Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Judge Questions Justice Department On Mistakenly Deported Man; Trump Threatens Harvard's Tax-Exempt Status; 145 Percent Tariffs On China Are Clobbering The Toy Industry; Autism Rates Have Risen To 1 In 31 School-Age Children; Jury Selection Begins For Harvey Weinstein Retrial. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired April 15, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:00:30]

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right, one more time. Live pictures outside court right now in the hearing of that mistakenly deported Maryland man. Thanks to our panel. The Lead with Jake Tapper starts right now.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: How far will President Trump push this strongman approach? Until something breaks. The Lead starts right now.

Pushing the limits of the office from ramping up controversial deportations, arguably without any due process, to yanking funding from an Ivy League school. Now President Trump is setting up a showdown with the courts. Are there any Republicans willing to challenge what is playing out in any serious way?

Speaking of breaking news, an intense hearing just moments ago for that Maryland man mistakenly, by the Trump administration's own admission, mistakenly deported to that notorious prison in El Salvador. What the judge is now telling the Justice Department to not do in her courtroom.

Also ahead, the president's new threat against Harvard after that school said it would not comply with the administration's demands. Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

We're going to start with breaking news and brand new developments in the case of that Maryland man whom the Trump administration, by its own admission mistakenly deported to that notorious prison in El Salvador.

Right now, an intense hearing just wrapped the judge showing some frustration with the Trump Justice Department. A federal judge had previously granted Abrego Garcia a legal right to be in the United States. So remember how a Justice Department lawyer in court admitted that Garcia's deportation was an administrative error? Well, that lawyer was just fired.

The Justice Department accused the lawyer of sabotaging its legal case, according to a source. Still, notably, the Justice Department has not changed that characterization of the error that sent Garcia to a prison in El Salvador. This case one of the clearest examples yet of the Trump administration pushing the limits of presidential power.

Let's go to CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid. Paula, what went down in this hearing?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Look, Jake, this hearing was tense. It is clear that this judge is extremely frustrated with government lawyers. And now she is going to move this case through a process called discovery. She is ordering the two sides to gather evidence and share it with the court over the next two weeks. She told them, quote, cancel your vacations, cancel your appointments. Get me this information because over the past several days, the administration has not been forthcoming, she believes, about their efforts to facilitate this man's return.

Now, Mr. Abrego Garcia's lawyers say there is no evidence that the Justice Department has done anything to facilitate his return. The judge said, quote, we have to give process to both sides, but we're going to move. There will be no tolerance for gamesmanship or grandstanding.

She also made it clear that over the past few days in their status reports, the kind of information DOJ has provided, a YouTube link to yesterday's Oval Office meeting, also a transcript, she said that is not evidence.

But on the Justice Department side, they disagree with how the judge interprets last week's Supreme Court opinion. They said, look, we are removing domestic violence obstacles, and so we are facilitating his return.

Now, it is clear that the two sides, the judge and the Justice Department, don't agree on what the Supreme Court says. The judge said she might issue an order expanding on the definition of what it means to facilitate his return.

Now, I want to just note here, her original order said the government needed to facilitate and effectuate his return, but the Supreme Court said, sure, they need to facilitate his return, but we need this judge to clarify what she meant by effectuate and to show proper deference to the administration. That so far has not happened, which is part of why there's so much confusion here.

So the next stop here is a discovery process, both sides providing information. Though I will say, Jake, the Justice Department hinted at the end of this hearing they might appeal this.

TAPPER: Paula Reid, thanks so much. Let's go to CNN anchor and chief White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins. And Kaitlan, today, the Trump administration continued to refer to Garcia as a terrorist gang member, even though he was never charged or convicted of anything of the sort.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. They're now citing the language that we heard from President Bukele of El Salvador inside the Oval Office yesterday, Jake.

[17:05:00]

And those comments are actually also something that the judge herself referenced during that court hearing this afternoon.

I'll tell you what Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary, said in a moment. But also, as we're looking at this entire argument here that the judge is making, remember, it is the White House's argument that a federal judge cannot tell them what to do. They're arguing when it comes to foreign policy in this situation, given this man has been deported to El Salvador.

