Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

CNN Poll Shows Growing Majority Says Trump Has Made Economy Worse; Soon, Trump Signs Executive Orders Targeting Illegal Immigration; White House Redesigns COVID Website To Highlight The Lab Leak Theory; India Tests Missiles As Tensions Rise With Pakistan; Harvard Faces Off Against White House In First Court Hearing. Aired 6- 7p ET

Aired April 28, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

This hour new, CNN polls tonight showing that the majority of the American people disagree with how President Trump is handling the economy and are growing even more worried about a potential recession. What President Trump is saying about his tariffs as he prepares to mark his first 100 days in office tomorrow.

Plus, we're traveling the country, checking in with small business owners about how these tariffs are affecting their employees and their customers and their businesses.

[18:00:06]

And tonight, we're in Missouri where a board game company is joining a lawsuit, worried that Trump's policies could put them out of business.

Also stay, out of our election, eh, the sharp words from a Canadian politician today as voters head to the polls. And President Trump weighs in on the country that he keeps talking about making the 51st state.

And nearly nine years after Kim Kardashian was violently robbed in Paris, the gang accused of the crime heads to trial, the case centering around the theft of nearly $10 million in cash and jewelry. The reality star is set to take the stand.

Our Lead Tonight, it's day 99 for the Trump administration, and when it comes to one of the most important issues facing most Americans, that's the economy, a brand new CNN poll released just moments ago shows there are some warning signs for the administration. When asked how Trump's economic policies have affected the U.S. economic conditions, 59 percent of the American public says they have worsened conditions. 27 percent say they have improved conditions. 14 percent say they have had no effect.

CNN's Alayna Treene is live for us outside of the White House. Alayna?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Oh, well, Jake, look, I mean these are pretty dismal numbers for the president, particularly on an issue that he had once promised would be, you know, ushering the new golden age, particularly this economic revolution that hadn't been seen before.

We are learning now that Americans are very much unhappy with the economy overall. They are worried about inflation, about prices at the pump, with grocery prices, but also the president's tariff policy. And that's really, I think, one of the key questions that we're still trying to figure out is what exactly or when exactly are we going to see these trade deals that they've promised come into fruition.

Now, tomorrow morning ,we're going to hear from Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary. He's really been the one leading a lot of the messaging on this tariff policy. And one of the things he said today is that he believes that there could be a deal soon when it comes to a tariff, a deal, trade deal with India. He said that could come as early as this week, if not next week.

But, again, what we are hearing from this administration is not really doing enough to quell the concerns of many of these Americans. Just for one example, six in ten Americans are saying that the president's policies have increased the cost of living in their communities. Only 12 percent say his agenda is helping bring prices down.

Now, one of the most striking things I think about this term that is so different from his first term is that the president has said this publicly, but I know he's saying it behind closed doors in my conversations with White House officials, that he's willing to have -- there be some short-term pain, that they are willing to have Americans, you know, go through this for now, because he genuinely believes that overall in the long run that they are going to have -- see this economic policy kind of even out the economy.

But, again, we're 100 days in now and we haven't really seen that from this White House. And one of the other things as well that I'm picking up on is, in my conversations with top Trump administration officials, they are arguing that they also recognize they have a very short timeframe for how they want to, and when they want to push these policies through. They recognize that after this 100 days, some of the leeway that the president was granted may not continue to kind of survive, particularly when you think about Republicans on Capitol Hill and those worried about the midterm elections, but they also recognize they have a race to the midterms. And the economy is going to be one of the key issues that they really need to sort out by them, all of this kind of weighing on this 100 days. Jake?

TAPPER: All right. Alayna Treene at the White House for us, thanks so much.

Let's do take an economic reality check and turn to CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich. Vanessa, President Trump's approval on the economy is not in a good place. How is the actual economy doing away from the polls?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Well, if we look at the data, the economy is actually in a solid position. Just look at inflation. Inflation in March came in at 2.4 percent. That is a significant difference from what we saw last year in March. It was at 3.5 percent. But, of course, this sort of last drag to get inflation down to 2 percent has been very daunting for the Federal Reserve, and that is why people feel like prices are just still too high.

