Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Ousts Mike Waltz as National Security Adviser; Trump Replaces Waltz With as National Security Adviser; Trump-Appointed Judge, Trump's Deportations Unlawful. General Motors Braces for a $5 Billion Tariff Impact; U.S. Army Plans for a Potential Military Parade for Trump's Birthday. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired May 01, 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, a plot twist in today's episode of the West Wing, President Trump drops Mike Waltz from his national security team. But is this just the beginning?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. I think they're holding the wrong guy accountable.
PHILLIP: Plus, a Texas judge tells the man who appointed him, your deportation plan goes too far.
Also as bad news McDoubles for Trump's economy.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I think you have to get us a little bit of time to get moving.
PHILLIP: Did he awake a sleeping giant?
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Xochitl Hinojosa, Batya Ungar- Sargon and Van Lathan.
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 Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America's talking about, the cabinet shuffle. This was Mike Waltz this morning not long before Donald Trump told the world he was ousted.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE WALTZ, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: This is leadership at its finest, led by our commander-in-chief who loves the troops and they love him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And this was Mike Waltz just 24 hours before he was ousted.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALTZ: We had a hundred days of your leadership with respect, with strength.
It's an honor to serve you in this administration. And I think the world is far better, far safer for them (ph).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And this was Mike Waltz in the five weeks since Signal gate broke.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALTZ: The world owes President Trump a favor.
Thank God for American leadership again.
We're going to continue to knock it out of the park for this president.
And I am fortunate to work for this president.
We're moving at Trump speed, fast, doing all of this.
It's the honor of a lifetime to work for him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: He did his best to heap on the praise, but the honor of a lifetime, that lasted three months. The president removing him as national security adviser and sending him to the United Nation,s if he can get confirmed.
Now, it's not clear exactly what the reason was, but the stench of Signal gate lingers. In fact, Waltz was seen using the very same app during yesterday's cabinet meeting, texting some of the very same people on the original chat, something his boss recently said was a no-no.
So, what now? Secretary of State Marco Rubio is getting the nod in the interim, which means he now has four jobs. But this shows that there is turmoil in the national security apparatus around Donald Trump. There is turmoil in national defense, think Pete Hegseth. And by default, there are questions about national diplomacy.
Joining us now in our fifth seat at the table is Elise Labott. She is the Edward R. Murrow Press fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. She's also the host of Cosmopolitics on Substack and a familiar face for those of you who have watched CNN over the years.
Elise, I'm having a hard time understanding a lot of this. I mean, I think there's Signal gate, there's also Mike Waltz and his ideology as it relates to MAGA-ism, which might not really be the same thing. And then there's the idea of what is Trump doing with Marco Rubio, who is the secretary of state, and apparently now has four other jobs, including a very big job that is a full-time gig?
ELISE LABOTT, EDWARD R. MURROW PRESS FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, I mean, even before Signal Gate, and you've talked about this on this show, Mike Waltz has had, you know, tussles with people in the administration, in the cabinet. Allegedly, he wasn't getting along with the chief of staff, Susie Wiles.
But it really is, I think, this kind of divide in Trump's foreign policy team, between these, you know, more the MAGA crowd, the isolationists, the America firsters, if you will, led by J.D. Vance, led by some others. And then also you have the more kind of neo-cons, Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz.
[22:05:01]
And so even before Signal gate, I think the knives were out for him clearly at that time. There was -- you know, there was ammunition to get rid of him, and everyone has said they Trump didn't want to give somebody or the media, or the liberals or whatever, you know, a win. So, he moved him over to the U.N. where he did have an opening. They took away Elise Stefanik to keep her House seat. And so it does solve a lot of problems.
The thing on Rubio is the national security adviser is the president's closest adviser, making every single decision with him, first one in the room, last one in the room. How is Marco Rubio going to do that when he's flying around the world? And the question is does President Trump want a national security adviser that's going to be with him, his most consistent adviser? I don't think Marco Rubio can fill that job and be the secretary of state.
PHILLIP: I wonder also, I mean, he also has Steve Witkoff who's doing a lot of the diplomacy right now.
LABOTT: Exactly.
PHILLIP: So, Marco Rubio's job has already been kind of diluted in a way. Scott?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I actually think this shows a huge amount of confidence in Rubio. If you talk to people in the White House, you talk to people who supported Donald Trump, some who were a little skeptical of Rubio because they didn't consider him to necessarily be from the president's wing of this foreign policy thinking, they believe Rubio has done a terrific job. He has been a consistent spokesperson for the president's priorities. He did a great job on the El Salvador issue, did a great job on the student visa issue. He is one of the smoothest communicators that the administration has.
It's obvious they have a lot of confidence in him, not just because they gave him secretary of state, but they put him in at USAID. They'd have him do a massive reorg in the State Department.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: He's a busy guy.
JENNINGS: Now they're giving him this gig.
I think that's part of --
JENNINGS: They got confidence in this guy.
