Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Carney Tells Trump: Canada "Won't Be For Sale, Ever"; Exclusive: Democratic Senator John Fetterman Says Story Alleging Erratic Behavior Is "One Source Hit Piece"; India Launches Military Operation Against Pakistan. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired May 06, 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]
BOMANI JONES, PODCAST HOST: I have no reason to believe that anybody who sees himself as a titan of industry, which is how Trump sees himself, would ever be in this, in the name of labor.
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Listen, you make great points about the voices that need to be involved in this discussion that that weren't involved for so long and still aren't.
But, Bomani Jones, really appreciate it. Thank you.
JONES: Thank you.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's Trump versus Canada.
Let's head into "THE ARENA."
New trade talks at the White House overshadowed by an old presidential pledge. Inside the meeting between President Trump and Canada's new prime minister.
And what the Canada's prime minister is saying now after leaving the White House.
Also this hour, a CNN exclusive, Senator John Fetterman addressing a recent report on his mental health and his future in the Senate.
Plus, the speaker of the House defiant over the president's tax bill and its chances of passing. Republican Senator James Lankford will be here.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt, welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Tuesday.
As we come on the air, it is clear that nothing about this is going to be easy. President Trump, desperate for a deal in his global trade war, hosting one of Americas staunchest allies for what should have been pretty straightforward talks with an old friend. But, of course, it quickly devolved into a public pressure campaign again from the president for Canada to become part of the U.S.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It would really be a wonderful marriage because it's two places they get along very well. They like each other a lot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That proposal slapped down pretty quickly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: As you know from real estate, there are some places that are never for sale.
TRUMP: That's true.
CARNEY: We're sitting in one right now. You know, Buckingham Palace you visited as well.
TRUMP: That's true.
CARNEY: And having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign last several months, it's not for sale. Won't be for sale, ever.
TRUMP: But never say never. Never say never.
(CROSSTALK)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: It might be a little hard to hear there at the end. Let's look at this replay. The president saying never say never. And you can see the prime minister says "never" to the reporters in the Oval Office. By our count, at least five, maybe six times.
And just a reminder, the whole reason or a very big part of the reason why Mark Carney is prime minister today is because of this 51st state situation, with analysts pointing to anti-Trump sentiment in Canada as the catalyst for his late in the game election win.
But let's back up for a second, before Carney even got to the White House today, he was welcomed in a way that only Donald Trump can do, with the president posting that the U.S. doesn't need anything from Canada except friendship, quote, which hopefully we all -- will always maintain. Sort of sounds like having someone over to break up with them, but hoping, you know, you can still be friends.
About an hour after he posted that, the president then said this while sitting next to the prime minister.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: We're going to be friends with Canada. Regardless of anything, we're going to be friends with Canada.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Friends regardless. Okay, but it seems to be the exact opposite of the post that he made before he got there. He said he had just hoped that we'd all stay friends.
Anyway, while that very meeting was happening on the other coast, one flashing red warning sign literally arriving on American soil, you're looking live at the port of Los Angeles, where the first ships carrying Chinese goods that have been slapped with that 145 percent tariff are docking today. Many of them are only half full.
And that means that in just a matter of weeks, Americans are set to be faced with higher prices, shortages on store shelves, the prospect of fewer jobs. The head of the L.A. port telling CNN today that getting things from China to the U.S. is now costing about two and a half times more than they did just last month.
Just think about your own household budget and what it would look like if suddenly everything costs two and a half times what it costs right now.
So, with those very tangible impacts, is there some hope for some deal somewhere, anywhere?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Is there anything he could say to you in the course of your meetings with him today that could get you to lift tariffs on Canada?
TRUMP: No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Our panel is here.
But let's get started with CNNs senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes, who's at the White House for us.
Kristen, this was pretty tense. And then we did hear from the prime minister for the first time since that meeting ended. There was a reporter who asked, you know, who says, well, we were watching your face, Mr. Prime Minister.
[16:05:00]
What was going through your mind? What did he say?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. And I just want to point out the clip that you showed of him saying never, never, never. That was actually the non-contentious part of this meeting. That was earlier on. Donald Trump had said, you know, I want to talk about Canada as the 51st state, but it takes two to tango. We're not going to talk about this now, of course, still talked about it. And then Carney weighed in, but they were still kind of cordial at that time.
Then came the end of the meeting when Trump sort of went off on a rant about Canada, saying that U.S. shouldn't subsidize Canada, that Canada wasn't needed by the United States, to the point where you saw Carney's face visibly tightening. You also saw Carney multiple times try to interject while Donald Trump was talking, put up his hand like he was going to say something at the very end of his rant, Donald Trump shut the entire thing down and dismissed the press.
So, we were waiting to see how Carney was going to respond because, remember, part of the reason that he was elected was because of what he said about essentially telling Donald Trump to knock it off, telling the U.S. to knock it off. So, the fact that he didn't respond, we're pretty sure he was going to come out and say something back to the White House, back to Donald Trump.
And, of course, he did. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARNEY: President has made known his wish about that issue for -- for some time. I've been careful always to distinguish between wish and reality. I was clear there in the Oval Office, as I've been clear throughout, on behalf of Canadians, that this is never going to happen. Canada is not for sale. It never will be for sale.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: So obviously reiterating that point now, we are still trying to get a readout of what exactly happened behind closed doors, particularly since there was such a long Q&A session, 40 minutes in front of the press. As soon as we get into that, we will, of course, report back.
