Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Musk Continues Attacking Trump's Spending Bill; Trump Signs Proclamation To Ban Travel From 12 Countries; Dem Rivals Blast Cuomo In Heated NYC Mayoral Debate. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired June 04, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Right.
GEORGE CLOONEY, AMERICAN ACTOR AND FILMMAKER:: She's the bravest person I've ever met in my life.
And so, we have other issues besides just worrying about an American administration that might want to be unkind and say bad things about us.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: George Clooney starts in a special live broadcast of "Good Night, and Good Luck" right here on CNN. You can catch the Tony- nominated play, Saturday night, 07:00 p.m. Eastern, and streaming on CNN.com.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. I'll see you, tomorrow.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Tonight. Kill the bill. That's the message coming from Elon Musk, about President Trump's signature legislation, as he is trying to get the Senate to pass the bill.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Moments after leaving a meeting with President Trump at the White House tonight, the top Republican in the Senate declared, failure is not an option, as he and President Trump are now facing an opponent with the kind of megaphone that really only rivals the President's.
Quote, "Call your Senator, Call your Congressman, Bankrupting America is NOT" OK, Elon Musk told his 220 million followers about the President's so-called, big, beautiful bill, with Musk calling on Congress to, quote, "KILL the BILL."
It's been a head-snapping turn of events for the White House, where Musk just worked until a few days ago. And where today, I caught up with the Senate Majority Leader.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Elon Musk said today that the bill should be killed and that you should start all over. Are you saying that that's not going to happen?
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): No, I mean, we're a long ways down this track, and we realize that this is a bill that the House spent a lot of time analyzing. We spent, I think we've said, we've had like, 18 different meetings now at the Senate Finance Committee, and we're committed to making a law that will make the lives of the American people better.
And so, we are -- we are moving forward, and I'm hopeful that at the end, we'll have 51 votes in the Senate, and whenever the bill goes back to the House, they'll have the requisite number to put it on the President's desk. So this is a -- the wheels are in motion on this. As I said before, failure is not an option. We will get this done one way or the other.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Those comments there come as the latest figures from the non- partisan Congressional Budget Office show that the bill would add $2.4 trillion to the national debt, and nearly a million -- a 11 million Americans, if this passes, as it is right now, would lose health care coverage.
Musk posted today and said, quote, "A new spending bill should be drafted that doesn't massively grow the deficit and increase the debt ceiling by 5 TRILLION DOLLARS." Musk also referred to it as the, quote, "Debt Slavery Bill."
The President is not hitting back directly at Musk. He didn't even mention him when he was addressing the crowd at the White House, this summer soiree, earlier today.
But we were at the White House, after that meeting he had behind closed doors with several Senate Republicans today. I tracked down several of those Republicans who have insight into where the President's head is right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And Senator, what did the President have to say about Elon Musk during the meeting? Was he frustrated with him?
SEN. STEVE DAINES (R-MT): No. I mean, look, Elon -- he called Elon a genius, and he also said that, he said that we've got a difference of opinion right now, but I think one thing for Elon is that we can't get all the spending cuts done in one bill. What we've done, what we've done, is we've got the tax provisions, we got to get that nailed now, because it stops the largest tax increase in American history.
We need to do more on spending. We all agree with Elon, more spending reductions are necessary. Just can't get it all done in one bill.
COLLINS: When Elon Musk says the bill should be killed and you should start over, is there any chance of that happening, in your view? SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): There is not. We need to get as much done as we possibly can get done, and then keep moving in the future.
COLLINS: Are people--
LANKFORD: I'm not an all-or-nothing guy to say you should do nothing if you don't get everything. You got to do as much as you possibly can and keep moving. President Trump's very, very focused on, Let's make progress. Let's keep going. The American people expect us to get stuff done. Let's get stuff done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Those are the senators who met with President Trump today.
And also, the Speaker of the House pushed back on Musk, and said he was surprised at his promise to push out members who vote yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): It's curious to me what happened this week. And I just, I mean, full disclosure, Elon and I had a great conversation, about a half-hour long talk, on Monday, this week, Monday morning. And we talked about the big, beautiful bill.
And Elon was encouraged by that conversation. We had great -- it was a very friendly, very fruitful conversation together. And he and I talked about the midterm elections. And he said, I'm going to help. We got to make sure that the Republicans keep the House majority.
Elon and I left on a great note. We were texting one another, you know, happy texts, you know, Monday. And then -- and then yesterday, you know, 24 hours later, he does a 180, and he comes out and opposed the bill. And it surprised me, frankly. And I don't take it personal. We don't take it personal. You know, he's -- policy differences are not personal. I think he's flat wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:05:00]
COLLINS: Musk responded to those comments and said, quote, "We need a new bill that doesn't grow the deficit," and "No one who actually reads the bill should be able to stomach it."
My lead source tonight is a senator with maybe one of the toughest jobs on Capitol Hill, this moment. Oklahoma Republican, Markwayne Mullin, is tasked with making sure the House, the Senate and the White House are all on the same page.
