Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Judge Tells DOJ Lawyers: "Cancel" Vacations To Provide Evidence In Mistaken Deportation Case; Trump Threatens Harvard's Tax-Exempt Status In Funding Fight; Biden Slams Trump WH In First Remarks Since Leaving Office. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired April 15, 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]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Investigators believe Arakawa died around February 12th of hantavirus, which is a rare rodent-borne disease with a range of symptoms, including those contained in Arakawa's internet searches. Hackman is believed to have died about a week later, of complications from Alzheimer's.
That's it for us tonight.
I'll be back with you, tomorrow morning, at 07:00 a.m., for "CNN NEWS CENTRAL," with Kate Bolduan and Sara Sidner. Hope very much to see you then.
In the meantime, the news continues tonight. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts right now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
A federal judge tells the Trump administration, Clear your calendar and cancel any vacations, accusing the administration of dragging its feet, while demanding new answers about the man who was deported by mistake.
Plus, President Trump has hit Harvard with a new threat tonight that it could cost it billions more dollars. But the University says it will not surrender to his demands.
And also, that trade war with China just got personal, as China lobs insults back at Vice President, JD Vance, calling Americans quote, Hillbillies, who will suffer from Trump's tariffs.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Take a look at the raucous scene that you saw outside a Maryland courthouse today, where protesters were demanding the return of that man who was mistakenly deported by the Trump administration to El Salvador.
While inside the courtroom, and inside that courthouse, a federal judge was scolding attorneys for the Justice Department, and demanding to know, in writing, why more had not been done to return him to the United States.
As that was playing out, back at the White House, officials there were arguing that even if Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia did make it back to America, he'd only be deported again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Deporting him back to El Salvador was always going to be the end result. There is never going to be a world in which this is an individual who is going to live a peaceful life in Maryland.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now that is an argument that was made at the White House briefing today. We heard it from Stephen Miller, yesterday.
And also, it quickly showed up in a court filing, this afternoon, with government attorneys arguing that if Abrego Garcia showed up at a port of entry, the Department of Homeland Security would take him into custody in the United States, and either remove him to a third country, or they say they'll remove the status that was supposed to protect him from being deported, and he'll be sent back to El Salvador, where he is now.
But that argument made by the administration seemed to not be enough for a federal judge in Maryland today, who said she was unsatisfied with the statements coming out of the Trump administration so far, and scolding them for, as the judge put it, not doing enough to comply with her order to facilitate his return from one of El Salvador's most notorious mega prisons.
The judge here arguing, quote, What the record shows is nothing has been done. The administration's understanding of the word, 'facilitate,' flies in the face of the plain meaning of the word.
The Judge now wants to determine whether the administration is abiding by the court order, My court orders, she said. That means hearings, documents, and most notably, from what we saw today, depositions of administration officials under oath.
The judge told the parties there, quote, "Cancel" your "vacation. Cancel other appointments. I'm usually pretty good about things like that in my courtroom, but not this time."
In court, the attorneys who were representing President Trump's side pointed to this news conference in the Oval Office yesterday, where he and the President of El Salvador made clear they had no intention of returning Abrego Garcia back to the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I asked President Bukele. What are you -- what is your -- can President -- can President Bukele weigh in on this? Do you plan to return him?
PRES. 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: Now, that's what the DOJ pointed to in court today.
But the judge responded to this notion that she should check that tape for the summary of their argument, and said, quote, "I don't consider what happened yesterday as really evidence before this court."
In the meantime, this comes as at the White House, President Trump has continued to muse about this notion of sending American prisoners to be locked up in foreign countries, referring as you'll listen to and hear here, U.S. citizens, as homegrown criminals.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We're getting them out, and the President is helping us with that -- President Bukele.
RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, FOX NEWS HOST: Could we use it for violent criminals? Our own violent criminals?
TRUMP: I call them homegrown criminals.
CAMPOS-DUFFY: Yes.
TRUMP: You mean, the homegrowns.
CAMPOS-DUFFY: The homegrowns, could they?
TRUMP: The ones that grew up and--
CAMPOS-DUFFY: Yes.
TRUMP: --something went wrong, and they hit people over the head with a baseball bat. We have -- and push people into subways just before the train gets there, like you see happening sometimes. We are looking into it, and we want to do it. I would love to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:05:00]
COLLINS: As the President says he's going to continue to look into what experts have said would clearly be illegal. I asked his border czar, Tom Homan, who has deep experience with immigration, who served under President Obama, and now under President Trump, for his thoughts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Homan. You're the immigration expert here. The President is now floating this idea of sending American prisoners to a prison in El Salvador. Do you believe that that would be legal?
