Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Pardons Reality TV Couple Convicted Of Fraud; Trump Says He Is "Not Happy With What Putin Is Doing"; SpaceX Loses Control Of Starship During Test Flight. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired May 27, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Eventually, SpaceX Mission Control lost contact with Starship, made an uncontrolled reentry, likely disintegrated somewhere over the Indian Ocean, according to officials.
The FAA though did not immediately respond, on exactly how the spacecraft's uncontrolled return to Earth may have affected commercial air travel.
We're going to obviously continue to follow this story, throughout the evening, and more tomorrow.
That's it for us. The news continues. I hope you'll watch, tomorrow.
"THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts right now. See you then.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Tonight, President Trump granting a get- out-of-jail-free card to two fellow reality TV stars.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Good evening. And welcome to the new set of THE SOURCE tonight. Thanks so much for joining us.
And tonight, at the White House, President Trump is leaning into the full reach of his pardon power, granting clemency to his fellow reality television stars, Todd and Julie Chrisley.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It's a terrible thing. But it's a great thing, because your parents are going to be free and clean, and I hope we can do it by tomorrow.
ALICE MARIE JOHNSON, AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM ADVOCATE & FORMER FEDERAL PRISONER: Yes.
TRUMP: I don't know them, but give them my regards and wish them well.
SAVANNAH CHRISLEY, INFLUENCER, DAUGHTER OF TODD AND JULIE CHRISLEY: Thank you so much, Mr. President.
GRAYSON CHRISLEY (ph), TV PERSONALITY, SON OF TODD AND JULIE CHRISLEY: Mr. President. TRUMP: Yes. How are you?
G. CHRISLEY (ph): I just want to say thank you for bringing my parents back.
TRUMP: Yes. Well, they were given a pretty harsh treatment, based on what I'm hearing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: You can see Alice Johnson standing there. Trump pardoned her during his first term, and she is now his Pardon Czar.
The President said there, he does not know the Chrisleys very well. He may not, but America certainly does. They appeared on "Chrisley Knows Best," a show that followed their family and showcased their luxurious lifestyle. Prosecutors argued, and a jury agreed that that lifestyle was fueled, in part, by a $36 million fraud scheme and multiple tax crimes.
Their daughter, Savannah, spoke at the Republican National Convention, last July, and she also campaigned on the trail for the President. Just over a week ago, she took her message about her parents to the President's daughter-in-law, Lara Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
S. CHRISLEY: They referred to us as the Trumps of the South, at trial, the prosecutors did. And I think that's why, obviously I spoke at the RNC on the weaponization of the DOJ, because we saw it firsthand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, any leader who occupies the Oval Office has the power to pardon whomever they want. And many of them certainly have. But only months into the President's second term, we're seeing a pattern take shape, as he uses the one authority that no court or Congress can check, to help high-profile friends, supporters and donors.
Shortly before the White House confirmed that the President was pardoning the Chrisleys, he also pardoned former Virginia Sheriff, Scott Jenkins, an announcement that came just hours before the longtime Trump supporter was expected to report to prison for conspiracy, fraud and bribery. The President argued that Sheriff Jenkins and his family, quote, "Have been dragged through HELL by a Corrupt and Weaponized Biden" Justice Department.
And tonight, The New York Times is reporting that last month's pardon of Paul Walczak, in a tax crimes case, came after his mother attended a million-dollar per-person fundraising dinner for the President, at his Mar-a-Lago Club, in Florida.
My legal source to start us off tonight is CNN Legal Analyst, Elliot Williams, who's joined here by my deeply-sourced White House insiders, Semafor's Shelby Talcott, and Reuters' Jeff Mason.
It's so great to have you all here on our new set tonight. So, thank you for joining us.
Elliot, I want to get your take, though, because what we heard from the President there in the Oval Office was, he was saying that they were unfairly treated, the Chrisleys were, and that is, in part why he's pardoning them. We heard that from a White House spokesperson, tonight, who also just told us before we came on air, that's why.
Based on what you know, is that description accurate?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, before we begin, we were talking beforehand about who'd get to be the first to speak on the new set.
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Yes.
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Yes.
WILLIAMS: And look, I win.
MASON: You win.
WILLIAMS: I win the contest.
COLLINS: I mean, technically, it's me.
WILLIAMS: No.
MASON: Yes.
WILLIAMS: The first--
COLLINS: You're the first guest.
WILLIAMS: The first non-Kaitlan--
COLLINS: It is an honor.
WILLIAMS: --lucky person -- no.
Were they treated unfairly? It seemed the--
COLLINS: This is in line, was this typical?
WILLIAMS: No. No. But here's the thing. Like, a jury seemed to think that they were guilty. The appeals court that looked at the case thereafter seemed to think that they were guilty. So, this idea that individuals were singled out and treated unfairly by the criminal justice system is just simply ludicrous.
