Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Powell Says Tariffs "Likely to Generate" Rise in Inflation; Sources: DOJ, WH Counsel Reviewing Viability of Sending U.S. Criminals to El Salvador Prison; Judge: Record Shows "Nothing" Done to Return Mistakenly Deported Man; Trump: Harvard Should Receive No Federal Funding. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired April 16, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

KEVIN O'LEARY, "SHARK TANK" INVESTOR: I believe that these two will be talking soon. They're going to have to.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: To your point about IP theft, it's been going on for so long that some in American leadership and in American business have argued that it's part of the culture of doing business with China. And I wonder, as someone who does business with China, if you think something needs to change in Beijing in order for them to give up their pursuit of US IP, essentially stealing American intellectual property.

O'LEARY: Yes, I can answer with one word. Consequences. That's what has to happen. We haven't done anything. There's been no consequences for the IP theft for over 20 years since China joined the WTO in the year 2000. Thousands and thousands of complaints, zero consequences. Other administrations in the past have allowed this to go on unanswered. It's got to stop now because we're really in an economic war with China, and it's a fair competition if it's a level playing field. We're not allowed to litigate in their courts. We have no say through the WTO in how to actually bring these complaints forward to resolution, and yet they continue to cheat, and to steal, and to rip off American ingenuity, entrepreneurship gets hurt, generally at around $5 million in sales.

I've documented this now for over a week. Brought it to the Hill, gave examples to Congress and the Senate what's wrong here. I'm really thankful on behalf of the millions of American entrepreneurs whose products have been stolen, ripped off, and then knocked off in China and sold back in the U.S. market at 30- to 40 percent discount. It has to end, and now's the time to deal with it.

If Xi wants a deal on trade and they want to tone this whole thing down, he's got to address the IP theft. It's got to stop.

SANCHEZ: It hasn't seemed from their latest moves that the Chinese are eager to do that. In fact, they've blocked U.S. access to rare earth minerals. Also, there was this announcement of a block of Boeing deliveries to Chinese airlines. I wonder, of all the levers that Xi has in his disposal to inflict pain not only on American producers but also consumers, which most worries you?

O'LEARY: I'd rather be on the U.S. side on this one, because the truth is there are other solutions for rare earth minerals and resources, and it's called Canada. We've got to resolve that problem. There shouldn't be any tiff with them. They've got everything the North American market needs, including energy, a massive amount of energy. We should do that deal anyways and just show China by combining the economies one way or the other, not buying the country, forget the 51st state, all that stuff.

The point is, if we get a union back on track there, we can go back to the Chinese and say, look, we have everything we need in the world's largest economy under democracy, don't mess with us. That's what we should be doing. And we're going to get there. That's what I think is going to happen here. That's the signal on all the noise right now, and that would include Mexico, too.

You think about these economies put together in a cooperative way. It's a massive opportunity. The Canadians have an election in less than two weeks.

SANCHEZ: But, Kevin ...

O'LEARY: They'll resolve with a new prime minister, and he'll come back to Washington and work it out.

SANCHEZ: Isn't that what the USMCA and before that NAFTA was doing? You're essentially saying that President Trump's quest to make Canada the 51st state is just a bad idea, a dumb idea. What would your advice to him be on that?

O'LEARY: No, no, NAFTA and then U.S. - and all of these negotiations, I want to call this NAFTA III, that's how most people remember it, has nothing to do with security. This is a whole new world we're in. The deal that has to be contemplated now is economic might. That's what matters. And that may involve common currency, just like the E.U. has ...

SANCHEZ: Wow.

O'LEARY: ... a passport system and - that people have the ability to move freely across North America, as the indigenous populations do. Some amount of working together on central bank issues between the two countries. And it's all for the benefit of a union, a combined union and that's where we should be discussing it, because look, I'm a realist. I'm watching what China's doing. They're not messing around. They're trying to catch up, and they're cheating and stealing to do it.

