Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Interview With Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX); Interview With Former U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan; Interview With Canadian Parliament Member Anthony Housefather; Trump Targets Department of Education; Trump Backs Down on Mexico Tariffs. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired March 06, 2025 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:29]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Trade whiplash, the president postponing punishing tariffs against Mexico just two days after they began. But how does this back-and-forth impact the economy and your wallet? Plus, what are his plans for Canada?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Dismantling a department. The White House may soon be ready to put a plan into action to shut down the Department of Education. Lawmakers say, if President Trump wants to eliminate it, he will have to go through Congress.

And a path forward, Ukraine's president meeting with his European allies to discuss the war against Russia as Europe's faith in America begins to fade.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: President Donald Trump today announcing he will delay tariffs on Mexican goods covered under the USMCA trade agreement for at least one month.

But when it comes to Canada, we're told that negotiations are still ongoing. Remember, Trump delayed 25 percent auto tariffs for a month yesterday following pressure from America's Big Three automakers, as well as a massive dip in markets and pressure from members of his own party.

Meantime, new data shows the president's sharp cuts in the federal work force are sending U.S. job losses to recession-level numbers.

Let's take you now to the White House live with CNN's Jeff Zeleny.

Jeff, what can you tell us about how this decision to delay tariffs on Mexico came about?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, there's no question the whiplash here at the White House over trade is being felt on Wall Street, and that is the underlying argument to much of what we are seeing here today.

We know the president watches the financial markets very carefully and really doing a dramatic about-face here when it comes to Mexico and. Perhaps later this afternoon there are many indications he will also lift the tariffs on Canada.

But the Mexico ones, let's start there. He was having a phone conversation with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum this morning, and the president said it went very well. He said Mexico has been cooperating and they have been putting more troops on the border.

But when you look at the amount of fentanyl -- that is the underlying principle to -- the underlying reason for these new tariffs -- the countries are far apart. The president often talks about them in a similar way, but look at this; 96.6 percent of the fentanyl in 2024 came from Mexico. Only 0.2 percent came from Canada.

Yet the president is still being very strong in his language against the Canadian prime minister, and he has not yet signaled that he is going to lift those tariffs. But we are told by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. He teased earlier this morning trying to calm the markets, saying that the president is likely to lift the tariffs for both countries.

So, of course, this comes after yesterday just lifting the tariffs on the Big Three automakers. So, taken together here, this has been somewhat confusing even trying to follow this trade policy. It's basically like a seesaw effect, in the words of one a Republican lobbyist I was speaking with this morning who has been talking to the White House.

But, clearly, the market has been responding to this and the dollar has been weakened by this. But look for the president perhaps in the next hour to explain this more fulsomely. But for now, at least, for one month at least, once again, the president is lifting those tariffs on Mexico for sure and it looks like also on Canada, but we will have to see on that, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Yes, we will be waiting and watching.

Jeff Zeleny, live for us at the White House, thank you so much -- Brianna.

KEILAR: This trade roller coaster rattling businesses, manufacturers and investors, who are all grappling with chaos and uncertainty.

We have a live look right now at Wall Street. And it is reacting sadly there, down 500 -- Dow down 500 points. You see the Nasdaq responding not so well also.

Let's bring in CNN chief data analyst, Harry Enten.

I feel like it's up and down with the indices here, Harry, but we're getting a clearer picture of the impacts here. Just how much is this going to cost just people in their everyday lives?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA ANALYST: Yes, up, down, all around. I can feel my 401(k) waving a bye-bye. Look, I think you can get a pretty good idea. Of course, there's so much uncertainty here. We don't actually know which tariffs will go into effect, how long they will last, et cetera.

[13:05:02]

But, according to a study out of Yale, the annual tariff costs per household, look at this, $1,600 to $2,000. That is a lot of money, given the median household income, where it is. We're talking about 2 percent of folks' budgets, at least. That is what we are talking about here.

And when you're struggling to put food on the table, if you're living paycheck to paycheck, the idea that you're going to take out $1,600 to $2,000 per year, that's a lot of chunk of change.

KEILAR: Yes, it certainly is.

So what types of products are we talking about that are going to be impacted, and by how much here?

