Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Administration Not Required to Help with Wrongly Deported Man; Economic Poll Data Gets Bleak for Trump; James Evans is Interviewed about Tariffs; Palin and "New York Times" Retrial Today. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired April 14, 2025 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:31:43]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: So, the Trump administration is not giving up its fight over a Maryland man that they mistakenly deported to El Salvador, just now telling a federal judge that they are not required to work with El Salvador to get that man out of a notorious prison and back to the United States.

This is a big deal because you'll remember the Supreme Court just sided with the judge overseeing the case, saying, U.S. officials must facilitate his return to America.

And with El Salvador at the center of this legal battle, this morning, President Trump will be welcoming that country's president to the White House.

Joining us right now is defense attorney and former federal prosecutor Shan Wu for more on this.

It's good to see you, Shan.

What do you think of this move, of this filing by the Trump administration? I mean does it fly in the face of the Supreme Court decision?

SHAN WU, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Common sense says it flies in the face of it. But actually the Supreme Court's choice of that word "facilitate" really created a loophole big enough to fly a plane through. And by emphasizing the use of the word "facilitate," the administration can basically slow walk this, even defy the intent of that order by saying, well, we're facilitating things, but we can't really do anything because, as Trump posted on his social media, Mr. Garcia is in the custody of another country.

So, they really are going against the intent of the order. But, unfortunately, by choosing that word "facilitate," I think the court left a lot of ambiguity for the administration to play word games with it.

BOLDUAN: It is interesting, of course, because the president of El Salvador will be at the White House today. And as we know, the president - presidents make requests and asks of leaders of other countries all the time to see if they wanted to facilitate something or not.

I mean the district court judge overseeing this has scheduled a hearing to discuss the next steps in the matter, I believe its Tuesday in Maryland. What - given what you just said, what is the next step? I mean what can that judge do now?

WU: I think the judge has a difficult decision to make. Logically, what the judge can say is, look, you have to correct your mistake. You're saying it's a mistake, correct it. You can't just say we made a mistake, now we can't correct it because we accidentally sent him out of the country. Now he's in the other country. You need to do something to fix that. Don't really care how you do it. I'm not telling the president what to say to the president of El Salvador, but you made the mistake, you need to fix it.

That's basically the line she's got to walk. And she also is going to probably push on them to give more meaningful updates about his custody. They've been giving these very kind of, like, plain vanilla notions of what they can actually report. And I think the judge is going to push them harder for that to know what steps are you taking right now?

BOLDUAN: So, when there's a conflict, often, you know, as we saw, this is why this ended up to the Supreme Court to begin with. Is there a possibility this could end back there again?

WU: Yes. I think by using that vague term that the Supreme Court says, remand this, send it back down to the district court to clear up. The district court tried to clear it up.

[08:35:02]

Now, of course, the administration is saying it's not clear enough, or we disagree with your interpretation. So, it's going to wind its way back up at least to the Court of Appeals.

Now, I have to say, the Supreme Court could have avoided all this by simply not weighing in. I mean, there was no emergency that they had to wade in. They could have just let the lower court decision stand. But by weighing in, they basically created this morass of constant appeal potentially.

BOLDUAN: A little bit of a left turn, but it's a big deal nonetheless and I wanted to get your take on it.

The Federal Trade Commission's massive antitrust case against Meta is kicking off today. And they say, you know, it could be weeks that this is going to play out. Reams of evidence. Dozens of witnesses will be scrutinized. What do you think of this case?

WU: Well, it's really interesting case because it reminds lawyers of the big breakup of ages ago, of the so-called baby bells, and they tried to break up real big monopoly. And I think the key here is - two keys, actually. First, all litigation is just a prolonged settlement. So, just because they're actually starting the trial doesn't mean it's going to go all the way to a verdict and they can keep negotiating with this.

Second, in these kinds of cases, what really counts is how you're defining the market. And common sense, which Meta is kind of pushing is, look, we got tons of choices in social media. How can this be a monopoly? But technically, legally, what they're going to do is really hone in on what is this market, because Facebook, Instagram, very much used by friends and family to keep in touch versus maybe something like X, you know, or TikTok, something like that. So, it's really going to become very technical that way.

But I do think there is a very good chance that it's going to settle because the - it's in the interest of both sides. And, of course, outside of the court, Zuckerberg's been really sort of like making friends, making friendly gestures towards the Trump administration, and that may help them.

