Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Trump Prepares to Escalate Trade War with Sweeping New Tariffs; Kremlin Responds to Trump Saying He's "Very Angry" With Putin; Supreme Court Taking Up Major Religion Cases. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired March 31, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:47]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, Trump's tariff bet. The President argues that rising prices and market swings will be worth it to jumpstart American production. I'm Pamela Brown.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in The Situation Room.

And we begin this hour with President Trump's economic gambit, a series of sweeping new tariffs set to go into effect this week.

BROWN: Trump and his allies are promising this Liberation Day will help usher in a new golden age, but it could come at a high cost. And now inflation-weary Americans are bracing their wallets for impact.

So let's go live now to CNN chief and national affairs correspondent, Jeff Zeleny, at the White House. Also with us is CNN business and politics correspondent, Vanessa Yurkevich, in New York. Jeff, first to you here, what is the White House saying ahead of this promised, quote, Liberation Day?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Pamela. I mean, this has been one of the through lines of the Trump presidency, threatening the idea of tariffs and then possibly changing them at the last minute. So that is what we are waiting for here over the next 40 hours to see if the President goes through with his long- discussed plan, as he calls it, Liberation Day, to have reciprocal tariffs on a variety of countries that do trading with the United States.

But the big question at the center of all this, which at the -- which at this hour is unanswered, if there is going to be an across-the- board, say, 20 percent tariff or if there is going to be individual rates for individual countries. When the President was flying back here to Washington last night on Air Force One, he didn't answer that question. And he has been sort of soft-pedaling the idea of how difficult and onerous these -- these tariffs are going to be.

But all of this has created sort of a sense of uncertainty that the stock markets and the financial markets worldwide have been watching. So we shall see in the next 48 hours or so if these reciprocal tariffs go through as planned or if there are some exemptions carved out for some sectors of the economy, which we've already seen over the past two months here, Wolf and Pamela.

BROWN: All right, so we're waiting to find out more specifics. But, Vanessa, where could we see the most immediate impact of these tariffs?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS & POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Well, we could see an impact on food prices and specifically perishable items like fruits and vegetables and flowers. These are items that cannot be stockpiled.

We are hearing from the International Fresh -- Fresh Produce Association asking the President and his administration for exemptions. This is what they have written the White House. They said, quote, the proposed U.S. tariffs and the resulting retaliatory actions of other nations threaten American consumers' ability to afford fresh produce and florals as well as the stability and prosperity of the growers and businesses that supply them.

Also on the auto front, Pamela, this is critical. There's a short window right now where Americans can get cars that are tariff-free. We could see an increase of 10 percent or more on car value. Also, there's only 27 vehicles right now currently starting under $30,000. If a 25 percent tariff took effect, that would be $5,300 more per vehicle.

And in terms of inventory, there's good new car inventory, 85 days of new car inventory, but just 50 days of used car inventory. But the United Auto Workers Union President, Shawn Fain, says he is in support of these tariffs. Listen to him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHAWN FAIN, PRESIDENT, UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNION: Tariffs aren't the total solution. Tariffs are a tool in the toolbox to get these companies to do the right thing, and -- and -- and the intent behind it is to bring jobs back here and -- and, you know, invest in the American workers. If they're going to bring jobs back here, you know, they need to be life-sustaining jobs where people can make a good wage, a living wage, have adequate health care.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YURKEVICH: Now, it remains to be seen whether or not the automakers, specifically the big three U.S. automakers, plan to bring production back to the U.S. They have been pretty mum on that.

[11:04:59]

But I will tell you, Pamela and Wolf, that in 2018, when President Trump imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum, General Motors and Ford, both reported increased costs of $1 billion each. And to remind our viewers, there's more than a steel and aluminum tariff -- tariff coming. There are reciprocal tariffs and then, of course, sector-specific tariffs on autos. So that cost to those two brands, G.M. and Ford and others, is expected to rise. Pamela?

BROWN: And, Vanessa, just to follow up with you, President Trump's tariff advisor, Peter Navarro, is throwing out this number of $6 trillion over many years that this would bring in. But you have to ask the question, you know, it's hard to, of course, put a price tag on it, but who would be paying that? Where is that revenue coming since it's American companies who would be paying that tax, right, on goods coming into the U.S.?

