Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump: "I Don't Know" If I Have To Uphold Constitution; Trump Says He's Ordering 100 Percent Tariff On Foreign-Made Movies; Hegseth Orders Senior Pentagon Leadership To Cut Number Of Four-Star Generals & Admirals By At Least 20 Percent. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired May 05, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:02]
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: You can hear them from like a mile away.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: They scream. And now there's a local vet curbing their growing numbers by giving them vasectomies. They have done this. They've lured them in. Trappers have, and so far, nearly 400 peacocks have gotten the snip without a single complication. That is something I tell you.
All right, that's it for us.
"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's President Trump versus the Constitution.
Let's head into THE ARENA.
Right now, President Trump going right up to the line saying, quote, "I don't know," when asked if everyone is entitled to due process, and whether he needs to uphold the Constitution.
Also this hour, deals and dolls. The administration again today saying trade agreements could be announced at any time, as the president keeps insisting that kids cut back on toys as his tariffs kick in.
Plus, back to Alcatraz. The new presidential push and push back about reopening one of America's most notorious prisons.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. Wonderful to have you with us on this Monday afternoon.
As we come on the air, President Trump is saying out loud what so many people are thinking and daring anyone to stand in his way. The president of the United States openly questioning multiple times whether he'll abide by the founding document of our democracy, the U.S. Constitution.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: Your secretary of state says everyone who's here, citizens and non-citizens deserve due process. Do you agree, Mr. President?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know, I'm not -- I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Okay. That's true. Donald Trump isn't a lawyer. The topic there more broadly was about the man his administration admits to deporting by mistake. But did you catch that phrase? I don't know. That's been coming up a lot recently.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WELKER: Don't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?
TRUMP: I don't know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I don't know.
Let's just refresh. When you become president of the United States, promising to uphold the constitution is quite literally the only thing you swear to do.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president, president of the United States, the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, protect and defend, and defend the Constitution, the Constitution, of the United States, of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLI)
HUNT: Preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution is the only thing you swear to do. Other federal officials, even the vice president, have to swear to defend the constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic, while also promising allegiance and affirming that they're doing it without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, et cetera. You've heard it.
The president again, just one job -- preserve, protect and defend the constitution. Of course, this all begs the question asked in the same interview of whether he might seek to violate the Constitution in a different, specific way. There is, of course, a constitutional amendment that limits presidents to two terms in office.
So, does he plan to run for a third term?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's something that, to the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to do. I don't know if that's constitutional, that they're not allowing you to do it or anything else. This is not something I'm looking to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: There's that phrase again. I don't know, Trump himself really kind of all over the place on this one. Maggie Haberman reported back in February that in private, the president says this is just one of many things he said to get attention and frustrate his opponents. Then five weeks ago, he told NBC, quote, I'm not joking.
When he was asked about potentially seeking a third term. And there really seems to be no one in his inner or his outer circle that's saying definitively no, at least in public.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think he's going to be finished probably after this term.
SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Probably?
BONDI: Well, the Constitution -- we'd have to look at the Constitution.
STEVE BANNON, FORMER TRUMP AIDE: President Trump is going to run for a third term, and President Trump is going to be elected again. On the afternoon of January 20th of 2029, he's going to be president of the United States.
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS HOST: But you don't really think he's running in 2028, do you?
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'll let the president speak to his political future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Our Stephen Collinson put it this way, writing today, quote, Americans are learning what it's like to live with a president who sees no constraints on his actions and who apparently fears paying no price for them.
Is this like that moment in "Mean Girls"? If you're my age, you'll remember this when Lindsay Lohan wins the mathletes tournament because she realizes that the limit does not exist. Is that America and President Trump right now, except, you know, with stakes that actually really matter?
[16:05:06]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that if not for Donald Trump seizing fentanyl at the border, 75 percent of all Americans could be dead. But hey, don't threaten us with a good time.
(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: All right? My panel joins me now, former policy director for Mitt Romney. Lanhee Chen; CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist, podcast host, Lulu Garcia-Navarro; Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod; and Republican strategist Matt Gorman.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you very much for being here.
Lanhee, I want to start with you. You know, for, for our viewers many of them know you well, obviously, but for those who don't, I mean, you have worked on the biggest policy questions for the biggest Republican presidential campaigns over many years. You've run for office yourself. You're working behind the scenes with those who might run in 2028. We don't know, I guess if Donald Trump is going to be one of them or not.
But this question of the constitution, him simply saying when asked directly, are you going to uphold the Constitution? Him saying, "I don't know". What does that mean?
LANHEE CHEN, FORMER MITT ROMNEY POLICY DIRECTOR: Well, first of all, I think that there were elements to these different questions, okay? The notion that he doesn't know if there's due process, he's not a lawyer. We'll take him at his word on that.