ENTEN: Yes, what types of products are we talking about?

I mean, look, we're talking about a slew of different products that can be impacted. What are we talking about? We're talking about computers, the prices of those up 11 percent. How about natural gas, right, heating your home, up 5 percent. What about something as simple as white rice? Up 4 percent.

So it's hitting all different parts of the budget, whether it's electronics, whether it's trying to heat your home, whether it's actually putting food on the table. That is why these tariffs could be so disastrous for the American people. It is because it is costing them in every single part of their lives. At least, these estimates suggest that they will.

KEILAR: I prefer the brown rice. Well, actually, I don't. I just try to be healthy. But my kids really like the white rice.

ENTEN: It's not that good-tasting. It's not that good-tasting. White rice just tastes so much better, even if it's not quite as good for you.

KEILAR: It's pretty yummy. Not quite, yes. But my kids love it. And I'm sure a lot of kids love it.

ENTEN: Yes.

KEILAR: So, OK, talk to us about just the uncertainty, because, like I mentioned, it's this whiplash as we're checking out the markets. Is there -- are the tariffs happening, are they not? Talk about that.

ENTEN: Yes. Yes, I mean, look, it feels like I want to go out to Coney Island, right, or maybe go to Six Flags and join up with everybody else and go on the roller-coaster ride. And what are we talking about here? We're talking about uncertainty.

And uncertainty is terrible. And there's a great way to sort of measure the uncertainty. And that is the Trade Policy Uncertainty index. Not much of a surprise, it has reached an all-time high dating all the way back since they started keeping records back in 1960, get this, up 651 percent versus a year ago.

Folks can't plan. That is a big part of the market. The markets are trying to figure out what's going on. If they don't know what's going on, that leads to the roller-coaster rides that we're living in right now. And of course, remember, so many folks own stocks. So it's hurting -- hurting their 401(k)s as well.

KEILAR: So how do Americans feel about this? Is it popular?

ENTEN: No, no, it's not popular. Americans' views on new tariffs. Will raise prices, we know that they will, 69 percent. We're talking 69 percent, not a nice number there.

How about oppose them on Canada tariffs? We're talking two-thirds of the American public. They don't like them. The markets don't like them. Maybe the only one who likes them is Donald Trump, although, even him, he is wavering on it.

KEILAR: All right, Harry, thank you so much, as always.

ENTEN: Thank you.

KEILAR: So while we're waiting to see if the president will give Canada the same pause he granted Mexico, the damage already being done.

Moments ago, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said all retaliatory measures against the U.S. would stay in place even if Trump pauses tariffs. And here's how some Canadian businesses are pushing back with signs like these, encouraging shoppers to buy Canadian-made products.

Some liquor stores have removed American distilled alcohol from their shelves. Manitoba lawmakers passing an order pulling U.S. liquor from all its stores, giving businesses their tax incentives. And in Alberta, the premier told CNN they're turning to other trading partners who are honoring their trade deals.

With us now is Anthony Housefather, a Canadian member of Parliament.

Sir, thank you so much for being with us. How are you seeing this development? And if there is ultimately a chance for an off-ramp, do you see it as an execution merely postponed or a sign that actually there is something of a lasting ability to avoid these tariffs?

ANTHONY HOUSEFATHER, CANADIAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER: Yes, I think, Brianna, like most Canadians, I have been shocked. I have a lot of family that lives in the United States, a lot of friends there.

I was the general counsel of a U.S.-based multinational, so I have worked in the United States an awful lot. And I think we always thought the United States was a stable partner and ally, our best friend. And then we have sort of seen that just one person can change that dynamic and the bipartisan consensus we have had, whether whoever occupies the White House or whoever controls Congress, is gone.

And I think Canadians have sort of said, well, now we need to rely on ourselves. We can't have 70 percent of our exports going to the United States and importing 64 percent of our goods from the United States. We need to get rid of interprovincial trade barriers. We need to start trading with the rest of the world. And it's just very sad for us.

And I very much hope the president will reconsider this, because, again, we are his best friend and ally, and Canadians love Americans. We love the United States, and we don't want to be at war, even a trade war, with the United States.

