Return to Transcripts main page
Erin Burnett Outfront
Judge Finds "Probable Cause" To Hold Trump Admin. In Contempt; Stocks Fall After Fed Chair's Stark Warning About Tariffs; Sources: Top Pentagon Aide Placed On Leave, Third This Week. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired April 16, 2025 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[19:00:23]
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:
A stunning rebuke. A federal judge now on the cusp of going directly after Trump officials for disobeying his order to turn around deportation flights and the face off escalates in the legal battle over the Maryland man mistakenly sent to El Salvador.
Plus, there's breaking news. Stocks tumble, the Dow falling nearly 700 points after the Fed chair sounded the alarm on Trump's tariffs.
And a purge inside the Pentagon. A third top official has just been put on administrative leave. What is going on there?
Let's go OUTFRONT.
(MUSIC)
BOLDUAN: Good evening, everyone. I'm Kate Bolduan, in for Erin Burnett.
OUTFRONT tonight, the breaking news, Donald Trump is lashing out at judges. All of this after one federal judge is now threatening to hold Trump's administration in contempt for defying his orders. Those orders were to turn back planes of migrants destined for a prison in El Salvador. The planes never returned.
And Judge James Boasberg, now writing: The court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily. Indeed, it has given defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory.
Boasberg, in his 46-page opinion, did say he would give the administration one week to purge itself of contempt, writing this: The most obvious way for defendants to do so here is by asserting custody of the individuals who were removed in violation.
And Donald Trump writing this: What is going on with our courts? They are totally out of control. They seem to hate Trump so much that anything goes.
So, it was just 24 hours ago that another judge admonished the Trump administration for doing, quote, nothing to return the man who was mistakenly sent to El Salvador.
And today, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen traveled there with the hopes of meeting with Kilmar Abrego Garcia. That was not allowed, but he did meet with the vice president of El Salvador, who he asked why the country won't release Garcia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): His answer was that the Trump administration is paying El Salvador, the government of El Salvador, to keep him at CECOT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: Jeff Zeleny OUTFRONT now live outside the White House for us.
Jeff, how is the Trump administration responding to Judge Boasberg's ruling today?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kate, as of now, the president has not said or tweeted a word. And that perhaps is slightly unusual because, of course, this is the judge that he went after specifically by name calling for his impeachment several times about a month or so ago, after this initial ruling, the Trump administration, the president himself, directly went after this judge.
But the administration is saying that they are going to immediately appeal all of this. So, the question is, what does the president say? We shall see. If he does not respond, that would be notable.
But the bottom line is, Kate, what this all means when you sort of put this together, this is the biggest confrontation yet that a judge is sort of taking to the White House, trying to hold the administrations feet to the fire. We shall see if that happens, because the Supreme Court essentially already removed this from Judge Boasberg. But he said, no, no, it is still in his jurisdiction for this.
But this is one thing that struck out or struck me in this, a 46-page ruling. He said the Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders, especially by officials of a -- of a -- of a coordinate branch who have sworn in an oath to uphold it.
So, the bottom line is this is a constitutional issue here with the judicial branch going directly at the executive branch all over immigration. So, we shall see if this ever comes to a head here in terms of a contempt charge. But it's serious, there's no doubt about it, criminal contempt. That's what we're talking about here.
But it's just one more day of one more investigation into the administrations immigration plan, something it actually does want to be talking about. But the judges, of course, are trying to hold their feet to the fire on the details of it -- Kate.
BOLDUAN: It seems something's got to give, one way or the other -- another -- how this is going. Jeff, it's great to see you. Thank you so much.
OUTFRONT with us now, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, Ryan Goodman and Norm Eisen.
Thanks, guys, for being here.
So, Ryan, break this down for us. What is Judge Boasberg telling the administration here?
RYAN GOODMAN, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL AT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE: He's basically communicating that he has already found cause to believe that they are in criminal contempt of his original orders to turn back the planes, or if they landed in El Salvador, then turn them back.
[19:05:11]
And criminal contempt, meaning that somebody or some multiple people are on the line and he's giving them an opportunity. He doesn't have to. It's in his discretion to say you can, quote/unquote, the terminology purge the contempt, which means rectify it. And the way to rectify it is to give these people their hearing, their kind of habeas proceedings so they can, in fact, challenge their removal to El Salvador.
And if the government were to turn around within the week and say, we're going to do that, we're done, and that's all that's needed. If they don't do that, then he's initiating fact finding to find out who is the particular policymaker who ordered the planes to continue on into El Salvador and to unload the detainees. And those are the individuals that he will either criminally refer this to the Department of Justice. And if they don't do it, he already says we will do next, he will appoint an independent prosecutor to charge.
BOLDUAN: And who those people are has been part of the problem and part of the mystery all along. So, like getting answers on this, one way or another, is necessary.
