Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

President Trump Announces Plans to Implement Tariffs on Steele and Aluminum; Vice President J.D. Vance Draws Controversy for Statement Seeming to Question Judicial Branch's Ability to Block President's Executive Power; US Spy Planes Hunt for Intel on Mexican Cartels; NIH Says It's Slashing Funding for Indirect Research Costs. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired February 10, 2025 - 08:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[08:00:00]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: A lot of news. A brand new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts now.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: A new day and new tariffs. President Trump now preparing to hit all steel and aluminum imports into the U.S., and that could impact everything from home prices to airplane parts.

A disastrously bad idea, that's what scientists are calling a plan to slash payments for research infrastructure, warning it could be devastating for America's place as a global research leader.

And a concert countdown abruptly canceled by a large blockage of fat, grease, and rags, aka a fatberg. You heard me correctly. We'll discuss.

I'm Sara Sidner with John Berman and Kate Bolduan. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: A new week, a new government agency targeted, an expiring deadline on that so-called federal buyout, and a new round of tariffs. Today, President Trump is set to announce new tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. He says he's going to separately announce new reciprocal tariffs to match what other countries have on U.S. goods, dollar for dollar. Every country, they charge us, we charge them is the message from the president.

The tariffs on steel and aluminum will impact Canada and Mexico, two of the largest exporters of steel to the United States. And yes, the president just last week hit pause on his threatened tariffs against those very same countries. That was supposed to be a 30 day pause on across the board tariffs. But now, who knows?

Also today, China's retaliatory tariffs on the United States go into effect. They will impact about $13 billion in U.S. goods.

CNN's Alayna Treene at the White House to start us off this hour. Alyana, what are you hearing this morning about the tariffs, about what most experts say? And I just spoke with someone just last hour who said the very same, that this is a tax on American consumers as that's who will pay for it.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: I mean, that is really the big question is how this could hurt American consumers. It's also something we've heard the president acknowledge before. He said that he believes, yes, sure, Americans could face the price of this temporarily, but by and large, Kate, and according to my conversations with many people close to the president, White House officials, they all agree that the president is very serious about tariffs. We knew that for the entire time on the campaign trail. He talked about tariffs. He called it the most beautiful word, and he believed that it really is a really good trading, an effective use of trade strategy for him. So it really shouldn't be a surprise that he is moving aggressively ahead with that plan.

I do want to talk a little bit about what you mentioned. One is 25 percent tariffs on all steel and aluminum coming into the United States, as you mentioned. Thats likely to hit our neighbors, particularly Canada and Mexico, very hard. We also know that Brazil and South Korea and Vietnam are the other largest sources of steel coming into the United States. And then aluminum, by and large, more than 70 percent, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute data and other government data, more than 70 percent of aluminum comes from Canada into the United States.

So really going to be hitting them hard, particularly, of course, after we know that the president pressed pause on implementing broader blanket tariffs on both Canada and Mexico until they could work out some sort of negotiation, hit pause for a month.

But I also want to get into the reciprocal tariffs, because we've heard the president say that as well. He said that he's planning on imposing reciprocal tariffs, essentially, if any country puts tariffs on the United States, they're going to -- he's going to hit it right back. He talked about this more over the weekend. Take a listen to how he put it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: I'll be announcing probably Tuesday or Wednesday at a news conference reciprocal tariffs. And very simply, it's if they charge us, we charge them. That's all.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When does it go into effect, sir?

TRUMP: Almost immediately. If they are charging us 130 percent and we're charging them nothing, it's not going to stay that way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: Now, Kate. He also, without naming specific countries, said that he would perhaps consider potential exemptions when it comes to reciprocal tariffs, depending on if he's satisfied with any agreements he works out with different countries. But I think, look, the key thing here to keep in mind is, especially when it comes to trade policy and tariffs, the devil is in the details. We are still trying to learn exactly what this could look like. But again, I can tell you from my conversations with those close to the president, he is very much serious about moving forward with these tariffs, and we should get more clarity on that at some point today.

BOLDUAN: And really quickly, he also is very serious about moving forward with this, the so-called buyout offers for the entire federal workforce. But that's going to be in court today. What's going to happen?

[08:05:02]

TREENE: That is. There is a hearing today to really determine the legality of it all. I'd note that the actual initial deadline imposed by the White House for all different federal workers, it was offered to more than 2 million federal workers, this so-called buyout program, the Trump administration is calling it deferred resignation program. All workers had until initially Thursday, February 6th, at midnight to decide whether or not they were going to essentially put themselves on voluntary paid leave through the end of September.