I think that the bigger question and the bigger issue, of course, is what it means about the migration of the Republican Party. Because at one point, I do think this was the sort of pinnacle value for many Republicans, right, defending and upholding the Constitution. And the reality is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of appetite within the Republican Party to distance oneself from any of this.
Now, I do think, to be fair to the president, he was pretty clear, I think, in that clip that he wasn't going to pursue a third term. That's what I heard.
HUNT: More so than he has been in the past.
CHEN: More clear than he's been at any point before.
HUNT: Yeah.
CHEN: So I do think that that is something that, you know, I would not put that in the same category as the rest of the clips that you had there in the opening.
HUNT: Matt Gorman, how do you look at this?
MATT GORMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I look at it actually in somewhat similar to Lanhee's point. I thought he was more definitive than I'd ever heard him about 2028. I think people use that around him, at least definitively. He's trying to get the headlines and try and get in the news a little bit. They -- they speak out in front of the president when it comes to 2028. He's pretty definitive I thought on that.
And then on that first part, I watched it live, and I read the transcript and I -- when the clip came initially, I'm like, huh, that's interesting. And you read it and he's -- his next line is, I'm going to respond by -- I think it was more of a deflection. I don't know, I don't know in terms of the due process argument, in terms of Abrego Garcia, because in that same line, he also says, I'm going to follow the Supreme Court. I'm going to listen to my lawyers on this.
So I don't think he was addressing the question, the philosophical one, about upholding the oath of office. It was in terms of Abrego Garcia due process and the deportation back and forth.
HUNT: Do you buy that?
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think the problem with the president is that were constantly having to parse what he means, and it's this kind of like, do you think he means this? It's like this Rorschach test. If you're a Republican, you see, you know, it's all, you know, stars and stripes. And if you are a Democrat, they are worried. And they see a demagogue.
And that is the problem. He's never definitive. He's never clear this. I don't know. That is constantly being used, allows for a lot of interpretation. And then when he does something later, he says, well, I told you I was going to do it. And so, this is the problem that constantly happens, I think.
HUNT: Adrienne?
ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yeah. I completely agree, man. Look, here's the bottom line. I think we always have to take Donald Trump for his word. I mean, many of the things he said on the campaign trail, I'm going, you know, whether it's -- I'm going to restrict a woman's access to abortion or whether I'm going to enact tariffs or whatever it may be, those are the things he's actually done. That is the one thing I'll give Trump credit for. He says he's going to do something he doesn't.
HUNT: Expect lower prices, possibly.
ELROD: Except maybe lower prices.
HUNT: And I may not be seeing that yet.
ELROD: Often the things that he says are not things that we that we want to see enacted, which is one of the reasons why, you know, we -- we ran a -- you know, we ran against him. But -- but the bottom line is this his campaign's political action committee, whatever it is, they're printing 2028, you know, Trump 2028 hats. Youve got Steve Bannon, one of his big allies, surrogates out there saying he's definitely going to run again. He's definitely going to win again.
We have to take him at his word. And its a shame and it's a disgrace you don't see more Republicans out there speaking out against this.
HUNT: Let's look at a slightly longer version of what Trump had to say specifically on this third term question, because, again, as our panel has astutely pointed out, we tied it together there. There's him saying he doesn't know if he's going to uphold the Constitution as part of the immigration deportation situation. And then there is this piece about his political future. And he did talk about other Republicans who may succeed him as well. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: So many people want me to do it. I have never had requests so strong as that. But it's something that, to the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to do. I don't know if that's constitutional, that they're not allowing you to do it or anything else, but there are many people selling the 2028 hat.
[16:10:01]
But this is not something I'm looking to do. I'm looking to have four great years and turn it over to somebody. You look at Marco, you look at J.D. Vance, who is fantastic. You look at -- I could name 10, 15, 20 people right now just sitting here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Matt Gorman?
GORMAN: I mean, you look at him at his word, that's pretty definitive. He's talking about successors. He went on a riff, extended riff about J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio in particular.
Again, one of the big takeaways from that interview was how definitive he was in 2020, how introspective he was on people who would be his successor. That was one of the few things -- I thought, first of all, it was a very good interview. I thought it was better for Trump than ABC one he did last week. I thought Kristen Welker did a very good job and they came prepared. That was a fair interview on both ends, and I thought that was one of the highlights of it.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I'm curious, though, because when he says it's not something I'm looking to do you could then say, oh, everyone was asking me and then I'm going to do it. I didn't want to, but, you know, the people really want me to run again. I mean, again, I don't think it's as definitive as you're making it.
