Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Touts Economy As Polls Show Growing Concern Over His Policies; Supreme Court To Consider Bid For First Religious Charter School; Karen Read's Friend Testifies About Night Of O'Keefe's Death. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired April 30, 2025 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:05]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: New this morning two Chinese factories are telling CNN that Walmart and Target have resumed business with some of their Chinese suppliers after orders were paused and stuck in limbo for weeks because of uncertainty surrounding steep U.S. tariffs.

It comes after the CEOs of Walmart, Target, and Home Depot met with President Trump last week and delivered a blunt message about interruptions in the supply chain, warning that store shelves across America could soon be empty.

The U.S. and China are still locked, of course, in a bitter trade war with no clear sign of trade talks on the horizon.

CNN has reached out to Walmart and Target for comment -- Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: So there is -- there is new CNN polling out there this morning taking the temperature of Americans on one of the president's signature issues. A rising share of Americans thinking that President Trump has gone too far in cracking down on illegal immigration -- the issue -- the issue he highlighted to ABC in a new interview as one of his biggest accomplishments so far.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TERRY MORAN, ABC SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What's the one thing -- just one thing that you think is the most significant thing you've done so far in these 100 days?

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I think maybe the border is the most significant because our country was really going bad. They were allowing people to come in from prisons, as you know and you've heard me say it, but you've heard a lot of people say it. Prisons, mental institutions, gang members, murderers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Joining me now are CNN political commentators Kate Bedingfield and Shermichael Singleton to talk more about this. Kate, so jumping off of this on this new numbers on immigration, a rising share of Americans say that President Trump's deportation policies have gone too far. A similar number, 52 percent, say his immigration policies have not made the -- America safer. And most, 57 percent, say they do not believe the federal government is being careful in following the law while deporting people. Yet, his numbers on immigration remain stronger than his approval rating overall or on the economy.

That tells you what?

KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER BIDEN WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR (via Webex by Cisco): Well, I think it tells you that the Trump team, even as confident as they feel about where they are on the border, needs to be really thoughtful about how they proceed here.

Most people are not following the ins and outs of everything that the White House -- any White House -- even this White House, which is very good at drawing attention to itself -- most regular people are not following the ins and outs of what they're doing every single day from a policy perspective.

And so what people hear are stories about children with metastatic cancer who have been deported along with their parents. And these kinds of stories make people feel -- they remind people I think of the first Trump term when family separation and some of the most Draconian immigration policies they tried to put in place were definitional. That's how people absorbed what Trump was trying to do on the border, and they didn't like it.

So I think that the Trump administration here has -- their recklessness, their unwilling -- their unwillingness to abide by the law -- which, by the way, Republicans like to talk about 20 issues and be on the right side of 80/20 issues. Well, one big 80/20 issue in this country is the question of whether the president should follow the law and should adhere to court orders when they're handed down, even if he disagrees with them.

And so Trump has very much been on the wrong side of that as he's been dealing with immigration at the border, and I think that's part of why we're seeing these numbers where they are.

BOLDUAN: And on that point Shermichael, the president now admits that he can bring back that Maryland man mistakenly sent -- deported to El Salvador -- if he wants to. He said this in this new ABC news interview. Let me play this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MORAN: You could get him back. There's a phone on this desk.

TRUMP: I could.

MORAN: You could pick it up.

TRUMP: I could.

MORAN: You have all the power of the presidency. You could call up the president of El Salvador and say "Send him back" right now.

TRUMP: And if he were the gentleman that you say he is I would do that --

MORAN: But the court has ordered you.

TRUMP: -- but he's not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: But for the last month --

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Um-hum.

BOLDUAN: -- we have heard the exact opposite from those in the administration.

Pam Bondi, the attorney general, saying this month, "That's up to El Salvador if they want to return him. That's not up to us."

Stephen Miller: "It's arrogant to suggest that we would tell El Salvador how to handle their own citizens at a -- as a starting point. That is the president of -- that is the president of El Salvador. Your questions about the court -- about the court can only be directed to him."

Karoline Leavitt: "El Salvador does not intend to smuggle a designated foreign..." Well, she says that. "He is an El Salvadoran national. That is his home country. That is where he belongs."

The president now makes clear they were lying. They were not telling the truth when they said that if the president now says this.

Does that matter anymore?

SINGLETON: But the legal posturing of the administration has really been around this, I guess, convoluted term from the Supreme Court about "facilitate" and what does that mean.

BOLDUAN: Yeah.

