Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

No Pause On Tariffs; Friends And Foe Rattled By Tariffs; Trump Immigration Policy Won In Supreme Court Battle; Business Owner Fights Tariffs; Federal Prosecutor Can't Take Dirty Tricks; Trump's DEI Did Not Spare Harriet Tubman. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired April 07, 2025 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Well, tonight, the billionaire rebellion against Trump's tariffs on Wall Street and the first lawsuit against them on Main Street. Plus, why a Supreme Court ruling on deportations may not be the victory Trump thinks it is, all tonight on Laura Coates Live.

Well, it's the tariff experiment that keeps on going. And for many, President Trump's trade war is getting so painful. They're looking for any sight it might come to an end, any sign.

We'll take the markets today. It was a nauseating roller coaster ride, to say the least, fueled by a false tweet online that a 90-day tariff pause was in the works, all because this interview was misrepresented.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN KILMEADE, CO-HOST, FOX NEWS: Will you do a 90- day pause? Would you consider that? Or a bill?

KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: Yes. You know, think that the president is going to decide what the president is going to decide. There are more than 50 countries in negotiation with the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, Kevin Hassett didn't say anything about a 90-day pause. That didn't stop the Internet, though, from running wild. And eventually, the bogus rumor found its way to CNBC.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: I think we can go with this this headline from apparently Hassett has been saying that Trump will consider a 90-day pause in tariffs for all countries --

UNKNWON: That's huge.

UNKNOWN: -- except for China. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The White House said it was all fake news. And then Trump himself, well, he put an end to the speculation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKOWN: Would you be open to a pause in tariffs to allow for negotiations?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, we're not looking at that. We have many, many, countries that are coming to negotiate deals with us, and they're going to be fair deals. And, in certain cases, they're going to be paying substantial tariffs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So not only is the president not pausing, he's digging in and threatening more tariffs on China.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: They put a 34 percent tariff on above what their ridiculous tariffs were already. And I said if that tariff isn't removed by tomorrow at 12 o'clock, we're putting a 50 percent tariff on above the tariffs that we put on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So just doing some math. Right? That means a total tariff on China would be what? A 104 percent? And Larry Summers has an idea of what that might mean for you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY SUMMERS, FORMER U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: Nothing good. This is pretty clearly a massive middle class tax increase, and that middle class tax increase is only going to be increased if the president adds more to tariffs on China.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, China tonight is calling the new tariff threat a mistake and is bound to retaliate. All of it's arguing to make some business leaders and even some Trump allies more than a little bit worried.

You got the CEO of one of the biggest banks in the world. Remember when Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan said this about tariffs? What? Just three months ago?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMIE DIMON, CEO, J.P. MORGAN: If it's a little inflationary, but it's good for national security, so be it. I'll get over it.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Well, now he's saying this, quote, "we face the most perilous and complicated geopolitical and economic environment since World War II.

Then you've got the CEO of one of the biggest investment firms in the world, Larry Fink of BlackRock, who is saying this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY FINK, CEO, BLACKROCK: Most CEOs I talked to, would say we are probably in a recession right now.

UNKNOWN: Right now.

FINK: Right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Right now. But you got the well-known Trump backers telling the president to reverse course. Take billionaire investor Bill Ackman. He endorsed Trump, if you recall, in the 2024 election, and he says we are heading for a self-induced economic nuclear winter, and we should start hunkering down.

Even a friend of this show who often finds himself on Trump's side, talking about Kevin O'Leary, AKA Mr. Wonderful, is telling the president to take an off ramp.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN O'LEARY, BUSINESSMAN: I think this is a really huge opportunity for Trump to find an off ramp here in the administration. This is the opportunity. This is the moment. And if Navarro sees it that way and advises Trump and whether Lutnick sees it, but that's what the market's holding on to right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And, well, here is Dave Portnoy, who often heaps the praise on Trump, who's putting it in these, well, colorful terms.

[23:04:59]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID PORTNOY, FOUNDER, BARSTOOL FUND: Orange Monday. Don't call Black Monday. It's Orange Monday. This is -- this is Trump's tariffs have absolutely decimated the market. I hate this. I hate that I've lost 20 million.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But despite all the warnings, even, of course, from the Trump faithful, tonight, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro is telling people to hold firm while making a very bold prediction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETER NAVARRO, WHITE HOUSE TRADE ADVISER: Don't panic. They want you to sell. You can't take a loss until you sell. Dow 50,000, I guarantee that, and I guarantee no recession. OK?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's quite the guarantee. Three days of bleeding financial suggests that it may be a tall order. But right now, investors everywhere are holding their collective breath with futures for all three major U.S. indexes in the green.

