Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Mary Ilyushina is Interviewed about the Trump-Putin Call; Democrats Face Criticism over Spending Bill Votes; Trump Calls for Impeaching Judges; Shoppers Take Politics to the Bank. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired March 19, 2025 - 06:30   ET

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

[06:30:00]

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Federal funding and trust in the legal system. Voters want to know what those elected leaders are doing to stand up to the president.

Good morning, everybody. I'm Audie Cornish. I want to thank you for joining me here on CNN THIS MORNING.

Here's what's happening right now.

The Justice Department has until today at noon eastern to provide more information about the Trump administration's deportations that happened over the weekend. A judge demands a timeline of when planes took off from the U.S. and left U.S. airspace carrying alleged members of a notorious Venezuelan gang.

President Trump blasting a federal judge's ruling that blocks the dismantling of USAID.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have a judge from a very liberal state who ruled like that. So bad for our country.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, I guess they closed the department. They're going to have to reopen the department.

TRUMP: Well, we'll be appealing it, I guess. Well - not, I guess. I guarantee you we will be appealing it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: This is because a federal judge ruled Tuesday that the shuttering of USAID was likely unconstitutional, and that Elon Musk and DOGE may have overstepped their authority.

And researchers and history buffs are wading through the JFK assassination files that were released last night. As of now, there's no indication that they contain any bombshells according to one man who has seen many of the records already. The release was part of an executive order from President Trump shortly after he took office. And new attacks overnight between Ukraine and Russia. Russia says it shot down 57 drones. Ukraine says the strikes hit an electric system that powers railways. This all happened hours after President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin's phone call, where the White House said Russia agreed to stop targeting Ukraine's energy and infrastructure. President Trump described that call as great. Ukrainian's president, not so much.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): We are skeptical when it comes to trusting the Russians.

When President Trump has time, he is a busy man, but when he has time, he can call me any time. He has my phone number. We are ready to talk through further steps with pleasure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: To talk about this, we're bringing in Mary Ilyushina, Russia correspondent for "The Washington Post."

Good morning.

I want to start with the art of the deal, so to speak. We know what President Trump had said to Ukraine's president, you don't hold the cards. So, what was the conversation like with Putin?

MARY ILYUSHINA, RUSSIAN CORRESPONDENT, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Good morning.

The conversation with Putin, as described by both sides was great. But in reality, what we got out of it is a very limited agreement from Putin to stop hitting Ukrainian energy infrastructure for 30 days. That is not exactly what the U.S. has been proposing, which is a fuller ceasefire without any preconditions. And that's something that Ukraine agreed to.

And it seemed that, you know, out of that call Vladimir Putin got kind of a lot of concessions because he still got to maintain his very hardline position about not supplying - for the west not to supply Ukraine with military aid or intelligence. He still demands that those are the demands he demands for Russia to kind of go further on the path of a peace deal. And those very limited sort of things that he agreed to do is set up U.S.-Russia commission to review another part of the ceasefire, which is about naval safety in the Black Sea and the energy infrastructures, also very limited things that Russia has been attacking recently.

But we have seen that Russia still continued strikes, drone strikes, on Ukraine overnight, hitting two hospitals, for example. So, it's very unclear how even that very limited agreement will be upheld.

CORNISH: Mary, I want to know, since you have been following things out of Moscow, is there a sense that because there's a political movement in the U.S. to back away from Ukraine, that the Kremlin feels like it can make these demands?

ILYUSHINA: I think they definitely feel the opening here to swoop in with demands. I think they - their tactic is that Trump will get tired of dealing with the Ukraine war. It's a very complicated conflict with many, many layers, and there is a lot at stake. And they have been betting on basically weathering that period, hoping that Europe's commitment to Ukraine will weaken, that the U.S. commitment to Ukraine will weaken. And they also see this kind of surprising report that Putin and Trump have again, in the second presidency of Donald Trump. And they see it as an opening to maybe ease some sanctions, maybe offer Trump some economic deals, you know, connected to their energy. They see a lot of opportunity here, and they also feel like they are not under any pressure to give up anything meaningful, because Russia has slight advantage on the front line. They can also sustain this attack for much longer than Ukraine because of the personnel issues and issues with military supplies as well.

