Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump Remains Defiant On Tariffs After Volatile Trading Day; Supreme Court Pauses Midnight Deadline To Return Man Mistakenly Deported To El Salvador; New York Times: Wall Street Law Firm Could Sign Deal With Trump Admin To Offer Pro Bono Services For Certain Causes; Video Contradicts Israeli Military's Claims About Deadly Incident; Tonight, Florida & Houston Face Off In Championship Game. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired April 07, 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 HOST: Welcome to the Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

This hour, President Trump defiant after another chaotic day for U.S. stocks and a growing number of warnings about the potential for a recession.

[18:00:00]

How much longer will this uncertainty last and how worried should you and your family be?

Plus, with just hours until a deadline, the U.S. Supreme Court steps in hitting pause on the order for the Trump administration to return a man to the United States after admittedly, mistakenly deporting him. So, what comes after that? Our legal experts weigh in.

And after months of battling and weeks of knockout competition, the men's NCAA National Championship is finally here, and we're live in San Antonio ahead of the blockbuster finale of March Madness.

The Lead Tonight, President Trump says he's not backing down despite day three of market turmoil, and CNN's Jeff Zeleny is with me. Jeff?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Jake, President Trump said he is not backing down, but he clearly signaled that he's open to negotiations with a variety of countries who have been literally calling up the White House, dozens of countries trying to get off that bad actor list, if you will, of the second round of tariffs that are scheduled to go into effect on Wednesday. But the president in the Oval Office this afternoon with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu defended his tariff plan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It is the only chance we're going to have to reset the table on trade. And when we do, we're going to come out unbelievably well. We're going to have a strong country economically again, and we're going to have those factories that are empty all over the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: So, that sounded very much like his original announcement on the Rose Garden last Wednesday. And, clearly, the global markets have not reacted as this White House suspected they would, which is exactly why now several officials from the treasury secretary on down are signaling that they are open to negotiating some of these deals.

Now, the confusion over all this is one of the things sort of fueling this uncertainty that is leading the market into a very volatile state. Initially, the president said he was not open to negotiations now, saying he is open to negotiations, even as some of his advisers say they're not. But the bottom line to all of this is the markets clearly are not responding in the way the president had hoped. And many of his supporters advisers are urging him to take a pause. He said today he has no intention of doing so, Jake.

TAPPER: Jeff, the president, also said that the United States is going to hold direct talks with Iran on Saturday. I know Iran is not necessarily agreeing with that. Tell us more about what we know.

ZELENY: Jake, that was a bit of a surprise. Sitting next to the Israeli prime minister, the president really led off his remarks with that saying there are going to be a direct talks with high level officials on Saturday. Of course, there have not been a direct talks between the U.S. and the Iranian regime since 2015.

The president has tried to open them. Iran has said they're not interested in this as long as sanctions are on, so it's unclear exactly what level these talks will be, but we are told they will be on Saturday. And there's no doubt of the president making this announcement with the Israeli prime minister sitting right there was by design. So, we shall see if those talks proceed on Saturday. But at the very least, it's the potential opening of a discussion that has not been direct, at least for years, Jake.

TAPPER: Interesting. Jeff Zeleny, thanks so much.

Let's turn now to CNN's Phil Mattingly to talk more about the story of the day. So, Phil, I want to play this one moment from the president's meeting with Netanyahu talking about the tariffs. There was this rumor earlier about there was going to be a pause, is he going to be open to negotiations, lots of back and forth. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Would you be open to a pause in tariffs to allow for negotiations?

TRUMP: Well, we'll not look into that.

(END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: So, that's not exactly what we have heard from Trump administration officials today, that they're not looking at negotiations.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I think today was actually -- this will sound a little bit counterintuitive, but it was actually very clarifying for people trying to understand the direction of things right now. And obviously everyone is, whether you're a market participant, whether you're working in foreign capital or an embassy here in Washington, if you're just a human being trying to figure out what's going to happen to your 401(k). And that reality is that no one in the economic team other than the president himself is driving where this is going.

So, take for example, over the course of a one hour period of time, you had Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent post on Twitter a thread announcing that President Trump had tasked him with leading negotiations, bilateral negotiations with the Japanese delegation for a potential way out of the tariffs that are scheduled to hit them on April 9th. That was the first. Markets reacted positively for that.

