Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Involved In Talks To Potentially Suspend Habeas Corpus; Democratic Mayor Arrested At ICE Facility During Protests; Trump Pushes For Taxes On Wealth, It's A Redistribution; Trump Lowers Tariffs On China; Airport Chaos Continues. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired May 09, 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 HOST (voice over): Tonight, while Democrats protest Donald Trump's lawfare --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president of the United States is running roughshod over the Constitution.
PHILLIP: -- the White House considers doubling down and suspending due process.
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: It's an option we're actively looking at.
PHILLIP: Plus, the buck stops with who? Trump blinks before China even takes a seat at the table.
Also --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you care about this, contact your airline and try to get some pressure for them to fix this stuff.
PHILLIP: -- another scare in the skies puts Trump's T.V. cabinet into the real world.
And as Nirvana declared, entertain us. Should liberals be looking for candidates less like Tom and more like Jerry?
Live at the table, Kristin Davison, Joel Rubin, Neera Tanden and Jim Schultz.
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 Washington.
Let's get right to what America's talking about, a constitutional hall pass. An extraordinary moment tonight, President Trump is involved in talks to potentially suspend the writ of habeas corpus, a constitutional provision that protects people from unlawful detainment. In other words, it allows them a say in court before judgment.
Due process, if you will, which we've been talking a lot about on this show, they are floating this over the president's mass deportations as more and more judges slap down his efforts. So, why is this a big deal? Well, it's only happened four times in American history, the Civil War, reconstruction, the Philippines Insurrection and Pearl Harbor, and it has never been used in immigration matters. But according to Stephen Miller, they consider the border to be equal to those times.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MILLER: Well, the Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So, it's an option we're actively looking at.
Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts would do the right thing or not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Joining us at the table is Brad Moss. He is a national security attorney. And, Brad, the way that he's describing it, he makes it seem as if the Supreme Court says, well, you know, you can do this when X, Y, and Z, you know, happens. But the way that the Constitution is written on this matter is basically like do not do this except in extraordinary circumstances, which is really not how he's conveying it there.
BRAD MOSS, NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY: Yes. Tell me if you're shocked. Voldemort's not giving the full truth here. No. The Constitution sets forth the idea that this is a rare power to be exercised. This was put in place by the founders because this is what Britain used to do to us. This is what the king used to do. It was detention without trial, detention without charges. It is laid out in the Constitution that can only be suspended in the case of war or invasion when public safety requires it. Not just war or invasion but when public safety requires it.
That's why it got struck down in the Civil War. That's why it got struck down during global war on terror during the Bush years. They could never make the argument whether it was done by the president himself, which got struck down in Civil War, or Congress when they tried to do it through Bush. It could never survive scrutiny. It's not meant to be this safety hall pass.
PHILLIP: And Trump has successfully, Jim, shut down the border. So, what's the invasion?
JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: Well, that's what I mean. They'd have to make the argument, the invasion happened, right, and that they're basing it -- and that, one, that this is an invasion, two, that the invasion happened. Does this really apply to an invasion that happened? It's an uphill battle, no doubt about it. And it's purposefully, you know, placed in Article 1, which governs Congress. So, this is certainly something that falls within the power of Congress to make that determination.
Lincoln got a lot of challenge over that and there was a lot of controversy over it when Lincoln did it and he did it without Congress. The rest of the times it was done with Congress, Congress did effectuate it. So, it's going to be -- it's an uphill battle. There's --
PHILLIP: You advise him against -- I mean obviously they're having these conversations in private.
SCHULTZ: What they're doing is they're in Office of Legal Counsel at Department of Justice and try to get an opinion. They're sable- rattling to the court right now to say, look, we don't like what you're doing, we don't like that you're using habeas time and time again to protect folks that we're trying to deport.
[22:05:06]
And this is them telling the courts we're going to look at other options. That's what they're trying to do.
PHILLIP: So, Kristin, I'm just curious because I think a lot of Republicans are like Democrats are so hyperbolic about all the things that Trump is going to do or whatever, but then Trump comes out and says, oh, I want to be able to detain people without due process. I want to basically defy what's kind of plainly written in the Constitution. It makes some of the, quote/unquote, hyperbole seem a lot less hyperbolic.
KRISTIN DAVISON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Not really. I mean, the president didn't come out and say he wanted to suspend habeas corpus. He didn't talk about it today. It was an adviser basically talking about it as a hypothetical. And from his position, why -- you know, they don't want to close any option, but I actually think it's a little bit more, you know, calculated than that. It's really let's have Democrats say that we haven't had an invasion by illegal immigrants.
