Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

WH: Trump Deciding Final Tariff Details After Advisers Present Plans; Auto Sector Could Lose Jobs Despite Union's Support For Tariffs; Trump: "Not Joking" About Third Term, Says "There Are Methods"; Key Races In WI, FL Are First Political Test Of Trump's New Term; Report: CDC Buried Measles Forecast That Stresses Need For Vaccine. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired March 31, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:38]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Anxiety emerging on Wall Street just days away from new Trump tariffs taking effect. How they could affect your personal budget from your garage to the grocery store checkout line.

Also, President Trump saying he's not joking about seeking a potential third term in office. How realistic is that idea considering that the Constitution forbids it?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And an amazing recovery of more survivors pulled from the rubble of Myanmar's earthquake. We are following these stories and many more right here on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

Global economies preparing their response to President Trump's sweeping new tariffs that are set to take effect this week. Just a short time ago, Chinese state media reporting that for the first time in five years China, Japan and South Korea held economic talks. They now plan a joint response to President Trump.

SANCHEZ: This comes as President Trump said no country would be spared from his planned reciprocal tariffs this week even longtime U.S. allies. Markets are rattled and so are many Americans as they brace for possible price hikes on everything we own. The White House moments ago downplayed fears.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: He has a brilliant team of trade advisors. All of these individuals have presented plans to the President on how to get this done and it's the President's decision to make. He's doing what's best for Main Street and Wall Street will work out just fine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: CNN Business and Politics Correspondent Vanessa Yurkevich joins us now.

Vanessa, walk us through what this is going to look like and how big it's going to be.

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, we know that there are tariffs set to take effect this week on the auto industry. So, foreign imports of cars and parts. And this is critical because this is going to affect consumers, but it's also going to affect jobs. Of the 10.2 million cars that we produce right here in the U.S. about 15 percent are exported and that is critical because if foreign countries decide to put reciprocal tariffs on the U.S., that could certainly affect production and we are expecting production to reduce in North America by 10 to 20 percent which could impact the amount of jobs needed to produce vehicles.

And then, you see there that there are auto parts suppliers which employ about half a million people that's double the amount of people that work on the factory floor is building the cars here in the U.S. And so, if there's a slowdown in purchasing from cars here in the U.S. that could significantly impact jobs.

Also just on the consumer front, there's a very short window right now guys where people can buy vehicles and sort of skirt these tariffs. For new cars, there's about 85 days of new car inventory, about 50 days only though for used car inventory and we're expecting that car prices could rise by about 10 percent or more on a vehicle that costs about $30,000 that could be an increase of about $5,300. So that window is soon closing on when people can get vehicles and beat the tariffs.

SANCHEZ: Vanessa Yurkevich, thank you so much for the reporting.

Let's dig deeper now with Ben Bergman he's a senior correspondent for Business Insider.

Ben, thanks so much for being with us.

We obviously want to look ahead to Wednesday, April 2nd, but first so far what would you say has been the impact of Trump's trade war?

BEN BERGMAN, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, BUSINESS INSIDER: Well, the impact has been a lot of uncertainty and you need look no further than the stock market because I think there was a short time last week when investors were hoping that he would scale back the tariffs. The opposite has happened.

Remember, when Trump during the campaign talked about broad-based 20 percent tariffs on all our trading partners, he sort of scaled that back and then was going to do the reciprocal tariffs on our 15 largest trading partners who we have the biggest trading deficit with. But over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump was pushing his advisors to do something much more aggressive and I think you can see how that has investors very rattled today.

SANCHEZ: Yes, Trump meantime says he couldn't care less if automakers raise prices he says because people are going to start buying American cars.

[15:05:02] Of course, the work that it takes to move plants to the United States is something that takes years. So, how soon do you expect that these tariffs will actually bring manufacturing jobs to the United States?

BERGMAN: Well don't hold your breath, the problem with these things is it takes a very long time and I think a lot of people were struck by Peter Navarro who's one of trade's - Trump's top trade advisors.

He said recently that these tariffs were going to bring in $6 trillion to the administration, but where is that $6 trillion going to come from? It's going to come from American consumers pocketbooks, whereas I think people would have hoped that the effect of the tariffs would be that people are just buying more American goods. But that comment suggested that we're still going to be buying stuff from China, we're just going to have to pay a lot more for it.

SANCHEZ: He also suggested that it would actually be - that $6 trillion a tax cut because it would offset what Americans are paying the government right now in terms of revenue, is that realistic?

