Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Threatens To "Step Away" From Ukraine Peace Talks; Trump To Meet With House GOP Amid Divisions Over Agenda Bill; Musk Leaves D.C. Spotlight, But Seen On World Stage With Trump. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired May 19, 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]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ELLE REEVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Just as these politicians have seen something to gain in your audience, do you think they'll listen at all?
TIM DILLON, COMEDIAN AND HOST, "THE TIM DILLON SHOW": Will politicians listen to their constituents?
REEVE (on camera): Yes.
DILLON: What a great question with an unknowable answer.
I mean, I think a lot of people elected Donald Trump hoping that we were not going to continue foreign wars, and spending American money for foreign wars. This is the whole thing. Everybody campaigns on a laundry list of things they're going to do. And are they going to do them? And are they going to listen? I mean, it's a great question.
REEVE (voice-over): Elle Reeve. CNN. New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Great work by Elle.
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.
Inside President Trump's two-hour phone call with Vladimir Putin, no ceasefire agreed to, as the war continues to rage on. Despite that, the Kremlin says neither leader wanted to get off the phone.
Also, there's new fallout tonight from the revelation that former President Biden now has aggressive stage four cancer. Amid the well wishes that we've seen pouring in, there are criticisms, concerns, and also even some conspiracy theories. One of the nation's top doctors is my source tonight.
And about that $400 million gift from Qatar, we have new CNN reporting tonight about how the Qataris came up with the Air Force One offer, or maybe how they didn't.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Good evening from Washington, where at the White House tonight, President Trump seems to be backing off from the pressure he had been putting on Russia, to commit to a 30-day ceasefire with Ukraine. Instead, saying the negotiations must happen between those two countries directly.
Here's what happened at the White House today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: President Trump had a two-hour phone call with Russian President Putin today. And though it didn't seem to yield any breakthroughs, he described it in positive terms, on social media, after that call happened, and also said that he now believes that any agreement that happens here will have to be negotiated between Russia and Ukraine.
That comes just days after the President said that he thought before any real progress could happen, he would personally have to sit down with the Russian leader.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: White House press pool, please line up at the press briefing room doors. White House press pool only.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Would you have any questions?
COLLINS: Did you ask President Putin to meet with you?
TRUMP: About what?
COLLINS: About Ukraine.
TRUMP: Of course I did. I talked to him about it. I said, When are we going to end this, Vladimir? I've known him for a long time now. I said, When are we going to end this bloodshed, this bloodbath? It's a bloodbath. And I do believe he wants to end it.
And I did say also, if I thought that you couldn't do it, I'd step away, because what are you going to do? We don't have boots on the ground. We wouldn't have boots on the ground. But we do have a big stake. And the financial amount that was put up is just crazy. It's crazy. This isn't -- this isn't for us. This is for somebody else.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: The President told us that he believes Putin wants to bring this war to an end. Despite how we saw Russia attacking Ukraine with one of the biggest drone strikes, since the war started in 2022, over the weekend.
And shortly after that call happened with Putin today, and after it ended, the President wrote this online, in part, saying, quote, "Russia and Ukraine will immediately start negotiations toward a Ceasefire and, more importantly, an END to the War. The conditions for that will be negotiated between the two parties, as it can only be."
Now, that's notable, given it stands in stark contrast to what President Trump himself said, about his own involvement, just days ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Nothing's going to happen until Putin and I get together, OK?
Because I'm tired of having other people go and meet and everything else. I think we'll do it fast too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: In the Oval Office, I asked President Trump directly about that shift.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: You said last week that you thought nothing was going to happen, no advances would be made, until you and Putin got together. Do you still feel that way?
TRUMP: I think something's going to happen. It's a very -- got very big egos involved, I tell you, big egos involved. But I think something's going to happen. And if it doesn't, I'd just back away, and they're going to have to keep going. Again, this was a European situation. It should have remained a European situation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, one central question, that has been posed to the President, and to his top national security aides, is whether or not the Russian leader is simply trying to buy himself time here, dragging out these negotiations when he has actually no real intention of coming to the table.
Weeks ago, the President himself mused publicly about whether or not President Putin was simply, quote, Tapping me along, and has to be dealt with differently. I asked him about that aboard Air Force One, last week, in the Middle East.
[21:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: How are you feeling about how Putin is handling this? I know you had said a few weeks ago you thought maybe -- how Putin is handling this? You said a few weeks ago you thought maybe he was tapping you along.
TRUMP: I don't know. I'll let you know in a week. I'll let you know in a few days.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Asked that question, again today, the President said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's a very bad -- it's very -- it's a very bad thing that's happening over there. I think he wants to stop. But I could answer that question better in two weeks or four weeks from now. I hope the answer is that he wants to get it solved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is the Republican senator, Mike Rounds, of South Dakota.
And it's great to have you here, sir.
Do you see the progress being made, on the Russian side, in getting towards a ceasefire that the President does here?
