Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Pauses Military Aid To Ukraine After Zelenskyy Clash; Vance On Zelenskyy Clash In Oval Office, Great T.V.; "NewsNight" Tackles Trump-Zelenskyy Clash; Trump's Strategy To Keep The Economy On Track Is By Imposing Tariffs. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired March 03, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, is it too late now to say sorry? Will Volodymyr Zelenskyy say the words to make Donald Trump forget this or will the American president not give Ukraine another shot at forgiveness?
Plus, be our guest. Democrats invite former federal workers to stare down the president who laid them off.
Also tariffs and trouble, add new taxes on consumers to the check engine sign blinking on the American economy.
Live at the table, John Avlon, Scott Jennings, Alencia Johnson, Bruce Blakeman and Tara Palmeri.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Philip in New York.
Let's get right to what America is talking about. Help is not on the way. Tonight, a critical decision from the Trump administration at a critical time in Ukraine's fight for survival. It's a decision that may pivot the war towards Moscow and Vladimir Putin's mission to carve out that country for himself.
Donald Trump has now ordered a temporary suspension of all U.S. military aid to Ukraine. And that is going to halt a billion dollars of arms transfers that was in the works. And the list of weapons that this applies to is guided multiple launch rocket systems, anti-tank weapons, artillery rounds, armored vehicles. All of these are essential to Ukraine's ability to repel Russian troops.
Now, the White House is spinning this by saying that the decision is a step toward a ceasefire. Quote, the president has been clear that he is focused on peace. He needs our partners to be committed to that goal as well. We are pausing and reviewing our aid in order to ensure that it is contributing to a solution. Joining us in our fifth seat at the table tonight, Alex Plitsas, he's a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a former Pentagon official.
Alex, I want you to weigh in on the significance of this, but, John, just for a second on the kind of negotiating the politics, the showmanship of this all, Trump is essentially saying we're pulling the rug out from under you. And according to our sources, the condition is that Ukraine, Zelenskyy specifically needs to offer a public apology, a public mea culpa to Trump personally.
JOHN AVLON, FORMER CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, that's showmanship, but of course this has real life and death implications. That kind of, you know, putting self interest and desire to have someone kiss the ring ahead of to drive national security policy is dangerous. But, of course, it's part of a piece. Just the other day the Kremlin announced that it felt the U.S. is now aligned with itself. And this is not a non interventionist policy, this is not -- this is siding with Russia, as has been clear consistently. And it is a total departure from bipartisan foreign policy tradition, and it's an abdication of American leadership in the world.
So, this is just an added insult to that injury, and it's a departure from policies pursued by Republicans and Democrats historically. We are now unfortunately aligned with Russia.
PHILLIP: We'll get to more on that in a second. But, Alex, virtually every day, there are air raid sirens over Kyiv. I mean, Russia is not stopping anything while these conversations are happening privately. What's the impact of this pause over the long term, maybe in a couple of weeks if it continues for that long?
ALEX PLITSAS, SENIOR FELLOW, ATLANTIC COUNCIL: No, that's a great way to frame it, because it is a pause that's actually taking immediate effect. So, it's a halt, not only on the longer term, but immediately right now, everything that's in Poland, everything that's in transit is on hold. So, there'll be a short logistics backlog where they'll be able to continue fighting, but very quickly they're going to run out of those critical munitions and it will cause a halt to fighting at some point, like in the near future.
PHILLIP: Is this, Scott, not giving Russia an advantage?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think Donald Trump is very unhappy with the ways Zelenskyy conducted himself in the Oval Office. He is serious about getting both countries to the table. And you talk about pulling the rug out from underneath someone. Well, who pulled the rug out first? Zelenskyy was supposed to show up at the White House Friday for a perfunctory meeting and sign this deal, which would have bound the United States and Ukraine closer together. And he just couldn't bring himself to just sign the papers and head out.
And so, look, I think Trump ran on ending the war.
[22:05:01] He said day one. We're not at day one right now, but he wants to end the war as soon as possible. He has managed to engage Putin in some kind of conversation. He thought he was engaging Zelenskyy and then Zelenskyy goes out today and says, oh, we're very, very far away, far, far away from ending the war, the exact wrong thing to do.
I don't know who he's getting his political advice from, but he needs to stop listening. It sounds like maybe Chris Murphy and other Senate Democrats. If you want to understand how to deal with Donald Trump, those are the wrong clowns to consult with, maybe for balloon animals at a child's birthday party, but not for geopolitical advice.
PHILLIP: In order to give Zelenskyy a lesson in what makes Donald Trump happy, he's going to give Putin an advantage on the battlefield. That could be -- I mean, that could mean the difference between basically a conflict that is at a stalemate and Russia actually being able to do some things that they have not been able to do of late.
BRUCE BLAKEMAN (R), EXECUTIVE, NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK: Well, look, I think Donald Trump is using leverage, as he should. He wants to get Zelenskyy to the negotiating table. He wants to get a ceasefire. He wants to stop the killing. I think those are all good things. The fact that Putin might benefit from it, I don't think that's going to be the case because I think, first of all, the E.U. nation's going to step in, they're going to fill the void, and I think at some point, Zelenskyy has to have an endgame.