But let's look at prices at the gas pump. Today, the price of gas was $3.14 a gallon, is $3.14 a gallon compared to last year, down more than $0.50. And let's look at jobs where the labor market is right now. 228,000 jobs were added in March. If you look at that over the last year on that bar chart there, you can see that that is above average, Jake.

But the big but here is that all of this data is backwards-looking, looking at March. So, while we were on solid footing in March, April's data could look different because, of course, Jake, that is when the president imposed those higher tariffs.

TAPPER: You just heard of the polling, 59 percent of the American people in CNN's polls say Trump's policies have made the economy worse.

[18:05:01]

Why do you think they think that?

YURKEVICH: Well, let's look at consumer confidence and consumer sentiment. These are two key indicators that sort of also take a temperature of how people are feeling. Consumer confidence fell by 7.2 points, that's looking at March. And, essentially, this report said that consumers' expectations were especially gloomy, with pessimism about future business conditions, deepening and confidence about future employment prospects falling to a 12-year low.

Also, let's look at consumer sentiment, which picked up April's trends about how people were feeling. Consumer sentiment fell by 8.4 percent. But, again, about the future, mostly year ahead inflation expectations surged from 5 percent last month to 6.5 percent this month. That was the highest reading since 1981 and marking four consecutive months of unusually large increases of 0.5 percentage points or more. So, people in these reports indicating that they are very nervous about the future, and, of course, how you feel right now can also determine how you feel about the future, Jake.

TAPPER: And speaking of that, consumers have been bracing for the impact of these tariffs, economists predicting higher prices, emptier shelves. When can we actually expect to see the impact of the tariffs?

YURKEVICH: Well, when a cargo ship leaves China, if they're leaving today, for example, it'll take about three to six weeks, depending on which port it's going into, the Port of Los Angeles or the Port of New York, for that cargo to reach the U.S. And then from there, businesses will have to decide are they going to pass those prices down to the consumer.

The Port of Los Angeles sees the most cargo coming in from China. And here's what the port director said as he was giving an update on where things stand. He said, we also see the inventory on shelves and procurement facilities will shrink. Many major retailers have told us they have about six to eight weeks of supply inventory in their systems now and it will quickly dry up. United States manufacturers and consumers alike will find difficult decisions in the weeks and months to come if policies don't change.

So, I think what's interesting about all of this, Jake, is people are feeling pretty terrible about the economy right now. But, Jake, ultimately the worst is to come on these price hikes. Jake?

TAPPER: Yes, that's the old Sinatra song, the Worst is Yet to Come.

YURKEVICH: Yes.

TAPPER: Right? Vanessa Yurkevich, thanks so much.

Let's turn to the panel, discuss this and more. Shermichael, let's start with this polling, because when you know President Trump's Truth Social attacking Fox News polling, then you know it's not good. The economy's a major reason Trump is back in the White House. It might even be the main reason. Take a look at this shift in just one month in March, 44 percent approved of Trump on the economy, 56 percent disapproved. A month later, 61 percent disapproved, only 39 percent approved. Do I have that right, approved, that right? Anyway, so the numbers are going in the wrong direction.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.

TAPPER: What do they need you to do to fix it?

SINGLETON: The president's numbers have obviously slid backwards. I'm certainly certain that he's aware of it. The political shop in the White House, they're also aware. And I think it's why the White House is working really diligently to bring home and move forward with various deals with countries across the globe. As it pertains to tariffs, the president just announced a couple of days ago that he's really hopeful that China will come to the table with some type of agreement as it pertains to protecting intellectual property, which I think would be a big win for the administration.

It's also fascinating when you look at some of the polls because The Washington Post/ABC polls suggested that while the president's numbers have receded a little bit, the American people, writ large, for the most part, still trust the president more to manage the affairs of the country than they do Democrats. And I think that's a very important number to take a look at.

Also, The New York Times poll, I looked through the data there, I'm a bit skeptical. Only 34 percent of respondents, I believe, were Republicans who actually voted for the president. Not to get into the weeds from the viewer's perspective, but that stuff really matters. As a strategist, when I'm analyzing data, trying to figure out the accuracy of said data, and if it's truly representative of what most Americans feel.

So, overall, Jake, I would say focus on the economy, try to get some of those deals done as quickly as you possibly can. The American people, I believe, are willing to give the president an opportunity.

