Return to Transcripts main page

One World with Zain Asher

U.S. Employers Added 177,000 Jobs In April; Prince Harry Loses Appeal Over Downgraded Security; Trump Administration May Expand "Enemy Combatant" Designation; Aid Ship Bound For Gaza Issues SOS After Alleged Drone Attack; Eight New Board Members Named To U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council; Trump Signs Order Seeking To End Federal Funding For PBS And NPR; Black Voters Explain Why They Voted For Trump. Aired 12-12:45p ET

Aired May 02, 2025 - 12:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello everyone, live from New York. I'm Bianna Golodryga.

ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Zain Asher. This is the second hour of ONE WORLD.

The chaos with Donald Trump's trade war does not seem to be affecting the jobs market.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. The U.S. economy added a stronger than expected, 177,000 jobs in April. Now, while that's fewer than March's 185,000, it still beats

economists' expectations.

The unemployment rate held steady at 4.2 percent.

ASHER: Donald Trump responded to the tariffs by calling on The Federal Reserve to drop interest rates, reminding people that the economy is in

what he calls a transition stage.

The U.S. Labor Secretary explained why this report is a sign of things to come.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LORI CHAVEZ-DEREMER, U.S. LABOR SECRETARY: My job in this equation is to deliver the American worker, labor union workers. You know, we want to make

sure that we can help our businesses comply with the laws. But we want to assist them in growing the economy. We want to be their allies, not their

adversaries. That's why I'm positive about this jobs report. And I think it's going to continue to grow month after month.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Whether this historic expansion of the jobs market continues, that remains to be seen. Recent economic data shows the monumental shifts

in policy are causing uncertainty in the markets.

Let's bring in CNN's business and politics correspondent Vanessa Yurkevich to give us a closer look at the numbers.

So, Vanessa, on the one hand, you can say this continues to be a resilient, strong economy that this president inherited despite some of the headwinds

already facing consumers and businesses in the last month.

But what should we be reading in the weeks and months to come?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. This is really resiliency in the face of uncertainty. This was, of course, a jobs

report that beat expectations, 177,000 jobs added. The estimate was closer to 135,000 jobs added.

The unemployment rate unchanged, sitting at 4.2 percent. That is historically low. This is really historic expansion in the labor market

that we have been seeing.

One thing to keep an eye on, though, is there are more people on long-term unemployment. So, this may be a little bit of a crack in the labor market

that is starting to form.

But if you look at where jobs have been added every single month, March was revised down. That was that surprising number, 228,000 jobs added, revised

down to 185,000.

But if you look at those last two months there on your screen, March and April, that's a solid pace. But, of course, the questions are, when does

the tariff uncertainty start to work its way into the jobs market? I've heard from so many businesses that they sort of feel paralyzed right now.

So, they're not doing much as it relates to jobs.

Now, where were jobs added in the month of April? Healthcare and social services was a big one, 58,000 jobs added there. Leisure and hospitality,

24,000 jobs.

As we know that people are still spending money to go out and do experiences and to dine out at restaurants. Manufacturing saw some losses

of 1,000 jobs.

And the federal government, to be expected, these are the DOGE cuts showing up for the third straight month since the beginning of the year, 26,000

jobs lost in federal government.

But it's worth noting that there is still anxiety among businesses. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce just sent a letter to the administration calling

for the administration to exempt small businesses in particular from tariffs, because the chamber had heard from so many small businesses just

saying that they would not be able to weather the storm as it relates to tariffs. And many of them would have to close their doors and that would

mean job losses.

So, that is part of the expectation. This is a solid report, but that is part of the expectation that some businesses are seeing coming on the

horizon.

Worth noting, though, that Wall Street, obviously, very pleased with this report, signaling that they are welcoming this news that for a second

straight month, the jobs market seems to be resilient in the face of just this uncertainty around tariffs and what it is truly going to mean for U.S.

businesses.

ASHER: Yes. We're in the middle of a historic labor market expansion. But speaking of uncertainty, the de minimis exemptions are such essentially

expiring. So, that means that people who are trying to receive packages from China, under $800 in terms of value, they would not have been subject

to tariffs until today. That changes now. Walk us through that.

[12:05:01]

YURKEVICH: Yes. That changed at midnight. So this was an exemption called the de minimis exemption, where if you bought something from China for

under $800, there was no duty, no tariff, no inspection. And that was a sort of a key purchasing power for U.S. consumers who wanted to get cheap

goods quickly.