At that same hour, Peter Navarro, the trade counselor, who is by far, I think, most stringent when it comes to tariffs inside the Trump administration, posted an op-ed in the Financial Times and said, quote, President Trump is always willing to listen, but to those world leaders who, after decades of cheating, are suddenly offering to lower tariffs, know this, that's just the beginning.

The president then coming in saying the idea of a pause, which, to your point, a market rumor had absolutely inverted the market from red to green for a very small window of time earlier in the morning is not on the table, even though people are trying to make that or wish cast that into being a thing.

[18:05:09]

What is on the table is negotiations, clearly. What is not clear is what is going to take in those negotiations in order to reach some kind of outcome.

And I think this is important to note because what we heard from the president during that spray with Prime Minister Netanyahu is the reality that there is no threshold, there is no target, there is no tariff number or rate that needs to be matched. Using nontariff barriers as the administration is to find their numbers means the president will decide on a unilateral basis whether or not it's enough for him to cede to their demands or to cede to their wants, and that is a reality that is going to lead to nothing but uncertainty, but plenty, plenty of negotiations for the White House.

TAPPER: Yes. All right, Phil Mattingly, thanks so much.

With me now, Democratic Congressman Jason Crow from the great state of Colorado. Congressman, take a listen to what House Speaker Johnson said earlier today. Oh. Anyway, he says -- Johnson said earlier today, I think you got to give the president the latitude, the runway to do what he was elected to do, and that is get this economy going again and get our trade properly balanced with other countries. I think most of the American people understand the necessity of that. What do you say to the argument that Americans just need to give President Trump's tariffs a chance?

REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Well, Jake, you know, I was raised in the upper Midwest and the people that I grew up with mainly lived paycheck to paycheck, figuring out how they were going to pay their rent or their mortgage at the end of the month, not having a lot of extra expendable income.

And what I learned and what those people learned is that when folks at the top, the top 1 percent and people that are running this administration talk about short-term pain, they're not talking about their pain, they're talking about everybody else's pain.

Because the people that I grew up with is the people that I represent who are wondering how they're going to pay their rent at the end of the month, who are going to have to endure that pain. And guess what? If you lose your house, if you lose your healthcare, if you can't make ends meet, if you can't pay for food for your children, that's a major, major problem. And that's something that seems to be lost on this administration.

TAPPER: So, Phil was just talking about whether these tariffs are here to stay, whether they can be negotiated, what's the status and how unclear that is. I asked the agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, yesterday on State of the Union if the Trump tariffs are here to stay. Take a listen.

Oh, I'm sorry. We're having some sort of technical problem, but basically what it said is me saying to her, are these tariffs to be negotiated or are these tariffs here to stay? And she said, well, listen, this is a national security issue. This is about reshoring thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of jobs. I had to push back, but, yes, the question was, are these tariffs here to stay, as Howard Lutnick and President Trump seem to be suggesting, or is there going to be room for negotiation? And she said, essentially, right now, we're two business days into this new American order. I think we have a lot to be determined.

What is your reaction about this fundamental question?

CROW: Well, my primary concern again is that the half of Americans or more than half Americans who are living paycheck to paycheck, that if prices go up, continue to go up, which they're going to in a very rapid way, they're going to not be able to make ends meet. They're not going to be able to pay their bills. And they're going to be left out in the cold, literally, right? So, that's my primary concern.

But then my secondary concern is there's nothing in his history that suggests that these tariffs will do what Donald Trump says they're going to do. Listen, I'm all about re-onshoring. I'm all about reinvigorating American manufacturing. That's why I supported the CHIPS Act. That's why I supported the infrastructure investment because the primary things that are preventing the American manufacturing from resurging is we don't have the workforce and we don't have the infrastructure, right? We have to have those things in place. And there's nothing about tariffs that will actually address that problem.

And what it will do is it will ensure that in the short and medium term is the world will align against us. Our trading partners will move away from us and we'll move towards China, will move towards other countries, so it's actually going to make things worse.

TAPPER: So, we interviewed a gentleman from a Baltimore plant early on the show who actually is in favor of these tariffs. He says that the U.S. is being screwed for a long time. He showed us something that his plant makes, basically a device to hold medical instruments. He said they take it to Germany, and I think Germany charges an extra, I think it was like a hundred and something bucks. When the German sends something similar to the United States, the U.S. charges like a dollar.