TAPPER: Xochitly, The Atlantic just published a wide-ranging interview with President Trump. I want to share the part that focuses on the economy. Quote, Trump pushed back on the notion popular among some Wall Street analysts that financial turmoil would cause him to roll back his tariff policies. And then President Trump says, it always affects you a little bit, he said, but there's no red line, no certain number at which he would feel compelled to change course.

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think that you already see the White House scrambling internally, figuring out how to change course, because they obviously see the poll numbers, it's not just CNN, but it's across the board, the American people are not happy with what he is doing. I think that the White House early on started talking about Americans are going to feel the short-term pain.

[18:10:00]

You heard it from the White House over the last hundred days.

The reality, though, is that the American people are not okay with that short-term gain. Jake, you're right. One of the reasons and the largest reason that Trump won is because he said he could bring down prices. And Americans are desperate for the president to bring down prices. And this is why Democrats lost.

And I think that while you were mentioning polling about how people are trusting Republicans over Democrats right now, the reality is Republicans control everything at the moment. And so, you know, they are going to get blamed if they are not bringing down prices. And I think that he has to change course more aggressively and showing the American people that he's doing more to bring down prices if they're going to win it in the midterm elections.

SINGLETON: But the economy has shown itself to be very resolute and strong. We continue to create more jobs. Unemployment numbers are still particularly low. I mean, look at unemployment numbers for communities of color, pretty low. Unemployment numbers for younger Americans, incredibly low.

And so if we can just get through this moment, which I believe the administration, Jake, is really, really focused on, but I think for the most part, Xochitl, we will see a recovery. We won't get to the point, I believe, six to eight weeks where that director of the port was saying, we only have so much time before companies say we're running out of products. I think we can avoid that.

TAPPER: So, some other news that the president made asked about turmoil at the Pentagon following the fallout from the Signal scandal, there were two signal scandals actually, here's what President Trump said about Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, quote, I think he's going to get it together. He goes on to say, quote, I had a talk with him, a positive talk, but I had a talk with him.

Now, Republican Congressman Don Bacon was on The Lead last week. He called for Hegseth to be fired. Take a listen to what he said to CNN's Lauren Fox today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. DON BACON (R-NE): You would hope if he said he learned a lesson. I haven't heard that. All I've heard is him defend it or put blame on other people. And I commented five times, when you make a mistake, you take responsibility. But as far as I could tell, that's like a week old and I don't know that -- you know, I don't -- I'm not sure I'm going to be able to persuade him that's the right thing to do, but I think it hurt him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Do you think it hurt him?

HINOJOSA: Yes. I think that Hegseth is in some trouble, as you know, President Trump, when he gathers people and starts talking to people at the White House and his closest advisers about what he should do about this issue, that is never good for the sitting cabinet secretary. It often signals that they're looking to make a change.

And I think that same with the interview in The Atlantic, I mean, you -- why was Trump doing an interview in The Atlantic with the same reporter that was on the Signal chain? It only brings up this issue even more. And I think that right now, Hegseth is hanging on by a thread. He hasn't made any major changes. He has not said what he did was wrong. He is -- you know, there are people around him that are losing confidence. And it's clear based on everything the president has been signaling that he's also losing confidence in him.

TAPPER: Well, on the topic of Pete Hegseth, one of the three fired Pentagon officials, Colin Carroll spoke with Megyn Kelly. I want to play this exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGYN KELLY, HOST, THE MEGYN KELLY SHOW: Do you think he's okay? You know, do you think Pete is okay?

COLIN CARROLL, FORMER DEFENSE DEPARTMENT ADVISER: Yes. I honestly, I don't know. I'm not sure I have observed a Pete that is one Pete and crushes it in meetings.

At the same time, I've seen the secretary in more internal meetings where he is super focused on, like very, in my opinion, weird details and very agitated and kind of like yelling and just nothing's good. So, it's like a tale of two Petes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Well, that doesn't sound good.

SINGLETON: Look, he still has the confidence of the president for now. But like any executive, there's a lot going on right now, Middle Eastern policies, dealing with Russia and Ukraine, China tariffs, immigration. The president certainly doesn't want to be distracted by one of his cabinet secretaries. So, we'll see ultimately what happens.

