Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Doubles Down on Judge Criticism; Roberts' Rare Rebuke over Attack on Judge; ICE Detains Undocumented Activist; Judge Rules on USAID. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired March 19, 2025 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

ALLISON CHINCHAR, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Some of these. And the transition is very quick. Take a look at Omaha. This almost looks kind of like a box of crayons just exploded all over the radar. You have all these different colors because for quite a period of time it went back and forth between heavy rain, then some snow, then maybe a little bit of both before now finally transitioning all to snow.

And here's a look at that camera from Omaha. You can see that dusting underneath. But from time to time you will still see some thunder and lightning off in the distance. You'll get those flashes there. So, you're still getting some of that thunder snow.

We also have the potential for severe weather out ahead of that main system. This includes Chicago, stretching down into portions of Saint Louis, but also down a little bit farther south into portions of Memphis as this system continues to make its way across the country in the next 24 hours.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: A box of crayons exploding. Vivid imagery. And I think right on the nose.

Allison Chinchar, great to see you. Thank you very much.

Sara.

Oh, I should say, a new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL, not Sara, all of us. A new hour starts now.

In response to a rare warning from the chief justice of the United States to stop attacking federal judges, President Trump issues a brand-new attack on a federal judge.

And we are standing by for a critical decision expected to come today from the Federal Reserve on interest rates. We are watching the markets to see how they react.

And a woman once named on "Times" 100 most influential list is now being detained by ICE.

Kate is out today. I'm John Berman, with Sara Sidner. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

All right. So, if you're President Trump, how do you respond to a very rare scolding from the chief justice of the United States basically to stop attacking federal judges? Well, you attack a federal judge.

This has to do with the case involving the White House efforts to deport what it calls Venezuelan gang members using an 18th century law. President Trump is calling for the judge in this case, calling for his impeachment. This prompted the extraordinary statement from the chief justice of the Supreme Court, actually the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts. "For more than two centuries it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

So, Roberts said that. Then this is what President Trump said.

Or not? We do not have that sound, despite what I just said of what President Trump said. But he did say words out loud, which I promise we will get to you eventually.

Let's get to CNN's Kevin Liptak at the White House, who will convey exactly what the feelings are from the president.

Kevin.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes. I can tell you just what Trump said. He essentially tried to shrug off the Roberts criticism, saying that he didn't think Roberts was talking specifically about him because he didn't name him in that statement, which is a little beyond the realm. I think it was pretty unambiguous what Roberts was saying there and who Roberts was talking to.

But I do also think it's notable that the president is not trying to jump into a feud directly with the chief justice of the United States. Of course, so much of Trump's agenda is heading towards the Supreme Court, and he will need, at the end of the day, Justice Roberts, if some of these items that he's been trying to enact are upheld by the highest court in the land. So, Justice Roberts is one judge that President Trump does not seem to be interested in picking a fight with directly at the moment, but that's not stopping him from going after this other federal judge in Washington who has blocked the deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, but also, very notably, has cast some very intense skepticism on the administration's rationale for not turning around the planes of those alleged gang members, even though he specifically told them to.

And so, I think we do have some of the sound from the president. Let's listen to what he said in response to Justice Roberts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, he didn't mention my name in the statement. I just saw it quickly. He didn't mention my name.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

TRUMP: But many people have called for his impeachment, the impeachment of this judge. I don't know who the judge is, but he's radical left.

What do you do when you have a rogue judge? The judge that we're talking about, he's - you look at his other rulings. I mean, rulings unrelated. But having to do with me, he's a lunatic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIPTAK: So, not backing off at all against that criticism of the judge in Washington.

And this is part of a concerted strategy here. This is not Trump necessarily sort of going off on his own. When you listen to White House advisers, they do believe that the majority of the country is behind them on these hardline deportation tactics, and that by going after the judge in this case, it only bolsters the president politically.

[09:05:00]

So, I don't think you can expect him to back off.

In fact, he did not back off overnight when he was posting on Truth Social. He said, "if a president doesn't have the right to throw murderers and other criminals out of our country because a radical left lunatic judge wants to assume the role of president, then our country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail." But, you know, notably he stopped short of calling again for this judge - judges impeachment, perhaps internalizing somewhat some of what Roberts told him in that statement.