I'll take that as a strategist. We'll take that argument all day long because that's an 80-20 issue. Democrat voters believe illegal --
MOSS: Which state? What's being controlled by someone under the U.S. government?
DAVISON: (INAUDIBLE) in November of 2024, the election wasn't won because the majority of Americans believe we have an illegal immigration problem?
MOSS: No, I think it was because of inflation, but that's just me.
DAVISON: I don't think so. It was number one.
PHILLIP: I think that illegal immigration was certainly an issue, but as I pointed out to Jim, Trump has succeeded. He has shut the border down. There are no border crossings virtually happening right now in this country.
NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: You can't -- he did shut down the border last June. You could say he did it too late, but he did do it. And actually all I hear from Republicans is that they've been successful at shutting down the border. You can't have it both ways. It can't be you shut down the border and everyone's safe because Donald Trump is president and he shut down the border and we get to and basically rewrite the rules.
And I have to say this idea that they're just floating it and that's okay, I mean, we used to live in a country where conservatives would say we don't like government overreach. I can't think of a more vivid example of government overreach than saying we can basically put people in jail without access to court. He didn't say for immigrants or anyone. He said, we're going to -- we are considering suspending habeas corpus rights.
And I have to say, with all due respect, the good thing about America is 57, 60, 65 percent, depending on the poll of Americans, think it is wrong due suspend due process rights, even for immigrants who've recently arrived, even for people who are undocumented.
So, this is a losing argument, and I think it's unfortunate that conservatives have sort of ignored their own views of constitutional limitations and individual liberty to basically protect this president.
PHILLIP: So, let me play something on a related topic of immigration that happened today in New Jersey. This is the scene outside of an ICE detention facility.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Back off. Stop shoving.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Don't put your hands on me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: That woman in the red is a United States congresswoman. The mayor of Newark was detained. And I find this very interesting because you kind of alluded to this, a strategy of showboating to, quote, President Trump, because he likes to use that term, not necessarily by the Democrats, by DHS, because here is what Mayor Ras Baraka said happened, the series of events, and this is perhaps contested by the administration, but here's his side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR RAS BARAKA (D-NEWARK, NJ): ICE made after a while, made a determination after somebody came and said that we shouldn't be there and began to -- after they told us to leave, we left and they began to arrest -- try to arrest me. I shouldn't say us. They targeted me. I was in there for over an hour, not a single person, not an officer from ICE, not any of the security guards, nobody told me to leave that place. Somebody from Homeland Security came in the end and began to escalate the situation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, let me just explain real quick and then I'll let you jump in. He is saying that they were already in the ICE facility conducting a rally for over an hour. No one asked them to leave. When they did ask them to leave, they did leave, and then they came to arrest him. So, that contradicts what DHS is saying occurred here. And also it is notable that they clearly knew they couldn't arrest the Congress people who are lawfully allowed to be there, so they went for the mayor.
SCHULTZ: So, he trespasses on private property, conducts a rally on private property, is taken -- and is asked to leave private property and the crime didn't occur?
[22:10:04]
He trespassed.
MOSS: Private, what? It's a public --
SCHULTZ: This is a geo company-owned facility used by the federal government. And, by the way --
(CROSSTALKS)
SCHULTZ: No. As mayor of a state, he doesn't just get to walk in anywhere he wants unannounced to just say, hey, I'm here, I'm going to protest, I have a right to do it.
PHILLIP: Let me add a little bit more context so just to tell people what he's saying occurred. The Congress people, there were three members of Congress who were there, who planned a press conference and a rally and invited him to attend that press conference in a rally. He did. They held the rally in that location. So, in other words, there were people who planned it, it wasn't him, who were authorized to be there.
SCHULTZ: He's invited by a member of Congress who has no ability to invite the mayor, who has no standing to be there to begin with into a private facility that is used by the federal government. He's a mayor of a city and all of a sudden, like he's just allowed to come in to protest.
DAVISON: He wouldn't be doing an interview tonight if he had not been --
SCHULTZ: He's running for governor.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second.
DAVISON: So, you wouldn't have had him on if he didn't go through all that and tell his story.
PHILLIP: Well, yes, I think that's a great point about how this moment may backfire in a way on the administration, because it's free press for him. He's absolutely getting a lot of attraction out of this, but --
TANDEN: Okay. I have to say, first of all, this detention facility is being paid for by taxpayer dollars. It's not just --
SCHULTZ: And so the mayor of the city can just show up and do whatever he wants?
TANDEN: I'm sorry. They are actually detaining people there. They have a legitimate right to protest inside. They went inside --
SCHULTZ: Reasonable time, place, manner, location?
TANDEN: Yes. He was outside. He was outside. They arrested him when he was outside the facility.
