Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump Says New Reciprocal Tariffs Will Target All Countries; Trump Promises Reciprocal Tariffs To Take Effect Wednesday; Trump Administration's Immigration Enforcement On Campuses; Close Call Between Delta Plane, Air Force Jet Near DC Airport; MLB Debates Impact Of The Torpedo Bat. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired March 31, 2025 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to the lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

This hour, after ten weeks in office, voters are now getting their chance to send President Trump a message at the ballot box. They're heading to the polls in three crucial races. Will voters give Republicans more power or will they give Democrats new chances to push back?

Also, the new details we're learning tonight about another near miss at D.C.'s Reagan National Airport, if you can believe it, this time between a Delta passenger plane and a US Air Force jet. Are these close calls truly happening more often? And what are safety officials doing to stop them?

And after their one-week trip to space turned into nearly ten months today, we're finally hearing directly from Butch and Suni, what the two astronauts are saying about their extended stay on the space station and what it's like to finally be home,

The Lead tonight, right now, President Trump is signing a brand new executive order in the Oval Office as uncertainty over his looming tariffs grows.

CNN's Jeff Zeleny is at the White House for us. Jeff, what's the latest?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Jake, we know that President Trump has long talked about his economic agenda. One central piece of that is his global tariff policy. Well, on Wednesday, he is going to sign what he calls liberation day. That is essentially ordering reciprocal tariffs across the board. But there are many questions tonight about exactly what will be included in the liberation day. We know that he'll do it in the Rose Garden, his first a Rose Garden event of his second time in the White House.

But his advisers are offering some. Some are conflicting signs of exactly which countries will be included. We've seen over the last couple months, the on again, off again tariffs for Mexico and Canada. But this is going to be a broader across the board.

Look, this is really the beginning of the one piece of his economic agenda. Of course, the tax cuts that are coming later on in the year, at least, they hope are going to be funded in some respects by this. But many questions here about what effect this will have on the economy. Consumer confidence has been low. The stocks for this month, it's the lowest in a month-long stock rally since in three a year's time.

So, even as the president is signing an executive order right now in the Oval Office on a different matter, his advisers are preparing these tariff policies to be announced on Wednesday. But, Jake, the question is the higher prices that come with them, will the president swallow that as well?

TAPPER: Jeff Zeleny at the White House for us, thanks so much.

Also, in our Politics Lead, tomorrow, President Trump faces his big biggest electoral test since winning the election in November. On the line is the future of his agenda in some ways, which means cue the music, yes, the election jam, it's back. There's a major state Supreme Court race in Wisconsin, also two House races in Florida that tend to lean Republican pretty definitively. But there are elections that could shake up Congress.

CNN has a team of correspondents covering this from every angle. Let's start with Arlette Saenz, who's in Madison, the capital of Wisconsin covering the state Supreme Court race.

And, Arlette, there's a lot of attention on this race by Trump Adviser Elon Musk, who's pouring millions of dollars into this race in many ways. Why is he so heavily involved in a state Supreme Court race?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake Elon Musk is warning that the future of civilization hinges on the Supreme Court race in Wisconsin. Democrats aren't using as existential as language as Musk, but this is a race that has attracted national attention from both parties.

Now, tomorrow's election will determine the control of the Supreme Court here as liberal candidate Susan Crawford is facing off against the conservative candidate, Brad Schimel. The outcome could have an impact on future ruling for issues like abortion rights, collective bargaining, and the potential redrawing of congressional maps. This contest is already the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history with ad spending topping $80 million.

A big reason why is because of Elon Musk's involvement. Musk and groups aligned with him have spent more than $20 million in this state. On the Democratic side, you have big mega donors, like George Soros and J.B. Pritzker, who have donated to the Wisconsin's Democratic Party, but at a much smaller scale than Musk.

Now, Musk traveled to Green Bay, Wisconsin, last night where he handed out million dollar checks to two Wisconsin voters as he's trying to drive out support for the conservative candidate. One issue Musk has identified as being central to why he is in this race, or getting involved in this race, is the potential for redistricting, as congressional maps right now in Wisconsin currently favor Republicans. And he's warning a liberal majority could potentially change that.