PHILLIP: That's part of the point. It's like --
JENNINGS: He's been a star.
PHILLIP: How on Earth can any one person do all of these jobs? But really more to the point, what kind of national security operation is Donald Trump really running when you do have someone? As competent as Marco Rubio might be, he cannot be doing four jobs at once, and within 100 -- in a little over 100 days losing a national security adviser? That's a lot.
HINOJOSA: I know. And Scott's right, that, you know, people -- we're talking about Marco Rubio and how people think he's doing a wonderful job. But the reality is, and what about everybody else that is surrounding him in the national security space? The problem is they don't have the experience. You have Tulsi Gabbard, you have Pete Hegseth, right, and two people who Hegseth is maybe on his way out, we don't really know, sharing classified information over Signal. He's the one who actually shared the classified information, not Mike Waltz, right? And then you have -- and this is why they're putting Rubio in all of these positions, because he doesn't have people around him that are strong in national security. There's chaos.
LABOTT: I would say that if you talk to diplomats, you talked to diplomats tonight, they're very sorry to see Mike Waltz go. He was seen as a clear head, a calm person, someone who made deliberate decisions, very popular in the diplomatic community, but they are gratified that it's Marco Rubio that is stepping in and they think that Marco Rubio as, at least interim, national security adviser and Mike Waltz over at the United Nations is the best you can get right now.
PHILLIP: Can I just make a point about how -- the other part of how we got here, and that's Laura Loomer. She took a victory lap. She says, vetting matters. Don't ever forget that. And remember, she had been -- she'd gotten into the West Wing with a list of names of people who were disloyal to Trump and those people were fired. Now, the actual national security adviser is out and she's claiming credit for it.
VAN LATHAN, PODCAST CO-HOST, HIGHER LEARNING: Man, it makes me feel comfortable that a white nationalist is making these types of decisions in America. And, by the way, I don't think that you can just summarily dismiss her influence on the president. I mean, she goes in there, she talks to him about a list of people that she doesn't think are loyal enough to him, and then a couple of weeks later, one of those guys is jettison. I know that a lot of people want to act like there's no A to B there, but to me it seems like there's definitely some influence that we're seeing.
JENNINGS: First of all, the victory lap you mentioned, I mean, yes, she did say that. And then Trump announced that he was putting Waltz at the United Nations, not exactly a small post. And if I just may comment --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: But, Scott, you would agrees the United States -- the United Nations is not exactly a top priority for this president.
JENNINGS: And the pantheon of options here kick you to the curb or send you to the United Nations, I know which one I would be.
HINOJOSA: He was saying it's an S-H-I-T.
JENNINGS: But, yes, I know you haven't gone yet. If I just may, I've been with the president recently. I've watched him in these meetings. I've seen the way things are working. There is no chaos.
But I can tell you this, unlike in the administration you work for, there's no doubt who's running the country and it's Donald Trump.
HINOJOSA: So, let me just tell you on the chaos, you never want to have chaos in your national security team, and that's what's happening right now. You have chaos at the Pentagon. You have had Hegseth's own advisers say that. You have a National Security Council who is decimated because of Laura Loomer. You have various agencies where they have fired career professionals all throughout the national security apparatus.
[22:10:03]
JENNINGS: Oh, no, they're firing bureaucrats. Oh, no.
(CROSSTALKS)
HINOJOSA: We're in a heightened threat environment, Scott. We are in a very -- and we cannot have this type of chaos in our national security. There's a heightened threat.
LABOTT: There's a lot of drama. And we're 9:45 in, and we haven't talked about all the challenges around the world that we're facing. The president is talking about, you know, a deal with Iran today. They signed the mineral deal with Ukraine. I was really remarked by the statement that came out in support of Ukraine. The president had a very good day today.
I think, you know, again, it is a bit of a demotion. It's also a soft landing. But Mike Waltz at the United Nations right now when, you know, all of the allies are kind of questioning where America stands to have someone as the representative is not the worst thing in the world. PHILLIP: Batya, let me ask you this. I mean, let's strip the names away for just a second. If on day 102, a president has lost his national security adviser, moved him over somewhere else, decided not to confirm his U.N. ambassador, fired several of his national security staff, had a defense secretary in all of the controversies that he is in, wouldn't that be a sign that something is up. I mean, I just wonder like if you just pretend this was somebody else, at the very least, wouldn't that raise questions about what was going on?
BATYA UNGAR-SARGON, AUTHOR, SECOND CLASS, HOW THE ELITES BETRAYED AMERICA'S WORKING MEN AND WOMEN: I mean, but look at the accomplishments that we're seeing at the same time that all that is happening. I really reject this idea that there's this divide between the neo-cons and isolationists. You know, if you look at who the president --
LABOTT: I know. I mean, it's obvious. Look --
UNGAR-SARGON: I just want to -- let me make my point.