Norm, do you think an appeal from the Trump administration will go anywhere here?
NORM EISEN, LAWYER; FORMER WHITE HOUSE ETHICS CZAR: Kate, I think that the Trump administration is extremely unlikely to succeed on appeal. The Supreme Court long ago decided that court orders have to be obeyed, even if the legal grounds shift. The Supreme Court said this court doesn't have venue to take the matter.
Thats resolved Supreme Court law. And we know that the chief justice, John Roberts, chastised the president. It was quite extraordinary several weeks ago, saying, the way we challenge court orders is through appeals, not other means. In that case, he was talking about, attacks on Boasberg and others, impeaching, saying that they should be impeached as opposed to an appeal.
So, I think that it's quite likely the D.C. circuit and the Supreme Court will uphold whatever Judge Boasberg finds. And, of course, all of this happens against the backdrop of the reason that we have due process and habeas, which the Supreme Court unanimously said these men were entitled to, to protect every person, particularly to protect innocence. And there's a lot of evidence that innocent people have been swept up here.
BOLDUAN: And, Lulu, kind of bigger question here is, do you think? Anything, including a contempt ruling here, would change how the Trump administration is operating?
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Is this a country where individuals, regardless of who they are, have to follow a judge's orders, or is it not? This is what is happening here. This is the question that hangs over all of this.
The administration wants to make this about immigration. Thats a place that they're comfortable in. They want to, you know, show that they are robustly trying to expel people from this country, that they don't think should be here.
That's a different issue than whether or not they will follow judge's rulings. That is what hangs all over this. And so, if they do not, then what happens? And that is what worries so many people, because if they do not actually obey a court ruling, then we're in a completely different territory. Then you have heard the word constitutional crisis used, because what that essentially means is the two branches of government are at odds.
And then how do we deal with that balance of power? Who resolves that? And so, it is very serious indeed.
BOLDUAN: It is an interesting piece because one consistency with President Trump is, when asked directly, will you defy a judge's order, he -- he consistently says that he will obey a judge's order. He just depends on, I guess, how high the judge has to be before he really would do that.
You mentioned this, but dig into this a little more -- contempt occurs, let's assume. Who is going to be held in contempt? What happens?
GOODMAN: So, if the reporting is correct in "Axios", that and we've had folks from "Axios" on here talking about it that the decision makers were in the White House and they decided after Judge Boasberg order came through on that Saturday night to turn back the planes to proceed. In any case, it's those individuals, the policymakers, the clients, not the lawyers themselves.
BOLDUAN : Does the judge have access to that person?
GOODMAN: Oh, he can get access to them. Normally speaking, he can get access to them. And I think he will. And all he needs to in some sense do is not find with huge level of certainty that that individual is just this probable cause standard enough to initiate the next step in a criminal prosecution.
[19:10:03] And that's what would then take on, would take hold. And I think he can easily get into that information with enough confidence that he's identified the right people. And that's what will happen a week from today. Essentially, he'll start.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Why isn't the -- but the big question hanging over this is why isn't the government actually doing what the court has asked them to do when they could very easily do this? I mean, "The New York Times", my organization has reporting, showing that many of the people who were actually sent to the -- to the prison on the -- Venezuelans on the plane actually have no criminal record. They had no due process.
I mean -- and so why aren't they bringing them back? Why aren't they following the court orders? And that is a really important question which has been answered.
BOLDUAN: That becomes a lot. I mean, that's been a logical question throughout the proceedings, right, and then becomes an exactly logical question as this proceeds, because it needs to be answered one way or another. Either we are not going to give you this information or and then what? Or we will give you this information, and then why have we not had access to it to this point? Because that's all Boasberg's been asking.
And you mentioned -- you mentioned the prison in El Salvador and the planes going over there, do you see overlap of we're talking about this or this one order that Boasberg was working on? And then what we also are focused on as well, which is the Abrego Garcia case. What is the overlap?
GOODMAN: There's a lot of overlap. One part of the overlap is that individuals were sent to El Salvador despite court orders in both instances.
The other big part of the overlap is identifying, does the United States have what we call constructive custody over these individuals? Yes, they're in El Salvador, but they're there because were paying for them. They're there because there's an agreement that says they should be kept there for at least a year, and they're there in that agreement. That also says pending the discretion, the disposition by the U.S. government.
And that's what these judges are after, they're trying to get that agreement. That's part of the information that's going to come out and Abrego Garcia, and it will show that the government can, in fact, get these people back because they are there at the discretion of the White House. And in both instances, that's what the judges are calling for, which is why don't you just get these people back who have been wrongly sent against judicial orders? Thats the remarkable place that we're in.
