Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Stocks Tank Over Inflation, Trump Tariffs, Consumer Anxiety; Vance: Denmark Hasn't Done A Good Job Keeping Greenland Safe; Officials Fear Long-Term Intel Damage Done By Signal Chat; Deadly 7.7. Mag Earthquake Rocks Myanmar, Thailand & China. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired March 28, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: Can make bicycles shot in the mouth. What are we doing here?
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: You know what? Even E.T. got cataracts, though, I will say overtime, right?
JIMENEZ: I mean, like, the shots are. Oh, my, gosh.
KEILAR: That's --
JIMENEZ: Incredible. Oh, and the blink.
KEILAR: Oh, the blink. Got to love it.
JIMENEZ: Wow.
(LAUGHTER)
KEILAR: Well, thanks for being with us. Hope you have a great weekend.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's Donald Trump versus political reality.
Let's head into THE ARENA.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: A new nosedive for stock prices amid questions about whether the president's political stock might be falling, too.
Plus, Vice President J.D. Vance visits Greenland and gives the cold shoulder to Denmark, accusing Danish leaders of failing to protect the territory President Trump wants the U.S. to take over.
And new CNN reporting on the Signal group chat fallout. Officials warning that texts from the national security advisor and CIA director may have done long term damage to U.S. intelligence operations. We'll get reaction from Democratic congressman and former Army -- former Army intelligence officer, Pat Ryan.
Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Friday.
As we come on the air, new warning signs for President Trump about the real world impact of his shock and awe, move fast and break things politics and policies.
Just moments ago, U.S. stocks closing deep in the red off to the worst start of the year since 2020, as inflation and Trump's trade war leave investors freaked out and consumers low on confidence, according to a new report out today.
On the tariff front, the president just had his first phone call with the new Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney. Trump claiming the talks were productive. Only hours after Carney effectively told America that Canada is breaking up with you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESE: I think things are going to work out very well between Canada and the United States.
MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: The old relationship we had with the United States, based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation, is over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Ouch. That though only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, which brings us to Greenland, where there are plenty of actual icebergs. Vice President J.D. Vance just wrapped up a brief visit to a U.S. military base there, apparently trying to advance President Trump's goal of what would amount to a hostile takeover of the Danish territory.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Denmark has not kept pace in devoting the resources necessary to keep this base, to keep our troops and, in my view, to keep the people of Greenland safe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So we should note that Vance was in Greenland with national security advisor Mike Waltz, both participants in that Signal group chat debacle. This, as CNN, has new reporting, that there may be long term damage to U.S. intelligence gathering as a result of top U.S. officials texting Yemen attack plans.
All told, it's been a long week for President Trump. Our Stephen Collinson says that this week, quote, the inevitable reverberations of President Donald Trump's political shock therapy began to threaten his agenda because it's been threatening his political strength. Shock and awe or shock and aww? We even heard Trump today do something he almost never does, admit
political weakness. You remember he pulled Elise Stefanik nomination as U.N. ambassador yesterday? Well, we know he did that because he needs her in Congress, because the Republican majority in the House is razor thin.
But here's the thing. They knew that when they picked her for this role. What has changed is that now Republicans are concerned they might lose special elections in very red parts of Florida, elections that are underway because of other House members that President Trump tapped for his cabinet who left the House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You never know what happens in a case like that. I won it by 32 points. We don't want to take any chances.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: We don't want to take any chances, he says. Is it possible that President Trump has, in less than 100 days, spent all the political capital that he came to power with, and maybe more?
How's this for a little bit of anecdata? CNN recently took a reporting trip to West Virginia. It's one of the most pro-Trump states in America where we heard this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: You voted for Donald Trump.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I did.
REPORTER: Do you regret that vote?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I do. To cut the knees out of the working class Americans just didn't make -- it doesn't make sense to me. And it's -- it's very hurting and very disheartening because I expected more from President Donald Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Our panel is here, CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, "New York Times" White House correspondent, Meghan Hays, former White House director of message planning, and Matt Gorman, former senior adviser to Tim Scott's presidential campaign.
[16:05:03]
Welcome to all of you. Great to have you guys here.
Matt Gorman, let me start with you on all this, actually, because, I mean, look, there have been a lot of questions about this.
[16:05:01] Democrats have obviously seemed pretty impotent as they have tried to take on Donald Trump at various turns. And, Meghan, I'm sure, has had plenty of times in the barrel over that. But there are some signs here that things may be cracking a little bit.
Do you think that that's really what's going on? Do you think we're overblowing this?
