Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Voters Express Rage, Frustration at Fiery Town Halls; Judge Says, DOJ's Response on Deportations Woefully Insufficient; How Maine Became Ground Zero in the Trans Athlete Debate. Leader of $250M Pandemic Aid Scam Found Guilty On All Counts; Europe Delays Tariffs On U.S. Goods Until Mid-April. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired March 20, 2025 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to the Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

This hour, the voters on both sides of the aisle making it clear they're not happy with what's going on in Washington D.C., from Raucous Town Halls to demands for new leadership and a debate over activism versus real action.

Plus, a French researcher who studies space tried to come to the United States for a conference, but he was blocked from entering the country. The reason, allegedly, because of messages he had on his phone critical of President Trump. Our team in France is trying to piece it all together and figure out what's going on here.

Plus, a new report reveals what went so terribly wrong when a Delta Airlines plane flipped upside down after landing, leaving passengers hanging from the ceiling like bats.

And a guilty verdict in the largest pandemic fraud case in the United States, how the thieves used a Minnesota nonprofit to steal $250 million from a program meant to feed kids in need during COVID.

Our Politics Lead tonight, furious voters voicing their outrage at lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans. Some Republicans facing heat over supporting the cuts from DOGE. Meanwhile, lots of Democrats being told they're not doing enough to push back against the Trump administration.

CNN's Eva McKend is in North Las Vegas, Nevada, where Senator Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just wrapped up a big event. Eva, what happened?

EVA MCKEND, CNN NATIONAL POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Jake, what struck me about this Fight the Oligarchy Tour is there is a very deliberate effort to be nonpartisan. You heard Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez said several times, no matter if you disagree with me on a whole host of issues, if you are willing to fight for working class voters, then you belong here.

And that really flies in the face of how the left is often characterized as dogmatic and not pragmatic. But that is not what we are seeing here. Senator Sanders says that he understands that both parties are captured by big moneyed interests, and this is a real effort, regardless of ideology, to call back the working class and bring them into coalition.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): This isn't just about Republicans. We need a Democratic Party that fights harder for us too.

We as a community must choose and vote for Democrats and elected officials who know how to stand for the working class.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCKEND: And so, Jake, you hear heard the congresswoman there. She didn't spare her own party, even though she didn't mention Senator Schumer by name. This is just one stop over the next several days that they will make.

And I'll end with this. There is clearly an appetite for this message. It's unclear if they are peeling off some of the conservative voters that may have voted for Trump. That is certainly the goal here. But the Democratic establishment cannot afford to ignore this energy center of the party. There may be some that try to dismiss this but they have a lot of enthusiasm here on the ground.

TAPPER: All right. Eva McKend in North Las Vegas, Nevada, thanks so much.

Let's bring in a member of the Democratic establishment, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Congressman Pete Aguilar of California. Hey, Mr. Establishment, how you doing?

I want to ask you, first of all, you hear from a lot of Democrats out there. We've been playing their sound bites for the last week or so, do something, do something. Well, you're in the minority in the House. What can you do that you're not doing?

REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CA): Well, we can definitely work to activate the American people and to shine a light on what Donald Trump and Elon Musk are doing to systematically shut down government, and raise their prices. And that's what people care about. They care that tariffs are going to increase the cost that they face in the supermarket or at the gas station. They care that Medicaid is under attack by House Republicans, and that will make healthcare more costly and less accessible. And they care that their local schools aren't going to get the funding that they need if the Department of Education is eliminated under Donald Trump's plan. Those are things the American people care about and what we can do is shine a light on that.

TAPPER: So, every single House Democrat voted against funding the government, except for one in a Trump district in Maine. Every one of you voted against the continuing resolution. And then I thought that Senate Democrats were going to do the same thing, and most of them voted the same way you did but enough of them voted with Republicans to pass it.

[18:05:03]

What was your reaction? Were you upset with Senate Leader Schumer? Do you agree with some of your colleagues that we're beginning to hear that it's time for Senate Democrats to think about a new leader?

