Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Stocks Slide After Fed Chair's Stark Warning About Tariff Impact; Now: Democratic Senator Van Hollen In El Salvador Seeking Return Of Man Mistakenly Deported By Trump Admin; Trump DOJ Sues Maine Over Transgender Athletes. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired April 16, 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: This is breaking news right here on CNN.
Let's head into THE ARENA.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: U.S. stocks taking a significant new hit as the trading day is ending after a stark warning from the Federal Reserve chairman about President Trump's tariffs.
Plus, Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen in El Salvador right now pushing for the release of a constituent mistakenly deported and imprisoned there. The legal and political fights over Trump's deportations heating up.
And, the Justice Department now suing the state of Maine for refusing to comply with a ban on transgender athletes in high school sports. We'll talk about that with the education secretary, Linda McMahon.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
[16:00:00]
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA on this Wednesday, as we are watching the close of the day on Wall Street.
There is the closing bell right there, just a few seconds before 4:00 p.m. Those steep losses, including the Dow sinking, as you can see, about 700 points.
I want to get straight to CNN's Phil Mattingly.
Phil, let's show everybody the numbers there.
The Federal reserve chairman, Jerome Powell, spoke today and seemed to precipitate what were seeing on the street. Explain.
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I think markets are reacting one to reality on some level, which is that nothing has really changed over the course of the two rather calm market days that we've seen. There is still the largest tariffs in more than a century. There is still an ongoing trade war with China. And everybody's waiting for some development on negotiations, on bilateral deals or the potential for them.
What changed was mostly the Fed chair coming out and making very clear this point. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEROME POWELL, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL RESERVE: The level of tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated. And the same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth. Both survey and market- based measures of near-term inflation expectations have moved up significantly, with survey participants pointing to tariffs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: Now, Kasie, on top of that, there were two additional points Powell made building off of what you just heard, that I think are extremely critical to pay attention to right now. One, the expectations are that situation he was describing on economic conditions and inflation as a situation that he said expected to play out over the balance of the year.
So, it's going to be longer term. It's not going to be something that turns around immediately. The second is he raised the prospect of these Fed's dual mandate, their statutory requirements as the Fed at some point coming into tension with one another.
So, the Fed has two roles, right? You keep prices stable. You deal with inflation and you also keep employment low, full employment. When those two things run into one another, what he's saying to translate is the potential for stagflation, something we haven't seen in a real, tangible way since the 1970s.
It is the worst nightmare for a Fed chair, because what they can do with rates, what they can do with QE, handles one of those issues. When they're running into one another, which isn't supposed to happen. They're out of tools. You're kind of like a soccer goalie that has to pick on a penalty kick, which way you're going to dive and just hope you pick the right direction.
That is a pretty stark warning, and I think that, more than anything else, is what markets are paying attention to.
HUNT: Yeah, for sure. And, of course, the Fed chairman is so measured in the way that he speaks, it makes the weight of a statement like this all that much heavier. Obviously, we have -- we have other public figures who are not so restrained and careful with the words that they choose. He is -- he does not share that characteristic.
Phil Mattingly, always grateful to have you start the show. Thanks very much.
All right. Our panel is here.
CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams; CNN political director, and our Washington bureau chief, David Chalian; CNN political commentator, former Biden White House communications director Kate Bedingfield is here. And CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings back again.
Thank you all for being here. Really appreciate it.
David Chalian, let me start with you. Big picture on this economic situation. Obviously, there are a number of battles that the White House seems eager to fight with Democrats. We're going to get to some of that later on in the show.
But what is going on in the economy represents a really fundamental risk for President Trump, for Republicans. And there has been no small amount of chatter of them saying, well, well do this with the tariffs. It will cause the federal reserve to lower interest rates to the floor. Businesses will explode and the economy will take off. The Fed Chair today seems to be saying, yeah, no, sorry.
DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR & WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: I mean, to hear the Fed chairman just say so clearly that this policy is likely to lead to higher inflation and slower growth. It's like the -- at the core, the two things that Donald Trump promised Americans on the campaign trail last year would be prices would come down and there would be robust economic growth. And the Fed chair today is in direct contradiction with that.
If he if -- he turns out right. I mean, that's his prediction of what these policies will be, if that is right. I think that poses a political problem as -- as you note, yes, for Donald Trump. But really far more immediate in the 26 midterms is for his party up on Capitol Hill.
HUNT: Yeah. Well, and it also presents a problem for a lot of Americans, Scott Jennings I mean, again, the Fed chair, Jerome Powell, picks his words very carefully. He also has you know, there has been no small amount of tension between him and President Trump. I would just point to this "Wall Street Journal" headline from November 7th, 2024. You may recall, that's about the time that Donald Trump won the election when Powell says that he won't step down if he's asked to by Trump.
