Return to Transcripts main page

The Source with Kaitlan Collins

Bessent's Mar-A-Lago Tariff Message To Trump: Zero In On Endgame; Supreme Court Allows Trump To Use Wartime Law For Deportations; Trump: Iran In "Great Danger" If Nuclear Talks Don't Go Well. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired April 07, 2025 - 21:00   ET

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

[21:00:00]

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, the Israeli military chief of staff was briefed today, on the preliminary investigation, and he directed that that inquiry be, quote, Pursued in greater depth. We expect that will conclude in the coming days.

But in the meantime, the Palestine Red Crescent Society is calling for an independent investigation. No indication from the Israeli military that they will pursue that avenue.

Anderson.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Jeremy Diamond, thanks very much.

The news continues. "THE SOURCE" starts now.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Breaking news from THE SOURCE tonight.

CNN has learned about a private message, delivered by the Treasury Secretary, to the President. What he told the boss, as fears grow from Wall Street to Main Street?

Also breaking, a major victory for the Trump administration at the Supreme Court. The five-four decision that could have major implications for the President's efforts in mass deportations.

And defying the Justice Department, an ousted pardon attorney testifying before Congress, despite warnings that she better not, or else. And tonight, she's here, live.

I'm Brianna Keilar, in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.

Inside the White House, this Monday, President Trump is being bombarded by world leaders, wealthy friends, and mega donors, major investors, even Republican members of Congress, privately, and some publicly, pleading with him to stop the economic hemorrhaging.

And the President says, he's seen the light.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't mind going through it, because I see a beautiful picture at the end.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: He's seen the light, and it's a beautiful picture at the end of the tunnel.

But economists warn, it's possibly a long, dark tunnel that resembles a painful recession, one declaring your life will never be the same after these tariffs.

And as we speak, the President is threatening to ratchet up his now global trade war, ramping up tariffs on China to a total of 104 percent. And that means a lot of the things you buy could cost double.

Compounding the anxiety is the challenge of sorting out how far the President is willing to go, how long this will last, and how it can even be resolved. Trump himself can't agree on what that plan is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: There's been some mixed messages from your administration. You're talking about negotiations, and yet, others in your administration are saying that these tariffs are actually permanent. What is that actually?

TRUMP: Well it could be -- they can both be true. There can be permanent tariffs, and there can also be negotiations, because there are things that we need beyond tariffs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Tonight, CNN has learned the same Treasury Secretary, you just heard talking about negotiations, Scott Bessent, traveled to Mar-a- Lago, this past weekend, with a message for the President.

That, it's imperative to get administration officials aligned on what they're saying publicly about the tariffs, Bessent said that to Trump, and to focus more on the end game for Americans, better trade deals with foreign nations. That's according to people familiar with their conversation.

But judging from what we heard from the President today, Trump still wants to have it both ways.

My lead source tonight was the Chief Economist for the World Bank, Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, and the Director of the National Economic Council under President Obama. In other words, he knows a thing or two about a thing or two. Larry Summers joining us now.

And Secretary Summers, given how much we all buy online, and how much of that comes from China, what would a 104 percent tariff on China mean for most Americans?

LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS, FORMER CLINTON TREASURY SECRETARY, FORMER OBAMA NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL DIRECTOR: Nothing good. Before the 30 -- before this additional tariff, the Yale Budget Lab was estimating that all of this was going to cost $3,800 for the average family. Senator Ted Cruz, hardly an opponent of the President, estimated that car prices would go up by $4,500. And there're estimates suggesting that clothing and apparel prices will go up by 17 percent.

So, this is pretty clearly, a massive middle-class tax increase. And that middle-class tax increase is only going to be increased, if the President adds more to tariffs on China.

And frankly, it doesn't really matter that much, what he gets in results in some negotiation. These tariffs are a self-inflicted wound to the American economy. Another way to put it is add it all up, and it'd be the equivalent of doubling the price of oil, adding $3 or $4 a gallon to the price of gasoline.

KEILAR: You have the co-founder of Home Depot, Ken Langone, he's a long-time Republican donor, telling the Financial Times, that the U.S. President was being poorly advised, that the 46 percent tariff on Vietnam was BS. He did not abbreviate, to be clear, there.

[21:05:00]

You're hearing CEOs, who, a lot of them have held their fire, on Trump's economic plans, but they're starting to come out publicly. Do you think that that's going to make a difference?

