Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
More Than 100 Dead in Texas Floods; Questions Mount About Officials' Actions in Hours Before Flood; Musk in Split With Trump Launches American Party; New Tariffs Moved in August 1; Google Negotiates with Trump Lawyers. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired July 07, 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, with devastation and despair in Texas --
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): It's every parent's nightmare, every mom and dad.
PHILLIP: -- the search for answers begins.
MAYOR JOE HERRING JR., KERRYVILLE MAYOR: We didn't even have a warning.
PHILLIP: Plus, in the latest Trump-Musk clash, Elon takes his money and starts his own party.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I think it's ridiculous to start a third party.
PHILLIP: Also, Google has a choice, try to win in court or make a donation to Trump's presidential library. Will they be the latest company forced to pay up or else?
And 25 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent, another day, another tariff threat. Trump's deadlines and red lines keep shifting.
TRUMP: I would say firm, but not 100 percent firm.
PHILLIP: Does Trump's trade policy make sense?
Live at the table, Congressman Henry Cuellar, Brad Todd, Lance Trover and Ashley Allison.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in Washington.
Let's get right to the breaking news tonight. The true devastation of the floods in central Texas is slowly coming into focus. At least 104 people have died. As search and rescue operations continue, the area is expected to get some relief from the severe weather with lingering storms expected to wind down by tonight, but that doesn't mean that the flood warnings are over. It has complicated the ongoing efforts by more than 20 state agencies desperately searching for any survivors. That includes some children at the all-girls Christian summer camp, Camp Mystic. 27 campers and counselors have died but 11 are still unaccounted for.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASSIE HYDE, CAMP MYSTIC EMPLOYEE: I've lost near friends, best friends, my boss, my godchildren, my house, my car, you know, all those materialistic things, but it's those people that still haven't been found, some of them. I'm just praying for their recovery.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Senator Ted Cruz's daughters have attended similar camps in the area, and he says the state has learned some important lessons over the last few years.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CRUZ: If we could go back and do it again, we would evacuate particularly those in the most vulnerable areas, the young children in the cabins closest to the water, we would remove them and get them to higher ground if we could go back and do it again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: One of the questions still unanswered is why officials didn't call for those evacuations earlier. The Kerrville city manager says that one reason was out of, quote, fear of crying wolf. The city's mayor says that he never received a warning for torrential rainfall.
The first emergency alerts for that area went out around 1:14 A.M. on Friday, and two flash flooding warnings came over the next couple of hours when most people in the area, including those campers, were fast asleep. By 4:45 A.M. the Guadalupe River had overflowed reaching heights of more than 23 feet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HERRING: Everyone here, if we could have warned them, we would've done so, and we didn't even have a warning.
We get alerts on floods fairly often because of the terrain here.
PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: And did you get an alert on your phone in those overnight hours?
HERRING: I did not.
BROWN: Does that concern you? HERRING: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: There's no question that all of those people, as he just said, if they could have done anything to prevent this, they would have.
But there is the question, Congressman, you represent the state of Texas and there is a really important question right now about whether there is and was a need for more preparedness for this type of scenario, warnings alarms, things that don't rely on whether your cell phone is on or whether you have cell phone service or not.
[22:05:02]
You know, The New York Times wrote -- had a piece about this talking about a May budget meeting where county commissioners were discussing flood warnings that were being developed by a regional agency. That's something that they might be able to make use of.
But in a recent interview, Rob Kelly, the Kerr County judge, and its most senior elected officials, said local residents had been resistant to new spending. Taxpayers won't pay for it, he said, adding that he didn't know if people might reconsider now.
Is this a time to reconsider?
REP. HENRY CUELLAR (D-TX): Well, first of all, we got to first think about the families and the first responders that are doing their best under those very difficult situations. You know, my daughters went to -- some years ago, went to a camp close by, Camp Longhorn, so I'm very familiar with that area. In fact, I spent about five years of my life playing six-man football in that area about an hour away. So, I'm very familiar with the terrain.
It's a beautiful -- the Hill Country in Texas is a beautiful area. But it can be difficult because, look, I was there just in that area a year ago and I spent a lot of time there. Cell phones are hard to work in those areas, especially you got those hills or those mountains, you know, depending on your perspective. Wi-Fi is very difficult. So, first of all, you know, you got to look at some of the very, very difficult situations because of the terrain that we have there.
Second of all, you know, look, you know, we'll have a lot of time later to see what happened. There'll be an investigation into that. What did the National Service provide? What warnings? You know, they did have in the San Angelo, San Antonio area, about six people vacant positions that were not filled. We got to look at some legislation. I saw some of my former colleagues or some of the people in the state legislature, they were going to consider a bill. They didn't consider it during the regular session, so I assume they're going to put it in this special session.