I don't imagine that the president is very happy about what the Fed chairman had to say today.
Do you see a brewing standoff?
[16:05:00]
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. I wouldn't expect tickets to the Easter egg roll if I were Chairman Powell right now. Look, I of course, and I'm sure president Trump's going to react negatively to this statement today because he sees it much differently. He sees this as a long-term transformation of the economy. He sees a number of investment announcements that have happened that disprove all the apocalyptic doom and gloom. And he has already said he's willing to accept some short-term pain. And he's asked the American people, or at least his supporters, to accept that as we transform the economy to the benefit of the working class. However, the problem is and will be, the trajectory of the economy in
the minds of voters come next summer, late summer, in the fall. I think they actually will accept a continued amount of turbulence if they think the trajectory is good. Thats really the measurement of how people feel.
I don't think all the problems have to be fixed, because they know there were myriad problems under the previous administration, but if they think they're on the right track, they'll give them some more leash. If they think they're on the wrong track, that's when you start to run into problems with the voters.
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And that may be, but I think the challenge Trump's going to have here, I mean, there are so few things that a president truly has control over in office. You make all these promises on the campaign trail, you come into office, then you have to deal with the world as it is.
The thing that is so interesting about this is that the chaotic implementation of these tariffs is a huge piece of what's driving the uncertainty in the market and the challenges here. And so, it may be true traditionally that if people feel like the economy is moving in the right direction, they're willing to give the president leeway. But Trump has stood up and thrown his arms around this and said, this is my problem. I created it because in 10 years or 15 years or 20 years, things are going to be better for you.
I think it's going to be really tough in the fall of 2026 to ask voters to say, well, just -- just hold your nose and just wait and it's going to get better.
ELLIOTT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Game over. It's -- to pick up on both David's and your points, Kate, the certainty with which Donald Trump came in saying, look, in effect, I, alone, can fix it, to echo the point that he made several years ago that, you know, the what I will implement will ultimately fix the economy and make things better for all Americans. Yes, he has some runway, but that runway is getting much, much shorter.
JENNINGS: I do think some of the chaos may seem reduced if over the next few weeks they do roll out a series of announcements with trade deals with individual countries. I mean, they're obviously in dealmaking mode. This is what he was put on this Earth to do, make deals. Countries are coming to the table.
So, if they start to say, here's our deal with Japan, here's our deal with Vietnam, here's our deal with all these countries, and were actually building a coalition to isolate China, I actually think that could seem -- make it seem like the chaos is being reduced. And people start to see the end game here, which is a stronger America and a weaker China.
WILLIAMS: Fair enough.
BEDINGFIELD: But that would require him to stick to whatever deal he negotiates. I mean, part of the challenge is, you know, you see the commerce secretary or the treasury secretary come out and say, well, actually, no, there's going to be an exception on chips, and there's going to be an exception on phones. And then Trump says, well, I don't really like the word exception.
So, I -- you know, he has a -- I think Trump has a credibility challenge here. It may be that he's able to successfully negotiate all these trade deals. I'm not sure the market is going to believe him, even when he comes out and says, these are the terms, because he himself hasn't stuck to his previously set agenda here.
WILLIAMS: And the bigger point is that not all trade deals are created equal. And yes, we can strike trade deals with Sri Lanka and Vietnam, but none of these countries have the power to harm the American economy that China does. And without a consideration of China.
CHALIAN: And just to your point about Powell, you showed that "Wall Street Journal" headline. I think it was from I think it was just yesterday or the day before Treasury Secretary Bessent in Argentina talked about starting to interview or come up with a list of people of thinking of new candidates, because when Powell's term ends next year, Trump is going to be in a position to.
And the fact that it was like out there yesterday from the treasury secretary already seeding the ground of trying to look at the post- Powell era, to Scott's point, I would be very surprised if Donald Trump did not react negatively to what the Fed chairman said today.
HUNT: Well, and, Scott, can we -- can you just be realistic with me? I understand you're presenting how the administration is looking at this. We're going to talk for a second about deportations. We're going to talk later in the show about transgender athletes, right?
There are all these fights that the administration is, is generating, is picking in many ways. Realistically, is the economy the riskiest ground for the president right now? Is this the biggest question mark for him on the -- on a very long list of very contentious issues?
JENNINGS: Of course, the economy is always the riskiest ground for any president because you tend to rise and fall based on how people think you did with it. So, when you make sweeping changes to the way our economy works, the way it's going to work around the world, there is a lot of risk in that.
But there could also be a lot of reward in it. If people see the end game, which is we isolated China, the working class feels like better jobs are coming back to decimated communities, so there's a lot of reward here, but it could take some time to get there.
