Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Promises "Major Trade Deal" Announcement Tomorrow; Dems Rebel Against Bill While Targeting Trump's Crypto Empire; High-Profile Attorney Launches Firm To Defend Trump Targets. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired May 07, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
FATHER PATRICK MARY BRISCOE, HOST, "GODSPLAINING" PODCAST, EDITOR, OUR SUNDAY VISITOR: --one of the things you see is, you see just how diverse the church is, with the universality of the church represented, people coming from all over to participate.
Many people coming to the Square because it was the last night of their trip, for example, to Rome, and they just wanted to see this moment in history, even though they didn't expect white smoke. Those stories are very touching.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Yes. It's also just to see so many young people. I mean, I was there for the funeral, and to see so many young people, and large groups of young people, enthusiastically going and wanting to be there.
Father Patrick Mary Briscoe, thank you so much. Appreciate it.
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.
Uncertainty. Even the Fed chair says that he doesn't know what to do next. As President Trump had a particular one-word answer when he was asked today, in the Oval Office, about his sky-high tariffs on China.
Plus, a federal judge just said the White House's plan to deport migrants to Libya, as soon as tonight, might violate a court order. Will the administration heed this judge's warning?
And President Trump just switched his pick for the Surgeon General. He's now tapping a wellness influencer with a degree from Stanford, and also close ties to RFK Jr., who the President says has, quote, Impeccable MAHA credentials.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
President Trump's unpredictable trade war has kept businesses and consumers guessing. And as we just learned in Washington, here today, apparently the Federal Reserve chair as well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEROME POWELL, CHAIR OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE OF THE UNITED STATES: It's not at all clear what the appropriate response for monetary policy is, at this time. And we're, you know -- and, by the way, our policy is in a good place. So, we think we can wait and move when it is clear what the right thing to do is. Really not at all clear what it is we should do.
If the large increases in tariffs, that have been announced, are sustained, they're likely to generate a rise in inflation, a slowdown in economic growth, and an increase in unemployment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Higher prices, fewer jobs, and slower growth. Federal Reserve chair there, Jay Powell, not really mincing words, as he made clear the concern. And also what happens next in the U.S. economy is in the hands of President Trump, and that he and the American people are kind of at the mercy of the calls that are being made, inside the White House, tonight.
Despite serious pressure from the President, in the form of many Truth Social comments, and blunt remarks on-camera to reporters, Chair Powell, so far, has refused to cut interest rates, given the concerns they have about inflation.
For his part, President Trump, today, inside the Oval Office, ruled out lowering his 145 percent tariffs on China, ahead of the highest level meetings we've seen yet between the United States and China, since those tariffs were put into place.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: China says in order to have substantive negotiations, you have to bring down your 145 percent tariffs. Are you open to pulling back your tariffs in order to get China to the negotiating table?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: A very quick no, there, from President Trump, which is an answer that is injecting even more urgency into what I found was the talk of the day inside the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The first formal trade talks that we know of, between the United States and China, are happening this weekend in Switzerland.
But when President Trump was just asked, in the Oval Office, about claims being made by China, that it was the United States that initiated those talks, the President said that China ought to go back and study their files. To quote the President. And he also offered a flat no, when he was asked if he's considering lowering those 145 percent tariffs that he's put in place to get China to the table. Though, he did say, he is considering potentially putting some exemptions on baby products that parents use every day, some of those tariff exemptions, that we add a bit of word of caution there, after the Treasury Secretary first raised that idea, saying that he wanted to keep the exemptions simple. And we know he's already put them in place on things like automakers, and also Big Tech for technology that's coming in from China, like iPhones and other smart technology.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And even at the White House, there have been so many questions about when a trade deal could be announced. We have heard conflicting answers from the President, from his top aides.
Just yesterday, he was saying he wished his aides would stop saying publicly that there was going to be an announcement coming.
And just moments ago, before we came on air tonight, the President posted this on Truth Social. He said, quote, Big News Conference tomorrow morning at 10:00 A.M., The Oval Office, concerning, and in all-caps, a MAJOR TRADE DEAL WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF A BIG, AND HIGHLY RESPECTED, COUNTRY. THE FIRST OF MANY.
My next source tonight is an economist who served on the Director of the National Economic Council, Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve, and as Under Secretary of the Treasury, Lael Brainard.
And it's great to have you here.
I want to ask you about what the Federal Reserve chair, Jay Powell, said today.
