Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

DOJ Says Kilmar Abrego Garcia Has Returned To The U.S. To Face Federal Criminal Charges; Republicans Caught In The Middle Of Trump- Musk Fight; Source: Trump Told Vance To Speak Diplomatically About Musk; Sources: Trump Administration Prepares Large-Scale Cancellation Of Federal Funding For California; GOP Ex-Sen. Flake: Our Allies Need Reassurance There Still Is Bipartisan Support For U.S. Values; Partial Ban For Cuba Goes Into Effect On Monday; "Good Night, And Good Luck" Airs Saturday, 7PM ET On CNN. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired June 06, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:00:40]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. We begin with breaking news in our law and justice lead. The Trump administration has finally blinked doing what the United States Supreme Court ordered them to do back in April, returning Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States from El Salvador where he was not legally allowed to be deported, though he was deported to El Salvador. He was undocumented.

He was living in Maryland before he was taken out of the United States. However, there is a twist, Abrego Garcia is now facing criminal charges from the Trump administration, having been indicted on two criminal counts, including conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain. Moments ago, the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, detailed his return to the U.S. and these charges against him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant and they agreed to return him to our country. Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring. They found this was his full time job, not a contractor. He was a smuggler of humans and children and women.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Let's get right to CNN's Evan Perez who was at that briefing with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Evan, walk us through what happens next and also if we have it, the evidence against him.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, a lot of that not -- is not yet known, Jake, but the Justice Department says that there's -- they have co-conspirators. They have statements from people who are associated with this alleged smuggling ring that they say will prove that Abrego Garcia was an integral part of it. And we expect that the first action that's going to happen is that he's going to appear in federal court in Nashville in about the next 30 minutes or so where he will have his first appearance before a federal judge, a federal judge obviously separate from the immigration proceedings that have been ongoing and the whole legal fight that has been ongoing since he was taken or sent to El Salvador in a mistaken deportation.

Now, what we know is this, Kilmar Garcia was stopped back in 2022 by the Tennessee State Patrol. And we have video of that traffic stop. And that's where this first indication was that there was some suspicion about what he may have been up to. And so what has happened in the intervening period that since this legal fight erupted between the Trump administration and his family and the court is that the Justice Department decided to start investigating what exactly was happening in that traffic stop, what else was he involved in. And they say they turned up new evidence, which is why these charges have been brought.

Now, we know that's case, that case has been investigated by prosecutors in the middle district of Tennessee. We don't know, Jake, when exactly the investigation began, we asked that question at the press conference, we didn't get answer. But it is clear that this has been a focus of the Justice Department, which is a way to essentially find a way to charge him and in this way not concede to the bigger fight that they have been ongoing, which, as you remember, they've said all along that they would never bring him back. Of course, now that he is facing these very serious charges, they have brought him back to this country.

I'll read you just a part of what the president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele just said in a public statement. He said obviously he'd been here in the United States and he had also backed up the idea that they -- that he would never send him back. I'll read you just a part of what he said. He said, I -- said that he's -- he would never refuse a request -- he would refuse a request from President Trump to return a gang member to the United States, but he would do so if that person was facing federal charges here in the United States. So all along, Jake, the question has always been, you know, if President Trump wanted to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia, he could pick up the phone and call the president of El Salvador.

They have a good relationship. And clearly that is what has happened now that there is this arrest warrant that was produced by the grand jury in Nashville. Jake.

[17:05:02]

TAPPER: All right, Evan Perez with the breaking news. Thanks so much. Let's bring in CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig.

Ellie, you have prosecuted high profile, complex human trafficking cases before. How strong is this evidence against Abrego Garcia? And does the indictment match with what we heard from Attorney General Bondi when she said he was a human trafficker and trafficked in women and children?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Jake, the indictment does level very serious, disturbing allegations against Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Really important to understand, however, the actual federal criminal charges lodged here are very straightforward and simple. All the prosecutors are going to have to prove in this case is two things. First of all, that Kilmar Abrego Garcia knew that the people he was transporting were here illegally. That should be fairly easy to establish.

And second of all, that he transported them across a state line. Also seems fairly clear. With respect to the evidence, it seems like DOJ has a decent amount of evidence. They have the police stop and the video that Evan just showed us, it seems clear that they've spoken with at least one or more of these six co-conspirators who are referenced in this indictment. They have some accounts of inside conversations.