Now that that's gone away, all of those products are going to be hit with that 145 percent tariff, and they're going to be inspected. So that means

cheap and fast now becomes more expensive and slower.

And so for consumers, obviously, it's a question of whether or not they want to wait and pay more. Listen to this stat, though. More than 80

percent of total U.S. e-commerce shipments in 2022 were these de minimis imports, and most of them came from China.

So you have brands like SHEIN and Temu and AliExpress that have built business models off of this and are now saying that they're going to have

to raise prices and potentially change their business model. And, of course, who does this affect the most? It's low-income Americans who relied

on these more affordable products that are going to see these higher prices. And that is where you start to see consumers potentially pulling

back. And, of course, that has a downstream ripple effect in terms of the economy.

Consumption, consumer spending is such a key driver of the economy that if that starts to pull back, then that's when you start to get into a

precarious point with economic growth.

ASHER: Yes. I actually saw a lot of TikTok videos of people complaining about the rising prices for Temu and SHEIN. A lot of people saying there's

more than doubling in some cases.

YURKEVICH: Yes.

ASHER: So that is going to affect demand.

Vanessa --

GOLODRYGA: The first time a lot of them are hearing the word de minimis too. I mean, that's never -- that's never --

ASHER: I just learned the word de minimis.

GOLODRYGA: It's a tough one to get out.

ASHER: De minimis. I just learned it this week.

Vanessa Yurkevich, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

YURKEVICH: Thank you.

ASHER: All right. More now on a developing story out of the U.K. Prince Harry has lost his legal fight, challenging the British government's

decision to downgrade his security while in the U.K.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. The Duke of Sussex's taxpayer-funded security was downgraded after he gave up his royal duties.

Let's go to CNN Royal correspondent Max Foster in London for us.

How is Prince Harry reacting to this decision, Max?

MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: So he's just done an interview with the BBC, an exclusive where he has sat down for half an hour. It's just

started playing out. And it is a very emotional, very charged interview where he talks deeply about this court case, but also about the family and

how actually this issue is what has caused much to a rift in the family.

The whole interview hasn't played out yet, but this is the fact that Prince Harry's done it is a real statement of intent, as opposed to sending out a

short statement. He hasn't done one of these sit-down interviews for years.

So he talks about wanting reconciliation. He's devastated by the court results. So this court result was to say that he couldn't have the top

level security when he visited the U.K. That is armed police. He felt he had a right to that. He doesn't feel it's safe to bring his family to the

U.K. without that, but it was taken away.

But just to emphasize, the court case was looking at why the Home Office made that decision and found there was no fault in that process in

downgrading his security. So that's what's essence here.

The King is head of state. He is head of the departments of state, one of which is the Home Office. But, of course, he doesn't get involved in

politics. I think we haven't heard from the palace yet, but I think they would certainly say, there was no way the king had any influence over this

decision whatsoever. And that's where Prince Harry is coming in pretty strong, saying this is a good old fashioned establishment stitch up. And

he's blamed the royal household for influencing the decision to reduce his security.

So this is a pretty profound statement that he's making here, that his family, or the palace at least, had some say in making him and his family

vulnerable as he would see it.

He's saying that his father won't speak to him because of this security stuff. So this security issue is why there has been this sort of massive

break in the family. And he said the way he's been treated over this has uncovered many of his worst fears.

And I think what he's intimating there is what he's talked about in relation to this particular case. And it's certainly the case that I see

him most involved in of all the cases, and that is that his mother Diana died because of security issues, he feels, and the way she was chased by

the paparazzi and how she wasn't looked after properly by the palace.

He didn't want history to repeat itself. And he is arguing he just doesn't feel it's safe for his family to come over to the U.K., Meghan and the

children. So we haven't seen the whole interview, but it's a -- it's a pretty landmark royal interview, I think, it's playing out to be as such

and it's going to blow up all the tensions in the family again.

[12:10:14]

GOLODRYGA: Yes. Only exacerbating to the tensions that have already been so widespread and reported between these family members, just looking at some

of these headlines as well from the interview Prince Harry saying, I've never asked my father to intervene on security. You'll continue to cover

this story for us. Max Foster. Thank you so much.

ASHER: Thank you, Max.

