Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Floats "Homegrown" Deportations To El Salvador; Trump Admin Freezes Billions In Funding For Harvard University; Omar Jimenez Interviews Kara Swisher; CNN Reports On Arson At Governor's Mansion; Rory McIlroy Completes Long-Awaited Grand Slam At Masters. Aired 11p- 12a ET
Aired April 14, 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)
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The Trump administration and El Salvador are insisting they can't do anything about the man wrongfully deported to El Salvador. And now, the president is suggesting homegrown American prisoners could go there next.
Plus, President Trump takes on Harvard. The administration freezes billions of dollars in grants after the university refused to go along with his demands.
And Mark Zuckerberg defends his social media empire in court, but will he be forced to break it up? Tonight on "Laura Coates live."
Welcome, everyone. I'm Omar Jimenez, in for Laura. The Trump administration is sending a clear message tonight. It has no plans to bring back a Maryland immigrant mistakenly deported to El Salvador. And El Salvador's president says he isn't going to help either. It's a case that could have huge implications for America's legal system and President Trump's sweeping deportation plans.
Now, this man is at the center of it all. His name is Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia. He's a Salvadoran immigrant married to a U.S. citizen. He was deported to El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison last month. And top Trump aides accuse him of being a gang member, but he has never been charged. And multiple officials in the Trump administration have said in court documents his deportation was an error, specifically to El Salvador.
Now, the Supreme Court has ordered the U.S. government to facilitate his return home. But today, in the Oval Office, the Trump administration threw the football to El Salvador's president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Supreme Court ruled president that if, as El Salvador, wants to return -- this -- this is international matters, foreign affairs. If they wanted to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane. (END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: And then, El Salvador's president took the football and essentially decided to take a knee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NAYIB BUKELE, PRESIDENT OF EL SALVADOR: How can I return him today? Like I smuggle him into the United States? Or what do I do? Of course, I'm not going to do it. It's like -- I mean, the -- the -- the question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I -- I don't have the power to return him to the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: Now, again, Abrego Garcia has not been convicted of being a terrorist and the U.S. government has provided no evidence he is a terrorist or a current gang member.
But El Salvador's president and the Trump administration are basically throwing their hands up. They're both saying they don't have the power to send him back to United States.
Now, the Supreme Court's opinion is muddy. It requires the government to -- quote -- "facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been handled had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador."
But it also draws a distinction between facilitating and effectuating, and doesn't clearly specify what facilitate actually means. Legal analysts say it involves a whole lot more than providing a plane.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RYAN GOODMAN, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT: So, facilitate the release means take all efforts that you can to do so. So, say to the El Salvador government, can we have him back? Maybe pressure them, say, you know, we're paying $6 million for this arrangement, we don't want to pay for this particular individual, or the arrangement was apparently set up for just one year, so for this particular individual, we want him back sooner.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: And Trump's team is also trying to argue the president's executive authority outweighs everything else in this case. Why? Because this is a foreign policy issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: The foreign policy of The United States is conducted by the president of the United States, not by a court. And no court in the United States has a right to conduct the foreign policy of the United States. STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR POLICY, UNITED STATES HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISOR: They overturned the ruling of the district court and said clearly that no administration could be compelled to engage in foreign policy to extradite a citizen of another country.
UNKNOWN: I want to --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: And that, of course, is the line the administration is drawing. But, of course, the question is, where does this go next? Some are predicting a head-on collision between the Trump administration and the courts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, FORMER U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: It's defiance which puts us on the edge of a constitutional crisis between the judicial branch -- branch and the executive branch. This isn't foreign policy. This is the court's directive. Bring this one man back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: And that's not the only serious legal question being raised over Trump's deportation plans. The president is signaling he may send American citizens or homegrown criminals, as he described them, to prisons in El Salvador.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways, that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat when they're not looking, that are absolute monsters.
[23:05:08]
I'd like to include them in the group of people to get them out of the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: All right, a lot to talk about here. With me now, vice president of immigration policy for Forward U.S., Andrea Flores, senior legal affairs reporter for "Politico," Josh Gerstein, and CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger. All right, thank you all for being here.
Andrea, I want to start with you because I -- I think it's fair to say Kilmar Abrego Garcia's chances of returning to the U.S. look bleak at this point. I mean, President Bukele says he does not have the power to return him to the U.S., while the Trump administration also says they can't forcibly extract him back. And I know you tweeted the administration as essentially pretending they can't make this happen. Legally, who has the power here? ANDREA FLORES, VICE PRESIDENT OF IMMIGRATION POLICY & CAMPAIGNS, FORWARD U.S.: So, this is pure theater. The administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and both administrations I've served in have a set process. So, ICE has wrongfully deported hundreds of people in the last 10 years, and there's a process to get them back. It does not require a diplomatic arrangement. It does not require it to escalate to the presidents of either country. As a matter of fact, ICE can just arrange to return someone.