MATT GORMAN, FORMER TIM SCOTT PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN SENIOR ADVISER: I think it's a little bit overblown. I mean, look, I've been through the special elections in a Trump presidency before I was heading communications at the NRCC in the 2017, 2018 year.
I know these are real stress tests and can be pain points. They're expensive. They take a lot of time on media. So, I get the idea that, hey, let's not go through too many of these and especially you get candidates that aren't as great. And sometimes you do have in Florida in this case. So --
HUNT: That's a little bit of an understatement.
GORMAN: An understatement, you know, but so, I think though, I think the win but it's not going to be easy. Thats number one.
I think when it comes to the political capital being spent I think that's a little bit hyperbolic. Let's -- let's -- let's -- let's be honest. No one in -- no Republicans in the House are suddenly in revolt against him. They're on track to pass this beautiful big bill that will encapsulate tax cuts, energy and immigration.
And, functionally, the -- everything that came to pass in November, we are still on track for in terms of policy orientation.
HUNT: Yeah. One thing, though, I mean, and I want to focus in on the tariffs for a second because, I mean, you point out I mean, this is a place where he is taking his political capital and spending. He is spending on something that he cares a lot about. He was pressed.
And, you know, I got to be honest, if I was in the market for a new car or if I felt like I needed one, I might go to the dealerships this weekend. Someone asked him this question today at the White House. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Should Americans buy cars now if they want to avoid higher prices? And then just --
TRUMP: No, I don't think so. I think you're going to have a country that's going to boom.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, Meghan Hays, again, that is his short term pain, long term gain answer to that question because -- I mean, every economist you ask will say, yes, the prices are going to get higher. MEGHAN HAYS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yeah, absolutely, and also, how
long of a gain is he looking for. It's going to take years to have these parts manufactured in the United States, and have these people trained to do -- to build car parts that are going to be manufactured here. So, the car prices don't continue to rise.
It is a huge problem for Donald Trump. He is spending a considerable amount of capital trying to get this path where it seems like something over a petty disagreement or a certain feeling in his ego is getting in the way.
HUNT: Elliot Williams, let's take a look at consumer sentiment and the drop in it, because it's pretty stark on the screen. It's down 12 percent just from February. Reminder it is not yet April. It is down there. It is 28 percent year over year.
So, by a third here -- and I mean like this is politics, right? Okay. It's not a poll, but that's what that is.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. Now, the argument that will come from the White House to some extent is that Joe Biden still owns this. We are seeing the effects of the, quote, Biden economy.
At a certain point, as we've joked about on here before, it becomes the pottery barn economy. You broke it. You bought it. And you know, we're -- we're sort of not quite there yet I think.
The other thing is that a lot of these moves being made by Donald Trump and the administration are still abstract to many people. They have not seen the price of their car go up. To your point, if in fact, car prices are going to increase in the next week or two or whatever it is, I think that's where you really start potentially seeing political pushback on the administration.
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: One thing they consumers are seeing, though, from the administration is a change in their messaging. And that change in messaging is also indicative of some concern that you've seen in the White House. By change of messaging -- I mean, Trump said during the campaign that he would have an immediate impact on the economy, that he would bring consumer prices down, that he would also combat inflation on day one as well.
You've in recent weeks seen a change there, almost resetting of expectations of some of the voters, an attempt to try and almost reset the expectations of a voter like the one in the video that you played a little while ago, Trump and his allies saying, actually, hey, there will be there could be some pain here. As we implement these measures, as we implement these tariffs, that's -- that's a stark difference from the immediate change that was forecasted during the campaign.
HUNT: Yeah. So, let's take a look at these districts, right? And the picture that this paints.
And, Matt Gorman is right. Special elections, each one -- they're like their own little special creatures. Okay? However, there's three of them -- well, potentially three of them. We've avoided one in New York 21, right? So, Elise Stefanik is going to stay in her house seat we learned yesterday.
But the concern is in no small part over these two districts in Florida, one of which, as you can see there, Matt Gaetz's district is plus 37 for Republicans. Theres plus 30 in Mike Waltz's former district. And Trump, of course, talked extensively today about how he just doesn't want to take any chances with Stefanik's seat or with these other seats.
And I would stipulate, Meghan, that there -- it's a little bit different when there's multiple of these going on at the same time as opposed to one single, very nationalized race. But what does it say to you that that these districts are so overwhelmingly Republican? These are not swing districts, and that's -- what's causing concern?