AGUILAR: Well, first, I'm a Californian, and I appreciate the leadership of Senator Padilla and Senator Schiff who both voted no, and we voted no, collectively California Democrats and the, and our Senate counterparts voted no because Donald Trump is slow walking a government shutdown already. We felt that giving appropriators more time for weeks to negotiate spending limits and bills would have been the appropriate move. The Senate decided to do something else.

We're looking forward, though. We're looking forward at the next legislative fight that we're going to have to have because House Republicans continue to insist on raising people's costs and cutting programs that our communities rely on, from the Department of Education and IDEA funding, and funding that goes into the classrooms, to Medicaid. Those are the battles that are worth fighting for, Jake. And those are things the American people stand squarely with us on, and that's what you're going to see us focus on moving forward.

I know it's popular to talk about who said what when last week, but we're focusing our energy on how we protect the American people and how we drive down costs that everyday Americans face.

TAPPER: Well, just for the record, I think 35 of like 45 or whatever the number is, Senate Democrats voted the same way you did, including Padilla and Schiff, but most of them voted the same way you did. Most Senate Democrats voted the way you did. It was Schumer and maybe like ten others that voted the other way. You have confidence in Schumer? You're totally cool with him continuing to be the leader of the Senate Democrats?

AGUILAR: I don't get to make that decision. My job is, as a House member, we are lockstep behind. Hakeem Jeffries is the leader of our party and our efforts to retake the House and to get to 218 votes so we can have some sanity back and we can have a reasonable check. I think what happened last week, though, further underscores that it's House Democrats who are going to stand up and speak up, and it's House Democrats who have the best opportunity to provide a check on Donald Trump next year, if not sooner, if we can get to 218 votes.

But in the meantime, we're going to keep fighting for the American people and protecting Medicaid and protecting so many of these vital programs for being cut.

TAPPER: So, I'm going to move on, but just for the record, I've asked you about Senator Schumer twice and you've praised Padilla, Schiff, and Jeffries. Enough said. So, Senator Elissa --

AGUILAR: Those are all good elected officials.

TAPPER: Yes, it's interesting what you're saying and not saying. So, let me ask you, Senator Elissa Slotkin, former House colleague, now a senator, was at a roundtable discussion yesterday. She was asked why she isn't aggressive, like Senator Sanders or Congresswoman Crockett or AOC, who we just heard from. Take a listen to part of what she had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): I can't just chain myself to the White House and become an activist full time because you and others here are going to call me for things that you need.

All of those things require me to be more than just an AOC. I can't do what she does because we live in a purple state and I'm a pragmatist.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Spoken like somebody who's not going to have reelection for six years. You believe that there's always room to push back more. Can Democrats really do that in purple states, in battleground districts the way that voters are demanding them to?

AGUILAR: You highlighted it before. We are in the minority in the House and in the Senate. We don't control the White House. The levers in which we can pull are very limited. And what we can do is speak to issues that people care about. We can understand their economic anxiety that they're facing and that that was part of why they made the decision that they made if they didn't vote the way that we wanted them to last November.

And so we're focused on how we build a coalition, how we reach out in purple districts, like in Michigan, like Elissa Slotkin comes from and represents, as well as across this country in understanding the economic anxiety that people are having and what are our solutions to face that. And oftentimes that isn't going to mean being the loudest voice, it means what is our plan and strategy to how we achieve that and we think that we're meeting those goals now.

TAPPER: Good to see you, Congressman Pete Aguilar, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. Thanks so much for being with us.

AGUILAR: Thank you, Jake.

TAPPER: Let's bring in my panel of political experts. Karen Finney, do you want to say something nice about Chuck Schumer? I gave him -- I don't think I've given anybody in my life more opportunities to say something nice about Chuck Schumer that were not taken.

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, I'm going to say the following. Having been at the DNC 20 years ago in 2005, when Democrats were in the minority, George Bush had just won a second term and felt that he had a mandate.

[18:10:01] We were hearing about a permanent Republican majority. Remember all that?

TAPPER: Yes.

FINNEY: And what we did and what I was hoping to hear more of from Congressman Aguilar is, the House, the Senate, the governors, the DNC, we came together and we worked together to try, so initially on Social Security. There was a lot of anger about the attempt to privatize Social Security.