And also, President Bukele already sent eight people back because he did not want to accept them in the prison.
So, really the question is, why are they lying? Why are they not, you know, listening to the Supreme Court's order? Why are they denying due process?
And I'm just very concerned because, how many mistakes will we tolerate as a nation when it comes to sending people to a prison where U.S. taxpayer dollars are going to torture? Because that's what's happening. And that's highly unprecedented. And the law doesn't require any extra step for ICE to bring Mr. Abrego Garcia back.
JIMENEZ: And David, look, we -- we saw in that Oval Office meeting Attorney General Pam Bondi essentially tossed the football to President Bukele, and he essentially said he's not going to smuggle a terrorist, to use his words. Now, again, we've noted Abrego Garcia has not been convicted of -- of any crimes here. But politically speaking, did Bukele give Trump cover with that answer, especially since the White House has said it -- it's up to El Salvador?
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE AND NATIOANAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: That -- that's right. He completely gave him cover. It was clearly a planned exchange. It had no sense when you watch it that this hadn't been at least planned out and maybe rehearsed.
What was remarkable about it, though, was just the scene, the first leader from the region that the president had in the Oval Office. There was a time when American presidents were celebrating a democratic wave taking place across Latin America.
Instead, he brings in the man who likes to call himself the coolest dictator. Right? Celebrates him. Josh is a lot about his age. He's about the age of the president's sons. And he clearly -- President Trump clearly admires him the way he admires Putin or Orban or other strong man leaders.
Clearly, if this was somebody who President Trump wanted to get back, he would have found a way to look strong and get him back. Instead, it looked very much, I think, to the rest of the world like the U.S. had admitted to an administrative error and then was making no effort to correct it.
JIMENEZ: I mean, it's almost as if he was deported to anywhere else but El Salvador. The -- a lot of the issues we're seeing here would not essentially be in play because that's what the court previously ruled.
Now, I want to talk, Josh, about last week's Supreme Court ruling because, you know, some saw it as simple as, oh, the Supreme Court says the Trump administration must facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. There we go. We're done. Seems simple.
But then you have the difference between facilitating and effectuating, that a lower court needs to then define what it actually is. I guess my question to you is, how significant is that distinction? I mean, we saw some posturing today in the Oval Office declaring it a win for the administration.
JOSH GERSTEIN, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, it did seem like when they were writing that order. And it wasn't really a formal opinion of the court. It was a per curiam kind of order, meaning it wasn't signed by any individual justice. And it seemed like a group effort to me, like some words that might have been in there, like return, were actually not in the order at all.
So, it was not written in the way that, like, an individual justice would write it, which suggested to me there was probably some disagreement on the court about exactly how to word it. Some people may have been averse to getting into a head to head confrontation with the Trump administration, which seems to be something a lot of judges and justices have been sort of dancing around for the last couple months.
Like, when is the court system going to actually have to face down this constitutional crisis that you heard Judge Scheindlin talk about a moment ago?
[23:10:03]
JIMENEZ: And that's what I'm going to ask you about, Andrea, because, look, Trump said last week that -- that he respects the Supreme Court, that he would abide by the Supreme Court's decisions. He was pressed a little bit today on those remarks. He didn't answer. He instead turned to members of his administration to sort of underscore their argument that the U.S. doesn't have the power to return him.
But, to Josh's latter point, as he was mentioning, do you believe there is a danger of a constitutional crisis here? Are we there? I just wonder where you see where we are legally right now.
FLORES: I think there's a huge danger because the Supreme Court was very clear. They had two different rulings involving El Salvador. The first was on the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime power that has been evoked when we're not at war with Venezuela, that they're arguing allows them to suspend due process to send innocent people to a foreign prison where they are experiencing torture conditions.
So, the second thing is with Mr. Abrego Garcia. They said, the court -- the administration must facilitate his return. Once again, that's not complicated. It's a very common process.
So, if they don't respect both of those two directives, then that to me seems like a very clear constitutional crisis.
And I think you saw today Democrats finally sort of, you know, really speaking out and recognizing the threat. Senator Chris Van Hollen very boldly and bravely said, I will go to El Salvador, and I will advocate for my constituent because every single member of Congress is going to end up -- probably, if -- if they do not step in, if the Supreme Court does not step back in, they will continue to send people to El Salvador.
There was a plane that went out Sunday. We don't know what due process they had. We don't really know the individuals who went there. And once again, the taxpayer dollars are paying for this arrangement.
And so, to me, you're not listening to the coequal branch of government, which to me is pretty clearly a constitutional crisis. And I think this is the moment now to be very, very alarmed because this is how they get to one million deportations. And I will say, the first time I was mistakenly targeted by immigration enforcement as a U.S. citizen, I was 12 years old. I don't think people realize how often mistakes are made. And so that, I think, should really alarm people, and I do think we're there.
