Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Judge Finds "Probable Cause" To Hold Trump Admin. In Contempt; NY Times: Trump Waved Off Israeli Strike On Iran After Divisions Emerged In His Administration; Fed Chair: Trump Tariffs Could Bring Higher Inflation, Slower Growth. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired April 16, 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: --now a quick reminder of a CNN Premiere. Eva Longoria seeing how Spain went from culinary obscurity to world-class food destination. Her first stop, Barcelona and the Catalonia region. That's "EVA LONGORIA: SEARCHING FOR SPAIN," Sunday, April 27th, at 09:00 p.m., on CNN. Sounds awesome.
That does it for us, this hour. I'll be back tomorrow morning, 07:00 a.m., bright and early, alongside Kate Bolduan and Sara Sidner, for the flagship morning show, "CNN NEWS CENTRAL."
In the meantime, the news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
Criminal contempt. A federal judge is now threatening to refer Trump officials for prosecution, for ignoring his legal order. And if the Trump administration won't prosecute itself, the judge says he has a backup plan.
Plus, we have some breaking news this hour, as The New York Times is reporting that President Trump was waved off a strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear sites. Why he picked diplomacy for now. Maggie Haberman is here, with her brand-new reporting.
And the U.S. economy may be in uncharted territory. That is what the Federal Reserve Chair just said, as he issued his clearest warning yet that the President's tariffs could inflict lasting damage.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
A remarkable moment is unfolding here in Washington tonight, as a federal judge has just declared, and I'm quoting him now, "Probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt."
It's over what Judge James Boasberg says is the government's, quote, Willful disregard, of his order to turn around deportation flights that were headed for El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act.
When he mentioned, criminal contempt, I should note, the judge also emphasized the possibility of a criminal referral. We'll dig into that with our legal experts in a moment.
But yes, this is that same judge that the Trump administration has been blasting, ever since he ordered those planes with migrants that was headed to El Salvador to turn around, and they didn't, and to not take off, and they did.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Many people have called for his impeachment, the impeachment of this judge.
He's radical-left.
What do you do when you have a rogue judge?
He's a lunatic.
TOM HOMAN, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: I don't care what the judges think.
We're going to continue to arrest public safety threats and national security threats.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It's very, very clear that this is an activist judge who is trying to usurp the President's authority.
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: One unelected federal judge trying to control foreign policies, trying to control the Alien Enemies Act, which they have no business presiding over.
MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: No court has the authority to compel the foreign policy function of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: OK. So, that's what we've been hearing from the officials at the White House.
The Trump administration has been moving quickly tonight, after Judge Boasberg's ruling came out, to appeal this threat of contempt from him. It's a threat that stems from this case that we've been talking about, involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was living in Maryland when he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
Now, the Trump administration has admitted that this was a mistake. They did just about 24 hours ago, fire the first attorney who did acknowledge such in court. But they themselves were the ones who said it was an administrative error.
However, for the last several days, we have seen officials arguing it was not a mistake, while asserting he's a member of the MS-13 gang. His attorneys have disputed that, and a federal judge said the evidence wasn't substantiated, as he has not been charged as being a member of MS-13. But we've certainly seen this fight playing out, as the Attorney General now says he's never coming back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONDI: He is not coming back to our country.
There was no situation ever where he was going to stay in this country. None. None.
He's from El Salvador. He's in El Salvador. And that's where the President plans on keeping him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, Judge Boasberg's threat to hold contempt proceedings comes a day after another judge had threatened to open a similar inquiry, in a different but related case here, as what we are witnessing play out tonight is the judicial branch in a real power struggle to hold the executive branch to account.
I want to bring in some of my top legal sources, including the former Justice Department officials, Tom Dupree, Elliot Williams and Liz Oyer.
And also, retired New York State Supreme Court Justice, Jill Konviser, is with us.
And Tom Dupree, let me start with you.
Because I just think this pattern of what we're seeing play out with the judges. And clearly, we've known the administration is frustrated with the judges. But we are seeing the judges start to push back in a way that I don't think we had seen at this level or this caliber before.
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: We sure haven't. And look, this may become the new normal, at least for the next few years.
And I think what we're seeing here is certainly the legal dispute focuses, in large part, on the power of the executive branch, to affect these removals, in an expedited way, using the Alien Enemies Act and other statutes.
But keep in mind, what is really at issue in these contempt proceedings is the power of the judiciary and the judicial branch.
And I think today's order from Judge Boasberg, an extraordinary order, nearly 50 pages, that really lays out the timeline of what the judge thinks actually happened. It really tells a pretty powerful story about, from the judge's perspective, why his orders weren't complied with.
