Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
India & Pakistan On Brink Of War After India Launches Attack; Trump Officials Set First Meeting With China Amid Trade Standoff; Source: Trump Seriously Considering Executive Action To Limit Payments To College Athletes. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired May 06, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: That's fascinating. Donie O'Sullivan, thanks very much. Appreciate it.
DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Anderson.
COOPER: A reminder. Donie has a new podcast episode out. Here's the QR code, so you can listen to "Persuadable," part of "The Account" podcast. You can get it through that link, and it's also available wherever you get your podcasts.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. I'll see you, tomorrow.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
Breaking news. India strikes its neighbor, in a major escalation that Pakistan is calling an act of war, and vowing it won't go unanswered. With two nuclear powers on the brink, we have a live report on the ground.
Plus, when it comes to talking to China about his trade war, President Trump says he has, but his Treasury Secretary just told Congress something quite different. What we're learning tonight about the meeting between top U.S. and Chinese officials that has been set. The President's top trade adviser is my source.
And we have chilling new audio of that moment that air traffic controllers lost all communications with more than a dozen flights while they were midair. At one point, a pilot asked the controller, quote, Are you there? The meltdown at Newark Airport is now in its ninth day.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): This is CNN Breaking News.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And tonight, the White House is watching incredibly closely as one of the world's most dangerous flashpoints is erupting. It involves neighboring countries that are both armed with nuclear weapons. India launching a missile attack on Pakistan, a move that Pakistan is labeling an act of war.
(VIDEO - INDIA LAUNCHES MISSILE ATTACK ON PAKISTAN)
COLLINS: Now, India says that military operation was targeting what it calls, quote, Terrorist infrastructure, as Pakistan is saying the attack largely harmed civilians.
The world has been watching this region incredibly closely, after things began to flare up two weeks ago, when dozens of people, mostly tourists, were killed in what India described as a terror attack, blaming Pakistan for backing the gunmen. That is something that Islamabad has denied.
And in the meantime, what we are learning tonight is Pakistan is telling CNN officials there, that its forces have shot down five Indian Air Force aircraft, and a drone, in response to the missile attack.
Now, the countries have fought several wars over Kashmir, what you're looking at here. It is an area of disputed territory between the two countries, an area that both nations claim as their own.
At the White House, as soon as we heard about this attack, President Trump offered this reaction to the news.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No, it's a shame. We just heard about it, just as we were walking in the doors of the Oval. Just heard about it. I guess people knew something was going to happen based on a little bit of the past. They've been fighting for a long time. You know? They've been fighting for many, many decades and centuries, actually, if you really think about it. No, I just hope it ends very quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I want to get straight to my source on the ground tonight. CNN's Nic Robertson is joining us live, from Islamabad.
And Nic, it's great to have you.
What is the latest that you're hearing? As, I know, daylight is starting to break, they're starting to be able to see more, after this attack happened. What are you learning?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, beginning to get more of an assessment on the ground, which is what officials tell us they're doing. Eight people killed, 35 injured. Among the dead, a 3-year-old girl, a 16-year-old girl, and an 18-year-old boy. Women also among the casualties.
This is the deepest strike that India has made into Pakistan in more than 50 years, since the two countries fought a large war back in 1971. The Pakistani military say that it is civilians that have been hit. They say mosques have been hit. And for this reason that when I was speaking with a Pakistani security source, earlier this evening, he said that this -- the fact that India had hit deep inside Pakistan proper, as well as inside Pakistan- administered Kashmir, the fact that women and children were casualties, that religious places had been hit, meant that there was more pressure on the Pakistani government and military to respond more forcefully.
Our cameraman here, Javad (ph), lives on the outskirts of Islamabad. About five hours ago, his house shook when the explosions happened not far from where he lives.
The explosions in the capital of Kashmir, Muzaffarabad, local CNN journalists there told us that they shook the whole town, that people came out on the streets, were running in panic, didn't know what to do. There is a power outage there at the moment.
And Pakistani government officials, security officials will be gathering in just about four hours from now for a national security meeting.
[21:05:00]
COLLINS: What do we know about that national security meeting?
And I think, really, the question I have is, typically, here at the White House, when decisions are made, it's after the President has gathered his top national security aides in a meeting like that. Do we expect to see more of a response potentially after that happens?
ROBERTSON: 100 percent we do.
What the Pakistani officials are describing is a proper response. I was speaking about 10 minutes ago with a source who will be inside that meeting. The scene is being set for the senior officials to get a few hours' sleep before they get into that -- before they get into that meeting.
But I've been speaking over the past couple of days with very, very senior military officials, other officials as well. And all have communicated that they feel this moment of tension with India is different, that India has threatened to cut off water supplies, vital water supplies for Pakistan. That means that this is existential, the fact that India has now struck deeper into Pakistan than it has in more than 50 years. All of this points to a very robust and strong response coming from the Pakistani side.
