Return to Transcripts main page
Erin Burnett Outfront
Judge: No Evidence White House Is Following Order On Wrongly Deported Man; White House Defiant On China: "We Don't Have To Make A Deal," They Do; Biden Slams "Damage" Of Trump White House In First Major Post-White House Speech. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired April 15, 2025 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[19:00:25]
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:
Breaking news, a judge slamming the Trump administration just moments ago, saying that they've done nothing to bring back a man who was wrongfully deported to a notorious mega prison in El Salvador. The lawyer for that man is my guest.
Plus, Trump escalating his trade war with China even further with a blunt new threat. Is it going to work or is it going to backfire?
And former President Joe Biden with his first public speech tonight since leaving office. But if Democrats already found the person that they want to take on Trump and Republicans, some huge fundraising numbers tonight for one Democrat.
Let's go OUTFRONT.
(MUSIC)
BOLDUAN: Good evening, everyone. I'm Kate Bolduan, in for Erin Burnett.
OUTFRONT tonight, the breaking news: a judge admonishing the Trump administration moments ago, saying that the U.S. government has done, quote, nothing to return to the U.S., a wrongfully deported man, nothing despite a Supreme Court ruling requiring the White House to facilitate Kilmar Abrego Garcia's release from a notorious prison in El Salvador.
That federal judge today saying this, quote, to date, what the record shows is that nothing has been done, nothing.
Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported from Maryland to El Salvador last month. The White House, though, is still digging in despite all of this, refusing to bring him back to the U.S. That federal judge just ordered a two week fact-finding process now to determine whether the Trump administration defied court orders, telling attorneys to, quote, cancel vacation and cancel other appointments.
Earlier in the hearing, the justice -- a Justice Department attorney, said that President Trump would comply with the order if Abrego Garcia presents himself at a port of entry, something he can't exactly do since he is currently behind bars at this mega prison in El Salvador.
Tonight, the president was asked on Fox's Spanish language station Noticias, whether Abrego Garcia would be returned to the U.S.
Here's part of his answer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Basically, that's really a decision that will be made by the government of El Salvador.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: Abrego Garcia's wife is speaking tonight outside the courthouse.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNIFER STEFANIA VASQUEZ SURA, WIFE OF KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA: My heart aches for my husband, who should have been here leading our easter prayers. Instead, I find myself pleading with the Trump administration and the Bukele administration to stop playing political games with the life of Kilmar.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: So, this hearing took place just moments after we learned that the Department of Justice fired one of its own attorneys who had been handling this case. That attorney had admitted in a prior court hearing that Abrego Garcia, quote, should not have been sent to El Salvador.
Jeff Zeleny is OUTFRONT at the White House for us this evening.
Jeff, any indication the White House is going to start listening to this judge tonight?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kate, so far there has been no indication of that. And it's hard to imagine that that would change. But the question going forward is, what does the judge do? What does other courts do?
The Supreme Court, of course, has weighed in one time, but for now, at least, the White House is clearly taking a somewhat different posture, not always amplifying what their Justice Department lawyers are saying, but from the White House podium today, the press secretary showed they showed no intentions of listening to the court.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There is never going to be a world in which this is an individual who is going to live a peaceful life in Maryland because he is a foreign terrorist and MS-13 gang member. Not only have we confirmed that, President Bukele yesterday in the Oval Office confirmed that as well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZELENY: So, of course, there is no evidence that Mr. Garcia is a member of a gang. They have not presented that evidence in a court of law.
From the White House podium -- yes, they have, but that is, of course, a different standard. So, the bottom line to all of this, this is the biggest test yet. We've seen the White House sort of walk up to the line of either, ignoring a court ruling or saying that they may.
But this, of course, is a matter potentially of life and death. But it's also a matter of the constitution. Will there be a constitutional crisis here? Will the White House and the government listen to what the judges say?
So going forward, we shall see. But the judge made clear she's ordering the administration to compel what they have done to try and get Mr. Garcia back.
[19:05:08]
So, we shall see how that matters in a court of law. But the White House at least, seems to be done with this. A discussion the judges, though, are not -- Kate.
BOLDUAN: Yeah, they seem to be both. Both seem to be dug in, and the judge seems to be losing patience and fast.
ZELENY: Indeed.
BOLDUAN: It's good to see you, Jeff. Thank you so much.
And joining us right now is Rina Gandhi. She is the attorney for Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Rina, thank you for being here.
You're just now out of that courtroom. We read some of the quotes from what we heard from the judge. The judge is -- clearly was frustrated today.
But what is your big takeaway from this hearing? Are you satisfied with what -- with what happened?