PHILLIP: I'm curious, though, because we're not making up that divide. I mean, I think Trump himself has said he doesn't like the neo-cons. He thinks that they are warmongers. He said it.
UNGAR-SARGON: But I think it's actually the philosophy guiding this presidency has been extremely consistent from the get-go. Donald Trump is anti-war, but he is not a dove. Actually, Tulsi Gabbard put it really well a few years ago. She said, when it comes to terrorists, I am a hawk. And when it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I am a dove.
Donald Trump was deeply impacted by the failed wars in the Middle East as they were happening, and he is very committed to avoiding war at all costs. He's doing something very remarkable right now, which is taking on his own side all of the neo-cons and saying, you know what, we're not going to go to war with Iran until we try diplomacy. How about that? What a crazy idea.
You would think that the Democrats would be rushing to support him, but, no. Instead they're trying to pick off people here and there. You look at Marco Rubio, you look at Tulsi Gabbard, you look at the president, you look at J.D. Vance. These are not isolationists. These are people who believe in peace through strength.
PHILLIP: Hold on. The idea that Democrats are pushing for war, I just am not seeing a lot of evidence of that.
UNGAR-SARGON: Like they're pushing for war?
PHILLIP: I mean, yes. Like where is the evidence that Democrats are pushing for war with Iran?
UNGAR-SARGON: Abby, you reject the idea that the Democrats are the ones who are pushing for us to keep sustaining our support for the war in Ukraine while it was the Republicans who are trying to get us out of that? (CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Republicans are also pushing for support for Ukraine. It's just that some of them --
(CROSSTALKS)
LATHAN: There's an entire wing on this, and Marco Rubio as well, to be honest.
PHILLIP: And, in fact, for the last four years, I was alive for the last four years, and I do remember the argument that most Republicans on the hill were making was that Biden was moving too slowly to provide aid to Ukraine.
JENNINGS: Yes. But most Republicans on the Hill -- Yes. But --
PHILLIP: I remember you making that argument.
JENNINGS: But Biden's point is a good one, and here's why, because most Republicans on the Hill are not Donald Trump. And one of the things about the way he talks about war in peace is he has sidelined the traditional hawks who have been at the top of the Republican Party for a long time and he's replaced them with people of --
PHILLIP: And I think that's exactly what --
JENNINGS: But more than that, he's replaced the language that the Republican Party used to speak on this issue. He talks more about peace than he does about war. I mean, ask the Houthis if he's willing to go to war. He will, but he is a man who would prefer to talk about peace first. Batya is exactly right.
PHILLIP: Okay, very quick last word. Go ahead.
LABOTT: That's all -- all of that is true. And I think it is true that you have two different ways --
UNGAR-SARGON: It's true and it's good. Can you say it's good? It's true and good. It's admirable --
LABOTT: No war is good.
UNGAR-SARGON: -- to be against war. Thank you.
LABOTT: No war is good. But I think we have to say, there is a divide in the party. You have the Ted Cottons and the Ted Cruzes.
PHILLIP: Tom Cotton.
LABOTT: Tom, sorry, how embarrassing.
PHILLIP: Yes.
LABOTT: Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz, who are a little bit more hawkish. You have a lot of the kind of more America Firsters, and I think that's really going to play out. Marco Rubio is more of a hawk, and I think it's going to be really interesting to see him in the top seat.
PHILLIP: All right. We got to leave it there. Elise Labott, thank you very much. Great to see you. Everyone else, don't go anywhere.
Coming up next, more breaking news tonight, a Trump-appointed judge says the president overstepped his power and calls his deportations unlawful. Another special guest is going to join us in our fifth seat.
[22:15:00]
Plus, companies from Apple to McDonald's are now warning Trump about the economy. And the White House may be hearing those warnings, but they are not listening to them, at least not yet.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, a major setback to the president's deportation efforts. A Trump-appointed judge in Texas struck down the White House's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans that they suspect to be gang members.
The 18th century law gives the president the power to circumvent the courts and quickly detain or deport alien enemies after, quote, a declared war or, quote, any invasion or predatory incursion.
[22:20:02]
Remember those words. Judge Fernando Rodriguez ruled that those words referred to, quote, an attack by military forces. And that is not how Trump is using it now.
The law has only been invoked three times. The war of 1812. World War I, world War II, where it was infamously used to justify the internment of Japanese, Italian, and German immigrants.
Now, tonight, J.D. Vance, the vice president, says it's not the judge but the White House, or it's not the White House, but the judge that is overstepping.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: First of all, the judge doesn't make that determination whether the Alien Enemies Act can be deployed. I think the president of the United States is the one who determines whether this country is being invaded. And under the Biden administration, it was.
We're aggressively appealing this stuff. We do think that the higher appeals courts, and in particular the Supreme Court is going to recognize immigration enforcement is a core function of the president of the United States. If you tell the president he's not allowed to deport illegal criminals, then you're telling the president he's not allowed to be the president. We reject that.
