Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Fed Keeps Key Interest Rate Steady; Judge Extends Deadline for DOJ to Turn Over Details on Deportations; ICE Detains Undocumented Mother and Immigration Activist in Colorado; White House Says Zelenskyy Agreed to a Partial Ceasefire on Energy; Netanyahu Facing Fury as Israelis Protest Resumption of War. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired March 19, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:12]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": What will the Fed do after a tumultuous few weeks on Wall Street and with the nation locked in a trade war, the Federal Reserve has a big decision to make on interest rates. It's a decision with huge consequences for Americans and the economy.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Plus, who holds the cards as the U.S. and Russia launch ceasefire talks on Ukraine, President Trump speaks with President Zelenskyy about the war. What we're learning about this high-stakes call. And ticked off at Tesla, the car company becoming a symbol of some American's frustration with DOGE and Elon Musk, and his dealerships are now caught in the crosshairs. We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "CNN News Central."

KEILAR: Happening now, breaking news. The Federal Reserve right now made its first interest rate decision since President Donald Trump began threatening a global trade war and amid higher economic fears as the president and senior officials refuse to rule out a recession. Let's get straight to CNN's Matt Egan outside the Federal Reserve. What did they decide, Matt?

MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: No change in rates, Brianna. The Federal Reserve deciding to keep interest rates steady. Now, this decision was widely expected. It was well telegraphed by Fed officials, and it reflects a Fed that remains very much in wait and see mode. Fed officials, they're hoping to get more clarity on policy out of Washington, especially on the trade front, before they make any move to interest rates. So no change in rates and yet, there were some significant signals sent by the Fed today.

Let me walk you through some of them. First, this statement that was put out just a few moments ago includes new language that says, uncertainty around the economic outlook has increased. Now, that is Fed code for the Fed is less confident in the direction of this economy, and that is backed up by the new economic projections that were just put out for the first time since December. Couple of significant changes here. First of all, the Fed is downgrading its GDP forecast. Previously, the Fed was expecting 2.1 percent GDP growth this year. Now they see 1.7 percent, so still growth, but slower growth. They've also downgraded their 2026 GDP forecast. And Fed officials, they are penciling in a slightly bigger increase to the unemployment rate.

The inflation forecast also moving in the wrong direction. Fed officials were previously projecting 2.5 percent inflation at the end of this year. They now see 2.7 percent. No explicit reason given for these changes. But of course, the elephant in the room is all this uncertainty over the president's trade war and some of the market turbulence that we've seen in recent days.

Now, despite these changes in the outlook, the Fed is still penciling in two interest rate hikes this year. That's what they said in December. They're standing by that forecast for now, at least. If that happens, that would be good news, of course, to borrowers who are trying to get relief when it comes to car loans, mortgage rates, and of course, paying off credit card debt.

Later this hour, we're going to hear from Fed Chair Jerome Powell. He's going to face a lot of questions about whether or not he's worried about an economic slowdown or a recession, and he is going to have to defend these new projections that say the Fed is expecting slower growth, higher inflation, and yet they're still expecting to cut interest rates. Brianna?

KEILAR: All right, Matt Egan, thank you for that. Let's discuss further now with Business Journalist and Host of Public Radio's "Full Disclosure," Roben Farzad. All right, Robin, no rate change as expected. That means mortgage rates, credit card interest rates, car loans -- it's not going to get any cheaper for people. So, how should the average person be reading this?

ROBEN FARZAD, HOST, PUBLIC RADIO'S "FULL DISCLOSURE": You know, it's so much cold comfort. It's bizarre. Were you rooting for bad news? Were you worried? You know, the stock market investors were looking for him maybe to freak out a little more, the better for stocks to go up because we might cut interest rates sooner and more. Or were you hoping for him to kind of keep a poker face on this to not keep people freaked out? I think it puts the issue back in the court of the White House, which will come out, is there going to be less volatility over tariff headlines? Does this White House actually want to see an economic decline so that interest rates are cut? It's -- it's so much like circular firing squad at this point.

KEILAR: What are you waiting to hear from the Fed chair at this 2:30 presser, especially what are you expecting to hear or hoping to hear when it comes to the trade war?