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD): I think the President is right, when he tries to find a path forward to find peace. Whether or not we have all the parties involved, wanting peace right now, is really questionable. Because I think Mr. Putin has made it clear that he's going to delay this, if at all possible, which is, not what the President wants to hear.
Look, I really think the President wants to find a path forward to stop the bloodshed. I believe that firmly. I also think he's going to give Mr. Putin every opportunity to find a path forward. Personally, I don't think Mr. Putin has an interest in it.
But I think the President is laying the groundwork, so that when the time comes, and he asks for particular economic sanctions and so forth, there is no question to Mr. Putin, except that it's his fault, he had the opportunity, he failed to respond, and the damage being done to his economy in the very near future will be devastating.
COLLINS: But you don't think Putin, right now, from what you've seen, wants to end this war?
ROUNDS: I don't think he does. But let's give him the opportunity to reconsider, and let's make sure that he understands that this President is laying out a path forward that is giving him every chance to change things around.
Look, we can't trust Mr. Putin. The only thing we can do is to make sure that we verify that if he does say he's going to agree to something, that it is verified, and that we can count on it, and actually track it.
In the meantime, we have to assume that he's going to try to play this thing out, and then if he goes so far, there is an end to the rope. And at the end of that rope would be some of the most severe sanctions. I think we probably got well over 80 votes, in the United States Senate, right now, to impose some of the most severe sanctions that have ever been laid on another country.
COLLINS: So you do think, as President Trump put it a few weeks ago, that Putin is tapping him along?
ROUNDS: It's entirely possible. Look, I don't see a path forward, where Mr. Putin can long-term win this. I just don't see that.
But I think Mr. Putin probably wants, because he believes he's destined to recreate the Soviet Union once again. And somewhere along the line, this conflict is going to be such that the only way we find out whether or not Mr. Putin has any sense of the damage that can be done to Russia is to actually impose the kind of sanctions that would be devastating.
And I believe that President Trump thinks that he can make a deal, as Mr. Putin realizes that we are very, very serious, that this is not going to continue on. And that it doesn't just mean military actions. It means economic sanctions that would be damaging beyond anything they've ever seen in Russia before.
COLLINS: There have now been three phone calls, between President Trump and President Putin, since he took office, the second term.
You mentioned the sanctions. How much time do you -- do you want the White House to give Putin here, before you believe it's time to implement those sanctions?
ROUNDS: I'm ready anytime because first--
COLLINS: You think they should go now?
ROUNDS: Look, I would be more than willing to support sanctions at this time. But let's do it with our allies. Let's make sure that we've done everything possible to make it visible to the entire world that Mr. Putin is the bad guy. There's no question about it.
Let's make sure that everybody understands that Ukraine is the country, which has tried to come to the peace table, and Russia has refused, so that the rest of the world understands that if they're helping Russia on this, they're going to be subject to the same types of sanctions as well. You start by making it very clear, and you build your team together.
We're seeing leadership right now, by the President, in doing this, and it's frustrating to the rest of us, because we'd like to go right now. I mean, we're convinced. But the President wants to make sure he's got a whole team working with him on it. I'm not going to -- I'm not going to disagree, as long as we finally get to the point, where Ukraine can be saved.
COLLINS: Notable to hear you say that Republican senators are ready to move now on these sanctions.
Can I get your take on something else? CNN has new reporting tonight, from my colleagues, that it was actually the White House and the administration that reached out to the Qataris about securing that new plane that the President plans to use as Air Force One. Initially, we had been told that Qatar offered it to the White House, as they needed a new plane because Boeing was taking too long to build the new Air Force Ones.
Are you comfortable with the President flying on a plane that is not made in the United States?
ROUNDS: Well, the 747 was made in the United States, and then it was set up to their criteria.
[21:10:00]
COLLINS: But that's been in, yes, Qatar.
ROUNDS: And it's been -- it's been elsewhere. And look, there are security issues that are going to have to be addressed.
But there's a transition period here, between the 747, to the President's using right now, the Air Force One which you were on, which is old, as you could tell, and the brand-new ones that are coming on board that aren't ready yet. And there's -- but during this transition period, there may very well be a way to utilize this aircraft that actually helps us make that transition, because there's tools and parts that can be used, not only in this one, but in the brand-new ones as well.
COLLINS: But even apart from physically being able to use it and retrofit it, are you comfortable with the President flying on a plane that was gifted to him by Qatar?
ROUNDS: If the question is, can he legally accept it?
COLLINS: No, I'm just -- ethically--
ROUNDS: OK.
COLLINS: Ethically and optically, are you comfortable with that?
ROUNDS: But if we can show the American people that there was a method, and a reason why it is beneficial, in terms of this transition, I think that will help a lot.
And I think there may very well be an argument made that as we transition from the old 747s, which are still in service, to the new 747s, there's a number of items that have to be included in each of the 747s. If we can build some of that, and then transition it out of one 747 and then into the new one, there may very well be some benefits to that while the old 747s are still flying.