SINGLETON: They're still challenging that. It's still working its way through the court system.

[07:35:00]

I think this is obviously going to go back to SCOTUS. They'll make the final determination if they believe the executive branch does have unilateral authority here to just remove someone.

In this particular case I think in many ways there's a strong argument for the executive branch to make, and I'm not saying this just because it's President Trump. I would also have the same posture if it was a Democrat, generally speaking.

BOLDUAN: I'm just saying -- I'm just saying no matter what the policy is, say what you mean and mean what you say. When you -- when you're the attorney general of the United States and you say, "We can't do this," and Donald Trump says "Of course, I can" -- like, this is a problem.

SINGLETON: Well, I'm looking at it through two different frames though, Kate. I'm seeing the political argument here. Again, it's still the strongest issue for the president. But I'm also looking at it through the legal lens.

BOLDUAN: Yeah.

SINGLETON: And again, legally, I think the attorneys representing the executive branch are going to want to stick firm with their overall argument about the powers of the executive as it pertains to immigration because it is an argument about national sovereignty and national security. And I think those two things have to be assessed in their disparate categories.

BOLDUAN: This gets to again, Kate -- and this -- I'm not saying that this is new from Trump term one to Trump term two. I'm not saying that White Houses don't spin across administrations. I'm just saying at this point in 100 days there have been a -- there has been a lot said that's had -- that really does not stand up. And is it really being called out anymore?

Trump has said multiple times in that ABC News interview as well as a rally in Michigan that egg prices are down 87 percent. He's not right. Even if he's talking wholesale prices they haven't dropped that much and they're definitely not dropping like that when you're looking at retail.

And this is the pattern. He's repeatedly claimed grocery prices have declined. They haven't. He claimed -- he claimed inflation is gone. That he ended inflation. He clearly has not.

As a political matter, saying a lie over and over again -- does it work, Kate?

BEDINGFIELD: Well, you know, I'm going to say no, actually. I think -- which I think many people watching are probably throwing up their hands and saying, "Are you kidding me?" But no. I actually don't think over time it works.

And I think that Trump will be subject to the same political gravity that he was subject to in his first term, by the way, when he was voted out of office and ended his term with basically historically low approval numbers. And we're kind of watching his numbers move into that territory again.

So no, I actually don't think that repeating a lie that people can see with their own eyes is not true over and over and over again over the long haul is a successful political strategy. Now obviously it has -- it has impact in the moment. I would argue it has really dangerous impact in that it further erodes people's trust and institutions and their leaders. And I think that's a -- I think that's a dangerous thing.

But the other thing that's notable and you kind of just touched on there is where is the leadership of the Republican Party on this? I mean, we haven't seen many Republicans willing to stand up and say this isn't true.

It's been clear from the outset, of course, Donald Trump has the authority to remove this man from El Salvador and bring him back if he wanted to. That's -- that is -- that is essentially a statement of fact. But we have not seen Republicans at any turn really stand up and say this isn't true.

And so that's -- that is I think the other disturbing implication of this in the medium term in our politics.

SINGLETON: Kate, on the issue of the economy -- I mean, I think we are seeing some stability. We continue to see strong job numbers and unemployment rates remain relatively low. This week we should have an idea of where the tech giants stand -- Apple, Microsoft, Meta.

BOLDUAN: Um-hum.

SINGLETON: We're seeing growth there. We're seeing a rebound of ad spend. I mean, at my own company we're getting ready to spend I want to say six figures in the next 60 days to reach new customers.

And so if those numbers do, indeed, showcase and reveal themselves to be strong I think for the most part the marketplace will look at that stability. There's still concern about tariffs, but I think managing all of that with the growth of the biggest industry in the -- in the country right now is a good sign for the president.

BOLDUAN: And another area where clarity and consistency on message would be very helpful for this White House.

It's good to see you.

SINGLETON: A little politics.

BOLDUAN: Thank you. Thank you so much, Shermichael. Great to see you, Kate. Thank you -- John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. New this morning a federal judge is ordering the Trump administration to restore millions of dollars for Radio Free Europe. The judge says the White House cannot unilaterally revoke funding that has been approved by Congress.

Let's get right to CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter -- good morning, Brian -- for the latest on this. What are you learning?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Yes, good morning. This is another setback for the Trump administration, which has been trying for six weeks to shut down all the U.S.-funded international broadcasters, like Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, and now Radio Free Europe.