The military say that they are hitting Indian positions, just across the Line of Control, that de facto border in between India and Pakistan. But we can expect to see something much stronger in the coming hours, and that, of course, is why the potential for serious, rapid escalation between these two powers, neighbors that have nuclear weapons, is so real and so alive right now.
COLLINS: Yes, it's a major concern for the White House. We know that. Nic, if you hear more from your sources, please let us know. We'll check back in with you throughout the hour. Thank you, Nic Robertson, on the ground, in Islamabad.
And joining me here at the table.
Retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton.
Democratic congressman, Ro Khanna, who is on the Armed Services Committee, and also the Chair of the India Caucus.
And also David Sanger, The New York Times' White House and National Security Correspondent, who is incredibly well-sourced.
Congressman, I mean, just this is -- you heard Nic's report there. I mean, the idea that people there think this is different than what they've seen, that is incredibly concerning, I imagine, to a lot of people, given we are talking about two countries that both have nuclear weapons.
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Well, the most urgent thing is de-escalation. I mean, there was the terrorist attack in Pahalgam. Innocent people were killed. India took a response that helped take out some of the terrorist networks. They claimed they didn't hit military sites. But the important thing now is for a de-escalation.
I do hope that President Trump has people who understand the region. The only reason I say that, he said, they've been fighting for centuries. Just historically, they haven't been around for a century. It was a British colonialism that fomented the partition, that fomented some of the divisions between Hindus and Muslims there. It's important to really understand the region. And we need to be a honest broker for de-escalation.
We also have to understand that Asim Munir is a dictator, who didn't have legitimate elections, who's put Imran Khan in jail, and there's no honest voice right now in Pakistan, because it's a dictatorship. And we should be calling for elections, fair elections, after the de- escalation.
COLLINS: Well, and questions of what that looks like with the White House. Obviously, President Trump has a deep relationship with the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Modi, who's already visited the White House this year.
What would you like to see the White House do in this situation?
KHANNA: Well, I would like to, first, make it clear to Asim Munir that he shouldn't -- that's it. There should be no retaliation, on either side. This should be the end of it.
We have a lot of leverage with Pakistan. We give IMF loans to Pakistan. They're dependent upon that. We should be saying to Asim Munir that he needs to free Imran Khan, stop the -- stop the -- any retaliation, and then have a fair election. Because there was a rigged election there. They've jailed Imran Khan. And he's not a voice for the Pakistani people.
But he should also make it clear to Prime Minister Modi, in my view, that he should not be cutting off the water. That was part of the Shimla Accords. You can't deprive a population of water.
COLLINS: In terms of what we're seeing on the ground, Colonel, I mean, just -- was this the response in terms of the White House? Vice President Vance had been saying a proportional response, one that does not escalate tensions more. What will you be looking for, after this national security meeting happens, this morning?
COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), AIR FORCE COLONEL (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, really, the Pakistani response, Kaitlan. And that response, are they going to look at this as being something where they have to respond to the Indian airstrikes against Pakistani territory? Or are they going to do something else?
Chances are, based on the rhetoric, based on what the Congressman has been saying, and what we see, not only from the White House, but from other places, it looks as if the Pakistanis are going to try to make a more significant response than what they've already done.
If the reports are true that they shot down five Indian aircraft and a drone, that's a pretty significant escalation, and that could mean that they may want to do something more. And it also could mean that the Indians may want to retaliate for the loss of the aircraft. So, we'll have to see if that turns out to be true. We'll have to see if they do that.
[21:10:00]
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, we just found that out moments ago. It was about an hour ago, we had heard three. Now that has jumped to five. I mean, obviously, and as Nic was noting, you could see the sun was coming up behind him, they're just now kind of getting an assessment of what this looks like.
LEIGHTON: And that's exactly right, because the battle damage assessment, as we call it, is going to be absolutely critical for the Pakistani response. They're going to look at this, and they're going to say, OK, we can maybe wiggle our way out of this, if the damage isn't as great.
And if the loss of life isn't as great as it is? It may possibly be. But if the loss of life is great, or if there are other areas that have been damaged in Pakistan, then it could be a completely different story.
COLLINS: Yes. And we heard President Trump calling this a shame, saying that he hopes it ends quickly.
Secretary Rubio had spoken to both countries before this happened, trying to de-escalate, after the attack, two weeks ago, on the tourists.
What have you been hearing from officials about the level of concern in watching this tonight?
DAVID SANGER, WHITE HOUSE & NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, the level of concern is high. I'm not sure the level of action, Kaitlan, is quite as high.
There was that major standoff in 2001, when Colin Powell, then the Secretary of State, made sure that he, or some other high-ranking American official, was in India, or Pakistan, at any given moment, so that it didn't escalate. That would be much harder for them, particularly, to roll out their nuclear weapons as a massive standing--
COLLINS: If a U.S. official was on the ground.
SANGER: If an official was on the ground. We're not seeing that level of activism.