JIMENEZ: And if mistakes are made and, you know, as we debate questions of due process the entire time, you know, someone who -- who may be wrongfully -- truly wrongfully detained in a certain spot remains in that maximum-security prison in -- in El Salvador.
Josh, I -- I want to bring up -- because in February, Bukele offered to jail any convicted criminal from the U.S. for -- for a fee. It sounds like President Trump may be taking him up on that offer, saying homegrown criminals could be next. Attorney general Bondi seemingly not liking the idea. Just take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONDI: These people need to be locked up as long as they can, as long as the law allows. We're not going to let them go anywhere. And if we have to build more prisons in our country, we will do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: Little bit of a different tone from what we heard in the Oval Office earlier today. But would that be legal if we're talking about homegrown -- homegrown criminals being sent out to -- to CECOT, for example?
GERSTEIN: It's certainly not legal under current law. I mean, there -- there is a program that allows convicted criminals who are from another country to be sent to serve their sentences in another country. But in terms of sending out American citizens against their will simply because they've been convicted of a crime here, I think that would be very, very difficult to execute. There's no law that really allows that to be done right now.
So, this seems like the kind of idea that Trump kind of floats, that's very inflammatory, but I don't really see it going anywhere. Even, you know, AG Bondi seems to be suggesting maybe the idea is sort of counterproductive one to pursue in a serious way.
JIMENEZ: And -- and David, I wonder what you make of -- look, I mean, we're talking about El Salvador right now, but also countries like Panama, Costa Rica have also agreed to sort of be a part of the U.S.- led deportation measures even if they're not all being sent to a maximum-security prison.
I wonder what you make of the Trump administration's relationship with Latin American leaders right now and how clearly -- it seems that Latin America has seemed very willing to be a part of U.S. immigration policy in repatriating people, sometimes not even to their own countries.
SANGER: Well, first of all, it is arguably part of this democratic backsliding that we were discussing. But second, you're beginning to get a picture of what kind of negotiations are going to take place as you go country by country about the tariffs because clearly, the president is not going to feel like the only issues he can negotiate away here are related to other countries' tariffs or non-tariff barriers.
He's going to say, you have to take criminals that we want to take back, you have to take illegal immigrants. He's going to make other politically related demands.
[23:14:58]
For Panama, he has already done so concerning access to the Panama Canal and -- and so forth. So, he is beginning to use -- this is where the tariff argument begins to meet every other geopolitical issue that we're running into, including this one.
JIMENEZ: Thank you all. Andrea, Josh, David, pleasure as always. Thanks, everyone. We're also following more breaking news tonight. The Trump administration freezing billions of dollars in funds to Harvard as the university stands up against the administration's demands. That's next.
And ahead, Kara Swisher is here to talk about what the tech billionaires did today. Mark Zuckerberg takes a stand as Jeff Bezos launches an all-woman crew into space. Stay with us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Command engine start. Two, one, ignition. Lift off.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) JIMENEZ: Welcome back. New tonight, the Trump administration is freezing $2 billion in funds to Harvard University as Trump's battle against higher education enters a new phase. And that's because Harvard rejected Trump's initial demands from last week.
Among them, auditing the viewpoints of admitted students, faculty, and staff, reforming the admissions process to focus on merit, ending DEI programs, making leadership and governance changes, and banning masks at campus protests.
Now, Harvard said no to those demands, making it the first elite university to stand up to Trump Now, the university president says in a statement today -- quote -- "The university will not surrender its independence or its constitutional rights."
Now, the administration firing back, saying -- quote -- "President Trump is working to make higher education great again by ending unchecked antisemitism and ensuring federal taxpayer dollars do not fund Harvard's support of dangerous racial discrimination or racially motivated violence."
With me now, Lance Trover, Republican strategist and former spokesperson for Doug Burgum's presidential campaign, and Adrienne Elrod, Democratic strategist and former senior spokesperson for the Harris-Walz presidential campaign. Thank you both for being here. Adrienne, I want start with you. Is this the right way for universities to respond to interference from the Trump administration?
ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Absolutely. First of all, I am happy to actually see a university, any entity right now, taking a major stand against Trump by simply saying no, we are going to refuse to do this.
We need more of this coming from Democrats. We need more of this coming from anyone in the organized opposition that is opposing Trump. So, I applaud Harvard. I think it sets a very important precedent for what we assume he will do to additional universities as well.
And it's -- it's -- it's something that I'd like to see more of. I mean, if you're going to actually be an effective messenger against Trump's policies or an effective resistor of his policies, then you got to stand up to him. So, I applaud Harvard.
JIMENEZ: And we have seen the Trump administration target other schools. Columbia, of course, Cornell, Northwestern, Princeton, to -- to name a few. But -- but, Lance, you know, Harvard has already promised to -- to reform how it fights antisemitism, and -- and I want you to take a listen to how a Harvard law professor describes what's happening right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDRE MANUEL CRESPO, LAW PROFESSOR, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: It's a transparent effort to change what is taught, what we able -- what we say in our classrooms, what we teach our students to make sure that the only things that are actually said on university campuses are things that the Trump administration wants to hear and wants to be said.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: Do you see it that way?
LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: No. These guys are the poster child for everything that is wrong in higher education. I mean, let's just think about this. They have tolerated antisemitism on their campus, ostracized conservatives where conservatives are scared to even speak out, all while taking money from China and Qatar at the same time. That's what all of these universities have been doing.
So, look, if they're going to take federal taxpayer dollars to the tune of 9 billion, with a B, $9 billion, then I think the taxpayers and the duly-elected government of this country has a right to check in and say, hey, that's going on this campus, particularly, if you have become a breeding ground for antisemitism and other forms of discrimination.
JIMENEZ: And even if the university has said, you know, some of those antisemitism fights, we've made good progress on it, we feel like we've gotten to a better place, we're in a different place than we were maybe at the peak of some of those protests against the war in Gaza, you feel that that's not enough at the moment.
TROVER: You're taking $9 billion from taxpayers. They're asking you to not to ban masks. So, some of these antisemitic protesters who are running around campus and trashing buildings actually show their face and be on camera.
They've also said, hey, yeah, we really don't want you taking international students who support terrorism or antisemitic. What's wrong with that? Why will they not agree with that? I mean, that's just absolutely ridiculous. If you're taking taxpayer dollars, absolutely, the government has a right to step in.
And Harvard is the pinnacle of all of this, so has Columbia and all these other universities. And thank God we've had somebody like Elise Stefanik to step up, and now Donald Trump to take on these antisemitic folks on campus that are just running rampant.
JIMENEZ: And -- and I guess, and I'll -- I'll pose this as form of question to you, Adrienne, as well, but I want your perspective on it too, Lance, is that, you know, one of the criticisms that Harvard has had in the -- in the letter that the Trump administration says is over auditing the viewpoints of some of the students and the people that they bring into the university. I mean, how does that -- how does that sit with you, Adrienne?
ELROD: Well, I'm -- I mean, look, I -- I -- I will be the first to say that I think that there are some reforms, certainly, that some of these institutions can make, but I -- but -- but -- but what -- but what Trump is doing is illegal, number one. Number two, Harvard is a private institution. They have the right --
TROVER: That takes federal documents.
ELROD: They have the right to make their own -- they have the right to make their own determinations about how they want to teach their students.
[23:24:57]
The bottom line is, if we go down this rabbit hole, we start allowing Donald Trump to tell colleges and universities how to teach their students, what the curriculum is, what -- what the processes are for -- for letting students enter -- accepting students into their schools. We are going down a very, very dangerous course, and that's where I think we have to be careful.
JIMENEZ: And, Lance, on that point, I mean, look, the Trump administration, others have said, we support free speech. But again, wanting to audit the viewpoint diversity of Harvard student body, I wonder where do you see the line? Is that -- is that going too far?
TROVER: Does Harvard allow another viewpoint than the left-wing loons who run that place? The foundation for individual rights in education --
ELROD: The left-wing loons who run that place.
TROVER: Does anybody believe a college campus has anything but 99% liberals who -- who run those schools?
ELROD: You know what?
TROVER: That's absolutely true.
ELROD: If that's how -- if that's how parents feel about their children, they don't have to go there. That's not what they want.
TROVER: They don't have to take the $9 billion --
ELROD: So, why is that a problem for you?
TROVER: Then they don't have to take $9 billion in federal taxpayer funds. That's absolutely true. The foundation for individual rights in education for two years in a row has laid them dead last in terms of free speech. Only 25% of students at Harvard feel comfortable in disagreeing publicly with a professor on a controversial political topic. So, there -- yeah, there are no differing viewpoints because they're not allowed on college campuses if they are not tailored to the left.
JIMENEZ: And, you know, look, I -- I think there are many on -- on campuses that would maybe push back on some of that and say, you know -- look, a lot of the financial market in the United States comes from Harvard as well. And, obviously, there's a wide variety of viewpoints that come out of Harvard alums for finance majors. That's just speaking from personal experience.
But I guess my question is, look, Harvard's argument is that, yes, all right, you know, the federal government does give us grants for to the tune of billions of dollars, but this is money that doesn't necessarily police people's speech. This is money that goes to grants, that help fund research, that helps fund things that are helping American innovation --
ELROD: Low income students.
JIMENEZ: Low income students as well. But -- but I guess I'll -- I'll pose it in the form of this question. Is -- you say it's the right way to sort of fight back against the Trump administration's will, so to speak.
ELROD: Uh-hmm.
JIMENEZ: Harvard maybe can do it. They've got an endowment of over 50 billion.
ELROD: Wealthiest college.
JIMENEZ: Do you worry that other universities won't be able to follow this same path?
ELROD: You just hit the nail on the head. I mean, look, do I think Harvard can probably overcome this if the Trump administration strips all of their federal funding for them? Probably because they are the wealthiest endowed college, university in this country.