With me now, entrepreneur and founder of the Forward Party, Andrew Yang. He also ran for president as a Democrat in the 2020 race.

Andrew, good to see you, but, man, the times we're in right now, you've actually called these tariffs, and I'm quoting you here, the, quote, "dumbest economic move ever made," unquote. Now I know a lot of the CEOs you've been talking to feel the same way you do. So what are they telling you about the impact this has on their business?

ANDREW YANG, FOUNDER, FORWARD PARTY: Laura, these tariffs are a bad idea being implemented incredibly poorly in a stupid fashion. And there are tons of CEOs who feel the exact same way, but they can't say that out loud because they're afraid of being targeted by Trump.

These tariffs are going to raise prices for American consumers. Funny because Trump ran on the opposite. It's going to make it harder for any company to export to other markets as these trade barriers go up, and it's going to result in layoffs.

A lot of companies that have exposure to international markets are firing people because if you have higher cost and less certainty, that's what you do. This is a man-made recession of epic proportions being manufactured by one individual, and I talk to a lot of Trump voters who are pissed off.

COATES: You know, billionaire Bill Ackman, he was all for Trump until this happened, but now he's urging a 90-day time out to negotiate essentially. Do you get the sense that there is real buyer's remorse among the Wall Street types who backed Trump?

YANG: Yes. Categorically, Laura. I've talked to a number of them, and they assumed that Trump would be a commercial actor, like a sane business person, and they are stunned that he has evaporated trillions of dollars in market capitalization with more possibly to come. That's the concern.

And Bill Ackman said, in a post that look, business runs on confidence, and who can have confidence to invest if you have this kind of erratic decision making coming out of the White House?

COATES: That confidence or the ask for patience, all these things are making many people very, very afraid, and yet Trump is threatening China with another 50, five-zero, percent tariff on top of what he's already imposing. And what happens if he does that? YANG: If that sort of tariff ends up in a tit for tat trade war with

one of our bigger trading partners, you're going to see markets tank, Laura. Certainly, there's going to be a lot of suffering on the Chinese side, but Apple right now is tanking because there's a lot of exposure there, and you can go down the list.

This is a terrible setup. And if you were to try and target tariffs in a way that would actually, for example, generate jobs and investment in the U.S., you would not do it this way. You would telegraph the policies. You would target specific sectors. You would give people confidence that tariffs will be here for a while.

The CEO said to me that it's going to take two to three years for them to make any kind of moves in their supply chain that would affect domestic capacity. And because they don't have confidence that this is going to be a two to three or a five or six-year thing, that they're just not going to do it. So, what they're going to do instead is they're going to cut costs.

It's really disastrous, and I cannot understate how stupid most every business person actually, every. I have not talked to a single business person who thinks this is lucid or well thought out or well planned.

COATES: You know, I wanted to hear what, see what you just said, Peter Navarro said today about manufacturing coming back and the prospects of making iPhones once in the United States. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST, FOX NEWS: But are we going to make iPhones in The United States?

NAVARRO: And the cool was some of what we're going to do. Yes. We're going to --

INGRAHAM: Are we going to make?

NAVARRO: We're going to be able to do it through more automation, and there's going to be plenty of jobs for robots, plenty of jobs for humans. I'm telling you, Laura, this is going to be a golden age.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Reconcile that for me. Robots and plenty of jobs for humans. Do you buy that?

YANG: It's a fantasy. It doesn't make any sense even on its own terms. But, Laura, the only people that would actually make that happen are these companies, these suppliers, and they are not saying, you know what we're going to do? We're going to build a giant new factory on this basis.

[23:10:06]

Instead, what they're looking around is cutting, and jacking up prices. They're working in this imaginary world where you can just shuffle capacity around when, again, CEOs are telling me it's going to take two to three years, and that's optimistic.

And if you were one of those CEOs right now, would you have confidence that if you make a giant shift in your supply chain and spend, in some cases, hundreds of millions of dollars, that you're going to get that return because by the time two to three years happens and you have this new factory up and running, it could be a new administration or Trump could have changed his mind months ago.

