Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Supreme Court Backs Trump on Fired Probationary Federal Employees; Trump Administration Court Okays Alien Enemies Act Deportations; Supreme Court Allows Alien Enemies Act Deportations to Re-Start; Stocks Soar on Signs Trump May Strike Tariff Deals; Musk: Peter Navarro is "A Moron, Dumber than a Sack of Bricks". Aired 12- 12:30p ET

Aired April 08, 2025 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DANA BASH, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Today on "Inside Politics", desperate for a deal. Global stocks are soaring in a dramatic rally after three days of major losses, hopeful investors are clinging to comments from top Trump officials who suggest the president is willing to negotiate on his sweeping new tariffs set to take effect in just 12 hours.

Plus, supreme consequences the highest court in the land is giving the Trump Administration the green light to use a centuries old law to speed up deportations. But there's a catch, and we will explain. And life after captivity, I'll speak to a couple kidnapped during the Hamas terror attack on Israel about the horror they endured and their relentless push to free the hostages still in Gaza. I'm Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines and "Inside Politics".

We start though with breaking news at the Supreme Court. It just handed President Trump another win, allowing his administration to fire hundreds of probationary federal workers. I want to get straight to Paula Reid, who was looking through the decision. Paula, what did they say?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So, Dana, this is a significant win for the administration, the fourth one they have notched from the Supreme Court in just the past few days. Here, this decision is focused on thousands of fired, probationary federal workers.

Now this decision will allow the government to keep those individuals off the payroll while the larger questions about these firings are litigated. Now this was decided not on a constitutional issue, really on the merits. It was decided on something called standing, which is whether the individuals who brought this lawsuit had the right to do so.

And here the court says that the nine nonprofit organizations did not have standing in this case. So again, this is sort of a technical win, but it is still a win for the administration, though it's unclear how this will apply to all fired probationary workers, because a separate judge in Maryland earlier this month ordered a pause and reinstatement of some employees that are not covered by this case.

But I do want to say Dana, the Justice Department, the Trump Administration, they've been waiting for a while for good news from the courts after a string of losses, and they have been getting a lot of good news from the high court over the past few days.

BASH: OK, Paula, stand by, because I do want to come back to you in a short while about other topics the Supreme Court is dealing with, explicitly immigration. But first I want to talk about this breaking news with a terrific group of reporters with me today. CNN's Jamie Gangel, Zolan Kano-Youngs of "The New York Times" and Leigh Ann Caldwell of "PUCK".

OK, so transparency we literally just got this in. We're looking at it right now. We did hear from the great Paula Reid explaining it. Jamie, I'm going to go to the daughter of a judge right now, not a Supreme Court Justice, but she might as well be.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Still very important.

BASH: Very important. And I do think obviously a win is a win.

GANGEL: Right.

BASH: Having said that this isn't the final word from the Supreme Court on that very crucial question about whether or not the Trump Administration has the right to fire the probationary employees, as they did?

GANGEL: Correct. So, we are going inch by inch, step by step, through the courts. It is a win today big picture. We're going to have to wait and see. I just want to go -- you know 30,000 feet for a moment and talk about the context of this.

BASH: Yes.

GANGEL: Though, when you get a ruling like this, and these people have been told that they're not going to get paid when they're on leave, there's a reality. They have to go out and find another job. So at least for most of these people, this is pushing them out of government. It is a brain drain. Probationary employees are not just young people coming in for the first time.

BASH: No.

GANGEL: They can be extremely experienced, a lawyer for 20 years, who's just taken a new job in the government. So, you know, the sources I've talked to across the government are really concerned, once again, that when something like this happens, federal workers are not the enemy. We are losing experience and expertise.

BASH: Yeah. I'm so glad you mentioned that this isn't just -- you know 20 somethings who just graduated from college and are in for their first job. There are a lot of people who were hired recently from the private sector, many of whom took a big pay cut in order to work in the public sector.

[12:05:00]

And what we're talking about here 16,000 people, 16,000 probationary employees who lost their jobs as part of these cuts. I also want to add that there were two liberal justices who publicly dissented, Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

LEIGH ANN CALDWELL, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, also with probationary workers sometimes it's also people who just got promotions who were --

BASH: Right,

CALDWELL: -- previously in the government to or had worked in the government, and they were promoted and then lost their jobs because of this. But you know, when we were hearing about this case during before we came on air, this is part of the administration's plan. They knew that there were going to be lawsuits, and lawsuits, many of them.

They knew that they were going to go through the courts, but they were very confident that the Supreme Court was going to side with them in many cases. And so, this is the second day in a row that that has happened. And so, you have to imagine that the administration is feeling very good right now.

ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's also just part of a broader strategy to make things tougher for the federal workforce as they try to cut the federal bureaucracy and downsize it. That's not just done through putting people on leave, but pursuing actions that make people uncomfortable to the point where they leave voluntarily as well, and you may leave voluntarily if you're not getting paid.

BASH: OK. I want to go back to Paula Reid, because, as I mentioned, there is another big story out of the High Court today, the justices are ruling, in fact, they did so late last night that the Trump Administration can use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to carry out deportations. Here's what the White House said when it discussed what it is calling a big win for its immigration agenda.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN MILLER, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: This was a huge, I mean, a monumental victory for President Trump, the biggest legal win of this administration so far. This is a monumental, colossal victory for the rule of law, for the Constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: It's not quite that simple. The court also set up some guardrails for migrants who want to challenge their deportations. OK, I now want to go back to Paula Reid to explain what we're talking about with this nuance here, Paula. REID: Look, Stephen Miller is correct that this is the biggest victory the administration has scored so far when it comes to testing President Trump's expansive use of executive power. But as you noted, this was not a total victory. This was a partial victory.

Because while the Supreme Court sided with the administration, it did place limitations on how they can use these powers, saying that immigrants should get a chance to contest their deportations, so people who are deported should receive notice they are subject to this act and an opportunity to have their removal reviewed by a federal court where they are being detained.

And that is significant, because one of the reasons they wanted to use the Alien Enemies Act is to speed up deportations. But look, this is undoubtedly a green light for the administration in terms of Trump's expansive use of executive power. Also, this is happening in a case where a federal judge is looking at whether the administration intentionally defied his initial pause on the use of this act.

So, this is significant, as Leigh Ann and others were noting, this has always been the long game that Stephen Miller and others at the Justice Department have been playing. They believe that even if they were initially deterred by lower courts, that when these questions eventually got to the justices, that the conservative super majority would see things their way. And for now, they have the green light to go ahead with this.

BASH: Yeah, they do. Paula, thank you so much. And Zolan, you've covered immigration for a while, not to mention the courts, which is really what we're talking about here. What's your take on what you're reporting on this?

KANNO-YOUNGS: So, this ruling really was on procedural grounds, basically saying that it was filed in the wrong place. But I think Paula hit the right point where they are saying that they can move forward using the Alien Enemies Act.

But the central motivation the administration had to use this act was to deport people without due process, to do it rapidly, and the part of this ruling essentially also says that you need to provide these migrants the chance to actually review this and potentially oppose it, to challenge this too.

So now, how does this work? This real question, how do you pursue and use an authority that, essentially, they've been arguing eliminates due process, or at least allows you to deport someone with little to no due process, when the court is actually saying you now need to give that opportunity.

BASH: Right, it does seem very contradictory.

KANNO-YOUNGS: It does. It does so now, how does this play out here, as they continue to use this?

BASH: I think the answer is what Stephen Miller said, they're just going to do what they want to do. KANNO-YOUNGS: And then that also -- you know goes to the fact that they've also gotten really close to pushing back against court orders to block some of these flights too, which is something to watch.

GANGEL: So, I think very important point, are we going to see them defy the courts? This is something we've been worried about. We've been talking about. On the other hand, while they have declared victory here, I think it is so critical that the due process of this is being stated by the court.

[12:10:00]

Speed has been the weapon of Donald Trump's policy here. This slows it down.

BASH: Listen to what Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, said about this, this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: These liberal district judges thought that they could control our entire country's policy, Donald Trump's policy on keeping America safe. They cannot do it. And this was again, a landmark ruling for the rule of law yesterday, and it's so important because these flights will now continue these terrorists. They are foreign terrorists. They are alien enemies to our country, and we will continue to deport them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: What's interesting just the language that they're all using, the word terrorists now. Some of them might be in that category, but we just -- we just don't know. She also talked about the rule of law, and if you look at what the Supreme Court decided, she's right, the rule of law should be followed. But the question again is, how do they see the rule of law versus what the Supreme Court said should be the rule of law to follow?

CALDWELL: Yeah, and she still can, even though she won this case partially won this case. She is still criticizing the judge at the first level of the federal process to challenge the case. But the process played out how it's supposed to play out, starts at the circuit courts, at the appeals court, and then to the Supreme Court.

And they have been attacking the courts every and the judges specifically, every step of the way, and that is also part of their plan to undermine the system, undermine the judges. But still, it played out and they won.