I'm guessing, is Elon Musk included in that group of people you're trying to keep on the same page here?
SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): You know, I have a lot of respect for Elon. And I've made reference to this earlier today, Kaitlan, as, I love my wife dearly, and we still have differences sometimes. So, I can have a lot of respect for someone, and still have differences.
And everybody's welcome to their opinion. But the fact is, we're going to pass one big, beautiful bill. We're going to get 51 in the Senate. And we're going to make sure that it's not a killer bill that the House can't pass either. And so, the House is going to deliver their votes, and we're going to put it on the President's desk for the American people.
COLLINS: So, it sounds like you don't believe that Elon Musk will succeed in killing this bill?
MULLIN: No, absolutely not. We're laser-focused on delivering President Trump's agenda. The American people elected President Trump in November, and they put the Republicans in charge.
These -- this is one step towards multiple promises of the President made, by making the tax provisions permanent, by making sure we're cutting deficit spending, and we're getting rid of the waste and fraud, which, by the way, Elon helped identify, especially with the waste and fraud in a lot of these government programs.
COLLINS: Yes, but he's frustrated that that has not been codified into law. But on this--
MULLIN: Well, but we're -- well--
COLLINS: Let's get to--
MULLIN: OK.
COLLINS: --DOGE in a minute.
MULLIN: OK.
COLLINS: But on his opposition to the bill, what I'm hearing from people in the White House is they think it's just because of the EV tax credits that are going away, things that helped Tesla and his companies. Do you believe that's why he's opposed to this bill?
MULLIN: No, I haven't talked to Elon about it, so it'd be hard for me to comment on it. Everybody wants something in any bill that you go through. That's why we have lobbying firms, right? But Elon and I have not had that conversation at all. So, I would say, I couldn't speak to that. I would find it difficult.
Because he's been very open in the past, saying that vehicles need to stand on their own, that we shouldn't be picking winners or losers. He said that before, that that's not the government's role. Let it -- get it -- create an environment for entrepreneurs, like himself, go out and compete with everybody else.
COLLINS: Does his opinion, though, and what he's been saying, make it harder for the Senate to pass this bill?
MULLIN: I think it adds a layer of complications, but it doesn't make it any more difficult. Everybody has an opinion, and they should have an opinion on it, right? This is a massive undertaking, we're doing here, but we're -- it's still very narrow.
Reconciliation can only deal with mandatory spending and taxes. So, we can't get into discretionary spending. So, a lot of DOGE cuts get into discretionary spending, not mandatory spending. When we start talking about mandatory spending, we can't get into Social Security, so we have to look at the waste and fraud in other programs.
And with that being said, every senator and every representative has a say. At the end of the day, their opinion matters. We need--
COLLINS: Does Elon Musk have a say?
MULLIN: I said every senator and every representative. At this point, we're negotiating now among ourselves. We are -- we're taking the promises that President Trump made, and the agenda that the American people want us to deliver on, and we're trying to get the best possible bill that can pass both chambers, and get to the President's desk, and that's what we're going to deliver.
COLLINS: Well, and his issue is what it's adding to the deficit. That's what he keeps saying publicly. Economists have been warning about the impact that it could have, if it passes, as it is now. And I know Republican leaders have been disputing those numbers.
What economists that Republicans have heard from has told you this bill will not add to the deficit?
MULLIN: Well, we have -- the same economists that you're referring to are the same economists that said that the TCJA, the tax cuts that President Trump put in place in 2018 was going to add $1.5 trillion in deficits, right? They were dead-wrong. It actually added $1.6 trillion in surplus.
So, these same economists carry little to no weight, when they're talking about the tax provisions, because that's what they're talking about. They're saying that if we -- if we don't -- if we do nothing on taxes, that it's better for the economy to allow them to expire, and have the average tax for the average household go up $1,400 a month.
So, how can they say that keeping the current tax policy, and making it permanent, is going to be bad for the economy? Because that's what they're talking about. They're not talking about the waste and fraud we're cutting out of Medicaid. They're talking about the tax provisions.
COLLINS: Yes, but there's no economist that anyone has pointed to that has said that it won't add to the deficit. Unless, do you -- has someone told you that it will not add at all?
MULLIN: What the -- what they're -- yes, because we're looking at what is -- what's actually happened before.
[21:10:00]
With last time that we had the TCJA passed, we saw the economy respond to it, because one, confidence brought back into the consumers' confidence level. We saw medium household income increase, and we saw investments in the -- in the states and those counties that they live in increasing also. Therefore, we saw $1.6 trillion surplus.
What we're saying right here is this is easily going to create a GDP of around 3 percent, easily. We already see over -- we already see trillions of dollars of manufacturing jobs coming back. When we are able to have full expense on R&D, we're able to have a confidence that the tax provisions are going to be in place. We know that businesses respond to assurities. And assurities mean that they can depend on our tax code staying in place.
COLLINS: Yes, well--
MULLIN: And when they do that, they'll invest in our economy.
