Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Stocks Rally On Strong Jobs Report, Potential For China Trade Talks; Trump Says Administration Will Strip Harvard Of Its Tax-Exempt Status; Politico: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Warns Trump's Rhetoric Against Judge Are "Attacks On Our Democracy". Aired 4-5p ET
Aired May 02, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
SAMANTHA BEE, COMEDIAN & WRITER: And I don't suggest that we need to have like a coven of great friends around us at all times. It's not that. It's not like we have to just gather in a again in a cave and, like, sing about it. We just have to be able to say the words.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MEG TIRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: And she does that and more. The podcast is "Dr. Sanjay Gupta Chasing Life", and it's out now.
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: And our thanks to Meg Tirrell. Thanks, Samantha Bee, for that.
You can hear more of their conversation on "Chasing Life" podcast, which you can find wherever you get your podcasts.
Thanks so much for joining me. I'm Erica Hill.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's tariffs versus talks.
Let's head into THE ARENA.
Stocks rally after China signals they're open to trade negotiations with the U.S. even as so many Chinese made products heading to America just got hit with a huge new tariff.
Plus, President Trump delivers a 1, 2, 3 punch at institutions that he ties to the liberal elite with new moves aimed at undercutting the finances of Harvard, PBS and NPR.
And Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson addresses what she calls, quote, the elephant in the room during rare public remarks. Spoiler alert, that elephant in question was in the White House.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA.
It's wonderful to have you with us on this Friday. We did make it to the end of a very long week. As we come on the air, we are following multiple developments on the economy and some potential new movement, setting up a critical next few days in President Trump's trade war.
Wall Street closing out the week just moments ago. All three indices in positive territory here at the closing bell. A couple of reasons why one being a better than expected monthly jobs report, but the one that's driving everything is China. Beijing today, for the first time, signaling they might, maybe, possibly, perhaps could be open to thinking about talking about a trade deal with the United States.
It's enough for the markets. The Commerce Ministry saying they're looking at proposals from the U.S. to start talks. "The Wall Street Journal" reporting that China is looking at fentanyl as a possible end to any discussions with the country's security czar, asking what exactly the U.S. wants to see China do in that area.
Most analysts and economists will tell you that this is not really opening the door. It is basically just acknowledging that the door exists someplace. But when that story published, the markets did spike.
While you were sleeping, though, President Trump imposed a massive tariff that you might actually feel pretty soon. It's the famous or famous now anyway, de minimis loophole. Thats the one that most of us had no idea existed before this, but now realize it means that all of our online shopping is going to be that much more expensive. It is the one that has allowed things worth $800 or less to come into the country duty free.
That one expired at midnight. So, take a look at your Shein or Temu or Quince receipts in the coming days. I'm a little too old to perhaps pronounce those correctly, but hey, what are you going to do?
Well, talks with China are closer now than maybe a few days ago. The one conversation that we do know will happen is with Canada. Mark Carney, the recently elected prime minister, coming to the White House on Tuesday. What's normally a meeting between two longtime allies likely to be a little awkward this time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Do you think over the past few days we have seen respect to Canada from the Trump administration?
MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: Look, I would -- I -- we are, you know, we're meeting as -- as heads of our government to discuss that partnership.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Could you see that hesitation from the new prime minister? Can't imagine why that might be there.
All right. Our panel joins us now, CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist and podcast host, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, CNN political commentator Jonah Goldberg, former senior spokesperson for the Harris campaign, Ian Sams, and former speaker pro tem, Patrick McHenry.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
Ian, welcome to THE ARENA, on your first day.
IAN SAMS, SENIOR SPOKESPERSON, HARRIS & WALTZ 2024 CAMPAIGN: Thanks.
HUNT: Jonah, I want to start with you, big picture, because, you know, the markets, it's -- I mean, it's -- I don't want to say it's like, you know, a dog with a bone or a treat, but that's a little bit how it feels nowadays. When I sit down here at 4:00, the markets are closing.
It's like, has somebody somewhere tossed the dog treat into the into the water for them to catch? Or has the has the place, you know, been told it's not going to be fed for the next week? How serious or real do you think this overture from China is? And what does it mean?
JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I mean, look, we are -- what I think today is May 2, so that means we are one month past liberation day, and, you know, I'm so excited.
HUNT: Do you feel liberated?
GOLDBERG: I do, extremely liberated. At the end of the day, China has an interest in coming to some sort of deal. United States has an interest in coming to some sort of deal, whether it is an improvement on the status quo from April pre-liberation day remains to be seen. There's a huge debate in sort of Trump world and Trump world adjacent about whether Trump is going to see this stuff through or find an off ramp.