We've got to show a gigantic behemoth economy that nobody can catch up to, and that would be a Canadian and U.S. union. Now, it's lost in the noise right now. There's so much rhetoric going on, but China, they've got the long view. We've got to get the long view, too.

But meanwhile, we're the biggest. Well, when you're the biggest economy, you have strength. You have leverage. You've got the cards, and you have to squeeze heads until you get what you want, and that's what we've got to do. And squeezing heads means don't steal our IP or there will be consequences. [15:05:04]

Now, you want to start thinking about what they could be, economic consequences are going to Europe as well and shutting down China exports there.

SANCHEZ: Wow.

O'LEARY: Because that's the only way you're going to get their attention. They only understand economic strength and the stick. The stick is what they understand.

SANCHEZ: A North American union. Always interesting to talk to you.

Kevin O'Leary, very much appreciate your perspective.

O'LEARY: Take care.

SANCHEZ: Of course. A new hour of CNN NEW CENTRAL starts right now.

Thank you so much for being with us this afternoon.

The White House says it plans to see, quote, "immediate appellate relief" after a federal judge found probable cause to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt. This is the latest move in this intense legal battle after the administration flew hundreds of alleged gang members to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, despite the judge's order to stop and turn back those deportation flights.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: And separately, CNN is also learning just this afternoon that the Justice Department and the White House Counsel's Office are, in fact, looking into the viability of President Trump's stated desire to send American citizens who have committed violent crimes to El Salvador's mega prison. CNN's Paula Reid joining us now.

So, Paula, let's first start with this finding from Judge Boasberg saying that there's probable cause to hold Trump officials in criminal contempt over those deportation flights. What happens now?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, Erica, as you know, this entire case has become a flashpoint in these simmering tensions between the White House and the federal courts. And here the White House said they are likely going to appeal this.

Now, Boasberg was talking about what happened last month in mid-March after the administration invoked the Aliens Enemies Act, saying that they are going to use this to facilitate deportations. They put some migrants on a plane headed to El Salvador.

And during this litigation, as it played out, those planes did land in Honduras. But even after his order saying that they needed to come back, they continued on to El Salvador. Now, the government has argued that as a district court judge, Boasberg had overstepped his authority by trying to insert himself into questions of foreign policy. And that's why they did not abide by that part of his order. But he sees it a different way. Boasberg saying, in his opinion, the court ultimately determines that the government's actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for this order, sufficient for the court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the government in criminal contempt. The court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily. Indeed, it has given the defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions.

Now, he is saying that he could halt these proceedings that he wants to begin for contempt if the White House, if the administration gives the Venezuelan men who were deported to El Salvador some due process. Now, I want to note that the Supreme Court also looked at the use of this sweeping wartime authority to facilitate deportations and said that the administration can actually use this as long as the individuals who are targeted by this get a court hearing and get some process.

Now, again, the Justice Department will have an opportunity to respond. We expect they will appeal.

SANCHEZ: And Paula, talk to us about the administration appearing to take steps that would fulfill President Trump's stated goal of sending U.S.-born criminals, homegrown criminals, as he calls them, abroad.

REID: Yes. This was pretty surprising. He's brought this up multiple times over the past day or so. This is something that most legal experts on its face say is not constitutional, and that especially when we're talking about notorious prisons in El Salvador, anyone, any U.S. citizen who is subject to this would likely have a very strong case arguing that is cruel and unusual punishment. But the President has doubled down on this. Both he and the White House yesterday said that they are looking into this.

Now look, guys, everybody has a boss. And when they are committed to an idea, you have to look into it. So, it's not surprising that the White House and the Justice Department are looking at this, because that's what they have to do. They either have to tell him, no, you can't do that. Maybe he can do something approximating this. Or if he really wants to push through on this, they're going to have to begin some sort of Hail Mary way to try to defend this in the courts.