That was the point of questioning for the White House yesterday and those officials and the White House saying it was up to the president of El Salvador, who is himself was arguing that he could not, in his words, smuggle a terrorist into the United States. Of course, the attorney general had offered to provide a plane. Should he say yes, that he would return him.

That is something that the judge herself was referencing inside that courtroom today, saying that was a comment that essentially didn't apply here, what the president of El Salvador was arguing about smuggling a terrorist in because it would be that country returning this man to the United States.

But Karoline Leavitt was asked about this matter earlier here at the White House, Jake, during the White House briefing, and this is what she had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOSUE PRESS SECRETARY: There is never going to be a world in which this is an individual who's going to live a peaceful life in Maryland because he is a foreign terrorist and a MS- 13 gang member. Not only have we confirmed that, President Bukele yesterday in the Oval Office confirmed that as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Now, Jake, as yourself have noted, when it comes to the evidence that he is a member of MS-13, we have seen his attorneys dispute that. It was something that one informant said. There was also a quote about a hat that he had been wearing at the time when he was once questioned by authorities during his time here in the United States, which he's been in the country illegally since 2011.

When it comes to him being a terrorist is the language that she used there, she was saying that was confirmed by President Bukele yesterday. He did not cite any evidence of why that is, of course, that is a question here.

But when it comes down to what happens next here, Jake, I mean, this is a real showdown that seems to be building between the judicial branch and the White House over what is going to happen to the status of him and the argument that they were making there, that there is no world where he lives inside the United States. That is what you've heard from immigration attorneys and lawyers who

have looked at this and said the only part of his removing order said that he could not be deported to El Salvador. Now, that is something that the White House could fight. Should he still be in the United States and then deport him? Or they could have deported him to any other country, but they deported him to the one country that an immigration judge said he could not be sent to.

And so that is really the question here. And if they did return him and did that, it would theoretically be legal, Jake, and they would not be in the middle of this argument that they are. But we'll see, of course, what argument they have in response to what the judge said today.

TAPPER: All right. Kaitlan Collins at the White House, thanks. And don't forget, of course, Kaitlin's going to be back in a few hours on her show, The Source with Kaitlan Collins. That's tonight at 9:00 Eastern only here on CNN.

Let's discuss with our panel. And Jennifer here in studio with me, you're a former federal prosecutor. Ultimately, do you think the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have to be a little less nebulous, a little bit more specific about what exactly they are telling or not telling the Trump administration? They have to do here?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It seems so, because clearly the administration is just being defiant. Right. They're refusing to abide by the orders of these district court judges. It remains to be seen whether they will defy a clear order from the Supreme Court. We haven't seen that yet. They instead remanded with some kind of suggestions for the district court to clarify her order.

If we get to a point, though, where the court, the Supreme Court, actually orders the Trump administration to do something or orders them not to do something, and we see open defiance of that, you know, that's what we're really looking for. And when you're talking about constitutional crisis.

TAPPER: Mark, I want you to take a listen to what White House border czar Tom Homan said today about what would happen if Garcia somehow comes back to the United States.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM HOMAN, BORDER POLICY ADVISER: Now, if somehow he comes back and that happens, he's going to be detained and removed again. He's an MS- 13 gang member based on our intelligence and El Salvador's intelligence, he will be detained and he will be deported.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: A judge had previously protected Garcia from deportation because his lawyers established he had been fleeing gang violence. He had been deported the first time, of course, because of the Trump administration's admitted error.

Could the Trump administration legally deport him a second time, you think, given this judge's order?

MARK GOLDFEDER, CEO, NATIONAL JEWISH ADVOCACY CENTER: Yes, absolutely. It's important to remember we keep on calling it a mistake. The official position of the United States is that it was not a mistake to deport him and that he is in fact a gang member. To the extent that there was a mistake, it was deporting him to El Salvador because the order specifically said that it should not be El Salvador. So that might have been an administrative error.