TAPPER: Partially.

FINNEY: Partially, fair. But the point is whether it is, and he touched on this, whether it's Medicare, Medicaid, whether it is what's about to happen in our schools, Democrats have an opportunity. They've got to engage and play the inside outside game and actually build the grounds will give people. We may end up in the same place, but as we know, the fact that ten Democrats ended up voting for the C.R. meant that this week when House members were out there trying to talk about the bad things in the C.R., they got rage.

And I think the other piece I think they're missing, as our poll showed, it's not just Democrats, independents and Republicans are angry. There's a lot of anger right now and fear and frustration.

TAPPER: Yes.

FINNEY: We need to be the people who helped to galvanize that energy. You know, he was talking about, we're going to shine a light on these things. No, get pissed off and give people some energy around it.

TAPPER: Jonah, I know you're not a Democrat. You're not here to offer advice to Peter Aguilar or any other Democrat, but what do you make of the party where it is right now? What should they be doing?

JONAH GOLBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, so, I don't give advice to Republicans, never mind to Democrats.

TAPPER: Right.

GOLDBERG: So, I'm just going to confess my priors. I think we've now gone since 2000 to watch the parties go back and forth in and out of power again and again and again because each party says this, the other guy, the party in power sucks and they're going crazy and they're a swing from the moon and they're not caring about the people like you, and so then they get into power and then they do the same thing by pandering to their base.

And we live in a time where everybody is -- the people that get listened to want performative politics. They want people to lose their minds and stamp their feet and all that kind of stuff. And I think the median voter, the way you reach out to people, is just to say, it doesn't have to be like this.

It's so freaking crazy. Look what they're doing. We learned our lesson. We're going to care not so much about, you know, the performative stuff. Let AOC do that. She's going to galvanize that energy that you're talking about and all that kind of stuff. But I think Elissa Slotkin's position of, look, I'm just trying to be normal here, is much more appealing to the average voter.

TAPPER: Now, Shermichael, one of the things that's interesting about Bernie Sanders, even if you don't like his message or don't agree with his message, he basically is talks about three things and has been for decades, you know?

GOLDBERG: seizing the means of production.

TAPPER: Number one of them is oligarchy. Basically, he's focused on there's too much money in politics. That's basically his focus, there is too much money in politics. There's not enough being done for the working people. I mean, those are his two messages.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, in many ways, that was sort of Trump's message in an interesting way when he first ran the first time around. I was this wealthy guy. I wrote a lot of checks to Democrats and Republicans. They don't necessarily care about the working class. And when you look at some crossover, particularly among some Bernie bros who crossed over and voted for Trump, they fit a very similar voting profile.

TAPPER: Like Joe Rogan.

SINGLETON: Yes.

TAPPER: But do you think that there is a path for Democrats in that?

SINGLETON: Personally, no. I mean, it's not enough to just be an opposition party without a strategy for that opposition. So, you're angry, you're pissed off. I get it. But what's the plan to inoculate that anger into something that looks like electoral successes come midterms next year? I'm not necessarily certain, Jake, that they figured that out yet. I mean, Donald Trump's bad. Elon Musk is bad.

Okay. Democrats naturally are going to agree with that. But that's not enough to get some of those left leaning centrists to vote for Democrats next year. And I don't think it's enough to bring back younger men. I don't think it's enough to bring back Latino, Hispanic men and women. So, I think they got to figure this out. And from my perspective as a conservative, I think they're sort of lost in the wind.

TAPPER: Karen, any thoughts?

FINNEY: Well, again, I think the strategy, part of it is, that's why I said inside, outside, you got to have the Elissa Slotkins and the AOCs. And I actually think part of what our party office needs to do is put different voices and faces, sorry, Chuck Schumer, I know you like to be in front of the camera, but different voices and faces from our party out front because we do look like America and we need to show that and have those conversations and galvanize that into a strategy. TAPPER: All right. Thanks one and all.

A judge blasting the Justice Department today calling the department's answers on deportation flights, quote, woefully insufficient. So, what's going to come next in this back and forth?