RINA GANDHI, ATTORNEY FOR FATHER MISTAKENLY DEPORTED TO EL SALVADOR: Well, first, thank you for having me, Kate.
To answer your question, if we're satisfied, we'll never be satisfied until Kilmar is back. So, no, the fight is not over. But I do consider this day to be a win. We did get our expedited discovery. Granted. And we have a plan.
BOLDUAN: So, a win today. There is a plan going forward. I want to read something more. You heard it. But for everyone, for our viewers. The judge said today that every day Mr. Garcia is detained in CECOT is a day of irreparable harm. But it does sound like there are, at the very least, many more days
that he will be spending there. I mean, what is the next step?
GANDHI: Well, normally, discovery like this would take potentially months, maybe years. So, the fact that we're getting this done in two weeks, while an unimaginable hardship to the family and to him, is fast. It is fast.
BOLDUAN: And what comes with this discovery? What is your anticipation? Let's say in two weeks you're going to be back in court. And in this process, then what?
GANDHI: Well, we're hoping that the administration will present their affiants, the people who provided information for those affidavits will be able to provide more insight into what they can do, what they are willing to do, or what they're not willing to do. And from there, we can see the court potentially order contempt for not following through with what the Supreme Court has ordered, or take further action, sanctions, things like that.
BOLDUAN: Do you think that the judge should have moved to hold them in contempt even today?
GANDHI: I think that this is a highly politicized case, and the judge understood that by doing so, it would only raise tempers. Would it have been appropriate? Arguably, yes. But I think it was likely, ultimately the right call to actually move this case forward.
BOLDUAN: The judge also said in in court that the administrations understanding of facilitate flies in the face of the plain meaning of the word. So, what then, do you think the government should be doing?
GANDHI: Well, there are many things the government could do. There are many other cases from our clients as well that we've seen personally, where the government helps to bring foreign nationals, legal permanent residents, U.S. citizens back from foreign countries.
We have a number of agencies, not just DHS, who are tasked with maintaining our foreign relations, who have contacts, who have, liaisons, who they can reach out to. The Supreme Court was clear, they must facilitate his release. Not just his return physically into the United States, but his release.
So, what have they done to do that? I hope that's what well find through discovery.
BOLDUAN: One of the things that we heard from the border czar, Tom Homan, today, and also others in the administration, is that if your client is brought back to the United States, they are going to move to just simply deport him again. Are you all prepared for that?
GANDHI: Yes, 100 percent. However, bring him back and let's have the actual proper procedure that should have happened. If this was their allegation, there is a proper way to remove someone's withholding of removal grant, that's not impossible. But he was not given that opportunity. They decided they were the judge for him. And they removed him without him ever seeing a courtroom.
If he were to return, which is what we are asking for -- fine. Put forward your evidence. File a motion, have a judge make a decision. But they don't get that right.
BOLDUAN: Rina Gandhi, thank you very much for coming on.
[19:10:00]
Two weeks of discovery, let's see what happens now. Thank you very much.
OUTFRONT with me now is legal analyst Ryan Goodman for more on this.
You're sitting here listening to Abrego Garcia's attorney, Rina, just now saying describing today in court as a win, but. What do you think?
RYAN GOODMAN, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL AT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE: So, I think it is a very significant step forward for the plaintiffs. It's exactly what they asked for. And in fact, the judge says, is this not the core of what the plaintiffs are currently asking for, which is this kind of judicial investigation through discovery and to get some answers and in a certain sense, lay the groundwork for understanding what the government could do and what the government is or is not doing.
BOLDUAN: Could this case or does this case necessarily need to end up back at the Supreme Court? If it does this, the Supreme Court need to be I guess I keep describing it as like a little less vague in its in how its wording next time, do you think?
GOODMAN: So, I think it will end up at the Supreme Court regardless, because the Trump administration is going to try to bring it there. They may maybe try to bring it there very early, in fact, saying that some of this issue of discovery and the questions being asked shouldn't be asked. So maybe they try to do that.
But the Supreme Court already basically said these are the things that they need to answer to, so they could try that, but I think it'll be -- it'll die fast. And then the last one will be if she does, in fact, the district court judge hold them in contempt.
I think one of the most important parts of the order that she gave this evening is she actually points to one of the ways in which the United States government seems to have control over the matter. She says its inexplicable that Abrego Garcia is still being held in CECOT, and she drops a footnote and cites the text that we do have from the written agreement with El Salvador that's been released by the associated press, because they obtained part of the agreement, which says that they'll be held in held in secret, quote, pending the United States decision on their long term disposition, end quote.
