Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

U.S. Markets Volatile As China Retaliates With 125 Percent Tariff; White House Again Urges People To Trust Trump Amid Trade Wars; DOJ Defies Order To Reveal Plan For Wrongly Deported Man's Return; Soon: Judge To Rule On Columbia Activist Khalil's Release; China Tariffs On U.S. Now 125 Percent; U.S. Tariffs On China 145 Percent. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired April 11, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:01:26]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Yet another escalation in the trade war. China says it's not afraid, as Beijing hikes tariffs on U.S. goods to 125 percent. The White House's message to Americans, meantime, trust in President Trump. He knows what he's doing.

Plus, an immigration judge holding a hearing to determine whether the government can continue to detain Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil. He could be released as early as today.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promising a, quote, "massive testing and research effort" with hundreds of scientists worldwide to find what he calls the cause of the autism epidemic.

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

Today the trade war between the U.S. and China seeing some new escalation. Earlier, China announced the U.S. is now facing a 125 percent tariff, which came as China's President Xi said he is, quote, "not afraid to fight back."

Still just a short time ago, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted President Trump remains, quote, "optimistic" that a deal can get done with China.

SANCHEZ: This as markets have seen just an up and down week with one hour left of trading in this week. The Dow is actually up. It's over 575 points up on the day. Of course, there is concern as to where this trade war might head next. Let's go to the White House with CNN's Jeff Zeleny.

Because, Jeff, the President's trade war has allies, investors, farmers, consumers, so many people on edge. What more are you hearing from officials? JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Boris, really across the board it has people on edge because even as the 90-day pause was set into place for a variety of larger tariffs on many trading partners with China, really, day by day, the trade war has deepened. It all has led to a sense of, you know, low consumer confidence.

We saw that survey out earlier this morning, really putting it not quite at record lows, but near record lows for decades. So, we asked the White House Press Secretary about this rattled consumer confidence today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: Why is American consumer confidence so low?

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Look, I think there's a great optimism in this economy, great optimism for the American people, a lot of reason for people to feel optimistic. The President is, as I just said, trying to renegotiate the global trade agenda that has ripped off the American people for far too long. As he said, this is going to be a period of transition.

Trust in President Trump. He knows what he's doing.

ZELENY: So, those words certainly will be hanging over the next chapter of this trade war with China, but also the negotiations with so many other countries really now furiously underway for the next 90 days as those bigger tariffs are put on pause. Trust in President Trump. He knows what he's doing.

We shall see if the market or if the consumer confidence as prices rise agree with that. I mean, there's no doubt he was elected with a large majority of the popular vote, et cetera, but on a promise to bring down prices and stabilize the economy. So this certainly is putting a big challenge and onus on the President to find his way through this after a humbling week here at the White House. Boris and Brianna.

SANCHEZ: Jeff Zeleny live for us. Thank you so much. We have breaking news into CNN.

[15:05:01]

The Justice Department defiant following a unanimous Supreme Court ruling and a tense hearing in federal court today. The DOJ declined to share the whereabouts or status of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvador national who was mistakenly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

KEILAR: CNN's Paula Reid is with us now on this story.

What happened in court today, Paula? Because it sounds like it was quite a day.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And look, the drama inside the courtroom today is indicative of a larger battle that the Trump administration is waging with the courts. They believe that judges are unfairly trying to tamp down on the Trump agenda. This is something that's been going on for a while. And last night, the Supreme Court weighed in on this lower court's order demanding that he be returned to the United States. But they didn't affirm that order. They also didn't go the other way and say, no, he doesn't have to be returned.

Instead, they took this ambiguous middle road, saying that the government has to facilitate his return, but didn't give any deadline. So, it's not surprising that today in court, the Justice Department exploited that ambiguity. They would not give the judge any details about where he is or any steps that have been taken, which is what the judge wanted to hear, to facilitate his return. It got very tense.

But it's not surprising because the administration believes that the Supreme Court will ultimately take their side on these larger questions. But because they didn't have answers for the judge, they now have some homework. So they now owe the judge daily status reports, updates on what they are doing to facilitate his return. But I reiterate, the Supreme Court has not ordered that he be returned or given any kind of time frame for when this facilitation has to be executed. So I wouldn't be surprised if all of this goes back up to the Supreme Court in the next few weeks, because clearly both sides are very confused about what the court said.