There have been four wars between India and Pakistan since partition. At this point, Pakistan is zero for four. And I think there is a lot of reason that the Pakistanis may feel like, in this particular case, they've argued that they had no initial -- they were not at all involved in this initial terror attack, this is unfairly being taken out on them. They have a very nationalistic chief of the military staff. That's the job that counts.
And in this government, as we've heard from the Congressman, we don't really understand fully, or at least I don't, what's happened to their nuclear chain of control. If you're Pakistan, those nuclear weapons are the only thing you really have to keep the Indians from truly escalating. And if somebody miscalculates, the fear has always been you could have a significant nuclear exchange. And we don't know if this new government has really thought through what the control over those weapons is all about.
COLLINS: I mean, I do think that raises the question of what is at stake here for the United States, if this doesn't de-escalate.
KHANNA: Well, first of all, what's at stake for human civilization? I mean, you don't want two countries with the population there, going to war. And what's at stake for us is also our economic relationships. On the one hand, they're negotiating a trade agreement with India. On the other hand, there are two countries at the brink of war.
But this is a time where America can show leadership, that it's American leadership, not Chinese leadership, that's going to broker the peace. And we have leverage, a lot of leverage, over Pakistan. I hope Secretary Rubio, or even President Trump, will make it clear to Asim Munir that he cannot have retaliation. His country is literally dependent on the IMF loans. They're dependent on our military training to Pakistan--
COLLINS: What about with India--
KHANNA: Well--
COLLINS: --in terms of leverage there, and--
KHANNA: We have -- we leverage there too. They want a free trade agreement with us. They want more defense agreements with us. They're an ally. And I think he should make it clear to Prime Minister Modi that there shouldn't be further retaliation as well.
COLLINS: Well, and just when you look at the scopes of the militaries of both of these. I mean, India, if you look at it on paper, does have a much larger -- I was looking at the numbers. When it comes to active duty, they have 1.5 million personnel, versus 660,000 for Pakistan. Obviously, double that. Their military is just bigger and better- funded, essentially.
LEIGHTON: Yes. That's absolutely true. And when you look at the armaments that each side has. Yes, the Pakistanis do have some relatively modern weapons, like the F-16, for example. But the Indians have French Fighters. They have Russian Fighters.
And the key thing is this, kind of piggybacking on what the Congressman said, and what David's been saying, there are critical relationships that the U.S. needs to leverage in a case like this. And one of them is the military-to-military relationships that are key for both India and for Pakistan on the U.S. side.
COLLINS: Yes.
Colonel Leighton. Congressman. Mr. Sanger. Great to have you all here.
Up next. My next source here is the President's top trade adviser. There's been a lot going on at the White House today, as Canada's Prime Minister made his first visit to the Oval Office. We'll tell you how that went, and what he said about making Canada the 51st state, next.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Canada's new prime minister, Mark Carney, was in the Oval Office for the first time today, in a meeting that included flattery from both directions, which may have surprised some, given, if you saw the President's Truth Social, shortly before he arrived, he was blasting Canada over trade, on the issue. And despite one major point of disagreement that we did see in the Oval Office today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: As you know from real estate, there are some places that are never for sale.
TRUMP: That's true.
CARNEY: We're sitting in one right now.
TRUMP: Yes.
CARNEY: You know, Buckingham Palace that you visited as well.
TRUMP: That's true.
CARNEY: And having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign, last several months, it's not for sale. Won't be for sale. Ever.
TRUMP: But never say never. Never say never.
(CROSSTALK)
CARNEY: Never, never, never.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:20:00]
COLLINS: You could see the Prime Minister there, mouthing the words, Never, never, never.
When the Prime Minister was asked later on about the President's comments regarding what he has called an artificial border between the United States and Canada, Prime Minister Carney said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: I was watching your face through the meeting in the Oval Office. And I wondered what was going through your mind?
TRUMP: I'm a very artistic person, but when I looked at that, I said, That's the way it was meant to be. But you know it -- I just -- I do feel it's much better for Canada. But--
CARNEY: Well--
TRUMP: --we're not going to be discussing that unless somebody wants to discuss it. I think that there are tremendous benefits to the Canadian citizens, tremendously lower taxes.
CARNEY: Thank you for, I guess, for your question. I'm glad that you couldn't tell what was going through my mind.
REPORTER: Oh, I could. I could.
TRUMP: If we put a tariff on your cars of 25 percent, what would that mean to you? He said, That would mean the end of Canada. He actually said that to me. And I said, That's a strange answer. But I understand his answer. But--
CARNEY: I've been careful always to distinguish between wish and reality. I was clear there in the Oval Office, as I've been clear throughout, on behalf of Canadians, that this is never going to happen. Canada is not for sale, and never will be for sale.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Today was their first meeting. It will not be their last. Prime Minister Carney did confirm that he will meet with President Trump at the G7 summit, in Canada, in June.