(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Joining us in our fifth seat at the table is Civil and Criminal Attorney Donte Mills. He is a law professor at Temple University.
Donte you know, I want people to listen to what he said there, J.D. Vance. He's essentially saying, only the president gets to decide whether this act can be used in the way that he wants to use it, but he also then says that the judge is saying, you can't deport people, which is not what the judge is saying at all. He's just saying the use of this particular act, it may not be in this circumstance the way that you can deport people.
Tell us more about Marbury versus Madison and whether judges have a role in interpreting the law.
DONTE MILLS, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ATTORNEY: The judicial branch, their job is interpretation of the law, and that's exactly what they did here. What they said is, this law requires an invasion or act of war. And we interpret that to mean you have to actively be at war. You can't, as Donald Trump says, come down an escalator and say, oh, people are coming into our country raping our women and killing us, and that means it's an act of war? No, it has to actually meet that definition, and that's the court's job.
The president has the right to decide his agenda and kind of influence public policy, but when it comes down to the application of law, that's the court's job and that's what they did here.
JENNINGS: Can I debate this point? Because I think I understand your point, and you and I have a disagreement about these individual district court judges. But when you think about what's happened in this country, millions of people have come in, it's the biggest invasion in the history of the United States. We've never been invaded this way, number one, these illegal aliens and they are predatory. It is an incursion.
And I would ask you to ask any of the families who've lost loved ones if they think maybe that we are at war with the people who have come here, who have committed violent acts, who have murdered people, who have raped people, who have human trafficked people. It is a disaster what's happened in this country. And the president is trying to pull every lever that's on the books to take care of it and these individual judges.
MILLS: I appreciate that.
JENNINGS: These individual judges are overstepping. If what you're essentially saying is that the president, who is the commander-in- chief, cannot determine when we are being invaded, an individual district court judge is going to decide that? No, thank you.
PHILLIP: Can I just ask a simple question? Who gets to decide whether the United States is at war or not?
JENNINGS: The president, in my opinion.
PHILLIP: No.
JENNINGS: If we're being invaded, I want the commander-in-chief in that --
PHILLIP: Scott, no. It's actually the Congress.
JENNINGS: You're asking if we're being invaded.
PHILLIP: I'm asking --
JENNINGS: You want to call Congress and see if we're being invaded?
PHILLIP: I'm asking a basic constitutional question.
JENNINGS: We'll be taken over before they ever get to the committee.
PHILLIP: (INAUDIBLE) will decide whether the United States is at war, the answer is Congress.
JENNINGS: I'm talking about if we're being invaded.
PHILLIP: When the president says we're at war, he has to show proof --
JENNINGS: Show we're actively at war, not --
PHILLIP: And what he needs to do is go to Congress and --
(CROSSTALKS)
LATHAN: Wait a second, though. I thought the genius of our system was that we weren't beholden to one guy's opinion, that the genius of the American system of government was that we had three co-equal branches, and in those co-equal branches decisions, were made about how we go about doing things.
Now, we want to tear that to shreds so that we can kowtow to one guy's opinion, then we are in a monarchy. We're being ruled.
UNGAR-SARGON: Can I just ask a question? Did you guys have the same problem with the president authorizing strikes on the Houthis, on the grounds that Congress hadn't authorized this war? You didn't. Well, because we understand the president has a job, and his job is to protect the citizens of this country. We know that Tren de Aragua is deeply embedded in the Maduro regime. We know that there is --
PHILLIP: Actually, we don't know that.
UNGAR-SARGON: Of course, we know that.
PHILLIP: And actually there's reporting that even this administration analyzed that very question, and they found that actually Tren de Aragua was not being directed to come into the country by the Maduro regime. So, the idea that is --
(CROSSTALKS) UNGAR-SARGON: That's not what I said. But they're deeply embedded in the highest levels that government.
[22:25:02]
PHILLIP: Okay. Even if that were true, what is the distinction between strikes -- and this is actually a big question that the United States has faced many times, and many people will debate this, right? So, what's the distinction between strikes and whether the United States is actually at war with an entity or a nation? And there is a distinction.
Now nobody is saying here, Trump can't deport people, because, you know, Barack Obama deported a lot of people.
MILLS: And that's --
PHILLIP: Remember this, he deported a lot of people. And he did so based on the existing law. It is possible to do.
MILLS: That's not an applicable law.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: As the -- go ahead.
(CROSSTALKS)
MILLS: That law has to be used at wartime when there's an invasion.
JENNINGS: I'm sorry, but war's different than it was in 1812.
MILLS: No, we cannot use colloquialisms to say, oh, we're generally at war, where they're invading us.
JENNINGS: The Houthis are not a country and yet we're bombing them. That's not how it works anymore.
MILLS: Nobody is being invaded every day.
(CROSSTALKS)
MILLS: He has the ability to deport people, and he should, right? There were a lot of people coming in that should not be here. He has the right to do that. But he's trying to use this act to get around due process and the court is saying, this act does not apply. They're not telling him not to deport. They're saying, use the process that's in place because this act does not apply.
