Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Mike Waltz to Be Nominated as Ambassador to United Nations; Secretary of State Rubio to Be Interim National Security Advisor; Last Ships to Avoid Tariffs Arriving From China; Trump-Appointed Judge Rules Against White House on Some Deportations. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired May 01, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": President Trump's National Security Advisor will soon be out. Michael Waltz's time leading the National Security Council coming to an end in a major shakeup for the White House.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": And the countdown begins, the last boats with goods that won't face crippling tariffs are arriving from China. Economists warn shortages and empty shelves could be right around the corner. And Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promoting a debunked claim about vaccines, one that critics say threatens to undermine use of the measles vaccine even as the nation faces a growing outbreak of the disease. We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "CNN News Central."

SANCHEZ: We leave this hour with breaking news, multiple sources telling CNN that President Trump's National Security Advisor will soon be headed for the exits. The news of Mike Waltz's departure coming just over a hundred days into President Trump's second term, and just hours after the U.S. secured a minerals deal with Ukraine, which Waltz played a key role in brokering. The president though has reportedly wanted Waltz out for some time, despite standing by him after that Signal group chat scandal back in March.

We just learned Secretary of State Marco Rubio is now among the names being considered to possibly temporarily replace Waltz. Let's take you right to the White House and CNN Chief National Affairs Correspondent Jeff Zeleny. Jeff, what more are you hearing from sources?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Look, we are learning that Mike Waltz will be taking his leave as his influence has been waning in the West Wing, Boris, that has been clear for the last several weeks. The National Security Advisor's office, as you well remember, is just next to the vice president's, just steps away from the Oval Office. So in proximity, the National Security Advisor was still very present in the West Wing. However, his influence since that Signal gate scandal really has lessened.

He has really never been a favor of the outside MAGA movement, if you will. Many people were gunning for him in the view of some of his supporters. But look, the decision to create that group chat, which was done by he and his office, and invite Jeffrey Goldberg from The Atlantic Magazine really was the reason specifically for the president to losing faith in him. However, there were many questions even before that.

Now Mike Waltz, of course, was a member of Congress from Florida. He was a decorated military veteran as well, Green Berets and many stars and services and awards of duty. But inside the White House, he did struggle in some respects to not only breakthrough, but also stand out at this moment in time. So, we're not exactly sure of the timing of his departure, but it does mark the first major departure for a top West Wing advisor so far in this Trump administration.

SANCHEZ: It's really fascinating in part because this position, specifically National Security Advisor, is one that President Trump has had some issues with in the past, not just on policy disagreements, but even with his first National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, controversial steps that he took apparently being dishonest with the FBI.

ZELENY: Right. I mean, that certainly was one of the things that got the first Trump administration off on the wrong foot, if you will, in terms of staffing. And Boris, just thinking back to the number of national security advisors who worked for the president in that first term, it is quite considerable. One of the reasons is, it's a staff position, if you will. It's not confirmed by the Senate, so it's easier to get rid of someone if you don't like them. There's much less fallout from that.

But just, take a look at some of these national security advisors from the first Trump administration. Of course, Michael Flynn, as you mentioned, was the very first advisor, but also thinking back to H.R. McMaster, thinking back to John Bolton as well as finally ending with Robert O'Brien. He was the final national security advisor in the first Trump administration. But Boris, also a question, why Mike Waltz and not Pete Hegseth? Of course, he was the defense secretary who put that sensitive or classified information into the group chat.

The president has been standing by his defense secretary. He praised him just a short time ago in the Oval Office. But again, his position is a Senate confirmed one, so there's much more -- it's much more difficult to replace a Senate confirmation, particularly Hegseth who only was confirmed by one vote. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Yeah. Jeff Zeleny, live for us at the White House. Thank you so much. Brianna?

KEILAR: With us now, Ambassador John Bolton, who was President Trump's third National Security Advisor during his first term. Ambassador, as you're looking at this, what does Waltz's departure signal to you?

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Well, I guess we don't have it confirmed yet from the White House, which indicates that they don't have a successor. I think when Trump fires somebody, it would be true of almost any president, they want to be able to say and he will be replaced by X.

[14:05:00]

The reason being that in a normal administration anyway, you want to show continuity, you want to show the presence on top of things, and that really whatever the appearances may be, everything's under control. And yet again, in the Trump presidency, we have a circumstance where there are critical national security issues boiling all around the world and his team is in disarray again.