COLLINS: But well part of that -- I mean, part of this is, why it's coming due, is because the last time when it was initially voted -- you weren't in office, I don't believe, when the Trump tax cuts were voted into?
MULLIN: I wasn't in the Senate. I was in the House.
COLLINS: Right, you were in the House.
MULLIN: Right.
COLLINS: When they were passed, in the Senate, though, I mean, they were set to expire. So, everyone who--
MULLIN: Five years.
COLLINS: --passed it knew that this was going to happen, at some point--
MULLIN: Right.
COLLINS: --where you'd have to pass it, or people would have an increase. But what everyone is disputing--
MULLIN: But these -- but those are the same economists that were talking about, that it was going to destroy the economy.
COLLINS: Right. What you're talking about--
MULLIN: But you saw the greatest economy growth during that time that we had seen. We saw that--
COLLINS: But what you're talking about is the Congressional Budget Office. That's who you're citing here, who scored it then. They've scored this now that everyone's been disputing.
MULLIN: But they're referring to the same economists to which you're referring to. And I'm going to--
COLLINS: Right, but--
MULLIN: Well that economist hasn't come to Congress and talked to us.
COLLINS: But let me ask you about the Congressional Budget Office that all the Republicans are disputing now, or at least the ones who are -- who are for this bill.
Because then, in a headline, in December 2020 -- on December 23rd, 2021, you actually wrote this in the Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise, in Oklahoma, and you said, According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Build Back Broke bill, which was President Biden's legislation, will cost $4.9 trillion and add over $3 trillion to our nation's debt.
Some people may look at that and say, Well, why were the numbers trustworthy then, if they're not trustworthy now?
MULLIN: Because we're comparing, we -- by the way, we were absolutely correct on that. But what we're looking at--
COLLINS: But you liked their numbers then, but you don't like them now.
MULLIN: Sure. But I'm just--
COLLINS: And some people might say that's political (ph).
MULLIN: Because -- because the way they score. Let's just talk about the way they score, right? And I just want to break some stuff down, so I'm going to get a little wonky on you right here.
Right now, student loans are at only a 50 percent payback, right? So, we have $1.6 trillion, and I want to use this as an example, $1.6 trillion in student loans are out. 41,000 total loans. Only 50 percent are current. 30 percent are deferred. 20 percent are in default.
Now, what the CBO is saying, because we changed that to where they have -- instead of being able to borrow unlimited amount, we've capped it to $50,000, or the House kept it at $50,000 per student. The CBO is saying, That's a cost. Because they concern that, We're not going to be able to collect the interest. Because the way the CBO scored this, as a cost, is that they assume that we're going to collect a 100 percent of it and the interest going into it.
CBO also got it dead-wrong in 2017, as I've stated before just while ago, that the TCJA--
COLLINS: But was it dead-wrong? It was a little off. But it wasn't totally dead-wrong.
MULLIN: It was totally off. Because they said it was going to be a $1.5 trillion deficit. And instead, by 2019 we had -- or 2020, we had a $1.6 trillion surplus.
COLLINS: But there was inflation. There was the pandemic. I mean, those things--
MULLIN: No-- COLLINS: --were factored into what happened--
MULLIN: We--
COLLINS: --by 2020.
MULLIN: No, 2020 -- while he wasn't in there. I'm saying, in 2020, not -- not -- not when -- not after, we had COVID hit. When the 2020 numbers came out -- for 2019 came out, in 2020, we had a $1.6 trillion surplus. Now, how wrong was it? Now, that same CBO--
COLLINS: Yes.
MULLIN: --is scoring the same tax cuts the same exact way as they did in 2017.
COLLINS: Yes.
MULLIN: They got it wrong in 2017.
COLLINS: And--
MULLIN: We know they got it wrong this time.
COLLINS: And you're saying they're wrong now. I'm just saying that you have quoted them before, and so have other Republicans. So people may say, Well, we can trust them sometimes, so we can't trust them at other times.
But I do want to ask you about breaking news tonight, coming out of the White House, as the President has signed basically a new travel ban, reprising--
MULLIN: Right.
COLLINS: --one that he signed in 20 -- in his first term in office. And this list tonight, I was told by a White House official, basically was under consideration. He decided to move forward with it because of what happened in Boulder, that antisemitic, horrific attack on Sunday. Egypt is not on this list. Why do you think they were left off?
MULLIN: Well, I wouldn't say that's correct, because we've got briefed on this.
COLLINS: What's not correct?
MULLIN: On what you're saying that, that it was because of the Boulder. This was already being considered prior to Boulder.
COLLINS: That encouraged them to do it sooner, is what I'm saying.
MULLIN: I don't know if--
COLLINS: Basically--
MULLIN: --I don't know if that's accurate, because-- COLLINS: That's a -- a White House official said that to me, about an hour ago.
MULLIN: But with the briefings that we've had, we've been briefed on this, prior to this happening. There are some real travel concerns because of some activities that's going place. I don't think the Boulder incident had anything to do with this, moving forward, because this conversation has been going on for weeks.
