Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Attorney General Says, Kilmar Abrego Garcia is Not Coming Back to Our Country; Lawmakers Face Frustrated Crowds at Town Halls Across U.S.; Trump Doubles Down on Threat to Deport U.S. Criminals. Aired 10- 10:30a ET

Aired April 16, 2025 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking news, new comments from Attorney General Pam Bondi about the status of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the late reporting just coming into The Situation Room

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Plus, fiery town halls.

Lawmakers getting more than an earful from constituents.

We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown and you're in The Situation Room.

We begin with breaking news, the White House underscoring its defiance of the latest court ruling over Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, saying just moments ago, the Maryland father who was mistakenly deported to his native of El Salvador is, quote, not coming back to our country. Those very strong words coming just hours after a federal judge gave the Trump administration two weeks, quote, two weeks to prove that it's working to bring him home.

Abrego Garcia is now housed in a notorious mega prison in El Salvador. His case is a test -- a flashpoint in President Trump's aggressive campaign to round up and deport immigrants. It's a test of presidential power that has many families wondering if their loved one could be next.

Right now, a Democratic lawmaker is traveling to El Salvador to call for the release of Abrego Garcia. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland says he also wants to confirm his wellbeing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): He has never been convicted of a criminal case. So, when the vice president tweets out, he's been convicted, that's just not true. I mean, you saw lie after lie after lie coming out of the White House. They're gaslighting the American people on this case. So, they can say what they want, but in the United States of America, at least so far, we respect the rule of law.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: Let's go live now to CNN National Security Correspondent Kylie Atwood. She's over at the State Department for us. Kylie, what kind of communication is going on between the two countries?

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, listen, what we saw unfold earlier this week, Wolf, was a very public demonstration of the conversation that we understand the two countries are having. President Trump met with the president of El Salvador in the Oval Office and during that meeting, the president of El Salvador very clearly stated that he had no intention to work with the United States to bring Garcia back to the United States, saying that his country is not fond of releasing terrorists, saying that he would stay in that mega prison.

Of course, we should note, just for context here, that Trump administration officials have said that Garcia is a member of the MS- 13 gang, though Garcia's attorneys have said that he is not.

So, that is the political conversation, the public conversation between the two countries unfolding. But we also have to key in on the actual judicial conversation that is happening between the Trump administration and a D.C. district court with the federal judge saying just yesterday that she is now going to be giving the administration two weeks to prove that they are actually taking action to abide by her earlier court orders, stating that the administration had to work to facilitate the return of Garcia from El Salvador to the United States.

She said yesterday that at this point the record shows, nothing has been done by the administration to do that. So, what we're really watching for here is the communication between that federal judge and the Trump administration over the course of the next few weeks to see how this plays out legally, because El Salvador has made the case that they have no intention of returning Garcia. But now this is really a focus point between the Trump administration and the federal judge. Wolf?

BLITZER: All right. Kylie Atwood at the State Department for us, Kylie, thank you very much. Pamela?

BROWN: All right, Wolf. New this morning, a showdown between Maine and the Justice Department. You might recall that testy exchange between the governor of Maine and President Trump at the White House. The state previously refused to adhere to the federal government's demands to ban transgender athletes from girls' sports. And in response, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced actions against Maine for, as she said, violating Title 9.

[10:05:06]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Department of Justice is announcing a civil lawsuit against the Maine Department of Education. The state of Maine is discriminating against women by failing to protect women in women's sports. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right. Let's go live now to CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid. Paula, how do we expect Maine to respond to this lawsuit?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, so far, the governor of Maine has made it clear she does not intend to comply with President Trump's order to ban transgender athletes in girls' sports, so it's unlikely that this lawsuit is going to change her mind.

Now, following that highly publicized confrontation between the governor of Maine and President Trump back in February, where she made it clear she was not going to abide by this executive order and told him, I'll see you in court. She has faced a barrage of a federal retaliation from various agencies targeting federal funding.