HUNT: All right. Kristen Holmes for us at the White House -- Kristen, thanks very much.
Our panel is here,
CNN senior political commentator, former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger, CNN political commentator, pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, CNN political commentator Xochitl Hinojosa, and the former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, Marc Short.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you very much for being here.
So, Congressman, let me start with you, and let's start with -- we showed you the ships. I mean, this for all of the -- the back and forth with the Canadians. And we can get into that.
Like the thing that seems to really matter to me is what's going on at these ports, right? The fact that these ships that are coming in are half full of things. And if we put up just how much Barbie dolls -- so, again, if you want to know how many dolls you can afford to put under your kids Christmas trees in the winter, it's going to be 42.9 percent less, I guess. Or at least that's how much more they are costing right now.
In one week, they have gone up more than 40 percent in price. And then you have the president of the United States in the Oval saying, oh no, Canada, our best friend, you know, not the person were trying to take on in the trade war, necessarily, the way China is our antagonist. No, we're not going to do a deal with you.
Are we just about to fall over a cliff here?
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, it feels like -- and this is like this is going to be Donald Trump's "let them eat cake" moment. Actually, I found out it was actually let them eat brioche, but we use cake anyway nowadays.
But this is a moment where he looks so out of touch with the American people and what they need. And the American people understand inherently, when you see less goods come in, they understand that that means prices go up. It means there's going to be empty shelves. And it wasn't that long ago that we dealt with this. And we have these terrible memories of what happened in COVID, and it took us about till now for the supply chains to fix themselves from COVID. We've basically now with the supply chains are running smoothly, and it's like we're throwing a bomb in there for no point but to own ourselves here.
Obviously, yes, it's hurting China. Yes, it's hurting the world. It's hurting us, too. And it's a pointless war, especially when you don't have your allies with you.
And the president's made a decision. He's going to throw grenades to every side instead of bringing our allies and having targeted tariffs at China, where actually, you could make a difference.
KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'm not so sure that I agree about the political impact of the ships as an imagery, because I think, in part, the reason why we've gotten to this place in American politics is because for a long time, Americans were frustrated that ships were coming here full of stuff, and then leaving here empty. And so, Americans voted for a president to try to create an economy where those ships leave our ports full.
Now, it's perfectly legitimate to say this current policy may not lead to that, or it may not lead to that quickly enough to satisfy frustrated Americans who are going to see the price of their goods go up, and how much of that short term pain are they willing to accept in exchange for a promise of long term gain? A promise of one day soon those boats leaving will be full? I do think it's going to create at least a short term political problem for the president.
But I still think this idea of like, well, boats coming from China aren't as full as they used to be. That in and of itself, I don't know --
KINZINGER: No, prices, the prices. ANDERSON: The prices are much more the problem.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, and my point less about the imagery of the boats themselves, but rather just what we are actually seeing there and what it portends for those shelves. Because one of those economic reports, Marc Short, that came out from, I think it was Apollo Global last week or the week before, it used the phrase COVID era shortages.
[16:10:07]
And I for sure remember what that was. I was doing some spring cleaning. I had a box of things that I purchased during the COVID era, shortages, and then stored for years. And now, I'm looking at I'm thinking, oh, you know, I thought I was going to toss this out, but you know, what? Actually replenishing it would be is going to be a lot more expensive. So maybe I should hang on to it instead.
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Yeah, I think the visual of actually empty shelves is far more devastating than what's coming in or out on the ships. But the reality is that America today exports more than any time in the history of our country. And the notion that we're launching a trade war against the globe runs counter to what the facts say about how America is actually been thriving.
And I think that some Americans perhaps be willing to accept some austerity, Kasie, if there was a clear explanation. But, you know, one day we've launched a trade war against the world because of fentanyl. Another day, we've launched a trade war because were unclear about what trade imbalances are. The next day is because we want to lower trade barriers across the country. The next day is to say we're trying to isolate against China.
And so, the messaging here has been all over the map. And I think that there is no need for this. I think it's an entirely self-inflicted wound by the president.
But beyond that, I do think Americans are willing to accept some austerity if there's an explanation for what reason. And right now, it's all over the map.
HUNT: Do you agree with the congressman about Donald Trump and the dolls? Is this his "let them eat cake" moment?
SHORT: Absolutely. I think I think that, you know, a lot of Americans, I think, appreciate that Donald Trump has been financially successful and they -- they look up to that. But I think the notion of knowing what his financial success is, while he's earning $1 billion in crypto in the first 100 days of the administration and then telling Americans what they're allowed to buy or how many dolls they can have, I do think is something that is a bad image for the president.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, and I also think, short term pain. I don't -- I'm not sure it's short-term pain. No one can tell us how long the pain is. And in addition to that, what Donald Trump's failed messaging on this
is that the pain is likely to coincide with the midterm elections. If I'm the Republican -- if I'm the Republican Party right now, it's like, when will this short term pain happen and how long will it be? Because let me just tell you, if it's happening in a year, we lose everything, or at least we lose the House. And that is where this is going.
But Trump doesn't seem to care about the rest of his party when it comes to this. I think that his party should be asking some questions privately. How long is this going to happen? What is -- what is the impact on our party? What is the impact on our economy?