[06:35:01]

So, they are not in the corner. They don't feel cornered to give any concessions at the moment.

CORNISH: So, is this a negotiation or a stalling tactic?

ILYUSHINA: Well, a lot of people think and some of the experts that we've talked to believe that it is for - at least for now is a stalling tactic because for Vladimir Putin it's very important to push out Ukrainian forces out of Kursk region, which is a western region of Ukraine. The Ukraine had a surprise incursion in August. They're at least, according to Russian claims, they're quite close to achieving that. And for Putin, what he wants to still have is those four regions that have been enshrined in the Russian constitution. The occupied regions in eastern Ukraine. And they are not willing to give up on those. And for them it's very important to sort of legitimize that their invasion of Ukraine was to address some of the deep-rooted issues of the conflict, which is NATO expansion, sort of what they call a western aggression against Russia. They want to see all those things sort of come to life. And militarily, they feel like they still have the advantage to do so.

CORNISH: Well, in the meantime, Ukraine's president just said, this was just a short time ago, that he does plan to talk with President Trump today. We are going to be watching for that.

Mary Ilyushina, Russia correspondent for "The Washington Post," speaking with us there.

We want to move to domestic politics with the frustration in the Democratic Party that is boiling over, in part because some Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, actually voted in favor of the Republican spending bill, helping it pass. And voters' frustration is on display at town halls, like this one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That you aren't even working together on a shared strategy. And that is failure.

We are not interested in hearing that you are in the minority. We know that. We want you to show some of the backbone and strategic brilliance that Mitch McConnell would have in the minority.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Group chat is back.

Praise for Mitch McConnell. Did not expect that from angry Democrats.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It wasn't on my bingo card.

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: See, that - that doesn't surprise me, in part because, if you ask Democrats, do you think that your party is powerful and in charge, they will say, no, and they will express all of the frustrations that you just heard.

But you've been hearing the same thing from Republicans for a decade and a half, sort of since the dawn of their Tea Party movement, that you would h(ear Republicans, gosh, I wish we had somebody like Nancy Pelosi, who really knew how to make power work for her.

CORNISH: Yes.

ANDERSON: And so this feeling of being under siege, my side is weak, that is what bred the Tea Party movement on the Republican side.

CORNISH: Interesting.

ANDERSON: And so interested to see what will happen for Democrats.

CORNISH: Yes. Yes.

I want to play you a clip from Senator Bernie Sanders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): No one is in the caucus more critical of Schumer than I am. But it's not Schumer, it's the caucus. It's not the caucus, it's the Democratic Party.

In the Democratic Party, you got a party that is heavily dominated by the billionaire class, run by consultants who are way out of touch with reality. It has - the Democratic Party has virtually no grassroots support.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK, the first part of that I feel like we have heard from Senator Sanders for the better part of 20 years. It was the second part that got me, that there's no grassroots movement.

Jerusalem, what do you hearing in that?

JERUSALEM DEMSAS, STAFF WRITER, "THE ATLANTIC": I don't know. I think he might be referring to the fact that the approval rating for Democrats is like at all-time lows. People who want to identify with the party, the approval from - from regular people about whether they see Democrats as moving in the right direction. I mean, the issue is, when you see polls like that, that contains like a myriad of views. There are people who think the Democrats should be more left wing, people who think the Democrats should be more moderate, you know.

CORNISH: Yes. And those people are turning out to Bernie Sanders' rallies, basically.

DEMSAS: Exactly.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes, I mean, this is a party that is trying to figure out what it is, right? And so, the anger that you're seeing is, this is an unprecedented, in the Democratic view, assault on, you know, the rule of law, on institutions, that this is a moment for - that requires a robust response. And so, when you have Chuck Schumer, who I interviewed, you know, this week, this past weekend, saying, well, this was actually, you know, the lesser of two evils and tried to explain his strategic thinking, it doesn't land well because they don't care. At this point they're like, listen, this is a - the house is burning down and you're sort of negotiating as to who - if you're going to change the locks.

