Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Multiple Flashpoints Emerge In Trump Agenda Fight; Nine Law Firms Reach Deals With Trump To Avoid Retaliation; Democratic Attorneys General Push Law Firms To Stand Up To Trump; Trump Signs Order Seeking To End Federal Funding For PBS & NPR; White House Adds Right-Wing Reporters To Group Covering Trump. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired May 02, 2025 - 12:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:31:28]

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: Government spending is still the job of the U.S. Congress, and any real cuts, the ones the president promised, will have to be passed legislatively. House Speaker Mike Johnson put that promise on an aggressive timeline -- deliver President Trump's tax agenda, otherwise known as that big, beautiful bill, by Memorial Day. You see how close that is there, May 25th.

Republicans aim to find $1.5 trillion in cuts to government spending. And there are a number of places where disagreements are already simmering, whether in how to pay for tax cuts and how to offset campaign promises like significant investments at the border. It all requires 11 House committees to assemble that one big, beautiful package.

CNN's Lauren Fox joins us now. Lauren, we knew this was never going to be easy. Now they're actually doing it.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Dana, so many of the toughest conversations that Republicans were going to have to hash out were really waiting in the wings for the month of May. And now we are here, and House Republicans are really struggling to get their heads around how exactly they are going to manifest this $1.5 trillion in cuts.

There were a number of committees that met this week and moved forward with their pieces of the bill. But some of the biggest committees that we are waiting on, like the Tax-Writing Ways and Means Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee that is going to have to make really tough decisions about Medicaid, they're still outstanding. And that Medicaid issue is at the crux of so many of these disagreements.

There are widespread beliefs that they can do some kind of work requirement. They can require people to reapply on a more regular basis to check for eligibility. That can give you a couple hundred billions of dollars in savings.

But what Republicans are really fighting about right now is whether or not the federal government should give states less in some capacity in order to support the expanded Medicaid population that passed under Obamacare. And here's what a couple New York Republicans told me yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

REP. MIKE LAWLER (R), NEW YORK: Look, my bottom line is I'm not cutting benefits for eligible recipients, period. The issue to me is what gets to 18. And a number of us have been very clear when it comes to Medicaid.

REP. NICK LALOTA (R), NEW YORK: I come to it with one basic question. If it throws people intended to be on the program off the program, I can't support it.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

FOX: And, Dana, what they're looking at doing is basically capping how much money the federal government gives to each recipient that was part of that expanded Obamacare Medicaid expansion population that passed after that law passed. And that is a huge question mark right now because some Republicans say that's not a cut.

Other Republicans say that their states may not finance the difference. And therefore, some people's benefits could shrink or lessen over time. Dana?

BASH: And, Lauren, this is, of course, the big issue that Democrats think that they can maybe even win back the majority in the House on, on the issue of Medicaid, which I know we've been talking a lot about, and we will continue to do so.

Thank you so much, Lauren. Appreciate it.

Up next, New Jersey's attorney general says the nation's big law firms are big cowards. He'll be here live.

Plus, a horse named journalism is favored to win the Kentucky Derby as Donald Trump puts MAGA Media in the lead. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:39:35]

BASH: President Trump spent much of his first 100 days trying to bring some of the country's biggest institutions to heel. Universities, corporations, the arts, and the legal community. He's leveled all sorts of threats against law firms that he's decided are his opponents, including borrowing them from federal courthouses.

Four firms are suing him and have been successful, at least in early court rulings. Nine others made deals -- excuse me, committing nearly $1 billion in free legal work for Trump approved causes.

[12:40:09]

President Trump had this to say about those deals in an ABC News interview.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Now I'm friendly with those firms, but it's -- you know, these are the most powerful firms in the world. And they just signed whatever I put in front of them. I've never seen anything like it. I'm actually surprised myself in a certain way. But they obviously felt they probably did something wrong I guess that's why they signed.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

BASH: Twenty Democratic state attorneys general published an open letter this week accusing those firms of a dangerous capitulation and urging them to change course.

Joining me now is its lead author, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin. Thank you so much for being here. Why do you think these firms are settling rather than fighting back?

MATTHEW PLATKIN (D), NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, that's really a question that they'd have to answer, but it's deeply concerning. There's one thing that I agree with the president on this is that I'm shocked that they would do it. I think this is a real look yourself in the mirror moment in the legal profession and frankly in all of our professions.

Do we stand for core principles of rule of law, or will we let the president clearly unlawfully? Every court that's looked at this immediately has said this is an egregiously unlawful act. Will they throw their principles out in order to appease the president?

BASH: One of the things that I haven't been able to find, and maybe you can tell me, is the details of these deals. Do we know what the substance of these deals are?

