Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Exempts Smartphones, Other Electronics From Latest Tariffs; White House Casts Iran Talks As Positive And Constructive; Interview With Representative Jeff Hurd (R-CO) About Bipartisan Bill On Tariffs; Trump Admin's Battles Over Immigration Continues; Dozens Of DHS Staffers, Including Top FEMA Officials, Given Lie Detector Tests Over Alleged Leaks; Investigators Working To Find Cause Of Deadly Helicopter Crash That Killed Pilot, Family of Five; Crowded Leaderboard With 3rd Round Underway In Augusta; Bezos' Blue Origen To Launch All-Female Crew Monday. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired April 12, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Please. Please, sir, make a deal. I'll do anything. I'll do anything, sir.

RUFFIN: Did you see how happy he looked when he was like, everybody is calling me. No one calls him on the phone. That was the end goal. This man wants human contact. Someone call him on the phone. Call him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROSALES: Tune in to see "HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU" tonight at 9:00 Eastern.

Well, thank you for joining me today. I'm Isabel Rosales. CNN NEWSROOM with Erica Hill starts right now.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Good Saturday afternoon. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Erica Hill in New York in for Jessica Dean.

Another day, another pivot when it comes to President Trump's tariffs. Just today, the Trump administration announcing that certain electronics, including smartphones, will now be exempt from some of the steep new tariffs. Of course it comes amid an escalating trade war between the U.S. and China. The president imposing that massive 145 percent tariff on Chinese goods imported to the U.S., a hefty tax that would have significantly impacted tech giants like Apple, for example. Those giants making many of their products in China.

CNN's Kevin Liptak is live in West Palm Beach, Florida, with more on today's decision.

So why the about face? Where did it come from? Pressure from business leaders?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, that could be part of it. I also think this just reflects the reality that these tariffs were going to be inflationary on some of the most popular American consumer products, and I think this is a sign that the White House recognizes that those pressures were real and is taking some action now to try and alleviate them.

And it was notable after this whipsaw week back and forth on these tariffs this is the first real example that we have of the president easing off when it comes to China specifically. But I do think it's worth noting that not all tariffs have been lifted on these products. There will still be these 20 percent tariffs related to the fentanyl crisis that the president had applied. Those still take effect. It's those layered tariffs that will be relieved for now. The reciprocal tariffs, the 145 percent duty that the president had applied.

The list of products is pretty extensive. It includes smartphones, laptops, transistors, flat panel monitors, hard drives, semiconductors, all products that, for the most part, are not made in the United States. And what this could mean for consumers is that they have sort of a reprieve for the moment on those higher prices. It also is a boon for some of these major companies like Apple, Samsung, Dell, these companies that had, you know, resisted in a lot of ways these new tariffs and who have also, I should mention, cozied up to the Trump administration for the last two months.

But I do think the big question now going forward is exactly how long this reprieve will last, because when you talk to White House officials, they do make note that the president has said before that he thinks these kind of products should have specific tariffs applied to them, raising the prospect that he could apply new potentially lower rates on these products going forward.

I also talked to a White House official who said that the president would be ordering up a national security study of semiconductors, which are those, you know, tiny computer chips that power so many of these products. Those studies often result in new tariffs.

Now, today, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, says that President Trump has made clear that America cannot rely on China to manufacture critical technologies such as semiconductors, chips, smartphones and laptops. That's why the president has secured trillions of dollars in U.S. investments from the largest tech companies in the world, including Apple, TSMC, which is the Taiwanese chip maker, and Nvidia, another chip maker.

She goes on to say, at the direction of the president, these companies are hustling to onshore their manufacturing in the United States as soon as possible. Of course, as soon as possible there is a relative term. It could take years, potentially even decades for these companies to supplant their technology and their supply chains in Asia and move them to the United States, as the president wants them to do.

HILL: Yes, it is such an important point, and one that we can't leave sight of. This is not a switch that can be flipped overnight.