And on the trade front, there is breaking news tonight about a face- to-face meeting between the United States and China, with Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, announcing that he plans to meet with China's Vice Premier, his counterpart, essentially, this weekend -- next week, I should note, in Switzerland. Bessent said that they've agreed to talk and now, quote, will agree on what to talk about.
My source tonight is President Trump's Senior Adviser for Trade and Manufacturing, Peter Navarro, who you heard maybe laughing a little bit, as you were watching Prime Minister Carney in the Oval Office. They do seem to have--
PETER NAVARRO, TRUMP'S SENIOR ADVISER FOR TRADE AND MANUFACTURING: It was priceless. Come on, the boss, I just love the way he works with leaders. And it was very cordial.
COLLINS: They seem to have a better relationship than the President had with the last Prime Minister of Canada. Is that how you would put it?
NAVARRO: I would look at that and say, immediately, That's absolutely correct. I thought that there were times, particularly after one of the G7 meetings, where the last guy just didn't treat us well.
COLLINS: Well he--
NAVARRO: It was kind of interesting.
COLLINS: He was calling him Governor Trudeau, by the end.
But on these talks that are going to happen in Switzerland, next week. Obviously, that's--
NAVARRO: I'd go for Governor Carney, but, you know, but.
COLLINS: Prime Minister Carney.
NAVARRO: Yes, but.
COLLINS: On the White House's expectations for these meetings in Switzerland--
NAVARRO: Yes.
COLLINS: --what are you hoping that the United States gets out of that?
NAVARRO: So my role, just, I think it'd be useful for your viewers to understand kind of how we work on the Trade team. We've got a plan basically, that has a number of verticals in every country, and I think we can agree on this, cheats us in some ways. It's higher tariffs, higher non-tariff barriers, and restrictions on digital trade, things like that.
And so, what we're trying to do, and this is one of -- one of the things I spend a lot of time on, is studying each of the different countries so that when we go to the negotiation table with the U.K., or Australia, or whoever it is, the EU, we know essentially what the asks are. So that's what I stay focused on.
I think this is -- this is news. We're going to let -- I'm not going to get ahead of Secretary Bessent. Let's see what happens.
COLLINS: Do you know what you expect China's asks will be next week?
NAVARRO: I'm not -- not going to get ahead of Secretary Bessent.
COLLINS: But do you know that? Have you determined that?
NAVARRO: If I told you, I have to kill you, you know that funny phrase there, so.
COLLINS: But you yourself have -- do you have -- are you going into that with an idea of what it'd look like?
NAVARRO: Not going there. I'm not getting ahead of Secretary Bessent, so can move on, on that one.
COLLINS: OK.
NAVARRO: Yes.
COLLINS: But these will be the highest level trade talks we've seen between the United States and China since those 145 percent tariffs went into place.
NAVARRO: That's correct.
COLLINS: Because there have been some confusion over whether or not conversations have been happening behind-the-scenes. The President said yes, the two sides were talking. Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, said today, no, that they had not had negotiations yet. So this is the highest level that we've seen so far.
NAVARRO: That is correct.
COLLINS: OK. And so we'll see what comes out of that.
Because you've spoken for decades about getting China to the table, and the importance of that, in a trade discussion.
NAVARRO: Yes.
COLLINS: Have you been surprised by how much more difficult that has been this time around? Was it more difficult than you thought?
NAVARRO: No, I, look, I -- what I think is important for the American people to understand is that the international trading environment, by design, through the World Trade Organization, systematically allows all other countries to cheat us. But by law, at the WTO, they can have higher tariffs than we have. So Germany charges us 10 percent on autos. We charge them 2.5 percent. By law, there's nothing we can do about their non-tariff barriers.
[21:25:00]
And so, we're in a situation now which is historic. The American people should be very proud and encouraged by what President Trump is doing, because he's finally standing up for, literally, decades of the exodus of our factories and jobs because of unfair trade.
And so, this is a wonderful opportunity for us to set things right. And we're in a period now of pause. These countries are coming in. Jamieson Greer, Howard Lutnick, Scott Bessent, they all sit there and negotiate along these verticals. We're going to have deals soon. And it's going to be a really great thing for the American people.
COLLINS: For the people that you say should be proud and encouraged by what's happening, how soon can they expect a trade deal?
NAVARRO: I think that if we look at the progress, certainly there's certain things ripe. I don't know if it's going to be the U.K. first, or India first, as we've got a little twist in the India story, so that might slow things down there. But I can assure the American people that there will be deals, and they will be very good deals for the American people, and we will be in a much better place than we have been for decades.
COLLINS: What about Americans who are worried though, how long that's going to take? And they're looking at reports that shipping containers are already coming down, in terms of coming over from China. They're worried about having enough supply. They're worried about empty store shelves.
NAVARRO: Yes.
COLLINS: Not having enough back-to-school supplies, for example. What do you say to people--
NAVARRO: I think -- I think--
COLLINS: --who are worried that this is going to take too long?
