Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Plans New 25 Percent Tariffs on Steel, Aluminum Imports; Today, Judge Hears Arguments on Challenge to Federal Buyouts; Trump Targets Security Clearances of More Opponents. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired February 10, 2025 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Trade war heating up. President Trump is set to slap a 25 percent tariff on all steel and aluminum imports today. What that means for your wallet and the broader economy.

Plus, questioning checks and balances. Vice President Vance taking aim at the power of federal judges after key pieces of Trump's agenda hit legal roadblocks. But will the administration abide by these rulings?

And later, super blowout, what the Philadelphia Eagles head coach says was the key to Philly's dominating win over Kansas City in the Super Bowl.

Good morning. You are live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Pamela Brown in Washington.

And we begin with the latest escalation in the trade war today. President Trump is set to announce more tariffs, this time focusing on aluminum and steel imports.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We'll also be announcing steel tariffs on Monday.

REPORTER: On this ,tomorrow?

TRUMP: Monday, yes, tomorrow.

REPORTER: What countries will those go on?

TRUMP: Everybody, steel.

REPORTER: Including Canada and Mexico?

TRUMP: Yes. Any steel coming into the United States is going to have a 25 percent tariff.

REPORTER: What about aluminum, sir?

TRUMP: Aluminum too. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: But that's not all. He also says he'll announce reciprocal tariffs later this week, which could match other countries levies on U.S. goods, dollar for dollar.

The trade tit-for-tat comes as the president and Elon Musk target more agencies in their fight to gut the federal workforce. Later today, his so-called buyout offer is back in court. A hearing will be held in Boston on whether it's even legal.

So, let's bring in CNN's Alayna Train and Paula Reid as we try to understand all of what's going on right now.

First to you, Alayna. So, these are new tariffs on top of the ones already in place, right?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: That's exactly right. Yes, Pamela. So, I'll break it down for you this way. This is going to be new tariffs, as you mentioned, 25 percent on U.S. on steel coming into the United States, as well as aluminum. Now, that is in addition to, one, the tariffs we know that he has already implemented on China, 10 percent across the board there, and then also in addition to the ones that he had pressed pause on. So, remember, Canada and Mexico, he had said earlier this month that he was going to be doing on February 1st putting a 25 percent blanket tariff on both of the United States' neighbors, but ended up pausing that for a month as they continue to work out these negotiations.

However, now these countries are going to be seeing new tariffs and Canada and Mexico in particular, maybe very maybe hit very hard by these tariffs. We know that Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and Vietnam, all of them, the largest sources of U.S. steel. And then, again, Canada really getting hit hard here, they are by far the largest supplier of premium aluminum to the United States.

So, this is something that we know that the president obviously is taking very seriously. It's also something that, when I talk to Trump advisers and people close to the president, they say he really believes that the United States is being taken advantage of, and that's where a lot of this is coming from.

However, we also know that the devil is in the details, and so it's very unclear exactly if there could be any sort of exemptions and really what this could look like and its implications. All of that, of course, we're waiting to see when he announces those tariffs later today.

BROWN: All right. So, turning, to you now, Paula. A judge will hear a challenge to President Trump's so-called federal buyout offer later today. What do we expect to happen in court?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: This is a big day, not only for the Trump administration, but also for federal employees contemplating accepting this offer. Because, as you said, the so- called fork in the road offer, it says that if you resign now as a federal worker, you will be paid through September, but a lot of unions have discouraged their employees from accepting this offer over questions about its legality.

So, the judge today is considering further the deadline. It was last Thursday. He moved it until today, further extending the deadline to accept. But also he's being asked to press the government for assurances that they actually have the authority to implement an agreement like this.

Now, the Trump administration, they tried to put a positive spin on this delay, thanking the judge for giving people more time to contemplate this offer. But they have a lot at stake. And what I'll say about talking to sources inside the Justice Department and other agencies who are contemplating this offer. Yes, what happens in this court case matters, but, really, fear is governing a lot of this decision-making.

[10:05:04]

Because there is a fear that if they don't accept this offer, that someone could try to find cause to fire them anyway, and they could lose their pension.

So, this litigation is absolutely important to get clarity. But I will say that if the goal was just to instill fear and get people to leave government, that has been very successful.

BROWN: Yes, I think that's an important point, the real life impact that all of this is having on people's lives.

Alayna, back to you speaking of impact on people's lives, staff at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were just given this order. Tell us about that.

TREENE: That's exactly right. I mean, really, as soon as we saw the president put Russell Vought in charge of the CFPB as acting director, I'd note it was actually just the day after Vought was confirmed to run the Office of Management and Budget as well, we really saw the CFPB get thrown in to chaos.