HAYS: Yeah, absolutely. They're starting to panic. Elise is in a plus 21 Trump district intended to pull her back, that you are concerned that she might lose says everything you need to know. They lost some down ballot races in Iowa and Pennsylvania that were Trump plus 30 and Trump plus 15. Thats sending a message to them that the electorate is going to start revolting on him and does not agree with where he is messaging-wise, and that is why they are concerned about these races.
Do I think we are going to win Florida? No. But are they putting up much more of a fight? Yes. Enough to make them panic that they are now not going to have Elise be the --
WILLIAMS: Yeah, but a bigger, broader point. I actually think this Stefanik affair generally is a reminder of how loyalty matters to Donald Trump above anything else by any political rules. It was malpractice to take someone out of the House of Representatives being as close as it is right now, and nominate them to a government position, potentially risking their seat.
He was rewarding her for her proximity to him and how good she's been to him as a candidate. They are in this mess right now, and potentially having now to find another U.N. ambassador because of the fact that they botched that pick, even if she would have been great at the job, it was still -- and we see this every four years you pick a vice president, you don't sacrifice a valuable seat in a close, you know, the --
GORMAN: And also, it's an irony. It's a -- Stefanik seat was the scene of another special election issue back in the early Obama years. The secretary of the army, McHugh, had -- was Republican, held that seat previously. He lost the seat to a Democrat who actually preceded Stefanik, took that seat, and he held it for a number of years.
And that was where you had two Republicans, two conservatives on the ballot back in 2009. It tore the party apart for a couple of months.
But look, I don't think they're going to in any way in danger of losing the seat. But I can tell you from experience, they're expensive. They're painful. Even if you win, if you are not winning by the margin, you have to. Which is, again, it's not exactly apples to oranges when you have Trump margins versus congressional margins and special election, however, it's just the earned media is tough. And it's just -- it's a one more pain point that you don't --
WILLIAMS: And -- and the -- oh and the headlines the morning after will be -- if it's anything other than a massive Republican blowout, the morning afternoon, oh how bad.
GORMAN: All the time where they all -- no offense, all these national political reporters parachute into these house districts thinking they know everything about these things and they don't. And so, it's always tough in this sort of thing.
HAYS: And we're now going to talk about this for a week. And we're going to talk about how the Republicans are panicking. And they don't have the mandate that Donald Trump was bragging about that he had for so long. So, it's not good for the Republican Party to have to talk about this for a whole week.
HUNT: And so on -- and let's just put up on the screen the current balance of power in the house to kind of underscore to people and it is worth also noting, I mean, Democrats have very tragically lost two members of their caucus in the House lately. I mean, there is a reality that can overhang when it is this close of a margin. That tragedy can strike at any moment. Something bad can, can happen.
But this is -- this is incredibly tight. I think big picture here, it really also underscores just how much Donald Trump has riding on that massive reconciliation package, because I have to say every time -- no offense, Matt -- a Republican sits down in the Senate and you say, but the tariffs, but the this, like the economy, the consumer confidence the answer is always -- well, he's going to cut taxes. He's going to pass this massive reconciliation bill. And all is going to be well, if all is not well in the House, all cannot be well in that regard.
KANNO-YOUNGS: That's right. And that's another reason we're talking about these -- these seats here, right? It's because of also the cold reality of having a slim majority in Congress. You need each of these seats and each of these votes in order to pass something like the extension of tax cuts that Republicans want.
And, by the way, that connects to one of the primary reasons that Donald Trump won the election when you look at polls. Voters sided with him because of the economy, because thinking he would deliver on the economy. And now, you're starting to see that sense of urgency and the White House to deliver, not through something that can be delivered through executive action, but something that actually has to be done through legislation here.
WILLIAMS: And again, just to pull back a little bit, viewers should understand how exactly how close congress is right now. You lose one or two votes and you have lost. One or two people from close districts who just feel they can't go with the president's agenda, but also just the cold, tragic demographic realities of a body of people, many of whom are senior citizens. And -- and I'm not talking about, you know, grim things happening to them. Somebody gets ill, gets COVID and injury, and that's the -- that's the -- that's the majority in Congress gone.
[16:15:01]
GORMAN: And it really, it underscores the job that Trump has to get in the weeds, as he has repeatedly on the budget, on the Mike Johnson vote, but also the fact that Mike Johnson outperformed over and over again in these tight margins, only losing Thomas Massie on these big votes. That is a big accomplishment.
And they need to keep that at least through this big, beautiful bill they pass.
HUNT: Well, obviously, they are basically pulling out all the stops to try to do that.