Now, Democrats have seized on Musk's involvement. They are hoping that voters who are frustrated with either DOGE efforts or this big spending will turn out on behalf of the liberal candidate. She had told me in a recent interview that she doesn't think Musk should be buying a seat on Wisconsin Supreme Court.

This is all playing out here in the critical battleground of Wisconsin, which gave President Trump his narrowest majority in the November election.

[18:05:05]

So, all eyes will be on the voters here as this will also serve as a test of voter sentiment towards Trump at the start of his administration. Jake?

TAPPER: All right, Arlette in Madison, Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Manu Raji is on Capitol Hill. Manu, how are lawmakers reacting to the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, not to mention these two open seats, House of Representative seats in Florida?

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Look, this is a lot of attention being paid by both parties about the national implications from these specific races. And on the Wisconsin race, I just caught up with Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. I asked him about the role of Elon Musk in this race, and he believes that Musk could ultimately make a difference.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: How much has Elon Musk impacted this race right now?

SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): He may be the difference when all said and done. You know, he's doing all kinds of things to obtain people's information so that on Election Day we can -- you know, they can contact them and encourage them to vote. I think what he's doing is pretty masterful.

RAJU: How do you feel though, about him cutting personal checks, essentially get people to vote?

JOHNSON: No. I mean, they have a petition. How many tens of millions of dollars have George Soros and J.B. Pritzker put into these races?

We're just not willing to unilaterally disarm.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: But those Democratic billionaires are spending a fraction of what Elon Musk is in this race. But that's on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. And then you look at what's happening in Florida, in those two special elections, really only one is the one that's causing major concern among Republicans. That is for the seat that Mike Waltz abandoned to take the job as a national security adviser, that Mike Waltz won that seat by 33 points back last November.

But there is fear that the state Republican senator, Randy Fine, who is the candidate in that race, is running much closer to the Democratic candidate, Josh Weil. And Weil, in effect, has out outraced fine by ten to one margin in this race. And there's worry about from Republicans, not necessarily that they may lose the seat, there's still confidence that they may get a win, but that it can be such a narrow margin that could really send a message about where the electorate is at this early point in Donald Trump's term and what that could mean for Republicans. And they try to advance the agenda as Republicans in swing districts and the like.

So, a lot of people will be watching what will happen here, because if there is a Democratic upset, it would be a monumental upset, it would narrow this razor-thin Republican majority even further. But even a close race here could send a lot of messages about how the electorate feels at this key moment for Donald Trump's term.

TAPPER: All right. Arlette Saenz in Madison, Wisconsin, Manu Raju on Capitol Hill, thanks to both of you.

Let's bring in George Conway to talk about this. Let's start with Elon Musk's involvement in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, because this is a question a lot of people are asking. So, at a town hall in Green Bay, Wisconsin, yesterday, Musk gave away two different $1 million checks tw people that I guess won some sort of pool who had signed a petition against so-called activist judges. Now, there is a difference between traditionally millionaires, whether the Koch brothers or George Soros, flooding a race of any sort by hiring activists, running ads, and actually just giving direct payments to people who register to vote. Is it legal?

GEORGE CONWAY, CONSERVATIVE LAWYER: It's illegal. It's criminal. In fact, in virtually all states, including Wisconsin, to pay people for having voted, to pay people to register to vote, and to reward them for voting. Now, that's the reason why when Elon Musk first put out this tweet that he said, I'm going to pay a voter a million dollars, and he had to take it down to say, oh, I'm just paying for the petition. If he's not engaging in outright illegal activity, he's on the cusp of it, and it is just so unseemly.

And the bigger problem though is, to me, it's just the politicization of our courts. And it's bad enough that we have judicial elections. I know many states do. Mostly they've been quiet and nonpartisan. But the escalation of spending by both sides to some extent, but now taken to a completely new level by Musk and the Republicans is very disturbing.

TAPPER: So, the top outside donor in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, you're talking about all this money, is none other than Elon Musk. More than $20 million is coming from Musk and his affiliated groups blowing out the $2 million donation from George Soros, the $1.5 million donation from Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, who people may or may not know, J.B. Pritzker has some money himself. I think he's a billionaire.

What do you make of the fact -- I mean, look at all that money coming from Musk, he's really -- this guy was not a political player just a few years ago.