TOM HOMAN, TRUMP BORDER CZAR: You know, someone mentioned that to me this morning. I haven't yet talked to the President. I just got back in town yesterday, so I haven't had that conversation, what that conversation was about, where it comes from, where -- so I'm not going to comment on that until I speak to the President directly.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Homan.
COLLINS: But do you know at the top of your head if that's legal, or what would your -- I mean, you have obviously worked in immigration under President Obama, now under President Trump. Do you believe that it would be legal to send American prisoners there?
HOMAN: I don't know -- I don't know -- again, I didn't -- I didn't see it, I didn't hear it. I said, well I was mentioned this morning.
Again, I don't know the context to the question was, I don't know the context of what the response, of what he meant by the response. I'd be -- I'd be opining on something I really don't have the information on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Let's start off tonight with my sources who are a team of top legal minds. Former Justice Department officials, and also a distinguished former federal judge.
And judge, I'll get to you in a moment.
But Elliot, on what we heard and what we saw playing out in this courtroom today. This judge is clearly very frustrated with the administration, and believes that they are essentially slow-walking any response here, to what she said they needed to do with the man they wrongly deported to do to El Salvador.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Right. And what will be interesting is what plays out over the course of the next two weeks. She has clearly put demands on them in the form of depositions, documents, more information.
Now, do they play ball and provide the court what the court has asked for or continue to stonewall? That's when you start seeing, as we were talking about in the greenroom before this, does she proceed with holding some entity in contempt? Either, the Department of Homeland Security, and fining it a bunch of money, individual attorneys, individual government officials. The judge has those tools at her disposal. It's really just a function of whether the government complies with what she's asking for.
COLLINS: Well, and Andrew McCabe, as the former Deputy Director of the FBI, when you hear what we're hearing from the White House today, which has gone from accusing him of being a member of MS-13, even though, when you actually look a little closer at what has been shown in court, and what immigration judges have found, it's not as clear- cut. And they haven't provided a ton of evidence to say, what backs that up.
But then today, in the White House briefing, I noticed, the press secretary was saying that he is an alleged human trafficker. They're now calling him a terrorist, citing the word of the President of El Salvador, yesterday.
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: There is a way that, normally this is done in the United States of America. It is the government presenting an indictment that publicly charges someone with things like human trafficking, or being a member of a transnational criminal organization. That has never occurred to this man, as far as I'm aware.
There was one really thin, never-proven allegation during his immigration proceeding, some time ago, that was ultimately determined by the judge in that case to be not credible, and that's when he was given his special status, and the order of preventing his removal was filed.
So this -- so to see the White House, on camera today, for the world to see, to publicly castigate this man, to accuse him of being a criminal. He's never even been charged with these crimes, much less been proven guilty with anything.
So, I would say to the White House, if they believe that he has been involved in that much criminal activity, and they have the evidence that, to bolster this confidence, that they're showing on television, then they should bring him back here, and they should charge him with those offenses and let him defend himself in a court of law.
COLLINS: You worked in the Justice Department as well, until recently, in the Pardon Office. But in terms of how the Justice Department is handling this, what stood out to you from their arguments in court today?
LIZ OYER, FORMER PARDON ATTORNEY, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: So, I think one of the most alarming things is that the Justice Department seems to have totally ceded its traditional role of upholding the rule of law.
The Justice Department is entrusted with ensuring that when the political agenda of the President is carried out, is carried out consistent with our rule of law system, and consistent with the constitutional protections that people have against things like being mistakenly deported to a foreign country.
But the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, has made clear that she is a soldier for the President. She has no agenda of her own. She has made it clear that she is there to carry out the instructions that she's given by the President, and that's something that she is doing at great expense to the traditional safeguards that we have in place to prevent outcomes like the one that happened to Mr. Abrego Garcia.
COLLINS: Well, and also I just wonder what you make of the attorney from the Justice Department, who I think had been there about 15 years or so, who was the first to say in court that he was mistakenly deported, and essentially tell the judge--
OYER: Yes.
[21:10:00]
COLLINS: --I asked the same question you have about why this guy was deported even though he had protection status from a judge, has been fired--
OYER: Yes.
COLLINS: --from the Justice Department.
OYER: So that's a really significant indicator of how this Justice Department is doing business. They are sidelining people who truthfully answer the questions that are put to them by federal judges.
One thing that I think Judge Xinis did today that was really smart is she ordered discovery. She ordered the depositions to be conducted, and interrogatories and documents to be produced. That is key.