TAPPER: Yes. I mean, one of the things Colin Carroll said is 50 percent of what Hegseth was spending his time with is that you leak investigation, which is not what the secretary of defense should be spending his time on. Thanks to both of you. I appreciate it.

CNN as brand new reporting tonight about the arrangement between the U.S. and El Salvador to send deported illegal immigrants to a notorious mega prison, that's next.

Plus, the pushback from one Canadian politician as President Trump wades into that country's election just as voters there head to the polls.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

TAPPER: In our National Lead, any moment, President Trump is expected to sign a whole new slew of executive orders, including one cracking down on sanctuary cities, sanctuary cities or jurisdictions that have policies in place designed to limit local or state cooperation with or involvement in federal immigration enforcement actions.

CNN's Priscilla Alvarez is here with new reporting on another major immigration headline, that's the mega prison in El Salvador. Tell us what's going on.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake, look, when I talk to sources, they say it's been ramping up over the last a hundred days. Well, now, we're kicking into gear and we are learning new details about this arrangement with El Salvador.

Of course, you always will remember that the United States sent Venezuelan migrants, over 200 of them, to El Salvador in mid-March. Well, we are learning through documents and sources that the U.S. had been in negotiation with El Salvador to send up to 500. Now, a U.S. official told me that that was a notional number, and they ultimately landed on up to 300, 238 Venezuelan migrants in total who went there.

But this is really ultimately a funding directive. There is no formal agreement. It's, in some ways, a handshake. As one U.S. official told me, it's a friendly, non-binding fashion agreement, which is to say that they went back and forth in conversation to set up this arrangement to send migrants to the notorious mega prison in El Salvador. It leaves a lot more room for more to come.

They've given less than $5 million to El Salvador so far, but there's more approved. $15 million have been approved. And the reason for that is because as they send people, they plan to send more money, so $20,000 per person.

[18:20:02]

Now, people in the immigration enforcement space will tell you it's a lot less than having people here in the United States. But all the same, what is fascinating about this, Jake, is we're learning more details about what ultimately was an arrangement, not a formal agreement, with El Salvador to detain migrants including, for example, Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

TAPPER: So, there's also this other story getting a lot of attention. There are three separate cases of children with American citizenship who were deported along with their mothers, who were undocumented immigrants, to Honduras. The Trump administration says the mothers were all undocumented. You asked the border czar, Tom Homan, about this earlier today.

ALVAREZ: Look, this really shouldn't come as a surprise the way that the border czar answered my question about why the U.S. citizen children. Because he actually said before the election that if there was going to be an undocumented mother or father deported, they wouldn't separate the family. They would just send them all together.

So, I asked him about the cases, two cases, Jake, of one mother with a two-year-old, another mother with four and a seven-year-old, and he said, look, this was ultimately up to the parents. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM HOMAN, BORDER POLICY ADVISER: If you choose to have US citizen child knowing you're in this country legally, you put yourself in that position, you put your family in that position. What we did is remove children with their mothers who requested the children to depart with them. This was a parental decision, Parenting 101. The mothers made that choice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALVAREZ: Now, the attorneys for these mothers say that they weren't able to contact anyone when they were detained, and that's what ultimately led to this decision. This is going to continue in an ongoing legal proceeding that's going to happen in Louisiana. But, certainly, a lot of concern among immigration advocates as to what this portends for other families who have U.S. citizen children.

TAPPER: Yes, interesting. And it has been ruled before that you're not allowed to deport a U.S. citizen. Anyway, interesting stuff.

Priscilla Alvarez, thank you.

Joining us now, the former acting director of ICE under President Obama, John Sandweg. John, was it common practice when you worked at ICE to deport kids who were U.S. citizens with their parents, if the parents were here illegally and were also being deported?

JOHN SANDWEG, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: You know, Jake, I'll tell you this at the outset. It was not common practice to deport family units like this. Generally speaking, at ICE, we try to stay away from this as much as we could. You know, frankly, this family here looking at -- there's not -- all the facts aren't out yet, but it appears to me that she had what's called a stay of removal.

So, she had been ordered deported before, but it was actually ICE who said, we're going to allow you to stay here. And that's not uncommon because when you're looking at a family unit, you really don't want to put them in this incredibly difficult position of having to decide what to do with their U.S. citizen children unless they have some serious criminal history, or there's some other compelling reason to execute the removal.

