Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Minnesota And Twin Cities Sue Trump Administration Over Surge In ICE Operations; Justice Department Opens Criminal Probe Into Fed Chair Jerome Powell; Trump To Meet Archbishop Paul Coakley; Trump Scheduled To Meet Newly Elected Leader Of U.S. Catholic Bishops; Sen. Kelly Sues Hegseth Over Move To Cut Military Rank, Pension; The Historical Parallel To Trump's Campaign Against Powell. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired January 12, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

MAYOR JACOB FREY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA: -- calls that people are being kidnapped, that agents in unmarked uniforms, in unmarked cars are simply taking people off the streets that are American citizens. They're required to do the work to keep the peace. Our police officers are doing the work to keep the peace and to keep people safe.

With 600 officers, we can't do all of those things all of the time, not to mention our officers are human beings and, therefore, there is a point where they get tired.

And when we've canceled all days off, when our chief is working tirelessly, and he deserves a ton of credit here, too, where we've got officers that are working incredibly long hours and long shifts, the truth is that when you get to a certain point, you start making mistakes, not because you're a bad cop, but because you're a human being.

And so, we need relief. We're asking the court for it. But the damage that we are suffering right now in Minneapolis is not limited to overtime costs. It is schools shutting down. It is businesses closing. It is people being afraid to go out and get groceries and, therefore, are going hungry. It's their inability to get money so that they're unable to pay rent.

There is a snowball effect that is happening right here, and it's not just because we're in Minnesota and there's a lot of snow. The snowball effect is because what is ICE is doing is intentional. This is intentionally putting us in a very difficult position that is not pro-business and is not pro-safety. The only thing that I can see it being is pro-politics.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): (INAUDIBLE). You guys are concerned about what you're hearing from the public in terms of not only --

(CROSSTALK)

-- what you saw in high school. Can you elaborate on what you guys are hearing about? KEITH ELLISON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MINNESOTA: Well, I'll let -- I'll let the mayors jump in here, but I can tell you that this whole lawsuit is partially driven. Not exclusively, but partially driven by exactly what you just said. And again, you know, look, ICE was operating here before this surge. We didn't file a lawsuit before.

FREY: That's right. That's right.

ELLISON: This is because of this search. And, you know, quite honestly, you know, it is -- it is because of the accumulated -- accumulation of so many stories that are just so far out of the range of normal. You know, some of you all saw the videotape at Target. Some of you all saw the video tape at Roosevelt High School. And I can tell you how many people who've called me and said, I am afraid to go to work.

And I'm not talking about people who are non-citizens. I'm saying citizens because when you -- when a woman like Renee Good gets shot down, then everybody, citizens, non-citizens are terrified. And I'll leave it to the mayors to fill in there.

MAYOR KAOHLY HER, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA: I will say that the question is if we're hearing about it. We are absolutely. I mean, I think that we are really lucky here in our state and specifically St. Paul, Minneapolis. We have a strong network of community organizers who've been working together. We hear almost every instance that happens, you know, whether it's texted to us personally, and we're looking into it, or whether it's coming into our neighborhood groups. We are hearing it, we are seeing it, and we are looking into it. Every time I get one, I inquire into it to see.

But I think that what's more important in all of this is that it's not just the tactics that are being used. It's the attack on the American people who are citizens. I wasn't born here. I'm carrying my I.D. with me. I'm carrying my passport card and my I.D. with me all the time because I don't know when I'm going to be detained, when I'm going to be approached.

The fact is that this doesn't have to, like the tactic doesn't even at this point really matter, right? It's the fact that we are being attacked as American citizens right now. And we are hearing of it, and we are inquiring into it every single time we get -- we get something sent to us.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): A lot of lawsuits against the federal government will be ongoing, led by your office. We also do have the backdrop of fraud investigations happening as well. Can you just speak about how resources are being doled out in the attorney general's office and who's being dedicated to fighting the federal government?

ELLISON: Our Medicaid fraud unit is hard at work. We've put -- we've prosecuted and convicted over 300 people since I've been attorney general for Medicaid fraud. And other people in our office who work on -- who do agency representation, they're working hard.

But we have -- but the people who work on what I call federal accountability, they're busy, too, because the state -- the federal government has tried to deprive our state of money that we're entitled to by statute that has been appropriated to our state. If we don't fight for it, we won't get it, and that will deprive the people of the state of Minnesota of resources and money that they deserve.

[17:05:03]

And I'm talking about things like SNAP benefits, housing benefits, child care benefits, all kinds of benefits, National Institute of Health benefits, FEMA benefits that they've tried to unconstitutionally deprive us from.

So, do we have resource pressure? Yes, my folks are working really hard, harder than they should have to. But we're also -- but we -- but we can walk and chew gum, and we're fighting fraud every single day.