So it does look like the evidence is fairly straightforward here. And the charges are really pretty basic.

TAPPER: So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the indictment mentions other possible crimes, but he -- they haven't charged him with those crimes.

HONIG: Exactly. So the indictment references but does not charge Kilmar Abrego Garcia with firearms crimes, with drug crimes that even at one point refers to physical abuse, but there are no such charges in the indictment. Now, it is important, though, for context, that happens sometimes. If you're a prosecutor and you have some evidence of bad acts, but you don't have enough to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt, then you can mention those acts in an indictment, sometimes even at trial, but you're not going to ultimately have enough to charge them. And that's why I believe, in this case, we do see the trafficking charges, which, as I said before, are fairly straightforward, but not separate charges relating to guns and drugs and physical abuse.

TAPPER: So how do you think this is going to play out with respect to the prosecution and ultimately possible deportation?

HONIG: So, Jake, the sequencing here is really important and very unusual. Ordinarily, if you have a known or suspected federal criminal in the United States who's here illegally, you would first arrest, prosecute, and imprison that person and then deport them. Here, of course, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was first deported, then weeks later brought back, now he's being prosecuted. He will then, if he's convicted, serve his prison time and then be essentially redeported at the end of that.

So it's a little bit backwards from how you would ordinarily do this. I'm sure there's more reporting to be done about why the sequencing played out this way.

TAPPER: But we need to take a step back here. The whole reason that this was even an issue is because a judge's order from during the first Trump administration said that Abrego Garcia could not be deported to El Salvador. And at the time, the Trump administration -- the Trump Justice Department, did not contest that issue. That's how we all got here.

HONIG: Yes. Yes. There's no question that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was improperly deported. There was what's called a withholding order in place that said he cannot be sent to El Salvador. He was sent to El Salvador.

DOJ admitted initially that it was done in error. That case, of course, wound its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, you have to facilitate his return to DOJ, then dragged its feet. But now that they've put together this criminal charge, that's given them a vehicle, a means to say, OK, now we're going to bring him back, now we're going to prosecute him, and then at the end of it, redeport him.

TAPPER: All right, Elie Honig, thanks so much.

Turning to our politics lead now, they say that breaking up is hard to do. It's been just over 24 hours since the President Trump Elon Musk friendship. An alliance disintegrated into a ball of dust. And now the two men appear to be going through different stages of grief. For President Trump, the stage seems to be acceptance.

Today, he told CNN's Dana Bash in a phone call, quote, "I'm not even thinking about Elon. He's got a problem. The poor guy's got a problem," unquote.

And indeed, so far, at least, we have not seen another Trump remark or post on social media about Elon Musk. When Dana asked Trump -- pardon me. When Dana asked Trump about reports that he was going to have a phone call with Elon Musk, Trump said, quote, "No, I won't be speaking to him for a while, I guess, but I wish him well," unquote. Dana said the president did not sound angry, he sounded resigned.

And here's another breakup Hallmark. An official tell CNN that the president plans to get rid of that red Tesla that he purchased from Elon Musk in March. He's going to sell it or maybe even give it away.

[17:10:01]

As for Elon Musk figuring out where he's at in the process of grief, well, that seems more complicated. Last night he appeared to be in the bargaining stage. He replied to a random user on his X or Twitter platform who said, "This is a shame this back and forth. You are both better than this. Cool off and take a step back for a couple days."

To which Musk said, "Good advice. OK, we won't decommission Dragon." That's a reference to SpaceX Dragon spacecraft that yesterday Musk threatened to take away after Trump threatened to end Musk's lucrative government contracts.

Let's go now to CNN's political director and Washington Bureau Chief David Chalian.

Let's take a step back here, David, the richest man in the world is now claiming it was only with his help, his hundreds of millions of dollars that Trump was able to win last November. That's a shocking thing for him to say. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but it certainly doesn't say anything good about either the role of money in politics or what Bernie Sanders might call the role of oligarchs.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Right. It seems to -- it seems to suggest, right, that Musk is leaning into his ability to influence and purchase election results here, which by the way, he has a mixed record on. Now you are right, he spent north of $290 million in 2024 in support of Trump, the single largest individual contributor on the Republican side of politics. But just more recently, Jake, he spent $23 million to try and win a Supreme Court race in Wisconsin and failed pretty miserably at that. So I guess, yes, it says something about money in politics.