BERGMAN: The math just doesn't pencil out at least anytime soon. It's a nice idea but we've never seen tariffs successfully work like that. And, you know, President Trump was elected for many reasons but one of the main reasons was because he promised to bring prices down, but he's very much doing the opposite of that.

And you saw last quarter at the end of last year we were on track for 2.5 percent GDP growth. That's now been cut to about 0.4 percent GDP growth. And economists see about a 25 percent chance of a recession which Goldman Sachs just said today was much more likely. These are all because of the tariffs and Goldman Sachs and all these other investment banks are saying they are cutting their GDP forecast directly because of the uncertainty from the White House and showing that they're willing to put up with this short-term pain for what the White House says will be long-term gain, but we have to wait and see for that.

SANCHEZ: There's also that - a question about long-term gain itself, because as you know, Ben, the argument from folks that support free trade for so long is that you can manufacture products in other places in the world where it's cheaper to manufacture them therefore consumers here in the United States benefit from cheaper labor costs, cheaper production costs in other places. So, I wonder ultimately what is the opportunity cost to consumers of building vehicles and some of these other products of actually bringing the manufacturing to the United States isn't there something lost there.

BERGMAN: Well, very much so. I mean, free trade has been the orthodoxy of both parties for decades and it's much more about tariffs. I mean, Apple doesn't just produce iPhones in China because it's cheaper. They produce it there because the supply chain is much more advanced and we just don't have that in the U.S.

So, it's a very noble goal to try to jumpstart it, but it's more - much more about just raising prices for other countries.

SANCHEZ: Ben Bergman, we have to leave the conversation there, very much appreciate the time, thanks for joining us.

BERGMAN: Thanks a lot, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Brianna?

KEILAR: President Trump's second term has barely started and he's already floating the possibility of a third one even though the U.S. Constitution forbids it. Trump telling NBC News this weekend, quote, "There are methods by which he could do it," and that he's, quote, "not joking." Here's how South Carolina Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn is responding to it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM CLYBURN (D-SC): Well, I don't think he's joking at all. This man does not plan to leave this White House. All of this is about suspending if not eliminating the Constitution of the United States and that's the track we're on. And I think people better get serious about this. When he says he's not joking about throwing away the Constitution, which is what he'll have to do in order to have a third term and we are not going to rise up in opposition to that, I think it's time for us all to wake up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: We're joined now by CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig.

And Elie, the 22nd Amendment, it's very clear, no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. Where is this wiggle room that Trump is seeing?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Brianna, you're exactly right, lawyers love wiggle room and escape hatches and here they're looking at the word elected. So, here's the argument, it's fringy, but the 22nd Amendment says nobody should be elected president more than twice.

Well, the theory is well then maybe what Donald Trump or any two-term president can do is run as vice president with let's say J.D. Vance at the top of the ticket, if they win, J.D. Vance resigns Donald Trump becomes president. The argument is that, well, that wouldn't be getting elected that would be becoming president through the line of succession ascending to the presidency.

[15:10:03]

So now the biggest problem with this of course, though, is earlier in the Constitution the 12th Amendment tells us that any person who's ineligible to be president is also ineligible to be vice president. So, you would think that ends the question. That seems pretty straightforward. There is a very fringy extreme school of thought that the 12th Amendment doesn't quite close the door on this, but I think those advocates are trying to thread a needle that is not threadable.

KEILAR: A little too cute by half there.

So, Trump said in addition ...

HONIG: Yes.

KEILAR: ... to the J.D. Vance option, there are others, too. That's a quote. What are they?

HONIG: Well, the most straightforward option it's completely unrealistic, but we can always amend the Constitution. I mean, we have done that 27 times in our history. It's virtually impossible in today's political landscape. In order to amend the Constitution, there's two ways to do it, one we can convene a series of statewide constitutional conventions that's never happened that's not going to happen.

Two, maybe equally as unlikely you would have to get a two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives, a two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate and then three-quarters of the states 38 of the 50 states would have to ratify that. So, in theory you could do that but there's a 0.00 percent chance of that happening in reality.

KEILAR: And, I mean, just talk about why this is an important tradition that has been codified ...

HONIG: Yes.

KEILAR: ... in the Constitution. This is something that makes America quite extraordinary.