[21:05:00] And I think from Judge Boasberg's perspective, he probably felt he had no choice, but to issue this order, if he wanted to vindicate his own authority and ensure that his rulings were respected.
COLLINS: Yes, and what does this look like, Elliot--
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes.
COLLINS: --in terms of the paths he can take. Because he talks about referral, he talks about criminal prosecution here, potentially, for sending that to the Justice Department.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COLLINS: How realistic is that? I think that was my first question, as I saw this.
WILLIAMS: Not. But there's a few steps before you even get to putting people jail. So you got civil contempt and criminal contempt. Civil contempt seeks to compel behavior, criminal contempt seeks to punish behavior from attorneys in court.
Now, if you that -- at its extreme, certainly someone could be put in jail for the conduct, but that's so rare. And particularly, jailing a government official, I think it's only happened twice in American history. And both times, the judges backed off it. So just get that out of your mind. It's just not going to happen.
Now, some other things that could happen, fines are more likely. You can fine the agency itself, like $10,000 a day that comes out of their congressional appropriations. So, it could be a lot of money. Or you can fine individual attorneys or individual officials in the government. So there's a few tools.
COLLINS: Would the government pay for that? Or would that be a personnel?
WILLIAMS: The government would pay for it but -- and yes, that's an excellent question, Kaitlan, because if an individual is sanctioned, the government indemnifies them in effect. So the government would be paying it.
COLLINS: Yes, he seemed to really think this through, though, kind of laying out this roadmap in terms of what could happen next here.
Because the other idea he was arguing was raising this idea of appointing an outside prosecutor, essentially, if the government chooses to ignore any referrals that he sends the Justice Department's way. What would that -- I mean, how extraordinary would that be?
LIZ OYER, FORMER PARDON ATTORNEY, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: Well, the whole thing is extraordinary, Kaitlan. I mean, just the idea that we're talking about a judge holding in contempt of court, high-level government officials, is remarkable. Something like this almost never happens. But the fact that this is happening indicates that Judge Boasberg believes that we are on the brink of a constitutional crisis, in which the Justice Department is openly defying court orders.
And what I think is so chilling about the story that he tells in his lengthy opinion is he writes that the government essentially had a premeditated plan to outrun the court. The government was trying to orchestrate this massive deportation of hundreds of people in secret, and putting all of the machinery in place to do that, quicker than the court could possibly assume jurisdiction of the case in order to be able to avoid it. So, I think we know that he believes that the government is not going to comply with his order.
And I think there's actually something really interesting buried at the end of his opinion, which talks about the state secrets privilege, which is asserted. In this case, several high-level government officials signed affidavits saying that they believe national security would be implicated by answering certain questions of the judge. That includes Marco Rubio was one of them, Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi.
And the judge essentially stated that he believes that those assertions are insignificant, unsubstantial, are not supportable. So he's really suggesting in his order that he doubts the credibility of the highest-level government officials who are involved in this matter.
COLLINS: Well, and judge, let me get your view of this.
Because to that point of, they were essentially arguing, We can't answer these questions because it's a national security secret. It will reveal too much if we do.
He was skeptical of this all along. I mean, this is -- Judge Boasberg, I should note, used to be a FISA court judge. I mean, he was very -- he doubted this idea that that was why they could not reveal this information. They revealed other information about these flights publicly in briefings and whatnot.
What stood out to you from what the judge had to say in this very lengthy ruling today?
JILL KONVISER, RETIRED NY STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Well, he did portray all along that he did not believe that these state secrets were of such a degree that they would have to be protected, and therefore they couldn't be divulged even to the court.
He offered an in-camera review, which means no one would hear it. It would be sealed. It could be even ex parte, one party, so you could just tell me, and then I would understand or perhaps agree with you.
But I think that in that decision that he wrote today, he made very quick work of that. He said, I am not asking for state secrets. I am not asking for anything regarding foreign policy or anything that is sensitive. I simply -- I am simply asking for the flight manifest. What did you know? When did you know it? When did those planes take off, and who ordered it? Hardly state secrets. So he really is telling the government, You are just not being honest with me. And that is why we are teetering on this contempt, at this moment.
COLLINS: But Judge, can I get your -- what is your take on -- I was texting White House officials, and people over in the administration, about this today, as soon as this came down.
[21:10:00]
They were essentially arguing, He doesn't have jurisdiction here. The Supreme Court vacated the order that Judge Boasberg says was violated here. This should not have been filed in Washington, and they should be filed in Texas.