Plus, a French scientist blocked from entering the U.S. allegedly because of messages on his phone that were critical of Trump? Our team in Paris has more details. That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

TAPPER: Our Law and Justice Lead now, the judge in that Venezuelan deportation case called the Trump Justice Department's response to his questions woefully insufficient. The department submitted its answers shortly after Chief Judge James Boasberg's noon deadline today in a filing that the judge says evaded its obligations.

TAPPER: CNN's Evan Perez and former Federal Prosecutor Alyse Adamson joins me now.

Evan, what exactly does Judge Boasberg mean when he says that they evaded its obligations?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, because, well, first of all, they missed his deadline. They responded to him, but they did so after his noon deadline. And when they did so, they provided a declaration from a lower level official from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency and did not provide the actual information that he had requested.

He'd asked for, again, the names of these people who are on this third plane that took off from the United States en route to Central America after he had issued this order.

[18:20:04]

And all he's asking for is, let me know, tell me who those people are, just declare to me who they are and why it did not apply -- you know, my order did not apply to them.

And it seems interesting that the Justice Department -- I mean, the judge is offering them an off ramp, right? He's saying, tell me it's a state secret issue, and then, you know, we can resolve it this way, and they haven't done that.

TAPPER: They won't even say that.

PEREZ: They won't even say that. They say they're considering doing that.

TAPPER: Alyse, the attorney general, Pam Bondi, was on Fox earlier today talking about this. And here's a little clip of what she had to say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: This judge has no right to ask those questions.

They're meddling in foreign affairs. They're meddling in our government. And the question should be, why is a judge trying to protect terrorists who have invaded our country over American citizens?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: She does go on to say that they're going to honor what the court says, but they will appeal. You're a former attorney with the Justice Department. What do you make of this?

ALYSE ADAMSON, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY: Pam Bondi knows better and that the judge does have the authority to ask those questions, right? The judiciary is well within their rights to make these factual findings especially when it's potential for contempt. This idea, this notion that the judge is somehow protecting terrorists over American city citizens is just not borne out in the facts. These individuals were already in detention when they were deported. So, it's not like the judge wants to release them on the streets. The judge is just trying to find out, in the first instance, whether or not the deportations comported with the law. And right now, all the judge is trying to determine is whether or not they complied with his order.

So, I think what we hear from Attorney General Bondi is a bunch of talking points that are sidestepping the real legal issues in this case.

TAPPER: Maybe that's why she only goes on one particular channel where people don't point that out. Evan, there's set to be another hearing tomorrow. What are the next steps in this case?

PEREZ: Well, now the judge is saying, I need you to come forward and tell me exactly, you know, how does this apply to my order that I issued over the weekend. He wants them to now officially say whether they were complying with his order and to show how they complied with his order.

And, you know, again, he's building -- as you were pointing out, he's building the record here, because if this goes up to an appeal, right, the first thing the appeals court or the Supreme Court will ask for is what is the record that the judge has made on this. And so that's what he's trying to do here.

And I think, Jake, look, I've covered cases like this where, you know, the federal -- the executive branch says to a judge, look, this is non-justiciable. You shouldn't even be asking these questions, but we will answer them anyway, right? I mean, it's not uncommon for you to have this dispute. I saw this one in the Obama administration, for instance, when the U.S. killed a U.S. citizen in Yemen without any due process. And in the end, the judge declared that it was non- justiciable. It was not something that they could do anything about, but he did hold hearings and he did look into it.

TAPPER: So, if everything's a crisis, nothing's a crisis. We had a judge on yesterday who said this is a constitutional crisis. How big a deal is it, the disdain with which the Justice Department under Trump is treating this judge?

ADAMSON: Yes, I think those are two different ideas. Are we in a constitutional crisis? I think we're coming very close. I personally don't think we are there yet. Ultimately, it is determined that the Justice Department did knowingly and willfully violate these orders. I think the analysis is a little bit different.

The disdain we are seeing, I think, is unprecedented. The fact that the Justice Department did not comply with the order to respond at noon, how hard is that? They could have even filed a motion for extension of time and say, we're not ready yet. But to just summarily blow off a court order is just something we don't see. And I don't think that it is -- we're definitely turning into a good direction if we are seeing this much disdain within the first, what, six weeks of this presidency? We're tiptoeing so close to a dangerous place that I'm afraid they're going to finally go over the line.