PHILLIP: I think that point is very important, Jim. I mean, no, seriously. Like I really want --
TANDEN: Is it okay to have just really arrest mayors? Would it be okay?
PHILLIP: I really want you to address that because this idea that they were inside at a certain point and they were never told while they were inside. If this is true, they were never told to leave. And then when they were told to leave, they did, in fact, follow the directive and leave. So why arrest him other than to make it a scene (ph)?
SCHULTZ: He wasn't invited. He wasn't supposed to be there.
PHILLIP: Okay. But if he left --
SCHULTZ: He was invited by a member of Congress who has no ability to invite a private citizen to come into that facility.
PHILLIP: If he left, why arrest him?
TANDEN: He was outside when they arrested him.
SCHULTZ: Okay. Someone goes into a store, steal something --
TANDEN: He didn't steal anything.
SCHULTZ: Crime happens, right? So, I'm using an analogy. I'm not saying he stole anything. Let's use this analogy for a second.
TANDEN: If Joe Biden arrested --
SCHULTZ: So, let me finish. So, someone goes into a store, he steals something goes outside and says, oh, I want to give this back. The crime never occurred?
PHILLIP: Did he steal something?
SCHULTZ: No. But I'm saying like you're telling me the crime of trespass never occurred.
(CROSSTALKS)
TANDEN: No, he did nothing.
PHILLIP: I'm not suggesting --
MOSS: The moment he left out (INAUDIBLE).
PHILLIP: Exactly.
SCHULTZ: So, the trespass --
PHILLIP: Hold on a second.
SCHULTZ: Someone comes on my property and trespasses.
PHILLIP: Guys, one at a time, one at a time. Hold on a second.
SCHULTZ: That never happened?
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Hold on, Neera, just a second. Let me just -- let's just, one by one, address this.
Jim, if somebody comes onto your lawn and you say, please get off my lawn, and that person gets off your lawn, would you then have them --
SCHULTZ: I call the police and say, get off the lawn. Yes, they should be arrested.
PHILLIP: Okay. So, if -- all right. No, seriously --
TANDEN: Partaking in a protest on your lawn.
PHILLIP: I actually really think though, this is a real scenario, right? Someone comes on your lawn, you say, get off my lawn. They get off your lawn, and then the police comes, and then the police looks at you and they say, okay, he's off your lawn. So, why are you calling us?
TANDEN: I think it's even different from that. I think that's the right analogy. I would just add, actually, this is much more like you are the person on your lawn, is like you are -- they're a taxpayer that's actually paying for what you're doing in your property. I mean, the thing that's different about this --
DAVISON: This is the best day of that mayor's campaign.
TANDEN: It doesn't matter.
DAVISON: This is the best day of -- TANDEN: No, I'm sorry.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I just want her to finish.
TANDEN: I just want to say, I think this is really offensive. This person was put into prison, okay? He was jailed or he was arrested.
DAVISON: He was detained.
TANDEN: He was detained.
PHILLIP: He was detained. He was not in prison.
SCHULTZ: He's on television tonight.
TANDEN: He was in front of a judge. He said it's harrowing. I think it's really just interesting that we're just like dismissing the experience of the fact that the U.S. attorney, a political activist, maybe I would call her a hack, is going after, on targeting people who are political opponents of the administration.
[22:15:04]
I think that is very dangerous. And I would say again --
PHILLIP: Okay. I got to -- hold on. I got to let Kristin in because she's been waiting. Kristin, go ahead.
DAVISON: No, thank you. I mean, I understand and I just really think there are -- I mean, these guys were not innocent. They're protesting and then like all of a sudden we're supposed to feel bad. This is literally the best day of their campaign. That guy is going to -- his name I.D. all of a sudden is go whoop, right in the Democrat Party.
PHILLIP: I think this is where we come back to the question of sort of what are we doing here? Basic rights, right? So, first of all, the members of Congress, they could be there, for sure. We know that, for sure. But the protest aspect of it, I think, is a question, like are you allowed to protest? Are you even allowed to protest in places where people don't want you to protest sometimes, because that has happened before?
And, you know, I mean, he's asked to leave, he does leave. So, then you arrest -- you come and you arrest him with -- this is according to Bob Menendez, the junior. He says 20 armed individuals. Yes. He's a member of Congress. 20 armed individuals confronted him. I just think that this -- qualitatively, this is a question about what are we doing here.
DAVISON: I mean, it didn't look very peaceful. It didn't look very calm. It looked like --
TANDEN: You don't know which side was accelerating, right? You don't know if it's -- (CROSSTALKS)
SCHULTZ: All we know is someone came in that was invited to be there. They were asked to leave. They left and then he was arrested.