All of these broadcasters went to court and said the Trump administration doesn't have the right to do this because Congress has budgeted money for us. So give us the money back.

And here, once again, another court ruling overnight from Judge Lamberth saying yes, Radio Free Europe does need that money. Go ahead and send it over.

[07:40:05]

His ruling doubles as a civics lesson, John. Here is a quote from the really remarkable layout that he presents. He says, "In interviews, podcasts, and op-eds, people from both inside and outside government have variously accused the courts -- myself included -- of fomenting a constitutional crisis."

And he went on to say, "...undercutting the popular will, or dictating how executive agencies can and should be run. These circulating notions reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the federal judiciary, and indeed of the Constitution itself."

What Judge Lamberth is saying is that the idea of co-equal branches must be upheld for the country to survive. He is using his ruling in this very narrow case to send a message to everybody about why the Trump administration needs to uphold the law.

BERMAN: It's a strong statement. We'll see how it holds up as this case moves up the court system.

You know, Brian, in terms of legal issues surrounding the media there's any number of things we could talk about but let me just ask you about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting suing the administration. What's going on here?

STELTER: This case is exactly like the Radio Free Europe case. This case is about an organization created more than 50 years ago to fund PBS and NPR. It's one of those invisible organizations that sends out money around the country that the Trump administration is trying to blow up.

On Monday, the Trump administration sent a letter to three of the directors saying, "You're fired." The only problem with that is that according to the law, back in 1967, the Trump administration cannot fire the board of directors. I've read through the entire law. It's very clear. It's an independent, private entity; not an arm of the federal government.

So the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has gone to court asking for a ruling to that effect. And this is going to be another one of those battles between the executive branch, and the legislative branch, and the judicial branch -- John. BERMAN: Yeah. And again, it has implications beyond the media world.

Brian Stelter, great to see you. Thank you for explaining it so well -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right. The central and eastern portions of the United States are under threat of more potentially catastrophic flooding and severe weather just a day after storms ripped across more than dozen states. Hundreds of thousands of people are still without power. Nearly half a million in Pennsylvania alone where at least two school districts outside Pittsburgh had to be closed today. Missouri also hit really hard with trees uprooted, buildings damaged, and debris all over the ground.

Let's get to CNN meteorologist Derek Van Dam who is tracking these storms. Derek, what do you know?

DEREK VAN DAM, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Yeah, Sara, a lot of people think that damage only comes from tornadoes -- those concentrated areas of wind.

But that wasn't the case yesterday with the winds that moved through in what as known as a derecho -- a line of powerful thunderstorms with winds in excess of over 58 miles per hour lasting for several hundred miles.

There was a funnel cloud actually spotted here in Springfield, Missouri. Regardless, any way you look at it and any way you slice it that is ominous looking skies.

But it was the wind damage that was so concerning yesterday. Check out this swatch that stretched for several hundreds of miles from the Ozarks all the way through the interior of New England. We had nearly 300 reports of severe wind damage and that knocked out power for over 500,000 customers in and around the greater Pittsburgh area.

So this morning that severe weather threat refiring across central portions of Oklahoma and moving into northwestern portions of Texas. That's where we currently have a severe thunderstorm watch.

But what's more concerning, at least to this meteorologist, is the flood threat that is ongoing. Look at these storms moving across the same locations. That's known as training. And this is the result of those training storms. Flooding rains in Norman, Oklahoma.

And guess what? That could happen once again today. We've got a moderate risk of excessive rain that could lead to flash flooding. The potential exists for this region to pick up another six inches of rain locally. That's on top of what's already fallen, so we've got a super- saturated ground. More rain falling from the sky -- that is a terrible recipe.

Now these storms will move eastward, bringing the severe weather threat to this region. Heads up, Dallas. You could see some large hail, damaging winds, and tornadoes once again. And then the severe weather threat starts to focus its attention across the Ohio River Valley for the day tomorrow.

So back-to-back severe weather days, But more concerning this morning is this flash flood threat across Oklahoma -- Sara.

SIDNER: Yeah, and they are so used to tornadoes, but it never, ever is not scary when those storms start coming through because they know --

VAN DAM: Yeah.

SIDNER: -- what can happen.

VAN DAM: I agree.

SIDNER: Thank you so much, Derek Van Dam, for all of that this morning -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: Back on the stand after emotional testimony yesterday a key prosecution witness will face more questions today in the murder retrial of Karen read.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:49:27]

BERMAN: All right. Happening today a case before the Supreme Court could clear the way for taxpayer funding for religious charter schools. The case involves the Catholic Church in Oklahoma.