Now, this newest order that we're seeing today essentially is ordering all CFPB staff to stop working all together. It comes after initially he had said that he was going to be closing the bureau's headquarters for the week and also urging people to press pause on working. Now, we've actually getting some of -- we have an email that Vought sent to all CFPB staff.

I want to review some of what he said in this email. He said, quote, please do not perform any work tasks. He said that employees, that if there are any, quote, urgent matters, they must get approval in writing from the Bureau's chief legal officer before performing, quote, any work task. It also says, quote, otherwise, employees should stand down from performing any work tax.

So, again, they are essentially being ordered to cease working all together as we continue to see the Trump administration and really Vought tried to overhaul this bureau.

Now, I also want to show you what he posted on X. It just gets to really the point of a lot of this. Vought posted over the weekend, quote, the CFPB has been awoke and weaponized agency against disfavored industries and individuals for a long time. This must end.

Now, to be clear, and just to put this a bit into context, the CFPB was first created by Congress in 2011 during the, you know, great financial crisis to be a financial watchdog. It's something really that Wall Street has, you know, argued has created a lot of headaches for them. And now we're seeing Vought come in and really trying to overhaul the entire agency and ordering staff to stop working. So, I think there'll be a lot of questions about, again, whether he actually has the legal authority to do this.

BROWN: And the court's been weighing in on that, the legal authority of these, some of these executive orders and moves.

And as the courts weigh in, Paula, Vice President J.D. Vance is pushing back against judges challenging President Trump's executive actions. What's his argument?

REID: Yes, exactly. Defying the basic separation of power and suggesting that judges should not be able to curtail certain executive action.

Now, his comments come as the courts have pretty much across the board sided against the Trump administration and this initial slew of challenges. But I want to caveat that this was expected. I mean, before Trump was even sworn in, his lawyers were telling me, look, we're going to put forward some policies. They're going to be challenged in court. They're going to be a challenge in districts --

BROWN: Where great citizenship --

REID: Exactly, where we knew we were going to lose, right? That's sort of how this game is played.

But then as the issue works its way through the courts, they think they have a better chance of prevailing on some of these issues. But it doesn't feel good to lose. They're clearly very upset.

But J.D. Vance's comments, I mean, they do raise the question about whether the Trump administration would heed, for example, an order from the Supreme Court if things don't go their way.

Now, the limits of executive power have been tested in this country many times, usually in the context of national security or war, right? What limits can Congress put on the president? What limits can the courts put on the president? But this is very unique because we're talking about budgets. We're talking about financing. We're talking about federal employees.

But this question was posed to the president on Air Force One. A reporter asked him if he agreed with this. And instead of answering the question, he just sort of mocked the reporter and moved on. So, I think for the White House press for this has to be one of the things they press the president on. Whether there is a suggestion here that he's just not going to abide by court orders that they tried to curtail the work that he and specifically Elon Musk are doing.

BROWN: It is a very important question we ask him right now.

Thank you, Paula, Alayna, I appreciate it.

And joining us now is Democratic Congresswoman Jahana Hayes of Connecticut. She's also on the House Education and Workforce Committee. Thank you for coming on, Congresswoman.

And we've been talking about how the Trump administration is trying to dismantle certain agencies, including the Department of Education. That is next on DOGE's list. You are a former high school teacher and the 2016 National Teacher of the Year. What is your response to that?

REP. JAHANA HAYES (D-CT): Well, good morning and thank you for having me. I think the actions of the president are absolutely illegal. Congress and the executive branch are separate, but co-equal branches.

[10:10:00]

And I'm very concerned by the fact that speaker Mike Johnson is ceding the power of Congress, our Article 1 authority. If the president wants to look at the Department of Education and make reforms, there is a process by which we do that, and it has to include congressional oversight. But this, tear everything down with no plan to rebuild it or how we're going to service the needs of 49 million children in this country, is incredibly dangerous.

BROWN: Democrats though are in the minority. How do you plan to fight back against that? And your argument is, look, we're a co-equal branch of government. We have power to the Constitution. What are you going to do?

HAYES: Well, I think it's going to start with, as you said in your last segment, the courts with lawsuits being filed. Individual members of Congress don't have standing to file lawsuits, but I think that outside groups will file lawsuits if this were to happen to show that this is illegal. I mean, a department that was authorized by Congress can only be dismantled by Congress.