PHILLIP: The Congress people were the ones protesting the most vociferously because they knew that they had a right to be there and they probably did not want to be removed. And also they were accusing the ICE officials of physically assaulting them actually in that process.
Brad, I'll give you the last word.
MOSS: I'm going to say, with the masks on, when did suddenly this become the thing of everybody on this, on the right, that they wanted to wear masks? Aren't they proud of what they're doing here? You're pushing down, you know, people committing crimes. Suddenly, we have to wear masks to risk, you know, take people off the street. We have to wear masks to hustle a mayor into a police car? This is what we're at now. No, this is shows of force. This is their desire to show strength. This is the party of I voted with the convicted felon saying, oh, by the way, none of that mattered. Now, we care about law and order.
PHILLIP: All right, we got to leave it there. Brad Moss, thank you very much for joining us. Everyone else, don't go anywhere.
Up next, the right has spent decades accusing Democrats of trying to redistribute wealth. Well, tonight, that actually came out of Donald Trump mouth. He wants to tax the rich. Another special guest is going to join us to debate this political earthquake.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, a head-spinning political moment. President Trump is openly pushing for higher taxes on rich Americans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Is you're giving up something up top in order to make people in the middle income and the lower income brackets save more. So, it's really a redistribution, and I'm willing to do it if they want. I actually think it's good politics to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, if that sounds like it's coming out of left field, that's because it is. For a second, he might've thought you were on the campaign trail with Biden and Harris, or maybe even the Fight the Oligarchy rally with Bernie Sanders and AOC. But, no, that came from the Republican President of the United States, an idea that is antithetical to the party as it has existed for decades.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: Redistributing wealth, but focus instead on how to create it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And, yes, we're not going to be redistributing wealth.
FMR. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): He believes in redistributing wealth. That means taking money from one group of Americans and giving it to another.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Joel Rubin is with us at the table. I wish I could have had a camera on Jim's face when that Trump sound bite was playing. What was going through your head?
SCHULTZ: Well, when you hear distribution, you guys did a nice job kind of going through history on redistribution of wealth, but I do think it's important. This is on folks that make over $2.5 million a year. You're not talking about people who are making $200,000 a year, $400,000 a year.
PHILLIP: So, thumbs up, you're good?
SCHULTZ: This is $2.5 million per year that he's looking to increase taxes on.
I think it's going to be a very difficult hurdle to get something like that through Congress, but I also think it's a message that Grover Norquist isn't controlling this administration, right? The no tax pledge isn't going to -- is something that Donald Trump isn't open to anymore. So, I think it opens the door to a big discussion for working class people.
PHILLIP: Are you good, $2.5 million, maybe $5 million for couples trying to increase taxes.
DAVISON: I'm anti-tax all the time, geared (ph) of all the taxes. So, you know, personally, no, I don't agree with taxes. But I don't think that's what the president's saying. This is a negotiating tactic. But I also think the populism he found, hold on, came from you had years of the establishment of both sides neglecting the middle and lower classes in the country, and Trump was able to tap into that, tap into people who felt neglected.
I mean, 50 years ago people would put in their, you know, obituaries where they worked because they cared about their company. They felt like they were making money, and that does not happen anymore. They're forgotten. And both parties, frankly. You know, yes, Bernie does a rally, but he didn't win your primary. You fixed it for Hillary Clinton.
PHILLIP: Who's he negotiating with?
DAVISON: So -- the Congress. I mean --
PHILLIP: No, his own party?
DAVISON: With both. There are going to be blue lines (ph).
PHILLIP: I mean, Democrats, to be honest, I mean -- okay, we've got some Democrats here.
[22:25:00]
I think you all would take that, right?
JOEL RUBIN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Yes. It's a win. It's a win. It's our policy. It's a win. Thank you. The president understands that the politics are on our side on this issue. Think he wants to have his cake and eat too, quite frankly. He wants to say he's for this while knowing that it's not going to happen because the Republicans on the Hill are not going to go for it. I don't think Grover's lost that much influence amongst them. And, you know, look, this is a policy. We do need a tax code here that does tax the extreme wealthy in this country.
How are we just going to keep on running red deep deficits again and again and again? Are we going to try to balance this budget?
DAVISON: So, who -- which, you know, prince or princess in the Democrat Party is going to stand up and say, I'm with President Trump, I'm coming together?
(CROSSTALKS)
TANDEN: Look, I think this is like a fascinating thing, right? Because every Republican senator already voted against his policy. In the budget, in the first budget reconciliation, Democrats put up amendments saying, you know, don't -- you know we like every tax cut except for tax cuts for people over a million dollars. And every Republican voted no. They raised it up to $5 million. Every Republican voted no. They raised it to a billion, you know, just no tax cuts for people over a billion, every Republican voted no.