John.

BERMAN: Perhaps.

All right, Kevin Liptak, at the White House this morning. Thanks so much for all that.

Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, joining us now to discuss more on this are Karen Finney, our CNN political commentator and a former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, and Pete Seat, a former White House spokesperson under President George W. Bush.

Thank you both for being here.

Pete, I got to start with you.

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, who wrote the opinion to give Donald Trump wide presidential immunity, is snapping back at the president for his comments on a judge whose ruling Trump simply doesn't like. How can any Republican stand by Trump on his vicious attacks on a sitting judge just because he didn't like what the judge ruled because it didn't go the way Trump wanted it to?

PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESPERSON, GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION: Well, the chief justice of the highest court in the land, and the de facto head of and spokesman for the judiciary, is, of course, standing up for the integrity of a co-equal branch of government. But the convenient part, the part that's being conveniently left out of this interview with Laura Ingraham, is that President Trump said he has not defied, nor would he in the future, defy a judicial order. That's what this is really all about, are questions that the White House, that the executive branch defied this judge. And he made very clear that he has not, nor would he not. That is the real story here.

What's not the story, in my mind, is the fact that when Donald Trump disagrees -

SIDNER: But - but, wait a minute. Let me - let me stop you there, Pete. What -

SEAT: Yes, sure.

SIDNER: Let me stop you there, Pete.

You said that Trump responded, and you are correct, that he would not defy a court order and has not defied a court order. The court is looking at whether that has happened and asking questions about whether that has happened. So, what he says, if it does not match the evidence, may not be what happened. We just simply don't know. And they're trying to get answers.

So, what I'm saying is, how do Republicans stand by someone who says that a - that a judge should be impeached for making a decision simply because the president doesn't like it?

SEAT: And you're absolutely right, we don't know, so we shouldn't prejudge ourselves.

SIDNER: But do Republicans stand by a president that says a judge should be impeached just because that federal judge did not respond in the way that the president wanted him to, did not rule in the president's favor?

SEAT: I'm not a spokesman for the White House or the president. Republicans are going to make their decision on whether they agree with what he has to say.

But this is consistent with who Donald Trump is. And to the point in the segment right before us, politically it works for Donald Trump. Look at the entire campaign and how he reacted to his time in the courtroom and the decisions that were being made by judges during that. He attacks when he is not being supported. This is not new coming from him.

SIDNER: Not new. Karen, does it make it right?

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But, Sara - no. I mean this is not a hard question. I understand that Pete is in a tough position as a, you know, Republican commentator. No. The American people, as the polling that you were just going over with Harry Enten showed, the American people want the president to follow the law.

We are already in a constitutional crisis where we have a president who is abusing his power. That's what was happening this weekend. That's part of why I believe the - Justice Roberts came forward and felt compelled to say something, despite, unfortunately, having granted Trump these, you know, these broad powers last year.

But, no, Americans want a president to follow the law. And I think in these immigration cases, there are the specifics of the individual, the individuals in one of the cases, who were deported, but then there's the law and there's the premise of our Constitution and three independent branches of government, which Trump has been trying to undermine from day one. Look at the way he's trying to control Congress. Members of Congress are terrified, if you talk to folks up there, because they're afraid of what Elon Musk is going to do with his PAC to try to primary them. They are - so they're in lockstep. And he's trying to undermine the independence of the judiciary.

But as Pete said, he did do that during the last year or so.

[09:10:00]

We've seen him do this consistently throughout his career in terms of disrespecting the role of the judiciary.

SIDNER: Yes, and it has led to these judges getting death threats at the same time. So, there - it's a lot to unpack here.

But, Karen, I do want to talk to you and have you respond to what is happening outside of Washington at these town halls.

Let's listen to what happened at a Republican town hall this week, and then what happened to a Democrat as they tried to speak to their constituents who were very angry.

Let's start with the Republican response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How can you be against a balanced budget?

CROWD: (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How can you be against a balanced?

CROWD: (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right.

CROWD: (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right.