If he thinks he's going to defeat Russia, he's delusional. His endgame has to be to get to the table, get the best deal he can make and that would start with a ceasefire, and not going to the White House dressed like a schlob. I mean, you, when you -- well, you know what? When you go to see your banker, you don't wear, you know, a suit like that.
PHILLIP: The United States is a banker, but, is what you're saying, but he came to Congress wearing the same thing. You know, Churchill would come to the United States wearing essentially military fatigues. I mean, this is nothing new. It's just only become an issue now for some reason.
BLAKEMAN: Well, I think it was that and the whole demeanor. He was disrespectful. When using a private sector analogy, when you go to your banker, you put on your best suit, you act respectful, you act grateful, you don't act like a thug, and that's exactly what Zelenskyy --
PHILLIP: Like a thug.
ALENCIA JOHNSON, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, HARRIS 2024 AND BIDEN 2020 CAMPAIGNS: He is a president of a country that has been invaded by a very strong aggressor in Russia and to come to the United States that has for so many years been an unwavering ally to Ukraine to be berated as if they were the ones that invaded Russia, and then all the Republican senators could talk about is what he wore? This man is literally trying to defend his nation against Russia. And what we understand about him defending Ukraine against Russia is also to make sure other European nations won't be invaded. The saddest part about all of this, in addition to Russian media praising Donald Trump, which, my God, I can't believe that we can't even agree that that is horrible, is how emotional and petty and angry and aggressive Donald Trump was. I mean, I literally think about -- I work for a lot of women candidates. Folks say that we shouldn't have women in leadership positions because they'll be too emotional making decisions. Well, Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, they were a little too emotional in these decisions and these conversations and getting us further away from a ceasefire.
JENNINGS: I mean, is it worth it? I mean, was not putting on a tie worth it? Was calling Donald Trump --
JOHNSON: That's the last thing that he's worried about. He's worried about protecting his nation. You all love to do that and gaslight people for being in the position that they are.
JENNINGS: You all brought it up. You called him names.
JOHNSON: He called him a thug. He said he didn't dress like --
JENNINGS: One thing about Russia that's true, they suck, okay? Look, they invaded Ukraine. They've lost 700 --
(CROSSTALKS)
JOHNSON: You can say that. But why can't President Trump say that?
JENNINGS: But here's what I see. They've lost 700,000 people that are wounded. They've spent untold amounts of money. They've gained barely any territory in three years. The Ukrainians have fought them bravely and courageously. At the same time, the political will in the United States to open ended fund a stalemate is dropping rapidly. The American people want this to come to a conclusion. I think Zelenskyy is misreading the American political situation. Maybe it was true three years ago. Today, people want this to come to an end. And there's a way this ends where he wins.
JOHNSON: But don't you think Zelenskyy is above anybody else wants this to end?
BLAKEMAN: He has absolutely no endgame.
PHILLIP: But, Bruce, let me ask you a question. You called him a thug. Why did you call him that?
BLAKEMAN: I was a big fan of Zelenskyy in the beginning. I thought he was very courageous. I thought the Ukrainian people fought very courageously. I have spoken with a lot of Ukrainian leaders. They would like to see Zelenskyy come to the table and try and get a ceasefire. They're tired of the killing. I sent guns to Ukraine, okay? I supported Zelenskyy. I supported the government there and the fight and the cause. But now there's a point where he's not going to defeat Russia.
PHILLIP: But what makes him a thug? I mean, I really want to ask you this because I think that -- I'm trying to understand where why the rhetoric has gone from, we'd like him to come to the table on a peace deal, to this guy is a dictator, this guy is a thug. Where is the evidence for this stuff?
BLAKEMAN: You don't go into the Oval Office with the president and the vice president, roll your eyes, try to lecture and interrupt the vice president, be combative with the president.
[22:10:04]
That's not the place for that. Maybe in the back room, in the negotiating table.
PHILLIP: That makes him a thug?
BLAKEMAN: Yes.
PHILLIP: Putin is throwing people out the windows and Zelenskyy is a thug for responding in a conversation about his own country and about the history of his own country?
BLAKEMAN: Putin's an international gangster. I get it. But, you know, Donald Trump sent Steve Witkoff to the Middle East and he was able to get a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. So, why can't Zelenskyy come to the table and try and get a ceasefire and end the killing?
PHILLIP: Alex, I want to make sure you get in here on this because, look, obviously, peace is going to be difficult to obtain. But I keep asking this question. I've asked it almost every night since we've been talking about this. All Vladimir Putin is seeing is the United States becoming more estranged from Ukraine. He is seeing Trump's willingness to simply put a halt, turn off the tap on all military aid. If you're Putin, how do you strategically go after this? I mean, essentially you could just sit back and wait. And just wait, hold out as long as possible. And it seems like Trump might just walk away from Ukraine, you don't have to do anything at all.
PLITSAS: I mean, that's essentially what he's doing. He's basically -- he's watching the fight take place and he's saying, that's fine. Let the spat between the Oval Office go, let them hold back on the aid and I'm just going to watch this show unfold in front of me and figure out when I can take advantage of it. And it's the same. So, Zelenskyy said today, or yesterday, he would not agree to a one month ceasefire, and for a reason, the spring fighting season is about to start and it would give Putin an opportunity to sort of recharge and rearm to go again. Putin will be looking for any excuse to try to derail this and ensure a deal doesn't take place because, for him, that's the long- term benefit.