I do also want to talk to you about what happened today in Oman. U.S. and Iranian negotiators wrapping up their meeting there. What came out of it? Where do things stand?

LIPTAK: Well, both sides are using the same word to describe these talks, which is constructive. You know, they weren't in the same room for very long. You'll remember one of the questions heading into these talks was whether there would be direct or indirect. President Trump wanted direct talks between the two sides. The Iranians had advocated for a more indirect approach.

[16:05:03]

For the most of the meeting, they were passing messages back and forth between the Omani mediators. But at the end, the Iranian foreign minister and President Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, did meet face to face. And the message that Witkoff conveyed was that President Trump had given him instructions to restore our two nations' differences through dialogue and diplomacy, if that is possible.

Of course, if it is not possible, if they aren't able to use diplomacy to curb Iran's nuclear program, President Trump has not ruled out military force, potentially alongside Israel to take out some of its nuclear facilities. But so far, it does appear that the diplomacy is on track. The two sides agreed to meet again in one week.

HILL: All right. We'll be looking for that.

Kevin, appreciate the updates. Thank you.

Well, with so much talk about these tariffs and the back and forth, there's also a significant question about the role of Congress here and whether Congress could actually rein in the president when it comes to these tariffs. Just this week, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a bill in the House to return the constitutional authority of setting and approving U.S. trade policy back to Congress.

It's important to note, the White House also said this week that President Trump would veto a similar bill introduced in the Senate, saying that it would, quote, "dangerously hamper the president's authority and duty to determine our foreign policy and protect our national security."

Joining me now is one of the lawmakers who sponsored that bill in the House, Republican Congressman Jeff Hurd of Colorado.

Congressman, it's nice to have you with us today.

REP. JEFF HURD (R-CO): Thanks for inviting me, Jessica.

HILL: So do you think, when you look at where things stand here, do you think President Trump, in this instance, has stepped outside of his constitutional authority when it comes to these tariffs?

HURD: Let me just say that I support the president 100 percent when it comes to the critical goals that he's talking about, onshoring critical manufacturing, growing American jobs, ensuring fair trade, and making sure that markets abroad are a good place for the sale of U.S. goods. I just think we need to make sure we do it in the right way. And Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution is clear on this. Congress has the power to impose tariffs, and this legislation that we've introduced is consistent with that constitutional prerogative.

HILL: So I'm going to read between the lines there that you do support, understandably, the goals of the president. But it sounds to me like just based on what you're saying and specifically highlighting Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, it does sound like you believe that the president overstepped here in putting those tariffs in place without consulting with Congress.

HURD: Well, Jessica, I do believe that there is an issue here about restoring that proper balance of power. What I would say is that legislation, the legislation that we've introduced, it doesn't tie the president's hands. It just ensures that when tariffs are imposed, there's transparency and accountability and congressional support to back them up.

HILL: The president had also said that he would veto that Senate version of a similar bill. What does that make you think about yours?

HURD: Well, one thing I've learned in Congress, I haven't been here very long, Jessica, is that things can change quickly. And so I think we'll have to see in the coming weeks and months where things look. But what I do know is when I campaigned for this office, I told the people here in southern and western Colorado that my two priorities were the Constitution of the United States and the best interests of southern and western Colorado. And I think this legislation is consistent with those priorities, regardless of where it goes in the legislative process.

HILL: I'd like to ask you a question, too, about initially what we heard from the president now 10 days ago when he first announced these sweeping tariffs, was that this was a national emergency. This was about national security. And he was doing this because it was a national emergency. I've asked this question of a number of people. I haven't been able to get a straight answer because I'm not sure there is one.

Given that the tariffs have now been put on pause, is it your understanding that the White House still believes there is, in fact, a national emergency, or is that too on pause?