And Judge Boasberg also points out, you did bring some people back. There's some people that you understood to otherwise have been sent there mistakenly on that Saturday, Sunday weekend. And one was a Nicaraguan man. He was not Venezuelan and the other were women, and they were not going to take women into this male-only prison.
They brought them back. They were able to do it, if they want to do it.
BOLDUAN: Yeah, that's a great point that I don't think has been brought into the Abrego Garcia case especially, is exactly that. They have brought people back when they have felt the need.
Norm, final thought from you.
EISEN: Kate, this is broader than these two cases, as tragic as they are that the United States government is shipping innocent people to a dark site prison abroad and refusing to comply. There's a broader pattern of this administration leaning in and trying to get away with as much as possible, and court after court after court across the country, including in some of the cases I'm working on, have to say to them, hey, you are overstepping my orders.
We have a president who said he wanted to be a dictator on day one. He has continued that throughout the first 100 days.
BOLDUAN: Guys, stick with me.
I want to go now to David Culver who has been has been speaking with sources close to President Bukele in El Salvador for new details tonight on Abrego Garcia.
And, David, you were first to report right here on OUTFRONT that El Salvador says it has additional evidence about Abrego Garcia. Have officials provided any new details to back this up?
DAVID CULVER, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is something that I've been pushing on, Kate. And in the discussion that you were just having happening just now, I mean, you bring up a really good point. And that is there is precedence here for sending certain people back. El Salvador has had people come in to say, no, we don't want these individuals and to send them back to the U.S.
What's different here, and this is coming from a source very close to President Bukele, is that this individual is from El Salvador, Abrego Garcia, who were talking about. And they do say that they have evidence against him.
Now, last week, as we reported here, they wouldn't give specifics and they wouldn't provide me any proof. When I pressed a little bit more today with this source just a few hours ago, he tells me that it's twofold. One, prior criminal records not giving me specifics on that, but suggesting that its part of the criminal records, that they have a meticulous file on in El Salvador. And these go back decades.
And the other part of that is his allegation that there are gang tattoos that Abrego Garcia has that have been covered up. Again, this is all according to one source. And we know that Abrego Garcia attorneys have pushed back fervently on a lot of this saying it's just simply fabricated. And again, I have not been given any proof or evidence of this, but
this is something that El Salvador is standing by quite firmly. And I asked the source, what does President Bukele make of all of this? Does he really believe this individual is a member of MS-13?
[19:15:03]
And he said, I'll refer you back to that oval office meeting when President Bukele referred to Abrego Garcia twice as a terrorist. That's how El Salvador sees this -- Kate.
BOLDUAN: David, great reporting as always. Thank you so much.
I mean -- and, Lulu, add into this now, as I mentioned, off the top, you have Senator Chris Van Hollen went down to El Salvador, down there trying -- went to see Abrego Garcia, was denied access to and was not able to see it to see him.
But the White House is also at the same time made very clear in many public statements that they think that kind of focus, Van Hollen going down there, is exactly what plays into their hands. And it seems to be part of the calculation of why there's no need to change tact. Do you think they're right?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Well, there's definitely a feeling from the administration that they can win on messaging. Look at these Democrats. They're not looking after their own people. They're going to a foreign prison to try and get a man who's a terrorist.
And so, that is their narrative. But there are Democrats who are very much looking for their leaders to do something, and there's very little that their leaders can do because they hold no power. And so, this kind of action is getting a lot of attention.
You know, Senator Chris Van Hollen is not very well known. And there's -- we're talking about him this evening. And I think for some Democrats, they want to see their leadership actually try and do something. And so, it is shining a light on their case.
And so, it depends who you're trying to message to. The administration is trying to message to their base. They think that they have a winning message. And Democrats are definitely trying to show that they can do something in the face of what they feel is egregious actions by the Trump administration.
BOLDUAN: And caught up in all the middle of this is due process, which is maybe a hard message to sell, but important to every single one of us as an American citizen. So, let's see.
It's great to see you guys. Thank you so much.
Norm, thank you.
OUTFRONT for us next, breaking news, the Dow dropping nearly 700 points after the fed chairman offered what really was his toughest warning yet on the potential fallout from Trump's trade war. The former president and CEO of the St, Louis Federal Reserve is next.
Also breaking, the president's political punishment. Sources tell CNN plans are now underway for the IRS to rescind Harvard's tax -- Harvard's tax exempt status.
And many Trump supporters have taken a hit financially since Donald Trump's return to the White House. Yet as you are about to see, they are still standing firmly with him. Why is that? It's a story you'll see first on OUTFRONT.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll see if this works, just give the president a chance and we'll just have to go from there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:22:10]
BURNETT: Breaking news, stocks tumbling after Fed Chair Jerome Powell gave his starkest warning yet on the president's escalating trade war. The Dow dropped nearly 700 points. S&P down 120. The Nasdaq down more than 500.
