Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Interview With Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Trump Administration Mistakenly Deports Man to El Salvador; Interview With Former Mexican Ambassador to the United States Martha Barcena Coqui; Key Elections in Wisconsin and Florida. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired April 01, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:54]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Happening now, crucial elections under way right now in two states, the first big political test of President Trump's second term.

Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. Wolf Blitzer is off today. I'm Pamela Brown, and you're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

And we begin with a major test for the Trump administration just hours before he has promised his most robust tariffs yet in the global trading system. Polls are open right now for two congressional seats up for grabs in Florida and for a seat on the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Here's the Republican backed by President Trump, Brad Schimel.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRAD SCHIMEL, WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE: I think we're going to be successful. I can't believe the energy we have seen on the campaign trail. Every rally, every event we go, the people are so excited. They're turning out in droves. Everybody's telling me around the state -- every day, I have hundreds of people telling me they're praying for me.

I have people telling me they have knocked on 1,000 doors. They have written 5,000 postcards. That's incredible. That's incredible what people are doing. So we're in this. We're going to win this, and looking forward to restoring objectivity to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, like I promised.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: And depending on how markets close today, stocks are on track for their worst start since 2022.

CNN chief domestic correspondent Phil Mattingly joins me now.

All right, so let's talk about this. You got -- we have got Wisconsin, we have got Florida. Trump carried both of these Florida districts by more than 30 percent. What do you think Democrats -- what do they have to feel optimistic about here when you look at Florida in particular?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: I mean, to start, it's a low bar for Democrats right now, right? They don't seem to have a message. Capitol Hill Democrats have been very, very frustrated. The party itself, I think, is in part still in shock from November, but also searching for something to hang on to right now as Donald Trump really steamrolls through much of Washington and some part -- we can talk about the tariff -- much of the world.

But this is important to note. When it comes to special elections, as you know as well as anybody, it is a smaller pool of voters. It is a more engaged pool of voters. And unlike what had normally been the case for the better part of the 50, 60 years, Democrats now succeed in those elections over the course of the last several years.

When Donald Trump is on the ballot, Republicans succeed. When Democrats have a smaller pool of voters, more engaged voters, who votes in special elections? People who vote with regularity. On top of that, it is clear that in one of the Florida districts, in particular, Florida's Sixth District, the combination of, as what Republicans would say, not a great candidate who isn't raising money and a Democrat who has raised 10 times what his Republican counterpart has raised, has made this race real.

Now, Democrats are saying, look, it will still be a lift to get it over the finish line. But when you talk to Republicans, they say this is closer than it should be. They're at least a little bit worried right now. And as one Republican lawmaker told me this morning, said, look, angry people vote in special elections, and that's a problem when you don't have a candidate that's doing what he needs to do to win.

BROWN: Yes, you have seen that historically, for sure.

I want to go to Wisconsin...

MATTINGLY: Yes.

BROWN: .. where you had a Musk handing out these $1 million checks to some voters there yesterday.

It's the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history. Is this the new normal, handing out checks at races like this? And does it work? Because, as you know, Democrats are hoping that will drive out their voters.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's fascinating. When you look at the polling in Wisconsin, Democrats dislike Elon Musk as much as they like Donald Trump -- or dislike Donald Trump.

BROWN: That's right. Right.

MATTINGLY: And so whether or not that's a motivating factor to get Republicans out, or it actually juices up Democratic turnout, I think is an open question right now. The biggest thing that I think will be determined, first off, this

race has tangible effects. It flips the majority from liberal to conservative if the conservative or Trump-backed candidate actually wins. That's important for the state of Wisconsin, obviously, critically at the Supreme Court.

The other, though, from a more long-term perspective, is Elon Musk did this in 2024, to great effect, essentially kind of single-handedly took over the Trump campaign's ground operation, financed every single element of that ground campaign, and personally campaigned himself, $280 million.