And let me just say this about fraud. Anybody who steals from a program designed to help poor people is no friend of mine, and I'm all good to hold them accountable.

And, you know, the federal government, you know, they're doing all this stuff that we don't need them to do. I wish they'd do some more things we do need them to do.

Now, I'm not talking about local federal officials. They're doing their job. We work with the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI to fight fraud. I'm very glad with their partnership.

What I'm referring to is the substance of this lawsuit right now. This is not what we need. We don't need this. But we could use -- we need all the help we can to get to -- help make sure that every dollar that the generous people of Minnesota devote to helping others gets to those others.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): (INAUDIBLE). Are you confident that (INAUDIBLE).

ELLISON: Yes, I am. No. I believe that they will abide by the orders because I believe that anybody who stands below an American flag, lists up their hand, and swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution of United States will abide by the lawful orders of a court. And if they don't, I want everybody in this room to know that they are the ones who are expressing contempt for the rule of law.

Now, having said that, you asked the what if question. Well, you know, there are ample ways to make a miscreant violator of a court order obey that court order. One of them is a contempt of court. But let's not jump there. Let's meet -- let's expect good conduct and obedience to law, and that's what we expect -- that's we expect we're going to get.

And I think there's a possibility that -- Mayor Frey wanted to talk a little bit more about what your citizens are going through or maybe you covered that already.

FREY: I can add on.

ELLISON: Yes, but I just think -- I just -- you know, you want to go for it?

FREY: Just in general?

ELLISON: Yes. Just like what people are dealing with.

FREY: Yes. We don't use the word "invasion" lightly. What we are seeing is thousands, plural, thousands of federal agents coming into our city. And yes, they're having a tremendous impact on day-to-day life, and it's a negative one. And whether that's kids that are trying to get to school or businesses that are trying to open, that's police officers that are responding to 911 calls, it's just about being able to conduct daily life right here in our city.

And, look, this is not about fraud. When you have a fraudster, you investigate, you charge, you prosecute, you hold the person accountable, and then they get put in jail as an individual. They get put in jail as an individual. You do not hold an entire community or an entire city accountable for the actions of the fraudsters. That's not a novel concept, that's just the way this works in American society, and we should be abiding by that.

ELLISON: Good. thank you, Mr. Mayor. And let me say thank you, Mayor Her. Let me say thank you to the men and women of independent press of America. The reality is that the work you do is critically important to get the word out to the people, and we are grateful for it. And with that, we're going to conclude, but I'm sure any of us will be willing to talk to you all offline. Bye-bye.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to "The Lead." I'm Jake Tapper. And you have been listening to authorities in Minnesota launching a lawsuit against the Trump administration over immigration enforcement actions in both the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, the Twin Cities. This comes after sources tell CNN that about a thousand additional ICE officers are heading into the Twin Cities region.

We are also learning that the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago have filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security alleging that the agency has terrorized residents in organized bombardment, in their words.

Let's bring in Sheriff Christopher Swanson. He's a Democratic candidate for governor in Michigan. We brought him in to speak about last week's deadly shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent. And, obviously, we want to now talk to him about this lawsuit. Sheriff, what is your reaction to the lawsuit in Minnesota against the Trump administration?

SHERIFF CHRISTOPHER SWANSON, SHERIFF OF GENESEE COUNTY, MICHIGAN AND DEMOCRATIC MICHIGAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Yes, what other option do they have?

[17:10:00] And they're trying to use the legal process, which is due process, which actually is the example that should be used that got us in this situation in the first place. If things were done fair and humane, without cruelty, we wouldn't have the situation that we have. And, unfortunately, I don't think this is the end of it.

TAPPER: You caught last week's ICE involved shooting in Minneapolis, the shooting of Renee Good. Tragic but predictable. You criticized the tactics that ICE used both before and after the shooting. I want you to take a listen to my interview, part of my interview with the Department of Homeland Security secretary, Kristi Noem, yesterday about the ICE officer who appeared to have fired three shots at Renee Good. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: What is the reason for the second and third shots through the window when he is out -- he is not in the line of sight of the car?

KRISTI NOEM, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: This investigation will continue to unfold and more and more information will come forward. But until that comes, what I would appreciate is everybody sticking to the facts of the situation and recognize that this law enforcement officer took an action based on his training to protect himself and the public.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Sheriff Swanson, is it relevant, the second and third shot, the first shot being through the front windshield, the second and third being through Renee Good's side window? Obviously, he's no longer in the path of the car.

SWANSON: You're spot on, Jake. The bottom left corner of the windshield was the first round. And then the two rounds, they were punched in on the side of the window through the driver's side. The danger is no longer in front of you. It's cleared to the side. And that's my criticism.

And you know what? I think the bigger issue is you can be critical of law enforcement actions and still support the police. I am the police. But that situation and that shooting, there was no de-escalation. It went from verbal orders to deadly force in three seconds to somebody who was unarmed, turning away at two miles an hour, with people surrounding the vehicle with whistles.