HURD: Well, I would have to let you ask the administration to ask for the specific answer in that question. What I would tell you is that tariffs can be a helpful tool in the toolbox for negotiations, but they can have major impacts on farmers and small businesses and families in districts like mine and across the country. And that's why I think these decisions should be made with Congress having input, as contemplated by Article One of the Constitution.

HILL: To your point, I know your district is very large. And you have a number of different industries in there within the district, rather, farming, agriculture, of course, steel manufacturing. You know, I heard you talk about bicycle parts and manufacturing also as well this week. When you look at that, when we look at the broad impact of these tariffs on your constituents, on the American people, and then we see what happened today where now the tariffs on certain electronics, certain electronics will be exempt.

Is that really what the American people need? I mean, the reality is if my iPhone breaks, I can buy a used one from my cell phone service provider. I don't need to buy a new one, but I need to buy food. My kids' feet refuse to stop growing. I'm going to need to buy them shoes. Those items are not going to be exempt.

HURD: Yes, I mean, I understand that.

[16:10:01]

What I would say is fundamentally the lack of certainty is a problem for people in my district. I've heard from our steel manufacturers, from my bike part manufacturers, from our farmers and ranchers, the people that put food on our table, that the unpredictability of the situation is also difficult. And I think that's one of the other advantages of having Congress with a role in this process is that we can provide some certainty and predictability to businesses and manufacturers that oftentimes make business decisions, and consumers that make business decisions on a longer time frame.

HILL: To your point about that uncertainty, are you concerned about how that is impacting the view of the United States as a reliable, trustworthy partner and negotiator?

HURD: Certainly it does create some difficulties. What I would tell you, though, is there are parts of this that advance the strategic interests of our country that I agree with 100 percent, particularly when it comes to decoupling our economy from China. And I think President Trump is 100 percent right in making sure that we separate ourselves from reliance on China and Russia and other countries that are our adversaries, and making sure that we are not in a spot where we need to rely on them for national security or economic security issues.

So when it comes to strategic deployment of tariffs, I think that's a great idea. And I think the vast majority of members of Congress would support that strategic advancement of tariffs to promote the interests of our country and make sure that the bad guys don't win.

HILL: There was some concern after the president said or posted, I should say, earlier this week, just before pausing the tariffs, that this would be a great time to buy. And you had your fellow representative, the Democrat of New York, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who tweeted any member of Congress who purchased stocks during this time should disclose that. She's pushing to ban insider trading in Congress.

I know you have said yourself, you don't think members of Congress should be buying or selling individual securities. So is that something that you could see yourself? You're working across the aisle when it comes to tariffs and the power of congress. Is that something you could see yourself working together with on Democrats, perhaps with the representative from New York? HURD: Well, certainly integrity and public service is something that

matters to me. I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. That's why I do not buy or sell individual securities as a member of Congress. I'm just invested in broad mutual funds, index based funds that tie me to the success of the American economy overall.

I think that is something that we could work with Democrats across the aisle on. I'm certainly interested. We've actually been having discussions already with some Democrats and Republicans who are focused on that public integrity and making sure that members of Congress live up to that higher standard.

HILL: Well, we look forward to hearing more about those efforts. Before I let you go, also this week, of course, Congress passed a budget framework to kickstart President Trump's agenda. The Senate majority leader, John Thune, and Speaker Johnson have committed to finding $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. How do you believe you can get there without touching -- we have told that they won't be touched, but there are real concerns that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will have to face some cuts. Can you do it without that?

HURD: Well, I think we certainly can in preserving those key programs, making sure that they're long term sustainable. You know, big picture, what's happening in Congress now is we are working hard to advance that agenda that we all campaigned on, securing our border, ensuring America is strong both internally and abroad, growing our energy economy, removing that regulatory chokehold on families and small businesses, and cutting wasteful spending.

I think all of those things are part of this reconciliation process, and this is the first step in many more steps to come to deliver on that agenda that we campaigned on as Republicans.

HILL: Congressman Jeff Hurd, good to have you with us this afternoon. Thank you.