CONWAY: I mean, first of all it, the notion that western civilization somehow turns on this particular race, as he's saying, is just another bit of lunacy from him. But the fact is it's just so unseemly for the courts. I mean, this particular, the Republican Supreme Court candidate, his name is Brad Schimel, I think it is, he's been going around the state making jokes about knee pads, saying that he's had to wear knee pads because he's begging for donations.

[18:10:13]

It's actually illegal for judges or judicial candidates themselves to solicit donations, but he's making jokes about it to the point that they're calling him Knee Pad Brad. This is a terrible thing for the courts. It really gives, sends the wrong message about what judges are supposed to do and it really sends the wrong message about our system of justice generally.

TAPPER: Let me ask you now about another big legal issue, which is President Trump -- look Rahm Emanuel was on the show not long ago and he said that anybody talking about Donald Trump wanting to be president for a third term is just taking his bait. Respectfully, I disagree with him. I tend to think that Donald Trump is somebody -- President Trump is somebody I take literally and seriously. And when he says something like this, and when you have somebody like Steve Bannon saying it seriously as well, no, we are figuring out ways to do this, I take it seriously.

If you read the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, it doesn't say you can't serve as president for more than two terms. It says you can't be elected as president for more than two terms. Is it not possible this idea of like, well, J.D. Vance becomes the nominee, Trump's the V.P., and then J.D. Vance wins steps down and Trump's become -- I mean, is that not possible?

CONWAY: It is possible. And, in fact, it's consistent with the language of the 22nd Amendment and law professors have written about this previously long before the Trump era. It is -- the text of the amendment is written in a manner that would permit thid scenario, however bizarre and however unseemly that you've described.

TAPPER: And we are now in a world where we're --

CONWAY: I don't discount anything anymore.

TAPPER: Well, but also just like the idea that MAGA needs this one person to thrive as opposed to any number of worthy successors to the MAGA throne, including J.D. Vance just seems -- CONWAY: It seems sad and pathetic. And, you know, I mean, the fact that we're talking about this is actually quite remarkable, but it isn't. And I agree with you Donald Trump, you have to -- even when he says something that seems on its face absurd, there usually is some kernel of thought in his mind that he's looking for a way for it to happen, making his desires happen. And he's a man who will not give up power willingly, as we saw four years ago. You know, he will try -- if he is in the physical shape or mental shape to do this in three years, he's going to try to do it.

TAPPER: All right. George Conway, thank you so much, I appreciate it. It's always good to have you on.

Join us tomorrow for CNN Election Night. The result from all those key races that Manu and Arlette were just telling you about as the votes come in. Our coverage is going to start at 6:00 P.M. Eastern.

President Trump just moments ago spoke about those big new tariffs coming Wednesday. We're going to bring you those comments in just a moment.

Plus, torpedo bats, what are they? How could they potentially change Major League Baseball? That's just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

TAPPER: In the Politics Lead, quite the scene moments ago in the Oval Office of the White House. That's a President Trump flanked by Kid Rock, Michigan's finest in full concert attire, presumably, I mean, maybe he wears it every day, I don't know, as Mr. President prepared to sign an executive order targeting ticket scalpers. President Trump quickly turned to his other big event this week, the reciprocal tariffs he plans to enact on Wednesday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It's going to be something that's going to bring a lot of wealth back to our country, tremendous wealth back to our country actually. And other countries are understanding it, because they've been ripping us for 50 years longer, but they've been ripping us off for years right from the beginning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Let's bring in my political panel. So, Mike, do you think this is going to roll out the way he thinks it is? Because economists say what's going to happen is that all of these countries are going to raise their prices and that's going to be handed over to the American consumer.

MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, I think one thing that's obvious here is that the president has a high threshold for pain, because these tariff threats --

TAPPER: For other people's pain?

DUBKE: Well, but also for his own political pain.

TAPPER: Yes. Okay. Fair.

DUBKE: I mean it, this is a man that I suspect watches as the stock market and the stock market has been going down. I mean, that was one tenet and, you know, we balanced success in Trump 1.0 against how well the economy is going. I think he's going to be judged on that.

But what the other part of what I will say here is he's taking a long- term approach, which is actually kind of refreshing in American politics. Now, whether he is right or wrong, we can have people more qualified than I jumping into this debate, but he's doing two things that are really unusual in Washington. He's taking a long-term view and he is not listening to the critics.