Because thus far, what the leadership of the department has been doing is sending people who are uninformed into court, people who know nothing about what's actually going on, and that gives them this buffer against the truth coming out, against having to answer hard questions.
I have appeared in front of Judge Xinis, many times, and she is a judge who asks very tough questions, and she expects direct and accurate answers.
COLLINS: So that's not just for the Trump people, you're saying?
OYER: No. She holds everybody's feet to the fire, prosecutors, defense attorneys, everyone who comes into her courtroom.
COLLINS: Well, and on that discovery, and the kind of timeline, she clearly is doing some fact-gathering here--
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COLLINS: --and wants to see what these attorneys are saying and what they've been saying behind-the-scenes at the Justice Department.
We heard from Abrego Garcia's attorney tonight, in an interview with my colleague, Kate Bolduan, basically celebrating this decision.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RINA GANDHI, ATTORNEY FOR MAN MISTAKENLY DEPORTED TO EL SALVADOR: We'll never be satisfied until Kilmar is back. So no, the fight's not over. But I do consider this day to be a win. We did get our expedited discovery granted. And we have a plan. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But what can this mean for them? Because, the administration is arguing, Even if he is returned--
WILLIAMS: Right.
COLLINS: --we're just going to deport him again, which technically would save them the legal headache here, right?
WILLIAMS: Right.
COLLINS: But what do you make of that?
WILLIAMS: So, a couple things.
She's creating a record and trying to get the Justice Department locked in with their statements, as to when they got him out, what they did, and what the decisions were. So that, number one, if it goes to a higher court, there's an evidentiary record.
Number two, if she's going to actually slap contempt charges or contempt citations on people, she can get them contradicting themselves.
The whole point of the attorney that got fired is that he had to make those statements in court, because he could have lost his law license if he was making a representation on the court that he knew to not be true. I think the judge is trying to lock the attorneys into a situation like that, or not, at least, get them to be honest on the record.
COLLINS: Well, Judge Jones, you're also here with us.
And I'd love to get your view of what Elliot was just laying out, in terms of what the judge here is trying to do. Is this, do you believe, setting up for eventual contempt findings or? I mean, what are the judge's options here? Because the administration has made pretty clear they're not going to seek the return of this man.
JOHN E. JONES III, FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE, PRESIDENT, DICKINSON COLLEGE: I think, Kate -- I think that what we have here, Kaitlan, is that there is a judge sort of losing her patience in real-time, and for everybody to see. She's getting to the end of her rope.
And I agree with Elliot that there's a record being built. This is to use, perhaps an inelegant metaphor, kind of a judicially-ordered colonoscopy of the government. I mean, that's what's going to unfold now, in a very brief period of time, where they're going to probe what the government knows, and as was stated by your guests, they're going to attempt to get around the government, bringing folks into court who are stonewalling them, or don't have the authority to make particular statements.
Either we're heading towards a contempt situation, where she's going to compel the government to engage in discovery that they may stonewall.
Or ultimately, what she could say is, You've given me no alternative -- this is what I think may happen -- No alternative but to enter an order that says you're going to bring him back by a date certain, and game, set, match, and dare them appeal up to the Supreme Court.
It may be headed to the Supreme Court in any event. They want to play games here, as she said today. And I think that's exactly what's taking place.
COLLINS: Maybe inelegant, but certainly an effective metaphor, I will say there.
In terms of -- so, you think those are the options here. Either there's a contempt finding, which, I've gotten questions from sources and people who have worked for Trump before tonight, saying, Well, will he just probably ignore any of those findings and not really take that into account? You think it's either that, or it goes back to the Supreme Court?
E. JONES III: Well, I think -- I think the contempt could be an interim step, and they may try to take it back to the Supreme Court, at that point. It sounds like they want to take it right now, Kaitlan. They want to take it up and get it -- get it back in front of the court.
[21:15:00]
I think if it goes back to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has to be more precise in their wording. They tried to soften the word in order to say that they're not interfering with the president's power over foreign affairs.
But what they have done is created a situation where, and it's strange credulity that they can't get him back, but they've created a situation where the government is leaning on the vagaries in the word, Facilitate.
Everybody knows, quite frankly, that with a phone call, they can get this guy back. And that's what's frustrating the judge. And I think the judge is exercising appropriate judicial demeanor, but she's really--
COLLINS: Yes.
E. JONES III: --getting tried here, and is at the end of her patience.
COLLINS: Well, and Andrew McCabe on that. I mean, it is clear, because of this relationship between President Trump and President Bukele, they have a great relationship. I mean, you could see it on display in the Oval Office yesterday.