HILL: We'll be watching, Paula. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Well, one of the men mistakenly deported to El Salvador is, of course, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who you've heard so much about. The Trump administration is sticking to its vow to never bring him back to the U.S. Abrego Garcia, who is married to a U.S. citizen, has no criminal record, was in the U.S. lawfully. He was - had an order that said he should not be deported to El Salvador. He remains locked inside that notorious Salvadoran mega prison where he has been now for the past month. And in a tense hearing on Tuesday, we heard a little bit more from one of the federal judges.

[15:10:00]

SANCHEZ: Yes, a federal judge scolded the administration for providing no evidence that it's following her orders to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. Despite that, Attorney General Pam Bondi had this to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: He is not coming back to our country. President Bukele said he was not sending him back. That's the end of the story. If he wanted to send him back, we would give him a plane ride back. There was no situation ever where he was going to stay in this country, none, none. But he's from El Salvador. He's in El Salvador and that's where the President plans on keeping him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: CNN's Priscilla Alvarez joins us now.

Priscilla, the judge now says that she wants sworn depositions from Trump officials as part of this two-week fact-finding mission. Walk us through what that means.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The federal judge really wants a record. She wants there to be evidence that is submitted to the court. I have been at one of these court hearings monitoring the other ones. And she, in every single one of these settings, has been asking the Justice Department to really give her anything to go off of. Evidence about how exactly he got onto this plane that was sent to El Salvador last month, but also any more evidence on him. Because, as we have seen, the administration has said a lot about him and his ties to MS- 13. And there has been this ongoing court proceeding where those filings could have been submitted.

So, this is just part of the federal judge just trying to seek more information as to what exactly happened here. Because the administration has already conceded that it made an error in sending him to El Salvador, given the fact that an immigration judge in 2019 said that he couldn't be sent there. Now, the attorney general is right. It's very possible that if he were to be returned, they could remove him again to any other country, because that is what withholding of removal means. It just means he couldn't be sent to El Salvador, but he was still removable from the United States.

Now, she also referenced, she, the attorney general, what the Salvadoran president said in the Oval Office. And that similarly came up during the court hearing yesterday. But the federal judge said, that's fine. That happened in a public forum, essentially. But I need the evidence here before me in the court of law. And that is what's missing, and that is what part of this two-week discovery is going to be.

As far as what happened next, the track record has shown over the course of this case that the Justice Department has not wanted to provide evidence. In fact, one of the attorneys said so very bluntly, said that the administration made the choice to provide zero evidence. So we'll see what happens from here. There's this two-week period now where that could be the case. But she said this as well yesterday, she said, quote, "It is a fact now of this record that every day Mr. Garcia is detained in CECOT is a day of irreparable harm."

So really, the bottom line in all of this is the federal judge wants to know what happened here, what the administration is doing, if anything, to facilitate his return, regardless of what senior Trump officials are saying in the public forum. She wants to see it before her court. We'll see what happens next. But again, so far, the Justice Department has stonewalled some of her questioning in court.

SANCHEZ: Priscilla Alvarez, thank you so much for the update there.

With us now to discuss is Duncan Levin. He's a former federal prosecutor and now the managing partner of Levin & Associates. Thanks so much for being with us.

What is your reaction to this finding from Judge Boasberg that probable cause exists to hold the Trump administration in contempt?

DUNCAN LEVIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, obviously, they have done everything possible to infuriate the judge. And it's not really just because of the deliberate violation of the court order, but they've really made a mockery of his authority with some of the tweets that they've sent out and celebrating the defiance of his order.

But the fact is clear that the TRO was put in place. They ignored it and continued on with these flights out of the country, celebrated it and then came into court and stonewalled and obstructed the proceedings, saying that state secrets were at issue. They wouldn't tell him anything. When they did tell him things, they made up completely bizarre post hoc rationalizations about why they removed him. It's a mess.

And I think it's sort of - you know, you hear a lot of talk these days about a constitutional crisis, but we're approaching the point where the judge, if he wants to move forward with this contempt, is going to have a hard time even enforcing it. And the executive branch is teasing him with that. And it makes for a real crisis where both sides are going to be at a detente soon enough where they don't really have power to do anything. So it's, as they say, a constitutional mess.