And because the weirdness of all this is that they did it all backwards. It's like they front loaded all the political pain, all the economic pain for the promise of reward down the road. And they've this is just simply unsustainable. The market volatility alone is not a healthy thing. And so, I think they're going to come up with something face saving.
HUNT: Right. Well -- and the fear itself can obviously lead to a recession.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah, I think they are not yet faced with the consequences of their actions. We're just starting to feel that now. And we will be feeling it in the weeks to come. So that I think, is when the rubber hits the road and when were really going to see if Trump will see this through or he will not see it through.
Up until now, you saw the jobs report today, a good jobs report. The economic news has been a little bit all over the place, but it's not like people are really, really feeling the pain. That will be soon. And that's when I think the political ramifications will be seen.
HUNT: Well, Patrick McHenry, I have to say, I was wishing you were on set with us the other day as we were breaking down what Trump had to say about I believe it was dolls. The kids are going to only have two dolls instead of three dolls. The dolls are going to be more expensive.
As the mom of two young children -- you know, I -- my -- I don't know if your kids are happy when you say no more dolls for you. I do say we can't. More toys occasionally, but obviously it's my wallet that that this impacts.
I was just stunned that he said that from a purely political, strategic perspective. Was that a mistake?
PATRICK MCHENRY (R), FORMER FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Well, if this is a Romney era or the George W. Bush era, it would be the outrage of the month. But not today. It's like that was a part of an afternoon news cycle in the next day, something new.
There is so much noise right now. There is so much noise happening in Washington that we're all trying to track and cover, and we're trying to run down everything that's happening here, but we're missing the actual signal here. The strategic view of this administration. This president is focused on China.
There's all this other ancillary stuff that's happening, but it's the trading relationship with China and the world that this this president wants to get a new deal with. Everything else is secondary to that.
So, the pain and punishment, Mark Carney, can have an awkward response, but he's going to have to negotiate there. We're a much more important trading partner to Canada than they are to us, but it is in our interest to get this resolved. We need to get -- we need to get a roadmap for all these other countries so they can come in. We can have a new trading relationship with them, and they can join us in turning their attention to China.
But it's going to be the China deal that will be the make or break thing for this administration. The lasting impact of this -- this president's second term.
SAMS: Yeah, I kind of assumes that President Trump's going to act rationally, though. I mean, you heard the comment the other day.
You know, look, I'll do something maybe rare for Democrats. I give Trump a lot of credit. He won the election last year by talking about bringing down prices on day one. And instead of having an event every single day where he's bringing down prices of eggs, bringing down prices of gas, bringing down the prices of anything, he puts in place these tariffs and the immediate impact is higher -- the prospect of higher prices for people.
And so, I think he's not really listening to where voters concerns are. Very swiftly, he had the opportunity to seize the mantle of winning the election, and doing something and building a huge, you know, economic momentum this year for himself. And instead, it's this self-inflicted wound that he's brought on, on the tariffs.
And I think that I think that its hard to imagine that he's going to change his mind when he's been saying for 30 years he wants to do these tariffs. And there's such chaos in the administration that even a day like today with the jobs report, which I saw them Trumpeting, it reminds me a lot of where we made mistakes as Democrats over the last year, Trumpeting some of these macro-economic things that are fleeting and come out instead of understanding that that's not actually what people really care about.
What people care about is affordability of life, and when prices are going up, tariffs --
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And dolls. They actually care about dolls. When you're --
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And you go to these kids and say, like, actually, President Trump is only allowing you to have one doll this Christmas, it becomes the Grinch. He doesn't become Santa Claus.
MCHENRY: Does not matter, does not matter.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I don't know.
MCHENRY: What you're saying, Ian, I don't want to shock anybody here, but like, I agree, and you're giving the best explanation of what this is about. The president won, and the president's strength is built on the perception of a strong economy, that he is going to bring a strong economy, and you are going to be better off for this.
He will get the benefit of the doubt with the base, his base, absolutely, for sure, to have a new trading relationship with China. You're not going to remedy this thing in a months-time that took us 30 years to dig this deep of a hole with our trading relationship with China. But unless people feel better about how their life is, how their economics are, how the market is doing, you're not going to have a winning hand for all the important things and all the important initiatives, much less where were going to stand, where Republicans are stand in the midterm.
