Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Says He's "Not Happy" With New Russian Attacks On Ukraine After Posting A Rare Rebuke Of Putin: "Vladimir, Stop!"; Journalist Who Broke "Signal-Gate" at White House To Interview Trump; DNC Chair: "No DNC Officer Should Ever Attempt To Influence The Outcome Of A Primary Election"; Judges Block Various Trump Orders On Education Policy, Sanctuary Cities & Voter Registration. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired April 24, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: -- he did go to prison for fraud after the first one, right?
[16:00:03]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yeah, that's right.
SANCHEZ: And so, there's that.
KEILAR: There's that. And then he said it was in one place, and then he said it was in another place. And it appears now that it's not actually in either place.
SANCHEZ: But listen, it might still happen. And they need people to perform. So, Brianna and I will be there if you want us, for a reasonable fee.
KEILAR: I'm doing a Raygun demo.
SANCHEZ: Yes, that's perfect.
KEILAR: It's more of like a performative --
SANCHEZ: Look at that.
KEILAR: --performance art thing.
SANCHEZ: Shout out to Raygun wherever she is.
Thanks so much for joining us this afternoon.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's war versus peace.
Let's head into THE ARENA.
President Trump insists he's putting a lot of pressure on Vladimir Putin after a deadly Russian strike on Ukraine, at a very tense moment in U.S. efforts to broker a peace deal.
Plus, new CNN reporting on Pete Hegseth's use of the messaging app Signal after his group chat detailing military plans was first revealed.
This as President Trump is sitting down for an interview with the journalist who broke the Signalgate story.
And a new showdown within the Democratic Party pitting the Gen Z vice chair of the DNC against the old guard of the party.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Thursday.
As we come on the air, President Trump showcasing his increasing frustration with the Russia/Ukraine war and with Vladimir Putin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I didn't like last night. I wasn't happy with it. And we're in the midst of talking peace, and missiles were fired.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The president, speaking to reporters while hosting the prime minister of Norway not long after posting this rare rebuke of Russia's president on his Truth Social platform, saying, quote, I'm not happy with Russian strikes on Kyiv. Not necessary and very bad timing. Vladimir, Stop.
President Trump was responding to this -- Russia's deadliest strikes on the Ukrainian capital since last summer. The attack underscoring the administration's failure to secure a peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv as the president is on the brink of marking his first 100 days in office.
Remember, he said, he'd end the war in just 24 hours.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You don't know what pressure I'm putting on Russia. They're dealing. You have no idea what pressure I'm putting on Russia. We're putting a lot of pressure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: A lot of pressure. We do know that President Trump has put a lot of pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, beginning with their famous shouting match in the oval office two months ago and continuing yesterday when the president accused Zelenskyy of prolonging the war by not agreeing to a U.S. peace proposal. So what pressure is the president putting on Putin? He says he's holding off for now on any new sanctions against Russia.
And when asked if Putin has made any actual concessions, this was the president's response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Stopping the war. Stopping, taking the whole country. Pretty big concession.
(ENDV IDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Stopping, taking the whole country is a pretty big concession.
Let's get straight to CNN's Jeff Zeleny. He is live for us now at the White House.
So, Jeff, you were in the Oval Office today, and you actually asked the president about that truth social post and Vladimir Putin. What did he say?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kasie, it was pretty striking that the president actually called out Vladimir Putin by name in a Truth Social post this morning, you know, saying, Vladimir, stop. So, we asked the president sort of what led to that more personal level of appeal, if you will, and it was the overnight bombing.
I mean, the president was pretty clear there when he answered our question. He said he did not like what he saw and asked, you know, if there would be more sanctions or what the plans were, will they administration walk away? What will they do? He said, you know, "Ask me in a week."
So, now, we have a bit of a timeline here. I wouldn't call it a deadline, but I think a timeline for next steps. Look, there's no doubt this is a very frustrating episode for this president who clearly underestimated how difficult it would be to try and negotiate some type of a ceasefire. Now, he said he has no allegiance to either side. That's very much an open question, because that has been one of the underpinnings of all of this.
So, the deal that they're asking Ukraine to sign on to is seen very favorably toward Russia in many respects. Of course, Russia would not see it like that. But look, the bottom line to this, the president is very I think a wise to the fact that some of his critics believe he's been played by Vladimir Putin. He, of course, would not say that or agree to that, but that is what it's beginning to look like here.
So, at the end of this all, what has -- what has this gotten? Has there been any progress at all? It certainly doesn't seem like it. But the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, was also in the oval office today. And he said, look, the only person trying to make peace is president. The president here.