And the President takes keeping the American people safe, extremely important to him. He talks about it all the time. And so, I know that he takes foreign policy serious. He's not one to do anything that he feels like he can negotiate deals with individuals. This was a well- thought-out, not-a-hurry idea. This is something that he felt like was in America's best interest for national security interests.
[21:15:00]
COLLINS: But can I ask you on that? And that's your argument for why he did it. The President himself, when he announced this tonight, the White House posted a video, he cites Boulder at the top. It was an Egyptian national who was the suspect there.
MULLIN: Right.
COLLINS: So, he himself was saying, That's why.
So, people may say, Well, then why was Egypt not included on this list?
MULLIN: Well, we use it as an example of why we need to do this stuff. But that wasn't why he said he did it. He just used it as an example. We could go back through and use several different activities you want to, that's just fresh on people's mind.
You know, as much as anything, when you're doing retail, you sell what's fast, what is on people's mind at the time. This is explaining why we're doing it, but this isn't the reason why it was done.
COLLINS: But it's part of the reason.
MULLIN: I wouldn't say that. I would -- because I'm telling you, we had already been briefed for--
COLLINS: Yes--
MULLIN: Before we went on Memorial weekend break, we were briefed on these specific travel bans--
COLLINS: Yes, it was under consideration.
MULLIN: --that would be going in place.
COLLINS: Well, let's listen to the President himself, what he said tonight.
MULLIN: Yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas. We don't want them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: So, if that is part of the rationale, I mean that would apply to this suspect here.
MULLIN: Well, he said, Underscored.
COLLINS: So, should Egypt be on the list?
MULLIN: No, absolutely not. But he said, Underscored. He talked -- he said, Underscores the reason. He didn't specifically say, Egypt. He said, Underscores the reasons why we need to do this. Once again, he's using it as an example, because it's fresh on the people's mind.
But that doesn't mean that Egypt has to be on it. Egypt was never being considered at this level for a travel ban. That was not a -- that was not one of the ones we are getting briefed on, a couple weeks ago. There is specific reasons--
COLLINS: So, this would not have stopped what happened in Boulder--
MULLIN: Well, if we had stricter travel plans--
COLLINS: --if it isn't for--
MULLIN: --if this -- if we had President Trump in office, this gentleman probably wouldn't still be in the United States. What we had is four years of the Biden administration that didn't care about our immigration policy at all. And no one can argue that point. You can't argue that. Jake can't argue that. No one can argue that.
COLLINS: But I'm just curious about -- Jake Tapper?
MULLIN: Yes, I'm just pointing him out. He can still write it for us (ph).
COLLINS: I think he's probably like, Why am I catching astray here?
MULLIN: I like the guy, sometimes.
COLLINS: I think people might just wonder, if the logic is, the concern is, vetting people who come into the United States on visas, and overstay those visas. That is exactly the suspect who is charged here.
MULLIN: Sure. COLLINS: But let me ask you also. Today, the President had a call with President Putin. Obviously, you were a co-sponsor on a bill to sanction Russia. Do you believe the Senate should move ahead with those sanctions?
MULLIN: We're working with the President of the United States. He is -- he's done a phenomenal job on our foreign affairs. We don't want to get ahead of the White House. We want to work with the President. We want to make sure this is a leverage point that he can use for Putin.
But Russia knows that we are very serious about moving forward with this. Lindsey and I have had a -- have had multiple conversations with the President about it. Lindsey Graham. Wanting to understand which point we need to go ahead and move forward.
The President and the White House talking with them on a very high level, saying, Hey, let's allow Putin and Zelenskyy to move forward, as long as Putin is trying to get to actually, not a ceasefire, at peace deal.
President Trump has been very clear. He wants to end all the killing. Period. If we -- if Putin is not negotiating in good faith, which I think you saw the President get upset with him, just a week ago? If the President gets to the point where he doesn't think that Putin is operating in good faith? Then, we will immediately move forward.
And it will pass. We already -- we know that it'll pass both chambers. It'll get to the President's desk.
COLLINS: Yes.
MULLIN: But we can't get ahead of the President on this.
COLLINS: But do you think he'd sign it if it comes to his desk?
MULLIN: Yes, absolutely. Because when we move, we'll be moving in step with the President.
COLLINS: So, they told you that at the White House, that he'd sign it?
MULLIN: Yes. Because if the President talks to us, and says that he's ready to move forward with it, because Putin can't be trusted anymore? Then, we'll immediately go, and it'll be, because we've worked with the White House.
COLLINS: But have they asked you to hold off for, right now, as these talks go on?
MULLIN: Well, I wouldn't say hold off. We're working with them on the timing. Timing is important about anything. Any negotiating you're dealing with, timing is vitally important. You know policy -- that you can have the right policy, and the timing is wrong, then the policy is wrong. The timing is just important as the policy.
COLLINS: Senator Markwayne Mullin, thank you for your time tonight.
MULLIN: Thank you.
COLLINS: And good luck with those negotiations on Capitol Hill.