All right. Coming up next here, the vice president is making today moves that he's making today that are being called highly aggressive.
Plus, another setback for the president in court on his deportation policy as he asks the nation's highest court to weigh in.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: Our argument is very simple. It is not with the people of Greenland who I think are incredible and have an incredible opportunity here.
[16:20:03]
Our argument really is with the is with the leadership of Denmark, which is under-invested in Greenland and under invested in its security architecture. That simply must change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Vice President J.D. Vance in Greenland, making a controversial visit as President Trump continues to talk about taking over the territory.
So far, Vance has been Trump's foreign affairs attack dog. He's defended the president's interests. He's also berated Americas allies, sometimes in public and sometimes in private.
Today's target is Denmark.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: There is no amount of bullying, no amount of obfuscating, no amount of confusing the issue. Our message to Denmark is very simple. You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland. Denmark hasn't done a good job at keeping Greenland safe. Our friends in Denmark have not done their job in keeping this area safe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: If you still don't believe that the Trump administration is serious about owning the Arctic nation, you may believe the Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is taking President Trump at his word.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): It would be a great mistake to believe that this is just some eccentric talk of the
new American administration. Nothing of the kind, in fact. Let me remind you that by 1869, the American papers laughed at the purchase of Alaska. The deal was called a folly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: How's that for a reference?
Elliot Williams, let's talk big picture about this here, because, look, there's been in all the years that we have been covering Donald Trump, nearly a decade, if not more than a decade. By now, there have been, you know, there's been this big question, take him seriously. Take him literally.
How do you handle these kinds of things? I think a lot of people, when they first heard him say this, thought it was ridiculous, thought it was a joke. I think it's becoming very clear, it is not a joke.
WILLIAMS: I'm going to say words that I thought I would have never said on CNN, which is, wow, Vladimir Putin's got a really great point with that last sentence there, which is that people might have laughed about the purchase of Alaska, but look, it happened.
How many things in the last several months that Donald Trump ostensibly joked about that became realities of our government, did people sort of roll their eyes and say wouldn't happen? Ending birthright citizenship, pardoning in a blanket pardon January 6th protesters, purging supposedly disloyal Justice Department staff tariffs on some of Americas allies. These -- all things started as bluster on the campaign trail, but they became realities.
Anybody who thinks Donald Trump is not serious about annexing Greenland or Canada simply is not listening closely enough.
KANNO-YOUNGS: They -- they've -- if the first administration a proposal around Greenland wasn't taken seriously, one should take it seriously here. I mean, the Trump's allies have talked about the security priority here and what advantages they could get in the Arctic. Also, his foreign policy in many ways is dictated by a transactional approach and an ability to also gain critical minerals, which some in his circle feel that Greenland has as well.
And let's remember, I mean, I remember my colleague David Sanger was at a press conference in Mar-a-Lago pressing him on Panama and Greenland and asked him to rule out any potential military action. They haven't done that, knowing this administration, it's probably more likely you have economic punishment right now, but this should be taken seriously.
HUNT: Meghan, I mean, look, let me sort of put a turn it on its head a little bit for you as the Democrat at the table. I mean, is there something to be said for American control of Greenland? I mean, do they have any point at all in trying to do this?
HAYS: Well, first, I think that in diplomacy you should probably not go uninvited to another country and then insult their leadership multiple times, just basic diplomacy that maybe they should work on there.
But no, I think that Greenland is part of Denmark and Denmark is part of NATO, and that is not something that we are going to go and have a military action into another NATO country. This whole proposition is ridiculous and absurd. We can invest money in Greenland and not take them over.
We don't -- we have bases there. Let's invest more money in our bases. Let's have a bigger presence. Absolutely. But let's -- we should not be trying to take over sovereign countries.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, Matt Gorman, I mean, to that point, I mean, if Donald Trump believed more strongly in NATO, I mean, I think the thinking should go that Greenland itself is available to the United States in terms of its strategic national security importance in the Arctic and countering Russia and all of those things. Theres clearly something more going on here.
GORMAN: Well, I actually think Zolan makes a good point. I see almost a through-line between some of this, some of the deals they're trying to cut with Ukraine and Greenland when it comes to the rare earth materials, right? Like, I -- again, I don't believe suddenly that certainly Vance and others where they want to pull back from kind of this neocon worldview of, you know, putting this colloquially invading other countries suddenly they want to make except for Greenland.
[16:25:00]
That's not the point. The point is, how can we use leverage to extract something when it comes to rare earth, whether it's more of a foothold, at least nominally, in the Arctic, where again, other countries, China and Russia are -- they do see opportunity.
