Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump: Mike Waltz to be Nominated as Ambassador to United Nations; Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) Discusses About Mike Waltz's Nomination; Chamber of Commerce Asks Trump for Tariff Relief to "Save America's Small Businesses and Stave Off a Recession"; Sources: Intense Pressure on WH Officials to Produce Trade Deals. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired May 01, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:57]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A major shakeup at the White House. President Trump just announcing moments ago that he will be nominating his current National Security Advisor, Michael Waltz, to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The news coming just hours after sources told CNN that Waltz would be leaving his National Security role in the coming days. The President saying in the interim that Secretary of State Marco Rubio will also serve as National Security Advisor, adding yet another hat for him to wear.

Let's get right back to the White House with CNN's Jeff Zeleny.

Jeff, what more can you share?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Boris, we do know that the White House and President Trump are making pretty quick accommodations here for the biggest staff shakeup of this administration as it begins the next chapter now - I think in about 102 days or so. Of course, this morning, the news that Mike Waltz was out as National Security Advisor was really sending some shockwaves - not necessarily surprising ones, but structural ones.

The role of National Security Advisor is a critical one. It is doing all the world events that we know about, Ukraine certainly leading them, but also all of the challenges and potential threats that we do not know about. It's a coordinator's job, so that position was set to be vacant.

However, the President, just within the last hour, has announced that he's sending Mike Waltz to be - at least nominating him to be the ambassador to the United Nations. And perhaps even more importantly, appointing Secretary of State Marco Rubio to the role as Acting National Security Advisor.

So, when you look at the jobs now, the different hats that Marco Rubio has, they are quite extensive. Take a look at this. Secretary of State, of course, we know, Acting National Security Advisor, Acting USAID Director, and even the Acting Archivist.

So, the reason that this is sort of interesting, Boris, is the Secretary of State, of course, is known for its diplomatic roles - flying around the world. The National Security Advisor is very much an internal job whose office is just steps from the Oval Office. So, it is certainly a lot on Secretary Rubio's plate.

And I have checked since the last time we spoke. The last time this did happen, Boris, was Henry Kissinger. He, of course, served as National Security Advisor in the Nixon and Ford administrations, as well as Secretary of State for both Presidents Nixon and Ford. So, we have to look way back into history - of course, the Vietnam era, a half century ago - where this dual role was playing out.

But I think for the Trump administration particularly, Marco Rubio is seen as ascending. There is no doubt about that. A one-time rival back to the 2016 campaign, now wearing two very important hats here in the Trump administration. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Jeff Zeleny at the White House, thank you so much. Brianna?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: With us now is CNN Military Analyst, retired Major General James "Spider" Marks. He's the head of Geopolitical Strategy and Academy Securities.

All right, General, just your reaction to this shake-up?

MAJ. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, you know, Mike Waltz - and I know Mike Waltz - he's a wonderful fellow, was a great soldier. But let's take a couple things into consideration.

First of all, the challenge with Signal. When you look at everybody who's on that Signal chat, Mike was the adult in the room. He's a former - or he's a retired colonel - special ops guy. Everybody else in there had varying degrees in military service, to include the Vice President. But the Vice President - let's be frank - was a lance corporal in the Marine Corps.

So, the senior guy who understood how classified communications works and how it's handled was Mike Waltz. So maybe that was one of the factors that played into it, because Signal has cropped up again as a challenge.

And I think, number two, the fact that he is now moving to the U.N. - unfortunately, I think it's fair to say, maybe with this administration, I'm not inside baseball here - but I don't know how much this administration is going to embrace the role of the U.N. ambassador, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and how they're going to get engaged globally.

[15:05:13]

So, I would kind of describe this as a soft landing, but not much influence.

KEILAR: So -- MARKS: So, that's good for Mike. And the fact that Secretary Rubio is going to do both, we've seen this, clearly, you know, 50 years ago with Kissinger. I don't know that Rubio is a Kissinger. But also, you know, the National Security Advisor - albeit it has a job description, Brianna - but it does what the President wants him or her to do. Whether that's coordination, whether that's policy creation, whether that's the integration of a whole bunch of other kinds of cabinet inputs. It is a very specific role described by the relationship between that individual and the President.