What I think is clear from them today is that they both kind of, I would say, step back from the brink. But they, you know, they already like went over the cliff there or whatever. So, I would say clearly they neither side saw advantage today in actually escalating or keeping up that frenetic pace of attacks that we saw yesterday.

TAPPER: The feud also should could be consequential for Trump's legislative agenda, the so called big beautiful bill, which obviously extends the Trump tax cuts and includes some spending cuts, especially when it comes to Medicaid. It also adds trillions to the national debt, which is what Musk is objecting to, how it doesn't rein in spending enough. What sort of impact might Musk's opposition to this legislation have, do you think?

CHALIAN: Jake, we don't see any sort of votes moving because of that right now. The impact that it's having right now is it's complicating Mike Johnson and John Thunes, the Republican leaders in the House and the Senate, like their ability to move this smoothly to a landing. But we don't know of anyone that has said, hey, now that Musk is really on board with fighting against how much money is being spent in this bill or how much it adds to deficits and debts, I'm no longer on board with it. We do find some people who are already aligned with that argument, using Musk's sort of spotlight right now on the issue as a way to bolster their argument. But I'm not sure it changes the course of where this bill is likely going, Jake.

TAPPER: All right, David Chalian, thanks so much.

Let's bring in our panel now. David Urban, source tells us that President Trump told Vice President Vance to be diplomatic, to speak diplomatically about Elon Musk. Trump seems to be laying uncharacteristically low, almost eerily quiet when you think of the bomb that Musk dropped yesterday on social media saying that Trump is on the Jeffrey Epstein list, which we have no evidence is true. What do you think's going on here? Do you think he just wants to kind of like ignore this just so he can focus on getting the legislation passed?

DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, Jake, I think a couple things. One, I don't think Trump wants to deal with this. You're exactly correct, I think President Trump is focused on getting the big beautiful bill done. There's lots in there that he campaigned on the border on tax cuts. So many things are hanging in the balance here. Doesn't want to be distracted by what is this incredible sideshow that has become -- started with Elon Musk.

You know, Jake, you asked David Chalian if, you know, if he had -- if, you know, if Elon was responsible for his victory. You know, I had a little bit to do with some of these races in 16 and 20 and 24. I could tell you only one person wins or loses these races, it's Donald Trump. And if you think money has that big a deal, has that much to do with it, ask why we don't have a President Michael Bloomberg who spent $500 million bucks in the primary and won to Kevin Sheekey chagrin, I think, you know, one delegate.

And so, you know, Musk has a lot of huffing and puffing. I think Trump is focused on getting the bill done. I think the -- I've talked to a couple Republican senators this afternoon, I think they're focused on it as well. And they're going to get a bill done. Question is it 4th of July or is it right before August recess in my mind?

TAPPER: Ameshia, what do you think?

AMESHIA CROSS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think that was a great summation.

[17:15:01]

Nobody in the Senate is moved by what's going on between the Elon Musk and Donald Trump divorce. Donald Trump is taking a page out of his own book, like state the course, stick to what matters, at the end of the day, he ran on the ideals of what's in this bill. He went out and campaigned on it. He's talked about it. He knocked on doors himself when it came to House members to get them to vote for it.

And he doesn't want to see it blow up in smoke. I think that the Elon Musk breakup was something that many of us knew was going to happen, maybe not in this epic fashion, but the President wins nothing by going into that level of a fight with Elon Musk. I think that for him, it is trying to get this by this July 4th deadline, trying to, you know, make sure that the Senate doesn't tear it up more than what he would expect. He knows it's not going to look the same as the one that passed through the House, but he definitely doesn't want it to be dismantled too much. And for Democrats, I think that, you know, they're living high off of the messaging of Elon Musk right now.

But again, nobody's votes are essentially changing. Elon Musk being against this bill is the same Elon Musk who was honestly against a lot of the budget to begin with. But we all know that it's because he didn't get the pet projects that he wanted out of it. This is somebody who is bruised. This is somebody who feels as though he bought his way into the White House, bought his way into a certain level of influence with the most influential and most powerful person in the world, and he's upset that he didn't get his way.

This is like taking a toy away from a kid. He's throwing a tantrum. And Donald Trump is reeling himself in by maintaining and pushing forward with what matters to him, and that's making sure that his big, beautiful bill gets passed and that, you know, he's not distracted by what Elon Musk is out here doing.