JENNINGS: As much bureaucracy and red tape as possible --
HINOJOSA: It's not bureaucracy.
(CROSSTALKS)
LATHAN: What we're trying to do is use the law, the law. I mean, look, is that such a big problem to say you have to do -- you can do things, but you have to do them lawfully? There's a process to --
JENNINGS: We think this is lawful.
LATHAN: But it's not, though.
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: One judge, one stupid judge, and I want to see what the rest of them --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I guess we have to remind everybody here that Trump appointed this judge.
JENNINGS: I don't care. Again --
PHILLIP: So, this is a Trump-appointed judge.
JENNINGS: He's not infallible. Judges make stupid decision all the time.
LATHAN: Well, okay, how about this? So, you say the judge is stupid. How do we know that the president is stupid?
JENNINGS: I'm sure that's your opinion.
LATHAN: Well, it certainly is.
JENNINGS: But he won the election.
LATHAN: So, what does that mean?
MILLS: I don't think anybody -- listen, I don't think anybody's stupid. I think all three branches have the right to operate the way they want. I think the president of the United States has the right to operate based on his opinion, because he's voted in. But the judicial branch has the right to interpret the meaning of the law the way they see it, to make proof a requirement, due process of requirement.
JENNINGS: This is a key question. What if another group of people, say, not illegal aliens, but just some other group from somewhere else actually came to the shores of the United States, not a nation, but say a group, any kind of group, and actually did come ashore and try to invade, I don't you what else you would call it, the United States, would you run to court and ask a federal judge if the president of the United States, can we defend the nation now? Can we stop it? It is. They're coming across the border.
HINOJOSA: You were also generalizing here. You were talking about -- yes, I agree with you. I agree with you, Scott.
JENNINGS: But what's the difference? What's the difference?
(CROSSTALKS) HINOJOSA: If they're gang members, and if they're killing or raping women in this country, they should absolutely be deported and there should be deportation orders and there should be a process and they should -- there is a process to deport them. You are saying that every person that is here illegally is raping people, and that is not true.
JENNINGS: You're lying.
HINOJOSA: Yes, you're saying they're all part of these gangs. They all -- they're invading our country. They're doing all these things. They're not.
LATHAN: You're certainly (INAUDIBLE).
JENNINGS: They're not all violent, but they're all criminals.
HINOJOSA: They're not all violent. And they -- everybody, whether they are 2 years old or whether they are 90 years old and have been in our country the entire time, they deserve a process. The criminals --
JENNINGS: I'm sorry, what process did they follow to get here? The process of breaking our laws?
HINOJOSA: Well, because there is a law, there are laws and there are deportation proceedings to get these people out of our country.
JENNINGS: Listen, how long do you want this to last?
HINOJOSA: The 99-year-old who was here did not invade our country.
PHILLIP: Batya, let me let you get a word in.
UNGAR-SARGON: Well, I just -- to me, like the energy in defense of these gang bangers --
HINOJOSA: I'm not -- I just said --
(CROSSTALKS)
UNGAR-SARGON: Like, first, they came for the guy who beats his wife and I said nothing, because I don't beat my wife. And then they came for the guy who said, I love killing Jews. And I said nothing because I don't love killing Jews. And now they came for the gang bangers, and I said nothing --
LATHAN: Sorry, can I say something real quick?
PHILLIP: Hold on a second.
LATHAN: You know why that triggers me? That triggers me because I come from a place where a whole bunch of people, they're American citizens, but they're thrown away. They're thrown away because they might have committed crimes, because they got in trouble when they were young. The only --
UNGAR-SARGON: You should be the angriest that they care about the gang bangers and not those people.
LATHAN: No. What I care about is that there's a system of laws that is supposed to protect the due process of those people. And that has to matter more than what --
UNGAR-SARGON: I am angry about that.
LATHAN: -- more than what society thinks about whatever they may have done.
[22:30:01]
PHILLIP: Hold on second.
UNGAR-SARGON: I don't know why the Democrats are not angry about that.
MILLS: So, why do you appeal for anybody else in that due process?
UNGAR-SARGON: Because they're not citizens, we do not owe them the same thing. It has to remain something to be an American.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Batya, hold on a second, I mean, I get the passion, but I really think it's important to really scrutinize what you just said.
The idea that people do not have the right to the processes of the law just because they are not citizens is your opinion, but that is not how the law works. You know that, right?
UNGAR-SARGON: The president has the right to deport people.
PHILLIP: No. Okay, answer my question. You understand that that is not how the law works, that it is not true, that just because your citizen status -- citizenship status, does not mean that you do not get the same rights to legal processes as everybody else in this country.
DONTE MILLS, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ATTORNEY, AND LAW PROF., TEMPLE UNIVERSITY BEASLEY SCHOOL OF LAW: Everyone should come here. Everyone should come here.
