Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Five Justices Reject Trump's Plan to Freeze Foreign Aid; Rep. Sylvester Turner Dies at 70; Trump to Speak to PM Trudeau; U.S. Pausing Intelligence Sharing with Ukraine. Aired 11:00-11:29a ET

Aired March 05, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking news, a swift Supreme Court decision. Five justices rejecting the Trump administration's plan to freeze billions of dollars in foreign aid. I'm Pamela Brown.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And we want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer and you're in the Situation Room.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

BLITZER: We're following the breaking news. The U.S. Supreme Court rejecting the Trump administration's bid to freeze billions of dollars in congressionally approved foreign aid.

BROWN: Two conservative justices tipping the scale, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, siding with their liberal colleagues in the 5-4 split decision. Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid joins us now. So, Paula, walk us through the court's decision.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: This is a technical decision, but it really reveals a lot about the internal partisan divides at the court. Now, here the Trump administration had asked the court to allow this foreign aid to continue to be frozen, not force them to disperse it as a lower court had. But the Supreme Court declined to intervene on behalf of the Trump administration. They didn't say when this money needs to be sent out. Instead, they sent that all back down to the lower court to be hashed out.

But in this dissent, four conservative justices took the time to write an opinion disagreeing with the majority. And that's notable because, again, this isn't a huge decision. This isn't the constitutional opinion on whether Trump has the power to reshape the federal government. This is a pretty technical issue. But these justices felt very strongly that a lower court judge should not be able to compel the administration to send out this aid.

Now, I will note that this aid was approved by Congress, but this appeal moved really fast. I mean, they got before the high court in a matter of days. It is extremely rare for the justices to drop an opinion on us at 9:00 a.m. But this is the second time that the Trump administration has gone to the Supreme Court to intervene on their behalf, and the second time the court has declined.

BLITZER: Very interesting. The issue though, correct me if I'm wrong, Paula, is far from settled. The court did not give a specific date to unfreeze these billions of dollars in proposed foreign aid.

REID: That's exactly right. The lower court is going to have to decide that. And then, there's the constitutional question about whether the Trump administration can rescind this kind of aid that's already been approved by Congress. That larger constitutional question is playing out in cases across the country as DOGE and the Trump administration try to reshape the federal government and the Supreme Court will ultimately be the final word on the extent of executive power here. We're far from that case, but that's where this will all lead over the next several months.

BROWN: And you have to wonder what the Trump administration is thinking, especially we should note, it's kind of the elephant in the room, Donald Trump spoke to Chief Justice Roberts last night. He said, thank you. We're not sure what he was talking about, but it's just so fascinating.

REID: Yes, absolutely. I mean, I think an educated opinion is that Trump is likely thanking him for the immunity decision last June that really made it impossible for the special counsel to bring a criminal trial before the election. But we don't know for sure.

But we do know they likely had already decided this. And then, this comes out at 9:00 a.m. But look, the Trump administration they don't like to lose. But they told me before Trump even took the oath of office, he was going to come out with these executive orders, this executive action. They knew all of it would be challenged in court.

And it is usually challenged in a jurisdiction where the challengers think they will win, right? Democrats do this as well. But they believe that there is a long game here. They think when they get these big constitutional questions, the larger questions about executive power before the Supreme Court, they believe that the Supreme Court will side with them. And I think what we saw in this decision is there are at least four conservative justices who would possibly be very open to these executive power arguments.

BLITZER: Lots of legal stuff going on. Good thing we have you, our chief legal affairs correspondent. Thanks very much.

BROWN: Thank you so much.

BLITZER: And, Pamela, you studied law too, right?

BROWN: I did. I went to law school. I got sort of a baby JD, if you will, a Master in Studies of Law. So -- but Paula's the real expert. Thank you so much, Paula.

All right. We have a guest joining us. Alma Aliaj joins us now. She lost her job at USAID and lives here in Washington with her family. Alma, thank you for coming on. I know it's been a difficult time for you. No one wants to lose their job. I'm wondering what your reaction is about the Supreme Court's decision this morning.

ALMA ALIAJ, FORMER USAID EMPLOYEE: Yes, thank you for having me. First of all, I mean, I think this is a step in the right direction and I'm really heartened to see the decision of the Supreme Court. But I also feel that we didn't need the Supreme Court to come and tell us that when you have bills due for work that's already been done, you pay those bills. I think every American can probably answer that question.