MULLIN: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next. We have more breaking news coming out of the White House. The President issued that new travel ban. We have several other major headlines coming as well, including an investigation he once launched, into his predecessor, President Biden. The details, with our sources, ahead.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: There are a bunch of major headlines coming out of the White House tonight, after President Trump signed a series of proclamations, behind closed doors. That includes a sweeping travel ban on 12 countries with a partial restriction on seven others that we just mentioned, reintroducing a controversial step that he took early in his first term, with some differences this time tonight.
What we are reading in this proclamation is this takes effect at midnight, five days from now, on June 9th, and it bans travel to the United States from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
This also comes as the President signed a proclamation, suspending international visas for new students at Harvard, as he is trying to block foreign students from enrolling at the university.
My sources are here in the newsroom, on this breaking news.
CNN's Priscilla Alvarez.
The New York Times' David Sanger.
Along with former federal prosecutor, Shan Wu.
Priscilla, let's start with you, just in terms of the differences in the travel ban we saw in term one, and what we're seeing now.
[21:25:00]
PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, there are quite a bit of similarities, as well as some glaring differences, particularly with the inclusion of Afghanistan. But this is something that President Trump has been telegraphing since day one. It's also something that I'm told has been an ongoing discussion and deliberation within this administration.
And they felt quite empowered, because, as a reminder, in the first term, the Supreme Court eventually did essentially OK a version of the travel ban, saying that they -- administration had broad discretion, the President, specifically, had broad discretion, when it comes to limiting the entry of certain non-citizens.
Now, as far as the similarities in that iteration that was eventually approved or OK-ed by the Supreme Court, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Chad, Iran, those were in that iteration.
COLLINS: Yes.
ALVAREZ: Afghanistan wasn't. Cuba and Venezuela similarly, warrant -- that is going to matter moving forward, particularly in Republican politics and in Florida.
But there -- the basis of this has been for this administration, both the first term and now, the screening and the vetting. And that these countries do not provide sufficient screening and vetting. Therefore, they are limiting the entry. But this is certainly a blow to those non-citizens from those countries.
COLLINS: Yes, and David, as I was reading through this earlier, essentially what the President is saying here is that he can take some of these countries off, if they -- if he changes their mind, or changes the bar that they've set for the vetting, and he can also add other countries. And basically, he's arguing this came after a review by the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio.
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE & NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUTHOR, "NEW COLD WARS": This was done, I think, in a much more skillful way than they did with the original, the so-called Muslim ban at the time.
Because what he's arguing here is state failure makes it impossible for the United States to judge the backgrounds of people who have applied for visas. And what he doesn't do, of course, is lay out the standard that they must meet in order to get past that list. And it's sort of a, We'll know it when we see it.
And you've seen him do this a number of times in different ways, in different orders, in recent times, where he's designing it to give himself the maximum discretion, and letting -- making the argument to the courts that this is within the President's authority, this is sort of an executive branch decision.
COLLINS: Yes.
Shan, legally, how are you looking at this tonight?
SHAN WU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think if we go back to the original Trump 1 ban, as Priscilla was talking about, the Supreme Court gave the President, the raw power, to do this.
The factual predicate here, I think, is really poor. I mean, he talks about the Boulder, Colorado suspect, whose country is actually not on the banned list.
He also has some kind of silly things, I think, which says, for example, Some of the countries that face the bans or partial restrictions are people who have a higher percentage of people overstaying visas. I mean, how is a country supposed to screen for that? What's that got to do with anything? Individual people choose to overstay it. But--
COLLINS: Are you saying that's more of a responsibility of the United States?
WU: Absolutely. In fact, I would argue, most of this is responsibility of the United States to take care of problems, overstaying within the U.S. And if they have information that particular people may have ties to terrorist groups, I mean, that's, again, something they need to look at.
I think it's over-broad. But again, I think the President has been given the raw legal power to do this. But there'll certainly be legal challenges. I think, at the end of the day, when it reaches the Supreme Court, probably on the emergency docket basis, I think they're still going to uphold it.
COLLINS: Yes. And I think the rollout, we're also seeing the differences, and as I call it, round one and round two. Because round one, it came out very quickly. People were left at airports, freaking out over what this meant for them, then. This seems to obviously be rolled out in a much different way, much later on in his term.
What have the deliberations been like? I mean, since a lot of the people who are working in the Department of Homeland Security, and in the West Wing, Stephen Miller and company, were here for that first time.
ALVAREZ: Well, carefully crafted. I had talked to a source about this when the deliberations were ongoing, and they said they learned their lesson.
Remember, when the -- when the President came into office, this January, one of the first questions I asked, Is the travel ban going to come out as swiftly as it did in the first term? And that was the response that I got, because they did want to craft this carefully. This has already gone to the Supreme Court. They knew what discretion and authority they had.
