Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump & Salvadoran President Make Clear Mistakenly Deported Maryland Man Won't Be Returned To U.S.; Trump Admin Announces $2.2 Billion Funding Freeze For Harvard; "It's Not Just Musk And Republicans": Sen. Bernie Sanders Takes Aim At Democrats At L.A. Rally. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired April 14, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: Well, you put Katy Perry on board, among others.
A celebrity crew, on the short 10-minute journey into space, aboard Blue Origin, backed by Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos. Also among the six- women crew were TV anchor Gayle King. And Lauren Sanchez, a former TV anchor now engaged to Jeff Bezos. King says Perry saying, What a wonderful world, while they floated in space. Who can argue with that?
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
A crystal clear message from inside the Oval Office today. That man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador won't be returned to the United States. As President Trump is now floating, sending American prisoners to foreign jails. I'll tell you what I heard inside the room.
Plus, breaking news this evening, as the Trump administration has just frozen some of Harvard's funds, after the university vowed to fight his demands, setting up a showdown between the White House and the nation's wealthiest school.
And there's also more confusion and uncertainty for businesses tonight, as the President is threatening new tariffs on smartphones and other electronics, just days after exempting them.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
At the White House tonight, the question is, which is it? Was it a mistake, an administrative error? Or was it the right person sent to the, quote, right place? The Trump administration has now made both arguments, one in court and the other in front of the cameras, including today, as El Salvador's President visited the White House for the first time.
But both President Bukele, and President Trump, were on the same page when it came to this. Neither plans to return the man, who the Trump administration has acknowledged was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, back to the U.S., despite a Supreme Court ruling that he should be returned. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do you plan to ask President Bukele to help return the man who your administration says was mistakenly deported?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Which one is this?
COLLINS: The man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
TRUMP: Well, let me ask Pam, would you -- ask to answer that question?
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sure, President.
First and foremost, he was illegally in our country. He had been illegally in our country. And in 2019, two courts, an immigration court and an appellate immigration court, ruled that he was a member of MS-13, and he was illegally in our country. Right now, it was a paperwork -- it was additional paperwork had needed to be done. That's up to El Salvador if they want to return him. That's not up to us.
TRUMP: Would you answer that question also, please?
STEPHEN MILLER, HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISER: Yes, gladly. So, as Pam mentioned, he's an illegal alien from El Salvador.
As two immigration courts found that he was a member of MS-13. When President Trump declared MS-13 to be a foreign terrorist organization, that meant that he was no longer eligible, under federal law, that he was no longer eligible for any form of immigration relief in the United States. So he had a deportation order that was valid, which meant that, under our law, he's not even allowed to be present in the United States, and had to be returned because of the foreign terrorist designation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, here's what we do know. Abrego Garcia was in the United States, illegally, after he entered the country sometime around 2011. But in 2019, he was granted legal status by an immigration judge who found that he was facing danger from gang members in his home country. His wife is a U.S. citizen, along with their children.
And as for the declaration that courts found Garcia to be a member of MS-13, his attorneys have disputed that. A federal judge has said, the evidence about that claim wasn't substantiated, and he has not been charged as a gang member or a terrorist.
Now, the administration is making clear they do not intend to seek this man's return, despite a Supreme Court ruling in recent days, that the White House must, quote, facilitate it. And despite this comment from President Trump, just a few days ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If the Supreme Court said, Bring somebody back, I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court. If they said to bring him back, I would tell them to bring him back.
COLLINS: Mr. President, you said that if the Supreme Court said someone needed to be returned, that you would abide by that. You said that on Air Force One, just a few days ago. And they said that--
TRUMP: How long do we have to answer this question from you?
COLLINS: --it must be facilitated.
TRUMP: Why don't you just say, Isn't it wonderful that we're keeping criminals out of our country. Why can't you just say that?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: As you can see there, in the Oval Office today, the President seemed to backtrack on what he said about the Supreme Court. And instead, leaned on some of his top aides to help make the case.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: So you don't plan to ask for his help to get him back?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But the Supreme Court's asking--
COLLINS: Is that your--
TRUMP: And what was the ruling--
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: Is that your position?
TRUMP: --from the Supreme Court, Steve? Was it nine to nothing?
MILLER: Yes. It was a nine-zero.
TRUMP: In our favor?
[21:05:00]
MILLER: In our favor, against the District Court ruling, saying that no District Court has the power to compel the foreign policy function of the United States. As Pam said, the ruling solely stated that if this individual, at El Salvador's sole discretion, was sent back to our country, that we could deport him a second time.