I -- again, I'm not taking this literally. Like just like I'm not taking the annexation of Canada. Literally. Theres strategic value in finding a way to get a foothold through a diplomatic way, using, again, a little bit of sticks. But when it comes to rare earth especially.
WILLIAMS: That's entirely a fair point, right? But we are flirting with a new imperial era as a means of getting rare earth minerals, and I just think that is an interesting way of going about American foreign policy that Denmark is ostensibly an ally of the United States through -- through NATO. And it just seems a little bit odd that this is the way that we're -- that we're making minerals deals.
HUNT: Well, and, Zolan, I mean, obviously, J.D. Vance, this was originally supposed to be Usha Vance going -- she was going to go see you know, a big cultural event in Greenland. They dialed that back. They had to go to places that are controlled by the Americans, right? They did this -- this visit together, yes, but they did it on an
American military base. One of the things that we learned this week about J.D. Vance, is that the things that he says about Europe in public are really actually backed up by what he says in private. If anything, the stuff he says in private is stronger.
Let's watch a little bit a compilation of some of the comments that he has made about Europe recently. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: Mr. President, with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the oval office and try to litigate this in front of the American media. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict.
Unfortunately, when I look at Europe today, it's sometimes not so clear what happened to some of the Cold War's winners. If you're running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, he stands there not just as Donald Trump's vice president, but as in many ways, the heir apparent and the likely nominee in 2028. I mean, at least if you talk to MAGA world.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Right. And in that Signal chat that you were referencing, we saw that even privately, he was at times when it came to a forthcoming strike against the Houthis, arguing that would this overwhelmingly benefit Europe here? Also, what I thought was interesting just about that statement was the first bit of dissent we've seen when it comes to J.D. Vance and President Trump.
And immediately when it came to containing the fallout of that chat, you saw him not talk about the security breach, but you saw him try to align himself with the president.
HUNT: Yeah. For sure.
All right. Coming up next here, new CNN reporting on those leaked text of U.S. attack plans. What we're learning about the potential long- term damage to American intelligence efforts. New York Congressman Pat Ryan, a member of the Armed Services Committee and an army vet, he's here live in THE ARENA.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:32:17]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: We all accept that a journalist should not have been invited into the chat and members of the administration, including my dear friend Mike, have taken responsibility for it. The same American media that covered for the Biden administration after the untimely death and the unnecessary death of 13 brave Americans is really, really interested in forcing the president of the United States to fire someone because of a Signal chat, because of a Signal chat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Vice President Vance commenting today on that now infamous group chat, which he was a part that shared U.S. attack plans with "The Atlantic" editor Jeffrey Goldberg.
CNN now, with new reporting on the fallout from that story, current and former U.S. officials now pointing to two specific texts sent by national security adviser Mike Waltz and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, telling CNN that those texts may have done long-term damage to the United States' ability to gather intelligence on Houthi rebels in Yemen going forward. Sources say those texts make very clear reference to sources and methods, information they say should never have been shared on Signal period. That, as other administration officials like the attorney general, Pam Bondi, are at least insisting publicly that they have no issue with the use of Signal at all.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Is Signal not going to be used. Or is it -- is it going to be used going forward? Are you aware of it?
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, I think Signal is a very safe way to communicate. I don't think foreign adversaries are able to hack Signal as far as I know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Pat Ryan of New York. He's a member of the Senate Armed -- excuse me, the House Armed Services Committee and, of course, a veteran of the U.S. army.
Sir, thanks very much for being here.
REP. PAT RYAN (D-NY): Thanks for having me.
HUNT: Let me start there with what Pam Bondi said. She seems to think that Signal cannot be hacked. Your response?
RYAN: It's delusional. It's devoid of all reality. I was an Army intelligence officer 27 months in combat. That's just factually incorrect. And I would hope she'd go get a briefing from a host of national security -- different national security agencies, including the NSA, that would tell her differently than that.
HUNT: If one of your commanders or somebody above you was communicating this way about the things that you were doing in the field, how would you have felt about that?
RYAN: Betrayed. I think this is another betrayal, honestly, by this administration, both in what it did, but then in just flat out -- rather than taking accountability, they're flat out not even covering it up, but just lying directly to the American people saying Signal secure, saying there weren't sources and methods, saying there wasn't classified information, all verifiably, demonstrably -- demonstrably false, things for an administration that claimed to run on confidence and strength.