GORMAN: But it wasn't the not allowed to do, it was also is not the agency was not just him. It was not something you're allowed to do.
CHEN: I've also never heard him really muse about his successors.
GORMAN: Yeah.
CHEN: It's the first time when you hear him actually naming J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio, whoever the 10 or 15 others are, we can have a little pool maybe afterwards about who those 10 or 15 are. But obviously I do think -- I mean, I thought this was pretty definitive, certainly more definitive than I've heard. And, you know, he even talks about the 2028 hats because I'm sure he knew people would raise this as an issue. And he says, look, it's not something I'm looking to do. So I don't know, for me, for me, fairly definitive, but. GARCIA-NAVARRO: The thing that I thought was super fascinating,
though, is the raising the specter of Marco Rubio. There is not a lot of love lost. You know, according to many people, between J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio, there are, you know, very different groups within the White House who support the vision of both of those men. And it's sort of pitting them, pitting them, pitting them against each other a little bit, I thought was -- was very Trumpian.
HUNT: Well, we have two people who could. I'm interested in both of your takes on whether there's already a shadow primary going on between Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance on the Republican side.
GORMAN: That might be a little dramatic. I think we could be seeing the ticket. But lets be clear here. I think J.D. Vance is in the catbird seat on this because he's the sitting vice president. However, I could tell you better working for Tim Scott like the former president, United States was challenged in a relatively competitive primary. J.D. would be, too, if he -- if he decides to run.
CHEN: Look, every politician at the end of the day when they reach that level would love to be president, I'm sure. And I think Marco Rubio or J.D. Vance would be fantastic presidents. But the reality is that right now, they're serving the president of the United States, and they're focused on that.
HUNT: So one other person briefly in this conversation, and, Adrienne, as a Democrat who has to look across the Senate map, which is really going to be a major battleground, Brian Kemp announced that he is not going to run for Senate in Georgia. Democratic leaders here in Washington or excuse me, Republican leaders here in Washington had really wanted Kemp to run for this seat because one of the other people that wants to run is Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is, of course, a very Trump focused candidate. But does -- Adrienne, does this make it easier for Democrats to potentially hang on to this seat?
ELROD: Yeah, I think it does. I mean, it just depends on how the Democratic field shakes out. But look, Georgias a state that we won in 2020. It's a state that we narrowly lost in 2024. I think that we feel good about our odds there.
And look, I mean, Kasie, let's not forget that we won the senate seat in Alabama during a special election in -- when Trump was president. That was a seat that Democrats never thought they could pick up. So, you certainly are --
HUNT: A special case.
ELROD: It was a very special case. The Republican Party --
(CROSSTALK)
ELROD: But, however, however, we have to look at those little bright spots and apply them to -- to where we are today. And when you look at how Trump is destroying our economy, how Americans are worried about their savings every single day, how this tariff quote, unquote, trade war is so erratic, we don't know where it's going. Americans are worried. We're seeing that in the numbers and Trump's numbers.
And unless he gets his numbers up, I think Democrats are going to have a pretty successful midterm on both the House and the Senate side.
HUNT: Well, we're going to -- we're going to talk about the economy just up here out of this next break.
Up next, if you thought a night at the movies was expensive, just wait. The president's bombshell announcement that is bringing Hollywood into the trade wars.
Plus, new reaction today to something that the president is repeating that is not going over terribly well in many homes, especially those with small children across the country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, hell no.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, hell no.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, I rarely. Talk directly to the president, but you listen and you listen good. If I wake up on Christmas morning. And I run downstairs to find only two dolls under my tree, I will lose my f-ing mind. There better be -- better be a second tree with 28 dolls.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:19:16]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
President Trump unveiling a fresh set of tariffs today this time on the movie industry. He says he's soon going to meet with representatives from the American film industry to discuss his plan to apply new tariffs to foreign made films.
[16:20:00]
Let's bring in CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes, who is live for us outside the White House.
Kristen, of course, back after having a baby. And were thrilled to have you here in THE ARENA for the first time. Kristen, thank you so much.
This is like another example, right, of the president continuing this push on tariffs, which he is obviously very personally invested in, but it seems very unclear how this one would actually work.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. That's right. This is an industry that has a lot of ins and outs. And the way that this would work is really questionable, because it's not as though you're just taxing one product that is made in one place. You're talking about a movie which as we know, a lot of the different production houses are scattered across the world. They have different places that you film, different places that things are edited.
So how you actually do this is really -- there's a lot of questions now. This is what he said. He posted this on Truth Social. He said the movie industry in America is a -- is a dying, very fast death. Excuse me, is dying a very fast death.
Other countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw our filmmakers and studios away from the United States. We want movies made in America again.