[16:10:08]
GOLDBERG: I generally agree with all that. At the same time, Donald Trump is the guy who goes around saying he literally says the words like, I run the economy, right? I -- he says, you know, he's -- he's now making arguments that are like Bernie Sanders complaining about how people have too many kinds of deodorant. Right. And Bernie Sanders said, people have too many kinds of sneakers. What is wrong with him? He's now saying, oh, you have too many dolls, right?
This is -- this is fundamentally left wing economics, that he is --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: He's a de-growth.
GOLDBERG: -- while he is at the same time saying he is -- he's claiming full control of the economy. So, like when you actually take credit for the economy and the economy doesn't do well, it's different than saying, hey, look, there are a lot of things going on and its some of this is out of my hands.
HUNT: That does seem like if there's a political mistake, its that he could have given, you know, he could have blamed Joe Biden for the economy for good, you know, year.
GOLDBERG: Yeah.
HUNT: But instead, here we are.
Actually, Jonah, I wanted to ask you about this because "The New York Times" reported on a speech that Charles Koch gave. He, of course, has been funding Republican causes.
Patrick McHenry, I'm sure you're very familiar with the money that he has given to all of these -- to outside groups.
So, they write this, quote, Mr. Koch dispensed with the rhetoric of most conservatives these days, speaking about subsidies and protectionism of the past. He said, you can see why we're in the mess were in today with so much change, chaos, conflict, too many people and organizations are abandoning these principles, Mr. Koch later said. Not uttering Trump's name, he added but we know from history this just makes the problems worse and people have forgotten that when principles are lost, so are freedoms.
GOLDBERG: Yeah, I mean, Charles Koch is a very consistent libertarian. People who think he gets involved in politics to protect his bottom line miss the fact that, like multi-billionaire doesn't need to write books on Van Nuysian management theory for the money, right?
But look --
SAMS: This is the first mention of that ever on CNN.
GOLDBERG: Yeah. I'm --
HUNT: That's why we invite you.
GOLDBERG: I am a -- and I read that book. I'm the kind of conservative who spent my entire adult life echoing people like Thomas Sowell and William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, that says the government isn't smart enough to outthink the market. Planned economies don't work.
And it is amazing to me that simply because its coming out of Republicans mouth now, all sorts of Republicans and conservatives have abandoned that argument for the sake of just saying I trust his judgment.
HUNT: Pretty remarkable affairs.
Very briefly.
SAMS: There's just -- we also, President Biden put in place some trade protections on things like A.I. chips. And there was reporting just yesterday that Trump is thinking about lifting those on UAE after UAE puts $1 billion into his personal crypto. So, it's not just he's controlling the economy, he's treating it like a mob boss.
HUNT: Yeah.
Oh, boy. All right. We're going to have lots to talk about over the coming months.
Up next here, a unique perspective on Mike Waltz going from national security advisor to U.N. ambassador, nominee.
Former Trump national security advisor and former U.N. ambassador, John Bolton, joins us live.
Plus, PBS and NPR and programs beloved by many of Americans, your ability to watch them now at risk as President Trump says, he's ending their funding. We'll dig into whether he can do that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:17:40]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: I think you could take on a bit more. If only there was a job opening for a devout Catholic. When does conclave start?
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: You'd have to be a priest. Any -- people don't know, that any unmarried Catholic -- a male can be pope. But I got married and I'm happily married, so --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Secretary of State Marco Rubio unwilling to add a fifth job as pope to his plate as he juggles his many existing responsibilities as USAID administrator, U.S. archivist, interim national security advisor, and, as we mentioned, secretary of state.
Rubio heads to the White House today for his first full day on the job. Questions swirling around who's going to fill that role of national security advisor permanently?
Joining us now, former Trump national security adviser John Bolton.
He, of course, also served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the role that Trump nominated his outgoing NSA Mike Waltz for.
Sir, thank you so much for being with us today. Really appreciate it.
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Glad to be with you.
HUNT: So, you know, the job -- the demands of this job, the NSA job in particular, better than anyone. You also clearly understand what it takes to be secretary of state. You've worked with people in that role. Is it possible for one person to do both? BOLTON: It's not for any sustained period of time. You know, Condi
Rice, who held both jobs, once said the best job in the U.S. government is secretary of state and the hardest job is national security adviser. And she was uniquely positioned to make that judgment.