But the fact that he should be removed from the country seems like black letter law. This case really raises sort of an interesting idea in immigration generally. We're all focused on the fact that they removed him, not on the fact that he's been here illegally for over a decade.

TAPPER: And Jeffrey, let's bring you in. You're the staff writer for The National Review. Your latest piece argues that the Trump administration seems to be intentionally testing the limits of presidential power in multiple arenas.

[17:10:02]

You write in part, quote, Trump cares only about public opinion. Trump's deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, trusts that the people will not care so the law can be defied to serve Trump's populist goals. I am terrified that he is correct. Who can force Abrego Garcia's return to the United States? Who can compel Trump to execute the TikTok ban? Who among his own party would condemn him? Who of the opposition party could hope topple him? And what law then restrains the president, unquote.

And you say that for Trump supporters, including a lot of people who read National Review, presumably Trump pushing presidential limits might seem innocuous enough, but it will, in your view, eventually consume us all, unquote. What do you mean by that?

JEFFREY BLEHAR, STAFF WRITER, NATIONAL REVIEW: Well, my great fear is that we're opening Pandora's box here. This sort of playing, you know, they're kind of goading the bull with respect to court rulings. And we saw Stephen Miller in the Oval Office yesterday sort of misrepresent the ruling against the Trump administration to the cameras, he said, oh, it was actually nine to nothing in our favor. It was a bit of disingenuousness. And they're obviously playing footsie with pretending the Supreme Court didn't say what it did.

As was mentioned earlier, we're going to find out. If the Supreme Court bothers to clarify, what is the administration going to do? We're going to have a moment where the rule of law literally has just been violated and there will be nothing we can do about it.

And what happens when that is turned around upon people who are cheering for it now because it's Donald Trump? Well, what happens the next four years from now when a Democrat is in office? What happens when President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decides to use these same powers that the president has now expanded by simply just pretending not to pay attention to the rulings of the court? TAPPER: It is true that when standards are eroded, they tend to seldom come back and be reinstated. Jennifer, let me ask you're a lecturer at Columbia, so I want to ask you about Mohsen Mahdawi. He's the Columbia student who was just steps away from his final citizenship interview, and instead he now faces deportation. I think he's a Palestinian citizen.

A senior State Department source told the New York Post. Mahdawi played an active role in fall 2024 student protest at Columbia, instructing protesters to physically push a small group of pro-Israel students. Events that university officials later acknowledged as threatening rhetoric and intimidation.

The same source said that Mahdawi was behind antisemitic rhetoric, including shouting through a megaphone of Jewish bystanders. Is that enough to deport him or to deny any. Any citizenship request he might make?

RODGERS: Well, here's the problem. There's no crime that's been charged yet. So could it be enough if they claim some sort of national security, foreign relations reason that would have to be adjudicated in immigration court. The problem with this is that he is arrested. You know, they had to put a TRO request, a temporary restraining order request in right away to make sure he wasn't moved to another state where they'd have a friendlier court.

I mean, all of this sweeping people up kind of under cover of dark, if you will, and moving them before the legal processes can start is the real issue here. He needs process. It can happen in immigration court where they, excuse me, where they will have to prove that case, whether he is some sort of national security threat because, you know, some sort of source saying that he may be instructing people to push people. No, that's not enough like that.

TAPPER: And, Mark, this is the second Palestinian student involved in organizing last year's anti-Israel protests at Columbia who's been detained for removal from the U.S. despite having a green card. Mahdawi's lawyer told CNN, quote, his detention is an attempt to silence those who speak out against the atrocities in Gaza. It is also unconstitutional. What do you think?

GOLDFEDER: Free speech is incredibly important, but he was doing is not speech. By his own admission, he was the leader of a group, CUAD and Columbia SJP, that engaged in acts that were so horrific they would be crimes if it were committed by a U.S. citizen as well, under section 233.9B.

In fact, we just sued in the Southern District of York, the groups that he led for material support for terror. They were handing out. It's not just speech. They were handing out Hamas propaganda. And to the extent that you think it was just propaganda, it literally said that this was a, quote, intentional and coordinated effort to further Hamas's goals and those of the PFLP and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. They put that in writing.