There are imbalances. There are ways that tariffs have been screwing the American worker and causing manufacturing jobs to go overseas. If you don't support this, what do you support to help remedy what is a problem?

CROW: Yes, this is actually a perfect example, the, you know, one-off examples like this where tariffs could help.

[18:10:04]

Listen, I support tariffs when they are used as a scalpel. There are plenty of examples of trade imbalances or unfair trade practices where if you have surgical tariffs to address that specific imbalance, they can be helpful.

The problem is that's not what this administration is doing. They are doing broad based across the board tariffs, sometimes the countries that aren't even uninhabited. Many of these tariffs aren't even tied to the reciprocal tariffs that they say that other countries are imposing on us that aren't actually tariffs and aren't actually tied to the number this administration has come up with. So, their approach is all wrong and it's going to do a lot of damage.

I asked the ag secretary about the herd in McDonald Islands, which are uninhabited. I think that's what you were referring to, at least among them. And she said something like, whatever.

Congressman Jason Crow, Democrat of Colorado, thank you so much. Good to see you.

Coming up, former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff was a popular figure among Democrats when his wife, Kamala Harris, was the V.P. Why are some Democrats not exactly excited about him right now.

Plus, a Maryland father who was deported mistakenly to a foreign prison by the Trump administration may now be stuck there even longer thanks to Chief Justice Roberts. The latest on that case, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

TAPPER: Today in our World Lead, moments ago, the United States Supreme Court temporarily paused the court-imposed deadline for the Trump administration to return that Maryland man who had been mistakenly deported to El Salvador. This is after President Trump's Department of Justice filed an emergency appeal urging the nation's highest court to block the earlier order, calling for the man's return of El Salvadoran national. He was deported from Maryland and sent to this notorious prison in El Salvador. Attorneys for the Trump administration acknowledge that this was done because of an administrative error, but they don't seem particularly contrite about it.

Now, joining us, CNN's Priscilla Alvarez and CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic. So, Priscilla, yesterday, the federal judge called the deportation wholly lawless. I think that was a Reagan- appointed judge as well. Why is the Trump administration behaving this way if they've acknowledged that it was a mistake?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It boils down to two points. Number one, they're saying they do not have control over this man anymore because he's in Salvadoran custody. Now, the federal judge is not on board with that, essentially saying the U.S. has paid for him to be there, $6 million, toward El Salvador. Therefore, the judge says they should be able to retrieve him if they had the desire to.

The second point that they made in their filing to the Supreme Court today, they being the administration, is that district courts shouldn't be able to seize control over foreign relations. So, essentially saying the courts, this is not where they should be playing. It is ultimately up to the president how he executes his immigration agenda and his authority on this very policy.

Now, the judge has asked for evidence on all of these fronts, and over the course of the weekend in her filings made clear that she's just not buying what the government is selling when it comes to why they can't bring this man back, who they say that they mistakenly sent to El Salvador.

Now, I did get a statement from this man's attorney. He said the following, quote, this is just a temporary administrative stay in regards to the Supreme Court. We have every confidence that the Supreme Court will resolve the matter as quickly as possible. But to your point, Jake, this means that he will be in that notorious mega prison for at least a couple days and not the few hours that his wife and family were expecting, because, again, that court imposed deadline would've been 11:59 P.M. today.

TAPPER: Joan, the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, granted this administrative stay temporarily pausing the midnight deadline. What does this mean? What's next?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: This is a common step for a fast moving situation, just pausing for a little while. I expect a final answer from the Supreme Court within days.

TAPPER: But the pause means the guy has to stay in this prison.

BISKUPIC: That's exactly right. And, in fact, his lawyers argued against that. But the court did just get the filing from the Trump administration today, the Fourth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court was able to turn this around very quickly from Sunday to today. But the Supreme Court is saying we need a little bit more time, and that's not wholly unreasonable, even though it does mean that this man could be subject to torture, could be subject to death over the next couple days. That's the case they were making.