[21:05:00]
But given what the President just posted there, and obviously we have to kind of wait and see what this is. Is it a topline deal? Is it a real trade deal? What is it? How much is hammered out here? Is that something that the Federal Reserve chair will be paying attention to, to see is there a trade deal that's been in the works here?
LAEL BRAINARD, FORMER NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL DIRECTOR, FORMER FEDERAL RESERVE VICE CHAIR, FORMER TREASURY UNDER SECRETARY, DISTINGUISHED FELLOW, PSAROS CENTER FOR FINANCIAL MARKETS & POLICY: Well, we certainly heard from the Federal Reserve today, that tariffs have raised the risks of higher inflation and higher unemployment, and that really puts the Federal Reserve on the sidelines because they don't know which of those is more likely to happen.
So yes, it really does matter to them, how big the tariffs are, how widespread they are, and how much of an inflationary impact they have, on the one hand, and how much of an unemployment increase they result in. So the sooner that uncertainty is resolved, the better it is for the Federal Reserve to understand the impact on the economy.
On the other hand, if what we're talking about is tariffs that stay at 10 percent that's the minimum, the baseline, that's still a huge increase in tariffs.
COLLINS: Yes, I think that's a good thing, a good point that you're making there that's being lost in all of this is even if -- well, even with the 145 percent tariffs on China, which the President made clear he's not bringing down, even bringing those down by 50 percent is still a pretty significant tariff on China.
In terms of what the President just posted tonight, saying that there is going to be this major announcement tomorrow. And again, I do want to be clear, we don't know what this is. We're waiting -- waiting to see just how much detail is in there.
What is the position that the Federal Reserve chair is in? I mean, you could have very well been in this position. You were interviewed for this role. How difficult is their job, right now, not knowing what's going to be announced on any day, inside the Oval Office, or coming out of the White House?
BRAINARD: So they're not going to be looking at each announcement, and changing their views about the risks of a slowdown, the risks of inflation.
What they're going to want to see is the overall impact on prices for American consumers, on costs for American businesses, and how much does that put businesses in a position where they stop hiring, or even have to do some layoffs. And that's the question that they need to understand about tariffs, overall.
COLLINS: Well, and there was one comment that Fed chair, Jay Powell, made, almost a year ago. It was in May of 2024, I believe, closer to end of the month. About a word that he mentioned today as well. Just, I want you to listen to what he said last year.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
POWELL: And of course, with inflation, you know, our -- we will return inflation to 2 percent, and that won't be so I don't see the stag or the flation actually.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: In terms of stagflation, if you're an American, why is that a word that you should be concerned about?
BRAINARD: If you're an American, stagflation means prices go up and jobs go down. And it means slow growth, higher prices.
And Americans really want to see things become more affordable. So, when you see companies talking about a baby tax that strollers, and car seats, and learning toys, are all going to be more expensive because of tariffs, that's bad news for American families with young kids. If there's less hiring, less job opportunities, that's a double whammy.
COLLINS: Yes. Lael Brainard, great to have you as always and your expertise of this. Thank you so much. BRAINARD: Thank you.
My next source tonight is someone who's also watching the impact of President Trump's tariffs play out every single day.
Ryan Calkins is the Commissioner at the Port of Seattle, where a lot of the things, that everyone who is watching now that they buy, come into the United States of America.
So, it's great to have you here tonight, sir.
The tariffs, so far, I wonder, for you directly, what is the impact that you're seeing? How could you sum up how much your job has changed, because of the policies coming out of the White House tonight?
RYAN CALKINS, COMMISSIONER, PORT OF SEATTLE, MANAGING MEMBER, NORTHWEST SEAPORT ALLIANCE: Thanks for having me, Kaitlan.
I can see it right over my shoulder here. I'm looking out at the Port of Seattle, right now, and we currently have no container ships at berth. And that happens every once in a while in normal times, but it is pretty rare.
And so to see it tonight is, I think, a stark reminder that the impacts of the tariffs have real implications. It means that we don't have longshore workers on the dock, right now, unloading merchandise. We don't have trains taking that merchandise to inland ports, and all the way across the country, to places like Des Moines, Iowa, and Chicago, Illinois. And that's hundreds of jobs right here, in our region, and across the country.
COLLINS: You have none at your port right now?
CALKINS: We currently do not have any container ships at port right now. That's correct.
COLLINS: And that's because just nothing is being shipped over? I mean, that's pretty remarkable.
CALKINS: Well, it is. It's pretty unusual.