That's what the judge says, which is basically saying you have much more authority, the United States government, to do something here, to do anything, take certain steps to facilitate his release. BOLDUAN: Then, yeah. Then -- you're playing at. Then -- you're saying, then you're saying that you have had. And because they keep saying that their hands are tied, they can't do anything about it. One aspect of this that is, is confounding is I mentioned that the justice attorney who had been working on this case, at least one of them, has just been fired.
And this is the same -- this is the same attorney that had said in court that Abrego Garcia admitted or acknowledged the reality in court that given his standing and the do not deport order, that he should not have been deported out of the United States. What is your reaction to his firing in the midst of all of this? And can any Justice Department attorney successfully argue this case at this point, or the way the administration would like it to be?
GOODMAN: That's a great question. On her first day in office, Attorney General Bondi issued one of her memorandums about zealous advocacy. On its face, I didn't think there was anything necessarily objectionable, but it sounds like that's what she's implementing in a way that is objectionable against this attorney.
The attorney was being candid with the court, and in fact, the court of appeals said, look, there's a duty to be zealously to be a zealous advocate, but it is tempered by the duty of candor to the court. And they looked at the record and they were saying, this person is being candid by saying this was an error.
I actually have no idea what else the attorney could have done. It's not him saying it was an error. It's in the government affidavits.
BOLDUAN: That's the thing. The other option is obviously like lie or, I don't know, play dumb, right?
GOODMAN: Right. Like say, oh, I cannot answer that question. I have not been given permission to answer that question, which had been ridiculous. In fact, he did what he's supposed to do in the courtroom, and now he seems to have been punished for it based on what we see in the record. Maybe there's something else there, but everything that we've seen seems to be that he's being retaliated against for being candid with the court.
BOLDUAN: So, one more layer of this. It's great to see you, Ryan.
GOODMAN: Good to see you.
BOLDUAN: Thank you so much.
OUTFRONT next, breaking news: Donald Trump issuing a new threat to China as the trade war continues to escalate, saying the ball is now in China's court. Who is going to blink first?
And AOC just released record breaking fundraising numbers as she continues a tour of the country. Are Democrats embracing her now as a new leader of the party?
Plus, President Trump not backing down on his war on Harvard, either, after taking away billions of dollars in funding.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:18:38]
BOLDUAN: Breaking news: economic warfare. President Trump saying that China must make the first move to end the escalating trade war. Delivering that statement through his press secretary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The ball is in China's court. China needs to make a deal with us. We don't have to make a deal with them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: This after China, the world's largest market for airline purchases, reportedly is ordering its airlines to halt all deliveries of Boeing products. And with that delivering a major blow to America's largest exporter.
OUTFRONT now, Dan Ives, veteran tech stocks analyst, Peter Tuchman, a longtime Wall Street trader, and the one and only, Richard Quest.
I feel like I should say to everyone out there, gird your loins.
You're -- you -- you're -- you're hopped up on the fact that you think that there's kind of a cascade of evidence now of how bad this could be.
RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR-AT-LARGE: I don't think I know. Boeing. So, Boeing's in trouble because it can't deliver.
BOLDUAN: Boeing is getting hit from every angle.
QUEST: But it can't deliver to China, Eastern China, Southern and Air China.
United Airlines -- United today said that when it comes to giving guidance, they were going bimodal. They've given guidance on the basis of what's going on at the moment and if there's a recession.
I cannot remember a company, an airline giving two sets of guidance if it's normal and if it's a recession.
[19:20:01]
Nvidia tonight basically taking a charge because they say they can't sell certain chips into China. So, they've now written down a certain number of values. This is going to grow and grow and grow with more companies in different parts of the economy saying what the effects are.
And this is how your recession happens. Is that what I mean? DAN IVES, GLOBAL HEAD OF TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, WEDBUSH SECURITIES: I
mean, I think, look, he -- no, I think you nailed it. We're now starting to see this economic snowball go downhill. And if you look at it Nvidia, you look at the Boeing. And I think that's the worry is that you can't stop it.
BOLDUAN: Well, you can't choose your own adventure in terms of guidance coming from a major company that does nothing to offer any confidence, says the person who knows nothing about any of this.
IVES: Well, look, you've and like, you know, me and Peter have talked about is like you've cut big tech at the knees and Nvidia is that's the first step in terms of what we're seeing.
And look, and from a White House perspective, you're playing a game of high stakes poker with China. And the reality is the market and the economy that's caught in the middle.