So CEOs right now are considering pulling guidance, which is going to also be catastrophic for the stock market because they're going to throw up their hands and say, look, I have no idea what our next three months are going to look like.

COATES: Andrew Yang, very ominous. Thank you so much.

YANG: Thanks, Laura. I wish I had better news. These Trump -- these Trump tariffs are incredibly dumb.

COATES: What can I say? Andrew Yang, thank you so much.

YANG: Thanks, Laura.

COATES: Well, let's talk more now with White House correspondent for Reuters, Jeff Mason. Also, here with us tonight, we've got the chief economic correspondent for Axios, Neil Irwin, senior political commentator, Shermichael Singleton, and former Democratic congressman Joe Crowley.

Let me begin with you on this, Jeff, because CNN is reporting that the treasury secretary, Bessent, flew to Mar-A-Lago to deliver a kind of a message. And it was essentially stop with the mixed messaging and focus on the end game.

There's a lot of pressure to have the right and left hand know what they're doing, but what is this end game that you're hearing about? And is the White House going to heed that message?

JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Well, is Donald Trump going to heed the message? Because he's been giving mixed messages about whether or not he wants to negotiate with other countries or whether or not these tariffs are here to stay forever and ever. And what Bessent apparently is saying is start focusing on an end game or an end negotiation where these countries can arrive, so that we send some kind of a positive signal to the markets that there's an end to all this chaos.

But that is not where Peter Navarro is, and that is not where, in many cases, where President Trump has been because he's so committed to tariffs generally and to a base tariff. Getting him there will sounds like that's what the secretary wants to do, but that will be a challenge.

COATES: But wait. There's more as they say, Neil, because Bessent also says the U.S. is not likely to actually meet the deadline having trade deals before Wednesday to avoid the reciprocal tariffs. So how much worse could this get?

NEIL IRWIN, CHIEF ECONOMIC CORRESPONDENT, AXIOS: Let's put it this way. Ten days ago, the word around Wall Street was stagflation that everybody was worried about, stagnant growth, inflation. Now that looks like more of a best-case scenario. Now recession is kind of the baseline for a lot of people, a lot of the big forecasters. You heard Larry Fink, at BlackRock were saying that's kind of what where CEOs think we are now.

Look, just four days ago, we got a good jobs report for March.

COATES: Yes.

IRWIN: That seems like ancient history right now. What happens in April looks very tenuous and, you know, there's not a lot of time. It's Monday night. These things go into effect on Wednesday. It looks like these will go into effect in some form that will have far reaching effects even if they go away soon.

COATES: Let me remind everyone, this is not even a hundred days yet into this new administration. Obviously, it's Trump 2.0. There's a lot of pressure, not necessarily from even the outside for Trump, but even within the Republican Party, within his administration, certainly from Democrats as well. There's a lot of pressure.

And despite any of it, he doesn't need to be heating any of what's happening. And when you listen to Michael to what senator, former senator Pat Toomey, a Republican, said as a warning to Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FMR. SEN. PAT TOOMEY (R-PA): If President Trump gets his wishes with all of this, it actually ends very badly. We're being told to bear the pain because it will be better in the end. It's not going to be better in the end. In the better in the end, it'll be fewer jobs, it'll be higher prices for consumers, and a lower standard of living for America if we keep these tariffs in place for as long as the president wants to. So, the pushback needs to happen soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That is not a poster for any campaign that you want to win.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I think that we're probably going to broker some type of deal with the European Union. They announced today that they're open. Other countries are announcing that they're open.

I think the primary focus here has to be China. We have very serious trade deficits with China. And at the end of the day, I think economically speaking, we're going to come out on the top. There are some very, very serious constraints with the Chinese economy.

Currently, the World Bank had a great analysis that came out, I think, days or a week ago, talking about the fact that they have an aging working population. Their debt fueled growth strategy has some very serious structural constraints that absolutely benefits The United States if we're going to hike up tariffs against China.

At some point, Laura, they're going to have to come to the table a lot quicker than we are. And so, if the president is going to focus his ire on any of these countries, it absolutely must be China.

[23:14:58]

MASON: He's focused a lot on the European Union, though. I'm not sure where your confidence is coming that there's going to be a deal with the E.U.

SINGLETON: I think we'll broker a deal, Jeff. I really do.

COATES: Do you feel confident when you hear words like at some point and eventually? I mean, I, as a consumer, I assume with a 401(k) with parents who are retired. That's not very comforting to me to think about. At some point, there will be success when the impatience of an electorate and those who, frankly, people need money. They need to not have everything going to the tank. What's the response?