So there are -- and I -- we've had a chance to talk to some of the folks in the Air Force. And the Air Force actually does have a plan to be able to work through this. Now, I'm not going to get into it, because a lot of it's still classified. But there is a logic--
COLLINS: OK.
ROUNDS: --that a lot of people aren't talking about yet. And I probably shouldn't be breaking that story.
COLLINS: Yes. Interesting that you did talk to the Air Force, though. When you are ready to break it, let us know.
Senator Mike Rounds, thank you for your time--
ROUNDS: Thank you.
COLLINS: --as always.
ROUNDS: Appreciate it.
COLLINS: Great to have you.
Also here tonight, my White House insiders.
Jeff Mason of Reuters.
And Semafor's Shelby Talcott.
Jeff, what did you make of what you heard from the President, as someone who has been following the back-and-forth on Ukraine and Russia with him so long, what he was saying in the Oval today compared to what he said previously.
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: I think if it really made progress, he would have had examples of progress that was made, and he didn't.
I mean, he's been talking -- I mean, I do think it's notable that they had a two-hour conversation. That's real. I mean, that's a long chat between two world leaders. And no doubt they talked about a lot of the issues that they -- that they wanted to address.
But the President has been asking for a ceasefire, and President Putin is not giving it to him. Full stop. Talking about a memo, and sort of moving in that direction, is more or less where they have been for months.
COLLINS: And he was asked today by my colleague, DJ Judd, does he still have confidence and trust -- does he still trust Putin when it comes to being in good faith in these negotiations?
And this is what the President said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD JUDD, CNN WHITE HOUSE PRODUCER: President Trump, do you think Vladimir Putin wants peace?
TRUMP: I do.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you still trust Putin?
TRUMP: I do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: He said, I do think he still wants peace, and I do still trust him.
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Yes, I think that's notable. That's kind of been his stance all along, even as we've heard him sort of waver slightly, and whether Putin is sort of stringing him along over the past few weeks.
But I think what's clear is he's been willing to give Russia a lot of leeway in these negotiations. He's been a little bit more reluctant to sort of slap sanctions on Russia, slap sort of threats on Russia, compared to Ukraine.
But I also think that the President is very clearly getting fed up with this. I've talked to administration officials, who have repeatedly said, privately and publicly, that at some point this is not their war, and they need to step back.
Now, what I think complicates that argument is, of course, this minerals deal with Ukraine. I think that ties the U.S. a little bit more into this war than they may have previously been.
COLLINS: Yes.
And the former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner, is also here.
Beth, one notable thing that the President also said, when we were inside the Oval today was, There is a red line, he says, in his mind, when it comes to Russia. He did not reveal what that was. He's always been reluctant to do that after Obama had his red line on Syria. And then obviously it crossed.
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Yes, red lines are bad.
COLLINS: Right. I think he optically has taken the lesson away from that.
But I wonder, I mean, what would a red line here be, do you think?
SANNER: I don't know. Because look, I mean, we've just seen one of the, well, the biggest drone attack on Ukraine since the beginning of the war. We've had all these deaths over Easter. So, Putin has full reign, right now, to do whatever he wants in terms of killing Ukrainian civilians. There doesn't seem to be a red line there. I don't -- I don't know, because he seems completely unable and uninterested in pressing Putin at all.
COLLINS: What were your takeaways, just from how he talked about the call today? And I wonder, how does--
SANNER: Yes.
COLLINS: --how does Ukraine see how the President spoke about it today?
[21:15:00]
SANNER: I'm sure that they're kind of terrified that, I mean, this is -- the signals that I worry about are these, like more subtle signals that you all have picked up, which is, is this the moment where it's like the beginning of the end for the United States, where we are going to be walking away? This is a European problem. This is something that the two parties have to work out just together. Only they know the terms. They're going to be off doing that.
So, I mean, there is a -- there is a pulling back, as of today, of responsibility, I think, because he's not getting anything from Putin. Like, during this two-hour call.
COLLINS: Yes.
SANNER: I'm sure only an hour of it, right? Because it's translation.
COLLINS: Translation.
SANNER: But I--
COLLINS: That's an important point.
SANNER: 45 minutes of it was Putin telling him all about everything.
COLLINS: Well, the Kremlin said that neither of them wanted to hang up the phone. That was their view of the readout.
Great to have you, Jeff, Shelby, Beth. Thank you so much.
We'll see you guys in a moment, Jeff and Shelby.
Coming up here for us. In the wake of President Biden's prostate cancer diagnosis that we found out about yesterday, there are a lot of Democrats with well wishes. And many Republicans asking, what did he know and when did they know it?
We have a medical source here next, to break down what is the reality of how a diagnosis like this works.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: President Trump reacting to President Biden's prostate cancer diagnosis, suggesting that it was not just recently discovered.
This is what he told me, when I asked him about his predecessor, in the Oval Office today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do you want to respond to President Biden being diagnosed with cancer? Are you going to call your predecessor? TRUMP: I think it's very sad, actually. I'm surprised that it wasn't, you know, the public wasn't notified a long time ago. Because to get to stage nine, that's a long time.