Now, again, I want to be clear. As you mentioned in the tease here, the President has every power and every right to pardon who he wishes. That's Article II of the Constitution makes that quite clear.
But the idea that these folks were singled out in some way, nothing in the record seems to indicate that in any way. COLLINS: Yes, I don't think it's that surprising though, Jeff and Shelby, to see that this happened. I mean, she was -- the Chrisleys were certainly on the President's radar. From having Savannah Chrisley speak at the convention, their daughter, to doing interviews that obviously the President, she knows, is watching here when it comes to this, in terms of what this looks like.
[21:05:00]
And she also was part of a Team Trump Women's Tour, where she was essentially, out there, certainly supporting him, but also trying to draw a comparison between her family and how Trump himself has been treated.
MASON: I think that was very clever. I mean, listening to her interview, with Lara Trump, really made me think, Well, that's the way to do it.
If you've got the connection and you're able to draw a parallel between what you are experiencing in your family, and what the President and his family have experienced, which is something that President Trump complains about a lot, feeling like he was falsely or unfairly persecuted? Then, you're going to get some sympathy. And you also have that reality TV connection.
The one thing that was striking to me was seeing that video with Alice Johnson standing next to him, because her case was certainly much different, with the exception that her case was championed by another reality TV star, Kim Kardashian.
COLLINS: Yes, that's a good point.
What are you hearing, Shelby, and just seeing in the pattern of how the President is using his pardon power so early on, in this term. Sometimes presidents wait until later on to use their more controversial pardons that come out.
TALCOTT: Yes, I think this term around, the President, in all aspects, feels sort of unleashed. He feels like he can do whatever he wants for multiple reasons.
I remember, one of the big things I remember, when Trump first got into office was his aides talking about the Biden pardons at the end of President Biden's term, and how he pardoned his family. And they felt like that gave them sort of a pass to sort of do whatever they wanted with these pardons. And we're seeing that.
And I also think, to Jeff's point, about the sort of weaponization of the DOJ argument. We've seen Trump say that with multiple people that he's pardoned. So, there's a clear line with Trump believing that these people have had these cases that have been weaponized with the DOJ, just like we heard him say, on the campaign trail, over the past few years, his argument that his own cases were weaponized by the DOJ.
COLLINS: Well, Elliot, though, is that fair in terms of who Biden pardoned, and he waited until his final hours in office. But people remember Dr. Fauci, the members of the January 6 committee.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COLLINS: But also his brothers, his sister, their spouses as well. I mean, it was quite a broad list that I think even Democrats had trouble debating.
WILLIAMS: Absolutely. And the problem is the pardon power. The Framers wrote this into the Constitution, giving broad power for the President to engage in these acts of clemency, so that it could be a check on the power of the state.
Every single president, going back, certainly as long as I can remember, and probably long before that, has pardoned people who really engaged in crimes that were either embarrassing or shameful or just simply really bad crimes, they probably shouldn't have gotten pardoned for. But it's the one power in the Constitution that, like you said, does not have a check on it. Courts can't look at it. Congress can't look at it. Here we are again.
COLLINS: Well, and Jeff, I wonder what you're hearing from White House officials, about Paul Walczak, who was this health care executive who pleaded guilty to tax crimes shortly before the election. His mom attended a $1 million fundraising dinner at Mar-a-Lago, $1 million per person to come in. It promised FaceTime with the President of the United States. And I think there have been questions about what that looks like.
Because I was looking at the judge said at his sentencing, when his family was pleading for leniency. And he basically said, There's a perception in this country that the criminal justice system only works in favor of the rich and against the poor. And to let him walk away because he came up with $10 million to pay back his debt reinforces the conception that the rich get a -- the perception that rich get away with it, and the poor don't.
MASON: It also makes me think of the very end of Bill Clinton's presidency, when he -- when he pardoned Marc Rich, and that really had an impact on his legacy. I mean, it drew really negative headlines as he was leaving and hurt him, and he said that.
President Trump has a totally different political reality. We all know that. The fact that this looks like he's following up on, on having heard from a donor in this -- from that dinner, normally would hurt somebody in his position. But my guess is based on the things that he has said and done that don't hurt him, politically, this probably won't either.
WILLIAMS: And one thing. The big difference now, compared to all of the other presidents before, is that a lot of the people, the career employees who would have been a check on the President, the pardon attorneys and folks around them, who could have advised as to how serious the crime was, has the person said they were sorry, Is this person deserving of a pardon, are gone. And this is now really being done out of the White House, and not the Justice Department.
TALCOTT: Yes.
COLLINS: Yes.
WILLIAMS: That's the big consolidation of power.
COLLINS: We'll all see what this pattern looks like going forward.
Thanks to you all for being here.