KEILAR: Maybe daily progress reports won't be enough. They have to go back to the principal or something like that.

Paula Reid, thank you so much for that.

Right now, an immigration judge in Louisiana is holding a hearing in Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil's deportation case and could decide whether to release the Columbia University graduate one month after he was arrested after a deportation order from the Trump administration.

SANCHEZ: CNN's Gloria Pazmino has been tracking this for us.

Gloria, bring us up to speed on his hearing.

GLORIA PAZMINO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, Brianna, the hearing has been ongoing for at least an hour now. And this is the hearing that could determine whether or not Mahmoud Khalil is going to be released from detention at the ICE facility that he's been at for over a month down in Louisiana.

Now, the judge is reviewing the evidence that she was given by the U.S. government two days ago. We've talked about what that evidence is, and we have said how it's only a two-page memo signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in which he explains and defends his deportation order against Khalil.

He says that Khalil is deportable, and I'm quoting here, "because of his past, current or expected beliefs and statements or association." And then he goes on to say this about Khalil's activities. Quote, "These determinations are based on information provided by DHS, ICE, HSI regarding the participation and roles of Khalil's anti-Semitic protest and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States."

Now, I spoke to Khalil's attorneys yesterday, and they have focused on this part of the memo, which they believe proves the fact that Khalil is being persecuted for his Palestinian activism and that they are doing this in violation of the First Amendment. So, that is the reason why this hearing that is unfolding as we speak is going to be so monumental, because if the judge releases him, this is basically her saying you cannot deport a person over what they say, even if you don't like what they say.

And if she decides to keep him in custody, she's essentially saying that she believes the government may have a case here, something that Khalil's attorneys are looking forward to defend. Including, Boris and Brianna, they said yesterday that they would like to depose Secretary of State Marco Rubio as part of this process. I don't know how likely that possibility is, but it certainly speaks about how confident they're feeling that this is all about Khalil's violation of his First Amendment rights.

KEILAR: All right. We'll be looking at that.

Gloria Pazmino, thank you so much.

With us now to discuss, we have former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams.

Okay, Elliot, what do you make of the government's rationale here as they're citing the Immigration and National Act Section 237, this idea that they have reasonable ground to believe that having this individual, Khalil Mahmoud, would potentially have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States?

[15:10:02]

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, certainly, Brianna, the law is written very broadly that gives the Secretary of State pretty wide discretion to exclude people from the country or at least declare them not deportable. Now, that's running apart to put them deportable.

Now, that runs against, as Gloria had talked through, it runs against the First Amendment. And how do you balance the free speech rights that everyone in the United States, not just citizens, enjoys against the Secretary's broad discretion there. Now, the language says that even when someone is exercising protected rights, such as beliefs and statements, if they sort of might pose a threat to a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest, they can be excludable. What does that even mean? It's pretty vague. And certainly they'll end up in court trying to hash out the details of what they're getting at there.

I do wonder about the limits of those rights when it comes to people that are in the United States on visas, because what we've heard from the Secretary of State is that a visa isn't a birthright that gives you access to all of the rights that people in the United States have. I guess that citizens have would be the argument that he's making. It could easily be revoked. What difference is there between a U.S. citizen and a visa holder when it comes to the Bill of Rights?

WILLIAMS: Oh, well, again, when it comes to the Bill of Rights, very little, because the Bill of Rights sort of protect all things in the United States. So, you still have the right to petition the government to address grievances or go to church or speak if you're not a citizen of the United States. That said, immigration authorities still have a lot of wiggle room when it comes to deciding who can come and who can go.

And even when it comes to stating what their reasons are for wanting to remove or deport somebody, you know, there really aren't a lot of guardrails there. Now, again, the government's been quite vague here in what they have provided about Mr. Abrego. However - oh, pardon, Mr. Khalil, so many cases right now.

They've been pretty vague about the evidence and it remains to be seen what they're going to come forward with. So, I am genuinely curious as to what the judge does with this, because this really is a tricky case.