COLLINS: Well I--
MILLER: No version of this legally ends up with him ever living here because he is a citizen of El Salvador.
That is the President of El Salvador. Your questions about per the court can only be directed to him.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Now, given that statement there, and also from the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, who was seated in front of Stephen Miller, that really this is up to the President of El Salvador to make this decision. I asked President Bukele directly to weigh in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Can President Bukele weigh in on this? Do you plan to return him?
PRESIDENT NAYIB BUKELE, EL SALVADOR: Well, I'm -- suppose you are not suggesting that I smuggle terrorists into the United States, right?
How can I return him to the United States? Like if I smuggle him into the United States, or what do I do? Of course, I'm not going to do it. It's like -- I mean, the question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I don't have the power to return him to the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: So Bukele says that he does not have the power, after you also heard the Attorney General say that it was up to him whether or not El Salvador would ultimately return Abrego Garcia to the United States.
And I should note. Tonight, we're hearing from government attorneys, who were back in court responding to a federal judge, has given them a daily deadline to essentially check in with what steps they are taking to facilitate his return. And they have said that the U.S. government, quote, Does not have the authority to forcibly extract him from El Salvador.
I have a team of legal minds and deeply-sourced White House insiders here with me tonight.
The Wall Street Journal's Tarini Parti.
CNN's Priscilla Alvarez.
And CNN Legal Analyst, Elliot Williams.
And Elliot, the question here is, really, walking out of the Oval Office, what are the legal implications of this, given that ruling from the Supreme Court, about facilitating his return.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Look, this all makes total sense. Really, everything happened -- makes total sense, if we accept that the rule of law doesn't matter, and that vibes do.
It's, this is a political question at this point. Donald Trump could have made this go away with a phone call to the President of El Salvador, where they could have facilitated the removal of this person to the United States. That's what the Supreme Court said. And I think Stephen Miller was twisting things quite a bit there, in terms of the takeaway from that Supreme Court opinion. It just -- it simply said that the United States needs to facilitate his sort of reentry of removal back to the United States. That's it.
And this whole idea of two different countries putting their hands up and saying, Well, we don't have the authority. How could we possibly do this? Is just silly. It is a matter between two leaders of foreign countries. They could have resolved it.
COLLINS: But when they're required to do this daily check-in with the judge. And in that two-page filing tonight, they basically just pointed to the comments that were made by both leaders in the Oval. Is that sufficient for the judge, do you think?
WILLIAMS: At a certain point, it's got to go to another court. Like, at a certain point, she's telling them to do things, she's given them orders, and is making them put these requirements on them that they're not really following, and not -- and just saying that they can't act any further.
An appeals court's probably going to look at this, and I would even think the Supreme Court might, and he may end up staying in El Salvador in perpetuity. But it's not going to end at that court.
COLLINS: OK. And this is a shift from what we had been hearing from the White House. Because the Solicitor General, ICE officials were arguing this was an administrative error. They acknowledged that in court filings.
Stephen Miller, though, before this Oval Office exchange, kind of hinting at what was to come, argued otherwise today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MILLER: He was not mistakenly sent to El Salvador.
BILL HEMMER, FOX NEWS HOST: OK. So do--
MILLER: A DOJ lawyer who has since been relieved of duty, a saboteur, a Democrat, put into a filing, incorrectly, that this was a mistaken removal. It was not. This was the right person sent to the right place.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: When you strip this all down, it is ultimately a story about process. And process in immigration is very complicated and nuanced.
And what happened here, and the reason there was a concession by the administration that they made a mistake, and they called it that administrative error in court filings, is that this was a man that was granted withholding of removal, in 2019. That is to say that he is removable from the United States. He can go to any other country, be deported to any other country. He could not, however, be deported to El Salvador, because of fear of persecution.
However, Kaitlan, there is a process to terminate withholding of removal. If the administration wanted to, they could have done that. They could have terminated it, and then sent him to El Salvador. They didn't do that.
And that is why they had to make this admission, which is what launched this case. It wasn't just that he was just sent there. It was that they made this error, they recognized the error. And it's the crux of it. It is on the backs of this withholding of removal, the fact that he couldn't be sent there.
WILLIAMS: Right. And--
COLLINS: So basically they could have just sent him anywhere else, and this would not be a legal fight that we are seeing play out.