Now, Kevin Liptak, our senior White House reporter, did learn that Donald Trump had dinner or met with actor Jon Voight over the weekend, who was one of his liaisons to Hollywood, a big Trump supporter. So that could have played into this at some factor. But we also heard Donald Trump kind of seeming like he might be walking this back a little bit when he was just asked a question about it. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Hollywood doesn't do very much of that business. They have the nice sign and everything's good, but they don't do very much. A lot of it's been taken to other countries, and a big proportion, and I'm actually going to meet with some because, you know, there's some advantages, I guess, and I'm not looking to hurt the industry. I want to help the industry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: So you can hear though, that clearly. He had talked to somebody who said it might hurt the industry because he said that he didn't want to hurt the industry, that there could be some advantages. As we know, there are a lot of advantages to these various productions being filmed overseas, like tax incentives. So, be interesting to see where this actually goes.
HUNT: Again, possibly making -- making it a lot more expensive for American companies to make movies to then have, you know, sell to American consumers.
Kristen Holmes, thank you. Great to see you. We'll see you again tomorrow.
HOLMES: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. So, with no end in sight for Trump's trade war with China, the president is doubling down on this cheerful Christmas in July message for Americans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm just saying they don't need to have 30 dolls. They can have three. They don't need to have 250 pencils. They can have five.
All I'm saying is that that you don't that a young lady, a 10-year-old girl, 9-year-old girl, a 15-year-old girl, doesn't need 37 dolls. She could be very happy with 2 or 3 or 4 or 5.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I think he missed the memo that 15-year-old girls these days just want, what's the elephant skin care? I'm not cool enough to know what it is.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Drunk elephant.
HUNT: Drunk elephant. Thank you. You must have a daughter in this age range.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I do.
HUNT: Okay. There you go. And not dolls.
But, Lulu, you and I were on this set at the end of last week. And well let these guys argue about whether or not this matters in a second. But one of our friends of the show was arguing this comment. You know, I was going to be lost in the noise.
That may have been true if Trump had said it that one time. But he said at that time and then a second time, and -- I mean, "The Wall Street Journal" wrote it this way, quote, past presidents have urged voters to tighten their belts because of war, pestilence, natural calamity, economic contagion or their predecessors mistakes.
Mr. Trump is the first to do so because of his own policy decisions and his stubborn insistence on sticking with them. In Mr. Trump's America, you get two dolls only, you pay more and you be sure to thank the man in the handmade silk tie on the way out.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Well, enough said.
(LAUGHTER)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I don't think I can top that.
Yes. I felt this was going to be a big deal. Also, because it would have been malpractice on the Democrats side if they hadn't made it a big deal. So just that alone. But -- but -- but I will say this, you know, the way that this is being portrayed is everyone's rich in America, and they're going to have 30 dolls, and you can just have 2 or 3.
But the fact is that there are a lot of kids who aren't rich, and a lot of families who aren't wealthy. And if dolls are more expensive, it might mean that they get no dolls. So, it's not just this idea of like, everyone is just crazy mad and buying as much as they can. Which by the way, America was built on, it's the capitalist system, but it's also this idea that there are a lot of people who can't afford things. And if things are more expensive, that means that maybe little Jimmy or little Susie might not get their dolls that they want because they're action figures, too. This is not just little girls. Little boys like dolls.
HUNT: Oh, I have a lot of Spider-man dolls.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Thank you.
HUNT: Dolls --
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Matt Gorman, I mean, this -- I just, I -- I mean, so I cut my teeth, as you know, covering Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, who famously once said that corporations are people. And that was very, you know, did not go over very well. He had a number of other lines --
GORMAN: Flashbacks. Yeah.
HUNT: He was also there, helping run policy for that.
And in those instances when he would say things like that or any candidate that's not Trump, you all scrambled to correct it, right? And, you know, he, I think, still believes the point that he was trying to make. But there was an understanding that politically this was not really the best thing to do.
I never thought in my life I would hear a Republican politician making this argument, like telling little kids they had to have less because of something that that you did from a strictly like winning elections perspective.
[16:25:03]
GORMAN: Yeah. No, I hear you. And I was surprised -- I was surprised to hear it again. I think on Sunday, I was surprised to hear kind of as a repeat thing.
HUNT: And then a third time on air force one, right?
GORMAN: Yeah. And I think one of the things like whether it's politicians I talk to or like corporate leaders like you always want to emphasize the solution. You always want to emphasize the positive. And it helps if there is medicine to be taken or there's bad news somewhere in an answer or in a decision or a circumstance emphasizing the positive and emphasizing the solution helps to the listener and just people you're dealing with understand it puts a better spin in the conversation.
So, leading with the negative and leading with what you're not getting as opposed to what you are getting. Or you could be getting the benefits of this, I think, is an interesting tactic and one that like --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Interesting, interesting.