TAPPER: Ameshia, let's turn to a separate subject. Hold one second, David. The Trump administration is apparently --

URBAN: Yes, sure.

TAPPER: -- preparing to cancel a huge chunk of federal funding for the state of California, multiple sources tell CNN. One source says a whistle-blower told Congress that all research grants to the state of California are going to be canceled. What's your reaction?

CROSS: This is more Donald Trump's war on intellectualism. This is more his war on colleges and universities. We've seen it with Harvard, we've seen it with Columbia. We've seen it with colleges and universities across the board. This is also a war that he is waging against Gavin Newsom, somebody who he has no real relationship with, someone who he doesn't want to see run in '28 and someone -- and a state that he has a very huge problem with.

We remember on the campaign trail he castigated California day in and day out. When it comes to research grants, when it comes to research funding, this president has stood by being anti-science. He has stood by being anti-research. That's something that not only he ran on, but it's something that he presented during his first time in office. This is a continuation of his cancellation of grants through the Department of Education, his dismantling of the Department of Education and his dismantling of the efforts in putting America first when it comes to science, that's what he really wants to do.

And I think that it's very dangerous because when America doesn't fill that void, China will.

TAPPER: David?

URBAN: Yes, so I agree with about 90 percent of what she says. I don't -- I don't think Trump's anti-science or anti anything. I think he's anti wog. He's trying to reshift that.

And back to the big, beautiful bill, Jake, just real quickly, Elon Musk hasn't changed one center. The only person I've heard express that they're going to vote against the bill is actually Rand Paul. Everyone else says, you know, they have reservations. They kind of -- they're holding their cards close to their chest. But there's only one person is a no vote to date.

And so we still have -- you know, this bill still going to pass as it stands. And I like its chances. I just think again that we're going to be looking towards more of an August time frame.

And Jake, earlier you talked about Medicaid cuts. I'm not really sure that's exactly correct. Medicaid isn't being cut. The growth is just being slowed. So it's increasing 3 percent versus 5 percent only in the federal government is a 3 percent increase a cut.

TAPPER: All right, thanks to our panel. Really appreciate it. Also this hour, a closer look at Trump's travel ban before it goes into effect in a matter of days. The rush to get into the United States right now and the impact of restrictions that will cut some families off from their loved ones.

[17:19:55]

Plus, Russia's retaliation as it unleashes a series of airstrikes in response to Ukraine's surprise attack from a few days ago. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our world lead today, a massive Russian attack on Ukraine overnight, blanketing large swaths of the country days after Ukraine's audacious drone strikes on Russian air bases. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy says the Russian drone and ballistic missile barrage killed three people and injured dozens in one of the largest attacks yet of this war. A Ukrainian athlete was in the northwestern city of Lutsk for a competition and captured the moment her hotel came under attack. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I am alive. Are you alive?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Yes, I am alive. Daryna, I am alive. Daryna, I am alive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: She is alive. Russia's Defense Ministry released a statement today saying, quote, "The strike's objective has been achieved," unquote. Meanwhile, new and fascinating details tonight on Ukraine's destructive drone attack on Russian jets over the weekend. CNN's Katie Polglase has an exclusive in depth investigation into how Ukraine is changing the face of modern warfare.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KATIE POLGLASE, CNN INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER (voice-over): This attack, more than 18 months in the making, is a sign of how Ukraine has changed the face of modern warfare, damaging air bases deep within Russian territory. A CNN analysis of thousands of drone strikes on Russia over the past three years, along with video and an exclusive interview.

VALERIY BOROVYK, FUNDER OF FIRST CONTRACT DRONES: We can coordinate our drones in Moscow, et cetera.

POLGLASE (voice-over): Sheds light on how Ukraine's drone program has rapidly expanded since the start of the war. In the first months, you can see the attacks are mainly along the border area, but by the end of the year, they start hitting key military targets, like this blast shown on surveillance footage at a fuel depot at Engels air base in December 2022. Five months later, and the missions become more ambitious.

[17:25:11]

This bold drone attack in May 2023 even damaged the roof of the Kremlin, the heart of the Russian government and over 400 miles from Kyiv. Drones are now frequently flying over Moscow, bringing the terror of war home to the Russian people. At the same time, Ukraine is maintaining pressure on Russia's war supplies wherever they are stored. In late summer of 2023, they target Pskov air base in northern Russia beyond Moscow. In satellite imagery taken shortly after, you can see the damaged planes.

