Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

White House Seeking Trade Deals; Mike Waltz Out?. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired May 01, 2025 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:45]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: I'm Brianna Keilar in Washington, with Boris Sanchez in Atlanta today.

And we are following breaking news, President Trump's first major staffing shakeup in his second term, sources telling CNN that national security adviser Michael Waltz will be leaving his post here in the coming days.

And, Boris, we're learning this is reportedly something the president has been wanting for some time.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Yes, sources say Mike Waltz's standing with President Trump never really recovered after the Signal chat scandal, despite Trump publicly standing by him at the time.

We're told Trump actually considered firing him about a month ago or so, but sources say that he did not want to give his enemies a perceived win. We also have new details on who could potentially fill the role of national security adviser. Special envoy Steve Witkoff, a real estate developer, a friend of the president's, is reportedly being considered.

Let's get right to CNN's Alayna Treene, who's at the White House for us.

Alayna, what more are you learning?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes.

Well, look, and as you guys laid out, this had been something that the president had been kind of resolved to do for several weeks now. And it wasn't just the Signalgate, I'm told, that really changed his mind, although that was definitely a turning point and a core sense of frustration.

But, even before that, many people close to the president, those who have influence over him, people like White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, they had been frustrated by Waltz as well, and many people viewed him as too hawkish on certain policy, of course, as it relates to foreign relations, more so than the president was. So, already, even before the Signal kind of scandal, there -- Waltz

wasn't on great footing, but then that really sealed the deal, and the president has never gotten over the frustration over that ever since Michael Waltz had inadvertently added a reporter, I should add, a reporter that President Donald Trump never liked, to that Signal chain where they discussed sensitive information.

But the other thing as well, part of the reason this took so long, you mentioned that perhaps they were going -- they needed to find the president's replace -- or -- excuse me -- Waltz's potential replacement. That was part of this.

You mentioned that he didn't want to be giving a win to his perceived enemies. But what I'm also told from my conversations with senior White House officials is that the president did not want to fire someone at the level of Mike Waltz. The national security adviser level is something that has really been considered by this president as a Cabinet-level position.

He did not want to oust someone within his first 100 days, and that's really where a lot of this came down to too. He wanted to wait for what he felt was an appropriate time before having someone like Waltz at that level be removed from his administration.

Now, to get into some of the replacements a bit, you mentioned Steve Witkoff. Now, I'm actually told from conversations with two people who are very close to Steve Witkoff that he is someone who does not want this job. He does not expect -- and these people at least said they do not expect that he would ultimately be given this role.

Of course, you always have to include the Trump world caveats that anything is possible. Things can change. The president could perhaps ask him directly to try and step in on an interim basis. That could change the calculus. But Witkoff doesn't want it.

Two names I have been heard floated, though, are potentially Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his deputy, Christopher Landau, as people who could temporarily fill the role while they continue to search for Waltz's permanent replacement.

KEILAR: All right, Alayna Treene, thank you for that.

Let's get some more perspective now from CNN chief national security correspondent Alex Marquardt.

Alex, what are you hearing about a possible replacement?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, similarly to what Alayna was just saying, Witkoff on a very basic level is a logical replacement.

There's probably no one who's closer to him on the foreign policy team. That's evidenced by the fact that we see him taking these major portfolios, to the point where he's really in competition with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is obviously the -- supposed to be the top U.S. diplomat. But Witkoff is in charge of Gaza cease-fire negotiations, Iran

negotiations, and he's a key player when it comes to engaging with the Russians. But, just like Alayna, I'm hearing from someone who's familiar with his thinking that this is not a job that he wants.

I got some very strong pushback just a moment ago, this person saying, why would he do that, asking, "and be saddled with managing the interagency, instead of what he's doing right now," a reference to those three important portfolios.

[13:05:08]

But everybody we talk to notes that these people serve at the pleasure of the president. We should note that the president has a lot more leeway in naming the national security adviser because it's not a Senate-confirmed position. I think that plays into questions over why Mike Waltz was fired first, not Pete Hegseth, who arguably did worse in those Signal chats by putting those very -- that very sensitive information, possibly classified information.

But, remember, Hegseth went through a very bruising Senate confirmation fight. And from our colleague Jeff Zeleny, Trump just doesn't want to cut him loose after spending all that political capital on him.