TAPPER: So, this is an interesting conversation because Mike's completely right, President Trump looks at tariffs as something -- it's not just a means to an end. I think he wants this for all 4 or 8 or 12 or 16 years of the next Trump -- of this Trump presidency. And I think one of the issues is, first of all, did the American people vote for this? Did they understand what was happening? Second of all, if the theory is we don't need to have cheap prices at Walmart, what we need is higher salaries for manufacturing jobs that have come back to the United States. Are those jobs actually going to come back or are we just going to have a lot of automation for plants in the United States?

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't know. I don't think they all -- I just heard my former Congressman Tim Ryan on Casey's show earlier, we're both from Youngstown, Ohio. I don't know if the factories that were there when my grandmother or my mom who still lives there are ever really coming back because we're just in a do new way of building things of the way manufacturing works.

I think the goal is that things can be cheaper and people can make more money. I mean, that sounds somewhat aspirational and not that we just keep moving in the same trajectory and so people's quality of lives don't improve.

[18:20:07]

Did people vote for this? I mean, he definitely said tariffs over and over on the campaign trail, so some would argue yes, but did they expect that he was be willing to say there's going to be some suffering. I know he didn't say that to the American people and then go vote for him. And I don't think he was saying -- he said on day one, not in year one that things get better.

JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You guys are way too kind. Peter Navarro this weekend said that he expects $600 billion a year for over ten years, so $6 trillion, from these tariffs, which are taxes. And they're taxes primarily on American consumers. If they got anything close to that, this would be indisputably the largest tax increase on Americans ever and maybe the largest tax increase in the history of the modern world.

Moreover, it would be a massive regressive tax because poor and middle class people spend a lot more of their disposable income on necessities. Rich people can handle this stuff far more than poor middle class people do.

Moreover, most of the jobs that we lose in these various industries are either lost to automation, like you brought up, or they are lost to Michigan because they go to Tennessee or South Carolina. And no one talks about how outrageous it is that South Carolina or Tennessee are stealing American jobs because all that's happening is that we're becoming more productive by moving manufacturing base from unproductive places to more productive places within the United States, which is good for everybody.

TAPPER: Or, by the way, the manufacturing goes of countries that basically have slave labor and child labor. And, you know, we all want to be highfalutin, but I don't know who built this iPhone I have in my hands. I don't know who built the Nikes I put on my feet and I don't know how much they would cost if they were made in America, probably a lot more.

DUBKE: They could cost a lot more if they were made in America. I think one thing -- I appreciate you calling the two of us kind. That was very good.

ALLISON: That's the first time today.

DUBKE: But, I mean, it is all about -- I think Secretary Lutnick had an interview that I thought was a little --

TAPPER: The commerce secretary.

DUBKE: The commerce secretary. And I thought it was a little illuminating on this, that, you know, the ultimate goal of these tariffs -- And I don't know that we're going to get there. And I, frankly, am not a big fan of tariffs, so I'm just making the argument for --

TAPPER: Most conservatives aren't.

DUBKE: I know. I am making the argument for the administration here, though, in that they want to get to a point where the majority of Americans who are making less than I think the number he used, $150,000, are not paying income taxes because these tariffs are going to pay for that.

I don't know that that's going to happen, but that's a messaging arc that I haven't heard come out of this White House. One of the problems here with these tariffs is that they've been kind of herky-jerky and they --

GOLDBERG: You're being kind again.

DUBKE: I am being kind. And they haven't expressed what the endgame. And I think if the president can do that on, what is it, declaration -- liberation --

TAPPER: Liberation day.

DUBKE: Liberation Day on the 2nd, I think he'll go a long way in talking to the American people. But you're right, the stock market's reacting negatively.

TAPPER: He's a big fan of William McKinley, and he is a believer that that era was great for America because of the tariffs, not because of the industrial revolution or the tides of immigration of people willing to do cheap labor.

GOLDBERG: Back when the federal government was 3 percent of GDP.

TAPPER: Right.

ALLISON: Yes. I guess I just want, like almost every economist, conservative and Republican are like, this doesn't work.

TAPPER: Right.