By 2024, the number of drones getting sent into Russia is soaring. In June alone, over 1,000 launched. According to CNN analysis. Ukraine's muscle comes from a coordinated national effort to make combat drones ready to be sent into Russia. We spoke exclusively to one of these manufacturers who told us how the war kick started Ukraine's national drone unit.

BOROVYK: Now, we -- I think Ukraine is leader in this area in our world.

POLGLASE (voice-over): Which drones were used last weekend is still a tight lipped secret. But experts say his drones are identical to those seen in images of the attack and were most likely the ones used.

BOROVYK: We can produce very good drones for special mission and we will protect our country from Russian aggression.

POLGLASE (voice-over): He shares some extraordinary insights into how it was possible for Ukraine to target so deep into Russia, hitting an air base 2,500 miles away.

POLGLASE: Is it possible to remote control that drone from Ukraine while the drone was in Belaya air base, for example?

BOROVYK: No problem. We can coordinate our drones in Moscow, et cetera. We need to link across satellite across mobile towers. Or maybe our pilot will say near Kremlin.

POLGLASE (voice-over): And the success of the program is apparent by the damage left behind. Multiple airbases hit, some in Russia's far east. Ukraine claims it inflicted $7 billion worth of damage on Russian weaponry, though that number has not been verified. Even so, the details of this stealthy operation are extraordinary. Drones smuggled in on wooden crates, then driven across Russia in containers, catching locals by surprise as drones flew out of trucks to launch the assaults.

Russia now faces an even steeper challenge to its long held dominance of the skies.

Katie Polglase, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: And our thanks to Katie Polglase for that report.

My next guest is a former Republican senator who is calling on Republican lawmakers in office now to speak up. Why he says it's necessary to reassure U.S. allies around the world of where the U.S. stands. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:32:49]

TAPPER: Continuing in our World Lead today is the 81st anniversary of D-Day. June 6th, 1944, the very first day of the military landings in Normandy by the Allied powers, Normandy along the northwest coast of France, and the Allied powers led by U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower. The invasion laid the foundations for the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II.

Earlier today, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth joined a small group of D-Day veterans and representatives of the Allies for a ceremony in France.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: You see, war reveals the true character of men, the character of a people. Lead from the front or capitulate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: My next guest is concerned that the U.S. may no longer be leading from the front, at least not when it comes to defending the values of democracy. Jeff Flake is an Arizona Republican who served in both the House and Senate. Most recently, he was U.S. ambassador to Turkey during the Biden administration. Ambassador Flake, thanks for joining us.

So you have a new article in "The Atlantic" as well as an op-ed in "The Washington Post," and you're calling on your fellow Republicans to speak out and to reassure U.S. allies that the United States remains committed to its core values, despite what they may be hearing from President Trump and members of the Trump administration. What exactly are you hearing from U.S. allies that prompted you to write this op-ed? Specifically, what our -- what our allies taking issue with? What are they worried about?

JEFF FLAKE (R-AZ), FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Well, for example, I was in Geneva just a couple of weeks ago and talking to some diplomats there from some of our closely allied countries, and they made the point that typically in some of the organizations that are housed in Geneva, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, that's not an official U.N. organization, but it's there, World Labor Organization, and a number of these -- these important bodies, that they would typically want to know where the United States stands before they take their own positions.

[17:34:57] And -- and usually they will follow the position of the United States. But one diplomat told me, we don't care anymore. We don't even check. We haven't even appointed an ambassador to the permanent mission in Geneva yet. So what I'm saying is these -- these relationships are important and members of Congress can stand up and make a difference. I would point to the recent trip of Lindsey Graham and -- and Richard Blumenthal to Ukraine, telling our allies, you're still our allies. That's important for members of Congress to do.

TAPPER: You write of our allies, "most of all, they need reassurance that this bout of isolationism and protectionism in U.S. politics is not a permanent affliction that America will once again lead through, not just economic might, but also democratic values." If President Trump or Secretary Rubio were here, they would probably say, what are you talking about in terms of isolationism? We are trying to negotiate a ceasefire in the Middle East. We're trying to negotiate a deal with Iran. We're trying to bring about an end to the war in Ukraine. We're not being isolationist. How would you respond to that?

