Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Judges Block Two Items On Trump's Vengeance List; Top FDA Vaccine Official Resigns, Blasts RFK Jr. On Way Out; Inflation Fears Grow; Americans Starting To Confront Republican Lawmakers Over Signal Scandal. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired March 28, 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)
SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, breaking right now, judges block two items on the President's vengeance list. Number one involves law firms, number two, college students.
Plus, when Donald Trump talks --
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We have liberation day.
SIDNER: -- the markets listen. And one man's liberation is another's agitation.
Also --
TRUMP: We have to have Greenland.
SIDNER: J.D. Vance gets the cold shoulder in the nation they want to MAGAfy.
And what's improper ideology? What's un-American? Apparently it can be found inside the Smithsonian and the National Zoo.
Live at the table, Chuck Rocha, Kimberly Klacik, Pete Seat, Maria Cardona and Mike Leon.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER (on camera): Happy Friday to you. I'm Sara Sidner in New York in for Abby Philip.
Let's get right to what America's talking about. Breaking tonight, vengeance denied, at least for now. A federal judge has stopped the deportation of a Tufts student arrested in broad daylight, you see there, by masked, plain clothes DHS agents. She's a Turkish national with a valid visa. But the Trump administration is accusing her of supporting Hamas. So far, though, all we have seen is that the PhD student wrote a column saying Israel was committing genocide. Separately, a judge is blocking Donald Trump's efforts to punish law firms with ties to his critics or Democratic clients, specifically in this case, the firm tied to the Mueller investigation. The president has been signing orders designed to take away their clearances, their access to the government, and to scare away future clients. It is a chilling slope that threatens the First Amendment along with the rule of law.
Some firms have paid Trump money to avoid being targeted, emboldening him while others are fighting against Trump in court.
Let's take it to the panel. Pete Seat, when you see what's happened here with the two judges, what is your expected reaction from Republicans? Because so far, when judges say anything that Donald Trump doesn't like, they attack the judge.
PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, I can tell you what my reaction is. It's not a hot take, but a lukewarm take. I am in the wait and see mode on all of these various issues working their way through the courts.
In the end, the first two years of this second Trump term are going to be defined by the clash between the executive and judicial branch. We'll see what happens in the midterms. That dynamic may shift to executive versus legislative. But for right now, the clash is in the courts because this administration is testing all the boundaries that exist. All the traditional norms, all the legal norms, they're testing them one after another and a district court decision will then go to the appeals court, will go to the Supreme Court. So, wait and see.
CHUCK ROCHA, PODCAST CO-HOST, THE LATINO VOTE: I will definitely think that they're testing everything, which are the guardrails of democracy, in my humble redneck opinion. I'll also tell you that they know what they're doing by sending this to every appeals court they can because Donald Trump has picked a whole lot of Supreme Court justices, and that's what he's banking on. And for all of you Democrats at home, this is what happens when you win or lose an election. It matters if you win or lose because you get to pick the judges of who's in the Supreme Court, and this is what Donald Trump is banking on.
SIDNER: How do you see this?
MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think it is an egregious demonstration of what happens when an administration attacks the individuals, attacks due process, attacks, civil rights. And, you know, good for the courts. They are standing up for that due process for those individual rights, for, frankly, the Constitution.
Those two cases that you mentioned, Sara, the judge that talked about the law firms that were being attacked, he was brutal. He was brutal against the team that was defending what Trump was trying to do, essentially saying, have you been in a courtroom before? Have you even practiced law? So, to me, that just underscores.
And Pete's right. I mean, they're going at this on purpose, but, to me, it is also an indication that Americans need to be ready. They need to be vigilant of what's happening here because it's never been done before. And we are on the brink of a constitutional crisis.
And the other case that you talked about, the deportation case, is also something that is incredibly egregious. And the courts are actually doing what they need to do to stop the massive overreach. These were thugs, essentially, taking people, innocent people. They haven't proven that they've done what they are accusing them of doing off the streets.
[22:05:04]
Not just this woman who was a student. They've taken grandparents, they've taken fathers, separating them from their kids, essentially saying, these are terrorists, but never proving it.
SIDNER: Let me just quickly, because you mentioned what the judge said and we're talking about the first case, which was the case against law firms.
Judge Richard Leon is a Bush appointee, in case anyone starts attacking him for being a Democrat and being put in by a Democrat. But he said -- not related to --
MIKE LEON, PODCAST HOST, CAN WE PLEASE TALK?: I just want to be clear.
SIDNER: He wants to be clear. All right, so he said in no uncertain terms, and this is a quote in the Wilmer Hale case. There is no doubt this retaliatory action chill speech and legal advocacy and that is qualified as a constitutional harm. And he blocked part of President Trump's executive order against Wilmer Hale. Is this having a chilling effect on anyone who thinks about fighting against what Donald Trump is doing?