And then, of course, you got to look at the local government. You know, sometimes that area is a very conservative area. I'm very familiar with Kerrville, Texas, and that area, very conservative. And some of the people didn't want to spend any money. I understand that. But budgets are priorities that life should be one of them.
PHILLIP: Yes. I think that's one of the issues at hand here. I mean, and speaking of it's not just the localities, which are very important because they kind of control what happens in their little area. But at the federal level, you have the Trump administration saying for most of the time that they've been in power that they want to eliminate FEMA as an agency.
You know, President Trump has said it. Ted Cruz, the senator has said it. Let's just play some of what Trump has said over the last few months.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think we're going to recommend that FEMA go away.
FEMA has been a very big disappointment. They cost a tremendous amount of money. It's very bureaucratic and it's very slow.
We want to wean off of FEMA and we want to bring it down to the state level, a little bit like Education, we're moving it back to the states so the governors can handle. That's why they're governors now. If they can't handle it, they shouldn't be governor.
But the FEMA thing has not been a very successful experiment, very, very expensive, and it doesn't get the job done.
REPORTER: Are you still planning to phase out FEMA? Well, FEMA is something we can talk about later, but right now they're busy working. So, we'll leave it at that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Isn't this just more proof that FEMA is needed, they are working, as he just said?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: First off, I don't think it -- I can't start talking about this without talking about how much we're praying for the 10 or 12 families who are still waiting on news of their child in Central Texas. Those of us who've been camp parents know that you have a lot of trepidation when you hand your kid over to strangers. And kids camps a wonderful experience for kids, but every parent's been scared when they did it.
FEMA comes in after a disaster. FEMA comes in and aids the state and local officials after a disaster has happened. It's not about disaster preparedness. And disasters in this country are handled by the states and handled by the localities. FEMA mainly serves as a funding source and a lot of red tape between the taxpayers and those localities.
It's a fair question to say whether we need to get rid of FEMA or not because the states could make better use of the money that FEMA's currently soaking up in Washington. PHILLIP: There is a disaster preparedness role to FEMA. And, I mean, you're right that they are there in the moments after something happens, but one of the jobs of federal agencies is, A, as a force multiplier, they also are able to see more than what local officials are able to see and help coordinate for preparedness.
TODD: Talk to state emergency management officials. They'll tell you that FEMA's usually in the way that everybody who's worked in the hurricane belt knows. That the state -- the expertise is at the state level for this. No one's saying the federal government shouldn't help in disasters. No one's saying they shouldn't be of assistance. The question is whether that money's best used with the bureaucracy in Washington or in a state and local area.
I also want to go back and talk about evacuations.
[22:10:01]
Senator Cruz is right, we're going to get to the bottom of this. Everybody would evacuate if we knew now. One thing that happens in these situations when you're a local official trying to decide about evacuating is you have to decide about nursing homes. Kerrville has about five nursing homes. And when you evacuate a nursing home, almost always someone dies. So, you only issue an evacuation because they can't stay in the move. So, you only issue the evacuation order when you are certain you must do it.
I think maybe in the middle of the night on July 4th, there were probably not enough people there to collaborate, to decide is this the right call in the middle of the night on July 4th? And I'm sure the local officials did everything they could. Obviously, they didn't make the call they'd make if they could do it again.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I agree with you, Brad, in terms of my sympathy goes out to the area. I said this earlier. It might be a conservative area, but that water did not discriminate whether you were a Democrat or Republican. It was a natural disaster.
I do think though we have to look at the totality of circumstances. I think there's been questions about the National Weather Service. I think, you know, FEMA did get impacted by DOGE, but FEMA also has $646 million that is now going to be cut. The thing about -- this is when -- this is a tragedy, and if anyone could have done anything different, they would have.
But also, it's not just a federal question. It sounded like people locally did not want to spend the money. And I think that there is this stigma about using government money for anything with conservatives that we should just have a more honest conversation. And if an elected official could go back and say, you know what? I can make the convincing argument to a taxpayer about why we need to spend this. This is good use of government funding, and it's not just wasteful spending or fraud and abuse, but this will save people's lives, I hope that other communities take heed to that. I also think, though, that in disasters, when cameras turn away from this area, there will be devastation that they will need the federal government still to be available. And FEMA plays a long role. It will take years for people to really rebuild if they ever can ever really totally rebuild. So, are any federal government agencies perfect? No. But are they needed for moments like this? I would think so.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, if your point about the philosophy around spending money and when it's appropriate and when it's not for the localities but also for the whole country, that's a big question right now. I mean, the DOGE of it all was essentially all the things that the federal government is spending money on, for the most part, is waste and fraud. But, clearly, there are some things where spending money saves lives. And it may not save lives in the moment that you spend it, but at some point, somebody's life, somebody's child could have been saved.
LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I think something that gets lost in this is the DOGE cuts have actually not taken effect. They don't take effect until October 1st. And if you talk to the National Weather Service, they say we had five staffers instead of the normal two that were on hand. We were giving alerts on Thursday warning about this. You talked to the union head of the National Weather Service staffers and said, yes, we did every single thing we could possibly do.
And you're right, it did go back to the localities, but that's where the money goes and it's up to a local municipality or town to say, hey, yes we can afford this, or we can't afford this. They put in for a federal grant, they didn't get it. And I mean, it's a terrible situation.
But I do think the National Weather Service followed through on everything they were supposed to do based off of all the current reporting.
CUELLAR: Yes. And that's right. I think on Thursday night, they did send out the notices on it. But what happened on the ground, that's something different. But you're right about that, about the notices going out on Thursday on that.
Look, I sit on Appropriations, and one of the committees I sit on is Homeland Security, which has FEMA, so I've been dealing with FEMA. President Trump is right about one thing, and that is there is a bureaucracy to FEMA. There is a bureaucracy. So, I'm one of those my philosophy is, do we need to streamline? Do we need to reform FEMA? Absolutely. But there are certain times in our country where there's a nature, a situation that the federal government has to come in and coordinate, and FEMA can do that only if they get reformed, only if they get streamlined because it has become bureaucratic.
I can tell you that because I sit on that committee and there's been times where we were trying to get some things and it was just bouncing from one place to the other place. So, streamline it, reform it, I agree with President Trump and with you also. PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, look, I think most people who are on the receiving end of disaster relief can tell you it's nothing but bureaucracy sometimes. But the question is, should the agency exist? I think that's the question that the Trump administration -- the Trump administration has put that on the table.
TODD: Well, the functions exist. It doesn't have the existing -- the shell that is the current agency. There'll be a federal role for disaster. But sometimes agencies are so rotten, you have to start over.
PHILLIP: All right. Up next for us, how bad is the breakup between President Trump and Elon Musk? It's so bad that Musk says that he's going to form a new political party.
Plus, Paramount has settled a lawsuit with President Trump over a 60 Minutes interview, a lawsuit that experts considered somewhat shaky.
[22:15:04]
So, is this just the cost of doing business in America now? Well, we'll discuss that ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, new fallout in the very public feud between Elon Musk and President Trump. The tech billionaire is now making good on his threat to start a new political party. After Trump's massive spending, bill becomes law. Trump announced his America Party over the weekend writing in part Musk -- I'm sorry, announces America Party writing in part, when it comes to bankrupting our country with waste, we live in a one party system, not a democracy.
[22:20:02]
Trump lashed out on Truth Social, accusing his ex-bestie of going, quote, completely off the rails and becoming a, quote, train wreck. Musk hit back by writing, what's Truth Social?
So, things have turned bad again for these two yet again. How worried are you about an Elon Musk political party?
TODD: Well, you know. Abby, I think it'd be easier for Elon Musk to figure out how to get to Mars than it would be to start a new political party. It's the ballot rules in states are very complicated. This is yet another issue that's decided at the states. Whether your party can be on the ballot is subject to 50 different state laws. They're very complicated and some places they're dependent on what you did in the previous election running as an independent to get on the ballot for a future race.
To be a viable party, you'd have to run for all offices. You'd have to run candidates for Congress, for Senate, for governor. And Elon Musk has a lot of money and he's devoted a lot of money to politics, but if he starts a political party, there is a limit to what he can put in under federal election rules to that political party. So, this is a very big undertaking and I think he's probably blowing off steam.
PHILLIP: Well, I am old enough to remember No Labels. Do we not remember No Labels? And they did successfully get on quite a lot of ballots. And they did so largely because they had secret donors bankrolling the whole thing. It does take a ton of money and he just has that. So, I mean, I would say this is not nothing, right?
ALLISON: No. Well, I think there's two different things we're talking about. We're talking about midterms and we're talking about presidentials because so No Labels was the presidential race and so they were able to get on ballots. And the fear was really on the Democratic side that that would split the party. So, if this was 2028, I think you would be more concerned.
I do think though the amount of money that Elon Musk has that just can throw around that is not just like backing a candidate that can just be disruptive. And it seems like elections are so close in these days that one point could be a determining factor and he has enough money to shave off one point.
So, I wouldn't just totally poo-poo it. I don't think that, you know, as Deborah Cox says, how did we get here? Like, I think the breakup is final. I don't think they're coming back together.
TODD: The reconciliation --
ALLISON: I really don't. I don't think that they're going to be able to get beyond this. And I think it could play a part, not up and down the ballot, but in some key targeted just to get under Trump's skin.