Jake, when you hire useful idiots as your PR agents, as Hamas did, what you get are useful idiots who put that kind of thing in writing. I hope that the deportation of these two students is not the standard we use going forward because we risk having an artificially high bar for when to deport students. It is black letter law that there does not need to be a crime, that if you endorse or support a foreign terrorist organization and be deported. And these people should be.

TAPPER: Jeffrey, your thoughts?

BLEHAR: Well, I think there's -- I think he's absolutely correct when he says that it's well within the law. It's well within the right of the secretary of state to decide a person who is not a citizen can be deported. We've already had this debate with several of Trump's earlier moves.

The question then becomes one of a prudential line. I mean, what is the place you draw the line?

[17:15:00]

Is it okay to -- I actually think most people would agree, even if it's, you know, prudentially a good idea to get rid of people who support Hamas, who support terrorism. But then there was Rumaya Ozturk. A recent case that comes to mind of a woman whose only apparent offense was publishing an op-ed in the student newspaper. She didn't actually participate in protests, to the best of anyone's knowledge. She was still snatched up off the streets of Boston. And I believe she's now currently in Louisiana somewhere awaiting a trial.

Where do you draw the line? That's the issue. I think this one is, I have to admit, I'm perfectly OK with. These are the kinds of people I don't think America needs to support. We don't need to have them in our country. And they are the ones who, I think people in America are responding to deportations of these kinds of people, which is the danger because it's popular. But when you skip process, you are creating greater dangers down the line to be abused.

TAPPER: Jeffrey Blehar, Jennifer Rodgers, thanks. No, Mark, I'm going to come back to you in the next block and you'll get to address it, I promise. Just hold that thought. We'll continue the conversation in a moment.

I do want to talk more about President Trump and his new threats on Harvard, even demanding the school issue an apology. Can Harvard's response set precedent for other schools coming under the president's ire? We're also going to dig into the CDC's new report today showing a rise in autism in the United States and why there seem to be so many new cases. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:20:36]

TAPPER: Internationally, leaders from both Princeton University and Stanford University are backing Harvard University in its showdown with the White House. President Trump is threatening Harvard University's tax exempt status after its leaders rejected the Trump administration's demands to make key policy changes or lose out on federal grants.

Some of those policy changes that the White House wants Harvard and other elite U.S. colleges to make include eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI programs, auditing the viewpoint diversity within student admissions and faculty hiring, implementing merit based student admissions and hiring policies, reforming international student admissions, reforming governance and leadership, such as reducing the power held by students and untenured faculty, reforming programs -- academic programs with records of antisemitism or other biases and implementing new student discipline policies such as a comprehensive mask ban and including police intervention of disruptions on campus.

In a letter rejecting these demands, Harvard's president wrote, quote, the university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights, unquote. As a result, the Trump administration froze more than $2 billion in grants and contracts at Harvard.

Mark Goldfader is back with me among with political commentators John Avlon and Margaret Hoover. We'll get to you in one second. And John, do you see this as overreach?

JOHN AVLON, FORMER CNN SENIOR POLICIAL ANALYST: Absolutely. This is just expose the fact it's never been about free speech for these folks. This is about ideological warfare.

TAPPER: Well, they're obviously trying to litigate speech.

AVLON: They're trying to litigate speech and demand their own, you know, get universities to take the knee. And Harvard has actually said no. And maybe that will begin little bit of principled pushback. But it's just another reminder, you know, it's that Winston Churchill quote about appeasement. It's feeding an alligator hoping it eats you last. And the more universities tried to take the knee or work with the administration, they got screwed anyway.

And now it's right to take a stand because this is a constitutional principle and this is a very dangerous moment. And it's all part of a piece of the administration going after law firms, going after news organizations and now universities.

TAPPER: Margaret, you disagree?

MARGARET HOOVER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, no, I, it's not that I disagree. Look, here's -- as with the Trump administration, since they've returned to office, as with so many cases, from trade policy to tariffs to the Department of Government Efficiency to every other one of these aspects, on its face, many of the goals, stated goals are laudable. Conservatives support them. People who are not conservative support them.