H. SUMMERS: I can do many things, in terms of economics. But forecasting the psychology of this President, and what kind of impulse is going to come next, is not something that I would pretend to be able to judge. What I would be able to judge is that the sooner we reverse ourselves, on Liberation Day, the healthier our economy will be.

I think there's still a prospect of avoiding a recession. But every day, we don't reverse ourself? The chance of recession goes up. The amount of inflation we're going to have, over the next several months, goes up. The prospects for employment go down.

So, I hope all these various voices are being heard by the President. He's made an epic error with the Liberation Day announcement. $5 trillion loss to the stock market is only the beginning, because the stock market doesn't count all the losses to workers, all the losses to consumers.

KEILAR: So you put the odds of a recession at about 50/50, last month. Where are you putting those odds today?

H. SUMMERS: More like two and three right now. Anything could happen. And economic forecasting is not an exact science. But surely, with these higher tariffs, taking more money out of people's pockets, surely with the losses we've seen in the stock market, you have to say that the odds of recession have gone up.

It's a kind of extraordinary thing that the President has put in place a set of policies, to cause the Fed to both think there was going to be more unemployment and more inflation.

KEILAR: Even if Trump cuts a deal tomorrow, with every country, because we have to be clear, these so-called reciprocal tariffs are scheduled to go into effect on Wednesday, how much damage would already be done, as you're looking at it?

H. SUMMERS: Look, I think there's damage, unless all of it is reversed, which I don't think is very likely, on the basis of what we've seen.

But even if all that is true, once you've yelled Fire, in a crowded theater, once, everybody's going to be more nervous in that theater with you in the future. And so, I think everybody's going to be approaching the United States with the leeriness that they didn't have before. And that's got to be bad for any American business, trying to sell abroad. That's got to be bad for anybody, trying to enter into a long-term contract with Americans. That's got to be bad for the Treasury's ability to sell debt.

We've made ourselves a less reliable partner as a nation, and that's a costly thing to do. Brianna, credibility is something that takes a long time to build, but only a very little time to lose. And that's the tragedy in what's been done.

Gosh, we do need to be firm with other countries. We need to protect our borders. We need to expect them to do more to meet the military burden of defending the world. We need to expect them to open their markets. But this kind of approach, where you have reciprocal tariffs, and you don't even look at any tariff data in setting the U.S. tariff, this is the wrong way forward.

KEILAR: Former Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, with some sober words there, thank you very much.

H. SUMMERS: Thank you.

KEILAR: And our White House insiders are here with us now.

And so, Jennifer, to you, a prominent news outlet today picked up a misrepresented quote that was attributed to Trump economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, about the tariffs being paused. The market briefly shot up. It wasn't true, though, and things fell back to Earth. What does it tell you? What is it signaling, do you think, to President Trump, to see this?

SABRINA RODRIGUEZ, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: I mean, I think the reality is that everyone is just looking for, when you're looking at the markets, when you're looking at investors, right now, they just want any positive sign that Trump is going to reverse course. That's the -- that's what we saw today, really. The fact that this was from a false news report and how quickly things moved, everyone is just trying to understand it.

[21:10:00]

And it also just showed that right now, there isn't a unified message from this administration. Folks are looking at what's coming out of the administration. One person is saying, there's absolutely no negotiations. Another is saying, Yes, we're open to negotiations. Another is saying, 50-plus countries are clamoring to start negotiating.

And the matter of the fact is that if Trump moves ahead with these tariffs, any kind of negotiation, even if Trump is open to negotiations, which he indicated today, that's not something that gets done in a day or a week.

KEILAR: How problematic is it that they want such good news that they're almost willing to imagine that it happens?

JENNIFER HILLMAN, FORMER GEN. COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, SENIOR FELLOW FOR TRADE, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, for me, what's really interesting to think about is how many countries you would have to actually negotiate with.

I mean, we imported products from more than 200 countries, and the administration has now said we're going to put at least a 10 percent tariff on all of them. So just the mere thought of trying to reach an agreement with 200 countries is extraordinary.

And then, if you think about what they're saying, what they want these other countries to do, in theory, is to reduce their tariffs to U.S. goods or to reduce the trade deficit. I mean, that's the stated goal, at least the legally-stated goal for all these tariffs is to reduce our tariff -- our tariff deficit.

But if you look at it, they're asking a number of countries that already have no tariffs at all, on the United States, Korea, Singapore, a whole number of countries. What's the point of a negotiation with Korea to say, Lower your tariffs, when they're already zero.