I think that something to watch out for here, Kaitlan, is how this evolves, because it leaves, to your point, an opportunity for countries to be added or not. And one of the big priorities for this administration, particularly on immigration, is which of these countries is not taking their citizens back, when they're trying to deport them? Which one of these do they want to work with to send other migrants there? Remember, they tried to do that with South Sudan. So, it's going to be interesting to see how that plays into this equation--
COLLINS: Yes.
ALVAREZ: --moving forward.
COLLINS: In terms of like, even making a deal, basically--
ALVAREZ: Right.
COLLINS: --and how we've seen play out with the tariffs.
David, also on Harvard tonight. This is a big move that the President is taking, trying to essentially fulfill his effort to block Harvard from being able to enroll international students. You're an alum of the school. But I just wonder, from your reporting, what you take away from this proclamation tonight?
[21:30:00]
SANGER: So, he telegraphed that this was coming, and a good number of Harvard students, as a good number of students at a lot of major universities, are foreign-born.
I also teach there. I teach national security. And I can tell you that in the class that we teach, we have a lot of foreigners, and it vastly enriches the classroom experience. You wouldn't want to talk about national security issues only among Americans, and not get different perspectives, and pushback, on these issues.
I don't think the President is really focused on that. I think he is, at this point, very determined to go punish Harvard for standing up to him. And this is going to be the defining struggle, I think, with the academic world.
COLLINS: Well, and Shan, people might look at this and say, Well, didn't a court just block him from blocking the school from enrolling international students? But he seems to be citing a different authority in this proclamation tonight, instead, talking about national security.
WU: Yes, I think that's mostly just him talking about national security. They're trying a different tactic.
I think the Harvard ban is likely to fail because there's just no basis for singling out Harvard, in particular. If there is evidence that particular students have ties, or they've done something criminally wrong, that's something they can zero in on.
But not really -- I mean, there's allusions to that kind of evidence, supposedly, but really, haven't seen that yet. And that's where the courts are going to look to see, Is there any factual basis for this, or is he just sort of continuing his vendetta against Harvard?
COLLINS: Yes. And we'll see how the courts respond to this.
Thank you all for that reporting and that insight.
Up next. There is another proclamation, the President also signed tonight. This time, he is directing the Justice Department to investigate President Biden's use of the autopen, despite a DOJ -- the Justice Department saying, it was legal, 20 years ago, for presidents to do so. We're going to get reaction from a key Democratic congressman, next.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: We have more breaking news tonight, as President Trump has just directed the Justice Department to review presidential actions that were signed by his predecessor, President Biden, specifically those signed using the autopen.
In a new memo tonight, the White House says that if Biden's, quote, "Advisors secretly used the mechanical signature pen... while taking radical executive actions all in his name, that would constitute an unconstitutional wielding of the power of the Presidency, a circumstance that would have implications for the legality and validity of numerous executive actions undertaken in Biden's name."
I should note, there is no evidence that anyone used the autopen without President Biden's knowledge. Presidents have been using the autopen for decades, including in President Trump's first term.
There's actually a 2005 opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that said a president can use this to sign bills. It said, quote, "The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law."
My source tonight is the Democratic congressman, Dan Goldman of New York.
And it's great to have you here, sir.
I do want to ask you about the autopen, and what is happening here at the White House. But before that, the other executive action that President Trump took tonight, banning travel from these 12 nations, restricting it partially from seven others. What is your reaction, to that move, from the White House, tonight?
REP. DAN GOLDMAN (D-NY): I mean, it's pretty consistent with what his quote-unquote, immigration policy is, which is just essentially to keep anyone who's not white, out of the country. And that's what he's trying to do with these mass deportations, of people who are going through the asylum process, which is a lawful pathway. That's now what he's trying to do, in targeting these specific countries.
And so, it's a combination of this effort, to push forward with this Great Replacement Theory, as well as just to distract from what's really going on, which is a revolt against his terrible reconciliation bill that cuts taxes for billionaires, and increases our deficit by $2.5 trillion.
COLLINS: I read through the proclamation about why he was putting this travel ban in place. And part of it is he's citing people who overstay their visas in the United States. This has gotten a lot of attention, because the suspect, in Sunday's attack, in Boulder, did just that.
Is that something, though, that the Department of Homeland Security in any administration, Democrat or Republican, should have been paying more attention to, in your view?
GOLDMAN: I think they do pay more attention to it.
Enforcement of our immigration laws, is a problem that we need to resolve. Asylum applications take seven years to resolve. It creates a real pull for people to come here, even if they know that they aren't going to get asylum. Only 20 to 25 percent of people who apply for asylum actually get it.
So, if we want to address our enforcement of our legal system, put more DHS agents, asylum officers to actually enforce all of these laws. We should. That's what we should be doing. We should not be using these draconian immigration policies that are targeting people doing things the right way, rather than finding the convicted criminals, and deporting them, which is what Donald Trump promised.
COLLINS: So you should -- you believe it should be a U.S. thing, and not something that bars people from coming into the country. Instead, it should be a DHS thing that's happening for people who are here right now?
[21:40:00]
GOLDMAN: Well, again, I think that people should comply with the law. People should get due process. People should comply with the law. And if you are overstaying a visa, and that comes to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security, which is not always as easy as it seems, then those people should be put into removal procedures.