What happens when we start getting into some of these smaller schools? If Trump is successful with Harvard, this is going to be a rabbit hole that he's going to start going down that is going to cause all kinds of problems with schools who don't have the wealth, who do rely on federal funds to, you know, again, allow lower income students in, to be able to produce the curriculum that they want to, that they need to.
That is something we're going down a dangerous course if we start letting -- you know, Trump essentially dictate what policies and what curriculum these universities teach, especially private universities.
JIMENEZ: Well, something tells me the fight is not over. I got to leave it there. Lance Trover, Adrienne Elrod, really appreciate you both being here.
TROVER: Thanks.
ELROD: Thank you.
JIMENEZ: All right, meanwhile, Mark Zuckerberg takes the stand to defend his company. Kara Swisher is here to talk the trial that could determine the future of your social media. And we're going to talk about the all-female crew rocketing to space in Jeff Bezos's ship today. Stay with us.
UNKNOWN: One, two, three --
CROWD: Take me off to space. (CHEERING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
JIMENEZ: Tech billionaire Jeff Bezos celebrating a successful Blue Origin space launch with his fiancee, Lauren Sanchez. She was part of the first all-female space crew since 1963.
Meanwhile, another tech billionaire, Mark Zuckerberg, was in a D.C. courtroom defending his company's social media trifecta in a landmark antitrust case against Meta. The Federal Trade Commission argues Meta's multibillion-dollar purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp were made to squash competition, designating them a social media monopoly.
Meta's lawyers -- Meta's lawyers argue that there is still plenty of competition and that they are not a monopoly. Zuckerberg will likely answer more questions tomorrow and the trial is likely to take weeks to conclude. If Meta loses, and these are the stakes here, they could be forced to sell off Instagram, one of their most lucrative assets.
Joining me now is veteran tech journalist and CNN contributor Kara Swisher. Thanks for being here. Look, so breaking up Meta, it was tried before during Trump's first term. Case was thrown out. FTC came back with a stronger complaint. Do you think it's strong enough that that Meta will be broken up and forced to divest from Instagram and WhatsApp?
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, OPINION CONTRIBUTING WRITER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST, VETERAN TECH JOURNALIST: Well, Google has already lost in court over some issues around their monopoly status. So, it depends on what happens. It depends on how much of a case that the -- that the FTC is making here. It's not as strong a case as some others, some people don't think.
The idea that there isn't competition is a pretty strong defense that face -- that Meta is making, such as TikTok and many others. There's a lot of competitors in the social media space.
That said, there are a lot of emails showing that when Zuckerberg bought these companies and especially Instagram, he was doing so in a buy or bury strategy, which was to get rid of competitors that wouldn't pose a threat to them.
So, it's a -- it's a -- it's a big bar for the FTC to reach, but it's still an important case.
[23:35:01]
JIMENEZ: And look, you've -- you've got the stuff going on legally, but when you look at the backdrop here, it's -- it's the first antitrust suit the FTC has brought since Trump's second term began.
SWISHER: Uh-hmm.
JIMENEZ: And Zuckerberg obviously attended the inauguration, definitely been supportive of Trump. Do you think Trump will intervene on his behalf? Because he definitely has a different relationship with Zuckerberg than he does with, say, Elon Musk, for example.
SWISHER: Yeah. I don't think he has as good a relationship with anybody in Washington. I mean, bipartisan, that is not liked by a lot of people, so it's a bipartisan thing.
So, you know, I think it depends. He hasn't intervened yet. Obviously, he could, I suppose. He -- you know, the chairman of the FTC has said he would follow orders if -- if that was the case. But they have moved ahead and the chairman is quite -- there's a lot of people within the Trump universe that are very intent on antitrust issues. The way they -- some of the Democrats were. So, they do share that in common.
We'll have to see. I think a loss would be a problematic thing for the FTC. And at the same time, there are other cases that are moving forward against tech companies that seem to have a lot of teeth.
JIMENEZ: Yeah. I want to shift gear, another billionaire here.
SWISHER: Uh-hmm.
JIMENEZ: Today, we saw the all-women Blue Origin launch featuring Katy Perry, Gayle King, Jeff Bezos' fiancee, Lauren Sanchez. Look, the mission got a lot of attention but also criticism. A critic at "The New York Times" --
SWISHER: Yeah.
JIMENEZ: wrote, Blue Origin's all-female flight proves that women are now free to enjoy capitalism's most extravagant spoils alongside rich men. How do you see it?
SWISHER: Yeah. I think I'd see it that way. I thought it was a stunt. I thought it's fine if the rich people want to do this. But I think what was sort of offensive to me was putting it off like it's some big feminist thing, that this is an all-female crew. It's just a bunch of wealthy people going up for 11 seconds on -- at the behest of one of the world's richest people. They look like they had fun. But given all the problems on this planet, I think probably focusing on that would have been a better thing.