And then you look at like little, tiny countries. So who got the very highest tariff in all of this whole package is the little, tiny African country of Lesotho, landlocked within South Africa.

But here's the issue. The gross domestic product per person in that country is $960, less than $3 a day. The reason that they run a trade deficit with the United States is because they cannot afford to buy anything from the United States. So, how is it that a trade negotiation is supposed to change that situation? All we're going to do is make them even poorer if we cut them off from access to the U.S. market.

So, again, it's really unclear what would even the goal of these negotiations be?

KEILAR: And I mean, Jasmine, when you look at that, and you hear Trump repeatedly trying to claim that this is Joe Biden's economy, which in one regard, he would have an argument, but not when it comes to tariffs and a call that he's making like that, right?

This is what at least one Senate Republican said today about this. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KASIE HUNT, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: To that point, do you think it's Donald Trump's economy now?

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Oh, I think it is. There's no question. I think once he decided to add the tariffs currently (ph), I mean, he will be held responsible, as he should.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Senator Kennedy being a pretty straight shooter there. Is that how voters are going to see it, though?

JASMINE WRIGHT, POLITICS REPORTER, NOTUS: Yes, I mean, I think that that is not the message that the White House wants Republican allies, which Senator Kennedy is, to be saying.

And I think that that gets back to the point that Scott Bessent apparently made to Donald Trump in Mar-a-Lago, that I've heard from a number of MAGA influencers who are basically MAGA 10 toes down, want more of an understanding of what the end goal is. I think that gets to your point about what is the actual end goal.

So, I think it's going to be a question as to what voters understand is going to be the point of these tariffs, once they do enter into negotiations. You've gotten Trump to be at least a bit more vocal about wanting to enter negotiations, despite what some of his aides have said, last week. And so, what is going to be the conclusion, right?

The overarching goal that Trump has said is that he wants to reform how American manufacturing works, how the economy works. But what does that mean to individual American people?

And from what I've heard from Trump allies, is that they're unclear themselves. And so, if they're unclear, how are they going to market that to the American people, when they are also a pipeline that the White House uses, to push forward Trump's ideas and, fundamentally, his message. It's not just the White House.

KEILAR: No. And we're just -- we're starting to hear, Shelby, this concern, right, from folks on the Hill, from his own party. You also have the administration itself, kind of all over the place on messaging. And to that point, you had the Treasury Secretary, as we mentioned, going to Mar-a-Lago, saying, people need to get on the same page. I wonder, what your sources are telling you about how problematic it is that they're not?

SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Even the closest Trump ballots that I've spoken to, who are on board with this tariff idea, are saying privately that the messaging is all over the place, and that that is a problem.

And I think there's recognition, internally, at the White House, to the point of the Secretary going to Mar-a-Lago, and telling the President that he needs to shift his messaging.

And what I think is interesting about all of this, as well as, at first, I think the President was sort of taking the Peter Navarro- style messaging, which is, This is not a negotiation, and that is because Peter Navarro was so involved in creating this tariff idea.

[21:15:00]

But now you're seeing him kind of shift and listen to some of his other advisers. The question is, are the other advisers, who are out here talking about that, going to adopt this new messaging style? So far, they haven't.

WRIGHT: But I mean, I think that the interesting point about that is, if you look at the diaspora of Trump allies, they all are pro-tariff, right? They all got those positions. If you talk about Scott Bessent, if you talk about Stephen Miller, if you talk about Peter Navarro, if you talk about Howard Lutnick, they all are pro-tariff, and they got those positions because they are pro-tariff.

Now and may be sure (ph) I have sources are telling me that Scott Bessent is a little bit more on, Let's be more restrictive, or more restrictive about how we put forth the tariffs. Funnily enough, also, Stephen Miller is in more of the, Maybe we should be a little bit less strong at first, and then ramp up. And some of the others are on the other half.

But I think that the question is not just who they're talking to, but who is going to win at the end of the day? Who is the last person that talks to Trump about the winning message?

KEILAR: It's a very good point. Not Scott Bessent, in this point, we should mention.

Everyone, thank you so much. If you could stand by for us.

Up next. We have seven Republican senators signaling support for a bill to actually rein in the President's tariff power. But the Majority Leader says he won't put the bill on the floor. So what can Congress do? Senator Andy Kim is my next source.