KEILAR: So, there is some precedent, as you stated, for one person having these two roles. But as you're seeing this movement, in this case, I think there's a question about whether it's more, you know, a symptom of how this administration just kind of shakes things up, right? And we saw some of that in the first administration.

How - what do you think the state of National Security is based on these moves? Do you see that affecting it?

MARKS: I would say that it probably does not. Now, that's a little bit - it's not a cynical statement. It's more skeptical. It's all about how it comes together. Look, there are adults that are making decisions that affect National Security - what's crystal clear - and those are the inputs. And what's crystal clear is the President is the decision maker, as all presidents have been. But there is less delegation in this administration. Again, this is an outsider's perspective. There's less delegation down into those organizations in terms of what those options might look like coming forward to the President.

So, I think the National Security apparatus is as it is, and it's - and it's fine. And I think this administration is getting them distraught.

KEILAR: What is your biggest National Security concern with this administration right now?

MARKS: China. China. I don't know how we decouple the world's second- largest GDP. I don't know how that works out. As you look, you know, longitudinally, as you look at what the potential options look like - let's be frank - China's got some significant problems. What I call the three Ds. They've got a debt problem that's suffocating. They've got deflation and demographics. And those aren't fixed overnight.

So, will this tariff policy that we've embraced accelerate those challenges or give China an opportunity to move forward and try to fix them? That becomes the big unknown. And so, if that's a challenge, and China feels like there's probably no exit from that, does that put Taiwan at greater threat? Because if you want to change the narrative, don't invade Taiwan - don't start World War III - nobody's going to give - going to care about your debt challenges, right?

I just don't know how we decouple that interdependence - that economic interdependence - that exists globally, trying to isolate and move China to the side. I frankly am at a loss, Brianna, to describe what that potential outcome looks like. KEILAR: Well, at the moment, we are seeing a decoupling, but it goes - we'll see how long that lasts for. It does not seem sustainable. General Marks, thank you so much. Great to have you. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Let's get some reaction on the latest headlines with Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton of Massachusetts. He serves on the Armed Services Committee.

Congressman, thank you so much for sharing part of your afternoon with us.

First, right off the bat, your reaction to National Security Advisor Mike Waltz departing the White House and taking the role of U.S.-U.N. ambassador?

REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): Well, look, first of all, I have to say, I love Gen. Marks, but I totally disagree with his analysis here. This is not an administration hitting its stride. This is an administration further descending into chaos. We have total chaos at the Department of Defense under Pete Hegseth. And now we have chaos in the White House, with the National Security Advisor being kicked out.

The Secretary of State - who just a week ago was complaining about having to fly all over the world dealing with Ukraine and Russia, when that is his job as Secretary of State - he couldn't do his own job. Now he's being asked to take on the second - arguably most important - National Security administration in the position as - in the administration as well. So, this is not a recipe for strong or consistent leadership. It's not a recipe for stability at the top of our government, when we face a lot of National Security threats all around the globe.

[15:10:07]

SANCHEZ: You posted online some specific comments about Waltz, describing him as someone that you respect, but as someone that you could not believe would capitulate to the administration. Why do you think that he's moving on from this role?

MOULTON: Because at the end of the day, he wasn't able to capitulate enough. I mean, that's fundamentally why he is being pushed out. It's not because of Signal Gate, because as Gen. Marks said, he was the responsible person in the room. Hegseth was the one who actually put the most highly classified information on Signal in that illegal message chain. So, if anyone should go, it's the person who can't even keep his own staff on board, that's Pete Hegseth right now.

But at the end of the day, Mike Waltz made a calculation. He was a principled guy - an honorable veteran, a combat veteran like myself. But he said, I'm going to try to just cater to Trump to get a job in this administration. He made that decision about two years ago. I saw him start to slither and slide on his position - suddenly being weak on Ukraine - just because Trump was so weak on Ukraine, as one example, even though historically Mike Waltz has been very supportive of standing up for Ukraine. And he did all that just to get a job in the administration. And at the end of the day, he just was still a bit principled. He still cared about American leadership in the world. He still was willing to listen to facts and not just be a total sycophant to President Trump. And that ultimately was his own undoing. So, he's being pushed out because he still had a bit of principle left. And it's a sad moment, I think, for Mike Waltz, than rather resign on principle and say, look, I'm just not going to compromise my integrity anymore to work for this president. He's actually taken a booby prize in being the U.N. Ambassador.