I will say on the other fights, I think they're on the right side of virtually every fight they're picking. I mean, you mentioned the, you know, some of the cultural fights they're picking. Immigration is his best issue right now.
These are not inconsequential matters. I mean, a lot of these things he's on the 80. The Dems are on the 20. HUNT: So that's a very good pivot here because we do want to move to
the other breaking story today.
[16:10:04]
U.S. Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen is on the ground in El Salvador, and he is trying to get his wrongly deported Maryland constituent out of prison.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): I'm asking President Bukele under his authority as president of El Salvador to do the right thing, and allow Mr. Abrego Garcia to walk out of a prison, a man who's charged with no crime, convicted of no crime, and who was illegally abducted from the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, there are plenty of Democratic voters out there who are demanding that their elected Democratic lawmakers do more things like this to oppose Trump. The White House, though, clearly believes that actions like Van Hollen's play right into Trump's hands.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR POLICY: If the entire Democrat Party wants to work itself into a state of emotional hysteria to demand the return of illegal gang members and terrorists to our shores, and that 21 percent will soon be 15, and then it will be 11, and then all they'll have left is the support of actual confirmed MS- 13 members, and that will be the entire base of the Democrat Party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, Kate Bedingfield, what say you in response to that?
BEDINGFIELD: So, Scott likes to talk about 80/20 issues rightly and you know --
JENNINGS: It's on the right side.
BEDINGFIELD: You know what? You know what we are. And you know, what's an 80/20 issue. The question of whether the president should follow the law and should accept a court's decision, even if he disagrees with it. There was a Reuters/Ipsos poll the other day, 82 percent of Americans said the president should follow the law, even if he disagrees with the court's decision, including, I think, 68 percent of Republicans who said that.
I think that as long as Democrats are making this fight about immigration, I don't think it's a winning issue for them.
I do think, however, that refusing to allow Donald Trump and the White House to continue to move the border on where maybe border isn't the right term here, but, you know, to move the goal line, to move the goal line on -- on how the president treats the judiciary and whether he follows the law in this country. That's an important -- that's an important argument.
So, I would like to see -- I applaud -- I understand what Senator Van Hollen is doing here. I do not think that having this solely through the frame of an immigration fight is winning for Democrats. And I wish he would pivot a bit to make this more about the rule of law.
HUNT: David, how do you sort of analyze this situation when you consider all the data you look at?
CHALIAN: Well, like you said, I think we clearly see when the administration wants a fight, they pick it, and they think they're on the winning side of it. And I think clearly that's -- what's going on here.
I do think to Kate's point, though, there is something because just listen to the president's own words on this. Every time he's asked about whether or not he will follow a court order, he makes sure to say, I'm going to follow the courts order because he understands there is -- there is a line here and where all of a sudden what is maybe seen as an immigration issue right now becomes an actual constitutional crisis. And he doesn't want to be on the wrong side of that.
And again, don't take my word for that. Just listen to how he talks about it when he's asked about it. And so I do think they are clearly aware, which is partly not only do they like this fight, but why they are so aggressively trying to reframe the narrative around this is because they are aware that there's a potential slippery slope here.
BEDINGFIELD: And Democrats and just quickly, Democrats should hold his feet to the fire on the fact that his words do not match his actions here. I'm not saying they should step away from the fight, but they should make it in a way that's going to resonate with people that doesn't feel like they're arguing to bring somebody back from El Salvador, who they've now kind of held up as the poster child for immigration policy. And I don't think that's where Democrats want to be.
JENNINGS: They believe the White House believes just that. They are following the Supreme Court's order here. They think everybody else has got this wrong and that they've got it right on the word facilitate. And the courts cannot compel them on foreign affairs matters.
So, they actually think they're in the right and they're willing to fight that out. I guess as it goes back through the court system. And as long as they are fighting it out, were going to have days and days of Democrats, I guess, going to El Salvador to try to retrieve this guy, which plays right into their hands.
WILLIAMS: Yeah. You know, and I think underlying all of this is the fact that something can be immensely popular but still not comply with the law. And I think to Kate's point, perhaps people get on board behind that concept, but that doesn't change how people feel about immigration enforcement. But there are guardrails on how the system ought to work.
And -- and, you know, to differ with you a little bit, Scott, you know, the White House might be the only entity in the country that really feels that that they are adhering -- that they are adhering to that order fully. Like I think a lot of analysis of what the word facilitate means has differed with the White House.
CHALIAN: Well, but, Elliot, if the word facilitate was so crystal clear --
WILLIAMS: Right.
CHALIAN: -- I don't know that the court would have used it the way that they did, which is it seems to me to be deliberately vague and allow this space to exist for the administration in order to get a 9-0 ruling.