CROWD: Tax the rich! Tax the rich! Tax the rich!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are not interested in hearing that you are in the minority. We know that. We want you to show some of the backbone and strategic brilliance that Mitch McConnell would have in the minority.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We want you to show fight. And you are not fighting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: So, that was the Democrat.

FINNEY: Yes.

SINDER: Before you heard people going after the Republican.

So, Democratic Congressman Glenn Ivey kept his composure, as did the Republican congressman, in talking with the constituents, but are Democrats losing the plot here?

FINNEY: Well, I think a couple of things. And I was at the DNC 20 years ago when Democrats faced a similar situation with George W. Bush in office, and we were in the minority and needed to fight back.

What I think Democrats are missing is the need even more so than back in 2005 with the proliferation of social media and very - and, you know, progressive groups. We need a whole of movement approach because we're up against a whole of movement approach. It's not just about Democrats in Congress. Democrats in Congress have to work together. We didn't see that. We didn't see a strategy, frankly, around the budget. I think that's part of what people want. They want that fight.

At the same time, what they also need to do is work with the groups outside. Weather it - and on all platforms, to show the fight, to be part of the fight. That's something that we were able to do, for example, when former President Bush was trying to privatize Social Security. And it was the grassroots movement in combination with what Democrats were doing in Washington and governors and mayors and attorneys general, who are also critical in this moment, it's got to be a whole of movement approach, and that's what I hope Leader Schumer and Leader Hakeem Jeffries understand and really bring the wholesomeness of the progressive movement together in this fight.

SIDNER: Karen Finney and Pete Seat, thank you both so much for that rousing and fun talk.

John.

BERMAN: All right, this morning, a key disagreement between the White House and the Kremlin about what was said on that call between President Trump and Vladimir Putin. And this comes after Russian drones hit a Ukrainian hospital overnight.

And new reporting on why a mother and activist who was once on "Times" 100 most influential people list is now in ICE custody.

And this morning, two teenage girls have been found alive after going missing on a paddle boarding trip.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:17:59]

SIDNER: This morning, calls are growing for ICE to release an undocumented immigrant activist and mother of four, Jeanette Vizguerra. She is being held at a detention facility in Aurora, Colorado, according to her attorney. During President Trump's first term, she took refuge in a church for three years to avoid deportation and was named to "Time" magazine's 100 most influential list.

CNN's Gloria Pazmino is following this story. She joins me now.

You were able to speak to her daughter. What is she saying about her status and what is happening with her now?

GLORIA PAZMINO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I spoke with her daughter, Luz Baez, Sara, last night, and she told me about the moments in which her mother was detained. Her mother was detained by immigration officers while she was on a work break outside of a local Target, where she lives and works. And she told me that her mother, in recent days, had noticed that she was being apparently followed by unmarked vehicles. This is a common practice that law enforcement uses when they have an immigration target, to try to get a sense of how the person moves about their day so they can take them into custody on the street. And that appears to be exactly what happened here. They approached her while she was on her break, and they put her into a car and moved her into a detention facility in Colorado.

Now, her daughter tells me that for years they've been preparing for this moment. And the reason for that is because Vizcarra has been fighting her deportation orders for years at this point. In fact, it was in 2016 that she took refuge inside of a church, and she sort of became a symbol to the resistance to Trump's immigration policies during his first term.

She's become a very well-known advocate in the immigrant community, and in the community there in Denver. And that community has turned out to support her.

I want you to take a listen to her daughter speaking at a rally last night.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LUZ BAEZ, ACTIVIST'S DAUGHTER: Not only is she a community member, but she's a mother to four kids.

[09:20:05] Four kids that still depend on her. That can't go a day without keeping her in our thoughts. That rely on her. She's one of our strongest support systems. Not only in an emotional manner, but in any other way. And I just wanted to say that, I need my mom back. I need her to come home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAZMINO: Sara, she has four children. Three of them are U.S. citizens. All of this goes back to a 2009 vehicular stop where Vizguerra was found to have expired inspection stickers and a fake Social Security card. From there her immigration case has been going on. She has been fighting against deportation.