HURD: Happy to join you, Jessica.

HILL: Still to come here, two major rulings in deportation battles, including in the case of a Maryland father mistakenly deported to El Salvador. What the president says about an order from the Supreme Court. Plus, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Senator Bernie Sanders, they are drawing record breaking crowds during their so- called Fighting Oligarchy tour.

We're going to be joined by Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal to talk about how Democrats are trying to build on that momentum. Plus, investigators trying to piece together why a sightseeing helicopter suddenly fell from the sky, crashing into the Hudson River.

Stay with us. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:18:58] HILL: The Trump administration back in court this week fighting two major deportation cases with mixed results. In a tense hearing on Friday, DOJ attorneys stonewalled as the judge repeatedly asked for the whereabouts of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He is the man who you see on your screen who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. Remember, the administration said that they messed up there. Well, the judge has now ordered daily updates on what exactly is being done to bring him home.

Meantime, in Louisiana, a judge on Friday ruled that Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and legal permanent resident, can in fact be deported. His legal team is vowing to appeal that ruling.

Joining me now, former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general Harry Litman.

Harry, always good to have you with us to wade through all of this. So a busy week on the legal front. Let's start off first, if we could, with this case of Mahmoud Khalil. So the Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked the Immigration and Nationality Act, saying that Khalil presented, quote, "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences."

[16:20:06]

As I understand it, being the non-lawyer that I am, that's actually a fairly obscure provision here, but I wonder if to you it is actually a sign of things to come from the administration.

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Oh, yes, I think it is. And Secretary of State Rubio has indicated that it is. They haven't used it in this instance very much, but it's a very strong tool for them because what the immigration judge, who, by the way, is a DOJ employee, this is sort of within that system right now, said is, well, he signed it. Not much else I can do. And she sort of had to acknowledge he's deportable.

It goes from there to a board of appeals again within DOJ. And then and only then he'll be able to litigate his constitutional claims in a federal court. So there's a fair way to go. But that tool is potent for them as yesterday illustrated. She didn't say, tell me why, what' s your reasonable suspicion. She said, he signed that piece of paper, I guess Khalid is deportable.

HILL: She said basically I can't do anything else here. This is what's going to happen.

LITMAN: That's right.

HILL: OK. So when we look --

LITMAN: Well, this is what I have to rule. There's more to come. But my job is to say he signed it, he invoked it. As you say, that's unusual, but I think we'll see it more. And she said, yes, that's what I am here to certify.

HILL: So there's that case. Another case that's really getting a lot of attention, of course, is the Maryland father, who was mistakenly sent to this notorious prison in El Salvador. Donald Trump was asked earlier this week about whether he would follow the courts, depending on whatever they said. Here's his response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If the Supreme Court said bring somebody back, I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court. You know, I'm not totally well versed as to the specific case, but if they said to bring him back, I would tell them to bring him back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: So that was on Friday on board Air Force One, saying I would follow the Supreme Court. I would do what they told me to do. What's interesting here to me is the language that the court used ordering the government to, quote, "facilitate his return." And the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, was very clear in pointing that out at the briefing on Friday, saying that this court did not say the administration has to effectuate his return.

Of course, you also have DOJ saying they don't actually know where he is, which is a separate issue. Given both the language and that reality, does it seem that he will in fact be coming back?

LITMAN: My best guess is yes. This is an unusual case. First, there's the horror of the whole setting of a person who shouldn't be there being transferred to a really a torture chamber, and that no one has ever left and for life. But I think there's a real misreading or in Trumps case, non-reading of what the court said. You're right. They said facilitate because they're leaving that much room if the administration came in and said even to do this would be tantamount, as they've argued, to like revealing where our troops are going in a military mission.