And right now, Republicans are sort of pushing back a little bit, but they're going with the flow and it's going to hurt them in the long term.
HUNT: I mean, Mark, would you say I mean, the constant narrative of the Trump administration, which you served, was that Republicans would say privately a lot of things you were there for this as well, that they were not willing to say in public. That has been increasingly true here.
I feel like the panic level on tariffs among Republicans is off the charts, but no one is really saying it. I mean, you're here saying it.
SHORT: I, look -- no, I think it's -- I think it's starkly different. I think the first administration actually policies on the economy were really strong about lowering taxes and deregulating the economy. I think it led to enormous success. He has the playbook to be successful.
They've changed the playbook in the second administration. And you -- you say that, but I remember in the first administration we were trying to pass tax reform. And you had Collins, Murkowski, McCain, Corker, Flake. There was a lot of opposition that was pretty vocal.
I think the difference is today, the president has unified the party behind him, and they're afraid to challenge him because they're afraid he will primary them. And so, it is really different. And I think in this case, you know, it's not just Republicans. I think, frankly, the entire legislative branch has ceded authority on taxes and tariffs to the executive branch.
ANDERSON: I don't know if Trump's voter base is as rock solid behind him on this issue, as they are on some other things. His job approval among his voters on immigration is through the roof. But on tariffs, I see a lot of somewhat agree, somewhat approve happening in a lot of my polls on this where they're sort of willing to say, let Donald Trump cook. But I don't know if I really love this as an idea, but I trust him. And if he likes it, then let's let it play out.
KINZINGER: And this is the most -- this is going to be the thing that people feel the most like right now. It's all in theory, right? It's all theory. When they feel you never have deflation. So even when the tariffs come off, you're going to see prices stay high. And that's -- that's a rule of thumb.
HUNT: Super fun.
Okay. Coming up the meltdown at airports across the country. The Trump administration vowing an overhaul of the nation's air traffic control system as delays and cancellations pile up.
But first, breaking news on a CNN exclusive, Senator John Fetterman, addressing that recent story about the state of his mental health.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What was your reaction to it?
SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): Well, my reaction is it's a one source hit piece.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:19:08]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back. Breaking news coming off Capitol Hill this hour. CNN's sitting down exclusively with Senator John Fetterman.
He is pushing back on recent questions that have been raised about his fitness to serve in office now and into the future.
CNN chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju joins us now. And he sat down with the senator just a few moments ago.
Manu, tell us what you heard from Senator Fetterman?
RAJU: He's pushing back at these allegations that were detailed on the record by his former chief of staff, Adam Jentleson, who had raised concerns that John Fetterman, who was public about his battles with depression last year, who had checked himself into Walter Reed Hospital for six weeks, was no longer following the medical regimen that was laid out by his doctors in the aftermath of his treatment for clinical depression. And when I asked him about the concerns about erratic and reckless behavior detailed in that "New York Magazine" story, he pushed back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[16:20:06]
FETTERMAN: And it's just a disgruntled group of people. The -- and there's only one there. So -- so that's the same thing. Theres no new news involved for this.
RAJU: The individual is your former chief of staff, who has said that he's concerned about your well-being, which is why he went public. What do you say to some -- to someone like him who's concerned about -- he says he's concerned about your -- your personal well-being?
FETTERMAN: It's like, no, he's had a weird grudge. And he's -- he has he has threatened to do this for -- for quite a while. And if you are really concerned about someone, you could say, hey, let's sit down. Can we talk? It's not like going to the media.
And that's why somebody that has an agenda, it's like a hit piece.
RAJU: Senator, you've been -- you've been public about your struggles with depression. And you had a prescription regimen of drugs to take in the aftermath of your time. Have you been keeping up with that, taking your medication?
FETTERMAN: I went to my doctors -- my doctors are like, John, is great, and I am on all of the plan that has always been. And it's incredibly invasive. And why are people talking about anyone's personal medical things? It's that, you know, I think most people would agree that's really, really invasive.
RAJU: Can you explain what happened with those driving incidents? Was that reckless driving incident last year, and there was something in the concern in that article about you driving, getting behind the wheel?
FETTERMAN: No, it's like we've -- yeah, that there's no news -- there's no news on those things. It was an accident.
RAJU: You fully plan to serve your full term here in the Senate?
FETTERMAN: Come on. Of course. That's -- obviously, obviously. Everybody understands I was treated for depression.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: He wouldn't say if he would run for reelection in 2028. He said it's too early for that.
He is though, Kasie, getting support from Democrats and Republican senators alike here on the Hill. But when I put the question about Fetterman had raised and criticism to his former chief of staff, Adam Jentleson, he told me, quote, I stand by what I said and I hope he gets the help he needs -- Kasie.
HUNT: All right, Manu, stick around. We're going to open this conversation up to the panel.
And, Xochitl Hinojosa, let me put this to you as the Democrat at the table, only because, you know, John Fetterman has been was considered a rising star in the party. He won, you know, the Senate race in Pennsylvania, with a profile that was in some ways very Trumpian but on the left side, right? I mean, I -- I spent a lot of time covering him before this happened.
I think anyone who knew him before and knows him now knows that he's a different man. This has been a really difficult situation. What do you think is the right thing for Senator Fetterman to be doing right now? HINOJOSA: To take care of himself. I think that anyone suffering
depression, in any instance, it's hard to keep up with school, keep up with the job, to be U.S. senator and suffer from depression. I can only imagine what him and his family are going through.