PHILLIP: I mean, Trump's later -- he also sent another Truth Social saying -- talking about Elon's friend who he wanted to run at NASA. He said he thought his friend was very good. I was surprised to learn he was a blue blooded Democrat who had never contributed to a Republican. He said, I also thought it was inappropriate that a very close friend of Elon who was in the space business will run NASA when NASA's such a big part of Elon's corporate life, which is funny because people had asked Trump about this very thing several months ago, and he was like, no, not a problem, don't worry about it.
TROVER: I was at the Kennedy Space Center last week and I saw one of Elon's rockets get shot in space. And I was like, this is -- it was very cool, by the way. I highly recommend, seeing it. And three days later, this guy's announcing a new political party, and I'm like, dude, why don't you just stick with what you're good at? Like I just saw that on two -- stick with what you --
PHILLIP: But, again, this sounded like Trump, because I remember, you know, we would always talk about this and Republicans would be like, yes, let's put Elon in charge of flying planes, like let's put Elon in charge of every part of the federal government, and now all of a sudden --
ALLISON: He's crazy? TROVER: Well, I do think he has gone a little off the rails. I don't think there's any doubt given his tweet storm or X or whatever you want to call it that he's done. But me, as a Republican, I'm not worried. I mean, if you look at the Republican Party, they're more unified than they've been in decades right now. So, if you're a Republican, it's not something I'm overly concerned about. If he wants to go off and do it, I'm sure there are plenty of political grifters that will love to sign on and make a ton of money off of that. They're telling him he's a genius right now for doing it so they can make a ton of money. If he wants to go do it, I'm okay with it.
PHILLIP: I mean, you're not wrong. Our friend, Harry Enten, pulled this number for us. 4 percent of all voters, this is Elon's potential base, they like Elon, but they don't like the Republican Party. That's just for the record. That's a very small number. It's not a lot.
TROVER: Look at the fight he had with the president. We know who won that fight. It was very clear. The president came out on top of it.
CUELLAR: Some years ago, Texas named Ross Perot decided to start his own party. Third parties --
PHILLIP: And did very well.
CUELLAR: Yes, did well.
PHILLIP: 18 percent in --
CUELLAR: 18 percent. So, look, you know, third parties, the history of third parties on the modern politics, it's difficult to go in, either you're a Democrat or Republican. He does have a lot of money. The question is where were those voters that go with that party go. When races are tight, 1 or 2 percent can make a big difference.
And the question is, is this more directed at midterms for members of Congress or senators, or more directed at presidential race? But I was a secretary of state, so I know exactly what you're talking about. Every state has some very, very particular type of rules to get on. So, with a lot of money, you can overcome that.
[22:25:00]
To do this in a midterm might be a little difficult. The next presidential, it might be --
PHILLIP: But, I mean, don't you think the Democratic Party -- I mean, this is not just frankly about Republicans. I think what Elon is trying to say is that both political parties have disaffected voters who really don't like what their party is doing. So, I mean, even for Democrats, they're in the doghouse right now with their voters, frankly. I mean, is there a risk that he could siphon off some of those people too?
CUELLAR: Yes. I mean, you just never know where those voters might come from, yes, because you know, there are people on the Democrats say, hey Democrats, you need to fight harder and harder than what you're doing right now. Republicans, probably some of the Republican voters might think they maybe went over on some things because, look, both parties overreach. It happens. It overreaches and the America public has a way of bringing back people to somewhere around the center.
ALLISON: I've been saying this, Abby, since before the election.
PHILLIP: Yes, you have.
ALLISON: This is -- I think we're approaching the end of the two- party system in America if parties don't self-correct. Voters are frustrated and their loyalty is no longer reliable. Am I thinking it's Elon Musk? I'm not sure. I mean, it's why we spent a week talking about who won the Democratic primary in New York because you have parties, like the Working Families Party, that are starting to do recruitment and have been in formation for 20 years.
I'll just say though, to close on this, this man had the keys to the kingdom. He had our data. He had everything we could imagine for over 100 days. And now we're saying he's a little unhinged?
PHILLIP: That is a very important question. Let me play what Steve Bannon, who's no fan of Elon Musk, what he had to say about the whole situation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: The buffoon, Elmo the Mook, formerly known as Elon Musk, Elmo the Musk, a non- American starting an America party. No, brother. You're not an American. You're a South African. And if we take enough time and prove the facts of that, you should be deported.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, I'll give Steve Bannon credit for being consistent because he actually has been saying this for a while. But otherwise, I would say that what is the most ridiculous about this is the idea that the people, as I was just saying to Lance, who, six months ago, literally thought Elon Musk could hang the moon, are now maybe saying he should be deported, maybe saying he's lost his mind. This, frankly, is what people hate about politics.