KEILAR: You're ready for our next question, which is about Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

And I just wonder what you make of these kind of daily progress reports that the government now has to provide the judge, but also that the government can't say, the lawyer for the government saying they don't have the information to say where Garcia is.

WILLIAMS: Yes. I think somebody had said, come to the - that was you, Brianna, said come to the principal's office. And that's exactly what's happening here. When judges start putting these daily or hourly requirements on attorneys, they're just not satisfied with the answers they're getting. I've seen it happen before. That happened to me probably.

And - so, you know, she's not impressed with the answer she's getting. Now, the government, hasn't - once again, hasn't exactly been all that forthright here in terms of why they can't provide the information that's needed. Now, the judge had put, to be fair, she put a really strict deadline on them to come forward with the information. I believe they had to issue a filing with her by 9.30 this morning, mere hours after the Supreme Court had ruled.

That said, they haven't really shown much desire to comply with anything with her. And so, I think they're really just under her skin and is going - and she's going to stay on top of them until this whole thing is resolved.

SANCHEZ: Elliot, we also want to get your reaction to the story that the administration is moving to classify 6,000 living migrants as dead to cancel their Social Security numbers. Is that legal?

WILLIAMS: It's probably legal. It's certainly going to end up in court because it's in that gray area that the - once again, Boris, what you have here is a balance of two interests. The government has an interest in people paying taxes and be known - having their presence be known here. The government has an interest in people working, and that happens when people have Social Security numbers. It also, as we've been discussing, has an interest in regulating immigration enforcement.

Now, it's a longstanding policy of the Social Security Administration and the IRS to not provide that information to law enforcement, just so people will have an incentive to keep working and keep paying their taxes and so on, even if they're unlawfully present in the country.

So again, this is another very tricky one. The government, because it's just near impossible to hit the kind of deportation targets that they've talked about, they're doing everything they possibly can to just make it so people will leave, to make the conditions of their residence and employment in the United States so unpleasant that they just self-deport, because that's really the only option.

ICE does not have the personnel to apprehend and remove a million people from the country. They simply don't.

SANCHEZ: Potentially another legal case to discuss decisions on further into the future. Elliot Williams, appreciate the expertise. Thanks for joining us.

WILLIAMS: Of course.

[15:15:02]

SANCHEZ: Still to come, as the trade war between the world's two biggest economic juggernauts intensifies, could it bring the U.S. closer to an actual military conflict? We'll discuss.

KEILAR: Plus, the Department of Health and Human Services is launching a large-scale effort to learn what causes autism. Why some experts are skeptical?

And then later, a Los Angeles judge could soon decide the fate of the Menendez brothers. We'll have that and much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:19:53]

SANCHEZ: China is raising the stakes in President Trump's global trade war, hiking its own tariff rate on U.S. imports to 125 percent. This after President Trump said he was raising tariffs on China to 145 percent.

Today, a spokesperson for China's foreign ministry said Beijing will fight until the end. But behind the scenes, sources tell CNN the White House privately warned China not to retaliate, even communicating to Chinese leadership that President Xi should request a direct phone call with Trump. That simply has not happened, and the White House is signaling that Trump is not going to back down. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: The President, as I said from the podium just a few days ago when I was up here, would be gracious if China intends to make a deal with the United States. If China continues to retaliate, it's not good for China. The President made it very clear when the United States is punched, he will punch back harder, and he hopes to make a deal that benefits the American worker and our companies that have been ripped off for far too long.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: With us now is Daniel Drezner. He's a professor of international politics for the Fletcher School at Tufts University, also a senior fellow for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

Daniel, thank you so much for joining us. How do you think China is viewing this moment?

DANIEL DREZNER, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, THE FLETCHER SCHOOL AT TUFTS UNIVERSITY: I think China's been preparing for this moment, frankly, since Donald Trump got elected the first time. Trump got elected on a platform of bashing China, of bashing trade with China. It's worth remembering this is far from the first trade war that Trump has launched with China. And this has been a consistent through line, actually, between Donald Trump and then Joe Biden's term and then Trump's second term. It's not like Joe Biden lifted any of the tariffs on China.