Powell was speaking in Chicago, and he made it clear that the U.S. economy is now in unchartered waters. And that's not a good thing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEROME POWELL, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL RESERVE: The level of tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated, and the same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: OUTFRONT now, Jim Bullard, the former president and CEO of the St. Louis Federal Reserve.
Thank you so much for being here.
What is your reaction to Powell's prognosis? Do you read this as a warning?
JIM BULLARD, FORMER PRESIDENT & CEO, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST. LOUIS: I think he's trying to be evenhanded and give the best assessment that he can of the current situation. It's certainly true that on liberation day, we saw numbers of for the tariff -- possible tariffs that were much higher than what markets were expecting. I think most people, in the general audience, were expecting.
You know, there's a 90-day reprieve now for many of those. So, you're in a more of a negotiating phase, but certainly, a shock factor on those initial numbers. BOLDUAN: For sure. Let's talk about kind of this negotiating phase. I
want to play something else that we heard from the Fed chair.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
POWELL: The Smoot-Hawley tariffs were actually not this large and they were 95 years ago. So, there isn't a modern experience of how to think about this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: So, let's play this out now in two scenarios. I was thinking about this today. First, if the targeted tariffs move forward in 90 days, they come back on, how bad would that be.
BULLARD: Yeah, I think that, you know, the Smoot-Hawley lesson was that, if the U.S. raised tariffs in 1930, and Hoover signed the bill and then the other countries just said, okay, we're just going to also raise our tariffs, and global trade collapsed. And I think there was a little bit of flavor of that right after, liberation day. Wait a minute. These are so high. Maybe the other countries will just back off and raise their tax.
You did get one country that kind of went in that direction. It's an important country, China. Others did not -- did not go that route. So, and they got the more, you know, the 90-day reprieve here.
So, I think, you know, there are conflicting interpretations of the Great Depression Era, but Smoot-Hawley looms large as -- as certainly either a cause or a contributing factor to the depression. So, I do think you have to be very careful here as you're trying to get better trade relations across all these nations.
[19:25:00]
BOLDUAN: And then the other scenario, of course, is the Trump administration starts making deals. So, tariff rates, you would assume, don't hit the level that that we were looking at before feared. What do you think that could mean?
BULLARD: It could be good. It could be very good. You know, potentially. And I think there's a little bit of a -- you know, people are a little bit twisted in the way they think about this because the U.S. is not very protectionist compared to many other countries around the world. Most other countries are smaller. They're very worried about certain industries. And they put up tariffs because of that.
And that is exactly what the president is focused on, that, hey, this is unfair. We need a level playing field. But they could react to this by saying, okay, well, we'll come down to the same level of tariffs as you have, or they'll come down even to free trade. And that would be a really good outcome.
So, I think financial markets are trying to keep a balance here where you could get a pretty good outcome. You know, and I think different people among us would put different probabilities on those things. But there could be a good outcome here. And that that has to be considered.
BOLDUAN: We'll be considered. And I think everyone will say, we'll be prayed for and hoped a good outcome here.
BULLARD: Yeah.
BOLDUAN: Thank you. Thank you so much. It's really great to have you on. I really appreciate it.
BULLARD: Thanks.
BOLDUAN: Here with me - let me bring in right now, here with me is Dan Ives, veteran tech stocks analyst, and Peter Tuchman, long time Wall Street investor.
You were nodding along there, Peter, what do you think of Bullard's assessment?
PETER TUCHMAN, TRADER AT THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE: You know what? I'm just hoping -- I'm trying to manifest the positive outcome of this.
I can only -- my hope is that Mr. Trump's goal should be, you know, that this is a negotiating tool or strategy and that he's bringing people to the table. And maybe it's obviously not some other people's way they would have done it. And it seems like I'm not sure whether all the ramifications and the pain that we've suffered on the way here were absolutely necessary.
But my hope is that he has a big vision, right? I mean, he's a smart guy and that that this is going to get everybody to the table. And at the end of the day, we're going to start checking off box by box, country by country.
And then China is going to be sitting there going, you know what? We got to make a deal on this too. Do we want this world to completely combust. We want tech to flourish and thrive. And we -- at the end of the day, you know, the alternative is such a dark view.
BOLDUAN: It's so bad.
TUCHMAN: Right, it's that -- that we've got to -- we've got to believe that this is going to be a wonderful outcome to this situation. So, I'm trying to manifest positivity.
DAN IVES, GLOBAL HEAD OF TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, WEDBUSH SECURITIES: I like it.
BOLDUAN: I hear you, I hear you, but are you investing on that strategy?
TUCHMAN: No, we talked about -- I think we're all praying on this.
IVES: And I think -- and I think, look, Tuchman, that's a -- that's a very optimistic. And I appreciate it.