PETER TUCHMAN, TRADER AT THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE: I mean, you know, what I think is fascinating, though, is how China's response to it. Boeing is not just an airline company. It represents in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, those 30 stocks that represent America. So, it's really a shot across the bow against us. This is -- this is a tit for tat, but in high -- in high stakes -- you know, high stakes playing in the -- in the sandbox really.
BOLDUAN: That's what I was going to ask because when it comes to --
TUCHMAN: It feels like.
BOLDUAN: China's sending a --
TUCHMAN: A message.
BOLDUAN: China's sending a message. You also just heard from Karoline Leavitt. You heard from -- you've heard from others that -- that Trump says that China needs a deal more than we do. Do you think that is accurate?
TUCHMAN: No, no. That shouldn't have to be the way it is. Look, at the end of the day -- look, I -- we should be aligned. Our motivation should be aligned. And it's not.
That's why you're talking about this is a battle of egos, right? I mean, as far as I can see, as opposed to, you know what? Look. Yes, he has an agenda. The agenda is about policy around tariffs.
But at the end of the day, we must make a deal. If this was about calling everyone to the table to negotiate, that's not -- I guess that's his approach of negotiation. But at this point, it's -- not every day were being notched down. We don't know what tomorrow. It's a bit of a bipolar situation.
QUEST: Three words, rare earth minerals.
IVES: That's right. QUEST: They've already pulled the rug out. They are essential in vast
parts of the U.S. industry. The China is.
The two sides need each other. Who needs who more is an academic question.
BOLDUAN: So, when they say -- when the question --when someone -- when the question is posed, who needs to blink first? Who needs to pick up the phone first? Do you think that's a ridiculous question?
IVES: No, it's a ridiculous question because as Peter and Richard comment, the reality is, is that you look at big tech -- right now, it's the hearts and lungs that are in the supply chain. Where are the -- when you look at the rare earth and you look at the materials, how you making the chips? Nvidia what I view is probably the best disruptive technology in the world, now, basically, they can sell into China. And that came out after the market.
So, you're starting to see these chips fall. And this is the reality. This is not just microphones in the beltway, right? Now, you're seeing the reality hit in terms of the economy.
TUCHMAN: But also you realize that Nvidia, it was -- it was the flavor of the moment. It was the stock that took the -- even though it was a broader footprint than just Nvidia, Mag Seven, but it was the biggest stock. Think about it. February 2023, Nvidia was $108 stock. He called it. And my partner David Green called it the same. February 2024, it was a $900 stock, right? That was one of the biggest contributing factors to the rally that we saw in those in the last two years. Double digit growth in the S&P 500.
So, to start hitting those, it's sort of -- it shows -- it's a -- it's a radical attempt to break our market down.
IVES: The golden jewels. It's the gold -- it's the golden goose of tech. Thats what you're hitting here right.
TUCHMAN: And the stock market and the stock market.
BOLDUAN: What are you handing out?
QUEST: You're talking about Nvidia and all these high tech, highfalutin stocks.
BOLDUAN: You're so highfalutin.
QUEST: Here we go. This is a -- toothpicks -- toothpicks. Guess where they're made.
IVES: Let me guess.
BOLDUAN: Idaho.
IVES: Idaho.
QUEST: Made in China. That is now going to cost 145 percent more because of the tariffs. You extrapolate these toothpicks across everything else.
BOLDUAN: Yeah. So, start handing them out and start saving them up.
You -- you mentioned that there's no reason to get into this tit for tat. Jamie Dimon talked about for tat today, saying that we don't need to get -- he's saying exactly the same thing. Let me play what he said. He just said this in a new interview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMIE DIMON, JPMORGAN CEO: I don't want to get into tit for tat type of thing. I think adults should talk to each other and listen to each other and acknowledge when the other person is right, or at least has a good point. I don't think we have any engagement right now, and so but that can start tomorrow.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: My question is, how does the market react? When does the snowball effect become irreversible? Like how does the market react if there continues to be no signs that there is any engagement?
[19:25:01]
TUCHMAN: Do you have an answer to that? I mean.
IVES: I mean --
TUCHMAN: Go ahead.
IVES: I'll start, and then I would say in the next 30 days, you need some sort of sign that that were going to get some negotiation that started with China, whether it's a summit, whether it's calls, whether -- and then ultimately a de-escalation. Because, you know, as Richards talked about and Peter, you -- this goes past 30 days. Markets said, okay, hold on a second. This is going to continue.
Then you start to get into that Armageddon scenario. Two bullies in the backyard. No one's blinking.
TUCHMAN: Look, we've seen it from February 19th. The market was trading at record highs the first six weeks since the first mention of tariffs were around Mexico and Canada. When the markets started to spiral down and then escalated sort of down to the point where last week, when we had those days that were so severe, we cannot look at those two days where the market did rally 900 points.
