Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Supreme Court Rejects Trump's Request to Keep Foreign Aid Frozen; CIA Chief Says, U.S. Has Paused Intelligence Support to Ukraine; Suspect in Kabul Airport Terrorist Attack Arrives in U.S. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired March 05, 2025 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking news, the Supreme Court rejecting President Trump's plan to keep billions in foreign aid frozen. I'm Pamela Brown.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Will Blitzer. You're in The Situation Room.

BROWN: And we begin with breaking news from the nation's highest court in a 5-4 ruling. The Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration's request to keep foreign aid frozen. The billions of dollars in aid had been approved by Congress.

BLITZER: Here with us to break all of this down, it's very significant, CNN's Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid. This was an incredibly fast decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It wasn't as rare that the Supreme Court Trumps a decision on us at 9:00 in the morning. And look, this decision was pretty technical, but it really reveals a lot about the device within the court itself. This is the second time that Trump's efforts to reshape the federal government have gone up to the high court. And here specifically, the Trump administration was asking the court to keep foreign aid frozen, but the court declined to do that, actually sent that whole issue back down to the lower court to decide if those funds need to be released.

Now, this is the second time that the Supreme Court has declined to intervene on Trump's behalf. I want to note the larger questions about what Trump can and cannot do with DOGE, with this kind of foreign aid, those questions have not been answered. The Supreme Court has not weighed in on what we call the merits, or the larger constitutional questions. That's going to take some time, but, again, twice they've asked the Supreme Court to help them out, and twice they have declined.

BLITZER: And, basically, correct me if I'm wrong, the House of Representatives and the Senate both passed authorizing legislation for these billions of dollars in foreign aid. Then they passed separate appropriations bills, and then the president signed both bills into law. The Supreme Court's saying, if you want to change that, there's got to be additional legislation on the Hill and more action by the president.

REID: So, I think eventually the Supreme Court will have to get at that issue. Right now, the issue they're deciding is really whether a district court judge can compel the administration to pay these billions of dollars in foreign aid that they're saying they don't want to. So, it's interesting. There was a really lengthy dissent in this decision where four conservative justices were sort of outraged at the idea that a district court could compel the administration to do that.

Eventually, though, they will have to answer these larger constitutional questions that you just touched on. If Congress, you know, appropriates these funds, can the administration just say, no, we're not going to send them out? Those questions will likely take a few months to get to the court because it has to go back to the lower court and work its way through the system. And the Supreme Court really isn't looking to jump the line right now.

BROWN: Yes. That would be the bigger constitutional question, right? What is the direct impact then of this?

REID: So, right now, it's going to go back down to the lower court and the litigation over this larger question will begin. And the district court can decide if the administration has to disperse these funds. I think what really stood out to me in this decision, though, is, again, this is -- right now, this is very preliminary. This is a very technical issue. We're not answering these larger questions yet about the separation of powers.

But four justices, they all got together and they wrote a really powerful dissent. And what's notable about that is this is, again, like I said, it's a pretty -- it's not a minor decision, but it's not a massive decision. And the fact that they all took time to really lay out why they disagree with the majority, that signals that there really are pretty entrenched partisan divides on this court. And that will be incredibly significant when these larger constitutional questions do come before them in the usual formal way where there are arguments and a big opinion.

Because we know, I know from talking to my sources of the Trump White House, their long game for all of these efforts with DOGE and reshaping the federal government are designed to eventually go before the Supreme Court, and they hope they expect that they will likely side with President Trump. It's going to be a -- that's a long game. That's a long path. But that's how all of this has been designed.

[10:05:01]

They knew this would be challenged in court. They didn't expect to win initially, but they do expect to win at the high court.

BLITZER: Chief Justice John Roberts was the tiebreaker.

REID: Exactly here, yes. He's just said, look, we're going to send this down. We're not going to keep this frozen. We're going to send this down to the district court and they can handle it. But I think everyone expects that one of these big DOGE related cases is likely going to come back before the Supreme Court in the coming months.

BLITZER: Excellent explanation. Paula Reid, thank you very, very much.

BROWN: And there's interesting on the Hill is because we saw a President Trump briefly talking to Chief Justice Roberts last night.

BLITZER: He said thank you to him.

BROWN: He said, thank you, I'll never forget it. We don't know what he was talking about, but it's just such fascinating. Yes, absolutely.

All right, thank you so much.

I want to continue this discussion with CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig.