[13:10:02]

KEILAR: Do you think it's whoever occupies the White House, or do you think it's if Trump occupies the White House? And I mean this because we're hearing from every member of Parliament we have on, every official we have joining us from Canada talks about Canada being more self-sustaining, not relying on the U.S. so much.

Do you worry that even, once the Trump term is over -- and I understand, yes, you have four more years, for sure -- you worry that this lasts beyond that?

HOUSEFATHER: Yes, I think it's very much unique at this point to President Trump. I still think that the vast majority of members of Congress left to their own devices would not support this type of an action.

I don't think that this is an action that is supported by the business community in the United States or by labor in the United States. I mean, I think they realize that integrating our economy is what's the best possible thing for both countries.

I mean, remember, Brianna, the United States just tried these types of tariffs in 1890 and then again at the beginning of the Great Depression in 1930, and neither time did it work well for the United States. And they were repealed a couple of years later.

This is going to make everything more expensive for American consumers and for Canadian consumers. It will cost us both jobs. This is not something -- like, we're not China, right? We're not taking low-cost manufacturing jobs out of the United States to come to Canada.

We have the same challenges the United States does with China. And if the United States came to us and said we want to integrate our economies more, but you need to help us impose the same tariffs on China as we do to stop them dumping steel and aluminum into our countries, I think we would all look at this very differently if it was a spirit of cooperation, versus imposing tariffs on us.

And the excuse that, Brianna, you mentioned before, the fentanyl, between 2022 and 2024, there were over 60,000 pounds of fentanyl seized at the Mexican border. There were 54 pounds from Canada. In January, it was 0.5 ounces of fentanyl.

I mean, this is not serious. So we're really worried, because the president keeps talking about us becoming the 51st state and he continues to demean Canada. It not only makes us angry and sad. It's also deeply concerning that this practice is continuing.

KEILAR: Yes. And, certainly, the fentanyl thing, to your point, those numbers check out. It's a really minuscule amount compared to the southern border, very minuscule.

Anthony Housefather, thank you so much for being with us.

HOUSEFATHER: Thank you for having me.

KEILAR: Boris.

SANCHEZ: Back in the United States, President Trump could soon give the new education secretary a big assignment, dismantle your own department.

Officials at the White House say that they have prepped an executive order directing Secretary Linda McMahon to begin that process. But, by law, Congress should have the final say on totally eliminating the department.

Let's get some perspective now from former Education Secretary Arne Duncan. He's currently the managing director of Emerson Collective.

Sir, thank you so much for being with us.

This draft executive order directs McMahon to facilitate the closure of the Education Department while operating to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law. What does that mean? How would that work? What would be left in place?

ARNE DUNCAN, FORMER U.S. EDUCATION SECRETARY: There's a lot of gobbledygook there.

As you said used very accurately, to close the Department of Education, it would take 60 votes in the Senate. That is never going to happen. And so it's sort of a bunch of rhetoric. It's gaslighting. They're not going to close the Department of Education.

They could dismantle it. They could do harm. They could do damage. They had an executive order ready to go today. They walked back because it's so unpopular, just like he walked back to tariffs today. Two-thirds of Americans don't want the Department of Education to close.

So I'm not quite sure what his next move is. He's a master of chaos.

SANCHEZ: Public schools only receive about 14 percent of their budgets from the federal government. I wonder how they would be impacted and what it would mean for students if education were handled entirely at the state and local level.

DUNCAN: Yes, well, so let's just -- let's parse that a little bit.

If his goal is to move education back to the states, I can just say, congratulations, President Trump, President Musk, mission accomplished, because it's already there. It's been there. It's actually about 90 percent of the funding generally comes at the state and local level, only about 10 percent.

And that money from the federal level comes to help our nation's most vulnerable children, children who need access to pre-K, rural children, children who live below the poverty line, children with special needs, young people trying to go to college who don't come from wealthy families and need Pell Grants to do that.

And so, with Trump, you always sort of follow the money. If he's simply moving functions of the department to other agencies, to HHS, to Labor, to Treasury, that would be a bureaucratic nightmare, but it doesn't directly impact the student.

[13:15:05]

If he starts to take money away from our nation's most vulnerable children, then we're in a very, very different situation.