PEREZ: And I think it's clear, by the way, the judge is trying to avoid this.

ADAMSON: Yes.

PEREZ: Giving them off ramps and saying, let's not do that.

TAPPER: It is not unreasonable to say, okay, you say you deported 231 gang members. Give us their names. We're not saying we don't believe it, but tell us who they are and they won't do it. That's wild stuff.

Evan Perez and Alyse Adamson, thanks to both of you.

In our World Lead, a French scientist and space researcher was denied entry to the United States apparently over his private messages criticizing President Donald Trump's research policies. The man was heading to a conference near Houston before authorities denied his entry and expelled him from the U.S., they say, or were told, because of the messages they found where he had expressed his personal opinion.

CNN's Melissa Bell in France has the details.

MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Jake, this is an extraordinary case that we're learning more about tonight of a French researcher who was apparently denied entry to the United States earlier this month as he tried to attend an academic conference on the outskirts of Houston.

[18:25:05]

We've been hearing more about the case from France's Minister for Higher Education and Research, who says that the researcher was denied entry on the basis of personal opinions that he'd expressed with friends and colleagues and that were found on his phone and that were found to be critical of the Trump administration's attitude towards scientific research.

This particular minister, by the way, has been highly critical of these policies himself, urging American scientists to come and seek refuge here in France. It is though to this specific case that he's been speaking this evening, saying that freedom of opinion, free research and academic freedom are values that we will continue to proudly uphold.

Now, we've been learning also from the Guardian newspaper that this researcher, before being thrown out, was told that there would be an FBI investigation into the case, before learning, as he was expelled, that the charges, in fact, had already been dropped.

Still, it's an extremely worrying case. CNN have now reached out to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service to try and find out more. What they said was that border officials can look into people's phones. If there is anything that raises flags further inquiry can then be sought, but denying claims that any such inquiries can be made on the basis of political opinions.

And yet, Jake, this is apparently precisely what has happened in this case. The French researcher trying to get to the U.S. for the scientific conference turned back at the border simply because he had on his phone messages critical of the Trump administration, a very worrying precedent that apparently has now been set, Jake.

TAPPER: All right. Melissa Bell in Paris for us, thank you so much.

Up next, CNN heads to Maine, which has emerged as ground zero in the debate over trans athletes.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With the 10th president of the International Olympic Committee, Mrs. Kirsty Coventry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Topping our Sports Lead, the powerful International Olympic Committee chose its new president today. For the very first time in the history of the Olympic Games, members elected a woman. Kirsty Coventry is from Zimbabwe, and she herself is a two-time Olympic gold medalist in swimming. She takes up the leadership torch during a time of deep geopolitical uncertainty and scrutiny over gender identity and equality in sports.

Here in the United States, a recent shift in policy related to transgender athletes driven by President Trump is taking hold. This is a day after President Trump's executive order last month. Check out the NCAA changed its policy, and now only athletes assigned female at birth are allowed to compete on women's teams in the NCAA. The president of the NCAA, former Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, said last year he only knew of 10 transgender athletes in the 500,000 athlete organization.

CNN's Brynn Gingras traveled to Maine, which has emerged as ground zero in this debate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SADIE SCHREINER, TRANSGENDER ATHLETE: I've been running track for ten years now. Without it, I wouldn't be here. The same is true for transitioning. And so I refuse to give up either aspect of myself.

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The future for All American collegiate runner Sadie Schreiner is uncertain.

SCHREINER: It's definitely not safe for me to continue competing here.

GINGRAS: When we first met last year, Schreiner, a trans woman, was following NCAA rules, taking medication to keep testosterone at nearly undetectable levels in order to qualify.

Now, nearly four months later, President Trump is in office, along with his executive order banning trans women from competing in women's sports. And it didn't take long for the NCAA to follow suit.

What's changed for you?

SCHREINER: I'm tired. You know, I'm scared in a lot of ways.