[16:35:00]
And that has now been eviscerated this week in a way that I think is going to have lasting and should have lasting political and really moral effects with our allies. If I had disclosed that kind of sensitive operational information, regardless of the means, I would lose my clearance, I would be punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and I would potentially go to jail.
And why should the secretary of defense or any other senior leader not be held to the same standard?
HUNT: One of the things that we reported in this story is about John Ratcliffe and his ability to continue to do the job, one source say that -- says that, quote, I think he's going to be viewed skeptically for using the app for that purpose. And they're talking about kind of inside Langley, inside the building.
Do you think that's true, or would you grade the way Ratcliffe handled his existence in the chat differently from some of the other officials?
RYAN: I think any trained professional would should have immediately known that using what is clearly not a secure and commercial platform anywhere, in particularly one of them being in Moscow, puts the whole group at risk. And so, any professional should have flagged that immediately and proactively said, guys, we need to move this somewhere else.
The fact that none of them did that to me shows this is not an isolated incident, that we can only imagine the number of other similar small group or other chats, and that needs to be investigated.
I've called for investigations in the House Armed Services Committee, which they've turned down. Pam Bondi is saying she's refusing to look at this despite a longstanding bipartisan precedent to do otherwise. And so, this is now moving from screw up, I'd use another word, but were on TV, to cover up. And that's a real problem for this administration.
HUNT: It's cable, you know.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Sir, let me ask you about the Democratic Party here, because we started off the show looking at some signs that perhaps President Trump is reaping some of what he's sown within the first few days here. Theres some concern about these special elections in deep red areas that suggests that perhaps Democrats may have, you know, be sort of regrouping. There was a special election in Pennsylvania, a very, you know, small data point in Pennsylvania that was a good result for Democrats. My question to you is if there is, in fact, this backlash, do you
think it's because Democrats have done anything that voters should give Democrats credit for? Or do you not deserve that credit?
RYAN: Talking to voters in my district, which is a very swingy purple district, they're frankly fed up with both parties and have lost -- continually, consistently lost trust in both parties. And what you're seeing in the reaction to this and conversations I've had and data I've had on the Signal thing is, it's just another example of elected officials being dishonest and not taking accountability when people in their normal lives, you got to take accountability for whether you're delivering for your family or delivering at work.
And so, the opportunity for Democrats is to lean into our -- the trust that we have built and -- and to be honest and authentic and say, yeah, we've made mistakes. When we do, we take accountability. We have investigations, we fire people that screw up.
This administration has a chance to do that. Trump is, of course, you know, built his -- a lot of the facade of his reputation around using that phrase, you're fired. Maybe he should do that with one of the multiple people who screwed up on this chain.
HUNT: Very briefly. Do you think President Trump has done anything right in office so far?
RYAN: I had hopes on a few things that he would, you know, taxes on tips and social security, lowering costs. He's literally done the exact opposite. And we're seeing that in my district. People are as costs are going up, small business owners and families are getting punished. So, I wish I could say yes because I'm certainly rooting for the country, but I don't think he has.
HUNT: All right. Congressman Pat Ryan, thanks very much for coming in. I hope you'll come back soon. And happy birthday as well.
All right. We do want to get an update on some difficult breaking news developing overseas. There are live pictures out of Bangkok following a massive earthquake overnight in South Asia.
Dramatic video showing the moments a powerful earthquake rocked the area. The 7.7 magnitude quake hit central Myanmar, leaving a wave of destruction and rippling into Thailand and China. At least 153 people have been killed, 144 of those in Myanmar alone.
These scenes of terror and confusion sent panicked residents into the streets as buildings fell to the ground around them, billowing toxic clouds of dust down the street.
CNN's Will Ripley joins us live now from Bangkok.
Will, what's the latest?
WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Kasie. Just to give you a sense of how massive this 7.7 quake really was. I'm standing around 600 miles from the epicenter in Mandalay, Myanmar. I'm here in Bangkok. And that behind me is what's left of a 30-story skyscraper that was under construction that collapsed. And they believe there is still around 100 people trapped inside.
They have had dogs, sniffer dogs, trying to search for any signs. In fact, they just pulled someone alive out within the last hour or so.
[16:40:00]
But they've also found more than a dozen people dead. And again, with 100 people, some of them may be trapped in pockets of debris. Really, time is of the essence, but they don't want to use a lot of the heavy machinery that they have here to dig through the building, because they're afraid if things were to shift, that that could actually put any survivors in danger.
So, it's a real tightrope that they're walking here. And there are hundreds of volunteers. But what -- what is really troubling is that we don't know how many buildings are collapsed in Myanmar, just the limited amount of pictures that have been able to come out of there with very limited communications and bad infrastructure.
