saying, Scott, the question, of course, about what he said about homegrown people. I think that's why this is such a -- such a really thorny question here.
All right. We got to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:49:14]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
We're continuing to follow live the hearing for the mistakenly deported Maryland man. The Trump administration now before a federal judge on this and we're going to be joined. We are joined now by Congresswoman Jahana Hayes, Democratic congresswoman, she's going to join our panel here. But I want to set that this conversation up.
Steve Vladeck, first to you, since I know you were trying to get in there at the end of our conversation before the break. So just -- just take us to where you think we should be in terms of thinking about this legally.
VLADECK: Sure. I mean, Kasie, I think, you know, folks are going to have a wide range of views about what our immigration policy is and ought to be, and that's fine.
I think the problem is, you know, the prompt that Scott gave to one of the other panel members, you know, are you an illegal immigrant -- Kasie, without due process, that question is irrelevant because without due process, the federal government could put any of us on a plane to El Salvador, say it was an administrative error.
[16:50:14]
Whoops. And then wash its hands of any responsibility to bring us back. And I think, you know, this is why you can think that someone like Mr. Abrego Garcia can be removed from the United States, but it has to be by the book. It has to be with the due process that anyone in the United States is entitled to, no matter what their status is. That's part of why what's happening in the Maryland courtroom today is really such an important referendum on where we are.
HUNT: Congresswoman Hayes, I want to go to you. I one of the things we were talking about a little bit earlier on the panel, some Democrats are planning to go to El Salvador as this is unfolding here in the U.S. I'm curious, where are you on that question? Is that something you would do?
We've also been talking about how in many ways, the American public has been with the Trump administration on immigration issues broadly.
REP. JAHANA HAYES (D-CT): I can tell you that's what I'm hearing at home, even the people who supported immigration reform or supported the idea that we needed additional border security or something had to be done are deeply concerned with how this has played out. And taking it one step further and asking this be done to American citizens. The idea that it's been publicly broadcast, that a mistake was made
and the response is there's nothing we can do about it is very concerning, deeply concerning to many of my constituents. And that's something that. They asked me about, call my office about, even people like I said who agree. That border reform, border security is necessary. Are uncomfortable with the way this is being carried out.
As far as traveling, I think as members of Congress, there are lots of things we can do right here from home. I'm not really sure what I would accomplish traveling to El Salvador. I represent the people of Connecticut's fifth congressional district, and they have questions that we're trying to get answers to.
I think that as members of Congress we should be having oversight hearings and holding any administration accountable because we are at a point where one of the questions many people were asking me was at what point do we reach a constitutional crisis if the administration doesn't follow a directive from the courts and that is playing out in real time? And I think that fundamentally, that is a question to the idea of a Democratic nation. And those are the things that people are calling my office today.
HUNT: We've also seen considerable anger at Democratic town halls from Democrats who -- who see what's happening, who are saying the things like you're saying, they're afraid. But they see Democratic Congress is not really actually doing anything about it. What do you say to them?
HAYES: Well -- I mean, we are in a minority trifecta right now, and operating with an administration is playing by a very different set of rules. Many lawsuits have been filed. We've been communicating these wins that people don't feel like are big wins, but it's working its way through the court.
But I think what is happening is that public sentiment is shifting. People are asking different questions. They are not just accepting answers, they are doing their own research. They are calling their congresspeople. People who have never been involved in this way in government.
And I think that -- that is -- there is some benefit to that, because not just in my office, but my colleagues who are voting for these things, who are not holding this administration accountable, who is refusing to have oversight hearings, I'm sure they're hearing from their constituents in the same way. And I think that will be, I guess, what breaks the fever here because the American people are demanding answers from us.
HUNT: Scott Jennings, you -- when the congresswoman said she represents Connecticut, you were kind of nodding along with that. But I do want to circle back to what she also said, which is that there are people who are worried that if this is happening to someone who, you know, the law says shouldn't be deported, could it happen to them, especially as -- I mean, Donald Trump will often sort of put up a balloon, a thing that he thinks he wants to do, and everyone writes it off and says, oh, well, we can't, you know, take Trump seriously about that, right?
JENNINGS: Well, I think you can --
HUNT: Then it happens.
JENNINGS: I think you can take him very seriously about deporting people who are in the country illegally. This idea that this person didn't have due process, by the way, they firmly reject. They believe he went through the process, got a deportation order.
There's a dispute about the, you know, withholding order. But they are -- they firmly believe that after what they got out of the Supreme Court, they are in the right.
I do think the congresswoman seems to be one of the smarter people in her conference. She says she's not going to El Salvador. That's the correct political move. And I pity the ones that go, because that is going to leave a messaging stain on the Democrats to go to a foreign country and try to bring illegal aliens back. Terrible, terrible optics in the midst of this issue.
[16:55:02]
HUNT: Of course.
HAYES: I'm in here because --
HUNT: Very briefly, and we have to go to break.
HAYES: Yes, because this isn't about messaging for me. Donald Trump is the president of the United States, and his words matter. So, I believe everything he says. And I think that there has to be some clarity for American people, that homegrown citizens in his to use his words, will not be deported without due process. And that is wrong.
This is not about messaging. It's about making sure that we are holding this administration accountable and providing checks and balances from our role as members of Congress.
HUNT: All right. Congresswoman Jahana Hayes, very grateful to have your perspective on the show today. Thanks very much for being here.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. One more time, live pictures outside court right now in a hearing of that mistakenly deported Maryland man. Thanks to our panel.
"THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.