And then we step in and conduct our oversight. We exercise our authority as members of Congress. The best way I can do that is by showing up to work every day, by voting, by making procedural motions using every legislative tool at our disposal. And then, finally, I think that we have to educate the public as to what this really means. 7.5 million children receive special education services. If their states no longer receive federal funding from Congress, it doesn't negate the law. Those services still have to be provided.

So, districts are going to have to decide. Do we cut these services or do we raise taxes? The Department of Education is in charge of civil rights protections of $1.6 trillion in the student loan program. So, people really need to understand what is at risk if the department is dismantled. So, our job is to educate the public and let them know the real world consequences of these actions.

BROWN: Let's continue that part of the conversation on the Department of Education, because, as you know, education assessments show that students are behind on key metrics, like reading and math, and Republicans might argue the Department of Education isn't putting its funds to good use to improve these scores, and it's better left to local officials. What do you say to that?

HAYES: I say that's a fair argument. But if you double down on that a little bit more, you'll see that those scores are brought down by mostly red states where they are failing to invest in education. Education is handled at the local level. Curriculum and instruction and things like that are already handled at the local level. So, that's where those decisions are made, curriculum decisions are made.

But as a teacher, I can tell you that it's not just about what happens inside of that building. You have kids who show up who are hungry, who are housing insecure, whose families don't have access to family medical leave and can't stay home with them when they are sick, who literally all of these outside forces, if we want to really have a conversation about getting the best outcomes for our children, then we need to look about all of the things, all of those variables that disrupt their learning, school shootings, things like that.

So, Republicans have a fair argument to say that our students are not where they need to be. So, let's have some congressional oversight and fix it, not tear it down.

BROWN: If you think the Trump administration, you know, is such a threat by tearing down, in your words, agencies, like the Department of Education and the legislative branches and doing a job, why aren't Democrats more unified in their messaging right now?

HAYES: Well, I think that we are. There are attacks coming from every direction. The chaos that is that this department has caused to the American people every day, it's something else. And Democrats have been clear that we will use every legislative tool at our disposal. I think that people really need to understand, like I said, what these things mean.

Because when we talk about agencies or Republicans are picking out one little thing about the agency or there was fraud here, so this agency should fall down, Democrats don't disagree. Let's look at it. Let's streamline agencies. Let's figure out where we can save money. But it doesn't happen by breaking everything apart with no plan and then causing this chaos and fear amongst the American people.

So, people really need to understand what it means for Elon Musk to have access to their information from the Treasury Department, what it means for their children to lose Title 1 services in low income school districts in all of those areas. Really having a full appreciation for if these services and programs are cut, this is what it means to you and your family.

BROWN: And we should know in the Treasury system, a judge did shut down the access, for now at least, for Elon Musk and his staffers to access that.

[10:15:03]

Of course, there is a fair question, is that happening? Are they following that?

But I want to follow up because, you know, Democrats, as we pointed out, they don't have a lot of leverage points right now. And it seems as though one of the leverage points you are looking out is a potential government shutdown. You heard Senator Cory Booker not rolling out using a government shutdown as a Democratic strategy to push back against Trump's agenda come March. So, will you vote to fund the government then?

HAYES: Well, I don't generally operate in absolutes, but I will tell you that. So, I'm not going to say I absolutely will not vote for that, but I'm not going to take a vote that's going to hurt hundreds of millions of people. The cuts that they're proposing, and I think that's our job as Democrats over the next few weeks, to let people really understand what all these things mean.

And I think it's really important to note, they're talking about all of these cuts, but none of these conversations about are about returning that money to the American people or lowering the cost or improving the lives of American people. In fact, in the proposal that they have already rolled out, it includes additional tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

People really need to understand that. I mean, there's small provisions like no tax on tips, but not closing any of these loopholes that provides that allow for some of the wealthiest Americans to not pay any taxes, to have loopholes to write off business expenses. So, if we really want to lower costs for the American people and return that money to them, that would be reflected in their budget proposal, and it is not. And I am not going to vote for anything that continues to harm the American people.

BROWN: All right. Congresswoman Jahana Hayes, thank you very much for coming on the show.

HAYES: Thank you for having me.

BROWN: Coming up, the president is threatening to revoke security clearances for even more of his political opponents. We'll look at how he's trying to reshape the use of executive power in his second term, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:20:00]

BROWN: In his first few weeks, President Trump has been on a seemingly vengeance tour. It's something he said he would do on the campaign trail, and he is fulfilling that promise. Last week, he revoked the security clearance for former President Biden. Over the weekend, he said his targets now include former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Alvin Bragg, Manhattan's district attorney, as well as one of my next guests.