FMR. REP. JOE CROWLEY (D-NY): Well, I have a new word for you.

COATES: What?

CROWLEY: Webster's dictionary. Here it is for the year. Tarafist. President Trump is a tarafist. He's surrounded by tariffs, and he's causing countries and essentially retirees to have great terror right now. I also think some of the damage has already been done. The U.S. as a confident trading partner. It's been lost. It's been lost in Australia of all places. And it goes beyond trade. It goes to security.

What we've seen happen with NATO. What we've seen happen with who our friends are, who our friends aren't. Everything has been turned upside down. So there's been this create tremendous uncertainty that one person has created. And you can no longer talk about the Biden economy or how Biden did this or Biden did that. This is 100 percent on this administration. Whatever happens in the future and look, I pray. I have to pray that that this works out well, but I surely have my doubts.

SINGLETON: I think there is an argument to make, though, that we need to see some type of reshoring with manufacturing coming back to The United States.

CROWLEY: No doubt.

SINGLETON: Will it go back to the great Halcyon days of the eighties or nineties? Probably not. But the idea that --

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: But what about the robots versus jobs for people? I mean, how do you reconcile people (inaudible).

SINGLETON: Well, you are going to have some automation as a result of technology. There's not a whole lot we can do about that. But what you can begin to do, Laura, is prepare the working population to work those jobs. We're not at a point where machines can fix themselves. You're going to need skilled people to address some of those problems.

CROWLEY: We'll be getting that.

SINGLETON: That's what we should be getting to focus on.

COATES: Neil, you heard Navarro predicting a recovery. He's a glass half full in a land of thirst. Do you buy it?

IRWIN: Look, these supply chains, the way the modern global economy works, it evolved over decades. This isn't something where you flip a switch and suddenly re-shore a lot of complex industries overnight. And, you know, the idea that, look, the American people went through this two, three years ago with a spike of inflation, supply chain disruptions, they did not like it.

We saw it in the public opinion polls, we saw it in, if you go to the grocery store, you go to the Walmart, people did not like it at all. I think even if you think there is some better situation out on the horizon, the transition period is going to be painful and people are going to feel it. We're seeing it in the stock market already. We've not yet seen it in the job market and some of those areas. We might very soon.

COATES: Well, in the administration, you were skeptical about the sort of optimism that was in confidence. Is that emotion shared in the White House?

MASON: Well, and to be clear, it's not my emotion. It's based on my observation of President Trump's very, very negative rhetoric about the E.U. specifically. So, I, you know, he's got negative rhetoric about a lot of countries, but that group of countries is one where he said repeatedly that he feels the United States has been ripped off.

COATES: How much the point about China, though, which is the focus Shermichael was focusing on as well, and the idea that they are --

(CROSSTALK)

MASON: Fair point.

COATES: -- they're not seeming to come to the table as of yet, last I heard.

MASON: No. But look at how much power they have. I mean, China is the second --

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: Case in point, they don't -- has not a leverage you want.

MASON: And China is the second largest economy in the world. They hold a lot of our debt. They are a major superpower. They don't feel like they need to just bend the knee to President Trump. They also have leverage.

COATES: So, then what?

SINGLETON: A little leverage, but they have slowing productivity as it pertains to growth. So, I mean, economically speaking, I'm not convinced that China can weather this storm. When you look at global economies that have improved, our economy has improved far greater than the Chinese numerically speaking.

And so, if I'm Xi Jinping and I have a bunch of advisers around me, you have to beg the question, Laura. Yes, we can probably withstand this because we are the second largest economy in the world, but for how long considering the fact that we have seen very serious constraints on productivity, a lot of those goods are coming to the United States.

COATES: So a game of chicken with China.

CROWLEY: But we're also -- we're driving South Korea and Japan. We've seen some movement there in terms of going towards China. Look, --

SINGLETON: Will that happen though, Joe?

CROWLEY: But no. Who knows? Can South Korea rely upon us in the future? Can Taiwan for the, at that rate? We've already made that message clear. There's one country that wasn't hit with a tariff, and that's Russia. What's going on? What's happening in this world? And I think that's what a lot of Americans are waking up to.

