Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN International: U.S. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz Leaving Post; Rubio Tapped As Interim U.S. National Security Adviser; Judge: Trump's Use Of Alien Enemies Act Is Unlawful; Sources: Intense Pressure On White House Officials To Get Trade Deals; China Standing Firm In The Face Of Trump's Tariffs; India Shuts Airspace To Pakistani Airlines In Reciprocal Move; Telsa Dismisses Report Of Board Plan To Replace Elon Musk; Sources: White House Weighs Sending Migrants To Libya And Rwanda. Aired 3-4p 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.

[15:00:26]

CHRISTINA MACFARLANE, CNN HOST: Hello. And a warm welcome to our viewers all around the world. I'm Christina Macfarlane and this is CNN NEWSROOM.

And we begin with breaking news. It's now official. U.S. national security adviser Mike Waltz is leaving President Donald Trump's cabinet in a major shakeup, but he's not going far. President Trump just announced that he has chosen Mike Waltz to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Waltz had been on shaky ground in the West Wing ever since he inadvertently added a journalist to a group chat about highly sensitive military strikes in Yemen. He's being replaced as national security advisor on an interim basis by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Kevin Liptak is joining us from the White House to discuss more.

So, Kevin, a real sort of vote of confidence, really here in Marco Rubio. What more are you learning about this appointment and the dual role that Marco Rubio will now inhabit?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, and it will be fascinating. He's the first person to serve in both of these jobs. National security adviser and secretary of state since Henry Kissinger in the 1970s in the Vietnam era. And so, this will be something of an interesting sort of balance for him as he tries to coordinate both the national security adviser job, which is very critical.

It's mostly a Washington based job, works from a corner office here at the White House, and the job of America's top diplomat, which in a lot of iterations doesn't occur in Washington. It occurs on his airplane traveling around to foreign capitals, engaging in diplomacy. And so how Marco Rubio conducts both of these jobs, I think, will be something to keep a close eye on.

Now, in the open, you said that Mike Waltz wouldn't be going far. I would quibble with that a little bit. I don't think that there's anywhere further from the center of foreign policy, at least in the Trump administration, than the United Nations. Trump is not someone who really views that body as particularly effective.

And the ambassador role, while it is considered a cushy gig to a lot of people, it comes with a $15 million penthouse apartment in New York. It's not a particularly influential one. It will involve a confirmation process that could potentially be quite contentious for Mike Waltz, and I think this was an, in essence, a soft landing for him after it became clear that President Trump no longer had a lot of confidence in how he was carrying out his job, that seemed to have begun with the signal episode, he added a journalist to an encrypted chat that was discussing attacks on the Houthi rebels.

The president thought about firing him at that point, but he didn't, one, want to give a degree of satisfaction to his enemies, and he also wanted to avoid the impression of chaos and firings that had so colored his first administration. And so, he waited. We're now at the 102nd day of his presidency, and it appears as if that was enough time for him to ultimately come to this decision.

But it had been clear that he had been losing influence in the West Wing for quite some time. You know, and I think back to this episode involving Laura Loomer, she's a conspiracy theorist who came to the White House, got herself into the Oval Office and was telling the president that a number of Waltz's own staffers on the national security council were disloyal to him, and the president fired them, essentially neutering Waltz's ability to make his own staffing decisions.

And so, you did see this sort of slow waning of his influence with the president. But it was clear, I think, that this was coming. And today is the day that the president ultimately made his decision.

MACFARLANE: And you said, Kevin, this is considered to be or the Trump administration for looking something of a soft landing for Mike Waltz. But this is really a severe demotion. Is it not?

LIPTAK: Yeah, absolutely. It is. I mean, you know, the job is an ambassadorship, which I think is nothing to turn your nose up at. But this is a job that traditionally has not had a great amount of influence with the president, is a position that he had initially given to the representative, Elise Stefanik from New York.

She had been nominated for this job, but when it became clear that the Republican majority in the House was so slim that losing one of their representatives would be potentially an issue, they pulled that nomination back and it had been a vacant role until the president today has given it to Mike Waltz, it will have to be confirmed to that job. Those hearings could potentially be quite contentious as Democrats quiz him on Signal gate and on, you know, other officials' culpability and how that all transpired.