A court can't make us do that. That's fine. But the judge is now in a position to say, I'm not asking you anything like that. I want to know, where is he, what have you done so far, and what are you doing going forward. I want to know that daily. And the Supreme Court really has given her the wherewithal to do that. They approved exactly that much. And the administration can come in and sort of bob and weave for a while, but I think she will question them with precision as Judge Boasberg did.

And it will not seem credible for them to say, well, we can't do anything. It's got to be a pretty easy lift. And the judges I think in all parts of the system, realize we're paying for these people to be in prison. We've got to deal with El Salvador. It's just not a hard thing to pick up the phone and say, will you send this guy home, please? And if they say otherwise or say it's some national security cataclysm, I think they'll find very skeptical courts.

And the one final thing, I'm sorry about, Erica, is it's a binary case. Unlike Boasberg, he's coming home or he's not coming home, and it will just keep going like that until the day comes. And I don't think they'll be able to sort of bob and weave forever.

HILL: So you think it was intentional? I mean, I shouldn't say you think it was intentional.

LITMAN: Yes.

HILL: I don't think -- I'm going to go out on a limb here. I feel pretty confident, though, that it's a solid one. There's not much that the Supreme Court does that is not intentional, especially when it comes to language. But there has been so much made of the use of the word facilitate. Karoline Leavitt, you know, leaning in on that, that there was also some talk, even just conversations I've had that was this in some ways a cop out on the on the part of the Supreme Court.

You think it was actually a tactical sort of an important tactical move, it sounds like.

LITMAN: And not even such a tactical judgment. You must leave room, it's true, at the end of the day for a good faith government to come in and say, we can't tell you.

[16:25:05]

That's really not what we have here. And the court was very clear upholding her order. Facilitate here just means, and it's the government that must facilitate, you've got to do stuff here. And if you have some national security reason, you know, you're going to have to show us. She's going to want people before her swearing it out, et cetera. So they've got to come across unless they come up with something that really would be very hard to believe, which is some really emergency national security reasons.

So I think the court did about as strong as you could expect. Unanimous, by the way, remarkable for this court to say -- to back her up and say they have her back and she'll deal with them. But I think if it gets really very kind of evasive, she'll be able to order them in ways that the Supreme Court will back up.

HILL: Yes. I also want to get your take on this. So there's some reporting in the "Wall Street Journal" at the end of the week that the Trump administration, according to the "Journal" sources, is planning to pursue a legal agreement that would put Columbia University into a consent decree. So basically, it sounds like this would be tied, of course, to the federal funding.

Can you lay out for me what you think the impact of a move like this would be? The government essentially having oversight of a private university and the way it does business in exchange for that federal funding that's been there for some time?

LITMAN: It would be cataclysmic for university. That's never done it. What they're talking about doing, Erica, is what people have done in the past for police departments who have been shown to be sort of rotten to the core and the legal thing they have to show is a pattern and practice of civil rights violations. And unless Columbia totally rolls over a possibility, it's done it so far, they'll have to go to court and show that.

I think it's not very likely. But if they enter into this consent decree, you can look to other settings like police departments, and there will be a lot of power all of a sudden in courts and the administration to say how Columbia has to educate its students, how they have to handle First Amendment issues and the like. It would be like receivership for a storied private university, a whole new chapter in American education.

They'd be crazy, I would say, to even contemplate entering into it. And again, they got to get a court to find that there's a pattern in practice before they could do this, unless Columbia just says, where do I sign?

HILL: We will be watching. Harry, always good to talk to you. Thank you.

LITMAN: Thanks, Erica. You, too.

HILL: Still to come here, dozens of Department of Homeland Security staff have to take lie detector tests? The Trump administration says there's a good reason. They're just trying to find the source of alleged leaks.

Stay with us. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:32:18]

HILL: CNN is learning the Department of Homeland Security has administered lie detector tests to about 50 staffers in recent weeks, including FEMA's acting administrator and roughly a dozen officials at the disaster relief agency.