Also, tonight, we're following the latest developments that are coming out of the White House, when it comes to the President of the United States really using every tool at his disposal to force Harvard into compliance, as it upends the education of thousands of students. Some, who don't know if they're going to be allowed into the United States, next semester. Others who don't know if the research that they've been working on will lose its funding or not.
[21:10:00]
That's because the administration has now moved today to cancel all remaining federal contracts with Harvard. That money is how, for more than eight decades, the American government has paid a lot of the best minds in the country, to work on things like producing better crops and cure diseases, a point that Harvard's president made in a rare on- camera interview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN GARBER, PRESIDENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Why cut off research funding? Sure, it hurts Harvard. But it hurts the country. Because, after all, the research funding, it's not a gift. The research funding is given to universities and other research institutions to carry out work that the -- research work that the federal government designates as high-priority work. It is work that they want done. They are paying to have that work conducted.
Shutting off that work does not help the country, even as it punishes Harvard. And it is hard to see the link between that and, say, antisemitism.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That, from Harvard's president today, as we are also hearing from the State Department that they are pausing all student visa interviews, as it moves to expand the social media screening and vetting of applicants across the globe.
When it comes to Harvard, the President has been demanding information on every international student at the Ivy League school, saying, it's needed to know, quote, "How many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We want a list of those foreign students and we'll find out whether or not they're OK. Many will be OK, I assume. And I assume with Harvard, many will be bad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My lead sources tonight on this are a pair of Harvard professors.
Cornell William Brooks teaches at the Harvard Kennedy Center, and is the former President and CEO of the NAACP.
Jody Freeman teaches at the Harvard Law, and served as counselor for Energy and Climate Change in the Obama administration.
And it's great to have you both here.
Because Professor Brooks, just on what we're seeing today--
CORNELL WILLIAM BROOKS, PROFESSOR, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, FORMER PRESIDENT & CEO, NAACP: It's good to be here.
COLLINS: --when it comes to these federal contracts, and the move to cancel them, it involves about dozens of contracts, and we know they're valued at about a $100 million. What impact does that have--
WILLIAM BROOKS: That's right.
COLLINS: --in your view?
WILLIAM BROOKS: So let's just start with the fundamental premise, which is to say, antisemitism is too serious a problem to be treated this un-seriously, insincerely and cynically.
So, when the Trump administration, using a shifting set of narratives, Harvard is associated with the Chinese Communist Party, that there are radicals running all about, is now punishing the university with essentially a $100 million fine, which is to say, we've contracted to do work for the government, the best-quality work, work that will help humanity, help Americans, help people around the world. And Harvard is punished, atop a previously $3 billion cancelation of federal funds, the threat of the revocation of our tax exempt status. All of this suggests that the President is engaged in an un-precedential (ph) personal vendetta against the university, as opposed to addressing any serious problem.
And here's the thing. This is not merely hurting Harvard, not merely hurting 7,000 international students. But it literally hurts hundreds of millions of Americans who benefit from serious research in this country, and people around the world who benefit from the work that we do.
COLLINS: Professor Freeman, I want to get your take on this, just given what other people might be thinking, watching this. Harvard has a really huge endowment. It's at over $50 billion. Yesterday, President Trump suggested that maybe they take all the money that's a part of their endowment -- or their federal grants, and then instead those go to trade schools, schools across the country. I wonder what you would say to someone who's watching, who says, My kid doesn't go to Harvard, I don't feel bad for Harvard, given, they have so much money that pours in, and says, What's wrong with this move?
JODY FREEMAN, LAW PROFESSOR, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, COUNSELOR FOR ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE UNDER PRES. OBAMA: Right.
COLLINS: What would you say to that tonight?
FREEMAN: So, thanks, Kaitlan. I appreciate being on.
And I really would have two responses to that, just to put this in context.
First, just to emphasize something the President said in NPR, and what our other guest just said, the benefits of research institutions, like Harvard and many other universities, for the American public, are enormous. Groundbreaking -- groundbreaking research into things like Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease.
WILLIAM BROOKS: That's right.
FREEMAN: This is what goes on at our major research institutions.
WILLIAM BROOKS: That's right.
FREEMAN: We're developing new drugs and therapies. And imagine us, all of our research institutions, with federal money, in partnership with private sector institutions, developing innovations in things like quantum computing and artificial intelligence. These are things that we want to lead the world in.
[21:15:00]
So, my first comment is, even if you don't care much for Harvard, and I can understand it, the President called us, bird brains, on Truth Social, we can -- we can take that. But all of this falls on the American public.
So, strong research institutions, including Harvard, make the country stronger. They feed the economy. They boost productivity. They create jobs. And we are part of a long history and a system of partnership with the federal government that produces tremendous breakthrough.
So, that's the first thing I'd say, is that my fear is that--
COLLINS: Yes.
FREEMAN: --this effort to escalate and punish Harvard will punish, really, the American public.