TAPPER: Presumably, at least in part because of this controversy, over the weekend, ICE put out publicly a list of some of the criminal undocumented immigrants they have arrested in Minnesota. Some of them have been convicted of sexual assault of children, rape, domestic violence, homicide. So, they are getting criminals. They are getting people off the streets who shouldn't be on the streets. What did you make of that?

SWANSON: I agree with that. If people are here undocumented and committing crimes against American citizens, just like we did in our ghosting that two individuals from Honduras come here to have sex with underage kid, they're gone.

But the majority of the people that are here trying to make a better life, that have never committed a crime, that have never had a situation, that are trying to do the right thing yet the process takes years, why don't we focus on those people, give them a pathway to become American citizens? This is where the lines are blurred. Not everybody are the people that you just listed.

TAPPER: What do you say to people who argue that ICE and federal agents, they're not local police, therefore, their trainings are different, the way they deal with protesters is different and, therefore, authorities like you, a sheriff in Michigan, might not necessarily know their practices?

SWANSON: You're right. I mean, federal law enforcement is much different than local law enforcement. Nobody knows their community better than local law enforcement, state, county, and local sheriffs from cities and townships here in Michigan.

And when you have tactics, it's not just the effecting of the arrest or raids like you see right here. These are relationships that are built when you're not answering 911 calls, when you're helping people out, when you're going to medical calls. So, when things are intense, you do it in a way that when those moments happen, there's a public trust.

But when there's law enforcement making decisions, no matter what the level, we're the only profession that now, we're all painted with the same brush. That example of how this is being played out is not who we are. But local law enforcement does not wear masks. We wear identifications to make sure people know who we are. We communicate.

And trust me, we're still in violent situations. You as a police officer, me for 33 years, you know, we are in the dangerous situations. But you can't shoot everybody. That puts you in a situation of danger. That's our job.

TAPPER: What would you and, obviously, this is 20/20 hindsight, but how do you think you would have handled that situation with Renee Good, her car blocking the street? What do you think should have been done?

SWANSON: Well, if I was there, and again, you're right, it's hindsight, but I wouldn't have stood in front of the car. And you give verbal commands. If the car is turning away, my question is, what crime was committed? Protesting?

I mean, you saw what happened to the George Floyd protest during the 2020 out of Hennepin County, Minneapolis, Minnesota. We had 40 protests that summer here. We didn't arrest people that were blocking the street. We didn't arrest people who were just completely upset. This is part of the process. This is what law enforcement deals with. So, I would have kept on verbal commands.

You can take the context of the situation. She didn't appear to be a threat, although she's protesting. I get it. [17:15:00]

She could amp people up. It doesn't matter. That's not justification for deadly force. And then the force continuum that all law enforcement is required to follow, as escalation goes up, we go up. As it goes down, we go down. Instantaneously, the burden falls on law enforcement.

And I want to tell you, for law enforcement out there watching that shooting, you can't take pride in what just happened. Yes, a vehicle can be used as a weapon. It wasn't used as a weapon that day. It's what the American people saw. Tires turned to the right. She's getting out. She's like, I'm not mad at you, I'm not mad at you.

I don't care if she was there all day. You take the things that are in context at that moment, and you make decision. Was that decision to use deadly force, the best decision? I don't think the American people think that, and I actually don't think that.

TAPPER: Democratic Michigan gubernatorial candidate Sheriff Christopher Swanson, thank you for your time, sir. Appreciate it.

SWANSON: Thank you, Jake.

TAPPER: Our other big story is in our "Politics Lead." Growing questions over the Trump Justice Department's criminal investigation of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, claiming that Powell may have lied to Congress about the scope of the renovations being done when it comes to the central bank's building.

This is, of course, a huge escalation that follows the president's long-running attacks on the independence of the Federal Reserve, publicly pressuring Chair Powell to lower interest rates.

Today, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt denied that President Trump had anything to do with this investigation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Did the president ever direct DOJ officials to open an investigation into Powell?

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No. The president has every right to criticize the Fed chair. He has a First Amendment right just like all of you do. And one thing for sure, the president has made it quite clear, is Jerome Powell is bad at his job. As for whether or not Jerome Powell is a criminal, that's an answer the Department of Justice is going to have to find out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Today, the Senate majority leader, Republican John Thune of South Dakota, told CNN that a federal investigation into Powell could complicate the Fed's ability to replace Powell at the end of his term this spring, saying that he wants to the Fed operate -- quote -- "free of politics." Other Republican senators, including Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have raised alarms about the investigation into Powell and said they will vote to block any Federal Reserve nominees until this matter is resolved.