We do anticipate, I was looking at our schedule, we anticipate about 25 vessel calls between here and the Port of Tacoma, over the next seven days. And keep in mind, we're not just importing from Asia or just China. We do have activity from all over the world, largely the Pacific Rim. But we are seeing a significant drop in container volume through our gateway.
[21:10:00]
COLLINS: You said this is rare. I mean, can you think of the last time that this happened, that you didn't have any of them coming into your -- at your port?
CALKINS: Probably the height of the pandemic was the last time I saw it. Before we really started to see the surge in cargo towards the end of the pandemic.
COLLINS: OK. If you're someone who's listening, I mean, that's quite concerning, given no one can forget the supply chain disruptions, and what happened during COVID, when things just were not on the shelves because of a pandemic that was engulfing the entire globe.
And I think they might look at this and say, There's no pandemic going on. Why is this again happening, and the same result is coming, where no ports or -- no containers are coming into ports as big as yours.
CALKINS: It is a great concern. And I think if you think ports are sort of the canary in the coal mine, the canary is struggling right now, and we really do need to get the kind of certainty that businesses need to make those, to order goods, to get them on ships. And that's not going to happen until we have some certainty, to the end of the trade dispute.
We're seeing it here at ports. Pretty soon, we're going to start seeing it in retailers. And my concern is that the impact is going to be greatest on those families that are living paycheck to paycheck, to small businesses that rely on imports to stock their own shelves, they're going to be hit hardest by this.
COLLINS: And as we've been looking at this, and waiting to see, how this shows up in stores. I was just talking to someone from a different port, the other day, who was saying, This is when the back- to-school supplies would be coming in, and this is going to be a concern that you're seeing in August and September, when kids are going back to school, and parents don't have as many backpacks to choose from. We'll see if that plays out.
But I do wonder what you made when the President said that, that the United States, that we don't need trade with China. And more than half of your imports, I know, come from China. I wonder what your -- what you would say to the President, when he says that?
CALKINS: I think I would say that the greatest benefactor of 75 years of greater and greater interconnectivity between economies around the world has been the United States.
We benefited because our manufacturers are able to export, our farmers are able to export their crops, and also because our consumers are able to tap into a global market that can produce certain goods more cheaply than we can or, in some cases, like in the case of my favorite morning drink, coffee, we don't make any of that except in a very small area in Hawaii, and so we need to import that stuff.
And so, global trade is key to our standard of living, and our quality of life and, really, to the general prosperity for our country. And so, I really hope that they understand the urgency to end this trade dispute, and work toward, again, greater global connection amongst our economies.
COLLINS: Yes. Trust me, coffee is important to a lot of us around here, including me.
Ryan, it's great to hear what's going on.
CALKINS: I'm from Seattle where we need it, to make it through the winter, for sure.
COLLINS: Yes, every single day.
Ryan, thank you for sharing that with us. Please keep us updated, of course, of what you're seeing at your port. Ryan Calkins, really appreciate your time tonight.
CALKINS: You bet. Anytime, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next for us tonight, here in Washington, a federal judge has just issued a warning about the White House's plan to now deport migrants to Libya. My CNN source is here to break down the latest, and how the White House is going to respond.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, a federal judge has issued a warning to the Trump administration, regarding its plan to move forward with a proposal to now deport migrants to Libya.
The plan calls for sending deportees thousands of miles to North Africa, to a war-torn country that is notorious for human rights violations, and also would mark a major expansion of the President's deportation efforts. So far, the bulk of the administration's deportations that we've seen have gone to places where they have agreements with, places like El Salvador we've talked about extensively.
But moments ago, a judge responded to an emergency request, by warning, that sending migrants to Libya could violate a previous order. The judge issued the warning, after the attorneys representing these migrants filed to block their clients' removal to Libya, and to stop a military plane from taking them there, potentially as soon as today.
When President Trump was asked about this plan, inside the Oval Office today, he pointed to others for answers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Is your administration sending migrants to Libya?
TRUMP: I don't know. You'll have to ask Homeland Security, please.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Tonight, we're going to ask CNN Correspondent, Priscilla Alvarez.
And so, Priscilla, the question here is, there wasn't a military plane lined up to take off. Do we understand what's going on, and also just why Libya, this plan overall from the administration?
PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, it's still unclear if that plane is actually going to take off.