NAVARRO: --I would ask American people to look at the broad scope of the policy.
So we have the biggest and broadest tax cut in American history coming, and I would say every American household, again, in the middle of the thing is $5,000 or more purchasing power. We've had oil prices fall down now into low 60s. For a family of two, working family of two, that's over $1,000 a year in their pockets. So there's a lot of things that'll balance out.
Small businesses, they're going to see a tremendous reduction in the regulatory burden.
So this country, I mean, we proved it. See, this is the thing.
COLLINS: But how long does that take to kick in?
NAVARRO: Well, we do it in Trump time. It will be as quickly as possible, and some things will move faster than others. But I can tell you this.
COLLINS: Yes, but if you're worried about buying stuff--
NAVARRO: Let's take the tax cuts.
COLLINS: --you want to know what Trump time is.
NAVARRO: It depends on the thing. I mean, look at the tax cut. Did anybody think at the beginning of this administration, we'd have the biggest and broader tax cut poised to pass within months? No. They thought it would take a long time.
COLLINS: Well that's TBD. Congress does that always.
NAVARRO: It is TBD.
COLLINS: They give us time limits. They--
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: But remember the dynamics of this, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: --as you know.
NAVARRO: And I think we'd agree on this. The Democrats are in this bind. If we don't get a deal, then they are going to be responsible for the biggest tax hike in American history, because when that stuff comes off, you're going to have a tax hike of unprecedented proportions and a recession that will be inevitable.
COLLINS: But--
NAVARRO: On the other hand, if we get this tax bill passed, that will guarantee that we won't have a recession, because it'll come in just, just beautifully.
And by the way, I mean, there's a disconnect between what people are saying about the economy and what the data is saying.
COLLINS: Hold on. First, can I ask you--
NAVARRO: The data's strong.
COLLINS: Can I ask you about that, though?
NAVARRO: Sure.
COLLINS: Because one, you said biggest tax hike in American history. I mean, that's what the tariffs are equating to right now, that Americans are seeing. And two, I'm not sure the American people will blame Democrats--
NAVARRO: Well let's--
COLLINS: --if Republicans--
NAVARRO: Stay with me.
COLLINS: --control the Senate, the House, and the White House.
NAVARRO: Stay with me on this. Tariffs are not tax hikes. They're going to be tax cuts. Because the tariffs are going to help fund the tax cuts.
And we've gone through this analysis before. We could have sat here during term one. We might well have, and talked about the China tariffs, the steel and aluminum tariffs. And everybody on CNN was saying there was going to be inflation, and the tariffs were tax hikes. And what we got was price stability, and we got more jobs, and we got more strength in our economy. We got our steel and aluminum industries back (ph).
COLLINS: I'm glad you brought those tariffs up.
NAVARRO: Sure.
COLLINS: Because I just spoke with the former--
NAVARRO: Well you brought them up.
COLLINS: Well, the tariffs on steel and aluminum.
NAVARRO: To be clear. Sure.
COLLINS: Because in term one, they were much more limited and targeted. And I spoke to former Vice President, Mike Pence, about this last night. He supported that on China.
NAVARRO: Yes.
COLLINS: He says, going this big and this broad is not a win for the American people, and he's very concerned about what this is going to result in.
NAVARRO: So, Mike -- yes, I loved Mike during the first term. But he really squandered his political career. And part of it was the fact that his Chief of Staff, somebody who appears frequently here, Marc Short, got him on this free trade rather than fair trade thing, and it's been a downward spiral ever since. He's been disowned by the entire MAGA movement and Republican Party. So I--
COLLINS: Not because of his views on trade.
NAVARRO: Well, if you're telling me--
COLLINS: I think it was over January 6.
NAVARRO: --if you're telling me what you just told me, then his views on trade are wrong. Let me explain what we're--
COLLINS: But those are views he's held for decades.
NAVARRO: Here's what's interesting.
COLLINS: I'm just saying, MAGA has not abandoned him because of that.
NAVARRO: Here's what's interesting about broadening--
COLLINS: It's because he didn't overturn the election.
[21:30:00]
NAVARRO: Here's what's interesting about broadening steel tariffs. What we learned is this. Suppose you're Brazil, or Turkey, or whoever you are, and we put tariffs on base steel. The next thing you do is you assemble stuff with that base steel, and then you send it over here, tariff-free. So what we've done with both steel and aluminum is extend the tariffs to what we call, derivative products, to prevent that kind of thing.
And we've also tried to stop what's called the transshipping of products. Right now, for example, Vietnam is a real problem. And well--
COLLINS: They go to other countries and then are sent to the United States.
NAVARRO: China goes to other countries and sends those in.
COLLINS: OK. Please give us an update after the China talks happen next week.
NAVARRO: Anytime you want.
COLLINS: Mr. Navarro, great to have you on.
NAVARRO: I told you, off-air, anytime you want, I'm here.