[21:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Tonight, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and House Speaker Mike Johnson, are aligned. They do not plan to take up any legislation that would rein in President Trump's tariff powers, even though Republican lawmakers in both chambers are drafting legislation to do just that.

Thune says, quote, "We've got to let it play out and see what ultimately happens," as he talks about the tariffs there.

And Johnson says that Trump needs some space.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I think you got to give the President the latitude, the runway, to do what it is he was elected to do. And that is, get this economy going again, and get our trade properly balanced with other countries.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: But that patience that Johnson is advocating for may be a luxury that Americans don't have.

My Capitol Hill source tonight is New Jersey senator, Andy Kim.

Thank you so much for joining us in studio.

And there are seven of your Senate Republican colleagues, who are co- sponsoring this bill to review tariffs. It would essentially have congressional veto power over tariffs. It's broad. And you have Thune saying, it's not going to get a vote because Trump has promised to veto it.

Do you think, though, the existence of that bill, and a similar one in the House by Congressman Don Bacon, sends a message to President Trump?

SEN. ANDY KIM (D-NJ): Well, first of all, this isn't about vetoing executive power. The power of taxation, the power of levying this belongs with Congress. And this was something that was delegated before. So, this is about us, in Congress, doing our job.

And so yes, I just find this to be so backwards, that all of a sudden we're just continuing to empower a president, who's so clearly abusing that power and stepping over the lines.

And I heard Speaker Johnson talk about, giving the President runway. Well, you know who doesn't have runway, are the small businesses that I talked to in Newark, New Jersey today, who are saying that they're worried that it could just be a matter of weeks, or months, before they are not -- going to have to close their doors, because of just the high costs that they are dealing with.

So yes, I hope that people, my colleagues on the Republican side, are hearing this, because I am positive that their businesses, in their own states, are feeling exactly like the small businesses in New Jersey, which is that they feel like this is a natural disaster.

That's what one of them called -- called it today, said it felt like a natural disaster, like a Superstorm Sandy event. Except that it's not actually a natural disaster. It's caused by one person. It's caused by Donald Trump.

KEILAR: So you support that action?

KIM: Yes, absolutely.

KEILAR: How many -- how many Democrats support it, do you think? KIM: I don't have a whip count right now. But I probably imagine that pretty much every single one. I can't imagine a single person saying otherwise. Because, look, we just did this, when it came to Trump's tariffs actions, when it comes to Canada, and we're actually able to pass it. We got a majority of the Senate to reject the President's actions on Canada.

But of course, Speaker Johnson, who is somebody who is abdicating his responsibility, as Speaker of the House, instead is just continuing to pledge fealty to President Trump. He's somebody that's clearly not doing his constitutional duty.

KEILAR: So, what do you think of the Senate Majority Leader, what's your message to him, as he's looking at such a broad part of the Senate being in favor of reining in the tariff authority of the President? Or, as you said, what should be congressional authority?

KIM: Yes, well, look, what I would hope Senator Thune understands is that the American people don't have space. They don't have runway to see where this goes, because we know where it's going.

We know that this is going to be a recession that is placed on the head of Donald Trump, for having put us in this position. I mean, again, the idea that this is all -- completely avoidable, we didn't have to end up in this place or see -- we're seeing this much damage.

[21:25:00]

So what I hope Senator Thune does is let us vote. Let the people decide. Let us vote as we are, as senators, to be able to see where our country is going. And I think that that's something that I think people, across this country, want to see, actually, they want to see that oversight, and they want to see Trump's tariff tax reversed, so that we can go back to trying to stabilize this economy that he has so deeply damaged.

KEILAR: Yes, he does not seem inclined to do that.

KIM: No.

KEILAR: But obviously, he's facing a lot of pressure, including from within his own conference.

KIM: And from the business community, and I think and--

KEILAR: Certainly.

KIM: I think that that's something that's going to continue to escalate.

KEILAR: I want to ask you about something different, which is that defense sources are telling CNN tonight, the Trump administration is in the early stages of planning a military parade. This is something that would take place, June is the plan, to honor the 250th birthday of the Army, but also to commemorate, or it would take place on Trump's 79th birthday. What is your reaction to that?

KIM: Look, I mean, with so much going on in the world, right now, so much national security crisis that we face, the idea that they're wasting time, planning to honor -- I guess, it wouldn't be Trump's birthday, per se. But look, we should be doing better.

