Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
"Meeting Of Love": Trump Denies Losing Patience With House GOP; CNN Obtains Plans For Trump's Massive Military Parade In D.C.; U.S. Intel: Israel Plans Possible Strike On Iran's Nuclear Plants. Aired 9- 10p ET
Aired May 20, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CHARLES RAMSEY, FMR. PHILADELPHIA POLICE COMMISSIONER & FMR. D.C. POLICE CHIEF: Let's just hope they don't hurt anybody before they're captured, because they are violent criminals.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: Yes. And that is the concern with authorities in New Orleans that these people could be targeting some of the folks who worked to put them behind bars in the first place. We heard a lot of concern coming from the D.A.'s office itself.
Chief Ramsey, thank you so much for your time tonight.
Again, the breaking news, a fifth one of the escapees has been captured. Five remain on the run.
I'll see you tomorrow at 07:00 a.m., alongside Sara Sidner and Kate Bolduan, for "CNN NEWS CENTRAL."
The news continues. "THE SOURCE" starts now.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
Behind closed doors, President Trump gets blunt, telling Republicans to get over themselves, and get on board with what he calls his big beautiful bill. But House GOP holdouts say, as of now, they're still voting no.
Also, 7,000 soldiers, 70 aircraft, 370 vehicles. It's not a battle. It's a parade. Stunning new details about the President's plans to celebrate both the Army's birthday, and his own.
And a big name brand says it is raising prices because of the trade war, while another one announces it's not. What are we to make of it all? "Shark Tank's" Kevin O'Leary is here.
I'm Jim Sciutto, in tonight for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
It is a busy Tuesday night, from the White House to Capitol Hill, as Republican leadership desperately tries to get everyone on board with President Trump's, quote, "Big beautiful bill," the signature tax and immigration legislation of his second term. And it comes hours after the President himself tried and, apparently, failed to close that deal. Trump made the rare journey to the Hill this morning, meeting with House Republicans behind closed doors for 90 minutes, for what he says was just a pep talk.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: That was a meeting of love. Let me tell you. That was love in that room.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): It was.
TRUMP: There was no shouting. I think it was a meeting of love.
REPORTER: You told them you were losing patience.
TRUMP: No, I didn't tell them. Who told you I said I'm losing my patience?
REPORTER: Yes, that's what we heard inside the room.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: That's a lie. Wait a minute. Wait. Wait. Who's told you that?
REPORTER: We heard from people inside the room.
TRUMP: Oh, really?
JOHNSON: It's not true.
TRUMP: It's totally true. I never used the term. I didn't say losing. I didn't even talk about it. In fact, it's the opposite. I think we're getting into that -- I'm not losing patience. We're ahead of schedule. Anybody that told you that is a liar.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Anybody that told you that is a liar.
But sources in the room paint quite a different picture. They say the President's message was clear. Fall in line, or else, peppered with a few four-letter words.
He took aim at hardline conservatives who want more spending cuts, telling them bluntly, Don't eff around with Medicaid. The President also told moderates to drop their demand to raise the cap on state and local tax deductions.
We're told, over 90 minutes, Trump alternated between strongarming his fellow Republicans and cheering them on. But when all was said and done, there is still no deal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ANDY HARRIS (R-MD): The President, I don't think, convinced enough people that the bill is adequate the way it is. REP. NICK LALOTA (R-NY): I'm fired up, Manu. People -- I'm here to fight for Long Islanders, regular middle-class people who are just trying to make a living. Those are the people who need to be included in this bill.
REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): I'm not going to sacrifice my constituents and throw them under the bus in a bad-faith negotiation.
REP. WARREN DAVIDSON (R-OH): I couldn't vote for this bill right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: You just heard there from a mix of both hardliners and moderates, and one very outspoken holdout, Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, left unconvinced, even after the President called him out by name.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I don't think Thomas Massie understands government. I think he's a grandstander, frankly. He'll probably vote. We don't even talk to him much. I think he should be voted out of office. And I just don't think he understands government. If you ask him a couple of questions, he never gives you an answer. He just says, I'm a no.
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): You got to take some of the attacks with a grain of salt. But there were -- I don't feel -- I didn't feel attacked in there. I think he was just trying to persuade people who weren't there yet.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did he change -- did he change your mind?
MASSIE: Yes? No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Despite those unmoved noes, House Speaker, Mike Johnson, is, we are told, pushing ahead with a key vote on the bill set for 01:00 a.m. That's just about four hours from now. Politics junkies might want to put a kettle on, it's going to be yet one more of those nights.
My lead sources tonight are:
Republican congressman, Don Bacon of Nebraska, who was in that meeting with President Trump.
And Democratic congressman, Salud Carbajal of California.
Both are members of the Problem Solvers Caucus.
Good to have you here tonight, gentlemen. Thanks so much.
REP. DON BACON (R-NE): Thank you, Jim.
REP. SALUD CARBAJAL (D-CA): Good to be here. SCIUTTO: So first to you, Congressman Bacon. You were in that room. The President denies losing patience. What was the mood of that meeting?