COLLINS: Appreciate your time, Mr. Navarro.
NAVARRO: OK.
COLLINS: Thank you so much for that.
NAVARRO: Appreciate that.
COLLINS: Up next. Here in the United States, another concerning situation. It's being described as the most dangerous situation you could have. My next CNN source has new reporting on what happened when those radar signals went out at Newark Airport.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Given that it's taking so much -- and you just talked about a big revamp of the system. Obviously, people believe that that is needed now. But it's going to take some time.
SEAN DUFFY, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION: It is.
COLLINS: So if you're -- if you're looking at Newark right now, what is the short- term solution, if any, for that? And how long do you expect the delays to last?
DUFFY: So, again -- so the new runway is going to come online -- or the runway under construction is going to come online in the middle of June. We -- again, the whole project across the country is going to take three to four years. But we are going to focus on Newark first.
I mentioned that in the infrastructure package, they sent the FAA, $5 billion for this build. They spent less than a billion dollars. We're going to pull some of that money, and start dealing with Newark right now, and the communication system, and that is already underway.
COLLINS: So, about six weeks?
DUFFY: No, I'm saying in the summer we hope that to be done.
COLLINS: We just heard from Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, as Newark Airport in New Jersey is in total meltdown right now, with delays still facing the airport, cancelations as well, after some air traffic controllers had to take a special government leave, after they lost communication with some of the aircraft that was in the air, causing this massive meltdown that we're seeing play out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And tonight, CNN has new reporting inside Newark International Airport. CNN's Aviation Correspondent, Pete Muntean, is my source tonight.
And Pete, I know you just spoke with an air traffic controller who was actually inside the tower, when the system's meltdown occurred that you were reporting on. I mean, I can't even imagine what they had to say about this.
PETE MUNTEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He essentially described this to me as the most dangerous situation you could have, as an air traffic controller, in the Newark terminal radar approach control facility, which is essentially a darkroom where you have a radar scope and radio to communicate with the airplanes outside.
90-second outage, he says, where none of that took place. They had no radio, no radar, essentially operating blind and deaf. And so, he came into the room, where these controllers were essentially scrambling to try and figure out what was still online.
And you have to imagine the uncertainty now. They just lost radio and radar for 90 seconds. He says that they weren't really sure if it would stay back on, when it came back online.
Now he says that three controllers, one supervisor, and one trainee, are out on this 45-day-long trauma leave, and he essentially does not fault them for taking it. Because he says, they raised the alarm over and over again that this could happen at this facility.
And he really pinpoints it on a single point of failure, that there is one data stream that carries what happens at the Long Island facility, where there is radar, where this facility used to be, moved to Philadelphia last July, essentially connects the old facility and the new facility. He says, that data stream went down, and that is the single point of failure here.
This is the big takeaway quote here. He says, this happened before, and a FedEx flight was getting vectored onto the final approach path at Newark by controllers there, when they lost radio ability, the ability to communicate via radio. And he says that plane essentially overshot the final approach path, and into the busy airspace over LaGuardia. I want to read this to you verbatim. He says, It was just by the grace of God that there wasn't another plane in its way. We all expected what happened in D.C. to happening here.
So this has essentially happened before. But this April 28th meltdown was really the big thing that precipitated controllers to take trauma leave, and now there is a shortage of controllers there at the Newark approach control facility, meaning that these delays are simply going to continue.
COLLINS: Yes, and you can't just find new air traffic controllers, on a whim.
MUNTEAN: It's not easy.
COLLINS: Pete Muntean, excellent reporting on this story. Thank you.
Also, my next source here tonight is the Democratic congresswoman, Mikie Sherrill, of New Jersey. She's a former U.S. Navy helicopter pilot whose district borders Newark Liberty International Airport. She is also running for governor.
I mean, it is pretty stunning to hear what Pete reported there, that this is not the first time this has happened.
REP. MIKIE SHERRILL (D-NJ): Stunning and chilling. I have flown in really crowded airspace, when I was a helicopter pilot. And to think that in the most busy airspace, some of the most busy airspace in our country, they went down for 90 seconds with no communications? I really -- there, but for the grace of God truly is, is the quote of the day.
COLLINS: Well, and when you hear that, is it safe for people to fly, in and out of Newark, in your view?
SHERRILL: Well, if they are going to continue to disregard this, then you have to say no, unless and until they can fix the equipment and get the number of air traffic controllers in there that they need. Because now, as we're hearing, they're down 20 percent.
[21:40:00]
But this is what we have to do right away. We need to surge people in, we need to surge in the equipment we need, to keep the airspace safe, until we can do the longer-term fixes. Because as you heard, from the Transportation Secretary, earlier today, in the last Congress, we passed the bipartisan reauthorization to fund these programs. We just need to up the timetable.
COLLINS: Well, just on this front, if someone's flying in there today, tomorrow, or in the next six weeks, until that next runway reopens, do you believe it's safe?