TUCHMAN: We did it a lot. He -- I mean, I was amazed. I'm so happy. You gave us --
BOLDUAN: But you mentioned bipolar markets. This is bipolar from last night. But --
TUCHMAN: Lots changed since last --
IVES: But I would say, but the unfortunate reality, today is a dark day --
BOLDUAN: Yes.
IVES: -- because it comes down to like Nvidia, the golden child of the market, A.I. revolution, tech, got cut to knees. I mean, essentially, we talked about last night.
BOLDUAN: You guys called this last night.
IVES: Look, because essentially the government, if you look at it, you could call it restrictions. It's a blockade into China. It's a "do not enter" sign into China for U.S. tech. Nvidia numbers got cut, the stock got crushed today.
And, of course, you -- when you look at Powell back against the wall, you have a huge inflationary policy. What's he going to say?
BOLDUAN: Right.
IVES: But that just put gasoline on the fire. This is Nvidia. It's tech. And it just comes down to -- I love Tuchman's optimistic view. But today was definitely a step back, relative.
BOLDUAN: I mean, I kept looking at the numbers, thinking I'd written them down wrong. I mean, when you think of Nvidia says they're going to take, a $5.5 billion hit from this. Like my -- it hurts every part of my being to think that it really is seems unnecessary.
IVES: And the ripple effect -- it's the ripple effect, too. I mean, you've talked about it.
TUCHMAN: Well, look, we have to realize that, as I mentioned last night, that Nvidia was the flavor of the last couple of years. It was the -- it was the golden child of the stock market, as I described.
It was $108 stock. February 1, 2023. It was $900 in 2024. It was one of the -- it was the catalyst. It was leading the pack and leading the way of America finally coming side to side in this, in this race to -- with tech.
BOLDUAN: Uh-huh.
TUCHMAN: And so, to be cut off at the knees, it's obviously devastating. I was really surprised by the fact that if you go back to the last Fed meeting, when -- when Chairman Powell said, I think everyone's overreacting when we didn't know much more than we do today, except the numbers that came out on liberation day. I don't -- I think we're overreacting to tech, to the tariffs. And if they are as bad as we seem, I believe they're already baked
into that selloff we had from Feb 19th down until, whatever, six weeks was. The bottom which I'm hoping was the bottom when we were, you know, we went from 45,000 to 38,000 on the Dow.
[19:30:00]
And we went from 6,100 to 5,100 or actually 4,800.
Cameron Dawson said the other day, we actually hit 4,800 in the buy. I didn't see that. I'm happy I didn't see it.
But you know, so his -- today's comments were really surprising, you know, and for me --
IVES: But -- but I would think. But to your point, I think surprising. But the reality is Powell -- he's -- they're seeing the numbers.
BOLDUAN: Yeah.
IVES: But like --
TUCHMAN: It's surprising but very --
IVES: It was surprising but it's real. And they're seeing the numbers and basically what the markets showing is that bad news is coming. You're going to have an earnings season where companies are not going to give guidance.
BOLDUAN: Yeah.
IVES: Nvidia and tech is obviously a huge step back. And then you talk about the one word you never want to hear. The worst word stagflation. And that is the fear.
BOLDUAN: So, add the Nvidia situation today, the mind-blowing situation today. And add this into the China negotiation, on negotiation. You think of this as a chess match. Explain this.
IVES: Okay, so it's a chess match because there's only one chip in the world that you could build A.I., use cases. And anything with A.I., you need an Nvidia chip. That's it. Thats the reality.
So that if you think about if were playing chess, the queen chess --
BOLDUAN: So, it's literally the bargaining. It's like the bargaining.
IVES: Is if you said -- that's probably the biggest bargaining tool we have is Nvidia. And China knows in terms of China tech, they can't really do anything without this chip. So the reality is what they did last night is the start of this. And me and you talked about it. I mean, it's the start of ultimately --
BOLDUAN: How bad is this going to get? So how bad does this get? TUCHMAN: This is China cave in over this. You're saying that without that chip, China is going to have a there's a -- there's a void in their situation.
IVES: But it's not going to --
TUCHMAN: They're going to cave? And what do you think?
IVES: I believe it's not coincidental. This morning, they said, like, okay, we're willing to talk if and they laid out some of the things that they need to see. But the reality is that they know in Beijing, just take away all the smoke and mirror. Theres one chip that you could build A.I. and its Nvidia and that's -- and you say how bad it's going to get, it's going to get nasty.
But our view is as an investor, you don't -- in these environments when its scared and the anxiety, you don't just toss things out. You got to be able to look past it and to let's start to. Peter's optimistic view is that negotiations will start --
BOLDUAN: Peter's just manifesting, and I am here for all of this manifestation. I just want to manifest.
TUCHMAN: We can have a kumbaya moment.