[15:05:04]

It's -- there's no question that this is not one a confirmation process that Waltz is looking for, and it's not necessarily a job he seemed all that interested in doing. It's not something that we know that he was lobbying for behind the scenes, because for Trump, the U.N. is kind of out of sight, out of mind. It's a job that's based in New York, and with Trump, it really is, you know, all about access -- access to the Oval Office, access to the president himself. And so, this is not a job that I think will come with a huge degree of influence.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, certainly out of Donald Trump's inner circle.

Kevin Liptak for now, thank you.

Well, the high-level shakeup comes at a critical time for the Trump administration as it tries to negotiate deals in several major conflicts. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will be doing double duty for now, as the White House tries to broker an end to Russia's war on Ukraine, the war in Gaza and containment of Iran's nuclear program.

I'm joined now by our chief international security correspondent, Nick Paton Walsh.

And, Nick, I know you've been talking today about how consistency is key during times of negotiation. Marco Rubio wears many hats, but he has been an integral player in those peace talks with delegations from Ukraine and Russia. So how will this appointment be viewed and what's your reaction to the news?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: I mean, I suppose they retain some consistency in that they now get to hear from only one of the two key senior figures who were dealing a lot of the sharp end of the negotiations, both with Ukraine and Russia. Remember, it was Rubio and Waltz together who would meet with the Ukrainians in Saudi Arabia and had met with the Russians as well. And indeed, it was from those meetings with Waltz and Rubio that the suggestion of an unconditional 30-day ceasefire emerged from the United States and Ukraine that has yet to be accepted by Russia.

So, I think the Russians will probably look at this as change. I think, given the tactics they appear to have been using over the past weeks. As president Donald Trump said himself tapping the Americans potentially along with constant changes in the agenda, the venues at times, and even the people who the Americans meet on multiple different tracks at the moment that I think they may see this as another opportunity for stalling. And it may also speak to perhaps to the paucity of talent that Russians may see on the other side of the table. If we are not immediately seeing an obvious replacement to slip into the role after Mike Waltz, it does suggest that Donald Trump doesn't see around him an immediate suitable figure for that.

But the diplomacy in this moment, Christina, is complex. We have Steve Witkoff, Trump's envoy, speaking to the Russians on one track. We have also two, Keith Kellogg the presidential envoy to Ukraine, having separate discussions. And then this broader move by Rubio and Waltz to move between the two parties and try and push something forward.

It's been Rubio who has been sounding the alarm in terms of American impatience for getting some kind of peace progress here. So, I think he'll be able to maintain that message and, of course, have the current knowledge of exactly what the posturing has been around the table. The Americans and indeed the Russians, won't have to entertain a new brain, as it were, so to speak into those detailed discussions.

Instead, it will be Rubio kind of times two. So I'm sure he'll be absolutely capable of handling all of that. But I'm sure that the change, the reason why Waltz left, the fact that it wasn't an immediate, obvious replacement on the Trump bench to slot in after Waltz will certainly speak to probably what those in Moscow already know that they are dealing with a less experienced diplomatic team.

Remember, many of those Russians have been those jobs for decades, and so I think that they're accustomed to what they're doing and probably now accustomed to seeing changes, vacillations on the other side of the table, Christina.

MACFARLANE: It's worth remembering, too. Kevin was just saying there that Donald Trump had potentially delayed the departure of Mike Waltz to sort of avoid the idea that there was sort of internal chaos within the Trump administration. But what this is exposing is that there are internal divisions. It's worth remembering during Trump's first tenure in charge, that he actually cycled through three national security advisers during his first administration.

So, to your point, Nick, about how Russia reviewing this moment, the onus is on the United States to bring Russia to the negotiating table. But this is surely going to be seen in Moscow as just means to do -- to do not that.

WALSH: Yes. I mean, I think the Russians will see some comfort in the chaos, but also probably be less pleased with the idea of Rubio, who is at heart has been in his career much like Mike Waltz, a bit more of a traditional Republican in his worldview, more anti-Russian, more capable of calling a spade a spade, as it were, so to speak, when it comes to the Russian full scale invasion.

And so I think there's going to be a lot of -- a lot of questions the Russians have as to whether this marks a change in U.S. policy, but also probably to how long they feel this particular job can be done. Two jobs can be done by one individual.

And I think that will be a vital question for Moscow to get an answer to, as indeed will it be if there is a replacement for Mike Waltz, if there is a separate national security advisor, who's that going to be? A lot of the candidates pushed around are well known for very pro- Russian views. And so, I think that may be something the Kremlin are waiting for.