But it's the way they go about doing it, which is sometimes just blatantly illegal, like unconstitutional, which undermines the entire purpose and point of the progress they want to try to make. You don't go around to a university that is already by the way, abiding by a Supreme Court ruling. Students for fair admissions versus Harvard, which already doesn't allow any kind of discrimination, race based discrimination in admissions.

They're already abiding by the law, that is the law because of the Supreme Court. So then to go around and tell them that they can't, I mean, it's asinine. It's a totally asinine approach to somewhat laudable goals. Revoking antisemitism on campus.

Great. That's a great idea. How do you do that? Not this way.

TAPPER: Let me bring in Mark. Mark, Trump officials say that -- let's just talk about the demands to combat antisemitism. A lot of those demands have already been adjudicated in an agreement that Harvard made with a Jewish, I think Harvard alumnus group or Harvard alumni group. What's your take on this?

GOLDFEDER: They agreed to some, not all demands with some, not all of the students. They're still facing multiple open losses. I find this whole conversation almost hilarious. The sense of entitlement here is disgusting.

First of all, absolutely clear, the U.S. Supreme Court has already held a charitable organization, including specifically a university, can lose its tax exempt status if they are violating fundamental policy. That was Bob Jones University versus the U.S. in 1983. They lost their tax exempt status because their racist discriminatory policies were contrary to a compelling governmental interest and to public policy.

Harvard has said they will not comply with what the federal government says they need to as it relates to enforcing non-discrimination policies. Of course they can lose their federal exempt tax status.

I've read through the letter that the task force sent to Harvard and all they're asking is to come up with solutions to its own problems.

[17:25:04]

What's Harvard's plan? Fix it. It's not ask. The reality here is that elite universities are undermining confidence in the entire sector. Jewish being harassed and assaulted and elite university administrators have done nothing to stop it, including at Harvard.

By the way, in the Fair Admissions case, Harvard came out with a statement a day later saying they were going to try to find ways around it so as not to comply with it. These universities are idled and they will not stop this behavior on their own accord.

The only thing they seem to respond to is financial incentive. That seems to be the only lever that we can pull to stop the racist and antisemitic conduct on their campuses.

AVLON: Mark, I just want to be -- Mark -- I just -- this is John Avlon. I just want to be real clear. You're comparing Harvard University to Bob Jones University, which lost its tax exempt status because it forbid interracial dating. I just want to be clear. That's your official position, right? That's your argument?

GOLDFEDER: That's right.

AVOLON: Super. That's going to go down real well. Sounds really equivalent. Why would you cut scientific funding? Why would you cut medical funding?

GOLDFEDER: Harvard has $53 billion in its endowment. Are they gaining that many students? Dip into your endowment or stop discriminating. Stop discriminating against Jews and nobody has to suffer. Or if you want to keep discriminating, you have plenty of money that you raised over the years. And anything that the U.S. cuts off, I'm sure Carter will fill right in.

TAPPER: So the other thing that Margaret, that they're talking about here, because it's not just about antisemitism, even though the conversation is focused on that, talking about reforming international student admissions. I think that's talking about making sure that people who come from other countries aren't sympathetic to terrorist groups.

And also talking about an audit of the viewpoint diversity within student admissions and faculty hiring. That seems to me likely to talk about having more conservatives as students. And I mean that --

HOOVER: P.S. --

TAPPER: -- I'm guessing with what it means.

HOOVER: All laudable goals. But it isn't the remit of the federal government to be mandating how a private university operates insofar. And I mean, look, they can go to the courts and the courts can decide whether which one of them is undermining the Constitution. And this probably will end up in the courts, especially if they revoke their 501c3 status.

If they get rid of this university's tax exempt status, Harvard does have a $53 billion endowment, which is extraordinary. But they have a 6 billion operating budget. Only half of that is coming from the endowment. I mean, they're raising $3 billion a year. If 2 billion is coming from the federal government and that's cut off, that is substantial. I mean, that is crippling, that prevents them from being able to operate.