You know, Russia has been our adversary. All of a sudden, till a few weeks ago, they weren't anymore. And Ukraine is the part of the strong. Europe is what's wrong. What if you're Poland? What if you're Germany? What if you're Italy? Countries that we have had an a, since have been our allies. They're not so sure anymore.

SINGLETON: And they could continue to be our allies, but you have to have a level set as it pertains to trade.

CROWLEY: Yes. It doesn't work (inaudible).

SINGLETON: And I think most people would agree with that.

[23:20:01]

COATES: Questions that need to be answered. Thank you, everyone. Still ahead, a business owner taking matters into her own hands. If

the market reaction won't stop Trump, then maybe her lawsuit will? Can she pull it off?

Plus, President Trump celebrating a Supreme Court ruling on deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, but it might not be quite the win he thinks it is. I'll explain next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: A major Supreme Court ruling coming late tonight. The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to deport Venezuelan migrants that they alleged to be gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.

[23:25:01]

The Trump administration is calling this a win, but there is a caveat. The act can only be used after giving the people they alleged to be dangerous, quote, "reasonable time to go to court."

The ruling comes just hours after the Supreme Court paused a midnight deadline to return a Maryland father. The administration says they mistakenly deported to El Salvador.

Here with me now to break it all down is political senior legal affairs reporter, Josh Gerstein.

You know, first, we talked about this case before and this actual act, the Alien Enemies Act ruling. It's this 1798 ruling or law from the Judge Boasberg that blocked Trump from using to deport alleged gang members. But now the ruling is what? They can do so? But this is a hell of a caveat.

JOSH GERSTEIN, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Right. I mean, I'm not sure the Supreme Court actually said that the administration has the right to use this law to deport anyone. All they did was they lifted Judge Boasberg's temporary restraining order which prevented this type of deportation.

They didn't uphold Trump's use of this law to deport Venezuelans, to deport people who are alleged gang members. They didn't say it's OK to use this law because there's an invasion going on into the United States. All those issues have been left till later, which is part of why I think this may not be that big a victory for the administration going forward.

It may have some implications for people that were already deported under this law, but going forward, I think the administration going to find it pretty cumbersome to use this law, and I'm not sure they're actually going to use it again after this point.

COATES: Cumbersome because it requires them to give a reasonable notice, which obviously is going to invite those to draw what's called a habeas position, which is I am unlawfully detained by the government in some way. I'd like the court to hear my plea and hear my case. This is a hurdle that's now been put into place, this reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard.

GERSTEIN: Right. I mean, the administration had already given some ground and said that in the future, they would have to allow people being deported under the Alien Enemies Act to file these habeas petitions to go to court and get some due process. Now, the Supreme Court has added to that, that you have to give people advance notice.

So you can't just give somebody a slip of paper and send them up the stairs onto the plane and say, you know, try to find a cell phone on this plane where everybody is shackled and, you know, sitting in their seats.

COATES: Which had been being done, you're saying?

GERSTEIN: Yes. That was the procedure before. They weren't giving any notice or they would just give them a piece of paper, but people -- a few people were able to get to, like, a pay phone at the detention center. Most people probably didn't really understand happening to them.

Now they're going to have to be given a chance to do that. And once they do that, all those issues we just talked about, about

whether Trump's invocation of this is legal and really can be done in this circumstance, which is not a war like the times it was used before, but, you know, they're saying it's similar to a war. All those issues are now going to have to be worked through, and I think that could take --

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: But individually, right, each judge.

GERSTEIN: Right.

COATES: They tell the Supreme Court to send them in.

GERSTEIN: Right. But then people will take appeals, and at least those basic issues that apply to every one of these cases, they're going to have to be wrestled with by the Supreme Court. And when is that going to happen? In the next few weeks? No. It's going to take months and months.

I think it could take a year before the Supreme Court gets around to the substance of those issues. I think it's going to be very, very hard for the administration to use this law to deport people in the meantime. Now, you do have the problem of the 130 people who were sent to El Salvador already under this law, and I do think this ruling is going to make it a lot harder for recourse to try to get those people back into the country, the lawyers that are pushing for that.

COATES: This was an unsigned opinion. So, the answer to that?

GERSTEIN: Well, you know, this is what the court usually does when it has emergency matters, but we know pretty much where people came down because part of this decision was five-four, and we know that it was five conservative justices. We had Justice Amy Coney Barrett break off with the liberals on one of these issues in terms of whether this case in D.C. could have gone forward.