On a good day, you know, they only have electricity about 12 hours a day. Were getting updates on social media, but it seems as if the devastation is going to be insurmountably large, which is why the military junta made that rare plea for international assistance. Even though, Kasie, they've been locked in a four-year civil war.
How people are going to get in and get past the militias to get aid to the people in Myanmar who need help anyone's guess as the search and rescue continues here in Bangkok.
HUNT: All right. Will Ripley for us -- Will, thanks very much for that report.
All right. Coming up next here, another arts overhaul from the White House. Details on the next institution being ordered to root out, quote, improper ideology. But first, the argument the president is now asking the Supreme Court to settle for him.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:45:41]
HUNT: All right. Breaking news just coming in here at THE ARENA. A judge has made a significant ruling on one of the president's efforts to gut a major government agency.
Our panel is here to discuss, but let's get straight to CNNs Katelyn Polantz first. She's got the ruling.
Katelyn, what are we learning? What's this about?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Kasie, this is Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, writing in 112-page opinion about this agency. It's the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and this judge is stopping the Trump administration from dismantling it. It has been a target since the early days of Trump taking office.
And this is the federal agency that works to push back against predatory lenders. They work with consumers who are opposing banks that they believe may be treating them unfairly. And what the judge is doing here is she's saying it's time to maintain this agency's existence. We're going to reinstate and preserve what they have as far as contracts, as far as data, even the workforce of the CFPB.
Much of the people there had been cut, people were being laid off. Offices were being closed. There was funding that was being pulled from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, so that the Trump administration would starve it. And what the judge said in this opinion is that they we're going to get rid of this agency entirely before anyone could look and see if it is legal.
So that's why the court is stepping in. And the judge writes, essentially, this is what courts are for. This is the thing why courts must speak up, because you have to look and see if something like this is legal. And she is telling the administration, I'm a trial judge, but you can't do it right now.
HUNT: Yeah. Katelyn, stand by for me for a second. I'd love to have you continue to be part of our conversation here.
Elliot Williams, what Katelyn was saying there. And we've seen the Trump administration kind of use this strategy, right? Basically, break it before a court has a chance to potentially fix it or keep it together. Clearly, they're -- they're trying to make an effort here. This is an agency that was created by Congress.
How do you see this? What are you focusing on?
WILLIAMS: And as a practical matter, you break it. And even though a court is still resolving it, it's going to be very hard to put back together in its existing form. If, in fact, the Trump administration loses here.
But there's two different questions. There's sort of the political question and the legal one, the political question is, should we have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? And there's a lot of politics behind that. It was started, I believe, from scholarship and research from Elizabeth Warren, back when she was a law professor at Harvard.
Talk about something that Republicans do not want to get behind. Now, the legal questions, just a really simple one. It's what does it take to dissolve an agency? And can a president with the stroke of a pen do so?
And some of the things that Katelyn was talking about, funding and congressional appropriation and congressional establishment, when you go around Congress, you might create a legal problem.
So, the judge is saying. For now, let's pause this, like so many other matters, with -- with the Trump administration right now, we're pausing it while the courts are reviewing it. In a couple months, we will resolve this question for good. KANNO-YOUNGS: Even before the administration made a move to dismantle this agency. It's also worth noting that under Russell Vought, they started to actually change the direction of it to be more aggressive, closing various enforcement actions that the agency was pursuing. And we've seen that across the board, even if they have not gone right for shuttering an agency, potentially shrinking it or changing its priorities, we've seen that already even before this case.
GORMAN: And look, this like so many other kind of court cases, are going to come to a head at the Supreme Court in one way or another. We see with a lot of the immigration stuff -- this even Elliot's point, if they can't shutter the agency, can they starve it of funding? What exactly can they do? We will find that out.
And I think also it goes back to the point we're talking about a little bit earlier in the show. We talk about, you know, passing this big beautiful bill. CFPB was passed in Dodd-Frank. It is why these laws that passed by Congress are so important because as we see, executive orders can come and they can go at will at the at the executive.
HUNT: Be rewritten with the stroke of a pen.
GORMAN: Very, very quickly. Congressional stuff, even if you can do it unilaterally, it's so much harder.
HUNT: Matt, can I ask you a question, too? I mean, I understand this was born of Elizabeth Warren's research. She is very closely associated with it.