KEILAR: And so what impact is this going to have? Because, if you listen to, for instance, Democratic members of Congress, they're very concerned about Waltz's departure.

If you look at Waltz's record when he was a member of Congress, he was very aligned with President Trump. But when it comes to national security, I think he's seen as someone who is a cooler head. So what's the impact here?

MARQUARDT: Yes, I think there are firmly two camps when it comes to Trump foreign policy.

There are the traditional hawks, a guy like Mike Waltz and Marco Rubio. And then you kind of have the more MAGA individuals, whether it's Vice President Vance, Pete Hegseth and others. And so, for a lot of Democrats, a lot of foreign officials, a lot of more traditional Republicans, they saw Waltz as essentially a ballast to the MAGA side of things.

And Rubio and Waltz have done a pretty good job at trying to show Trump their loyalty. But a lot of the people I have been speaking with today asked about -- when asked about the impact, they will say, well, we will have to see who replaces him.

There are -- especially on the foreign side, there are a lot of people who are sad to see Waltz go. I have talked to a number of officials from other countries today who say that he was a close friend, he was a good guy, they're sad to see him go. But, at the same time, if he's replaced by someone who is in that more traditional profile, then they can keep doing the business that they have done. That is likely not the case. And I did speak with one senior Western

official who said that they were surprised that Waltz was the first person to go, but they expect that many more will follow -- Brianna.

KEILAR: Very interesting.

Alex, thank you for that reporting -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Let's expand the conversation now with Beth Sanner. She's a former deputy director of national intelligence.

Beth, thank you so much for being with us.

As we await to learn exactly when Waltz is going to depart, I wonder what you make of his 101 or so days as national security adviser.

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes, I really think that Alex and others have made some really great points in thinking about the role of Waltz.

And a question I would put out there is, will it actually matter? Because I think that Waltz himself has been out of the decision-making and really as that role. What does a national security adviser do? Kind of two things traditionally, advise the president, but then, most importantly, run a process where everyone in the government on foreign policy is implementing the vision of the president.

And when you look at that Signalgate chat, you see that Waltz is not actually playing that role well. He doesn't explain why they're doing what they're doing. And he doesn't shut down the conversation and say, the conversation's over. The president already decided. It's our time to implement.

Stephen Miller does that and Hegseth does that. So I think you can kind of see why we're here.

SANCHEZ: Yes, I did want to get your thoughts on the impact that that Signal group chat leak had on his trajectory as national security adviser, because, obviously, there were a lot of concerns.

I wondered if you see this in any way as accountability. Does it ease some of those concerns?

SANNER: I don't know about that.

I mean, honestly, everybody's -- Hegseth is on these chats, it seems, as much as anyone else and continued after this to be on chats that involved people in his entourage, including his wife, clearly don't have security clearances.

So this isn't about accountability for that. I think it's about loyalty and trust. And that is the most important thing to this president. And he should have a national security adviser whom he can trust and who is on the same page. You cannot implement strategic change when you have people who have different views about the world. And, as was pointed out, Waltz is of this hawkish camp. I mean, I

wouldn't put him exactly in the Ambassador Bolton camp of really wanting to use military force against Iran, but he is pretty close. And this president is really pulling in people who are much more in this -- quote -- "restrainer camp," the real anti-war camp that want negotiations above everything else.

[13:10:12]

And I think that Waltz was a little out of step on that. And probably the president's going to bring someone in who has that trust. But I don't think it's about accountability.

SANCHEZ: Do you think Steve Witkoff fits that label of trust?

Despite these rumblings, these reports from sources close to him saying that he doesn't want the job, the president clearly trusts him with major parts of the national security, the foreign policy portfolio.

SANNER: Yes, it would be a mistake to put Witkoff in there, because it would take away from his role as being the primary negotiator.

And, instead, as Alex was saying, or someone was saying before about putting him in charge of the national security apparatus, where he's supposed to be herding the cats...

(LAUGHTER)

SANNER: ... of the interagency and of the NSC itself.

And this process part of it is so key to being a successful national security adviser. You are the implementer and the enforcer of the president's vision. Witkoff is the implementer in the field. So I don't think that that's going to happen. And I don't think it should happen.

But we're going to have to see. It would be good to have someone who is aligned with the president's -- from the president's point of view in policy and then someone who is down in the weeds and actually making things happen, instead of being on TV.