This case so far has gotten a big reaction from local law officials - local representatives, I should say, including the governor, who said that the Trump administration should be focusing on the violent criminals they said they were going to target, not on people like Vizguerra, who is an activist, a pillar of her community, a mother of four children and someone who does not have any sort of violent criminal background.

Sara.

SIDNER: But they also - the administration also saying that they were going to focus on those who already had deportation orders. And now we are seeing that play out as well.

Gloria Pazmino, thank you so much for that story.

John.

BERMAN: This morning, a federal judge has ruled that the dismantling of USAID by Elon Musk likely violated the Constitution, and he definitely blocked him from making any further cuts. The judge rejected the argument by the White House that Musk is merely an advisor to the president. The order requires the Trump administration to restore email and computer access to all employees of USAID, including those put on administrative leave, but importantly stopped short of reversing the firings or really resurrecting the agency.

With us now, CNN legal analyst, and former federal prosecutor, Jennifer Rodgers.

I want to break this down into two parts, if I can, the legal implications and the practical. First, the legal implications of what this judge ruled and the way that plaintiffs really presented the case.

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it was really smart the way that they presented it. They had the right plaintiffs, people who were actually impacted, and they did a good job of persuading the court that Elon Musk is in charge here because the appointments clause in the Constitution says that certain actions have to be taken by duly appointed officials of the government. And Elon Musk is not one of those. So, the government tried to say, well, he wasn't really in charge of

DOGE. And, of course, then plaintiffs came back with all of this evidence that Trump and Elon Musk and other people said, yes, he's running the show here.

So, I think they put their case together very well. And the judge also said that this violated the separation of powers because when Congress created USAID, they said that to make major changes to it, there had to be consultation with Congress. That, of course, wasn't done either.

So, I think, legally, it was a very, very well put together case. And, you know, they won.

BERMAN: And this ruling, what kind of a roadmap does it provide for others who want to challenge actions by Elon Musk and his team?

RODGERS: Well, it's important to pick the right plaintiffs, right, and go to court. Make sure you have standing. Make sure you have irreparable injury as you're asking for injunctions like this. So, I think it does provide that kind of a roadmap.

I hope it also provides some lessons for the government in this case that they need to be more careful. It's not that they can't dismantle USAID, to be honest. They can, as long as they follow the proper procedures. This is really about procedural issues and not the substantive issues. But they have to do it properly. And if they do it properly, they will avoid a lot of the harms that we've seen play out with all of the chaos that has enveloped the country since (INAUDIBLE).

BERMAN: And that really gets to the second issue here, the practical impacts of it. Practically speaking, you know, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube really with USAID, can you?

RODGERS: Well, you know, they're going to have to rehire some people and so on. They can pay their bills that they hadn't paid and that sort of thing. So, some of the damage will be mitigated.

But, yes, they're going to shut this down, or at least cut it back drastically. And they're allowed to do that if they do it the right way.

BERMAN: And the judge basically, even right - laid out a roadmap for them to do, is say, you know, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, this is the way you do this in the next two weeks, you know, if you want to.

This also might be a little bit of a lesson in, you know, bare-knuckle politics here. How much you can accomplish before a judge weighs in because the Trump administration already did what it wanted it to do here.

RODGERS: Yes, that's true. I mean, you know, listen, I do hope that all of these rulings that are coming down, not just in this case, but in other cases, will cause them to slow down and do things more carefully and do it the right way. I was also very heartened to see that in response to this, they said that they would appeal and not defy the judge's order, which I think is important.

So, you know, listen. Yes, hopefully they will - will do things more appropriately and then that will mitigate the harms out there.

BERMAN: And there are even Republicans in Congress who said, hey, come to us for this.

[09:25:01]

Let's do it this way. It makes it more permanent.

Jennifer Rodgers, great to see you. Thank you very much.

RODGERS: Thanks.

BERMAN: This morning, a typo or a serious misunderstanding. The Kremlin and the White House, they disagree about what was said on a phone call - that important phone call - between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Trump. And this happens as Russian drones attacked a Ukrainian hospital overnight.

And he was lost at sea for 95 days. This morning we have new information directly from him on how he managed to stay alive.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:30:07]

SIDNER: The folks from that company real excited, trying to get everybody to