And I know Adam Jentleson. I served with him in the Senate. We were friends and he is someone who, you know, serves his principles and is loyal. And he would only -- he's only sounding the alarm because he believes that the public needs to know that there is something there that he is not -- he's doing a disservice not only to his constituents, but to himself.
And I think he fears for his well-being. And so, this entire reporting is extremely devastating. But I think that he really needs to think about what is best for him and his family at this point.
HUNT: Yeah, I do think it is worth noting. Adam Jentleson worked for many years for -- for our viewers who may not understand how this works, he's been in the Capitol Hill ecosystem for a long, long time. He worked for Senator Harry Reid when he was the majority leader in the Senate. He is someone who usually is very discreet.
Congressman, were you surprised that this came out in public?
KINZINGER: Yeah.
HUNT: And what do you think it says?
KINZINGER: Look, I was surprised. I've become friends with John Fetterman. And I'll tell you, the public John Fetterman I knew before I met him, you know, he had all the -- well, this is the guy that doesn't wear a suit and everything else. As I've gotten to know him, he's one of the most genuine people I've ever met. And I mean that, like, there is no politician-ness in him.
And I think he wears his emotions on his sleeve, right? And so any of us, when I was in Congress, there were days I didn't want to go meet with people. I would have wanted to just sit at my desk, but I -- you know, didn't wear my emotions as much on my sleeves. I think he's so genuine.
Any decision to leave the Senate, any decision on the treatment for depression, it's his decision. He's been very open about it as well. I think this was kind of an unfair attack on him. Now, granted, when you're a public figure, you're a public figure. Everything's kind of fair game.
But I'll tell you, the John Fetterman I know is somebody that just you're really not going to meet a more genuine person. And the thing I worry about is that this is an attack against him because he's been so outspoken against, for instance, the some of the protests and things like that, and he's ticked off a lot of Dems.
[16:25:02]
I don't know if that's true or not, but I'm just saying I hope that's not the case.
HUNT: He certainly did have some staff in his office who were angry about that, and there was turnover because of that. I'm not sure that Adam is in that category.
What do you think, Kristen?
ANDERSON: Yeah, I just I also wonder to what extent this is all happening in the backdrop of this real reckoning within the Democratic Party, about the extent to which president Joe Biden, when he was president, was his condition a challenge, and was that being concealed from the public? And I think as Democrats go through this very public reckoning about what did we know and when did we know it, and when should that have been exposed, I do think that that is now leading to follow on stories, perhaps about others.
HUNT: What do you think is the bar, Marc, for any politicians ability -- you know, what do they owe the people that they represent in terms of being truthful about their own capacity?
SHORT: I don't think there's much privacy once you're a public official, but I agree with Kristen. I feel like for John Fetterman, he's been pretty open about his challenges in mental health. He's been transparent with his constituents. I think it's a much bigger danger than mental decline that was covered up in the last administration and is well, candidly, in some members of the House and the Senate who have stayed in those positions long past healthy perspective in their age in which they can no longer function. And that's sort of covered up many times.
This has been far more transparent than many of those issues that we still face in House and Senate.
HUNT: Yeah, really interesting.
Manu Raju, you said -- you noted that he's gotten a lot of support from both Republican and Democratic senators. I will say in my sort of recent reporting and talking to my sources on the Hill, you do get the sense that Fetterman very much operates and perhaps feels like he is a man alone, like he is standing alone, especially in the Democratic Party.
And I'm not saying that in the context of this, you know, this story that that came out by Ben Terris, that then you spoke to him about, but rather in the context of some of these issues, the government shutdown, for example, where of course, the party itself really -- there's huge backlash against Chuck Schumer and John Fetterman was one of the loudest voices out there saying, this is ridiculous. Why would we shut the government down? Very much at odds with the base of the party.
I mean, how much do you think these two things are interacting?
RAJU: Yeah, I mean, look, during that time of the government shutdown fight, John Fetterman stopped going to the Democratic lunches. He had been sort of on an island, as you say, on that issue. He was publicly out there calling not for -- against a shutdown. That was before Chuck Schumer ultimately aligned with him on that case, and he grew very frustrated with his party.
He has been also been also frustrated with his party on issues involving Israel as well, and that came up in our interview when I talked to him about that. There have been some allegations that perhaps some of that some of his behavior was tied to that -- tied to his positions, such as on Israel. He said that it has absolutely nothing to do with that at all.
But there's no question about it. He is someone who has staked out a position that is at odds with much of his caucus on some of these key fundamental issues. So, when it does come time for him to run for reelection in 2028, assuming that he does, you would probably expect some folks are clamoring to challenge him from the left in Pennsylvania, Kasie.
HUNT: Well, whether or not they can hang on to what has been a pretty swingy, if not, you know, lean red state is another question. But I do take your point about people seeing an opportunity.
Manu Raju, thanks so much for being with us. Really appreciate it. Congrats on the exclusive interview.
Our panel is going to stand by because, up next, we're going to talk about these new comments that are coming in from the secretary of transportation. What he is saying about the plan rolling out this week to try to fix the nation's aging air traffic system.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:33:08]
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
PILOT: 9674 approach.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER: 9674 radar contact lost. We lost our radar. So just stay on the arrival and maintain 6,000.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
HUNT: Yikes! For 30 seconds, air traffic controllers guiding flights into Newark airport lost all communications. It was the beginning of a meltdown at one of America's busiest airports that's resulted in hundreds of flight delays and cancellations.