[16:05:00] So that is going to be a stain on his legacy. And an unachieved, goal if he does not reach that. And of course, it is not looking like it's heading in the right direction -- Kasie.
HUNT: Yeah. The question, though, about peace is at what cost?
Jeff Zeleny, thank you very much for that report.
Our panel joins us now.
CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger is here. CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein is live in person from the West Coast. It's great to have you for the first time in the arena. CNN political commentator Hinojosa. and former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, Marc Short is with us.
Thank you all for being here. Really appreciate it.
David Sanger, I want to start with you on -- on this because obviously we what the president is saying in public saying, stop, Vladimir. Something relatively unusual.
But when you actually ask him the brass tacks of, you know, what concessions has Russia made here? His answer to that question is pretty stunning for anyone who has been trying to support Ukraine for however many years. Help us understand how you -- how we should be understanding this.
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: So, the three remarkable things in his answers today. First: Stop, Vladimir, is something you say in a policy difference.
It's not something you say after they've just done a missile attack on civilians that killed nine people two days after you've just dismantled the system that is being used by the United States to track war crimes and prosecute them. Okay? So, that's number one. And attacking civilians is high up on the list. And those groups that he dismantled were looking at things like the Russian killings in Bucha.
The second remarkable part of this is saying we're going to, under this proposal, have the United States recognize that Crimea, which was taken in, you know, seven years before the war broke out in 2014, is actually now Russian territory. It has not only been the policy of the United States never to recognize this, because it was basically invaded, but it was the policy of Mike Pompeo, who gave a very impassioned account when he was secretary of state in the first term, about why the United States should never do this.
And it was the subject of an amendment introduced in the Senate by Marco Rubio, who was sitting right there, who basically made this case.
Third remarkable thing that comes out of this is he says he's put pressure on Vladimir Putin. Well, so far, he has given Vladimir Putin without negotiations, really stating that Ukraine will never enter NATO and giving them all of this territory. So, what exactly have they demanded of Putin? We haven't so far heard one thing.
HUNT: Yeah, well, and to read a little bit more from the reporting you had about Marco Rubio, you note in your recent story in the times that just three years ago, Rubio, who was then a senator, now chief of state -- secretary of state, co-sponsored that amendment. And at the time, he said this, quote, the United States cannot recognize Putin's claims or we risk establishing a dangerous precedent for the other authoritarian regimes like the Chinese Communist Party to imitate, he said at the time. This, of course, an allusion to Taiwan.
The stakes here are much bigger than just Russia and Ukraine.
SANGER: Absolutely. The fundamental rule since the end of World War Two is the international system comes down on you. If you try to rewrite national borders by force. Thats exactly what Russia did. It's why the president didn't want to say who was responsible for the war. And now he's basically saying, we're going to forget about that rule.
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah. You know, I kind of feel watching this. Beware of what you wish for.
I mean, President Trump is pressuring Ukraine into a settlement that, as David is saying, gives Russia essentially everything it wants. The one thing Russia is agreeing to do is not dismember the entire country, which it's not clear at all that they could do anyway, right? And leaving Ukraine in a position where they are fundamentally weak and exposed to further Russian aggression, think about Kabul in 2021 and what it did to Joe Biden.
You know, Donald Trump may think he can walk away from this and allow it to get really bad for Ukraine and have no consequences -- Americans, you know, may be divided on how much aid they want the U.S. to give. They have no division about who they believe is in the wrong in this war and who they want to see it. And if he creates circumstances that leave Ukraine in an impossible situation, he ultimately may regret it as much as Joe Biden did in the fall of 2021 on the -- on the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
HUNT: Marc Short, you, of course, served Mike Pence through the first Trump administration. I mean, given what David outlined about where the first Trump administration was on this, I mean, how do you do you see this?
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: To me, it's -- it's surprising that the Neville Chamberlain Republicans are surprised that when you appease a murderous dictator, he wants more. And it's surprising the dramatic difference from where we were in the first administration.
David --
HUNT: Neville Chamberlain Republicans, that is -- what a phrase.
SHORT: David mentions the -- the Crimea declaration, you know, which -- which the Trump administration asserted will never allow Russia to claim Crimea. It wasn't just that. It was -- it was basically standing in the gap
and saying, no, we're not going to allow Nord Stream II. Biden administration reversed that. It was -- it was the Trump administration actually taking out mercenaries against Russia in Syria.
It was -- it was Trump administration providing Javelin missiles to Ukraine. It's a dramatic 180 degree turn from what the first administration policy was.