ALLISON: But for some reason, we are giving Donald Trump the most extreme benefit of the doubt to play with --

TAPPER: Well, you two are.

ALLISON: I'm not. No, I'm not kidding.

DUBKE: I mean, Democrats -- a number of Democrats were for selective tariffs before Donald Trump was for tariffs.

TAPPER: Oh, and Biden --

(CROSSTALKS)

GOLDBERG: He's not for selective tariffs. He's for broad tariffs.

ALLISON: That's the difference.

TAPPER: All right. We're going to continue this conversation later in the week. Thank you all for joining me. I appreciate it.

The statement that the Department of Homeland Security sent us today when -- I'm sorry for the State Department sent us today when we asked for specific evidence about any of the graduate students or scholars targeted by the Trump administration engaging in criminal or pro- terrorism activity, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead, last week, you might remember these images, Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish national and Tufts University PhD student, was arrested and detained by immigration officers presumably as she was just walking down the street. Six hours after her arrest, a judge ordered that she not be moved outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts without 48 hours notice. Despite that court order, she was flown the next day by the Trump administration to a detention facility in Louisiana, and we still do not know specifically what she did to merit this.

Trying to get information about these cases is not easy. Last week, I asked the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. State Department and the White House for any specific evidence about any of these graduate students or scholars who have been targeted by the Trump administration for deportation. We know of at least 11, although Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, has said there are hundreds.

A senior official of the State Department told me this afternoon in part, quote, as secretary of state, Secretary Rubio has broad authority over the visa program for these foreign students, including granting and revoking. When a person is granted a visa to enter the United States, they are guests of our country and must abide by our laws.

[18:30:00]

Remember that, our laws. A visa is a privilege, not a right. We can confirm that every individual who has had their visa recently revoked by this administration has displayed problematic behavior, remember that too, problematic behavior, that would've made them ineligible for a visa if they would have disclosed this information during the vetting process. The U.S. government is now revoking their visa retroactively to ensure we're taking deliberate actions to protect our communities and campuses, unquote.

So, what is the problematic behavior exhibited by any of these students? What's any evidence that they did? The State Department wouldn't give us new details. In fact, the State Department just sent us another statement, part of which reads, due to privacy considerations and visa confidentiality, we generally will not comment on department actions with respect to specific cases.

Now, last Thursday, Secretary Rubio defended the arrest of Rumeysa Ozturk. Here's what he had to say in part.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student and you tell us that the reason why you're coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we're not going to give you a visa. If you lie to us and get a visa and then enter the United States, and with that visa participate in that sort of activity, we're going to take away your visa.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: In the case of this student, Ozturk, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told CNN that Ozturk had, quote, engaged in activities in support of Hamas, unquote. What were those activities? They would not tell us.

There's also the case of a Georgetown scholar, an India national, who had his J1 visa revoked. He's also being held in detention in Louisiana. Dr. Badar Khan Suri was, according to the Department of Homeland Security, quote, actively spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting anti-Semitism on social media, and that he had, quote, close connections to a known or suspected terrorist who was a senior adviser to Hamas.

Okay. What social media are you talking about? What evidence is there that he was spreading pro-Hamas propaganda? Again, if there is evidence, the Department of Homemade Security, the Trump administration did not share it with us. Khan Suri's attorney told CNN that neither he nor his client had seen any evidence to that effect.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HASSAN AHMAD, BADAR KHAN SURI'S ATTORNEY: No Administration official has put forth a shred of evidence that my client, Dr. Khan Suri, has been involved or is affiliated with any known or suspected terrorists.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So far, Secretary Rubio said the State Department has revoked the visas of more than 300 people and plans to revoke more every day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUBIO: I hope we run out because we've gotten rid of all of them, but we're looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, the question is, where is the evidence of they must abide by our laws? Where's the evidence that they broke laws? Secretary Rubio talked about participating in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus. Okay. For these students, where's the evidence that they vandalized? Where's the evidence that they harassed students? Where's any of the evidence of any of this? All we know is that these people were involved in protest movements, but we don't know of any disturbing behavior. There has just been no evidence presented.