It is a very -- I mean, the word progressive, if you like, take it back to when it, you know, came into post gilded age, right? I mean, there's -- there's a lot of layers to this, but Donald Trump was also, you know, very proud of the number of people of lower incomes who voted for him of like expanding the electorate, of becoming the party for working people. So much of the Tea Party backlash was about what happened with the banks and this idea that, you know, not just Republicans, but -- I mean, Bush was, you know, president at the time and that they sided with the big guys over the little guys.
I mean, how is dismantling this agency not siding with the big guys over the little guys?
GORMAN: Well, to be a little brusque, we conservatives hate banks, but we hate government more. And so, the idea that an agency, as you can see, that is so insular, that writes in in many ways, I would say enforces their own regulations just by the fact that it's so hard to get rid of it is in charge of this is I think, the really the big crux of the argument here. And we would argue that having government kind of centralized control of this is not what we want.
HUNT: Even though it protects people.
GORMAN: Again, I would -- I would argue with the premise of that very strenuous. HUNT: Katelyn Polantz, can I ask you just because I'm sure that this
is going to become an issue with President Trump, a little bit more about Amy Berman Jackson, the judge in this case, what kind of her background is? And, you know, any sort of back-and-forth she's had with the president in the past, if any?
HAYS: There is some. I will say, Kasie, that would be that Amy Berman Jackson presided over the two most prominent cases in the Mueller investigation. One was the case, the first case against his campaign chairman in 2016, Paul Manafort. And then she presided over the trial of Roger Stone.
Both of those men received pardons from Donald Trump. She was the person, in the establishment of Washington, who was putting on the record with before juries at trial. In her sentencings of Manafort and Roger Stone. Just how serious the transgressions of 2016 were, that the Trump campaign may not have been doing anything criminal with Russia, but they were welcoming this help from the Russian government.
And she pointed out roger stone was lying to congress on behalf of Donald Trump to protect him. All of that is ancient history now. You barely remember it. She's a senior judge now, so she's not even taking that many cases compared to other judges in Washington, D.C., but she certainly has a very long, very vocal history. She's a very thorough judge as well, presiding over these cases that still are sticking in Donald Trump's mind. He's issuing orders about law firms related to the Mueller investigation. He clearly is not going to come out of this ruling today liking Judge Jackson.
HUNT: Very interesting.
And, Katelyn, are there any other cases that you would argue are kind of aligned with this one, other places where the president and the or the doge team are trying to kind of wholesale eliminate agencies, things like this that might be impacted by what we're seeing today.
POLANTZ: Yeah. Kasie, I don't have enough fingers to count the number of cases that would be aligned in this because this case, it's about the dismantling of the CFPB. There are so many court cases where people are fighting back against being fired from the federal government. The dismantling of other agencies like USAID. A lot of those cases are going in different directions depending on who's bringing them, what court they're in.
But at the end of the day, Kasie, a lot of these cases are teeing up the big fight, the one that is very likely to go before the Supreme Court in some way. How much power does the president have, especially when Congress did something and Judge Jackson notes at the top of this opinion what the administration is doing here appears to be in complete disregard of what congress wants -- Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Katelyn Polantz for us, thank you so much, Katelyn. I really appreciate it.
All right. Coming up next here, for something totally different, maybe totally horrifying. Oh, God. I don't even want to know, how Gen Z is now determining whether you are old.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:59:03]
HUNT: All right. I guess I knew that this day would come for me sometime. Gen Z has apparently found a new way to figure out how old you are. I'm sorry. What?
Okay, so started on Reddit. Someone posted their younger co-workers' absolute puzzlement after they told them that their email address was their first name, dot their last name @gmail.com. Then they had to explain that when Gmail had started, it was originally invitation only, and they got the invitation early enough. That first name, last name domain was available.
Okay, so Gmail started in April 2004. It was just about a month after the launch of a website called the Facebook.
So, the younger coworker did the math. The rest is history. Let me just say, if having your name is your email makes you old, I guess I'm ancient. My Twitter handle is just @Kasie. Instagram, same thing.
My Meerkat account, which one of my producer David found of me. David, I'm going to buy you a drink or something over this. Also that, and you don't even want to know what the comments are saying about Earthlink.
All right, who here is first name? Last name?
KANNO-YOUNGS: I'm first name. Last name.
WILLIAMS: I have a really common.
GORMAN: Oh, yeah.
HAYS: No.
GORMAN: Because there's not -- I can't even see myself. Theres a Democratic version of Matt Gorman. And so, we get confused a lot. So, I can't even have that.
HUNT: I admit, I do own mine. I don't use it though, so no spam, please.
"THE LEAD" starts right now.