So, how are you viewing this, Elie?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Pam, I think this is a substantial setback for the Trump administration. Now, the winning side here, the challengers, they had argued in the lower courts that essentially the president has no power to block this federal funding because Congress had already allocated it. And under Article 1 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to tax and spend. That was ultimately the argument that prevailed here.

Now, the other side of it, the Trump administration and the dissenters in this case, argue, first of all, the district court judge had no power to do what he did, that he overstepped. Second of all, that the way this case was brought by private businesses was procedurally improper. And, third, the dissenting conservative justices argue, what we the Supreme Court should have done is put this whole thing on hold so that we can have the full rounds of briefing and argument that we ordinarily have. And as the dissent correctly notes, the practical impact of this is that $2 billion is almost certainly going to get out the door and nobody can stop it at this point.

BROWN: When can that happen? That's what I'm trying to get at, just sort of the direct impact from this. Yes, we're seeing it back to the lower court. What does it mean for that aid that's frozen right now?

HONIG: So, as Paula said, the Supreme Court has now sent this case back to the district court, the trial level court, and this is the same judge who previously ordered the federal government, you cannot block this. You need to get it out the door. He gave him something like 36 hours to get it out the door. Well, now the Supreme Court has said back to the district court. Yes, district court judge, you do have jurisdiction and authority to order that this money be paid, and you need to work with the parties to get this money out the door in a way that's quick, but also feasible, not impossible from a technical point of view. BROWN: So, what does this tell us about pending disputes about federal funding, international funding with USAID and also within the U.S., domestic funding?

HONIG: Yes. This is why I think this case is so important because we need to get ready. We're going to see a whole series of these lawsuits about DOGE, the firings, the withholding of federal funding. They are making their way through the federal courts as we speak. And this is one of the first -- two, really -- to reach the Supreme Court. In general, this is a conservative Supreme Court. In general, this court is going to side with broad conceptions of executive power, of presidential power.

However, I think one big exception we need to watch for, and we see it in this case, is when it comes to federal funding, because these justices are conservative, but they can read the Constitution. And, again, Article 1, the very first enumerated power is given to Congress. So, if Congress has decided to spend money, I think, under a strict reading of the Constitution, then the president cannot block it.

So, watch for that pattern, I think, to repeat itself in the coming weeks and months, generally signing with the president, but not necessarily on these issues of withholding federal funding.

BROWN: What is the significance in your view of how the justices split in this ruling?

HONIG: Yes, so a really interesting breakdown here. We had the chief justice and Justice Amy Coney Barrett siding with the three liberals to give a 5-4 majority. And, again, I think when we look forward, you're basically going to have the three liberal justices, Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan, they're generally going to be locked in against broad executive power against the Trump administration.

It's a safe bet moving forward to count on elite Justices Alito and Thomas and Gorsuch basically being in favor of executive power. And so that leaves us really three justices in the middle, the chief justice, Kavanaugh and Barrett, who are going to serve more or less as the middle, the swing. Now, we know they're conservatives, but as you see, in this case, if you can, if the liberals could win over two of those three, then they can actually pull out a decision here and there.

BROWN: All right. Elie Honig, as always, thank you so much.

HONIG: Thanks, Pam.

BLITZER: And still ahead we'll sit down with President Trump's Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing Peter Navarro on what a tariff compromise potentially would look like.

BROWN: And we'll speak to Democratic Senator Chris Coons on new reporting that the U.S. is positive intelligence support to Ukraine.

Stay with us. You're in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:10:00]

BROIWN: Breaking news. The U.S. is pausing intelligence support to Ukraine. CIA Director John Ratcliffe says President Trump has a, quote, real question about whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is committed to the peace process.

With us now is CNN National Security Reporter Zachary Cohen. What more are you learning about this?

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, guys. It's clear that there's at least a partial pause in the intelligence sharing between the U.S. and Ukraine. What's not clear is how far these limitations go. How much is that intel being limited? What kind of intelligence is being paused here? It's also not clear how long this pause could remain in place, but Trump CIA Director John Ratcliffe and his National Security Adviser Mike Waltz both suggesting that it could be lifted in the short-term if the Ukrainians demonstrate that they've come further in the negotiation process towards the negotiations to satisfy what they would like to see as far as coming to the table and engaging with Russia.

Now, look, it remains to be seen whether or not Ukraine has done enough to satisfy the Trump administration's demands on that front, but it's hard to overstate how important the intelligence sharing relationship between the U.S. and Ukraine is to Ukraine's ability to fight Russia on the battlefield.