So, we saw today the Ukrainian parliament issued like, an apology, basically saying, hey -- or not an apology, excuse me, like we're very thankful to the United States. The ambassador said the same thing. President Zelenskyy has stopped short of that with President Trump. I don't know if they're going to get back to that place at some point, but if the aid and flow isn't turned on in the long-term, it's going to impact. European leaders who are watching this have been horrified. The comments coming back are basically, we can't trust the United States in the long-term. Somebody else needs to step in the void from a long- term security perspective, but I don't think the president really cares about that. He's made that clear from his statements that he's not interested in the Europeans' thoughts on this. He wants to stop the war now and he's trying to pull what he sees as levers of power. But, you know, that's a guy who's been negotiating deals for 50 years, but it's not a casino. It's a country.
JENNINGS: Wouldn't it have benefited --
PHILLIP: That's an important point. It's not a casino. It is a country and it is global peace and security. So, at the end of the day, this isn't about what is in Donald Trump's pocket. It's in what's -- it's about what's in the best interest of the United States and peace in the world.
JENNINGS: Yes, you mentioned the Europeans. It's interesting to me. They spend more money on Russian oil and gas last year than they sent to Ukraine collectively. That's number one. Number two, it's interesting to me that Zelenskyy could not see on Friday the benefit of signing the minerals deal that, in and of itself is a security guarantee. When our interests become your interests, that is a security guarantee. You're never going to get Trump to sign an agreement saying, well, we'll eventually put boots on the ground.
PHILLIP: A mineral deal, Scott, is not a security guarantee.
JENNINGS: It is, because we would have guaranteed our own interests.
PHILLIP: Scott, on top of that, most of the minerals are in territory that is being held by Russia. So, the mineral deal is something that is --
JENNINGS: Are you saying that we would have entered into an economic seat and then not defend it? Of course we would.
PHILLIP: It's near and dear to Donald Trump's heart, but it is not a security guarantee.
JENNINGS: I disagree.
AVLON: The role of the president is to put national interest ahead of self-interest, right? And so because he's pissed off that Zelenskyy didn't show fealty by wearing a tie, which is a total red herring issue. Look --
JENNINGS: What is the self-interest?
AVLON: The self-interest is that he is personally apparently offended at a lack of deference and ring kissing. And you -- look, to your credit, you said it yourself, you said Russia invaded Ukraine, I wish that didn't take credit, but Pete Hegseth, the sec def, won't say that. You said that Putin's an international gangster, good for you, that's exactly right. But if a Democratic president had kicked Zelenskyy out of the Oval Office for not wearing a tie and said that we're going to align with Russia and pulled troops funding for Ukraine, you'd be pissed off because that would be an abandonment of American principles and priorities. And you'd be right at that time.
BLAKEMAN: It's not just about wearing a tie. It was about interrupting Vance, lecturing the president, being combative in the Oval Office, not signing the agreement, not being contrite, not being grateful. The Americans have been carrying his water financially throughout this war.
We got to go and we will talk about actually all of that, what you just said, in just a moment. But being contrite is an interesting turn of phrase for what Zelenskyy ought to be doing right now.
Alex Plitsas, thank you very much for joining us, as always. Everyone else, stick around.
Coming up next, Vice President J.D. Vance, he just responded for the first time since that clash in the Oval Office, the one that many people blame him for starting. What he is now calling Zelenskyy.
Plus, more breaking news tonight, just a short time from now, the president's tariffs against allies are going to go into effect despite flashing red lights on the economy.
[22:15:02]
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, his version, J.D. Vance is telling the country what he thought and felt during that now infamous, potentially history- altering Oval Office shouting match. The vice president saw himself and Donald Trump as mediating forces, not the instigators.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Great T.V. The president just tried to be diplomatic, right? I think that's his natural instinct in that situation. And then when it really went off the rails, of course, is when I asked -- or you had a Polish journalist who asked a question, the president answered it, and then I answered it.
[22:20:04]
And then something about my answer just really set Zelenskyy off. So, then he came at me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, you're blaming yourself?
VANCE: And, of course -- then I went back at him. And what I tried to do originally was actually try to diffuse the situation a little bit, because I'm like, you know, we're having this meeting. Obviously, there are a hundred television cameras here. Let's try to have this conversation in private. I do think that there was just a certain sense of -- there was a lack of respect. There was a certain sense of entitlement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Tara Palmeri is here with us at the table right now.
You know, memory is such an interesting thing. It's a good thing we have tape of what actually happened in the Oval Office. He's right that Trump actually was not sort of stirring things up. He was the person who did that. But here's the exchange that he was referring to that he described as him trying to diffuse the situation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: What kind of diplomacy, J.D., you are speaking about? What do you mean?
VANCE: I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that's going to end the destruction of your country.
Mr. President, with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the frontlines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict.
ZELENSKYY: Have you ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have?
VANCE: I have been to -- I've actually watched and seen the stories and I know what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Not quite how he described it. I mean, things went from 0 to 60 in that 40-second clip, Tara. J.D. Vance seemed to really enjoy his role there, as you can tell when he was talking to Hannity, a lot of laughing through his description of what happened on Friday.