BACON: It was mainly jokes. He was joking around. He's sort of being a standup comedian.
[21:05:00]
But he did stress two things. That we shouldn't aim too high on SALT. He probably should have said, Not -- no SALT. He probably should have said, $40,000, or somewhere, where the -- where the negotiations are currently at. They're going to have to get something for SALT. If you live in New York, New Jersey or California, there's going to have to be someone there. And I think $40,000, it's a reasonable number. It's four times higher than what it is.
He also went with the -- to the hardliners, and said, We have a good bill right now on Medicaid. Don't mess it up. Don't ask for more. And I've worked that so hard to protect the most needy. So I focused on work requirements. We have focused on eligibility to -- there's like 2.6 million people, according to the CBO, that are ineligible for Medicaid, that's on it, or illegal. Those are the things we should be working on. Let's protect those who need it.
But some of the hardliners want to go deeper than that, and he's saying, Don't -- don't go deep.
SCIUTTO: You would not commit to voting for this bill prior to the President's meeting. Did he change your mind? Are you a yes?
BACON: Well, I think I'm very close, because I've been working -- I've been working Medicaid for a month. I've been working SNAP. The SNAP part is not where I want it to be, though we've made progress.
And I'm really worried about the refugee issue. I want to protect people who are here legally. I don't mind talking about illegals. But if you're here legally. And I've worked with Ukrainian refugees.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BACON: I've worked with Sudanese. I worked with the Afghans. And we make it hard for them to get a job with the requirements put on them. So you can't really have it both ways. I'm told it's fixed, but I've learned you got to see it.
SCIUTTO: For sure.
BACON: So, let's see what comes out of the Rules Committee tonight.
I've also worked Federal Retirements. I've made some progress there. So I feel like I'm close, as long as the Freedom Caucus don't unpackage the work that we've done.
SCIUTTO: Listen, the Ukrainians, Afghans, in particular, they're the ones who fear if they go home, their lives are in danger. BACON: Right.
SCIUTTO: So let me tell you, as a Democrat, watching this from the outside, because your friend, Don Bacon here, and they have a majority in the House, what concerns do you have most about this deal?
CARBAJAL: Well, it's important to understand this is a very partisan effort reconciliation.
My concern is the cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance. $880 billion to Medicaid, and $300 billion for nutrition assistance. In my district alone, that translates to 119,000 people on SNAP, and 200,000 people that are going to lose their Medicaid.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
CARBAJAL: This is -- these are serious damages. And not to mention that this is providing a $5 billion price tag to our national debt. All for what? To give, again, tax breaks, massive tax breaks to the wealthiest billionaires in our country.
SCIUTTO: How do you explain that? Because those numbers are going to be clear. There will be cuts. The question is, how big those cuts are for the neediest people, as--
BACON: So--
SCIUTTO: --to the Congressman's point--
BACON: Because I've worked this--
SCIUTTO: --there will be tax cuts at the top.
BACON: I've worked this hard to protect the most needy. So on SNAP, those cuts are work requirements for able-bodied adults without small children. And the other costs aren't really cuts. It's 25 percent of the cost of SNAP is being transitioned to the states. I preferred 5 or 10 percent. So, it's not optimal.
So for Nebraska, there was going to be an $84 million a year bill to do SNAP. I got it down to $30 million. So it's -- simply got to declare a victory with the one you have.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BACON: But I would say that there's actually not cuts to those who need SNAP. It's work requirements, and then the state's paying up a part.
I can say the same thing about Medicaid. We're not cutting those who need it. It's work requirements. And like I say, CBO says 2.6 million people are on Medicaid that don't belong on Medicaid.
SCIUTTO: I want to get to the CBO scoring on what this adds to the deficit. But before I do, do you -- you're the members of the Problem Caucus here, right? I know you try -- you do things like you travel to Ukraine together, because you want to find bipartisan solutions to American support for Ukraine. Do you see any problem-solving, any of the spirit of the Problem Solvers, in the final bill here?
CARBAJAL: Well, keep in mind, we try to find areas where we do agree on. But reconciliation is one that we didn't try to handle through Problem Solvers. It's too partisan. It's always been a partisan procedure. But we do try to find opportunities, where we do agree, and we've done that in the past. But this has been one that we haven't tried to tackle.
SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this, because -- on CBO scoring here, right? Republicans came in, saying, they're going to cut the deficit. The deficit is weighing on this country, on the American economy. The CBO, in its initial estimates, says that this will add $3.3 trillion to the debt over the next decade.
How do Republicans reconcile their campaign promise to cut debt with the numbers here?
BACON: Well, that's the crux of the issue, right now, in our debate, trying to get 218 votes. We do think we're going to have a $2.5 trillion improvement in the economy, but we still have a delta (ph) when it comes to the spending. And really, the deficit's not by added tax cuts. It's just trying to extend the current taxes we have. If we don't extend them, the average American will be paying 20 percent more.
SCIUTTO: Plus some new ones to be--
(CROSSTALK)
BACON: There is on tips.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Yes.