PHILLIP: Stop.
UNGAR-SARGON: I think that the country -- I'm answering your question. I'm answering your question. I'm answering your very specific question.
I think the country right now is very split. In fact, I just saw a poll yesterday from WIC, which was put out by 2A. The country is split almost 50-50 on this exact question.
How much due process, how much of our investment and our money and our courts and our time do we owe people who committed a felony as their first act on U.S. soil? The United States of America, the people of this country are currently asking themselves that question every single day. So what?
PHILLIP: The opinion -- Listen--
UNGAR-SARGON: And guess who's winning on it? It's Trump.
PHILLIP: I think that that's...
UNGAR-SARGON: Trump is still beating the Democrats on immigration, so he's winning this argument.
PHILLIP: Listen, I just want people to understand that your opinion about this, honestly the opinion of half of the United States about this, is totally fine and valid. But the question is, what does the law say about the question? And we do live in a nation of laws, and that has to mean something.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SR. POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: What should it say though?
PHILLIP: Listen, if you want...
JENNINGS: What should it say? What's the right thing to do?
UNGAR-SARGON: But he used the law.
PHILLIP: Hold on. If you want the law to say something different, you know what the process is? Amend the Constitution.
JENNINGS: I think the process is the president...
PHILLIP: Change the law.
JENNINGS: The president in his role as commander-in-chief is finding an existing law to try to protect us. And what if 20 million more come here? You'll never get them out.
PHILLIP: I know it feels like we went down a cul-de-sac on the law here, but that is fundamentally what this is, what we are talking about here together.
UNGAR-SARGON: But Trump didn't break the law. He used it.
JENNINGS: He didn't break the law.
UNGAR-SARGON: There was one judge. There's one judge.
JENNINGS: He used a law that does not apply to this.
UNGAR-SARGON: One judge ruled that. Of all the judges.
PHILLIP: But you are saying, essentially, that you don't like the way that the law is applied in this instance, and you would like to change it, which is fine.
UNGAR-SARGON: I'm not saying that. I'm saying every other district judge has ruled in Trump's favor on it.
MILLS: That's not true. That's not true.
That is absolutely not true. That is not true.
JENNINGS: On this case --
MILLS: Nobody, no other judge... Let me clarify this.
It's important. No other judge...
No other judge has issued an opinion on this specific issue.
UNGAR-SARGON: Yes. They've not ruled against it.
MILLS: No. What the Supreme Court said was the judge that it was in front of did not have the authority to make this decision. It wasn't in the right district, so he sent it to Texas.
This is the first judge that's ruled on this actual case of whether or not this rule or this law applies, the Enemies-Aliens Act, and they said it does not apply. This is the first time it was ruled on that.
PHILLIP: No other federal judges have issued provisional orders on this issue of whether and how, but really specifically how.
VAN LATHAN, PODCAST CO-HOST, "HIGHER LEARNING": It's a constitutional question, though, because they think...
PHILLIP: And how the Trump administration can deport these people.
JENNINGS: Because you all are debating the statutes and the judge's right to oversee a statute. What the Trump administration is arguing is that we have, this is a foreign policy issue, and we have sole right under the Constitution to execute American foreign policy, so they actually see themselves as above this conversation about individual judges micromanaging. The only thing that this act does is --
PHILLIP: And I think that's a novel interpretation. We got to go, but that's -- I mean, Scott --
JENNINGS: Yes, I mean, you've heard multiple officials say that.
PHILLIP: Scott, I think you would acknowledge this is a novel interpretation of...
JENNINGS: I would add proper as well.
PHILLIP: Okay. Novel interpretation of the use of this particular statute for immigration.
MILLS: And the only purpose of this use of this statute is to get around due process. Everything else is the same except for this statute, you don't need due process, and why do we want to get around that? You don't need to.
PHILLIP: Donte Mills, thank you, as always. Everyone else, stay with us.
Tonight, economists are predicting a tidal wave of hurt, and the clock is ticking, but the White House is shrugging off the warnings and talking about religion. We're going to debate that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, the economy keeps warning this presidency, and this presidency keeps shrugging its shoulders. McDonald's sees its worst quarter since COVID, G.M. says tariffs will cost them $5 billion this year, Apple says it'll cost them nearly a billion this quarter alone. The U.S. is weeks away from supply chain disruptions, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is pleading with Trump to save small businesses and prevent a recession.
The White House's response to this? Go fish.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Is the administration considering small business tariff relief?
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF-OF STAFF: The relief for small businesses is going to come in the form of the largest tax cut in American history.
REPORTER: So that's a no on tariff relief for small businesses in the short term?
MILLER: It's a yes on tax relief for small businesses.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: But don't worry. Should this expansive economic agenda fail to pass Congress, the president says he's got a backup plan. Prayer.
[22:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We love that bill. I won't like it if it doesn't pass. Neither will you.