The confidence in the market is broken. What happened in the bond market last week, as we talked about, you can't bully the bond market. Damage was done to the whole infrastructure of the trading community in so many ways around that. And that's a very China-centric situation when it comes to bonds.
BOLDUAN: Is it -- is it Pollyanna, Richard, to think if because the administration said that Trump is looking at like 15-plus deals right now, trade deals right now, is it Pollyanna to think they start announcing deals and it fixes everything?
QUEST: No, it's not because once they start announcing deals, there will be an element of certainty vis-a-vis that country's exports to the United States.
But I do believe that the days of a free trade agreement of zero tariffs, because what they've got to deal with is the non-tariff barriers. I think the president is very comfortable with the idea that he's finally got what he's always wanted, which is a tariff regime, 10 percent. The world can live with 10 percent. But he's finally forced --
BOLDUAN: Hes going to make the floor be ten.
QUEST: He's -- oh, I cannot see that.
IVES: But I would just say, just add you need to get deals on the table, whether its Vietnam, whether it's South Korea, you don't get deals on the table by the end of this week. Then market starts saying, okay, our deals are there.
And it comes down to, as Peter talked about, you can't bully the bond market. The ten year speaks volume. And that forces the hand.
TUCHMAN: Do you know what? The markets -- look, we just -- history tells us the market can handle anything. Weve been able to figure it out except a perfect storm. When multiple. It's like the wave -- you get hit by wave after wave after wave.
This is it -- if -- if we don't settle something up on the China side, then the market is going to start to suffer.
QUEST: And you can't obfuscate it. You cannot. The market, the -- particularly the bond market, will see through flimflammery.
IVES: The tenure of the dollar.
BOLDUAN: Flimflammery.
IVES: And that's --
BOLDUAN: And you can -- you can -- you can -- you have to give --
IVES: That's a 1,600 SAT word right there.
(LAUGHTER)
BOLDUAN: Who here scored that? None of us.
(CROSSTALK)
TUCHMAN: Winning prize of the spelling --
BOLDUAN: -- gets into the break.
OUTFRONT next, we've got more breaking news. Wild scenes at a Republican town hall just moments ago, stun guns used on protesters. Talk about the perfect storm. We will show you what happened.
Plus, China tonight, using J.D. Vance's own words against him.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:32:58]
BOLDUAN: More breaking news, Joe Biden just giving his first major speech post-presidency. The former president going after a very familiar target, President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Fewer than 100 days this new administration has made so much done, so much damage and so much destruction. It's kind of breathtaking it could happen that soon. They've taken a hatchet to the Social Security Administration.
They're following that old line from tech startups. The quote is: move fast, break things. Well, they're certainly breaking things. They're shooting first and aiming later.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: And it is no secret about how team Trump and DOGE have set Social Security in their sights.
Rene Marsh is OUTFRONT.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RENE MARSH, CNN CORRESONDENT (voice-over): President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he will not touch Social Security benefits, but he and Elon Musk, often and without evidence, claim fraud is rampant in the system.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Government databases list 4.7 million Social Security numbers from people aged 100 to 109 years old.
ELON MUSK, TECH BILLIONAIRE: Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.
MARSH: Trump's commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, has even suggested it wouldn't be a big deal for Americans to miss a monthly Social Security payment.
HOWARD LUTNICK, COMMERCE SECRETARY: My mother-in-law, who's 94, she wouldn't call and complain. She just wouldn't. She'd think something got messed up and she'll get it next month. A fraudster always makes the loudest noise.
MARSH: Meanwhile, the agency that pays retirement and disability benefits to more than 70 million Americans is undergoing a massive reorganization that is sparking fears the system could collapse. Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency plans to slash roughly
7,000 from the agency's workforce, at a time when staffing is at historic lows.
[19:35:01]
Aging computer systems are plagued with outages, and new anti-fraud measures are causing widespread confusion.
JUDITH BROWN, RECEIVES BENEFITS FROM SSA: This Musk and Trump plan is what I call "slash and crash". It would really destroy the services that families like mine rely on. Our entire existence is on the line.
MARSH: Social Security is a major source of income for elderly Americans. For more than a third of people over 65, it accounts for more than half of their income.
(PROTESTERS CHANTING)
MARSH: The administration has moved to cut off benefits for some by listing thousands of immigrants as dead in a Social Security database, even though they're still alive.