(CROSSTALK)
GORMAN: Yeah.
CHEN: It reflects the reality of the situation we could be in later this year. And the president's repeatedly said that, you know, there may, may be less supply of some things, that we may see higher prices. And I think this is sort of the reflection of the reality of the policy he's carrying out.
And I think it's because he's hearing from some of his advisors, look, this is probably going to happen if we continue down the path that we're continuing now. I don't think it's going to change how the president thinks about these issues, because if there's one consistency he's had in his career over many years, it's tariffs. You know, he really believes in that point of view.
HUNT: Well, and I mean, Adrienne Elrod you also a political strategist. And frankly Democrats have occasionally said tariffs are a policy that could have positive results in certain cases.
ELROD: On this circumstance.
HUNT: Right. I've talked to Elizabeth Warren was here saying, yes, there are circumstances where this would work.
But again, it's one thing to say you can't have any dolls. Like he could be out there saying, well, you know what? This Christmas might be a little bit tough, but you know what? What I'm doing is going to give your -- your dad, your mom a better job in a couple of years.
ELROD: You may not be able to buy the lawnmower this Christmas, but you can buy it maybe in two years from now. It very much like lower price. I mean, that would probably be a better way to frame this. I mean, look, a couple of things. I think you made a really good point by saying that it would have been malpractice for Democrats not to take advantage of this. Thats absolutely the case. And thank goodness that we have, and we are and were continuing.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Wasn't it given.
ELROD: Sorry, I -- no, I completely agree with you. Number one.
But number two, look, this is just another anecdote that I think you'll hear more and more from as we get closer to the midterms. You'll see a lot of members of congress, Democrats who are running either for reelection or as challengers who will use this in an ad basically saying, like, Donald Trump wants to take away X, Y, and Z from you, including your kids dolls. Also, by the way, if only 12- year-old kids could vote, this might also help. It's just a little bit --
HUNT: It's such an evocative example.
ELROD: It is, only he can get away with it.
HUNT: Like even if you don't have kids, like you were once a kid who celebrated some holiday where, you know --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Will he get away with it? I guess that's the -- that's the question. I mean, we don't know yet. Political gravity, right? It's -- it's always been the big question
around -- around Donald Trump and this particular issue, this hasn't come up before where you're actually telling the American people and their children, you're not going to have enough.
CHEN: He may not have to determine what the cost of it will be, but Republicans in the House and Senate will in the midterm elections next year. If there is an impact on price or supply or some other economic constraint. And that's going to be the big question, right? How much of this actually ends up happening versus being able to pull back?
HUNT: All right, everybody, stand by.
We want to get now to some breaking news out of the Pentagon. We're reporting first here on CNN.
CNN's Natasha Bertrand is live at the Pentagon with more.
Natasha, what -- what are you learning?
NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY & POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Kasie. We just obtained a memo from Secretary of Defense Hegseth in which he orders senior military leadership to cut the number of senior four-star generals by about 20 percent across the entire U.S. military, as well as the number of general officers in the National Guard by 20 percent, and a further 10 percent of all general and flag officers across the whole military.
Now, this is going to reduce significantly the number of four-star generals across the Pentagon here. And it's part of a measure that secretary of defense has wanted to take for quite some time. Even during his confirmation hearings, he has railed against these senior leaders, saying that they are really complicit in the politicization of the military. In a podcast interview earlier this year, he said, I would say over a third of these generals are actively complicit, and then you have a lot of grumblers who are sort of going along trying to resist the nonsense as much as they can, but they're not fundamentally changing that.
Now, the argument that he laid out in this memo for cutting this number, large number of senior military positions, is that they are redundant. They are not providing a lot of necessary change to the U.S. military that that Secretary Hegseth wants to see.
But ultimately, he has railed, as I said, against the senior leaders for years now, saying that they are woke and that they are actively politicizing the military. Of course, we saw that Hegseth move to fire the chairman, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff earlier this year, as well as the chief of naval operations earlier this year, essentially saying that their services were no longer needed here at the DOD.
[16:30:02]
And so this is all part of the military's broader kind of attempt to consolidate, to try to downsize, but also, of course, the culture wars that Secretary Hegseth has been carrying out here at the military for the last several months.
HUNT: All right. Natasha Bertrand, for us at the Pentagon with that brand new reporting for us here on CNN -- Natasha, thank you very much.
Our panel is back.
And, Lanhee, I want to put this one to you because you have worked in defense and national security policy. I mean, it is no small thing to say you are going to cut the military workforce, the highest levels of it, by 20 percent. What impact does that have?