Some air traffic controllers that day have taken trauma leave, which is putting more stress on an already short-staffed system. Today, the FAA has imposed a new ground delay for flights heading to Newark, triggering a ninth straight day of delays for that airport.
This is, of course, a problem decades in the making. There is the worst air traffic controller shortage in nearly 30 years, combined with outdated systems.
The Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy says a new state-of-the-art system is in the works.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN DUFFY, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: You have to keep planes in the air, taking off, landing, and you have to build a brand-new system around it. So, it is complicated, and because of that complication, no one has taken on the challenge of building this brand new, which is what we're going to do. If you build an iPhone, you can actually update to the newest technology off of an iPhone.
That's what we're going to build. So, as new technology comes online, we've built a brand new system that's state of the art that you can build on top of.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. CNN aviation correspondent Pete Muntean joins our panel.
Pete, welcome to THE ARENA.
PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: Anytime.
HUNT: Good to have you.
MUNTEAN: Happy to be here, only took a Newark meltdown.
HUNT: I was going to say what a disaster.
MUNTEAN: Yeah.
HUNT: One piece of that interview that Duffy did earlier today, he was asked fairly directly, like, is this safe? Like, would you feel good with your loved ones on the planes? It took him a minute to getting around to answering it. Eventually he said yes.
[16:35:00]
Yes, it was safe now, but it wasn't going to be safe in five years, which is alarming.
MUNTEAN: Yeah. You know, there's no real short-term fix here that the FAA is detailing about trying to make it so that these controllers, who are now on trauma leave, can actually be fully staffed. And so that's the big problem. And what the Trump administration really wants here is this major air traffic control overhaul which is going to take years if not decades.
There's a bill out there in Congress to do essentially a $15 billion down payment on redoing air traffic control. But this is a bit like sort of changing the spark plugs in your car while you're driving it. The system still has to operate 24/7 in order for flights to land and take off safely.
And so what the FAA is doing right now is essentially putting the brakes on flights going in and out of Newark to essentially slow things down so the system doesn't get overwhelmed. But that comes at a really big cost to passengers. We're talking like 800 flight cancellations at Newark alone in the last nine days. In fact, yesterday, it accounted for like a quarter of all cancellations nationwide.
So, this is a huge, outsized problem at Newark. And we're only just at the beginning.
HUNT: Yeah. Anyone that's ever flown out of Newark knows it's a massive airport, huge piece of the system. It's also -- I mean, you can look around and see just how outdated the place is without even really understanding this technology.
Can you help us understand? There's obviously a lot of people are trying to throw political blame right at the top of that, that interview, Duffy says, well, you know, the Biden administration caused these problems. Can you help us understand how long this problem has been in the making, and why is the system breaking now? Does -- is it related to the Trump administration? Is it not related to the Trump administration?
MUNTEAN: This really goes back to the PATCO strike back in the early '80s, where --
HUNT: So, like, Reagan?
MUNTEAN: Yes, President Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers, the bottom line
HUNT: Well, I wasn't around, but I do remember that from history.
MUNTEAN: That sort of created this this sort of hamstrung FAA system where they had to rehire controllers, bring them back, were essentially at about 80 percent staffing nationwide. So, we're short about 3,000 controllers in the U.S.
But this is something that the Biden administration tried to tackle, the Obama administration trying to tackle, even the first Trump administration tried to tackle. So, it's -- it's not an easy fix to hire so many air traffic controllers. And it's a tough job. You know, it's stressful, the pay is getting better but it's not amazing when you consider other things.
HUNT: Especially the training that goes into it.
MUNTEAN: Yeah, and the training is hard, too. So, a lot of people will major at this in college, go to the FAA training academy and then wash out of the FAA's training academy. And that academy is super backlogged because of the pandemic.
So, it's going to take some time to really sort of shore up the 3,000 number. And I've seen forecasts that say anywhere from 12 to 14 to 20 years to hire people.
So, the Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy says we can maybe do this in a couple of years, but this is not something that's going to be an overnight fix.
HUNT: Yeah. So, Congressman, you are a pilot. You have a deep understanding of kind of how this comes to be the stakes. What does it mean if the air traffic controller can't talk to you in the sky, can't see you in the sky?
KINZINGER: It's bad. But here's the thing -- so about half of the flying I do, I don't even talk to air traffic control. If I stay under 18,000 feet, right? I'll just I can kind of look at my iPad and see what's around. And also if, let's say the radar and radios would have gone down for the rest of the day at Newark. What pilots know is if they're on an instrument flight plan, they know how to follow that flight plan. They do a full procedure turn and all this kind of stuff and can still fly the approach because they were cleared that path.
So, it would have been done. It would have been done safely. But also, it's, you know, any room for error, any room for danger we don't want to have. And the problem is this has been, like you said, the investment in the equipment, the investment in the people -- this has been going on for decades. The day I got to Congress, we talked about we need to put new radars in place. I went and visited my tower in Rockford, Illinois, that has a World War II radar on it. They still have that.
I mean, this needed to be done a long time ago, and now, we're actually waking up to it. It's going to take a while.