But what this means, Jake, bottom line is the Supreme Court's going through the filing from the administration that says, look, we admit we made a mistake, but it doesn't give the lower court judge license to take over our foreign relations. Meanwhile, the other side is reminding this man's lawyer is reminding the Supreme Court that there was a judicial order from an immigration judge that said that this man could not be deported to El Salvador. And so in many ways, Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Trump administration did not even have the discretion to move this man out.

TAPPER: So, speaking of Pam Bondi, here she is on Fox, apparently the only channel she's legally allowed to go on, when asked about what evidence the Trump administration has to prove the allegations that this man is an alleged MS-13 gang member. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: So, we have to rely on what ICE says. We have to rely on what Homeland Security says. They're our clients. And I firmly believe in the work they are doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, where's the evidence? This has been something that I've been asking for from the Trump administration, from the very beginning of the Trump administration. I'm willing to believe X, Y, or Z. Show me the evidence, or at least, you know, let me talk to somebody about it off the record, and like they never produce it.

ALVAREZ: And the courts had that same question. Let's just use the words from the Justice Department attorney on Friday. He said, quote, the government made a choice here to produce no evidence. That means --

TAPPER: That's the Trump administration's own lawyer saying that?

[18:20:01]

ALVAREZ: Defending the Trump administration's actions in court. That's what he said. They have not, there have been multiple filings, Jake, and there has not been additional evidence in any of those filings to prove that he is part of MS-13 or any other criminal charge against him.

TAPPER: And you want to bring us up to speed on what happened to that Trump administration lawyer?

ALVAREZ: He was put on administratively.

TAPPER: He was put on administratively. Priscilla Alvarez, Joan Biskupic, thanks to both of you.

Former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff is facing some backlash from Democrats for not resigning, even though the law firm where he's a partner struck a deal with President Trump. I'm going to talk to a lawyer who did resign in protest amidst what Democrats are now calling lawfare. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

TAPPER: Just in, Wall Street's oldest law firm appears to be the next in line to bend the knee and strike a deal with President Trump. The New York Times reports that the White House has been in touch with the firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham, and Taft, the firm that once employed Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, who represented Trump in criminal cases and is now with the Justice Department. The deal would have this firm offer pro bono services for some causes that they agree upon.

Meanwhile, high-profile Democrats are currently facing backlash among their friends and the Democratic legal community for continuing to take paychecks from corporate law firms that have already cut deals with the Trump administration. Among them, former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, the husband of Kamala Harris.

Sources tell me that Emhoff, a partner at Wilkie Farr and Gallagher, condemned his firm's decision to enter into this agreement at a charity dinner last week speaking to the audience, telling the crowd that he wanted to push back on the executive order that was pending perhaps, but he had been overruled by the other partners.

CNN's Evan Perez joins me now. And, Evan, two congressional Democrats are asking for details on these deals between the Trump, White House, Trump administration, and these law firms. What specifically do they want to know?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, they're referring to these deals as shakedowns, essentially. And you have a number of these firms including, of course, Wilkie, the one you just mentioned, Paul, Weiss, Milbank, and Skadden, these are big law firms that reached deals with the with the president in essentially avoiding the fate of other firms that have received these executive orders that threaten things, such as canceling security clearances, preventing them from even being able to enter federal buildings. So, what they're asking for is more details. Who put them in touch with the White House to get these deals done, exactly what the terms of these deals are.

I'll read you just a part of this letter from Jamie Raskin and Senator Blumenthal, the unprecedented abuse of executive power to settle personal scores is part of a broader effort by President Trump to use the powers of the presidency to intimidate and silenced his perceived enemies.

And, look, it's not just a Democrat saying that, Jake, you can look at the executive orders themselves and the president makes clear that he's targeting these firms because they represented people who opposed him or people who essentially he's mad at.

TAPPER: Like, for example, Wilkie, Doug Emhoff's firm, I think, they represented those two Georgia election workers whom Rudy Giuliani had defamed. And, you know, he was, I think, $150 million fined. Have we heard anything from the law firms or the White House specifically other than the president's social media posts about these letters?

PEREZ: Not a word, Jake. Not from any of the ones that we reached out to. The only one that did respond was Sullivan and Cromwell, which, as you know, was accused of being one of the firms that was essentially reaching out to try to poach lawyers and their clients essentially because they knew the president was targeting these firms. And they deny that this happened. They say that Bob Giuffra, who is a chairman of the firm there, simply was trying to help facilitate a deal between Paul, Weiss, one of the firms that did sign these deals and the White House.