TARA PALMERI, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, PUCK: Yes. I mean, he -- it was almost like they were watching, the -- watch what happens live, like a, you know, bravo clip, and then they were laughing together about it, even though it's obviously high stakes diplomacy, but he's obviously egging Zelenskyy on, calling it propaganda tours, questioning his motivations and everything.
PHILLIP: Even though the fact pattern there, I don't think, is particularly favorable to the vice president, that he has not been to Ukraine ever.
PALMERI: Right. And he was acting almost like a podcast host who like jumps in and creates some sort of like some statement to create to heighten the tension. There was no diffusing. It was just -- this was drama. It was -- as Trump said at the end, this is great television. They were in it for the drama. They wanted to show to their base at home that they were ready to punch Zelenskyy in the nose and that they were going to get some -- like get some meat from him.
PHILLIP: And, Bruce, you've said repeatedly, oh, he needs to be more grateful. He has thanked the United States many a times and J.D. Vance doesn't really care. He has never been in favor of aid to Ukraine. So, I'm not sure a thank you would have made much of a difference to him. It seems like that's just a bit of an excuse for this kind of animosity that preexists the situation when it comes to Vance.
BLAKEMAN: Well, I think that he was ungrateful. He didn't say thank you in the Oval Office. He did try to litigate his case in the Oval Office, which is not the place to do that. And I think that America has been very generous.
PHILLIP: What should we say thank you for? I mean, Vance opposes --
BLAKEMAN: Billions and billions of dollars.
PHILLIP: No. The United States, yes, has given Ukraine a lot of money. He has thanked the United States on numerous occasions. He has come to this country to thank the United States. J.D. Vance has not ever voted for that aid. So, who is he thanking exactly? Donald Trump also not responsible.
BLAKEMAN: Well, how about you and me? It's our taxpayer dollars.
JENNINGS: That's not entirely true, actually. Donald Trump gave Ukraine Javelins.
PHILLIP: Donald Trump gave Ukraine Javelins.
JENNINGS: And Obama gave them blankets.
PHILLIP: I get it. I get it. I get the talking point.
JENNINGS: I mean, you can denigrate it, but it's true.
PHILLIP: I get the talking point, but what I'm talking about is support for Ukraine in this conflict. J.D. Vance and Donald Trump have both been -- I would say Trump has been skeptical. Vance has been outright opposed. So, would you -- I mean, do you acknowledge that Zelenskyy has thanked the United States?
JENNINGS: He has on occasion.
PHILLIP: Dozens of occasions.
JENNINGS: But I will also point out that in 2022 in a phone call with Joe Biden, Joe Biden had to scream at him on the phone, according to NBC News, and say, hey, you know, you could be a little more grateful for what we're doing for you in the United States. He's a frustrating guy to deal with. On that, we have bipartisan presidential consensus.
PHILLIP: I get that. I get that. But as Karl Rove said, diplomacy is messy privately, and these things happen in every single conflict the United States has been a part of where with our allies, we have disagreements privately. It happened during World War II. It happened with Biden. The difference is that this played out publicly on purpose.
JENNINGS: Right. And why go to the Oval Office in a language you don't really speak that well without an interpreter and pick a fight with the president, vice president of the United States, regardless if you don't like what they had to say? Is there some reason he couldn't just sit there and say, thank you so much. Where's the papers? Where's the salmon? That's all he had to do and he literally couldn't do it.
[22:25:00]
AVLON: Scott, look, I mean, we just all saw the clip. We've all seen the clip. This was not Zelenskyy like, you know, insulting. This was Vance inserting himself and punching back.
JENNINGS: Okay. Why don't you just say, thank you, Mr. Vice President, let's discuss it over lunch.
AVLON: But let's take a bigger step back. Vance accuses him of propaganda tours, propaganda tours. He's talking about, you know, you're conscripting people to go to the front. Vladimir Putin has been doing that, you know, for years in the war too. The point is that, you know, J. D. Vance has always said he doesn't give a damn about Ukraine. He's never supported it. But the problem in this context is this isn't even, you know, sort of noninterventionist stuff. This is siding with Russia, the aggressor in a war, something we have never done.
JENNINGS: We're not siding with Russia. We're not siding with a peace deal.
PHILLIP: Let me play a little bit more from Vance tonight. He talks about why the Trump administration won't say anything negative about Putin right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: Nobody's suggesting -- as Secretary Rubio said, nobody's suggesting that we give the Nobel Peace prize to Vladimir Putin. What we're saying is it's important for President Trump to be able to have a conversation. That's not well-served by standing up at a press conference and calling the guy every negative name in the book.
By the way, as we just said, President Biden called Putin every single name in the book. What did it lead to? It led to war. It led to destruction. It led to conflict. President Trump is trying to bring this thing to a close. You got to be able to talk to somebody to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLAKEMAN: Yes, and he's --
PHILLIP: Let me let Alencia to get in.
JOHNSON: Well, I mean, going soft on Putin, but going hard on Zelenskyy, who was literally trying to save his country from what Russia is doing. The gaslighting is just beyond, especially because if we think about it, Republicans like to use this word, disrespectful, entitlement, when people disagree with them and push back, it becomes this, you're being disrespectful and you should be grateful for these crumbs that we are giving you when this president is literally fighting for his life.