ALVAREZ: Exactly. And I will tell you one other thing. When we had the court hearings on this matter, his attorney also noted that they're not fighting the detention. They're not finding that he could be removable to another country. It is all the -- all of it is on the fact that he was sent to the one country where a judge, a U.S. immigration judge, in 2019, said he couldn't be sent to.
[21:10:00]
COLLINS: Well, and that one country obviously speaks volumes here. Because the way El Salvador was treated by the Biden administration, I mean, Bukele was essentially like a pariah, as the way that they dealt with that.
So it is remarkable turn to see him in the Oval Office now. Has fostered a deeply close relationship with the President and some of his top aides.
What did that -- you were in the Oval, I should note, as well, with me today, as we were there for the pool. What did it say to you, though, about how he kind of handled that question? As you're always watching to see how a world leader deals with -- deals with the President. He obviously, very clearly knew the questions and anticipated what he was going to be asked in there.
TARINI PARTI, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Yes, I think the Trump-Bukele relationship has been interesting to watch.
Because during the Trump campaign, he actually was critical of Bukele. He said that, You're dumping your criminals into our country.
And then their relationship has evolved, because Trump is essentially using El Salvador as the cornerstone of his deportation program. He's trying to get his numbers up, in terms of arrests, in terms of deportations.
And because they haven't been able to get that as far as Trump would like for it to be, he's trying to use this flashy approach of sending criminals, he claims to be criminals, or gang members, to El Salvador, to show his supporters that he's actually doing something.
But you're right. It's very different from the way Biden and most of the rest of the U.S. allies treat Bukele.
COLLINS: Well, and in terms of--
WILLIAMS: Yes. Just to--
COLLINS: But can I ask, the other thing he said there, and though, in terms of Bukele, was saying essentially that he should start building more prisons in El Salvador, and the President said he would like to send American prisoners to El Salvador, and was arguing that the Attorney General was looking into the legality of that.
WILLIAMS: Yes. And he--
COLLINS: Is there any basis for that?
WILLIAMS: No, God no, and it's -- and we're not even talking about immigration here. It sound like he was talking about sending American criminal prisoners in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
COLLINS: U.S. citizens.
WILLIAMS: U.S. citizens.
COLLINS: He called them homegrown criminals.
WILLIAMS: Homegrown criminals.
COLLINS: That means U.S. citizens.
WILLIAMS: He's talking about U.S. citizens. Homegrown criminals.
And fine, people commit horrific crimes, and should do the time for it.
But we have an Eighth Amendment to the Constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. You have habeas corpus, where someone can challenge the terms of their confinement. This would be in such violation of the Constitution, it is preposterous that the President's putting it out there.
COLLINS: Thank you all.
Up next, we also have my other legal source here, who is perfectly timed, because he has argued before the Supreme Court dozens of times, and is widely regarded as a leading expert on the U.S. Constitution. So, we have Harvard constitutional law professor, Laurence Tribe, here.
And Professor Tribe, it's great to have you.
Because let me just first get your take on what we heard from Stephen Miller, his view, his interpretation of that Supreme Court ruling that was nine and zero, that they both argued was in the administration's favor here. Is that how you read that ruling?
LAURENCE TRIBE, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EMERITUS, HARVARD UNIV.: I don't think anybody who can read would read it that way. Stephen Miller and Pam Bondi, not to put too fine a point on it, were lying.
The Supreme Court ruled nine to nothing, that the Government of the United States must make reasonable efforts to facilitate returning him.
Nobody suggested that we could just invade El Salvador, grab him and bring him back. Nor did anybody suggest that El Salvador would voluntarily send him back.
But the idea was that the President of the United States would do something vis-a-vis the President of El Salvador. They were, after all, talking in front of all of us, that he would do something other than just laugh about the judicial decisions. He would ask. He might ask nicely. He might bargain.
But there is a contract between the United States and El Salvador, pursuant to which the President of the United States is basically paying ransom, to send people to a notorious prison, where they would really be used for slave labor.
This guy was sent wrongly. There's no dispute among the lawyers. Everybody agrees it was wrong. It was lawless. Nine to nothing, the Supreme Court said, it was illegal. So why did it happen? Well, we don't know exactly.
But what -- we do know that there was an immigration court order forbidding sending him to El Salvador. They might have been able to send him elsewhere, as your guests have said, but not to this notorious prison, where he could have been tortured, or not to El Salvador, where he faced severe threats from other gangs.
And it was also not true that he was held or found to be a gang member. He was never found to have been a member of MS-13. And among other things, he was never found to have done anything wrong in the United States.