And I should note, Jake, that again, we reached out to the White House and all of them to see whether they were going to turn over this information to these Democrats and they did not respond.

TAPPER: Evan Perez, thanks so much.

My next guest was an associate at the firm, Skadden Arps, but she resigned on March 20th stating that she was concerned with the way the Trump administration was already targeting corporate law firms. That was before Trump announced that he had reached a proactive deal with Skadden. And Rachel Cohen joins me now.

So, Rachel, you quit a week before the firm even cut a deal officially with the Trump administration preemptive to any executive order. Trump did post the details of the Skadden deal, it's not like you were wrong, on March 28th, $100 million in pro bono work to causes they both agree on commitment to merit-based hiring to name a few.

Now, you wrote in your resignation notice quote, like any self- important adolescent, I spent most of my high school history class wondering what I would do in the moments before true horror or chaos, or where my values were tested and demanded great sacrifice. I do not wonder anymore. I know who I am. I thought I knew who we all were.

What exactly were you opposed to in the deal that Skadden entered with the Trump administration?

RACHEL COHEN, FORMER ASSOCIATE, SKADDEN, ARPS, MEAGHER AND FLOM: Thanks so much for having me, Jake. And as you pointed out, I didn't know what was in the deal or even that my firm was certain to strike one, but I was troubled by the lack of collective action across the industry. And I felt like the non-answers that I and many other associates were getting when we asked the firm what the path forward was, given the assault on the profession, it felt very likely that Skadden was going to enter a deal.

But I actually can't even comment on the specifics of the deal to this day because they have not been publicized outside of Truth Social. And you have Paul, Weiss claiming that the deal that the president posted on Truth Social is not exactly accurate to what was agreed.

[18:30:00]

As far as I know, no one within Skadden, outside of the partnership, has seen what was actually agreed to. And so until I know those specifics, I can't comment directly, but I'm concerned by any kind of capitulation to intimidation tactics by the president.

TAPPER: So, there is a lot of criticism of partners, like Doug Emhoff, for continuing at these firms where they're partners, which I suppose means they make a lot of money in addition to doing a lot of work, I'm sure, for staying at these firms. Former Trump administration official and former Paul, Weiss attorney Neera Tanden said, quote, I think people of principles should quit these law firms. If you're a lawyer who makes $20 million a year, I appreciate the sacrifice that you might make less money because you might lose some clients, but how do you look at yourself, unquote?

What do you think of that and what are you going to do? You weren't making $20 million. You were an associate.

COHEN: I was not making $20 million. And I would note that everyone who was publicly resigned, as far as I know, there were our only three of us, and we all worked at Skadden, Arps. None of us were making $20 million a year. But we were still in the top 1 percent of earners. And I think it's telling that we were able to leave those positions not without financial sacrifice, but because you probably have some savings.

And I'm so disappointed by the lack of leadership on this. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about these things, but I think that it's frankly ridiculous that a third year associate is the one that's having to lead the charge on this when people, like the former second gentlemen, are employed at firms that are cutting deals with Trump. It's not enough to just criticize. You have to leave.

TAPPER: What do you -- are there any firms doing the right thing? Are there any firm -- in your view, are there any firms standing up against this?

COHEN: There are nine firms in the AmLaw 100, so the top 100 grossing law firms in the country, who signed on to an amicus brief supportive of Perkins Coie, who was the first target of a Trump executive order. And I think that while there are other firms that are fighting the Trump administration on an individual level, and I think that that's very admirable, unless you are standing up before you are targeted, right, that's why I put in my conditional notice prior to Skadden entering a deal because this moment demands proactivity.

Unless you're one of those nine firms that signed the amicus brief, I don't know that you can argue that you're doing the right thing. TAPPER: So, you're here in D.C. even though you live in a different city because you testified before the Democrats in Congress today. It's not a hearing because they're in the minority, but they can have little meetings. I want to play a bit of what you said in your testimony.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: The administration cannot pick and choose who gets representation. It cannot use executive power to scare lawyers out of advocacy. If we allow any president to dictate who deserves a lawyer, our legal system fails.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Now, the Trump administration's talked about providing more representation to veterans. I don't imagine that is an issue for you. I don't know who wouldn't want to, you know, represent veterans. But what are you worried about? Who are you worried about being forced to represent.