If President Trump said, Hey, I would like for you to return him. It's hard to see, you know, even White House officials don't believe it's realistic that they -- he wouldn't act on that. And so that's kind of at the heart of this. But the administration does seem to have an argument in terms of that Supreme Court ruling is not very clear-cut, in terms of having a certain date that he must be returned, or that they must actually have him returned.
MCCABE: There's no question, the Supreme Court is partially responsible for the position that the case is currently in. The ambiguity in their language, in the language of their order got us here.
I mean, you heard it from Stephen Miller and others at the White House yesterday. They said, Oh, it's a nine-zero victory, we won on all counts. Which is clearly not the case. But the language gives them that -- the room to take that position.
If the court -- if the case goes back to the Supreme Court, they have to be definitive in round two, and say exactly what the administration must do.
COLLINS: We'll see what happens.
Everyone, thank you so much. Great to have all of your expertise here in this.
Also, I should note tonight, here in Washington, we're hearing from Democrats who say they want to go, and be on the ground, in El Salvador, to try to bring the man from Maryland back home. The latest from my source on Capitol Hill. That's next.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, we're hearing from Democratic lawmakers who are ramping up their own efforts, to bring Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia back to the United States, after the White House and the President of El Salvador made clear they do not intend to seek his return.
Just a short time ago tonight, we heard from Senator Chris Van Hollen. He is of Maryland, where Abrego Garcia lived before he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, who announced that he will be traveling there, tomorrow.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): I don't even know if we announced this, but I am planning tomorrow to go to El Salvador to--
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
VAN HOLLEN: To work to bring--
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
VAN HOLLEN: To work to bring him home.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Joining me tonight is the Democratic congressman of Florida, Maxwell Frost, who says he wants to help Van Hollen in his efforts to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States.
And Congressman, it's great to have you here.
Because I know, obviously, Chris Van Hollen's in the Senate. And you and your Democratic colleague in the House asked the House Oversight chair, James Comer, to authorize an official visit, an official delegation to El Salvador. Have you heard back from him tonight?
REP. MAXWELL FROST (D-FL): We haven't heard back as of yet. And so, we'll wait to see what happens tomorrow.
We know that Senator Van Hollen will be going tomorrow, to El Salvador, to hopefully make connection with Mr. Garcia. And our hope is that we can follow that trip with an official CODEL, with both Democrats and Republicans from the House Oversight Committee.
Obviously, we're not super-confident that that will be granted. But our intention is to go, either way, to ensure that we're putting pressure on this situation.
COLLINS: OK. So, you said you'd go either way, even if you don't get that official designated visit by the Chairman of the House Oversight.
In terms of what you would do on the ground there, what are your hopes for that? Would you go to the mega prison? Would you try to meet with President Bukele? What do you have in mind?
FROST: All of the above. We want to see how the trip goes tomorrow with the senator. We're following his leadership, because this is one of his constituents. We want to see how the trip goes. I know he'll attempt to make contact with him at the prison. Our goal would be to do the same thing.
Hopefully, our trip won't be needed. Hopefully, after Senator Van Hollen's trip, he'll be coming back home.
But obviously, we know that the situation is more complicated than that, and this might warrant a trickle of Democratic House members and senators going to El Salvador, day after day, maybe week after week, to continue to put pressure on that government, and our government, to follow the law, and follow what the Supreme Court has told the President to do.
COLLINS: I was inside the Oval Office yesterday, as President Bukele was sitting down with President Trump. I mean, he made very clear that he does not intend to return him to the United States. He likened it to smuggling a terrorist into the United States, and said that, the question, the notion of him helping here is preposterous.
I think some people may look at this and say, Do you really think that if you go to El Salvador, it's going to change his mind?
FROST: We'll see. But the goal is to put pressure on the situation.
The other thing is, we want to see this man. We want to see this man, and we want to talk to this man. I don't trust this administration at all.
While the President of El Salvador was slinging around these baseless accusations, calling him a terrorist, which haven't been substantiated by anybody, the President sit there silent -- sat there silently, not defending him, not talking about the facts of the matter, which is the most concerning -- the most concerning part about this whole thing.
[21:25:00]
We know the President of El Salvador is another Trump lapdog, who wants -- who just wants to suck up to Trump, make him smile. And Trump didn't do anything about that situation when he was completely tossing out these baseless allegations on Mr. Garcia.
So, our goal is to go over there and talk with him, make sure he's OK, make sure that -- make sure he's alive. I don't trust this administration one bit.