CHEN: Well, there's a tremendous amount of institutional memory there. I mean, people who are able to rise to that rank have accomplished a lot in their military careers. They have served honorably and bravely, and more importantly, they usually are in roles where they have some form of combat experience or some kind of a body of knowledge around a particular policy area that's impactful.
So that's the thing I'm most concerned about is when you start to lose that institutional memory, particularly at the top ranks. That's really the issue, right? The world is not necessarily becoming more safe. And so, I think we have to have the right talent to deal with those challenges.
HUNT: Yeah, I mean, for anyone -- I mean, Adrienne, you've worked in and out of government. If for people who are not familiar with the military, people who have reached this rank have risen above, you know, their -- their colleagues are, you know, late in their career, they're kind of equivalent to major executives, oftentimes C-suite executives at private companies. As Lanhee notes, many of them have battlefield experience, which is obviously not something that you come by terribly easily.
I mean, what in your view would be the ramification here?
ELROD: Well, I mean, I think first of all, drastic ramifications, right? Because to your point, I mean, these are people who have served at the highest levels, who have incredible experience, who have intelligence that they've honed. That is really hard to replace.
I mean, you know, I don't know what the equivalent would be, but one four-star general could equal, you know, 20, 30 lower ranked members of the military. It's just you are getting rid of, I think, for no reason, institutional knowledge that's critically important to our national security.
Now what I can't quite square is why Trump's budget blueprint that he put forward out of the White House has a dramatic increase in military spending. But then he's coming in and wanting to slash 20 percent of, you know, four-star generals and the highest ranked military members that we have. So there's a lot of things that I don't think make a lot of sense.
But this goes back to Trump going to his base. Many members of the military voted for him. I can't imagine that a lot of veterans and military members would support this kind of policy.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, we are going to explore the many jobs, hats worn, held by Marco Rubio, from secretary of state to interim national security advisor. And there is plenty more.
The State Department spokesperson, Tammy Bruce, will be here, live in THE ARENA.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:37:16]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, is kicking off his first full week holding four different roles. He is now the interim national security adviser, the USAID administrator, the U.S. archivist, all in addition to serving as secretary of state. Rubio's various roles raising some eyebrows on Capitol Hill over the weekend, just raising questions about how one person can balance it all.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): I don't know how anybody could do these two big jobs, and they're frankly very different.
REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Both of those jobs are too big for one person. To have both of those jobs, including a bunch of other jobs on the shoulders of Marco Rubio, you know, these are people who actually need sleep if we're going to stay out of wars and stuff. So, you know, I'm a little worried about the, you know, national security advisor idea.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Joining us now to discuss is State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce.
Tammy, thank you so much for joining the show today.
I do want to start with the simple and straightforward question of how the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is balancing these jobs. What is he delegating considering his workload is now at least twice what it was?
TAMMY BRUCE, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON: Well, what I can tell you is that I can't get into the details of the choices the secretary makes on a -- on a moment by moment basis, but clearly, the president and the secretary have a very good relationship. They know each other. The secretary has been there quite often, multiple times a week.
And I can also tell you, having joined him on January 20th, is that this is a man who is committed to his work, who has got boundless energy, who enjoys his work. He has been very excited about the trust that the president has placed in him in general. And he's also not someone who's going to do something that if he thinks he can't do it. I don't think there's much that he thinks he can't do. But these are men and women who understand what is happening and what
the weight of the world on their shoulders, which they have readily accepted, and they're ready for it.
So, the president believes in him. The secretary understands what's expected, and he is certainly looking forward to it. In the meantime, of course, the State Department has an extraordinary slate of leaders here, and we certainly are not going to be moved off our mission, which continues to be managed and overseen by the secretary, to say the least.
And the two jobs in many ways do overlap in the sense of foreign policy, national security and the president's interests and vision. So there's -- we don't see a conflict there at all, of course.
HUNT: Will he be stepping back his international travel schedule to make sure that he's at the White House as the national security advisor typically would be?
BRUCE: Well, I can't speculate on the nature of the choices he's going to make, but I can tell you that I've been on a number of trips with the secretary and certainly have seen, the then NSA leader, Mike Waltz, present as well.
So, I think that this these are really, as I think we've seen with President Trump and certainly with Secretary Rubio, these are jobs that become enacted through the vision of the person holding them. And they're going to make decisions that are best for the United States and our national security. Thats what the president does. And that's certainly what secretary rubio has been doing and will continue to do.
HUNT: Does -- does holding both of these jobs give Steve Witkoff who's been the president's envoy in many international situations, a wider opening to take on more of the responsibilities that would be traditionally executed by the secretary of state.