[16:15:02]
WILLIAMS: Let me clarify, I don't think it's necessarily crystal clear. I don't think that the certainty that the White House has over their interpretation of it is the one that necessarily is going to guide the day, particularly when the White House, when the Supreme Court gets this case back, which they're going to because of all the ambiguity.
CHALIAN: It's the lack of certainty on all sides, and I think -- that I think is why we are where we are.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, Scott, "The Wall Street Journal" editorial page puts it this way. They say Mr. Trump would be wise to settle all of this by quietly asking Mr. Bukele to return Mr. Abrego Garcia, who has family in the U.S. but the president may be bloody minded enough that he wants to show the judiciary who's boss. If this case does become a judicial showdown, Mr. Trump may assert his Article Two powers not to return Mr. Abrego Garcia and the Supreme Court will be reluctant to disagree.
But they say Mr. Trump would be smarter to play the long game. He has many, much bigger issues than the fate of one man that will come before the Supreme Court by taunting the judiciary in this manner, he's inviting a rebuke on cases that carry far greater stakes.
JENNINGS: Interesting point. I don't know what they're going to do. You know, they do have an out here, as David just said, which is ultimately that, you know, they could bring him back and then re- arrest him and deport him somewhere else. And so, for however long this plays out, they always are going to have that out, which is before it gets to the point of crisis or whatever you want to call it. They can bring him back, and -- and send him somewhere, maybe somewhere much worse.
WILLIAMS: They do it quickly, but you know, you have to get a quick hearing. But he could.
HUNT: Yeah, we will certainly possibility. All right. Coming up next here, the newest education battle being
waged by the Trump administration, taking the state of Maine to court over an executive order on transgender athletes. The education secretary, Linda McMahon, standing by to be here, live in THE ARENA.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:10]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back to THE ARENA.
The Justice Department is now suing the state of Maine over what they say is its refusal to comply with a ban on transgender athletes in high school sports. This all stems from a confrontation between President Trump and Maine's governor, Janet Mills, back in February at the White House that got a bit heated.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Are you not going to comply with that?
GOV. JANET MILLS (D), MAINE: I'm complying with state and federal laws.
TRUMP: Well, I'm -- we are the federal law. Well, you better do it. You better do it because you're not going to get any federal funding at all if you don't. Your population doesn't want men playing in women's sports. So you better -- you better comply because otherwise, you're not getting any federal funding.
MILLS: See you in court.
TRUMP: Every state -- good. I'll see you in court. I look forward to that. That should be a really easy one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Joining us now to discuss this escalating conflict is the education secretary, Linda McMahon.
Madam Secretary, thank you so much for being with us today.
I do want to start here on this topic, because the Maine Principals Association says that among the 151 public and private high schools that it oversees statewide, there are two transgender girls that are currently competing on girls' teams. Are you concerned that the focus on this, on these two people, is going to hurt all of the tens of thousands of other girls who are playing?
LINDA MCMAHON, EDUCATION SECRETARY: No, I don't believe that at all. And thank you, Kasie, for having me this afternoon. This is a really important topic because, you know, Title IX was established to protect women, to allow them to compete in sports on a level playing field.
And so, what has happened now with transgenders, whether it's 1 or 2, 22 dozen, 100, when you start with one. And that deprives one other or a female perhaps from getting a slot for a scholarship or a slot on the team, or getting beaten out in the competition simply because they're competing against a male.
It is just totally unfair. And it's against the law. It is absolutely against federal law.
HUNT: So I did want to bring in something that the Republican, once Republican governor of Utah, Spencer Cox, vetoed a bill in his state around this issue. And I just want to read you a little bit of what he said. The number was different in his states, in Maine, again, it's two.
In his state, it was four kids. So, four kids and only one of them playing girls sports, he wrote. This was a letter explaining why he vetoed it. That's what all of this is about for kids who are just trying to find some friends and feel like they're part of something.
For kids trying to get through each day rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few. I don't understand what they're going to go through or why they feel the way they do, but I want them to live. And all the research shows even a little acceptance and connection can reduce suicide -- suicidality significantly.
Again, this is a Republican governor saying this. I think my question to you is, is there not a different way forward here, a different way to both protect the civil rights of the thousands of girls playing on these teams without singling-out two people in this manner?
MCMAHON: Well, if you could have heard the young women who were standing on either side of Attorney General Pam Bondi and me this morning who talked about the years that they spent training to be in these sports, giving up so much of their extracurricular time to do something that they loved, the injuries they sustained in their training and their practice.
And so, then suddenly, they are, you know, bettered, if you will, in the sport or beaten in the sport by a male.