COHEN: I mean, I am actually even concerned about veteran representation because a lot of the pro bono that we've done previously on behalf of veterans is for people who are seeking benefits that the government has not paid them. And we know that that's not something that the Trump administration has actually been particularly good on, despite the fact that they claim a lot of support for veterans.

Both of my parents are veterans. They served in the U.S. Air Force, and so that is a cause near and dear to my heart. But what I'm particularly concerned about in the very immediate future is attacks that the Trump administration has waged on immigration attorneys broadly, because a lot of that work does happen pro bono at corporate law firms. It was viewed as very uncontroversial, very nonpolitical to represent specifically people who are seeking political asylum because they are fleeing violence in their home countries. That was a large portion of my own pro bono practice.

And I'm concerned that the Trump administration is trying to intimidate law firms out of taking representation like that, because it's not just representation that's directly critical of the administration or challenging unconstitutional actions that they're troubled by. It's broadly anything that Trump uses adverse to kind of his own interests. And I think things like immigration representation and government challenges, even like those on behalf of veterans, could easily fall into that bucket.

TAPPER: Rachel Cohen, thank you so much. I appreciate it. Stay in touch with our team. I want to keep -- find out what happens to you. I assume there's some firm in Chicago that would be eager to snap you up, but let's see.

He doesn't want to call it the resistance, but California's attorney general is leading the Democrats' fight against Trump on front after front. And next, he's sitting down with CNN to explain his endgame, (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

TAPPER: To our Politics Lead, in his first term, President Trump faced a legal barrage from the state of California, more than 120 lawsuits from that blue state. This time around, the pace is even faster and more furious.

CNN's Nick Watt reports for us now on how the California State attorney general is using his office to try to resist the Trump agenda.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROB BONTA (D), CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: You got to follow the rules. It's that simple. We are here to stop him when what he wants and what he does is unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful.

NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): California's Attorney General Rob Bonta backed by other Democratic state A.G.s, has filed 12 suits against the Trump administration in just ten weeks.

TRUMP: That's a good one, birthright.

BONTA: Stopping an unconstitutional revocation of birthright citizenship, stopping a freeze of $3 trillion of critical funding for essential services.

WATT: California filed 123 suits over four years in the first Trump term. The pace is now near double.

JON MICHAELS, LAW PROFESSOR, UCLA: The previous Trump administration did back down, did regroup and go back into court with stronger claims. I'm not sure this administration is going to take the same approach.

WATT: The vice president posted judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.

[18:40:01]

And when a judge ordered that deportation flight turned around, it wasn't.

There is possibly a point that we may have already reached where he doesn't care what you say. He doesn't care what a judge says, then what?

BONTA: We are not at a blatant disregard for court orders period yet. We can move for contempt, civil contempt, where someone goes to jail until they follow the court order. It's usually a department head or a department or an agency head. I hope we don't need to.

WATT: But then somebody would also have to arrest those department heads and jail them. BONTA: The courts are very motivated to have their orders followed.

WATT: I'm sure.

BONTA: They have marshals that can carry out with force their orders, they can arrest people, put them in jail.

MICHAELS: It's theoretically possible, but I think it just escalates a constitutional standoff that most judges know they're not going to ultimately win. There's no one to enforce the actual kind of perp walk, as it were, because the U.S. Marshals ultimately take their marching orders from the attorney general.

WATT: The U.S. A.G., Pam Bondi, Trump loyalist --

BONDI: The president is going to comply with the law.

WATT: If not, then what?

MICHAELS: There's no playbook anymore. We say, oh, I would hope Congress would step in. Well, Congress isn't going to step in.

WATT: Do you see yourself as, in any sense, the resistance to the Trump administration?

BONTA: I don't like the word resistance and I don't use it. I see it as continuing on our path of progress, not resisting anything. We have decided we will never have a king. And so his potential view that he wants to consolidate more power in the executive branch that the Constitution does not give to him is a problem.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WATT (on camera): Now this potential constitutional crisis is not inevitable. For one thing, California is not going to win every suit. In fact, they've already lost one. A White House spokesperson told us this. The California A.G. should focus on the scourge of violent crime in a state rather than pursuing politically motivated lawsuits that will fall flat on their face. The California dream has become a nightmare and A.G. Bonta should prioritize addressing that, end quote. Jake?