So, it's just astonishing to see these two presidents, in front of the cameras, calling on members of the Trump administration, to lie for them, in order to make it look like the courts have done some preposterous thing by saying to the United States, You can grab this guy.
[21:15:00]
No. The Supreme Court recognized that the President has certain foreign policy responsibilities. But it said, he could surely facilitate undoing the illegal removal--
COLLINS: Yes.
TRIBE: --of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from the United States. This isn't complicated. It's really simple.
COLLINS: Can I get your take--
TRIBE: And hopefully, the court will take a look here (ph).
COLLINS: What's your take on the other argument that we heard inside the Oval today, which was that the decision that he has to be returned to the United States, they're arguing, Well court can't dictate foreign policy, as the Attorney General Pam Bondi put it.
What is your response to that argument?
TRIBE: That it's a red herring, or a straw man, or whatever the right image is. That's not the issue.
Nobody, not the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals, not Judge Xinis, nobody is telling the President of the United States what kind of policy to have vis-a-vis El Salvador. It is saying, Whatever your policy is, that's up to you, but you can surely facilitate the return of a man who was illegally sent to El Salvador.
Are you so impotent, so weak, that you can't do that? It's astonishing that this guy who thinks of himself as so big and so powerful, says, Who, Me? I can't do -- I can't ask for him to come back.
That's ridiculous. Americans are going to see through that.
COLLINS: So, what happens now? I mean, is this a legal standoff?
TRIBE: And it's interesting--
COLLINS: Where does this go from here, in your view?
TRIBE: Well, I do think that the district court judge should and probably will set a deadline, by which point something must be done, by the United States, to facilitate his return.
If that deadline is not met, Paula Xinis, the District judge, has the power to hold various United States officials, up to the Secretary of State, perhaps up to the head of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, in contempt of court. And there can be sanctions.
It's going to go up, I think, all the way to the Supreme Court again, because it's obvious that the administration wants to stonewall. It wants to say, Nothing we can do.
And it is obvious that Garcia's lawyer, is going to say, Nonsense. What you can do is comply with what the courts have ordered, namely, facilitate his return.
That is sort of a clash between an irresistible force and an immovable object. And they will come to a head in the Supreme Court.
And there will again be three votes, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson, to say, Let's stop playing games. Bring him back.
And there will be six votes that are not quite that clear.
And the question really is whether Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett will have the spine to join the three liberals, and say, Enough is enough, you must facilitate his return.
Or whether one or both of them are going to go the other way and say, We give up. We really are quite prepared to have the President of the United States laugh in our face, and encourage a foreign president to laugh at us. We are powerless.
I hope the U.S. Supreme Court has more self-respect than to say that, and more concern for the rule of law in the United States, because it is not just immigrants who are subject to this kind of game. It's a deadly game that could be played with any citizen. The President has already begun to play it. And that is not the country that any of us, I think, grew up in.
COLLINS: Yes, and it's just something that if they had just simply deported him to anywhere else, this would not even be a conversation.
Professor Laurence Tribe, always great to have your expertise on this. Thank you so much.
TRIBE: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: We also have major news that's just coming in tonight, in a showdown between the White House and American universities. Harvard rejecting the President's demands and fighting back. The President himself has just responded. We'll tell you how.
Plus, an exclusive interview with a U.S. Senator who just made a major announcement about running for governor, upending the race in his state. That's up next.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Breaking news tonight. As a major clash is now unfolding between President Trump, and his battle against some of America's top universities, announcing this evening, more than $2.2 billion in federal funding has been frozen for multi-year grants and contracts at Harvard.
That comes after Harvard said tonight that it was rejecting a list of demands from the administration, on sweeping changes, and would fight back against them. Those demands came from a federal task force that the administration says is combating anti-Semitism on college campuses, following protests against the war in Gaza.
But the list of demands included things like dismantling diversity initiatives, auditing academic and hiring practices, and also installing leaders who are committed, the White House said, to implementing the changes they want to see.
[21:25:00] We saw a response from Harvard tonight, and the legal team responding to that, saying, quote, "The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government."
Now, Harvard's $9 billion that's at stake here is just a fraction of the billions that the Trump administration has been targeting at schools across the country.
Harvard's decision, though, appears to be the first time that we have seen a school directly refusing to comply. This comes as the Harvard faculty Chapter of the American Association of University Professors, and its national counterparts, sued the Trump administration.
My source tonight is the Harvard law professor, and General Counsel of the organization at the heart of this lawsuit. Andrew Manuel Crespo is here in his first TV interview since that suit was filed.