BRUCE: You know, what's fascinating about watching President Trump work on what he has demanded of others with him, and certainly even in foreign policy ideas like how we handle the Gaza situation, is the president handles these situations in a new way. He has a new vision. He knows that in order for the world to work properly and for this government to actually be sustainable, we have to look at things through a new with a new vision and new ideas, and that includes the nature of our special envoys.
These are men and women who have their -- their own sensibility about what's possible. The president knows them well, knows what they can contribute, and he has not been wrong up until this point. Of course, we've seen with the first term and now this term that that same passion drives the president, and it is part of how Secretary Rubio views his work as well. So, we are seeing a definitely a unique point of view when it comes to how to make these jobs work. But the American people like what they're seeing, and we're going to continue on that path.
HUNT: Do you -- does the Secretary of State trust Steve Witkoff unconditionally?
BRUCE: Well, I -- again, I can't speculate on the nature of his immediate personal feelings, but what I can tell you from what I've seen and from his comments, from the meetings I've been in, there is an excellent relationship, even a friendship, in order to make these jobs work, and this foreign policy work, which you've seen as a hallmark of these first 110 days or so, are a group of people who trust each other, who agree and understand the presidents vision, who understand that he is a genius at choosing and recognizing who can make that difference.
And he has not been wrong with -- certainly Ambassador Witkoff, certainly not with Secretary Rubio. And so, when it comes to the nature of personnel -
HUNT: There's no daylight between Witkoff and Rubio.
BRUCE: Yeah. Not -- not that I've -- not that I've seen and I've been on many -- certainly most of the trips, certainly have been in the meetings. I've of course, met all of these individuals.
I can tell you that there is a camaraderie and a passion and an excitement about being able to make a difference for the people of this country, but also for the people of the world. It is an exciting and remarkable focus on getting peace around the world and focusing on that. It's a once in a lifetime possibility, and the men and women who can do it are in charge right now, and that's exciting.
HUNT: Was the secretary surprised to hear President Trump name him as a possible successor to President Trump in 2028?
BRUCE: I -- I can't speak to that when it comes to the nature of his own feelings. I do know that, of course, the secretary is completely focused. As you might imagine, you report on this every day. The nature of what's happening in the world. He -- he has this job and he does have a couple of others, and he's focused on getting the job done and also making sure that people understand the power here at home of foreign policy, of president Trump's vision, but also a traditional point of view about diplomacy, that meeting face to face matters, traveling to meet with our partners matters, and that our relationship with certain countries, certainly, to the south of us, have got to go beyond borders, that it's about trade and it's about security, et cetera.
And that's his vision. It's an overall global vision.
HUNT: Speaking of countries to the south of us, does the secretary believe that immigrants who are deported to these other countries are entitled to due process under the Constitution?
BRUCE: Well, there's -- there's always, of course, due process. These are individuals who have either violated our laws or their -- their visas have been removed --
HUNT: But the presidency has questioned that.
(CROSSTALK)
BRUCE: -- removed to from the -- from the country.
Well, let me speak again about the nature of the State Department and the process that's happening here. If these are individuals, of course, who then have to leave the country and are not able to be accepted or returned to their home country, that the secretary has worked very hard at making sure that there are other nations that will accept them.
[16:45:03]
And all through this process --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Has he spoken to the El Salvadoran president lately?
BRUCE: -- you have individuals who've gotten into the country with visas or in in a fashion that is through the process and the dynamic of making a decision if they can stay in the country also involves due process.
HUNT: OK.
BRUCE: So, I think the nature of how we're proceeding as a department has spoken for itself. I'm sorry?
HUNT: Okay. Has Marco Rubio spoken recently with Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador?
BRUCE: Well, I'm not going to speak to what world leaders the secretary speaks to. He speaks to multiple world leaders.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Is he still working on the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia?
BRUCE: And I'm not going to speak --
HUNT: Is he still working on the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia?
BRUCE: -- with the president?
HUNT: Is he still working on the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia?
BRUCE: I'm not going to speak to his work. I'm not going to -- I'm not going to speak to the nature of the work that he does every day in its details. Clearly --
HUNT: But you're the spokeswoman for the State Department. I mean, with all due respect, like --
BRUCE: I -- yes, but that doesn't mean that -- just -- just a minute. That doesn't mean I'm the gossiper for the State Department.
HUNT: I'm not asking you to gossip. I'm asking you for --
(CROSSTALK)
BRUCE: -- the State Department. I'm -- I'm -- I'm telling you the nature of what it is that I'm -- I can speak to. And it does not include the day-to-day operations or choices the secretary of state makes. That's not going to happen.
We clearly know this is in the forefront for the State Department and the forefront for the secretary of state, but you're not going to get the nature of the details of negotiations, diplomacy or the decisions the secretary makes during his day.