CORNISH: Yes. I mean, I think one of the things I struggle with, it's like, I covered the Senate. And I never looked to the Senate as a place where, like, rambunctious leaders rise because the whole thing is compromise. All it is, is taking a bunch of votes that you have to explain later. And that is why we see so few senators actually make it to the White House. So, are people looking in the wrong direction for leadership?

DEMSAS: Yes, I think this is the hard bind that Democrats are in right now where they actually don't have a lot of power in the federal government. It -

CORNISH: But shouldn't that free you up? Shouldn't you be able to, like, be louder, be bolder when - like it's easy to oppose things.

DEMSAS: I think the problem is that there's clearly not a core strategy about where they want to direct their people's attention to.

[06:40:01]

CORNISH: Right. And we heard the voters say that. Yes.

DEMSAS: Exactly. And, I mean, to me, I think there's like clearly ways where there's -- there's - there's places for Democrats to focus on in Wisconsin, there's a very important race happening right now at the Supreme Court in Wisconsin that could flip the seats towards Republicans. And Elon Musk is putting a ton of attention, money into that race. But there's just not unified energy to tell voters where -

CORNISH: Yes. Though we should - it has become one of the most expensive judicial races in the country, with Democrats pouring in money as well. DEMSAS: Exactly.

ANDERSON: And there's also - there's not - not only is there not a unified vision for moving forward yet, but they - there isn't a unified answer for, like, why did we lose this last election?

CORNISH: Yes.

ANDERSON: Again, this is what Republicans went through, why did we lose our elections? And there is this fight. We lost because we were too extreme. We lost the center. We lost political independence, versus, we lost because we didn't fire up our base, because we broke our commitments to, you know, the activists and those who are true believers. And that's a divide.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I'm going - yes, I'm going to do a call-out, though. Ezra Klein (ph) had a really great episode yesterday, really breaking it down, talking about all the data that now we - we see about why the Democratic Party lost. There's a lot of counterintuitive stuff in there.

And one of the things that was most interesting to me is why they lost young people. And this, to me, really said something about how Democrats, their traditional base, the people that they always relied on to sort of be Democrats, which are young people, which are people of color, they really lost them in - in droves. Explaining that I think is going to - because it's a big red flag - is something that the party is going to have to grapple with going forward.

CORNISH: Yes. Yes, yes, underscoring -

DEMSAS: (INAUDIBLE) David Shore (ph) was talking about how, you know -

CORNISH: Yes, but some people also criticized the kind of "New York Times" pages of the world, right, about what should be done. I think there - there's another question here.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: There's a disconnect - there's a disconnect -

CORNISH: What is the base? What do you even mean when you say base?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Who are you - who are you talking to.

CORNISH: If you don't think it's your activist class, but you also haven't grasped this other group of people. Yes.

DEMSAS: But it's clear too that with - with that data that like the expectation that younger people will always be the base for Democrats is not true. You're seeing younger voters increasingly more conservative than their millennial counterparts in the data that Shore (ph) and Ezra Klein (ph) pointed out.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Talked about the TikTok effect, right.

DEMSAS: And - exactly.

CORNISH: Yes.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: About how young men are being funneled into certain subgroups and women are being funneled into other subgroups because of TikTok.

CORNISH: Yes.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: It's like this weird 1950s segregation that's happening online, and how that's playing out politically. I mean, this is a whole new world that we're seeing. And I think what is being debated right now is, what are the - what is the Democratic Party going to do about it.

CORNISH: Yes. In the meantime, Kristen, I love your point. I'm watching that, too. The Tea Party became a movement that yielded a new generation of lawmakers. Could this be a moment for Democrats?

I want you guys to stick around to discuss.

Still ahead on CNN THIS MORNING, were going to talk about the rare rebuke from the Supreme Court's chief justice as President Trump calls for impeaching judges who disagree with him.

Plus, why a story about Jackie Robinson's military service was scrubbed from the Defense Department's website.

More from the group chat after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:47:12]

CORNISH: All right, with President Trump now calling for impeachment of judges who disagree with him, Chief Justice John Roberts weighs in. The president directed more anger at federal judges this week, as a judge in D.C. ordered the Justice Department to turn over information about weekend deportation flights to El Salvador. The judge put those flights on hold, and now the president says that that judge should be impeached.