YURKEVICH: Right. So if we -- if we are putting a tariff on other countries, that is the imports coming into these countries that would be taxed. And it is those U.S. businesses that would have to pick up the bill. And, of course, we've talked about this quite a bit.

Do these companies absorb that cost or do they pass it down to the consumer? For maybe some bigger companies, they can try to absorb some of that. We know that many businesses have stockpiled things. But for smaller, medium-sized businesses, ultimately they're going to have to make that critical decision to likely pass that extra cost down to the consumer, Pamela.

BROWN: All right, Vanessa Yurkevich, Jeff Zeleny, thank you both. Wolf?

BLITZER: And, Pamela, new this morning, the Kremlin is responding to President Trump's fiery words aimed at Vladimir Putin. Over the weekend, Trump told "NBC News" that he was, quote, very angry at the Russian leader over stalled efforts to end the war in Ukraine.

It's a very dramatic change in President Trump's tone toward Putin and Russia. CNN correspondent Natasha Bertrand is joining us from the Pentagon right now. First of all, Natasha, what is the Kremlin saying this morning?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Well, we did get a response from Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, who said this morning, quote, we continue to work with the American side, first of all, on building our bilateral relations, which suffered enormous damage during the previous administration.

And he said we are also working on implementing some ideas related to the Ukrainian settlement. That work is underway, but so far there are no specifics that we would have to inform you about. Now, as you said, this does mark a pretty dramatic shift in rhetoric from President Trump, who just weeks ago was actually himself questioning President Zelenskyy's legitimacy, saying that he might not be the rightful leader of Ukraine because that country has not actually held elections during wartime. Of course, that is prohibited by Ukraine's constitution.

But still, this could be a reflection of President Trump's increasing frustration with the fact that Russia has not yet agreed to a full ceasefire. They agreed to a more limited one in the Black Sea, but President Zelenskyy has said repeatedly, look, we are ready for a full ceasefire.

And in fact, President Zelenskyy tweeted just last night that the geography and brutality of Russian strikes, not just occasionally, but literally every day and night, show that Putin couldn't care less about diplomacy. Now, obviously, President Trump is beginning to realize perhaps that the Russians are a more difficult negotiating partner than the Ukrainians, because the Ukrainians have said that they are ready and willing to engage in a fuller ceasefire the Russians so far, they are not prepared to do that.

And in fact, President Trump said yesterday to "NBC" that not only is he angry at President Putin for questioning Volodymyr Zelenskyy's legitimacy, saying that perhaps Ukraine needed to be under a temporary administration during ceasefire talks, but also that he is prepared to potentially implement 25 to 50 percent tariffs on Russian oil and also potentially penalize countries that are purchasing Russian oil.

And that could really hit Russia where it hurts in terms of its, you know, of its economic impact here. So President Trump obviously trying to play a little bit of hardball with President Putin, but at the same time, he said that he could speak to the Russian leader as soon as this week, Wolf.

BLITZER: So is that going to happen? Do we know if there's a formal phone call that's already been prepared for these two presidents to talk?

BERTRAND: We don't know yet. President or I should say, Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesperson, he said that nothing right now is actually on the schedule, but that one could be arranged fairly quickly if the two leaders want to speak this week.

BLITZER: We shall see. All right, Natasha Bertrand of the Pentagon for us. Thank you very, very much. Pamela?

BROWN: All right, President Trump is already discussing his plans after his second term in the White House ends, and it turns out he may not want to leave even though the Constitution requires it. In a phone interview with "NBC" Sunday, he said he wasn't joking about a potential third term and added, quote, there are methods to do it.

Joining us now is CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, Jennifer Rodgers. All right, Jennifer, so legally speaking, is there any way that could happen?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Pam, not really within the structures that we have in the Constitution, at least not easily and not without significant court challenges. The Constitution says in the 22nd Amendment that if you've been president for two terms, you cannot run for a third term.