But it was interesting that the whole court, all nine justices, said that these deportees are entitled to advance notice that they're being deported and a chance to go to court to challenge their deportation.

COATES: Really important this happened this evening to see what will happen next. Of course, Josh Gerstein. Thank you.

GERSTEIN: Thank you. COATES: Now do you remember this headline? The Wall Street Journal

editorial board one? Well, they suggested that someone should sue Trump over his tariffs. Looks like someone listened. And tonight, they're trying to get the courts to step in. You're going to meet the business owner behind the lawsuit next.

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, I've got a question for you. Are president Trump's tariffs even legal? Well, that's the question of a new lawsuit that's asking that very question. It's the first major suit seeking to block Trump's tariffs by asserting presidents do not have the power to unilaterally impose tariffs.

The new Civil Liberties Alliance, a conservative organization, is filing that very lawsuit on behalf of Emily Ley. She is the owner of a Florida stationery company that imports its materials from China. Now she says these tariffs, quote, "will be the end of many American dreams."

Emily Ley joins me now along with Hill litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, Andrew Morris.

Welcome to both of you. I'm glad to cover this story and the impact on your business, Emily, because I I'm curious for the American public. What do these tariffs mean for your business?

[23:35:06]

EMILY LEY, FILED LAWSUIT CHALLENGING TRUMP TARIFFS: I will tell you that these tariffs for businesses like mine are absolutely catastrophic. I am facing either raising prices, cutting staff, or closing doors.

COATES: The numbers that are involved here are quite significant. I reckon you paid more than, I think, a million or so for tariffs just as the last year or so, and you don't know with an incoming shipment what that would actually mean for the prices you would pay now.

LEY: That's very true. The entire process has been so chaotic, with a small team of nine women all based here in America. We are doing our very best to stay on top of things. But, last we heard, we could be facing a 104 percent tariff, which would be just absolutely devastating to the work that we do, the charitable contributions that we make, the people that we pay. It's really scary.

COATES: Well, Andrew, on this front, I mean, you're challenging a law, a 1977 law that Trump is actually invoking to implement these very tariffs. It gives the president the authority to take emergency actions against what they call foreign threats. But you say that presidents cannot impose tariffs under this particular law. Explain why you believe so.

ANDREW MORRIS, SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL, NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE: That's right, Laura. These tariffs that are so devastating to Emily's business and so many other businesses, the president imposed by invoking this law, this 1977 emergency law, which does not authorize any tariffs at all. The law has nothing to do with tariffs. That's the problem. That's why it's unlawful.

This -- there are tariff laws that Congress has passed that set the terms, set the ground rules for imposing tariffs, and they limit what the president can do. The president ignored those laws and cited this emergency law. And this emergency law would -- will sound familiar. It permits presidents to respond to foreign threats by doing things like sanctioning hostile countries, imposing economic sanctions, freezing the asset, freezing assets of a hostile foreign government, a terrorist group.

It does not authorize presidents to respond to foreign threats by imposing tariffs on the American people. The statute doesn't refer to tariffs, so it's unlawful. So the tariffs are unlawful.

COATES: You know, Emily, I sort of vacillate between the legal arguments that, of course, Andrew is articulating and then what's happening to business people across this country, small businesses to large scale operations as well. And the president today, he actually suggested he could further escalate the trade war with China, and he threatens an additional 50 percent tariff.

I know your company has sustained increases in the past. But how long could your company manage to either sustain with an increase of an additional 50 percent, let alone while your case goes to the courts?

LEY: That's a great question. I will tell you that I will not go down without a fight. This is my American dream. I started in my guest room in 02/2008 with an idea of my own imagination, found fantastic manufacturers to work with overseas after making our products here in the States for a price that was not profitable.

The -- our business could not withstand this very long. I will I will put it that way, but I will also say that I will be here fighting every second until the very end because it means that much to me.

COATES: You know, Andrew, we have seen the administration go up against, frankly, multiple law firms who have worked with his political opponents. Your organization is considered a conservative one. It's been known to be backed by Republicans, Republican donors. But you must be concerned with how your lawsuit might be met by this administration. Are you?

MORRIS: Well, I would say that the easiest answer, Laura, is that we filed this lawsuit on Friday, and that kind of speaks for itself. And we are, frankly, we are honored to be in the position of representing Emily and her company in the face of this kind of tariff that is, in her view, flatly unlawful. So, we're happy to be in this position.

COATES: Emily Ley, Andrew Morris, thank you both.