LEON: Well. Pete used the word testing. That's not the word I would use. I would use something a little bit more egregious. But the fact that you have legal beagles and the fact that you have judges that you just mentioned are not appointed. Judges are supposed to be impartial, by the way. It doesn't matter who appoints them, they're supposed to follow the law, so just to push back a little bit on, Chuck was saying that, but I think you agree with that as well.
The fact that these folks are outwardly saying this stuff in court, this happened with during the Rudy Giuliani stuff. Remember there's a non-zero person in the room. What does that mean? I don't know what that means. When they were doing some type of legal challenges, so testing is not the word I would use. They're doing something. We don't know what it is. We are going to see it play out in the court.
But I did want to get back to something that you said about the cases, especially the Tufts University one, because the reason why that one is sticking with me, and Marco Rubio did that presser recently, Sara, if you guys all saw this. But if you guys recall in July of 2021, when Cuba was having big protests from D-S Canal, Marco Rubio literally went out that day and released a statement saying that we support the Cuban people and their voice and what they're doing in these streets. And as a Cuban kid and somebody who lives in Miami right now, who, I don't know the secretary of state like that, but I will say I'm incredibly disappointed with him in doing this to this type of person that is, again, supporting a position -- we have a freedom of speech in this country. She's supporting a position, she writes an opinion column, I believe it is for the paper. Like rounding somebody up like that, that is clearly of legal status, and I've talked to immigration attorneys right now. The testing part of this, Pete, like they don't know what is the law and they're just telling their clients, make sure you have everything in order. That's the scary part about all of this.
KIMBERLY KLACIK (D), FORMER U.S. CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, MARYLAND: Well, as you're mentioning, if I could, as you're mentioning censorship myself as a conservative and running in 2024, running in 2020, I know somebody, like myself, and many other people that have been censored for years, okay? So, we know all about censorship and we all know that First Amendment speech doesn't really apply to absolutely everyone. And as a Republican I can say that for a fact.
But I will go back here in a second and I will say the judges that are involved here, you've got one Judge Millett, who is actually a Democrat donor, has dedicated and donated her time to Democrats upward of $30,000, and that's just recently. She also did some legal work for Obama.
And so I do believe that there's an agenda here. As mentioned, this is going to play out in court. But if anybody knows what goes on in a courtroom, it's President Donald Trump.
CARDONA: This particular judge is a Bush-appointee.
KLACIK: Which judge? I'm talking about the judge with deportations, Patricia Millett.
CARDONA: I'm talking about the judge of the the Tufts case.
KLACIK: Okay.
CARDONA: That's George Bush appointee.
And to Mike's point, that's not what we should be -- I mean, all judges obviously are going to have a point of view, but they leave that at the door.
KLACIK: They're supposed to.
SIDNER: Right. They're supposed to.
KLACIK: I think they saw during the 2024 election cycle, they did not leave that at the door because President Trump spent half his time in the court courtroom while everybody else was rallying around.
SIDNER: But he was accused of --
CARDONA: Because maybe he broke the law.
SIDNER: There was a question about --
SEAT: And it worked politically for him.
CARDONA: He's 34 times convicted felon.
KLACIK: A lot of people will say that that was politically motivated as well.
CARDONA: Okay.
SIDNER: But a jury's made the decision.
KLACIK: That's why he won the popular vote.
CARDONA: The jury made the decision. These were not Democrats --
KLACIK: Well, then why it's still --
CARDONA: It was a jury of your peers that were making this decision.
LEON: But let's go back to --
CARDONA: You're talking the institutional process of justice in this country. That's a whole other issue.
LEON: That's what I'm saying. We got to go back to the overarching premise here. The overarching premise is there's three branches of government. The judiciary is the impartial one where we take our grievances to. So, when the legislative doesn't make a law and the executive does an executive order that's challenging the courts, we have to start respecting court's decisions. If we're going to cherry- pick every single judge that has a leaning on a conservative viewpoint or a leaning on the liberal viewpoint, we're going to be here all day and we're going to continue to play this whataboutism. That's the problem.
ROCHA: Keep that in mind when it goes to Supreme Court, because when the Supreme Court rules against what I think is the wrong decision because they were appointed by Republican, they should leave it at home.
[22:10:01]
LEON: But we're going to respect that.
ROCHA: The Supreme Court is the same in the other direction.
SIDNER: Just quickly, Kim to you, Kimberly. You talked about censorship. And I guess the question is, I know that conservatives have been complaining about censorship, that that has been something that has come up again and again.
KLACIK: Yes.
SIDNER: So, I guess the question is, do two wrongs make a right? Because if this is censorship, if that is what we are seeing, we do not know all the details of the case, but so far what we know doesn't look great. It looks like an attack on First Amendment rights.
KLACIK: Well, I don't think two wrongs make a right, but I don't think anybody at this table was really speaking up and sounding off when people like myself were censored. You're doing it now.