[21:10:00]
BACON: We have the tips, right, in Social Security, and pension. That's -- that's what we could debate. I don't want to see the taxes go up on the average American, 20 percent, and that's sort of what's driving this.
I do think, to Salud's point, I've been in the Minority and Majority for reconciliation. It is a partisan process. I don't think it was ever intended to be this way. We've been doing this way since Obamacare/ACA, and we keep escalating, I think we'd be better off if Democrats, Republicans sat down and worked out the tax. I think we could come close with the tax policy.
SCIUTTO: Someday.
BACON: Yes.
SCIUTTO: We could all dream of regular order. Congressman Bacon.
Thanks so much to both of you for joining. It's always a pleasure.
CARBAJAL: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: All right, our White House insiders are here.
Jeff Mason of Reuters.
PBS News Hour's Laura Barron-Lopez.
So, as you watched events on the Hill today, did you -- begin with you, Jeff Mason -- see any movement from the President?
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Well, I saw a lot of pressure from the President.
And I think for the Dealmaker-in-Chief, the fact that so many people, or at least enough people, and a very, very tight majority of Republicans in the House came out saying, We're not convinced?
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MASON: Does not exactly up that image of being able to make a deal.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MASON: Now that doesn't mean that they won't. But he didn't get where he wanted to be.
I also think, especially listening to the two congressmen just now, that Democrats are putting together their campaign platforms and campaign commercials based on what's going to be in that bill.
SCIUTTO: I have to say, Laura, you and I have watched this movie before, I think, about a handful of Republican holdouts who eventually fold. I mean, the President gets what -- we saw that, for instance, most recently on confirmation for the Senate's, even some of the President's most -- Senate confirmation for even some of the President's most controversial Cabinet appointees.
Do you see that eventually being the reality here, that after the public posturing, they will line up?
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWS HOUR: Right now, I mean, I guess the question is, do -- the tale as old as time is that moderates tend to fold, right? That's what everyone thinks. The moderate Republicans tend to fold more than the hardline conservatives fold.
But coming out of the meeting today with President Trump, a number of those moderates, the ones that are in blue states, those Republicans--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BARRON-LOPEZ: --that are dealing with tough reelections, said that they still weren't sold, that despite the President's tough talk, Mike Lawler being one of them, Congressman from New York, he said, I need more. They need more in terms of a higher SALT cap.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BARRON-LOPEZ: And so, they were working with House Speaker, Mike Johnson, throughout the day after that meeting. And it, so far, it appears as though they still haven't reached an agreement.
MASON: Yes.
SCIUTTO: I mean, it seems like the President's position on that has gotten even harder line, right? Because he's saying, I don't want any SALT cap whatsoever.
And does the President see this as a danger. Does he care? Because I think that Lawler certainly fears he'll lose his seat in the midterms, right, because he ran on this, as did several of those blue-state Republicans in New York. Is that not a priority for President Trump?
MASON: Well, I think, his--
SCIUTTO: Protecting their seats?
MASON: I think his bigger priority right now is getting this bill passed. And the bill, it's worth underscoring, is basically his whole domestic agenda.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Sure. It's not just a tax bill.
MASON: I mean, it's -- he's calling it a big beautiful bill, because--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MASON: --it's all in there. Everything he's done so far in the first 120-plus days that he's had in office has essentially been executive order.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MASON: This would be his big legislative achievement, and it's got everything he wants.
SCIUTTO: And he's taking a strategy, right? I mean, that's deliberate, right?
BARRON-LOPEZ: Yes.
SCIUTTO: Because he feels like, This is my best chance to get my priorities through.
BARRON-LOPEZ: Potentially. But even if the House ends up somehow passing this, there's no guarantee that Senate Republicans are going to be on board with this.
MASON: Right. BARRON-LOPEZ: There's a number of Senate Republicans that are not happy even with the changes that Congressman Bacon has made to the Medicaid cuts. They aren't happy with that as well.
Then there's on SALT, on that front, President Trump did a total 180. Last September, on the campaign trail, he said, I am going to fix this. I'm going to make sure that--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BARRON-LOPEZ: --state and local tax deduction is fixed. Mind you, it was an issue because of his 2017 tax -- big tax cut bill.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BARRON-LOPEZ: So this is something that he has totally reversed on.
SCIUTTO: You're right. That is a flip-flop.
Laura Barron-Lopez. Jeff Mason. Thanks so much to both of you.
Coming up next. CNN got its hands on the planning documents for Trump's upcoming military parade. It is calling for thousands of soldiers, hundreds of ground vehicles and aircraft. I'm going to break it down with my next source, Maggie Haberman.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Well, we now know that President Trump's military parade is going to be simply massive. The event is set for June 14th, his 79th birthday, and the Army's 250th birthday, and it appears big enough for the both of them.
The document viewed by CNN reveals the parade, through the streets, here in Washington, will include nearly 7,000 soldiers, 370 military vehicles, plus 70 aircraft for flyovers, with the Army's Golden Knights, parachuting down over the White House, while the Commander- in-Chief watches from a review stand.