HONIG: Well, and that's exactly why I think these end runs you know playing with the word elected or trying to argue the 12th Amendment doesn't apply somehow. That's why I think they're disingenuous and dangerous. Part of what we have to do when we look at the Constitution is look at the spirit, look at the intent.

I mean, George Washington stepped down after two terms because he understood we don't want a king. The reason we ratified the 22nd Amendment in 1951 after FDR had served four consecutive terms is we didn't want that.

So, you're right, I think norms are really important here and that's part of what's (INAUDIBLE) look, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both served two terms, neither of them and - so did George W. Bush, none of them ever in any serious way spoke about considered gave any life to the possibility of a third term and Donald Trump's doing it differently.

KEILAR: So, you have a Republican Congressman, Andy Ogles, who has proposed changes to the 22nd Amendment. He did that just days after Trump took office back in January to allow Trump to serve a third term drawing a distinction between consecutive terms and non-consecutive terms, what do you think about that?

HONIG: That's what we would call a distinction without a difference. I mean, who cares. The point is we don't want kings in this country. It doesn't matter if they take a few years off in between. But, look, God bless. I mean, if he wants to propose a constitutional amendment if he can get two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and three- fourths of the states, then that'll become the way we do business.

But, I think he's looking for some way to argue that this situation is somehow different than the rest of our history and it doesn't fly to me.

KEILAR: All right. Elie Honig, thank you so much for taking us through the legal ins and outs of that.

HONIG: Thanks, Brianna. All right.

KEILAR: Still ahead, tomorrow we may see how voters are responding to President Trump's second term agenda. We'll take a look at special elections in two states that could be a litmus test.

SANCHEZ: Plus one of the key leaders that helped get the COVID-19 vaccine out to the public has now quit his job at the FDA blaming Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy jr. We'll discuss.

And new research showing a popular artificial sweetener may be messing with your brain. It could make that diet soda your enemy in the fight to lose weight. That much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:18:04]

SANCHEZ: The first referendum on President Trump's second term is officially happening tomorrow. Voters are heading to the polls for some high-stakes elections in both Wisconsin and Florida, two states that Trump won in 2024. First in Wisconsin there's a state Supreme Court seat that's up for grabs which will determine either a liberal or conservative majority.

KEILAR: And then in Florida, special elections for congressional seats vacated by two Republicans will decide just how thin the GOP's already razor-thin House majority will be moving forward. CNN Chief Data Analyst, Harry Enten is here to break down the races in both states.

All right. Harry, so why are Republicans at least a little worried about the Florida 6th special election tomorrow?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yes. So, you mentioned obviously get the two races in Florida. We're going to concentrate in the 6th district. That's, of course, where Michael Waltz said adios amigos, I'm joining the Trump administration.

I'll give you a reason why they're worried.

Look, this is a district that is heavily, heavily Republican, Donald Trump won. Get this, 30 points. Now, we don't have any polling data but we do know what the early vote is looking like and the party affiliation of those who are turning out.

Now, the early vote is more Republican in terms of party affiliation. Again, we don't know how those folks are voting, then it is Democratic. But look at the margin, it's just plus nine points, just plus nine points that is significantly less than the 30 points Trump won by. And, of course, there'll be voters who are casting ballots tomorrow but historically speaking the vast majority of voters in the state of Florida cast their ballots early either in person or by mail.

And so if this plus nine is pretty close to a final margin compared to that plus 30, I think a lot of Republicans are going, uh-oh.

SANCHEZ: But, Harry, isn't a win a win? What difference does it make if you lose by a margin of nine versus a margin of 30 if you still lose?

ENTEN: Yes, I think that's exactly the point. You'd say, okay, you know what they win by nine, take the win, move on. Here is why it's important. Let's put this into a larger context, all right? Let's look at the average special election so far in 2025 in federal and state legislative races. What we see is Democrats are outperforming Kamala Harris by - get this - an average margin of nine points - of nine points.

[15:20:06]

So, all of a sudden they outperformed tomorrow in Florida, you say this is part of a pattern of Democrats doing better in these special elections than Kamala Harris in the average race back in 2024. And why is that important? Because I want to take you through history, right?

If we look at special elections and midterm elections, right, how predictive are they? If a party is outperformed in the special elections leading up to a midterm since the 2005, 2006 cycle, that party went on to win the House of Representatives. So, the fact that Democrats are already outperforming their baseline, let's say they do it again tomorrow, well, that could portend to some very good things for them come 2026. Of course, guys, we're just going to have to wait and see.