But what I can tell you, Kaitlan, is that right now, there is a scramble underway, among attorneys, who are just trying to figure out if their clients could potentially be on that flight. In fact, one attorney, in the court filings that were submitted, just moments ago, said that he believes his Filipino client could be subject to this removal to Libya, because Immigration and Customs Enforcement had told him so while in detention.
So attorneys are just trying to figure out who this involves, because it can be any nationality. We don't know yet what nationalities Libya has agreed to. Therefore, it sort of leaves the question open as to who this could -- who could be subjected to this.
Now, the federal judge, and the ruling that we saw there that dates back to a case that happened earlier this year, where essentially there was concern that the administration is turning to these other countries to take people who aren't from there.
[21:20:00]
And so, the federal judge reiterated his order and said, Look, there is a temporary block, on the administration sending people to other countries, unless they are provided written notice and given the opportunity to contest their removal to that country.
If the administration is not doing that, based off what the attorneys are telling the judge, then they could violate the order from this federal judge.
So all of this is still playing out, in real-time, as the federal judge is hearing from the attorneys who are just completely scrambling to figure out who is subjected to this.
Now, I will tell you, to your question about why Libya. Deportations are hard. Even some home countries can't take back or won't take back their people. So, the administration is turning to other countries. El Salvador. Libya. There are conversations with Rwanda. To send migrants to other places.
And these are the conversations that my sources tell me have been happening behind-the-scenes, and Libya seems to be one of those that they are moving forward on. But certainly, so many questions still as to who exactly they could be sending there.
COLLINS: Yes, it's so interesting how Trump pointed to the Department of Homeland Security, when he was asked today. Obviously, this is something that would get his approval, you would expect.
Priscilla, great reporting. Thank you for that.
Also here tonight is the President's former National Security Adviser, the former United Nations ambassador, John Bolton. And Ambassador, it's great to have you here.
Because on that -- on that reporting from Priscilla, that they're essentially trying to find all these other countries that will -- that are willing to take migrants. What do you make of this proposal that they have in the works, which clearly could have been carried out potentially, as soon as today, to send people to Libya?
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Well, it's pretty remarkable when you think of it.
Certainly, in the case of asylum seekers, they can be sent to third countries under international conventions, and our own law, if that country is deemed a safe place, sometimes called Safe Third Country destinations.
I would not call Libya, a safe country. I looked at the State Department advisory, just to make sure nothing had happened that I missed in the past couple weeks, and it says flatly, Do not travel to Libya.
The country has been divided by civil war, for at least seven -- seven years now. There's a government that has limited control in the western part of the country, a rebel force that has control in the eastern part of the country, conflict could break out at any time. Libya's anarchic and over most of its territory, foreign terrorist groups have gone there.
It's also a source of refugees coming from Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa. When you see pictures of boats of refugees, in the Mediterranean, headed toward Italy, a lot of them come through Libya, with human traffickers.
It's a very dangerous place for -- not just for foreigners, but for the people who live there. It's almost inconceivable that they would think -- I mean, I could think of, of other places that are bad. But it's hard to think of one that's worse than Libya right now.
COLLINS: Yes, it raised questions also with those rival governments that you mentioned, if they are paying Libya, who they would be paying like if they have a deal like they did with El Salvador. But a lot of other questions about that.
But also, another issue that the White House is facing tonight, a major crisis that has been breaking out between India and Pakistan. I want you to listen to what the President told reporters, when he was asked for his thoughts, earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's so terrible.
They've gone tit-for-tat, so hopefully they can stop now. But I know both. We get along with both the countries very well, good relationships with both. And I want to see it stop. And if I can do anything to help, I will -- I will be there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: What do you think the role of the United States should be, in terms of hoping to de-escalate what's happening right now?
BOLTON: Well, I think the United States certainly can approach both governments, and urge them to do that.
The last time there was a real military clash like this, between India and Pakistan, was 2019. I was serving as National Security Adviser then. And actually, we were in Hanoi to meet with Kim -- for the President, to meet with Kim Jong Un. And Secretary of State, Pompeo, and I, got on the phone to India's National Security Adviser. And ultimately, although there was Indian retaliation for another terrorist attack in Kashmir, it didn't go beyond that.
So I'm not saying, we don't take this seriously. But I think it's very -- it's clearly the wrong thing to do, to assume this is going to escalate dramatically. That said, it's helpful to pressure both countries. But this is a sensitive area.
COLLINS: Yes. And speaking of sensitive areas, with the war in Ukraine, the Vice President today was asked about attempts to broker peace, between Russia and Ukraine.