I just had my physical. You saw that. You saw the results of that particular test. I think that test is standard to pretty much anybody getting a physical.
I think people should try and find out what happened, because I'll tell you the Walt -- I don't know if it had anything to do with the hospital. Walter Reed is really good. They're some of the best doctors I've ever seen. I don't even know if they were involved. But a doctor was involved in each case, maybe it was the same doctor, and somebody is not telling the facts. That's a big -- that's a big problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, I should note, there is no stage nine for cancer.
There is the Gleason Score, which is a scale used to measure prostate cancers for their aggressiveness, on a scale of six to 10. President Biden's cancer is at a Gleason score of nine, according to the statement his office put out yesterday. And that means his diagnosis is one of the most aggressive forms of cancer that is now spread to the 82-year-old former President's bones.
My source tonight is:
The radiation oncologist, Dr. Curtiland Deville.
And the former communications director for the Democratic National Committee, Karen Finney.
And Doctor, I want to ask you what -- I was texting Sanjay Gupta, this morning, because my question was, and to the President's point there, as President, you do get access to the best doctors in the world, and you do undergo pretty rigorous screenings, because of the nature of your job. So my question was, is there a possibility that he had this, and they didn't see it during those physical exams?
DR. CURTILAND DEVILLE, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, JOHNS HOPKINS PROTON THERAPY CENTER, RADIATION ONCOLOGIST: It's quite possible and likely, I would say.
Prostate cancer may avoid the threshold of detection. And we often hear that men increasing with age, are likely to have prostate cancer within their gland. They may have the indolent, unaggressive prostate cancer that's unlikely to cause a problem, what we would classify likely as a Gleason six prostate cancer. But what we want to detect is that more aggressive and what we call potentially lethal prostate cancer.
Sometimes, the PSA blood test is not exactly reflective of what's happening in the prostate and, frankly, throughout the body, if prostate cancer is spreading. And some men may have very low PSA numbers while the cancer is progressing, and ultimately, may only be diagnosed once they have some symptoms or some other issues that are going on.
So it's possible that within the interval, if the President was, or any patient in that situation, was being screened, annually, having a PSA blood test, that it could have been low, or it could have progressed within the interval between the time they had their last test, and the next one.
COLLINS: But for it to be this bad, do you think he's likely had this for years? What would you say?
DEVILLE: I would say it's -- we never know for sure, but likely there was some less aggressive cancer that potentially then becomes more aggressive. I usually explain to patients that cancer is looking for a way to kind of mutate. All the cells are concerned about dividing quickly and progressing. So, it's eventually mutating, and figuring out ways to become more aggressive.
We may see that sometimes in hindsight. We look back at the patient's PSA blood test and kind of the evolution, was there an inflection point? Was there any change? Something that hints at cancer was beginning to become more aggressive, again, before it reached that threshold where we might still recommend a biopsy.
COLLINS: Karen, I wonder what you made of the response to this. Because once it was announced yesterday -- I mean, obviously this is devastating for President Biden--
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, SENIOR ADVISER, HILLARY CLINTON'S 2016 CAMPAIGN: Yes.
COLLINS: --for his family. We've seen a lot of people coming out with well wishes.
There's also been another side of this where it's, Did they know about this, and did they hide it? That's been raised about, the questions, the reporting about just how he was doing cognitively, in the last few months of his presidency, last year.
FINNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: I wonder what you make of what President Trump said today, kind of -- not kind of.
FINNEY: Yes--
COLLINS: Suggesting that it wasn't recently discovered.
FINNEY: Yes. I mean, he went right into -- never missed an opportunity to pump up a conspiracy theory there. Donald Trump. Real classy.
It was shameful. Because, look, this is a person, who, and a family that has dealt with cancer, and has seen it to its very brutal end, as many of us, too many of us actually have in this country, so, you know.
[21:25:00] And look, two things can be true at the same time. It can be the case that it was recently diagnosed, which is what I believe, and that it is very aggressive, and it can be the case that we may want to have a conversation about some of the revelations of Jake's book.
I mean, we constantly go to these conspiracy theories as ways to divide us, rather than staying focused on, I think, one of the most important pieces, is the information the doctor was just sharing. I hope it means more men actually go out and get tested, quite frankly, and ask themselves the question as to--
COLLINS: Yes.
FINNEY: --whether or not they should be tested.
COLLINS: But did the Biden team do themselves any favors by what is reported and what people did truly think of how his condition was at the time, to where it's something like this does come out, and they don't have a ton of credibility in terms of saying, Here's what we knew when, and here's when we found out.
FINNEY: Well, again, I think the credibility is in what we're hearing about the nature of a diagnosis like this, which is that you could have it and not know, genuinely.
But, I mean, I hear the point that you're making. But I think at this stage, given that it's fairly aggressive, and it's moved to his bones, I would rather focus on, prayers for the family. And certainly, separate and apart from that -- and I feel horrible for them, heartbroken for them that they have to deal with this, and it's very hard--
COLLINS: Yes.