Whistleblower groups are now raising concerns over the use of those lie detector tests on federal workers accused of leaking non- classified information, and they're warning the practice could also potentially be illegal.

CNN's Gabe Cohen has this brand new reporting.

HILL: Boy, it really stops you when you -- when you hear those headlines. Tell me what more you're learning, Gabe.

GABE COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So, Erica, the Department of Homeland Security is really standing by its use of these lie detector tests.

A spokesperson sent me a statement saying, "DHS is unapologetic about its efforts to root out leakers that undermine national security. We are agnostic about your standing, tenure, political appointment or status as a career civil servant. We will track down leakers and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law."

Now, to be clear, government agencies, past administrations, they have used lie detectors to catch leakers before. But usually it is for classified, highly sensitive national security information.

And so there is major and growing concern at FEMA where these tests are primarily being issued because of alleged media leaks. And sources there telling me they really handle very little classified information.

Several of the FEMA officials who were tested failed their polygraph, according to that DHS spokesperson, although she would not specify what information exactly they were accused of leaking.

One of them was placed on administrative leave and actually escorted out of FEMA's office this week.

And as you mentioned, we have learned FEMA's acting administrator, Cameron Hamilton, a Trump appointee, was tested and then cleared just days after attending a closed-door meeting with top DHS officials to discuss how to potentially shut FEMA down.

We reported on that meeting, as did other media outlets. And so as all of this is happening, Erica, it is really creating a lot of tension and a lot of fear at FEMA.

HILL: And to that end, creating that tension and that fear, are any workers speaking out?

COHEN: Look, I've spoken with several FEMA officials who are using words like "witch hunt" and "garbage" to describe these tests.

One official told me, quote, "I find it very, very hard to believe that within the normal course of business, any of these employees had their hands on classified material. They are trying to incite fear. They are trying to get rid of people."

Remember, President Trump and his allies have been criticizing FEMA for months now as an agency that is ineffective and unnecessary.

[16:35:01]

And that includes Homeland Security secretary, Kristi Noem, who oversees the agency. And she has promised to eliminate FEMA altogether.

And as you also mentioned, whistleblower support organizations have also raised concern about the volume of lie detector tests that we are seeing this administration use.

As one of them put it to me, "What used to be a sensitive, carefully considered, high-risk decision is now a knee-jerk reaction." And that, they say, is what's scary -- Erica?

HILL: Yes. I mean, understandably,

Gabe, really appreciate important reporting. Thank you.

Still to come here, a family of five and the pilot killed when their sightseeing helicopter lost its rotor blades mid-air, plunging the helicopter into the Hudon River. What more we're learning, new details this afternoon about just what happened in those moments.

Stay with us. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:40:29]

HILL: Investigators continue to search in New York's Hudon River, hoping for more clues to tell them about that deadly crash of a tourist helicopter earlier this week.

A couple from Spain, their three children and the pilot, were all killed when that chopper crashed into the murky waters of the Hudon on Thursday afternoon.

New CCTV video obtained by CNN captures the loud noise that you can hear as that helicopter fell from the sky.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(BANGING SOUND)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Witnesses describe a scene of absolute horror as a helicopter seemed to break apart in midair.

Brynn Gingras has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: We do not have a preliminary cause. That takes time.

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Officials piecing together the helicopter wreckage, working toward what may have caused this sudden crash. The aircraft carrying a family and pilot. All six people on board killed.

PILOT: River traffic, be advised. You do have an aircraft down Holland Tunnel. Keep your eyes open for anybody in the water.

RANJANAY, WITNESS: Suddenly, we hear this huge explosion and we look up from our screen and the helicopter actually kind of just exploded.

GINGRAS: The chopper on a short scenic trip along the New York City skyline. And 49-year-old Agustin Escobar, a Siemens executive from Spain, was here on a business trip, according to officials.

His wife and three children traveling to join him. They went up in the helicopter as part of her 40th birthday celebration. One of their children would have turned nine today.