HUNT: So Donald Trump has clearly, you know, we can show a little bit of the sheer number of times that he says were going to were really close to a deal here. We're really close to a deal. Let's just -- let's watch that and then I want to talk to you about on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We hope that were going to be able to make a deal relatively soon with Russia and Ukraine to stop the fighting.
You're going to be finding out pretty soon. You know, there's a point at which you just have to either put up or shut up. We'll see what happens. But I think it's going fine.
I think we're going to make a deal. And if we make a deal, that'll be wonderful. I think we're getting very close.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, what you heard there, of course. Is he at the end? He says, I think we're getting very close. Obviously, they're not very close. At this point. But he really wants this before his first 100 days, and it does seem like he's willing to give up almost everything for it.
SHORT: Well, I think something else. I think it looks really weak, which I think is something the president does not like that image.
But right now, I think he looks weak in these negotiations. But I think we're also forgetting, you know, that when Russia invaded, the sort of general wisdom was that Russia will overtake Ukraine in a matter of days or weeks. They survived for three-plus-years and actually were degrading Russia's military significantly.
Russia was needing Iran to provide drones. China to provide money. North Korea to provide troops.
And so, Ukraine was more than holding its own. If they just were to get support from the world to say, we're going to stop a murderous dictator from invading our country.
HUNT: Xochitl?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think that when all of those clips that you just showed, he obviously wants a deal. We talk often on this show about how that is what Donald Trump wants. He's seen as a person who can cut the deal. He wanted something before Easter. He did not get it. He now wants something before his 100 days.
And the reality is, instead of giving Russia everything is that Russia could end this today. And you we saw comments yesterday where he went after Ukraine for not accepting these concessions. And then, you know, the reality is, is that then Russia goes after civilians, right? And when it is Russia who could put an end to this?
And so, if he has such a great relationship with Vladimir Putin, he believes that he can put an end to this. Like he says all of the time. Then why doesn't he do that? Why doesn't he have Russia end this war? Because it isn't Ukraine that's the aggressor.
BROWNSTEIN: Isn't deal the wrong word to be applying to this? I mean, what's happening is he's trying to strong-arm Ukraine into accepting essentially a Russian wish list. I mean, it's not a deal in the sense of that, you know, everybody's at the table and he's organizing some sort of meeting in the middle. He is basically trying to use the U.S. leverage to force Ukraine to accept what Russia wants.
And as one of David's colleagues today in "The New York Times" reported, there are a lot of European, you know, basically no one else in Europe would be calling this a deal. They are looking for ways to step in, which won't be easy, which is what I said was why I said, beware of what you wish for. If this goes really south, he is -- Trump is not going to walk away from a disastrous situation in Ukraine without accepting some incoming as well.
SANGER: Two big risks here going forward. First is if this deal does go through and the United States does recognize Russian control of Crimea, will be the only ones, no one in Europe will do it. This will be like the Golan Heights, right?
The second thing that I think is a big consideration, that we have not sort of worked our way through here is if we and the Europeans are on the other side of this, this is the wedge in NATO that Vladimir Putin has been looking for, for the longest time. Separate out the European members of NATO from the biggest force in NATO.
HUNT: So, it's not a deal. It's a surrender.
SANGER: It's certainly damage to the Western alliance. You have a deal. You have the damage to the Western alliance. And then you have to think about the -- and then what? Then if Putin decides to go after a minor NATO member, Lithuania, Estonia, you name it, suddenly it's a split NATO where the U.S. coming in to the rescue or even just coming in as the backup is not assured.
HUNT: Yeah.
I want to put up for a second "The Economist" magazine.
[16:15:01]
We just got the -- their new cover for the upcoming week. I think it's worth just -- just putting up there for a second. And of course, they note just 1,361 days to go in this administration. And obviously, it's an incredibly bandaged and damaged bald eagle, the symbol of the United States of America.
And, Marc Short, I realize "The Economist" is based in western Europe. They're obviously people, you know, they view the liberal Western world a certain way, but it's also a conservative magazine that cares about business and global trade, and one that is, you know, kind of a leading voice for kind of the -- what David was talking about in terms of a group of our people, countries who have been our strongest allies since the end of World War II. It just it struck me because it does seem between what we're talking about here as well as economically, the kind of underlying pillars of the global financial system, the U.S. dollar.
What -- what does it say to you that this seems to be where we are in the second Trump administration?
SHORT: Well, I'm not sure I'd define it as a conservative magazine, Kasie, but I do think that on the --
HUNT: I was just trying to say there's -- there's liberal and conservative ways to view it.