HUNT: Yeah. Let's bring in S. Todd Yeary. He is a former air traffic controller, also may know him from other things in Washington, D.C. as he does -- has worn a lot of hats over many years. But sir, we're talking about what it takes to be an air traffic controller, how stressful it is when you hear that these controllers are going on trauma leave for example.
Can you just take us into the tower? What's it like to sit in that chair? And what kind of panic you might have felt if, in fact, you couldn't see the planes and you couldn't talk to the pilots at the same time.
S. TODD YEARY, FORMER AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER: Well, good to be with you. Maybe the congressman can relate to this, because I actually worked at Chicago air traffic control center, which is the regional enroute center that services Rockford airport, both airports in Chicago at that time, we still had Migs downtown operating.
What actually happens in the course of the day is you start with what is typically a routine expectation, but there are always variables that come up at any point in time. This time of year, it could be something as simple as weather. Even with the forecast and the anticipation, if the weather comes up at the at the wrong place at the wrong time, it changes the dynamics of how you're moving the traffic.
Equipment failures are a little different because when they start, you don't know how long they're going to last. So to lose radar and radio communications at the same time, and I think, as the congressman pointed out, if you're flying on an instrument path where you've got a published chart that you're following, there are expectations that the pilots will follow and that the controllers will expect, including the redundancies of other frequencies that you can change to if you lose radio communications.
The thing that I want to remind folks of is that, yes, there was a temporary loss of radar and radio communications for upwards of about 90 seconds. But what we also heard was that there were no incidents that they were able to respond based on the training, to make sure that we did not increase the saturation of the airspace, the complexity of what was going on. There was probably some inter- facility conversation happening at the same time to make sure that until we troubleshoot what's happening with the equipment, get the radio frequencies back up. If it's a different one or a backup radar system that we're still able to maintain the safety margin in the national airspace system.
There are going to be some disruptions and some slowdowns out of necessity. But the reality is, is that's part of the reality when you're dealing with manmade equipment, that you're going to have sometimes equipment failures that change the dynamics of your day.
HUNT: Yeah. Sir, should we be paying air traffic controllers more money?
YEARY: Short answer is yes. And I'll tell you why.
The air traffic control system kind of operates on a hub and spoke, the best paid controllers are in the most complex facilities. That would be either your enroute facilities or your terminal facilities in major metropolitan areas. But remember, you have mid-complexity facilities where the pay is often much less. The ceiling is much lower and so it is harder to move through the system with career progression if you don't address the deficits from the lowest level towers all the way up.
Rockford used to close at 11:00 at night. I remember when we would take over the airspace. When UPS moved the hub there, it went to 24 hours. The controller pay took a lot longer to catch up. It may not have even caught up until today.
And so, until they address that issue, how do you deal with attrition? Make sure that you're stopping your losses because you can't put a new trainee in a fully certified controller slot the day after they retire. And how do we also make sure that they're keeping pace with the technology to make sure that we're not taking chances with safety, but were also making sure that the air traffic control system supports all of the mechanisms, whether it is commerce or the military or just the flying public, trying to get from one place to another.
HUNT: Yeah, really interesting. Marc Short, we've of course, when Donald Trump took office the second time, this came up right away because of course, the tragedy, you know, across the river at Reagan National Airport. And there were a lot of subsequent conversations about Elon Musk and his DOGE team being involved in this fix.
Do you think that team is the right way to go about this? Should they be involved?
SHORT: I don't know. I don't honestly know to what extent they still are involved. I do think that there should be a conversation about privatizing much of air traffic control. I think that, you know, we've commented that Reagan fired him 44 years ago. I think it's hard to blame that for problems we face today.
And I think the reality is, is that we've tried federal government controlling this for quite a long time. Let's try the private sector.
HUNT: You disagree?
MUNTEAN: I think it's really important to bring up the D.C. air crash, because we talked about what happens when air traffic control goes down. Essentially, the controllers are blind and deaf. They can't do the job that they're doing. The mid-air collision over the Potomac River occurred when those tools were in place. There was radar working. There were controllers in the tower.
And so when you'[re relied on to see and avoid, it's not a perfect system. Air traffic control privatization is a real hot button issue. I'm not totally sure that it gets through this pass. I think there may be something that is a happy medium where privatization sounds pretty good on paper, although that's a really, really big ask for a public sector union.
In a time like now, I think it will be a tough sell. And really the big thing here is to properly fund the FAA so that they can make the big turnaround here, because it's like turning around an aircraft carrier with a single boat.
SHORT: And I think -- I think DCA is a unique situation. The reality is DCA was forced -- Roosevelt put it there in 1938 because he was frustrated Congress couldn't decide where to place it. The Pentagon was built later, and there's been many studies that said it's one of the most dangerous commercial airports in America and should be shut down. But candidly, Congress finds it so convenient.
HUNT: It's absolutely not going to happen.
SHORT: So, it's a different -- it's a different dynamic.
KINZINGER: Stop talking, Marc.
MUNTEAN: And Congress lobbying for more flights to go in and out of DCA.
SHORT: Yes, absolutely.
MUNTEAN: Which is an important part to interject.
[16:45:00]
SHORT: Yes, DCA is a unique situation.
HUNT: I actually -- I know. I do have a lot of love for DCA. SHORT: So do I.
HUNT: I think it's probably the best metropolitan airport in the country.