If it doesn't pass, your taxes are going to go up 68 percent. So think of it, 68. And this is a religious ceremony to me, but that's part of the religion, because if your taxes go up 68 percent, you might give up your religion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Just living on a prayer, right, Batya?
UNGAR-SARGON: Prayer is always applicable. What about a plan? Do we have a plan? Is a plan an option, too? I don't know. Listen, the NASDAQ, the S&P 500, the Dow Jones, all up today, they've recovered everything that they lost since Liberation Day.
Things are actually going really well. This whole thing about G.M., the CEO saying that there's going to be a $5 billion cost to the tariffs. But she also said something very important.
She said, this will not be passed on to the consumer. So where is it going to come from, you might wonder. Well, they brought down their projections, not projections for profit --
PHILLIP: All of it will be caught--
UNGAR-SARGON: No, she said none of it will be passed on to the consumer, that this will come out of the profits.
They projected $14 billion profits. They're taking that projection down to $10 billion. This is what we want.
PHILLIP: Okay, wait.
UNGAR-SARGON: This is what we want.
We want tariffs. We want manufacturing. We want the billionaires to pay their fair share, and we want the cost not to be passed on to consumers. And that's what we're seeing.
Such a great example.
PHILLIP: Hold on, let me just try to understand this. So G.M.'s profits will decrease probably significantly as a result of this. Let's take that.
UNGAR-SARGON: But I'm telling you what they said.
PHILLIP: I know, I'm just saying. Okay, let's take that to the next. What do you think is going to happen when G.M.'s profits suddenly drop? What will happen to G.M. and the people that work there?
UNGAR-SARGON: The CEO herself, Mary Barra, thanked President Trump for this because she is a patriot, and she understands that the situation we're in with China is not sustainable.
PHILLIP: Shareholders would like to have a word.
UNGAR-SARGON: We sold out our future to China. Somebody had to do something about that.
PHILLIP: Shareholders would like to have a word.
LATHAN: So the corporation's going to take less money. They're going to eat the profits out of the sense of patriotism.
UNGAR-SARGON: It's so great to hear Democrats suddenly being so pro- corporation and pro-corporate profits. It's amazing.
LATHAN: No. Actually, to be honest with you, I'm not being pro- corporation.
I'm actually being pro-people because what's bad for the corporation is going to be bad for the worker. Now, look, I couldn't care less about --
JENNINGS: Sound like Mitt Romney over here.
LATHAN: Listen. I'll be honest with you. I couldn't care less about any of the corporations.
JENNINGS: Corporations are people, my friend.
LATHAN: They're not.
PHILLIP: Just listen to what I'm saying. It's like upside down world.
LATHAN: It is. But I couldn't care about any of the corporations that were just listed, but what I do care about is the fact that I know a lot of people who own small businesses, and a lot of those people rely on, like, durable supply chains, and they are worried about what's going to happen.
A guy I know runs a business called Actively Black. He makes sportswear. He gets a lot of his stuff from overseas.
He is looking at the end of his business if something doesn't happen soon. And there are Americans that are looking at the end of their businesses throughout this summer and the next six months all over this country. And it's just a fact.
We can act like it's something else, but that's actually true. What happens to those people?
UNGAR-SARGON: I don't dispute that we have gotten addicted to cheap stuff from China, but we paid an enormous price for it. China owns almost a trillion dollars of our debt.
That means our grandkids are going to be paying off the interest on that debt in exchange for what? A bunch of tchotchkes. It's unsustainable. We have to make a change.
And this president had the guts to do it.
PHILLIP: So you're, look, Trump is changing things for sure. Here's what's happening for consumers.
This is the "New York Times."
"The reason consumers haven't felt the effects yet is because it takes 20 to 40 days for a container ship to go all the way across the Pacific Ocean. Then it takes another 10 days for Chinese goods to make their way by train or truck to cities across the country. The major effects on the U.S. economy of shutting down trade with China will become apparent summer 2025 when the United States might slip into recession. That's according to an economist at Apollo."
So right about the time when Americans start to feel it, it might actually be too late to stop the country from tipping right into a recession.
JENNINGS: What could happen between now and then? The president and Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary and the team, are currently negotiating dozens of trade deals with the 17 to 20 countries that actually matter. They are also obviously talking to the Chinese government as well.
So I think you can't discount the idea that trade deals and negotiations and announcements could be made between now and then. That's number one.
Number two, back to the issue of Congress, failure is not an option. And as a message to the Republicans, you have to pass the president's agenda. You have to cut taxes for the American people.
And it's good policy, but it's also good politics. Right now, the biggest bright line, and you're going to see this argued for weeks between the Republicans and the Democrats, other than immigration, which is huge, is on taxes.
President Trump wants to cut them. The Democrats want to raise them, and the Republicans need to get behind the commander in chief and do it.
[22:45:01]
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, no. Democrats do not want to raise taxes.
Democrats do not want to raise taxes. I just want to say that right there.