FINNEY: --that they have to deal with it at the same time, you could look at another way, that they're having to deal with these questions from the books.
COLLINS: You're not treating President Biden, obviously, day to day. But from what you do know, and from what they released in terms of what scale this is, what is the next step here? What happens next for him?
DEVILLE: The next steps, in terms of treatment, are pretty straightforward. If a man is diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that's spread to the bones, they're generally going to receive what we term hormonal therapy, or technically androgen suppression, treatments that suppress the body's testosterone, the male hormone testosterone, because prostate cancer is feeding and fueling off of testosterone, as I explain it to patients.
So if we give these pretty simple treatments of Medicaid -- a pill, an injection, they suppress the levels of testosterone, and it immediately acts to halt and delay the spread and progression of the cancer. Advances in research and studies recently have showed us that actually we do two lines, often of hormonal therapy up front instead of just one line. And so we may hear that he's receiving a first line and a second line hormonal therapy. That would be pretty common in this setting.
Of course, we're going to have a multidisciplinary approach with our colleagues and physicians, a urologist, a radiation oncologist, a medical oncologist, to see are other treatments appropriate too? We've heard that surgery is unlikely to be indicated generally for a man of any age with metastatic prostate cancer.
But there may be some indications for local therapies to the prostate or even to these bone metastasis that we hear. All with the goal of prolonging, maximizing the survival, with also maintaining good quality of life, so that the patient can maintain high quality and function.
FINNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: Dr. Curtiland Deville, thank you for your expertise.
Karen Finney, great to have you here as well.
Up next. Can President Trump, here in Washington, cajole Congress into passing his one big, beautiful bill? That is, in fact, what he is trying to do. He's going to make a trip up to Capitol Hill, tomorrow.
My source tonight is a Republican congressman, who will be on the receiving end of his pitch. We'll talk to him, next.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Early, tomorrow morning, President Trump is going to be headed to Capitol Hill, where he is expected to meet with House Republicans, and personally pitch them on passing, what is now known, in all of Washington as, his one big, beautiful bill.
Tonight on the Hill, we heard from House Speaker, Mike Johnson, who's been meeting with moderate members of his party, as he's trying to get them on board.
But there are still several huge sticking points, we're told, including Republicans wrangling over changes to Medicaid, including when new work requirements should kick in. They also want to pare back the amount of money going to state-run Medicaid programs. Moderate Republicans have said that they not only oppose those changes, but several of them want a higher cap on state-and-local tax deductions.
All of this, supposed to be worked out to meet the Speaker's Memorial Day deadline. It remains to be seen whether or not it will.
My source tonight is the Republican congressman, Lloyd Smucker, of Pennsylvania, who has been a key player in these high-stakes negotiations, and has not slept much in the last several days.
I think a key question is, what does President Trump need to say to your colleagues, tomorrow, to get everyone on the same page?
REP. LLOYD SMUCKER (R-PA): Well, I think the President will lay out the importance of this bill.
This bill delivers on the mandate that the American people gave the President, that they gave Congress, in this past election. It will ensure that the American -- that American people and small businesses, do not receive what would be the largest increase in American history.
It will help to ensure that we secure the border. We will have operational control of the border within a few months after this is passed. It ensures that those who are risking their lives for us have the best tools and equipment, and that we achieve peace through strength. And then we'll unleash American energy.
So, I think the President will talk about all of those things, and will talk about the need for all of us to come together. And I think you'll see that happen, by the way. I think by Thursday of this week, we'll pass this bill. We've been working on this--
COLLINS: OK.
SMUCKER: --for months. Even, since about a year ago, we've been working on this bill.
COLLINS: So, you think you will get it passed--
SMUCKER: I do.
COLLINS: --by Memorial Day?
[21:35:00]
SMUCKER: I do. Everyone, every member of our Conference, wants to pass this bill. There are just a few small issues, small issues that continue to be worked out. Talks are going on right now. I'm confident that these will be worked out, and we're going to pass this, and we're going to deliver for the American people.
COLLINS: And you are supporting this bill.
SMUCKER: I am.
COLLINS: Right?
SMUCKER: Yes.
COLLINS: Can I ask, though? Because you wrote a letter, a few weeks ago, saying that if it adds to the deficit, you can't support it. Right now, the estimate is still that it is going to add to the deficit. So what changed your mind? How did you get to a yes, on this?
SMUCKER: Well, let's go back to the budget resolution which passed out of the Budget Committee. I'm the Vice Chair of the Budget Committee. We wanted to ensure that this is done in a fiscally-responsible way, does not add to the debt. And that was different than what perhaps the Senate was talking about doing at that time.
And so, we passed a budget resolution that included -- it tied spending savings -- actually just slowing the rate of growth in spending, over the next 10 years, and tied the amount of savings we could find with the instruction, with the tax cuts instructions to Ways and Means.
The Senate then came back with a different resolution that didn't follow any of that. And my concern, the concern of the Budget Committee, is that point -- at that point, was that what we ended up passing complied with the initial budget resolution.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, but the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said it would add $3.3 trillion to the nation's debt, over the next decade.