I want you to listen to what he said, because I thought it was notable about what Russia is seeking to get from these negotiations.
[21:25:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JD VANCE (R), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't say that the Russians are uninterested in bringing this thing to a resolution. What I would say is, right now, the Russians are asking for a certain set of requirements, a certain set of concessions, in order to end the conflict. We think they're asking for too much.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: To hear him say, Russia is asking for too much, is quite notable.
BOLTON: Well, yes, it depends on what he's asking for. I mean, among other things, Russian officials have said, over the past several years, as acceptable terms for them to have a ceasefire or final settlement, is redeployment of NATO forces, a fundamental change in where NATO forces are in Eastern and Central Europe.
At least under other American presidents, they'd be told to go take a hike, because we're not going to change NATO deployments, in response to something they want in Ukraine. So if that's what he's referring to, that's the correct position.
Putin has to be careful not to overplay his hand. I don't think he has yet, and he's gotten plenty of concessions from the Trump administration. Whether this is just a momentary problem or not, I don't -- I don't see it. I don't see Trump repudiating Putin in any significant way, even at this point.
COLLINS: We will see what they do.
Ambassador John Bolton, thank you for your time.
BOLTON: Thanks for having me.
COLLINS: Up next here. As the President's growing crypto empire now has Democrats demanding answers. My next source wants records and receipts from the White House. Question is, will he get them?
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, lawmakers are making a last-ditch effort to save a bill that would regulate crypto currencies. The problem is not everyone on Capitol Hill thinks the so-called GENIUS bill is well, genius.
Democrats say they have real concerns about whether or not it will do enough to stop elected officials from profiting off digital money, which they are emphasizing, giving the President's own crypto ventures.
Trump launched his own meme coin, which is believed to have made him about a $100 million in trading fees so far, according to one report from Reuters. And the President said recently that he would hold a private dinner for top investors of that coin. The announcement of that event alone sent the price soaring.
World Liberty Financial, which is the Trump family-linked crypto company, recently announced it has plans to launch another digital currency as well.
My source tonight is Democratic senator, Richard Blumenthal, the Ranking Member on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
And on that bill, for a second, the GENIUS bill, it started as something that you don't always see in Washington, this bipartisan effort that seemed to be moving ahead. Now it seems to have real concerns about whether or not it's going to move ahead. And, to be clear, put guardrails basically on this.
What do you expect to happen with that vote?
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Well, you're right that it started as a bipartisan bill, and it passed the Banking Committee, as a matter of fact, with an 18 to six vote.
I was never in favor of it, because it always seemed to me too weak. It has a number of glaring loopholes, the idea of imposing guardrails and consumer protections, and some financial stability and also stopping money laundering, which the crypto currencies are very vulnerable to do. Good idea, but this bill fails to meet the standard of real toughness and providing protections.
COLLINS: So even if there are amendments to it, could you see yourself voting for it? Or would there have to be such big changes in order for this to happen?
BLUMENTHAL: In my view, it should go back to committee and be revised there, rather than amendments which almost certainly, given the weaknesses in the bill, right now, and the President's scandalous use of cryptocurrency, to make money for himself, the self-enrichment, has no comparison in our nation's history, in the scope and scale of corruption involved.
And so, I think we need to be particularly wary when a bill pretends to provide some guardrails and consumer protections, and protections against money laundering and foreign influence on the President, which is a threat to our national security.
COLLINS: Well, and just to give everyone background, for people who may not have been following this as closely. There is a -- the President is going to Abu Dhabi, next week. He's making his first big foreign trip since taking office and returning. An Abu Dhabi-backed firm is investing billions of dollars into the Trump family-linked crypto, which has raised questions here. It's called World Liberty Financial.
Democrats are asking for answers.
What are you asking for? And do you think you're going to get the answers?
BLUMENTHAL: I've begun an investigation through the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I'm the Ranking Member there, asking World Liberty Financial and, separately, the meme coin enterprise, it's called FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT, which is also controlled by the Trump family.
[21:35:00]
Remember, they received 60 to 70 percent of all the revenue. The meme coins are untethered to any real assets. He's pumping up their price by offering this dinner with Trump. It's a way of hawking White House access, putting a for-sale sign on the White House. But, at the same time, he has World Liberty Financial which, as you absolutely rightly point out, has just entered a deal with the Emiratis.