PLATKIN: Well, that's a really good question. And we've seen him announce almost $1 billion in, quote unquote, "deals" with law firms to perform pro bono services that apparently he's dictating. I mean, he's said at press conferences the types of work that they're going to do.

And we haven't seen any firm dispute that or say what it is they agreed to or even if they could change. So it's deeply concerning that some of the most powerful law firms in the country and the legal community more broadly could be threatened in this way, violating the First Amendment, taking away people's core rights to be able to go to court and defend themselves against the government or anybody else.

BASH: Two Democrats on Capitol Hill, Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, they did write the law firms asking for details, told them that their agreements -- the law firms' agreements, make them complicit in efforts to undermine the rule of law.

PLATKIN: Yes, I agree, and I've read the letter and I look forward to seeing those firms' responses to that. Because, look, this is, as we put in our letter, a very clear step on a path to authoritarianism. What this administration has done in the first 100 days, go after universities, go after the media, go after political opponents, threaten political prosecutions and take on people's right to go to court.

Punishing lawyers for doing their job, for standing up and advocating for their clients' interests, something we all swore an oath to do as attorneys. And so, I share the concern of the Democrats in Congress. And I know -- I speak for the colleagues who joined me on the letter, that it's something we're paying very close attention to.

BASH: Let's talk about the why. It's not as if they just, you know, got scared of the president based on nothing. These big firms have big, big clients.

PLATKIN: Sure.

BASH: And they are -- some of them are multi-hundred million, even billion dollar firms. And so, how much is that part of what's going on here? They're afraid of losing their clients.

PLATKIN: And I get that. And we've seen what this president will do, both against law firms and frankly anybody who disagrees with him or he feels has harmed him in some way. But we've also seen firms do the opposite. We've seen four firms, as you noted, stand up and sue. And I have led, along with several of my colleagues, support from state attorneys general to stand up for them.

And remember, I've litigated against some of these firms. They're on the other side of the table from us in a lot. And whether I agree with them on a particular case is besides the point. I would never even contemplate, much less implement, the types of threats that this administration is doing, threatening to keep them out of federal buildings, to revoke security clearances, threatening them with baseless prosecutions for things that he thinks people did who don't even work at those firms anymore in many cases. It's really alarming.

BASH: You mentioned those four firms. I just also want to highlight a couple of other things that have happened this week. Microsoft switched their attorneys in one case from Simpson Thacher, which cut a deal from -- with President Trump, to Jenner & Block, which is fighting the administration.

Something else that became public today, which is Abbe Lowell, who is a big-time lawyer in Washington. He has represented Democrats and Republicans. He's starting a new firm to represent clients targeted by the Trump administration. His first two hires are people who resigned from their firms, which made these deals. What does that tell you about where the tide is here?

PLATKIN: Again, I think this is a look in the mirror moment. I think for the legal profession, frankly, for this nation more broadly. Do we stand for core principles that we say we do? Do we stand for the right that the government can't baselessly attack you, take away your business, put you in jail because they don't like you? [12:45:09]

And if you do get that type of attack, are you able to find counsel, something that's so fundamental, to go to court and advocate on your behalf without them fearing their business? And I think what you're seeing is, as the numbers of attacks have increased, I do believe we're starting to see some strength in solidarity that firms --

BASH: Attacks on whom?

PLATKIN: On firms and businesses. They realize that this is not how the rule of law works. If these businesses that are so concerned about the president's attacks want to see what it's like to live in a country without the rule of law, go do business in Russia. Go do business in China and see what happens when the courts and lawyers can't stand up for you and stand up for your interests.

This is really going to be long-term devastating to who we are as a nation if it's allowed to stand.

BASH: Matthew Platkin, attorney general from the great state of New Jersey, thank you so much for being here. I appreciate it.

PLATKIN: Thank you.

BASH: Up next, President Trump loves the White House press corps, at least the ones who ask questions like this.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You got the perfect health report. All I want, all -- everybody in the press wants to know this. How do you do it, Mr. President?

(END VIDEOCLIP)

BASH: Brian Stelter will be here next to talk about how the president is reshaping the press pool that covers him.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:50:48]

BASH: Today, America's two biggest public broadcasters are facing a possible halt in federal funding after an overnight executive order by President Donald Trump. It said that PBS and NPR will no longer receive direct funding to the, quote, "maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding" from the Corporation of Public Broadcasting.

But there is a sticking point. The corporation is a private entity that is supposed to be protected from government interference. That would include executive orders.

CNN Chief Media Analyst Brian Stelter joins me now. Brian, what do we make of this? BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: I brought props with you today, Dana.

BASH: I love a prop.