COLLINS: So you have concerns about his safety?
FROST: I do have concerns about his safety. He's in -- I don't even know if you can call this place a prison. We know that there's extreme human rights abuses in this prison. We know. We've seen the photos. These people are not treated like people. They're treated like animals (inaudible) probably many innocent people.
But at least we know about Mr. Garcia's case in there. And the Supreme Court has said he needs to be brought home. So the administration needs to bring him home. And we need to see both Democratic and Republican members should join us, going to El Salvador, making this a point, and ensuring that the nation doesn't forget about it.
COLLINS: You say, bring him home. He had been in the United States illegally. He came in 2011. Obviously, he was granted status to essentially not be forced to be deported to El Salvador in 2019 by an immigration judge.
What would you say to something that I've heard from critics of Democrats, in recent days, on the idea of you visiting El Salvador, who say, Democrats are so focused on going to bring someone who was back -- who was in the United States illegally, back to the United States, instead of -- instead of their own constituents. What would you say to that? FROST: We're focused on ensuring that the law's followed, and that every person in this country have due process. The Constitution is for every person in this country. And he deserves the due process, like everybody else. The Supreme Court has ruled on this, and he needs to be brought home.
The other reason why people should care about this, whether you're undocumented, whether you're not undocumented, everyone should care about this, is because the administration is essentially saying, We can deport anybody. We can send anybody, whether you're a citizen or not, overseas. And once it's litigated, if the Court tells us to bring you back, whether you're a citizen or not, we can just chalk it up to saying, It's foreign policy, and the court has no business in foreign policy.
This is about him, but it's our entire country. It's about the rights of every single American, every single human in this country. That's why we have to make a big deal about this right now. That's why we have to go there right now. This is about every single one of my constituents, no matter what their legal status is.
And so, we have to focus on this. We have to ensure that the Constitution is being followed, that the rule of law is being followed. Because right now, today, it's Mr. Garcia. Tomorrow, it can be any one of us.
COLLINS: Congressman Maxwell Frost, thank you for your time tonight.
FROST: Thank you.
COLLINS: Meanwhile, tonight, President Trump has just issued a new threat to Harvard, after he stripped the Ivy League university of billions in funding, late last night. Why the White House is now calling on the school that rejected his demands to apologize.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump is escalating his billion-dollar pressure campaign against Harvard University, threatening its tax- exempt status, after the school rejected his demands for major policy changes.
On Truth Social, the President argued, quote, "Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity," something that would cost Harvard billions of dollars, potentially.
The White House press secretary was asked about the President's post today, and said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: The President floated on Truth Social, I believe, the possibility of removing tax-exempt status. How serious is that threat? And are there other universities he's considering?
LEAVITT: The President has been quite clear, they must follow federal law. He also wants to see Harvard apologize. And Harvard should apologize for the egregious antisemitism that took place on their college campus against Jewish-American students.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: As you heard, the administration has been arguing that this is about fighting antisemitism, after October 7th, and the protests that we saw break out on colleges campus -- college campuses, as the war in Gaza raged.
But officials of Harvard, in recent days, have argued that they have made changes in the last year, and that this move by the White House is threatening academic freedom and their First Amendment rights.
It also comes after we reported here, last night, that the federal government was freezing more than $2 billion of Harvard's grants and contracts.
My team of deeply-sourced White House insiders is here.
And Jeff Mason, I'll start with you, since you were inside that briefing today, asking that question. Do you believe this new threat about the tax-exempt status that Harvard has right now, is because they rejected Trump's demands yesterday?
MASON: I think it's pretty easy to deduce that. Yes, I mean, I think this is -- the fact that Harvard stood up and didn't say, Yes, we accept, in order to keep the money, is a sign that, that was the value that Harvard decided to lift up for itself, and the President didn't like that.
Because what he's been seeing with some of the other institutions that he has challenged, including law firms and others, is at least from some, there's been acquiescence. And that's not what he got from Harvard, and so he's punishing them.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, and it's not totally clear. I mean, the President can't direct the IRS to conduct these individual investigations, which is what would have to take place here to potentially lose its tax-exempt status. But what does this say to you overall, about just how the administration is viewing this?
[21:35:00]
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think they're viewing it the way they are the other institutions that the President has on his retribution list, which is the law firms that you mentioned, and other individuals that he has decided to go after.
Which is that, if any institution decides to stand up to him, because they say that he's violating their constitutional rights as a private university, that then he's going to find ways to attempt to escalate and to attempt to apply more pressure.