[14:05:00]

FARZAD: You know, ever since Alan Greenspan was Fed Chair, there's just such nomic speak. You almost need special glasses or a special, you know, AI headset to understand what they're saying. They scrutinize every adverb, the release of information of minutes. People are going to be asking questions. I just think that it's a wait and see time. There's still inflationary pressures in the economy. In theory, Jerome Powell should be focused like a hawk on inflation coming back down to the comfortable 2 percent level so that he can more comfortably cut.

But having said that, if a crisis occurs, if there's another, you know, system of bank failures or you have an acceleration of the trade war, it might force his hand. And he doesn't want to be seen as an arm of this White House with I think a year left on his term.

KEILAR: Yeah. And Trump has pushed for those lower interest rates. You mentioned he doesn't want to seem to be an arm of the White House, but that's what he's pushed for. In February, he posted on Truth Social interest rates should be lowered, something which would go hand in hand with upcoming tariffs. Let's rock and roll, America. Just break that down for us, as you chuckle.

FARZAD: He's never been bashful whether supreme court or Fed, yeah.

KEILAR: OK. But explain, do they go hand in hand with tariffs?

FARZAD: You know, he's never been bashful about the Fed. If tariffs are out there, if he can generate so much noise and uncertainty coming out of the White House that it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that you see companies freak out, if the worry about jobs eclipses the worry about cost going up because of these tariffs that could theoretically give the Fed more room to cut and to cut sooner. But that's a really bizarre way of doing things.

But again, as I said he's not been bashful in the past about jawboning the supreme court, jawboning his own picks after all he nominated Jerome Powell. Jerome Powell could be dependent on him for a renomination for another term. I think it's just fraught with all sorts of moral hazard and the market is waiting and seeing.

KEILAR: Fraught with moral hazard, indeed. Roben Farzad, thank you so much. We appreciate your insights. Boris?

SANCHEZ: So, the Justice Department has one more day to provide details about deportation flights that the administration carried out over the weekend despite a federal judge's order. Today, that Judge James Boasberg granted the DOJ an extension after the agency pushed for a delay in a last-minute bid to avoid revealing certain details. Attorney General Pam Bondi arguing that revealing those details would risk national security.

This is just the latest development in President Trump's legal battles as the courts clamp down on parts of his agenda. Trump meantime is escalating his fight against the judge for ordering that the flights to El Salvador turn around, claiming such decisions are "a presidential job." The White House doubling down on its criticism just moments ago, listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: How does a president define a bad judge? Just someone who disagrees with him?

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No.

ZELENY: And isn't that a dangerous precedent in this case, because this is a temporary ruling from Judge Boasberg that he could ultimately rule in your favor? Is he setting up a standard here for calling for the impeachment of a judge who may ultimately rule on your side?

LEAVITT: No. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with the president on policy. It's with disagreeing with the constitution and the law. And it's trying to usurp the authority of the executive branch of this country. It's having baseless reasoning for these injunctions, and it's a clear effort by these judges to slow roll this president's agenda.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: With us now is CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid and CNN Legal Analyst and Former Federal Prosecutor Elliot Williams. Thank you both for being with us. Paula, first to you. What is the DOJ saying with its latest filing?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So earlier this week, there was a hearing where the judge had a series of questions about whether the administration may have defied his orders to halt some deportations and turn around some planes that were already in the air. Now, there were some outstanding questions. He asked the Justice Department to submit those answers yesterday, they did.

But then there were still a few more outstanding questions that he asked them to answer today by noon under seal. But the Justice Department pushed back on even having to answer these questions. Certainly, not the first time that a government lawyer has bristled at the notion that they need to give a federal judge more information. But again, it's escalating, this controversy, over whether the administration is sort of trying to openly defy this judge. Now, the judge gave them another day to do this, but also pushed back on the suggestion that these were not the kinds of facts that they could share with a judge under seal.

So now, they also have another 24 hours to decide if they want to invoke a privilege. But again, the judge had questions about that. This is someone who used to oversee a court, the interest surveillance court, which handles a lot of sensitive information. So, it's not exactly clear what they're going to do, if they're going to answer these questions and just fight up until the very last second, or if they're going to try to really defy the court and invoke a privilege to not have to share this information.

[14:10:00]

SANCHEZ: What do you make Elliot of DOJ saying that this judge is just beating a dead horse?