It's true it happened once before, but it's not a model any administration should want to follow. The secretary of state, William Rogers, under Richard Nixon, had left in just disgust at being cut out of most of the worlds important decisions. Nixon was deep in Watergate. Nobody else could have gotten confirmed but Henry Kissinger. He kept the job through the end of the Nixon administration, through early months of Gerald Ford, and then gave up National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft.
That was a real constitutional crisis. Not a good look for the Trump administration to emulate.
HUNT: Do you think it puts our national security at risk in the long term?
BOLTON: Well, I think because the national security council staff structure has also been destroyed as a result of Laura Loomer and others, there really is -- is not much there to function. Well, I think the people are under enormous strain. And the role of the national security advisor, which has changed and advanced considerably since the Kissinger days, really can't be performed by somebody who's also got a cabinet department to run.
[16:20:06]
HUNT: What is your understanding of how the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, is interacting with Steve Witkoff? Because there's been some reported frustration there. I mean, it's been Witkoff flying to Moscow and talking to Vladimir Putin. I'm curious, your sense watching it and talking as I know you do to many in the national security establishment about who's really in charge here.
BOLTON: Well, I don't think it's Marco Rubio. If I were in his shoes, I'd be extraordinarily frustrated. I think Witkoff reports directly to Trump. That's the advantage he has. He will do exactly what Trump says.
And I think this is a disaster in the making, a disaster on the Ukraine-Russia front, a potential disaster on the Iran front.
I mean, if you look at Witkoff, he doesn't know anything about Ukraine. He doesn't know anything about Russia. He doesn't know anything about Iran.
He doesn't know anything about nuclear weapons. He doesn't know anything about arms control and nonproliferation, and he doesn't know anything about state-to-state negotiation. Really.
It's -- it's hard to imagine a less qualified person. And yet he is Trump's personal envoy. I just think this is a huge risk. And you have neither before a national security advisor or secretary of state who had any control over.
HUNT: Another name of an advisor who's very close personally to Trump is Stephen Miller. Would he be qualified to be national security adviser?
BOLTON: I don't think so. I mean, Stephen Miller is a very bright person. Nobody should underestimate him. But his passion in life is immigration. And if he were to become national security adviser, you would -- you would have a clear merging of the homeland and national security advisor jobs, which I've long advocated. But it's hard to see what Steve Miller would contribute to discussions on nuclear weapons strategy.
HUNT: Fair enough.
So, briefly, before I let you go, the Trump administration, President Trump is going to hold a military parade on the birthday of the U.S. Army, likely to cost millions of dollars. Is that a good use of military resources? Were you involved in talks about this the first time around?
BOLTON: Yeah. Trump -- Trump wanted to have a parade, and we gave him various reasons why it was not a good idea, starting with tearing up the streets of Washington, D.C., but the tanks rolling down him. And also at least my feeling and I think the feeling of others like John Kelly and Jim Mattis were that those kinds of parades are suitable in authoritarian countries, but not in the United States.
The last real military parade we had in Washington that I remember was the victory parade after the First Gulf War, when the troops came back after a stunning victory, expelling Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis from Kuwait. And we deserved a military parade for that. That was a war we wanted, exorcised the demons of Vietnam. That's fine.
But a parade to make Donald Trump or any president happy unacceptable.
HUNT: All right. Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, so grateful to have your perspective on the show, sir. Thanks very much for being here.
BOLTON: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, new comments just coming in from the president of Harvard. We'll tell you what he's saying about the president's threat to pull the university's tax exempt status.
Plus, it may not be sunny days on "Sesame Street". Its home base, the PBS, getting targeted for funding cuts from the Trump administration.
(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:27:45]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back. The Harvard -- president of Harvard is responding to President Trump's
announcement, seen here, that they will be taking away Harvard's tax- exempt status. In an interview with "The Wall Street Journal", Alan Garber says this could pose an existential threat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN GARBER, HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT: If the government goes through with a plan to revoke our tax exempt status, it would, number one, be highly illegal unless there is some reasoning that we have not been exposed to that would justify this dramatic move. But tax exempt status is granted to educational institutions, to enable them to successfully carry out their mission of education and for research universities of research. Obviously, that would be severely impaired if we were to lose our tax-exempt status. And I should add, it would be destructive to Harvard. But the message that it sends to the educational community would be a very dire one, which suggests that political disagreements could be used as a basis to pose what might be an existential threat to so many educational institutions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: And, of course, this threat against Harvard also comes as the president signed an executive order attempting to begin the process to defund NPR and PBS.
And to that end, NPR's media correspondent David Folkenflik is joining our panel now.
David, thank you so much for being with us.
