Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump On Tariffs: "We Are Going To Be Very Nice"; Trump Signs Order Next To Kid Rock Against Ticket Price Gouging; Sen. Booker Nearly Three Hours Into Marathon Speech Protesting Trump. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 31, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. I'll see you, tomorrow.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
President Trump has been hyping it for weeks. But what will his Liberation Day actually look like. And how will his tariffs affect you, as the full-scale of his trade war remains a mystery. We'll speak to one of the White House's top allies, on Capitol Hill.
And we're keeping an eye on the Senate floor, this hour, where Senator Cory Booker has just kicked off a marathon speech to protest President Trump's actions, saying that he'll go for as long as he's, quote, Physically able. While Democrats search for any momentum they can get, one place they might find it, tomorrow night's special elections.
And Kid Rock joined President Trump, in the Oval Office today, as he signed another executive order. Today's aimed at ticket prices. What else he told reporters who were inside the room? One of them will join me live.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, there's an air of uncertainty, hanging over Washington, as Wall Street just suffered its worst month in years, and the world is anxiously waiting to see what is in President Trump's plan to rewire the global economy.
We're now about 36 hours out from what the President has dubbed as Liberation Day. And while we're learning more about how Trump will reveal his tariff plan, on Wednesday, including a Rose Garden announcement with his Cabinet in the crowd, we're still waiting to see what that plan will entail, how it's going to impact what Americans are paying, and also how President Trump plans to sell it to the public.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You settled--
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well you're going to see. I've settled, yes, a long -- actually, a long time ago.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
TRUMP: But we talk about it, we talk about it a lot, and we want to do what's right for the country, and even the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But he's keeping everyone else guessing on the who, the what, and the where, tonight. It's an uncertainty that the business community doesn't really like, mainly because if you've been listening to the President's answers, in recent weeks, on what they should expect on April 2, his answers have been ever-evolving.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's time to be reciprocal. So very, very -- you'll be hearing that word a lot. Reciprocal. If they charge us, we charge them.
I'll probably be more lenient than reciprocal, because if I was reciprocal, that would be -- that would be very tough for people.
REPORTER: On the tariffs that you're planning, so there are -- you're expecting to hit something like 10 to 15 countries. Is that right?
TRUMP: No. No.
REPORTER: All countries?
REPORTER: All of the countries?
REPORTER: Is it across the board?
TRUMP: I don't -- who told you 10 or 15 countries?
You'd start with all countries. So let's see what happens.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was the President, flying back to Washington, last night.
Tonight, in the Oval Office, he promised to play nice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They're reciprocal. So whatever they charge us, we charge them.
We are going to be very nice, by comparison to what they were. The numbers will be lower than what they've been charging us, and in some cases, maybe substantially lower. But we sort of have a world obligation, perhaps.
But we are going to be very nice. Relatively speaking, we're going to be very kind.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President--
TRUMP: Somebody said that about me the other day. They said, who doesn't know me very well, they said, You're such a kind person. And I said, Say that again. They said, You're a kind person. I said, I'd never heard that before. It was a weird statement, I was kind.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: As for the messaging in the Trump White House, and one of the President's top aides, Peter Navarro, is pitching the tariffs as a tax cut for Americans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER NAVARRO, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And the other tariffs are going to raise about $600 billion a year, about $6 trillion over a 10-year period. And we're going to have tax cuts. It's the biggest tax cut in American history for the middle-class.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But most economists say that U.S.-imposed tariffs are paid by the American businesses and the consumers, which, by his calculation, could actually make this the largest tax hike in U.S. history.
Publicly, if businesses have been searching for clarity on what to expect, in just 36 hours from now, the President's top aides have said, Wait to hear it from him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: He has a brilliant team of trade advisers. 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.
KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES: I can't give you any forward-looking guidance on what's going to happen this week. The President has got a heck of a lot of analysis before him, and he's going to make the right choice, I'm sure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My lead source tonight is Republican from Montana, Senator Tim Sheehy.
And it's great to have you here.
As for what you're expecting on Wednesday, how expansive do you think these tariffs will be?
SEN. TIM SHEEHY (R-MT): Well, fundamentally, I think the point is the intent of what these are aimed at doing. And I think a lot of the economists that have been referenced a lot here, they're focusing on kind of a late 20th Century economic model, which really has been the bedrock of how the stock market reacts, because they want certainty. [21:05:00]
And they've built their models around an economic model that has the United States has reformed its industrial base from what it used to be, which was the manufacturer and exporter of key goods, to one which we have encouraged, through our national fiscal policy, to send manufacturing and heavy industry jobs overseas. And that's exactly what's happened, the last 30 years.