KEILAR: And arguably the biggest election is for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court where you have Elon Musk backing conservative, Brad Schimel. Put Musk's action in the race into some context for us, Harry.

ENTEN: Yes. So, this is the big, the marquee race of the day. You go out, I got Milwaukee on my mind. All right. Let's go to the great state of Wisconsin. Obviously, you have the liberal candidates' nonpartisan races out there, Susan Crawford against the conservative candidate Brad Schimel.

This is the most expensive court race ever. They have spent get this over $80 million being thrown into this race. Oh, my god I wish I just had a portion of that. Now, you mentioned Elon Musk and yes Elon Musk in the groups affiliated with him or associated with him or aligned with him have spent - get this - over $20 million.

But the key nugget here is despite him spending all that money or the groups associated with him spending all that money, in fact the liberal groups who are pro-Crawford actually spent more money than the money that the Musk groups or the groups associate Musk has along with Musk. And here's the thing to keep in mind, Musk has obviously been campaigning for Schimel.

I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing. Why? Because go out to Wisconsin, you know what his favorable rating is? It's just 41 percent, his unfavorable, 53, not exactly good news for Schimel. And let me just also end by saying, Boris, we missed you last week. Welcome back, buddy.

SANCHEZ: Oh, Harry that's so kind.

ENTEN: I know. I know.

SANCHEZ: I didn't expect that. I didn't expect any kind of kindness from you, but look at that a warm , warm Harry Enten. Thanks so much, pal.

ENTEN: Almost April fools, I figured I'd throw a joke back at you.

SANCHEZ: There you go. Yes.

KEILAR: Come on.

SANCHEZ: I knew it's coming.

KEILAR: April fools eve.

ENTEN: I had to. Thank you, guys.

KEILAR: He loves you. That is the truth.

ENTEN: I do. (INAUDIBLE) ...

SANCHEZ: That's very kind. That's very kind.

KEILAR: Still ahead, new reporting about the CDC being told not to stress the importance of measles vaccines in areas near the outbreaks.

And after the deadly earthquake in Myanmar, some humanitarian groups are focusing on how to help some of the area's most vulnerable survivors, children.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:27:24]

SANCHEZ: We have two major vaccine related developments to share with you. ProPublica is reporting that CDC officials have ordered staff not to release an assessment by their own experts that found the risk of catching measles is high in areas near outbreaks where vaccination rates are lagging. Instead, the agency's canceling plans to promote vaccination against the potentially deadly disease which is now spread to at least 20 states.

At the same time, the FDA's top vaccine official is being forced out of his job. Dr. Peter Marks who played a key role in Operation Warp Speed that helped develop the COVID vaccine was told to resign or be fired, but he is not leaving quietly. In his resignation letter, Dr. Marks sharply criticized his new boss, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., writing in part, quote, "It's become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the Secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies."

Let's discuss with Dr. Paul Offit. He's a member of the FDA Vaccine Advisory Committee, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Dr. Offit, thank you so much for being with us as always. You were a colleague of Dr. Peter Marks, I wonder what you make of him stepping down.

DR. PAUL OFFIT, MEMBER, FDA VACCINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: I think he's been brave in stepping down. He was given no choice. He was either going to be fired or resign. He's chose to resign, but he did it by saying what the reason he resigned, which is that he is not going to play RFK Jr.'s game of having poor quality science that's just going to support RFK Jr.'s mutable, you know, fixed hypothesis that vaccines cause autism or other serious diseases. I mean, he's not going to do that.

He's dedicated to good science and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. isn't and he wasn't going to play RFK Jr.'s game. And I think when RFK Jr. brought in David Geyer (ph) who's also sort of a failed scientist to sort of be his data analyst, this tells you how bad it's about to get.

SANCHEZ: I also wonder what you make of the fact that Marks was instrumental in fast-tracking through operation warp speed the COVID- 19 vaccine and now he's being pushed out essentially under the eye of the same president that helped shepherd through the COVID vaccine when it first emerged. What does it tell you about the administration's priorities when it comes to vaccines?

OFFIT: Interesting, Operation Warp Speed was Peter Marks' term. He was a big Star Trek fan and Operation Warp Speed was used faster than the speed of light, so that was his term. And that was a production program that was arguably one of the greatest scientific or medical achievements in my lifetime, the Trump administration gave $11 billion, bet on six horses to win one race, which is to say six pharmaceutical companies.

[15:30:13]