And so, thank you so much, sir, for being here.
Given all of these developments happening tonight, can I first just get your response to the administration saying tonight that it's going to have this $2.2 billion freeze. What kind of impact does that have?
ANDREW MANUEL CRESPO, HARVARD UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR, GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE AAUP-HARVARD FACULTY CHAPTER: Well, thanks so much for having me.
And while this cut is obviously deeply disappointing, and a real blow, not just to Harvard, but to higher education across the United States, it's not exactly unexpected. The Trump administration has been threatening to withhold, and then withholding millions and then billions of dollars, from some of the leading institutions of higher education in the country.
The impacts of those cuts will be severe, not just to cutting-edge research, cures for cancer, cures for diseases, studies that try to understand the most cutting-edge technology, but also all of the work that happens at these universities with respect to how we study our history, the things that are essential to our democracy.
There's a lot that happens at these universities that are essential to having a free democracy. And that's, I think, exactly the reason why they're all under attack.
COLLINS: Well--
MANUEL CRESPO: So the impact is significant. But I'm really proud to see Harvard standing up to fight.
COLLINS: Well, you filed your lawsuit before we saw how Harvard was going to respond tonight. And essentially, you were arguing that the threat to cut this funding violates free speech, and other First Amendment rights here. Given Harvard is the first school that we've seen respond this way, do you -- how does that impact your lawsuit, and what does that mean for this going forward?
MANUEL CRESPO: Well, I think the Trump administration's decision to cut $2.2 billion from Harvard tonight makes clear just how essential this lawsuit is, and how critical this fight is, and why it's so important for Harvard, and really every university in the country, to take a stand at this critical moment, because this is a clear, unquestionable violation of First Amendment rights.
You mentioned some of the demands that the administration has made of Harvard. Includes things like trying to appoint a federally-named oversight official, to do an audit of every course, every department at Harvard, to see if we have ideological balance to meet the Trump administration's test, for what we teach and what we say at these universities.
It's a transparent effort to change what is taught, what we -- what we say in our classrooms, what we teach our students, to make sure that the only things that are actually said on university campuses are things that the Trump administration wants to hear and wants to be said.
This is a move that happens in countries, across the world, when there are efforts to try to make an authoritarian-playing government. Institutions that are essential to civil society, like the press, like the courts, like the legal profession and universities are the first to come under attack, and that's what we've been seeing over the first few weeks of this administration, with that attack on universities coming full and hard now.
And this is the moment when it's so essential for those universities to take a stand. And if there's any university in the world that has the resources to do that, and the moral leadership to do that, it's Harvard, and I am proud to call myself a member of this faculty today.
COLLINS: And so, when the administration is arguing that this is actually about combating anti-Semitism, and how we saw a lot of these schools handle this last year, as the war in Gaza was playing out.
And the attorneys acknowledged tonight, in their letter, denying that they're going to comply with the demands. They say, quote, Harvard is a very different place than it was a year ago.
You're saying you don't essentially buy that that is what the administration is trying to accomplish here.
MANUEL CRESPO: That's exactly right. Look, I have spent my professional life, fighting racism and intolerance in the United States. Anti-Semitism is vile and has no place in this country. But these actions are not about anti-Semitism. They're about authoritarianism. And we know that because we can see what the Trump administration has said and what it has done.
This is a president who, when he was campaigning for office, said that he didn't like what was taught at America's universities, and that he was going to bankrupt them unless they started teaching something different.
We can see this when we see the head of the task force that's responsible for these investigations, saying that this is about ideological viewpoint balancing at these universities.
We can see it when we see the Vice President of the United States say that universities and their professors are the enemy.
This is not about anti-Semitism. This is about an effort to try to break the backs of American universities, until they start saying what the administration wants to hear, because the administration knows that universities are a central component of a free and open constitutional democracy.
[21:30:00]
The Trump administration's demand letter that was made public today, and sent to Harvard on Friday, asks for things that have nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It requires us to try to change who is hired, what we teach in our classrooms, what we say in our research.
It says that it is trying to create ideological rebalancing. That's code, and actually, not even code. It's pretty transparent. That is a message that's saying, We don't like what you're teaching. We want you to teach something more to our liking. And unless you do that, we're going to try to bankrupt your institution.
COLLINS: We'll be following it closely.
Andrew Manuel Crespo, thank you for joining us tonight for an interview.
MANUEL CRESPO: Thank you so much for having me.