And the second thing, Kaitlan, I would just say, in response is, no government, regardless of the party in power, should really be dictating to private institutions, whether they're private universities or private companies, how they ought to run things. COLLINS: Yes.
FREEMAN: This is a level of micromanagement that is really un- American, and we should be careful about this precedent, which I think is a dangerous precedent for the future.
COLLINS: Well, the point that some people have raised on that exactly, that I've seen in a response to this, even from conservatives have said, What would Republicans do, lawmakers, for example, if it was a Democratic president who was going after Liberty University, or taking a move like this, Professor Brooks?
And that is a question of, would they be as comfortable, watching the President use the full extent of the federal government to take on a school, like Trump is doing with Harvard?
WILLIAM BROOKS: It is absolutely frightening, which is to say, typically, when the government launches an investigation or files a lawsuit, it is left to career professionals. We don't have the President personally weighing in on every step of any investigation, every step of every lawsuit, and constantly turning up a dial of punishment for the would-be defendant. And this is what we're seeing here.
And so, the reason why this is concerning for liberals, conservatives, moderates, independents, is that we have a presidential acting in a -- a president acting in an unpresidential fashion, and using the powers of government in ways that are frankly unlawful, unconstitutional. And in addition to micromanaging, trying to micromanage Harvard, but actually asking Harvard to do things which are patently unconstitutional, as in violating the First Amendment.
And so, we need to be very clear here. The things which can be done against--
COLLINS: Yes.
WILLIAM BROOKS: --quote, Them, can be done with respect to us, as in We, the people.
COLLINS: Cornell William Brooks. Jody Freeman. Great to have you both here tonight on this matter. Thank you so much.
FREEMAN: Thank you.
WILLIAM BROOKS: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next. You're going to want to hear what's happening with this, the back-and-forth that we are seeing happening between Washington and Russia. Emotional overload is how the Kremlin is responding to the latest thing that President Trump just said about President Putin.
We'll talk about what that shift from Trump himself means, with his former National Security Adviser, Ambassador John Bolton, next.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump is not happy with Russian president, Vladimir Putin, after Russia launched its largest drone and missile attack on Ukraine yet, accusing Putin of going, quote, "Absolutely CRAZY," and warning today that if it weren't for him, meaning Trump being in office, that, quote, "Lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia," with the President adding that the Russian leader is, quote, "Playing with fire."
It's a clear shift from Trump on Putin. And whether it will last remains to be seen.
But listen to what the President said in the Oval Office, after their phone call, just last week, compared to what he's saying now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: There's a good chance we can get this done. I believe Putin wants to do it. Now, if I thought Putin didn't want -- I mean, that's what I do. My whole life is like deals, one big deal. And if I thought that President Putin did not want to get this over with, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't even be talking about it, because I'd just pull out.
I'm not happy with what Putin is doing. He's killing a lot of people. And I don't know what the hell happened to Putin. I've known him a long time. Always gotten along with him. But he's sending rockets into cities, and killing people, and I don't like it at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight served as President Trump's National Security Adviser during his first term. Ambassador John Bolton is here.
And it's great to have you here, sir.
What did you make of what the President said today about essentially saying that, that bad things have not happened to Russia because of him.
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Right. Well, it's of a piece with him saying the war never would have occurred if he had been president, taking credit for things that you can neither prove nor disprove. But I do think in the past several days, Trump has said a number of things that show he may be shifting.
Based on his unique view that state-to-state relations between the U.S. and Russia depend on his personal relationship with Vladimir Putin. You heard part of it there. He said, I don't know what the hell happened to Putin. What's wrong with him? And he repeated that in several phrases.
This is saying, If that were the old Vlad Putin that I knew, then I would have solved this in 24 hours. But Putin has changed. I haven't changed. It's not my fault. It's because Putin is doing something different. So that could indicate maybe we will see some action, like additional sanctions.
Of course, he's also been saying about Zelenskyy, Everything that comes out of his mouth is a problem. It's got to stop. I don't like it.
So, there's no guarantee of that. But I think -- I think Trump is trying to distance himself from the relationship he claimed to have with Putin.
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: But you do think that this could be a real shift, in at least his handling of the Russian leader?
BOLTON: I think it's possible. But I think what he really wants to do is absolve himself from any failure, which it manifestly is to get a ceasefire, after four months of trying.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, when he spoke to him, last week, we saw Putin commit to sending what he described as a memorandum of peace when it came to the coming days, laying out essentially what Russia would want in a ceasefire with Ukraine. The United States has not gotten that yet.
Do you think there is some kind of sense inside the White House, or at least the West Wing, that Russia is not making real concessions here, and they haven't, since Trump took office?
BOLTON: Well, it could also be that Putin really thinks he's got Trump on the run here, and that despite the bluster about sanctions or other steps, Putin still thinks he's got the advantage.