The White House insisting they are on a terror watch list or have criminal records. And DOGE is also pushing against court orders for sensitive personal data held by the agency, including employment, pay history, and home addresses, in hopes of using it to help the president's immigration enforcement agenda.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MARSH (on camera): Well, today, a federal judge in Baltimore heard arguments on whether she should continue to restrict the access that DOGE has to Americans' sensitive personal data at the Social Security Administration. Now, the judge has asked that the agency's acting commissioner show up to this hearing today so that she could ask very specific questions on what exactly DOGE plans to do with this data.
But that acting commissioner didn't show up. The judge wasn't too happy about it. But it is worth noting, Kate, that the clock is ticking. Although she put a restraining order essentially banning DOJ's ability to access this data, that expires this Thursday.
BOLDUAN: All right. Rene Marsh, great reporting as always, thank you, Rene.
OUTFRONT with me now, Jamal Simmons and Erin Maguire.
Good to see you both.
Let's start with Joe Biden back out there, Jamal. On the prospect of his return to public life, Isaac Dovere had some important and well- sourced reporting, saying that many Democrats across the country, leading Democrats that he spoke to across the country, quote, are desperate for the former president to stick to a quiet retirement.
Do you feel that way, or are you excited to see what you heard from him tonight?
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, he is one of the great old hands of the Democratic Party. He's one of the people that people, I think, feel very respected -- respectable about. I think he's great.
The issue here now is about the future. And when we look forward to the future, who are the voices that I think Democrats are looking to, to guide forward?
And you hear some of those names already. Youve got Gavin Newsom out there. AOC is out there, and even Bernie Sanders is kind of an old voice, but he's like inspiring people to do new things.
BURNETT: Straddle both of those worlds.
SIMMONS: You still got Kamala Harris out there who might be running for governor in California.
So, there are all sorts of people who are out there who I think Democrats are looking for, and it's great to have Joe Biden. He looks like he's, you know, looking fit and he's out there.
But I think people are really looking forward to the new voices in the party that can lead us to the future.
BURNETT: Erin, I'm guessing especially after the election, you think this is great for the GOP to have Joe Biden out there once again as well?
ERIN MAGUIRE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I'm all for it. More Joe Biden, more AOC, more Bernie Sanders. Keep it up. Democrats make it easier for Republicans to win.
The reason Democrats have an anemic 37 percent approval rating is that trifecta of mastery right there, AOC, Bernie Sanders, two avowed socialists, and Joe Biden, one of the oldest -- the oldest president in American history.
And what happened? Independents and Republicans stood together and resoundingly rejected all of that. They voted and they kicked them out of office.
So, if Democrats want to continue to use this playbook, they are going to turn the tide of history, because going into midterms, historically, that would not benefit the Republican Party. But if Democrats want to choose the extreme left and the oldest voices in their party as the leading voices, because those are the only three out there right now leading the charge, you will make it historical for Republicans to win in November 2026.
So, I'm all for it. Go for it.
BOLDUAN: Jamal, go ahead and weigh in. I guess it comes to me, for me, does it become Democrats are struggling getting around their message that is more powerful or Donald Trump's approval rating on the economy is tanking? Like because he's facing forces as well, as we're talking about the troubles that either party is facing.
SIMMONS: Donald Trump's approval rating is bad because he's got an amateur hour over there. People don't necessarily trust that these guys are running DOGE and running part of the government really know what they're doing. So I think everyone's very concerned that you're firing people at the Social Security administration while you need to get people Social Security checks, the Veterans Administration, FAA, all these places, they're just ripping the wires out.
The problem is we're not sure they know which wires it is that they're ripping out. And so we've got to make sure that we have a kind of a more measured approach as the DOGE people are in there and as Trump is in there.
Here's the thing about the Democrats. The Democrats have a great message about how Trump is messing up. The Democrats don't yet have a message about what they want to do differently, and how they want to fix the country, because Americans know the country needs fixing.
[19:40:03]
And so, you've got to have Democrats who have a fixing agenda, not ones who are just pointing the finger.
BOLDUAN: Yeah. You can't just say, they're doing a bad job. You have to say how you're going to do it better.
And that kind of leads me to some of these crazy scenes tonight, Erin, once again at town halls, especially at the town hall with Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. Police -- this happened this evening. Police used stun guns on at least two protesters who resisted being removed from the town hall.
Not the only kind of rough facing with, constituents and town hall goers. Today, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley faced very frustrated Iowans, including one with a pretty pointed question for the senator. Let me show you this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: If you're proud of voting for Trump and that what he's doing in office? Are you proud of everything he's doing right now?