SIDNER: But I guess the question is talking about it, which we have, and being the president of the United States and saying, I'm going to send DHS out and snatch you off the street because of something that you wrote. Potentially, there may be more, we don't know, but right now that's all we know.
KLACIK: I think we let that play out instead of, you know, us making these assumptions.
ROCHA: I think --
SIDNER: Go ahead.
ROCHA: I think that one of the things that. Pete, I think you brought up is do we stay on the legislative and executive branch and then we look towards the legislative branch electorally in the midterms? I think that all of these things, and I think that there are folks that come down on the Trump side, and if you've got a Donald Trump poster above your bed at the house, I'm not talking to you, or if you got a Chuck Roach or poster up, I'm probably not talking to you either, but my wife's going to be mad at you. I'm talking about regular folks out there, regular people that are just watching all of this who really aren't tuned in. They don't know who the judge is. They don't know who appointed that judge. But they know what they're reading in the paper, whether it's the Signal chat or whether it's this thing with this judge, or they see that video of that woman getting picked up. They know exactly what's going on, but they know that in America is not right. And I think you're going to see a lot more political implications on that as we head towards the midterms.
SEAT: But they also know that there are activist judges in this country. They've seen that play out for decades now, particularly on the left, where judges are not just looking at the constitutionality. I'm not talking about these cases specifically.
(CROSSTALKS)
ROCHA: You've already picked a sign up.
SEAT: You know that there are activist judges out there.
CARDONA: That's your opinion. That's your opinion, because if you don't like the opinion, you don't like the decision that those judges made. And when Republicans don't like the decision that judges make, they call them activist judges and they frankly call for their impeachment. That's not something that we should be doing when we are literally on the brink of a constitutional crisis.
LEON: Well, Pete, your truth and no truth are two different things. That's number one. That's number two, I want to get back to what she was talking about with the free speech stuff. I worked in product and technology for 15 years. I helped launch the app that people are watching this on tonight, if you're watching on MAX, don't watch the college basketball games. But there is terms of use and terms of service. When you act into those and you hit that accept all with that blue dot, and you don't read any of it, you can be kicked off of that platform because there's content moderation policies. That's not free speech. That's not your house. That's Elon's house. You can say whatever you want outside. You can start your own thing. You can get Amazon web services, you can do all these hosting platforms.
I agree with you that they don't bubble up conservative content, but that's different because, again, we don't own those platforms. So, we have to adhere to the terms of use in terms of services. That if anybody that is watching this that has ever done legal, you know, what it is, terms of use on any platform will tell you that's the way it is. This is a content moderation thing. We don't amplify certain things. Just look at the Biden story. You could, the Hunter Biden stuff, you can still read it on newyorkpost.com. Twitter just wasn't amplifying it because they couldn't confirm it.
CARDONA: That's not a problem now.
LEON: No, I understand that, but that's what I'm saying. We can't get mad of it. You can't get mad at it. We all can't get mad at it because it's Elon's house.
CARDONA: We can't get mad, but we understand the reality.
LEON: But we understand, correct. It's a platform.
CARDONA: Yes.
LEON: Right. But I agree with you that there is content that is suppressed and not bubbled up.
CARDONA: That is not the judiciary.
LEON: Correct.
CARDONA: It's not the judiciary.
SIDNER: All right. We're going to get to more of this. There's a lot more to talk about today, as you all know, because that was the breaking news. We've got breaking news again, this has just happened right now. The top vaccine official at the FDA has resigned in protest, speaking out against RFK Jr. and what he's doing inside the nation's health agencies. We are just getting this news into the newsroom right now. It is coming into my email. We are going to have a little bit more of that and try to discuss that when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
SIDNER: All right. Breaking news tonight, the top vaccine official at the FDA has just quit in protest. Peter Marks abruptly resigning, saying that RFK Jr. is posing a danger to the public. We're told he was given a choice to resign or be fired.
But in his exit letter, Marks writes about the nation's health chief, and I'm quoting here. He says, it has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies.
Those are strong words from someone in his position. I'm curious what --
ROCHA: I think before we jump in Yes. And talk about resignations or firing or none the above. As I was reading this email, something stuck out to me since I'm in the Scott Jennings chair number one here tonight, that this fellow was in charge of Operation Warp Speed, that in this Democrat's opinion, was the most successful thing Donald Trump probably did in his first presidency. That means that this is not some left wing conspiracy theorist. He's somebody who helped Donald Trump do the most successful things and many people and probably saved millions of lives, again, a Democrat saying that because of what they just did. So, I think that that's important as you all argue about if it was right on the right.
CARDONA: He also was willing to put together studies that would focus on what RFK Jr. essentially was saying that vaccines need to be studied more. He was willing to put those studies together to make sure that real information came out, that transparency came out to hopefully say, you know, Mr. Secretary, this is now what we know.