And there's an interesting name that's come out of the stock market, looking at Trump's back and forth on tariffs. Tariffs are on. Tariffs are down. Market changes. Trump changes his tariffs. They call it the TACO trade, which stands for Trump Always Chickens Out.
So, if you're the Kremlin, watching the TACO trade at work, it doesn't -- you're not going to be intimidated by Trump's threats. You're going to say, as Dmitry Peskov, Putin's press spokesman did today, You want to worry about something really serious, worry about World War III.
COLLINS: What about the reverse of that argument, though, which is that Trump is keeping him on his toes, if he's going back and forth on how he's talking about Putin? That's what I imagine we would hear that from some of Trump's advisers.
BOLTON: Sure. No, I'm sure that's right.
The two-hour conversation they had, last week, at least, according to Yuri Ushakov, former Russian ambassador to Washington, and now an aide to Putin, was it was very amicable. Neither one really wanted to end the call. I don't think that's broken yet. I think Trump sees bad publicity for Trump when Putin and the Russians are bombing civilian targets in Kyiv, and that's part of what's motivating him here. That doesn't guarantee follow-up action though.
COLLINS: Do you think there's a lot that -- what could Trump do, if he did decide to sanction Russia, which has kind of been looming out there. We've heard some people -- Republican senators want to put sanctions on Russia. They have made very clear they're tired of waiting on the White House on that front. We'll see if they actually go anywhere with it.
But is there actually something he could do that would be consequential, for Putin, in this moment?
BOLTON: Well, in the legislation that's pending in Congress, secondary sanctions against purchasers of Russian oil would be authorized. So China, India, other countries, that are purchasing oil, probably in violation of U.S. and EU sanctions could be the targets.
However, I must say, sanctions have largely failed to prevent Russia from continuing the war. The European--
COLLINS: Yes.
BOLTON: The European package they're considering is their 17th package of sanctions. Now, one question is, if they could find that many sanctions, why weren't they imposed in February of 2022, when the war started? This kind of gradual escalation of economic sanctions obviously doesn't work, and the Russians are taking advantage of them.
COLLINS: So, what would you advise them to do?
BOLTON: Well, I think I would go for the secondary sanctions, and really get tough, including saying to NATO, We've wasted three years not supplying military assistance in a strategic fashion. We have been deterred by these Russian threats of a wider war. That's over. We're going to have a strategy now that will regain full sovereignty and territorial integrity for Ukraine. Now, I don't expect Trump to do it, but that's the right thing to do.
COLLINS: Ambassador John Bolton, great to have you.
BOLTON: Glad to be here on this new set.
COLLINS: Thank you for joining us.
Up next. When it came to what the Ambassador was saying there, about the President and his tariffs, he just backed off his latest tariff threat. Our White House insiders will weigh in on the President's unpredictable trade war, and what advisers inside the White House are saying, about what happens next.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: President Trump is explaining why he's pulling back on his threat to put tariffs, and up them, on products coming out of Europe, a threat that reportedly stunned European officials, and even caught some of the President's own advisers off-guard.
The President now says that while he was, quote, "Extremely satisfied" with his proposed 50 percent tariff on the European Union, he was informed that the EU has called to establish meeting dates. For now, the President says he'll delay that in -- tax until July.
And despite how the move is giving stock markets, and U.S. trading partners, whiplash, the White House's top economic adviser suggests it is all part of their plan to make deals.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: I think having a little bit of a deep breath, and waiting for them to figure out what they want, then that should help the negotiations. But the bottom line is, across all the countries, I expect we'll probably see a few more deals, even this week. There's some stuff very close to finish. And it's up to the President, of course.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My economic source tonight is Justin Wolfers, the Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan.
And it's great to have you here.
Do you think Kevin Hassett has a point there in terms of the on again, off again, negotiating tactics that they say are working in their favor?
JUSTIN WOLFERS, ECONOMICS PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Kaitlan, I'm literally just stifling laughter.
We were told April 2nd was Liberation Day tariffs.
A week later they said, No, we didn't really want to tariff people, we just wanted leverage for deals.
[21:35:00]
And then later on, they said, We'll do 90 deals in 90 days. So therefore they left 102 countries out in the cold.
And then later on, they said, oh, Trump said, he'd done 200 deals already. Then someone clarified and said that was sub deals, whatever the sub deal is.
And then, they announced a deal with Britain, where it was clear they gave the British Prime Minister 24 hours' notice. And the last sentence of that document, by the way, says, Both parties recognize this is not a legally-binding deal. Then they announced the deal with China. But the deal with China was a deal that we agreed that in the future we will speak about creating deals.
And that's all the deals we have. And Kevin's saying he wants credit, because they're doing a lot of good work on deals.
COLLINS: So, I take it you're not expecting--
WOLFERS: It's nowhere near the truth.