So, the problem for him is his party. But I will say, I'm standing here happily saying I think Donald Trump is absolutely right, that we should tax wealthy Americans more and not cut Medicaid. I mean, that's the decision. Right now, Republicans in Congress are trying to take away people's healthcare, children's healthcare. There's data that children will be the largest number of people who lose healthcare from their plans. Take away healthcare from children in order to pay for a tax cut for billionaires.
PHILLIP: I have to -- I want to play this just because Lord knows we may have forgotten this. Do you remember Joe, the plumber? Okay. Well, let's play what Joe the plumber said about this way back in the day of 2008.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: His answer actually scared me even more.
REPORTER: How so?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He said he wants to distribute wealth. And, I mean, you know, I'm not trying to make statements here, but I mean, that's kind of a socialist viewpoint. You know, I worked for that. You know, it's my discretion who I want to give my money to. It's not the government's decide that I make a little too much, and so I need to share it with other people. I just -- that's not the American dream.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I mean, the word redistribute wealth, like I cannot believe that Trump used that word. Does he not understand how politically charged that is for Republicans?
DAVISON: Well, here's the thing what everyone gets wrong about Trump. I mean, he's not held to those same political standards, right? So, no one is here -- you know, no one in Ohio or anywhere tonight is saying, oh my gosh, he used that word.
Now, I do think that Democrats are going to be, you know, having a message conflict here, because you can't say that congressional Republicans do whatever Donald Trump says, and then here sit at the same table and say they are disagreeing with him. It's healthy. We should disagree on policy to get to a better ending. It happens all the time. It happened with President Bush. It happened with President Reagan. It happened -- literally, it is healthy to represent your district and your state, and so to say that Republicans just do whatever Donald Trump says, and now say they disagree.
TANDEN: I'm happy to argue -- I'm really happy to argue they do everything Donald Trump wants, except when it comes to the billionaires, easy message for me. It's totally easy.
SCHULTZ: Something like Josh Hawley, right? Senator Hawley said, look, I would be for some measure of tax increases if you increase the child tax credit, right?
PHILLIP: Yes.
TANDEN: Great.
SCHULTZ: Pretty good policy, right?
PHILLIP: And it's really interesting because, I mean, what Hawley is proposing is what you described, but he's saying, let's also protect the social safety net. Let's also cut taxes for people who are making less money. And where are the Democrats actually saying, hey, like let's put our money where our mouth is and let's call the bluff of Republicans? I feel like I haven't heard anything from Democrats.
RUBIN: Well, that's because, quite frankly, it's just hot air. I mean, that's the thing that we're looking at right now from the president.
PHILLIP: You don't think he's legitimate about that?
RUBIN: No, I don't think he -- he didn't put in his proposal and his skinny budget. He's not advocating --
PHILLIP: I'm talking about Hawley, sorry.
RUBIN: Oh, yes, Josh Hawley. He doesn't have any real authority on the Hill on these issues. He's not on the committees that write the tax code. So, you know, he is pushing forward some ideas, but he's on an island right now himself.
But I think with what Neera is saying, look, Democrats are more than happy to have a tax code that actually does tax people in the upper income brackets that need to be taxed in the manner that helps to balance our budget and pay for needy programs like Medicaid insured, we have Medicare foreign aid, for example. All of these cuts that DOGE allegedly made are in order to pay for a tax cut. That's craziness.
So, Hawley gets it but I don't think there's anything real in (INAUDIBLE).
SCHULTZ: The only the Democrat I've heard raise her hand and say, yes, I'm all for Donald Trump is the Democrats sitting next to me, right?
[22:30:01]
TANDEN: Only on this issue. Only on this issue.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: One quick note. One quick note, because this weekend's a big weekend on trade. You know, they're sitting down with China for the first time. And it is fascinating to me that Donald Trump, let's just play real quick what he said, about what he wants Scott Bessent or has authorized Scott Bessent to do this weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Mr. President, have you given Bessent a number of how low you're willing to go?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yeah. I am.
UNKNOWN: What's the number?
TRUMP: But I put out a number today, 80 percent, so we'll see how that all works.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, you're telling me that he raised tariffs to 145 percent to try to push China into a corner. And then before even walking into the negotiating room, he backs off his own number.
JOEL RUBIN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Running away from his pocket.
PHILLIP: Art of the deal. Kristin, Jim -- SCHULTZ: China had their heels dug in. Heels dug in on this. And then now all of a sudden, heels are coming undug. So, he's doing the same -- look, I may be reasonable as well.