[22:20:04]
Let's put this aside and let's push for vaccines because we know that's what the case is. Clearly, that didn't happen. And it seems from what the reporting that he was given either the choice to resign or he was going to be fired. So, he was pushed out because clearly he was not acquiescing to, you know, these crazy views of RFK Jr.
So, good for him and good for telling it all in this searing, brutal letter because, yes, he is, he, RFK Jr., and the Trump administration, are putting public health at risk.
SEAT: Look I'm very skeptical of RFK. I feel. He is on the right track when it comes to America needing to be healthier and I know that because I can afford to lose a couple pounds. All the folks who tweet at me when I'm on the show tell me that too.
SIDNER: Well they should mind their business, but go ahead.
SEAT: They should, but they do. I'm with them on that. But when it comes to vaccines, RFK Jr. is completely off the reservation, entirely off the reservation.
Having said that, I do not view doing this as a courageous act. When you resign, you are a borderline coward. If you actually believe in what you're saying, some harshly worded letter, that's what the United Nations does. It means absolutely nothing. It's just a bunch of words on --
LEON: I get what it means. I get what you mean.
CARDONA: he was going to get booted. So, you think that he should just have been fired?
SEAT: Yes. If you really, truly --
CARDONA: What was the difference?
SEAT: They get fired, then stand up for something.
CARDONA: He is standing up.
SIDNER: When somebody does resign, I mean, obviously he was going to get fired. Our reporting is that he was going to get fired, or he had the choice to resign, he resigned. But when somebody leaves a position like that, there may be an argument to say, well, when he leaves, someone else replaces him that does not have his credentials and that does not have his same stance. So, is that good for, for example, the organization that he's overseeing?
LEON: And that's Pete's point. Like stand up for it, stay in that position. Even if you're pushed out eventually, at least we have a voice of reason within the organization. Look, this is very personal to be about RFK because I have a daughter who's on the spectrum. I have an atypical daughter and I have a typical daughter, and I know vaccines don't cause autism.
And my co-host, Nick Zaveri, I want to shout him out from Can We Please Talk, new episodes every Monday. Nick's wife is a pediatric ICU doctor at St. Luke's Hospital in Pennsylvania. So, this is very personal to us as a show.
I've done a lot about RFKs confirmation and, you know, again, no degree in epidemiology, molecular biology, virology. Few doctors have that. So, what do they do? They put together boards, advisory boards that make public recommendations. This person was an environmental lawyer. You want to put him in charge of the EPA? Put him in charge of the EPA? Putting him in charge of the health and human services in this country, in my opinion, is not putting people in the best positions to succeed.
Kudos to this guy for writing the letter. I get Pete's overarching point and I do agree. Stay because you could be the voice of reason within that. And to Chuck's point, and I love that he said that, I'm going to echo it five more times, Operation Warp Speed (INAUDIBLE) alive. Chuck is really smart. I think the hat makes him ten times smarter.
But, seriously, the fact that -- this is the compromise that you guys are looking for, right? Donald Trump says, hey, Democrats, you got to compromise. He just gave credit to somebody who helped with Operation Warp Speed. And this guy is telling you that RFK is not qualified to lead this agency,
SIDNER: Kimberly, the Operation Warp Speed was something that Donald Trump helmed. He got -- cut red tape and got a vaccine out to the public faster than would have been had he not done. So, this gentleman helped implement that. Why would you fire someone like this? Why would you push someone like this out?
KLACIK: So you guys are all resting your hats on the fact that he has helped with Warp Speed and that makes him this genius and this expert in this position because he helped with Warp Speed? Is that what you're going with?
ROCHA: I'm just saying that --
SIDNER: What I'm going is that he is somebody that is --
(CROSSTALKS)
KLACIK: Yes. They're probably going to get another doctor. Right.
SIDNER: So, I guess the question is, he seems to be someone who will work with the administration. It isn't about him being the smartest person on earth, but he's worked for the administration in the past. He's put together some studies. He's tried to do what he feels is the right thing. So, why fire someone like this or threaten to fire them or tell them you have to resign? That is the question I think is.
KLACIK: With all due respect President Trump also chose RFK Jr. when a lot of people were calling him wacky and said, do not trust him and do not bring him a board. And so I think he most likely trusts RFK Jr. and the choices that he's making in all of this. And I would think the guy that actually came through with Warp Speed can be trusted in this moment too. But I'm saying as far as President Trump, he can be trusted in this moment too. And so if RFK Jr. brings in somebody else that's just as qualified, I don't think anybody would have a problem with that, would you?
CARDONA: Well, we don't know who he's going to bring in. And speaking of Warp Speed, another reason why this is so concerning, this, in general, but also just the fact that RFK Jr. is the secretary of Health and Human Services, hours before this happened, he was -- he said publicly that COVID doesn't kill and didn't kill anybody who's healthy, right?
[22:25:10]
I mean, the fact that the secretary of Health and Human Services of the United States of America says this, and it is just absolutely downright wrong, I mean, that's not an opinion. He's just wrong.