SANCHEZ: Of the voices in the administration, though it could be argued that Waltz was one of the strongest in defense of Ukraine. He did help broker this rare earth minerals deal. I wonder what you make of the deal and the timing of it being announced just yesterday and now his moving on from that role, and what it might mean for the ongoing talks between the Kremlin and Washington over the future of Ukraine.

MOULTON: Yes, it's a good question, Boris, because this really goes exactly to my point, right? Mike Waltz was always supportive of Ukraine. He softened that position. He got weak on Ukraine to cater to Trump, who obviously is on the side of Russia in this conflict. But at the end of the day, that principle that Mike still felt as an honorable veteran - that he should stand up for our ally - that influenced his work. And I suspect those - this is a great example of why he was fired.

Not having him in the room will mean that Ukraine's position is weakened even further. This gives further strength to our adversary, Russia. And just like General Marks said, I'm concerned that it strengthens our adversary, China, as well. China and Russia are looking at this administration and seeing chaos.

They're not seeing decisiveness. They're not seeing strength. They're not seeing consistency and standing up for our values and our allies. They're seeing chaos at the top. They're seeing us abandon all our alliances around the globe. And that ultimately makes us weaker and more vulnerable as Americans to countries like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran - all the countries in the world that want to attack us, hurt us or just do us ill.

SANCHEZ: I imagine that the counterpoint from the White House - from the West Wing - would be that the National Security Advisor serves at the pleasure of the President. And if there were some policy disagreements, I mean, it's ultimately up to Trump's discretion as to whether he wants to have Waltz in the White House or serving at the U.N.

MOULTON: Well, demanding pure loyalty is not leadership. You know, I mean, I guess that is the way that dictators and kings work. But the greatest leaders invite dissent. They want disagreement. They want to have different points of view in the room because ultimately you have a debate that leads you to the best answer for these incredibly complex National Security challenges that we face.

And that's why there is a great book written by Doris Kearns Goodwin about Lincoln's cabinet called "Team of Rivals." He actually invited his political rivals into his cabinet because it helped him come to the best decisions by having a robust debate.

Well, Trump wants none of that. He only wants people who express blind allegiance, who don't challenge any of his harebrained schemes or crazy beliefs, who just do exactly what he wants. I don't think Mike Waltz was, at the end of the day, willing to do a hundred percent of what Trump wants, and that's why he's out.

[15:15:08]

But it makes our country weaker to not have that discussion and debate at the top echelons of our government.

Remember, it's one of our often criticisms of Vladimir Putin. You know, how has he gotten himself involved in this quagmire in Ukraine? Well, he completely - he's always getting fed false information by his generals because they're so afraid of telling him the truth. The same thing happens with Xi Jinping in China. You know, we had this COVID zero policy for years that was an utter failure because his advisers were unwilling to tell him the truth.

I think Mike Waltz was one of the few truth tellers left in this White House, so Trump got him out. Now he's got sycophants like Marco Rubio running the show. That's a recipe for further bad decisions from this administration.

SANCHEZ: I just want to let you, Congressman, and our viewers know that the National Security Advisor - I believe he's still a National Security Advisor, or I'm not sure exactly when his service ends - but he just posted this online, saying, quote, "I'm deeply honored to continue my service to President Trump and our great nation."

I did have one more question for you because last month at least three other NSC officials were fired, apparently after President Trump met with Laura Loomer, this right-wing conspiracy theorist who has brought up the idea that September 11th was an inside job, et cetera. In her words, she was vetting National Security Council officials for loyalty. I wonder what you make of her impact on the White House and what this turnover does to the work of the National Security Council.