COLLINS: --new deals this week?
WOLFERS: I mean, terrific. Maybe there'll be one. Maybe the penguins on the McDonald and Heard Islands will get a deal.
And also, by the way, halfway through this, the President said, You know what? I realized, if we try and do deals with 90 countries in 90 days -- by the way, a typical deal takes two to three years with one country. Halfway through it, he said, You know, the problem is, if 90 countries are trying to call us, it's too many. So instead, we're going to send them a letter.
I'm in a relationship. When my partner and I want to decide how we're going to organize our lives together, we talk. And if I said to her, halfway through it, You know what? This talking is taking too long, I'm just going to send you a letter? I don't think we'd be doing any deals.
COLLINS: Can I -- can I -- the relationship comparison.
Can I just ask you about what the Ambassador John Bolton was just saying here, this trade -- this term I'd not heard before, TACO trade.
WOLFERS: Yes.
COLLINS: Which a Financial Times columnist came up with. It is short for Trump Always Chickens Out. It's been circulating among analysts, as they're trying to make sense of all of this.
Maybe some countries see that and say, That is how we feel. I think the White House obviously would have a different argument when it comes to that. Have you heard this from other people?
WOLFERS: Oh, look, I've heard a lot about the TACO trade.
And I do want to point out. There was not a BACO trade, Biden Always Chickens Out. There was not an OACO trade, Obama Always Chickens Out. There was not a BACO trade, Bush never chickened out.
The tradition among American presidents is speak softly and carry a big stick. Do your homework first, think about what you want to say, and then demand to be taken seriously.
The latest Trump policy on the EU literally did not last a long weekend. Kaitlan, the amazing thing is, you went away for the weekend, on Friday, you're like, Oh, darn, I missed the big news that there's now big tariffs on the EU. And you came back to work, after the long weekend, you're like, Oh, don't worry about it, they're off already.
The only way tariffs work is if you create an expectation that in the long run, if you invest in America, government policy will be here to help you. The problem is they're not creating an expectation on a Friday that lasts until Monday. So, we're going to get none of the benefits of the tariffs, as a result.
COLLINS: Justin Wolfers, we'll see what the White House does next. As always, it is great to have you. Thank you.
WOLFERS: Thanks.
COLLINS: Just this side, my White House insiders are back here with me, I should note.
Jeff Mason, listening to that. I think that he has a point in terms of, this is not something that is only coming from people who criticize the White House, or saying, I don't like the tariff policy all along. There's some people who say, You know, I do like it but -- or, I liked the intent of it, but there is the justification changes, or the rationale changes, or the bar changes, in terms of what these other countries have to do when it comes to this negotiating.
What are you hearing from people inside the White House on this?
MASON: Well, the one thing I would say, I mean, I enjoyed listening to that interview, and his exasperation. And yet, honestly, more than 120 days or so in days or so into this administration, now we know that this is how President Trump operates. So, it's not a surprise. It's also informative and instructive to trading partners.
And what Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, did on Sunday, was get the President on the phone and, no doubt, say something nice to him, and then say, We need more time.
And I was on the tarmac, on Sunday, when he was flying back to D.C., and asked him about that, and that's when he said, Yes, we had a good call, and we're going to -- I'm going to delay these tariffs until July. That, I think, is also a reflection of the fact that he makes his decisions kind of based on the last person who he gets on the phone. So, I'm sure--
COLLINS: And how important those relationships with other leaders are.
MASON: 100 percent.
So, it's got to be very exasperating to markets. But the markets were pleased today. And yet, I think people are also getting used to it that this is how President Trump operates and negotiates.
COLLINS: What are you hearing about those?
[21:40:00] TALCOTT: Yes, I think that's exactly right. I mean, this is one of those things where oftentimes, just like on the campaign trail, just like during Trump's first terms, his aides don't always know what he's going to do, because he'll wake up, or he'll be up late at night, and he'll decide to send a Truth Social post, or a tweet.
And I also think an interesting aspect of this is the fact that he is continuing to sort of pull back on these threats, and I think that shows who has Trump's ear within the administration. And it's clearly still--
COLLINS: Yes.
TALCOTT: --the Treasury Secretary--
MASON: Yes.
TALCOTT: --the Trade Representative, people who are a little bit more cautious about tariffs, and really looking at the market in ways that other Trump advisers are not.
COLLINS: Can I also ask you about something else that happened today on just the economic front, as we've been following, what's happening with the tariffs.
Also, the crypto has been a huge thing, we've been following. And today, Trump's social media company announced basically that it had raised enough money to buy $2.5 billion worth of bitcoin. Trump owns a little over, I was looking at the numbers, 50 percent of Trump's Media stock. It means that his roughly $2.7 billion stake is one of his most valuable investments that he has, essentially. This move, obviously, is a -- it's an incredibly big deal for Truth Social.