It will be an unprecedented display of pomp, circumstance, and American military might, and the type of celebration Trump has admired and wanted ever since his first term.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I was your guest at Bastille Day, and it was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen. It was two hours on the button, and it was military might.
[21:20:00]
The hosting of the military parade this morning was magnificent, and the world was watching. I've already had people calling from all parts of the world. They were all watching. Nothing you can see is so beautiful.
Well, I'd like to have a parade. A lot of the generals would like to have a parade to celebrate what we're doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: My source tonight is New York Times' White House correspondent, Maggie Haberman.
Good to have you, Maggie.
Is it just a coincidence that this parade would be not just on the Army's 250th birthday, but on President Trump's 79th birthday?
We might have lost -- well, you saw Maggie Haberman disappear there. She didn't actually disappear, but our feed of her disappeared. We're going to fix it, bring it back.
Coming up, big retailers and brands are trying to keep prices low, despite the ripple effect of Trump's trade war. That does not, however, mean things you buy will not be affected. Kevin O'Leary of "Shark Tank" is my source tonight.
[21:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: All right, we are back. Most importantly, Maggie Haberman is back, discussing the new CNN reporting on Trump's military parade. New York Times correspondent, Maggie, with us.
Thanks so much for joining, and glad to have you.
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: I want to begin, as I began the last time we tried this. Is it just a coincidence that this will take place not just on the Army's 250th birthday, but President Trump's own 79th birthday?
HABERMAN: It's literally a coincidence that those two dates exist simultaneously.
But Jim, as you correctly noted before, President Trump has wanted a military parade for some time. He wanted it even before he went to that Bastille Day Parade in 2017. It was a foreign trip that I was on. And I was in the stands, as he was sitting, watching this parade. And it was quite vivid, how captivated he was by it. He has always fancied displays of military might. And it's not surprising.
It's also not surprising that the fact that this has gotten so big has met some criticism.
SCIUTTO: I mean, and listen, when he talks about leaders, the first thing he mentions is strength.
HABERMAN: Right.
SCIUTTO: Whether that's Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin or the former al Qaeda leader of Syria.
HABERMAN: Right.
SCIUTTO: Is that what explains his fascination with parades, big military parades?
HABERMAN: Certainly part of it. I mean, remember, he is somebody who went to a military academy as a younger man through high school. He has always been fascinated by the military.
But you are correct that he identifies, a willingness to use force, or an ability to use force, with what animates a good leader, and what makes a good leader, and so, and he has often talked about that. And the fact that displaying military strength, in his mind, conveys some sense of strength, is not a coincidence, in terms of this parade.
It is going to cost a lot of money. There is the question of damage to the streets of Washington. But it is also coming under a celebration of America's 250th year. And that is, I think, part of why some people might not be as opposed.
SCIUTTO: So, to your point, it's going to cost a lot of money, tens of millions of dollars.
HABERMAN: Yes.
SCIUTTO: This, of course, follows what is still an ongoing attempt to cut the federal government, firing a lot of workers, the work of DOGE, taking the chainsaw to it.
HABERMAN: Yes.
SCIUTTO: How does the President reconcile those two things? Does he reconcile those two things?
HABERMAN: I don't -- yes, I don't think he spends a whole lot of time trying to rationalize how these things don't fit together, Jim. But you are correct that one involves spending a lot of money, at the same time that they are laying off workers, that they are cutting programs, that they are cutting programs that are vital to people's health, to children's health. And so, this is a messaging problem that he may or may not face.
There is also a reality problem for programs and jobs being cut. He usually deals with these kinds of things once he arrives at them. So we'll see.
SCIUTTO: It strikes me too that this is another example of the difference between Trump 1 and Trump 2, in that in Trump 1, it was some of the experienced generals inside his inner circle, the John Kellys of the world, et cetera, who pulled him off ideas like that -- like this. Those folks, people of that standing are -- who are willing to tell him something he doesn't like to hear just don't exist anymore. And I wonder if that's yet one more reason why we're seeing it this time around. Didn't see it last time around.
HABERMAN: I think there's no question, Jim, that this is emblematic of the fact that this is a president who has surrounded himself with people whose goal is getting him to a yes, and who have been very radicalized themselves, in many cases, by the last four years, who are very bonded to him, who genuinely believe in him, as opposed to a lot of the people who worked for him in term one.
But also to your point, term one was filled with lots of people who had been in government, or in other roles before, and did see the potential dangers of having something like a military parade. When I say danger, what I mean is just that people can mistake what it could mean.
I think somebody in term one said to Trump, In the U.S., we hold military parades when there's a reason, now meaning -- meaning, the end of a war, like the Gulf War I. Now, in this case, there is a reason, which is the anniversary of America's existence. But that said, it overlaps with something Trump has wanted for some time.
SCIUTTO: News just coming in tonight, before I let you go, in that, as CNN is learning the Justice Department has now opened an investigation into Andrew Cuomo, who happens to be running for New York City Mayor, following a referral from congressional Republicans. This, over his COVID response.
Of course, as you know, this follows Trump's DOJ shutting down--
HABERMAN: Right.