GINGRAS: Schreiner now runs at meets hosted by USA Track and Field, the national governing body for the sport, which holds competitions around the country for all ages and skill levels.

Sadie basically comes here just to practice. She'd rather be at the national championship, which is actually also happening today. But, of course, you can't be there because of the NCAA ban.

And in between her two races at this main meet, Schreiner found out USATF also changed its rules, meaning this race --

SCHREINER: It could be my last in the United States.

GINGRAS: The state has been in the spotlight in the debate over trans athletes after Maine's governor got into a heated exchange with President Trump over his executive order.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Are you not going to comply with it?

GOV. JANET MILLS (D-ME): I'm complying with state and federal laws.

TRUMP: You better comply because otherwise you're not getting any federal funding. MILLS: See you in court.

GINGRAS: Well that became a rallying cry for some people in Maine as there were several federal investigations into this state and their compliance of Title IX and federal funding coming into the state is at risk.

What do you think about all of this sort of attention on this issue?

STATE REP. LAUREL LIBBY (R-ME): Honestly, it's a little embarrassing that we're known for this interaction between Governor Mills and President Trump. It has a simple fix, stop discriminating against Maine women and girls, and our federal funding will be insured.

GINGRAS: Maine State Representative Laurel Libby also at the center of this debate.

LIBBY: Welcome to the Maine State House of Representatives.

[18:35:01]

GINGRAS: The Republican lawmaker is now censured after posting a controversial Facebook post about a high school trans girl athlete and refusing to take it down.

You can't vote, you can't speak on this floor. What do you do?

LIBBY: I sit in my seat and I silently represent my constituents. After all the struggle that women have gone through over the past decades to get where we are today, it's unacceptable to allow biological males to take the place of females in any arena.

GINGRAS: Libby says she is fighting to protect athletes, like Cassidy Carlisle, a high school senior who skis competitively and has raced against a trans athlete.

CASSIDY CARLISLE, HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETE: At the heart of this all, it's all about having equal and fair opportunities for women.

GINGRAS: Did you feel that in that moment?

CARLISLE: Overall, I was being beat by someone that is on a different physical advantage over me.

GINGRAS: Is there a place in your mind where there can be middle ground?

CARLISLE: I don't think that this is something that gets fixed overnight. I think that, you know, overall, I just want everybody to have fair and equal playing field, and that includes the trans athletes.

GINGRAS: If you were to talk to a woman in any sport who, to your face, is saying, look, I don't feel like it's fair, what would you say? SCHREINER: I would open a conversation with them, because for three years now, my testosterone has been so low that it's undetectable on a single lab result. It's shrank my ligaments, it's made me shorter, it's made me weaker.

GINGRAS: Do you think safety is a major issue?

LIBBY: Safety is absolutely a concern. Maine girls should not have to be concerned for their safety when they step out on the playing field.

CARLSILE: I have not competed personally in a sport that's contact with a trans athlete, but I still think it's important in keeping our women safe.

GINGRAS: And what about the argument that it's unsafe?

SCHREINER: Safe for who? When I go to these meets, I'm the one that's getting threatened.

GINGRAS: For now, Schriener will have to exist without racing in the U.S.

SCHREINER: I'd love to do like snowboarding and skiing.

GINGRAS: Why continue this fight?

SCHREINER: because it's worth it. We are an incredibly tiny community of people and there are very few of us that have the means to properly stand up. And it's not something I'm ever going to stop doing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GINGRAS (on camera): And, look, recent research has shown that a majority of Americans think trans athletes should compete on the teams that match the sex they were assigned at birth. We know that it was a lightning rod in this election. And that is not lost on Sadie at all. She hopes, though, to make it to the Olympics, even if it means representing a different country.

Though, that's unclear, Jake, what the future holds for her there. As you just mentioned, this is going to be a big issue for that newly elected IOC president. This will be on her plate for sure. Jake?

TAPPER: All right. Brynn Gingras, thanks so much. I really appreciate it.

The new warnings today from transportation safety officials who are urging immediate action on dozens of bridges across the United States, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

TAPPER: In our World Lead, we are currently following two major transportation investigations, one involving that Delta plane that flipped upside down just after landing in Toronto, Canada, last month, a second one looking at bridge stability in response to the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse last year.