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: Beth Sanner, appreciate you being on TV. Thanks for the expertise.

SANNER: Thanks.

SANCHEZ: Still ahead: One of the president's top economic advisers teases that there will be news on a trade deal today. CNN is getting new reporting on growing anxiety within the White House that they need a win on the economy, and they need it now.

CNN NEWS CENTRAL returns in just moments. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:16:29]

SANCHEZ: Sources tell CNN that there is intense, growing pressure inside the White House amid signs of economic uncertainty gripping the nation, and that President Trump is getting more impatient for the U.S. to reach a trade deal with some countries over the next few days.

This morning, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said he expects news on a trade deal before the end of today. He also touted progress in China trade talks.

KEILAR: The rush to make a deal comes as some of those last ships carrying Chinese goods without Trump's 145 percent tariffs are making their way into U.S. ports on the West Coast.

And that means Americans may soon start dealing with shortages on shelves and higher prices.

CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich is with us now.

Let's start, Vanessa, with your reporting on these final ships that are coming from China into U.S. ports. How soon before Americans start to feel the impact?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and this is the last week that those ships coming in from China into U.S. ports are going to be tariff-free of those -- of the 145 percent tariff.

However, next week, that is when we're going to start seeing ships coming into U.S. ports with that 145 percent tariff. Any ship that was loaded on April 9, that's going to have that higher tariff. And they're coming into U.S. ports, but there will be fewer ships and less cargo, because, for many importers, it is simply too expensive to do business with China right now.

And just remember how much stuff Americans get from China. Look at your screen there, clothing, footwear, electronics, toys, furniture, microchips. And for the clothing, footwear and electronics, we get more from China than any other country.

So what is going to be happening is that retailers say they have about five to seven weeks depending on the size of the business, inventory that is that pre that 145 percent tariff. But once that runs out, businesses have to make a choice. Do they keep importing that same product from China at that 145 percent tariff or do they stop selling it?

And that's when you start to run into shortages. So, consumers, likely in the next couple weeks, depending on the size of the retailer, or months, will start seeing less inventory, less options, fewer options on shelves.

The key sort of shopping seasons that economists have told me to look out for is back-to-school shopping, because that's coming in now, and then holiday shopping, which really starts to come in at the end of the summer in October. Those are the two shopping periods that consumers should start to become worried about.

SANCHEZ: And, Vanessa, now McDonald's has announced its biggest sales drop since COVID. I mean, that's kind of a red flag.

YURKEVICH: Certainly. And this is consumer sentiment coming up in terms of how people are willing to spend.

McDonald's is a place where a lot of Americans can find affordable meals. But, essentially, for the second straight quarter, sales have now dropped, down by 3.6 percent. As you said, that is what was happening during COVID, when people were told not to leave their houses and to stay home.

And, essentially, what the CEO said is that they're finding that consumers are just feeling very uncertain about the economy. They are not willing to spend right now. And that's critical, because McDonald's, as I said, a key place where people can get affordable deals, but they're not the only ones. You have places like Chipotle and Domino's and Starbucks that are all reporting weaker earnings because of this economic uncertainty.

[13:20:05]

KEILAR: Yes, really something to watch there.

Vanessa, thank you for your reporting. We appreciate it.

James Surowiecki is with us now. He has covered the business world for years and is a contributing writer for "The Atlantic" and also one of those folks who figured out the tariff math, which we greatly appreciated, about a month ago.

You have heard from Kevin Hassett that he says he's sure there will be news by the end of the day regarding a trade deal, a key, obviously, aide to President Trump. He wouldn't say who, but a likely candidate is India. What would that mean, do you think?

JAMES SUROWIECKI, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, "THE ATLANTIC": It's hard to know what it'll mean.

I mean, I think, at the moment, I think everyone is feeling a little bit like we're in a state of stasis, really. Right now, the tariffs are just 10 percent, with the exception of China, Mexico and Canada. So, in terms of an actual material impact, I think relatively small.

I think, obviously, what the Trump administration is hoping is that, once they get the kind of trade deal ball rolling and actually start to sign some of these deals or say they're semi-signed, then it'll make people feel better, it'll make consumers feel better and the like.