But Boasberg wrote in his filing, and I want to quote him, just to be exact. He said, that "Does not excuse the Government's violation," that, It is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order 'must be obeyed' -- no matter how 'erroneous' it 'may be' -- until a court reverses it.
I mean, that is not how the administration is looking at this tonight.
KONVISER: Clearly, that's not how the administration is looking at it.
But Judge Boasberg, who's hardly, you know, hardly some unelected lunatic, as the President says -- all federal judges are unelected -- What he is saying here, in no uncertain terms, is that we know exactly that what the law is, right?
And the law is that even an order that hasn't scrupulously followed the rules is still an order that must be adhered to, unless and until it is appealed. Not because the Supreme Court decided that the TRO was technically placed in the wrong venue. They wanted it in the Fifth Circuit, where these individuals were held. That does not affect the efficacy of the order. That's what Boasberg said.
That is an accurate rendition of the law. And that's why we'll see an emergency application to the United States Supreme Court.
And just remember also that that -- that those orders from the Supreme Court were nine-zero, not in the government's favor. Nine-zero that said, A person who is subject to removal has a due process right to be heard, and challenge that removal before they are removed. Nine-zero, United States Supreme Court.
COLLINS: Yes, and Tom, as we look at this, everyone keeps -- the biggest critics of this White House say, This is a constitutional crisis, we've already hit it. Others are way more skeptical that we've even gotten there yet. People feel like they're talking around it.
But it feels -- is it a slow approach? Is it something that's just going to show up and there's going to be so many fights back and forth that it just arrives without much fanfare? I mean, how are you viewing this really?
DUPREE: I am conservative when it comes to declaring constitutional crises. I don't--
WILLIAMS: You and like--
DUPREE: I don't think we are at that point yet. Is there constitutional tension? Absolutely. But look, I think, for me, the reason--
COLLINS: I mean, how do we know? Like, what is the category?
WILLIAMS: It's like--
(CROSSTALK)
DUPREE: The category -- I'll tell you -- I'll tell you what the category is.
WILLIAMS: No, it's like puberty. When does it happen? Do I--
DUPREE: That's--
WILLIAMS: My son asking, Will I know? I don't know.
COLLINS: Oh, god.
DUPREE: The test, the test, the test is, if you have a situation where the administration flat-out says, We're not complying with the order of the court--
WILLIAMS: Yes.
DUPREE: --full stop.
And what we have heard here is they are strongly disagreeing with the order. But we heard, they are going to appeal the order and challenge it, which is the proper legal method for trying to get an order overturned.
The other thing I would say is that, look, I'm sure the Trump administration is going to argue, and there's commonsense appeal to it, to say that, Wait a second. Are you really saying you're going to prosecute senior administration officials for failing to comply with an order that the Supreme Court said is invalid?
That may not be a winning argument in court. But in the court of public opinion, I think it is going to resonate with the idea that the judge is getting too far-out over his skis.
COLLINS: OK. That's a good point.
And on Elliot and Liz, I want you both to weigh in on this.
Because, the whole argument about Abrego Garcia itself has been coming down to due process. It's not whether he's a good person or what he did.
WILLIAMS: Yes. COLLINS: It's due process, and whether or not -- I mean, same with the other people who were flown to El Salvador. Did they have a chance to contest these allegations?
Vice President JD Vance has been tweeting up a storm, to put it lightly, on all of this. And today, on Abrego Garcia, he was essentially arguing at one point, and I'm quoting him now, he says, "To say the administration must observe "due process" is to beg the question: what process is due is a function of our resources, the public interest, the status of the accused, the proposed punishment, and so many other factors."
Essentially saying that because of, as he started at the beginning there, the immigration crisis that, he argues, was underway under President Biden, the border numbers, that that changes the dynamic here.
WILLIAMS: I don't think it does. And there's a few things.
One, the administration has already in court admitted error in the case. The idea that somehow now they're shifting their tune, saying that, Oh, this was perfect from the beginning, is just simply inaccurate. Number one.
Number two, like, to your point, Kaitlan, Abrego Garcia may actually not be allowed back in the United States. He may have another hearing if he comes back here and get deported. But the simple fact is, he is entitled, as is everyone else in the system, to some measure of due process. And we can accept that even if the law might lead to conclusions that people aren't comfortable with, some people won't be comfortable with, that it's still proper.
I just think we're getting lost in the fact that if this person is a gangbanger, then therefore he's not entitled to any sort of basic protections under law. And that's just not how it works.