And the criticisms are funny, some of them, like "The Daily Show" saying it was the most exciting, whatever 11 seconds or seven minutes that Jeff Bezos has ever given a woman and stuff like that, which was funny. I mean, I like the humor of a lot of it.
JIMENEZ: Yeah. Look --
SWISHER: It looks silly.
JIMENEZ: I can't -- I can't comment on that. You know, I'm --
SWISHER: Yeah.
JIMENEZ: I'm not there. I'm not there. I wasn't there.
SWISHER: It's right --
JIMENEZ: Nor would I want to be there.
SWISHER: It's right for jokers.
(LAUGHTER)
SWISHER: It's for joking.
(LAUGHTER)
It had -- it had an uncomfortable look to it --
JIMENEZ: Yeah.
SWISHER: -- like, rich people frolicking in the desert and space suits that were designer. I don't know. It felt -- I don't know. I didn't love it so much.
JIMENEZ: Well, and, you know, like, when you look at the whole space tourism arena, obviously, there's this privatized sort of space race going on right now. SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin. Does this voyage, even though it -- it only lasted a few minutes, even with all the negative attention, was this a win in a sense for -- for Blue Origin in the space tourism arena or -- or did it not do enough?
SWISHER: No, I don't think so. I don't think people are going to be able to afford to do this. It's a ride. You know, if it's a Disney ride, that seems fine. But no, this isn't real space exploration. It's just -- it's a step there. But it's -- it's a stunt. It's a publicity stunt. And, you know, they enjoyed themselves. I'm glad they got down safely.
You know, it's not something most people will do. And I'm not sure it's the kind of imagery we want for the space program, which should be about science. I know there were scientists aboard and everything else, but this wasn't a mission by any stretch of the imagination.
JIMENEZ: Yeah. And --
SWISHER: I'm unfun. I'm sorry I'm unfun.
JIMENEZ: No, no, no. You -- you could be unfun. It doesn't have to always be fun. SWISHER: It is fun making fun of it but, you know.
JIMENEZ: Yeah. I mean, look, Katy Perry is saying, what a wonderful world while I'm bored. I was just about to ask you to sing it for us.
SWISHER: Great.
JIMENEZ: I'm being told --
SWISHER: No.
JIMENEZ: -- we don't have time for that.
SWISHER: No.
JIMENEZ: So, I think everybody wins.
SWISHER: I'm so glad.
JIMENEZ: Everybody wins in this scenario.
SWISHER: I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it on Earth, and I'm not going to do it up there.
JIMENEZ: All right. I'll hold you to that. I'll hold you to that. Kara Swisher, really appreciate you being here.
SWISHER: All right.
JIMENEZ: All right. Coming up next, we are following developments on the arson story at the Pennsylvania governor's mansion. A 38-year-old man denied bail, accused of attempted murder. We're going to tell you what else the suspect told police he planned to do to Governor Josh Shapiro if he found him. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JIMENEZ: Tonight, the man accused of setting fire to the governor's mansion of Pennsylvania, Governor Josh Shapiro, will stay in jail. And that's because a judge believes he is a danger to himself and the community. And when you see these photos from inside the mansion, you can understand why.
These are the images that show the charred aftermath inside the governor's mansion. The dining room burned just hours after Shapiro and his family celebrated the first night of Passover. The suspect reportedly climbing a seven-foot fence to enter the property. You see the diagram here.
And new tonight, sources say it was Pennsylvania Capitol Police who alerted the governor's security detail of a possible breach. By the time officers arrived to investigate, the fire was burning. The suspect didn't enter a plea during his court appearance. Police don't have a motive yet, but they say the suspect, Cody Balmer, turned himself in. Police say he told them he harbored hatred towards Shapiro and would have beaten him with a hammer. Luckily, the governor and his family, they weren't hurt, but the suspect was charged with assaulting family members after attempting suicide two years ago.
[23:45:00]
With me now is Donell Harvin, former chief of Homeland Security and Intelligence for Washington, D.C. He's now a faculty member at Georgetown. Thank you for being here.
Look, I want to start with the court documents. They show Balmer jumped a seven-foot fence to get to the governor's mansion, broke two windows with a hammer, threw an incendiary device through one of the broken windows, started a fire, and then was able to leave the property. I mean, from a security standpoint, what went wrong here?
DONELL HARVIN, FORMER CHIEF OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: There's a lot of things that apparently went wrong. Let's just start with the fact that he was able to case out the governor's mansion. He didn't just jump over immediately. He walked out up and down, according to reports.
There's a lot of missed opportunities. Scaling the fence, which he shouldn't have been able to be -- to be done. There should have been some type of closed caption television, perhaps some guards, certainly what we call motion sensors that would have detected that. Breaking the glass window should have triggered something, and it didn't. And so, I'm sure they're going to be looking at this, but this is really what we call a near miss in terms of security.