SHERRILL: Well, I think we need to hear more. I mean, there needs to be some addressing of this. In fact, a lot of this was covered up. The first I had heard of the 90-second window where people weren't communicating was actually the reporting done this morning. So we hadn't even heard of this earlier than that.
COLLINS: You found out from the media?
SHERRILL: I found out from the media.
COLLINS: That's pretty remarkable. I mean, have you had any conversations with other officials, either at the airport, or in New Jersey, about this, and what's happening next here?
SHERRILL: I've had conversations with officials. There has been some discussion over the movement, and why it happened out of Long Island, and down to Philly, and whether that was accomplished well. And as we're hearing, that one point of failure really was critical in the movement.
And it sounds as if there -- it's a really difficult thing to control this airspace, and to move them out of where they've always been, to move them down to Philadelphia was a big move. But then to not have the equipment set up correctly, and that single point of failure, is really dangerous.
And then we find, you know, I hear from people on the ground, right now, this is graduation season. People are trying to get to loved ones. People have -- you know, I've heard from people with sick parents who are worried about if they're going to be able to go see them. And then business travel is all but shut down right now.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, they were operating on this remote line that was essentially described, I believe, to Pete, as one long extension cord, which is obviously not reassuring to anyone.
But I wonder what you make of what else the Transportation Secretary Duffy had to say about this, essentially arguing that a lot of this is also on the Biden administration for not doing more, when President Biden was in office, when that massive infrastructure bill was passed, to start fixing these problems years ago. SHERRILL: Well, I think we saw a lot of the fixes put into place, the reauthorization, to make sure there were the resources there to fix it.
I do -- I do want to understand better what happened with this movement, and why this extension cord was done, and there wasn't more oversight over it.
But looking forward, what we need to do now is get this airport back on track quickly. And what that's going to take is surging personnel into Philly, making sure they fix the equipment failure, so that we are confident it won't be happening, and get the airport up and running.
This is one of the busiest airports in America. Shutting this airport down, as it is now, is another contributing factor to the chaos that's going on right now.
COLLINS: And you believe you can work with Secretary Duffy to do that?
SHERRILL: Well, I would hope so. He -- you know, should he have the will to accomplish this, and work with the State of New Jersey, and others, to get this done, and not try to divert with conversations about a social agenda, which he's done some bit of, I think we can work together. But if he's going to not be serious about it, then we're going to have some problems.
COLLINS: Thank you so much. Congresswoman, great to have you--
SHERRILL: Thank you.
COLLINS: --and your expertise in this matter tonight.
SHERRILL: Thanks again.
COLLINS: Really appreciate your time.
Up next. Name, Image, and Likeness in college sports, there's a question of whether or not President Trump is going to wade into the hot issue in college athletics. My source tonight knows very well this subject. The former NFL wide receiver, Donte Stallworth, is here next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, we are hearing that President Trump is considering taking executive action when it comes to payments made to college athletes. Though, we're told no final decision has been made yet, and it's not really clear what it will look like if he does, it would, though, mean that the White House is wading into one of the touchiest subjects in college athletics right now, NIL deals.
NIL stands for Name, Image, and Likeness. It allows athletes to make money off of their name, image, and likeness. And The Wall Street Journal reported, last week, that this came about after the President spent some time with the former Alabama football coach, Nick Saban, when the two were together at the University of Alabama's commencement.
Coach Saban reportedly told the President he believed the influx of money is damaging college sports. Anyone who's listened to his interviews publicly, knows that this is an area that Saban is greatly concerned with, when it comes to developing student athletes, while also letting schools maintain a competitive edge.
My source tonight is the former NFL wide receiver, Donte Stallworth, and also former Tennessee college football player.
I'm sure you wish NIL was around during your time. But I just wonder, what you make of this. Because it's not clear legally what this would do.
DONTE STALLWORTH, FORMER NFL WIDE RECEIVER: Yes.
COLLINS: Obviously, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are trying to get something passed as well.
What is your take of it?
STALLWORTH: I think -- I think they're weaponizing the power of the government to restrict these workers, these student athletes, from receiving any type of benefits.
And I say that, because when you look at the NIL era, now, this is obviously a period where players are able to get money now, and they're able to have things that they couldn't have before, that they weren't provided through the schools or through the NCAA. And this is a disproportionately Black players are generating this revenue, so. In sports like basketball and football, right?
[21:50:00]
So, to me, I'm looking at it as you have this -- you have this issue, where now they want to reform the NIL, now that these players are able to make money off of their name and talent.
But prior to 2014, the NCAA wouldn't allow for us, for student athletes, to even have three full meals, throughout the course of the year. And yet, they want us to perform and be at optimal -- optimal performance, and make them hundreds of millions of dollars, billions, in some case -- in some cases. These coaches are making all this money.
And yet, now that the players are making money off of their own name and talents, now they want to step in, and try to help reform some of this? Where were these guys before, when all this was happening? They weren't there. So, to me, that is the height of hypocrisy.