Xochitl, you want to weigh in here?
HINOJOSA: Yeah. I mean, I think that properly funding the FAA seems like something Sean Duffy should be calling for. He should also be talking to the president about, hey, you were making cuts to the Department of Transportation, to the FAA. Why don't we stop doing that?
My understanding is, he said in a town hall that there might be more cuts coming to the transportation -- Department of Transportation, why in the world are we cutting at this moment when there are problems and there's a crisis at the FAA?
So, I think what he should be doing is going to the president having these tough conversations and saying, if you want more embarrassments, if you want people potentially hurt, then, you know, we need to have a conversation about what's happening here. And instead, it seems like he just sort of goes with the flow and allows for these cuts to happen, which I don't see how that benefits anybody at this point.
So, my question to him is why? Why isn't he going to the president having these conversations with him?
HUNT: Yeah. Fair enough.
All right. We have to turn now to some breaking news from overseas. India has launched a military operation against Pakistan.
CNN's Nic Robertson is joining us now on the phone. He is in Pakistan. And of course, this has to do with Kashmir, the longstanding zone of conflict between these two nations.
Nic, what's happening?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR (via telephone): Well, we're only just beginning to get some sketchy information here. We have what the Indian government is saying, that it has hit a number of sites that it says are inside Pakistan and inside Pakistan administered Kashmir.
Now, Pakistani. Officials say that they believe that India was going to strike back to that attack inside Indian controlled Kashmir that killed 26 civilians several weeks ago.
The information literally is only coming in at the moment, and we're pinpointing the locations that were now getting from the Pakistani military, confirming three different places that the Pakistani military says has been hit. One is Muzaffarabad, which is the capital of Pakistan controlled Kashmir. One is Kothi and the other one is Bahawalpur, which is in the main part of Pakistan. That being not inside Pakistan administered Kashmir. And the reason that I make that distinction is because, as I say,
Pakistan was expecting India to strike back. There were levels of strike back that they were worried about, and their maximum main concern was if India hit inside Pakistan proper, which appears to have happened, that for the Pakistani side would be a massive escalation. They said that if it happened inside Pakistan administered Kashmir, then there would be a lower-level response. But a strike in Pakistan proper, as appears to have happened -- I've been told by several senior security officials inside Pakistan beyond shadow of a doubt they said that if there was an Indian strike in Pakistan proper, they would respond in a similar way back to India.
It's part of military doctrine. They say there will be no doubt about this. We are now in a position of potential military escalation. Were in a position now where Pakistan is. Officials have said that they would strike back. Of course, India will be expecting this. Pakistan has made this a very public position.
It is about 1:45 in the morning here. So, we're only just beginning to get the amount of information coming in and what the details coming in. And yet to be fully confirmed by us. But it's one of the pieces of information that's being passed on Pakistani media channels is that -- is that the airspace here in Pakistan has been shut, that is in the light of an attack. That is the expected decision of Pakistan's military. So they have freedom to use their airspace for their fighter jets, which have been patrolling the border.
But this is a very significant escalation. It will likely lead to more escalation. This comes two weeks after that attack in Indian controlled Kashmir that killed 26 civilians, that India blamed on the Pakistani government. The Pakistani government said they had no role in.
HUNT: All right, Nic Robertson, stand by for us.
Congressman Kinzinger, you, of course, have served in our armed forces. Can you give us a little bit of a sense of what an escalation in the conflict? This is a long simmering, extraordinarily emotional and difficult conflict in this region.
[16:50:02]
What are the implications here for us?
KINZINGER: Well, this is actually one of the most dangerous potential things we can see around the world. I think it was either George W. or Barack Obama that had said, the thing that keeps them up at night is the potential escalation of this right here. Because if you think about it, Kashmir is an area where the whole reason India and Pakistan got nuclear weapons was over Kashmir. And so, there's been always this kind of like really attempt to keep them, keep the sides apart.
The only good thing here is that India doesn't want a nuclear war, nor does Pakistan. So they're going to have to discipline themselves. But any escalation in this region is terrible. What does that mean? It means potential for nuclear exchange in the
extreme of things. But it also means that the United States will now be caught trying to fix this, trying to deal with this China as well. And it's potentially very dangerous situation.
HUNT: All right. We're joined now by Senator James Lankford.
Senator, I'm so grateful to have you on the program.
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): Thanks, Kasie.
HUNT: We're hopeful that well be able to talk with -- some of the topics we had planned to talk about in just a moment, but let me get you to weigh in here with the breaking news that we're reporting from the region. You serve on the senate intelligence committee. What can you tell us about how tensions are right now in this region and the implications?
LANKFORD: As was just stated, this has been a long simmering issue on this. Now, Pakistan, just in the past couple of weeks, even, has reached out to India and said, hey, we want to be able to resolve this. Obviously, military leadership there of Pakistan, but they've been very engaged trying to figure out how do we actually bring tensions down, what do we need to do?
President Trump, President Modi, have a close relationship there. But this is a phone call that President Trump has got to be able to make to be able to say how do we deescalate this situation? How quickly can we do it?
HUNT: Our -- our reporting suggests that the that the Indian government is saying that they have made strikes inside Pakistan, not just Pakistan administered Kashmir. What does that tell you about the potential severity of this?