JIMENEZ: And, you know, it's our understanding that it was Capitol Police that alerted the governor's security detail of a possible breach, not the governor's security detail itself. Why wouldn't anyone, or in this case, why didn't anyone on the grounds know first?
HARVIN: You know, this is -- you know, in all fairness and, you know, I've had a couple of conversations with other colleagues about this this week, it's -- it's just difficult securing these grounds, especially for state and locals that have limited resources. Every few years, we hear about some crazy nut job that jumps over the White House fence and makes it sometimes all the way up to the White House.
And so, this shouldn't be happening in this current threat environment for political figures. And the fact that, you know, there was a stop gap there with the Capitol Police to a -- to a security detail, I'm sure they'll be looking into this. But once again, this should have never happened. This -- this guy should have never gotten this far and then got away with it, to be quite honest with you. They only caught it because he turned himself in.
JIMENEZ: Yeah, turned himself in and -- you know, at this point, Pennsylvania State Police, they say that they're going to be doing an internal investigation of this apparent security failure. I guess when you look at this whole picture, obviously, I know you said a lot went wrong here, but where do you start sort of that internal investigation?
HARVIN: Invariably, I'm already hearing stories about this. Clearly, this is unfolding. But, invariably with these stories, there's often some type of account that someone tried to reach out to law enforcement days or weeks before.
And so, if that's the case and, apparently, report suggesting that his mother may have reached out for help, if that's the case, there's missed opportunity days or weeks ago to interdict or intervene with this individual that was having violent ideologies, homicidal ideologies.
And so, from an intelligence standpoint, looking at social media posts, knocking on this individual's doors perhaps and following up on threats, and then making sure that the compounds are safe. I'm sure they'll be doing a full review of the security postures.
But this is, you know, a wake-up call to the other 49 governors in the United States. They really need to, in this current threat environment, make sure that them and their families are safe.
JIMENEZ: And the mother of the suspect told CBS News that the bomber, the suspect, was off his medication, that she called several police departments last week for help, but no one did.
You know, you talked about the other 49 governors here. Like, we -- we've seen a surge in attacks, I think it's fair to say, in threats against politicians in the last few years, including a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and, of course, the attempted assassinations of Donald Trump last year.
When you're assessing threats against politicians in this environment, what are you assessing, and is there anything that police and law enforcement should be doing more of in your opinion to -- to try and prevent them in this environment?
HARVIN: You know, I think many politicians, kind of, operate like they did when you and I were growing up. They want to be accessible to people.
But if you go back to Gabby Giffords, if you go back to 2017 with Steve Scalise, you know, you mentioned Governor Whitmer in 2020, in 2022, we had the Paul Pelosi incident, we also have Brett Kavanaugh being threatened, and Obama in '23 with the gentleman, you know, casing his house with guns to try to kill him, this is an entirely different dynamic in terms of our political radicalization in far left and the far right, and they need to take this threat environment really seriously.
I know politicians want to be accessible on the road or campaign, but things are completely different now. There's a lot of individuals out there that are bent on hurting politicians and elected officials, and they need to be aware of that.
JIMENEZ: Yeah. Donell Harvin, really appreciate you being here. Thanks for the time and insight.
HARVIN: Thank you.
JIMENEZ: All right, up next, shifting gears a bit, but we're going to show you proof that good things come to those who wait.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(APPLAUSE)
[23:50:00]
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JIMENEZ: A huge historic and emotional victory on the green for golfer Rory McIlroy who finally clinched a career grand slam after his victory at the Masters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(APPLAUSE)
[23:55:00]
JIMENEZ (voice-over): I can't imagine that feeling. It was a tough round, though, for McIlroy, who faced a lot of setbacks in Augusta. But he pulled through to join the exclusive golf club of grand slam winners.
RORY MCILROY, 2025 MASTERS CHAMPION: It's a dream come true. I have -- I've dreamt about that moment for as long as I can remember. I didn't make it easy today. I certainly didn't make it easy. I -- I was nervous. It was one of the toughest days I've ever had on the golf course.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: Joining me now is golf insider Dan Rapaport. He is the host of "Dan on Golf Show," also former CNN intern back in the day, and before that, on campus at northwestern with me. Go Cats.
DAN RAPAPORT, HOST, "DAN ON GOLF": Yeah.
JIMENEZ: Got to get the full bio in. Look, Rory McIlroy, finally a Masters champ, joining that exclusive club, cementing his place in the sport. The first career grand slam since Tiger Woods in 2000. What were your takeaways watching?
RAPAPORT: Oh, my God. It was a -- it was a victory for resilience.
JIMENEZ: Yeah.
RAPAPORT: you know, he had been kicked in the mouth by the sport so many times that -- you know, it's cruel because he -- he won four majors before the age of 25. But, you know, before yesterday, the narrative had almost gone so far as to that he was like a tragic figure because that's how many times he had been close and not been able to do it. And you wondered if he was ever going to get his white whale.