MASON: And it comes on the heels of him having this dinner with other crypto investors, just last week, I believe. Karoline Leavitt--
COLLINS: Or basically, whoever paid the most got to come.
MASON: Indeed. Indeed.
Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary, has made a point of saying, The President is transparent, that there's no corruption here.
I guess, I would just tie it back to the very beginning of our conversation, earlier in the show, with Marc -- about Marc Rich and pardons. A lot of the rules that applied to other presidents just simply are not applying to him, politically, right now. Because, I suspect that if there were another president who had these types of business dealings happening at the same time that he's having this much impact on that market, there would be an uproar about ethics.
TALCOTT: And we've seen that for years, really, with Trump. This is not a new phenomenon, right? For years, Trump has done things, or things have happened, and it would have crushed any other politician's dreams of continuing to be a politician. But with Trump, at times, it actually helps him, right? Especially among his base. And so, I think this is one of those cases where he's getting a lot of criticism for it. His base doesn't really care that much.
COLLINS: Well, and his -- Trump's shares are in a trust that is controlled by his by his sons. His eldest son, Donald Trump Jr.--
MASON: Right.
COLLINS: --who is also a Trump Media board member, and was speaking at a bitcoin conference, tonight. And this is part of what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP JR., AMERICAN BUSINESSMAN, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S SON: And once we started explaining to him the potential, as you know, I mean, he's a quick study.
As a guy who is a serious innovator, I mean, you know, he sort of did things before everyone else. He saw ideas before everyone else, he implemented them. And the first guy to do branded real estate. He was really successful in that. And then he saw an opportunity in television, parlayed that into the Presidency of the United States. I mean, he's a guy that gets these things.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: He's talking about how his father became interested in crypto. But it also speaks to how we're seeing such a different shift, this term, this time around, of how they are treating crypto, inside the White House, than how they were doing in Trump round one.
MASON: For sure. Well, I think that also shows that there's been more development in the crypto market. But it's something that they are watching closely, and have seen as an investment opportunity.
Two other things that stood out to me from his comments. One, that he's briefing his father about it. And two, that he acknowledged that the President parlayed his TV career into the presidency. I think both of those are interesting.
COLLINS: Yes.
Jeff Mason. Shelby Talcott. Great to have both of you here tonight with your reporting. Thank you for that.
Up next for us here. SpaceX is launching its biggest and most powerful rocket into space for a major test tonight. The goal, to carry humans to Mars, for the first time. My next source is a former astronaut. He'll weigh in on the ambitious plan from Elon Musk.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: You're looking at SpaceX's Starship, which is the largest and most powerful rocket ever built, successfully take off from SpaceX's site, in South Texas tonight. A launch that achieved several key milestones for a rocket that is considered crucial to NASA's goal of returning astronauts to the Moon, this decade, and for the goal of Elon Musk to carry humans to Mars for the first time.
The flight didn't last too long. At around the half-hour mark, Starship suffered a fuel leak would cause -- which ended up ultimately causing it to spin into space there. Then, a few minutes later, the ship began falling and burning up in reentry, in what SpaceX calls a rapid unscheduled disassembly.
The launch was actually more successful than the previous two test flights, which ended in explosive failures, something that you saw Elon Musk celebrating on social media tonight, calling it a big improvement over last flight, and also saying that there's a lot of good data to review.
My source tonight is a former NASA astronaut. Scott "Scooter" Altman is here.
And it's so great to have you.
They didn't get everything they wanted. But do you view this as a success tonight?
SCOTT ALTMAN, FORMER NASA ASTRONAUT, SPACE GROUP PRESIDENT, ASRC FEDERAL: Well, it's definitely an improvement. Like Elon said, they wanted to get further along before anything happened. They got a lot more data tonight, and it was a success in many ways. That's what test flight is about.
COLLINS: And when it comes to what the issue that they did have, with the fuel leak, what does that say to you? Or is that something that you can't control? How does that work?
[21:50:00]
ALTMAN: Well, it's something you definitely want to control before you put humans on that vehicle. It's a point that you don't get to, until you get that far in the test program. So that's what's enabled them to find areas where they need to make improvements. And that's kind of been SpaceX's modus operandi. Test until you fail, and then fix the failure and move on from there.
COLLINS: And so, essentially, it's just, you just keep testing, testing, testing, until you can weed out all of those issues--
ALTMAN: Right.
COLLINS: --that go wrong?
ALTMAN: That's kind of the idea. Proof by demonstration.
COLLINS: Yes. When it comes to the takeaways on tonight, NASA is hoping to use the same Starship vehicle, to get NASA astronauts, back on the surface of the Moon, in a couple of years. How hopeful do you feel about that, after what you saw tonight?