All right. The Trump administration is looking into whether it can label some suspected cartel and gang members inside the U.S. as enemy combatants.

GOLODRYGA: Such a move could potentially allow authorities to detain them more easily and limit their ability to challenge their imprisonment. People

with knowledge of the deliberation say that it could also be applied to suspected narco terrorists outside of the U.S. as a way to justify

conducting lethal strikes against them.

ASHER: Yes. Our national security correspondent, Natasha Bertrand, is in Washington for us.

I mean, so Natasha, does this help us understand the legal pitfalls of this?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, there are so many illegal pitfalls to this. According to legal experts we spoke to, it

is unclear if this would even have any legal basis at all.

But, of course, we have seen the Trump administration take steps to try to facilitate the mass deportation and mass detention of migrants over the

last several weeks and months, even if the courts ultimately rule that those moves have been illegal, as we have seen them rule multiple times

when it comes to the Alien Enemies Act, which Trump invoked last month to try to detain migrants that he deemed terrorists more easily.

This would be a step even further though, according to experts that we spoke to. And it's something that President Trump wanted to do in his first

term back in 2018. And according to a former Department of Homeland Security official that I spoke to, the question at that point was whether

it would be feasible. They said lawyers and policy folks like me said it was nuts and that they never meet the legal definition. And if we started

treating migrants like terrorists, it wouldn't just be a slippery slope, it would be a mudslide into illegality and police state behavior.

So that really tells you a lot about the kind of pushback that they received back in the first administration. And that we are told they are

now receiving from people here at the Department of Defense as they are weighing this.

Just to remind people what the enemy combatant designation is. It's something that after 9/11, the U.S. was applying to people suspected of

being members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban or any, quote, associated forces.

And so that was used to justify detaining those people at Guantanamo Bay really indefinitely without any recourse, without any ability to challenge

their detention and go through a fair trial, a fair process.

Obviously, we have seen President Trump repeatedly express frustration with the fact that many judges are either delaying these deportations or saying

that they are not allowed to go forward because they have been denied in many cases due process.

Well, now the thinking is, in the Trump administration, if we just declare them enemy combatants, that will give them even fewer rights and less of an

ability to challenge their detention.

Legal experts say the courts are likely to completely, you know, not go with that, especially because the enemy combatant designation, that really

only applies during times of active conflict and active war, something that the Trump administration cannot reasonably argue the United States is in at

this moment with cartels or gang members.

ASHER: All right. Natasha Bertrand live for us there. Thank you so much.

A vessel bound for Gaza issued an SOS shortly after midnight Friday, off the coast of Malta, when it caught fire after an alleged drone attack.

Activist Greta Thunberg says she planned to be on that vessel, which intended to open up a humanitarian corridor to Gaza, which is under siege

by Israel.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRETA THUNBERG, ACTIVIST: For two months now, not a single bottle of water has entered Gaza and it's a systematic starvation of two million people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: The Freedom Flotilla Coalition says that the vessel already had activists on board and was heading to Malta to pick up others before

heading to Gaza.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond has more on what we know.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: The Freedom Flotilla Coalition said its ship headed towards Gaza was targeted by an Israeli drone. The

group says that two Israeli drone strikes ripped through the front of this ship, targeting the generators that were located there and also leaving a

large hole in the ship, which started to take on water.

They then made an SOS call as they were in international waters, just off the coast of Malta. The organization posted these videos of the ship in

flames.

And in one video, you can actually hear what appears to be the moment of impact.

[12:15:04]

And you can hear that large boom. Now we cannot independently verify what caused that explosion, what caused the flames on this ship. We have reached

out to the Israeli military for comment. They have declined to comment on this situation.

Also notable, an Israeli Air Force C-130 plane, which can be a transport plane or a surveillance plane was also observed on flight tracking software

just off the coast of Malta, flying at low altitude in the hours before this attack.

Now this ship was actually headed to Malta to pick up a number of activists who were going to head to Gaza, including Greta Thunberg, the prominent

climate and human rights activist.

And then the ship was going to be headed to Gaza, loaded with aid to try and break what has now been a two-month blockade by the Israeli military of

the Gaza Strip.

Over the course of the last two months, not a single truck of humanitarian aid, food, water, medical supplies has made it into Gaza.

As for the fate of this crew on board, the lead organizer of this flotilla said that the group was in the process of trying to arrange a small boat to

go to that damaged ship and to be able to escort them safely back to land.

Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Tel Aviv.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ASHER: All right. President Trump has appointed eight new members to the Holocaust Memorial Council in Washington, D.C. He made the announcement on

social media. Here you see some of the names.

Notably, Alex Witkoff, the son of his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, is among the appointees.

GOLODRYGA: The Trump administration fired former second gentleman, Doug Emhoff, and other Biden era appointees from the board. Emhoff posted on

social media after his dismissal saying, quote, Holocaust remembrance and education should never be politicized.

The council oversees the funding and operation of the Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Well, joining us now from West Palm Beach, Florida is CNN's Alayna Treene. And, Alayna, the ADL also weighing in, sort of echoing what we heard from

Doug Emhoff that this is not an issue that should be politicized.

What are we hearing from the Trump administration as to the rationale for the changes?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSED REPORTER: Right. Well, we've now heard from many people within the White House's communication office from White House

press secretary Karoline Leavitt to Communications Director Steven Cheung. All of them really trying to make the same point here that it is the

president's prerogative to try or to want to really put his own people into positions of power.

And I don't think something like that is surprising. But what is surprising and what really has critics kind of up in arms about this is because of the

institutions that he's doing it to.

You mentioned the Kennedy Center. It's very similar to this board at the Holocaust Museum, which essentially is these are non-partisan entities.

These are non-partisan boards. They are meant to be more, you know, cultural boards not to really get involved in politics on either side of

the aisle.

And that's where a lot of the critics and opponents of this are saying that why this is so concerning, that the president is trying to politicize what

has typically been an apolitical association.

I do want to get into a little bit of some of what the president did here. As you mentioned last night, he announced that he was appointing eight new

members to the board shortly after he had removed many of the people that former president Joe Biden had appointed.

You named Alex Witkoff as one, but he also appointed Sid Rosenberg. He's a conservative talk radio host, someone who actually at the president's

Madison Square Garden rally last year said, Democrats were, quote, a bunch of degenerates, Jew haters, and low lives.

And then to get into some of the people that the president removed, you mentioned Doug Emhoff, the husband and former second gentleman of Vice

President Kamala Harris. But he's someone who, of course, I think we need to know has been a very outspoken opponent of the rise of anti-Semitism.

He's also Jewish.

But other appointees include President Joe Biden's former chief of staff, Ron Klain, Susan Rice. I mean, these were people that clearly Biden had

wanted into these roles. The president seeking very much to move them out. It kind of isn't keeping, as we've seen with a lot of the retribution the

president has been taking against many of the people that the former president had put in place all to say.

We'll see where this goes from here. But I think similar to the Kennedy Center, a lot of people are going to be continuing to raise this as an

issue as we look forward.

Bianna, Zain.

GOLODRYGA: All right. Alayna Treene, thank you so much.

ASHER: All right. Still to come, the White House launches a fresh attack on the media with U.S. president signing executive order calling for an end to

federal funding for two public broadcasters. Details, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:20:30]

GOLODRYGA: Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, will meet President Trump next week for what he calls a difficult but constructive conversation. The

meeting comes in the middle of Trump's tariff war, which has hit Canada hard.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: On Tuesday, I had a very constructive call with President Trump, and we agreed to meet next Tuesday in

Washington.

Our focus will be on both immediate trade pressures and the broader future economic and security relationship between our two sovereign nations.

My government will fight to get the best deal for Canada. We will take all the time necessary, but not more, in order to do so.

In parallel, we will strengthen our relationships with reliable training partners and allies. Canada has what the world needs. And we uphold the

values the world respects.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Anti-Trump sentiment in Canada helped propel Carney to his election victory earlier this week.

ASHER: All right. It is no secret that Donald Trump has done more to target traditional media companies than perhaps any other modern American

president.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And now he's taking aim at America's two biggest public broadcasters. The U.S. President signed an executive order asking the

corporation for public broadcasting or CPB to indirect federal funding for NPR and PBS.

ASHER: The White House accuses the broadcasters of spreading, quote, radical woke propaganda disguised as news. The CBP was set up by Congress

as a private entity to prevent government interference.

GOLODRYGA: CNN's chief media analyst, Brian Stelter, joins us now for more.

Brian, first of all, just remind us of the role that these two entities, PBS and NPR, play for millions of Americans at home and the significance

then of this executive order from the president.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Yes. There are 1,500 local radio and T.V. stations in the United States that receive funding from the

federal government, from taxpayers.