COLLINS: Up next. In his first national TV interview, since he announced he's running for governor in his state, a prominent U.S. lawmaker, who is now pledging to fight Trumpism and also keep his state under Democratic control. Senator Michael Bennet is here next.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: In the Oval Office today, President Trump made clear to El Salvador's President, Nayib Bukele, who he wants to deport potentially next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Homegrown criminals next.
I said homegrowns are next, the homegrowns.
You got to build about five more places. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was captured on the government feed. And to be clear, the President there was talking about deporting American citizens who are convicted of crimes, here in the United States, which he later elaborated upon, when the reporters were inside the Oval Office, to prisons in El Salvador.
A few minutes ago, we heard from the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, asked if that is legal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESSE WATTERS, FOX NEWS HOST: The President was musing about sending some of the most horrible people in this country down to that mega prison, you know, people that push ladies into subways, and hit old ladies with baseball bats to the head. Is that legal to do? Is that -- is that something you're allowed to do?
BONDI: Well, Jesse, these are Americans who, he is saying, who have committed the most heinous crimes in our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My next source tonight is the Democratic senator of Colorado, Michael Bennet, who just announced that he is going to be running for governor in his state, and is joining us exclusively for his first national TV interview since announcing his candidacy.
It's great to have you here, Senator.
What was your reaction to hearing the President say that he wants the Attorney General to study this, this idea of sending American prisoners convicted of violent crimes to prison in another country?
Standby one moment. We're going to get the Senator's audio connected, make sure he can hear us, and that everything. As this has been going forward. This is something that the President had been musing about himself.
SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): Yes, literally (OFF-MIKE).
COLLINS: And then he was asked about this notion today, whether that is something that he would be open to doing. You saw him suggest it is something he could consider, as he said, that it would have to be studied by the Attorney General, Pam Bondi. She was asked there, in that interview, about the legality of this.
As you heard our own Elliot Williams, say earlier, he does not believe that it would be legal, that it would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment inside the Constitution. And so, that is the question here, going forward.
We're going to try to reconnect with Senator Bennet in a moment, so we'll bring him back once that audio is fixed. I do want to update you on another major political story today. As the man who was charged with setting fire to Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro's home is in jail this evening, after a judge, earlier in court, just a few hours ago, denied bail to the 38-year-old suspect.
That's Cody Balmer. You see him here. He is now facing charges of attempted homicide, aggravated arson, terrorism, and other crimes, after he is now accused of climbing over a fence, and breaking into the governor's mansion, on Sunday morning, all while Governor Shapiro, his wife and four children were asleep.
You can see the damage here. Police say that he set these fires with a homemade Molotov cocktail, before eventually running from the scene. He later turned himself into the police and admitted that he harbored hatred. That's a quote there for Shapiro. He said he planned to beat the governor with a hammer, had they encountered one another.
Fortunately, that did not happen. The family was able to evacuate safely. As Pennsylvania officials tonight say that they are investigating whether or not he was motivated by anti-Semitism.
In an emotional news conference, yesterday, Governor Shapiro said he will not be deterred by this attack.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JOSH SHAPIRO (D-PA): Hear me on this. We celebrated our faith last night proudly. And in a few hours, we will celebrate our second Seder of Passover, again, proudly. No one will deter me or my family or any Pennsylvanian from celebrating their faith openly and proudly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Was a heinous attack indeed.
Up next here, we're going to speak with Senator Bennet on the other side of this break.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: And Senator Michael Bennet, who recently announced he is going to be running for governor in his home state of Colorado, is back with us now.
And Senator, it's great to have you.
I played for you that moment, in the Oval Office today, where the President mused about this idea, and the legality of sending American prisoners to foreign prisons in El Salvador. What is your reaction to that?
BENNET: Well, it's actually great question, Kaitlan.
My reaction to that is, I'm sure that there are people watching this who might be saying, Well, why should we care? And I think there is a real reason we should care.
[21:45:00]
Because when we don't subscribe to the rule of law, when we don't obey courts, when we have a president who is essentially extorting institutions in our -- in our own country? It means that the fact that somebody today could be deported without due process means that anything could happen tomorrow, you know.
And we don't know. Sometimes, the most unpopular people in the country, throughout our history, have been denied constitutional rights that, in the end, come back to haunt all of us.
And one thing I know, having spent a fair amount of time in countries around the world, but also in Central America, is that what people are dying for is to live in a place with the rule of law, like what we have.