MOULTON: I mean, this Laura Loomer character is a total lunatic who no one in their right mind should be listening to. But again, all Trump cares about is loyalty. He doesn't have the intellectual strength - the self-confidence, even - to listen to people who might disagree with him, to want to hear different perspectives, to change his mind. He just wants sycophants. That's who Trump is, and it's not a recipe for success at the top of our government.

I want to say one other thing, Boris. You know, you just read this statement from Mike Waltz where he said he's deeply honored to continue serving in this administration. I'm going to tell you, as someone who has served with Mike Waltz on the Armed Services Committee - as a colleague, as a friend, as someone that worked together closely on tough issues like China - I'm not deeply honored by his continuation at the U.N. I'm deeply disappointed. I thought this was a moment when Mike Waltz was actually going to go back to the old Mike Waltz, to someone who was willing to stand on principle, even when it meant standing up to his own party and his own president, to do the right thing for our country, to do the right thing for our troops and our National Security.

And like many other people who have served Trump in the past - Secretary Mattis, Vice President Pence, Chris Christie, I mean, the long, long list, John Kelly - I was hoping he would stand on principle and resign on principle, rather than agree to continue in this other job. I mean, he's like, you know, the guy who got kicked out of the mafia because he wasn't quite enough of a criminal, and he's begged to be their busboy. That's disappointing to me.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Seth Moulton, we have to leave the conversation there. Appreciate you joining us to share your point of view.

MOULTON: Good to see you, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Thanks.

Still to come, a top administration official says news on a trade deal could come by the end of the day as pressure grows inside the White House to produce some trade agreements to help bolster Trump's argument on tariffs.

Plus, a new plan to hire more air traffic controllers and keep them from retiring early - how the Department of Transportation aims to fix an ongoing shortage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:23:14]

KEILAR: The world's largest business organization, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is now asking President Trump to drop many of his sweeping tariffs to, quote, "save America's small businesses and stave off a recession." In a letter to Trump - officials - in a letter to Trump that was dated today - officials said the chamber warns, "We are deeply concerned that even if it only takes weeks or months to reach agreements, many small businesses will suffer irreparable harm."

Earlier, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said he expects news on a trade deal by the end of today. He also touted progress in China trade talks. There's been debate, of course, over whether China and the U.S. are talking.

We have Kevin O'Leary, though. We're definitely talking with him. He's an investor on ABC's "Shark Tank" and chairman of O'Leary Ventures.

Okay, Kevin, I do wonder what you think about what the chamber is saying here, because they're asking that tariffs be waived for any small business importer and that there be automatic exclusions for all products that can't be produced in the U.S. or not readily available from domestic sources. What do you think about that? KEVIN O'LEARY, "SHARK TANK" INVESTOR: They're making this plea without any information yet about what trade deals look like - union by union, country by country - and so it would be really great to actually get this first one penned, which we're being teased about. We might see it tonight, because I'll tell you why.

What you want to know about this is: Is this a deal where the country has reduced all tariffs to zero, and the U.S. has reciprocated to zero? So now we have between us free trade - is that what it's going to look like? Or does it look like this - let's say it was India. I'm speculating it is India, and they were charging us 110 percent on automotive going into India, and we were not charging anything near their automotive coming back into the U.S., so it's completely imbalanced.

[15:25:05]

So, do we end up in a situation where both are now at 10 percent both ways? And the reason that might be the case - and why I'm saying 10 percent in the U.S. here - we do not have a VAT, a value-added tax, a consumption tax. Most of the rest of the world does. Whether you go to Europe - that's the thing you get back at the airport after you buy a bag there and they give you back your VAT tax.

Well, maybe what we end up doing by keeping the minimum tariff on - and we'll see in this India deal - is maybe the new U.S. VAT tax is actually a tariff at 10 percent. And that's interesting because 10 percent generally will not cause major harm in terms of inbound product and inventory. And does it become the template for all other countries? That'll be the question, because we have the E.U., we've got England, we've got Switzerland.

For example, Rolex just this hour raised their prices, and everybody in the U.S. knows what a Rolex watch is by 3 percent to offset the tariff imposed on Switzerland, even though there is no trading imbalance with Switzerland.