[11:05:00]

So, while I do think that this is a move in the right direction, you know, I really am struggling to figure out how they're going to make these payments next, and that's where I think you need to kind of watch as this unfold.

As I'm sure you know, the U.S. Agency for International Development is an agency of about 14,000 people. Most of those people, like myself, have either been put on administrative leave and locked out of these systems or have been illegally fired and terminated.

So, those are the people that are going to have to make these payments that have the expertise, the logins and the authority to be able to make these payments to these partners that we owe money to. And I'm really curious to see if DOGE is going to stand in the way of that.

I do also want to say, you know, again, I'm really glad the Supreme Court came down on this, although 5-4 is a little bit disturbing to me. Imagine trying to do business in a world where one party decides unilaterally that they're going to not honor their contracts and not pay for work that's already been done. And that, I think, is really important to highlight.

This is work that was already completed by American businesses and American companies on behalf of the American people a long time ago before this administration even came in. And I think because DOGE is trying to make a case that they're finding savings, they decided it would be a really convenient way to say, well, we're just not going to pay these bills.

I pay my bills. When I go to a restaurant, I pay for the food that I've eaten there. When someone comes to my home to fix a leak, I pay for the work that was done. And so, it's no way to run a business. It's certainly no way to run the country.

BLITZER: Alma, it's Wolf Blitzer. What kind of work did you actually do at USAID?

ALIAJ: Yes, I work for a bureau called the Bureau for Conflict Prevention Stabilization. We work in some really dicey places around the world, like Ukraine, like Sudan and repressive regimes and regimes undergoing destabilizing forces or counterterrorism threats. My job as a communications team lead for that is to tell the stories of our work, but the colleagues that I work in day in and day out work in some of these really, really precarious places to partner with people to make sure that U.S. interests in some of these countries are protected, are advanced, that our national security is protected and aligned with the president.

As you know, we live in a really precarious world where a threat abroad can become a very quickly a threat at home, that includes diseases, terrorist organizations, and our job was to try and stop those threats at the source to prevent them from coming and disrupting life here at home for Americans.

BROWN: You've experienced firsthand some of the chaos as USAID Was shuttered tell us about your experience.

ALIAJ: Wow. Well, where do you want me to start? It has been absolutely chaotic. And I think chaos and instability are what has been the hallmark of this administration so far, at least in the six weeks that I've experienced it. And that's largely due to the influence of DOGE and Elon Musk.

So, on February 24th, that was last Monday, for example, I was first told I would be put on administrative leave along with everyone in the agency. Then I was told that I was actually an essential employee and I needed to keep working, and I was prepared to do that. Third, I was told that I would be fired on April 24th as part of a large-scale reduction in force of the agency. And then, a few hours after that, I was terminated effective immediately due to being a probationary employee.

That just simply means that I am new to my current position, but I've worked for the agency for over 10 years as a contractor. I'm just a new civil servant. So, just in the span of about 24 to 36 hours, I was fired but told I was essential a variety of different ways and a variety of, you know, different communications. And that's just one small example of how disorganized and chaotic and incompetent that people doing this are across USAID, but across the U.S. government.

Our own HR division didn't know that I was fired. They cannot confirm or deny who was terminated, why they can't give us the paperwork that we need to apply for unemployment. So, I'm still kind of in this purgatory. I can't say what's happened to me, and I can't even begin to cobble together the remaining parts of my life to get unemployment and kind of move on from this.

BROWN: I'm so sorry that you're going through that, and you don't have the clarity that you certainly deserve. Thank you, Alma. We appreciate your time.

ALIAJ: Thank you.

BLITZER: And we have more breaking news coming into the Situation Room. Right now, Democratic Congressman Sylvester Turner has died at the age of 70. He was previously the mayor of Houston and was elected to the U.S. House just last year to succeed the late Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

Let's go to CNN Congressional Correspondent Lauren Fox up on Capitol Hill. What more are you learning, Lauren?