STELTER: I went ahead and read the entire law for you, the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act. There is nothing in this law that gives any president the ability to strip away the funding for PBS and NPR. Congress was really specific back 50 plus years ago.

They wanted to create an entity that was free of government control. They wanted to make sure no president could ever pressure PBS or NPR. So, this is going to be a legal fight like so many others that we've seen. And I suspect President Trump probably wants it that way.

BASH: He definitely does.

STELTER: You know, look at the statement that we've received this morning from the head of PBS, Paula Kerger. She says this is a blatantly unlawful move overnight by President Trump. She says this is going to hurt people around the country because it threatens our ability to serve the American public with educational programming.

The lie at the end is key. "We are currently exploring all options to allow PBS to continue." NPR is saying the exact same thing.

Now, we know that President Trump was already planning on sending a rescission package to Congress trying to claw back the next two years of funding for PBS and NPR. That's already in the works. It seems to me he wants to have a fight very publicly with these networks, and he may well get one.

BASH: Yes, no, that's 100 percent what this is.

STELTER: But I don't think we should overlook the fact that there is no legal authority for the president on --

BASH: Yes.

STELTER: -- this particular case.

BASH: Yes.

STELTER: He tried to fire three board members this week. There's no authority for that. He's done the same thing with congressional allocations of funds for U.S.-funded international broadcasters. There's all these court fights going on, and the international broadcasters keep winning, but they've already been laid off.

The staffers have already been laid off. Radio for Europe today shutting down half of its stations. So even though Trump loses in court, he wins no matter what.

BASH: Let's talk about the White House press corps. Let's first listen to some of the questions that the president has gotten in his first 100 days. (BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You've got the perfect health report. All I want, all -- everybody in the press wants to know this. How do you do it, Mr. President?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, they've been talking about tariffs for decades. How come when these Democrat elites want tariffs, everything's hunky-dory, but when President Trump wants tariffs, all hell breaks loose? Do you see this double standard?

TRUMP: I love this guy. Whoever the hell that is.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Prime Minister, I was wondering whether you think that Donald Trump for his efforts in Ukraine and other war deserves to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What has made you and your team so effective in finding, locating, apprehending, and deporting these violent, illegal migrants?

TRUMP: I love this guy. I wish more people would ask questions like that.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

BASH: Now, what's going on here is that the White House Correspondents Association, which has in modern times been the one that sort of dictated with sort of a Democratic rule by the big news organizations, how the president is covered, especially and specifically when they're in places that are small, like the Oval Office, where there is a smaller press pool that represents the broader press corps.

The Trump White House dismantled that. They choose who comes in to these small events.

STELTER: Yes. On any given day now, it's the White House deciding who has a chance to ask questions of the president. For the most part, they're still allowing in, the CNNs --

BASH: Fair (ph).

STELTER: -- the New York Times and the Reuters, but they banned the AP for a while, and they may well try to ban other outlets in the future. They've also set up these new influencer briefings for pro-Trump propaganda artists, where they can look like they're having a press briefing, but they're not.

The big picture, I think, is clear. Trump wants to do everything he can to prop up pro-Trump propaganda outlets and tear down traditional media. Is it working? Yes and no. You know, look at all the great reporting we've seen about the federal government and what's happening to all these agencies.

Almost everything we know about what's happening is thanks to the press corps in Washington and beyond. But even though all that great journalism is still happening, the pressure points are very real.

BASH: Yes.

[12:55:07]

STELTER: There are a dozen different pressure points that Trump and his allies are using, from the FCC to lawsuits against Paramount and others. They're trying to squeeze every pressure point simultaneously.

BASH: And it is his prerogative to decide which press goes in there, since he's changed it. It's just big-time change --

STELTER: And over time, we're seeing fewer questions being asked.

BASH: I just want to get to Journalism the horse.

STELTER: Journalism the horse.

BASH: Because this is amazing is, his -- people think that journalism the horse is going to win the Derby.

STELTER: Yes. In fact, I will -- I would put $5, I brought my $5 to put down on Journalism. There's another horse called Publisher, so is it going to be the owners versus the journalists who are going to win. And incredibly, Journalism the horse, co-owned by John Malone, big shareholder of CNN's parent company.

It is going to be fun to see who can bet on this and who can win tomorrow. Remember, the Kentucky Derby favorite only wins 35 percent of the time. That's why always tune in and watch on Saturday.

BASH: I'm definitely putting my money in --

STELTER: But, hey, I'm ready. I'm betting on him.

BASH: Thanks, Brian. Good to see you.

STELTER: Yes.

BASH: Thank you so much for joining Inside Politics. CNN News Central starts after the break.