Joining me now is Mark Zaid, who has been a target himself of President Trump's retribution. He's also co-founder of the nonprofit legal organization, Whistleblower Aid. Also with us to help provide that historical perspective is Julian Zelizer. He is a CNN political analyst and historian at Princeton University and author of the book, In Defense of Partisanship.

All right, Mark, let's start with you, because Trump says he is revoking your security clearance. I want to note you're representing current and former federal employees in lawsuits against this administration. What is the direct impact of this?

MARK ZAID, NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY: Well, good morning. So, first, I have received no official notification from the U.S. government. All I know is what the New York Post responded or reported based on some leak apparently from the White House. But, you know, let's be clear. While I'm honored to be among the other individuals on that list, unlike all of them, I am not a Democrat. I have never worked inside the federal government. I have never been in an elected or an appointed federal official other than as an adviser on a National Archives FOIA Committee. I'm being retaliated against for being a lawyer doing my job, representing federal employees.

And the harm that predominantly happens is actually not to me. It's to all those federal employees who now can't come to me, including and especially in the Trump administration, who need a lawyer, of which there are very few of us who have access to classified information. So, they're actually harming themselves more than they're harming me.

BROWN: But do you think the administration wants to cut down on whistleblowers? I mean, part of why he's harming you is because you represented a whistleblower during his first administration.

ZAID: Yes, no, absolutely. And, in fact, that was in 2019 into 2020. After that case, I represented one of the highest level whistleblowers the country has ever seen, who was the acting undersecretary of intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, and the Trump administration increased my access to higher level classified information. I went from a top secret clearance to what's called SCI, Sensitive Compartmented Information, which is the highest. It's not a clearance itself, but it's access to compartments. And that was the Trump administration that did that.

So, what I have done since then and now, I don't know because they identified, as you mentioned, in the at least leak to the New York Post that it was because I represented the whistleblower who ruined his perfect call, which, of course, I didn't. All I did was make sure, with my colleagues, in fact, to ensure that the whistleblower properly and lawfully was able to report what they learned so that it got to the proper oversight authorities, and then the rest of that, that was Congress. That was politics. We had nothing to do with it.

BROWN: All right. Julian, I want to bring you on this as we try to digest everything that's been happening over these last few weeks. What is the impact of Trump targeting his enemies in this way? Is there any historical precedent, excuse me, for going after enemies in the way Trump has been?

[10:25:01]

JULIAN ZELIZER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, on the first part, it's a mechanism of intimidation. I think some of this targets, particular individuals, but part of it is also just to create a broader climate where people are leery and scared to oppose the president to criticize the president, or even to offer legal counsel to people who might not be favorable to the president. And I think so far, he is creating that culture, and that's a dangerous culture.

And on the second part, there are presidents where we have been through this. It's not great comparisons. But, certainly, if you look back at the Nixon years, Richard Nixon was president from 1969 until '74. There was also a culture of intimidation that was nurtured by the White House to intimidate opponents. I think this is more public today. I think it also is taking place in a social media ecosystem that's more dangerous because it's less controlled, but that's where we are.

BROWN: And, of course, recourse for some of these people who could be impacted by this is going -- filing a lawsuit, going to a judge. And the court battles, they are brewing right now. And then you had the vice president, J.D. Vance, blasting some of the court decisions against the Trump administration, saying judges aren't allowed to control the executive legitimate power. Is there any veracity to Vance's claims here, Julian?

ZELIZER: Well, no. The point of the court is to test whether a president has legitimate power. If the court decides that they don't, the president can't exercise that power. That's the system we designed and that's the system we live with. So, I'm not really sure about why he wants to argue this other than to discredit and, again, to intimidate and probably many federal judges are feeling that way. But that is the point of the separation of powers.

BROWN: To bring you back in, Mark, you know, there is a fair question to ask, given that tweet, could Trump and the White House just start ignoring court rulings they don't like? What then, Mark?

ZAID: Well, it is a serious concern and one that is on many of our minds. And it is reminiscent of President Trump's favorite president, Andrew Jackson, who said something to the effect of to the Supreme Court. Yes, you and what army are going to enforce the decision? It will throw us further into a constitutional crisis, obviously. And it looks like that's where they're trying to pull us to determine the extent to which the executive branch is effectively a king.

I think as that happens, I think what actually is going to be somewhat positive is, I think, you're going to see a lot of people who were his supporters sort of rise up and stand tall, including those and especially those in the judiciary. So far, we've already seen Trump appointed judges rule against it. So, it's a matter of time, I think, before this administration just decides to disregard a court order.

BROWN: All right. Well, we'll see how everything plays out. Mark Zaid, Julian Zelizer, thank you so much. And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]