With us now CNN chief Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic. What's the case and where do you think the judges are leaning?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Good to see you, John.

This is a major test of the separation of church and state, and it's also a major test of whether the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts is going to go even further to favor religious conservatives, which has been his pattern since he got on the court in 2005.

[07:50:05]

This involves charter schools. You know, public charter schools have proliferated across the country. There are now about 8,000 of them serving millions of students. They offer a lot of flexibility that regular public schools don't offer. And especially for some students with special learning needs or want to have a -- as I said, a more flexible, innovative curriculum.

But here what we have -- a diocese in the state of Oklahoma that want -- who have applied to the Oklahoma Charter Board for a religious public charter school, St. Isidore. And it says that if it's denied -- it's challenged the state attorney general trying to rescind its contract here -- said that violates the free exercise of religion.

Now this whole case, John, comes at the intersection of the two religion clauses of the First Amendment. The first says, as you know, that government cannot establish religion -- cannot favor any particular religious practice. The second clause says that it cannot in any way impinge on free exercise of religion.

And the Supreme Court majority has, in recent years, kind of read more life into that second clause to say if a state is going to make any kind of a general benefit available to any group, it cannot exclude religious groups. But that has involved, like, tuition assistance, state grants that would be funneled through parents.

This case, John, asks whether the money can go directly to a religious school, and that's why the state attorney general is fighting it. One thing he says here is that if the state were to allow this charter school sponsored by the Catholic Church in Oklahoma, it would open the door to other religions -- ones that could be perceived as radical religions -- seeking the same sort of benefit, John.

BERMAN: Interesting the judges will have to weigh that as well.

Joan Biskupic, thank you very much for that -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right. Tears and testimony that Karen Read was screaming at the top of her lungs the night her boyfriend was killed. A key prosecution witness returns to the stand this morning in Karen Read's murder retrial. Jennifer McCabe will continue to testify about what happened the night police officer John O'Keefe died.

Read is on trial or allegedly backing her SUV into O'Keefe, her boyfriend, killing him. But Read maintains O'Keefe's police officer colleagues are to blame. Trying to teach him a lesson, they beat him up and left him for dead.

Let's get into the details with CNN correspondent Jean Casarez, and former Morris County New Jersey prosecutor and criminal trial attorney Robert Bianchi. Thank you both for being here.

Jean, we get a real scene-setter from the friend of Karen Read on the stand who is taking the stand today as well -- continuing.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It -- right. Because this is a prosecution witness, but she took the jury into that home. She was there. And that's important for the defense because they are alleging that John O'Keefe was killed in that home by the people in the home.

So let me just tell you she testified that she walked through the front door and then you turn to the right and there's the kitchen. And that night at the kitchen table was Brian Albert Jr., 23 years old. It was his birthday. This had been a birthday party. He had a couple of his friends around -- two girls that were his friends.

And then you -- there was the TV room. You could see straight through to the TV room Brian Albert Sr., owner of the home, and Brian. He's an ATF agent. And those are the two that the defense is going to try to pin this on, all right?

She said the atmosphere was cordial, it was celebratory. There was music playing. It was calm. There was talking. But then she started texting with John O'Keefe, and then she decided

to look out the window. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At some point when you were with everybody in the celebration did you have a chance to look outside?

JENNIFER MCCABE, FRIEND OF KAREN READ AND JOHN O'KEEFE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And when you looked outside what did you see?

MCCABE: I saw a dark SUV out front.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you know whose SUV that was?

MCCABE: I believed it was Karen's.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Could you see who was in it?

MCCABE: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At that point at night what does the weather look like from the front door?

MCCABE: It's dark and it's snowing, and I could see, you know, brake lights.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: So then she goes back to the kitchen table and keeps talking with people that are there. But then she -- they're not coming in and she doesn't understand why. She goes back to the window. And here is the point that the prosecution wanted the jury to hear -- listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCABE: I didn't see the SUV actually move but I saw it in a few different locations. I saw the vehicle first straight out from the front door. Then I saw it up at the flagpole, and then I saw it further up from the flagpole.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: And, of course, the prosecution -- there he is -- pulls up at the front of the house, Sara. She goes up 35 feet, stops, and then presses the accelerator 75 percent to the floor, and goes back 70 feet.

SIDNER: Wow. The testimony has been very emotional. Those two were very -- sort of explaining to the jury where everything was and what she thought happened.