FLAKE: I think the Trump administration is doing some good things internationally. The trip to the Middle East by the President, where he decided that we should lift the sanctions on Syria and give that new government a chance. That was the right move to make. I applaud the administration for doing it.

But across the board, whether it's with -- with the tariffs, trade frameworks that we had previously led with, we're stepping back. And -- and our allies, if we want to confront China and we need to confront China on intellectual property theft and some of these other issues and their inability to abide by the trade agreements that we've set, then we need our allies with us, particularly on the issue of trade.

But instead, we're imposing indiscriminate tariffs across the board. And -- and that is just music to China's ears, because if we team up with the E.U., I think the U.S. and the E.U., that's about 60 percent of the world's GDP right there. That's the way you confront China with more leverage. Nick Burns, the former ambassador to China, has a great piece in "Politico" or a great interview where he explains this.

We've got to be together if we're going to confront China. And instead, we're telling some of our allies that they ought to cede territory to us. Greenland, for example, or Canada ought to be the 51st state. And that just isn't the way to go about this.

TAPPER: I've been interviewing you and covering you for -- for quite a long time back, I think, when you were a member of the House, you were a fiscal hawk when you were in Congress. I'm wondering, to change topics for a second, what your opinion is of what President Trump calls his big, beautiful bill that extends the tax cuts, that has some spending cuts and critics say will add trillions to the deficit. How would you vote if you were in Congress?

FLAKE: Well, I would want to see a slimmer bill, certainly. And -- and the problem was at the beginning when you decide to wall off basically three quarters of the budget, any so-called entitlement programs, Medicare, Social Security and then defense.

And so all you're dealing with is a small sliver of the budget, non- defense discretionary spending. And you just aren't going to get what you need out of that. So you need a more holistic approach. And that's not politically popular, but it needs to be done. And Republicans, we're the party of fiscal responsibility, supposedly. And we ought to tackle the issue in a forthright way and be honest with the American people.

TAPPER: I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you're almost siding with Elon Musk and the Musk-Trump divorce.

FLAKE: I'm not siding with -- with anybody. I'm just saying that fiscal responsibility is important. And -- and we've got a way to go before we are addressing it. And -- and this bill doesn't do that yet.

TAPPER: Former ambassador, U.S. Senator Jeff Flake, always a pleasure to have you on, sir. Thank you so much.

FLAKE: Great to be on. Thanks, Jake.

[17:39:09]

TAPPER: Coming up, Trump's travel ban that the administration says is to protect national security. Cuba is one of the countries on the list. Some there fear their restrictions could crumble the Cuban economy. We're going to go there live, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our World Lead, starting Monday, travel to the United States will become more difficult for people from almost 20 different countries. Earlier this week, that's -- the reason is, earlier this week, President Trump issued a proclamation that will fully ban travel from a dozen countries and also will implement a partial ban on seven additional countries.

CNN's Patrick Oppmann reports now from Cuba, one of the countries facing a partial ban, to look into how significant the impacts could be in just a few days.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PATRICK OPPMANN, CNN HAVANA BUREAU CHIEF (voice-over): As dawn breaks at the U.S. Embassy in Havana, Cubans get in line for increasingly scarce visas. Already for Cubans to travel to the U.S. under the Trump administration was becoming difficult.

Soon, it may be all but impossible. Starting on Monday, the U.S. is banning travel from 12 countries and implementing a partial ban on an additional seven countries, including Cuba. Zoila received her visa just hours after new restrictions were announced.

I was lucky, very lucky, she tells me, but I will be nervous until I can get onto the plane. The partial ban on Cubans impacts both immigrant and non-immigrant visas. It's still unclear if Cubans who already have been granted visas will be allowed to travel.

[17:45:01]

MARIA JOSE ESPINOSA, EXEC. DIR., CENTER FOR ADVOCACY AND ENGAGEMENT IN THE AMERICAS: This is hundreds of thousands of American citizens who won't be able to see their grandparents, who won't be able to see their uncles, no exceptions. Even if it's confusing, it's going to impact families.

OPPMANN (voice-over): The partial ban deals another blow to Cuba's crumbling economy.

OPPMANN: Many Cubans go to the United States to bring back items that are increasingly hard to find in communist-run Cuba, food, medicine, even car parts. It's a vital lifeline that would be endangered if visas are greatly reduced or even cut off.