Now, Chief Justice John Roberts didn't mention the president by name, but in a statement he said impeaching judges over legal disagreements is, quote, "not an appropriate response." President Trump appears to be unfazed by those words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, he didn't mention my name in the statement. I just saw it quickly. He didn't mention my name. But many people have called for his impeachment. The impeachment of this judge.

We had a judge. I would call him a rogue judge. You can call him whatever you want. I know nothing about him. But that's not for a local judge to be making that determination. And I thought it was terrible. (END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Joining me now to talk about this, Joan Biskupic, CNN chief Supreme Court analyst.

Joan, I love talking to you about this because you've actually written about Chief Justice Roberts, his biography.

First, how significant is this, given what you know about him even personally?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: It's significant in the moment for him and for the judiciary most of all. Several lower court judges, who right now are the front lines of these battles over the Trump litigation, have been feeling a lot of pressure, and they've been getting threats and they've been - they've just been -

CORNISH: Yes. And we've seen reports about the judiciary and judges feeling public threats very acutely.

BISKUPIC: Yes. Yes. Yes. And so many of them had been reaching out to the chief's office, to other people, saying, you know, maybe it's time to say something. And so, this was a moment for them in many ways. What the chief said -

CORNISH: Did they get the moment? I mean this statement doesn't seem very fiery.

BISKUPIC: The statement isn't fiery. But this isn't the chief's way. The chief justice is - really does speak in measured tones. And he wanted to say something. And basically what he said was, there is - if you are dissatisfied, go through an appeal here, you do not need to threaten impeachment. And impeachment is rarely used. Just a handful of times in the history of our country. And only after someone's been, you know, found guilty of some criminal behavior. So, it was significant in that way.

The other thing, though, is, just so you know for context, there's only been one other time that Chief Justice John Roberts, as head of the judiciary, has essentially rebuked the head of the executive branch, and that was in 2018. And it was at a similarly politically charged moment. So -

CORNISH: Oh, yes. I think we actually have that. He -

BISKUPIC: From the -

CORNISH: Yes, he released a statement.

BISKUPIC: Yes.

CORNISH: This is after a 2018 judgment. Let me see. It said, yes, "we don't have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges, Clinton judges. In this era, though, I think at the time people thought everything is too partisan now. So, that's kind of moot.

[06:50:00]

BISKUPIC: Right. And you know what he was responding to? Interestingly, there's a connection between the two. He was responding to Donald Trump deriding jurists who had ruled against him in an asylum case as, quote, "an Obama judge."

CORNISH: Yes.

BISKUPIC: And did you notice the thing on Truth Social yesterday that first set off the chief? Also, Donald Trump was referring to James Boasberg (ph), the judge handling the deportation case as an Obama judge. So, you know, it's -

CORNISH: It's a little bit of a trigger there.

BISKUPIC: Yes, that's exactly it. Yes.

CORNISH: Yes. Well, can I get to the backdrop to this -

BISKUPIC: Yes. Yes.

CORNISH: Which is the immunity case.

BISKUPIC: Yes. Yes.

CORNISH: We've been talking all day about the boundaries, right, and the checks and balances.

BISKUPIC: Yes.

CORNISH: And this immunity case people thought really undermined some of that.

BISKUPIC: Yes, and the chief wrote it. I mean it was a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, very politically charged.

CORNISH: That said.

BISKUPIC: That said, that Donald Trump - that the president has substantial immunity from criminal prosecution for acts that he would have committed -

CORNISH: In office. Yes.

BISKUPIC: Yes. Yes. Or, in this case, it was as he was exiting. It was from the 2020 election.

So, Donald Trump, as a former president at that point, was trying to be shielded from the charges brought by then special counsel Jack Smith.

So, that ruling back on July 1st essentially gave Donald Trump, then candidate Trump, a pass for any kind of prosecution. And the backlash to the chief especially has been very strong. And I think that the chief really felt - has felt stung by that. And since then, as the court has heard a lot - the preliminary stages of some of the Trump litigation, it has moved very cautiously, and not given Donald Trump what he's wanted.

Donald Trump's lawyers have gone. They're trying to have - with a sense of urgency, trying to get court endorsement for some of its early executive orders. And the court has backed away and slowed things down.