BOLDUAN: Yes. Well, definitely was a present - was a presence at inauguration, that is for sure.

It's good to see you, Shan, thank you.

WU: Thanks.

BOLDUAN: Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, we are now about an hour away from the opening bell on Wall Street. And right now, let's take a look at stock futures, they are up just slightly. But get a load of what Americans feel about Trump's economic policies so far. Those numbers ahead with Harry Enten.

And back in court, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and "The New York Times" facing off again as a defamation case goes back to the courts.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:42:02]

SIDNER: All right, so how are Americans feeling now after the whiplash caused by President Trump's on again, off again, paused again tariffs set in. A new poll gives us some details and insight. And guess what? Look who we have here to tell us all about these polls.

Let's bring in CNN's Harry Enten, senior chief and -

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Whatever you want.

SIDNER: Astronaut.

ENTEN: Friend.

SIDNER: Friend. ENTEN: Friend to Sara Sidner and to Johnny Berman. That's what's going

on.

SIDNER: You're just going to leave Kate out there in the cold. That's wrong.

ENTEN: Well, I - Kate - Kate is behind the wall over there. I see John right in my peripheral sight of vision.

SIDNER: Uh-huh. OK. Yes, because you're afraid of us. As you should be.

ENTEN: I should be.

SIDNER: All right, so how have things gone so far when you look at these numbers. The tariffs - we did this before the tariffs.

ENTEN: Yes.

SIDNER: And now we're doing this post tariffs.

ENTEN: I would argue, this is the worst set of polling data that Donald Trump has had in his entire second term as president, in part because the CBS News/YouGov poll that came out yesterday has been one of his best.

Let's first take a look at how folks are feeling about the state of the economy. Think that the economy is getting worse. What - you don't have to be a mathematical genius to see the trend line on your screen. And it is getting worse. More folks are feeling the economy is going southward. Back in November, it was just 42 percent of Americans who said the economy is getting worse. You jump forward to February, 49 percent. You jump forward to March, 51 percent.

Now, look at this number, 53 percent. The clear majority of Americans think that the economy is getting worse. It's an 11-point jump from November to now. And, of course, Donald Trump won the 2024 election because he promised to fix the economy. And yet views of the economy are going down. The percentage who say it's getting worse is going up, Sara Sidner.

SIDNER: OK, so usually the former administration actually is responsible for the economy, especially in the first couple of years of the new presidency. So, who - who are people blaming for this?

ENTEN: This, to me, is a very interesting trend line that we're seeing develop over the last few months, all right. So, of course, Joe Biden was the last president. Donald Trump is the current president. Donald Trump wants to say, don't blame me if you're upset with the state of the economy, blame the other guy. I don't think Americans are buying what he's selling at this particular point, at least anymore.

More responsible for the economic state. They asked about inflation back in March. Look at this, 38 percent said Joe Biden, 34 percent said Donald Trump. But look at where we are this month when they asked about the general state of the economy. Look at how much higher the Trump number is, 54 percent. The Joe Biden percentage drops through the floor at 21 percent.

So, this idea that Donald Trump will try to sell to the American public - is trying to sell to the American public, is that it's the other guy. It's not me, it's that other guy, that old guy, Joe Biden. No longer is this being - the American public is no longer buying this set of arguments like they were back in March.

And, of course, what is so important here? We have had the tariff war in the last month. That's what's going on. I believe that a massive shift is occurring because Americans are seeing what's happening on their television screens.

[08:45:04]

They are seeing what's happening in the stock market. They're seeing what's happening in the bond market. One day Donald Trump says one thing about the tariff war. The next day he says another thing. One day one of his advisors says one thing. The next day that same exact advisor says another thing. And all of a sudden Americans are picking up on this. And this idea that Donald Trump is trying to sell, that you can blame Joe Biden, look at this again, this percentage, 54 to 21, a clear majority now are blaming Donald Trump for the state of the economy, not Joe Biden.

SIDNER: It's clear they're not - they're literally not buying it. All right, so, how has all of this, the tariff war, the uncertainty, the back and forth, the flip-flopping, how is that affecting his overarching rating?