And what it's really been is an upward transfer of wealth from blue- collar jobs, middle-income jobs, to the finance sector and to tech sector. That's not all bad, but it does have impacts that we have to accept are real, and that is hollowing out a lot of our rural communities and manufacturing communities. And the intent of these is to bring a lot of those jobs back and reinvigorate industries that are key to America.
So I think, on Wednesday, what we're going to see is a very clear policy that says, We want businesses to invest in America. And if you don't invest here, and if you're not doing this right for the American worker, you're going to pay the price.
COLLINS: But do you support what this is going to look like on Wednesday? Are you prepared to say that you do support it? Or are you waiting to see what the details are?
SHEEHY: Well, first of all, as you've even heard Kevin Hassett just say, the Chair of the National Economic Council, we don't really know exactly what's going to look like yet. And the President is in the process of making his decision and what that's going to look like in actual final form.
But I think we've pretty clearly seen what it does look like in draft form, which is we expect things that are good for our people.
Reducing fentanyl flows into this country. He's made very clear to China that, If you're going to continue to importing precursors and fentanyl itself into our country for the specific purpose of killing our people, we're going to use tariffs to make that stop.
If you are Colombia, and you're refusing to take back illegal, criminal, violent aliens that have come here, we're going to tariff you.
If you're Mexico, and you're not helping us secure the border from massive illegal immigration, we're going to tariff you.
So, the tariffs have both a broader intent to reform the economy, and make world trade fair for the American taxpayer, and they also have very specific, targeted intent that makes sure we're stopping a lot of things that have been going on, that are bad for the country.
COLLINS: Yes, the White House seems to be making this argument that maybe there's short-term pain, but long-term gain here.
But you just mentioned some of those countries. I mean, I was looking at the numbers. 95 percent of Montana's imported goods come from Canada, Mexico and China. Is this going to hurt people in your state, you think?
SHEEHY: There's absolutely going to be short-term pain. The President's been clear about that. Everyone has.
I mean, if you're going to remodel your house, to make it better in the end, it's going to be really annoying in the short-term, when your house is getting remodeled. And there's drywall dust everywhere. And there's workers in your living room. The reality is, that remodel has got to happen in order to make things stronger and more stable, on the backend.
We've had generations now of countries taking advantage of the strong American economy, the strong American workforce. That's happened in Western Europe, where they have not had to pay for a military, they didn't have to pay for an intelligence construct, because we've essentially provided them a free umbrella for security.
South Korea is a similar situation. They've had an amazing economy, based in manufacturing and technology, that has benefited on the fact that we've had 20,000 troops on the 38th parallel, for 75 years, allowing them to exist, so.
COLLINS: But--
SHEEHY: And it's not dealing from tariffs. This whole broad construct of America First really outlines that America has underwritten the prosperous 20th Century for the entire world. And now what is happening, as we're looking down the barrel of unrecoverable debt and deficit spending, it's about time we start to rebalance those tables, and ensure that we can bring investment back on shore.
COLLINS: But--
SHEEHY: And that's happening.
COLLINS: You're--
SHEEHY: Companies are announcing $2 trillion of investment back into our economy.
COLLINS: You're comparing -- yes, but there's a lot of companies that right now are doing nothing because they're waiting to see what the policy actually is. So there's actually a lot of, you know, there's not a lot of mergers or anything happening--
SHEEHY: Right.
COLLINS: --because people are nervous about this.
You liken this to a remodel. Sometimes those take longer than you plan for. I mean, if you're an American, and you're waiting to see, what does short-term pain mean, I mean, how long do you expect that to last? SHEEHY: I mean, we don't know. And of course, I'll add, a lot of the media frustration with the uncertainty around President Trump's new economic strategy--
COLLINS: Not media. Business uncertainty.
SHEEHY: Oh, sure. But you know the media is helping with that. I mean, business uncertainty responds to public market sentiment. There wasn't nearly as much pearl-clutching when we had record inflation, record interest rates, record costs of good increases for middle-class families over the last three and a half years.
And these policies are meant that digesting $5 trillion extra dollars pumped in the economy is going to take some time, digesting record government spending growth and record government job increase.
A lot of the job increases that were advertised, during the previous administration, were advertised as organic and economic growth. When really, what they were, were they were government agency expansion, hiring hundreds of thousands of workers to create and to support the economy. It was very much like the New Deal under Roosevelt, saying, The government will spend--
COLLINS: Well also, it was digging out of the COVID economy.
But I mean, and speaking of jobs, I mean, we saw Stephen Moore, who was one of Trump's economic advisers, last time, say, those aluminum and steel tariffs actually hurt manufacturing jobs, or 10,000 manufacturing jobs that were gone.
But on what people are dealing with every day, some people are scrambling to buy cars, ahead of Wednesday's tariff announcement.
When the President was asked this week about automakers may be raising their prices, he said, I couldn't care less if they raise prices, because people are going to start buying American-made cars.