One conservative writer, Jeffrey Blehar, in National Review, today noted, quote, this sets a hugely dangerous precedent. Are you comfortable with immigrants being ejected for exercising basic speech rights? If there is evidence of any of these individuals engaging in law-breaking or harassing other students or anti-Semitism or pro- Hamas, sentiments expressed specific evidence to these individuals, by all means, we welcome the Trump administration sharing it, but this idea of trust me, they've behaved problematically is not a good enough from this government, it's not good enough from any government.

For more, let's bring in CNN's Priscilla Alvarez. Priscilla, so student visas are not just being revoked 'cause of protests. Today, we're learning about why an unidentified international Minnesota -- University of Minnesota's graduate student who was detained last week, what was the reason for that?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, according to a senior Homeland Security official, this is because of a previous drunk driving incident and is unrelated to student protest.

TAPPER: It is a crime, yes.

ALVAREZ: But what it speaks to, Jake, is that the secretary of state has enormous authority when it comes to who's allowed to have a visa and who can have that visa revoked. That is what we're seeing both in this drunk driving incident, but also in the visas being revoked of these foreign nationals who attended these prestigious universities and have now since had their visas revoked for, as you mentioned, reasons that we don't quite understand or know because the evidence has not been presented.

[18:35:00]

Now, I will say that what is also happening tangentially is that they are going through their immigration proceedings. It's not just that we're seeing these federal court proceedings about whether they should be removed or whether there is any basis for their revoking of the visas. Well, now they're also in removal proceedings and now they're going to have to go before an immigration judge.

So, there are multiple things at play here with very little evidence that's been provided by the administration. And we have also learned that there are five international students at Colorado State universities who have also learned that their visas are being revoked. So, we are hearing about this day-by-day, trickle-by-trickle without much information as to why it's happening or on what legal authority.

TAPPER: All right. Priscilla Alvarez, thanks so much. And, again, to Secretary Rubio or Secretary Noem, or anybody at the White House, if there's evidence, come on the show, present it, email me, text me, present it. Priscilla's on the case. Show us this evidence. But it's not just good enough to talk about problematic behavior. What behavior, who, what, when?

Their one week trip to space ended up lasting nearly ten months. Now, Butch and Suni are describing the issues with their spacecraft that unexpectedly extended their stay and the first things they did after returning to Earth.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

TAPPER: Now it's time for our Out of This World Lead. Butch and Suni want you to know they were always coming back. The two astronauts who returned to Earth earlier this month are speaking out now for the first time about their extended stay on the International Space Station.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUNI WILLIAMS, NASA ASTRONAUT: First and foremost, we were always coming back and I think people need to know that we came, as Butch has mentioned before, prepared, and we are ready to do that pivot and be part of that bigger thing that's not just about us.

BUTCH WILMORE, NASA ASTRONAUT: We had a plan, right? The plan went way off of what we had planned. But because we're in human space flight, we prepare for any number of contingencies because this is a curvy road. You never know where it's going to go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: And former NASA Astronaut Scott Altman joins me now. So, Scooter, thanks so much for being with us again.

They were adamant, Butch and Suni, when it came to this stranded and lost narrative. This might not have been part of the plan but they were ready for it. I listen to a great podcast about Murphy's Law that talks about how Murphy's Law is actually from air travel in the early days of air travel, because if anything can go wrong, it does, and that's why you have to plan. So, astronauts have plans for everything, I guess.

SCOTT ALTMAN, FORMER NASA ASTRONAUT: You have a strict set of contingencies that you try to plan for but every now and then space flight throws you a curve you didn't think of, and you've got to use your head in real time and think about how to respond to that. That happened on my Hubble missions as well. So, Butch and Suni did a good job of responding to the curve ball that Starliner threw them.

So, they also -- they avoided questions about the politics of their mission. The explanation the team gave was that it didn't really break through up there. You know, this is all this back and forth about Elon Musk made an offer to send SpaceX spacecraft to save them. And Biden turned it down. I don't know what the truth is. I have, I really honestly have no visibility. But, look, Trump and Elon Musk are the ones who are responsible ultimately, especially SpaceX. What do you make of their saying that they were just kept away from the politics of it all?

ALTMAN: To some extent that's true, especially what they were doing on a long duration mission like that. You're focused on the tasks that you have, the research that they're doing, the workout regimen that they put them through so they're able to get back to Earth and be able to do things. Like Suni said, she went for a run already, a two-mile run, a week after getting back. So, that's impressive that they're in that kind of shape.