COLLINS: But my argument, and -- not my argument. My question has been, you know, he was granted this protective status, this protection, in 2019, by an immigration judge, here in the United States, looked at his argument, and basically said, He could be sent anywhere except El Salvador. That was the argument.
If the President wanted to terminate it then, he could have, right, when Trump was in office, in 2019?
[21:15:00]
OYER: Yes. So, this is really all just a question of the government testing what they can get away with. This is really all this is about. It's happening in the context of immigration, which is a space that I think they believe is safe, because they think that the aggressive efforts on immigration are going to be popular.
But the issue around due process, and why it's so important, is that's how we know that the facts that we are assuming are true. So, in this situation, we don't even know, for a fact, really anything about what's happening with Mr. Abrego Garcia now, because he is in El Salvador. He did not have a hearing in which that could be properly contested.
And the same with the deported Venezuelans. It's a situation where we did not have a proceeding, which would allow us to make findings of fact, so that we even know that the assumptions that we're relying on are valid. The government is trying to see how much they can get away with without any judicial review.
And I think the more and more we see those photos of that terrifying prison, in El Salvador, where people are chained together, and packed together, the more it's going to alienate the people who might initially have been supportive of this agenda.
COLLINS: And The Wall Street Journal says tonight that President Bukele told the DHS Secretary he's going to expand that.
We'll see what happens. Great to have you all here. Judge Jill, thank you as well for joining us.
We do have some breaking news, this hour, on an alleged plan by Israel to strike Iranian nuclear sites. This has been a huge point of discussion inside the West Wing. Apparently, they were waved off, though, by President Trump.
We have Maggie Haberman, a reporter on that story, here right after a quick break.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Breaking news this hour about Israel, Iran and the President of the United States, as The New York Times is now reporting, Israel had plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites as soon as next month. But President Trump put the kibosh on that in favor of negotiating with Iran, something that we've seen him talk about in recent days, including inside the Oval Office, just on Monday.
One of the reporters who broke that story, The New York Times' Maggie Haberman is here with me tonight.
What does your reporting show about just how close Israel was to moving ahead with this?
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Sure. So there's a team of us who reported on this story. And Israel wanted to move ahead with these strikes, but really couldn't do it without U.S. support. And that was -- that was widely known, within the Trump administration.
And President Trump, yes, he has been very bellicose about Iran, but he has also been very clear that he -- and he doesn't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon, but he also would like a deal with Iran. It is something that he has talked about for a while. And he waved Israel off of this, essentially, in terms of the U.S. supporting these strikes, because he wants to try a diplomatic route.
And the feeling among some of his advisers is, If we do this, there's nothing lost, if we try these talks. If they don't work, the option of a military strike is always there. These strikes on Houthi targets were sort of seen as a midway point for some in the administration. It has underscored, and it's a debate with nuance, but that there is some divide, within the administration, on how to handle Iran, generally.
COLLINS: Yes. And the President seems very wary, from your reporting, and also what he's said publicly about this, of taking a step like that, and not being able to pull it back.
HABERMAN: Yes.
COLLINS: And you report about warnings that he's gotten from some officials, like Tulsi Gabbard over -- I mean, it could go, not the way they expect it to go, essentially.
HABERMAN: Correct. There are a number of officials, in the administration, and there are -- these are conversations that have been ongoing in various settings, among themselves, not all necessarily in a group in front of the President.
But there is -- there is a broader than not broad consensus emerging that there is no reason to get involved in something that might not be able to be contained, as sort of a surgical strike on Iran, even if it's on all of the nuclear facilities, that this could develop into a broader war, which President Trump has made very clear, privately and publicly, he does not want to end up committing the U.S. to another drawn-out conflict.
COLLINS: Yes, and this meeting happened, on Monday, in the Situation Room. That was also the day that we heard from the President, as he was meeting with the President of El Salvador, making clear they do not intend to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States, despite what the Supreme Court has said about facilitating it.
What is your sense of what's happening behind the White House -- behind-the-scenes, in the White House, and how they're viewing both Judge Boasberg today, threatening contempt, and the Judge yesterday, saying, I'm going to have two weeks of intense discovery and find out if you guys are just blatantly ignoring this order.
HABERMAN: Well, they are ready to see what the judges do, and they are going to come to court, and I think they are going to take the same minimalist approach that we have seen.
And I think the general feeling -- and we'll see how this plays out, Kaitlan. But the general feeling in the administration is they have better odds than not with the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court generally is not going to want to dictate most -- the conservative justices are not going to want to try to look like they are dictating how the U.S. handles some aspect of immigration enforcement or foreign policy.