Murkowski posed on X -- quote -- "It's clear the Trump administration's investigation is nothing more than an attempt at coercion. If the Department of Justice believes an investigation into Chair Powell is warranted based on project cost overruns -- which are not unusual -- then Congress needs to investigate the Department of Justice. The stakes are too high to look the other way. If the Federal Reserve loses its independence, the stability of our markets and the broader economy will suffer" -- unquote.

In the past where Chairman Powell faced pressure from Trump to lower interest rates, he stayed mostly silent and tried to carry on with business as usual. But in the face of this law enforcement investigation, Chairman Powell came out swinging. He hired a powerhouse law firm. And he posted this video on the Fed's website denying any wrongdoing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEROME POWELL, CHAIR, UNITED STATES FEDERAL RESERVE: This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Now, the renovation in question led to a rather uncomfortable moment last year that you might recall when Trump and Powell donned hard hats for a tour of the project, openly disagreeing about the costs. Still, despite any angst over this move, the stock market, stock market investors for now are at least shrugging it off. The Dow and S&P closing at record highs today.

It is important context to note that Powell is far from the first of Trump's political adversaries to find themselves in this term under investigation by Trump's Justice Department. It's a department that is also supposed to be independent of the White House, by the way.

To name a few, former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff. The Justice Department has even gone after another Federal Reserve official, Fed Governor Lisa Cook. Not on that list, because they were pardoned by Trump, January 6 criminals and defendants who attacked the Capitol and beat up law enforcement officers. All in the name of Trump's highly false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. Not only are they not being investigated, they have been pardoned by President Trump.

Let's discuss the Fed part of this with the panel, CNN's Phil Mattingly, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams. Phil, let's take a step back here about the -- I don't know if it's unprecedented per se, but is it? And why should the American consumer care what happens to Jerome Powell in the Federal Reserve?

[17:20:00]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's unprecedented. I want to be clear about something. Jawboning of the Federal Reserve from presidents, from a White House, is not in and of itself unprecedented. Usually, it happened behind the scenes. But there had been near physical altercations at one point with Lyndon B. Johnson. George H.W. Bush blamed an election loss on Alan Greenspan. This has happened before, but it's usually private. Trump has changed that entirely.

But something to keep in mind, this long-running feud between the two of them has mostly been a one-sided war. To your point, Powell has mostly shrugged it off, not wanted to get in the rhetorical back and forth with President Trump, despite the fact he has diverged so sharply from what has been the norm in Washington.

That changed last night. I think that's what makes this so extraordinary, was Powell's statement and then what followed here, which was the extreme pushback from not just Republicans on Capitol Hill, which I think is a critical element here, but also every living Fed chair and former economic officials who put out a joint statement last night calling what occurred "unprecedented attempt to use prosecutorial attacks to undermine that independence." "It has no place in the United States whose greatest strength is the rule of law, which is at the foundation for our economic success." That last part being critical here.

For an average American, why does this matter? If the Fed all of a sudden loses its bedrock independence and its centrality into the entire global market, all of a sudden, interest rates starts to go up, your costs start to go up. If affordability is what you care about, not exactly the greatest plan here.

TAPPER: Yes. And later in the show, we're going to talk about a time that a Fed chair actually bent to the wills of a president. That was Richard Nixon. Not such a great result, little spoiler alert.

Elliot, based on what we know so far about the DOJ investigation, do you think that there's actually a case? And what legal recourse does Powell have?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: There's always a case. But let's be clear, Jake. The bar isn't exceptionally low to be able to open an investigation in the first place. It's lower than the bar to get into a grand jury and then even lower than the bar to actually convict someone. So, it's just at a preliminary state.

Now, something very important to think about here, and it's also in the case in Minneapolis as well, one of the that dogs the president are his own statements. The fact that he has made a point, this is along the lines of what Phil was talking about a moment ago, about wanting to see Jerome Powell out of his job and complaints about Jerome Powell, that cast some doubt on the legitimacy of an investigation into him.

And you can bet that Williams & Connolly, that very impressive law firm, is already preparing legal filings that are going to list every one of these statements about Jerome Powell saying that this is not ultimately about statements that he made to Congress that are ambiguous, possibly, but this is about a personal vendetta that the White House has against the Fed chair.

TAPPER: What happens if this does ultimately result in Powell being removed from office, being demoted or perhaps resigning, although he said he's not going to?

MATTINGLY: Also, no precedent. And I think this is really important to note. It's why President Trump, despite the fact he has wanted to fire Jay Powell since his first term, it was his appointment, by the way, that Powell has actually made the Fed chair, has declined to do it up to this point. There are enough advisors and lawyers, but especially in this case.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is saying this isn't a fight that just all of sudden ends when you decide to fire somebody. Take a look at Lisa Cook, the other Fed governor who President Trump has tried to fire and has so far not been fired. The courts are trying to litigate that right now. The Supreme Court is supposed to work on it.