ALTMAN: Well, it's a step in the right direction. I'm really hopeful that NASA will continue to monitor this. It's the human landing system that astronauts are going to use to go from the Gateway, down to the surface of the Moon. Hopefully, within the next two years. There's a lot of work that has to be done on Starship to prove that it can do that. But it's a key part of the effort to get people back to the Moon.
My company is actually supporting Lockheed Martin, building the Orion vehicle, that is now being stacked on the Artemis vehicle to fly astronauts next year, some of whom are good friends of mine. So, I'm hopeful that that goes well. But they need to be able to go to the Moon and land, and the Starship is the vehicle that's going to get them to the ground.
COLLINS: How do other fellow astronauts, and former astronauts, feel about what this timeline looks like, and the fact that it hasn't happened again for so long?
ALTMAN: It is disappointing that we haven't made more advances in space. But we've done a lot of great things. Building the International Space Station was a huge achievement. We've learned how to live in space for long periods of time. We've had astronauts up there a full year, and they work out enough, so when they land, they're not fully deconditioned from being up there so long.
Because what I'd like to do is fly to Mars, six-month journey, land, and then be able to get up and go out and explore. That's what you want to do when you get there. So you got to be able to be in shape after six months of zero-g.
COLLINS: Yes, what does that look -- how do you do that?
ALTMAN: Well, they have a bunch of techniques. Basically, there's a treadmill on station. You anchor yourself down and you can run. They ran the equivalent of a marathon, when Suni Williams was up there, her first time. And they have a Resistive Exercise Device, so you put pressure on your bones and joints as you're working out.
COLLINS: Yes.
ALTMAN: They -- astronauts on the station spend about two hours a day working out to try and stay in shape.
COLLINS: That's so fascinating. And are they taught? Are they kind of trained what to do before they go up there, so they already know, I mean?
ALTMAN: They--
COLLINS: Or do they have trainers who are like helping them while they're there?
ALTMAN: Well, not on the station, but people are watching you down below, looking at the data on how you're doing your exercise, and advising you, Hey, you're not really pushing it enough here. You need to do that.
COLLINS: So they're getting coached from-- ALTMAN: Get coached.
COLLINS: --millions of miles away.
ALTMAN: No matter where you are, there's somebody looking at how you're doing.
COLLINS: On this idea of getting to Mars and what Elon Musk. This has clearly been a goal of his, long before he was involved in DOGE, in the Trump administration's efforts, in politics. How hopeful do you feel about that?
ALTMAN: Well, I've always wanted to have humans on Mars. I think it's the next great destination. Going back to the Moon is a way for us to learn things, to get us to Mars. At one point in NASA, I thought I would have been around long enough to write my name on the manifest as the first astronaut to go to Mars.
It is a long-term commitment. It takes about six months to get there. Then you have to wait about a year and a half, while the planets line up, so you can take off and get home in six months. So, it's about a two and a half year commitment. But I think--
COLLINS: Wow.
ALTMAN: Yes.
COLLINS: I didn't realize that.
ALTMAN: That's, with the technology we have today, that's about what it would take.
COLLINS: So, it's an incredibly long commitment for whichever astronaut is eventually, potentially the one--
ALTMAN: Right.
COLLINS: --to do that?
ALTMAN: And I hope when I do go out and do talks at schools that one day, maybe some student that I talk to will be the person that's there, and they'll say, Yes, I remember when Scooter came to my school and inspired me to do this. Because I'm really excited about the next generation doing great things.
COLLINS: Scooter Altman, it's great to have you. And thank you for coming on to talk about the launch tonight with us.
ALTMAN: Thanks to be here. It's an exciting time.
COLLINS: Yes. Great to have you.
Coming up. We have a major change to inform you about when it comes to the COVID vaccine. Other major updates out of Washington today. Don't miss that. That's ahead.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Before we go, three notable updates out of the White House, and across the northern border.
Starting with big changes for the COVID-19 vaccine. The CDC is now no longer recommending the shot for healthy kids and pregnant women. Why, you may ask. It's not entirely clear.
We heard the HHS Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., not offering scientific evidence when he announced this major change today, which we are told bypassed the government's typical process for evaluating and recommending vaccines for Americans. CNN is told, his decision may affect insurance coverage as well as the government purchasing of those shots.
Also tonight, Republican senator, Tommy Tuberville, has made the speculation official, announcing that he is jumping into the race to become Alabama's next governor in 2026. The former Auburn football coach turned first term senator of Alabama, and Trump ally, says that the President was, quote, Fully supportive of his bid.
[22:00:00]
And also tonight, as President Trump is again pushing Canada to become the 51st state. We saw King Charles in Canada today, speaking to the Canadian Parliament, where he said the country is facing a, quote, "Critical moment," emphasizing self-determination, even making mention of Canada's changing relationship, to put it lightly, with its southern neighbor.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight, here on the new set.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