MACFARLANE: All right. Nick, thank you. Appreciate it.

A federal judge says President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang is unlawful. A U.S. district judge, Fernando Rodriguez, a Trump appointee, blocked the Trump administration from deporting a group of men being held in south Texas. This is the latest in a string of legal challenges and a major blow to Mr. Trump's plans.

In March, the Trump administration deported more than 200 people to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Today's ruling says the president failed to prove a threat exists of an organized armed invasion of the United States, a key criteria needed to invoke the 18th century law.

Let's get a little bit more now with Katelyn Polantz, who's across this story.

So, Katelyn, this was an important ruling today. Just walk us through what the judge said and the justification he had for this ruling.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, an important ruling and the first of its kind from any court. So setting the table of where things stand, the administration wanted to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 as this big, bold move in their immigration agenda to try and remove Venezuelan migrants that the administration believed were part of the gang Tren de Aragua from the United States. It's a wartime provision.

And so, this is the first judge to look at the use of that law and whether it's legal, what this judge in the southern district of Texas, Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., where he came down on this, he says that it's not legal for the Trump administration to use this particular law to deport these Venezuelan men.

Now, this is the type of law, though, that is at issue in many, many different cases. There are groups of detainees that the administration wants to send to El Salvador, and they're being held in different places all over the United States. So, this judge is making a ruling based on the people that are held in the southern district of Texas, the jurisdiction where he sits, some of those people that are captured on camera are actually in the northern district of Texas. Theres a different judge looking on that who hasn't actually made a ruling like this on the Alien Enemies Act usage yet.

But the important thing here is this is a Trump administration, Trump appointed judge taking the bench in 2018, saying the president can't use this law to deport these people. He can deport them with other laws. The reason for that is because it's far too much a flex of presidential authority, something that congress intended for wartime when the United States was being invaded and the court looked at the language, the words used in the law and said, this just is not where you can use the Alien Enemies Act and call these people alien enemies, subject to removal during a wartime.

This will continue on, though this case is very likely to be appealed, and we are going to be waiting to see what judges in other places around the country have to say.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, it'll be very interesting to see what implications this has. As you mentioned, for several other states and ongoing, cases there.

Katelyn, appreciate it for now. Thank you.

Well, sources tell CNN there's growing anxiety behind the scenes at the White House as the pressure builds to secure U.S. trade deals. Advisers to the president says he's getting impatient over the lack of progress on agreements as more troubling signs emerge for the U.S. economy. Publicly, Mr. Trump is preaching patience, saying the administration

is on the verge of securing a number of trade deals.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I could set those deals tomorrow and do away with negotiating, but we're negotiating with South Korea. We're negotiating with Japan, we're negotiating with a lot of different, many, many -- India is a very big -- they want to make a deal so badly. I'm not telling anything out of school. We're going to make great deals for America instead of bad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACFARLANE: Well, the last cargo boats carrying tariff free goods from China are currently arriving in U.S. ports. But China's leaders remain resolute that they will not buckle under Trump's administrations demands.

Kristie Lu Stout assesses the mood in China.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This will be a fast war.

KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): "The Battle at Lake Changjin" is one of China's biggest ever blockbusters. Commissioned by the Chinese government, it glorifies the Chinese soldiers who fought American troops in the Korean War.

Fast forward to today, and China and the U.S. are locking horns in another epic battle.

[15:15:01]

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: China needs to make a deal with us. We don't have to make a deal with them.

LIN JIAN, CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESPERSON (through translator): Be it a tariff war, a trade war, or any other type of war, we're ready to fight till the end.

STOUT: Trump started this war with China, aiming in part to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.

Chinese netizens mocked the idea with A.I.-generated videos showing a post-tariffs world of dingy American factories with downcast workers.

Decades of trade have brought bumper profits to both countries. And as U.S.-China trade withers, fortunes are turning.

In the U.S., the price of goods could shoot up, fueling inflation, and putting the U.S. at real risk of recession. And in China, a prolonged trade war could put countless factories out of business.

The question is, how much pain can the people of China handle in the event of a long trade war with the U.S.?

EDWIN LAI, HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: I think the pain threshold is probably higher for Chinese society. The Chinese government, being an authoritarian government, may have its own advantage, because it can more easily reallocate resources.