Because if you don't have a rule of law, you can't run an economy. You have no idea who is going to extort you, what gang is going to hold you up, or what politician is going to hold you up. And that's why this should matter to all of us, and it's why we need a president who can uphold the rule of law here, and understand why it's important not just to our democracy, but to the American economy as well.
COLLINS: Yes. And you have announced, when you said that you were running for governor, you said that you want to be able to fight Trumpism.
BENNET: Yes.
COLLINS: And that has obviously been a huge question for basically every Democrat that we have spoken on -- spoken to on this show, since Trump won, is how Democrats are handling him, or as maybe some of your Democratic base thinks, not handling him the right way.
We have seen this, as Senator Bernie Sanders, your colleague, has been seeing pretty big crowds, not just in places like Los Angeles, where he was this weekend, but also in places like Utah. He's been on the road, alongside Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
What does the reception that he has been getting tell you about where the momentum of the party is right now? And what Democratic voters -- he's an Independent, but he caucuses with the Dems -- what they want to see right now from you?
BENNET: I think people want a transformation of our economy. And frankly, I think that's a reason Donald Trump was elected to begin with.
He's a cause of a lot of problems. But I think fundamentally, he's really a symptom of the fact that we've got an economy, where people feel like, no matter how hard they work, they can't get ahead. And they feel like, no matter how hard they work, their kids can't get ahead. And that, I think, is the definition of the American Dream. But what we would -- I think we should find a way to have something other than just chaos, which is what Donald Trump has presented. We need a positive vision to deal with that.
And when we're dealing with the stuff that we're dealing with now, like Donald Trump wanting to make Canada a 51st state, I mean, you name the things that he consumes all of our days with? What I think about is the fact that people in Colorado can't get ahead in this economy, even though we have one of the most dynamic economies in the country.
I think about the fact that the reading scores in America are now worse than they were 20 years ago. And that our longevity is collapsing in this country, compared to other industrialized countries in the world.
We have to address these challenges. And if we spend all of our time in the circus that Donald Trump is creating, we won't address them.
Now, I think we should push back. We have to make sure that he doesn't destroy the rule of law, doesn't destroy our democracy, doesn't drive prices up, doesn't alienate all of our allies, and we protect our national security. We also need an agenda for our country, going forward, and it's going to require us to walk and chew gum at the same time.
COLLINS: Yes.
BENNET: This is going to demand a lot out of us. But that's what I think we need to do.
COLLINS: Well, there's this one part of what Senator Sanders has been saying, on the road, that has been resonating with voters, at least with Democratic voters who are coming out to see Bernie Sanders on the road.
Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): I trust that all of you know that you are living under a corrupt campaign finance system which allows billionaires to buy elections.
(BOOING)
SANDERS: But it's not just Musk and Republicans. It's the Democratic Party as well.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
SANDERS: Their billionaires tell candidates, Don't stand up to the powerful special interests. And too many Democrats are listening to them. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: When you ran for president, you had billionaires who backed your 2020 run.
What would you say to that message that he's saying, it's not just Republicans, it's Democrats too?
BENNET: I agree with -- I agree with what Bernie's saying. I mean, I think Donald Trump ran for election, saying, Of course, I'm corrupt, but I'm not as corrupt as the Democrats and the Republicans. And he found a way to win the presidency. And part of that is the way the campaign finance system is shot through with corruption. I completely agree with him.
[21:50:00]
The idea that Elon Musk can go to Wisconsin, and spend $20 million, which to Elon Musk is the cost of a McDonald's Hamburger, one hamburger, or he can spend $250 million in Donald Trump's election, which is the cost of a steak dinner to a teacher in Colorado.
Those teachers in Colorado, if they knew they could control the outcome of the fate of our country--
COLLINS: Yes.
BENNET: --as hard as it would be to pay for those three (ph) steaks, they probably would do it.
And I'm using Elon Musk as an example. But we've got problems on the Democratic side as well. And this is one of those instances, Kaitlan, where I think we need to think very hard about how to overcome Citizens United. We may need a constitutional amendment to deal with it.
COLLINS: Yes.
BENNET: And other generations of Americans have amended the Constitution to get women the right to vote.
COLLINS: But to be clear--
BENNET: They haven't said it's impossible.
COLLINS: You would not accept donations--
BENNET: Go ahead.
COLLINS: --from billionaires going forward, is that what you're saying?
BENNET: Well, I don't -- I have -- I'm one of the very few members of the Senate, who does not accept corporate PAC money, for example. I don't accept -- I don't -- so I'm not -- I -- if you're asking about independent expenditures of billionaires, I haven't thought that through, because I'm not in a position to be able to make a judgment about that. I'm not sure. I'm missing your -- misunderstanding your question, I think.