Trump won. You see what Elon's doing now. Can he take that kind of all, fulsome approach and start moving it into lower-level state-level races? And will he continue to do that, maybe even going further down the line going forward?

[11:05:05]

Tonight's results are going to go a long way into telling Elon Musk, into telling the Republican Party, into telling politics writ large if that's the new model going forward. And if it is -- and I was talking to Democrats about this last night -- they need their Elon Musk. How are they finding this? How are they matching up with it?

It'll be a really big question over the course of the next couple of hours, how voters turn out and whether or not Democrats believe that Musk-Trump combination, which they think is going to drive people insane, if it hasn't already, particularly on their side of the aisle, juices that tonight, and if the money for Musk ends up carrying the debt.

BROWN: Right, because Musk, according to the polls, is less popular than Trump, right?

MATTINGLY: Yes.

BROWN: Yes.

MATTINGLY: Yes. And he's a huge motivating factor.

When you talk to Democrats, again, those who will even openly acknowledge we're a little bit listless right now, we don't necessarily know who our party's leader is, we haven't been able to consolidate around a message, because of just how much has been coming out of the Trump administration, the speed and the velocity of the policy proposals across the board, what they point to is Musk, DOGE, what they're doing, not just in the near term, but the kind of downstream effects of those actions from the federal government will be the thing that they think will politically win.

We will get the first test tonight.

BROWN: All right, we sure will. We will be watching it closely.

Phil Mattingly, thank you, as always. And on the eve of President Trump's so-called liberation day, we're

waiting to see how key trading partners could respond to a sweeping round of new U.S. tariffs, and that includes Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. So far, she has adopted a wait-and-see approach.

And joining us now is former Mexican Ambassador to the United States Martha Barcena Coqui. She was the first woman to serve in that role.

Ambassador, thank you for coming on.

Do you expect President Sheinbaum to continue this approach as we navigate the coming days?

MARTHA BARCENA COQUI, FORMER MEXICAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES: I think so. I think this approach has proved to be a sensible approach in the relationship with the U.S. and in relation to their tariffs.

And I think she has been doing great in keeping a continuous dialogue with the Trump administration regarding the several issues that comprise this very complex relationship. Having said that, if the tariffs are in a level that can really wreak havoc in a Mexican economy, then maybe President Sheinbaum will be obliged to take a more forceful position towards these tariffs and towards a relationship with the U.S.

BROWN: What does a more forceful position from her look like to you?

COQUI: Well, it could be some retaliatory tariffs.

It could be. I am not saying they will happen, but there could be some retaliatory tariffs, particularly on those very important exports from the U.S. to Mexico. Then, if we have more unemployment in Mexico, then a normal escape valve is migration.

So you cannot keep on controlling migration if you have an economic crisis in Mexico, yes, because the Constitution does not allow you to forbid the free transit of Mexicans and even the free transit of Mexicans to the border.

Then, of course, it could be that Mexico could look for non-tariff measures regarding cooperation in other areas, which up to now with the President Sheinbaum government have been quite successful for the U.S., and it has been a change from the last, let's say, two years.

So, these forceful measures could include retaliatory tariffs, could include non-tariff answers, and it could include more migration to the U.S., and simply losing all the trust that slowly but steadily the Sheinbaum government has been building with the Trump administration.

BROWN: When you say it could include more migration to the U.S., what do you mean by that?

COQUI: I mean that if you have an economic crisis in Mexico and people lose their employment, what would they do? They would look for jobs wherever they are. And if the jobs are in the U.S., they will risk even their lives to go to those -- to the U.S. to get those jobs. Yes, we have seen this historically. It's not a threat. It's a historical reaction. When you have unemployment in Mexico and economic crisis in Mexico, people tend to migrate, either internally in Mexico to the places, to the big cities where there are jobs, but also to the U.S., where there are jobs and they are needed.

So this could happen, and it will be very difficult for Mexico to control the migration of Mexicans, because, as I said, Mexican Constitution allows for free movement. Mexico cannot really stop the Mexican nationals moving around the land of Mexico, including going to the border.