In some cases, it's a small amount of the budget. So think about big, blue cities, big urban areas with lots of donors, lots of foundations. Those

sorts of stations would survive if federal funding was suddenly stripped away.

But smaller stations, more rural stations, especially in Republican strongholds, would be the ones that suffer the most and would probably go

off the air.

I interviewed the head of the PBS or NPR affiliates in Alaska, for example. They said, it's the smaller stations that will suffer if this actually goes

through.

You know, thinking about this in a global sense, in many Western democracies, the funding of radio and T.V. is a point of pride. But in the

U.S., it's been a source of contention for many decades.

[12:25:08]

Republicans in the U.S. have long said, they wanted to defund NPR and PBS, but they've never been this close to actually doing it. Trump is pushing

much harder to actually get it done, even though these funds have been allocated by Congress every single year.

Today, PBS and NPR leaders are saying this is unlawful. Trump cannot actually strip the funding. His executive order essentially has no teeth.

Here's what the head of PBS, Paula Kerger, said in a statement this morning. She called the order patently unlawful and she said, it threatens

our ability to serve the American public with educational programming as we have done for the past 50 plus years.

You'll see at the end of the statement, she is threatening legal action. And NPR is doing the same thing. They are going to go to court, I believe,

to try to protect their rights and their funding.

I've been noticing, my media beat is faster into a legal beat, because so many different media outlets are going to court trying to defend themselves

against President Trump's actions.

Earlier this week, Trump claimed he was firing three board members of the organization that oversees this funding for PBS and NPR. It's called the

Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It's one of those invisible parts of the United States, you know, that just takes care of sending out these

monies.

Well, think about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, it's not a government agency. It's a private entity. Congress set it up that way

specifically to protect it from a moment like this.

So we continue to see these cases where Congress sets aside the money, but now Trump is trying to claw it back. It keeps happening to different media

outlets, and we don't know what will happen in this case.

GOLODRYGA: All right. Brian Stelter, thank you so much.

STELTER: Thanks.

ASHER: All right. Still to come, how are Trump's sweeping changes sitting with voters? Van Jones speaks to three black voters about why they voted

for Trump. That story, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:30:27]

ASHER: All right. Welcome back to ONE WORLD. I'm Zain Asher.

GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga.

ASHER: President Trump has made good on many of his campaign promises in his first 100 days, including cutting the federal workforce, laying tariffs

on America's trade partners, and cracking down immigration.

So, how do Trump supporters actually feel about these moves?

GOLODRYGA: Yes. CNN's Van Jones met with a group of black voters who voted for President Trump about how they feel about his first 100 days in office.

Here's his report from Greenville, South Carolina.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SETH DAWKINS, VOTED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: You do well.

VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR (voice-over): And here we are in South Carolina with three Trump voters.

JONES: You weren't always a Republican.

DAWKINS: No. Actually, I come from a family that was, like, super democratic. My first time voting, I voted Democrat. I voted for Joe Biden.

JONES: What about Trump appealed to you?

DAWKINS: Am I allowed to cuss?

JONES: Yes, you can, yes. It's OK.

DAWKINS: I mean, part of it is, he's an asshole. I like authenticity.

JONES: You voted for Obama, and then you voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. But 2020, you voted for Donald Trump. What made the change?

DETRA GERMAN, VOTED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: I began listening to someone. Her name is Candace Owens. And I read her book, and it just opened my eyes to,

maybe he's not this person that I have been led to believe that he was.

JONES: So you voted against Trump in 2016.

KYASIA KRAFT, VOTED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes.

JONES: But then in 2020, you voted for him?

KRAFT: Absolutely.

JONES: Why?

KRAFT: I saw how things were going during his first term, and I was pleasantly surprised. And I was pleased with what was happening. I saw the

economy getting better. I saw country relations in certain countries getting better.

JONES: What are some things that he's doing that you do like?

DAWKINS: For me, I like the border. I just don't like the idea of someone coming here illegally and getting benefits that can serve my community. So

that's the reason why I support him on that border policy.

JONES: When you think about the border, you think about people coming here who are getting more help than people who live here, who were born here.

DAWKINS: Yes. And I got that perspective not from news channels. I got it from social media. TikTok is like a holy ground. We even see it with the

things that we learn about the United States government.