However, that caught up -- got caught up in the courts Thursday afternoon just hours before that deadline. We saw a district judge say that actually were moving that deadline to Monday. We need a hearing to determine whether or not this is legal. We are going to see that hearing play out today. But we do know that the White House pushed that deadline back to actually tonight, 11:59 p.m., for workers to decide if they are going to take this. So more on that as we see it kind of unfold in court today, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. Alayna, thank you so much. Alayna Treene at the White House for us. John?

BERMAN: All right, new this morning, Vice President J.D. Vance is questioning whether courts can block actions taken by the president. And some are inferring that he's raising the possibility that the president just ignore these orders. This is what the vice president wrote, quote, "Judges aren't allowed to control the executives legitimate power." This followed a judge's order that temporarily blocked Elon Musk and his team from accessing sensitive Treasury Department systems.

With us now is CNN senior legal analyst, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Philadelphia Eagles fan, that is why I am wearing the tie this morning for you, sir. Good morning, Elie Honig.

So J.D. Vance writes, "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." We maybe should underline and bold that word "legitimate" there, because it's doing a lot of work. What can courts do?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It certainly is doing a lot of work, John. And J.D. Vance is really stepping very close to dangerous ground with that statement, and he knows it, by the way. This is a Yale Law School graduate. So the notion that the courts have cannot stop the executive from doing what he wants, the notion that the executive may have the option of defying the courts, that is completely beyond even what the most extreme rightwing conservative theory in favor of broad executive power has ever argued.

Now, look, there is a very broad view of executive power. Sometimes it's called the unitary executive theory, which holds essentially that the president is all powerful within the executive branch. But even proponents of that theory do not say that the president is free to disregard an order of the court. If that were to happen, that is a line in the sand that has not been crossed. Donald Trump did not cross that line in his first four years. He has not crossed that line in his first couple weeks here in his second term. But if we get over that line, then we've got a major crisis. And I think its irresponsible of J.D. Vance. I know he didn't quite go there, but he got pretty close to even suggest that.

BERMAN: And to be clear, the court stopped all kinds of executive action from President Biden, too. The courts jump in all the time on executive actions because the Constitution is sort of murky on what a president can and can't do.

Let me just read you the first part of Vance's tweet, because this actually sort of expands on his thinking. If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. But here's the thing. When a judge weighs in on powers that belong to Congress, on laws that Congress passed, and the executive, the president maybe ignoring or crossing the line on those laws, that might be another thing.

HONIG: Yes. I mean, even the premise of J.D. Vance statement there is incorrect. I mean, judges do have the authority to block extraconstitutional actions by the executive branch or by Congress. And John, you're exactly right, that has happened countless times to every administration in recent history and probably in the entire history of the United States. And president, it's part of being president. Presidents have railed publicly against decisions by the judiciary. But at times, that's what the judiciary does. Thats what the judiciary exists for, to say, no, you've gone too far, either Congress or executive branch.

And by the way, we are seeing this spate of decisions from district court judges. Those are trial level federal judges. We'll see another one today on the buyout issue. But remember, also, there's a process here. If you lose in the district court and you're the administration and you don't like it, you have the right to appeal up to the court of appeals. And then you can even ask the next level, the U.S. Supreme Court, to take the case. So it's not as if the game is over once the district court judge rules. There are still many other layers of protection and appeal built in there, too.

BERMAN: So to what extent, Elie, do you think that the White House, the Trump White House, knows this and this is a concerted strategy? I ask you this because I read this renowned legal scholar over the last few days who said that the White House is engaging in what's called a "make me" strategy.

[08:10:04] HONIG: So I've heard that that scholar is a little shaky in some of his opinions. Yes, look, the strategy that Donald Trump has used here so far is he's going to do what he wants first, and then he's going to make plaintiffs, he's going to make state attorneys general, he's going to make private citizens go sue him in court. If they want to stop him from doing what he wants, they have to make him.

So that's definitely been a strategy by the president. But that's not unconstitutional. Where it crosses a line is if that happens, he goes into court, and a court says, you're not allowed to do this executive branch or I'm putting it on hold or I'm putting an injunction. And then if the president or the executive branch defies that, that's where we get into real trouble here. So for sure, Donald Trump has taken a conscious legal strategy of, I'm going to do what I want, maybe I'll lose in the courts. That's fine. I mean, I think there's problems in that, but that's not unconstitutional. Where we cross a line is if he starts defying the courts.