KLACIK: We all learned to live during the pandemic.
CARDONA: That puts Americans in danger. But that is just wrong.
KLACIK: We still don't even know the origin.
CARDONA: Healthy people, no. But this particular thing that he said is a lie. Healthy people did die from COVID. And so the fact that he can just stand up there and tell this huge lie on top of a gazillion other lies and conspiracy theories, that is putting America in danger. LEON: I think it's not about is Peter Marks the smartest person ever. We just learned who Peter Marks is like 12 minutes ago.
KLACIK: Right? You guys are defending him like you know him your whole life. So, this is interesting.
LEON: No. I don't know Peter Marks from (INAUDIBLE), shout out to you, Peter, but like in all seriousness, I have no idea who he is. He may not be the smartest person in the world. It says here he was the director of the Agency for Center of Biologics Evaluation and Research. I know I never led that. I know I never worked on any of this because I don't have a degree in any of this. And that's Maria's point.
RFK does not have a degree. He's not qualified enough. When you are a little kid, everyone was like, go to school, get your education, make sure you graduate. What are you going to be? You're going to be a doctor. That's great. I'm going to be an environmental lawyer that gives out health information. No, that's not how this works. We got to get back to subject matter expertise in America. You do not take your car to your boy at the deli because he changed your oil one time. You drop it off at a Jiffy Lube, where there's mechanics who work on it. Pete's laughing. I knew you would get that joke. But like in all seriousness, we got to get back to subject matter expertise. This guy was a subject matter expert.
The issue is, and what Sara is saying, is that RFK, who's already not qualified to lead this agency, in our opinions and in the opinion of other people, although we didn't have enough senators to vote for that, now he's going to pick somebody that may not be as qualified as this guy. And I'm not saying he's --
KLACIK: But you don't know that. You have no idea. We were led by Dr. Fauci, honestly, that got a lot wrong, who has degrees in all of this, supposedly, right? He got a lot of this wrong. So, why not allow this man to make these decisions?
SEAT: Look we're on the same side politically here, but we can also, I hope, look at this and say, not every decision that Donald Trump will make and not every decision that RFK will make is the right decision. I don't know if this is the right or wrong decision right now. As you said, it's now 14 minutes, I think since we learned about this, so we'll find more out later. But just because RFK made the call, and he has the right to make the call, of course, but that doesn't mean it's the right call. And we will learn more over time and maybe he'll pick a great person. It would've been smarter, I think, in this case if he had announced who would replace Marks immediately. So, we're not sitting here speculating,
SIDNER: Wondering. All right, we're going to go for a second. I just wanted to clear up who he is. Peter Marks is a hematologist and oncologist as well. So, just to give you some idea of what his background is.
CARDONA: He's a little bit qualified.
SIDNER: He's very well-qualified for the position that he was in. But we will come back in just a second.
Buckle up because your personal finances could be in a bit of peril. Why America is bracing for economic turmoil and what the markets are telling us right now today.
Plus, after the Signal group chat scandal in the White House, some Republicans are starting to face angry constituents. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will you demand the immediate resignation of Pete Hegseth?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:33:20]
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: America is on the eve of a potential economic earthquake, but the rumbling has already begun. Just days from now, the President's trade wars will kick into high gear. Nations, including allies, are ready to hit back. You will pay higher prices in several places if all this comes to fruition.
The cost of new cars, for example, will skyrocket. And if you think the warnings are partisan or overblown, the market doesn't. The Dow nosedived today in anticipation. The S and P having its worst quarter in three years.
Wall Street's fear gauge surging 16 percent, inflation heating up over the past month, consumer sentiment plunging 12 percent this month, the worst since the great recession. Despite all this, the President seems unbothered.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We have Liberation Day, as you know, on April second because and I'm not referring to Canada, but many countries have taken advantage of us, the likes of which nobody even thought was possible for many, many decades -- for decades. And, you know, that has to stop.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: So, the question a lot of people are having is, is President Trump's risking the entire economy with his tough tariff talk and actions? Joining us now in our fifth seat at the table in the CNN global economic analyst, Rana Foroohar. Thank you so much for being here. We're going to start with you. What does this all mean for -- for Donald Trump's economic agenda?
RANA FOROOHAR, CNN GLOBAL ECONOMIC ANALYST: Well, you know, he ran on tariffs. He ran on reindustrialization, so he is following through with what he said he was going to do. There's no question about that. I think that what the markets are really scared about, tariffs, one,
but back and forth on tariffs is two. And this is a big deal because there are some even on the left that would say, you know, we do need fairer trade. We do need particularly with China.
[22:35:00]
We need -- we need some -- some rebalancing of the system. Your -- even with Europe, perhaps, you could argue, you know, European auto tariffs are a lot higher on the U.S. than --than ours are. You know, I -- I think that there is a case to be made for that.