SHORT: On the economic front, I think that is the underlying thing here is that on the trade agenda, again, I think the president has always been fond of rhetorically using tariffs. And I think in the first administration it was used in isolation steel, aluminum and China. I think coming out of the gate and basically trying to assess tariffs across the globe, I think forced a lot of our friends and allies into the hands of China to look for a trading partner if America is going to go alone.
And I think you've heard this rhetoric, America first does not mean America alone. But I think the start out of the gate on the trade agenda was to suggest America alone. And I think it's obviously been incredibly damaging, not just to our economy, but in some ways, it's actually helping our enemies, our adversaries, because people are looking to have deals with China right now, and China is looking to have deals with Europe, and they're benefiting from America retreating.
HUNT: All right. David Sanger, thank you so much for being with us at the start of the show. Really appreciate your insights as always.
All right. Coming up next here, why President Trump is meeting today with the journalist who first broke the Signalgate story. Remember the guy that got added to the group chat? This is all while CNN unveils new reporting on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the latest place where that infamous messaging app has ended up.
Plus, Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna will be here live as the Democratic Party battles over its future.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:54]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: The guy's a total sleazebag. "The Atlantic," "The Atlantic" is a failed magazine, does very, very poorly. Nobody gives a damn about it. It gives -- this gives it a little bit of a shot. And I will tell you this, that they've made up more stories and -- and they're just a failing magazine. The public understands that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Given President Trump's opinion of Jeffrey Goldberg and "The Atlantic", which you just heard there, you might be forgiven for thinking that he'd been totally blacklisted from getting anywhere near the president of the United States. But you would be wrong.
Today, "The Atlantic's" editor in chief sitting down with Trump for an interview one month after Goldberg wrote about the Signal group chat that he was inadvertently added to about all those war plans in Yemen.
So why is President Trump doing it?
Here is how Trump explains it. Quote: He's doing this interview out of curiosity and as a competition with myself, just to see if it's possible for "The Atlantic" to be truthful. Are they capable of writing a fair story on Trump? The way I look at it, what can be so bad? I won.
But it also comes as we continue to learn more about the extent of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's use of the commercial messaging app Signal. Today, CNN reporting that after Goldberg's bombshell article, one of Hegseth's, quote, closest military aides made an unusual inquiry to the department, Defense Department's chief information officer. Would they grant an exception so that Hegseth could keep using Signal freely?
It is unclear if that request was ever approved.
Joining our panel, CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist and podcast host, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, along with the rest of our panelists.
Lulu, how about I start with you on this one? I think, you know, the bottom line is, as much as Donald Trump, you know, aggressively trashes the, quote/unquote, mainstream media, legacy media, whatever you want to call it. He talks to all of them, right? Like all that time he was down kind of in exile at Mar-a-Lago. He was having book author after book author after book author through at Mar-a-Lago.
This is part of how he does us, business. Still, it is pretty remarkable. I mean, you know, he obviously, he's going to be joined by two other journalists as well, Ashley Parker, Michael Scherer, who he had openly trashed and said, absolutely not doing an interview with them?
What's going on?
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, so, first of all, the president's poll numbers are going south. So that's the first thing I would say. The second thing is that even though this president has been remarkably accessible, when you think about compared to Biden, whom we never saw either in unscripted moments or certainly in sit down interviews, President Trump hasn't done a lot of long sit down interviews with legacy media since he came into power. I'm actually struggling to think of one other than the "Time Magazine" when he got the cover.
So, this is, first of all, remarkable because he's sitting down with real journalists asking tough questions in a long form setting. And so --
HUNT: He did do it during the campaign with "Time Magazine".
GARCIA-NAVARRO: No, he did do it right during the campaign.
HUNT: But you're saying when he got the cover.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah, yeah. So, you know, I think this is a moment for the president, you know, to reach perhaps other audiences that aren't his traditional base.
[16:25:05]
But also, it's grabby, right? This is the man who, you know, Jeffrey Goldberg came up with this incredible scoop about being put in a Signal chat that had all these, you know, secret war plans. And now, he's getting -- and now -- and now, we're talking about it. And now we're talking about it.
And he can't not want to take that. And you know, him mano-a-mano with Jeffrey Goldberg.
HUNT: It was almost the easiest scoop ever, I have to say, Ron. No discredit to Jeffrey Goldberg, who I obviously respect.
BROWNSTEIN: You know, Trump is a creature of '80s tabloid New York, right? As Maggie Haberman pointed out in her in her book on him. I mean, he clearly believes there is no such thing as bad publicity. And he, as you're saying, he relishes, you know, the confrontation with my former colleagues, at "The Atlantic".