Outside of the United States, people are showing Americans, hey, look at what's going on. Do you all know that your government's doing this? Have

you seen this? Have you -- have you looked at it from this perspective?

JONES: Yes, people, when they think about a Trump voter, they usually think about a white dude with a red hat on and a pickup truck, and you all are

not that at all, so.

Donald Trump's team went in. They took down Harriet Tubman's picture for a quick minute. They're trying to, like, knock out the black museums. What

does that have to do with the price of eggs and how does that impact you?

DAWKINS: In some ways, it's a slap in the face. In other ways, I don't care. I care more about how I'm going to take care of my children.

KRAFT: I don't think the average American cares about that. I know -- I'm frankly -- I am sick and tired of seeing black people sit there and

complain about something, but not taking action as steps to actually try to change things in an appropriate manner.

JONES: Under the Trump and Biden administration, they came to certain agreements with police departments to be less brutal toward the black

community. Trump has now ended all that. How does that help the black community?

KRAFT: I have a lot of issues with police reform and just with how police officers are treated as a whole. My husband is currently going through the

process to become a police officer.

The amount of hatred that cops get, even the best ones, I think has become a huge problem because it has been, especially around election times when

it definitely comes out of, like, oh, no, the cops are bad. The cops hate you because you're black. They're immediately deemed as evil.

JONES: This man is talking about running for a third term.

Now, what do you think about that?

GERMAN: I mean, a third term, for me, absolutely not. I think it's at the end of these four years, it's just -- it's time to move on.

KRAFT: This is a prime example of him trolling people because people have said, like, oh, if he gets in the office, he's going to be a dictator. He's

going to try to run for a third term. So he's like, OK, you all think I'm going to do that? I'm going to mess with you all and say this to tick you

all off.

JONES: I thought you loved this man because he's so authentic and he's such a truth teller.

KRAFT: But you need to know the difference between somebody trolling somebody, and this is a prime example of him being a troll.

JONES: If you had to do it all over again, would you vote for Donald Trump again, yes or no?

GERMAN: Yes, I would. Now, in the future, I am not a diehard Democrat or a diehard Republican. If there were a democratic candidate who was more

aligned for me, then I would vote Democrat.

[12:35:13]

JONES: If you go back in time, would you vote for Donald Trump, yes or no?

DAWKINS: Yes.

JONES: I think I might know the answer on the second one.

DAWKINS: She said yes. It's immediately yes. No, I'm sorry.

JONES: If you had to do it all over again, would you vote for Donald Trump, yes or no?

KRAFT: One thousand percent, absolutely yes.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

ASHER: Van Jones reporting there and maybe they're not mincing her words at all.

All right. Time now for The Exchange. Joining us live now is CNN political commentator and Republican strategist, Shermichael Singleton and democratic

strategist, Antjuan Seawright.

Shermichael, let me start with you. I think this election was really interesting from the perspective of the black vote because we were talking

about this around election day that in 2024, Donald Trump essentially doubled his support among black voters compared to 2020. He got about 20

percent or so of the black vote. Kamala Harris got 80 percent.

And even though that is obviously a strong majority, she lost about 10 percentage points compared to Biden. So a lot of --

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.

ASHER: -- you have found that interesting. So you can't just sort of, just because you're black, you can't just sort of take the black vote for

granted. I think that's the lesson that everyone took from that.

But just in terms of the last question that Van Jones asked those voters, you, Shermichael, as a black Republican, if you could do it all over again,

would you vote for Donald Trump again, based on everything that you've seen the first 102 days?

SINGLETON: Well, I -- good to see you, Zain and Bianna. I would answer the question this way, focus on the economy. We saw the job numbers that came

out today showcasing resilience and how robust the economy is. And I think for a lot of black voters who are no different than other voters of color

and voters who are not of color, the primary reason when you look at most data that we have at this point was either immigration or the economy.

If you look at the employment cost index right now, we're seeing that wages, for all workers, including black workers, remain steady. That is a

very good sign. When you're looking at a personal consumption expenditures, that's actually on an incline.

If you look at a snapshot of the data that just came out this week, black voters do spend a lot. We're one of the largest consumers in the market.

And so that means that voters have money and they have tangible dollars that they can spend in the marketplace.

And so I would argue that those three individuals that Van -- that Van sat with, including probably many other, not only black voters, but remember,

Trump also got around 40 percent of Latino voters. I think for the most part, they probably are happy.