HILL: So a constitutional mess. Is it a constitutional mess that is ultimately resolved in some way by the Supreme Court?

LEVIN: Well, the thing is that this is a mess that is really coming to a head over the power of the executive branch versus the judicial branch.

[15:15:05]

And in many ways, it's like the case that we're seeing in Garcia, where the executive branch is testing what powers the courts have to stop them from ignoring due process. The executive branch is clearly saying that the ends justify the means. And when you hear the attorney general of the United States say that somebody was definitely never going to be in the United States, it's beside the point.

The point is we have protections in place, due process in place, to make sure that mistakes aren't made or to the extent possible. And the executive branch doesn't seem to care much about that. And so even if this goes to the Supreme Court, where it has here, I don't know that that's going to solve the issue.

SANCHEZ: In the case of Abrego Garcia, we heard Attorney General Bondi today reiterating that he's not coming back to the United States from El Salvador. What are the chances that this case also ends up with some kind of contempt finding?

LEVIN: I think the parallels between these two matters are unmistakable. In both cases, the President is trampling over due process in the name of what he thinks is the greater good. I mean, that may or may not be and that's a political determination for the executive branch on how to deal with migrants and how to deal with people who are here without proper papers, et cetera.

But these protections are here to ensure that the mistakes are not made to the extent possible. And in both of these cases, the executive branch is just ignoring it. And so there are distinct parallels between these two cases. And even if the Supreme Court gets involved, which it has, by the way, in this TRO case with Judge Boasberg, it's definitely going to get back up to the Supreme Court.

But in the Garcia case, the executive branch is taunting the court, saying, well, if they put him on a plane back, we'll welcome him back into the country. That is not what the court is saying. The court is saying, go get him back. You made a mistake. And the executive branch is taunting the courts on that, saying, okay, well, there's nothing we can do about it.

And so it's just open - it's very - they're openly mocking the courts. And I think that's really why we're at the precipice of a very disastrous clash between two co-equal branches of government. That's what this is about.

HILL: Co-equal branches of government is what they are supposed to be. That is clearly not the view, though, from one of those branches. Duncan Levin, appreciate it. Thank you.

LEVIN: (INAUDIBLE) ...

HILL: Still ahead here, the President ramping up his attacks on Harvard, accusing the school of teaching hate and stupidity after the university pushed back on his demands for policy changes and oversight.

SANCHEZ: And later, how Chinese suppliers are urging Americans via TikTok to buy directly from their factories to avoid tariffs. Is this legit? We'll discuss. That and much more coming up on CNN NEW CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:22:39] HILL: Harvard University clearly on President Trump's mind again today. He's posting on Truth Social, quote, Harvard is a joke, teaches hate and stupidity, and should no longer receive federal funding. This, of course, after the President has already threatened to pull Harvard's tax-exempt status. He says the school should be taxed as a political entity. Those comments coming after Harvard rejected the administration's sweeping demands for policy changes.

Now, keep in mind here, the Trump administration has already frozen some $2 billion in federal funding. So practically speaking, what does that actually mean for this school? Well, among the research that's already been hit with stop work orders, according to CNN reporting, we're talking about studies that are looking into ways to help reduce the side effects of radiation for cancer patients. Also important research into both early diagnosis and treatment options for ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and tuberculosis studies as well. The range is wide.

Joining me now, former education secretary under President Obama, Arne Duncan, who is also a Harvard alum. You're also currently a managing partner at Emerson Collective. It's good to have you with us.

You know, as we look at where things stand now, the Trump administration shows no sign of backing down. Do you believe Harvard could ultimately lose its tax-exempt status?