But, you know, in some ways, the fact that he is willing to sit down here is kind of less interesting to me than what he is making Republicans on the Hill do to defend -- I mean, the pressure to defend the indefensible in Hegseth's behavior. That is, as students of authoritarianism will tell you, that is a hallmark of strongman leaders. Each time you force people in your party to defend things they never could have imagined they would have defended before, it gets easier to do it again, to lead them further out into deeper water. You're smiling at me, Marc.
I mean, the thought that Senate Republican hawks a year ago, if you would have told them, they would have been defending a secretary of defense, this reckless repeatedly on matters of national security, they would have laughed at you. They would have laughed at you if you told them you were defending an HHS secretary who won't intervene in a measles epidemic.
But each step makes the next one easier. And clearly Trump, if nothing else, understands power and understands how to wield power. And he is certainly wielding it over his fellow Republicans in making them line up behind Hegseth.
HUNT: Marc Short, that one's for you.
SHORT: Well, I think we're overthinking this a little bit.
I think that the point is Lulu's second point, that the president loves ratings and he knows he can get ratings because of "The Atlantic" story on Pete. And it's sort of like the Bill Maher interview. He knows that's going to get ratings, too.
And, you know, it's the sort of in my -- in my in his mind, I think it's a win-win because either like Bill Maher comes out and says, you know, actually he was friendlier and nicer than I thought. And he's actually, you know, Kasie, actually very congenial and very friendly.
HUNT: Until he gets mad at you.
SHORT: And -- well, in person, he's still friendly. Now, it's like he'll -- he'll get ugly in the Twitter spot, but in person --
HUNT: On the phone, too.
SHORT: In person, he'll be -- he'll be friendly. And so, it's like you either come out that way or it's a bad story. He'll trash it as a left-wing rag again. And so, you know, I don't think he thinks the other consequences of other people defending Hegseth. For him, it's just -- this is good ratings.
HINOJOSA: I think this is hilarious. I think Republicans want this story to go away. And the president of the United States just is now giving "The Atlantic" an avenue to keep it going. If I were Hegseth, I would be furious. There is already reporting that Donald Trump is meeting with people within the White House about Hegseth. Hegseth is terrified doing Fox News interviews all the time, doesn't know what to do. And now the president is sitting down with the person in the Signal chat. Like, are you kidding me?
BROWNSTEIN: And yet, none of the Republicans -- even amid that reporting, none of them will get one step ahead of Trump.
HINOJOSA: Exactly.
BROWNSTEIN: Criticizing him.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But no one can get one step ahead of Trump. And this is the thing that I have found so fascinating about this administration. If you -- if you try and talk to even the heads of departments like that are usually so powerful, they often don't know where the presidents going or what they've decided in the White House. And they're usually two step behind -- two steps behind. And so, it becomes incredibly difficult to get ahead of the president. SHORT: There is another tell in the president's social media post
just about an hour ago, he said the story is going to be titled, "The most consequential president". I mean, so Ashley and Michael knew exactly what they were doing, promoting it as the most consequential president. Then he's going to take the interview.
HUNT: They -- they have been doing it a long time.
All right. Coming up next here, inside the DNC's present fight about the future. We're going to talk with a key member of the party who's backing a proposed change to DNC tradition. Congressman Ro Khanna will be here, live in THE ARENA.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:33:43]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEN MARTIN, DNC CHAIR: No DNC officer should ever attempt to influence the outcome of a primary election, whether on behalf of an incumbent, or a challenger. I have great respect for David Hogg. I understand what he's trying to do.
As I've said to him, if you want to challenge incumbents, you're more than free to do that, but just not as an officer of the DNC.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Democrats delivering an ultimatum today to one of their own in a tense showdown between one of their young leaders and the party elders. That was Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin, calling for a new rule that would prevent the DNC vice chair, David Hogg, who is, of course, also the 25-year-old Parkland shooting survivor, from going forward with his effort to fund primary challengers to longtime House Democratic incumbents. Hogg says that he's targeting members who are, quote, asleep at the wheel and that he's trying to usher in a new generation of Democratic leadership.
It has not gone over well, with many already in elected office, though we have seen a number of Senate Democrats deciding to step aside. Some of them say that their effort is in part to make room for a new generation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): I looked at eight years and said, I think it's time for me to pass the torch on to another candidate. I think if you're honest about yourself and your reputation, you want to leave when you can still walk out the front door and not be carried out the back door.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[16:35:06]
HUNT: All right. Joining us now to discuss Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California.
Congressman, always great to have you on the show. Thank you very much for being here.
You are one who has actually publicly supported the effort from David Hogg. You wrote on the platform X that you think that Hogg is doing incredible work supporting frontline Democrats while giving new candidates a chance to run in safe seats. And you say Democrats should embrace a new generation of leadership and competition. Why is this such a lonely place for you to be?