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): There's no president that I've agreed with 100 percent.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I didn't say that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: At what point does all of that become a problem? Because I know I've heard from many, especially House Republicans, who face these town halls that they -- they are brushing it off. But it's real frustration. MAGUIRE: Well, one, that was one of Senator Chuck Grassley's stops on
his 99-county tour he does every year in Iowa. Everybody gets to see their senator, no matter what's going on in the country.
And let's look at this. Historically speaking, I would maybe say come summertime, end of summer, you got to start looking ahead into the midterms. And that might be where things get a little treacherous for Republicans.
But that doesn't count anymore because history has shown us that Donald Trump has changed the way that politics works, that all those norms that went out before are gone.
But one norm remains the same, and that is that independence still historically, or voting on the economy. That is the thing that brings them to the polls. That's why Joe Biden was rejected in November, and Republicans had a clean sweep in D.C., the White House, the House and the Senate. If we get toward the midterms and independents are starting to be sour on the economy or remain that way, that's when alarms will begin to well, but they are the key factor here. And they have shown that if they are good with where Donald Trump is on the economy, they can buck this midterm trend that would favor Democrats over Republicans and help Republicans win.
I mean, look, you know, Kevin McCarthy beat back Democrats last time, and he was able to bring up extra Republican seats. So, it can happen.
BOLDUAN: The numbers do matter. Real quick final.
SIMMONS: Really quick. The stock market is a mess. Inflation really hasn't gone away. And we're not -- and now, we have all of our allies around the world who are questioning whether or not they can count on the United States. That's going to really matter for voters and consumers right here at home.
BOLDUAN: Yeah. You need to watch those independent numbers. Harry Enten got some analysis showing that that independents not happy with what they're seeing when it comes to the economy right now.
It's great to see you both. Thank you so much for coming in.
And just to note, the control room just told me at that Marjorie Taylor Greene town hall, three people have now been arrested at that town hall. This is all happening.
OUTFRONT for us next. Donald Trump escalating his attacks on Harvard after freezing billions of dollars in federal funding. Their acceptance rate is 3 percent. So why should people care? We'll tell you.
And J.D. Vance slamming Europe as China slams him.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:47:25] BOLDUAN: Tonight, President Trump is escalating his attacks against Harvard. He's now threatening to revoke the university's tax exempt status. The administration already cut off more than $2 billion in federal funding after Harvard refused to meet a list of policy changes and demands, changes that include eliminating DEI programs, restricting the acceptance of international students, and banning masks at campus protests.
OUTFRONT now, Congressman Seth Moulton, a Democrat from Massachusetts who is also a Harvard alum.
Thanks for coming in, Congressman.
The latest that we hear from President Trump on this is he posted this today. Perhaps Harvard should lose its tax-exempt status and be taxed as a political entity. What is your reaction to this whole thing?
REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): Well, first of all, I'm proud of Harvard for just standing up for American values. And maybe it's a sign that the tide is turning, because this should be an easy thing for anyone in America to do -- excuse me -- every single day. And yet, we've seen law firm after law firm caved to the Trump administration and their authoritarian desires. Weve seen other universities cave.
But what Harvard's doing is just standing up for its right to live in a country that values freedom, that values liberty. Because what the Trump administration is trying to do, it's not about antisemitism, it's not about a position on DEI. They're attacking the very idea that you can have freedom of thought in a way that really should remind us all of what they do in authoritarian communist regimes like Russia or China, where they go around banning books, where they -- where the communist party says what you can and cannot teach at universities.
It's so fundamentally un-American. And so Harvard is, of course, doing the right thing, but they're also doing what should be obvious. It's just -- it's just extraordinary that not everyone is doing that in the face of these attacks from Trump.
BOLDUAN: Look, things that you know that Harvard has a massive endowment. Harvard has a massive network of wealthy alum. You know, you take all of that into account. And then you also know we also know that Harvard gets a massive amount of federal funding that goes toward important research.
I mean, Harvard's stance -- if Harvard's stance here means that the school has to stop work on research, on critical research on illnesses ranging from cancer to diabetes -- and there is reporting that some researchers are getting stop work orders as we speak -- is it still worth not working with the administration on this?
MOULTON: Working with the administration is giving up your fundamental values, and Americans know better than to do that.
[19:50;04]
Remember, this is the seed of the revolution. This is where people 250 years ago were willing to put their lives on the line to hold up values like freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. And that is what is under attack by this administration.
So, I don't care what it costs. But I'll tell you what, Trump should care. He should care that when he makes the decision to cut billions of dollars of research for Alzheimer's, for cancer, he is ultimately hurting, not Harvard, but the people who would benefit from all the science that's being developed there, from the lives that will be saved.
When you have early tests for Alzheimer's, or you have new treatments for cancer, that's what Harvard does with this research money every single day.