Because this is the news, let's start with Harvard. But of course, this is in many ways the thread that they are pulling together here has to do with what many in the MAGA community view as elite institutions.
How do you see what the president of Harvard is doing here? Obviously, they are taking on the administration directly. They of all universities in the United States have the most name recognition, the most money, the most power to be able to do so. But we are not seeing every institution take the same approach.
[16:30:00]
DAVID FOLKENFLIK, NPR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: That's absolutely right. And I think there's -- there is connective tissue. There's a common theme here. It, as you say, certainly the president's supporters would argue that these are elite institutions which are somehow aimed at against them, functioning against them.
What -- certainly, you could also say is that these are institutions that serve as outside sources of information, and oftentimes outside sources of accountability checks on official power by providing information that the public can absorb and process and figure out how they feel about the people acting in their name. In Washington, in the White House, whether Democrat or Republican. And universities, think tanks, research institutes, and, yes, media outlets serve that function.
So what you're hearing the president of Harvard say is, listen, this appears to him in the case that Harvard is making is that this is illegal and that this is not following statutory requirements for how you go through unraveling a relationship of funding Harvard in terms of a number of its research programs or revoking it's not for profit tax status.
But he's also talking broadly to, say, to institutes not for profits that may take a more conservative line or just people who may care about such institutions, you know, don't think this stops with us. It could go to anyone who -- who in some ways offends this president, this White House, or any of those to follow.
HUNT: Congressman McHenry I was listening to Rand Paul on the floor of the Senate the other night, basically, you know, doing --
GOLDBERG: Just relax.
MCHENRY: Yeah.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Spent a lot of -- Rand Ppaul has spent many a night keeping me up past my bedtime because he wants to keep the Senate going on something or other. But in this particular case, he was talking it was basically, you know, Schoolhouse Rock, how a bill becomes a law in that the power to fund things is supposed to lay with the Congress.
Do you think it's illegal for Trump to try to remove Harvard's tax- exempt status, or is it not?
MCHENRY: Well, has he done it? Like the question is for the president to say he's going to do something, is that illegal, right?
HUNT: Well, would it be illegal if he did it?
MCHENRY: Oh, I think it's a quite complicated thing to revoke institutions tax status. I think it's a quite complicated thing. And legally, what the Harvard president said is right.
Now, there are a number of different ways that this administration has focused on these elite institutions that have been culturally removed from the vast majority of Americans. They have a problem. These elite universities have a problem, and it is a problem that is political, yes, because you have a super majority of American people thinking they're dramatically removed from the rest of the United States and not in the national interest.
They have a problem they have to address. And if they think they can just haggle about the legal bits of their tax status and win on this, they're missing. They're really missing the fight.
What the president does want is for them to pick a fight back. That is what he is trying to draw out more than anything else. And that serves his politics. Other institutions are quiet about it, trying to work through it. Thats probably smarter politics for them in the longer term with the American people.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think there's a bigger theory of the case here, which isn't about Harvard or PBS or NPR or any of the other myriad places that he has directed his ire. The theory of the case is this he does not like independence. Anything that takes away from his center of power, he is trying to challenge and destroy, and that is Harvard. That is PBS and NPR, and that is other institutions as well.
And this you see over and over and over with him, that is the true threat. I'm not denying that there is a crisis of confidence in institutions writ large in this country, all of them left and right center. But that's not really what he's up to. He's not trying to redress that. He's not trying to say, hey, Harvard, be more open to the people.
He's actually threatening their very independence. He's taking away money from them for the things that they do, such as research. And PBS and NPR -- I mean, when you ask about whether or not this is legal, I mean, the money is given through the Congress. I mean, this is the way this is supposed to work. We've seen President Trump over and over and over again, write these decrees as if they're sort of royal decrees.
And we haven't seen legislation. If you want to make this happen, take your chances in Congress. Try to pass a law. Talk to your senators and your congresspeople and see if that can happen. Just doing -- just signing something at a document doesn't make it so.
HUNT: He's basically taking it to court instead.
Ian Sams, how do you look at this? Because, you know, I think there is an argument to be made. Certainly I've heard people in your party make it to me in the aftermath of the election loss, that some of what the congressman is saying is right, that there are Americans out there, swing voters in particular, who feel like Democrats lost the cultural thread. Is there any truth to that?
SAMS: Yeah, there is and he -- he's right. He wants a culture war.
[16:35:01]
He was at my alma mater last night, the University of Alabama. And he put it succinctly. He said, it's the Crimson Tide versus the Harvard Crimson.