PHILLIP: They have done nothing. You know, they have done nothing. They -- they, okay, because --because Trump begged. He begged for a meeting and they said, yes. And in the meantime --
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIN: Stop cheating with yourself right now.
PHILLIP: In the meantime, they have said, here's what we're going to give you. Nothing.
KRISTIN DAVISON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yeah.
PHILLIP: And Trump has said, okay. I'm going to just lower it to 80 percent then.
RUBIN: Well, that's not what he should do. That's not what he should do.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: And I got to come to the table with something real that's going to stay where it is.
DAVISON: Yeah. He had a part of his team to go there and make a deal. And frankly, we've had politicians serve in these positions for our entire lifetime. To have a businessman who actually knows how to get this done, we can sit here all day long and say, oh, he's caving.
I mean, it was just probably a month ago, everyone at this table was saying the stock market is going to crash, the worst one ever, and it's fine. And things are going -- I don't think much.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: It's not fine.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: I guess it's -- I always say, I think it's kind of amazing to actually argue that he is a smart businessman, he knows how to do these things. I've been in part negotiations -- I've never been in negotiations with China, but I've been in negotiations in the government, and I have never ever, ever seen a White House, an administration, put up a number, say this is our policy, and then themselves literally put it in half without getting anything in return.
And I have to say, it will -- it's a demonstration of weakness to China. It will strengthen China to do nothing, and I think the lesson to China is the less you do, the more he will come off the table. Why? Why? He will he will basically back down. Why? Because he knows the shelves are going to be empty for the children's dolls. And he thinks, and I think, hopefully, he realizes the message that kids should only have two dolls instead of 30 is anti- American. And that's why I think he caved. He's already pre- caving and why this is perhaps one of the worst negotiations I've ever seen.
PHILLIP: I don't think anyone is on China's side on this, except that Trump could have approached this in a way that actually did put them on their heels by allying the world against China, and that has not happened. Instead, he is going into a meeting having already caved.
I think even the most -- anyone understands that that is not a sign of strength, right? So, we'll see what happens as a result of this meeting, but they've signaled to China one thing and that's we really want to and maybe absolutely need to back off of this. So, help us.
RUBIN: Well, that might be the reason you know, Abby. I served in the state department for a number of years, and, you know, I like to describe this as a war on the global economy. What he's done is he's declared war on our allies and our friends.
To your point, we do not have anybody in our corner right now. We are on our own on an island, and he knows it, and he's beating a retreat, and he's begging other countries to please, please make deals with us. The deal with the U.K. is a nothing burger.
It's not even written yet. It -- it's a very minimal deal, and that's with a country that we had a surplus towards. So, with China, he's going to these negotiations playing very weekend, and he knows it.
PHILLIP: All right, guys. Stay with us. Coming up next, it's a disaster in the making. Another chilling blackout at Newark Airport where the tower lost contact with planes. Is this the Trump administration's welcome to governing moment? We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:38:52]
PHILLIP: Tonight, the airport chaos continues. For the second time in two weeks, air traffic controllers at Newark Liberty Airport lost radar and radio. The blackout occurred just before 4 A.M. this morning, and controllers could neither see planes nor communicate with them for nearly 90 seconds.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: FedEx 1989. I'm going to hand you off here. Our scopes just went black again. If you care about this, contact the airline and try to get some pressure for them to fix this stuff. New York departure now 120-8.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced a major overhaul of the nation's air traffic control system, but Donald Trump is pointing fingers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: When they took over Buttigieg, who has no clue, they spent like $40 billion -- $40 billion and what they did is they made it worse.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, that's predictably Trump, but this is a big problem and it's not one that was created in the last year or the last four years or anything like that. It almost seems like Sean Duffy had, kind of like a come to Jesus moment. Listen to this before and after between yesterday and today.
[22:40:02)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN DUFFY, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: When he was a secretary, I -- I'm not sure that they actually showed up to the office. In the Trump administration, listen, we don't pass problems off to the next administration. I work with Congress.
The question becomes not -- this is, by the way, this is bipartisan. And you -- you watch the fights in Congress. There's a lot to disagree on. This is one that everyone agrees on. Republicans and Democrats, all of our families fly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Or maybe it's just a question of Fox News versus CBS, which has a broader audience, but I don't think Americans want partisan knifing in a moment like this when they're just scared to go to the airport.
DAVISON: No. I -- I think that's right, you know, but I will say there are plenty of Democrats out there right now saying why isn't Trump-- why is he letting this happen? Why didn't Secretary Duffy fix this? It's okay to acknowledge that this has been a long going problem and that the last administration did get, you know, government watchdog reports saying that there were issues with air traffic controllers. It's okay to acknowledge that this is a long problem.