And so, the bet is that this ruling, the main one by Justice Roberts, which was sort of a split, right? It was -- it was a way to give everybody something, where they could say they won, and hold things together? I don't know how long that's going to hold. They're clearly going to end up back at the court eventually.
But this administration wants this fight. You saw that today. You have seen that every day that they talk about immigration. They think that the court of public opinion is generally on their side. And they would certainly rather be talking about this than talking about tariffs, or talking about economic confidence decreasing, et cetera.
COLLINS: Yes. It also says a lot that they fired the attorney at the Justice Department who--
HABERMAN: Yes, it does.
COLLINS: --was honest in court, and said it was a mistake, which the Solicitor General also later said to the Supreme Court.
[21:25:00]
But on this overall, you have been doing a lot of reporting on the deals that they have been cutting with law firms, to get hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono legal work, which the President was talking about this, this week, in terms of what this would look like, that they could be working on things like tariffs and negotiating deals.
Do these legal firms, do they -- did they get themselves into a situation, where they were not expecting what they now -- the President expects them to do?
HABERMAN: Yes, they seem to think these law firms that they were going to be doing things. And they're not all the same. And they're not all--
COLLINS: Yes.
HABERMAN: They didn't all get caught up in his crosshairs for the same reason.
COLLINS: Yes.
HABERMAN: In some cases, there were EEOC issues with them, and in other cases, it was who they employed.
In the case of Cadwalader, nobody could quite figure out what that was about. That was a firm that had employed Todd Blanche, now the Deputy Attorney General, and he left because they didn't want to take Trump on as a client. And they had real reasons for not wanting Trump, who was notorious for wanting to not follow the advice he was given by lawyers, or for not paying his bills.
But regardless, these firms generally believed they could just get themselves out of his sights, if they did this. And in fact, he clearly is so happy with the success he has had, getting them all to bend the knee, that he is just going to keep pressing, and sees this as some kind of, at least in perpetuity, for the duration of his term.
And it's not really clear when exactly he thinks the terms of these deals end. It's not clear what would trigger non-compliance. It's not clear what the penalty would be, if they didn't comply. So there's a lot of questions.
COLLINS: So they said, yes, and then thought maybe he would just forget that they promised $50 million in pro bono work, for example.
HABERMAN: Yes.
COLLINS: And then he comes up and says, Actually, I want you to do more and more.
I mean, they -- this could actually still hurt them in the end.
HABERMAN: It could absolutely hurt them in the end. It could make other clients leave. It could make associates leave. It could make partners leave. And, in some cases, we've already seen that. So, these were bets they made, and we'll see how they play out.
But the firms are now in turmoil, and Trump is smiling.
COLLINS: Maggie Haberman, great reporting, as always.
HABERMAN: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Thank you so much.
Up next. We have new CNN reporting on how the IRS is potentially planning to retaliate against Harvard, after it defied President Trump's policy demands. A warning from a Harvard source who says Trump's funding cuts is going to cost lives.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump's billion-dollar pressure campaign against Harvard is ramping up, as sources are telling us, here at CNN, that the IRS is now preparing to revoke the University's tax-exempt status, about 36 hours after we saw the President suggests doing just that.
It could cost Harvard potentially billions in dollars. We're told that a final decision on it is expected soon. And if so, it would come after we already saw the administration freeze over $2 billion in federal grants and contracts.
Now, this is all happening because Harvard rejected demands for major policy changes that the administration argues are about fighting antisemitism. Those policy changes, though, include things like requiring Harvard to allow federal government oversight of admissions, hiring and the ideology of students and staff.
At a town hall today, officials at Harvard's Medical School tried to make sense of the impacts of the freeze that we're talking about, in that $2 billion, with one official saying, quote, "You can see with these numbers, it's not going to last very long... We're starting what is a very difficult time, and it's a bit of a crisis right now."
My next source tonight is a professor at Harvard Medical School, who is researching early diagnosis and treatment options for ALS, more commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and just lost his funding. And Professor David Walt joins me now.
And Professor, thank you. Thank you for being here.
What can you just tell us about how quickly you found out that your funding, the funding for your grant, was going to be impacted as a result of all of this?
DAVID WALT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY RESEARCHER, PROFESSOR, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL: Well, I came into work yesterday morning, opened my work email account, and found from the Sponsored Programs Office, which administers all the grants and contracts at Harvard, that HHS has sent them a stop-work order for my contract.
COLLINS: And so when you see that, I mean, does that immediately mean that what you were working on, when it comes to this project specifically, is just, it's just done?