[11:10:06]

And folks talking about the fact that you could run for V.P. and then just step into the role if the President resigned, the 12th Amendment seems to preclude that. So really what you're talking about is either complete, you know, and utter chaos outside of our system, some sort of dictatorship where we don't actually have elections, which, of course, we hope doesn't happen, or something where the former president would become the Speaker of the House and then the president and the vice president would resign, in which case, of course, you would see court challenges because that goes against the spirit, not actually the specific words in this 22nd Amendment. So I think it's very much a long shot.

BROWN: So one of Trump's biggest allies, Steve Bannon, has suggested that Trump is eligible since the 22nd Amendment doesn't specify consecutive terms. How realistic is this argument in a constitutional sense?

RODGERS: Not realistic. The 22nd Amendment says that if you have served two terms or one term plus two or more years of the second term, which, of course, Trump will have if he gets through this term, then you cannot run for president. So that's pretty clear. There's no question that he can't, per the Constitution, be on the ballot for 2028.

So really what they would be talking about is some way to slip in there if someone else were the president and they would resign and he would get in through the succession plan. But Steve Bannon is wrong on the law in this case, for sure.

BROWN: And to be clear, Trump can't just change the Constitution, right? That would be members of Congress would have to amend the 22nd Amendment, correct?

RODGERS: The Constitution is really hard to amend. It's actually only happened once that an amendment has been overturned by another amendment, and that was with prohibition, which was overturned. It's very, very hard.

Two-thirds of Congress has to vote. You then have to have three- quarters of the states ratify. So it's very hard to do. It takes a long time. And in our current system, with the way that the states break down and Congress break down, it seems virtually impossible.

BROWN: Is there anything else in terms of -- of the President's rhetoric here that strikes you from a legal perspective?

RODGERS: Well, I just think it's -- it's part of his, you know, it's part of the kind of strongman's playbook, right? Don't worry, I'll be here. You know, I'll continue to be here. Just saying that we're not going to go on without him in this role. It's just kind of consolidating power, I think. I don't expect anything to happen that would make it easier.

I will say, though, that there have been some concerning statements about elections and trying to impose restrictions on, for example, citizenship requirements on states for their elections. Those kind of moves do make you think about, is the President trying to exert control over how the states run elections? And could that be problematic when it comes to 2028 and beyond, trying to exert that control? But on this particular issue, whether he'll be on the ballot, things seem pretty clear in the Constitution that he will not be. But again, trying to consolidate control for his party moving forward, that's another matter, and that's a matter that we'll have to keep an eye on, because that could happen to make it more likely that Republicans will continue to carry the White House.

BROWN: Certainly. Jennifer Rodgers, thank you. Wolf?

BLITZER: Pamela, still ahead, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing critical arguments today in a case at the intersection of the government and religion. Why critics say benefits for more than 1 million workers could be at stake.

[11:13:52]

BROWN: Plus, another university student detained by immigration officials. The new details we're learning. You're in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Starting today, the Supreme Court is taking up a series of major cases that could reshape the role of religion in American public life. This morning, the justices are hearing arguments over whether religious charities should be exempt from state unemployment taxes.

BLITZER: All right, let's get some details from our chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid, she's here with us in the Situation Room. Paula, which way does the court seem to be leaning in this case? Because I know you've been listening to the arguments all morning.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's been a lively bench, but of course this is a conservative supermajority that has repeatedly blurred the line that traditionally separated church and state. So not surprisingly, we are seeing a lot of skepticism from the justices this morning. Now, a reminder, this case is about churches and taxes. Now, most people know that churches are exempt from most taxes.

But today, the question that justices have been grappling with is what to do when it comes to religiously affiliated organizations. And here, they're focused on Catholic charities in the state of Wisconsin. Now, they provide many different social services in the state.

They are religiously affiliated. And specifically, the question is about their contributions to unemployment compensation programs. Now, in the state of Wisconsin, they contributed to that tax program since the 70s. But in 2016, they asked for a religious exemption, which was denied. And the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that while Catholic Charities is motivated by a religious purpose, they describe that the activities are primarily charitable and secular in nature because what they do serving the poor and mental health services could also be done by a secular organization.

[11:20:15] And that decision is, of course, how we came to the Supreme Court because they're arguing that that's a violation of the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom. So this is a case that could have enormous implications for other religiously affiliated organizations and also the tax system that supports people who have been laid off.