TODD: I don't think Steve Bannon speaks for all Republicans or even a lot of them. And I think I'm personally glad Elon Musk is here in America. I'm glad SpaceX has helped save our space program. I'm glad Starlink is giving broadband to rural America where government fails. I'm glad he is here.
I think that Ashley's right that he could make a difference in a few targeted races, but he would have to accept that he's going to be a spoiler, that his candidate's going to lose. And that is not something Elon Musk is going to be great at, I predict, as deciding he's going to --
PHILLIP: I think like he's okay with being -- ALLISON: Unless (INAUDIBLE) Donald Trump loses.
PHILLIP: Well, yes, I mean, maybe he's okay with being a spoiler because he's kind of like a little bit of a burn down kind of person. You know what I mean? That's --- at least that's what he --
ALLISON: I mean, don't you guys all agree that Elon Musk played a significant role in 2024? So, to think he wouldn't play a significant role regardless of who's affiliated --
TODD: I would. Don't count him out of what anything he try might try to do, but politics is a very new thing for him. As Lance says, he's good at rockets, he's brand new at politics.
TROVER: Right.
ALLISON: Fair enough.
PHILLIP: All right, guys. Up next for us, the White House is announcing tariffs on multiple countries today, but they're also shifting back to the deadline that they set to reach those deals or enacting the rates. So, where does America's trade policy even stand right now? We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: New tonight, just hours after signing executive actions delaying his reciprocal tariffs to August 1, President Trump is now suggesting that that deadline might not be so hard and fast.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Is the August 1 deadline firm now? Is that it? Or could you move it again?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No. I would say firm, but not a 100 percent firm. If they call up and they say, would like to do something a different way, we're going to be open to that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now you may remember the White House paused Trump's Liberation Day tariffs in order to strike deals favorable to the United States. Those were set to expire in two days on July 9. But today, Trump also threatened new tariffs on 14 countries in a series of letters that he posted to social media.
That includes Japan and South Korea, America's sixth and seventh largest trading partners, not to mention close allies. But both countries are set to face a 25 percent tariff according to Trump.
Make it make sense. What --
(CROSSTALK)
LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It's called flexibility.
PHILLIP: What is happening?
TROVER: That's what it was. It's called flexibility.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: There you go.
TROVER: You got to have flexibility if you're running the greatest country in the world. Look, I think we got just got a huge reconciliation package done. Massive. The business community has their tax structure set. Everything is set. Now they need to come together and they need to get these tariffs done, and I think this is a warning and to other everybody that these tariffs will go up. I do think that we're going to reach a point where he will stop kind of moving the goal post around a little bit and will enact these tariffs.
[22:34:59]
I think we will probably, in the next couple weeks, see some of these countries come to the forefront to do it. And giving some more certainty.
PHILLIP: Keep in in your mind that Trump just said that all these countries are coming to us. They want to strike new deals.
Listen to what Peter Navarro, one of Trump's aides said a few months ago in April, and then what he said today, and then think about, as you're listening to this, what Trump also said today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER NAVARRO, FORMER WHITE HOUSE TRADE ADVISER: Ninety deals in ninety days is possible?
UNKNOWN: Why were there not 90 deals in 90 days?
NAVARRO: Because the rest of the world has it so good that they're dragging their heels, but the president will not allow that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Are we just making things up now? I mean, 90 days and 90 deals -- 90 deals in 90 days didn't happen. Now that it's not happened, is it because people are coming to us or because they're not coming to us?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, Peter Navarro very much has a perspective. He's not really interested in deals. He would like to have high tariffs. That's his, he is in the minority view in this administration right now, but that is his perspective.
There have been deals, and there are going to be more deals coming. I think the big deadline that's approaching that I'm looking at is next Monday. The E.U., the European Union's self-imposed pause on their own reciprocal tariffs is supposed to expire on Monday. This week, we're seeing that E.U.'s negotiators are saying they think they're getting close to a deal with President Trump.
I'm watching for that this week. A deal with Europe with our biggest trading partner, the oldest trading partner will signal to India and other large trading partners that it's time to come to the table. That's what I'm looking for.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, there is the possibility of additional trade deals. But, again, for the whole -- for the -- in the big picture here, when you're trying to figure out what is the Trump administration's stance on trade, I don't understand how you can look at what's happened over the last few months and really get a clear picture of what kind of deals do they even want.
Are they really willing to lower tariffs or do they just want a minimum moderate tariff, that will be higher than what it was before? Does the deadline even matter, or will they just kick it down the road if you call them and make nice, you know, sounds toward them? I mean, I think it would it's just hard to know.