SMUCKER: Cost to the tax--
COLLINS: Does that worry you?
SMUCKER: I don't agree with that number. The cost of the tax cuts is $4 trillion, over 10 years. We have $1.5 trillion in savings. And then we're going to make up that additional $2.5 trillion in economic growth. And the growth rate will -- we had a high growth rate after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed in 2017. We're modest in the projections in this bill. And so, we're confident we're going to make up that $2.5 trillion in additional revenue due to additional growth.
COLLINS: And for the moderates who have concerns about the changes that the hardliners are demanding to happen here. Are you worried that the moderates have a point here? That you got a paper-thin majority. They say, they're the reason you have that majority, and that this is going to put them in trouble?
SMUCKER: Well, so there are a lot of different opinions throughout our Conference. The American people are watching closely what we're doing. There's different opinions among the American people as well.
But what I can tell you is that we all agree on the broad components of this bill, and I think if we pass this now, we will begin to see the effect on jobs. We'll see wages rise, just as they did after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. And the American people will support what we're doing.
So, I think, by the time we get to the midterms, you'll see the kind of impact that we had, after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which the American people loved. Six -- by the way, $6,000 average increase in household wages in the average household -- American household--
COLLINS: Yes, we'll--
SMUCKER: --after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
COLLINS: We'll see what this looks like, and if you get it passed by Thursday.
Congressman, you seem optimistic. Thank you for your time tonight. And we'll see what happens.
SMUCKER: Thanks for having me.
COLLINS: Up next here. My White House insiders are with me to break down what's happening on Capitol Hill.
Shelby, what have you been hearing about how the White House is viewing this? Because apparently President Trump has not been personally involved in whipping the vote until he's about to get really personally involved tomorrow.
TALCOTT: Yes, which is a little bit surprising, because Trump historically is known to pretty quickly pick up the phone and talk to folks.
But listen, I've talked to White House officials, and they remain really pretty optimistic. Their argument is, all of these other times that people have said, Well, we don't have the majority, we don't have enough lawmakers, right? For all of -- for example, RFK Jr., for the Tulsi Gabbard vote, they say, at the end of the day, when Trump gets involved, they really believe that him getting involved is what is needed to sort of push this over the edge.
COLLINS: I mean, essentially, what they've been arguing, and not even just about Republicans, but at the White House, to Democrats, is there's no way they're going to vote against this, because it'll be politically toxic for them.
MASON: Yes. And politically toxic for a few different reasons. One, it's filled with things that are Republican orthodoxy. Cutting taxes, that's key to the Republican message. Two, if they cross President Trump, he'll almost certainly turn on them. And that is real. I mean, that is politically very, very dangerous for them.
That doesn't mean there's not going to be some opposition, and there's a reason that they've been haggling. There are different -- you know, there's a more conservative view within the Republican Party about deficits. They've had to go back and forth.
COLLINS: Yes.
MASON: But they're almost certainly going to get it, and in part, that's because the pressure that the White House has been putting on them.
COLLINS: Speaking of pressure from the White House. Today, the President claimed -- and I'll say, claimed, because we don't know this is real, that this is actually happening. Maybe it will. That he wants an investigation into how much the Harris campaign paid for celebrity endorsements that she got, from people like Beyonce, and Bruce Springsteen, and Oprah, and all these other people.
[21:40:00] There's no evidence that they paid them. I mean, the campaign, last year, said this wasn't true, when he floated this. But it's notable, now that he's president, he's calling it corrupt, unlawful, and says, he wants an investigation.
What are you hearing about this?
TALCOTT: Yes, I think it's a little -- it's caught people by surprise, honestly. But again, this is a situation, where Trump says a lot of things that his advisers aren't really sure that he's going to say, they're not aware of everything that he's about to type on Truth Social. I think this is one of the examples.
But at the same time, this is sort of classic Trump, right? He will log on at night or early in the morning, and he'll sort of fire off these messages that his advisers don't necessarily know, they are going to happen.
And at the end of the day, we've heard him talk about this on the campaign trail. He is a person who likes to talk about crowd sizes. He likes to talk about who endorses him. And it's clearly something that he hasn't let go from 2024.
MASON: I mean, I think the last bit is exactly spot on. He doesn't let things go. And he also doesn't like--
COLLINS: I don't even know where it came from today.
MASON: And why? It's on a day when he's having a phone call with President Putin, discussing probably one of the most important foreign policy issues in the world. And that's on his plate, and that he has a lot that he wants to get done with. He's distracted by something like this.
COLLINS: Jeff Mason. Shelby Talcott. Jeff Great to have both you and your reporting tonight. Thanks for joining us.