And back in February, the attorney general sent the state a letter saying that it has to comply with this administration's interpretation of Title 9, that federal anti-discrimination law. The state of Maine though, has made it clear they are not going to do that. So, that has set off litigation including today's lawsuit.

But the state of Maine has noted that there are only two transgender athletes participating in girls' sports in the state. So, there have been questions about why so much sort of federal energy and resources have been poured into this specific issue. But as we know, this is an issue that played out in the election. It's been playing out in states across the country, and today the attorney general said that she is thinking of suing other states that don't comply.

BROWN: All right. Paula Reid, thank you so much. Wolf?

BLITZER: Happening now, a key hearing is getting underway that could have big implications for the controversial data sharing deal, allowing the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service, to give taxpayer data to immigration agencies, a move critics, say, violates federal privacy laws.

BROWN: CNN Crime and Justice Correspondent Katelyn Polantz joins us now. So, Katelyn, what are we expecting from this hearing today?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pamela and Wolf, what we are watching for is if this judge, Dabney Friedrich, in the federal court in Washington, D.C., if she's going to do anything about this. This is a case about privacy, but it's also about the enforcement of immigration law that the administration is so aggressively pursuing right now.

And in this case, there's a lawsuit from immigrant rights groups saying that the IRS shouldn't be able to give the Department of Homeland Security any taxpayer information about people that they want to investigate and potentially deport immigrants who may be in the country illegally.

Now, step back for a second. Immigrants who may be in the country illegally or unlawfully, they still pay federal taxes. So, the IRS has a lot of data about them. But there are a lot of laws governing the privacy and the confidentiality of IRS taxpayer information.

The judge in this case, she previously looked at this and said, there's no need for me to step in. So, we're back in court again today. Where they're asking her again, could you step in, could you please? As of right now, what we have though on the books is the Justice Department and the DHS saying that they aren't requesting information about taxpayers from the IRS since about ten days ago. And that there is an understanding agreement that is lawfully respecting the privacy of this taxpayer information. So, we'll see what happens.

BROWN: We'll see. I know you're going to be tracking all of it.

Thanks so much, Katelyn. Wolf?

BLITZER: Good report. Thank you very much for me as well.

Also happening today, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are hosting more town halls across the country to hear what voters are saying about the state of the nation.

Three people were arrested at Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene's town hall in Georgia last night. Two of them were actually subdued with a stun gun. Greene didn't take live questions. Instead, she read them from a screen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): Why is MTG supporting Musk and DOGE in the slashing of Medicaid, Social Security offices, libraries, and more? This is outrageous, from Sarah (ph). Well, Sarah, unfortunately, you're being brainwashed by the news that you're watching.

And, you know, a lot of Democrats pride themselves on being educated, and I suggest they educate themselves better.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Joining us now, CNN's Brian Todd. He's here with us in The Situation Room. These town halls are showing just how angry and frustrated so many folks out there are.

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They really are, Wolf and Pamela. There's a clear discernible pattern on the Republican side, but also on the Democratic side. I've covered a few of these town halls now in Trump's first hundred days. Last night, we had a Democratic town hall in Annapolis, Maryland, this young congresswoman, Sarah Elfreth, 36 years old, only 102 days into her first term, now 103, she holds this town hall in Annapolis, Maryland.

[10:10:10]

And for more than an hour is mostly friendly rapport, but then a very familiar refrain cropped up in the Democratic town hall. She was asked a question, and, again, very familiar criticism, leveled at her at this town hall last night.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to know what you're going to do to meet the moment, because tonight, I have learned you're not. Being milquetoast and not inspiring people to believe that you can change something for them won't inspire them to vote.