Powell has made clear if this were to happen, he would fight it. If he does decide to fight it, in the last administration, there had been agreement among board officials that they would keep him. They vote for the Fed chair to be in the place. They would keep him as the chair.

In the meantime, the market turmoil could be catastrophic. Trillions of dollars, potentially interest rates skyrocketing. As one Republican official told me earlier today on Capitol Hill, he said, we need this like we need to be punching ourselves in the face repeatedly.

TAPPER: Yes.

MATTINGLY: I don't know why you'd ever need to punch yourself in the face repeatedly, but I don't think it's a good idea.

TAPPER: Elliot, another story that's important when it comes to the legal world, especially when it comes to the Eastern District of Virginia, one of the most important districts that there is, there has been a tremendous amount of tumult there that we've been covering all year. Three sources say that the top career prosecutor, meaning not a political appointee, a career prosecutor in the Justice Department's Eastern District of Virginia office has been fired.

That's the law of the office led by Lindsey Halligan, which previously bought cases such as they are against James Comey and Letitia James. Judges have repeatedly told Halligan she no longer has the authority to lead the office because she's the second acting U.S. attorney. You can only have one of those.

So, the removal of this gentleman, McBride, leaves the office without a top prosecutor to oversee these investigations and cases. Tell us about this.

WILLIAMS: Absolutely. The things saving the world right now are our senior career prosecutors. And I just want to underscore, you know, these are a lot of people that I work with for quite some time who, quite frankly, many of them skew Republican in their personal beliefs, but they keep it out of the office.

And the idea that merely not choosing to bring a case, that political appointees are wagging their fingers and telling you not to bring. You know, it's the death of democracy in many ways. I don't want to be too histrionic here, Jake, but it is a big, big deal. It is important.

And more to the point, this is a person who's probably also filing a lawsuit and preparing to challenge his termination because of the very point you were making about the U.S. attorney not even being legitimate possibly in the first place.

[17:25:05]

TAPPER: All right, Elliot Williams, Phil Mattingly, thanks so much. Coming up, another major lawsuit in the news. This one filed today from Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. Why the former astronaut and retired Navy fighter pilot is suing the Trump administration. That's ahead. First, the president scheduled meeting today with an archbishop and with other faith leaders who have been critical of him in his immigration crackdown. We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our "Faith Lead" today, at the White House. President Trump was scheduled to meet this afternoon with Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City. He's the new head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Last month, Coakley spoke out about the Trump administration's deportations campaign, saying it instills -- quote -- "fear in a rather widespread manner" -- unquote. So, what could they be talking about today in the White House?

Let's bring in Kim Daniels. She's director of the Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life at Georgetown University, a Jesuit school. Thanks so much for being here.

KIM DANIELS, DIRECTOR, INITIATIVE ON CATHOLIC SOCIAL THOUGHT AND PUBLIC LIFE, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Thank you for having me.

TAPPER: Really appreciate it. So, this meeting was to have happened behind closed doors.

[17:29:57]

Based on what the archbishop has previously said about the immigration crackdown, the deportations, how do you think the meeting likely went? What do you think he would have said to the president? I know it is speculation but.

[17:30:08] DANIELS: Sure. What I hope and expect is that Archbishop Coakley went in as a pastor, and I fully expect that, went in as a pastor of a hurting church with immigrants around the country, our brothers and sisters, living in fear in a merciless campaign against them.

And I know that the bishop spoke out in a unity with one voice in November, the U.S. Catholic bishops, in line with what Pope Leo has been saying, that we're here as Catholics to speak up for human dignity, equal human dignity of all, no matter whether people are undocumented, what age they are, what state in life they are. That's the central Catholic teaching, and I'm sure he brought that to the conversation.

TAPPER: Is the dignity of all humans I know -- and I know it's a central Catholic teaching. Is it a central Christian teaching? Does that apply to evangelicals? Does it apply to Baptists?

DANIELS: Of course. It's a central teaching for so many people, people of all faiths, people --

TAPPER: Yes.

DANIELS: -- you know, who are from secular traditions.

TAPPER: So the reason I ask is because a lot of people in the evangelical community voted for Donald Trump three times. And, you know, one of the reasons, obviously, is because he had all the right enemies. One of the reasons is that his pro-life position, his anti- abortion position. But I do wonder about their view, why so many Christian conservatives can get behind what we see going on when it comes to the least of us, as said -- has been said.

DANIELS: You know, I'm no political prognosticator, but what I can say is that I believe that people didn't expect what they're seeing now, right? And I think that there are many ways in which people would have wanted to have some sort of safety at the border or what have you. But at the same time, I don't think the kind of merciless campaign is what people were looking for. And I think that you're seeing that around the country with people of faith, and again, people from all walks of life, regardless of their background, standing up for our immigrant brothers and sisters.