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Well, look, I think primaries are healthy. Competition is healthy. I won my seat in a. Democratic primary. Many of our members of Congress have won in primaries. And we need a new generation of leadership.
Now, I'm trying to, reach a compromise with the DNC and David Hogg. And what I've said to David is he can have his organization that is having primary challenges, but he himself should not endorse in his personal capacity while he's -- while he's vice chair. And that seems to me something that can bring everyone together.
HUNT: Do you think they're actually going to go for it? And I should also say, I mean, do you think he has a point about some of your fellow House colleagues who've been in office for decades?
KHANNA: Well, I think he has a point that young people deserve the chance to lead, that many of these folks are in safe, Democratic districts, just that's where they're active and growing up. And if we tell them, you can't run against a Democratic incumbent, that incumbent could be there 10, 20 years and they're not going to get the chance to lead.
So, I think what his point is that we need to make way to give a new generation and new people a chance is absolutely accurate. And there's a huge incumbency advantage.
I do think that Ken Martin's point that while you're an officer, you shouldn't tip the scales has validity. And so, if he were to just say, I'm not going to endorse in my personal capacity, he can be affiliated with an organization that has primary challenges. There are other DNC officers that are affiliated with organizations that get involved in primaries. But that seems to me a way that everyone can be happy. The DNC gets to follow their rules, and David Hogg's organization can still encourage primary challenges.
HUNT: All right, fair enough. Of course, the party has, you know, bigger picture challenges as well, trying to take figuring out how the right way to take on President Donald Trump has been one of them, especially considering that he was reelected after the wake of everything that happened January 6th, 2021 and on.
Elissa Slotkin, the senator from Michigan, "Politico" is reporting about a speech. She's yet to deliver it. But these are some of her prepared remarks, and they're pretty tough. I'll read them for you. I'm not sure if you've seen them yet. They write this, quote, she, Slotkin, is urging Democrats to effing
retake the flag with appeals to voters' sense of patriotism, to adopt the goddamn alpha energy of the Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell, and to embrace an airing out of potential 2028 presidential candidates in a broadly contested primary. And she also says, as you see in the headline, don't be weak and woke.
Do you agree with her? Is woke weak?
KHANNA: I'm a 49ers fan, so I can't agree with her on the Lions part.
But look, I agree with her on the patriotism. I've been pushing. As you might know, a new economic patriotism, which is to say, here's how you actually build new factories, advanced manufacturing that Trump's tariff war is destroying the economy. And I think if Elissa is saying that we need to have patriotism, we need to have an economic message, then she's absolutely right.
But look, the Democratic Party has a huge advantage now. The party that's in trouble is Donald Trump. They're destroying the economy. It's been the most irrational economic policy since Herbert Hoover. You have consumer confidence at the second lowest level since 1952. The April stock market is trending to the worst month since 1932. And you have these high tariffs that are destroying wealth.
I used to think we had a tough time coming back. Now, I'm very confident that were going to win in '26 and '28. And Trump's really made a mess of it.
HUNT: Do you think if that happens? And look, I take your point on the economy and as someone who's been a long time political reporter and always learned from the James Carville maxim, it's the economy, stupid. It does seem like some of these actions, you know, may turn the American people against him.
My question for you, though, is, will some of these lessons that Elissa Slotkin is talking about, do you think Democrats will still learn that piece of it? If, you know, they go on to, to win elections just simply because of these economic issues you're talking about?
KHANNA: Well, the economy is the whole thing.
[16:40:01]
I think we have to be the party that says we're going to help bring new jobs and bring new prosperity. We understand the future. We're not going to appoint people who don't know the difference between A1 steak sauce and A.I. in a digital age.
We're not going to have a commerce secretary who says, let's do screws and screwing in America, but we need advanced manufacturing and technology in America. We're going to appoint competent people who are going to help you build wealth and have good jobs. And I think that's going to not only win, it's going to win decisively. And we have a good vision on health care. And that, to me, is why we lost the last election, that Donald Trump
was seen as a business guy who understood the economy, who was going to be good for building wealth in this country. Thats why people in Silicon Valley voted for him, and he's lost all of that.
HUNT: Where do you see a potential deal with China right now? I know this is something that you have thought a lot about. There are other concerns that, of course, many business leaders raise intellectual property.
For example, is there anything in what Trump is doing that you see as potentially being a good for the United States in terms of taking on China?