[21:30:00]
SCIUTTO: --the investigation of Cuomo's opponent for the mayoral contest, and that is the current Mayor, Eric Adams, back in February. Your paper, The New York Times, the first to report this.
What are you hearing about this case? And how do we explain that timing? It was -- it's less than two months that the investigation of his opponent was dropped by the same DOJ.
HABERMAN: Look, we know that the questions around New York's COVID response have lingered for some time.
Andrew Cuomo, when he was governor, tangled a lot with President Trump. It's also worth noting that these are two men who have known each other for decades, and have a different level of personal relationship than the President has with most other nominees or candidates or elected officials.
But certainly, it is very unusual to have a race where charges were dropped against one person by the same presidential administration that is now looking at another. And in a related twist, there is a -- there is so much overlap of New Yorkers who are now in Donald Trump's administration, or DOJ, like Jeanine Pirro, who is now serving as the U.S. Attorney, or expected to, and she ran against Andrew Cuomo in 2006 in New York for some period of time.
It's, you can make the argument, Jim, that it helps Andrew Cuomo establish some distance from Trump, which is not a bad thing in a Democratic primary. I don't know how it helps him, at the end of the day, to have to revisit his--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
HABERMAN: --COVID performance, which has remained controversial. And I assume that's not lost on the Justice Department.
SCIUTTO: Maggie Haberman, thanks so much.
HABERMAN: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Also, tonight, without any sign of President Trump's trade war easing, more companies are deciding just how much of his tariff costs they are willing to shoulder themselves.
Days after Ford said it would raise prices on several models, Subaru announced today that some of its cars could cost between $750 and $2,000 more, beginning next month, in June.
Tonight, Home Depot says that it plans to keep most of its prices stable. However, a top executive acknowledged that some product lines will have to be eliminated entirely. This comes after Trump attacked Walmart, over the weekend, for saying that it would raise prices, for everyday products, as a result of the tariffs.
President Trump's warning to Corporate America was clear. Quote, "Eat the tariffs" or pay the price.
My source tonight is Kevin O'Leary of "Shark Tank," and Chairman of O'Leary Ventures.
Thanks so much for joining.
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN, O'LEARY VENTURES: Great to be here. Thank you.
SCIUTTO: First, let me ask you this. Because you have talked publicly about the danger, particularly to small businesses--
O'LEARY: Yes.
SCIUTTO: --from tariffs. What would this mean to a small business to be told, You can't raise prices, you got to eat these costs?
O'LEARY: Let's forget about Trump, let's forget about tariffs, let's forget about Walmart for a second, and talk about carrot cake. All right? Let's say you're a bakery. You make carrot cake. Costs you $5 to make it. You sell it for $10. That's not unreasonable. And all of a sudden, the cinnamon you use--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
O'LEARY: --because of cinnamon prices worldwide, goes up $0.50. It's the same price for everybody that's buying cinnamon that makes carrot cakes. You raise your price to $10.50. Everybody has to do that because the cost of cinnamon went up. Commodities vary in price. You can make the decision to eat it, so to speak. But then you won't be profitable in the same way anymore--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
O'LEARY: --and you may have to fire some employees.
You're passing the input cost on. A tariff is an input cost. Now there's a lot of politics going on here. There's a lot of jawboning going on. But what we're doing here is self-imposed. But it's not entirely crazy, I'll tell you why.
Most countries on earth have what's called a value-added tax, a consumption tax. We don't apply that here in America, because it's very unpopular as an idea. This tariff is exactly that. It's a consumption tax. It's called something else. It's kind of interesting that's how it's happened.
But what we don't know yet, and the only thing we should be asking ourselves is, where's the endgame? Before the midterms, Trump has to make this all work.
SCIUTTO: Right.
O'LEARY: So what's the reciprocal? Let's take China. That's the big one. Is it a 10 percent reciprocal tariff? That's essentially a 10 percent VAT tax on American consumers.
SCIUTTO: I get -- listen, I get that, we have to figure out where this is all going to land, and I understand the President's goals here.
O'LEARY: Yes.
SCIUTTO: But in the meantime, there are costs, to your point.
O'LEARY: Yes.
SCIUTTO: Cinnamon is more expensive for the carrot cake.
And my sons and I have watched you on "Shark Tank" for a long time. I know, you're a gentleman who's very interested in protecting your profit margins.
O'LEARY: Sure.
SCIUTTO: So if you're running a business, where the profit margin thins because of tariffs, and the President tells you, You got to eat this, how would you respond to that?
O'LEARY: Well, I mean, now we're back to Walmart. Walmart is one of the most behemoth retailers on Earth. Much of its product is sourced, or components of it sourced in China.
[21:35:00]
The way they're going to deal with it, like every business is, like mine are, my 54-plus private companies that are dealing with this right now, we'll eat some of it, we'll pass some of it on. We'll change our behavior in sourcing, if these tariffs are maintained over a long period of time.
But what we don't know, which is the most critical, is what is the absolute tariff going past next January? Because, I figure, Trump has to nail this before he gets into the midterms, or he'll lose his majority mandate.