TAPPER: Mark, we only have 30 seconds. Final word.

GOLDFEDER: All they have to do is stop discriminating. There's a simple three-step process here for universities to keep their funding. Number one, enforce the law. And as to tell people you're going to force the law as written. Number three, don't do what Columbia did, which is private meeting, saying we're just kidding. Enforce the law as written.

President Trump has not added a single new class or category or law or exemption. All he's saying is we're going to hold you to the federal public policy, which is you're not this money unless you abide discrimination laws. TAPPER: All right. Unfortunately, that's all the time we have for this

segment. Thanks one and all for being here. Really appreciate it. The White House said today President Trump is assessing more than 15 trade deal proposals. Can those deals come soon enough? The tasking effect of Trump's global tariffs on industries here in the United States. A CEO is going to join me with his take, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:32:38]

TAPPER: Our money lead, U.S. stocks closed slightly lower today as investors await the next salvo in President Trump's tariff and trade wars. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters earlier today that President Trump is actively assessing more than 15 trade deal proposals.

In case you have noticed, Chinese President Xi Jinping is traveling through Southeast Asia, meeting right now with U.S. trading partners such as Vietnam and Malaysia so far urging them to resist, quote, unilateral bullying.

Here on The Lead, we're looking at how the tariff wars are affecting specific U.S. industries. And joining us now is Greg Ahearn. He's president and CEO of the Toy Association. Before that, he was the Chief Marketing officer at Toys R Us. Greg, thanks for joining us.

What do our viewers need to understand about the toy industry and how Trump's tariffs are affecting the industry?

GREG AHEARN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE TOY ASSOCIATION: Well, 145 percent tariff is tough on any industry, but ours is truly unique from the standpoint that 96 percent of the manufacturers here in the U.S. are considered small or medium sized businesses.

So when you think about these businesses and a 145 percent tariff being put on them, it's untenable for them. They don't have the cash flow. They don't have the access to capital and it's basically locking up production in the toy industry. No toys are currently being produced in China. And there are reports that major retailers here in the U.S. are starting to actually cancel orders.

So Jake, Christmas is at risk.

TAPPER: Your organization says nearly 80 percent of all toys sold in the U.S. are manufactured in China. Do you think it's possible to stand up some sort of U.S. supply chain for the toy industry? And I mean, that's obviously the goal of the Trump administration. Is that possible? And if so, how long would it take?

AHEARN: Well, there are some toys that are made here in the U.S. but they're mostly paper goods or highly automated goods and represents a small portion of the toys that are manufactured. To be able to stand up, manufacturing in U.S. is it possible? Yes, but in the short term, absolutely not. It would take three to five years to be able to build out the capacity, the specialization. Again, a lot of the toys that are made in China, as you said, 80

percent are hand labor made toys.

[17:35:00]

It's the face painting on a doll, it's the hair decorating, it's placing them the correct way in packaging. A lot of this is hand labor that can't be automated here in the US.

TAPPER: And obviously labor rates are much higher here in the United States than they are in China. If this industry was moved to the United States even after three to five years or whatever, does that mean it would just explode in cost?

AHEARN: It most likely would. The toy industry is a very low margin industry. If you're making high single digits or low double digits as a manufacturer, you're doing pretty darn good. So if you take any factor like labor that is a major factor in toy manufacturing, you raise that up. Absolutely would impact the cost of toys here in the U.S. so you could probably imagine a 20 to 30 percent price increase in toys if they were moved here into the US.

TAPPER: Are there any kind of residual impacts of these tariffs that we're not even thinking of? For example, I know toy safety is something very important for your industry. Kids, you know, I mean, there are some toys, I think there's like a size limit. It can only be so small because you don't want kids to choke on toys. Are there any safety recriminations or repercussions?

AHEARN: There are. You've got a lot of folks, the branded toys that are doing it right. They go through all of the testing, over 150 different safety standards that toys have to pass because we want to make sure that safe toys are in children's hands.