[16:25:04]
So, you have to take their feelings into consideration. It's one. It's more than one.
So, I think you have to look at all of the young women that can be displaced by these actions. And this again is a federal law. This is not -- you know, this this is an executive order, but it is also federal law. And I think that states would be, you know, well warned to pay attention to that.
The Department of Education had done this investigation into the state of Maine, and we actually turned our findings over to the Department of Justice because we thought that it would that they should take a look at it. And Attorney General Bondi said, absolutely. And she brought this suit forward. HUNT: Madam Secretary, I do want to put up Title IX because it seems
like that's the foundation of your argument here. Just as a reminder for anyone. I know my own mother was a massive beneficiary of Title IX. I'm lucky to be young enough that that had been settled by the time I went to school.
It says: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
So, can you explain why you think transgender athletes amounts to sex discrimination under this title?
MCMAHON: I think there are two sexes. There's male and female. And so transgender doesn't have a place in this. You're born a boy, you're a boy. You're born a girl, you're a girl.
And even with puberty blocking hormones, et cetera. Males are still stronger. Their structure is different. They can perform very differently in competition.
And we have to -- we have to respect and understand that and give women the rights that they have under this Title IX.
HUNT: All right. Madam Secretary, I want to change gears a little bit because we do have some new reporting just in to CNN that directly relates to the job that you have. We're learning that the IRS is making plans to rescind the tax-exempt status held by Harvard University. Thats according to two sources. They say that a final decision is expected soon.
Is this the case? Do you expect Harvard University to lose its tax- exempt status?
MCMAHON: Well, I don't know if it will lose, but I think it was certainly worth looking into. And the president raised that issue yesterday. I think it was. And so we'll -- we'll see what IRS comes back with relative to Harvard.
I certainly think, you know, in a elitist schools especially that have these incredibly large endowments, you know, we should probably have a look into that.
HUNT: Do you think there's any risk to the country's supremacy in medicine, science and technology to doing something like this, considering the primacy of our elite educational institutions? Not just -- not just that, you know, Harvard certainly considers itself to be the best university in the United States, but that these universities are widely considered the best in the world.
MCMAHON: I think we have incredible research that often comes out of our universities. I also think sometimes there's a misuse of those funds. But what we really need to look at is making sure that the universities are abiding by the laws and the rules and the time and the funds that they are receiving are being used in the way that they were intended, and they aren't in violation of a federal law in the process.
HUNT: Is the administration considering revoking the tax-exempt status of other universities beyond Harvard?
MCMAHON: I've only heard the reference right now to Harvard, but I think if IRS looks at it, they might look at it across other universities. But that's a guess on my part.
HUNT: If Democrats were in power, would you think it would be appropriate to revoke tax-exempt status of universities that are, for example, religious in nature?
MCMAHON: This is not a partisan issue. We're speaking about directly about a particular subject. So, let's stick to that one.
HUNT: Okay. Fair enough. Do you think there will be any damage to the country done if this tax-exempt status is revoked?
MCMAHON: I don't think so. I really don't. These universities have huge endowments. Many donors support them. And I would suspect that the donors would continue to support these universities.
HUNT: Madam Secretary, is there anything at this point that you see that that Harvard could or should do here to alter the government's decision-making? And do you have any updates that you can share with us in terms of what they have said to the administration, beyond what we've seen in public?
MCMAHON: Well, I had a conversation before the freeze was put on or, you know, with Harvard with -- with President Garber.
[16:30:01]
And we talked about the potential of looking into the practices at Harvard and that we wanted to sit down and go over. And this was really primarily relative to Title VI at that point, which was antisemitism and some of the protests that had been on campuses and how the students and all were being treated.
And so, we were looking at those issues. We'd had a conversation. We'd issued a letter. His response was a public letter. Ours was confidential. And he said he would refuse then to negotiate anymore.
So, we're open to negotiation and to talking to Harvard and to -- to all universities. And we'd welcome that input back from them.
HUNT: So just -- just to clarify, put a finer point on it. When was the last communication you had with the Harvard university president?
MCMAHON: About a week ago, I believe.
HUNT: So, obviously, we've had plenty of reporting in that time. Do you expect or have you heard from, I should say, have you heard from other universities, other Ivy League institutions? A number of them have actually come to the table, negotiated Columbia, for example, with the demands of the administration. Are there any other universities beyond Harvard who have been doing that with you in the last week or so?
MCMAHON: Harvard and Columbia are the two that we've spoken to.
HUNT: Do you have plans to expand this to other universities?
MCMAHON: We'd be happy to, but we have not really launched our investigation into others. When I say we, I'm talking about the Department of Education. So, until that would happen, we wouldn't, you know, we wouldn't have reason or recourse to, to take any action at this point.