But the reality is the softening up on Putin, he doesn't have to say what J.D. Vance said of like, we should give Putin the Nobel Peace prize, just the mannerisms and the way that Donald Trump has decided to deal with Putin versus some of our allies that actually need our support is alarming. And it is mindboggling that Republicans cannot agree with that fact.
JENNINGS: Can I ask you a question? How -- in your mind, how does this end? How do you want it to end, though?
JOHNSON: Well, it doesn't end with you berating what should be an ally.
JENNINGS: I'm asking you how the war ends. How does the killing stop?
JOHNSON: There's negotiations behind the scenes. It -- behind the scenes.
BLAKEMAN: You've got to get to the table.
JOHNSON: You've got to get to the table, but you cannot berate someone in the way that they did to Zelenskyy.
BLAKEMAN: You know, Scott was absolutely right.
JENNINGS: You don't really have an end.
PALMERI: I mean, listen --
JOHNSON: Look, we do.
PHILLIP: Go ahead, Tara.
JOHNSON: We all want an end to the war.
PALMERI: The presidents in the past have flirted with Putin. You had George W. Bush saying, I could look into his eyes.
JOHNSON: He drove him around the ranch in a truck.
PALMERI: Exactly. You had even Bill Clinton saying, you know, that he had felt that he had actually had a real deal with President Putin. They all try. They get burned later. Maybe not right away, maybe after their term, a decade later. But Trump is clearly trying to flatter Putin. He's just going way overboard. PHILLIP: He seems to think that he is the exception to what you just laid out, which is every president thinks they've got this guy, right? And then Putin then turns around and double crosses them.
AVLON: You ask, Scott, how does this sound? This is how ideally a situation like this ends. The larger country that invades the smaller country realizes that their aggression is not going to be rewarded, because otherwise it will continue. That is the lesson of history. The other lesson of history is you never have a ceasefire without a deal. That's one of the lessons we learned from World War I.
So, you know, this is actually about applying the lessons of diplomacy and how you end wars. You end it by punishing the aggressor, because otherwise you get more aggression.
JENNINGS: How do you want to punish Russia?
BLAKEMAN: We've been doing that for three years, we've been punishing Russia. The fact of the matter is that Scott's absolutely right. Zelenskyy had a chance to sign the mineral deal, and, yes, that would have been a security guarantee. He made a strategic and diplomatic blunder by not doing that, because if we had that kind of financial interest in the Ukraine, we would be more invested in the Ukraine. It would have been great for Zelenskyy to sign that deal, accept it, it would have been the smart thing to do. I don't know that he's a smart guy.
PHILLIP: But you're not really addressing what Avlon just said, which is that you have to show Putin that invading another country is not going to be rewarding.
JENNINGS: How do you do that?
BLAKEMAN: We've done that for three years.
PHILLIP: Yes. But what is the alternative that you're suggesting then?
BLAKEMAN: Have an endgame. Get a ceasefire. Stop the killing.
PHILLIP: What is the endgame? Lay it out. Like what is the endgame? How much of Ukraine does Putin get to keep?
BLAKEMAN: The endgame is that there would have to be a settlement based on adjusting some of the boundaries. There would have to be some face-saving for Putin. I don't like the guy, but he's in charge. You got to deal with him. And you also have to have face-saving for Zelenskyy. So, in any kind of deal that you make where there's a settlement, both sides have to walk away from the table as if they were a little unhappy.
PHILLIP: I understand that.
BLAKEMAN: Zelenskyy wants it all.
[22:30:00] PHILLIP: From the perspective of Zelenskyy and frankly Europe, they also want to make sure that Putin understands you can't just keep doing this and you just get a little bit now, a little bit later, a little bit even later.
BLAKEMAN: Well, I think he's learning his lesson.
PHILLIP: And so far, it doesn't seem like the Trump administration is interested in that part of the conversation.
JENNINGS: But regardless of how Europe wants Putin to feel, I mean he's looking over at these other European countries that have virtually no militaries to speak of.
However it looks at the end of this Ukrainian war, the problem for European national security is not this war. It's the fact that none of them have invested in their own militaries for decades. And if they want to get serious about pushing back against them, build some freaking planes.
PHILLIP: And they certainly have realized that they're going to have to do that. And it sounds like they will.
Just a short time from now, the President's tariffs are set to take effect against our neighbors in the North and the South. And they'll come as there are some new warning signs about softness in the economy. So, will Trump blink in this final hour? We've got about an hour and a half to find out.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:35:235]
PHILLIP: From soft landings to throwing blunt objects at the problem, Donald Trump's strategy to keep the economy on track is tariffs -- a lot of them. Twenty-five percent tariffs on the country's two biggest trading partners, Mexico and Canada, they start in 90 minutes. And there's nothing either country can do to stop it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: On the tariffs, is there any room left for Canada and Mexico to make a deal before midnight? And should we expect those Chinese tariffs, the extra 10 percent to take effect tomorrow?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No room left for Mexico or for Canada. No, the tariffs, you know, they're all set. They go into effect tomorrow.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
But is injecting the economy with more instability a good idea, given the not-so-sold footing, it seems solid footing, it seems to be on? Stop and consider for a second what economists consider the warning signs ahead. Consumer spending falling, consumer confidence also falling, jobless
claims rising, federal worker layoffs disrupting local economies, federal spending slowdowns disrupting services, immigration crackdowns hurting home building, and market swings rattling investors.