There are ways in which we can honor the anniversaries of our Armed Services. But I hope that we are able to do that while focusing in on what we should be doing, which is focusing on these national security crises that we face, like what's happening in Ukraine, like what's happening around the world, as we're seeing Trump administration taking actions that are empowering and emboldening our adversaries, and our competitors, right now. That's what we need to focus in on.

We'll find time to be able to celebrate the anniversaries of our Armed Services of our nation next year. But we need to make sure that we are putting the resources where they need to go.

KEILAR: Senator Andy Kim, thank you so much for being with us tonight. We appreciate it.

KIM: Thanks for having me.

KEILAR: And tonight, the Supreme Court making major moves, in two separate Trump immigration cases. We'll have those details, coming up next.

[21:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Breaking news. In a big victory for the White House, the Supreme Court is allowing President Trump to enforce the Alien Enemies Act for now. And that means that immigration officials can rely on a sweeping wartime authority to rapidly deport alleged gang members.

Tonight, President Trump says, the decision is a great day for justice in America.

Chad Wolf is my source. He was the Homeland Security Acting Secretary during President Trump's first term.

All right, Secretary, is this, as you see it, a green light for the Trump administration to ramp up deportations? What are you expecting here?

CHAD WOLF, FORMER TRUMP HOMELAND SECURITY ACTING SECRETARY (2019- 2021), EXECUTIVE VP & CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER, AMERICA FIRST POLICY INST.: Well, I expect the administration to continue to use this authority to remove individuals, dangerous individuals, obviously associated with MS-13, or those other designations by the President, to remove them out of the country as quickly and as fast as possible.

I'm sure, you'll see the ACLU and others run to the State of Texas, to another court, to try to replay this lawsuit. But, again, I think the administration's on some firm footing here, and I think they'll continue to use this.

KEILAR: And we should note, the decision says that potential deportee -- deportees are entitled to reasonable notice, to be able to challenge their deportation in court. So, allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.

What does reasonable time mean to you? Would that have been more time than we saw them being moved in that first series of flights?

WOLF: Well, I think that's going to be established by the court. But, again, the government doesn't dispute that there. They say that they should have some type of judicial review. And that's basically allowing an individual to say, Look, I'm not who you say I am, or, That's not me. Or whatever it might be. So, they do have that ability.

I think the court was unanimous in that, and the government stipulated that, that that should be in place. So I think, as you indicated, it's a matter of time, and they'll work that out. So, again, I think that will be something, at least operationally, that will be figured out in due course.

KEILAR: Would that save the administration from, for instance, the mistake we saw with the Maryland man who was deported?

WOLF: Well, it certainly could. I mean, it certainly could catch individual circumstances, such as that withholding of removal that they had on that individual that said, you couldn't -- you could remove him to another country. You just couldn't do that to El Salvador. So it could certainly potentially address that issue.

KEILAR: The President's immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, just had this to say about the ruling. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: What does this mean for you and your family, watching at home tonight? It means that the Department of Justice, FBI, DEA, ATF, the U.S. Marshals Service, Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, now have maximum authority to find and remove illegal alien gang members from Venezuela that have been responsible for so much misery in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Does it also mean, though, that they will get due process, this decision?

WOLF: Well, again, they're going to have that judicial review, as the Supreme Court laid out in its decision today. So absolutely.

[21:35:00]

But I think what Stephen is saying there is that, again, you're going to have maximum flexibility to, again, remove individuals. You can continue to remove them under Title 8, which is the immigration authority that DHS and ICE has. But you can use these additional authorities, such as the Alien Enemies Act, to target these terrorist organizations that the President has identified, and to remove them as quickly as possible.

But, at the same time, again, as the Supreme Court laid out in their decision tonight, you've got to have that -- you've got to afford them that judicial review if they chose -- if they want -- if they seek that.

KEILAR: Sources -- and this is separately, I want to ask you about this. Sources telling CNN that DHS is in DOGE's sights, it's in Elon Musk's sights, and that there could be significant layoffs across the agency, and at the Secret Service. Do you have concerns about those kinds of layoffs at Homeland Security?

WOLF: Well, the Department of Homeland Security is a rather large agency. It's the third largest in the federal government. And I can tell you that there is definitely bloat there.

Obviously, that's got some core missions. But what we've seen, after almost 20 years of -- or over 20 years, I should say, of the department, is mission creep, and you find this around the department. It's not just DHS, but it's around the federal government, where these agencies take on more and more authorities.