So, yes, it happened in the Obama administration, but by mo far more often than not cases like this, you just wouldn't subject him to this incredibly difficult dilemma.

TAPPER: On the matter of Abrego Garcia, that's the undocumented immigrant who lived in Maryland who was deported, and the Trump administration acknowledged at the time that it was an administrative error alleged to his deportation, although he was in the country illegally. Take a listen to White House Border Czar Tom Homan this morning. He's trying to reframe this admitted error deporting Kilmar Abreg Garcia to that mega prison in El Salvador. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOMAN: I don't accept the term error in Abrego Garcia. There is an oversight. There was a withholding order. But things have changed. The facts on the withholding order has changed. He is now a terrorist.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: He is now a terrorist, is what they say.

Now, we should note, the evidence is thin that Abrego Garcia was a member of the gang, MS-13 and disputed. Now, Tom Homan is calling him a terrorist though. What's your reaction to that?

SANDWEG: Jake, it doesn't matter if the facts are right. Maybe the administration's right, maybe they bring him back. There's a new hearing. There's overwhelming evidence. But the bottom line is there was a court order in place that said you cannot send them to El Salvador.

And one of the byproducts as we looked to cut corners and ramp up to deportation numbers, as we looked to eliminate access to the immigration courts, and we kind of in a rush to beat potential federal court orders is we make mistakes, you increase the risk of mistakes.

Jake, ICE, you know, officers, men and women, agents, work very hard and really are committed to doing this the right way and getting bad people off the streets, but mistakes are made. But that's why you have that back -- you know, that additional safety net of the immigration courts. And, again, the more you hurry, the more you bypass those, the more likely these kind of mistakes are. You know, just you increase the chances of them.

TAPPER: Well, ICE agents are, like all of us, fallible. But I guess in a way, even having the conversation of is he an MS-13, is he a terrorist, is he not, is kind of a distraction from what a lot of experts say is the bigger issue is that he wasn't supposed to go to El Salvador, according to a judge. During the first Trump administration, the DOJ did not contest that, and he didn't get due process in a country that prides itself on such rights for people who are here, including people who are not citizens.

[18:25:06]

SANDWEG: Yes. I think the administration wants to kind of couched this as a binary debate of whether you're for a potential MS-13 gang member or you're against them. But, really it's about -- you're right, it's about process and about law. There was a court order. If you've developed new evidence, ICE could retake him back into custody and then ask the court to re-review the matter. They had that right to go initiate new legal process. And if the court decided that there were change circumstances, it could lift the withholding order.

The bottom line is he had a court order in place, and it's that simple. It's about -- you know, and then the secondary question, of course, Jake, is what do you do after it. I will just say very quickly that Priscilla's reporting about the nature of this agreement really is going to make it even harder on the administration as Abrego Garcia's case goes forward, because it shows again that El Salvador is not acting as an independent sovereign nation, but, really, it's probably closer to an agent of the United States, serving as a really a detention contractor, so to speak.

TAPPER: John Sandweg, thank you so much. I appreciate your time, sir.

The new project launched by health experts in response to HHS Secretary RFK Jr. and his history of raising false questions about vaccines, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

TAPPER: In our Health Lead today, the federal government's webpage, the Trump administration's webpage about the COVID-19 pandemic, just got quite a makeover. Here's what you saw at covid.gov in 2022 up until a few weeks ago, a site to find localized guidance on the pandemic and masks and testing and treatment if you have COVID.

But now, the Trump administration has turned it into a one-stop shop for information about the Wuhan lab leak theory about the virus' origins while slamming the response from the Biden administration. The Bulwark's Jonathan Cohn calls the site, quote, an unusually vivid example of how Trump and his allies are trying to rewrite the history of COVID in a way that not only erases their own role in the pandemic's harms, but seems likely to leave America more vulnerable to the next one, unquote.

And Jonathan joins us now along with Epidemiologist and Public Health Expert Michael Osterholm.

Jonathan, what parts of this website stood out to you the most as part of this rewritten story of the pandemic?

JONATHAN COHN, SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, THE BULWARK: Yes. So, I mean, as you said, Jake, there's a whole explanation there of the lab leak theory, which, you know, is a legitimate theory and certainly I think there are more scientists now taking it seriously than there were, you know, two or three years ago. But it presents the evidence as if it were an established fact as opposed to just one theory. There's a number of scientific errors in the explanation.