[11:10:00] LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this news just confirmed from the Houston mayor who released a statement saying a remarkable public servant who impacted millions of people. He rose from poverty but never forgot where he came from. It is a terrible loss for the city and a personal loss for me. I asked Houstonians to celebrate his life, the mayor said in this statement.

And Democratic leadership informed some members at a meeting earlier today on Capitol Hill that Turner had passed away. Obviously, this comes as he is still a new member of Congress. He was elected just in November, like you said, to fill that seat of the late Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

Obviously, this is a really tough news for his Texas colleagues and that delegation as well as the rest of the House of Representatives, given the fact that this is such a narrow majority for Republicans in the House we do expect that this will be filled by a special election in a couple of months. Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Lauren Fox, thank you very much. And as we say, our deepest, deepest condolences to his family. May he rest in peace and may his memory be a blessing.

BROWN: Absolutely. Still ahead, just one day after Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau condemned President Trump's plan to impose tariffs, a possible exception is being made. I'll speak with the former U.S. ambassador to Canada.

BLITZER: Plus, protests and outbursts from Democrats at President Trump's first major address of his second term. I'll ask Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand what her party's strategy looks like coming up now. Stay with us here in the Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:15:00]

BLITZER: Sources tell CNN President Trump is due to speak with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today. That call will focus on the escalating trade war between the U.S. and Canada. Also new, the administration's point man on tariffs says a trade deal could be announced as early as today and could include exemptions on certain products such as cars. Listen to this.

(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. 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.

And my thinking is it's going to be somewhere in the middle. So, not 100 percent of all products and not none. Somewhere in the middle because I think Mexico and Canada are trying their best and let's see where we end up. So, I do think somewhere in the middle is a likely outcome.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: And we shall see. I want to discuss what's going on with Bruce Heyman. He was the U.S. ambassador to Canada under President Obama. Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us. In your opinion, how important is it for the Trump administration to avert a full-blown trade war with Canada?

AMB. BRUCE HEYMAN, FORMER PARTNER, GOLDMAN SACHS: Oh, it's critical. It's probably the most important thing that they are focusing on internationally, barring the issues with Ukraine. Canada is our best friend, and best friend, I don't mean that lightly. I mean, they've been there for us in every difficult moment that our country has ever faced, and we share this incredible border together.

We do trade, and I'll come back to trade in just a second. But we also protect ourselves militarily, we share the resources of the Great Lakes together, and the Canadians have been there for every difficult moment that we've had. At 9/11. I mean, we've had plays, Broadway shows, about the relationship we have with Canada, and -- "Come From Away." We have books and movies written about how Canada has been there for us in Iran, dealing with the diplomats during the Iran hostage crisis. This is a special relationship.

And what I think the Trump administration is missing is that it's based on trust. You know, George Shultz wrote on the occasion of his 100th birthday that the coin of the realm is if there's trust in the room, good things happen. And if there isn't trust in the room, good things don't happen.

Trust is built over a long period of time. The Canadians have trusted us for many decades, as we have trusted them. But we signed an agreement under the first Trump administration to update NAFTA to USMCA. It was a trade agreement. And these tariffs are a direct opposition to that agreement, which we all signed and shook hands and Donald Trump said this was the greatest trade deal ever.

And so, all of these other narratives that are coming out don't fit. It just doesn't fit. The fentanyl doesn't fit, the migration, the level of trade, the deficit we have. All of these seem like six or eight different excuses to put a tariff on Canada, which I believe is a mistake.

BLITZER: You heard, Ambassador, what the White House trade adviser, Peter Navarro, just told us a little while ago about these tariffs. What do you make of what we heard from him, basically, that Canada, under Justin Trudeau, is not doing enough to prevent fentanyl and undocumented immigrants from coming into the United States?

HEYMAN: So, first, let's just lay this out. Fentanyl's awful. It's a huge problem that we face all over North America, for that matter. Opioid abuse is killing too many people. But putting a 25 percent tariff across the board on Canada for a fentanyl issue is inappropriate. It doesn't link up to the level of the issue we face.

[11:20:00]

The reason the administration is doing this is because they can't put the tariffs on because they say we're short cash or we need some money from the Canadians. They need to construct an emergency. And that emergency, under IEPA or other factors that they're going to use to claim that they need to put these tariffs on, they needed to construct the emergency. The emergency they constructed was fentanyl and migrants, and it just doesn't fit with what's actually taking place.