COLLINS: Yes, on the -- on the investigation that he wants into the autopen. I mean, the White House has basically been alleging that things, including pardons, potentially, were signed by President Biden using the autopen, and that they're disputing the validity of those.
We don't even have evidence that Biden actually used the autopen to sign these pardons into law, I should note.
But on that front, what do you make of what this review is going to look like? What are your questions?
GOLDMAN: Well, I got a lot of questions, as to what Donald Trump is directing the Department of Justice to do, including what Donald Trump determines himself to be unconstitutional, when he is violating Due Process Clause, the Emoluments Clause, and the Department of Justice is doing nothing, as he is engaging in brazen open corruption with foreign countries and crypto firms.
The bottom line is, this is also a distraction. The idea of focusing on President Biden is a way of distracting from Donald Trump's efforts to completely undermine our democracy, to grift and engage in corruption, and to help out his billionaire buddies by cutting their taxes, while taking Medicaid away from the American people.
Joe Biden is not President. Donald Trump is President. And the Oversight Committee, and Chairman Comer, and the House Republicans, generally, are doing nothing to rein in Donald Trump's lawlessness. And instead, we're focusing on Joe Biden, who's no longer president. You won the election. Let's move forward. But if we're going to move forward, do it lawfully, and don't try to bring us back to Joe Biden.
COLLINS: And for -- I -- even I think talking about the autopen, some people may not know. I mean, it's basically, if there's proclamations or memorandums on holidays or whatnot, typically, presidents use those when they can't actually sign them. And there's other things that they have to do.
There's a memo from the Justice Department that says that they don't have to handwrite -- handwrite their signature on everything. Certainly not for pardons either, is the case. So even if he used autopen to sign and pardon, do you think that's a problem?
GOLDMAN: No. I mean, it's general contract law that as long as you approve -- one approves something, and gives authorization for someone else to sign that it is -- as if it's your own signature. It's a non- issue.
It's a dumb issue that they're raising, just as I said, to continue to distract from all of the lawlessness that's going on, on a daily basis, and the effort to hurt the American people, betray his promises on the campaign, just to help his own crypto company and his own pockets.
COLLINS: Congressman Dan Goldman, thank you for your time tonight.
GOLDMAN: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next here tonight. The first debate in New York City's Democratic primary for Mayor just got underway. It was quite spicy. Really, basically, former Governor Andrew Cuomo against everyone else who was on that stage. We'll show you the highlights, right ahead.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, former New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, was center stage in a highly-contentious debate with eight other candidates who were looking to seize the Democratic nomination for New York City Mayor.
Whoever wins from this stage, that you're looking at here, will ultimately square off against the Republican nominee, and the embattled incumbent Mayor, Eric Adams, who is now running for reelection as an Independent.
But tonight, the candidate's biggest foe might have been right here in Washington, President Trump. As former New York Governor Cuomo argued that he is best-suited to take him on.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW CUOMO, (D) NEW YORK MAYORAL CANDIDATE: I know how to deal with Donald Trump, because I've dealt with him before. Many times, we've had many encounters. We fought on a daily basis through COVID, and I won many of those battles.
He can be beaten. But he has to know that he's up against an adversary who can actually beat him. And I can tell you this. I am the last person on this stage that Mr. Trump wants to see as mayor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My sources tonight include:
Errol Louis, a Political Anchor for Spectrum News.
And Marc Morial, President and CEO of the National Urban League.
And it's great to have you both here.
After watching quite a -- quite a debate tonight, Errol, as, you know, Trump is not on stage, obviously, he's not in this race. But it was very clear of how the Governor -- the former Governor wanted to position himself about what role he could take in this city. What stood out to you, from what you saw tonight?
ERROL LOUIS, POLITICAL ANCHOR, SPECTRUM NEWS, HOST, "THE BIG DEAL WITH ERROL LOUIS": Well, that's very much true, Kaitlan.
One of the best ways to organize Democrats, in New York City, is to talk about Donald Trump, because he is a son of New York City, and because he seems to have it in for New York, in a lot of different ways. His Cabinet Secretaries come here and disparage the city on a regular basis. The Columbia University has been a target of this White House and so forth. So that was inevitable.
One of the other things that stood out, of course, is that, under our new ranked choice voting system, there's no incentive for any candidate to drop out. So, there were nine candidates there on stage. And we're just 10 days out from the primary. It's a big, crowded, sort of confusing race at this point.
[21:50:00]
COLLINS: Yes, and Marc, when you -- when you were listening to what these other candidates were saying. Governor Cuomo was not the only person who was arguing that he could also stand up to Trump.
I just want other people -- I want the audience to listen to what the other candidates on stage were saying tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZOHRAN MAMDANI, NEW YORK STATE REPRESENTATIVE: I am Donald Trump's worst nightmare.
BRAD LANDER, NEW YORK CITY COMPTROLLER: When I'm mayor, I will stand up to Donald Trump.