STOUT: The Chinese have endured famine, the Cultural Revolution, and more recently, three years of strict COVID-19 lockdowns before protesters bravely took to the streets.

And in this trade war, pain is already being felt. On social media, Chinese factory owners post images of their products piling up in warehouses, while workers show how machines and production lines have shut down.

Despite a dire economic forecast, many patriotic entrepreneurs are standing firm.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Even if the tariffs increase to 500 percent, I'm not afraid. Please rest assured: we can hold on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stop all the orders. Stop all the export orders. I will not chicken out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can give up the U.S. market. I can let this batch of orders rot in the warehouse. You must give up illusions and prepare for struggle, for China.

STOUT: In "The Battle at Lake Changjin," U.S. soldiers are seen gorging on Thanksgiving turkey while Chinese troops chew frozen potatoes in the trenches. Yet, they still beat the Americans later.

Trump's trade war pits the U.S. and China in a new challenge of resilience that's not about business or money. It's about honor and national pride.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACFARLANE: Now there's new tension in an old conflict. International leaders are urging India and Pakistan to ease tensions after days of heated rhetoric.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:20:38]

MACFARLANE: India has shut its airspace to Pakistan's airlines in a reciprocal move. This as tensions and rhetoric soar over the recent massacre in Kashmir. Gunmen killed 26 tourists last week in the Indian administered part of the disputed region. New Delhi accuses Islamabad of supporting terrorists and involvement in the attack, a claim Pakistan denies.

Despite tensions, there were small signs of normalcy. Some tourists returned today to the picturesque town where the attack took place. They said they felt safe in the presence of Indian army personnel. Pakistan had said on Wednesday that there was credible intelligence of an attack from India within two days, the country's information minister made an unusual middle of the night post on social media, without elaborating on evidence.

Earlier, the Pakistani official spoke to my colleague Becky Anderson about that potential threat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ATTAULLAH TARAR, PAKISTANI MINISTER FOR INFORMATION & BROADCASTING: We had a very reliable, very authentic intelligence at the operational level. Obviously, operational details cannot be shared but we had confirmed reports that India will attack Pakistan, and this is not the first time.

And let me also share that had I not, at that point in time, share this information very timely with the world, with the international community. So, you see, when you communicate things, sometimes they act as a deterrent. So, I think as a responsible state and as a nonpermanent member of the U.N. Security Council, we had to share the information very timely.

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN ANCHOR: Are you suggesting that now that you have shared what you describe as this credible intelligence with the international community, which is why I guess you -- you made the announcement at 2:00 a.m. in the morning so that the international community were awake to get that information. Do you now believe that India is unlikely to attack? Because, look, these are, as I say, serious allegations suggesting that India will attack Pakistan. You are now saying you don't think that's likely anymore. Correct?

TARAR: What I'm saying is there are three forms of deterrence. One is your capability, which is our very strong military. And we've always defended our motherland. We've always acted in self-defense. We've never been the aggressors.

Second is the resolve, which is the resolve of the nation, resolve of the people. And third is the communication. So, communication plays a big part in averting a crisis and not only making the international community aware, but our local population aware of what is going on right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACFARLANE: Well, just after we conducted that interview, CNN reported a conversation between India's defense minister and his U.S. counterpart, Pete Hegseth. Following the call, India's defense minister released this statement saying, quote, Pakistan has been exposed as a rogue state, fueling global terrorism and destabilizing the region. The world can no longer turn a blind eye to terrorism.

Well, for some analysts -- analytics -- analysis, I should say, let's bring in geopolitical analyst Parag Khanna. He's the founder and CEO of AlphaGeo, an analytics platform and the author of several books, including "The Future is Asian".

Welcome to you. Thank you for joining us.

So, look, we know these two nations have been in a state of managed hostilities for a very long time. But here we have India's defense minister accusing Pakistan of fueling terrorism. That is after Pakistan said they had credible intelligence that India were about to attack within the next two days.

What is your view of this moment right now and what were likely to see from India, if they do move to retaliate?

PARAG KHANNA, GEOPOLITICAL ANALYST: Mm-hmm. Well, needless to say, India's language towards Pakistan and its characterization of Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism as a rogue state is actually nothing new, of course. Now, the question is how do we compare this moment to the last instance where there was in that case, in 2019, a preemptive strike against Pakistani targets? In the case where they were really trying to attack terrorist camps inside Pakistan occupied Kashmir and other parts of Pakistan. And is this going to be similar or different?