So getting them back to their statutory responsibility that Congress gave them probably means that they can do the mission without as many federal employees there. So, again, the department is big, it's expansive. And so, some cuts--

KEILAR: But is -- can I just ask you real quick since we -- we have limited time.

WOLF: --here and there, strategic cuts at certain areas--

KEILAR: Is there bloat in Secret Service--

WOLF: --should be fine.

KEILAR: --that you want to see eliminated?

WOLF: Well, there's necessarily (ph) a bloat. I don't know exactly the cuts that they're looking at, at Secret Service. But obviously, their mission goes beyond just protective -- protection detail of the President, and the Vice President, and others. They have financial crimes. And there's a lot of overlap of what they do with other law enforcement agencies.

So my guess, again, I don't know, but my guess is that DOGE is looking at those efficiencies. How does their mission align with other law enforcement agencies, and is that mission being accomplished elsewhere?

KEILAR: All right, we'll see, I guess, what they end up targeting. Chad Wolf, great to have you. Thank you so much.

WOLF: Thank you.

KEILAR: Our White House insiders are back with me now, along with former federal prosecutor, Elliot Williams.

So Elliot, back to this Supreme Court decision that would allow the President to enforce the Alien Enemies Act. How do you see it?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER DEP. ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS: How do I see it? It's something for everybody. And I think every -- both sides could claim some measure of victory.

Yes, the Trump administration can proceed with using the Alien Enemies Act. But number one, any person who's sought to be removed, via those means, can challenge it in court, and that -- any person will also have some quote-unquote, reasonable timeline, as you asked the Secretary there, a reasonable timeline in which to make a challenge.

Now, what does reasonable mean? We don't know. But the simple fact is, people were put on planes, without any notice, a couple weeks ago. That would probably be seen as unreasonable. So there's at least some opportunity to make -- to bring a challenge, and go to court here.

KEILAR: And the Texas element of this.

WILLIAMS: And the Texas element. And I think part of what's going on here is that all of these, because we've been talking about habeas here, because these will be filed where people are detained, the government can just detain people in Texas, which is a very friendly court, and a very friendly appeals court. That is definitely a win for the administration here.

Now, look, there are immigration facilities all over the country. But I think we can see what's going to happen here, in terms of venue.

KEILAR: Yes, certainly.

So Shelby, I'm curious, because Pam Bondi is calling this a landmark victory. And that really seems to be the talking point. You heard what Stephen Miller said there as well.

But at the same time, you just heard Chad Wolf, the former acting Secretary of DHS, saying that this could stop situations, like we saw the man being deported in Maryland, where they've been ordered to get him back. Yes, that's on hold, but nonetheless.

What do you think about that?

TALCOTT: Well, the administration is clearly taking this as a win, in part because this was their end game all along. They wanted this to go to the Supreme Court, because they felt that this makeup of the Supreme Court would rule in their favor. And quite frankly, a lot of the issues that we're seeing in court, they want it to eventually go to the Supreme Court.

And what I think is notable also is this was sort of the administration's plan, going back months and even years. This Trump administration was much more prepared, and spent months, and in some cases years, thinking about these efforts, including the idea of enacting the Alien Enemies Act.

And so, you had Stephen Miller, over the past four years thinking about this. And not just thinking about how to enact it, but thinking about the legal pushbacks, and how to sort of get around that, and ultimately win. And so from that -- in that sense, the administration's not thinking about the nuances and the nitty-gritty details. They're just seeing sort of the big headline.

KEILAR: That they can use this Act.

[21:40:00]

They do have to give people who are being deported enough notice, right? And so, I wonder how you are expecting, based on the sources you're talking to--

WRIGHT: Yes.

KEILAR: --that to be exercised.

WRIGHT: Yes, it's interesting, because I was actually talking to an official, at the White House, a few weeks back, when I was working on a story about this. And I asked them, point-blank, Would having to give these folks who you believe are removable under the Aliens Act, a hearing, the worst-case scenario?

And they said, No, it's not. It's not about the hearings. It's about expanding our presidential power, preserving our presidential power.

But they do not see giving people hearings as the worst-case scenario. In fact, I think, to Shelby's point, they see it as likely something that would happen, should this case go to the Supreme Court. And now we're seeing the kind of result of that.