COLLINS: So you think it's something maybe better for the White House, and for Congress to stay out of? STALLWORTH: Yes, I think so. I think if you're going to try to wield government power, do it in ways that are helpful, like support players having universal health care, support these players, and these financial literacy programs. There's a number of things they can do. And they're just trying to strip NIL, right now.
COLLINS: The argument -- and Saban has taken some heat from this. But he has -- obviously is incredibly involved in player development. He wants the best of the players.
STALLWORTH: Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, he's talked about this when it comes to punishment for things they've done, they've broken team rules.
His explanation of why he thinks there need to be changes to NIL, I think this is what he said earlier this year, can kind of be summed up like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICK SABAN, FORMER ALABAMA FOOTBALL COACH: People out there need to know, this model is unsustainable.
PAT MCAFEE, AMERICAN SPORTS ANALYST: OK.
SABAN: It's not good for players. I mean, people in Congress, I don't care who has to get off their butt and do something. Players need to get compensated, no doubt. But it has to be done in a way where we -- you know, some kind of way, have competitive balance.
MCAFEE: Yes. Agree.
SABAN: And you know that every school has the same thing. One school can't spend $30 million per player, while another school's spending $3 million.
MCAFEE: Agreed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: This is a concern that I've heard from alumna (ph) Alabama, who say, Our graduate -- our donor base is not as wealthy as some other schools--
STALLWORTH: Yes.
COLLINS: --especially in Texas. That's what everyone's talking about right now.
Do you think he has a point at all when he says that it will provide an unfair advantage for different schools?
STALLWORTH: Yes, I think so. But I think -- I like Saban as a coach. But I think that--
COLLINS: Don't worry. You're allowed to express your concern.
STALLWORTH: Sure.
COLLINS: I mean, not really, but, like, I'll let you.
STALLWORTH: No, you know, I think -- I think Saban -- coming from Saban, I think that, everyone wanted to go to Alabama when you were coming out of high school, in that period when Saban was there, because what did you want to do after college? You wanted to go to the NFL.
He had a funnel that sent players to the NFL because he was -- he himself was a great NFL coach, and he's a great college coach. He definitely develops players' skills better than probably almost anyone in college football. But the playing field that is actually even is now other -- other teams have the opportunity to sign players that Saban would have signed.
Saban made the complaint when he -- right before he left college, or maybe right after -- shortly after, before he left college, that when he goes into these homes now of these kids, where they're trying to recruit them, and bring them to Alabama, their parents and the people that are -- that are kind of their guardians, they're asking about money.
They're asking, How much money can you offer the players? And he said that he didn't like that. And I get that. But to me, that is one thing that's even in the playing field against somebody like a Nick Saban.
So, I think -- I think -- I like Saban, and I think he does want what's best for college football. But it's just -- the optics just aren't great, and things that he's said in the past don't really fit fully to what he's trying to accomplish.
COLLINS: Donte Stallworth, great to have you and your view.
STALLWORTH: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Of course, as a former player. Thank you so much.
Up next. Here in Washington, we'll check in on Capitol Hill. Senator John Fetterman is responding to CNN to that damning report, he says it's, calling it a hit piece. His former Chief of Staff raised serious questions about his mental health, his fitness, his ability to serve in his office. There is a question tonight. Will he remain in office? He'll answer it ahead.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, we're hearing from Senator John Fetterman, denying allegations that he may be unfit to serve his office, pushing back on former and current members of his staff, including his former chief of staff, Adam Jentleson, who detailed claims of erratic, reckless and, what they say is, volatile behavior, to a New York magazine piece. And tonight, in an exclusive sit-down with my colleague, Manu Raju, the Pennsylvania senator promised to stay on the job.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: When you saw this New York magazine story, what was your reaction to it?
SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): Well, my reaction is, it's a one-source hit piece, and it involved maybe two or three anonymous disgruntled staffers, saying just absolute false things. Or half-truths there.
RAJU: The individual is a former chief of staff who has said that he's concerned about your wellbeing, which is why he went public. What do you say to some -- to someone like him who's concerned about -- he says he's concerned about your wellbeing.
FETTERMAN: Well, I mean, it's like -- no, he's -- he's had a weird grudge, and he has -- he has threatened to do this for quite a while. And if you're really concerned about someone, you could say, Hey, let's sit down. Can we talk? It's not like going to the media. And that's why somebody that has an agenda, it's like a hit piece.
RAJU: You're fully planning to serve your full term here, in the Senate?
FETTERMAN: Come on. Of course. That's -- obviously. Obviously. Everybody understands that I was treated for depression.
RAJU: Yes, and run for reelection.
[22:00:00]
FETTERMAN: We're not talking about 2028. Who knows what's going to happen in 2028. We never know what's in 2028. But yes, it's like, it's -- it's May of 2025. And it's like, talking about 2028.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Thanks for that update there.
Thank you so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