(LAUGHTER)
TUCHMAN: I just felt like a deal has to be -- a deal has to be made. It doesn't make sense. You know, as much of a wild card as Mr. Trump is. He's not -- he's a smart guy. There's got to be.
You talked about it. You feel that by not to put words in your mouth, but you said by -- by Sunday, we believe some kind of a deal has to be made.
BOLDUAN: Your words to the negotiating god's ears. We will find out together. Don't go far, boys. Thank you.
OUTFRONT next, a surge of suspensions at the Pentagon. A third person now put on leave as the department carries out a wide-ranging investigation. So, what is going on there?
And more breaking news, Donald Trump's revenge on Harvard. His administration is now asking the IRS to revoke the university's tax- exempt status.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:37:21]
BOLDUAN: Breaking news: a growing purge at the Pentagon. CNN learning tonight, a third Defense Department employee is now on administrative leave. One source telling CNN that Colin Carroll, the chief of staff to the deputy secretary, secretary of defense, was escorted out of the building. He joins two others who were placed on leave yesterday. This is all amid a wide-ranging leak probe now that included polygraph
tests after a planned classified briefing for Elon Musk was leaked to "The New York Times".
OUTFRONT now, former Democratic Congressman Max Rose and Shermichael Singleton.
Thanks, guys, for being here. I love a dramatic entrance.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I like that. That's great.
BOLDUAN: Anytime, anytime. I'm your -- I'm your hype lady.
Congressman, what do you think is going on inside the Pentagon right now?
MAX ROSE (D), FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: It's not good. I mean, we're not exactly sure what it specifically pertains to, but I can tell you, having been in both congress and worked in the Pentagon, that you don't confiscate someone's cell phones and escort them out of the Pentagon unless it was a serious act of ineptitude and potentially criminality.
But this is connected to something far larger than just the actions of those individuals. There is a real trend here of an inability to handle materials that are classified. We saw that with Signalgate, and its either because they don't know what the hell they're doing, or it's because they're focused on something else.
And I think it's a combination of both, because I'll tell you what they are effective at apparently taking Maya Angelou books out of the Naval Academy Library. So they focus their time on these things that mean nothing that are ridiculous, that don't actually produce trained leaders in the military.
And this is what you get, B's and C's, like the secretary of defense, who was never prepared for the job, have hired a whole series of other people who are absolutely ineffective.
BOLDUAN: He says it's a bad look. You see it totally differently.
SINGLETON: I think from a management perspective, the fact that they are investigating these alleged leaks, we don't know all of the details yet. They didn't immediately fire them, which I'm surprised people on the Democratic side aren't applauding the fact that there's a due process here. You guys have been arguing for that a whole lot lately.
BOLDUAN: Well-played, Shermichael, for bringing that --
SINGLETON: So, they're investigating it. They let them go temporarily. And whatever the end result of the investigation is, if they if it's determined that they should be let go, that to me is good management style. And it does showcase the seriousness by which they are approaching potential leaks now, and also going forward. BOLDUAN: I hear the message, but do you believe it? Do you believe
like do you think this is a good look for the Pentagon to be escorting high level staffers out? I mean, these are not -- this is not -- this is not a no one at the Pentagon.
SINGLETON: Well, you certainly don't ever want to be in a situation where you're having to investigate high level officials for leaks.
[19:40:03]
I mean, that's not good whether you're a Republican or Democrat.
But the next question for me becomes, from a managerial perspective, which the congressman just laid out, how are you addressing it? They're investigating. They're looking into it.
They didn't immediately fire them. They're on leave. And once the investigation has concluded, if it is determined that they did do something nefarious, they will be fired, I predict.
BOLDUAN: And we'll see if we get the full breadth of the investigation and report, because that also transparency would be great on, on all fronts on this.
Two sources, I want to ask you get on the latest in terms of this fight over, over Harvard with the president. Two sources tonight. They now tell CNN that the IRS is making plans to rescind the tax-exempt status of Harvard. And this we know this is after Harvard pushed back and said they weren't going to go along with the sweeping demands from the administration.
But this is also exactly what Donald Trump suggested on social media. I believe it was just yesterday. I mean, this now takes the fight to what level?
ROSE: Well, there's two separate issues here. Theres the tax-exempt status. And look, I'm not going to be the one to say that an Ivy League institution with a $60 billion endowment should have a tax- exempt status. That sounds a little absurd, but what is wrong here is where you are threatening to withdraw billions of dollars, millions of dollars of grants to these leading institutions because they won't follow your cultural lead.
That is not just a restriction on freedom of speech and freedom of thought, but it's a direct hit on what makes us so strong as a country. There are young kids all around the world dreaming about going to Harvard and other leading institutions to create the great American companies of the future, to be the great American thinkers of the future.