I think it's interesting that the White House says that this is under this banner of combating antisemitism, when actions that they're taking inside the administration, like Pete Hegseth's direction to the Naval Academy, is purging books about racism and about the Holocaust, but keeping Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler's book. So there's a lot of cognitive dissonance going on, across the administration, when it comes to actually combating antisemitism.
COLLINS: Well, my question is also what happens if Harvard complies? We kind of went through the list, last night, of what exactly they are asking them to do here, in terms of the changes they want to see made. It's pretty serious oversight that they would like to have when it comes to Harvard. We had on a professor, last night, who was suing over the demands.
But the stark change in how Harvard is approaching this, and how Columbia has approached this, so far, from what I read in the Journal today, Columbia has not gotten its $400 million in funding back that they were going to get, if they made -- if they agreed, as they did. They acquiesced to their demands with just very few changes.
So it's not actually clear that it would necessarily work, even if they did, right?
MASON: Indeed.
And also kind of an interesting political angle is the fact that former President Obama has weighed in on this, and praised Harvard for doing it, and he also encouraged universities and academia, in the last week or two, to stand up to the Trump administration.
And he hasn't weighed in on every institution like this, but he has sort of really encouraged this to happen from the universities. And that added a -- you know, that's another Democrat, and very high- profile Democrat, who is stepping up and suggesting that there be some resistance to President Trump.
COLLINS: It was fascinating to hear that this is what President Obama responded to and weighed in on.
And I think part of this is Trump has talked about these schools for a long time, and their behavior, and how he views them. Just for example, listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We are going to choke off the money to schools that aid the Marxist assault on our American heritage--
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: --and on Western civilization itself.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: The days of subsidizing communist indoctrination in our colleges will soon be over.
We will cut federal funding for any school or program pushing critical race theory, gender ideology, or other inappropriate racial, sexual or political content onto our children.
You see what we're doing with the colleges, and they're all bending and saying, Sir, thank you very much. We appreciate it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, it's clear that this is not something that is just about what happened on campus after October 7th.
BARRON-LOPEZ: Yes. It's about creating an ideological litmus test. It's about making sure that his and Republicans' and -- cultural agenda is something that is adopted by institutions, whether or not they want to adopt it.
And I think that the reason we're seeing individuals, like the former President Barack Obama, weigh in, is also because you're hearing across the spectrum, people who worked at big law firms, people who are lawyers who I've talked to, say that there is this chilling effect occurring, where there is fear about standing up to this administration, at this point, and they're looking for bigger institutions to do that.
And so, I think that there is some hope among some of the lawyers that I've talked to that this could lead a wider resistance to this nationally (ph).
COLLINS: Does the White House think they'll be successful ultimately here?
MASON: I think so. I mean, I asked a White House official, very recently, about how they felt about how the law firm attacks were going. And he said, We feel like we're successful in everything.
COLLINS: Look how many hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono work that they have gotten from major law firms.
MASON: Yes.
COLLINS: Jeff Mason. Laura Barron-Lopez. Great to have you both here tonight.
Up next. We just heard from former President Joe Biden tonight, one of his first major speeches since he left office. What it was that brought him back to the national stage, and what he had to say about President Trump.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: Tonight, former President Biden returned to the national stage, in a real way, for the first time since leaving the White House, using his speech tonight to rip what his successor has been doing during his first few months in office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, 46TH U.S. PRESIDENT: In fewer than 100 days, this new administration has made so much -- done so much damage, and so much destruction, it's kind of breathtaking it could happen that soon.
Well, they're following that old line from tech startups. The quote is, Move fast. Break things.
Well, they're certainly breaking things. They're shooting first and aiming later.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My sources tonight are:
Jonathan Allen, NBC News Senior Political Reporter, and also the co- author, alongside Amie Parnes, of the new book, "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House."
[21:45:00]
And also Alex Thompson, who is a National Political Correspondent for Axios, and the author of the upcoming book, "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again."
So I'm sure he loves to hear from the two of you on his first major speech.
What do your sources say, Alex, though, about why he's coming out now? Just the idea of hearing from him.
Because I was -- I was interested in some of Isaac's reporting here at CNN today. Asked about hearing from the former President for the first time since January 20th, one long-time supporter and donor said only this, quote, No. Thank God.
ALEX THOMPSON, NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, AXIOS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Joe Biden wants to be out there. A lot of his people have reached out to former aides, other Democrats.
And basically, the insinuation is, Joe Biden is still the de facto leader of the Democratic Party. But a lot of Democrats do not feel that way. They do -- they think that he made a huge mistake in choosing to run again, at 80-years-old, and they don't want to hear from him.