But here's what I don't understand. How can you change your plan week by week, day by day? That's what the markets are so worried about. And, you know, I was actually visiting with some oil executives last week. Oil executives are worried in criticizing Donald Trump around tariffs, you know?
I mean, this is something that is, I think, hitting Republicans -- investors. They're saying, gosh. If we don't know what's going to happen from one day to the next, you know, that -- that's not a way to run an economy.
ROCHA: I'm one of those Democrats that is pro-trade about a few things. I used to have a job in East Texas making tires for cars. They offshored that 20 years ago and I lost my job. My dad lost a job, and it killed a small East Texas town right outside of Tyler.
But I think the way that he's going about this is really risky in this from a political perspective. Things may get better down the road. They're definitely not going to get better quick and he's almost admitted this. Things could be a little rough. You should wait a little bit before you buy a car.
The average price of a car I wrote down is going to go up between five and $35,000. But if all of a sudden all the car manufacturing comes back here, it could go down, but not for seven or eight years. I wish it does all come back. But the immediate short term pain, he will pay for in the midterm elections.
CARDONA: And --and specifically because he, yes, he did run on tariffs, but guess what he also ran on? I'm going to bring down the price of groceries, gas and rent. I'm going to bring down the price of eggs. So today, people are not just worried about eggs. They're worried about their nest eggs.
FOROOHAR: Yeah.
CARDONA: And so, we're seeing now that people are freaking out, and it's not just because of the economy, but on top of that, everything that he's doing to attack working class, for example, government workers that he has fired, right?
So up and down, everything that he's doing is actually upside down of everything that he promised, and that's why you're seeing his poll numbers are tumbling. And specifically, his poll numbers on the economy.
SIDNER: Yeah.
SEAT: Well, I want to follow-up on what Chuck said about short term versus long term because I -- I think there's something to admire about focusing on the long term.
For too often, our politics has been pegged to the election cycles, and that's why we can't get anything done of real measurable value in this country when it comes to the economy and immigration and some of these giant issues. Social Security is another one because everyone's so worried about keeping their seat in Congress or getting reelected to the presidency.
So, if it is true what you said, Chuck, that this is more of a long term play to bring jobs back to this country, I mean, look, you both, I assume, big union fans, the United Auto Workers, they are huge fans of the tariffs that were announced. They are full-throated fans of it because they believe that it will bring more jobs to this country. It may take -- take some time.
FOROOHAR: I -- I actually think that that's one of the -- I think that this could be a long term play, and I think it's something that could potentially have bipartisan support if done the right way, but it's not being done the right way.
(CROSSTALK)
FOROOHAR: And -- and here and here's the thing. The -- and -- and this is so important because if you're going to upset the apple cart, not saying it doesn't need to be -- trade needs to be rebalanced. Trade needs to be changed for sure. But you've got to do it carefully because this is not a -- a one quarter thing.
This is a two-year, five-year, ten-year sort of process even beyond that to bring back manufacturing. One thing I'm really wondering about is why attack Canada and Mexico because Trump won tariffs on China. Actually, and I thought this was a good thing -- brought back a lot of production and reintegrated North American production.
So Canada, the U.S. and Mexico got knitted more tightly together, and I think that was actually a good thing for the economy. But now, you're attacking everybody at once, adversaries, allies. Nobody knows what's coming next. That's very dangerous. The markets don't like.
SIDNER: Uncertainty, the markets never like, nor do people in general. The uncertainty makes people nervous. Kimberly, when you look at what is happening and to, Rana's point, why attack? And what are Republicans saying about attacking our allies, our next door neighbors, as opposed to, if he wants to go ham, going after China?
KLACIK: I think that's a great question. As somebody that lives in Baltimore, I think that we know best what happened when manufacturing went overseas. I would love to see the billion dollar medical equipment industry come here in America, too, and I know President Trump has been talking about that. Rana, I have to ask you. You said you were with some oil tycoons or friends of yours.
FOROOHAR: Not friends, but just talk-talk because I'm a reporter talking to people, and, you know, they're worried about tariffs. They like the fact that there's going to be deregulation, but they're worried about tariffs.
And I think one of the reasons that not just oil, but a lot of industries are worried even though, you know, folks do want to make things in America, and we need to do that. We need to balance it, but they need a clear plan because it's a very, very dangerous thing to try and do. Industrial policy, you know, really changing the economy in fundamental ways, it's not something that you can say one thing one day and then change your mind the next day.
KLACIK: Well, I wonder what they were saying when President Joe Biden was depleting the oil reserves and what they were saying when he shut down the Keystone pipeline?
[22:40:00]
FOROOHAR: Well, right now, they're saying they would like to pump more, but here -- this is -- and this is where it gets tricky. Trump would like energy costs to be lower, and that's a good thing for Americans. But a lot of projects in this country, if costs go down too -- too far, the oil executives actually don't want to do those projects because they're not cost effective. It's a tricky balancing act.