KEILAR: You have a very interesting op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that is just out, because I want to talk a little bit about who could be the successor here. Steve Witkoff is someone who -- the Mid East Peace Envoy, who's also -- Middle East Envoy, who's also been very involved in Ukraine-Russia negotiations. You write Mr. Witkoff has no evident expertise in Russia, Eastern Europe, especially Ukraine, the Middle East, Iran, state-to-state negotiations, nuclear weapons technology, weapons of mass destruction proliferation, verification of international agreements, or armed conflict.

His Ukraine cease firework verges on collapse. He acts at Mr. Trump's direct behest in his connection to Secretary of State Marco Rubio is unclear. Not a ringing endorsement and we recently heard him talking about Ukraine. He's not -- he actually lacks some rudimentary knowledge, even just about the geography and the timeline of which parts of Ukraine Russia has taken over. What would it mean if he is the replacement?

BOLTON: Well, it would be full confirmation that what really matters in the Trump administration is fealty, submission to Trump, doing what Trump says, not having alternative opinions and knowledge, expertise not a prerequisite. You don't need to know anything to do a senior job. I think it would be a terrible signal to the rest of the world, particularly at a time when our friends all over the world are deeply disturbed about the president's approach to tariffs and how he deals with close friends and allies.

This disarray is not simply unpleasant, bureaucratic reality in Washington. It has consequences around the world. And I think we've seen in the first hundred days of the Trump's second term, essentially what we saw in four years in the first term is that, he is totally transactional, ad hoc, episodic, and decisions are made almost unrelated to any ongoing policy. That's bad in any of the areas of the president's responsibility and domestic affairs. It is critically wrong in national security affairs, and yet we are seeing in real time exactly what happens when you have a president like Donald Trump.

KEILAR: The national security advisor role that you had, it can really be an indispensable role. It should be for the president. So can that National Security Council apparatus, which is this big apparatus of expertise at the White House, on the White House campus, if it's used correctly. As you experienced it, how in different administrations, how does a president typically use that compared to how Trump does? And what is Trump missing out on by not using it the way other presidents have?

BOLTON: Well, each president has his own style. There's no doubt about it, and there's no one rule. But, the (inaudible) model is I think, all of us who have held the job since him call it really is the way that the Congress went and enacted the National Security Act of 1947, intended to enhance the president's ability to make critical national security decisions, to be sure that all the pertinent information is given to the president to be sure he knows what the alternatives are, that his various cabinet secretaries and agency heads have to offer to know what the pros and cons of all those alternatives are, so that the president can make the best informed decision possible under the circumstances.

And then once a decision is made, to make sure that the bureaucracy carries it out. That's the ideal model. Trump almost never followed it at any point. And it shows up, I think, in inadequacies in long-term American policy. Trump's style really runs completely contrary to the National Security Act because instead of coordinating the bureaucracies better, making sure that his decisions are implemented, by doing it in his totally transactional ad hoc style, he's actually reducing his capabilities and reducing his influence and his ability to get his decisions carried out.

[14:10:00]

KEILAR: Politico's Dasha Burns told our Dana Bash that far-right activist Laura Loomer texted her today. Loomered, meaning that Mike Waltz had been Loomered. And you'll recall after Loomer had urged President Trump in the Oval Office in early April to get rid of several members of the National Security Council staff, a number of them were -- they departed. Are you seeing her influence or whose influence are you seeing in this departure that we're still waiting the official announcement of?

BOLTON: Well, it's a good question of who's in charge. People have said, well, this, Waltz's being let go shows the influence of the MAGA base. Well, who's the head of the MAGA base? Donald Trump. He hired Waltz. And on the say so of some, I guess, I don't want to be sued for libel here, but somebody like Laura Loomer? The head of the MAGA movement is firing the person that he hired a hundred days before? I mean, that is the very epitome of chaos.

And I think what it says to any potential job holder in the Trump administration who currently has a responsible job somewhere else in the private sector, you better think long and hard before giving that up to come to work for Donald Trump.

KEILAR: A warning that you know the ramifications well. Ambassador John Bolton, thank you so much for sharing your insights with us. Very interesting op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. Thank you so much for being on.

BOLTON: Thanks for having me.