SANCHEZ: What do you think the goal is with this effort to try to remove the Department of Education altogether?

DUNCAN: Yes, well, again, they can't do that.

So, Trump likes to do sort of easy, dumb things, frankly. He doesn't do hard, meaningful things. And this is just sort of gaslighting, trying to send a signal to his base that education is going -- quote,unquote -- "back to the states."

But, as I said earlier, it's been in the states forever. And 90 percent of funding comes at the state and the local level. There's about 10 percent comes at the federal level to help our nation's most vulnerable children. And I would be stunned if he touches that, because we know children with special needs, 7.5 million across the country, some of their parents happen to vote R, some happen to vote D.

He would hurt a whole lot of people, hurt a whole lot of his base if he starts to hurt our nation's most vulnerable children. I don't think he's stupid enough to do that.

SANCHEZ: More broadly speaking, I wonder what you make of Secretary McMahon. You there, Secretary? OK, great. That got fixed.

Secretary McMahon says that the agency has received a trillion dollars over the last few years, but that student outcomes have languished. And we have seen students falling behind in math and reading levels for years. What can be done to effectively correct those trends?

Looks like we have lost audio. Former Education Secretary Arne Duncan, we do appreciate the time. We hope to have him on again soon. Still to come: The CDC is now the latest federal agency scrambling to

rehire fired workers, as Republican lawmakers tell Elon Musk they want more oversight, more involvement with DOGE.

Plus, European leaders holding an emergency summit with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss the security of Ukraine and the continent as a whole, after raising doubts about American loyalty.

KEILAR: And later: Charges have been filed more than a year after three Chiefs fans were found dead outside a Kansas City home after they watched a game together.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:21:46]

SANCHEZ: CNN has confirmed that the CDC is asking some 180 staffers to return to their jobs after firing them just weeks ago.

A source says many of those employees being asked back were involved in outbreak response. Some say they will not return because of the unstable environment at the agency. This is only the latest case of federal agencies having to ask workers fired by DOGE to return after realizing they did critical work.

There were USDA employees working on bird flu response, National Nuclear Security Administration workers vital to managing the nation's nuclear stockpile, as well as VA employees working on the veterans crisis hot line.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk is distancing himself from some of these mass firings, a Republican congressman telling CNN that, during a meeting last night, Musk told House Republicans those decisions were made by federal department heads with no DOGE involvement.

Joining us to discuss is Republican Congressman Brandon Gill of Texas. He's a member of the DOGE Oversight Committee and was at that meeting with Elon Musk.

Congressman, thank you so much for being with us.

I understand that, at that meeting, Musk explained some of the specific methodology that DOGE is using to go about making cuts and that he did get some pushback from some of your colleagues who want Congress to be more involved in the process.

Do you think there needs to be more oversight and a clear, specific outlining of his methodology to Americans, to taxpayers?

REP. BRANDON GILL (R-TX): Well, first of all, thank you for having on -- having me on the show. Really appreciate it.

I think that there's been a little bit of misinformation about Elon Musk's involvement with Congress. There's been this idea that Elon Musk is going rogue and has no interaction with Congress and very little communication. Nothing could be further from the truth. Last night, I met, along with the DOGE Subcommittee, which I sit on,

with Elon Musk. We discussed how we could work together. We discussed plans going forward, how we could best interact and push the ball forward to slash waste, fraud and abuse from the federal government.

Right after that, Elon Musk met with the entire Republican delegation. He told us about some of the things he was working on. And then he took an open mic Q&A from anybody in Congress on the Republican side who was there who wanted to ask him whatever they wanted. And with several people, he gave them an answer and then he stayed back later and had offline conversations.

He's been giving his phone number out to senators. He's been in direct communication with the committee that I sit on. So Elon Musk has been working very closely with us. This has nothing to do with him or anybody else going rogue. He's doing what the president, as an employee or a worker for President Trump, has asked him to do.

And he's been working closely with us.

SANCHEZ: So, Congressman, who do you think should answer for some of these mistakes that he acknowledged would happen, literally hundreds of people being fired and then rehired? Who should be responsible for that?

Do you think DOGE could be executing on its mission more efficiently?