So, they've had eight years and change to think about what would happen if Trump really did go, for lack of word of putting it, nuclear on the trade war.

I do wonder, given what the administration has said about this optimism that China is seeking to cut a deal, what things are like from the perspective of Beijing? Because they, for years, have accused the U.S. of being this hegemony that wants to force its view of the world on the Chinese. And they're fighting, in their eyes, a battle for survival.

DREZNER: Well, it's sort of interesting because traditional Chinese hostility to U.S. hegemony was grounded in the fact that the United States was promoting a set of values that the Chinese Communist Party was scared of. Things like the promotion of democracy, the promotion of human rights, the promotion of the rule of law.

The Trump administration is not terrifically interested in any of these things. What they're interested in is in cutting some sort of economic deal with China. But the trade war that they've prosecuted has been such a haphazard exercise. Indeed, hearing Karoline Leavitt say that she was crystal clear that Trump was not going to back down against China reminds me that this is the exact same thing that she said about the reciprocal tariffs that Trump subsequently backed down on. That if you're China, at this point, frankly, it's in your interest just to sit pat and let the United States constantly punch itself in the face along with China. I mean, there's a reason why stock markets have continued to slide downward even after Trump lifted the reciprocal tariffs. It's because the tariffs with China are going to be incredibly damaging to the U.S. consumer and to the U.S. economy.

SANCHEZ: Daniel, I do want to nerd out for a moment because I'm a huge fan of international relations and history. And for decades, there's been this speculation about Thucydides' trap and a rising power, challenging an established power. And there's also this concept of the democratic peace or the capitalistic peace. Countries that trade with each other, they don't do war with each other.

It seems like when you have countries that are battling economically, it increases the likelihood that there's going to be a military conflict. Would you agree? Do you think that we're headed for a conflict with China?

DREZNER: Boris, you're a good IR (ph) nerd. You're nerding out well. You're correct. In the sense that really what the current period reminds me most of is the period in the run up to World War I, where you had previously a very globalized economy. And then you had a lot of countries, particularly Russia and Germany, suddenly wary about how interdependent they were with other economies. And so they started taking steps to try to make themselves less interdependent. And really, this is what you're seeing now with respect to the United States and to a lesser extent what you're seeing with China.

But you're correct that you can argue part of the reason that China has been able to rise and, you know, become such a large economy without it generating any kind of great power war is precisely because both sides had pretty strong equities and not disrupting the trading relationship.

If the tariffs that Trump has imposed and that China has retaliated with remain this high, in a couple of years, neither side is going to have that much of a stake in the bilateral economic relationship, which makes it far more conceivable that you could see some sort of military skirmish and/or something worse involving Taiwan, involving the South China Sea or involving the East China Sea.

[15:25:20]

SANCHEZ: And building on that point, would it not bolster the United States in that scenario, an unfortunate scenario to tighten its relations with allies like the EU, like some of its partners in the region, in the Pacific, Japan, South Korea, et cetera?

DREZNER: Yes, that would be a good idea, Boris. You would think that would be something that the Trump administration would be interested in pursuing. And I think you even heard Scott Bessent, the Secretary of the Treasury, suggest that perhaps that could be something where all of the U.S. and its allies could develop a common negotiating position towards China.

There are two problems with this. The first is that this was tried already. In fact, under the Obama administration, they proposed something like a Trans-Pacific Partnership, in fact, to deal with China. And then it was Donald Trump who pulled out of that.

The second problem, of course, is that the Trump administration has been so wildly erratic when it comes to tariffs, threatening allies far more severely with the exception of China than anyone else, that if you're Japan or if you're South Korea or if the European Union, and suddenly the Trump administration says, hey, we want to form a coalition towards China, would you trust Donald Trump on this?

SANCHEZ: Daniel Drezner, we have to leave the conversation there, but very much appreciate you sharing your point of view.

DREZNER: Thanks, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Of course.

So, a hearing is underway right now in California. A judge expected to decide whether to move forward with resentencing hearings for Erik and Lyle Menendez more than 30 years after their conviction for killing their parents. Details ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)