Coming up. He is someone who was just about everywhere that the President was. Now, Elon Musk has kind of faded from the spotlight. Where is he? What's happening? Kara Swisher is here to talk about it.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As soon as President Trump's second term got underway, his new-found ally from the campaign, Elon Musk, was essentially everywhere around the White House, on the campus, on the first day that he was inaugurated, in the Oval Office, showing his dedication to the President, in Cabinet meetings. On stage that time, wielding a chainsaw at the influential MAGA conference. And also parading his wares (ph) that one time on the White House driveway.
But in the weeks since he has stepped back from his DOGE effort to focus instead on Tesla, "Politico" reports that Musk's highly visible presence in Washington has essentially ended, driven in part by how Trump and Republicans have all but stopped speaking to him and talking about him. I miss him, one Republican senator said.
My source tonight is veteran tech journalist, Kara Swisher, who is the podcast host of "On with Kara Swisher" and "Pivot."
And it's great to have you here, Kara.
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, PODCAST HOST, "ON WITH KARA SWISHER" & "PIVOT": Good to see you.
COLLINS: I wonder if you are at all surprised by how much Elon Musk has kind of stepped back, compared to what he was -- where he was, and how he was everywhere before.
SWISHER: Well, as you recall, I said, he's becoming a nuisance and driving people crazy. And the polling was bad on him. So it's not a surprise that he would do so. And then when Tesla sort of drove itself off the cliff, he obviously had other things to attend to, his businesses, because they were cratering. Even Starlink was impacted, even though it's a more successful company at this point.
And so, it's inevitable that he -- you know, he wasn't getting traction. The polling was bad. He was kind of a nuisance. He was driving people crazy. And I think the Wisconsin loss with the judge fight that he inserted himself in and wore a Cheesehead kind of was the last straw for Republicans in that regard.
COLLINS: Do you think it was -- do you attribute it to a combination of this, you know, his own polling, how unpopular he was becoming, DOGE not finding the trillion dollars that they said they were going to find, or the Tesla?
SWISHER: Yes.
COLLINS: Or do you think it's a combination of all of that?
SWISHER: I think probably Trump is one of these people who's attuned. When that loss happened, I think it was very clear that, without his standing next to Trump, Musk is someone that is unlikeable to voters. And so, I suspect there were a lot of operatives pressuring Trump, or at least making him aware of the problems, and the polls, and it wasn't helping him.
Initially, it was helping him, and it was exciting, and it was kind of stunt and jazz hands. But when it turned out he really wasn't finding anything, and also the cuts were brought under question, wasn't a good story. And so Trump moved to tariffs, I guess, and deportations and other things. And this is not something he wants Musk to be part of.
COLLINS: One place--
SWISHER: And therefore DOGE is--
COLLINS: Yes.
SWISHER: --DOGE isn't as good a story for him, essentially.
COLLINS: One place that we did see him was last week, in Riyadh. He was in Saudi Arabia at this--
SWISHER: Yes.
COLLINS: --Saudi Investment Forum. I mean, really, the whole trip that the President had at the beginning, you saw Elon Musk there. And then he was at the Saudi Investment Forum. He was shaking hands with these other world leaders. I mean, there were business leaders. Essentially, you couldn't put your arm out and not hit a business leader. They were everywhere.
SWISHER: Right. There was a lot of them, yes.
COLLINS: I wonder what you made of his presence there.
SWISHER: Well, he had to be there, because Sam Altman was there, and so were all the other business leaders, Andy Jassy and others from Amazon. They're all there to try to get a piece of that sweet, sweet AI money that the Saudis and others are handing out.
And so, they're making a big bid in those countries to become an AI data center, and fund a lot of these things. And so, he had to be there, as running his own companies, whether it's xAI, whatever he's doing, he needs to get a piece of that too. So it's no surprise. If he wasn't there, I would be very surprised.
COLLINS: Yes. And they announced that Starlink is now for use in Saudi Arabia. That was a headline that they made.
SWISHER: Sure.
COLLINS: I wonder, given the fallout from how his involvement was, what that looked like. You mentioned the Wisconsin State Supreme Court race. Is that, though, something that's affecting him on the world stage? Or do other world leaders see the proximity that he did have to President Trump and see that as a positive thing?
[21:50:00]
SWISHER: I think he just doesn't have the same proximity. Trump isn't mentioning him on Social at all. I think everyone else in the Cabinet isn't mentioning him. You don't see him standing up and running the meetings. I don't think you're going to see that again. I think it just wasn't effective, and it wasn't a good -- it wasn't good messaging.
As a heat shield of President Trump, that certainly was effective. But it just didn't -- it didn't gel enough to put -- to give the payoff that they needed. And so, no, I don't -- I think all they want is his money, and maybe his social media platform and backing, and they don't want to make him an enemy, so you don't see them saying anything negative.
But I'll tell you, I hear a lot of negative things from that group of people, because he's a nuisance. He can be a nuisance, and he can be -- you know, he can just come in and act like he's running everything, when he was unelected. And Donald Trump was elected, and Elon Musk wasn't. And so I think that's offensive to some in that -- in that group around him.
COLLINS: Yes. We'll see what happens here next.
Kara Swisher, thank you, as always.