But most importantly of all, I mean, it just gives such a one-sided view. So, you know, it's a list of what the Trump administration believes everything that went wrong that the Democrats did, that public health officials did. And there's no mention of any of the mistakes that the Trump administration make. There's nothing about, you know, President Trump talking about bleach or, you know, there's nothing about the fact that he tried to downplay the severity of the crisis early.

And then just, you know, more broadly, there's just no sense in there that all that, you know, whatever you think about the steps that were taken at the time. You know, more than a million Americans died from this. And there's just no acknowledgement anywhere on the page that this was a national tragedy and something we're still trying to figure out what went wrong and how can we prepare better so that the next time we see a threat like this, we can react and save more lives.

TAPPER: It's interesting because during the Republican primaries, such as they were, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis really went after Donald Trump for being overly alarmist and too eager to shut down, you know, business and commerce and such during COVID, quite a different take on the website now.

Michael Osterholm, the CIA determined in January in the days after President Trump's inauguration that there was validity to the lab leak theory, but they still had low confidence in that conclusion. That's the CIA. The World Health Organization has not updated its investigations into the origin of COVID since 2021 when it said all hypotheses remain on the table. What do you make of the lab leak theory, the initial attempts to, you know, quell any discussion or debate about it and also this new site?

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH AND POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Well, first of all, let me just say that I have been very concerned about the potential for lab leak dating back more than 20 years, and I have a long track record of that. So, from that perspective, take the following comments. We are never going to know What the actual source of the virus was, whether it was a laboratory leak or it was a spillover from an animal population.

And I think that's an important conclusion to get to because we're spending all of our time arguing about the past and we're not preparing ourselves for the future. There is going to be the potential for more spillovers. There's going to be the potential for more lab leaks. And so I think that this whole discussion is really unfortunate and misses the point of how do we better protect the public.

TAPPER: And, Jonathan, that's really one of the points of your article how the Trump administration's decision to cast COVID as a political catastrophe more so than a health one, how it will impact the way the United States under whatever president will treat any future pandemic. COHN: Yes. I mean, look, as you said at the top, this used to be a website you went to get medical information, right? You know what are the symptoms like? What kind of treatments can I get? You know, where do I get the vaccines? It wasn't a political website. I think that's really important that the government sort of establishes itself through its official organs, like the White House page or the CDC page, as a source of information that everybody can trust.

[18:35:06]

Now, they're turning this page into a political document, making everything into an argument. And among other things, I think this erodes the credibility in our public health authorities, in our government, so that the next time we face a threat like this, people aren't going to trust the authorities.

And, you know, look, this is hard. And when we talk about, you know, the lack of credibility of experts, some of that is on the experts, obviously. But a lot of that is also on the federal government, on the critics, on people like Donald Trump. And I believe they are undermining that credibility in a way that will make us more vulnerable the next time one of these comes.

TAPPER: Speaking of undermining credibility, Michael, your center recently launched the Vaccine Integrity Project, trying to counteract the many conspiracy theories about vaccine that are being given new life and new prominence from the very top of our governments, most sadly, with the HHS secretary.

OSTERHOLM: Right. Well, I think, first of all, it is really under, I might say, a multi-event (ph) attack, meaning that we're concerned about just misinformation being stated by various officials within the administration, but also we're very concerned about the established bodies that are there to provide the kind of scientific oversight that we need to know about with our vaccines. One is being what's called the advisory committee on immunization practices at the CDC, which has outside experts come in. And we're very concerned about what'll happen there. Secretary Kennedy's already indicated that he, in his mind, 97 percent of the experts brought in have major conflicts of interest.

And so what our effort really is all about is really to go in now, do a whole series of facilitated focus groups to understand what is it that we need right now, that shortened information, just like when you noted about the website regarding the COVID and SARS issues. It's really important to note that we're seeing the same thing happen with the vaccine preventable issues.

And even just over the weekend we saw an event happen where HHS officials, including the head of the FDA, questioned whether they're going to continue to actually approve vaccines like the COVID vaccine or the flu vaccine based on what we call a single change of antigen. And so I think that we have lots of concerns about where this is going. And our group was just trying to figure out what can we do to help with that.