REP. HENRY CUELLAR (D-TX): Well, look, I'm a Democrat, but I'm a free trader. I'm a free trader. I'm from Laredo, Texas. Small little city, which is in the world, it's the ninth largest port of entry in the whole world. The first eight are Chinese ports, and then you have number nine, Laredo, number 10, L.A.
So, trade is important. But keep in mind that when you look at the war, you got to look at allies and friends and other folks that might not be very good allies. Keep in mind that the NAFTA 2 or the U.S.- Mexico- Canadian agreement was negotiated under Trump one, including Mexico, our number one trading partner, then you got Canada also.
Keep in mind, we also when I was starting off, we also did CAFTA. Keep in mind that we also did an agreement with South Korea, which is one of the countries, Japan. So there's already mechanisms in place.
So I understand what the president wants to do, and I want to get to what the president got to be. But I have a lot of businesses that are facing this uncertainty. And as a businessperson, you got to know what the certainty is when you deal with it. So first of all, --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And to your point, I mean, they have all these trade mechanisms in place. Trump is not using them. He's just issuing a letter signed with a Sharpie saying, here's your 25 percent rate to South Korean using emergency mechanism.
TODD: He's using the emergency mechanism.
PHILLIP: South Korean we have trade deals with.
CUELLAR: Yes. Look, under the U.S.-Mexico-Canadian agreement, there is a mechanism where there's a revision next year, but I think the president is trying to get that flexibility to move a little quicker. But there are mechanisms in place. Question is, can you move it? He's trying to get to it a lot faster, and but at the same time --
PHILLIP: At the rate he's going, we might be at next year. But it might be the same time.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: Flexible. He's being so flexible right now. He should be a yoga teacher. Okay? Like, the reality is, is he making himself up? Yes. Yes. You know what I mean? Like, they're not where they need to be, and so they're changing the deadline. And they don't think that people will care or pay attention.
Meanwhile, the instability will ultimately, we are -- we have been always projecting that right around August post Labor Day. People are still going to have back to school prices go up. Parents are still going to decide whether their kids get to get 30 dolls or two dolls. Like, these stories and things that he has said are not going to go away.
And you're right. Peter Navarro may be the small, but he has him out there talking about national television. If he's the small majority in that administration, I would say come to decide, be quiet. But they talk out the two sides of their mouths continuously.
TODD: Well, we all ought to agree that it's not right that German cars that come to America are tariffed. At one fourth what American cars going to Germany are, and those barriers exist all over the globe.
So, the president's goal of reducing the barriers to American products is a good one. And we going through long multinational processes didn't work before. He's trying --
[22:40:03]
PHILLIP: What do you mean it didn't work?
ALLISON: But they're not working now.
PHILLIP: What do you mean it didn't work before? What's your evidence of that? Because Trump himself went through a multinational process to execute on trade deals that he said at the time were more fair to Americans.
TODD: With Mexico and Canada.
PHILLIP: Yes. With Mexico and Canada. But I'm asking, like, what is the proof that actually sitting down in good faith in negotiations does not work? And what is the proof that what he's doing now, which is setting deadlines and then pulling them back, is working?
TODD: The proof is PNTR, the Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, which we all know has been a failure. I was wrong about it. Most of us were wrong about it. I thought it would work. PHILLIP: Yes. But we have not engaged in since then.
TODD: The TPP we did, and everyone agreed it was a bad deal.
PHILLIP: Well, since then.
TODD: And so, the people who negotiated.
PHILLIP: I mean, when Trump says I want to deal with China, they've gone to China. China has basically brushed them off. And some of that is because he's resorted to threats in order to deal with this. Some of the threats are necessary for national security purposes. I'll say that. But I'm just saying, I'm not seeing the proof that this hardball strategy, even with China, is working?
TODD: Well, I think Democrats and Republicans is actually one thing that they tend to agree on right now. I mean, Joe Biden continued President Trump's tariffs on China on aluminum and steel.
TROVER: Yes.
TODD: And in fact, he expanded them to electric vehicles and batteries.
PHILLIP: Yes.
TODD: I think there's a lot of Republican and Democrat agreement that we have to get tough with China and that PNTR went too far in their favor.
PHILLIP: I agree with you. I just -- but --
ALLISON: Talking about loud tomorrow and today.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, I agree with you on, obviously --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: China's favorite trading company.
PHILLIP: Steel aluminum intellectual property theft. There are a whole host of issues where China is a bad actor in the trade space. But, again, what Trump is talking about here is a blanket tariff level that if it were to go in place, would essentially end trade.
TODD: If you're at all (inaudible).
PHILLIP: It was essentially, no. No. Well, for China, it would essentially end trade. It's something that is not workable for the United States or for China. He knows that. But the question is, is it moving the needle toward a better outcome? I'm waiting for the proof.