And so far, the economy, as measured by the market, some people don't like to measure it that way, we're back to where we were and then some, because everybody's assuming, this is going to end up being a reasonable reciprocal tariff. Now you got the blocks like the EU, you got Britain, you got Japan, you got India, you got Canada, Mexico. They're different than China.
China has other issues around IP theft--
SCIUTTO: Sure.
O'LEARY: --access to their markets, all of that. And I want to do business in China. But I've been ripped off for 20 years. So I'm a hawk, as you know.
SCIUTTO: Right.
O'LEARY: I want to -- I want to embargo them till they come to the table. They seem to be coming to the table.
SCIUTTO: Yes, and you're not alone in that.
O'LEARY: Yes, but--
SCIUTTO: And--
(CROSSTALK)
O'LEARY: So, Trump, I understand what he's doing. And I must say something about this whole thing. If you're an investor, like I am, you got to get away from the noise and focus on the signal, because Trump is a very noisy guy. He's bombastic. But there's a signal in there somewhere. And he's adding a VAT tax to America. And I get it. Most economies are very successful between VAT taxes of 7 to 14 percent. So, if he has it at 10, we're right in the middle.
SCIUTTO: But let me ask you a question. Have you figured out what Trump's ultimate goal is? Because he said two things. One, he said about evening access out, right, evening--
O'LEARY: Yes.
SCIUTTO: --evening the tariffs out.
But he's also said he wants to return manufacturing to this country. He seems to have been mentioning that less lately, right? Was that ever really the goal?
O'LEARY: There's certain things we'll never manufacture here again. Toys, for example.
SCIUTTO: Yes, those.
O'LEARY: Not a lot of value-add building a doll out of plastic.
But when we get into technology, and DNA sequencing machines that are being ripped off by China, and it's a complicated situation. Every single product in America that gets to a $5 million run rate gets ripped off by China, and sold all over the world at a 40 percent to 30 percent discount. That's not OK.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
O'LEARY: And we got to fix that problem, because millions of American companies go out of business as a result of that. That's the signal in what Trump is doing, and I agree with him on that.
The noise is -- you know, you got to be careful. As an investor, I don't shill for politicians. I shill for policy. As soon as he tells me what the policy is, I will adjust, as will millions of other investors. We're waiting for the policy. It's erratic, right now. No other administration has ever tried to negotiate 60 deals at once. I mean, that's something else. But 17 matter, and I expect to see some deals.
SCIUTTO: Right.
O'LEARY: China is a special thing. I want to fix China. So, I am giving him, as far as I'm concerned, Go get them.
SCIUTTO: We'll be watching closely.
Kevin O'Leary, thanks so much.
O'LEARY: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: My White House insiders are back.
So tell us. I mean, Laura, do you see the policy that Kevin O'Leary is looking for? Because certainly, the tariff rates have swung back and forth quite dramatically in the span of weeks and sometimes days.
BARRON-LOPEZ: No, I mean, if -- if Mr. O'Leary can't find the policy, I'm not sure I can find the policy. But yes, the President has repeatedly tried to say that, on one hand, he thinks that other countries should pay for the tariffs, that it's a tax on other countries, that it's not a tax on American consumers.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BARRON-LOPEZ: But then also--
SCIUTTO: And clearly, that's not the case.
BARRON-LOPEZ: Right, that's not the case.
Because then he also, this weekend, with saying, Walmart, eat the tax, is essentially saying to American companies, I need you to do this. And there are a lot of companies that are saying, No, we're not going to. I mean, Home Depot has been, in the past, friendly to Trump and to his policies. They appear to try to say, very tepidly, Look, we may not raise prices right now, but there are just some goods that we're not going to have altogether, so.
But I think the vast majority of companies, and the majority of economists that you talk to, will say that this is not sound policy.
SCIUTTO: Jeff--
BARRON-LOPEZ: So far.
SCIUTTO: --when I hear a president direct companies to change their prices, that sounds to me like price controls.
And I wonder, given Republican, traditional Republican policy positions, why aren't Republicans up in arms about the pressure that Trump is applying to, well, a place like Walmart, one of America's biggest, most successful companies?
MASON: You could ask that question about so many policy issues--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MASON: --with President Trump and the Republican Party. It's changed entirely. The party has changed entirely. The President has brought a populist aspect to -- with MAGA, to the Republican Party, and an authoritarian bent that has led to less dissent, full stop.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MASON: And we saw that in our discussion earlier about the tax bill.
Why are they not challenging it? I don't know. There's lots of things that they're not challenging.
That said, I think your question about telling companies to do this or that on prices. The companies don't have to listen.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MASON: So--
SCIUTTO: And some are showing that they're not.
MASON: Yes.
SCIUTTO: They're not listening.
[21:40:00]
Mr. O'Leary mentioned the trade deals that are coming. They have not come as fast as President Trump and his advisers said they would, right? They were supposedly just on the doorstep of so many of these.
What do you hear from the White House? Are they saying that there's a lot of good news to come? Or are they finding it's harder to get the other side to sign on the dotted line?