BASH: All right, everybody stand-by. Coming up, the administration says it's negotiating with other countries ahead of even higher tariffs set to go into effect at midnight. We'll try to make sense of what that means? And how those jobs with -- what the president is saying? Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [12:15:00]

BASH: Now to a live look at the markets, the DOW is up almost 1000 points, a little bit less than that right now. Of course, after the devastating losses that drove stocks to the brink of a bear market. The big reason we are seeing this today is hope that the Trump Administration may be backing off its hard-line stance on the historic tariffs set to take effect at midnight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT BESSENT, TREASURY SECRETARY: I think there's going to be a lot of back and forth. President Trump is going to be personally involved in the negotiations, and we'll -- we will see what the -- what our trading partners offer.

KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: In the end, the president, of course, is going to be the one who decides whether the deal is good enough to change his mind about the tariffs. The president wrote the book, "The Art of the Deal" and it's a great book. I really enjoyed the book, and it shows how to get great deals, and that's what he's doing right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: CNN's Jeff Zeleny is at the White House. Jeff, what are you hearing now from the people in the building behind you? I guess it depends who you ask, right?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It certainly does, certainly not speaking with one voice, but the president's voice is the one that matters. And the White House, we are told, is still moving forward toward that midnight deadline tonight. So, in less than 12 hours, the second round of tariffs will kick -- a kick in for a country after country, despite the fact that the door is now clearly open to a negotiation.

So, Japan being the leading example. The Treasury Secretary said he is going to lead the discussions with the Japan. So, now countries are racing here to the administration to try and to negotiate some type of a better deal, if you will. But we are not getting any indication at all that there is going to be a pause or a hold put on those tariffs going into place at midnight. But you make the great point that there certainly has been a disagreement inside this building, no doubt about it.

BASH: And the inside agreement is spilling out very much in public. I want to ask you about one of the things that has been quite stunning this morning, which is a feud between Elon Musk and the president's top adviser on trade, Peter Navarro.

ZELENY: It almost sounds like something you would hear on a playground, if you will, a couple people yelling at each other or picking a fight. But this is the administration. This is real Washington and real business. But take a look at some of these messages going back and forth. More going than coming. But Elon Musk there calling Peter Navarro, the top trade advisor.

Navarro is truly a moron. What he says here is demonstrably false. He went on to say a Tesla is the most American made cars. Navarro is dumber than a stack of bricks. And you can look on your screen to see what he also there, mentioned calling him the R word.

So, look Dana, the bottom line of all of this is Peter Navarro has been a long believer in a protectionist policy. He has been the leading voice here in terms of the president should not to negotiate. Clearly, Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary, and others have gotten the president's ear because he is now negotiating.

But the name calling, if you will, persists here. I guess it's a team of rivals or something, the modern-day version of that, doing it on Twitter, Dana.

[12:20:00]

BASH: Something like that. Jeff, thank you so much. Appreciate it. And my panel is back here. Jamie, I want to start with you about what you're hearing from Republicans, because look, in their heart of hearts, most Republicans are free traders.

GANGEL: Absolutely.

BASH: Never mind the fact that they don't really love the economy being in the situation that it's in right now. They also are very nervous about pushing back on anything Donald Trump.

GANGEL: 100 percent. Look, what I'm hearing from sources, both Republicans, Democrats, Wall Street economists guess what? It's all about comes down to the same thing. It's one word, uncertainty. Nobody likes uncertainty. And right now, we're in a dangerous game of chicken, because even though we're seeing this rally.

On Wall Street today there's an expression on Wall Street, a dead cat bounce will this last? I did speak to someone who's very close to the people who were embroiled in the discussions at the White House right now. And the one thing I'm hearing, and we know this about Japan is that the White House is looking to announce, quote, a few deals in the coming days that they want some good announcements.

The question is, are those real deals with meaningful concessions, or are they just to declare victory retreat get some good PR? We will wait to see.

BASH: Yeah. Ben Gelden (ph), who is our Executive Producer, who has an MBA, he's probably very happy that you talked about the dead cat bounce this morning. We heard a lot about it in all of our morning meetings. Let's drill down on China, because this is -- I mean, just blows your mind.

If you look at, we're going to put up on the screen, the tariffs, all told, since Donald Trump took office, and then if you include what we expect tomorrow, the total is 104 percent. 104 percent tariffs on China. CALDWELL: Yeah, that's a lot. So, China, even though that is massive, and that's going to have not an economist, but big implications on goods here and the economy here. But I would say that Republicans, especially Democrats, to a lesser extent, but as well, China is kind of in a different category than American allies.

And so that is a little bit with befuddling so many members of Congress and so many economists and so many on Wall Street why is this happening to -- why these across-the-board tariffs? Of course, people have different rates, but happening to the same like to China as well as to Canada and Mexico.