TROVER: Yes. I mean, look, we are all waiting, and I agree with Brad. I think there will be some deals that come through. But I want to hit on something that you said a while ago. We have a strong economy. We can weather some of this stuff, and there
have been all these dire predictions from the day he stepped into office. The job market is going to tank. Prices are going to skyrocket. None of that has happened.
PHILLIP: That's exactly right.
TROVER: The job market has held steady. Gas prices have gone down.
PHILLIP: But Lance, that's because the tariffs haven't been postponed yet and paused.
TROVER: I'm saying once the experts on the tariffs --
TODD: Not the China.
TROVER: Correct.
PHILLIP: No. They have.
ALLISON: Yes.
PHILLIP: They absolutely have. The high tariff, he, when he announced a 145 percent tariffs, that did not come in place.
TODD: The tariffs have been higher. We --
PHILLIP: I know. But --
TODD: He (inaudible) $22 million --
PHILLIP: Yes. But Brad, a 145 percent tariffs did not happen.
TODD: No.
PHILLIP: Okay.
TODD: Not all of the China tariffs he announced has been in place, but some of them have been.
PHILLIP: Some of them have.
TODD: Right.
PHILLIP: The existing ones have gone into place, steel, and aluminum and all those things. But the 145 percent tariffs that would effectively end trade, those did not go anywhere.
ALLISON: And there are some reason why the prices haven't gone up because people have stockpiled things, but that won't last forever. So, we'll wait and see.
PHILLIP: All right. TBD, as usual. Coming up next, Google is reportedly holding discussions with President Trump's lawyers over his lawsuit. Should the company fight this in court, or should they just write a check? We'll debate. [22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, Google is said to be facing a decision given to Trump's demands or fight it out in court. Lawyers for Trump alleged that the YouTube violated his First Amendment rights for restricting his account after January 6. And the Atlantic reports that the parties have begun, quote, "productive discussions about the case."
Also, over the long weekend, Trump all but confirmed a side deal with the future owners of Paramount claiming, on top of the publicly announced $16 million to settle a 60 Minutes lawsuit, which will go to his presidential library, he may be getting more than what he bargained for.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Did a deal for about $16 million plus 16,000,000 or maybe more than that in advertising. Well, it's a combination of 16 plus 16 plus. So, it's like 32 to maybe $35 million.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now the current Paramount leadership denies any involvement in a side deal, but that doesn't mean that the side deal doesn't exist. According to the reporting, David Ellison who is the CEO of Skydance, which is the future owner of the assets, is said to be funding $16 million in Trump aligned public service announcements. That's an addition to the money that is going to the Trump library.
Paramount can deny it, but the future owners may have a handshake deal to this extent. And, obviously, it's in the context of all of these deals, and it raises the question, is Trump just shaking down these companies for money for his presidential library and for propaganda purposes?
TODD: I have a great idea for the advertising. Next year is the 250th birthday of America. This would be a great time for CBS to try to do some advertising to bring us all together. Can feature President Trump in it. We can all celebrate together and be in the service of the whole country. It might be the best thing, apparently.
PHILLIP: But why should they do that at the, you know, just under threat of the president of the United States?
[22:50:00]
TODD: Maybe he's urging under the threat.
PHILLIP: Yes. But, I mean, but let's be real. I mean, why should they do that under threat?
TROVER: I have pretty strong feelings when it comes to these media settlements. I ask myself the question, why is CBS and why is ABC why did they settle? PHILLIP: Yes.
TROVER: Well and now we know the argument on CBS and Paramount because of the whole deal and all that. But to me, it's because they don't want to be transparent. They don't want to have to go through discovery. They don't want emails leaked out there, and that to me speaks to the broader issue that I think the mainstream media has in this country.
It's because as a communications person who has worked with the media for 20 years, they expect full transparency out of sorry.
PHILLIP: I mean, I'm not --
TROVER: But let me --
PHILLIP: I'm not actually I'm not quibbling with your --
TROVER: Right.
PHILLIP: -- you can complain about the media all you want.
TROVER: No. No. No. I mean, --
PHILLIP: But I just think that let's be honest about what the threat is here. Trump has threatened to put the force of the federal government against these private companies. That's -- it's not a mystery why they're settling because from a business perspective, they -- to protect their businesses, they should just write a check because it's cheaper than dealing with the federal government coming after them.
TROVER: I guess what I'm getting at too is I don't think there's a lot of sympathy from the American public because the media, when they're going doing whatever, they expect full transparency from whomever they're covering. Yet when in return and you want transparency about editorial decisions and how they're made, who's in a story, why was someone quoted in a story.
PHILLIP: Yes, but why?
TROVER: You were given --
PHILLIP: This has nothing to do with transparency.