WALT: Well, I hope not. But the immediate effect is that I had to take the three people, very highly-trained people, incidentally, off of this project. I had to transfer them to other funding -- on other projects that are funded.
But the immediate effect was exactly what you indicated, Kaitlan. The research and the progress on this grant is funded, the materials that we've developed, over the last eight months, to support this grant, are in peril, because there's a certain timeframe in which those materials can be used. And if we don't use them, over the next week or so, then we're basically going to have to go back to square one.
COLLINS: ALS affects roughly 30,000 people in the United States. I mean, knowing that, and knowing what you've been working on, what went through your mind when you got that order, that when you checked your email yesterday, and saw that?
[21:35:00]
WALT: So, just to be clear, the ALS affects, as you say, about 33,000 people a year in the U.S. But the work that we're doing also has implications for Alzheimer's disease as well, which affects over a billion -- a million people per year. The effect is pretty dramatic.
And if you think about not just my laboratory, but all the cancelations that are occurring, not just at Harvard, but at Columbia, and across the United States, the impact of this is that the progress that we're making in medical research, and the scientific progress that we're making in other areas, will delay the introduction -- the introduction of early diagnostic tests, will delay the introduction of drugs that can potentially treat these diseases, and potentially cure these diseases. So we're pushing that out further into the future.
COLLINS: And as we -- I mean, the idea of pushing that out is obviously something that some people are concerned about right now, who maybe are facing that diagnosis, or worried about a loved one who is.
And when you look at that, and then, compared with today, we also saw this document from the Department of Health and Human Services. It's an internal document.
It shows that the White House is planning to cut about a third, which is $40 billion, of all the discretionary health spending from HHS, would slash roughly 40 percent of the National Institutes of Health's budget, which would reduce it to, about 27 research institutes and centers, down to eight.
What does that say to you about just essentially what the impacts of this could look like?
WALT: I think that the impacts are going to be devastating for -- in multiple ways.
They're going to have consequences for the scientific and technical workforce, because the pipeline of young people who are interested in going into science, engineering and technology and math areas, those students who are excited about science, excited about technology, are going to be counseled to go into other areas, because career opportunities are going to close.
The economy is going to suffer, because the United States is going to lose its edge in innovation, and that is going to have serious implications for the introduction of all sorts of new drugs, devices and medical treatments.
COLLINS: Yes, serious implications, indeed.
Professor David Walt, thank you for coming on and joining me tonight to talk about this.
WALT: Thank you for having me.
COLLINS: We also got a stark, new warning here today, from the Fed chair, Jay Powell, about the pain that the U.S. could feel from President Trump's tariffs. What he had to say. And something the White House is watching very closely tonight.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: There's more turmoil on Wall Street tonight, with U.S. stocks taking a huge hit, after the Federal Reserve Chair, Jerome Powell, warned today about what he says are serious risks ahead to the economy, because of President Trump's ongoing trade war.
Now the Federal Reserve is responsible for keeping inflation in check, employment at high levels. But Chair Powell said today that he believes, the President's tariffs threaten both of those goals, and being able to fulfill both of them, and he also said that Trump's tariffs are unlike anything that has been seen in modern history.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEROME POWELL, FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR: Unemployment is likely to go up as the economy slows, in all likelihood, and inflation is likely to go up as tariffs find their way. And some part of those tariffs come to be paid by the public. So that's the strong likelihood.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is the Democratic congressman, Ro Khanna, of California.
He speaks so kind of quietly and in a reserved way. Wall Street did not like what he had to say, though, and the stocks are already kind of plunging, and they went even further downward after hearing what he had to say.
What did you make of that today?
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): I think the finance community and tech community would like someone who can speak in a sound, calm, reasonable way.
I mean, there's chaos. They don't know what's going on. One day, tech may be exempt from the tariffs. One day, they're not exempt. One day, the tariffs are on. The other time, they're 200 percent. And this has just created utter chaos. It's worse than actually just having high- blanket tariffs, which is bad enough. It's the chaos that's really the problem.
COLLINS: Well, he also made clear, the Federal Reserve is not coming to the rescue anytime soon, or lowering interest rates because of the chaos. He said he basically wants to wait and see what happens.
But this comes as when it comes to these tariffs, the governor of your state, Governor Newsom, is suing over them, essentially arguing that they don't believe that Trump can go as far as he's going.
But he railed against Congress during his announcement as well. He said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): Where the hell is Congress? Where the hell is Speaker Johnson? Do your job. They're sitting there, passively, as this guy wrecks the economy in the United States of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:45:00]
COLLINS: Now, he was obviously referencing Republicans who are in control of both chambers of Congress, are in charge of the House.