The second that we stop supporting these institutions, we lose such a great pillar of our power as a nation.
BOLDUAN: I mean, the question really is what is what is the end goal and what is the purpose here? And also, would you like to play the game if Obama did it? SINGLETON: Look, I'm a conservative and I'm always careful with the
role of government and interfering in free speech or how private institutions should be governed. However, I think there's a different question, at least philosophically speaking, as I assess this many Ivy League institutions, many colleges in general produce individuals of a certain worldview, a particular mindset.
That mindset, I would argue, is a bit antithetical to the worldview that's made America great. You have views, anti-capitalism. It's bad. You have views that America is.
(CROSSTALK)
BOLDUAN: Grant money goes to is like medical research.
SINGLETON: Hear me out, though. Broader, I'm looking at a broader picture. I want to be clear here. You have worldviews that the United States is an imperialist nation, and somehow we need drastic reforms. I've seen individuals, leaders coming out of these institutions that the Constitution should be destroyed, and we should start all over again.
These things, these -- these cultural moral values are things that we have inherited. They are what have made this country so great. The government does have a moral obligation to say, these leaders you're producing, you got to be careful here with this stuff because if we sustain this, what does this mean for the long term viability of our culture and society?
Thats what I think the bigger argument should be coming out of this, and less on taking money away from cancer research. Whatever type of medical research you just mentioned.
BOLDUAN: Yeah, I mean, having a conversation, having a conversation, trying to maybe lead by example is one thing, but ripping money mid study and giving researchers stop work orders, that's a totally different, you know, and that's the realm that they're actually kind of tiptoeing into now with this.
But let's see where this fight goes tomorrow because it always seems to be every day, there's going to be something else.
ROSE: Whatever happened to small government Republicans? You know, this is you're still small government though, right?
SINGLETON: I'm still small government. But there is an obligation to protect Western values.
BOLDUAN: OUTFRONT next, Trump's trade war is taking a toll on farmers. Yet as you are about to see, many are standing by the president, even if it means losing money. It's a story you'll see first on OUTFRONT.
Plus, the man accused of trying to burn down the Pennsylvania governor's mansion is revealing why he set fire to Josh Shapiro's home. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:48:14]
BOLDUAN: Tonight. Sticking with Trump despite getting hit hard by his trade war. Elle Reeve with a story you'll see first on OUTFRONT.
(BEGIN VIDETOAEP)
JAIME BAYSINGER, WAITRESS, RED HOG SALOON: I wanted Trump.
ELLE REEVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You wanted Trump?
BAYSINGER: Yep. There was no way in hell I wanted her out there. But now I don't know.
REEVE: What would have been better? What were you expecting?
BAYSINGER: I was expecting the lower cost of a lot of just your everyday living things. And hoping that he would make things better for everybody in America because that's what we need.
Groceries are already outrageous. And then we put the tariffs on across the seas or whatever, like China, all that. It just makes everything more expensive for everybody.
REEVE: Jamie Baysinger is the only person we met in eastern South Dakota who openly questioned her own political views.
Most people we talked to said it was risky to talk about politics here, even as the effects of Trump's tariffs loomed over the agricultural economy in an area that voted for him by about 70 percent.
Generally, opinions were divided between trust, Trump's plan and how can you still like this guy?
Wait, so, Becky, let me ask one thing. Are -- are you in a politically mixed marriage?
BECKY HOFER, FREIGHT BROKER: Yeah. Did you see the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Joe Biden sign? Would you like to talk about that a little bit?
REEVE: Yeah.
Becky Hofer was not afraid to talk. She's a Democrat and her husband is a conservative nonvoter. She's a freight broker. Basically, if a company needs to ship bricks, she'll find you a flatbed truck. If you need to ship meat, she'll get you a refrigerated truck.
HOFER: Ooh. You need the truck tomorrow. Can you guys, like, fork a pallet jack into the back of the trailer for him to pallet jack him to the front?
REEVE: This gives her a window into real time shifts in the economy. HOFER: Everybody's nervous. People are making different decisions for
different reasons.
[19:50:01]
But, you know, some of its hesitation, some of its actual price changes. Everybody just wants some stability right now.
REEVE: And those shifts can be complex. She says Chinas retaliatory tariffs on American pork and beef could lead to higher prices on fruit.
HOFER: Right now, its produce season in California. We need to get out to California. What goes out to California? Meat.
We haul pork, we haul beef. Where does it go? It goes to Asia. If it doesn't go, the price produce is going to go up even that much more, because they're going to have to pay more for the trucks.
REEVE: You know, as we've talked about, you're in a really conservative area, very pro-Trump area. Like, do you feel frustrated in trying to talk to your neighbors about what's going on?