KHANNA: Yes. I'm on the China select committee and sure have strategic tariffs on dumping into the United States of Chinese products. But you can't have a blanket tariff, because if I was just talking to a manufacturer in my district back in Silicon Valley, and they were saying 70 percent of their parts come from China. So, it has to be a gradual approach where you combine it with investing in manufacturing and the supply chain here.
And -- and that's where I think that the policy has been off is that there hasn't been any strategic approach. Have the tariffs on steel and aluminum and in key areas, but you can't have blanket tariffs. But my hope is that it will, force the Chinese to stop dumping and stop some of the unfair trade. There's no doubt. And there, Trump is right that China was not playing by the rules.
HUNT: All right. Congressman Ro Khanna, always grateful to have you on the show. Thank you very much for being here. See you soon. I hope.
KHANNA: Thank you. Appreciate it.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, a slew of new court actions today blocking various moves from President Trump. The new CNN reporting on why it's exactly what the White House wants.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:46:42]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
The legal avalanche around President Trump and his actions has been picking up steam.
Just today, the White House asked the Supreme Court to let the Pentagon enforce a ban on transgender service members. Separately, a federal judge ruled the Department of Education can't pull money from schools that engage in DEI practices. Another judge put on pause a part of the president's recent executive order on elections, blocking an effort that would require Americans to show documents proving their citizenship when registering to vote. And one other judge ruled the administration cannot withhold money from places that it deems to be sanctuary cities. Again, all of that just today. The DOJ has, by our count, responded to
more than 100 emergency lawsuits since Donald Trump was sworn in. That is more than one every day since. Of course, he has not yet been in office for 100 days.
New CNN reporting out today says that's basically what the administration wants, the approach that our team writes is, quote, defend whatever Trump wants. And when that's not working, muddy the waters. That can include skipping or fast tracking the, quote, normal legal process and getting cases before the Supreme Court as quickly as possible.
One former Justice Department official telling CNN, quote, the administration appears to be driven not by any legal theory, but by a theory of power.
Joining our panel, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig, along with everyone else to join.
Elie, that we gave you a lot to work with.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: OK.
HUNT: So, this does seem to be a coordinated strategy.
HONIG: Yeah. Can I present to you? Theres so many cases, but can I present to you a unified field theory of how to make sense of these Trump cases?
HUNT: Please?
HONIG: Okay. Number one, the federal funding cases.
By and large, I think Trump's going to lose those cases. We saw two. Two of those cases were put on hold just today because it is Congress under the Constitution that holds the power of the purse, not the executive branch. There are some exceptions, but by and large, the administration is going to lose the federal funding cases.
The hiring and firing cases is a little murkier because usually there's some law or some loophole or some bureaucratic process that has to be complied with before you can fire people. Usually, you can't just fire people. You maybe have to give them notice, or you have to give them a certain reason, a reason for it.
So that's the one that's going to be in between. And last but not least, there's a lot of things the executive branch could do. But Donald Trump's making it really hard on himself by not complying with basic laws.
Let me look at immigration here. Weve obviously had a lot of big cases on immigration. It's not that hard to deport somebody who does not have legal status here. But Trump's not doing it the easy way. He's pulling out the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. This other law from 1952 that gives the secretary of state all this power.
So, there's a lot he could do, but they're doing it wrong a lot of times. So there's three basic rules that will help us decipher these.
HUNT: Marc Short, you've been kind of inside, obviously, a version of the Trump administration, obviously, the previous one. But can you sort of shed light on it? Seems like a lot of what he's pointing to on immigration is probably coming from Stephen Miller specifically. But this overall strategy of trying to muddy the water, is that something that you've experienced yourself that you have understanding and insight into?
SHORT: I -- look, I think that there's a lot of differences between the first and the second Trump administrations. We talked about Ukraine. Weve talked about trade.
I do think that on this front, there was not as much of an aggressive effort with the courts.
[16:50:08]
To Elie, it doesn't make sense from a legal perspective. From a PR perspective, I think it does. I think they want a fight with the courts. I think they feel like they're showing they're taking action. The courts are stopping them. I'm not sure that's wise in the end, because I think at the end of day, there's going to be a lot of conservative judges ruling against them as this continues down its path.
But for right now, I think they feel, like, look, we're showing energy. We're showing that were doing what the American people elected us to do, and it's the courts that are stopping us.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But I think there's a wider issue, which is were seeing in all the polling that actually Trump was so strong on immigration and now, you know, he's in negative territory other than on the border. Right? The border is a success story. Theres no, you know, coming away from that. It was a chaotic under the Biden administration. It is not so now.