BARRON-LOPEZ: They are repeatedly saying that that the deals are around the corner, that there are a bunch of deals in the works, that they're going to happen. But again, I think that that's a lot of rhetoric, privately, publicly. And so far, there hasn't been much meat on the bones.
And you saw that they rolled out the deal, or the agreement with the U.K. But again, it was not -- you know, the U.K. is not one of those major--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
BARRON-LOPEZ: --countries that I think people are waiting for a big trade deal.
SCIUTTO: Yes, and U.K. happens to be one that has a -- that we have a surplus with, right?
MASON: What matters--
SCIUTTO: Different -- difference in some of the other relationships.
MASON: I would just add that what matters is whether or not they extend that deadline.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MASON: It was a self-imposed deadline.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MASON: The 90 days. If they decide to make it longer, they can.
SCIUTTO: Jeff. Laura. Thanks so much.
We do have new CNN reporting tonight, suggesting that Israel could be planning to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. New details, fast- moving story. That's coming right up.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: I have new reporting tonight, along with my colleagues, Katie Bo Lillis, and Natasha Bertrand, U.S. officials have obtained new intelligence, suggesting Israel is making preparations to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. These officials caution it is not clear Israeli leaders have made a final decision, and there is deep disagreement within the U.S. government about the likelihood of such an attack.
However, the U.S. assessment is based on both intercepted Israeli communications, and on Israeli military activity, including the movement of air munitions and completion of an air exercise.
One person familiar with U.S. intelligence, on these issues told us, quote, "The chance of an Israeli strike on an Iranian nuclear facility has gone up significantly in recent months... And the prospect of a Trump-negotiated US-Iran deal that doesn't remove all of Iran's uranium makes the chance of a strike more likely."
My sources tonight:
Jamil Jaffer, Founder of the National Security Institute at George Mason University, former Senior Counsel to the House Intelligence Committee.
And Sabrina Singh, former deputy Pentagon press secretary, and now a CNN Contributor.
Good to have you both here.
Sabrina, would Israel strike Iran over U.S. objections?
And we should be clear. President Trump has sometimes threatened military action as well, but there's been some reporting that he does not want to see a war in the Middle East.
SABRINA SINGH, FORMER DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR & GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I think that's very clear that the President has made that he does not want to see a war in the Middle East.
And I think if Israel were to strike Iran's nuclear facilities or capabilities, not only would that widen the prospective of war or prospect of war, but that also just flies in the face of what this administration is looking to accomplish with Iran, which is this tentative nuclear deal.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
SINGH: At this moment, though, of course, Israel is viewing Iran as politically, militarily and economically weakened. So, they're seeing this as a chance to further weaken their capabilities. But again, that's really going to widen the aperture--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
SINGH: --for a potential war in the Middle East.
SCIUTTO: An Israeli source told me, Jamil, that the Israeli position is essentially, if the U.S. were to make a deal, it's a bad deal, in their eyes. That just gives up too much and allows Iran to maintain too much of a nuclear program, from the Israeli objective. Then they might very well strike.
Is that -- is that Israel's concern here that Trump may so want a deal that he would basically resurrect, remember JCPOA?
JAMIL JAFFER, FOUNDER & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY INSTITUTE, FORMER SENIOR COUNSEL TO HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, FORMER ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, this is -- this is exactly the problem, right?
SCIUTTO: Yes.
JAFFER: I think the problem is that you saw Steve Witkoff, in the Middle East, a few weeks ago, talking about allowing Iran to have--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
JAFFER: --3.67 percent enriched uranium. That's a huge problem that looks a lot like the Obama nuclear deal that Trump got rid of. And Israel's is what -- was completely opposed to a deal that looks like that. They don't want that.
So now you see Witkoff, back in the Middle East. You see the President also saying, No enrichment, right? Something Marco Rubio had said a few weeks back, and had been in contrast to the rest administration.
So, we'll see what happens. But you got the Supreme Leader saying, We're not doing a deal without enrichment. So now you've got the two countries at odds. Israel might be actually using this opportunity to message the U.S., Don't do a bad deal.
SCIUTTO: Yes, exactly. I mean, it could -- I mean, there's always an element of signaling in all this.
But let's game this out. If Israel were to go ahead and strike, how would Iran be likely to respond?
SINGH: I mean, they are severely weakened, militarily. And not only Iran, but their proxy groups.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
SINGH: I mean, Hezbollah in the North has basically been decimated by the Israeli military. Of course, Hamas has been completely, I would say, destroyed, even though Israel continues to conduct operations against Hamas leadership. And then their proxy groups are significantly weakened in Syria and Iraq. And you're also seeing the Houthis also pulling back their capabilities. So Iran, on the -- on its world stage, doesn't -- is not the same power that it was before October 7th. And I think Israel sees that, and is trying to take advantage of that. But I think certainly that flies in the face of what the Trump administration is trying to accomplish.
[21:50:00]
SCIUTTO: Would the U.S. be in danger if Israel were to strike? In danger of retaliation? Could we assume that Iran would calculate whether the U.S. was directly involved or not, that indeed the U.S. was involved, or gave some sort of green or yellow light to this operation.