SWISHER: Yes. Thanks a lot.
COLLINS: Speaking of tech and Silicon Valley. Designed in the U.S., but Made in China. My next guest has an inside look at how, as he argues, China was able to exploit Apple, and says the company was sleepwalking into this situation. Details ahead.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: There are revealing new details tonight on Apple's multi- billion dollar investment in China.
A new book lays out how Beijing has twisted its way into the very core of one of the most powerful companies in the world, helping fuel its path toward technological dominance, and, according to this book, forcing Apple into a potential crisis. Arguing, it's not merely that Apple has exploited Chinese workers. It's that Beijing has allowed Apple to exploit its workers, so that China can, in turn exploit Apple.
That's according to a new book by my next source, veteran financial reporter, Patrick McGee. And that book is "Apple in China: The Capture of the World's Greatest Company". And it is out in stores now.
And it's so great to have you here, Patrick.
Because in the opening of your book, you argue that China would not be China, as it is today, without Apple.
PATRICK MCGEE, AUTHOR, "APPLE IN CHINA": Yes.
COLLINS: Tell us what you found.
MCGEE: I mean, it's a crazy argument. But essentially, Jony Ive's crazy design studio, in 2003, 2004, was coming out with designs that the Chinese had no tech competence to actually carry out.
And so Apple's sort of problem, or Apple's solution to this problem, was to begin flying out planeloads of Apple's engineers, basically America's top engineers, to train, train, train, audit, supervise, really do Engineering 101, for millions of people over the last 20 years.
And their efforts, in terms of, cost, man impact -- sorry, manpower impact, cost, really are like on a nation-building effort. Apple's had a tremendous influence on the tech industry in China.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, the number that I truly -- I was like, Is this real? Are we sure? Apple invests $55 billion a year in China into other factories to build the 250 million iPhones per year.
MCGEE: Yes, that's an internal document from Apple. And so what we're talking about is like the training costs of 3 million people that assemble Apple products per year in China, their wages, as well as billions upon billions of machinery, dollars' worth of machinery that goes into these factories, right?
So there are no Apple factories. Apple orchestrates these efforts. But the cutting-edge machinery that they install in other people's factories then get used for the likes of supplying Huawei, supplying OPPO, Vivo, et cetera. And those are the Chinese companies that now have a 55 percent brand -- 55 percent share presence, I should say, globally, for smartphones.
So Apple's presence in the country has absolutely, like, up-armed manufacturing and tech experiential know-how in China, that is really world-dominant. And if Apple ever wanted to build their phones somewhere else, like they really can't. They've only been investing in one country, in this regard, for the last quarter century.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, what would that even look like? If Tim Cook decided to take it in that direction? How long would that take to move everything to another country, if they so chose?
MCGEE: I mean, I quote someone saying that you really couldn't make any massive impact within five years. I mean, I think it's probably at least 10 to 15 years, if it can be done at all. I mean, there is no country on the planet that says, Manufacturing is our thing, quite like China, right? They have this like Nietzschean will to power for the Middle Kingdom to gain supremacy against the United States.
And like as much as one might think, Maybe we can go do that in India? And I do support those efforts. I'm not that optimistic about it, but I do think there's no other option. India doesn't have a drive to be the manufacturing powerhouse, and that's all they do. And the U.S. is basically just a fantasy. I mean, that's never going to happen.
COLLINS: So when -- if the White House is ever hopeful, you don't think that that's likely in any way, shape or form?
MCGEE: In the U.S.? No, not at all. I mean, the stuff Howard Lutnick speaks about is honestly just like, frankly embarrassing. Like, I mean, if you're talking to Chinese officials who actually know how iPhones are put together, they know how much automation, robotics and people are involved. The stuff that Howard Lutnick was saying, the Commerce Secretary, I mean, honestly, they must just know.
COLLINS: When he talks about screwing all the tiny screws into iPhones, and that that can be done somewhere else? You're saying that, that essentially doesn't--
MCGEE: Oh, my god.
COLLINS: --doesn't jive with reality?
MCGEE: Yes, I mean, just think of when Donald Trump told Zelenskyy, You don't have the cards. I mean, that is Beijing's message to Washington, in a nutshell. Like insofar as Apple is a bargaining chip between the two superpowers, it's Beijing's bargaining chip.
COLLINS: What is Apple saying about your reporting?
MCGEE: Oh, that it's full of inaccuracies and wrong, which is what they said the day it came out, when, of course, they hadn't even read it.
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: And have you heard anything, I mean, as this has gone on, and you've checked with them on what you've reported?
MCGEE: No. I will only engage with Apple in writing, which is something they don't like, and so they won't write to me. We've had no contact.
COLLINS: Patrick McGee, that is quite fascinating, and a great plug for the book, essentially for--
MCGEE: Yes.
COLLINS: --for people to read in.
MCGEE: Thank you.
COLLINS: But thank you for sharing that reporting with us.
MCGEE: My pleasure.
COLLINS: It's a fascinating look at both of the dynamics there.
And thank you all so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