Now, that money, $2 billion coming into World Liberty Financial, is a direct, blatant violation of the Emoluments Clause of United States Constitution. Why? Because it subjects the President of the United States to potential foreign influence. We have no disclosure, no transparency. But he is potentially involved in foreign influence on him. That's a matter of national security. And also, money laundering.
COLLINS: Well, and I guess with what you're saying there about the dinner that he's hosting. The question that I had heard raised from some people was, could anyone essentially buy that, and we have no clue who it could be, and then would subsequently be able to have access to someone like the President, who is obviously a closely- guarded person, that his time is quite valuable. And to get that access would be pretty worth it to someone who bought that coin.
BLUMENTHAL: Not only potentially could they do it. But if this dinner takes place, they'll be sitting right with the President. They don't have to whisper in his ear. He can see that they've invested in a way that benefits him financially.
And remember, Kaitlan, that not only does Trump receive the benefits of the rise in price of those meme coins. He also gets a cut of every single transaction. He's already earned $350 million.
COLLINS: Yes, they get the transaction fees every time it's traded.
But I guess, my question is -- you're a Democrat. Democrats are not in power. If someone's watching this, and they say, I actually do have questions about that. What if you don't get answers? I mean, you can't really demand that they -- that they turn it. I mean, you can ask. But where does it go beyond that?
BLUMENTHAL: We're going to ask. We're going to demand answers. I'm hoping that perhaps other members, maybe some Republicans on the PSI, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, will join in this effort, because it really is such a threat to national security, and to financial stability of the entire system.
And for all we know, there are Russians, there may be others, who are anonymously investing, and I'm hoping that some responsible Republicans -- it's on them as well as on us.
COLLINS: Senator Blumenthal, let us know if you get those answers.
BLUMENTHAL: Thank you.
COLLINS: Thank you for your time tonight.
Also, on Capitol Hill today, you might have missed this moment, something that involved a celebration, an island and a dance move. Not something you expect to come up when the Treasury Secretary is testifying. But Scott Bessent was in the hotseat before the House Financial Services Committee.
Before the hearing began, on the President's economic policies, and what's happening with his trade war, there was this moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): Secretary Bessent, this is the first time we've met. Is that correct?
SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: No, ma'am, we actually met one New Year's Eve in the Bahamas. And I was--
(LAUGHTER) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He didn't make an impression.
BESSENT: They--
WATERS: Why don't I remember that?
BESSENT: Well, you were much better at the Electric Slide than I was.
And I was with the Prime Minister of the Bahamas yesterday, Prime Minister Davis, who sends his regards.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Not your average start to the congressional hearing, but it got to business after that.
Up next tonight. My source started his own firm to take on the President's law and order crusade. Abbe Lowell has represented everyone from Hunter Biden to Jared Kushner. What is next for him? He'll tell us.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: With several major law firms making deals with the White House, after facing a pressure campaign from the President to do so, one high-profile Washington attorney is taking a different approach.
Abbe Lowell has represented both President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and President Biden's son, Hunter Biden. He's now launching a new firm to defend those that he says are being inappropriately targeted by President Trump. So far, that list includes people like the New York Attorney General, Letitia James, whistleblower attorney, Mark Zaid, as well as groups that are challenging DOGE agency and grant cuts.
Abbe Lowell is my source, and joins me now. His new law firm is Lowell & Associates.
You left a very wealthy firm, with a lot of clients, to do this. I know you've said that this is not a political statement. Well, how would you describe it then?
ABBE LOWELL, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, LOWELL & ASSOCIATES: I think you and some others get the headline almost right, but not quite. This is not a law firm that was put in business to either go against Donald Trump or this particular president.
I want to point out, some people will know this, that I have challenged the overreaching of federal agencies in every administration since Ronald Reagan, and that includes the Democrats and the Republicans.
And as you pointed out, I've represented individuals who are from both parties. I don't have a filter for somebody's party registration, to decide that person could use the help that I and my team and my colleagues can do.
COLLINS: Fair.
LOWELL: So it is not a -- you know, it's not a friend of the--
COLLINS: But the timing of this, I think, is what people look at, and say, Look who you're representing right now.
It's the timing coming, as the President is going after these major law firms, here in Washington, a lot of them that you know, that are, in some cases, striking agreements with him because they're worried about what he could do, and may be scared to represent people he doesn't like, like the Attorney General in New York.
[21:45:00]
LOWELL: Well, so the timing, of course, is something that triggers the decision to do this. But that's not the only reason. One of the things that's happened in law, as you've seen it with Big Law, so big law firms can't any more longer be nimble. They're not lean. And clients out there are demanding both of those things that we can do in a small litigation boutique.