The Masters, the biggest golf tournament in the world, the only one he hadn't won. This prodigy who all came so quickly to -- you know, has to go through over a decade of a barren stretch. It's like out of a Shakespeare play.
And to do it the way he did it yesterday, you know, he didn't close it out like Tiger Woods. It was up and down. Tiger would -- would take control of a tournament and not let anyone else even think they were in the mix. Rory tried to blow it like four times. It was -- it was just really, really dramatic.
JIMENEZ: Yeah. I mean, he should think about wearing some red on Sundays then. McIlroy obviously had some -- some real highs, like, I mean, this shot at hole 15 where he curves it around the tree, somehow gets it on the green sets of an eagle chance. I know he birdied on that hole. But just the roar in that crowd, I think you sort of felt the momentum.
But then, obviously, on the other end, the 13th hole, which prompted you to post on X that it was the worst wedge shot of his entire career. I feel like most of that last day was Rory fighting Rory. I mean, what -- what did you see happening out there?
RAPAPORT: Yeah, I think it was, like, maybe the worst wedge shot I've ever seen a professional golfer hit.
(LAUGHTER)
It's hard to overstate how bad that shot was. No, honestly, like --
JIMENEZ: Yeah.
RAPAPORT: -- you know, he was cruising. He was up by four. You know, I just think it was -- it was always going to happen that way for Rory. Like, he wasn't going to just take control of the tournament and run to the finish. It has been sort of the story of his career. You know, this incredible talent, this run where the game seems like it's so second nature to him, and then, you know, times like on 13 where it seems like he can't even hit a golf ball.
You know, he's a -- he's a unique figure in our sport because of how human he is, how honest he is. He has let everyone in on this journey in a way that, you know, Tiger never really did. He's -- he's a much more sort of approachable character with media.
And I just think everyone -- you know, Bryson is being in the mix, too. He's kind of the next wave and sort of represents -- you know, he plays on LIV Golf. It was just a real clash. It felt like everything was right in the golf world yesterday. I think, you know, even if you might have been rooting for Bryson, it was hard not to appreciate the gravity of the moment. As you as you mentioned, they've been playing this sport for hundreds of years. Only six guys have ever done that. It's -- it's huge.
JIMENEZ: Yeah. And, look, I mean, it has been a quarter century since Tiger Woods's grand slam. And Woods congratulated McIlroy on X, saying he was proud of him. And I wonder what you make of sort of the influence that Tiger Woods has clearly had on McIlroy. And obviously, their careers maybe end up -- may -- might end up in different spots, but I just wonder what you make of the influence that Woods has had on him.
RAPAPORT: Yeah. I mean, I think they're 14 years apart. So, when Tiger was doing his thing, he was like 21. That would have made Rory right around seven. I mean, he said that when Tiger won the 1997 Masters, you know, and kind of broke onto the scene, became this mega figure, that's what inspired Rory to really start practicing, you know, to try to win the Masters and do what Tiger Woods did.
I mean, anyone in my generation, the reason they fell in love with the game is Tiger Woods. I remember where I was when he made that part in the 2008 U.S. Open. You know, it's -- they announced -- Augusta announced this week that they're doing a TGR learning lab with Tiger, like, for, you know, his charity which helps children with STEM education. Tiger is building a golf course nearby.
So, even though he's no longer able to really play in the Masters, he wasn't even able come to the Champions Center this year, he's still, like, his legend looms around the place even when he's not there.
JIMENEZ: Golf was literally my first sport because my parents were convinced I was going to be the next Tiger Woods. Didn't quite work out. Me and you were talking here instead. Not complaining, but winning the Masters --
RAPAPORT: It worked out. You seem like you're doing just fine.
JIMENEZ: Yeah, yeah. Same to you. Same to you. Before we go, just really quickly, it was such an incredible weekend of golf where I feel like it transcended the sport and really went out into a wider culture, including myself, folks who don't typically watch golf.
[23:59:58]
What do you make of -- how do you reflect back on the weekend of the Masters that was just for the sport of golf before we go here?
RAPAPORT: Yeah. You know, golf tells very human stories. You're alone out there. There's nowhere to hide. The narratives are all about one person. And, you know, I think I wrote that. This was a victory for, you know, the guy who never -- never gave up with the girl, who was maybe a little bit out of his league, or the singer who, you know, kept playing the open mic night at the bar and hoping to finally do it. It was a --
JIMENEZ: Yeah.
RAPAPORT: -- a victory for just -- you know, it was a very human story, a victory for not giving up, even when the world is trying to tell you that you can't do it.
JIMENEZ: Yeah. I am inspired by that. Dan, really appreciate you being here. Go Cats.
RAPAPORT: Go Cats, man.
(LAUGHTER)
JIMENEZ: Thanks for watching, everyone. I wish I could walk off the set like Rory walked off the course of the Masters. But I and my golf game would just have to imagine. "Anderson Cooper 360" is up, next.