[11:10:20]

So it will be counterproductive to all the measures that have been taken by the Mexican government in cooperation with the U.S. government to lower down the number of migrants going into the U.S. from all nationalities, including Mexicans.

BROWN: So you served as ambassador from 2018 to 2021, during which the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement was ratified.

Why do you think the president has all but turned his back on that deal that he himself negotiated?

COQUI: I -- it's really difficult for me to understand, why is he turning his back on USMCA? Because, as he said, it was the best agreement ever negotiated by the U.S.

And it was a last-generation agreement. And it was not only a free trade agreement, but it was an agreement to really strengthen the integration of North America. And this integration of North America proved very important during the COVID pandemic, because it never stopped production in Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. of essential sectors.

So, for example, Pamela, when COVID-19 happened, Boeing called us at the embassy and said, please, we need your -- our suppliers to remain open in Mexico, so that we can continue to produce our airplanes and another -- and other equipment. And they identified 52 suppliers in 26 Mexican states.

And the -- Mexico's government kept them open. And it happened the same with the production of Black Hawks. And it happened the same with the production of Raytheon, of General Motors, of Ford. So, the North American integration is so deep that, if you put tariffs that really stop that integration or damage that integration, you will do a great damage to the economy of the three countries, not only to the economy of Mexico and Canada, but to the economy of the U.S.

And the U.S. will take years to substitute those suppliers from Mexico and Canada because of this very deep integration. So, for me, it's really difficult to understand why the Trump administration would seem to be turning its back on something they negotiated, that it was a free trade agreement that was approved with the largest amount of votes in Congress, just after the U.S.-Israel free trade agreement.

Most of the Democrats also voted in favor. So it was an agreement that has been very...

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: Right. I remember. I covered -- I covered it at the time, right.

Well, Ambassador, thank you so much for your time coming on. And we will see how this plays out with the announcement tomorrow. We appreciate it.

COQUI: Thank you.

BROWN: New this morning, Vice President J.D. Vance is defending the deportation of a Maryland father to a mega-prison in El Salvador after the administration admitted it made a -- quote -- "administrative error" in deporting him.

An immigration judge had granted protection status to the Salvadoran national back in 2019. In a court filing overnight, the Trump administration said it wrongly deported him.

So let's bring in CNN's Priscilla Alvarez. What's going on here?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this appears to mark the first time that the administration has conceded that they made an error in one of the people that they sent back to El Salvador, in this case, a Salvadoran national who we understand is now in that notorious mega-prison in that country.

Now, up until this point, Trump officials have expressed a lot of confidence in the way that they identified people to be sent to El Salvador. This case, however, raises some questions. This is a lawsuit that has been ongoing in the state of Maryland because that is where this man resided.

His name is Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He's a Salvadoran national. Again, he crossed into the United States around 2011 and he had a brush with law enforcement in 2019 when he was loitering at a Maryland Home Depot with other men. Local police had approached them. He was detained.

And over the course of 2019, he had immigration proceedings and ultimately an immigration judge granted what is known as withholding from removal. That means that this individual cannot be returned to El Salvador because of potential persecution. It can -- they can still be removable. They just can't be sent to, in this case, El Salvador.

Now, this is all according to the court documents. And his attorney says that he has no ties to MS-13 or is a member of it. But what this declaration also does is give us a little bit of insight as to what exactly unfolded on that Saturday, when there were those three flights to El Salvador.

It says, for example, that he was, Abrego Garcia, an alternate. He wasn't supposed to be on the flight, but as they were working through their flight manifest, they had to remove some people for what the senior ICE official said are various reasons.

[11:15:10]

So his name was moving up on the list and eventually made it on the list, and he was put on this flight to El Salvador.

Now, this is the quote from the declaration. It says -- quote -- "Through an administrative error, Abrego Garcia was removed from the United States to El Salvador. This was an oversight and the removal was carried out in good faith based on the existence of a final order of removal and Abrego Garcia's purported membership in MS-13."