The stock market really just said it pretty clearly. It's down today as a result of all of this and the threats of tariffs. Remember that when we started off in this process, Trump said that this was about immigration, this was about fentanyl. It's not about fentanyl, it's not about immigration. It's just that he likes tariffs, he wants to put them on.
And now we're in a trade war. Justin Trudeau says they're going to put tariffs in place, too. "Our tariffs will remain in place until the U.S. trade action is withdrawn. We are in active, ongoing discussions with provinces and territories to pursue several non-tariff measures," as well.
JENNINGS: I think multiple things can be true. Number one, I do think it's about immigration and fentanyl. The President's been clear about that from the beginning and has never wavered from it.
Number two, he does like tariffs for economic reasons. And I would just say to Canada, you know, we mean more to them than they mean to us. We're a much larger part of their economy than they are ours.
And number three, there's some evidence that this tariff business is working. You've got the Honda moving a plant to Indiana. You get the big chip deal for Arizona today. There's been over a trillion dollars in announced investments by the Trump administration.
Since he took office, people apparently responding to this idea that, hey, manufacturing things in the United States might be the way to go. So I'm going to see how it plays out, but I do think multiple things can be true. Immigration and fentanyl, terrible problem. Also the economic benefits of it appear to be emerging.
PHILLIP: Well look, the fentanyl coming from Canada is just a minute percentage of what is coming from Mexico.
JENNINGS: Just a little bit will kill it.
PHLLIP: Yeah, but Canada is not where the federal problem is, but on the economy. I want to play what some business leaders have been saying about this, what the economic environment actually is in the country right now. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVEN KAPLAN, GOLDSMAN SACHS VICE PRESIDENT: It's a very difficult time to invest.
UNKNOWN: I'm sorry, I can't be particularly positive on it.
KAPLAN: I hear from a lot of businesses, we're going to take certain actions, but we're going to slow it down because of the uncertainty. NORAH O'DONNELL, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: How do you think tariffs will impact
inflation?
WARREN BUFFETT, CEO BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Over time, there are attacks on goods. I mean, the truth fairy doesn't pay up. I mean.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: But look, they are attacks on American consumers. But also, this is a Republican administration that's supposed to be injecting certainty into the economy, giving businesses the confidence to invest, to make big, bold decisions. They are saying that is not happening. The opposite is.
BLAKEMAN: Well, I think Donald Trump wants us to have economic security. He wants us to have energy security. And he wants us to have manufacturing security, with so many goods being manufactured outside of the United States. Just look at the chips.
And look at all the other things that are manufactured in China, he wants to bring those jobs back to America, and that's why he got the union vote this time. Because the union workers agree, they want these jobs in the United States
PHILLIP: So why -- so what's up on the tariffs on Canada and Mexico?
PHILLIP: -- because the union workers agree, they want these jobs in the United States.
JENNINGS: Automakers would be one because there's a lot of auto plants in both countries. You move it here --
PHILLIP: Yeah, yeah, but you know, we were talking about this a few weeks ago. The automakers say this is terrible for them. Cars are not just made in any one country. There are parts that are brought in from both Canada and Mexico, and it will be impossible to put cars together. This is what one automaker said, impossible to continue manufacturing at the levels that they're at with the tariffs putting a hit on their margin.
AVLON: And not only that, cars are expected to raise over $10,000, right? This is about Main Street, not just Wall Street.
[22:40:00]
But I mean, the reshoring of essential manufacturing, I'm for it. You know what? The Chips and Science Act, the bipartisan bill that passed during the Biden era, that's when we started moving those -- those companies back. This, targeting --
PHILLIP: Then, by the way, I should also add that Trump is defunding the implementation of The Chips and Science Act.
JENNINGS: But there's a huge chips deal in Arizona today coming from Taiwan. AVLON: Yeah, I get it. But that was also part of the overall of the Chips Act. They got to make sure we weren't depending on Taiwan that pre-dates the Trump administration. This is about basically hitting ourselves in the face with a rake. This is stepping on a rake for the national economy at a time of instability. This does not help.
And if anybody woke up and said, if we'd all have 2015 said America was going to be aligned with Russia and having tariffs on Mexico and Canada, you'd say Bernie Sanders was president.
BLAKEMAN: We're not aligned with Russia.
PALMERI: They have already promised.
AVLON: You know, they keep saying we are.
PALMERI: Elon Musk, Donald Trump said there will be pain, right? That's what they've already said. And to actually subsidize some of these like agriculture exports, like soybeans that go off to China, they're going to need USDA to help these farmers out. You're going to need, you know, sort of grants.
And you're going to need to help people to afford this or they're going to, you know, during the next election, they're going to vote for Democrats. And I don't think that they're ready to add new entitlements and new grants and funding to make up for this, because it happens in red states, too.
JOHNSON: Well, and you make actually a really good point, this piece about pain. This is going to inflict a lot more pain on the American people. The approval ratings of what Donald Trump is doing around the economy continues to go down.