ENTEN: Yes, OK. So, I think this is so important, right. We've been talking about the economy, right? We talked about it last week. We spoke about it the week before. This has been the number one story of the Trump presidency. And I made you viewers a promise. I said, if prices go up and voters thoughts on the economy go down, that would bring Donald Trump's approval rating down with him. That was the promise I made.

And let's take a look at whether or not that's actually occurring, because that's the whole kit and caboodle here. If the two aren't linked, who really cares, right, except for our 401(k)s Trump's net approval rating. Look at this, it's a huge slide in it. In early February it was plus six points. Then you go to late February, plus two points. Then you go to March, it's even.

And look at this massive jump from late March to now, minus six points. That's a six point drop in less than a month. And why is that occurring? It is because of the tariff war. The voters are punishing Donald Trump in one of his best polls, which now even that best poll is a negative poll for Donald Trump.

SIDNER: Your promise came true, but I have the feeling you would not have done this if your promise was completely wrong.

ENTEN: I get to choose my own segments, Sara Sidner. That's how I chose this one.

SIDNER: Uh-huh. Got it. All right, thank you so much, Harry Enten.

ENTEN: Thanks.

SIDNER: John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, with us now, James Evans, the president of Sikky Manufacturing, a car parts company based in Maryland, and a U.S. manufacturer.

James, and the reason I bring that up is because, in theory, it's companies like yours, it's outfits like yours that would benefit from these tariffs, bring manufacturing home.

So, as we sit here this morning on April 14, 2025, how have these tariffs impacted you to date?

JAMES EVANS, PRESIDENT, SIKKY MANUFACTURING: Well, I mean, let's be honest, I think this is a longer-term play. I think time will tell. Six months to a year from now, if things stay the way they're going, or these tariffs stick, then I think we'll really see the real impact. But day to day we're seeing prices for our raw materials go up.

We source U.S. materials. But what's happening is people that were getting the overseas materials are shifting, and that demand is creating these price hikes. So, that's the immediate impact we're having right now. But not a lot else. At least the demand is still there. So, I'm remaining optimistic.

BERMAN: But it is interesting, at least in the short term, and I get that we're really talking about at least three different phases, but right now you're actually seeing increased prices yourself, correct?

EVANS: Yes, a little bit, just on the raw material side. Yes, I think there will be some other trickle-down effects too. But, you know, we make everything in the U.S. We source U.S. materials. But ultimately, I think just from other people shifting to those U.S. goods, it's really where we're going to feel the pinch.

BERMAN: And then let's talk super long term here, again, because the goal for the president's states is to bring manufacturing back to the United States. How long do you think it would take for you to feel that impact, where manufacturing is coming home, or people are depending more on your goods, which are already being produced here?

EVANS: Again, I think eventually it will level the playing field where, you know, traditionally, the U.S. automotive parts manufacturing market is really undermined by the cheaper imports that, you know, are lower quality. Consumers tend to want to spend less money, so they buy parts that break and then they have to buy them again. Longer term, I think three, four years out, as things shift and the consumers start shifting their buying to these U.S. manufacturers we'll start to realize that. So, yes, it's a long term play, but I've been at this since 2008 and, you know, we focus on made in the USA high quality. And, you know, I think, ultimately, a lot of our customers go the cheap route and end up buying our stuff eventually. We just want to save them some money up front. BERMAN: It is interesting though, you say even - and again, I think

you're supportive of the goal here. Still, it would take three to four years to feel the real impact you're projecting.

EVANS: I mean, I'm no economist, but, yes. I mean from what I'm seeing and I think - I think things have to either stick. The problem with the other business owners I communicate with in this space, everybody just wants something to be set so we can adjust. You know, we're constantly trying to mitigate risks and issues with these material prices that are all over the place, and a lot of it is just knee-jerk reactions where, oh, it's going to get bad, so we're going to raise our prices preemptively.

[08:50:07]

And those kind of things are just tough to deal with when you don't know what's happening, what's coming. So, the surprises are what I'd like to avoid.

BERMAN: Talk to me more - yes, talk to me more about that, the surprises are what you'd like to avoid. How consistent do you feel that the messaging and policy has been from the administration over the last two and a half weeks?

EVANS: Well, yes, that's a tough one. I would say, you know, the message was clear in the beginning, and it's definitely changed. But, I mean, it makes sense. Some of the changes you had to do. Just, you know, its big decisions. A lot of - a lot smarter people making those calls than me. So, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes dealing with all this stuff. But, you know, at the end of the day, I'm along for the ride, like the rest of Americans. And, you know, I'm still keeping a positive outlook.