TAPPER: Michael Osterholm, Jonathan Cohn, thanks to both of you. I appreciate it.

Our small business series takes us to the great state of Missouri next. We're going to talk to the head of a company that could be behind your favorite game night activities. How Trump's tariffs are affecting their company and their employees, that's next

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

TAPPER: In our Money Lead, we're continuing to speak with small business owners from coast to coast about President Trump's tariffs. Some are in favor of the policies, many are not.

My next guest is the co-founder of Stonemaier Games. It's one of several game-making companies now suing the Trump administration over the tariffs,

And Jamey Stegmaier joins us now. Jamey, your company creates all sorts of original board games. Can you explain to us why tariffs have been detrimental to the gaming industry in particular?

JAMEY STEGMAIER, CO-FOUNDER, STONEMAIER GAMES: Absolutely, Jake, in my industry the temple top of board game industry, we make most of our games in China. I've worked for around 13 years with a company called Panda. It's a Canadian company that has their main facility in China. And China has gotten really good at making all the little bits and pieces and cards and boards that we put into modern hobby board games.

TAPPER: Your industry centered around entertainment, having fun. Did the tariffs create a kind of uncertainty for your industry? And if so, what is the impact on your business and your customers?

STEGMAIER: Uncertainty is the word that we've been talking about for the last month due to these tariffs in the board game industry. We don't know what the future will hold, but what we do know right now about the present is that many publishers, including my company, Stonemaier Games, we started making print-runs of games, reprints on new games back before the tariffs even existed back in January or before.

And so we are now facing the end of our production, we're ready to ship these games to the U.S. And if we want to do that, when those games reach the shores in the U.S., we have to pay $14.50 for every $10 that we spent making those games in China. TAPPER: For us at Stonemaier games, that amounts to around -- if we shipped all those games that we started making in January, it would amount to around $1.5 million in tariffs that we would have to pay. And that's devastating.

TAPPER: So, the goal of your lawsuit is to get the 145 percent tariff on objects, products coming from China overturned. The Trump administration's argument is, basically, we don't want American companies to be manufacturing in China. We want them to be manufacturing in the United States. What's your answer to that? STEGMAIER: Well, my answer is twofold. Part of it is we have all these games that we've already made in China. I just want to bring them to the U.S. so I can serve my co-workers, my customers, and all the retailers in the US that we want to sell those games to.

The other part of it is the future. And for me, as a board game publisher, I would love to have a more diversified supply chain where we do make some products, or at least assemble some products here in the U.S. But I would love the government to incentivize and subsidize that, not punish us for making some components in China that we simply can't make here in the U.S.

TAPPER: What support, what incentives do you need specifically?

[18:45:00]

STEGMAIER: Well, an example of this is, right now, if I want to make a board game box here in the U.S., and maybe I want to make some of those components in China that I can't make here in the U.S. but I want to make a box here in the U.S., and I want to handle assembly of the game here in the U.S. -- just the cost of that box here in the U.S. would cost almost the entire cost of the entire game if I make it in China.

[18:45:22]

And so, if the government could help subsidize the cost of that box, then I can at least take the first step and bring the construction of the box and the assembly of some of these products to the U.S. that's a great first step that we could take. But I would need some help to do that instead of dipping into our cash reserves to pay for tariffs on products that we've already made in China.

TAPPER: Well, that's my last question. If these keep going, if this 145 percent tariff on any product coming from China continues, what happens to your company?

STEGMAIER: I'm worried about what -- what that future holds. For now, we're treading water. We're weathering the storm. We're taking a more conservative approach to the amount of games that we decide to make for the holiday print run, which were going to start soon.

If they hold for months or even years, it will probably be largely the end of most board game publishers. At the very least, we sell 35 percent of our products to countries outside the U.S. So we might just be a smaller company that sells to other countries instead of to retailers and customers in the U.S.

TAPPER: All right. Jamey, thank you so much for joining me. Really appreciate your time today.

Coming up next, the court trial starting today involving reality star Kim Kardashian forcing her to relive one of the most traumatic days of her life.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [18:50:35]

TAPPER: In our world, lead voters are heading to the polls in Canada today. Hi, Canada. It's an election that's been overshadowed by President Trump. A Canadian politician actually called on Trump to stay out of the race after Trump reiterated his desire for Canadas annexation to become the 51st American state.