He wants to create this us versus them mentality of America, where the elites are coming after the normal people. What he doesn't understand is that there's a limit to the politics of that. I've been a part of something called the working class project. Weve done two dozen, three dozen focus groups in 12 states so far, exclusively with working class voters, most of whom supported President Trump in the election.
Michigan, we were just there last week. Michigan white men expressing concerns about the lawlessness of this administration, suggesting that he is acting a little bit -- we actually did a focus group of Black men in Michigan, two who supported Donald Trump. One of them said he's giving dictator vibes. This stuff is not the political goal that he thinks it is there. There
will be negative consequences for him, including among types of voters who some people in Washington, some people in the beltway consultants might not think are attracted to the issue or who are attracted to the issue, aren't attracted to the issue.
And so, so, I think that -- I think that there's a little bit of a mess that he's made for himself here. But certainly, you know, he's trying to tap into the sort of anti-elite, anti-institutional mentality that is pervasive in our country.
HUNT: That's interesting.
GOLDBERG: Yeah. On the -- specifically on Harvard, I'm very torn because I think Harvard has for some of the reasons that I was getting at, has invited a lot of these problems upon itself. If you actually read that report just a lot of really stupid, idiotic stuff going on at Harvard. Some of it, I think, is unconstitutional and unlawful, given where the Supreme Court is.
But I also have a real big problem with like cutting funding for pediatric cancer research to punish, punish the English department. And I think that stuff kind of gets through. Look, there's a bigger macro policy argument that no one's really talking about.
This country is a matter of sort of bedrock, foundational public policy decided that we were going to have universities do a lot of our basic scientific research. And now that and that policy has worked very well for us. And now the idea is to use that as a cudgel to force the education school to get rid of DEI stuff. That's not how you do basic research. And Harvard made a lot of mistakes, but this is a bad way to go.
HUNT: Yeah. Our Ron Brownstein had a very interesting column about how that funding for the research you describe is really a fundamental economic engine for America as well. And that hurting it has repercussions beyond what you're talking about.
David Folkenflik, I just want to say thank you very much. Hopefully you can come back again. I apologize. Your connection wasn't quite as solid as we hoped it would be. I would love to hear more from you. And we will, I hope soon.
All right. Coming up next here, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is going public again with her fears for democracy under Trump. 2.0 reportedly blasting the president's attacks on judges without mentioning him by name.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:42:15]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson yesterday making a rare public appearance, speaking before a group of judges in Puerto Rico, she condemned what she called the, quote, relentless attacks, disregard and disparagement that judges nationwide are facing in the current political climate. According to "Politico", the justice warned this, quote, the attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity. The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government, and they ultimately risk undermining our constitution and the rule of law.
Brown Jackson did not mention anyone by name while delivering those remarks, only referencing the quote, elephant in the room. I'm sure were all wondering who she could be referencing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Radical left judges.
Radical left lunatic judges.
He's a nasty judge.
Extreme far left judges.
Really crooked judges.
These are rogue judges. These horrible judges.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, my panel is back.
SAMS: It seems like he found the elephant.
HUNT: The elephant? Yes. Does seem to have been located.
I will say, Lulu, that there is we were just talking in the break, and we can -- we can play the moment. If you would like to, Congressman, of president, then-President Obama criticizing a Supreme Court ruling. Sam Alito. Justice Samuel Alito was sitting in front of him. He mouthed the words not true as he was being felt he was being criticized.
However, what she's talking there about threats and harassment. We have seen incidents of violence in the real world. A judge and I believe New Jersey, her family, was attacked. And, you know, there are other judges that, you know, were looking at Donald Trump, who faced threats, et cetera.
Where are we? Where are we here? And what does it say that she's saying it in public?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think it's really interesting that she's saying it in public and so forcefully because, traditionally, right, the Supreme Court has wanted to seem once they get elevated, they, even though they are conservative and liberal justices, they do not want to get involved in politics in that way. However, a lot of justices think that this is a moment that is a five-alarm fire because for the first time, you are seeing a concerted effort to call out our judicial system and the separation of powers in this country in a way that I think has people deeply worried.
And I'll sort of end by just saying that I don't know if she should have said something. I can't speak to the wisdom of that. But I think when someone like her does say it, we should all listen.
[16:45:04]
HUNT: Do you think there is wisdom in saying it?
MCHENRY: Well, I think it should be said. I think you could have Brett Kavanaugh say that. I think you can have a variety of Supreme Court justices.