I mean, I think it doesn't actually solve a lot of the problems that the trade war, which Trump has started, has created, but I think it will -- they're hoping it'll make people feel a little better. KEILAR: Yes, the big kahuna, of course, is China. So does it sound

like there's a deal likely there any time soon, as you're looking at this?

SUROWIECKI: No, I mean, it's not even clear -- the U.S. trade representative was asked, I can't remember if it was yesterday or the day before, whether or not he'd actually spoken with anyone from China. And he said no, that he had not spoken with anyone from China since before liberation day.

And I think that there are two problems here. I mean, one is obviously, as you all said, that China is our biggest trading partner, at least in terms of the imported goods that we get from them. And so 145 percent tariff is going to obviously have a huge impact on consumers. It'll mean that a lot of businesses simply will decide they can't import these goods and sell these goods.

So that's going to have a very concrete impact. But one of the other problems is that you might think, well, then you just shift production to other countries. And there are two issues. One is, that obviously takes a long time to do. And then the second thing is, we don't even know what the tariffs on these other countries are going to be.

So if you go back to liberation day, the tariff on, say, Vietnam, which is a common place that people might shift production to, was supposed to be 49 percent. So now it's down to 10 percent. But we don't know if it's going to last when this pause ends. Is it going to go back up to 49 percent?

There's just a huge amount of uncertainty in the economy right now. And I think you're starting to see that in the economic numbers.

KEILAR: Yes, and you pointed out that the Trump tariff policy, it's not actually based only on trade barriers, right?

It could be that you have different countries with advantages. I mean, some countries are going to be able to grow coffee beans. Some aren't, right? Some countries make wine. Some don't. And this goes on and on for all kinds of products.

So, considering that, how do trade deals, as they are going to be striking them, account for that?

SUROWIECKI: It's a really huge issue. And I think one of the things is, it's a little hard to understand if you don't know a lot about economics.

But the basic premise behind Trump's trade deficits -- trade tariff rates that he put in place was that any trade deficit with a country was the result of trade barriers that that country was imposing, either, like, literal trade barriers, like tariffs, or kind of harder- to-measure trade barriers, like currency manipulation or other things.

And so the only way to essentially get those rates down is for countries to effectively buy more stuff from the United States or sell less stuff to the United States, because that's the only way to close a trade deficit. That's a really hard thing for a country to do.

Trump has this idea that countries kind of buy goods and services. We don't. It's individuals or businesses within those countries. And so I think that's going to be a real hurdle in negotiating these trade deals, is that, in a lot of cases, countries aren't going to be able to solve the problem that Trump wants to solve.

Vietnam's not going to suddenly be able to buy a ton more stuff from the United States or, alternatively, sell a lot less stuff to the United States. So I do think that is one of the real issues that you're going to see as these negotiations continue.

KEILAR: James, what did you think when you heard Trump yesterday warning about, kids, maybe they're going to have two dolls, instead of 30, and those two dolls may cost a couple bucks more?

[13:25:07]

SUROWIECKI: Yes, it's been really interesting.

Yesterday was very interesting because he was also bragging about the fact that these ships, the China ships, are turning around and coming -- and going back to China because people don't want to pay the tariffs, which kind of makes the point that actually it's people in the United States that would be paying those, I think.

Yes, it was very interesting that he basically was saying, you're going to have a lot less and like it, to American consumers. That's not really, I think, a winning political message. Telling American consumers that they're going to be able to get less and have to pay more for it is generally not something we like to hear.

But I think he's actually being honest. I mean, that is the reality, that we are probably going to see shortages, that, if nothing is done by -- within a few months, I think, by Christmas, you're going to see real impact on Christmastime. And toys is really a classic one, because that's -- those are almost made entirely abroad.

So, yes, I mean, it was very interesting that he is sort of saying this and kind of just saying, deal with it. It's not something Americans generally are used to hearing.

KEILAR: Yes, we have tried this on our kids. I will tell you, that message does not work, anecdotally, but I think broadly too.

(LAUGHTER)

SUROWIECKI: It doesn't sell. It doesn't sell.

KEILAR: James Surowiecki, thanks so much for being with us. Really appreciate it.

SUROWIECKI: Thanks for having me on.

KEILAR: We have much more in our breaking story, the first major staff shakeup of President Trump's second term, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz expected to leave the administration.

What we are learning about it -- next on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)