Arne Duncan: Well, you never say what's not possible with Trump, because he's capable of anything evil and anything to hurt others. And I just want to put this in a broader context. What you're seeing is not just an attack on Harvard. You're seeing him attack all of higher ed. You're seeing him try to dismantle K-12 education. You're seeing him attacking the free press. Seeing him attacking the court and the judicial system and individual judges. He's attacking all the institutions that define our democracy. And the only person who tries to do those kinds of things is a wannabe dictator.

And I'm so proud of President Garber and Board Chair Penny Pritzker for standing up have the courage to stand up. And when you have a bully, your only option is to stand up. You cannot capitulate to a bully. They will not stop bullying you. And so it's so important that Harvard and every other institution stand up and stand together to fight this.

HILL: You talk about Harvard standing up and every other institution standing together with them. Are you seeing more evidence of that today? Is Harvard starting to lead the charge? Because it's not like we have a ton of announcements falling in line behind Harvard at this point.

[15:25:04]

DUNCAN: No, and it just sort of broke my heart to see Columbia capitulate so early. And when you give in to a bully, it's not like they stop taking your lunch money. They just come back the next day and take your money and take your money the next day because bullies are - get joy from your pain, from their cruelty. And so whether it's a Columbia or Harvard or any other place or a law firm or judges, when you tax one university, you have to have a thousand universities stand together. There's strength in numbers. When you tax a law firm, you have to have a thousand law firms stand together. I think people have been hit by this tsunami. We've never seen this in the history of the United States. We've never seen someone who wanted to be a dictator. And he's (INAUDIBLE) he tells you what he's going to do. He's not subtle. He broadcasts what he's going to do, and then he does it.

And so I think people are slow to figure this out, but they're figuring this out now that they have to stand together. He will pick everything apart one by one if you allow everyone to fight their individual battles. (INAUDIBLE) but I'm doing a call with a couple hundred university presidents on Monday, and I'm urging them, they have to stand together. Again, same is true for K-12 education in school districts, same is true with law firms.

HILL: So that's coming on Monday. I look forward to you updating me on that call after it happens.

When we look at where things stand, though, you know, for a lot of people in this country, there has really been over the last several years, there's been a push to look at universities, specifically Ivy League universities and among those among the more elite echelon of universities. They're seen as, you know, maybe the American people would like to see some changes there, right? Why do they have all of this money? Why are they tax exempt? What are we actually getting out of that? Can you put in perspective for me, A, why you think we got to that place? And, B, why some of this federal funding matters? Why this research matters?

DUNCAN: Well, I'll take your second one first. And you talked about it, you know, research for cancer. And cancer hits all of our families, whether we vote, you know, Republican or Democrat. Research around ALS. I have a good friend that's been battling for years ALS and is desperately trying to find a cure. And I would give anything to give him and everybody else a chance. We now have an incurable disease. We'd love to give them a chance to continue to lead their lives if we had a breakthrough.

So to cut that kind of funding hurts everybody, regardless of their political persuasion. There are many things about many universities that can and should be questioned and where there's honest inquiry, that's fantastic. That's actually the point of universities is to ask hard questions and to seek truth. That's not what any of this is about.

There's been no investigation here. It's just an attempt to weaken some of the strongest institutions of higher education. You always got to ask the question, why? It's why because those are centers of power. Those are centers of truth that's separate from Trump. Trump wants to be the only source of truth. And if he can dismantle K-12 education, if he can significantly weaken higher education, that makes his path to becoming a dictator that much more smooth. This is a playbook we've seen in other places. We've seen it in Hungary where they, first thing they came in was to attack and try and dismantle higher education. So let's understand the motives here. If they're legitimate, honest questions, let's have those conversations. That's nothing about what Trump is talking about.

HILL: Arne Duncan, I appreciate your perspective. Thanks for joining us this afternoon.

DUNCAN: Thanks for having me.

HILL: We have just about 30 minutes left here in the trading day on Wall Street. As you can see, the Dow Industrial is down 2.3 percent right there. This after a stark warning from the Fed chair on the impact of President Trump's trade war and his tariffs.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)