BASH: Right.

CALDWELL: And so again, the uncertainty is huge. One thing from what I'm hearing from Republicans on Capitol Hill as well is that played out in a hearing today in the Senate Finance Committee where U.S. Trade Rep Jamieson Greer testified, they kept asking, what is the plan? Is this to negotiate? Is this to remake the economy?

Jamieson Greer said, well, this is to negotiate, but he kind of tried to have been very specific, and it being one or the other, that it is a combination of the two. And so, this -- those mixed messages, are something that is very concerning to members on Capitol Hill.

BASH: And as Jamie was saying, it all contributes the uncertainty on Wall Street, on business outside of Wall Street, which is giving everybody the jitters.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Which also kind of undermines this gamble that the administration is taking here. The administration's argument is that they're hoping that Americans can weather economic frustration and higher prices, which, just as a reminder like these numbers can be sometimes hard to digest. But what this means is U.S. import is going to pay for these tariffs that goes down to the consumer, meaning higher prices for smartphones, higher prices for X --

BASH: And let's put up on the screen, just on China, just the major products imported from China as you talk.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Yeah, 100 percent. I mean, we see these numbers, and yes, there's more bipartisan support for economic competition with China. When you have numbers like this, just for the average American that most economists would say does mean you're going to be paying higher prices for the materials that you see on screen here, because the materials that go into those products, many of them are built in China, right?

All of this, by the way, just the administration has kind of had this gamble of Americans will weather this economic frustration because it's going to bring manufacturing back to the United States.

BASH: Yeah.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Well, it's a little hard to think that people are going to invest in the United States when you have the uncertainty that you talked about, uncertainty and investment don't really go together here.

[12:25:00]

BASH: And one of the questions has been whether this is the thing that will cause Republicans in Congress to say, oh, wait, we do have a constitutional job here in Congress. So, there was --

GANGEL: -- an optimist.

BASH: Well, so I'm just the end of my sentence will be, I'll land where you are. Don't worry, Jamie. The Senate, there is a bipartisan bill to say the president has to come to Congress first. The Senate Majority Leader John Thune, there's no way that he likes these tariffs, but he's looking at the veto pen that the president has saying, I don't think it's going to happen.

And more importantly, the House Speaker said, we're going to stick with the president and we're going to let this play out. So, they're not doing anything on this either.

GANGEL: No one likes these tariffs the way they've been done. They're just -- you know, too big, too extreme across the board. I don't know when we're going to see Congress finally stand up and show some spine. But I do hear the same thing again from Republicans and Democrats, and that is, they don't know what Donald Trump is going to wake up and decide tomorrow or a couple of days from now or a few weeks from now?

And that also makes it hard, because they thought he would react to the market that that would be a guardrail. He hasn't. The reporting we have is that just as we're hearing China is standing firm, that Donald Trump is standing for again, the uncertainty.

BASH: Even though a lot of the people who helped to bring him to the dance financially --

GANGEL: Right.

BASH: -- the tech billionaires Elon Musk, who is still -- you know working in the executive office building, trying to make cuts. Jeff Zeleny was reporting on what he said, we'll put it back up about the president's longtime supporter and advisor in the first term in this term, Peter Navarro, who's so focused on these tariffs.

Musk tweeted that he is a moron and that he's dumber than a sack of bricks. And this is specifically in response to Navarro saying that Musk doesn't like these tariffs because he's primarily a manufacturer, an assembler of Tesla and of cars.

And I should also say that the White House Press Secretary responded, whatever we are the most transparent administration in history, expressing our disagreements in public. I think that's kind of clever, actually. What else is she going to say? But it does speak to the reality of the very, very big tug of war at the highest levels, in business and in politics. CALDWELL: A lot of people lost or losing a lot of money right now,

including those billionaires that helped to elect Donald Trump, including Elon Musk. You saw -- you know some executives yesterday come out very publicly against the tariffs as well. But Trump is also seemed to be in his YOLO mode, in the sense that he -- this is something that he is long believed in. Peter Navarro has his ear.

They have been planning for this with whatever fake math that they use to come up with these, these equations of who gets terrified, but this is Donald Trump doesn't seem to be backing down, regardless of the people that are saying that he should.

BASH: YOLO moment that is so well said. Thanks, guys. Don't go anywhere, because up next, it has been a year and a half since the barbaric October 7th attack. I'm going to speak with a couple kidnapped by Hamas terrorists that day about their unthinkable experience and their advocacy for the remaining hostages still in Gaza. Keith and Aviva Siegel are here live after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)