Now, in this case, the term you rightly use is retaliation, because of course, this is in response to this brazen terrorist attack that was just conducted on a tourist inside India. So, what form that retaliation is going to take is unknown. Obviously, it's, you might say overdue in that it didn't happen today. Depending on what time zone you're in, based upon the Pakistan information secretary's statements. If it's anything like 2019, it would be limited set of missile strikes, attacks against specific camps.

On the other hand, based upon Pakistan's preparations for that retaliation, they seem to be preparing for something much larger. And India is indeed capable of something much, much larger than six years ago. Because it's certainly a lot more confident in terms of its posture, its rectitude, perhaps, as well.

So that remains to be seen. Whether it's going to be something limited, an act of punishment or, again, reprisal or something much more strategic to -- in some ways genuinely shift the balance of power or that mutual stalemate in that region.

MACFARLANE: We know that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have been speaking with officials in both countries trying to de-escalate the situation. How involved do you expect China to be at this time in an effort to mediate, given their proximity, their economic ties to Pakistan?

KHANNA: Right. So that makes it very difficult for China to mediate. It has obviously very active border disputes with India and is very much seen as a sponsor of Pakistan. And so, it's not an impartial mediator. At the same time, what the common interest, actually, that both India and China do have is that Pakistan focus its security apparatus, not on its border disputes and conflict with India, but rather on its own internal security.

And in fact, one of the priorities in in Sino-Pakistani relations over the past decade or more has been the China-Pakistan economic corridor. And China has urged Pakistan to divert or refocus its military resources to protect internally those infrastructure assets, those transport, energy, communications and utility projects against the domestic unrest and restive populations such as the Baluchis in Pakistan, who have been, of course, conducting uprising for -- for decades. And it's actually really, sort of accelerated or crescendoed in recent time.

So, what -- what China and India actually have in common here is that Pakistan focus within on its own internal stability, which is very much in China's economic interest.

MACFARLANE: Well, we will, of course, keep a close eye to see what developments may come in the days ahead, if not sooner.

Parag Khanna, we appreciate your thoughts for now. Thank you.

KHANNA: Thank you.

MACFARLANE: Well, the search for food in Gaza is becoming increasingly desperate as it heads towards a full blown and entirely manmade famine. Friday will mark two months since Israel imposed a total siege on Gaza, preventing any humanitarian aid or commercial goods into the territory.

That's led to thousands of people storming warehouses and un buildings in Gaza City in search of supplies. Israel says the blockade is to put pressure on Hamas to release its remaining hostages, taken during the October 7th attacks. International groups have said Israel's actions violate international law and could be a war crime.

Now, are Elon Musk's days at Tesla coming to an end? The board of the electric car maker is pushing back after reports in "The Wall Street Journal".

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:32:05]

MACFARLANE: Returning now to our breaking news, a major shakeup in the Trump administration. Just about 100 days into his new term, President Donald Trump is removing his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, nominating him to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations instead. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will be doing double duty for now, taking over the national security advisor role while keeping his current post.

And if you thought this news came out of left field -- well, you are not alone. Just a few minutes ago, when reporters told the State Department spokesperson about her boss, Marco Rubio, getting a new job, it didn't seem like she was expecting the news.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Just coming out from the president.

TAMMY BRUCE, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON: All right. Great. Terrific, terrific. REPORTER: The president has just written on Truth Social that Mike

Waltz is going to become the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

BRUCE: Well, there you go, fabulous.

REPORTER: And in addition to that, he says that in the interim, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve as national security advisor while continuing his strong leadership at the State Department. Do you know how long he's going to be serving in both roles?

BRUCE: It is clear that I just heard this from you. I had -- I -- this is the magic --

REPORTER: No heads up that this was --

BRUCE: Well, I have some insights as to the potential of certain things that might happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACFARLANE: We're joined now by CNN's Alex Marquardt in Washington.

And, Alex, not the first time the left hand doesn't really know what the right, the right hand is doing within the Trump administration. But an indication, perhaps, of the slight turmoil around Mike Waltz's departure and the appointment itself.

ALEXANDER MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, there are so many interesting aspects to this, Christina. We have obviously seen President Trump remove people before, particularly in the first administration. He had so many different national security advisors and heads of national intelligence and attorneys general. But they were all -- many of them were sort of fired with -- with quite a bit of drama.