REP. SARAH ELFRETH (D-MD): If you have the chance to get to know me, that's not how I fight for you in a milquetoast fashion. I meant that I'm using every tool that I have available to me, and, again, I apologize if those tools aren't going to result in the things that this group wants.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: So, Congresswoman Elfreth and other Democrats continually on the defensive in these town halls. Earlier this week, guys, we had Congresswoman Laura Friedman, a Democrat from California. She hears in a town hall from an attendee there, quote, I don't believe you have pushed hard enough. I don't believe that you have fought large enough. Another congresswoman, Chellie Pingree, a Democrat from Maine, hears in a town hall this week, quote, I'm not seeing any Democratic planning for the future. What is the vision? What is the mission?

It is of common refrain and it's three themes that Democratic voters are hitting at their Congress people in these town halls, you're not fighting hard enough, you don't have a plan, and your messaging stinks. We heard it again last night. It is a real pattern now, at least in the Democratic side.

BLITZER: These town halls all across the country are getting very, very lively indeed.

TODD: Yes.

BLITZER: All right. Brian Todd, thank you very, very much. Pamela?

BROWN: All right, Wolf. President Trump is doubling down on his latest controversial deportation comments and reiterating his desire to send, quote, homegrown American criminals to El Salvador.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Could we use it for violent criminals, our own violent criminals.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I call them homegrown criminals.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

TRUMP: I mean, the homegrown.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The homegrowns could be -- TRUMP: The ones that grew up and something went wrong and they hit people over the head with a baseball bat. We have -- and push people into subways just before the train gets there, like you see happening sometimes. We are looking into it and we want to do it. I would love to do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right. Let's go live now to CNN White House Reporter Alayna Treene. Alayna, what is the reaction in Washington this morning?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, look, I think one of the key questions now, of course, is do they actually have the legal authority to do that? Now, we heard the president himself say he was directing his top officials to look into it, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, but we also heard White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt say yesterday that they are looking into this.

And I think the key thing here is that the president has now said this a few times. He had floated it earlier this year, but no one really took it seriously then. What is clear this week is that the president is seriously considering this idea of trying to deport U.S. citizens who have committed crimes to that notoriously brutal prison in El Salvador. And also, of course, he brought it up and spoke about it with El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele this week, again, just, I think, showing how serious this is.

Now, the key question and what we're hearing from legal experts is the legality of this, a lot of legal experts argue it is unconstitutional that United States citizens, whether they commit crimes or not, must stay in the United States. If they're going to be detained, they need to be detained in America. But, again, this is something that the president clearly has shown that he wants to do, and now is trying to figure out if he's able to do that.

But one of the things I think that's really important to keep in mind as well here, Pamela and Wolf, is that part of the reason I think there is so much concern and so much talk around this issue is because what we're seeing them do in the broader case regarding Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and, really, it's the closest we've seen the Trump administration come to defying the Supreme Court. That's really why I think there's so much attention being paid to these remarks. Pamela?

BROWN: Right, and just what it means for the executive branch power and as it pertains to immigration policy and really testing those bounds.

Alayna Treene, thank you so much. Wolf?

BLITZER: All right, Pamela.

There's more news coming in this morning. Joe Biden is back and he's calling out Donald Trump for the first time since leaving the White House. In a speech to disability rights advocates yesterday, the former president slammed the Trump administration for taking, and I'm quoting him now, a hatchet to Social Security.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Fewer than 100 days, this new administration, it has made so much damage and, and so much destruction. It's kind of breathtaking it could happen that soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: CNN's Arlette Saenz is joining us right now for more. Arlette, update our viewers.

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, president, former President Joe Biden really offered his first public critique of President Donald Trump's second term, specifically zeroing in on Social Security, painting his administration's work as destructive.