JAFFER: I think that's exactly right. I think you'll see terrorist attacks around the globe. Iran would activate its networks, weaken though they are, around the globe, including the United States.
We know that Iran has tried to undertake actual murder attacks in the United States, against U.S. officials--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
JAFFER: --and the like, against Saudi officials. So we know they have -- they think they're trying to establish a capacity here. Whether they'll be successful or not, it's a different question, but they certainly will try to lash out.
The biggest challenge for Israel, though, is how much of the Iran -- Iranian nuclear program can you actually get to?
SCIUTTO: Yes.
JAFFER: They don't have the U.S. Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound bomb. We're not likely to give it to them or the B-2 Spirit that would deliver it. And so, they're going to have to undertake probably some commando missions along with -- along with bombing strikes, and a huge variety of attacks, in order to really do damage. And even that is only a few years of stalling, right?
And so that's, I think, the hardest part for Israel, is. If you take it out, how much can you get of it? They might still do it. I mean, they've taken out the air defenses. They've taken out serious air defenses.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
JAFFER: But it's a stalling game at the end of the day for them.
SCIUTTO: And they've carried out quite aggressive operations, for instance, inside Syria, right, including a ground element.
JAFFER: Sure.
SCIUTTO: Jamil. Sabrina. Thanks so much to both of you. Elon Musk was the GOP's biggest donor in 2024 by a heck of a lot. But now the world's richest man says he's hitting the brakes on his political spending. What else he said about his plans for the future? Next.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Tonight, Elon Musk appears to be having a $290 million change of heart. He says he is closing his wallet that funded President Trump's return to the White House, and spread his brand of conservative politics, across the U.S. and international borders.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELON MUSK, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think, in terms of political spending, I'm going to do a lot less in the future.
MISHAL HUSAIN (ph), BRITISH JOURNALIST: And why is that?
MUSK: I think I've done enough.
HUSAIN (ph): Is it -- is it because of blowback?
MUSK: Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. I do not currently see a reason.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: You might take those words with a grain of salt, perhaps one about the size of the upcoming midterm election. Musk's comment about stepping away from politics could be difficult to buy, given his history, just over the last few months, presidential election, German election, the judge's election in Wisconsin.
My source tonight is Keach Hagey, Media and Tech Reporter at The Wall Street Journal. Her new book, "The Optimist," is available now.
Keach, good to have you on tonight.
KEACH HAGEY, AUTHOR, "THE OPTIMIST," REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Great to be here.
SCIUTTO: First, before we get more broadly into OpenAI. This notion that Musk is walking away from politics, given his enormous effect in a number of races, do you buy it?
HAGEY: Well, I think we've seen how challenging this has made life at Tesla, right? It's understandable why he might want to make this move, given that, as my colleagues have reported, the Tesla board was reaching out for other options. I think it's been really hard for his company, and he needs to rethink.
SCIUTTO: All right, let's go inside your book, because it goes inside the relationship between Musk, and OpenAI founder Sam Altman. So can you tell us, first of all, how Altman, an almost unrecognizable version of Musk portrayed in your book, go from -- how did the two of them go from co-founders and friends to, I mean, really, sworn enemies?
HAGEY: Well, together, they co-founded OpenAI based on this basic idea that AI could be dangerous, and it was not something that should be in the hands of single corporation, meaning Google. They created OpenAI to be a counterweight to Google and, in fact, a non-profit that would be shared with all of humanity. But as they found they needed more money, there was a power struggle, and Sam Altman came out on top.
Elon Musk, who had promised a billion dollars, basically took his ball and went home. And in the years since then, he founded a competitor, and has sued OpenAI, and is now doing everything he can to stop it.
SCIUTTO: You recount in your book, instances where Altman seemed to break through the safety valves, in effect, where he claimed, for instance, that products had been approved by a joint Safety Board. They were not.
Given that, based on your reporting and your writing, is he trustworthy, as a leader in this field, with all the freedom, all the power he's been given over artificial intelligence?
HAGEY: Well, it's true that there has been enormous concentration of power in OpenAI as a breakaway leader. And the episode of Sam Altman being fired from OpenAI shows that the breaks that they had put in place didn't really work, right?
SCIUTTO: Yes.
HAGEY: Just because something is controlled by a non-profit organization does not mean that the rules you put in place can necessarily stand and keep someone, who the Board believed, was duplicitous, from running the company.
However, since he came back, what we also saw from that whole episode is that the employees at the company really went out on a limb and asked for him to come back. They had economic reason to do so.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
[22:00:00]
HAGEY: But as we've seen going forward, like they saw that the future of OpenAI was dependent upon Sam Altman being at the helm, because he was the only one that could raise the money that they needed to keep going.
SCIUTTO: Yes. He's proved very good at raising money.
Keach Hagey. The book is "The Optimist." Thanks so much for joining.
And thanks so much to all of you for joining us tonight. I'm Jim Sciutto, in for Kaitlan. "CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