BERMAN: Sure.

EVANS: I can only affect what I can affect in my market, in my world. So, the rest is - we'll deal with it when it comes.

BERMAN: How - how - when you come into work every day, and I know how hard you do work, how certain are you that things won't have changed from the day before or the week before?

EVANS: I mean, it's - there's zero certainty at this point. But, yes, I mean, like I said, I - I just look at what I can control and deal with those things and try to, you know, spread whatever risk I have as much as I can and, you know, be diversified enough where, if something really gets hit hard, then, you know, we can pivot. But, I mean, I've been in business my whole life, so that's kind of what you got to do to survive in small business anyways.

BERMAN: Listen, James Evans, really appreciate you talking to us this morning. Wishing you the best of luck going forward. Thanks so much.

EVANS: Thanks. Much appreciate it. Have a good day.

BERMAN: You too. Kate.

BOLDUAN: Still ahead for us, President Trump going after CBS and "60 Minutes" again. Why he's calling for the network to, quote, be fined and punished now.

And the countdown is underway as the launch for Blue Origin readies for takeoff this morning with a star studded crew on board.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:56:35]

BOLDUAN: So, Sarah Palin and "The New York Times" are headed back to court today. The former vice presidential candidate and former Alaskan governor was - will try to convince a jury for the second time that "The New York Times" defamed her in an editorial eight years ago.

CNN's Brian Stelter has much more on this. He's joining us now.

And, Brian, how did this end up back in court now?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Right. A jury sided against Palin years ago, but she asked for an appeal, citing errors with how the judge handled the case. And an appeals court sided with Palin. As a result, this is going back before a jury in Manhattan starting today.

And as "The Time Zone" story notes this morning, it's not really the case that's changed. The same evidence is going to be presented at trial. But the country has changed. The country seems, in some ways, more favorable toward defamation cases. Trump and his allies have been pushing these sorts of cases. And in some of these instances, juries have sided with the plaintiffs and against news outlets.

In this case, "The New York Times" says it just made an honest mistake in an editorial many years ago. But Palin all along has said this was malicious.

And this is part of a broader effort by conservatives to challenge news outlets in court and maybe someday to get the Supreme Court to change the libel law standards. Right now it's very hard for a public figure to claim defamation or actual malice and win. Some conservatives want to see that loosened up. Trump has talked about that for years.

So, this Palin versus "Times" case, it comes in that context. And it's a high stakes legal battle because, number one, we've been here before. And, number two, the jury might be more favorable to Palin this time.

BOLDUAN: That's what I was going to ask you. If you're hearing that - that they actually think there could be a different outcome this time around.

STELTER: That's the question mark because, in part, you look at Manhattan, typically a very blue city, a very liberal city. Democrats predominantly in the jury pool. But we know in the recent election, there were more Republican votes. Of course, Democrats still dominate in the - in the borough. But it's those sorts of changes, that's the kind of thing that the lawyers study as they think about whether they're going to have a favorable jury pool.

So, Palin might be feeling a little more confident this time around. But this is very much a redo, a retrial. And it goes to show that a single mistake in a newspaper from a decade ago is something that can still be litigated years later.

BOLDUAN: And, Brian, President Trump is going after CBS and "60 Minutes" again. I mean there's already a massive ongoing lawsuit that he's brought against the network. What's going on here now?

STELTER: Right. And this is another example of a defamation case. Trump bringing that frivolous lawsuit against "60 Minutes" for a segment about Kamala Harris last fall. That's still making its way through the legal system. But overnight, Trump attacked CBS in some of the harshest language he's ever used. He's now very openly calling for CBS to lose its license.

Now, networks are not licensed, but local stations are. And CBS owns a lot of local stations. Trump is objecting to certain segments on "60 Minutes," the most popular news program in the United States. He thinks the segments are anti-Trump. "60 Minutes" just thinks it's doing its job scrutinizing the administration.

But what's notable here is, Trump is out loud suggesting, or maybe directing, his FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, to probe CBS and to punish CBS. He is saying the network should lose its license. He's saying that the FCC should try to provide the maximum fines and penalties against CBS for its journalism, for its reporting.

[09:00:05]

And he's doing that in a message on his Truth Social app.