LANKFORD: That is the greatest challenge of this, because it's been a disputed area between the two. But if -- if India is striking inside Pakistan, they're trying to create a buffer zone to try to say, let's resolve the Kashmir issue once and for all. This is one that we've got to be able to talk people down on quickly, because you've got two extremely large, extremely well-armed militaries that have been facing each other and pointing each other now for decades.
HUNT: All right. Stand by for me, Senator. We're hopefully going to get to a little bit more of our conversation in just a moment.
But before we finish here, I do want to bring in CNN military analyst and retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton.
He's on the phone for us.
Colonel, we've been getting some perspective on the potential for the scale of what this, you know, the scale of this conflict could be incredibly enormous. What do you see as the potential ramifications here of the Indian government striking over the border in Pakistan? CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST (via telephone): Yeah, Kasie. I
think that's the biggest issues here, because what you're seeing is really a movement from containing this in the Kashmir region to Pakistan proper. And as you were talking with Senator Lankford about this, it became pretty clear that what you're seeing is a possible escalation of this conflict. If it's not contained. You could see these two nuclear armed powers going after each other.
The Indian military is extremely capable in a localized conflict like this. They have the capability to really overwhelm. Pakistan's air defenses. Pakistan does not have a similar capability vis-a-vis the Indians, although they can inflict some damage on them. And it's really one of those areas where the Indian military, or at least is stronger than the Pakistani military. They've had a better track record in terms of the previous conflicts than the Pakistan military has had generally speaking.
So, this is a very dangerous time for both countries, but especially for Pakistan, because it puts not only their military at risk, but the entire regime at risk, which is a very unstable, you know, military regime.
HUNT: All right. Colonel Cedric --
LEIGHTON: Military-supported regime.
HUNT: Yeah. Colonel Cedric Leighton, thanks very much for hopping on the phone to bring us your insights on that.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:56:43]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back to THE ARENA.
We are joined now by Oklahoma Republican Senator James Lankford.
Senator Lankford, we were speaking earlier, of course, about the breaking news that we have here at CNN. But I wanted to sort of broaden out our conversation because, of course, you have a book out now. And of course, are working intensely on the tax bill in particular that is winding its way through congress.
And considering especially the impact of the tariffs that Donald Trump has put in place. Are you confident that Republicans in congress can actually get a tax bill done in time to potentially impact whether or not we end up in a recession?
LANKFORD: Oh, sure. We can get done because we have to get done. Everybody understands the consequences of this. If we don't, the calendar changes into next year and taxes go up $400 billion.
HUNT: But the House is repeatedly delaying its markups and other things. I mean -- LANKFORD: We're still -- it's been interesting. The House has said we
want to have all this done by Memorial Day. All of us in the Senate were like, there's no way to have this done by. There's just no way to be able to do that.
Tax stuff is extremely complicated, as everyone knows that does their taxes. It's extremely complicated, but when you're writing it, one piece affects another. So even when you make a decision on one aspect, if you've got some unanswered, as soon as you answer those, it affects the first one. So, it just takes a while to get through.
My target has always been by the end of July. We'll get it done by the end of July. That gets five months for the IRS to promulgate all their rules and guidance, to get us set up and ready for next year.
HUNT: Some of your colleagues have suggested they're open to raising taxes, or at least allowing the top tax rate to rise back to where it was to pay for some of this tax bill. And this in some part reflects the changing nature of the Republican Party to be a more working-class party. Would you be open to that?
LANKFORD: I wouldn't actually. I'd like to not see rates raised on anybody at this point. This is very difficult to be able to do right now across the economy. And so, I'd like to be able to maintain rates where they are. But frankly, that was a major piece of the 2017 bill, was to be able to have rates where they are, lock them down and to be able to keep them locked on that.
And I've heard it, that again with 200 and what is it, 221, 222 House members in the Republican House members and 53 in the Senate. You're going to get 4 or 5 people at times that raise ideas on it, but the vast majority have got to be able to get engaged and say, how do we actually resolve this?
HUNT: I want to ask you about President Trump sat down for an extensive interview with Kristen Welker "Meet the Press" over the weekend.
LANKFORD: Yeah, the second time.
HUNT: And she asked him whether he would uphold the Constitution in providing due process to people who are deported. And his answer was not yes.
Are you confident that President Trump will uphold the Constitution?
LANKFORD: I am. I think his answer was, I've got good attorneys advising me on all those things, and they're going to make sure they get it right.
What's been confusing on this is some people see due process, like as an American citizen, that's a right to a jury trial. That's all those different things. Thats not true for due process. For someone who's not a citizen of the United States, it's a different process. It's often just literally what people call an immigration judge is not a typical federal judge or a state judge. This is someone that's in the bureaucracy that their task for DHS is that task on it.
So they're a government employee career. Thats an immigration judge. So it's a very different process for it. But yes, there is a -- there is a need to be able to give an opportunity for someone to be able to make an argument before they're removed in the country. It's just who is that, and what very is that process?
HUNT: All right. Senator Lankford, we are, of course, up against the clock. We're hitting at time to hand over to Jake Tapper in "THE LEAD'. I want to say thank you.
The book is "Turnaround," and I would love it if you would come back and be happy to talk more extensively about it. Thank you very much for being with us today.
LANKFORD: Yeah, thanks.
HUNT: Thank you all for being with us as well. Thanks to our panel for joining us, too.
Don't go anywhere. "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.