That's how you fix it. And so, you know, I'm not -- there's no one side here that's pointing finger -- not pointing fingers. They -- they all are. I think, Secretary Duffy's approach, reminding people that we all fly, is the -- the way to look at this. And, again, if a Democrat is going to hit the secretary for this happening, it's okay. You know, we should remind people how long this problem has been going on.
RUBIN: Well, you know, I -- I mean, I agree with you, Kristin, but I got to say, in the bigger picture, this is one more reminder about why it's crucial to have a government that functions, a civil service that functions, where -- a workforce at the FAA that feels confident and it's not looking over its shoulders that they're going to get "DOGEd" and fired like we saw a couple of months ago. You know, I -- I served in government, and I'm telling you, I talk to
a lot of people who are losing their jobs right now, who are dedicated public servants. They're losing their jobs. If you're an air traffic controller right now, you're in a panic every day. Will this be the day that they DOGE us? And so, you add that to the technology, and there is a crisis, and it was predictable.
DAVISON: Yeah. But, see, the following those talking points, that's the problem. That's what I'm talking about. Those are the -- those are the talking points. This problem is not about DOGE. This didn't just happen in the last two months. That's the point of saying that this -- this did happen in the last administration.
SCHULTZ: Just fix it.
DAVISON: Yeah. Just fix it.
SCHULTZ: Just fix it.
RUBIN: We do. If they are -- if they're going to -- if they're all going to get laid off and fired and get worried -- worry about whether or not this is going to be a job.
PHILLIP: Listen. I -- I think that Kristin's right. Kristin's right that this did not originate in the last three months, right? But, however, I cannot help but recall that one of the very first things that Sean Duffy did as transportation secretary was blame the nation's aviation problems on DEI.
UNKNOWN: That's right.
PHILLIP: And woke as opposed to the big problems that we face as a nation. I mean, it's a question of whether they're focused on the real work of governing or just the stuff that's going to get them on Fox.
TANDEN: I mean, I guess to me, I -- I would agree with everyone on this panel who says just fix it, but we should also acknowledge it's absolutely the case that this has been a long running problem. It's also absolutely the case that the last administration also asked Congress for resources just like Sean Duffy asked Congress for resources, in the last 48 hours.
And I hope Congress offers those resources to fix this problem. It is a long -- it is a long running problem. It is also the case that this administration, just a few months ago, in an effort -- a DOGE effort, did, like, basically fire a bunch of people, not air traffic controllers, but support staff for air traffic controllers.
And because of the level of fear, the leadership of air traffic control at the FAA is not, like, is leaving. There are a bunch of people in the senior leadership of air traffic control throughout -- throughout air traffic control in various parts that are not in their jobs anymore.
So, I do think we should be concerned about a DOGE-like effort that is undermining people. And just in the last few weeks, Duffy said there are going to be more layoffs at the end of the month. So, there's two messages here -- a message of we need to cut staff or we need to build staff, and I hope the administration is consistent with the latter in the future.
PHILLIP: All right. Coming up next, should Democrats turn to Jerry Springer for their path forward in 2024? I'm serious. A provocative new op-ed just suggested that. We'll discuss next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:48:55]
PHILLIP: Could the secret to a Democratic comeback be finding their next entertainer in chief? A column in "The New York Times" poses a provocative challenge for the party. Instead of continuing to run highly credentialed political lifers, the party needs to embrace the idea of a celebrity candidate, someone with sincerely held progressive beliefs, sky high name recognition, and experience winning over the kinds of voters who they've -- who've supported the MAGA movement.
In other words, someone like Jerry Springer. Yes. That Jerry Springer of Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, TV fame. Good idea. I'll start with the Dems.
RUBIN: Frightening. You know, I think it's in reverse, to be honest. I -- I think a lot of why we're in the moment we're in politically is because of Jerry Springer. I think that he unleashed this dynamic that we need to have celebrities who are kooky running our country, and then we end up, you know --
PHILLIP: I think that's unfair to Jerry Springer.
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIN: -- a straight guy, I know. Maybe, maybe a little rough. But I'm an '80s kid, so, you know, I remember watching him on TV and the chairs throwing. But I -- I just -- I think that's the wrong path. We actually need good government and good governance, and we don't need people in who are unqualified for that job.
PHILLIP: Don't you take the point? Don't you take the point? I mean, maybe you don't take this point because you used to run a -- a Democratic think tank. But the idea that Dems are so obsessed with the sort of like technocratic, like bookish politicians, and people are just running on vibes.
TANDEN: Okay.