[10:15:10]

That's something that John Ratcliffe himself was told at length when he first became CIA director by U.S. officials from the outgoing administration. So, this is something that is really critical. And every minute that goes by that this intelligence is paused, could have real effects on the battlefield for Ukraine.

BLITZER: So, quick question, if the U.S. Intelligence community has specific hard intelligence that Russia is about to bomb a civilian area, a major city in Ukraine, with churches and schools and hospitals and kill potentially a lot of Ukrainian civilians, the U.S. government, the U.S. intelligence community, is no longer going to share those specifics with the Ukrainian government?

COHEN: Well, that's really the key question here. We're not sure. It is clear that there is some pause that is taking place here. But whether it's an example like that, that they would not communicate that, it remains to be seen.

But look, that's why Mike Waltz and John Ratcliffe are both expressing hope that this could be lifted soon, because they both know the importance, as you just outlined, that it could be a life or death scenario, whether or not that information gets to Ukraine.

BLITZER: A lot of lives are at stake right now. BROWN: Right. And Zelenskyy put out a statement saying that he wants peace. He talked about President Trump and his strong leadership. What more does the administration need from Zelenskyy in order to and we're going to continue on with the intelligence sharing and the aid?

COHEN: Well, even Donald Trump himself last night, right, indicated that Zelenskyy had taken steps to sort of, reconcile their Oval Office dust up, which really did seem to derail discussions between Ukraine and the U.S. and prompted this effort to by the Trump administration to push Ukraine to go further as far as engaging with Russia.

So, it remains to be seen where the bar is for the Trump administration. What does Ukraine have to demonstrate to get intel sharing back on track, to get military aid back on track? But it's clear that the White House and the Trump administration is not yet satisfied by what it's seen from Zelenskyy, despite the fact that top Trump officials have been backchanneling with the Ukrainians, kind of urging a reconciliation on that.

BROWN: I want to ask you about something else. The suspect involved in the planning of that 2021 terror attack at the Kabul airport that tragically killed 13 service members, American service members, is now in the U.S. and you're learning some new details about how he was apprehended and what comes next.

COHEN: Yes, that's right. And actually it was intelligence from the CIA that they shared with Pakistan that ultimately led to the arrest of this individual. We've identified him as Mohammad Sharifullah, and he is somebody who was on the radar of the intelligence community, it seems, for several years. An indictment that was unsealed last night suggest that he was recruited by the terrorist ISIS-K back in 2016. He was ultimately again approached about taking part in the 2021 bombing at the Abbey Gate. And he was really, it seems, basically description in the indictment more of a spotter. He's somebody who went to the airport, surveyed the scene and basically told the bomber where he could go without being detected by American or Taliban checkpoints.

So this is somebody who is now in the U.S. in custody and is facing criminal charges in Virginia for these terrorism related activities.

BLITZER: Quick question, how significant is it that Pakistan, not necessarily the closest friend of the United States, was fully cooperating in apprehending this terrorist suspect?

COHEN: Well, I think it's noteworthy that Donald Trump made a point to thank the Pakistanis and the Pakistani president last night in his speech. Again, that was reciprocated by the Pakistani president as well. And so clearly giving credit to the Pakistanis, but also making clear that this was largely the work of the Trump administration.

BLITZER: Good point.

BROWN: All right. Zachary Cohen, thank you so much. Wolf?

BLITZER: I want to continue this conversation right now. Joining us from Capitol Hill, Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware. Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

I know you're a key member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The CIA says it's paused intelligence support to Ukraine, at least for now. Just how crucial is this intelligence and what will the impact be to Ukraine now that America is no longer sharing critically important intelligence?

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Wolf, I think it is critically important that we continue to support Ukraine's fight for freedom against Russian aggression. And our intelligence community provides critical resources and insights on targeting, on battlefield conditions. That's publicly reported. And I am concerned that President Trump is pausing both military equipment going to Ukraine and intelligence cooperation. We should not do this.

President Trump last night made it clear in his speech to Congress that he received a positive letter from President Zelenskyy, that they may soon move forward on that critical minerals deal that should have been signed last Friday. And our European partners who have already contributed more than we have to Ukraine's fight against Russia have stepped up further and pledged hundreds of billions of dollars of additional support.