HUNT: Can I ask you about the broad cuts as well to the education department and how that may play in to all of this? Are you at all concerned that having fewer resources, fewer employees in the Department of Education might make what you are trying to do here more difficult?
MCMAHON: No. We've -- we've taken very precise cuts in the Department of Education, looking at where we were a little bit too heavy. We've closed some of the district offices, but we -- we clearly have sufficient staff to do exactly what we need to do.
HUNT: The president also said that finally, before I let you go, it was reported in "The New York Times" that he said, quote, would it be cool to cut all of the funding for Harvard University? Is that the plan?
MCMAHON: I do not believe that is the plan, but I can't speak for the president. I certainly think that we were looking at specific actions and activities on campus in Harvard. And that's -- you know, we'll stick to that.
HUNT: Do you think it would be cool if they lost all their funding?
MCMAHON: I would like to see our universities all over the country continue to thrive while they respect the rights of all of the students that are on their campuses and protect their safety.
HUNT: All right. Secretary Linda McMahon, very grateful to have you on the show today. Thank you very much for spending some time with us.
MCMAHON: Thank you, Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Up next here, more on the case of the man that was mistakenly deported. We're going to talk with one member of Congress also considering a trip to El Salvador.
Plus, the new fight Gavin Newsom is waging against President Trump.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:37:43]
HUNT: All right. Let's turn back now to the story. Senator Van Hollen visiting El Salvador. After meeting with the country's vice president, the Maryland Democrat said El Salvador did not present evidence that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang, and that El Salvador denied Van Hollen's request to speak with him. The senator, slamming what he says is a lack of effort by the Trump administration to secure Abrego Garcia's release.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): The United States embassy here has told me they've received no direction from the Trump administration to help facilitate his release.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Our panel is here. And joining us now, Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia of California, to join our conversation.
Congressman, thank you so much for being here.
You had expressed desire to also visit El Salvador. Are you still planning or do you plan to try to do that?
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): Absolutely. I mean, look, I, first, want to commend the senator for what he's doing. We have to remind everyone that right now, Donald Trump is defying a unanimous order by the Supreme Court to bring Kilmar back home. I think that in of itself is a constitutional crisis and one that's got to be taken very, very seriously.
And at the same time, we, in Congress, have a responsibility to ensure that he is safe, and I -- most -- and most importantly, that he is brought back home. So, you're going to see, I think, numerous Democrats go to El Salvador in the weeks ahead. There's obviously a facility there that now legal residents, people that are here legally are being sent to from the United States. And so, we're going to go down there and ensure that nothing's happening that's putting these people in harm's way and hopefully bring them back.
We've sent a letter through our oversight role and oversight committee to our chairman. We're waiting for a response. But if they don't approve an official congressional delegation of House Democrats, we intend to go regardless.
HUNT: Congressman, Republicans seem eager to see Democrats make this visit, to cast this issue in this light.
Do you see any political risk to making this about someone who, let's be honest, was in the country illegally?
GARCIA: Well, to be clear, he was actually here and had legal status to be here, to be very clear. The second piece of it, which is really important --
(CROSSTALK)
[16:40:01]
HUNT: Well, he -- let me stop you right there. There was an order that said he could in fact be deported. He just couldn't be deported to El Salvador. It is a little bit of a distinction, but continue, please.
GARCIA: Regardless. Donald Trump, the Supreme Courts been pretty clear that they -- that the Trump administration needs to facilitate a return of him back to the United States or to return out of El Salvador. And that isn't happening. In fact, Stephen Miller and Donald Trump are saying that they're actually -- somehow the Supreme Court agrees with their position.
That is separate of the larger issue of deportations and immigration is a huge concern that everyone should be -- I think -- very, very concerned about.
Separate of that, it's really important that we can actually do multiple things at once. This is an important issue. And yes, so is the massive tax cut giveaways to billionaires that Republicans are trying to do in the House.
But we've got to be able to stand up for human rights, for the rights of migrants that are here, trying to go through a legal process, and at the same time take on the dismantling of our government and the huge, massive tax breaks that Donald Trump and Elon Musk want to give their billionaire friends.
HUNT: Congressman, I'm going to open this conversation up to the panel. Do feel free to jump in if you -- if you would like to contribute.
Elliot Williams, the bottom line here, the courts don't actually have the power to necessarily enforce this, right? And is that part of why this is such a crisis? I mean, doesn't it fundamentally rely on people being willing to do what? Yes. To David's point, the president says he's going to do, which is follow a court order.
WILLIAMS: I think it's exactly right. I would disagree with the congressman a little bit about the notion of a constitutional crisis, because that seems to imply that the systems that exist that are in place are inadequate to handle a problem. Right now, there's certainly a dispute between, you know, that a private litigant and the government is working out in a court. But I don't think that we've reached crisis point yet.