Here, Mike Waltz is being shifted to a different role as the ambassador at the United Nations. That is a Senate-confirmed role. So, he has to go through that confirmation process. But in all likelihood, he will eventually get the job.

Another interesting aspect to this is Marco Rubio being named as the interim national security advisor. Theres a reason that these two jobs are separate, secretary of state and national security advisor is because they're both incredibly important jobs. They, of course, overlap in terms of foreign policy, but they both are the heads of these huge bureaucratic apparatuses.

And now you have Rubio essentially doing both jobs at the same time, or at least for the foreseeable future. And then there's a large question of if Mike Waltz is now leaving, who would take his place on a more full time basis?

And some of the thinking has been, well, Mike Waltz ideology didn't exactly align with President Trump and J.D. Vance and others in the administration who are more MAGA and Waltz is a bit more of a traditional right wing Republican hawk, just like Marco Rubio.

[15:35:08]

And so that's some of the belief of why he was pushed aside, in addition to, of course, his role in Signal-gate, as it's -- as it's become known and generally losing the faith of the president. But if Rubio is now being brought in as interim, he's very much cut from the same cloth as Mike Waltz as well.

So, we'll be keeping a close eye on who might get that job full time. Theres a lot of speculation about different names. It's a relatively easy job for Trump to fill because it does not have to be senate confirmed. And so, there are these two camps that we've seen on a number of different issues, the MAGA camp and the more traditional hawkish camp, if you will.

And by removing Waltz, you know, it will probably have some kind of impact on, say, the campaign against the Houthis, which Waltz was a big proponent of, the Russia-Ukraine negotiations. Waltz was a big backer of Ukraine against Russia. And, of course, we've heard others in the Trump administration be a bit more sympathetic to the Russian side. And these Iran nuclear negotiations, where Waltz was very hawkish on Iran and the position taken by President Trump and his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff is a bit more to the center. So, there could be shifts there.

But what was clear is that Waltz was not a traditional national security advisor, and that he was the captain of the foreign policy ship. He was one of many cooks in the kitchen. He had to share his -- his turf with Vice President Vance, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with Steve Witkoff and others. And now, we have Waltz going to the United Nations. Of course, he'll be dealing a lot more with foreign officials.

And I've been talking to a lot of foreign officials, both here in Washington and elsewhere today, and many of them are sad to see him go. They -- they like him. He's probably the most experienced or one of the most experienced foreign policy practitioners in the Trump administration alongside Rubio. So, a lot of foreign officials like the way that he works more traditionally.

And then there's a lot of apprehension about what will come next. When I asked a number of different sources about what they think the impact will be, a number of them told me, we'll have to wait and see who replaces him -- Christina.

MACFARLANE: Yeah. All eyes on that next appointment to see whether or not it will be a shift for now. Alex Marquardt, thank you.

Well, the board of Tesla is rejecting a "Wall Street Journal" report that it has begun searching for a new CEO to replace Elon Musk. The report, published Wednesday, cites multiple unnamed sources saying the board contacted executive placement firms in March looking for a replacement. Tesla's chair says the claim is, quote, absolutely false. This follows months of volatility for the electric carmaker, as Musk faced criticism for his involvement in the White House's DOGE initiatives.

Hadas Gold is in New York with more on this.

Tell us more about this report, Hadas.

HADAS GOLD, CNN MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, well, "The Wall Street Journal" is reporting that just about a month ago, the certain members of the board began engaging in executive search firm to look for the next CEO of Tesla. And if you look at what's been happening to Tesla over the last couple of months since the inauguration, you can kind of understand why look at its falling stock prices. I mean, just last week we heard that Tesla down 71 percent, their net income for the first quarter compared to a year earlier.

In any other business that was experiencing those types of results, you'd probably be looking for a new CEO. Added to that, of course, is that this is all directly connected to Elon Musk himself and his connection to the Trump administration, his connection to the politics. According to "The Wall Street Journal", the board also demanded that Elon spend more time at Tesla, leading the company and less time with DOGE.

This is something we've been hearing from investors over the last couple of weeks, essentially begging Elon to go back to Tesla, some investors even calling for Elon to just completely step aside, saying that he has tainted the brand with his politics so much.