KEILAR: And still to come, in a first of its kind ruling, a Trump appointed judge says the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act to speed up deportations is unlawful. We'll have the rulings impact next. And Elon Musk admits his DOGE cost-cutting efforts have not been nearly as successful as he initially promised. Well, that and much more coming up on "CNN News Central." (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:16:53]

KEILAR: We have breaking news. A federal judge in Texas has blocked the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to quickly deport some alleged gang members within his district. This is a first of its kind ruling. U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez, who was appointed by President Trump, ruling that the president exceeded his authority when he unlawfully invoked the sweeping 18th century wartime authority to speed up some deportations.

Elie Honig is with us on this. He's a CNN Senior Legal Analyst and a Former Federal Prosecutor. Elie, thank you so much for being with us. First off, just explain to us what the decision is here, that this doesn't meet the invasion, what the administration did here, or predatory invasion standards in the law. Why?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST AND A FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Right, Brianna. So this is a rebuke to the Trump administration delivered by a Trump-appointed federal judge. Now, there's a couple important rulings that the judge makes here. First of all, he rejects the administration's argument that applying the Alien Enemies Act is solely up to the president and the courts can have nothing to do with it.

This judge says, no, it's our role as courts to review this and to make sure that it's done within the basis of the law. Then the judge concludes, you've gone beyond the law because this law is only intended to apply, first of all, if there's a war, which there's obviously not. And second of all, if there's been an invasion or a predatory incursion. And the judge then goes through those phrases, he looks back at history, he pulls out the dictionary, he looks at prior cases, and he concludes that the presence of this gang Tren de Aragua does not meet the definition of an invasion or a predatory incursion.

Therefore, the Trump administration has exceeded the law and therefore, this Alien Enemies Act cannot be used for these deportations according to this judge.

KEILAR: So, this is limited though to his Texas district? Explain that.

HONIG: Yeah. So the actual plaintiffs here are three individuals, three deportees who managed to actually halt the process before they were deported. They're currently being held in Texas. There are other people, there are dozens or hundreds of other people who've already been deported under this Alien Enemies Act. People may be wondering, well, what happens to them? The answer really is they're in an uncertain state.

First of all, they can try to challenge this law under the same basis, but it is legally harder and logistically harder to do that if you're on foreign soil. And the other thing is, and this applies to all the defendants here, this judge makes a point of saying, even though I conclude the Alien Enemies Act does not apply here, they still can be deported under normal processes, normal immigration law, if they are here illegally. They just can't be deported under this ancient 1798 Alien Enemies Act.

KEILAR: Yeah. Maybe not as quickly and without the due process that they would normally have. Right? That's what's sort of getting jettisoned in all of this. What could this mean be for other jurisdictions? Because as we said, this is geographically limited, but there are challenges in other places. And ultimately what happens, does this just end up at the Supreme Court?

[14:20:00]

HONIG: I think it's destined for the Supreme Court, Brianna. So what's going to happen next in this case, I expect, is the government, the Trump administration will go to the Circuit Court of Appeals, the Fifth Circuit. I think they're going to ask the Fifth Circuit very quickly, A, we need you to block this decision that just came down temporarily, and B, we need you to reverse it.

Whatever happens there, whoever loses then in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, is certainly going to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take this case. Now, some viewers may be thinking, wait a sec, didn't the Supreme Court issue that midnight ruling a few weeks ago, 12:55 on this same question? The answer is yes, but they didn't quite go this far.

What the Supreme Court said in that 12:55 a.m. decision is, for now, we're not going to rule on whether the Alien Enemies Act is being legally or illegally used, but what we are saying is that deportees do have the due process right to challenge it. And that's exactly what's played out today. Now, some of these deportees have used that due process, right? And they've won. So for the moment, in one district court, the ruling has been that this is illegal, that they cannot be deported against this Alien Enemies Act.

KEILAR: All right, Elie Honig, thank you so much for that. Let's go to Boris now. Boris, we have some breaking news.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, Brianna, we're tracking some breaking news just into CNN concerning President Trump's National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz. Let's get straight to Jeff Zeleny at the White House. So just a few hours ago, Jeff, we learned that Mike Waltz was going to be departing the administration, and now we've learned that he's going to be tapped to fill a role that Trump is yet to since taking office the second time.