Does that mean that they like everything, the instability on certain issues like tariffs? I think if you were to ask, they would say, you know, we

think he could do better there.

Some of the rhetoric and some of the things around DEI, I would imagine, even as you heard the one African-American say, I don't care as it pertains

to the economy, but it is something that I don't like.

And so I think there are things that people could say, I don't like this. This could be better. But at the crux of it pertaining to those kitchen

table issues, I think most people who voted for the president are probably pretty happy with what they've seen so far.

And the data suggests that a lot of the, I guess, emotional appeals that we've seen from Democrats about the economy crashing a stagflation or

recession, it just isn't bearing fruit based on the data that we have.

GOLODRYGA: And it's still, we should say, early days and the tariffs haven't been implemented yet to the point where we would see actual

tangible impact for voters, for Americans, for corporations.

But, Antjuan, to that point -- to that point, Zain referenced the increase that we've seen President Trump have with black voters. Obviously, the

majority still identifying with Democrats, but he did get the largest share of black voters dating back to the 1970s for a Republican candidate.

Here's the other issue that I think speaks not only to black voters, but to Democrats in general. And that is their concern about where Republican

leadership, where the Republican Party is right now to address some of the things and some of the policies that are already upset and worry voters.

So black voters, according to a poll recently, only 18 percent of them strongly believe that the Democratic Party's approach to challenging Trump

was effective and a quarter expects -- expressed doubts about the Democrats' ability to engage with the black community moving forward.

What are some of the early lessons that the Democratic Party can learn to address these concerns?

ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, a few things. Let's not dismiss the fact that 92 percent of black women voted for the democratic

ticket, 78 percent of black men voted for the democratic ticket.

And, yes, Donald Trump, on the numbers, received a larger percentage, but the electorate was expanded. And so you can play tit for tat with the

numbers and how it shaped out.

[12:40:04]

But let's also not dismiss the fact that my party has some work to do, continue to earn the trust of the most loyal and dedicated voting bloc in

the history of this country. You can win with us. You can damn sure you lose without us.

And we have some work to do. I think when it comes to Trump and Trumpism, there's a two-part fight. I think we have to fight both the personality and

the policy. And we have to demonstrate trust by trust, bit by bit, that we are on the right side of history with issues.

I take a pushback a little bit on my dear friend, Shermichael, around the economy, because the one thing we failed at as Democrats in the last

elections, we talked about the macro aspects of the economy and all the indication, all the numbers indicate that we were humming on all cylinders

in that regard, where I think voters expressed their frustration with Democrats at the ballot box was on the micro aspect of the economy.

It's almost like, by and large, the economy is doing well, but my personal economy is doing -- not doing as good as I want it to be. I think we have

to make some adjustments, as we say, a yoga (ph) on that regard.

But I would also imagine that when we actually feel the (INAUDIBLE) kick-in of these unnecessary tariffs, the economic drama of Donald Trump and

Trumpism, I think you're going to get a different response from both Democrats and Republicans constituency by constituency on how they feel,

not just about the economy, but about this president and this administration. And keep in mind that people who voted the most are those

who've been impacted most.

To answer your last question directly, two things happen with elections. You either win or you learn. Sometimes when you win, you do not always

learn. I think that's what happened to Democrats in 2020.

And in 2024, I think we have to -- there are a lot of lessons we have to learn, including going to speak to people and listening to people to hear

what their frustrations are, concerns are, and not assuming that we know what they are.

ASHER: All right. Antjuan, thank you for that. I mean, there were very sort of interesting points made there, especially because if we do tip into a

recession, we know that black voters are going to be disproportionately affected in that. That's typically what happens.

Obviously, as you mentioned, Shermichael, we're not there yet at all. We've got these really solid jobs numbers, but who knows what the future holds,

especially as the trade will continue.

All right. Shermichael Singleton and Antjuan Seawright, thank you both.

GOLODRYGA: Thank you.

ASHER: That does it --

GOLODRYGA: De minimis and (INAUDIBLE). Two take one word.

ASHER: I learn new words today.

GOLODRYGA: That does it for today's ONE WORLD.

SINGLETON: I love it. I love it.

GOLODRYGA: Thanks so much. I'm Bianna Golodryga. Have a good weekend, everyone.

ASHER: Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MARKETPLACE AFRICA)

END