Now, as you noted, this has been firmly denied by Tesla and by its board chair and by Elon Musk. Elon Musk posting on X it is an extremely bad breach of ethics that "The Wall Street Journal" would publish a deliberately false article and failed to include an unequivocal denial beforehand by the Tesla's board of directors.

Now, the chair of the board did post on Tesla's X account, calling it false, but the wall street journal, when I asked them to react to Elon Musk's post, they said that they stand by their reporting. They also say that Tesla was given an opportunity to provide a statement before publication, which they did not do.

Now, why does this report matter so much? Obviously, Tesla is a very valuable company. Elon Musk is a very valuable person, but Tesla occupies a very special place in Elon Musk's world, his persona, his story and his wealth. If you look at some of his other companies like SpaceX, like X, there are CEOs that he has installed that he trusts to sort of run the company. That is not the case at Tesla.

I've been speaking to, you know, over the last few weeks, people who know Elon Musk and they say Tesla is Elon, Elon is Tesla. And I think this is why this is sort of hit so hard for him. And he's also continued sort of posting about "The Wall Street Journal" and trying to denigrate them.

[15:40:01]

What's interesting, though, is to hear from some Wall Street analysts like Dan Ives. He suggested that this reach out to an executive search firm, that that was more of a warning shot from the board of directors. He wrote in a note that essentially, the situation with doge was reaching a breaking point, and that they believe now cooler heads have prevailed, that Elon will go back.

And now, we are hearing from Elon Musk in an interview he did with about a dozen journalists in the White House yesterday, saying that he is going to go back to his company, still checking in with Washington, maybe being there every other week, 1 or 2 days a week, but making it very clear he's sort of on a goodbye tour. He was at the cabinet meeting. It does seem as though his days as being a fixture in Washington are soon coming to an end -- Christina.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, well, a 71 percent drop in net profit this quarter is a hard place to come back from, but we will wait to see if Musk can rise from the ashes.

Hadas, appreciate your reporting. Thank you.

All right. Still to come, the U.S. wants to deport migrants to countries in Africa. We'll look at the possible talks with the Libya and Rwanda coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MACFARLANER: Crowds are gathering across the U.S. right now with many anti-Trump protesters marking May Day. These are the scenes here in Seattle, Washington and there you can see people gathered with banners.

And also, we can see scenes from Atlanta, Georgia, here. Outside the state capital, just in front of you. There you can see above the grass as they mark may day earlier, thousands marched in Chicago. This all stems from a movement which sprang out of a Reddit forum called 500 and 501. The group has held numerous protests in recent weeks. The family of deportee Kilmar Abrego Garcia appeared at the demonstration in Washington a little earlier.

Well, meanwhile, the Trump administration is reportedly considering sending migrants to countries such as Libya and Rwanda.

[15:45:02]

Multiple sources tell CNN the proposal was discussed with Libyan officials this week. The sources add similar conversations have occurred with officials in Rwanda.

Priscilla Alvarez has the latest.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The Trump administration is considering sending migrants to countries like Libya and Rwanda. It's part of a concerted effort by the administration to send migrants to other places, including those that aren't their own.

Now, the conversations were told in the cases of Libya and Rwanda center on migrants with criminal records. We're told that this was a proposal that was discussed with Libyan officials this week, and that there have been conversations recently regarding Rwanda and with Rwanda as well.

Now, in the case of Rwanda, this would be on an ad hoc basis, according to sources. And the cost structure of this is still being finessed because it would likely be a higher price per person, since they would also be absorbed within society in Rwanda. The conversations, however, regarding Libya go a step further with some Trump officials hoping that they can enter into formal negotiations with Libya for what's known as a safe third country agreement, essentially allowing the U.S. to send asylum seekers apprehended at the U.S. southern border to Libya.

Now, it's unclear what nationalities they would be willing to accept, but the United Nations has raised alarm over human rights abuses in Libya in the past, and all of this would likely face legal challenges in the United States. The administration, of course, has previously tried to enter into safe third country agreements in the first Trump administration, and they've already faced legal challenges in this administration in sending migrants to third countries. A federal judge in that case temporarily blocking the administration from sending migrants to other countries if they are not provided notice ahead of time and given an opportunity to contest. But again, the administration looking at all of these options as they push for migrants to be removed from the U.S.