BERMAN: Just to be clear, it was Elie Honig who was the renowned legal scholar writing about the "make me" strategy.

And then 20 seconds or less, the Supreme Court, this Supreme Court, do we have any hints about where they may be predisposed to go on how much power an executive has?

HONIG: You know, this Supreme Court has generally been taken a broad view of executive power. But I also think it's a mistake to say, oh, there are six-three Supreme Court. They ruled in favor of Trump on immunity. They're going to do whatever he said. They have rejected Donald Trump at many key junctures. They rejected his election fraud claims. They rejected some of his efforts to stop prosecutors from taking steps against him. They rejected his efforts to resist a subpoena. So I think this Supreme Court will not tolerate if the executive branch crosses that line of defying the courts.

BERMAN: Yes. And also Congress, when Congress writes laws with specific language, this court seems to give deference to that. Elie Honig, great to see you this morning. Congratulations on your big win. I know you played hard.

HONIG: Thanks, John. Thank you.

BERMAN: Sara?

SIDNER: The Eagles, you can't hate him because Elie is an Eagle.

Anyway, think of it as a big real estate site. Thats what President Trump is now saying about Gaza as he doubles down on America taking it over.

Eyes in the sky, CNN has learned the U.S. has stepped up the use of spy planes at the southern border. What it is they are after there.

And winter alerts for 29 people -- 29 million people across the country as storm after storm after storm hits over the next several days. What to expect ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:17:06]

BOLDUAN: The US military, now using a sophisticated spy tool at the US-Mexico border. Sources telling CNN that American spy planes are now being used to try and track down Mexican drug cartels along the border, and that those surveillance flights have surged.

CNN's Katie Bo Lillis has this new reporting. She's joining us now.

Katie, what more are you learning about these spy planes and these flights?

KATIE BO LILLIS, CNN INTELLIGENCE AND NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, Kate, let's talk about the scale of this ramp up here.

Up until now, the US military would fly maybe one surveillance flight a month along the US southwestern border. We have seen at least 18 just in a 10-day period beginning in late January along the US Southwestern border and in international airspace around the Baja Peninsula.

This comes, of course, as Donald Trump has increasingly indicated that he would like to see the military take a greater responsibility for dealing with both the cartel issue specifically, as well as the issue of migration to the US southern border.

But important to remember, Kate, here that the flight hours in the kind of planes being used here, these are finite resources.

And up until now, the Pentagon has really prioritized using these planes to do things like collect intelligence on the war in Ukraine, or hunt Russian or Chinese submarines, for example.

So, this ramp up really underscores the degree to which the Trump administration is willing to shift finite National Security resources away from overseas threats and towards the southern border, where Donald Trump has declared a National Emergency, and specifically towards the cartel issue.

BOLDUAN: Yes, that perspective, that context there, that's really important, Katie Bo. What can they actually see from the from these planes?

LILLIS: Yes. So, three kinds of planes in use here, including interestingly, a U-2, which is a platform that was developed during the Cold War. It's a high-altitude surveillance plane designed to take really exquisite pictures of stuff happening on the ground.

And according to our sources, none of them could recall that being used in a southern border context during their careers.

These are planes that are also capable of collecting signals intelligence. So, to include communications potentially between cartel members on the ground, as well as imagery collection, these are all planes capable of seeing sideways, essentially. So, even though they're only flying in US airspace and in international airspace around the Baja Peninsula, they can still collect intelligence from deep inside Mexico, potentially of cartel communications, logistics hubs, other operations that the cartels are conducting on the Mexico side of the border.

The big question, Kate, is what does the Trump administration intend to do with the information that it gathers here? Is this about developing a body of intelligence to potentially place a terrorism designation on cartel members, for example? Or is it intended to provide information about cartel operations to give to the Mexican authorities for them to take action? Or at the most extreme end of the spectrum, is it about potentially developing targets for the US Military to take action against directly, something that Trump has flirted with in public, is something he might be interested in doing.

At this point, Kate, we just don't know.

[08:20:12]

BOLDUAN: Very important, very good questions to be asking.

Katie Bo, good to see you. Thank you very much -- John.

BERMAN: All right, a "disastrously bad idea." New warnings this morning that the new federal spending cuts could erase America's lead in scientific research.

And you have heard of icebergs. But what about fatbergs? It's an actual scientific term for a build-up of fat and grease inside a sewer system. It's also the reason there are thousands of disappointed fans this morning after a concert was canceled because of fatbergs.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:25:05]

BERMAN: This morning, a new move by the White House that could slash funding for medical research.