[10:15:03]

Now, Biden never named President Trump or Elon Musk by name, but he did criticize their approach to the Social Security Administration, which has undergone this massive reorganization due to DOGE's cuts, and also prompted concerns from Americans about the benefits that they could receive.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: Go and ask yourself, why is this happening? Why are these guys taking aim on Social Security now? Well, they're following that old line from tech startups. The quote is, move fast, break things. Well, they're certainly breaking things. They're shooting first and aim later. As a result, the result is a lot of needless pain and sleepless nights.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: Now Biden here is offering a message, a preview of messaging the Democrats could potentially use heading into the midterms, and he's really become the latest in a string of high-profile Democrats to start to speak out about Trump. We have heard in recent weeks from former President Barack Obama, as well as Vice President Kamala Harris, but Biden, of course, is in a very unique position. He's the only man to have beaten Trump. Then he was replaced by him in the White House, and he's still navigating what exactly his post- presidency will look like in the months and years to come.

BLITZER: We'll see how this all unfolds in the coming weeks and indeed months.

Arlette, thank you very, very much. Pamela?

BROWN: All right. Still ahead, they are at the two words that are at the center of Kilmar Abrego Garcia's case. We're going to ask our legal experts about the difference between facilitate and effectuate.

BLITZER: and a hidden danger lurking where your child sleeps. A new study reveals how your children's mattress potentially could be harming their brains.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:20:00]

BLITZER: Breaking news, the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, says Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man mistakenly deported to El Salvador last month, is, quote, not coming back to our country.

BROWN: Let's get some reaction now from CNN Legal Analyst Jennifer Rodgers and Attorney Seth Berenzweig.

Jennifer, I want to go to you. So, you have the attorney general saying he's in El Salvador, he's not coming back to this country. Is the administration now openly defying the Supreme Court order, in your view?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, not yet, Pam, because the Supreme Court's order is not actually governing here. The Supreme Court just ordered that the district court make clearer what it wanted, so we don't have an actual order in place to be defied yet.

But what Pam Bondi is saying is if actually even if we -- what she's saying really is that we are not doing what the district court is ordering us to do. And not only are they not doing what they've been ordered to do, they're not even telling the district court what they're doing or not doing. So, they're definitely in defiance of the district court at this point.

We're going to get discovery over the next two weeks and we should learn more about what's been happening. But we're getting towards the constitutional crisis that you reference here, but we're not quite there yet.

BLITZER: Let me get Seth into this conversation. Seth, how do you see it? Is the Trump administration using the Supreme Court's relatively vague language to try to dodge its order?

SETH BERENZWEIG, BUSINESS AND COMPLIANCE ATTORNEY: I don't think so. I don't think that we're swimming in crisis waters just yet. It's important to zoom out a little bit and look at the perspective of this, because, essentially, this is a case involving an apparent error of process.

The Supreme Court a few days ago approved of the president's ability under the Alien Enemies Act to do group deportations. With respect to this individual, there was never a ruling that he was immune from deportation. There was a so-called withholding order a couple of years ago that said that he couldn't be deported to El Salvador. So, when the administration talks about administrative error, it's a matter of process and location. It's not about deportation itself.

As was correctly noted, we're going to be in a two-week period of expedited discovery. What will probably happen consistent with the Supreme Court, it certainly could happen, is if they bring him back, it might be for a day or so for a so-called habeas hearing. But I do think that the administration's long-term position will probably come to bear that he's not going to exactly be coming back to Maryland to live back in the United States.

BLITZER: And that court order said he shouldn't be deported to El Salvador because his life there could be in danger.

BERENZWEIG: Because he said that he was being threatened and his family was being threatened by a rival gang. That was alleged in 2011. There's a question about that gang still exists, but you're right. So, it's really an element of location and process rather than substance.

BROWN: Yes. And just to help, help us better understand this, Jennifer, because the administration is saying we would send him right back to El Salvador, despite that court order and they're making the claim that he's a member of MS-13, but it has not provided that evidence, right? And in 2019, when that protective order was granted, the judge did review evidence in that case and he was not convicted of anything and was still given that protective order.

So, what has changed since then to now where the administration is saying that doesn't matter, we can still send him there?