TAPPER: So in his State of the world address on Friday, Pope Leo reiterated his concern about the treatment of migrants, undocumented immigrants. According to Reuters, four of Pope Leo's appointed bishops have also spoken out. Among them, San Diego Bishop Michael Pham went with asylum seekers to court.

Incoming Monterey Bishop Ramon Bejarano showed up at deportation protests. Pittsburgh Bishop Mark Eckman called Trump's policies cruel and inhumane. What are your thoughts?

DANIELS: It's really interesting to see that this is something that's coming from the ground level, right? So it's just not Pope Leo. It's not just a statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, although we're seeing so many strong statements in both cases. But what you're seeing is bishops, pastors, everyday Catholics at ground level. They're the ones you've named.

But all over the country, we've seen bishops stand up again and stand with our brothers and sisters, stand with immigrants to say everyone is equal dignity. And this kind of cruel dehumanization that we're seeing is just not part of who we are as Catholics, but it's also not part of who we are as Americans.

TAPPER: What do you think Archbishop Coakley hopes to accomplish with President Trump?

DANIELS: I think, as always, he's coming in to, again, raise Catholic teaching, build bridges. This is about dialogue, right? If we retreat from any kind of engagement, that's not doing -- that's not living out our responsibility to public life as well. So I believe that he's there to bring this voice of dignity, to bring a message of hope and of dialogue, and to challenge President Trump on this kind of dehumanization that we're seeing.

TAPPER: All right. Kim Daniels, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

[17:33:25]

Coming up, comments just moments ago from Democratic Senator Mark Kelly about his brand new lawsuit against the Trump administration.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, former astronaut, retired Navy combat pilot, and current Democratic senator from Arizona, Mark Kelly, is suing the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, and the Pentagon after Hegseth said he would punish Kelly by cutting his retirement pay and military rank. Remember, this is all over a video that featured Kelly and other members of Congress with national security credentials when they urged U.S. service members to remember that they didn't have to follow illegal orders. Here is Senate -- Senator Kelly on the Senate floor earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): I take seriously my duty to protect the Constitution for all Americans. I just never expected that I would have to protect the rule of law against a Secretary of Defense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Let's get right to CNN's Lauren Fox on Capitol Hill. Lauren, Senator Kelly said that the actions by the Pentagon should send a, "chilling message."

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's exactly right. And when he filed his lawsuit, he's arguing that this isn't just about his role as a U.S. senator, but that this could cause a chilling effect for veterans across the country who may have concerns or who may speak out against not just this administration, but any future administration. Here's what he said just a short time ago. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: Pete Hegseth's unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military. If you speak out and say something that the President and Secretary of Defense doesn't like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: Now, he also argues that in his role as a senator, Jake, he does have some special protections from lawsuits, including the fact that he is protected under the Speech and Debate Clause, which essentially says that lawmakers who are acting in their official capacity cannot be bothered with some of these lawsuits.

[17:40:11]

He's also arguing that this is about the separation of powers, that the founders never envisioned that if you were a sitting U.S. lawmaker, and in his case, he sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and you start to question the actions of an administration, if you start to call into doubt what they are doing, that you could face retaliation here. He argues that that really flies in the face of what the founders envisioned when they came up with the idea that there would be a checks and balance system between the Senate and the administration.

Now, again, it's really unclear where this goes next, because in a lot of ways, this is such an unprecedented territory that both Kelly and the Defense Department have walked themselves into, but essentially, Kelly arguing that he is not backing down from this fight when he filed this lawsuit earlier today against the Defense Department. Jake?

TAPPER: All right, Lauren Fox, thank you so much.

We're going to talk more about the pressure on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell coming from the President himself, why it's so much different than when we've seen pressure on previous Fed chairs. That's coming up.

Plus, when A.I. goes horribly wrong, complaints about the chatbot Grok creating sexual deepfakes of real people, sometimes even children, what Elon Musk is saying in his chatbot's defense, and a confession from the man authorities say set fire to a synagogue. Coming up, the video that shows the anti-Semitic arsonist in action.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:46:01]

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, the President of the United States pressuring the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates in order to help the administration politically. No, I'm not talking about President Trump and Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Presidents jawboning Fed Chairs is not really that unusual, but in the case I'm about to tell you about in the early 1970s, the Fed Chair acquiesced. Then-President Richard Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns to ease the rates ahead of Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign.

We know this because Nixon taped his White House conversations, and we have recordings such as this one in which Nixon touts the success of his campaign, his pressure campaign against Burns, during a telephone call with then-OMB Director George Shultz.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD NIXON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You feel, as far as Arthur and money supply, we've got that about as far as we can turn it right now, have we? I mean, as far as my influence on him, that's what I'm really asking.

Well, you watch it, and then remind me if I have to talk to him again, and I'll do it.

GEORGE SHULTZ, FORMER OMB DIRECTOR: Well, I'm sure --

NIXON: Next time, I'll just bring him in. What?