HOFER: Yeah. You know, it's the biggest thing that frustrates me is that I just feel like nobody cares right now until it affects them. And I don't understand how they don't see that. They're not dumb. These people aren't dumb.
And they're not unkind to people and selfish people. And thoughtless people. So I don't understand. Why they're okay with it.
REEVE: Hofer introduced us to her neighbor, Rod Olerud (ph), who was feeding cattle and who for now is okay with it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just think we need to let the president do what he's doing, and we need to just see what's going to happen here and give him a little latitude so that you know, if it doesn't work, then were going to have to try something different.
REEVE: Okay. So, you're willing to let the president try some stuff to see?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. To see if this works. Just give the president a chance. And we'll just have to go from there.
Looks like a little boy.
REEVE: Tommy Baruth thinks we already gave it a chance. He's a retired soybean farmer who saw what happened in 2018 when Trump put tariffs on China.
TOMMY BARUTH, RETIRED FARMER: The export market just went right down the tube because these countries could buy them from other places. Cheaper. Brazil and other countries were the ones that benefited from that.
REEVE: I read that it stayed that way, that now China buys a lot more from Brazil.
BARUTH: Exactly. And a lot of times, those markets don't come back.
REEVE: Doug Bjorke runs a lawn mowing business. He says Trump's plan will work out in the long term, even if some crop prices fall.
DOUG BJORKE, LAWNMOWER REPAIRMAN: Yeah, the price might come down, but when then people start starving, they're going to come back to the table.
REEVE: You mean in the other countries?
BJORKE: Yeah. We're a gracious, gracious nation feeding the world. And we shouldn't have to without getting something for it.
REEVE: Rick Eckmann says in the three days after the tariffs, cattle futures dropped below the point of breakeven for his farm.
REICK ECKMANN, FARMER: We had him do this before.
REEVE: Yeah, he really likes you.
ECKMANN: Yep.
PRODUCER: Did you vote for Trump?
ECKMANN: No, I did not.
REEVE: Why not?
ECKMANN: You want me to be truthful? I think to get to where he's at today, he's stepped on people and he's got no morals, I don't think. I don't like the man. I don't like him.
REEVE: Why do you think so many of your neighbors do support?
ECKMANN: I don't know. I guess I don't see anything good about him.
REEVE: Does it affect the way you think about America?
ECKMANN: It scares me.
REEVE: Terry Nebelsick, a lifelong Republican and retired school superintendent, was very careful in how he talked about the political climate. He's concerned that Trump's push to dissolve the Department of Education will cut public school funds for needy kids, potentially at a time of economic turmoil.
TERRY NEBELSICK, FORMER HURON, SOUTH DAKOTA SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT: If poverty is happening to adults, children are hurting. And where adults sometimes just have to work through it and work through it and make sure there's food on the table, during that time, we have children and adolescents who are forming who they're going to be, and I do think that the public school is a collecting point for people to be able to reach those kids and make sure that they're fed and have medical attention and, and have their basic needs met. REEVE: Again and again, our conversations in this Midwestern nice
town came back to character and values.
BARUTH: When Sheila and I raised our children, we taught them to be honest, you know, not try to cheat anybody, to respect. Trump is -- doesn't do any of those things.
REEVE: Do you find a lot of farmers around here agree with you, or are they fans of Trump?
BARUTH: This is a very Republican state. I think it's too soon for them to say they're wrong.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BOLDUAN: Elle, I love the conversations that you are able to bring to us and bring to light. Given everything that we just saw, do the Trump supporters that you spoke to, do they regret their vote?
REEVE: I get that question so much, particularly from people in bluer states. And again and again, they say no.
BOLDUAN: Right.
REEVE: They really put a lot of faith in him. One man described him as courageous, and they said, their people have told me they're willing to take a serious financial hit to their own personal finances in order to let him do his thing, because they really have faith in him that he's the only one willing to do what needs to be done.
[19:55:06]
BOLDUAN: To turn it around. I think that fascinating that they are willing to say, I'm willing to take the hit.
REEVE: Yeah.
BOLDUAN: You know, take that pain. But how long after that big question now?
It's great to see you.
REEVE: Good to see you.
BOLDUAN: Thank you.
Coming up next OUTFRONT, the man accused of attempting homicide after setting fire to the Pennsylvania governor's mansion, revealing now why he did it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BOLDUAN: Tonight, the man accused of the arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's home said that he did it in part because of what he believed were the governors views on Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza. That's according to a search warrant obtained by CNN.
Cody Balmer told 911 dispatchers that Shapiro needed to stop having his friends killed, and that, quote, our people have been put through too much by that monster. The D.A. is now looking at antisemitism as a possible motive here.
Balmer has so far been charged with attempted homicide, aggravated arson and terrorism. Much more to come on that.
Thank you so much for joining us. I'm Kate Bolduan.
"AC360" starts right now.