(LAUGH) ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST AND FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think that's language that's pretty disrespectful to the court, let's be blunt. And that is the kind of language that a party would use when attacking the opponent's argument saying, we think this is baseless. We think this is groundless. We think it's beating a dead horse. That's a -- that's sort of going after the judge and his own reasoning.

Now, I think this is a fight as we've all talked about. This is a fight that the administration is willing to take on, but that's not a legal argument to be perfectly frank. And it's pretty disrespectful to the judge regardless of how much they disagree with him.

SANCHEZ: As we've discussed over recent days, all of this is grounded over a specific reading of the Alien Enemies Act.

REID: Yeah.

SANCHEZ: And it seems like the administration is trying to push their reading of it as far as they can.

REID: Yes.

SANCHEZ: I wonder how you think that's going so far.

REID: So, so far it's not going well, but they know that every time they start to play at the edges of executive power, getting towards what is called a unitary executive, they're arguably the most expansive understanding of the president's power, they're going to face legal challenges. These are often filed in districts that are friendly to the challengers and they know they're going to lose. It doesn't matter if it is immigration or something related to DOGE. They know they'll lose initially, but their hope is to get before that conservative super majority, and that the supreme court will ultimately see things their way. And that's really what matters.

What is a little confusing here though, is why we're picking a fight, for example, with the judge because there is a very valid legal argument that his lawyers are making here. But again, attacking the judge, as they did at the briefing multiple times, that to me is unnecessary because the president has legitimate legal arguments. You make them against -- to the judge, but not against the judge. I do think in the long run, that is not a great strategy for the president or for the country.

SANCHEZ: I wonder how you read that statement from Chief Justice John Roberts because in one way, it could be read as a warning to Trump saying you have to cede to the legal process. And another way it could be read as an invitation to bring the case before the supreme court, right?

WILLIAMS: I'm pretty confident it's not an invitation.

(LAUGH)

WILLIAMS: Now, the judges come and the supreme court, they come to the job wanting to tackle these hard legal questions. But if you notice, there's not many times in American history that a chief justice speaks out and claps back at a president. It's very rare. It happens from time to time. And this was one where the -- where the chief justice, without the issue being raised before him, issued that statement.

So, I think this is a, even if it's just on paper and it's a little bit cute, it was a warning. We'll see what the administration does with it.

SANCHEZ: Before we go, Elliot, I have one more question for you, specifically this case out of Colorado, Jeanette Vizguerra, it was this undocumented migrant. She actually took shelter in a church back in 2017 and eventually left the church in 2020. But she's been trying for years now to get a visa based on essentially being the victim of some kind of crime, as for why she wouldn't be able to get deported back to Mexico. She was just detained. There's now a big movement by advocates to get her released. The administration is saying that she's undocumented, that this is part of a fair legal proceeding. Does she have standing to make an argument based on her efforts to get that visa? Does she have a case?

WILLIAMS: She does. However, the key word, and you said it twice, is undocumented. And once someone is unlawfully present in the country, the government has vast discretion in order to make the decision to remove them. Even people who are incredibly sympathetic, be they working with children, with families, and so on. It is a hard truth about the immigration system, one believed very sort of to the core of my former colleague at ICE, Tom Homan, who is sort of running the operation now. So yes, she does have a case. She will, if process is followed, will go before an immigration judge and can raise it. But the administration does have -- the White House or, you know, the Department of Homeland Security has tremendous discretion here to remove people from the country.

SANCHEZ: Elliott Williams, Paula Reid, thank you both. Appreciate the conversation.

Still to come, President Trump says ceasefire talks with Ukraine are very much on track after his hour-long phone call with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, what we're learning about their conversation. Plus, Israel launching its first ground offensive in Gaza since the end of that ceasefire that was brokered two months ago, as Prime Minister Netanyahu faces a new round of angry protesters at home. And later, astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore finally back on Earth, how they're getting reacclimated to gravity in the coming days. That much more, next on "CNN News Central."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:19:17]

KEILAR: We're learning some new details surrounding a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, the White House Press Secretary telling reporters they had a "Fantastic conversation," and that the two men agreed on several points including a ceasefire similar to one that was discussed in a phone call between Trump and Russian President Putin just 24 hours ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: The two leaders also agreed on a partial ceasefire against energy. Technical teams will meet in Saudi Arabia in the coming days to discuss broadening the ceasefire to the Black Sea on the way to a full ceasefire. President Trump also discussed Ukraine's electrical supply and nuclear power plants. He said that the United States could be very helpful in running those plants with its electricity and utility expertise.