SHULTZ: I'm sure we'll have to keep after him on it.

NIXON: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Now, economists say Burns' decision to bend to the political pressure on interest rates is ultimately responsible for plunging the U.S. economy into an extended period of high inflation and slow growth, known as stagflation, in the 1970s. But unlike Fed Chair Burns, current Fed Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is refusing to bend and refusing to capitulate to President Trump's pressure campaign against him, one important note on the criminal investigation into Powell that we learned about yesterday.

In a ruling last year, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested the President would only be able to remove Powell for cause, meaning the Trump administration would need a reason besides just not liking Powell's monetary policy, or, as Chairman Powell calls it in his statement about the criminal probe, a pretext.

Let's discuss this with our panel. Shermichael, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, French Hill, Republican, very conserved, MAGA supporter, says this investigation could, "undermine this and future administrations' ability to make sound monetary policy decisions." We've heard from Senator Lisa Murkowski, also Republican, calling the probe, "an attempt at coercion." How do you view this?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think we have to be careful here. You know, it's Congress's job to have oversight over the Fed chair. If the President doesn't like some of the positions the Fed has taken as it pertains to lowering interest rates faster, they have lowered them end of last year. I presume that we'll probably see additional rate cuts. Probably not this quarter, but certainly I would expect going into Q2 of this year.

If the President is unhappy with that, we have a Republican-controlled House. Go to them and say, look, you guys need to talk to this guy because I don't believe he's making sound monetary decisions. But if this were a Democrat doing this, I would certainly not be in support of it because I probably wouldn't be in support of how they view the economy, generally speaking.

So I want to be very, very careful about this. Also, I should mention, Jake, Powell is gone in May.

TAPPER: Right.

SINGLETON: So I would say, Mr. President, let's just wait about 90 days and you can appoint whoever you want.

TAPPER: And Chuck, Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina and a key member of the Senate Banking Committee, says the criminal probe threatens, "the independence and credibility of the Department of Justice, not just what President Trump's doing." Tillis says he's going to block any Federal Reserve nominees until this is resolved. Do you think that there's going to be a groundswell of support for Tillis' side, or are Tillis, Murkowski, French Hill pretty much going to be all we see?

CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: No, look, Republicans are going to fall in line behind this because they do care about the stock market and they care about money. That goes back beyond Donald Trump. Let me add --

TAPPER: Fall in line behind who?

ROCHA: Fall in line behind other Republicans.

TAPPER: Other Republicans, objecting. OK.

[17:49:58]

ROCHA: They do not want to see an economy tank or the stock market. Let me go and say what Thom Tillis just said about 15 minutes ago. He said he called this a vindictive prosecution. And he also said, he goes, Tillis is aggravated. And he looked at the camera and he said, I don't know if this is Donald Trump or folks around Donald Trump, but the folks around Donald Trump, and I quote, need to grow up and give the president better advice.

And now that is a man that's frustrated, who's on the Banking Committee, who doesn't want to wake up tomorrow when this really came to fruition and see thousands of points out of the stock market, who's on the Banking Committee.

TAPPER: So, Shermichael, we've seen a lot of pushback to this probe and people defending Powell. Economist Justin Wolfers from the great University of Michigan, take a listen to what he had to say about this whole thing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTIN WOLFERS, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC POLICY, UNIV. OF MICHIGAN: It's a thing that tin pot dictators do right before starting a hyperinflation and destroying their own economies. The question is, does the U.S. have sufficient checks and balances to prevent its current leader from following down the path of those other tin pot dictators?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: What do you think? Are there enough checks and balances? Are there enough guardrails?

SINGLETON: Yes, I think so. I think you're going to see more Republicans in the House and Senate. Say, Mr. President, let's just wait. The guy's gone in 90 days. You have a slew of individuals you can nominate. We'll make sure that that person is ultimately confirmed. What we don't want is going into midterms, is instability in the stock market. We just had the latest job numbers come out. We see that businesses are doing really, really well, but they're not hiring as quickly as we would like.

That suggests to me that they probably want a little more stability in the longer run. So we're moving in the right direction. Let's not be disruptive to that. We want Republicans to be able to run on a strong economy moving forward.

TAPPER: But Chuck, you know polls. You know the public. How do, I mean, the American people are living their lives, right? They're worried about prices. They're worried about groceries, et cetera, et cetera. How much do stories like this breakthrough, maybe not individual stories, but in an aggregate? Like you have all these investigations, James Comey, Letitia James, Lisa Cook, Adam Schiff, and on and on and on. Do they break through?

ROCHA: You break up the best point. Now, most Americans, most American voters, don't know who Jerome Powell is.

TAPPER: Right.

ROCHA: Some of them know what he does, but they have no idea the power of the Fed because they're living their lives every single day.

TAPPER: Yes, they're worried about their kids. They're worried about their health, all that.