But when the prices of these branded toys go up, it swings the door open, potentially for counterfeits, knockoff toys that potentially are unsafe sold through some of the online sellers that we know. And the last thing we want to have is any unsafe toy getting the hands of children. But they will be at lower price points. And it's hard for consumers to tell the difference between a counterfeit and knockoff and a safe branded toy. And so we don't want that to happen this year.

TAPPER: You just stated that Christmas is at risk. What's your advice for parents or grandparents looking ahead to the holidays?

AHEARN: Well, I think, you know, if we don't get these 145 percent tariffs moved off, production right now is stopped. And all of the toys that will be on the holiday shelves this year are actually supposed to be produced now. April, May and June, they're all produced and then brought here into the US.

So there is no alternative in terms of manufacturing short term for the 2025 holiday season. So reach out to your local representatives. We're reaching out to the administration. We're hoping that they hear us, that they understand the uniqueness of the toy industry and that everybody wants to make sure that Christmas is going to be fun and there'll be toys under the tree for kids this year.

TAPPER: Thanks, Greg. Really appreciate your time today. Thanks for coming on.

Coming up next, what the CDC says about a rise of autism cases and what might be driving up the numbers. And later, part of a conversation with Hollywood heavyweight George Clooney. We have a whole big interview that's going to air tomorrow, but we're going to give you a little teaser about what he experienced after calling on Joe Biden to drop out of the 2024 presidential race.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:42:37]

TAPPER: Our health lead now, a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows a continuing rise in diagnosed autism cases in the United States. This comes as the Department of Health and Human Services is launching what it calls a massive testing and research project to identify the cause of what they're calling an autism epidemic. That same department, we should note, is now headed by RFK Jr. who has a decades long record of spreading misinformation tying childhood vaccines to diagnoses of autism.

These are falsehoods repeatedly debunked by medical and scientific professionals for years and years. Ones that have been retracted by publications that have published them under Kennedy's byline, ones that have been condemned by Kennedy's own family. CNN's Jacqueline Howard is here to break down the results for us of today's study.

Jacqueline, how much of a rise in autism or autism diagnoses has there been?

JACQUELINE HOWARD, CNN HEALTH REPORTER: Well, Jake, there's been a significant rise in diagnoses. This latest CDC data does show that in the year 2000, it was estimated that about 1 in every 150 children were diagnosed with autism. Well, that autism rate has risen to in the year 2022, now being 1 in every 31 children. So that's the significant rise in autism diagnoses that we have seen.

The data has also shown that boys are more likely to be diagnosed compared with girls and we see higher rates among Asian, black and Hispanic children compared with white children. So these are the latest numbers, one positive here, though. The hope is that with greater awareness that may lead to greater interventions and services for children that may need them. Jake.

TAPPER: We also know that HHS has asked the CDC to study vaccines in autism despite robust evidence showing no link. What factors might help explain the rise in autism diagnoses that we're seeing beyond obviously increased awareness of autism?

HOWARD: Well, Jake, this latest CDC study does point to in the US. We have had greater diagnoses, greater testing that seen regionally too. In California where autism rates are higher than other regions in the nation, there has been greater testing initiatives compared with areas, for instance, like in Texas where we see lower autism rates.

[17:45:05]

But Jake, also some experts point to genetic factors possibly playing a role, environmental factors possibly playing a role. Earlier today, the CEO of the Autism Society of America told our colleague Boris Sanchez that scientists have been looking for causes for decades. He added that he does not agree with the Trump administration's description of there being an autism epidemic. Here's a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER BANKS, CEO, AUTISM SOCIETY OF AMERICA: Statements that we have seen this administration make are harmful. So let me be clear. Autism is not a chronic disease. It's a lifelong developmental condition. It's not an epidemic, nor should it be compared to the COVID pandemic. And using language like that perpetuates falsehoods, stigmas and stereotypes. Autism is not linked to vaccines and health policy should be rooted in science.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD: So Jake, you know he's making that statement in response to HHS asking CDC to do more research looking at autism and its causes and suggesting causes tied to vaccines.