Robert, to you. It's been -- it's been some emotional testimony. But how impactful has Read's friend's testimony been for the prosecution? ROBERT BIANCHI, FORMER MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY PROSECUTOR, CRIMINAL TRIAL ATTORNEY, HOST, "NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH" PODCAST (via Webex by Cisco): Well, let's not forget the fact that this case wound up in a mistrial because the jury couldn't come to a conclusion --

SIDNER: Yeah.

BIANCHI: -- the first time around.

So the question becomes whether the prosecution has enough evidence to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. And this case has caused a huge amount of controversy even for us legal commentators like myself, a former homicide prosecutor, about the quality of the evidence in the case.

So while this testimony is important for prosecutors, in my mind I noted a couple of things that I thought were interesting.

The top charge is second-degree murder, which means that she acted with malice. Yet, what this witness was saying was that she was saying, "Oh my God, did I do this? Did he die? Did I have something to do with this?" Which would indicate that there was not malice.

The second part of this is that she deleted some of her text messages between herself and the victim in the case in the early morning hours, which is something that is a little unusual, especially when the defense wants to argue that there's been foul play.

The main detective in this case has been fired from the police department because of inappropriate investigative and personal conduct with respect to the case, and trying to cover, it's alleged, for the other police officers.

And then lastly, I think one of the most damning pieces of evidence with regard to the credibility of this witness is that apparently, they're arguing. The Cellebrite records -- the phone records at 2:27 a.m. have this witness Googling how long to die in cold. And now the prosecution is trying to run away from that significant piece of evidence because why would this witness be putting something like that -- and, in fact, he did die in the cold -- unless she may have had something to do with it? Which explains why she may have been erasing her text messages.

Now, the prosecution has got a hard credibility problem here because they put another forensic witness on to say, "Well, the Cellebrite records -- the phone records -- you really can't rely on them." Although the defense got the witness to admit. Another competing company said no. In fact, that Google search was made at 2:27.

Last point. I mention this only because that's really nicking the credibility of this witness.

SIDNER: All right.

Jean, as far as that evidence, explain a little bit about that Google searches that came out from prosecutors. CASAREZ: Well, the Cellebrite expert said that once you open a tab on our phone to make searches and you keep that tab open, that the time that the tab was originally opened sticks. And so it did show how long does it take to die in the cold was at 2:30 in the morning. Jennifer McCabe was at home already.

Well, he said he looked back into the Cellebrite software and was able to see the tab was open and it was actually made a little after 6:00 in the morning. That was the actual time.

You have the battles of the experts, Sara.

SIDNER: Yes.

CASAREZ: And when you have battle of the experts then it's going to get worse, all right?

SIDNER: Yeah.

CASAREZ: Because you've got vehicle experts. The intelligence of forensics of the car. You've got accident reconstructionists. Sometimes the experts cancel each other out --

SIDNER: That's right.

CASAREZ: -- and they go for some basic facts that are just common sense.

SIDNER: Yeah. And Karen Read won this big thing that her reconstructionists -- those experts can be used even though there was this big fight about whether or not they had disclosed that they had paid the experts which, of course, the prosecution is going to bring up. But still, she gets those experts to testify that will make her case look better.

CASAREZ: Absolutely.

One more thing very quickly. Second-degree murder. In opening statements the prosecutor said we are not saying that she intended to kill him. We're saying she intended to do the act of pressing that accelerator down 75 percent and going --

SIDNER: Back.

CASAREZ: -- in reverse. So it's another theory. It's like a felony murder theory it appears though they're doing.

SIDNER: Jean Casarez, Robert Bianchi, thank you both so much for your expertise.

And we're going over to Kate.

BOLDUAN: Some other big headlines we're watching today.

A giant fire shutting down traffic on north -- on a North Carolina highway on Tuesday after a tractor-trailer carrying fuel essentially exploded. The State Highway Patrol says this all started when a -- the tractor-trailer hit a car and flipped over. Then a pickup truck crashed into the tractor-trailer igniting the flames. The tractor- trailer's driver was airlifted from the scene. Three other drivers suffered minor injuries.

And Florida is now set to become the second state in the nation to ban fluoride in public drinking water. The bill is on its way to Governor Ron DeSantis for signing after state lawmakers overwhelmingly approved it.

Florida's surgeon general recommended the ban in November citing fluoride's potential health effects. Many public health experts though say fluoride is safe in helping people prevent against cavities. And the CDC called it one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.