You mentioned USDA and all these aid programs. Well, DOGE is cutting all of those programs. So, you're making the cost of living more expensive for people in the United States, while also cutting the efforts that actually should mitigate that. And this is why you see so many voters, particularly Trump voters, that are upset with the handling of the economy.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: -- why Trump voters are so upset?
JOHNSON: And this is why you've seen so many GOP constituents.
JENNINGS: Oh, come on.
PHILLIP: We are going to talk about that in the next segment.
JENNINGS: Come on.
PHILLIP: Hang tight. Coming up next, we've got some new details on who exactly Democrats are inviting to Trump's joint address to Congress tomorrow in what may become a circus.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:46:45]
PHILLIP: Tonight, the fired versus the guy who's been saying, you're fired. Democrats plan to bring laid off federal workers to the president's joint address, while Trump plans to bring the billionaire tasked with doing the laying off -- Elon Musk.
Democrats have a long list of the types of people that they're bringing -- USAID, health workers, emergency management specialists serving veterans, active duty personnel, a disabled army veteran at a Buffalo V.A. facility, so on and so forth. You're going to see a lot of Veterans tomorrow night being invited by Democrats, and that's to send a very specific message, Alencia.
JOHNSON: Oh, it's a very, very clear message, and it's the message that you've also been hearing in these town halls that GOP congressmen decided to shut down because they couldn't withstand the heat.
This actually, what is happening to federal workers and the public service that they provide to all of us, regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, it shouldn't be a partisan issue. The fact that people are not only losing jobs and shifting their entire livelihoods, it's impacting the way that this country is run and the way that people are able to get aid, have opportunity, all of these things. It's impacting healthcare.
It's also really interesting that you mentioned some of the people that are coming to the State of the Union tomorrow, particularly veterans. Republicans always talk about veterans and supporting our veterans and supporting our troops. But yet, here we are gutting the ability to actually even provide care.
And so, it is sending a strong message. I do hope Democrats do more with these workers, because I know there are a lot of workers who have talked about running for office, going into different districts, and saying, hey, this is what's happening to us.
PHILLIP: So, about a third of the federal workforce is veterans. And "The New York Times" spoke to one of them.
This Marine Corps veteran and a former internal revenue service project manager from Connecticut, he " -- was fired just five days after he completed his probationary period. He voted for Trump in November and he said it was too early to decide whether or not he regretted it but he said, I like to think that veterans are a non- political issue for us to be thrown to the side like that I wasn't expecting that to happen."
PALMERI: Well --
PHILLIP: And there is, politically, I think, a shift happening as some of this starts to become more real. And the chaos of how it's being done I think is not hitting the American people well.
PALMERI: I just think that people did not vote for DOGE. They really didn't. Trump was not coming in there saying I'm going to slash and burn the entire federal government. He said I'm going to lower inflation, I'm going to fix the economy, and I'm going to stop the migration at the border.
And that's why people voted for him. They didn't vote for Elon Musk and his crazy, like, DOGE characters, these incels that are running around tearing through the government. It's true. I don't think they care that 500 people got fired. They only saved $80 billion or something.
JENNINGS: Couple things. One, Republicans --
PHILLIP: Yeah, and a lot of that is not even real savings.
PALMERI: Right.
PHILLIP: They've deleted, literally just deleted, some of these fictitious numbers that they put on the website according to "The New York Times".
JENNINGS: Republicans absolutely voted for this, number one. Number two --
PALMERI: Okay, people believe, do not want government waste, that's for sure, but they didn't vote for --
JENNINGS: Yeah, they did.
PALMERI: --foresters to get fired.
JENNINGS: Look.
PALMERI: They didn't vote for -- that the parks to be closed, veterans to be fired.
JENNINGS: Look, you guys keep trying to create this fantasy land where Donald Trump is not popular, where Republicans are mad.
JOHNSON: The Republicans are mad. They shut down the town halls.
[22:50:00]
JENNINGS: Can you name a single Democrat in Congress who is more popular than Donald Trump right now? Answer, no.
PALMERI: Listen, Scott, I've been the host
JENNINGS: The reality is, Republicans -- Republicans are so happy with this. They're not upset about it.
JOHSON: No, they are.
JENNINGS: The American people are happy about what's going on right now because for the first time in a long time, a president said, I'm actually going to reduce the size of the government. PHILLIP: Scott, I know you like numbers and you like polls so let's
put the poll up. The question is, has Trump had the right priorities since he's been in office? Fifty-two percent say no, and just forty percent say yes.
JENNINGS: Okay, his job approval is roughly 50 percent. Congressional Democrats, 21 percent.
PHILLIP: Okay, he is -- he is underwater. And yes, he's more popular.
JENNINGS: According to us, but not according to the averages.
PHILLIP: He's not popular to the Democrats, but if you're claiming that everything that he's doing is popular, it's actually very clear in the polling that specifically, the DOGE stuff is not popular.
JENNINGS: I don't think that's clear cut.
JOHNSON: And specifically, the economy is not popular with all of the polling that he's handling the economy is not popular either.
JENNINGS: Handling Biden's economy, by the way.
BLAKEMAN: Let's see what they find.
PALMERI: Correct. For how long?