GOLDBERG: Judges said similarly.
MCHENRY: But this is not the current political environment. Now, Trump has taken it to 11, obviously, on -- on bringing up the judicial system.
But President Obama did this in the State of Union Address about a ruling he didn't like, even dating back to FDR, he wanted to change the number of Supreme Court justices because they were not ruling, in his view, correctly, on the New Deal. This is not new. The tension between the branches is not new.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But don't you think it's different? Do you think what's happening --
MCHENRY: Well, everything in this environment is different, and what makes it different is President Trump, and therefore it's justification on the left for the left to -- to do things differently. Look at Chuck Schumer just a year ago or two years ago, calling out Supreme Court justices by name, and some actually having really heavy security protocols for their -- their safety because of these attacks.
So this is -- this is not new. This is not a pearl clutching, you know, pearl clutching moment where you say, Trump made this different. This has been bad stuff for a long time, and attacks of people in public office been around for a long time. It says more about the society than anything else.
You can also get into what President Trump is talking about. Are district court judges having nationwide injunctions on presidential decisions? That's a pretty absurd thing historically speaking for one district court judge, to have that type of power and impact. So there's some -- there's some value in, in in that tension, But obviously President Trump is taking it --
GOLDBERG: But there's one of the reasons -- one of the reasons, not the only reason we get these all these injunctions is because Congress has stopped doing its job, and presidents have started ruling by executive order. And when you rule by executive order, particularly when you go beyond the boundaries, you're going to invite court scrutiny and calling them rogue corrupt judges is not helpful. HUNT: All right, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, thank you so much for being with
us today. I really appreciate it.
The rest of our panel is going to stick around because coming up, Prince Harry is opening up about his broken family ties and the royal who no longer speaks to him.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:52:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX: I would love reconciliation with my family. I've always -- I've -- you know, there's no point in continuing to fight anymore. As I said, life is precious. I don't know how much longer my father has.
You know, he -- he -- he wont speak to me because of this security stuff. But it would be nice to -- it would be nice -- it would be nice to reconcile.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Wow. That was Prince Harry revealing that his father, King Charles, no longer speaks to him. The prince spoke to the BBC after he lost a court case today that downgrades his level of taxpayer-funded security when he visits the U.K.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRINCE HARRY: I can't see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the U.K. at this point. I miss parts of the U.K., of course I do. And I think that it's really quite sad that I wont be able to show my children my homeland.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. CNN's Max Foster joins us live from London. He, of course, is our royal expert.
Pretty remarkable admission from the prince.
MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I mean, so this came completely out of the blue. You know, there was this court case today. It was actually a court case about technicality, about how the Home Office decides whether or not someone should have top level security or not. And so the judge just said the process was followed, so the case got thrown out.
So we were expecting a statement from Harry simply because he has shown so much emotion around this particular case rather than the others. And what was interesting about the interview, apart from the fact that he gave an interview for the first time in this way in years, was what he -- he explained why he was so attached to this particular case, and he frankly feels as if, he was forced out. This was a punishment to have his security downgraded because he left the royal family role and went to America.
So it did explain that. But there are two separate things going on here. And eventually the palace did respond to this. I don't know if they would, because they don't really like talking about these personal matters, but they addressed the case, and the case was -- it's been the palace said, you know, we've been through this case. All these courts have found the same thing. And they were probably more concerned about the constitutional relevance of what Harry was suggesting there, because in the interview, he said Charles could have got he could have helped in some way to prevent all of this from happening.
But Charles effectively would have been interfering in the constitutional you know, running of the country, which he shouldn't have been, shouldn't have been doing. So I think the king eventually felt he had to address the court case, but he wouldn't address the personal issues.
HUNT: Quite a saga. And it is interesting. I mean, these -- these interviews with these royals, do i, you know, I'm sure years from now well be watching some clips of this or someone will be putting a version of it on Netflix.
Max Foster, thank you as always.
[16:55:00]
It's wonderful to see you. I used to see you all the time, 5:00 in the morning. I know it's later there -- later now, I miss you.
We'll have to come up with some more reasons to get you on. Thank you very much.
FOSTER: Thanks, Kasie.
HUNT: All right, let's turn now to this story, because it's Friday, were going to do Prince Harry and the 151st edition of the Kentucky Derby, which gets underway tomorrow at Churchill Downs. A favorite to win this year, yes, Journalism. A horse named Journalism.