PHILLIP: Well, they want to raise taxes on rich people.
UNGAR-SARGON: Well, on rich people.
HINOJOSA: So, I mean, like your friends like Elon Musk and Donald Trump and all of those people.
JENNINGS: What people? Give me an idea.
HINOJOSA: Like your friends, like Elon Musk. They are the ones.
JENNINGS: Agree. My friend. But who else? I'm just trying to decide.
Who's rich?
HINOJOSA: Who's rich? Your friends. JENNINGS: No, this is the big problem for Democrats. These are your
friends. You can never define who's rich.
HINOJOSA: I'm telling you exactly. Your friends.
JENNINGS: Because when you come right down to it, what Democrats believe is that anyone who pays taxes is rich enough to have an increase. If you vote against this bill, then you will, the president, the tax cuts will expire and everybody with a job who pays taxes, their tax will go up.
That is a Democrat position. Is it not?
PHILLIP: Well, can I ask a question? Because both of you mentioned this. What happens when the U.S. economy is slowing and then Congress votes to raise the deficit by trillions of dollars? And so now we have more debt. How does that work? I mean, how does that make us put us in a better fiscal position?
JENNINGS: I think, well, first of all, they do need to restrain spending. I've been talking about this for months.
I think we ought to go back to the pre-COVID spending levels. They probably won't get there. But we need to have a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts, and that's what they're trying to find.
PHILLIP: It sounds like what they're doing is just adding more and more to the proverbial Christmas tree. No taxes on anything, but they don't want to pay for a single part of it. That I feel like, to your point about grandchildren -- children and grandchildren inheriting the debt, they are ladening more generations with even more debt and then also at the same time putting on the table the possibility of a major slowdown economically.
UNGAR-SARGON: So we are generating revenue from the 10 percent global tariffs right now, although of course we're going to be making those trade deals. We don't know what's going to happen with that.
I think Scott and I disagree on this. I think they should raise taxes on the rich. I don't understand why that's not consistent with the president's promises to the middle class.
JENNINGS: I hate it when you break my heart. I love you.
I love you so much. And I really do. But occasionally you break my heart.
LATHAN: No taxes.
UNGAR-SARGON: The math doesn't make sense.
PHILLIP: That's a mic drop moment. We'll just leave that there.
Coming up next for us, the panel is going to give us their nightcaps. They'll tell us their dream celebrity encounter inspired by a story from Ben Affleck. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: We are back and it's time for the news nightcap, dream celebrity encounter edition.
Ben Affleck was on the Kelsey Brothers podcast that he gushed about playing catch with former Patriots quarterback Tom Brady while on vacation. Affleck called it the greatest day of his life, aside from the birth of his children.
So you each have 30 seconds to tell us what would your dream celebrity encounter be? Batya, you're up first.
UNGAR-SARGON: With apologies to Scott, I would love to meet AOC.
I think that she is really smart and really genuine. And I don't agree with her about anything, but I think I could convince her that I'm right about things. Or at least I would like the opportunity to try.
JENNINGS: I'm literally in distress. I'm literally in distress over here.
PHILLIP: You know, one day I'm going to make this, you know, encounter happen. I just feel like that would be so interesting.
HINOJOSA: I would like to be away from here and be on the Cowboy Carter tour with Beyonce. That just seems like the best thing that could potentially happen.
PHILLIP: 200 percent. I would die at Blue Lady.
LATHAN: I've met so many celebrities just doing my job. I'm sorry, it's like super, I'm sorry guys, it's a lot less interesting than you guys actually think it is.
But there's one, Sammy Davis Jr. If I could party with Sammy Davis Jr., I'd say 1967, which is not an ideal time for me. But if I could party with him during that time, the Rat Pack, I would be done.
PHILLIP: That sounds like a wild time.
JENNINGS: So, the true answer I should give on behalf of, I surveyed all the males in this room and they asked me to invite Sidney Sweeney to the fifth chair. But barring my ability to get that done, the true answer is, it's been suggested to me by the people on the internet, that I get some inspiration from Jim Halpert from the office on some of my reaction shots.
And I thought I might throw out that John Krasinski and I could meet at my favorite show and discuss the correct way to look into a camera when something is happening that you think is wild. So, anyway, John, if you want to come on someday and we can discuss this. UNGAR-SARGON: Twinning.
JENNINGS: Let's do it. It would be pretty funny.
PHILLIP: This is very good. Okay. That's going to go viral.
Okay, everyone. Thank you very much.
We are now learning what the Army is planning for a parade on Donald Trump's birthday. Think tanks, choppers, and thousands of soldiers.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, is it a party for the Army or for Donald Trump's birthday? The A.P. revealing plans for a potential military parade in Washington next month with big party favors. More than 6000 soldiers, thousands of civilian tanks, choppers, bands, and to top it all off, fireworks. It is, in fact, the Army's 250th anniversary, which also happens to fall on Trump's 79th birthday.
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media platforms, X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