COLLINS: Yes, well, I was just going back to him saying it's--
BENNET: I think we have to--
COLLINS: --it's a problem for both. But you seem to agree with Senator Sanders.
Senator Michael Bennet, thank you for your time tonight.
BENNET: I agree with him. I agree -- I agree with him.
COLLINS: Thank you so much for your time tonight, Senator.
BENNET: Thanks for having me.
COLLINS: Up next. An update on the tariff whiplash that we saw play out, and who President Trump is considering or what from steep tariffs now.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: President Trump's trade war entered a new level of confusion over the last 72 hours, which probably has something to do with comments like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Look, I'm a very flexible person. I don't change my mind, but I'm flexible, and you have to be. You just can't have a wall, and you'll only go, you know, sometimes you have to go around it, under it, or above it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, let me give you the backstory here.
The President was being asked today, in the Oval Office, about tariffs on electronics.
Because late on Friday night, U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced that electronics imported to the United States, like smartphones and computer processors, would be exempt from those reciprocal tariffs that were put in place. A seemingly big win for tech giants like Apple, which mostly makes iPhones and other products in China.
But then on Sunday, we heard from the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, who argued this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HOWARD LUTNICK, COMMERCE SECRETARY: These are included in the semiconductor tariffs that are coming and the pharmaceuticals are coming. Those two areas are coming in the next month or two. So this is not like a permanent sort of exemption.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The Commerce Secretary arguing it's not a permanent exemption, as Trump himself posted later on, quote, Nobody is getting off the hook, as he warned of new tariffs on semiconductors.
But it's not just with electronics that we're talking about the back and forth here. We also saw the stocks of the big three automakers on the rise today, after the President floated the possibility of exemptions for car companies that had been hit by his 25 percent auto tariffs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm looking at something to help some of the car companies, where they're switching to parts that were made in Canada, Mexico, and other places, and they need a little bit of time, because they're going to make them here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The President arguing that car companies needed a little bit of time, even though this is what he said last month about those auto tariffs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Are there any conditions under which you'd remove these auto tariff, sir? Or is this permanent for the rest of your term in office?
TRUMP: Oh, this is permanent. Yes. 100 percent. Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is Jennifer Hillman, the former General Counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
And it's great to have you back here.
Because this has obviously been a huge question here. How much of this has to do with what you just heard from the President at the beginning there. He was saying that he can be flexible, but he also, he's not going to change his mind.
JENNIFER HILLMAN, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: So part--
COLLINS: How does the business hear that?
HILLMAN: Yes, exactly. And this is part of the problem. Because what he's fundamentally saying is he wants everything to be built in the United States. He wants all of these companies to move back their manufacturing operations.
But what do business companies need more than anything else, if they're going to do that? They need certainty. They need to know exactly what the lay of the land is. They need to know exactly whether, when and how these tariffs are going to be applied, and whether, as the question was asked, Are they permanent?
And yet, what we've seen throughout this entire saga is on again, off again, on again, off again, which does just the opposite. It gives everybody a sense of, I'm not going to spend any of my money. I'm going to sit and hold tight and wait and see what happens.
COLLINS: Well and on the -- I've talked to people who have said that the President has a point when it comes to pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, because those are two things that if we deeply rely on other nations to provide them to the United States, the United States is in real trouble, if that access is cut off, obviously.
So, when it comes to those investigations, the national security investigations, what does that look like for something like this?
HILLMAN: So, again, we saw these kind of national security investigations, in the last Trump administration. I mean, this is how we ended up with the original tariffs on steel and aluminum.
So, again, that is a full, robust process run by the Department of Commerce that is investigating whether or not the level of imports that are coming in, in that case of steel and aluminum, creates a risk to the national security of the United States. And again, risk is sort of fairly broadly defined.
So that, I think, is what they're thinking they're going to do in both semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, is conduct an investigation, look at how many imports are coming in, from where, and do they ultimately threaten the national security of the United States. And if so? Then they can put on tariffs.
[22:00:00]
But there is a process. Everybody gets to comment, all the stakeholders get to come in and say. And the Defense Department has to say something. So, a very different process.
COLLINS: OK. We will stay tuned, because obviously that would have a huge impact on everyone so much.
So great to have you. And thanks for keeping us updated, at least as much as we can keep updated ourselves.
HILLMAN: Exactly.
COLLINS: Jennifer Hillman, great to have you.
Thank you all so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