BROWN: And I want to just do sort of a step back here and look big picture because you have this case and you have two other big cases the Supreme Court has taken on. Religion, they're going to be hearing those cases in a couple of weeks. But just what could this mean? What are the stakes here in terms of religion and American public life?

REID: I think what's fascinating is this is the first time the court has taken up really a religious-centered case in a few years. But we have this trilogy. We have today's case, then the court will consider a Catholic charter school in Oklahoma and whether it's constitutional and then whether parents with religious objections to curriculum specifically in Maryland can withdraw their children from these cases.

Now, the Wisconsin case is a little bit different, but I think what we really need to be watching for is the impact that these decisions could have on education because we know there are a lot of conservative organizations in this country and they have a priority, they have a focus on trying to move more taxpayer funds into religious schools.

So I think that's a strand that we really have to be watching very, very carefully because taken together, this group of cases, it's really the first big test for the Supreme Court, the separation of church and state in a few years.

BLITZER: These are major cases before the Supreme Court right now. I know the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has been friendly to religious causes in recent years. Should we expect that trend to continue?

REID: I think so. There are a lot of questions about whether the so- called religious freedom winning streak will continue here. I mean, I do think it's likely that we should expect, as we heard from the bench today, some skepticism from the justices about whether this tax exemption in Wisconsin specifically should have been denied, but what we'll be looking for is what kind of tests do the justices set out for when it is appropriate, for example, these examples with schools to allow religion, for example, in a charter school or exemptions in public school curriculums.

Looking at the kinds of tests the justices set out when it comes to June and these religion -- these religion decisions are likely released, that's going to be a big one to watch, likely probably the biggest issue they grapple with this year.

BROWN: What else are you watching for from the high court this term?

REID: So, as per usual, there is a Trump factor, right? I think that most of the big constitutional questions in and around President Trump's executive orders, his expansive use of executive power, they are unlikely to get to the court in -- in their full form, the actual constitutional questions, probably until next year. The Supreme Court does not seem like they're in a hurry to take up the larger constitutional questions.

Right now they're just being asked to pause lower court decisions that are holding off these policies. I would expect that they will likely let all of those cases about immigration, birthright citizenship, play out, work their way through the courts. But anything else, anything related to his use of executive power, anything that limits that or expands it, that's probably going to be the biggest news out of the court.

But again, I don't expect those big decisions related to his use of the White House, his power, likely until next year. Because I think they're going to want to let those cases play out just as they did with his cases over the past few years, and specifically presidential immunity. They weren't in a hurry to take up that case.

BLITZER: Paula Reid, thank you very much. Paula Reid is our chief legal affairs correspondent.

[11:23:39]

BROWN: All right, up next, how tariffs and what they could mean for you -- about what you pay for beer, for example, and how they could spell trouble for small craft breweries.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We're just two days away from what President Trump is calling his Liberation Day, when he's set to impose very sweeping new tariffs on U.S. trading partners. Canada is already reeling from 25 percent tariffs on its steel, aluminum and auto industries and is vowing to retaliate.

Last hour, I spoke with Andrew Furey, the Premier of the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Here's some of that conversation. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW FUREY, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR PREMIER: Canadians never asked for any of this. We're left often confused, frustrated at times, angered and upset by this round of tariffs. And Canadians, by and large understand that tariffs are not going to win on -- on the northern border, they're not going to win south of the border. It's going to be a loss-loss situation.

So we're very frustrated, very concerned from a macroeconomic perspective, but also from a microeconomic perspective as well. We see this as being and will be incredibly punitive to consumers on both sides of the border, again, setting up a lose-lose situation. So Canadians are frustrated. They're -- they're concerned, but they will be responsive. And I -- and I do believe the conversations I've had with the prime minister and the United Team Canada Front has been strong and firm in -- in -- in recognizing that we do have a position of strength.

[11:29:54]

The economies are integrated for a reason. And it's not just geographic adjacency. It's the shared resources. Canada is plentiful and bountiful and natural resources that can provide the United States manufacturing jobs. It can grow their --