And I just wonder, though, when you hear him say, and the Attorney General standing beside him, that Trump has exceeded his authority when it comes to being able to implement tariffs, through the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection, do you agree with that?
KHANNA: I do. I think the Governor has a point, which is, Congress ultimately has the authority on tariffs or not.
And Don Bacon, who is a Republican, who I serve with on the Armed Services Committee, has a very thoughtful bill, saying that, Let's reassert Congress' authority. And there are four, five Republicans who are on board. Look, the Republicans have -- now, maybe he'll get more.
But the Republicans have been very reluctant to criticize Donald Trump on almost anything. But one thing is different, and that's this tariff policy, because now he's going after people's wealth. He's going after people's money. There's one thing you can't do in this country. You can get criminal charges. You can even do an insurrection. You can't destroy wealth, and that's what he's doing.
COLLINS: But do you actually think that they would take a step to try to rein in his ability to impose these tariffs? I mean, Republicans have not been willing to go that far, so far, in large numbers.
KHANNA: It's the only time I've seen any break. Right now, it's not enough to get to a significant majority, where we get a discharge petition. But if the markets continue to do what they're doing, the bond markets continue to do what they're doing, small businesses continue to suffer. I think it's the one chance we have to get some Republicans to break.
COLLINS: What about what Democrats are doing when it comes to Kilmar Abrego Garcia? He's being held in that prison in El Salvador. Your colleague in the Senate, Chris Van Hollen, went down there today, did not get the option to see him or go in.
The White House is taking this and saying, this is -- Democrats are essentially misplacing their priorities here. And they're kind of floating this idea this is politically going to backfire, scenes like that, seeing Senator Van Hollen in El Salvador instead of in Maryland, in his state.
What would you say to that?
KHANNA: Let me say why the stakes are so high, and why I have admiration for what Senator Van Hollen did.
The Supreme Court ruled nine to zero that Abrego needs due process in this country. And JD Vance is out there tweeting, literally, that he disagrees with the Supreme Court, that people who are immigrants shouldn't have the same due process.
Now, if they can do this to Abrego, they could do this to any immigrant. The game is lost. You're basically saying, The President and the Vice President can disregard the Supreme Court ruling and deport someone without due process.
Now -- and their argument that Bukele should return Abrego makes no sense. They're paying him right now. And it's not like El Salvador kidnapped Abrego. They sent him there.
COLLINS: Also they could easily -- I mean, clearly, they have a very good relationship with President Bukele, unlike how President Biden's relationship with him and how the administration treated them, in the last -- the last White House.
You mentioned JD Vance, though. You both went to Yale. You were there. You gave a speech. You excoriated JD Vance, the Vice President.
Some people may say, Why focus on the Vice President instead of President Trump himself?
KHANNA: For two reasons. Today, he's basically calling for the defiance of the Supreme Court. His own attorney general is trying to come up with some legalese to say, Oh, we'll send a plane to get Abrego, but we can't actually get Abrego back.
JD Vance isn't engaged in pretense. He's basically saying, all these people came, they're undocumented, they don't deserve due process. I mean, read the tweet. And we reserve the right to kick anyone out. That is dangerous. And then he's calling the universities, the enemy. He's saying, professors are the enemy. And he has launched an attack on universities in this country. That needs to be confronted and called out.
COLLINS: In your speech, you referenced Stalin, in a comparison to the Vice President. Some people may say you're comparing JD Vance to Stalin?
KHANNA: No, I'm not that -- that wasn't my intent.
What I was saying is that we've had authoritarian leaders like Mao Zedong and Stalin, and what they do is they attack the universities. That's what happened in the Cultural Revolution in China. China's growth stagnated.
Stalin didn't fear wars or recessions. He would have been less concerned about a recession. He feared universities, because he feared the alternative. And Stephen Kotkin wrote a book about that.
And I said, not that JD Vance is Stalin, but that the attack on universities is the same playbook that Mao Zedong and Stalin used, and it's totally anti-American.
COLLINS: Congressman Ro Khanna, thank you for being here tonight.
KHANNA: Thank you.
COLLINS: Great to have you.
Up next. We just got our hands on that warrant in the arson attack on the governor's mansion in Pennsylvania. What the suspect allegedly told 911 operators that could indicate a motive. The District Attorney prosecuting that case will join me.
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, we're learning new details about why the suspect, accused of setting Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro's residence on fire, says he did it, claiming that it had to do with what he thought the governor's views on the war in Gaza was, leading to the death of Palestinians.