TAPPER: All right, Jacqueline Howard, thanks so much. Appreciate it. His conviction catapulted the MeToo movement. So why is Harvey Weinstein on trial again? The accusations that led to his conviction being overturned in a new jury selection that started just today. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:51:09]

TAPPER: Our law and Justice League today involves the disgraced former Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister explains why Weinstein is on trial again for the sex crimes he's already been convicted of committing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAWN DUNNING, ASPIRING ACTRESS: The thought that he would be free again is terrifying.

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Dawn Dunning says she's on edge as disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein goes back on trial.

DUNNING: This has been such a long ordeal for me.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Dunning's testimony and that of other supporting witnesses helped convict Weinstein of sexual assault and rape in 2020, then sentenced to 23 years in New York. But an appeals court threw out the conviction, saying too many accusers like Dunning and Tarale Wulff were allowed to testify, even though Weinstein wasn't facing charges in their cases.

TARALE WULFF, WEINSTEIN ACCUSER: Did highlight how difficult these crimes are to try. But it also highlights for me what needs to change.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Weinstein denies that he ever sexually assaulted anyone. His lawyers claim he was made out to be the poster boy of the MeToo movement, tainting the first trial.

ARTHUR AIDALA, WEISTEIN DEFENSE ATTORNEY: We could hear the protests outside through the windows. There was an enormous amount of pressure on those jurors.

WAGMEISTER: More than 100 women who have all accused him, women across decades unaffiliated with each other. Are all of these women lying?

AIDALA: I would tell you Harvey Weinstein would say they are.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): In the retrial, three women will testify against Weinstein, including a new accuser who alleges Weinstein assaulted her in a Manhattan Hotel in 2006. The woman's identity is currently unknown, but Jane Doe's attorney is speaking first to CNN.

LINDSAY GOLDBRUM, JANE DOE'S ATTORNEY: She is one of the bravest, strongest women that I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. You can imagine that any individual who is going to testify against someone as powerful as Harvey Weinstein is going to be nervous. There's going to be a certain level of anxiety. But at the end of the day, she's ready for her testimony.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): She'll join two other women whose testimony led to Weinstein's conviction. In the first trial, former actress Jessica Mann.

MIMI HALEY, WEINSTEIN ACCUSER: I told him no, no.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): And a former Weinstein Company production assistant, Mimi Haley, who alleges Weinstein overpowered her and forced himself on her.

HALEY: I remember Harvey afterwards rolling over onto his back saying, don't you feel we're so much closer to each other now? To which I replied, no.

GLORIA ALLRED, HALEY'S ATTORNEY: It's painful to go through the process again about a traumatic event. And she finally decided to do it, and I commend her. It does take a tremendous amount of courage.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Haley's attorney, Gloria Allred, disputes that the MeToo movement has weakened. She says a jury will again believe these women.

ALLRED: They refuse to be ruled by fear. Fear is now on the other side. Fear by the defendants.

GOLDBRUM: I think that what's important to understand about the court of appeals decision is that it wasn't based on not believing the women. It was based on a procedural difference.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Weinstein's defense says he's in poor health and that his life ultimately may come down to the verdict in this trial.

AIDALA: The stakes could not be higher for Harvey Weinstein in this trial. I'm not sure Mr. Weinstein has enough gas in the tank to sustain the years of that the appellate process takes.

DUNNING: I know everyone thinks he's so old and frail and sick, but he's never going to stop.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WAGMEISTER: Now, Jake, I've been following this story for nearly a decade. I covered both of Weinstein's trials in New York and LA.

[17:55:02]

And what I learned through my reporting is just how challenging it is to prosecute cases like these. Even though there have been more than 100 women who have publicly accused Weinstein. That is not what this case is about, Jake. This case just boils down to the testimony of three women.

TAPPER: Elizabeth Wagmeister, thank you so much for that report. Really appreciate it. Coming up, what President Trump just said moments ago about possibly deporting Americans criminals to El Salvador. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome to the Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, President Trump's new threat to Harvard University and the White House's demand for an apology.

[18:00:04]

Is President Trump trying to control one of the most elite privately run colleges in the world?