ROCHA: This is just one more thing, along with Venezuela, along with ICE, along with whatever's not talking about what Shermichael talks about all the time, which is the price of beef or the price of daycare or whatever that is. That's what they really care about. And they see this as another thing that distracts from the reason they voted for him. And I think that's what hurts in the midterms.

TAPPER: Did it hurt -- but does it hurt Democrats for bringing it up? Does it hurt the media for talking about it? Does it hurt Trump for doing it? ROCHA: I think it hurts Republican congressmen in the midterms because folks still haven't seen any relief on their prices. And I think just another distraction about whatever the thing is we're talking about today, distracts from what they really care about, which was the point you were making, is their everyday lives.

TAPPER: And the other question, of course, would be, you talk about how Powell's term ends in four months anyway, right? So does this, what President Trump has been doing and about this DOJ investigation, does this hurt whoever replaces Powell? Like, that person is -- does not want to be seen, presumably, as a rubber stamp, as a sock puppet.

SINGLETON: Sure.

TAPPER: Does it hurt that person?

SINGLETON: Yes. I don't think so. I think Wall Street, I think those who pay attention to the Fed, would like to believe that the Fed is independent in terms of setting a monetary policy that's predictable. Any business wants to know what their decisions should be over the next two, three, four quarters, or annually, right, in terms of how they should grow their business, where they should spend, where they should cut. Wall Street and those who follow Wall Street want to know, and when they're writing up their analyst reports that those of us who care about business follow, that they're looking at numbers and data that is accurate.

And so I think all of those individuals who look at the Fed chief for sort of that decisive decision making want to believe that that person maintains autonomy and independence from the executive. And so I don't think you're going to see a lot of people question who the President ultimately nominates, so long as that person asserts their independence.

TAPPER: And it's not Eric Trump, right?

SINGLETON, I don't think it'll be Eric Trump.

TAPPER: I'm just joking. All right. Thanks to all. Really appreciate it.

[17:54:06]

Ahead, explicit images digitally created, the complaints piling up about the chat bot Grok and how Elon Musk is responding.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Tech Lead, at Grok explained this. The A.I. tool embedded in Elon Musk's X or Twitter app is once again drawing controversy. This time for generating illicit images on demand, including sexually explicit content involving minors.

In a world first, Grok has been blocked by Indonesia and Malaysia as international pressure against Musk mounts. CNN's Hadas Gold looks into the latest allegations levied against the so-called everything app.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HADAS GOLD, CNN MEDIA CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Elon Musk defiantly defending his A.I. chatbot Grok's ability to digitally undress images of real people as countries around the world take action against the A.I. tool after Grok's X account was flooded with requests to create deepfake, non-consensual, nearly nude images of adults and in some cases, children.

KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: This is wrong. It's unlawful. We're not going to tolerate it. I've asked for all options to be on the table. It's disgusting.

GOLD (voice-over): X has said it is taking action against those who prompted Grok to create sexually exploitative images of children and has since restricted image generation requests on Grok's X account to paid subscribers. Though users can still digitally undress images by chatting with Grok directly.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk repeatedly attacked U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer on X and reposted A.I. generated images of him in a bikini. They want any excuse for censorship, Musk wrote, and reposted a claim that no similar action is being taken against other A.I. companies.

Though no other major A.I. model is woven into a social media platform like Grok is with X. Musk's A.I. company is also facing challenges in Asia where Indonesia and Malaysia are enacting temporary bans on the A.I. chatbot. Indonesia's digital minister saying over the weekend that the ban is meant to protect women, children and the broader public from the risks of fake pornographic content generated using artificial intelligence technology.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom's communications regulator Ofcom announced on Monday it is launching a formal investigation into X that could lead to fines or even blocking the platform in the country.

LIZ KENDALL, BRITISH TECHNOLOGY SECRETARY: The government is crystal clear we want those images taken down. They are despicable. They are abhorrent.

GOLD (voice-over): In the United States, the Departments of justice and Homeland Security have said they will prosecute any producer or possessor of sexually explicit material of children.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: OK, there we have it.

GOLD (voice-over): Last year, President Trump signed the Take It Down Act, which makes it a crime to publish non-consensual, intimate deepfakes and will soon force platforms to remove such images within 48 hours of notice.

Now, experts on A.I. and the law say more needs to be done so A.I. companies can rigorously test their models and prevent them from producing such content in the first place.

[18:00:04]

RIANA PFEFFERKORN, POLICY FELLOW, STANFORD INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN- CENTERED A.I.: The laws don't have any exception for good faith testing or research type purposes. And so we found that there was a real fear of these laws that was impeding what are called red teamers, people who are trying to act as a malicious actor would and test them on it to see if it can be misused from doing that kind of work in the context of child sex abuse imagery.

GOLD (voice-over): Hadas Gold, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)