OPPMANN (voice-over): The Trump administration says this slashing the number of visas issued to Cubans to force the island's government to accept more deportees and cooperate with U.S. law enforcement. But Emerio, who has applied for a visa to reunite with his son in Miami, tells me people like him could pay the price.

Family is everything in life, he says. Some go this way, some go that way, but God created families to be together.

These Cubans hoping to obtain a visa to the U.S. aren't giving up. Some have waited months, even years, for an appointment. And this should be the final step. But time may have already run out.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

OPPMANN (on camera): And, Jake, under the Trump administration, the Cuban government has accepted a handful of deportation flights. Cuban officials say, though, their patience has limits if this pressure campaign keeps up, they may stop receiving those flights.

TAPPER: All right. Patrick Oppmann in Havana, Cuba, for us, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

A win for the Trump administration just in from the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling allows DOGE, or the Department of Government Efficiency, to access sensitive Social Security data. What does that mean for you? We'll tell you, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:51:10]

TAPPER: In our Pop Culture Lead, this Saturday, a first of its kind broadcast. CNN will air live the new Broadway sensation, "Good Night, and Good Luck." It's the story of legendary CBS newsman, Edward R. Murrow and his fight for truth and reason in a time when Americans were divided and suspicious of one another. Not time -- not unlike today. Let's bring in actor Clark Gregg. He's in this Broadway hit. Plays an important role.

Clark, I had the pleasure of seeing this production live in New York a few weeks ago. You play Don Hollenbeck, a real life person, fellow newscaster and associate of Murrow. What drew you to the role and what drew you to the play?

CLARK GREGG, ACTOR: You know, I -- I love the movie. And I'd only heard the best things about George, which have all borne out to be true. And at first I wasn't sure how they were going to turn this film that's really very verbatim newscasts from CBS 1954 into something that was dramatic and, you know, viscerally connective in this moment.

And but the first moment we got it in front of an audience, Edward R. Murrow confronting Joseph McCarthy and trying to figure out how to tell the truth in a way that was respectful of the truth and of the office, but at the same time challenging things that were happening that -- that weren't the truth, has proven to be very cathartic, viscerally so, for an audience. So it's really been a thrill to be part of.

TAPPER: I don't want -- I don't want any spoilers, but I think it's a -- it -- it doesn't spoil too much to say that your character, Don Hollenbeck, a real person, was smeared by McCarthy and it had real world consequences. It wasn't just something that was water off a duck's back. It really -- it really -- it really hurt him. How much do you see that playing out today with news media and with attacks on reporters?

GREGG: Yes, I mean, there's something very moving to me about the fact that a lot of journalists come to see this in New York and are very moved by it because, you know, in a way that Murrow and his team were under assault. A lot of journalists feel under attack as the media is essentially attacked more and more. Hollenbeck was a really interesting guy, an old friend of Murrow's.

They'd been in World War II being journalists together. He had -- he had a very famous program where he would critique other journalistic programs for, you know, how truthful they were or weren't being. And, you know, there was a way where Ed Murrow was the most trusted man in America.

And so Murrow and I mean, so McCarthy and O'Brien, the columnist for Hearst Publications, who was their attack dog, they couldn't really go after Murrow, but they really could go after Don Hollenbeck, who was a sensitive guy, who had some mental, we would call the mental health sensitivities these days. And they attacked him mercilessly day after day. And it took a real toll on him.

And I think it's a thing that we're seeing, you know, the personal, the willingness to go personal and attacks on people whose opinions you disagree with playing out.

TAPPER: Clark Gregg, you are fantastic in it. Break a leg Saturday night. And you can watch "Good Night, and Good" Luck this Saturday live at 7:00 p.m. Eastern, only on CNN.

In our Law and Justice Lead, the U.S. Supreme Court just now restored DOGE's access to sensitive Social Security data. The court paused a lower court's order that had initially required the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE to turn over those documents. Critics in lower courts suggested that DOGE was engaged in a phishing expedition through highly sensitive data.

[17:55:07]

DOGE says it needs access to root out fraud and to modernize outdated systems. The court's three liberal justices dissented. But the conservative majority ruled in -- in a -- on the side of DOGE.

We're standing by for a court appearance in Tennessee for Kilmar Abrego Garcia. That's after the Trump administration reversed course and brought him back to the United States to be tried. We've also just learned a DOJ -- DOJ prosecutor resigned over today's development. We'll have much more right after all this -- right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:02]

TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, a major reversal from the Trump administration.