STEVE FULOP, MAYOR, JERSEY CITY, N.J.: The husband was telling people in the office how excited they were to do this helicopter tour. The family flew out to extend a business trip into a family vacation. So I mean, the more you learn about it, the -- the more sad and tragic

the story is.

GINGRAS: The pilot, a 36-year-old veteran named Shawn Johnson, started working for the helicopter company a month ago, according to social media. Recent videos show him in the cockpit of the chopper flying above New York City.

The Bell 206 pulled out of the water, and dive teams continue searching for missing debris, including the main rotor and tail, according to the NTSB.

FULOP: We're using sonar because it is very murky and muddy that part of the Hudson. And while it's not deep, visibility isn't great. And the goal is to retrieve as much of the helicopter as possible to reassemble what you can and understand how and why that happened.

GINGRAS: The aircraft is operated by a tour company called New York Helicopter, Inc. NTSB reports cite two prior safety incidents involving the company in 2013 and 2015. Neither resulted in fatalities.

The company's CEO told "The Telegraph" on Thursday his pilot radioed that he'd be returning to base in three minutes but never came back.

"I'm a father, a grandfather, and my wife hasn't stopped crying since this afternoon," he told CNN.

Officials will also be looking at maintenance records, if any work was done on the aircraft, and confirm if it was compliant with federal standards.

(on camera): The NTSB has 17 people on site working on this investigation. And we have all seen those horrific videos circulating on social media.

While the NTSB is asking the public for any videos, any pictures, to send it to them, because it's possible it could provide some clues as they try to figure out what happened here.

I'm Brynn Gingras, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HILL: Federal officials are also trying to determine what caused a small plane to crash along a busy Florida road. Three people on board that plane were killed.

It was a twin engine Cessna which went down shortly after takeoff yesterday from Boca Raton airport.

The plane erupted into a massive fireball as it crashed just outside the city. A driver of a car was also injured when he hit a tree due to debris and fire from the crash.

Officials say they received a report of a plane in trouble shortly before the crash. Data from Flightradar24 shows that aircraft made repeated loops around the airport before crashing into the road below.

[16:44:32]

Still ahead here in the CNN NEWSROOM, China may be ready to take advantage of President Trump's trade war. A top U.S. commander warning it is no longer if, but when China invades Taiwan.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: The quest for golf's coveted green jacket is underway right now at the Masters, and there is plenty of drama during today's tight third round of play.

CNN sports anchor, Don Riddell, joining us now live from Augusta, Georgia.

So how is this leaderboard shaping up ahead of tomorrow's final round?

DON RIDDELL, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Well, drama is how you described it. And I would certainly say dramatic. Very much so at the moment, Erica.

The story of the day so far has been Rory McIlroy, a man who's endured so much pain and heartache at this course, notably in 2011 when he was four strokes clear on Saturday night and he ended up limping home in a tie for 15th the next day.

[16:50:03]

He has come out of the gate absolutely firing today. He started birdie, eagle, and then he had two more birdies in his next three holes. He was absolutely on fire.

But he's just had two bogeys in his last three holes. So McIlroy faltering at the moment.

He is still leading the tournament by one stroke. And he's been speaking this week about just how much this tournament means to him and just in general, why it's so special.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RORY MCILROY, MASTERS GOLF CHAMPION: There's the history, you know -- the, you know, those sort of spring evenings where I would sit down with my dad and watch this tournament.

You know, I think all that sort of comes back to me as well. And, you know -- you know, remembering why I fell in love with the game. And I think it's -- its obviously just a beautiful place.

You know, I don't -- I don't think there's a more beautiful golf course on earth. You know, it's your -- you know, it's like you're playing golf in the -- the prettiest park in the world basically.

The history and everything that this club and this course means to the game of golf, I think all that goes into it. But, you know, I feel, you know, you could spend all day out there and time would go by very quickly. I think that's one of the big things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RIDDELL: And speaking of the history, McIlroy, if he can see it through this weekend, would join a very, very elite club.