SCOTT STRINGER, FORMER NEW YORK STATE REPRESENTATIVE: I know how to fight him, because I fought him in Trump 1. ADRIENNE ADAMS, SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: When Donald Trump comes your way and causes problems for New Yorkers, sue him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Marc, as you were listening to this tonight, what stood out to you?
MARC MORIAL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE: First of all, I'm offering these comments tonight in my personal capacity.
COLLINS: Yes.
MORIAL: Donald Trump is the most polarizing figure, in American politics, in many generations. And New York is the bulwark of opposition to Trump and Trumpism.
So each of these candidates in standing -- in trying to define their ability to stand up to Trump, are also trying to define their ability to be tough and strong. That's the underlying, I think, sensibility that New Yorkers, I think, understand that it takes a tough person, because being Mayor of New York is a tough job.
What stood out for me is the candidates were fighting for attention. And this is why this kind of debate, where you've got all these candidates, in some instances, because of the back and forth, the moderators who were doing, I think, a good job, lost control of the sequencing. So some candidates got lost. Those who were more aggressive in interrupting and interjecting got more face time. That is true.
So, I think, for example, someone like Michael Blake, that people may not know a lot about, seemed to be very assertive in ensuring that he was going to be heard in the debate. Adrienne Adams as well. Whitney Tilson, I think, is that person's name, I never heard of him, got some airtime because he was aggressive in asserting his positions. But I think it remains a Cuomo race.
Ranked choice voting is extremely confusing. And I'm not a big fan of it, quite candidly, because I think it creates confusion amongst the voters, and it also creates an opportunity for political gamesmanship, where people are saying, Well, vote for me--
COLLINS: Yes.
MORIAL: --and then don't vote for the other person as the second or third candidate.
So, New Yorkers are getting used to this. I'm not so sure that it provides the clearest sense of choice--
COLLINS: Yes.
MORIAL: --in an election process.
COLLINS: Well, and to Marc's point, Errol, about Cuomo being the frontrunner here. I mean, there was obviously a real pile-on of him tonight, and people trying to upend that. The Justice Department opened an inquiry into him, after Republicans accused him of lying to Congress about his response during the pandemic.
I want people to listen to what the former Governor had to say about that tonight, on stage.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: No. I told Congress the truth. No, we did not undercount any deaths. When they are all counted, we're number 38 out of 50, which I think shows that compared to what other states went through, we had it first and worst, and that only 12 states had a lower rate of death.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The question is, were you involved in the producing of that report? It's just a yes or no question.
CUOMO: I was very aware of the report. I spoke to it at press conferences.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh my goodness.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, before it was released, Mr. Cuomo.
CUOMO: Multiple times. And I stand by the report.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The question is about the production of the report.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Errol, what do you make of that answer?
LOUIS: Well, that's the situation that Andrew Cuomo finds himself in.
If you listen closely to what he was saying, and it happens to be true, New York came through the pandemic fairly well compared to where we started. On the other hand, he was not straightforward about some of the reporting about what he did, when he did it, and why he did it, and those questions have now placed him under investigation.
There are members of Congress who have called for an investigation. The Justice Department has picked it up. We're 10 days out from early voting. So, we're not going to learn anything new, or decide anything about this. But it is one of the things that has been hung around Andrew Cuomo's neck.
And as you saw there on the stage, his opponents are very skeptical about it, and there are a lot of New Yorkers who believe he has not been straightforward about what he did, even though it was a pretty good job that was done.
COLLINS: Errol Louis. Marc Morial. Great to have you both.
MORIAL: Kaitlan?
COLLINS: Marc, go ahead. Final thought.
MORIAL: I was going to say the timing of the investigation is suspicious. It emerged after he became a candidate for mayor. So, it's part of the narrative of the weaponization, the extreme weaponization, of the Trump Justice Department.
COLLINS: We'll see what the New York City voters decide.
LOUIS: That's true.
COLLINS: It's great to have you, Marc and Errol, both on that very interesting debate that happened tonight. Thank you both.
[21:55:00]
Also tonight, speaking of an end in sight, in Newark, New Jersey, those tech issues have been plaguing the airport there, we're told, are close to coming to an end, but not before the summer travel season. That update, ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Before we go tonight, three things you may have missed.
The head of the FAA says it will be October, another four months, before those tech issues at Newark Airport are fixed, after four recent outages left air traffic controllers unable to communicate with pilots, and pilots effectively, left flying blind.
[22:00:00]
Also, the Trump administration is escalating its fight with another school, Columbia University, now accusing the school of failing to protect Jewish students, and also threatening its accreditation, which is required for students to be able to access federal aid through the school. But Columbia's status is up to a non-governmental commission, and it's unclear how that commission is going to respond.
And finally, midnight, tonight, marks a full 24 hours into President Trump's latest trade war escalation that you heard about here, on Friday night, when he said he was doubling tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. This move affects all types of businesses that rely on those metals. Automakers, builders, even the companies that make cans for your food.
Thanks for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