And so, I think that ultimately they are taking this as a major, major win. Now, down the line, will maybe some of this get sticky, perhaps if a court rules that they have to give more time than what they want to do. Sure. But ultimately, the headline is that this is a win for them, that they can exercise their maximum ability, and in a case in which they were trying to not just preserve their presidential power, but expand it, they won.

TALCOTT: And I also think an important thing to keep in mind is even when the Alien Enemies Act was put on hold, the administration was continuing their deportation.

WRIGHT: Yes.

TALCOTT: So, this didn't ever stop them from deporting people. I mean, last week, the Secretary of State announced that they had deported 17 migrants, under other means, who they said were gang members, to El Salvador. So they were still deporting people to this El Salvador prison, but they were using other legal means to do so. So this just kind of expands that effort.

WILLIAMS: And not just people. Those same folks, if they just suspended the Alien Enemies Act decision, they could have just removed them through immigration authorities, regular immigration authorities, without going that down that road.

KEILAR: Yes.

Everyone, thank you so much for your perspective. We appreciate it.

And the fired U.S. pardon attorney who says she lost her job for refusing to restore Mel Gibson's gun rights, now accuses the Justice Department of trying to silence her. She'll be my source, next.

[21:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Today, on Capitol Hill, Democrats questioned former Justice Department officials accusing the DOJ of corruption and intimidation. The hearing included testimony from recently-fired pardon attorney, Liz Oyer, who claims she was ousted for refusing to restore Mel Gibson's gun rights.

But just days before the hearing, Oyer says, the DOJ emailed her a letter, warning her against testifying. Her lawyers say, the DOJ letter was itself an attempt to intimidate her, as deputy U.S. Marshals prepared to deliver it as a hard copy to her home, in the late evening hours.

And Liz Oyer is with us now.

Liz, thank you so much for joining us. We do appreciate it.

And before we get into why Democrats wanted to talk to you about this, can you just tell us more about how the Justice Department tried to prevent your testimony today?

LIZ OYER, FIRED U.S. PARDON ATTORNEY: Sure. Well, there have been a number of ways.

Initially, when I shared my story with the media, Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, accused me of lying. He knows that I am not lying, because he is in possession of all of the documents that corroborate every aspect of my story. He stated publicly that this behavior will not be tolerated. My behavior, being telling the truth about what happened to me.

I wasn't sufficiently intimidated by that. So, he sent a letter to me, warning me about testifying on the Hill today, and he decided that the way to deliver that letter to me was with armed special deputy U.S. Marshals bringing that letter to my home, late Friday night. I learned about 09:15, Friday night, that armed special deputy U.S. Marshals were en route to my home where my child, my teenager, was at home, alone. And due to the grace of a very thoughtful person, who knew that that would be a very upsetting experience for my family, I was able to avoid those officers arriving at my home.

But this is just not -- it's not a normal way to treat a civil servant, like myself, who has not done anything wrong, but is simply telling the truth about the very concerning conduct that's happening in the Department of Justice.

KEILAR: What was the message that you took from that idea that there were armed individuals coming to your house -- I mean, officials. But that they were coming to your house, where your family obviously resides.

OYER: What I took away from that is that the department is trying to make an example of me. They're trying to send a message to other employees, who are thinking about speaking publicly about the conduct of the leadership of the department, and what's happening inside the department, that they should not do that, because there will be real consequences.

KEILAR: So, Democrats had asked you to testify, because you allege the DOJ fired you for refusing to reinstate Mel Gibson's gun rights.

In the letter, DOJ says, you lack authority to discuss internal deliberations or discussions related to pardons, clemency, and that the executive privilege should have you barred from discussing that with lawmakers today.

I just want to be clear about what they're saying about that, and you can react to that. But why do you believe the White House has made such a priority out of Mel Gibson's case?

OYER: Well, there's a couple of things you've said that I want to address.

[21:50:00]

One is that I've never been told why I was fired. But I was fired within hours of informing the leadership of the department that I could not make this recommendation, to restore the gun rights of this particular individual. I had concerns about public safety, based on the domestic violence history of this individual.

The claims around executive privilege. Frankly, I don't think that the lawyers, at the department, who wrote this letter, know what they're talking about. They are citing sources in that letter that relate to presidential deliberations around grants of clemency, which is the constitutional power of the President.

What I was asked to do has nothing to do with the President's constitutional powers. It was something that was tasked to me by the Office of the Attorney General to make a recommendation about the Attorney General's exercise of a statutory authority that she possesses.