TAPPER: And they said, even though there're so many questions about the Boeing Starliner, that they would go back up in the Boeing Starliner. Here's what Butch said when asked who to blame for the issues that they had.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILMORE: But I'll start and point the finger and I'll blame me. I could ask some questions and the answers to those questions could have turned the tide.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, first of all, being in Washington, D.C., what language is he speaking? Accepting responsibility and accountability? I'm not familiar with -- is that English? But what kind of questions in hindsight do you think he could have asked? Is it true what he's saying?

ALTMAN: Well, to some extent. And the whole thing that Butch said also is it's a team sport. It takes a whole lot of people working together to make it happen. As the commander, you always think, could I have asked more questions? What did I miss when we were talking about that? Was there an investigation into how the Starliner was set up and tested?

But there's a lot of concern to go around with things that went wrong. The good news is they're looking hard at it, and hopefully it'll be back up and ready to fly astronauts again in the near future.

TAPPER: So, Suni already has gone on a run. What was it like for you when you came back? Were you able to bounce back that quickly?

ALTMAN: Probably not as quickly as they did. We didn't have as much of a workout regimen, but the flight was shorter, so you could argue either way. The one thing I always tell people is don't play catch after you get back from space because you're used to everything going in a straight line. When my son lobbed the keys to me, I put my hand way up here and the keys hit me in the forehead. So --

TAPPER: I guess that's right. Okay, occupational hazard.

ALTMAN: A little safety note for future astronauts.

TAPPER: After you come back from space, don't have your son throw you the keys to the car. You're going to get hit in the head. Scooter. Great to have you, as always.

Another near miss at D.C.'s airport, this time between a Delta flight and a U.S. airport jet. Here are the exchange between the pilots and air traffic controllers right after it happens.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:48:39]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: What on earth is going on with air travel in this country continues to be a feature in our national lead. This time it's a near-miss between a Delta Airlines flight and an Air Force jet, raising alarms in Washington. This comes almost exactly two months after an Army Black Hawk

helicopter collided with an American airlines plane, killing 67 people.

CNN aviation correspondent Pete Muntean has the latest for us.

Pete, what happened?

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: This incident has the attention of investigators. Only two months since that fatal near midair collision between a military helicopter and a passenger jet in nearly the same spot.

Here is the big question: why did flights continue to take off from Reagan National Airport as these four military jets were approaching nearby Arlington National Cemetery? Air traffic controllers routinely stopped departures from DCA for a few minutes during one of these flyovers which are pretty common.

The new data from Flightradar24 puts the formation of these Air Force T-38s just over a mile from Delta Flight 2983. That might sound like a lot, but when you consider the speeds involved, the flights were separated by only. Eight seconds.

The Federal Aviation Administration confirms that the pilots of the Delta flight got an in-cockpit alarm warning of an impending collision. It's known as a traffic resolution advisory. And this was the exchange the pilots of the Delta flight had with air traffic controllers.

[18:50:01]

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

DELTA 2983 PILOT: On that departure that we had a momentary TCAS RA. Was there an actual aircraft about 500 feet below us as we came off of DCA?

DCA DEPARTURE: Delta 2983, affirmative.

DELTA 2983 PILOT: OK.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MUNTEAN: The controller there confirming this was not a false alarm like the rash of false traffic reports reported by pilots landing at DCA earlier this month.

The FAA is investigating this, and now, the National Transportation Safety Board has launched its own investigation. Its preliminary report will shed a lot of light on this. That will be out in the next 30 days or so.

Delta says 136 people were on its flight, which landed in Minneapolis without incident. CNN was the first to report on this incident. It's now calling into

question whether lessons were learned following the fatal collision over the Potomac.

TAPPER: All right. Pete Muntean, thanks so much for that report.

So, finally, from us today, what in the world are torpedo bats? Could they reshape major league baseball? This piece of equipment has players and managers scrambling today to get one. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:55:24]

TAPPER: Ending the show on our sports lead, there is a new must-have accessory in Major League Baseball, which opening season just started last week. The torpedo bat. It's all the rage after multiple New York Yankees players used these bats to contribute to tying an MLB record, hitting 15 home runs in three games.