CNN's Gabe Cohen has all the details on both. And Gabe, let's start with the bridges. What did the National Transportation Safety Board have to say about that today?

GABE COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So, Jake, this afternoon we got this urgent warning from transportation safety officials here in the United States saying that there are 68 bridges across the U.S., including some of the most famous, the Golden Gate, the George Washington Bridge, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge just down the river from where the Key bridge collapse, that all of them need to undergo an immediate vulnerability assessment to see if they could be at risk of a potential catastrophic collapse if they too are struck by a vessel like what we saw in Baltimore last year.

To be clear, there are already preexisting federal guidelines that recommend that the owners of old bridges like these go back and they do these assessments. The issue is these 68 have never had an assessment like this, neither did the key Bridge. Although investigators in recent months went back and they did that testing on the key bridge, what would have been, and they found that its risk level would have been 30 times the threshold for what those federal guidelines consider safe from a vessel collision.

So, I asked the head of the NTSB today, how concerned is she that those other 68 bridges could be just as much at risk? This was her answer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENNIFER HOMENDY, NTSB CHAIRWOMAN: We're hoping it's very few, but we don't know that at this time. We believe they don't know that and they need to determine what the risk is and start to put in those protective measures if warranted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: And, Jake, those protective measures could include putting out structures, like dolphins and fenders, anything that could keep a vessel that's veering off course, that's lost control like what we saw last march, from striking one of the pillars of these bridges and bringing them down and potentially causing an even worse catastrophe than what we've already seen.

TAPPER: What about the delta plane? Do we know now how it flipped?

COHEN: Yes, we have learned a lot more information from this preliminary report that just came out from Canadian safety officials. We have learned that amid those brutal, windy, icy conditions in Toronto, that as the plane was landing, it was just slightly banking to the right.

So, the first thing to touch down on the runway was the right landing gear. As that happened, a piece of the landing gear snapped off right as it made touchdown, and it caused the landing gear, those wheels, to retract back up into the plane. You can imagine what happened next. The body of the plane collided with the runway, the wing broke off, it sprayed jet fuel everywhere, and caused that fire and explosion that we saw on video.

But we also learned that in the seconds before the touchdown, pilots were descending at 1,100 feet per minute, nearly double what Canadian officials say would be considered a hard landing.

[18:45:07]

So, they're going to look at that too.

TAPPER: Oh, interesting. All right, Gabe Cohen, thanks so much.

In our law and justice lead, today, a federal jury in Minnesota found the ringleader of the largest pandemic fraud case in the United States guilty on all charges.

Aimee Bock ran the now defunct nonprofit Feeding Our Future. She was convicted of orchestrating a scheme to steal $250 million from the government COVID relief program by having coconspirators from area restaurants submit false claims for meals that supposedly had been served to children, and dividing up the government reimbursement money.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LISA KIRKPATRICK, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA: They used a time of crisis as their golden opportunity to enrich themselves and their criminal partners, outlandishly, so. And every step of the way, Bock fought to keep her fraud scheme going.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Bock has been jailed pending her sentencing.

There's a new book out with a roadmap for how you can take better control of your finances, especially in this time of economic uncertainty. And the author is here with her best advice for you. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:25]

TAPPER: Our money lead now, today, the European Union announced it's delaying retaliatory tariffs against the United States, including upcoming tariffs on -- tariffs on motorcycles and whiskey. This, as the Federal Reserve warns tariff whiplash could negatively impact the U.S. economy.

So what does all this mean for your bottom line? It's difficult to keep track of and understand. My next guest wants you to understand and wants to improve your financial health. Here now is the author of "What's Up With Women and Money?: How to Do

All the Financial Stuff You've Been Avoiding", former CNN anchor and business correspondent, Alison Kosik.

Alison, so great to have you back on the show.

The idea for this book is going to surprise a lot of people familiar with your work here at CNN, because for 15 years you were on TV explaining the markets, explaining all things financial. But you write in the book that you, quote, felt like a hypocrite because you lacked, in your view, the confidence to apply your deep financial knowledge to your own personal life and personal finances.