Only five golfers have won the modern career grand slam: Sarazen, Hogan, Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods. McIlroy could become a member of that group, but there's still a long way to go between now and then.

HILL: Yes, there certainly is.

Who else is in contention at this point, Don?

RIDDELL: Well, it is very, very close at the top of the leaderboard. Right now, Bryson DeChambeau, a fascinating American golfer, he's a two time U.S. Open champion.

He's having a terrific tournament so far. He's on eight under just one stroke behind.

As is the Canadian Corey Conners. He's also on eight under. He is one of the best iron players in the game. He has had some real success here on this golf course in the last few years.

And notably, I will say that recently, when you think about the geopolitical situation in the world at the moment, Canadian athletes and Canadian teams have really rained on the Americans parade. I'm thinking with soccer, I'm thinking in ice hockey.

Wouldn't that be an interesting story if the Canadian Corey Conners can hang on and win here at one of Americas most treasured sports events this weekend? We'll see.

HILL: Certainly will. We'll be watching and see what happens.

Don, appreciate it. Thank you.

RIDDELL: All right.

HILL: Well, Blue Origin is set to launch a new mission on Monday. One the company says it hopes will be one giant leap for womankind.

Here's CNN's Isabel Rosales.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Liftoff.

ISABEL ROSALES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For the first time in more than 60 years, an all-female crew is set to blast off into space.

Blue Origin's star-studded NS31 mission is scheduled to launch from West Texas on April 14th on board the New Shepard vehicle. Among the six-person crew are singer, Katy Perry, journalist, Gayle

King, and Lauren Sanchez, pilot and fiancee of Blue Origin founder, Jeff Bezos.

The crew is set to travel just past the Karman Line, the point widely recognized as where outer space begins, and will experience a few minutes of microgravity before descending back to Earth.

Crew member and former NASA rocket scientist, Aisha Bowe, spoke to CNN about her hope that this landmark voyage will inspire more women to shoot for the stars.

AISHA BOWE, BLUE ORIGIN CREW MEMBER: To see six women, who are all incredibly unique, who are very inspiring in their own right, come together and globally on a campaign.

I think what you're going to see is not only more women, but more people know that they can too become one of us, and that they also can reach and work in these fields.

ROSALES: This will mark the first all-female space mission since Soviet Cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova's solo mission back in 1963.

But the historic mission has also faced criticism, including from actress, Olivia Munn. While co-hosting on NBC's "Today" show with Jenna Bush Hager, Munn questioned the purpose of the mission and its cost.

OLIVIA MUNN, ACTRESS: What are they doing? Like, why? You know what I mean? Like, I'm just saying this. Okay, I know this is probably not the cool thing to say, but like there are so many other things that are so important --

JENNA BUSH HAGER, HOST, "TODAY WITH JENNA AND FRIENDS": I know.

MUNN: -- in the world right now.

BUSH HAGER: I know, yes.

MUNN: Like, they aren't asked. I mean, there's one astronaut.

BUSH HAGER: One astronaut.

MUNN: But like, what are you guys going to do up in space? What are you doing up there?

ROSALES: One crew member, researcher and civil rights activist, Amanda Nguyen, will conduct experiments about women's health during the 11- minute flight. Nguyen will make history becoming the first woman of Vietnamese or Southeast Asian descent in space.

Since their first successful crewed spaceflight in 2021, Blue Origin has had 10 crewed missions, bringing more than 50 people to the edge of space, including Star Trek actor, William Shatner, who was brought to tears by the experience. [16:55:07]

WILLIAM SHATNER, ACTOR: I hope I never recover from this.

ROSALES: Isabel Rosales, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HILL: Still ahead here, a new reversal in President Trump's trade war. Many electronics, including Smartphones, computers and semiconductors, now exempt from most tariffs.

Stay with us. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)