PHILLIP: Like, they just want to -- they want to connect.
TANDEN: I well, actually, you know, I think that that's right. I do run a think tank, so I do actually still believe in facts. But I do think -- I do think there's a way you speak to voters and translate issues and -- or just actually talk to them about the issues in front of them.
And I think that the thing I would agree with in this -- I'm not sure about Jerry Springer per se, but I do think there is something that's really important about charisma and being able to lead people and ensure that people are interested in what you're saying. I mean, we've had presidential candidates and presidential leaders like John F. Kennedy, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton.
These are people who could command thousands of people to an audience and could also communicate complicated policy issues in a way that was not looking down or sounding fancy. They were just talking in very regular ways. And if that's the import of the Jerry Springer, push, that is great by me.
DAVISON: Well, they also need to -- to deliver, right? So, it's there's an -- they need empathy and they need to be able to connect with the voter and then deliver on their promise. And that's what President Trump has been able to do. I think Democrats are going to have another eight years in the wilderness if they're just looking for a celebrity or just looking for someone who could give a speech.
Identifying the problems, which frankly, Democrats were unable to do this last election, totally tone deaf to where the country was and what was important. If they can't get there, it doesn't matter if it's, you know, "The Rock" Johnson or whatever, you know, or the Oprah or --
PHILLIP: Some of the names being thrown out by this guy or, Oprah, Stephen A. Smith, Mark Cuban. Stephen A has said he, I guess, is considering it.
SCHULTZ: Somebody who could connect with the middle class.
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
SCHULTZ: Like, if I'm the Democratic Party, I'm looking for somebody who has a record of connecting with the middle class and kind of not being way far left, but bring it closer towards the middle. I know that's tough to do in the Democratic primary, but there are some folks out there promoting energy, connecting with the middle class, creating jobs.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Can I ask you real quick? Why is it that Democrats need to find somebody closer toward the middle when Republicans successfully ran in Donald Trump, someone who was very much not that. He never, ever tried to get toward the middle. Why is it that that's the prerogative for Democrats, but it didn't actually work out for Republicans that way?
DAVISON: Well, I mean, Democrats need to accept that they will never have a Donald Trump. We're never going to have another Donald Trump.
TANDEN: Thank God.
DAVISON: He is a once in a lifetime, once in a generation politician, political talent, political athlete and neither party will have another one. And so stop trying to find one. That's some free advice. If you try to find me or Donald Trump, you're going to fail.
TANDEN: Okay.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Joel, Joel and I are like, we're good. We're good. Coming up next, the panel gives us their night caps. They'll tell us the best advice they've gotten from their moms inspired by Mother's Day.
(CROSSTALK)
[22:58:00]
PHILLIP: We're back and it's time for the "NewsNight" cap, Mother's Day edition. You each have 30 seconds to tell us what is the best advice you got from your mom? Kristin?
DAVISON: Perfect. Well, the best advice I got from my mom was to stay true to yourself, and so every one that's running for office, both regular candidates and incumbents, you're -- feel free to take Mama Davison's advice. You can look at talking points, see what the message is, but make sure to say it in in your own voice, and stay true to your brand.
PHILLIP: All right. Joel?
RUBIN: Well, I called my mother just to double check-in. Hi, mom, love you. She gave me the same advice she always did, which is, that be thinking about what you have done, not what you haven't done. And then afterwards, I got a follow-up text from my sister and said, oh, and make a list. So, that's my mother's advice to most of us keep that list. So, that's my mother's advice to me --
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIN: -- keep a list.
PHILLIP: Making a list is definitely a good advice and get stuff done. Also good advice.
SCHULTZ: My mom spent a lifetime caring for my severely handicapped sick servant with little means. And putting others before yourself was always kind of a message there. And also, you know, you know, don't waste the blessings that come to you in life.
PHILLIP: I love that. That's so great.
TANDEN: Wonderful. My mom, when I was running for student government, my first time -- told me never let fear stop you, and, that's been good advice ever since. In their times in politics, you know, the other side wants to kind of scare you off, and it's important to, you know, fight for what you believe in.
PHILLIP: That's lovely. My mother always, well, she told me at one particular point in my life when I was in college, do the hard part first, which I do follow that advice because you have the most energy at the beginning of a task, not at the end, and I'm a big procrastinator, so I like to follow my mom's advice. To all the moms out there, I hope you all have a wonderful, restful -- note to the fathers and sons -- restful Mother's Day. Everyone, thank you very much for watching.
[23:00:00]
Thanks for watching "NewsNight". We'll see you tomorrow morning, 10 A.M. with our conversation show "Table for Five". You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media platforms -- X, Instagram and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