But all these other cases, you know, the drumbeat about that this is illegal, that this is actually against the Constitution, that that the Trump administration is trying to grab power from the courts, that this might be a constitutional crisis. People are listening to this, and I do think it does concern people.
HINOJOSA: Yeah. And to Elie's point, I think that the Justice Department is taking positions in these cases, the executive orders that don't make a lot of sense when it comes to the law. And the reality is, is because the Justice Department isn't necessarily reviewing these executive orders, the career people are not reviewing them before Trump announces them.
Normally, there is a process when the White House wants to do something, when the president wants to do something, there is some sort of legal review. Right now, you have Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche that are just essentially saying, yes, Stephen Miller, whatever you want. And then the reality is, with all of these executive orders, they
don't have enough lawyers. They are currently soliciting lawyers from U.S. attorney's offices and saying, you know what? We don't have enough lawyers. If you would like to help on some of these cases, we will guarantee you your job.
And I've heard that from several U.S. attorney's offices. So, they're in a real big pickle, not only legally, but staff wise. I'm not sure how they're going to continue on this route. And, you know, especially positions that are normally not taken by the Justice Department and continue with their legal strategy if they don't have lawyers to have to argue these cases.
HONIG: DOJ is gone. I mean, it's sad to say, and we're not even 100 days in, but, I mean, I had I was willing to give Pam Bondi the benefit of the doubt. I wrote publicly, I said, look, she is qualified on paper, but let's see if she has any independence.
And she has shown beyond any question, she has zero independence, absolutely unwilling even to open any investigation that might reflect poorly on the administration at all. Contrary to every prior attorney general. Right.
And -- and just there as a pure partisan, a pure political actor, and you take away that check on the president and no wonder --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And you've seen administration lawyers show up at these hearings, right. And just and be completely unprepared, know that they have a weak case. And then a few of them actually got fired.
HONIG: Get fired.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Right? Yeah. Because they haven't actually kowtowed in the way that --
SHORT: A couple of different issues. I mean, one is the quality of the staff there in the second administration. I think that we talked about the polling numbers. I really think what's driving Trump's numbers down is losing $10 trillion in market capitalization with his trade agenda.
And so, if we're here talking about courts stopping him from pursuing his immigration agenda, where he still is positive, that's a win. I don't think it's a long-term win on strategy, because again, I think the music stops here and I think conservative judges will be ruling against him on many of these cases. So, I don't think it's a great long term strategy. But for the short term, I think -- I think it's better than talking about where he is on his trade agenda.
HUNT: Certainly, it's clear to me that this is where they would prefer to be talking. They would prefer -- they would prefer to be talking about immigration. Despite -- I take your point, but for sure take yours as well.
All right. Coming up next here. Something totally different, a new and maybe scary way to help the environment. Okay. We'll explain. And on the next episode of "THE WHOLE STORY", Abby Phillip explores
the first 100 days of the second Trump presidency. How far is the president willing to go to reshape, reshape America and expand presidential power?
Here's a preview of Sunday night's episode.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Some people say that this is a constitutional crisis. Is it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Donald Trump's first 100 days have tested the Constitution in ways that we have never seen in generations.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What people fear is that we're going to get to a moment where the Trump administration will defy a court order. The president himself has said that this administration will not defy a court order. That remains to be seen.
TRUMP: I have great respect for the Supreme Court.
The answer is, I always abide by the courts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
So, wildlife officials are out with some very important guidance today. If you see this creepy fish, chop its head off. I'm sorry. What? Okay. No way am I getting close enough to this thing to chop his head off.
This is a northern snakehead, and it looks like a hybrid of a fish and a snake. And guess what? They can survive out of water and breathe air. It has recently been spotted in Missouri and other states. This is entirely terrifying.
The best way to get rid of it, officials say, is to cut its head off. Or if you can't bring yourself to do that, they say you can put it in a sealed plastic bag and throw it in the trash.
Jake Tapper, I'm sitting here with Marc Short having a very long conversation about these fish, which I had never heard of, but apparently there's a lot of them in the Chesapeake Bay where I have spent time boating.
And I just sort of wish I didn't know anything about them at all.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, THE LEAD: Kasie, I just saw, like, like five of them in the hallway on their way to your office.
HUNT: Oh, great.
TAPPER: I'll be honest. I actually gave them directions to your office. I didn't know this was something you didn't want.
HUNT: Are you going to come down and chop their heads off?
TAPPER: No. I'm sorry. I have to -- I have to do the news. I apologize. But thank you, Kasie, I appreciate it.
HUNT: Have a good show.
TAPPER: Hopefully. Hopefully, we'll see you back in THE ARENA tomorrow.
HUNT: Fingers crossed. See you!