Scientists warn the decision could have dire consequences and handicap the US when it comes to being a leader in medical research.

Let's get right to CNN medical correspondent, Meg Tirrell for the latest on this. So what money are we talking about here -- Meg.

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John. I mean, this sounds really, really wonky and in many ways it is. But the level of panic that we saw from the research community was really higher than anything we've seen so far. And of course, there have been a lot of changes already that have been happening at the NIH.

So, essentially this is a policy change directed at what are known as indirect costs of research. So, to put that in perspective, the NIH says, in 2023 it awarded about $35 billion in external research funds. Of that, $26 billion were direct research costs, going specifically to research grants. Then they had nine billion dollars that were allocated, in what they call, indirect costs.

Now the research community refers to this as facilities and administrative costs of research. So, that can include anything from even keeping the lights on in their research labs, paying for high speed data processing.

The support personnel, the people who clean the labs and facilities -- all of these things go into this and it is how universities and academic medical centers fund their work.

And so, what the change is that the NIH announced on Friday is that they are going to go to a flat rate of 15 percent of research costs for these indirect costs and that will be a big decline for a lot of institutions. The NIH said that it was coming down from an average of about 27 percent.

You can see here they tweeted out that some institutions like Harvard and Yale were getting a rate of almost 70 percent of their research grants in order to fund the sort of administrative costs of doing that research.

And so, there's a lot of panic, especially because they said this isn't just for new grants, John, but for existing grants for payments going forward, starting today.

BERMAN: And the impact, scientists say, would be what and when?

TIRRELL: So the NIH is essentially saying this would save more than four billion dollars a year. But what the research community is saying is that that would result in them having to stop work. They would do less research. It could affect clinical trials that are supported by the NIH. Fewer patients might be able to get treatment. People would lose their jobs.

There's a lot of panic about what this could mean, but there's also an expectation that lawsuits are going to be filed, and there's a hope that this will be stopped because it's supposed to start today.

BERMAN: The courts will be busy.

Meg Tirrell, thank you very much for that report and explaining it so clearly -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right, speaking of researches, to shed more light on the conversation, I'm joined by Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Thank you so much for joining us this morning, sir.

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH AND POLICY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Thank you.

SIDNER: When you hear this, where again, the NIH is being targeted. What kind of research may be affected and impacted by this?

OSTERHOLM: Well, Sara, it's all kinds of research. And let me just help put the direct indirect funds into some perspective.

Direct funds are those which go right to the laboratory or to the research group and the work that they're doing, but all the other funds are not just keeping the lights on. But imagine you're a trucking company and you had to build every road that you needed to use to get from point-A to point-B to deliver your goods. That's the indirect cost. We account for those every day by being there.

So, there are many laboratories in this country that are doing incredibly important work, that the machines that they are using literally cost millions of dollars. Now, that's not -- their only use is from one research group, but from multiple groups. So, what we do is we pool that indirect money, whether it's any aspect of the research out there.

And so, people have to realize this, if they want a trucking company to try to build a highway every time they need to deliver a package-A, then they don't really understand what indirect is all about.

SIDNER: What will this mean? Or what could this mean to the average American if this stops research or heavily impacts the ability to do research?

OSTERHOLM: Well, one of the topics that is front and center in this country right now is influenza. We have a number of research groups that are doing very sophisticated research on getting us better flu vaccines -- ones that are more durable, more protective, and they are using laboratory facilities that are very expensive to maintain.

And so, from that perspective, we're going to see immediately work like influenza vaccine improvement, COVID vaccine improvement are all going to basically either be slowed down or in many cases stopped.

And so, you have to understand that this is not about arguing about, you know, should someone get more indirect or less indirect. We all are a part of a group of negotiators that with the NIH, we sit down and show exactly what kind of research were doing, why we need the different machines or the different laboratories, the different support services. And then we negotiate a contract with them for that.

It's not just some number made up that says, we want that much and indirect, it has to be directly related back to the expense that that particular project incurs. And so this, again, would be penny-wise and pound foolish.

SIDNER: I am curious because you said it could stop, sort of the research that is needed to make vaccines better.

And then you have RFK, Jr. who is been put up for the HHS secretary, who has said in the past there's no safe vaccine. If he becomes HHS secretary and you have this issue with NIH where they're doing this sort of cutting off of these funds, do you think vaccines are going to be harder to get in general?

[08:30:44]