Explain that because your research shows a lot of women can relate to that.

ALISON KOSIK, FORMER CNN REPORTER: Yeah. Jake, great to see you again. Yes. So I'm going to tell you something embarrassing, Jake.

I was CNN's business correspondent, often reporting from the New York Stock Exchange. But in my own life, I wasn't managing my own financial life. I let my husband handle all things financial, and that was actually one of the biggest mistakes of my life, because when the marriage went bad, because I relied on him to do all the financial things, I felt stuck.

I stayed in the marriage years longer than I should have. I didn't have the confidence to do the financial things. I didn't think I had the good judgment or knowledge to make those big financial decisions, because I literally hadn't been actively making those through experience. So I didn't have that confidence.

I had two kids under ten years old. You know what? If I make a mistake, what if I lose all of our money? These were the kinds of things going through my mind. But when I got through all that, I discovered that there are a lot of women out there who feel the same way.

I felt these are women across the economic spectrum, from the high earners to the low earners, married, single, widowed, divorced, all kinds of women who feel the same way but aren't readily going to admit it because for fear of being judged by their peers, there's a lot of shame and embarrassment that goes along with this. And -- and women don't want to seem like they are unintelligent.

And so I wrote this book to try to help women to not make the same mistakes I did, and to also help them work through this financial stuff that can sometimes feel overwhelming. And also, I want to try to change the conversation that we're having around women and money as well, because the conversation around -- around money and women is often shrouded in mystery and misunderstanding and oftentimes fear.

TAPPER: So you highlight in the book a reason that women should feel empowered to engage with their finances is because you note this interesting statistic. Fidelity's analysis of more than 12 million investors shows that women actually demonstrated stronger saving rates than their male counterparts, and enjoyed better long term investment performance when they did engage.

That's pretty remarkable. So generally speaking, women are better at this than men.

KOSIK: Yes, women are better investors than men. And here's one of the reasons because they lack confidence. I know it seems weird, but they're not going to go after that next shiny object. Meaning that next trendy trade that maybe men will go after men who have more ego in the game.

Women aren't. So, you know, aren't -- aren't ready to like, make trades, you know, to day trade where men we see men often day trading. Yeah, women -- women do 40 basis points better. And I know that doesn't sound like a lot of money, but over time that money can add up to tens of thousands of dollars, especially when you when you roll in the compounding effect of investing.

TAPPER: Yeah. No, that's a lot. You interviewed several women that folks will immediately recognize -- Jessica Alba, Sheryl Sandberg, Barbara Corcoran. What was your biggest takeaway from speaking to them and other women from diverse professions and industries whose names we might not be familiar with?

KOSIK: Yeah, I think that they really talked about being confident about anything you do in life, especially when it comes to controlling your financial life. Don't pawn it off to somebody else. And that includes even if you let a certified financial planner take hold of your money, you still need to be involved.

You need to know what they are investing in and being involved is so important because you shouldn't wait for a crisis to get involved, because usually it's oftentimes too late. You don't want to be on the sidelines of your money. You want to build your financial future and do it immediately.

TAPPER: The book again, "What's Up with Women and Money?", the author, Alison Kosik -- thank you so much.

[18:55:04]

KOSIK: My pleasure.

TAPPER: The list of the world's happiest countries is out. So which nation took the top spot? I'm sure it wasn't the United States, but how did the U.S. fare, as long as we're talking about it? That story is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our world lead, it is the International Day of Happiness.

And for the eighth year in a row, Finland takes the first spot in the world happiness report. The other top spots are Nordic, with Denmark in second place, Iceland in third place. Not so happy news for the United States, with our lowest ranking yet coming up at number 24. Okay. Well, we're a grumpy people. I think we've -- we've covered that

for the last two hours. I have two books coming out in May, "Original Sin", about President Biden's decision to run for reelection and the cover up of his obvious decline. And in October, one called "Race Against Terror" about the hunt to prosecute an al Qaeda terrorist who killed Americans and was out to kill more. You can check them out at JakeTapper.com.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now. Over to you, Erin.