I don't, frankly, know why this particular favor for a particular friend of the President became so unbelievably important, and the level to which this has escalated, is really shocking to me. But it just shows the lengths to which Todd Blanche and the leadership of the Department of Justice are willing to go, to keep people afraid, and to keep people quiet.

KEILAR: Liz Oyer, thank you for being with us. We appreciate it.

OYER: Thank you for having me, Brianna.

KEILAR: And up next. President Trump revealing U.S. and Iran have begun direct talks over Iran's nuclear program. What Trump also said could happen to Iran, should those talks fail.

[21:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Tonight, we are learning more about the Trump administration's planned nuclear talks with Iran. A source telling CNN, U.S. officials will sit down with Iranian officials, Saturday, in Oman, to directly discuss Tehran's nuclear program. If this meeting takes place, it would be the first time in a decade that the U.S. and Iran had direct nuclear talks at this high level.

Trump notably pulled out of the last Iran nuclear accord in 2018, after calling it a bad deal.

Asked if the U.S. would take military action, to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, if diplomacy fails, here's how Trump answered.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I think if the talks aren't successful with Iran, I think Iran is going to be in great danger, and I hate to say it, great danger, because they can't have a nuclear weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: My source tonight is the former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren.

Ambassador, thank you for being with us.

And President Trump, he wasn't willing to say, right, that the U.S. would strike Iran's nuclear facilities. That is, of course, what Israel has long pushed for. What do you expect the U.S. to do, if discussions fail?

MICHAEL OREN, FORMER ISRAELI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: Well, one thing that President Trump has done, Brianna, is he put the military option back on the table. Now, President Biden had taken it off the table. So it's clearly on the table. The Iranians understand it's on the table. But also, according to the reports tonight, for the first time, as you said, in a decade, direct talks between the United States and Iran, because during the Biden administration, the talks were indirect. So that is already a step, well, from the Iranian perspective, a step forward. Though, we should say that the Iranians are kind of denying that they're direct tonight.

KEILAR: Well, that's right.

OREN: Yes.

KEILAR: The Iranian Foreign Minister is saying that these are indirect, high-level talks.

OREN: But--

KEILAR: So that's a different story. What do you make of that?

OREN: It's a different story. But the essence is that there's talks. And the talks then are going to raise some very serious questions on the Israeli side.

My gut feeling tells me that what brought Prime Minister Netanyahu to Washington, on such short notice, wasn't just the tariffs. And the tariffs are serious. It's about $2.5 billion worth of trade from Israel's side, and at a time when the Israeli economy is very vulnerable, because of the war. But what really brought him here was the Iranian, this -- the notion that the -- the understanding that these talks are about to take place, apparently, on next Saturday.

And there are three major questions that Israel is going to be asking. How long the talks will go on for? The Iranians are really good negotiators. They'll drag it out, at a time when the Russians are rebuilding the air defenses in Iran that were knocked out by the Israeli Air Force. Big question.

Second one is, what's the goal of the talks? Is the goal of the talks, an agreement similar to the 2015 Obama Iran agreement, which basically froze the Iranian program for about a decade, but didn't dismantle the program.

And the third question is, as the President says, What if the talks don't work? What is the next step? Will the United States then support Israeli military action against Iran to stop that program? Will the United States join in that military action, as the President seems to intimate, that would be the case.

But these are crucial questions that Israelis will look to get answers from, from the White House.

KEILAR: Why do you think the Trump administration could strike a better deal than the Obama administration?

OREN: Well, first of all, because of the credibility of military threat.

Obama had all options on the table, you remember, but I don't think people actually believed it.

I think that now, with the United States bombing the Houthis, the way they have, that's sending a message to Iran, a rather unequivocal message, that this administration is willing to use force, to a degree that previous administrations, certainly previous Democratic administrations, were unwilling to use that type of force. And the Iranians are aware.

How should we say this? This President is not predictable in that way. And that -- Iranians like predictability. They don't like dealing with the uncertainty, that President Trump could turn around and give that order to those B-2, and B-1, and B-52 bombers to go into Iranian skies.

KEILAR: He did allude to the Houthis today in his comments.

Ambassador Michael Oren, thank you so much for being with us.

OREN: Good to be with you.

[22:00:00]

KEILAR: Obviously, very big developments today that we're keeping our eye on.

OREN: Thank you.

KEILAR: We appreciate it.

And thank you so much for joining us.

"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.