So, to boil this down, the administration is standing by the fact that they say he is a member of MS-13. Administration officials all the way up to the vice president are standing firm on the fact that he should have been sent to El Salvador, but there was an error in all of this because his name was moved up on a list.

And, look, I spoke to his attorney. Even if he is a member of MS-13, as the administration is alleging, he still had a process he had to go through, through the immigration court system to terminate his withholding of removal to El Salvador, again, because of fear of persecution.

That, as far as we can tell, didn't happen. So, not only was there an error made, but there appears to have been a part of the immigration process that was flouted that now has ended with him in Salvadoran custody. And that is also the key part of this. The administration says they cannot do anything to retrieve him because he's no longer in U.S. custody. He's in the custody of another country.

And that is what I have continued to hear from U.S. officials, is that it ultimately is up to the Salvadoran president what happens in these cases.

BROWN: Wow. That was a lot to lay out, but I think it goes to the central issue in the beginning of why it was challenged, right?

Part of it, why it was challenged was due process concerns.

ALVAREZ: Right.

BROWN: And now we're learning that the administration, by its own admission, in the court filing, made an administrative error because, this person, he had protection status from being sent to El Salvador, which he is right now in that security -- in that prison.

All right, thank you so much, Priscilla. We appreciate it.

Still ahead: the White House finalizing details on the president's global tariffs plan. Many economists warn that it could bring a global trade war. I will speak with a Democratic senator about that up next.

And then later: TikTok's clock is ticking again. We're going to find -- will it find a buyer in time or go dark? We're going to have a live report straight ahead.

You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:21:40]

BROWN: We have new CNN reporting this morning on President Trump sweeping global tariffs set to be unveiled tomorrow that could impact billions around the world.

The U.S. is expected to slap tariffs on nations that tax American goods coming into their countries, but the specifics are still unclear. Sources tell CNN that many of Trump's own advisers still don't even know the details, despite the president saying last night the plan has been finalized.

Joining us now with Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon.

Thanks for coming on, Senator.

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-OR): Good to be with you.

BROWN: So, as you know, Trump's tariffs have rattled U.S. markets and make Americans -- have made them worried that even higher prices could be the result.

But Trump says the disruption is worth it to protect national security and domestic industries and bring more jobs lost in the manufacturing sector back to the U.S. What do you think about this gamble?

MERKLEY: Well, I think that Trump is calling this liberation day.

A more appropriate name for tomorrow would beat Trumpflation day. A study that came out of the Yale budget workshop was that this could be some $3,900 per family. And, of course, it depends on the exact details of what's happening. We don't have those details, as you pointed out.

But we not only have the concern about the immediate cost of goods going up for families, but also the impact of retaliatory tariffs affecting many parts of our national economy. And, certainly, I'm hearing about that from folks all over Oregon.

BROWN: The administration points to several companies who have announced more investment in the United States as a result of the tariff policy, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

Do you think this is a long-term trend or a short-term response to the fluctuating trade policies?

MERKLEY: You know, the most carefully crafted tariffs would address very low-cost goods from China that are done under low environmental standards and low labor standards.

There's often a very good case for a carefully crafted tariff plan to basically make a fair, level playing field for American manufacturing. But across-the-board tariffs that go against other developed economies and proceed to have retaliatory tariffs and who knows where it goes from there, that's just simply a massive interruption of productive international trade and driving up the costs for Americans who can't afford to have those costs driven up.

BROWN: But what do you think about the companies that have invested this billions of dollars in the U.S. essentially in response to Trump's tariffs policies? Are you willing to concede that that's a positive that has come out of this?

MERKLEY: Listen, I always celebrate investment in the United States.

And, again, a carefully crafted strategy, the biggest factor is where you have companies that are in China or very other low-cost places that say, hey, the United States is going to pursue a fairer, more level trading policy and we're going to invest more in America.