BOLDUAN: But, Congressman, also, there's this -- I mean, officially what this has to do, the demands are coming as part of an effort by the administration to officially to combat antisemitism on Harvard's campus.
You have been outspoken in the past against the incidents that were occurred on Harvard's campus. I mean, you said at one point you were embarrassed of your alma mater, and you said, what's happening at Harvard right now is intellectually weak and morally repugnant, after one incident. I read your press release.
Does Harvard still have work to do? Do they still need to address some of this?
MOULTON: Yes, they do. They do have work to do. They've also made a lot of progress, and I'm very proud of the progress that they've made. But that's the way it works in a free society, is that people get to criticize you and people get to disagree with you.
And you know what? In response to my very pointed criticisms at my alma mater, they've done some things, including having the president come and meet with me and talk about the changes that he is undertaking to make sure that they do crack down on antisemitism. But what doesn't happen in America is for an authoritarian government to come in and tell you what you can or cannot teach, to tell you who you can or cannot hire, to tell you what you can or cannot read. I mean, it's just so fundamentally anti-American. It's -- it's like a fascist or a communist regime, what we're seeing from this administration.
Of course, the whole hypocrisy about it is that this is also the administration that's saying, you do have -- we want to preserve freedom. We want to expand liberty. They're doing the opposite.
BOLDUAN: Let us see what the next move is here on this one.
Congressman, thank you for coming in.
MOULTON: Good to see you.
BOLDUAN: OUTFRONT for us next, China ripping into Vice President J.D. Vance, throwing his own words back at him.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:57:15]
BOLDUAN: Tonight, China using J.D. Vance's own words against him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
XIA BAOLONG, CHINESE POLITICIAN (through translator): Let those American peasants wail in front of the 5,000-year-old Chinese civilization.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: Directly hitting back at the vice president's comments last week, calling the Chinese peasants, which were not well-received, as you can probably guess, it comes as the vice president also is bashing Europe in a new interview saying this, quote, it's not in Europe's interest and it's not in Americas interest for Europe to be a permanent security vassal of the United States.
Harry Enten is OUTFRONT to tell me something I don't know. There is a lot.
It's -- J.D. Vance has even since before they got in office, very clearly has jumped on board with Donald Trump's isolationist America first kind of agenda when it comes to foreign policy. But do Republican voters agree at this point?
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Increasingly so. I mean, look, the percentage of Republicans who believe that the U.S. should have an active world in a world -- or an active role in world affairs. I mean, look at this trend line dating back over the last few decades. I mean, this is very clear. It was 74 percent in 2004, 69 percent --
BOLDUAN: A real shift.
ENTEN: It's a real shift. Look at it now, it's just 54 percent. So, it's the bare majority. That is within the margin of error. In fact, if you look at 2023, it was slightly under 50 percent, kind of vacillates back and forth of the 50 percent line.
But -- but Republicans are increasingly of the view that the U.S. should not in fact, play an active role in world affairs.
BOLDUAN: And J.D. Vance was also commenting in this interview on the Iraq war, suggesting that it could have been avoided if the Europeans had been a little more independent. What did you find about sentiment on that war?
ENTEN: Yeah. This -- you know, I remember, we were talking in the break. I remember when the Iraq war started, there were so few Republicans who were opposed to us going into the Iraq war. It was just 5 percent who opposed the U.S. going into Iraq. And now you look and you say, what percentage of Republicans, in fact, say that it was not worth it? It's 53 percent. I never thought, Kate Bolduan, that I would see the
day in which a majority of Republicans said it wasn't worth it to go to Iraq, especially considering where Republicans were at the start of the Iraq war.
BOLDUAN: The president saw a lot of support from veterans in obviously, in the election. How are veterans feeling about him today?
ENTEN: Yeah. So, look, I'll tell you something that you don't know, Kate Bolduan and that is this, you know, you might say, okay, with the more dovish Republican Party, maybe veterans would be less supportive of Republicans. That is not the case at all.
If you look at the exit polls compare 2004, which was right near the start of the Iraq war, to where we are right now, the 2024 election, veteran support for Donald Trump was about twice as large, his margin among veterans than it was for George W. Bush.
I looked at every exit poll I could find this century. And what you see is that George W. Bush, in fact -- excuse me -- Donald Trump received more veteran support than any other Republican for president.
BOLDUAN: That is fascinating. Something I did not know.
ENTEN: There you go.
BOLDUAN: It's good to see you here.
ENTEN: Nice to see you.
BOLDUAN: Thank you so much.
Thank you so much for joining us this evening.
"AC360" starts now.