But you're going to see this push-pull, because he does want to be out there. He does still want to have his voice heard. And so, I expect that this sort of melodrama is going to continue in the coming months. COLLINS: What do you make of what he had to say today? I mean, he was going after President Trump. But, I mean, President Trump spends almost every single day attacking Biden, so does his administration. I mean, they bring him up in the rationale for a lot of their moves. What do you make of what you heard from him tonight?
JONATHAN ALLEN, CO-AUTHOR, "FIGHT: INSIDE THE WILDEST BATTLE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE": Well, a few things.
And I should say, I mean, Alex is absolutely right. I mean, this is, and as we report in "Fight," like, this is absolutely a president who thinks that he should be able to burnish his legacy right now, and put his legacy in front of Democrats winning the presidency in 2024, and is embittered. He's told people that he would have won.
As far as his speech today. I mean, I think, he undermined himself right out of the gate. He used the term, quote-unquote, colored kids, which, aside from being totally inappropriate, also puts him in an entirely other generation. I mean, none of us grew up with anybody saying anything like that.
So, I mean, he's going after Trump. But I don't think he's going after Trump effectively.
And again, to Alex's point, like, the Democrats want him to go away. And there was probably nothing more clear in the reporting that Amie and I did for the book, "Fight," that then -- that most of the Democrats want him to go away. Some Democrats still like him, but they do not want him to be the leader of their party.
COLLINS: Yes, and your book--
THOMPSON: Yes--
COLLINS: Your book really gets into the final days of his time in the White House, what that looks like, how other Democrats are viewing him.
To that comment he made tonight, I want people to listen to that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: I'd never seen -- hardly any black people in Scranton at the time, and I was only going to fourth grade. And I remember seeing the kids going by at the time, called colored kids, on a bus going by.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: What do you make of that moment?
THOMPSON: I mean, you saw these moments, back in 2019, during the 2019 primary, where he would talk about putting on -- you know, he was asked, I still remember, he was asked question about reparations for the descendants of slaves, and he talked about putting on a record player for black kids in the home, and how that was important. He is sort of, you know, to your point, like he is a -- you know, he's an older generation. He's sort of frozen in amber.
I also sort of remember about why he's out there right now. I remember a former aide once put -- compared him to a shark. He always has to keep swimming, and I think that's why he's still continuing to be out there.
COLLINS: And he was going after the Trump administration on Social Security, saying that they're putting fear in people, into access to their local Social Security office, their benefits, what that's going to look like, referencing Elon Musk very clearly when he was talking about moving fast and breaking things.
This is something that other Democrats have been using against President Trump on the campaign trail. Congresswoman AOC has been out with Bernie -- Senator Bernie Sanders on the trail, getting huge crowds, actually.
She went after Trump today at their event. And listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): Donald Trump is a criminal. He was found--
(CHEERING)
OCASIO-CORTEZ: He was found guilty of 34 felony counts of fraud, found liable for sexual abuse.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
OCASIO-CORTEZ: And if he wants to find the rapists and criminals in this country, he should look in the mirror.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, talk about two different views of going after him, and what the generational difference looks like in the Democratic Party right now.
ALLEN: Yes. I mean, look, I think all the Democrats want to defend Social Security. That's been a core issue for them.
Joe Biden in his 80s talking about defending Social Security, I think, doesn't sound as appealing as maybe some of the younger generation talking about being there for them, right? Biden has been defending Social Security for six -- you know, 50, 60, years in the public eye.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, when you look at that, she's landing punches. Whether or not they are necessarily the issues Democrats are going to win on, and I think they basically have to get back to the economy and physical safety and physical security to win elections. What you saw in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a ton of energy--
COLLINS: And a ton of money that she's raising. $9.6 million--
ALLEN: And to your point--
COLLINS: --in the first quarter.
ALLEN: To your point--
THOMPSON: One the--
(CROSSTALK)
[21:50:00]
ALLEN: Those are -- just real quick. To your point, Kaitlan, about her out there with Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are about the same age. I think they're a year apart. Bernie Sanders doesn't look like Joe Biden, right? So, I mean, you can be an older person making younger people's arguments, making those with energy.
And with Biden, as you know, as we report in our book, and I think Alex is going to have a lot in his book, there's just this, a decline that has happened over time with him, and he's no longer somebody who represents what Democrats want to be telling the country who they are.