TROVER: It absolutely has everything to do with transparency.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: What does -- hold on a second. What does this have to do with transparency?
TROVER: I'm saying --
PHILLIP: Trump is suing CBS over editing a story, which they are allowed to do. TROVER: Exactly what I'm talking about.
PHILLIP: Hold on. No. No. No. The first amendment allows them to edit stories.
TROVER: One hundred percent.
PHILLIP: Donald Trump has been the beneficiary of Fox editing his answers to make him look better. So since when is that about account, about transparency?
TROVER: That's exactly what we're talking about. The whole CBS issue was about transparency and them editing her answers and giving one on the other.
PHILLIP: Why is that about transparency?
TROVER: This is what I'm getting to.
PHILLIP: No, no.
TROVER: This is my opinion.
PHILLIP: Answer the question. Why is that about transparency?
TROVER: This is what I'm trying to explain.
PHILLIP: We know what -- we know that they edited the --
(ROSSTALK)
TROVER: The point is the media expects full transparency.
PHILLIP: It's just not a crime to edit (inaudible). That's the process.
TROVER: But they don't want you -- I'm not suggesting it's a crime, but what I'm saying to you is the media then puts up a wall and says you can't ask a question about why somebody was in a story or why this was edited. That leads to issues of bias. That's what I'm getting to, and that is why trust in the media is so low.
PHILLIP: I'm not -- I'm honest to God not following this because I don't understand we know --
ALLISON: Right.
PHILLIP: -- what happened here. The question is whether or not it is right or even lawful for Donald Trump to threaten a company with the federal government withholding them from being able to engage in a transaction because of a personal --
TROVER: We don't know that that happened, first of all.
PHILLIP: Okay. Well, let's play what Brendan Carr who runs the FCC said about this back just before he was put in his position by Trump. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRENDAN CARR, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: Broadcasters are differently situated than other speakers. They get free access to a valuable public resource, the airwaves, and they're licensed by the FCC. It's important that we take another look at that, and we reinvigorate it.
There's also a news distortion complaint at the FCC still having to do with CBS, and CBS has a transaction before the FCC. And I'm pretty confident that that news distortion complaint over the CBS 60 Minutes transcript is something that's likely to arise in the context of the FCC's review of that transaction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Sorry. They didn't hide it. They said it.
ALLISON: Yes. I think --
PHILLIP: So, --
ALLISON: The issue here is and I think, you know, this actually happened a little bit in the Biden administration with social media platforms, which don't have the same regulations that broadcasting entities do.
TODD: But need them.
ALLISON: I agree. They need them. But a lot of people on both parties are not fluent enough to even determine how to regulate them.
PHILLIP: Yes.
ALLISON: Let alone want to. The problem is that the president of the United States is being selective in who he is asking for transparency from. And so we know he if he doesn't like your coverage, the question has been, if he doesn't like your coverage, if he doesn't like what you did against him, he's going to go after you. And that is not what is supposed to be happening in a democracy.
TROVER: So much to (inaudible). Settle them twice.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And look, --
TROVER: Fight it in the court.
PHILLIP: Hold on.
ALLISON: The reason why you settle is be like so many corporations settle is because it is so expensive. Litigation work takes so long. This litigation can last longer than Donald Trump's actual president.
(CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: And because Trump is pretty, he's pretty straightforward. He just wants cash. I mean, if you're Google and you've got a lot of things for try him.
TROVER: And he wants triumph.
PHILLIP: If you're Google and you're -- Google is now in the crosshairs. They've got a lot of things before the federal government always because they're such a big company. It's easier to just pay him $30 million or $15 million or 25, whatever the amount is, than to deal with this headache.
CUELLAR: I'm not going to interrupt. I'm really enjoying this. In fact, just keep going. Keep going.
[22:54:57]
TODD: Well, broadcasters have to act in the public interest. That's when -- that's what Brendan Carr is getting at here. They're obligated to keep their federal licenses intact to prove their --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay. But what is Google's obligation to do what Trump wants them to do?
TODD: Well, if Google thinks it's not in guilty of what is being alleged, they can fight it. Google is one of the largest companies in the world.
PHILLIP: Okay.
ALLISON: guys, --
PHILLIP: But let's just be clear. You're saying that that they should either take the expense and fight Trump over this or, if they pay, they're just admitting guilt. Is that what you're suggesting?
TODD: No. Well, certainly, a lot of Americans are going to believe they're admitting guilt if they don't fight it. I mean, especially Google is not hard up for cash. Google could fight it if they want to. They can hire the lawyers to do it.
PHILLIP: All right, everyone. Thank you very much. Thanks for watching Newsnight. You can catch me anytime on social media X, Instagram, and TikTok.
Laura Coates Live starts right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