GILL: Well, first of all, I think we have got to recognize that it's very rare for a government agency like DOGE or anything else to actually admit mistakes whenever they happened.

[13:25:08]

And, in this case, Elon Musk has been very straightforward with the American people that we are doing some of the biggest and most monumental reforms to the administrative state in the past 100 years. And through this process, there may be mistakes.

But Elon Musk has been very public about what he's doing. He posts about it on his X feed almost every single day. Again, we are talking to him as well. So he said that there may be mistakes, and they're walking it back and cleaning it up.

That's exactly what -- the kind of transparency and accountability we should want from the federal government.

SANCHEZ: I do wonder about some of what has been posted, because a lot of it has been proven to be completely inaccurate. This wall of receipts that DOGE has on its Web site has been riddled with errors, many of which they have corrected themselves, confusing billions with millions, triple-counting contracts that they have eliminated.

They have taken credit for ending programs that were ended in November, when Joe Biden was president, even going back as far as 2005, when George W. Bush was president. So it goes back to the question of transparency. You're arguing that

Musk is being transparent, but a lot of what's come out is wrong or false, and there have been a lot of mistakes. So I wonder, who should be held accountable for those mistakes?

GILL: Well, let me back up just a little bit here.

What we are doing with the DOGE movement on the DOGE Subcommittee and what Elon Musk and President Trump are doing is the biggest and most consequential reform of the administrative state in decades, possibly even in the last 100 years.

We have had an administrative bureaucracy that is sclerotic, that is unresponsive to the needs of the American people, and is operating with very little accountability, and is soaking up taxpayer dollars with almost no restraint. And this has been going on for decades.

This reform is so desperately needed, and it's exactly what the American people have been asking for. We are $37 trillion in debt. President Trump inherited a federal government that is failing, that is running $2 trillion annual deficits. This cannot continue. It is utterly unsustainable.

If we want to preserve agencies like the CDC or other federal programs, we have got to get them under control to make sure that they are financially viable and sustainable. Now, this is such a big process and we are in the early stages of doing this -- and, again, this is going to take weeks, if not months, to go -- that, yes, there is going to be -- there may be some confusion.

But, again, they have been correcting errors. And that is exactly what we should be asking of them. They are doing everything we could ask of them and more.

SANCHEZ: I guess, to that point, I do wonder about their goal of cutting $1 trillion by September.

Two-thirds of what the government has spent this year alone has been on entitlements, Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits. Even if you were to take DOGE at its word, which has proven to be inaccurate, by their own admission, they have only cut about $100 billion, again, math that they have provided that hasn't been verified.

GILL: That's not true.

SANCHEZ: That hasn't been verified.

I do wonder how they are going to get to $1 trillion without cutting into those entitlement programs. Can you guarantee that there won't be a reduction in benefits?

GILL: Well, I -- first of all, I think it is a little inaccurate to say that it is by their own admission. They have been correcting errors.

And, again, that is all we could ask for, for a reform agency or a reform program to do. Whenever you are thinking of the DOGE cuts, you are right. Elon Musk has estimated that he can find about $1 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse from throughout the federal government.

And we -- President Trump laid it out in his State -- excuse me -- his joint address the other day, that we have people on the Social Security roles that are listed as being over 150 years old.

SANCHEZ: That was a coding error, sir.

GILL: And Elon Musk talked about that to us last night.

SANCHEZ: That was proven to be a coding error.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Elon Musk acknowledged that, that those numbers were off.

GILL: I'm -- would you let me continue?

SANCHEZ: Sure, go ahead, sir. Go ahead.

GILL: I want to address that. He talked about that last night.

And one of the things that he laid out is how illogical the federal bureaucracy is, that we have multiple government programs and agencies that are not communicating with each other. So, the problem with the Social Security entries is that you can identify people who are dead who are still re -- receiving -- excuse me -- unemployment benefits, for instance, that shouldn't be.

And you could solve that simply by having -- allowing them to communicate with each other. He has identified at the Department of Labor that some of their data is owned by a third party. They don't even own their data. I mean, these are serious operational problems that he is going in and addressing.

And they -- they have happened because we have allowed the bureaucracy to metastasize with virtually no oversight.

[13:30:00]