What I'm trying to say is this is a 360 thing. You got to get everybody in the room. You got to get everybody on page. It can't be the sort of thing that you're announcing something one day and then the next day is being changed and, you know, it's just -- it's complicated.
SIDNER: It is no surprise that the markets are reacting to this --
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
SIDNER: -- by dipping or falling sharply. We will see what happens in the next few weeks and what happens in April when these go into effect, if they go into effect. All right, we will be back. Rana Foroohar, thank you so much.
FOROOHAR: Thank you.
SIDNER: Everyone else, stick around. We got a lot more to talk about. Next, Donald Trump is making it known. He is serious about taking over Greenland. Vice President Vance showed up in the country only to get the cold shoulder.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:51]
SIDNER: All right. This is the Vice President's reaction to a place that doesn't really want him there. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It's cold as shit (ph) here. Nobody told me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Greenland's cold, but not as cold as the reception Vice President J.D. Vance received when he got there. Remember, President Trump has been beating the drum that the U.S. will take over the nation, citing national security interests. That's not going over well with Greenland.
Danish TV reports when American officials went door to door looking for residents to welcome a visit from Vance and the second lady, everyone to a person said no. But if you haven't noticed, the rhetoric about taking over is getting sharper and more forceful.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We have to have Greenland. It's not a question of do you think we can do without it? We can't.
VANCE: We can't just ignore the President's desires. Our message to Denmark is very simple. You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland. The President said clearly he doesn't think that military force is going to be necessary. This has to happen. We have no other option.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Mike Leon is back at the table with us now. I mean, I guess the question is, are we a serious nation saying this has to happen and we're going to take Greenland? I'll start with you.
LEON: I was going to say, you turned to the right person because I wrote a seventh grade book report on Greenland. That's a joke, Sara. I did not write a seventh grade book report on Greenland.
UNKNOWN: I knew it right before you --
(CROSSTALK)
LEON: Fifty-six thousand people already that lived there. Look, I -- look, elections have consequences, everybody. Okay? The Trump administration, I know he didn't run on Panama Canal, he didn't run on Greenland, he didn't run on some of these things, and some of these things are being sprung up.
They have a different policy position towards what is happening in that region and China and Russia's influence. You and I may not agree with it. This is their policy position towards it. I don't like the optics of what's happening right now with the Vice President going over there. I don't know why we're doing that, but this is something that he has talked about. What we all should be scared about is what you said. We're pissing off, Chuck would say, an ally. Somebody that we're supposed to be with in NATO, in Denmark. And that's the issue. It's making us insulated as a country because this is President Trump's policy position.
We don't --and it played out in that signal text chain -- I'd love to add you all to my Signal text chain after this. Like, it played out in that text chain where it said we don't really want to work and play nice with Europe, if you recall. This is part of this.
ROCHA: Wait, Maria, before you jump in, let me give two facts about Greenland, then you all can argue about if this is smarter, if this is dumb. Look, you all should know that Greenland was settled by the Vikings. I don't know how many of you all ever watched the "Vikings" TV show. You don't mess with the Vikings.
This is the second thing I want to tell you is these people eat fermented shark as a delicacy every day. If you've ever smelled fermented shark as a fisherman, you don't want to mess with these people. They may not be as big a pushover as you might think they are. I'm just saying. Now, argue away.
UNKNOWN: That was in my book report.
CARDONA: That was -- so, to that point, but first to Mike's point. Yes. Elections have consequences, and the consequences that we're seeing now is that we're becoming an idiocracy because I cannot understand, for the life of me, why Trump is doing this.
Yes. This has some national security interests, but somebody who actually knows how to govern and knows how to lead in a global society, which we live in, would actually go to Greenland and talk to them and talk to Denmark the way that they have said and negotiate something.
Isn't he supposed to be a magician master negotiator? Negotiate something where the United States, if they believe we need more bases or we need more of a presence there, then negotiate that and invest in it that way.
Don't go in there guns a blazing, you know, saying we need to take over because they are making us the ultimate in not just ugly Americans, but fugly Americans. And it's not something that is going to help us do what we need to do across the world without allies and even with our adversaries.
SIDNER: Kimberly, I'll let you jump in.
KLACIK: Yeah. You're saying that you don't understand, and it sounds like it, right? Because this is something that's going to help us with our national security. And elections do have consequences, because if we've watched --
(CROSSTALK)
CARDONA: I said that in my section the right way to do that. [22:50:00]
KLACIK: I'm speaking right now.
CARDONA: Go ahead.
KLACIK: We watched as our open border really just hammered us away when it comes to national security. We watched as gang members came across our southern border. I don't know if you said much about that. And we're watching right now in the state of Maryland where I am, and they're now going to trial for Rachel Morin, a mother of five that was killed by an illegal immigrant.