It wasn't clear from his speech last night where President Trump intends to take our relationship with Ukraine. I think if he wants to achieve a just and lasting peace in this ongoing war of Russian aggression, he should make it clear that we stand with Ukraine and drive a hard bargain with Putin.

[10:20:09]

BLITZER: You know, I thought it was significant in his speech last night. He announced and revealed that he had just received a letter from President Zelenskyy outlining Ukraine's decision to continue the negotiations to try, to come up with some sort of agreement. I thought it was significant that the president announced that in his joint address last night.

Let me get your reaction to another breaking story we're following this morning, Senator, while I have you, as you know, the U.S. Supreme Court rejecting the Trump administration's request to keep billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid frozen. How big of a loss is this for the White House?

COONS: Well, this is a big deal for the nonprofit organizations that are the implementing partners for foreign aid. They have been stiffed by the Trump administration to the tunes of tens of millions of dollars, and it's led to them laying off thousands of Americans and of people working around the world, delivering food aid, combating pandemics, confronting terrorists, pushing back on Chinese and Russian disinformation, to just stiff our contractors, those who have signed agreements and were providing vital services last year.

Look, that's just reprehensible. So, I'm encouraged that the Supreme Court has said, no, you have to pay your bills. And I hope there is still room for us to work with the administration on restoring the funding to the programs that work, that have enjoyed bipartisan support for decades, like PEPFAR, President Bush's program that combats HIV, AIDS, like programs that combat human trafficking and migration in Mexico and Colombia, like programs that push back on China and promote human rights. All of those have been shut down for the moment. They should be restored.

BLITZER: All of those programs authorized and appropriated by the U.S. Congress, signed into law by the president, and the question is, can the president of the United States, unilaterally, without additional congressional action, kill all those foreign aid programs?

I want to quickly turn, while I have you, Senator, to President Trump's address to Congress last night. Did the Democratic response from your colleague, Senator Elissa Slotkin, hit the points you think it needed to?

COONS: Yes, it was a tremendous response from freshman Senator Elissa Slotkin. She came across as a balanced, grounded, bipartisan, focused on the issues that I hear from Delawareans, they care about.

The president gave a rambling and an unfocused speech. He spent as much time talking about Greenland and retaking the Panama Canal and onward to Mars, as he did about anything related to prices at the pump or the grocery store, how to bring down the price of eggs and deal with the challenges that working families are facing.

Senator Slotkin gave a great response, and I was proud to have her representing the Democratic Party last night.

BLITZER: Yes, she gave a very effective, brief, only about 10, 15 minutes, or whatever it was, compared to, what, an hour-and-a-half speech by the President.

Trump is strongly defending, as you know, Senator, is very steep tariffs on America's top three trading partners, Canada, Mexico, and China, admitting they will cause, in his words, and I'm quoting him now, a little disturbance, a little disturbance. What will that so called little disturbance look like for everyday Americans?

COONS: Well, Wolf, that little disturbance President Trump is talking about is like that moment when the doctor says, oh, this won't hurt a bit, right before you get a tough jab in the arm. This is going to be a shock to the pocketbooks of millions of Americans. Our biggest trading partners are Canada and Mexico.

If we have problems with housing and affordable housing, the fact that we import most of the plywood that we use to build housing from Canada means those prices will go up. If we're concerned about prices at the grocery store, the fact that we import, particularly in winter, most of our fruits and vegetables from Mexico, more than from any other country, means those prices will go up, whether it's prices at the pump, the price of vehicles, the price of housing or groceries, these big tariffs and the retaliatory tariffs we will get from Mexico and Canada will create chaos in the marketplace and further raise prices.

Trump promised again last night to make America affordable again, but this isn't going to help make it more affordable.

BLITZER: Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, as always, thank you very, very much.

COONS: Thank you, Wolf.

BROWN: And still ahead, President Trump is expected to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau after the back and forth over tariffs. We are live at the White House, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00]

BROWN: We have more breaking news. President Trump is expected to hold a phone call with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau this morning, a day after a tense exchange of words and tariffs. Also new this morning, the administration's point man on the tariffs says that a trade deal could be announced as early as today. The commerce secretary says it could include exemptions on products, such as cars.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD LUTNICK, COMMERCE SECRETARY: The president is listening to the offers from Mexico and Canada. He's thinking about trying to do something in the middle. He's thinking about it. We're talking about it.

[10:30:00]

We're going to -- when I leave here, I'm going to go talk about it with him. And I think early this afternoon or this afternoon, we expect to make an announcement.