Priscilla Alvarez, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MACFARLANE: The sources say a refugee from Iraq was deported from the U.S. to Rwanda back in March. They say the transfer was seen as a model that could work on a bigger scale. The actual concept isn't new to Rwanda. In 2022, it struck a deal with the UK to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. Last year, the plan was discontinued by the newly elected British prime minister, Keir Starmer. He called the scheme a gimmick.

An Amnesty International report. In 2016, the Australian government had turned the tiny island nation of Nauru into an open air prison for migrants who tried to get into the country by boat.

Well, let's bring in Doris Meissner. She joins us from Washington, D.C. She's a senior fellow and director of the U.S. immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute.

Welcome to you.

So, as we were hearing there -- I mean, this idea of sending migrants to Libya, Rwanda is not unprecedented on any level and certainly not by the U.S., who we know have been having efforts to try and deport migrants to El Salvador. And we hear in the U.K. are very familiar with the idea of the attempts to try and deport migrants to Rwanda, something the UK government tried and failed to do.

However, Libya is a different proposition. What concerns do both of these countries, Libya and Rwanda, raise on a humanitarian level?

DORIS MEISSNER, FORMER INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: Well, the concerns about Libya are acute on a humanitarian level. There is no good news that comes out of Libya whatsoever where migrant policies are concerned. And it perhaps begins with the fact that there is a battle over what the government of Libya, of Libya is. There is an internationally recognized government, but there also is a part of the country that is essentially run by a warlord. And so, where in Libya is extremely important, but under both circumstances, all of the human rights reporting is. Depicts dire circumstances.

MACFARLANE: I mean, these schemes are being used as essentially deterrents to try and stop migrants from wanting to seek asylum in the U.S. but the big question really is, does it actually work? Because what we've seen in the past is that migrants just redouble their efforts, take more dangerous routes to try and reach their outcome.

MEISSNER: Well, it's certainly an effort at deterrence. It is also true, as you say, that migrants are determined. And once they have started on a journey, they have made an investment that they, by and large, try to complete. But it's also true that in the case of the United States now, with what's going on in the Trump administration, this would be a major departure.

The United States policies have been to work with other countries in the hemisphere.

[15:50:03]

This administration, obviously, with El Salvador earlier with Panama, but also in prior years, Mexico has cooperated with the United States. In the United States, returning people to Mexico that are from other countries where we didn't have diplomatic relations. And Mexico would assist.

So, the idea of moving to Africa so far away where there are not the kinds of migrant routes -- routes that have been the case in this hemisphere, that's a major departure. And I think one can only conclude from that, that it is a further stepped-up effort to create deeper and deeper fear in the United States, in migrant communities, with the goal of not only the fear, but resulting in self-deportation on the part of migrants themselves.

MACFARLANE: Yeah, it's a very important point. It's definitely a step change from what we have been seeing from the Trump administration thus far, and therefore potentially a lot more perilous for migrants.

Doris Meissner, we appreciate your thoughts tonight. Thank you.

MEISSNER: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

MACFARLANE: Okay. Still to come, day two of what people are calling the mushroom murder trial in Australia. We'll tell you what the defendant's estranged husband said in court.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) MACFARLANE: Welcome back.

In Australia, the estranged husband of a woman accused of murdering her in-laws with toxic mushrooms has testified in court. Simon Patterson lost his parents and an aunt when they ate a meal that contained death cap mushrooms. His uncle also became ill, but survived. Thats not in dispute.

But his wife, Erin Patterson, maintains her innocence and says this was all a tragic accident. On the second day of the trial, jurors were shown text exchanges with Erin expressing disappointment Simon would not join them for lunch. Simon said she got along well with his parents, but the relationship soured when she requested he pay child support.

And as the curtain call for tonight's show, the nominations are out for the 78th Annual Tony Awards. Sarah Paulson and Wendell Pierce announced nominations Thursday in New York. The musicals "Buena Vista Social Club" may be happy ending and "Death Becomes Her", all receiving ten nominations each.

[16:55:02]

And Megan Hilty was nominated for her role in "Death Becomes Her".

George Clooney received his first nomination for his role as Edward R. Murrow in "Good Night, and Good Luck". And past winner Jonathan Groff nabbed his fourth nomination as Bobby Darin for "Just In Time".

The ceremony will be hosted by Cynthia Erivo on 8th of June at Radio City Music Hall.

And that is up for us --us. That is it. That is us. That is it for us here on CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Christina Macfarlane.

Stay with us. "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up with Jim Sciutto after the break.