This as Trump's tariffs on Canadian exports pose a serious threat to the country's economy.

Meanwhile, the date for the papal election is set. The Vatican says May 7th will be the start to the conclave. The secretive process of electing a new pope. More than 130 cardinals are eligible to participate in the vote for Pope Francis's successor. The last two conclaves, held in 2005, were they elected Pope Benedict XVI, and in 2013 were they elected Pope Francis. They each lasted two days.

Also on our world lead, nearly nine years after Kim Kardashian was bound and robbed at gunpoint, the trial of ten of the suspects began today in Paris. The case centers on the 2016 theft of nearly $10 million in cash and jewelry, including a $4 million engagement ring that was never recovered. Kardashian is scheduled to testify during the trial.

Tensions are rising between India and Pakistan following last week's tourist massacre in Kashmir, a region that both countries claim full control over.

CNN's Will Ripley now explains for us, what's at stake.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: On India's streets, anger at Pakistan is burning one spark away from a wider explosion. India is flexing military muscle at sea. Pakistan warns of war if India threatens its water supply, a dangerous moment between nuclear armed rivals. Old wounds from decades of insurgency and three wars torn wide open, one of the deadliest attacks in years in Indian administered Kashmir.

We fled immediately after hearing gunshots, says Gopal Roopchand.

Gunmen opened fire on sightseers in the remote mountain valley of Pahalgam, 25 Indian citizens and a Nepali national are dead. Police on the Indian side named three suspects, claiming two are Pakistani nationals without providing evidence. They link the attack to a Pakistan based Islamist group called Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Pakistan's Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif denies any involvement.

SHAHBAZ SHARIF, PAKISTANI PRIME MINISTER: The recent tragedy in Pahalgam is yet another example of this perpetual blame game.

NARENDRA MODI, INDIAN PRIME MINISTER: India will identify track and punish every terrorist. RIPLEY: India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, under growing pressure

to strike Pakistan as rage fills Indias streets. India already suspended parts of a crucial water sharing treaty, threatening to cut off a lifeline for Pakistan's farms and cities. Pakistan is vowing to respond with force as militaries posture, families suffer.

India shut down a key border crossing. Pakistan also limiting access for Indian citizens, tearing families apart on both sides. The playbook is grim and familiar.

In 2019, a terror attack in Kashmir triggered Indian airstrikes inside Pakistan. The closest the two countries came to all-out war in decades. Many fear this time could be even worse.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: And our thanks to Will Ripley for that report.

CNN was inside the courtroom today as Harvard faced off against the White House, the next chapter of their fight over more than $2 billion is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:58:39]

TAPPER: It's Harvard versus Trump in our politics lead. The two sides faced off in their first court hearing today.

CNN's Kara Scannell was inside the courtroom.

Kara, walk us through what happened during today's hearing.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Jake, this court hearing lasted only about 15 minutes. The judge saying she understood that both Harvard University and the Trump administration wanted to move this case along quickly. They came in today with a proposed schedule, the judge adopting it and setting oral arguments in this case for July 21st. That means that the more than $2 billion that is frozen will remain frozen until there is a ruling.

That's because Harvard didn't ask the judge to take any temporary or emergency measures right now to unfreeze that money. So, this is all because Harvard had sued the administration, saying that the freezing of the money was unconstitutional, violating. Harvard's First Amendment rights to academic freedom, and also saying that they violated administrative law that says that there is a procedure in place that needs to be followed if federal money is to be revoked.

The Trump administration says that Harvard, like any university that receives federal funding, cannot violate the law. And that is their argument here that the civil rights law has been violated.

Now, as this stands, it is unclear if talks between both sides will resume. The administration has indicated that they are open to it. But Harvard officials have said that they aren't -- Jake. TAPPER: All right. Kara Scannell, thanks so much.

I have two books coming out. On May 20th, "Original Sin", which is about President Biden's decision to run for reelection and the cover up of his decline. And October, a book called "Race Against Terror". It's about the hunt to prosecute an al Qaeda terrorist, al Qaeda terrorist who killed Americans and was out to kill more.

You can check them both out at jaketapper.com. You can preorder them there.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now. See you tomorrow.