[14:20:00]

American ownership of those plants would be the best protection for that infrastructure and support for Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: With us now, CNN Global Affairs Analyst, Brett McGurk. He's a former senior adviser to four presidents and has previously worked in negotiations with Russia. I do want to talk to you broadly about this readout, but just first, that bit about the electric and nuclear facilities in Ukraine. This idea of the U.S. taking ownership and running these sites, providing security to the Ukrainians, what do you think about that?

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: It's very inter -- I mean, it always comes back to this for President Trump. What is in it for me? What's in it for the U.S.? I mean, I had the experience in Syria, remember, President Trump ordered all U.S. forces to pull out of Syria then. There's some oil fields in Syria, there's some gas fields in Syria, and we're actually still there protecting those fields. So, there's something smart about the Ukrainians saying, Hey, we have some -- we have a nuclear power plant here that is under threat and maybe there's a role for the U.S. to play.

KEILAR: When you think about that and the idea of this rare earth minerals deal, and this value that could be provided, how unusual is it for the U.S. to seek value like that in a country? Is that unusual?

MCGURK: It's unusual in the history of our foreign policy. It's not unusual for President Trump's foreign policy. I mean, President Trump looks at all these issues about what is really in the core and a very narrow definition of U.S. national interests. If you look at issues in the news now, he looks at the Ukraine conflict as a really European theater conflict. What's really in it for us? Whereas what's happening in say, the Houthis firing at our ships or Hamas holding American hostages, that kind of is directly related to us.

So, what I see here in these radars is very interesting. It's kind of the Ukrainians trying to impress upon President Trump. You have core interests here that can actually really benefit the United States. That could be a good, I mean, look, this has a long ways to go. I think we should all share the goal of trying to end this war, but the puts and takes of this, in terms of what the U.S. actually holds in terms of holding cards, I think we do hold cards. I mean, Russia has suffered enormously in this conflict. 600,000 casualties. Their Black Sea fleet has been cut in half. Europe holds about $300 billion of frozen assets. We have a lot of cards here. And I hope the administration tries to play them smartly.

KEILAR: And Brett, you said in the break as we were looking at this readout, how far we've come since that Oval Office conversation between Zelenskyy and Trump. The first line here, "A fantastic phone conversation," emphasis that President Zelenskyy thanked Trump for the support of the United States very high up in this readout. It's kind of glowing here, right?

MCGURK: Well, obviously, that meeting was a bit of a train wreck to say the least.

KEILAR: Sure.

MCGURK: They repaired it in the meeting in Saudi Arabia they had a few days later, turned back on the intelligence and military support, which is critically important. Probably never should have been turned off. And now look, I think this is encouraging. You know, I have, you know, it was the meeting yesterday, some of the commentators said Ukraine is not at the table. It's actually the U.S. president talking to President Putin. And there's a saying in foreign policy, if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. So, very important for Ukraine to be a part of this.

I think it's good the president called Zelenskyy today. There's going to be follow-up meetings apparently in Saudi Arabia next week. But look, end of the day, Ukraine last week said we agree to a 30-day ceasefire. And Russia so far has not agreed to that. They've agreed to this very narrow defined ceasefire against energy infrastructure or energy and infrastructure. There's a debate about this.

KEILAR: Yeah. Well, there's a difference between those things.

MCGURK: Yeah.

KEILAR: -- which maybe you can touch upon. But also, where is -- where does this put Russia? What position, if anything, does this change for where Russia is?

MCGURK: I think Russia right now feels that it has the advantage and the leverage. I think what I would probably, if I was President Trump and one of the senior advisors reminding the president, actually, we hold a lot of cards here. And the Russians, when they come to a negotiation, if they think they're coming from a position of strength, they will simply rope-a-dope you out.

I saw this in Syria. I had two examples. Once we met with the Russians, and they did airstrikes actually very near a position of U.S. forces, as they walked in the room, and we found out about them in the middle of the meeting. About a year later, we had a negotiation with the Russians on Syria. We're actually -- you might remember a Bogner Corp. Russian mercenaries were approaching one of our positions.