LEY: Thank you so much for having us.

MORRIS: Thank you.

COATES: Up next, a former DOJ prosecutor who resigned his post breaks his silence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RYAN CROSSWELL, FORMER U.S. FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It's deeply concerning as what happened with Eric Adams was, for me, the straw that that broke the camel's back was what happened to my colleagues.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, now he's telling all about his decision to step down, and we'll hear it from him directly next.

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROSSWELL: The threats against current members of the legal community, both in public service and private practice, are real and they're of consequence. Every attorney who takes an oath to uphold the law and every citizen who values democracy must have a line in the sand that cannot be crossed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:44:56]

COATES: That's former federal prosecutor Ryan Crosswell speaking at a hearing on President Trump's attacks on the legal system. Crosswell calling for prosecutors and, frankly, everyday American to take a stand for what they believe is right. Now for him, that meant resigning over efforts to dismiss the federal corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

The Adams case triggered a wave of defections from the DOJ. You know, Crosswell was one of them, and Ryan Crosswell joins me now.

Ryan, good to see you. Although, under these circumstances, it must be quite difficult. I mean, the big question that's what people have tonight is, is the DOJ leadership pressuring prosecutors to choose between either following the law or towing the line?

CROSSWELL: Laura, thank you for having me. I think as recently as yesterday, an attorney was put on leave for acting with candor to the court. So, everything is very deeply concerning. And as a federal prosecutor yourself, you know that prosecutors were supposed to do the right thing always, even when it's hard, and it does not seem like that is what the administration wants right now.

COATES: You heard from the attorney general, who is the nominee, now the attorney general, talk about weaponization being gone, politics being out of DOJ, that there was going to be a righted shift, so to speak. Has that not happened?

CROSSWELL: I think the course of correction would be getting back to the facts of the law. Federal prosecutors, we prosecute crimes. We don't target people or bully people based on their associations, based on their speech. We don't bully law firms based on the clients they represent.

It's just, has someone committed a crime and can we prove it? That's what the Justice Department is here for. We take on bullies. We don't become them.

COATES: You know, one of the things I heard in your statement to the court, if you'd be excuse me, to Congress today was about your niece. Your sister had her first daughter, and it was something that you wanted your niece to have an experience of democracy that you experienced and justice in the same vein.

You are the eighth prosecutor to resign and you said today that the Adams case was the straw that essentially broke your camel's back. What did that moment reveal to you about this DOJ?

CROSSWELL: Well, Laura, it was, what was so difficult about it, the Adams case signaled something that was scary because it was a departure away from, as I mentioned, the facts and law. And it was -- it was transparently political. But beyond that, it was also a situation where good federal employees, colleagues of mine, dedicated public servants, and excellent attorneys lost their job for doing the right thing.

I'm a marine. I was a marine officer. We're taught to take care of our troops and certainly you would never have your men do anything but the right thing. And these colleagues were punished for doing the right thing and so it was just it was offensive to me.

COATES: The idea of being in the position of a prosecutor, knowing that you're on behalf of the people, you know, as we often said, you were expected to be perfect and had no time to be and yet something like your oath of office, your commitment to the rule of law was so sacrosanct.

And I'm wondering what you heard from your former fellow prosecutors who are still at the Justice Department. What are they telling you about the climate, about the morale that is at the department? Is it promising or something else?

CROSSWELL: I think this is a very important point is this doesn't just affect those who resign or force out. Everybody else sees this, and this affects their morale. And the Justice Department's work is so important. They're protecting the American people. They're protecting our borders. They're protecting our cities from terrorists.

They're protecting our parents from abuse. They're protecting our children from predators. It's such important work, and prosecutors and law enforcement agents across the country are seeing this. And, I mean, their action I've got has been people are horrified by it. COATES: It's so important to think about the breadth and scope of the

work of DOJ because oftentimes people think about it as if it's just related to either the president of the United States or January 6. It's much more expansive for obvious reasons you've articulated.

Let me ask you finally, Ryan. You know, you've spent much of your life in public service. I mean, talk about being a marine, the DOJ. I know you're at a law firm coming up soon. When you look at this and think about the span of your own career, what is next for you ultimately? Are you considering running for office?

CROSSWELL: Laura, I love my country. It's really since law school most of my time has been in public service. I'm deeply concerned about what's happening with the Justice Department.