JENNINGS: First of all, I'm more than happy to hear the congressman say they're all going to El Salvador. I think for Republicans, this just confirms what we have believed about the Democratic Party and why it currently has a 21 percent approval rating in congress.
Look where the energy in the Democratic Party is. It's around retrieving illegal aliens from El Salvador. It's around fighting for these college campuses that have been rife with antisemitism. It's around biological males who want to play in girls sports.
This is why they are losing to Donald Trump every day, because the energy that Democrats feel comes on all these issues that are fundamentally not where the American people are. HUNT: Congressman, you -- one second, Congressman, can I give you the
chance to respond to that.
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA: -- Donald Trump. Yeah, I mean, it's Donald Trump that's actually losing the support of the American people. Donald Trump's not focused on lowering the cost of housing, not focused on lowering the price of goods. He's out there deporting people that have legal status to be here. Revoking student visas from students that are contributing to this.
JENNINGS: He doesn't have legal status here, Congressman.
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA: Democrats are doing --
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA: The Democrats are doing --
JENNINGS: He has a deportation order. You're going to go to El Salvador? You're going to go to -- maybe go to the grocery store. Like there's an issue here where you could possibly win on, but you're going to El Salvador instead.
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA: Someone walking into., someone walking into getting -- getting their citizenship, walking into their citizenship, test their citizenship meeting is being apprehended on the way into their next process, which just happened to somebody in Vermont. And it's happening now across the country. Students are being deported and revoked of their student visas.
JENNINGS: Yes.
GARCIA: Many are not being told why that's the case. That should not be happening in the United States. And certainly, someone shouldn't be deported and being left in a prison in a foreign country, when the Supreme Court says it should be returned back. And so those are the questions.
And by the way, as Democrats and as a Congress and a government, we should be able to do multiple things at the same time. We should be able to take on billionaires who are raiding the government. We should be able to take on Elon Musk with no business being in charge of DOGE, and yes, protecting the civil rights and human rights of people that are in this country and entrusted to us.
And so, yes, Scott, we can do all of those things. And it's Donald Trump that should define the Supreme Court and whose numbers are going down.
HUNT: Kate Bedingfield? BEDINGFIELD: I would also just say to your -- your, you know, the
energy from Democrats on these issues. Let's also look at the elections that have taken place since November of 2024. Youve seen the Republican agenda start to be rejected. You saw it rejected in Wisconsin, where Elon Musk was at the center of the race there.
You saw Democrats with an enormous amount of energy and independence, with an enormous amount of energy come out and reject the agenda. So, you know, I think if -- let's look at where the election, where the electoral voice of Americans has been since Trump was elected.
JENNINGS: Can I ask the congressman one question? Do you believe that Garcia should come back to the United States and be allowed to live here indefinitely?
GARCIA: I think that Garcia is allowed to due process. That's what I believe.
JENNINGS: Do you think he should be able to stay in the United States indefinitely, or would you support him being sent to another country?
GARCIA: What I would support is for him to be able to have due process in this country, which he's being denied of right now.
HUNT: All right. Congressman, I do appreciate your willingness to answer questions from the panel as well as my questions and participate here in the show. So, thank you very much for your time. I hope you'll come back.
All right. Coming up next here, the issue that's prompting California Governor Gavin Newsom to take Donald Trump to court.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D), CALIFORNIA: The impacts of these tariffs particularly on those three countries disproportionately impact the state of California. Across the spectrum, the impacts are off the charts. No state is poised to lose more than the state of California.
ROB BONTA, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Together with Governor Newsom, I'm filing our 14th lawsuit against the president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. California becoming the first state to sue Donald Trump over his tariffs. The move reignites tensions between the president and Governor Newsom, who has spent months appealing for federal disaster aid.
[16:50:05]
Newsom has also been appealing to the president's base, it seems, talking to Trump allies on his podcast. Of course, there he is with Charlie Kirk. He also appeared with Steve Bannon, David Chalian. What do you make of it all?
CHALIAN: Well, two things. One, I'm not sure he was really appealing to the president's base in those podcasts as much as he was trying to appeal to potential Democratic primary voters that he's willing to talk to anyone even across the aisle, I think is the strategy there, which obviously didn't play all that well.
HUNT: I guess if you consider young men to be the president's -- part of Donald Trump's base.
CHALIAN: Sure, trying to make some inroads into the base, perhaps.
HUNT: You could see it that way.
CHALIAN: But I will say this gets back to our earlier conversation about picking the fights that the public is on your side on. This gets back to the economy, tariffs, the disruption of the economy, which right now is a precarious thing for Donald Trump and the administration, pursuing the agenda that they believe in on this.