In his "Washington Post" column, Kevin Blackistone asks this, can Journalism the horse give a boost to journalism, the industry? I don't know how optimistic I am about that, but the managing partner of journalisms ownership group says this, quote, when freedom of speech and journalistic integrity is, quite frankly, under attack, it's pretty poignant that a horse named journalism is receiving so much hype and attention as one of the main players for the country's biggest race.
Let's bring in CNNs senior reporter, Katie Bo Lillis, to our panel. You know her as a crack intelligence reporter, but she is first a racing expert. And her new book is "Death of a Racehorse: An American Story". It pulls the curtain back on horseracing. You can get it on May 6th, that is Tuesday.
Katie Bo, congrats on the book. KATIE BO LILLIS, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Thanks.
HUNT: It's great to see you. And this is a side of you that obviously our CNN viewers don't get to see as often, but let's break -- let's just break down the derby. Is journalism the favorite? Why?
LILLIS: Oh, he's a beast. Yes. Journalism is definitely the favorite. He is a -- just really, really fantastic physical specimen of a horse. He's beaten some really, really nice horses in California. They've been smaller fields, which is not always the best thing to prepare you for meeting up against 20 of the best colts in the country.
There's a lot of traffic in the derby. It can be very chaotic, but Journalism has run in a few races where he has had some traffic challenges before. He basically got stopped in the Santa Anita derby, overcame it, still won, really, really serious horse, Kasie.
HUNT: Really interesting.
Okay, so I want to talk about the book for a second because -- and you can kind of explain the story, the big picture story that you tell, but it centers on Bob Baffert. And you write that the larger than life Bob Baffert is returning to the Kentucky Derby this year. On Saturday, Baffert will return to the derby for the first time since 2021.
He brings a horse called Citizen Bull. He's not the favorite, but no one counts out Bob Baffert when it comes to the Kentucky Derby. He's won it six times, including with two horses who went on to sweep racings elusive triple crown.
What do you think the shot the chances are here?
LILLIS: Oh, that's a really good question that you're going to you're going to ask me to have done the paper on Citizen Bull.
Look, not the -- not the shortest horse on the board. But like I said, there's nobody like Bob Baffert who knows how to prepare a horse for the Kentucky Derby. He has been enormously successful, both with horses that didn't have near the sort of pedigree and background of some of the horses that are in his barn now. Early in his career, he was winning races with horses that were basically cheap buys that came from nowhere. And he went on to win very, very big races with him.
But Baffert has always been -- has always been a very controversial figure.
HUNT: What does it say that he's back?
LILLIS: Yeah. So, the big story with Baffert is that in 2021, he won with a little horse from nowhere, a cheap horse that cost only $1,000. As a young horse, which is nothing in the rarified market for very expensive racehorses, wins the derby and is ultimately disqualified for a drug violation.
This came at a really bad moment for horse racing, when racing was really struggling with this public perception that it was rife with doping and rife with cheating. The drug that Baffert had used in this instance was a perfectly legal therapeutic. It is an anti-inflammatory that is allowed for training. You're not allowed to have it in the horses system on race day.
And so, the moment that this happened, just kind of despite the fact that this was a legal drug, really inflamed this sort of public perception issues that racing was having. And Churchill Downs, the racetrack, ultimately moved to suspend him for -- for three years. This is the first year that he is -- is back.
HUNT: Right. And of course, you can read all about it in the book. I think we unfortunately, I was going to get pics from all of you guys, but we have something really special here at the end of our show because we have some news about one of our own.
Our senior writer, Jen Mikell, is retiring after nearly 38 years at CNN. I'm sorry. What are we going to do without you? We could have not gotten this new show, THE ARENA, off the ground without Jen. I'm so lucky to have had the chance to work with and learn from her this spring.
But this show has been a tiny fraction of an incredible career. Jen helped launch "THE SITUATION ROOM" with Wolf Blitzer back in 2005. She then went on to work side by side with Wolf Blitzer for nearly 20 years, and she has been at the helm of nearly every special event that CNN has produced out of this bureau in recent history. Not to mention her many, many years of writing and reporting in Atlanta, where she worked on a show called "INSIDE POLITICS" with the one and only Judy Woodruff and the late Bernie Shaw.
But most importantly, and more important than all of that, Jen has been a friend and a mentor to so many people at this network.
So, we just want to say congratulations, Jen. There she is.
We love you so much. We're so thrilled for you and your husband John. And we're so excited for your next chapter. Our thanks.
There she is. She's been in that seat like that in the control room for so, so long.
Don't go anywhere.
"THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.