ZELENY: Boris, very interesting, and we can headline this under a soft landing, if you will. The President just announcing a few moments ago on Truth Social, his social media platform, that he does intend to nominate Mike Waltz to be the next Ambassador to the United Nations. Let's read this together here. He said, I'm pleased to announce that I will be nominating Mike Waltz to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress, and as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our nation's interests first. The President goes on to say, I know he will do the same in his new role. Boris, this is very interesting. In the interim, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve as the National Security Advisor while continuing his strong leadership at the State Department. So certainly, some quick work by the White House, by the President to move beyond the storyline of a firing, essentially, to shifting the conversation to who is going to replace him.

And Boris, my memory at least is, and we will have to check this, but not since Henry Kissinger served as the Secretary of State as well as the National Security Advisor, was that position held by the same person. There may have been someone else since then, since those intervening years from the Nixon administration. However, this is a temporary position for Secretary Rubio, but certainly interesting that Mike Waltz is going to be nominated to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Of course, that was a position that was intended to be held by Elise Stefanik.

SANCHEZ: Right.

ZELENY: A member of Congress from New York, who was waiting her time for confirmation hearings. But the House Republican majority was too narrow. So the White House ultimately withdrew her nomination. So certainly, one of the examples here of how cards fall in different ways. Mike Waltz, of course, was taken from the House from his Florida seat, and now, he's going to be nominated to be the Ambassador to the U.N. I would suspect he would have a fairly smooth confirmation role. He's well respected on Capitol Hill, but we shall see. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Jeff Zeleny, please stand by. We have CNN's Alex Marquardt with us tracking this news. So Alex, it seems, as Jeff put it, like a soft landing for Waltz, albeit with far less proximity to President Trump and a direct influence over U.S. policy, because U.N. Ambassador, it's almost more of a spokesperson for the administration at the United Nations. Right?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Still a very critical role. I would agree with Jeff in terms of the soft landing. Obviously, we've seen several people fired far more angrily and dismissively by Trump in the past, banished from the administration. Whereas here, Waltz is being kept in the fold, albeit as you note, not in the building, not even in the same city. But obviously, it's a lateral move, if you will.

It's a step down, but a lateral in terms of it's still on the foreign policy team. A lot of times it's going to come down to the force of personality of that U.N. Ambassador whether they have any kind of real voice or sway over the administration. I think by removing Waltz from the inner sanctum of the White House, he probably won't have as much. And you're right that, that U.N. Ambassador position might be a little bit diminished. But on the positive side of the ledger, this is someone who is quite well respected among foreign officials.

[14:25:00] This is someone who is seen because of his military experience and Congressional experience and time overseas, as one of the, if not the most accomplished foreign policy practitioners in the administration, I would say alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio. So when you have countries around the world and officials around the world who are upset with what the Trump administration is doing, even angry, they see those two men as people who they can work with.

And in talking to foreign officials today, there were a number of them who were sad to see him leave the administration because they saw him as someone they could rely on. And so, they'll be happy to see him landing on his feet at the U.N. and welcome to still have his voice in the administration. Boris?

SANCHEZ: To your point, obviously, the U.S. U.N. Ambassador can play a more sizable role, but given the way that the Trump administration, at least historically, has viewed the United Nations, maybe we shouldn't expect quite as much from someone in that position. I do want to get your thoughts on Secretary of State Rubio filling both roles, because as Jeff put it, it's something that isn't unprecedented, but is rare.

MARQUARDT: It's going to be a tough job. There's a reason that those two jobs are separate. Obviously, there's a lot of overlap. And when you see, if you think about the last administration, the Biden administration, you had Jake Sullivan and Antony Blinken, who were working very closely alongside each other. Though I think it was Sullivan really who was leading this. I mean, Rubio has a massive day job. That's a huge bureaucracy at the State Department to lead. It's definitely a promotion -- well, it's a good thing for Rubio because he'll be more in the fold.

We know that the proximity to Trump is so important. And certainly, Rubio has strong deputies at the State Department. I think it is rather remarkable because again, Rubio is seen as more of a traditionalist and less in that MAGA camp. And so when we think about who might come next, if he's thinking along the lines of Rubio or Waltz, then that would be very interesting because the sense is he might want to go in a different direction.

SANCHEZ: Alex Marquardt, thank you so much for the insights. Stay with "CNN News Central." We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)