And Gavin Newsom is not out there trying to pick a fight now on immigration. Gavin Newsom is out there trying to pick a fight on a -- on turf that he thinks he has stronger footing on, which is the economy and tariffs right now. And I think that's precisely somebody who's eyeing 2028 is looking to be on political --
HUNT: You think -- is he eyeing 2028, David, is that happening?
BEDINGFIELD: Oh, I had no idea. I had missed that.
JENNINGS: He's licking it like an ice cream.
BEDINGFIELD: I totally missed that.
HUNT: Let's -- let's watch a little bit more of what Newsom said in terms of this sort of getting angry about, you know, the things that could be the big picture issues that will make the difference in, you know, this year, 2028. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEWSOM: No rationale, no plan, no conscience to what it's doing to real people. No consideration of congressional responsibility. Where the hell is Congress? Where the hell is Speaker Johnson? Do your job.
They're sitting there passively as this guy wrecks the economy of the United States of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Now, I will say, Kate Bedingfield, that seems like a fair question across the board. Where is Congress?
BEDINGFIELD: It does it. Well, Congress has essentially abdicated its responsibility as essentially handed over all of its power to Donald Trump. So, look, I think these are smart arguments. I mean, to David's point, I think the fights that Democrats should be
picking are on the economy. They are around the things that Trump has done that is driving prices up to go back to the beginning of the show that we heard, you know, the chairman of the federal reserve talking about the potential impacts on the economy of the things that Trump has done.
So, I think everything the Democrats can do to continue to drive the conversation that way, to make Trump own these choices is a smart thing. And I think this this point about Congress, you know, as Trump's popularity is falling, nobody has lower, no lower numbers than the Congress. And so, watching Gavin Newsom sort of, you know, tee off there, it's kind of a natural --
HUNT: It's an easy target. Yes.
JENNINGS: It pains me to say this, but Kate's 100 percent right.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Ladies and gentlemen --
WILLIAMS: Roll the credits. The show's done.
CHALIAN: I'm so glad I was here, this historic moment.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Well, I was going to say -- I wasn't going to say David was right.
(LAUGHTER)
JENNINGS: But it's a true story. I mean, if you were a Democrat right now and you were thinking about, why is my party in the tank? And you're like, I'm on the wrong side of all these 80/20 issues. Getting back to the one thing that typically drives almost every election, the economy is the correct strategic impulse.
Now, whether he's the right answer to that and whether he can maintain altitude with it, we'll see. But that -- Kate's right.
WILLIAMS: It's not just. And to pick up on David's point, it's not just that he's not even talking about transgender issues. He's actually stepped out of line with a lot of the base and spoken publicly. He is taking on what was Donald Trump's strength is somewhat of a perceived weakness right now.
The other thing is that I don't think its actually a great suit. It's really sort of a messaging tool. It's odd to see a state suing over really a policy difference as much as a legal one. So we'll see how it plays out.
HUNT: All right. Thank you very much for this conversation. And of course, David's point that Gavin Newsom is think about 2028, which I love. We'll be right back. (LAUGHTER)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:58:40]
HUNT: All right. The newest guard coming to the NBA is digital. I'm sorry. What?
Yes. It's about this. If you are trying to get tickets for the upcoming playoffs between the Detroit Pistons and the New York Knicks, you might run into some trouble if you don't live in the Midwest.
If you get to Ticketmaster, you may see this message pop up. It says in part that to better serve local fans, the pistons are restricting ticket sales to people in Michigan and certain parts of Ohio, Indiana and Ontario in Canada. How generous of them. You will need a billing zip code in one of those areas to get tickets.
This tactic is called geofencing. The Pistons insist that this is not an attempt to keep Knicks supporters away from the arena. Instead, the team trying to root out brokers and prevent fraud.
But something like this has happened before. Last year, the group that owns the Philadelphia 76ers bought thousands of tickets ahead of their game six matchup against the Knicks. The series between the Pistons and the Knicks kicks off on Saturday night.
Jake Tapper is standing by for THE LEAD which is coming up next.
I have to say, Jake, I don't know that I have any problem with the Sixers doing that. I don't know how you feel about that.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, "THE LEAD": I'm just upset. You mentioned -- you mentioned the Sixers and now I'm sad. You just put me -- it wasn't a great season for my boys in Philly. So, you just depressed me.
HUNT: Hopefully, hopefully, that interview you did with George Clooney, if you want to think about that instead will make you feel a little bit better. I'm so excited to see it coming up.
TAPPER: Apparently, it's putting a little spring in your step.
All right, Kasie. We'll see you back in THE ARENA tomorrow.
HUNT: See you.