[21:55:00]
That is, according to a search warrant that says that Cody Balmer, the suspect that you see here, called 911, early on Sunday, after that fire had started, and told the operators, and talking about Governor Shapiro in this quote here, that he "Needs to know he will not take part in his plans for what he wants to do to the Palestinian people." Balmer adding that Shapiro needs to, quote, "Stop having my friends killed."
Now, Balmer has already been charged with attempted homicide, aggravated arson and terrorism.
But we heard from Governor Shapiro today, when he was asked about whether or not he believes the suspect needs to face more charges.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Governor, do you hope that hate crime charges are filed if investigators determine this was an attack against faith?
GOV. JOSH SHAPIRO (D-PA): That's not my call. That's the decision for District Attorney Chardo and the Department of Justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And the District Attorney that he referenced there, Francis Chardo, is my source tonight.
And it's so great to have you here, sir, and what I know is a very busy time for you.
That question there, will there be other charges brought against the suspect here? Can you answer that for us tonight? Should we expect there to be more, in the coming days?
FRANCIS CHARDO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DAUPHIN COUNTY, PA: Well, we don't have a complete investigation yet. We're continuing to examine the evidence, and so I can't rule it out. But it's unlikely, just because it wouldn't add anything in terms of potential penalty.
The way our hate crime statute, which is called ethnic intimidation, is written, is it just increases by one grade a crime if it is based on race or religion. And it wouldn't make a lot of sense, because the five most serious charges he's facing are already our most serious offenses, first degree felonies. So, it's nothing to raise it to.
COLLINS: OK. So, you say he's already facing those.
If you do conclude, in this investigation, that is obviously very much still ongoing, as we're only days away from this attack, that the suspect here was motivated by hate or antisemitism, will that change anything else about how this moves going forward, if you don't bring what are described, in your state, as ethnic intimidation charges?
CHARDO: Well, absolutely. I mean, it still makes it more serious, and it changes the prosecution, in two ways.
One, it provides a motive, and so that assists us. And of course, the defendant is presumed innocent. But that motive evidence would be very valuable.
And second, in terms of punishment, if convicted, that is -- that would be tremendous evidence. Because, in our system, if you disagree with someone politically, well, then you do it at the ballot box. To use violence in this way, and to endanger the governor's entire -- his family and others in the home, and to endanger the governor. Well, that is an extremely serious offense, and made all the more serious by this motivation.
COLLINS: Yes. And as you've been doing this investigation, the warrants have -- we see that authorities have several smartphones, a laptop. Have you found anything notable as you've been going through those?
CHARDO: Well, that takes time and -- but so there's nothing of record that we have reported on that. And of course, the investigative information we can't release, but -- we can't release that at this time.
COLLINS: And so what is the next step for you here, in terms of what we should expect to come from this?
Because we saw the chief public defender, representing him, saying that the allegations, if true, demonstrate the devastating consequences of severe mental illness. Do you have concerns or any questions on whether or not he has competency to stand trial here?
CHARDO: So, I mean, there's two aspects.
The competency to stand trial is one. But he's presumed to be competent, and he demonstrated an ability to navigate his way around. And it's not a high bar, and he has the burden to demonstrate that he's not competent. So ultimately, I expect that we'd be able to bring him to trial.
And the other aspect is a mental health defense. He demonstrated, I believe, we would have evidence, that he knew the wrongfulness of his actions, given the fact that he presented himself to the police--
COLLINS: Yes.
CHARDO: --and indicated that he's surrendering.
COLLINS: And called 911 here.
I want to play what Republican congressman, Dan Meuser, had to say, of Pennsylvania, about this attack, and about what happened to Governor Shapiro and his family.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DAN MEUSER (R-PA): Our hearts go out to the Shapiro family on this. But, you know, they got to -- they got to tone it down, too. I mean, every action Josh Shapiro has taken so far against the President has either been a lawsuit or a falsehood. And you know, that's not helpful either.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: What's your reaction to hearing that after seeing what happened to Governor Shapiro's residence?
[22:00:00]
CHARDO: Well, I mean, first, you can't compare the two things. And, well, actions such as arson, there's no comparison to actions in the political sphere. And I presume that the Congressman didn't intend to equate the two.
COLLINS: District Attorney, Francis Chardo, it's great to have you. Thank you for joining us. And please keep us updated, as this investigation goes on.
CHARDO: Will do. Thank you.
COLLINS: And thank you all so much for joining us. Appreciate it on this very busy night.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