But realize a lot of American companies will be hard-hit by their own productivity because of the cost of goods coming in, the components into what they manufacture go up in cost. Then their price they have to charge goes up, which can make them less competitive on the international stage.

So this is a strategy that can cut in many different directions.

BROWN: I want to ask you about this letter that you and Republican Senator Rand Paul are sending to President Trump today.

[11:25:00]

You are asking about last month's U.S. military strikes on Yemen and not seeking the congressional input, as required by the War Powers Act of 1973. You say in this letter: "Congress should be briefed about the recent strikes against the Houthis and the total costs expected to be incurred by this campaign at the American taxpayers' expense" -- end quote.

Senator, former President Biden also launched strikes against the Houthis in Yemen last year without seeking congressional approval. Did you have that same concern then as well?

MERKLEY: Well, listen, the War Powers Act doesn't require approval. What it requires is consultation with Congress before the strikes, and then notification within 48 hours after the strikes, and then, if it continues past 60 days, then you need congressional approval.

But that initial consultation, Biden did convey. He did do the notification afterwards. And so this is a case, the distinction here is between a president who tried to honor the spirit of the War Powers Act, maybe not always perfectly, but in general the spirit of it in consulting with Congress, and a president who says, I'm not at all interested in following the War Powers Act.

Remember, the War Powers Act is essentially a way to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, which says only Congress can initiate wars, declare wars. So, we have all of these activities that aren't actually declarations of war. This is a way to say Congress still has to be a part of the conversation. And that's what's being violated right now.

BROWN: The strikes on Yemen are, of course, at the heart of Signalgate, the sharing of war plans on a commercial app.

The Trump administration says it's moving on, the case is closed. Are you satisfied with that?

MERKLEY: Well, Pamela, I sure am not.

I worked for Secretary Weinberger under the Reagan administration. The whole idea of confidentiality of sensitive classified information was extremely high. People have been prosecuted for significant violations, just taking classified papers out of a classified setting.

In this case, you not only have a social media app being used to communicate. And if somebody had left their phone sitting around, somebody could have picked it up and seen what was on it, even if the actual encryption was foolproof, which nobody believes any encryption is foolproof.

But also recognize they were using disappearing messages, which is a direct violation of law to not preserve government records. So, in multiple ways, this is amateur hour.

And it's particularly egregious that just some member of the team set this up, made a mistake, put in a reporter, other members participated in the conversation, and never not one of them said, from what we have seen, hey, is this appropriate that we're doing this outside of a classified setting? Oh, wait, this information is being shared about plans to strike Yemen a few hours from now. Is this appropriate?

None of them expressed the appropriate caution that goes with this.

BROWN: Let me just jump in here. I just want to jump in because I do want to get to this question as we run out of time about your fellow Senate Democrat Cory Booker, well into his 16th hour now of a marathon speech protesting actions by the Trump administration, including potential cuts to Medicaid.

I know you did the same with Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Does -- what do you think? Does a long speech like this improve the optics? Do you think it's helping at a time when your party appears to be lacking direction? We have heard from so many constituents across the country on that.

MERKLEY: Absolutely.

I celebrate what Cory is doing. He's taking different blocks of time to focus on different pieces of the egregious conduct of this administration and the importance of us -- the policies that we have going forward.

Right now, the Republicans are deeply engaged in a strategy related to the budget resolution and the reconciliation bill that is a strategy of cutting programs for families in order to fund tax giveaways to billionaires. This is, families lose, billionaires win.

He's drawing attention to that. Well done. And he just exceeded my 15.5 hours. So I have been knocked down one notch in terms of the 10 longest speeches.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: Yes, he's setting some records there.

Senator Jeff Merkley, thank you so much.

MERKLEY: Thank you, Pamela.

BROWN: Well, breaking news just into CNN: The attorney general says she will push for Luigi Mangione to get the death penalty.

We're going to have a live report coming up on that soon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)