HUNT: Okay. Tammy Bruce, I appreciate you coming on the show today and hope to see you again soon. Thank you.
BRUCE: My pleasure.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next, why President Trump wants to reopen the Alcatraz prison. Yeah, that Alcatraz, the one you may remember from the movies. We'll explain.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:51:11]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Burglary. Armed robbery. Grand larceny. You'll escape from quite a few prisons. That's why you're here. Alcatraz was built to keep all the rotten eggs in one basket.
No one has ever escaped from Alcatraz. No one ever will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: President Trump's newly announced plan for the notorious Alcatraz prison, not one that would be a fit for a young Clint Eastwood. The president now in talks with the Bureau of Prisons about reopening the infamous federal penitentiary to hold, quote, America's most ruthless and violent offenders.
Alcatraz, who which once housed the likes of Al Capone and the OG Machine Gun Kelly, closed in 1963 due to high maintenance costs, but now generates about $60 million a year in revenue for the National Park Service as a tourist destination.
Trump told reporters today more about how his plan came to be.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: How did you come up with the idea?
TRUMP: Well, I guess I was supposed to be a movie maker. Alcatraz is, I would say, the ultimate, right? Alcatraz. Sing, sing and Alcatraz, the movies. Nobody's ever escaped from Alcatraz and just represented something strong having to do with law and order.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: We could have a whole conversation about the mayor of Washington, D.C.'s body language in that shot.
But let's keep this focused on, on Alcatraz here and, Lulu, I mean, this clearly to me, speaks to the president's, you know, interest in the theatrical, like the TV producer in him, because there is no, I mean, the, the, the facility that replaced Alcatraz, right, is called the Alcatraz of the Rockies and has been described as a high tech version of hell.
Many of the 400 prisoners are required to spend 23 hours a day alone in a seven by 12 foot concrete cells. They receive all their meals on trays through small holes in the door, limited natural light. Their recreation hour usually spent in a small outdoor cage which is surrounded by high gray walls with a view of the sky etched by barbed wire. That's what we have already.
We don't need necessarily Alcatraz, but the president wants it anyway.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah, we don't need it also, because it would be incredibly expensive to refit that, to actually put prisoners there. The reason it was closed down, it was because it was, you know, it was incredibly expensive to keep it going. There's no water source there. You have to ship it in, all sorts of reasons why this is not viable.
But he gets to own the news cycle because we're all talking about Alcatraz, and we get to see Clint Eastwood, which is always a good thing. So --
MORGAN: Yeah, first of all, Muriel Bowser would have escaped from anywhere from her face as Trump was talking about that. You're right.
And also, Florence -- ADX Florence, which you're talking about. Yes. Facility in Florence, they have Ted Kaczynski was there, the Tsarnaev brother that's still alive that committed the Boston bombing. They're all housed there.
I think one of the advantages of that is that it's far away from a lot of other like civilization. So, from everything. Right? I mean, you have the Buena Vista Cafe in beautiful San Francisco harbor, right across from Alcatraz.
I think certainly if -- if -- whomever is committed to doing this, it's not going to be just the Trump term, like this would have to be a longer term priority. To Lulu's point, it's going to be expensive, costly to do the plumbing. It's going to be a long term project.
HUNT: For sure.
All right. Coming up, something totally different. Donald Trump on the dark side or the light. What the White House apparently thinks, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
To celebrate Star Wars Day, May the 4th be with you, all who celebrate, including me, the White House shared this, A.I. generated photo of a beefed up Donald Trump wielding a lightsaber, and they said that he was basically a member of the rebel alliance. But there was a conflicting detail that if you are even honestly, let's be real, like the most basic of Star Wars fans, you probably noticed he was holding a red lightsaber.
I am sorry, what? As every true Star Wars fan knows, that's a Sith lightsaber. Here's an explainer from the creator, George Lucas.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To figure out who he had to talk to about your light color, lightsaber color.
GEORGE LUCAS, STAR WARS CREATOR: Oh, well, good guys are -- good guys are green and blue. Bad guys are red. That's just the way it works.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Jake Tapper, that is just the way it works in the Star Wars universe.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, THE LEAD: You know, I'm an absolutist on a lot of these things. For instance, you and I have gotten into it back and forth about Grogu, who you call --
HUNT: Baby Yoda.
TAPPER: Yeah, that's not what his name. His name is Grogu.
HUNT: Forever, baby Yoda.
TAPPER: And then, of course -- but we do agree on Han, not only shooting first, Han being the only one who shot, but that's a conversation I've been told I need to shut up about because it takes too long.
Kasie, I'll see you.
HUNT: We absolutely do.
TAPPER: I'll see you back in THE ARENA tomorrow.
HUNT: See you tomorrow.