BLAKEMAN: Let's see what DOGE finds. First of all, the EPA Administrator, Lee Zeldin, found $2 billion going for a non-profit agency that prior to that had $100 in revenue, nobody had been trained to handle a budget, much less a budget of $2 billion. There's $2 billion right there that was going to a political slush fund. I mean, they are just starting to look under the rug, and they're going to find a lot of stuff.
PHILLIP: Yeah, I think, look, if that is true and that is really fraud, then by all means, absolutely. But we also know that when reporters have started looking into the claims of fraud, sometimes they're not even contracts that exist.
Headlines about cancelled projects saving $2 billion that were actually cancelled years ago in the Biden administration, some that were cancelled over a decade ago in the Bush administration. I mean, some of this is just not real.
AVLON: That's right.
PHILLIP: And money is not adding up to anything.
AVLON: And if you want to go and deal with waste, fraud and abuse, I mean, the GAO did a report showing it was a quarter of a billion dollars a year. You could start there. In the past, when we've done these sort of Hoover commissions, they were done on a bipartisan basis.
What's happening right now is that you are going to see where the Republican workers who get fired are going to get a damn, Scott. And also people who have been frustrated righteously about the middle class squeeze that's been going on for decades, about the affordability crisis. The tariffs aren't going to help that. They're going to hurt it.
And so, you take it all, this starts feeling, you know, when you've got Elon Musk sort of running these cuts and making broad-based cuts that impact people's lives, some of whom voted for Donald Trump, and you start getting a government that works even less well while costs keep going up because of tariffs, that's not a good combination for the mainstream.
JENNINGS: The veterans --
PHILLIP: We do have to go.
JENNINGS: Yeah, I just look.
PHILLIP: But, you know, Scott, I'll give you this point. This is increasingly unpopular for Trump, but Democrats, they got a lot of work to do and it starts tomorrow. Coming up next, the panel will give us their nightcaps where casual attire should be accepted after Adam Sandler's big Oscars moment last night.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:57:37]
PHILLIP: We are back and it's time for the "NewsNight" cap, the casual everyday edition. So at the Oscars, Adam Sandler got called out for wearing his trademark casual attire. You can call it the "Fetterman" if you like. Obviously, it was a little bit of a bit. So, you each now have 30 seconds to tell us where else should casual attire be more accepted? Bruce.
BLAKEMAN: Well, I think if you're doing a press conference about bad weather and you're a politician, you probably shouldn't go outside and wear a suit and tie. But I got to say, I thought it was pretty funny. It was typical Adam Sandler.
PHILLIP: He puts a lot of thought into his sweatshirt and shorts gig.
JOHNSON: I think in political news and on Capitol Hill, we've got to get past this notion that you have to be suited and booted to be a policy expert. Let's disrupt the notion that you can't be stylish and edgy. And I wrote a book that's coming out next week about being a disruptor for good, including with fashion.
PHILLIP: Okay.
PALMERI: Yeah, I've got to agree. I mean, in my own ecosystem, in the White House briefing room, if Elon Musk can wear a t-shirt and a cap and Joe Biden can wear sneakers, then why can't the White House press corps wear sneakers and hoodies and shorts and just chill out in that White House briefing room?
PHILLIP: What do you think?
AVLON: Very disrespectful.
PHILLIP: You guys are making me -- I'm starting to feel like a curmudgeon here at the table.
PALMERI: We work late hours. Hey, Abby, you know we work late hours and we look terrible before we get there.
AVLON: Everyone needs to be -- first of all, people should be able to wear jeans anywhere. I'm over that.
PHILLIP: He's speaking from experience.
AVLON: Yeah, man, no. If you got a jacket, you can wear jeans. Everyone get over that. I agree it's disrespectful not to wear a tie in the White House unless you're leading a country at war. Also, speaking of the Oscars, I've got to say this. Ralph Fiennes got robbed. I just want to let play down that.
PHILLIP: Okay. All right, go ahead, Scott.
JENNINGS: The answer to your question is literally nowhere. Society, we are -- we are far too accepting. Since COVID, we're all in our pajamas. People are half nude in public. People go to the airports looking like hobos.
UNKNOWN: Where do you hang out?
JENNINGS: It's outrageous. We have a senator -- we have a senator -- that's in the movies, something about real life. We have a senator wearing hoodie and shorts down to the Senate. It's outrageous. People need to suit up. Look professional, dress for the job you want.
PALMERI: Well, what if they're not?
PHILLIP: Yes, look, I'm not, you know, I'm not, I didn't think of myself as a stickler, but I do like going to places where people dress nicely.
[23:00:00]
Nowadays, you go to a restaurant and everybody's wearing jeans and a t-shirt.
JOHNSON: If there's a way to dress casually and still have a little reverence.
BLAKEMAN: You're dressed very elegant.
PALMERI: I feel like if you're rich enough and you're famous enough, you can get away with literally anything.
PHILLIP: Exactly.
PALMERI: And in fact, a lot of these CEOs, they don't even want -- they want to be wearing like hoodies and tracksuits and --
PHILLIP: Right.
PALMERI: -- sweatshirts to show that they're so cool.
PHILLIP: It's actually kind of a power move. I totally agree with you.
PALMERI: And the bracelets that all the guys are wearing.
PHILLIP: All right, everybody. Thank you very much. And thanks for watching "NewsNight". "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