THOMPSON: When there are some concerns -- I should also add, there are some concerns among Democrat judges, that the fact that a lot of the energy in the party does seem to be going in the left wing of the party, yet again, same as in 2017. And I think a lot of Democrats feel that they made some strategic mistakes, by some of the decisions they took at that time. And so, it is interesting to see what the future of AOC and Biden is.
COLLINS: Yes, that's a good point.
Alex Thompson. Jon Allen. Congrats on both your books. Thank you so much for being here.
Also tonight, that war of words is escalating between China and the White House with Beijing now insulting the Vice President, as this goes on. And what they said. We'll tell you right after this.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, we are seeing China trading insults with the Vice President, JD Vance, in the latest knock against President Trump's trade war that he has enacted.
A top Chinese official warned that those tariffs will soon leave, and I'm quoting the official now, Those American hillbillies wail in in front of the 5,000-year-old Chinese civilization. Now, the operative word there being hillbillies, given Vance's own self-proclaimed Hillbilly background, which he wrote about extensively in his book, "Hillbilly Elegy."
This comes though after we heard from the Vice President drawing his own backlash in China for this comment that he made earlier this month.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JD VANCE (R), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: To make it a little bit more crystal clear, we borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My next source is an expert on Chinese politics. Joseph Torigian is a research fellow at the Stanford University Hoover History Lab. And his new book, "The Party's Interests Come First" is out June 3rd. Can't wait to read that.
But Joseph, can we just get into what's happening here in this exchange?
That comment from Vance, just to give everyone background, as you well know, created a lot of backlash in Beijing, with it quickly spreading. CNN's Will Ripley reported on this at length.
What does it tell you about how they're responding tonight, with this insult about hillbillies in the United States?
JOSEPH TORIGIAN, RESEARCH FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Well, the person who made that comment used to work with Xi Jinping, when Xi Jinping was in charge of Zhejiang Province, so he probably has good insights into what Xi Jinping thinks.
And he's also in charge of Hong Kong policy and was sanctioned by the United States. So I don't think he's a fan of Washington.
The Chinese Communist Party is a notoriously opaque system. So, it's quite challenging to figure out exactly what they're thinking about right this moment.
But Xi Jinping has always been very forthcoming about the big picture in terms of U.S.-China relations. He thinks that the U.S. is a place where capital rules everything. He's talked about materialism and spiritual poverty, as opposed to China, which he says is a place where, because of the party, they have this struggle mindset that grew out of the revolution that will steel them for this kind of challenge.
Nevertheless, he's someone who's also been forthcoming about what he sees as China's own problems. He's warned that small risks can turn into big risks. He just talked about how economic risks can turn into political risks. So I think he made competing impulses. COLLINS: What stands out to you about the dynamic we're seeing play out right now between the White House and Beijing, in terms of -- essentially, our reporting is that they have been trying to engage in a high-level phone call meeting between President Trump and President Xi Jinping, and have not been able to essentially make that happen.
And as the White House has been framing it, as they were saying today, is essentially that the ball is in China's court here, in terms of who makes the first move.
TORIGIAN: Yes, so phone-call politics has always been fraught in the People's Republic of China. In March of 1969, after a battle on the Chinese-Soviet border, Brezhnev tried to call Mao. But an operator in Beijing insulted Brezhnev, and hung up on him. Nevertheless, after that incident, the Chinese Premier, Zhou Enlai, did tell the Foreign Ministry to prepare for negotiations.
I think that the bigger question isn't who calls whom, but what they'll talk about, and whether there is some kind of a compromise that's possible. If that's the case, I think they can be creative about making a conversation happen. As we know, in 1972 and -- Nixon went to China. That was after decades of Chinese insults. So, the system is somewhat flexible still.
COLLINS: Yes, obviously, that was a historic visit that some of his own advisers told Nixon not to take.
But in terms of what we're seeing in the escalation is playing out. I mean, we saw Kevin Hassett, at the White House, saying yesterday that he was worried about China pausing exports on rare earth minerals.
Today, we have the reporting, China has ordered its airlines not to take any more deliveries from Boeing. I mean, they are obviously trying to kind of make these jabs in order to change what's playing out.
[22:00:00]
TORIGIAN: Yes, so China is a system that's very leader-friendly. Decision-making is very concentrated. So Xi Jinping, I'm sure, is the person behind those decisions. Nevertheless, there are politics in the People's Republic of China. I wouldn't want to be those advisers who are trying to find ways to hurt the United States but protect the Chinese economy.
COLLINS: Yes. We'll obviously see what happens here.
Joseph Torigian, a lot to talk about with your book. Thank you so much for joining tonight.
TORIGIAN: Thank you for having me.
COLLINS: And thanks for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