I don't have to worry that I have a corporate client who's going to be hurt if I sue the agency that that corporate client is seeking a license from. That's one of the reasons to have this kind of firm. And it's not something that's different than the things I've done in the past. I've tried to have that niche in larger firms. Now it's time to do it the way I started, in a firm of my own, and a firm with people like me.
COLLINS: One question I have about what this looks like, going forward, is in terms of, let's say you win, that you're representing some of these clients, and one year from now, the courts actually rule and agree with you in this.
Is the damage done? Is it too late with what we're seeing happening to the federal government, in that manner? Is the toothpaste already out of the tube?
LOWELL: The toothpaste may be out of the tube, but the analogy is not that. It's not like this is toothpaste that can't go back in the tube, luckily for us.
So the analogy is better, that what has happened from the very beginning of our country -- and people probably forget this, but it's something I always tell people, in terms of what lawyers are supposed to do. People don't remember, or maybe some do, that John Adams defended the British troops that were accused of murder in the Boston Massacre, and then went on to be President of the United States. That's the job of lawyers.
We're supposed to be one of the very important guardrails in the system that has lots of checks and balances, Congress, the media like you. But also, the rule of law depends on lawyers. So a year from now, two years from now, we'll count on the courts to set it straight, or we'll keep litigating until they do.
COLLINS: What about in situations, where people who used to do pro bono for people that are maybe the people who need it the most, are the most targeted by the government or the courts or society. Is pro bono still a viable measure for people? Or are attorneys too afraid to do it, because they may incur the wrath of the administration?
LOWELL: OK. So, again, we use the phrase, pro bono, that you just did, and I think your viewers, probably mostly will know what that means.
Remember what it is. It's pro bono publico. It means for the good of the public. Is that dead? Not -- not even remotely the case. Firms are, some, rising to the occasion to continue the tradition of representing for the public interest. Now, some aren't. Some are ceding the field to others.
Again, that's why a firm like ours, that was put together to be nimble and lean, to be non-partisan, but also to be aggressive on behalf of clients, some who will be, in the truest sense, pro bono, meaning it's for the public interest, and they may not be able to afford big firms, that's not dead, Kaitlan. In fact, I think it's been energized by what's happened in the last four months.
COLLINS: There's also been questions about the judiciary, and the courts, and the independence of the judiciary.
And Chief Justice John Roberts put out a rebuke of President Trump, pretty clearly, without naming him earlier -- earlier this year. He also spoke tonight. I want you to listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: In our Constitution, judges and the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law, and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress, or acts of the President. And that innovation doesn't work if it's not -- the judiciary is not independent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: He did not mention the President by name. I don't think that's surprising, obviously. But I wonder what you made of his comments there.
LOWELL: Well, I think one of the things that people are seeing is that the Supreme Court, led by this particular Chief Justice, is doing its job.
And one of the things I really resist, and I wish others would, and it's a new phenomenon in history. So now, whenever there is a judge--
COLLINS: I knew what you're going to say.
LOWELL: --it's district court judge, they always say, Appointed by which president. COLLINS: Appointed by (ph).
LOWELL: We have to stop doing that, because it basically takes away from what the Chief Justice just said. Sure, Chief Justice Roberts was appointed by a Republican. But that's not the way he comes to a problem or resolves it.
Anyway what I -- what he just said. I think the Supreme Court, we're all counting on to do what it has always done, which is to strip itself from who appointed it -- them, and then figure out what the Constitution requires.
COLLINS: Yes, it is a point of defense that people say. Well, it was an Obama-appointed -- Trump will attack and say, it was an Obama- appointed judge who did this. But if it's a Reagan-appointed judge who responded to that. We hear that pushback a lot.
Abbe Lowell, great to have you. Thank you for joining tonight.
LOWELL: Nice to see you again.
COLLINS: There was a note -- other moment from that event, in Buffalo today, with the Chief Justice, John Roberts. He was asked about how he maintains his privacy, even though he is quite a recognizable figure. But maybe not that recognizable.
[21:50:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: Recognizable. My wife and I were on vacation in Portugal, last year, and another American sort of came up to us, and he's looked at me, and says, I know you. I know who you are. You're John Boehner.
(LAUGHTER)
ROBERTS: And so, you know, they were sitting next -- I had to spend the whole evening pretending to be John Boehner.