RODGERS: Well, we don't know Pam. That's kind of the problem. I mean, if he were given the appropriate process, if he were here and going through the immigration court proceedings, perhaps the government would put forward sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he's a member of the gang or is in some other way a danger. That's what we don't know. That's the process that he deserves and has not been given.

Perhaps they do have that evidence. And if they bring him back, as they are supposed to do, and put him through those proceedings, perhaps they'll be able to prove it to the satisfaction of an immigration judge, at which time they can deport him wherever they want. The problem is that that process hasn't been given, and so we don't know.

[10:25:01]

If they do it the right way, sure, perhaps he'll go back to El Salvador, but that's the steps they need to go through.

BLITZER: Seth, as you know, President Trump has now openly talked about the possibility of deporting U.S. citizens to El Salvador, potentially to other countries, U.S. citizens who have committed crimes. Is there any circumstance under which that would be legal or constitutional?

BERENZWEIG: I don't think that has any legs. I think that was a little bit of a throwaway line that President Trump does. BLITZER: He's done it twice now.

BERENZWEIG: Well, he has, and he'll probably do it a third time later today. But I don't think that has any legs. That's a little bit of a throwaway line.

But just to go back a little bit to what was noted just a few seconds ago, this individual that we're talking about this morning has had process in front of an immigration judge. He had a trial. He had an appeal. He's now had his case in front of the United States Supreme Court.

I think that in terms of the question is what's changed, one of the biggest things that's changed, that's caused this is the change of political will. We have a situation right now where the White House is taking a fundamental approach to law and order at the border. And I don't want to lean too forward in the politics, but the reality is that we've had these gang members that have been taking over apartment buildings. We have tapes of buildings in Aurora, Colorado, that have literally been taken over by gangs. The Supreme Court has said that the Alien Enemies Act is permitted. And right now, they're following the process.

We've got an important two weeks ahead, so we'll see what happens. But I don't think we're in a crisis here.

BROWN: Right. And just to follow up on that, and, and there is no doubt that, you know, Americans made it clear they want more done at the border and they're concerned about safety and gang members, no one wants that.

I think the bigger issue here is the constitutional issue of, you know, this is someone that did go before a judge in 2019, and there was evidence presented to that judge of, from a confidential informant, that he could be a member of the MS-13 gang. Another judge cast out on that evidence but he was given this protective order. And then just recently, he was rounded up, plucked off the street, sent to this mega prison in El Salvador, known for human rights abuses without going to see a judge who could decipher, is this actually a member of MS-13? He didn't get to file a habeas complaint. Is that acceptable to you under the Constitution?

BERENZWEIG: No, it's not. He's entitled to a habeas complaint and the Supreme Court said in the Alien Enemies Act ruling a few days ago, that someone gets a habeas hearing. It's basically a one day process. So, I agree with you, and I think the administration has admitted we have an error process here, so there's some cleanup to do.

It's a problem. There's a process. We have a two week expedited discovery window, so there's a lot happening. But I think it's important to also zoom out on the process and understand he was not given deportation immunity. He was given a withholding order to not be deported to that location.

BROWN: That's true. But I think also there's a difference between being deported to a mega prison and El Salvador with human rights -- you know, known for human rights issues and all kinds of things, and being deported elsewhere, where you can, you know, have more rights and liberties and that kind of thing. So, I think it does raise those interesting questions, and we're going to continue to cover it.

BERENZWEIG: Absolutely. In the next two weeks, it will move fast.

BROWN: Right, okay. And, again, we want the administration to provide more transparency and information. We don't know. We don't know what evidence they have to back up the claim. Perhaps they have it, they just haven't shown it.

BLITZER: Yes. We we're journalists. We love transparency.

BROWN: Yes.

BLITZER: Jennifer Rodgers and Seth Berenzweig, thanks to both of you very, very much.

BROWN: And up next we're going to speak to Republican Congressman Rich McCormick to get his take on President Trump's suggestion to deport U.S. citizens who have committed violent crimes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]