TAPPER: All right. Nick Watt, thank you so much.

My next guest is a former senator who's urging his former colleagues to stand up to President Trump to check his power and assert the powers of the legislative branch, as spelled out in Article 1 of the Constitution, Republican Senator Pat Toomey, who represented the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate from 2011 to 2023.

Senator, it's good to see you again. Welcome back to The Lead. Only four Republican senators have joined Democrats to vote on this resolution to undo specifically the Trump tariffs in Canada. Do you think -- I mean, the Constitution pretty clearly lays out that tariffs are the responsibility of Congress, even though I know there's legal precedent for what Trump's doing. Do you think only four U.S. senators have concerns about the tariffs against Canada, or is it only four are willing to say so?

FMR. SEN. PAT TOOMEY (R-PA): No, Jake. Well, Jake, thanks for having me. But, no, I think there are far more are concerned about this. You've seen, in addition to those four, Senator Grassley has joined in offering legislation that would give Congress the final say on tariffs.

And here's the thing, Jake, the president has walked into a buzz saw. It's very obvious within the financial markets his tariff proposals have wiped out $7 trillion worth of Americans' savings. And what's coming very rapidly thereafter, it's actually already begun, there's going to be layoffs from American manufacturing firms that are no longer competitive because the inputs they have to buy are just being exorbitantly priced because of the tariffs.

As they start announcing their layoffs, as prices start to rise for consumers, members of Congress are going to reach a breaking point. And that's where I think this is heading.

TAPPER: Well, they didn't reach it on over January 6th, right? I mean, that was -- I mean, I realized that January 6th didn't affect every American in their pocketbook and their savings and their retirement and all that, but you were one of very few U.S. senators, Republican senators who did or said anything about that. I mean, is it not possible that maybe members of Congress are just deferential to President Trump for the long haul?

TOOMEY: So, I think Republican members of Congress are -- their first reaction is to give a Republican president an opportunity to advance his agenda. He ran -- he did run on tariffs. That was part of his message. There's no surprise except the magnitude and the degree. So, I'm not surprised that the first instinct of Republican members of Congress is to let him go ahead with this. My point is there's going to be a backlash, like you can't believe.

I mean, just look at what's happening in the financial markets. There's a reason for the sell off that's been occurring. And as businesses start closing their doors and laying off their workers, members of Congress are going to realize they better be standing up and fighting this for their constituents.

[18:45:08]

TAPPER: So, you were willing to take issue with President Trump during his first term? You voted to block his national emergency declaration at the border. You supported -- you voted for that, that the gun safety legislation bill after that horrific shooting in Texas, you called it a mistake to commute Roger Stone's sentence. That's all while you were still in the Senate, as opposed on your way out the door.

How did any of that impact you? What insights do you offer to your Republican senators, to Republican senators or congressmen about what comes if you are willing to defy President Trump?

TOOMEY: Well, you know, Jake, it always depends on the particular circumstances and how your constituents feel about these things. You made a point that's very, very important. The tariffs are going to result in higher prices for every single consumer. They're going to result in job losses, especially among manufacturing companies. And as this starts to become publicized, Stellantis already announced 900 workers losing their jobs. As more of this happens, it becomes very real to constituents. And they will -- they will create a sense of urgency for members of Congress.

That January 6th was a different set of circumstances.

TAPPER: All right.

TOOMEY: Theres another point id like to make, Jake, if we have time.

TAPPER: Yeah.

TOOMEY: And that is if President Trump gets his wishes with all of this, it actually ends very badly. We're being told to bear the pain because it will be better in the end. It's not going to be better in the end.

In the better -- in the end, it will be fewer jobs. It will be higher prices for consumers and a lower standard of living for America if we keep these tariffs in place for as long as the president wants to. So, the pushback needs to happen soon.

TAPPER: Former Senator Pat Toomey from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, thank you so much, sir. It's always good to have you on. Hurry back.

TOOMEY: Thanks for having me, Jake.