So, yes, we also saw Chinese spy balloons going over our country, and nobody could say where they're coming from. So, yes, this is about national security. And I will say, John Bolton, who's not very friendly with President Trump right now, he's been saying the same exact thing. And so I think that's where it should have happened.
(CROSSTALK)
CARDONA: So, you think we should attack Greenland? Is that what you're saying?
KLACIK: Does it look like we're attacking Greenland?
(CROSSTALK)
SEAT: The President said today that that would not happen.
CARDONA: And the President said we need Greenland no matter what.
SEAT: He said it but -- hold on. This is what I want to say.
CARDONA: So --
SEAT: What's been -- what was most amazing about what you said, Maria, is the movement from initially when President Trump floated this, everyone's hair was on fire. He wants Greenland. Why does he want Greenland? Oh my gosh, Greenland.
Now we're like, oh, there's a strategic reason behind this because there's historical context. The fact that Harry Truman wanted to buy Greenland because he wanted a bulwark against the USSR. And you also have, you mentioned NATO. And I think that's a really, really important point here because Greenland wants independence from Denmark.
The current prime minister wants independence. The opposition party that was just voted in two weeks ago also wants independence. They want it a little slower, but they want it, as well. What happens then? Greenland doesn't have its own military. They are part of NATO now because they're a territory of Denmark. When independence happens, Greenland is a sitting duck. They're going to need a strong ally better than us. SIDNER: Before we go on, this begs the question. There were 10,000
U.S. troops in Greenland in the fifties and sixties. Do you know how many there are now in the 2000s?
While President Trump was the president the first time, about 150 to 200 active service -- U.S. service members. So, if it was so important, why didn't he do something by adding the number of troops back to the right? SEAT: Well, that base is considered one of the most strategic military
installations in the world, and it's the initiative --
(CROSSTALK)
CARDONA: Pete, nobody's arguing that. And like I said, there is a strategic reason. There are some national security interests. What I said I didn't understand, and I think it's idiotic and dumb and stupid the way that this administration is going about it, is the -- the way that they're going about it, they're -- they're making enemies out of our allies.
And I will repeat, if he really wants to do this the smart way, he would go in there and invest and negotiate. Why do we have to go in there and take over Greenland? That's what he's doing.
SEAT: Sticking it up.
CARDONA: He's saber rattling. You can't tell me that he's not saber rattling when he says the president, not the VP, the President says, we need Greenland. No matter what happens, we are going to take it over. And I'm sorry. Right now, the people in Greenland have said they don't want to be associated with the United States. Mr. President, they said no. No means no.
SIDNER: All right. We will end it there until our next segment. Thank you very much for joining us. Next, Americans are starting to confront Republican lawmakers over the Signal scandal. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Will you demand the immediate resignation of Pete Hegseth, Michael Waltz and the rest of the group chat?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:57:59]
SIDNER: The comedians of "Have I Got News For You" are back, and they are breaking down the members of the Signal group chat. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROY WOOD JR, COMEDIAN: On this infamous Signal group chat, there were 19 people, which first off, too many people for a group chat. Who all was on the group chat? Who was supposed to be there?
SAM SEDER, COMMENTATOR AND HOST: Tulsi Gabbard and Scott Bessent. SAMARIA JOHNSON, COMEDIAN AND WRITER: Waltz, Vance.
AMBER RUFFIN, COMEDIAN: Ariana Grande.
WOOD JR.: In addition to the editor of "The Atlantic", the chat had people like Waltz, Defense Secretary Hegseth and Vice President J.D. Vance, who used their full names in the super secret Signal chat. There was also people going by the initial S.M., AKA Trump advisor, Stephen Miller. And there was also some guy on the thread just named Jacob, who is yet to be identified.
JOHNSON: I would like to think that Jacob is just the homie who's really good at Call of Duty, and they're just like, we just want some opinions, Jacob.
WOOD JR.: In your opinion, Jacob, F-18 or F-35, how would you bomb this particular target?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: They can make us laugh about the most serious things. You can catch the all new episode tomorrow, 9 P.M., on CNN. All right. With the economy wobbling under the weight of tariffs, do voters care about Signal Gate as it's been known to be called? It turns out they may. Listen to this exchange at a town hall hosted by Republican Congresswoman Victoria Spartz.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Will you demand the immediate resignation of Pete Hegseth? Will we demand the immediate resignation of Pete Hegseth, Michael Waltz and the rest of the group chat?
REP. VICTORIA SPARTZ (R) INDIANA: So, let -- let me just address. No. I will not demand their resignations
[23:00:00]
(CROWD BOOING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: And there you have it. While in Greenland, Vice President Vance also dismissed the idea. He said that if anyone thought President Trump would fire someone over the scandal they've got, quote, "another thing coming". We will leave it for there. Thank you so much for watching "NewsNight". We'll see you tomorrow morning at 10 A.M. with our conversation that got a bit wild at "Table for Five". In the meantime, "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