KEILAR: Okay, Kevin, I'm going to stop you. Okay ...

O'LEARY: So, all of these things ...

KEILAR: ... everyone knows about Rolex, but, like, who buys a Rolex? I mean, a lot of people do not buy a Rolex watch, right? So let me ask you this. You say they should wait until you see the trade deals. Well, that's ...

O'LEARY: Now, hold on, there are 6 million people who buy Rolex watches.

KEILAR: Okay. I know, but if they didn't have a Rolex watch - like, they're not going to go hungry, okay? So, this is my point, right? They're not going to disappoint their child at Christmas. Hopefully their child has grown, I guess, if they're buying them a Rolex.

You said that small businesses should be able to wait until there's trade deals. That's the point the chamber's making that they can't wait, that there's going to be irreparable harm even if it's just weeks or months until a trade deal.

So, I want to ask you a little bit more about that because GDP numbers this week show the economy contracting by 0.3 percent. Small businesses - and you are so aware of this - they usually don't have the cushion of bigger businesses. It's why they come to you asking for cushion. They are not well positioned to survive a downturn. So, what should the administration be doing for small business then?

O'LEARY: Well, you know, you're doing a good job right now squeezing the administration's head to get a deal done. That's what you just did. And I think there's nothing wrong with that, because everybody would like to see deal one inked. Deal one would calm the markets, calm my investors - I mean, calm all the companies I've invested in. I've got 50-plus private companies that are asking the same question you are, and they ask me every day. And I say, look, we have to wait, because these deals have to take time as they always do.

But if the first one gets inked, wouldn't that make you feel better? Because to me, that would be - okay, who's next? Do we get Japan? Do we get England? Do we get Switzerland? Do we get Canada? Do we get Mexico? That's the kind of rolling ...

KEILAR: Well, they need China, right? They really need China.

O'LEARY: Well, no, no, no, no. Not fair. China is a different kettle of fish. They are not a tariff problem. They steal IP. They don't give us access to their markets. They don't trade by the World Trade Organization (INAUDIBLE) ...

KEILAR: Oh, no, no, I hear you on - Kevin, I hear you on that.

O'LEARY: There's a (INAUDIBLE) issue.

KEILAR: I hear you on that. But from the perspective of small businesses, the tariffs are the China problem.

O'LEARY: Yes, there's a lot of - you know, China sells five times more stuff to us than they buy. That's the ratio. And yes, my companies have a lot of products on the water. They're waiting to find out what happens. China opened up the kimono today, if you want to use that analogy, by saying, look, they know they have to start talking because they have big problems with all those workers making stuff. They can't sell it anywhere else. The U.S. represents 39 percent of all consumption goods, so they have to get a deal done.

But I'm saying the China deal will not be as simple as taking the India deal - if that's what we get at four o'clock - and rubber- stamping that for China. China is being called to the table for the first time in 22 years to answer for its crimes, if you want to call it that.

KEILAR: Kimono are Japanese, I will just add, they would be subject to a tariff, but lesser than if there ...

O'LEARY: I know, but I thought it was the Asian analogy you would like. I was trying to make you happy. KEILAR: They're different countries. But nonetheless, I want to ask you - Trump warned yesterday about, you know, maybe kids will have two dolls instead of 30 and that those two dolls may cost a couple bucks more. What did you think about him saying that? Is that good messaging?

O'LEARY: It's tough love. There's no question about it. And yes, it didn't go over that well. I agree with you. That's tough to tell children - less toys under the tree at Christmas. That's tough. I get it.

KEILAR: But it's not just toys, right, Kevin?

O'LEARY: But I think this will be ...

KEILAR: I mean, it's not just about toys. There's other stuff besides toys that people need.

O'LEARY: Well, you didn't like my watch analogy. It's watches too. But my point is ...

KEILAR: I mean, Rolexes are ...

O'LEARY: ... I think we will have this resolved by Christmas, so everybody hang on.

[15:30:03]

I think we'll have China resolved by Christmas. I'll tell you why - not because of China - because it's too close to the midterm elections for Trump.