[23:49:58]

On happening -- I'm just I'm disappointed, and concerned with the world's most wealthy man being given our data and our money. I'm concerned about what looks like it could be a man-made recession. I'm concerned about all of it. But as you can imagine, when you lose your job, you just kind of get your bearings.

So, I'm not sure what my next step is going to be, but, I just I want what's best for the country, and I hope whatever I'm doing, it's helping us course correct.

COATES: Ryan, when you get your bearings, let it point due north. Thank you, my friend. Ryan Croswell, nice speaking with you.

CROSSWELL: Thank you.

COATES: Hey. Just in. There's a new national champion, Florida, coming back from behind to win their third NCAA basketball title. The Gators beating Houston, the final score, 65 to 63. The celebration is underway in Gainesville, Florida tonight where fans storm the court to celebrate Florida's first men's basketball title since 2007.

Well, it's happened again this time to Harriet Tubman. A federal web page now reinstated after major edits were made to her original story. So why does this keep happening? We'll talk about with our historian next.

[23:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Well, from making history to rewriting history, Harriet Tubman is the latest historical figure caught up in President Trump's DEI purge.

A web page from the National Park Service highlighted her work on the underground railroad to free enslaved people. But in February, someone changed it, downplaying Harriet Tubman's role in the underground railroad, removing her, quote, "and a large photo of her and highlighting other abolitionists." Initially, the National Park Service stood by the changes saying, quote, "the idea that a couple web edits somehow invalidates National Park Service commitment to telling complex and challenging historical narratives is completely false."

But tonight, it says the changes were made without approval by top leadership. And after the backlash, the revisions to the underground railroad page were reversed.

Joining me now, Leah Wright Rigueur, who is a CNN contributor and historian and associate history professor at Johns Hopkins University.

Leah, glad to see you, my friend. I mean, as a historian, when you see people rewriting history, what do you think is the end goal there?

LEAH WRIGHT RIGUEUR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR AND HISTORIAN: So the end goal is about power. And there's a great quote. I think a lot of viewers have probably heard it. To history goes the winners get to hold history. Right? The history is right. History is written by winners.

But part of that is about power of history. History is about telling the narrative, telling the story. But this is why so many of these moments and these cultural moments, these social moments, these political moments that are in, wrapped around history are so important.

It's why the Trump administration has spent so much time trying to rewrite history because they are trying to rewrite the history of the nation because it is about telling a particular kind of story. We don't just see this with, say, Harriet Tubman or the moments of, you know, these various people.

We've seen it with Jackie Robinson. We've seen it with black service men and women, in Arlington National Cemetery. We've seen it with the Tuskegee Airmen already. But we're also -- we also see it in moments like in the aftermath of the Civil War. Right?

As African Americans begin to get more -- get more and more rights, get equal gain -- ground with equal citizenship, we begin to see a real effort to rewrite the history of the Civil War and the history of black people that is all about mythology and about sanitizing and taking out the very real stories and lived experiences of black people and African Americans in this country.

COATES: You know, when you boil it down, I mean, the definition of the underground railroad that went from an effort by enslaved people to gain freedom to a quote, I'm quoting here, "expression of the American civil rights movement," unquote. I mean, just think about what you're talking about to, you know, the winner goes to spoils. In this case, rewriting history. How does a vision like that even change the meaning and the essence of the Underground Railroad itself?

RIGUEUR: So, I mean, it's so watered down as to be meaningless, and that's really important. Why? Because the Underground Railroad and the idea of African Americans fighting their way to emancipation and to freedom, which is important. It's really important. The word slavery and the word freedom are actually taken out of the definition of Underground Railroad.

But it's really important because it is about resistance. It is also about telling a story, a really complex and complicated story of American history and citizenship that suggests that the nation is less than perfect, that the nation hasn't wrestled with those stories.

So, it's not just Harriet Tubman who was a civil rights hero. It's Harriet Tubman who's a woman who fought sometimes violently and resisted for her freedom and on behalf of millions of people across this country who did not have the rights of freedom or the rights of citizenship.

[23:59:51]

So, to remove that, it is not only, I think, just offensive. It's also deeply dangerous because it tells a very, very incorrect version, very false history of America and one that removes the idea of power, of freedom, and of resistance from our stories.

COATES: Who would ever want to make history meaningless and still want a future?

Leah Wright Rigueur, thank you as always.

RIGUEUR: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: And thank you all for watching. Anderson Cooper 360 is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)