KEILAR: That's right.

MCGURK: And it was completely annihilated in self-defense. We had a very different Russian delegation in that -- in that negotiation. So I think you want to -- you need leverage when it comes to negotiating with the Russians, and actually we have some.

KEILAR: How should the U.S. -- how should the U.S. get that, and what do they have and then how should they further that?

MCGURK: Well, I mentioned some of it. The frozen assets in Europe are very important. There's a -- there's a meeting tomorrow in London with NATO minus the U.S., which I think is a problem. But also with Japan, New Zealand and Australia talking about an actual peacekeeping force in Ukraine. I think that's something that we should make clear we stand behind, because this peace will be very temporary if you get to a ceasefire without an actual force on the ground in Ukraine to help keep the peace.

KEILAR: Brett McGurk, thank you so much.

MCGURK: Thank you.

KEILAR: Really appreciate it. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Today, protests erupted in Israel as anger over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's newly resumed war escalates once again. After launching one of the deadliest single days of attacks on Gaza, Israel's military has now dropped leaflets over northern parts of the Palestinian territory.

[14:25:00]

The message, 'get out now,' And just in, we have new video of the devastation as the IDF says its ground incursion is back underway for the first time since the ceasefire ended. All of this fueling concern over the fate of Hamas' remaining hostages, including the last surviving American, Edan Alexander, now in captivity for 530 days. With us now is CNN Political and Global Affairs Analyst, Barak Ravid. Barak, thank you so much for being with us this afternoon.

Israel obviously is launching what it is describing as targeted attacks. What exactly is their objective here? Is it simply to get Hamas to the negotiating table?

BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I think that's part of it, definitely, you know, to try and press Hamas militarily to agree to what it did not agree until now in the negotiation table. But, we have to remember how we got here and we got here after Israel violated the ceasefire agreement by not seriously negotiating the second phase of the ceasefire and hostage deal. A negotiation that was supposed to start almost 45 days ago, but never really started.

So I think that what these Israelis are trying to do now is to try and get out of the previous deal and to try and build a new deal that will not compel them to publicly announce that the war is over. Why is that important for Prime Minister Netanyahu? Because if he announces the war is over, his coalition is over too.

SANCHEZ: And what does that mean for the prime minister? There are very serious implications for his future.

RAVID: Yes, especially that, you know, Netanyahu's pending trial for bribe, breach of trust and fraud. He has -- his senior advisers are being investigated by the Shin Bet security agency for alleged connections to Qatar in the middle of the war. People in his office, the closest advisers were allegedly paid by lobbyists that were paid by Qatar to improve Qatar's image in Israel. This is a very serious issue.

Just a few minutes ago, the Israeli police announced that two suspects were called in again for interrogation. So this does not come, this resumed military operation doesn't come in a vacuum. It comes as Netanyahu is facing serious political consequences internally.

SANCHEZ: On the other side, Israel claims that they eliminated a senior Hamas political leader yesterday. The terrorist organization has been decimated in recent months. I wonder what their capabilities are now.

RAVID: Well, their capabilities are pretty big. And one of the reasons, from what people within Israel's military and intelligence services, what they say is that the fact that Hamas managed to rebuild its capabilities during the war, recruit more people, re-arm, one of the reasons for it and the fact that it still controls the civilian management of the Gaza Strip, the main reason for it, this is what those officials tell me, is because the government, the Netanyahu refused and rejected any plan to try and build a governance alternative to Hamas. And this is why 18 months after this war started, Hamas is still in power.

SANCHEZ: Barak, do you have a sense that there's been any positive development or any benefit so far to the direct negotiations that have been reported between the U.S. and Hamas?

RAVID: I think that what happened with those negotiations is that they were very close to reaching a deal, very, very close. It happened on the eve of President Trump's State of the Union address. They were very, very close. They didn't get a deal that evening. And then, when the direct talks between the U.S. and Hamas were revealed on Axios, I think the U.S. took a step back. And when it took a step back, it presented a new proposal to Hamas which was not the same one as it proposed during the direct talk. It was a worse one for Hamas. And I think that at that moment, things started getting much more complicated.

SANCHEZ: Barak Ravid, thank you for your reporting, as always.

RAVID: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Coming up, an update on Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil's deportation case, a judge ordering it should be moved to New Jersey, the latest there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)