CORNISH: Yes.

BISKUPIC: So, you have a different message coming now than you had back in July. And that is truly, I think, for the chief - for the chief, who is very concerned about the court's place in the public eye, for his own reputation and image, that, again, I think the backlash from the immunity rule -

CORNISH: From sensitivity there.

BISKUPIC: Ruling really stung. And this, I felt, he, as - you know, he's only the 17th chief justice of the United States. Donald Trump is the 47th president. So, you know, chief's stay for life. He stays for life.

CORNISH: Yes. Yes. And so, these big questions are settled by personalities in the end.

BISKUPIC: Yes.

CORNISH: Joan Biskupic, CNN's chief Supreme Court analyst, thanks so much.

Also coming up on CNN, we're going to have former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, he'll be in "THE SITUATION ROOM." That's today at 10:00 a.m. Eastern.

And it is now 52 minutes past the hour. Here's your morning roundup. Some of the stories you need to get going.

This hour, in Jerusalem, hundreds are gathered outside Israel's parliament. They're protesting Israel's renewed attacks that shattered the ceasefire with Hamas.

Also this morning there are reports of new airstrikes in central Gaza. Over 400 people have been killed in Israeli attacks this week alone. Israel's prime minister warning that this is, quote, only the beginning.

And a jury will end up deciding whether Greenpeace has to pay an energy company $300 million over an oil pipeline protest way back in 2016. The company is suing the group, accusing it of spreading misinformation and masterminding the protests. Greenpeace says this is just an attempt to suppress their free speech.

And if you've ever seen a real bull fight, even on TV, it's violent. But now in Mexico City, that violence will not be allowed. The bull can no longer be hurt or killed. Keep in mind, though, bulls can still hurt people. And an article about baseball legend Jackie Robinson's service in the

Army is no longer on the Defense Department's website. It's believed that the decision was linked to the Trump administration's DEI purge, which has outraged voters, including those at a town hall in Arizona.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They're taking down women's names that fought at the - Arlington National Cemetery. They're taking down information about the Windtalker - or Navajo Windtalkers. They're taking down information about a black Medal of Honor.

They can go f themselves is how I feel about it. So, what are we doing? We need to fight back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK. If you are searching the Army's website for Jackie Robinson, it lists 18 articles, 14 of them have now been deleted just in time for spring training.

As they say, money talks. Shoppers are hoping their dollars will send a message from boycotting companies that are no longer prioritizing diversity. And some are getting rid of their Teslas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, this is going to be my last - last trip in this car.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (singing): Time to say goodbye.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: All right, some of the backlash, though, is materializing in more extreme ways across the country.

[06:55:03]

Teslas have been vandalized and set on fire.

So, the group chat is here for me to make sense of this because this is one of the sort of stranger outcomes in response to this second administration.

What are you hearing in your reporting?

DEMSAS: I mean, I don't think it's that strange at all that Elon Musk has become a target for a lot of people. He's not only made himself very visible as part of the effort to remake the American government, but he's been pretty explosive on X, formerly known as Twitter.

But I do think there's going to become a big problem if the resistance to his actions is so violent, right? People, I think, can understand making fun of Teslas. You know, maybe they - riding in the dirt.

CORNISH: Yes, or rich people selling them, that kind of thing.

DEMSAS: Exactly. But the idea that you're going to firebomb a store -

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean Attorney General Pam Bondi, right, has come out overnight basically saying that she will view these attacks on Tesla - the vandal - the vandalism as domestic terrorism.

CORNISH: Yes.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: You know, that also seems like a pretty extreme reaction to this. But it is a serious problem when people are going out and actually causing harm.

CORNISH: Here's how Elon Musk actually responded when he was asked about all this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELON MUSK, SENIOR TRUMP ADVISER: I always thought that the left, or the, you know, Democrats were supposed to be the party of - of empathy, the party of caring, and yet they're burning down cars, they're firebombing dealerships, they're firing bullets into dealerships.