BLITZER: Canada, as you know, is the top U.S. trading partner when it comes to goods and services with the United States, and certainly one of our closest, I can confirm that I grew up in Western New York and Buffalo along the border with Canada, and I love Canada. Visited there many, many times. We used to have a summer home there. Do you believe permanent damage, though, has already been done to this extraordinary relationship?

HEYMAN: First of all, I hope not. That would be just a shame and completely unfortunate, because, you know, if the U.S. were to pick any country around the world that we want as our neighbor, we'd pick Canada every day of the week, and I hope, even still, that Canada would pick us.

But we have done a lot of damage. Wolf, I have never seen Canadians so upset on an individual basis, so saddened by the breaking of the trust that has been taking place over these last few weeks. And I think that the administration keeps talking about a tariff and a trade. Canada and the U.S. is not a transactional relationship. We do transactions. Canada and the U.S. is a bonded relationship.

And it's not just friends. We have family. There are more Americans living in Canada than any other country in the world outside the United States. There are more Canadians living in America than any other place outside of Canada. And so, we are family. We have children together. We play sports together. We study together. This is deeply painful to the Canadians, what's taking place.

BLITZER: Very quickly, before I let you go, Ambassador, how damaging has Trump's words about Canada becoming the 51st state of the United States been?

HEYMAN: God, it's hurtful. I mean, you know, on one hand, you know, I guess somebody might say, wow, that's nice because you like us so much. But that -- you know, Canada has is a proud country with an amazing culture. And this is just wholly inappropriate thing to be saying to our best friend, next door neighbor, best trading partner, defense partner around the world, promoter of liberal democracy in the world. I mean, it's just not an appropriate thing to be saying.

BLITZER: Totally. All right. Ambassador Bruce Heyman, thank you so much for joining us.

HEYMAN: It's a pleasure.

BLITZER: Up next, Pamela. BROWN: Less than 48 hours after the Trump administration announced it is suspending military aid to Ukraine, the CIA director says his agency has also paused sharing U.S. intelligence with Kyiv. So, what this means for the wider conflict with Russia, that's something we're going to delve into coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:25:00]

BLITZER: We have more breaking news coming into the Situation Room right now. The United States -- the Trump administration has paused intelligence support to Ukraine following last week's Oval Office clash between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and President Trump. All that according to the CIA director, John Ratcliffe, who clarified the move earlier today. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: President Trump said, as he asked for a pause. In this case, as everyone saw play out, President Trump had a real question about whether President Zelenskyy was committed to the peace process. And he said, let's pause. I want to give you a chance to think about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. Joining us now, CNN's senior military analyst, retired Admiral James Stavridis. He's a former NATO Supreme Allied commander. He's also a partner at the Carlyle Group, a global investment firm. Admiral, thank you so much for joining us.

First, let me get your reaction to this announcement that the U.S. is stopping, at least for now, intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS, CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST, U.S. NAVY (RET.), PARTNER, THE CARLYLE GROUP, BOARD MEMBER FOR ANKURA, FORTINET, AON, CONSULTS FOR BEACON STRATEGIES AND FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: You know, we used to talk about maximum pressure campaign on Iran. What I'm starting to feel like is we want to put maximum pressure on an ally, a partner, a friend, and that would be Ukraine. So, I, for one, do not believe this is going to contribute to getting this deal back together again, but it's certainly of a piece with pausing the arms shipments.

I would say militarily, Wolf. This is as critical because this intelligence is what was enabling the Ukrainians to launch strikes inside Russia as well as against Russians who are about to attack them as they were approaching Ukraine. This is going to cost Ukrainians lives. And I hope we quickly come off the pause, both on this intelligence sharing and on the actual weapon systems.

BLITZER: It could have a huge impact if the U.S. Intelligence Community, for example, learned that Russia was about to attack civilian targets in a Ukrainian city, killing a whole bunch of Ukrainian civilians. Wouldn't the U.S. have to inform the Ukraine military about that possibility in advance if the U.S. had that kind of intelligence?

STAVRIDIS: Well, I certainly hope we would apply that standard. We have a global standard of whenever we know a terrorist attack is coming, even if it isn't --

[11:30:00]