Video showing the final moments of Gaza emergency workers casting doubt on the Israeli military's account of what happened. We're looking into what really happened. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:51]

TAPPER: In our world, the Israeli military today said that an initial investigation into the killing of 15 Palestinian emergency workers in Gaza last month indicates that six operatives from the terrorist group Hamas were among the casualties, and that Israeli troops opened fire, quote, due to a perceived threat, unquote.

As CNN's Jeremy Diamond reports, however, new video contradicts previous Israeli claims. A warning, the video is disturbing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Emergency lights flashing in the pre-dawn sky. A convoy of ambulances and a fire truck pull up to the scene of an Israeli attack.

Palestinian paramedics and civil defense responders get out of their vehicles when suddenly.

Amid a hail of gunfire. Emergency responders dropped to the ground, and the paramedic who is filming begins to pray.

It is the single deadliest attack on emergency responders in Gaza during the war, killing 15.

The Israeli military says it is reexamining the incident after this video debunked their claim that the ambulances were advancing suspiciously and without emergency lights.

Now, new testimony from a survivor further undermining the Israeli military's narrative. Paramedic Munther Abed says Israeli troops didn't just open fire on one ambulance convoy. About an hour earlier, his ambulance was also attacked.

They opened fire directly on us in the vehicle, Munther says. I survived by lying down in the back of the vehicle. If I had stood up, I would have been killed.

He listened as two of his colleagues, Mustafa Khafaja (ph) and Ezzedine Shaath (ph), drew their last breaths. Israeli troops then detained Munther.

The Israeli military has described that first attack as targeting a Hamas vehicle, killing two Hamas members and detaining a third. An Israeli military official said they were not uniformed paramedics, but Munther says they were driving a well-lit ambulance and were wearing their uniforms.

As Israeli troops questioned Munther, other medics were dispatched to look for him. The Palestine Red Crescent Society says this is an ambulance. Lights extinguished after coming under fire. No comment from the Israeli military.

Munther saw the convoy arrive.

I was lying face down and a soldier had an M-16 rifle pressed against my back. With my face turned toward the street. In the street, there were civil defense vehicles, fire trucks and ambulances parked nearby. They opened fire directly on them.

The Israeli military buried the bodies in this shallow grave. They say it was to prevent the bodies from being scavenged. The U.N. only reached the site a week later.

Paramedic Hasan Hosni nearly ended up in that grave, but he called in sick that day, and his son Mohammed took his place. He soon called him one last time.

Help me, Dad! Help me! I asked him what was wrong and he said we were targeted by the Israelis and they are now shooting at us directly. Then the call disconnected.

Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Jerusalem.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: And our thanks to Jeremy Diamond for that report.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:58:38]

TAPPER: In the sports lead, we are just hours away from the men's NCAA basketball championship.

And CNN's Coy Wire gets all the great assignments. He's in San Antonio.

Coy, what are you looking for in this matchup?

COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: You're coming with me one of these times, Jake. Good to see you.

Absolute slugfest tonight in front of about 68,000 fans in the Alamodome. Florida, seeking their first title in 18 years. Houston their first ever. But both teams are just one win away from glory.

Houston just pulled off one of the greatest comebacks in Final Four history, upsetting Duke. They're as rough, tough and gritty as they come. Best defense in the nation. They outhustle, outmuscle you. They're led by their 69-year-old head coach, Kelvin Sampson, who in 40 plus years as a head coach has never won a title.

Let's see about Florida now. They have one of the best offenses in the country. Great ball movement. They play loose and poised. They're always dancing, having fun.

Coach Todd Golden, who's seeking his first title, told me that that's the culture he's building, Jake.

And they have one of the rising stars of this tournament. Walter Clayton Jr. started at a small school, Iona, with about 4,000 students. But now, he just became Florida's all-time leading scorer in a single tournament. They took down top seed Auburn to get here in an absolute slugfest.

Jake, after 66 games of March Madness, the single elimination tournament comes down to this one last dance in San Antonio between the Gators -- let's go, we'll see -- and the Cougars. Who you got, Jake?

TAPPER: I got the Gators, but I just want to watch the game. It sounds exciting.

Coy, I'm so jealous. Thank you so much. I will come down with you one of these times.

We have some breaking news coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are giving Trump a victory when it comes to his rapid deportation plans. We'll tell you more about it in one second.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.