I think there are larger forces at work as well. I mean, I don't know, who's funding it and who's coordinating it, because this is - this is crazy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: I want to get your sense about how to talk about this. I asked a lawmaker about it a few days ago, and he said, look, we - we can't get spun up over property when there are other issues going on that need to be addressed. It was not responded to well on social media. Tell me more.

ANDERON: I totally disagree on that (INAUDIBLE). I think that the minute that you begin condoning blowing up cars as political speech and protest against someone who may be doing things you find disastrous in the government, you have gone too far. I don't think that it's wrong to consider it domestic terrorism. I think if you're engaged in violent acts as a way to say that's political speech, violent acts should not be considered political speech. And I think this is going to be a big problem, again to this question of like, what does the political left do? How does it navigate as its left flank gets angrier and angrier and angrier? What does that lead to?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: To be - to be clear, one thing is prosecuting people for acts of vandalism, and another thing is under the rubric of domestic terrorism, which, by the way, there isn't like an actual law that says you are domestic terrorism, you would be prosecuted under different laws. But, you know, this idea of, again, what is -

ANDERSON: And trying to make people afraid to own or drive a Tesla? I mean, that seems like that's what it is. That even people driving down the street, you know, having people, like, yell at them while they're in their cars, like, it's trying to create a culture of fear around this brand. And, look, the -

DEMSAS: This is exactly why people push for nonviolent protest responses, because it even distracts from the core message.

ANDERSON: Yes.

DEMSAS: I mean Tesla's losing market share. It's taking a hit in the polls. I mean he's - he's all -

CORNISH: Yes, and its shareholders are not happy.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Fifty percent down for Europe. I mean -

DEMSAS: Exactly.

ANDERSON: Yes.

DEMSAS: And we're not talking about that. We're talking about the few vandals, like, going crazy.

CORNISH: Yes.

ANDERSON: Yes, that's the part (INAUDIBLE). And that's where protests have been the most effective is when, for instance, you know, conservatives did this with Bud Light, took a really big hit from Anheuser-Busch.

CORNISH: Yes.

ANDERSON: There are ways to change people's consumer behavior that don't have to be violence.

CORNISH: Let me jump on that because there is actually boycott going on right now. Boycotts against Target. The executives there had this to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMAL BRYANT, PASTOR AND ORGANIZER OF TARGET BOYCOTT: There's never a revolution without inconvenience. As a consequence, there are over 1,000 black vendors who have their wares in Targets across the country.

We don't want these minority businesses to suffer or to be impacted negatively. We want to support them, we just don't want to support them in Target.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Yes, so, Jamal Bryant leading a kind of lent boycott. And there has been some effect on retailers from consumers saying we don't like that you have pulled back from DEI. And we're not going to shop there. So, to your point, is that more effective?

ANDERSON: For sure. Go for the actual bottom line, change people's behavior in terms of shopping. And this is especially effective, not rich people and their cars, because the average American, in fact, I think 99 percent of Americans don't have the luxury to just be like, oh, my car no longer fits my political views, I'm going to get rid of it. But things like, can I shop at, you know, store x versus store y versus store z?

CORNISH: And that's happening.

ANDERSON: Those sometimes are choices that consumers can make that can really drive a message.

CORNISH: Yes.

Lulu, I'll give you a word here.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean I think that that's true. But we've also seen, especially on the right, legislation aimed at actually curtailing economic boycotts of guns, for example, of companies. You can't, for example, boycott Israel in certain states.

I mean this is actually part of the debate in this country about how you do protest. What is actually -

CORNISH: What's allowed.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: What's allowed.

CORNISH: Who can protest.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Who can be protest against. In what way. And so, this is an ongoing debate that we've seen since time immemorial here since 20 - obviously 2020.

[07:00:00]

DEMSAS: And protesters always have to deal with this problem where they're told, OK, well, don't protest like that, protest like this. And then when there's a boycott, then they're like, well, why are you doing this? And I think it becomes this kind of cascading problem where they get criticized in all these ways.

CORNISH: Yes.

DEMSAS: And so there's no popular way to boycott effectively. People are going to.

CORNISH: Well, I have a feeling this one is going to be controversial.

I want to thank the group chat. You guys were great. This conversation will continue.

In the meantime, thank you for waking up with us. I'm Audie Cornish. And "CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts right now.