On the left here, you're looking at a regular bat. On the right, that's a torpedo bat, which is actually customized for each hitter individually, moving more wood to their specific sweet spot where they most often hit the ball.

Joining me now is Sam Blum. He's an MLB writer for "The Athletic".

So, Sam, the torpedo bat as of now, it's technically legal, but some folks are questioning the fairness of its use. Might it be, you know, banned sometime soon or what do you think?

SAM BLUM, MLB WRITER, THE ATHLETIC: I would be surprised if that happens. I mean, you know, this is within the rules, the collectively bargained agreement that, you know, at least has two more years left on it. So, it would surprise me if -- if, you know, there's a ban on it.

Now, you know, Major League Baseball could in theory, you know, see the results of this. And I imagine, you know, were going to see this play out in real time over the next, you know, even just days and more likely weeks and months and the impacts of this bat because, you know, like you mentioned, the Yankees hitting nine home runs in one game, I think kind of spurred a lot of interest, you know, not just from media, not just from fans, but from players themselves who are really interested in acquiring these -- these new bats. And some around the game already have them.

So. Yeah, I mean, I would be surprised if they're banned at least not for a little while. But you know, as the results start to come in, we might see you know, different types of reactions, you know, maybe from the league, maybe from some players, too.

TAPPER: Yeah. We'll, as I'm a Phillies fan, and for those who are watching me instead of the game the Phillies won again today. And I know a lot of Phillies have said publicly. Oh, my god, I got to get me one of those. A lot of teams are looking into it. The Atlanta Braves are looking into it.

What are you hearing? Do you think that every player ultimately is. I mean, they can afford them. Is going to see a torpedo bat take over the league? And how much are they, by the way?

BLUM: I'm not sure exactly what the cost -- I mean, you know, I think these are all things that people are still figuring out to some extent. But what I do know is that they're pretty widely available. I mean, I think multiple. This is not like proprietary technology. I mean, this was invented by a Yankees, you know, player development coach. And it's, you know, who's now with the Marlins and it's, you know, it's been in the game, I think, for, you know, almost a year now, but not many players have used it.

But yeah, I mean, I think this is something that a lot of players will -- will now at least try out, you know it's fascinating that just like I spoke to one player yesterday with the -- with the angels who had been with the Cubs in spring training, and the Cubs have been using these bats in spring training and maybe even a little bit last year. But no one on the Angels had even heard of it.

So once this all started happening, you know you know, after he gotten released by the Cubs and, and taken by the Angels, I mean, they now all these players are asking him about it. So, I think this is kind of a word of mouth situation. A lot of players are going to -- you know, to want to at least test it out. I think it'll be interesting to see if you see the big power hitters start to use it or, you know, they are already pretty good at hitting the ball in the barrel. They might not need it as much.

So it'll be, you know, a lot of things will -- will have to still play out again. Also, how are pitchers going to adapt? Are they going to look to, you know, throw the pitch more outside to induce weaker contact? You know, all of it, all about all of baseball is, you know, figuring out adjustments and how to adapt.

TAPPER: And do you think ultimately, it's possible that the use of torpedo bats could, could ultimately lead more players to shatter MLB records?

BLUM: You know, that'll be interesting to see. I think that's, you know, listen, we're so -- we're so early on in this process, but I do think that there's a potential for this bat to really revolutionize the game in some capacity. Certainly, you know, change the game in some capacity. I, you know, the numbers haven't really come in on it. It's only been a few days that we've really even known about its existence.

But yeah, I mean, I think it's possible, like if players, especially guys who don't necessarily have those types of prototypical power numbers, are starting to, you know, find that more in these bats then. Yeah. I mean, it could really significantly alter not just, you know, somebody breaking a home run record, but really elevating the number of home runs you see across the board, even from players who don't necessarily have tons of power.

TAPPER: Very cool. Sam Blum of "The Athletic", thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

I have two books coming out. One in May, it's called "Original Sin" with my coauthor, Alex Thompson. It's about President Biden's decision to run for reelection and the cover up of his decline.

In October. I have a book called "Race Against Terror". It's about the hunt to prosecute an al Qaeda terrorist who killed Americans and was out to kill more. You can check them out and preorder at jaketapper.com.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now. I'll see you tomorrow.