(LAUGHTER)
ROBERTS: And so, when you say, Readily recognizable? Really not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Not John Boehner. But of course, they are getting a higher degree of publicity.
Up next here for us. The President has just pulled his Surgeon General nominee. He's tapped someone else instead, an ally of RFK Jr.'s. We'll tell you what our medical source is telling us next, and also what we're hearing out of the White House.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:55:00] COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump has pulled his choice to be the next Surgeon General of the United States, one day before her scheduled confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill, and after her nomination ran into serious trouble at the White House.
The President now says he is replacing his initial pick, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, with Dr. Casey Means who is an ally of the HHS Secretary's, RFK Jr., and has a medical degree from Stanford. The President wrote tonight that Casey has impeccable MAHA credentials, and will work closely with our wonderful Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Dr. Means has made frequent public appearances at Make America Healthy Again events, arguing that the health care system and federal agencies prioritize medicine and financial incentives over nutrition and holistic health. She says she dropped out of her residency, after she became disillusioned with the health care system.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASEY MEANS, WELLNESS INFLUENCER, HEALTH TECH COMPANY FOUNDER: In trying to understand, like, why don't I feel right about my work? I just started looking at the data in a different way, and I started to look at what's happening with health trends. And if you just kind of run through the list of what's happening, it's unbelievable, like, we are getting destroyed, and it's very recent, and it's accelerating. The stats speak for themselves.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The President's original pick, who you see here, Dr. Nesheiwat, ran into several problems. One, her resume came under scrutiny, after CBS reported on what it called misleading claims about her medical certification. She was also opposed by the President's ally, and the far-right activist, Laura Loomer. She is also the sister-in-law of the recently-ousted National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz.
Joining me now is CNN Medical Analyst, Dr. Jonathan Reiner.
And it's great to have you here.
Because obviously, the Surgeon General is known as the Nation's Doctor. I wonder what you make of the President's new pick tonight, and how she would serve in this role.
DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST, PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, she does not inspire a lot of confidence.
The Surgeon General is a real job. It's not a figurehead job. The Surgeon General of the United States is the head of the 6,000-person uniformed Public Health Service Corps. The people that respond to emergencies, help take care of folks in underserved areas, do research, promote and fight disease in the United States. So that's a real job. And the other, more sort of public role is, as you said, sort of the Nation's Doctor. And in the past, Surgeon Generals have had sort of pet projects to promote smoking cessation, HIV care, things like that.
And the role of the Surgeon General really is to promote the health of the United States, not to promote fringe theories. And Dr. Means has not really been an advocate of evidence-based medicine, and it's going to put her in a very difficult position, because the Public Health Service practices evidence-based medicine.
COLLINS: Well, I wonder what you would say, though, to someone who looks at this and says -- you know, when Trump and RFK merged this political alliance, it brought together two very -- MAGA and the MAHA movement, as it's now known, two very different movements together.
And some people may say, Well, Trump made very clear that RFK Jr. was a huge ally of his during the campaign, they talked about Make America Healthy Again. Shouldn't they have a Surgeon General that the (ph) President and Secretary Kennedy believes in?
REINER: No (inaudible) need in the whole massive health apparatus in the United States is competence. Health is not an ideological sphere, where it's sort of intriguing to have people that embrace sort of non- standard beliefs. Rather, it has very tangible effects, when the people who run policy, in terms of health don't believe in science.
Dr. Means really has this over -- over, sort of, whelming thought, that the U.S. is basically being influenced by this vast pharmaco- industrial complex that is compart -- that is conspiring to keep America sick. And that is simply not the case. And there's a lot of damage that people in such positions of power, and people who have the ear of the President, the last person to talk to the President on it, on a health policy can have to the health of the United States.
COLLINS: Yes, I wonder what you make of they pulled this, they pulled the -- and they picked someone new, but they pulled the CDC Director, back in March. I mean, just in terms of the health apparatus, overall, what's your view?
REINER: Well, first of all, they pulled the CDC Director, Dave Weldon, the nominee, because I think it was apparent that Senator Cassidy would not support him.
[22:00:00]
It will be interesting to see when Dr. Means comes before the HELP Committee, whether Senator Cassidy will support her.
COLLINS: Yes, and we'll see. I mean, they didn't block RFK. We'll see what--
REINER: Right.
COLLINS: --what those Republican senators do.
Dr. Reiner, always great to have you here, and joining us on set. Thank you so much.
REINER: My pleasure.
COLLINS: Thank you all for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