[21:10:00]
Right now, there is no such thing as an all-American car. Obviously, cars that are made here have a lot of parts that come from Mexico and Canada.
SHEEHY: But that's the very point there, when--
COLLINS: Is that your reaction though?
SHEEHY: But I think--
COLLINS: You don't care if people pay more?
SHEEHY: --you just mentioned, I think the very heart of the issue is, there's no American-made cars anymore because our government policies have incentivized not to make them here.
They're not made here because we couldn't make them here, or the American worker didn't want to make them here, or somehow, it was -- there was a force field preventing us from making cars here.
They stopped making them here because our government disincentivized companies to make things here. That was an intentional policy. And other countries saw that, and reacted, and said, Listen, if America is not going to encourage companies to make things in America, then we'll make them here for cheaper, and dump them into the American market.
Especially when we have a strong dollar, we have incentivized. I mean, just like water and gravity. You have a higher piece of dirt, the water will flow off that elsewhere. We have encouraged -- now we've had a very strong finance sector, a very strong tech sector. Those are great things. We want that. But that has come at the expense of other industries, like manufacturing.
COLLINS: But automakers can't just switch things overnight. I mean, the President talked about how he gave them a one-month reprieve--
SHEEHY: Yes.
COLLINS: --before these tariffs go into effect. But they can't switch production in a month. I mean, that takes years.
SHEEHY: Absolutely.
COLLINS: So, are people going to be paying more for cars for years, and the sentiment is, I couldn't care--
SHEEHY: Look, again, they'll certainly be--
COLLINS: --I couldn't care less?
SHEEHY: They'll certainly be a transition period.
COLLINS: As the President said?
SHEEHY: And I think in anything there's a transition period, like we saw during the COVID economy, when we were pumping trillions of dollars in and creating a false economy of government spending.
What will provide certainty is when we make the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent, so companies know in permanency what the U.S. tax code will be. It won't be a temporary thing that immediately goes back to a penalizing tax code.
When we can provide regulatory and tax code certainty to American investors, global investors and businesses, they can say, OK, now we know what the American tax and business landscape will look like in perpetuity, we can invest in that.
And on the next 48 to 72 hours, and hopefully, as we see what the Senate and House does, over the next couple of weeks, we can make these tax code changes permanent, the Trump tax cuts permanent. And now, we have the type of certainty that businesses want to invest in.
COLLINS: Yes, we'll see what that looks like. I also want to ask you about farmers, generally. During the first administration, they had to bail out farmers. It was about $28 billion at the end of the day. Do you expect that that is something that the administration will need to be doing again, this time around?
SHEEHY: I mean, I'm not sure it'll have to be at that scale. What we're going to have to--
COLLINS: Won't it be bigger, if there's more tariffs against more countries and they're retaliating in a wider fashion?
SHEEHY: Yes, it certainly could be in the short-term. It certainly could be -- mean less, in the long-term.
There are a lot of -- as we talk about regulatory certainty (ph), there are also a lot of policies in place that disincentivize investment in American agriculture. A great thing is the death tax.
We penalize family-owned farms and ranches for staying in the family by forcing those families to pay an ungodly sum on taxes when they die. They essentially have to sell the farm or ranch to pay the taxes on the farm or ranch for the inheritance estate tax that comes to the family, who doesn't have the cash on hand to pay it.
So, this is what we're talking about when we have commonsense policies that should be in place that are not. And we've seen a massive consolidation in the ag sector, because the cost to carry that land, whether it's interest rates, whether it's inflation or, in this case, whether it's the estate tax that has to be passed on to the family, which usually entails having to settle.
COLLINS: But on tariffs themselves, do you expect that you, as a member of Congress, will have to vote to bail farmers out?
SHEEHY: I mean, we're going to be there for them if we have to be, yes.
COLLINS: And you would go bigger than $28 billion if you need to?
SHEEHY: I mean, we don't have a -- we don't have a metric on it yet. I mean, the landscape is just different than it was last time. But, I mean, we're going to -- we have to protect our ag sector, I mean, we have to be able to feed our country.
COLLINS: Can I ask you?
SHEEHY: Yes.
COLLINS: You're on the Senate Armed Services Committee. You're the newest Republican on it, I believe.
Your Chair has called for an inspector general investigation into what happened with the Signal chat, the reporter who was inadvertently added. You were quoted as saying -- and you're also a former Navy SEAL, I should note. You were quoted as saying that on that, somebody effed up. Do you support that investigation?
SHEEHY: Of course, yes. I mean, they believe -- this administration is doing an investigation. Roger Wicker said the Senate will do an investigation.
Listen, nobody here is saying this wasn't a screw-up. I mean, Mike Waltz has said it. Pete Hegseth said it. The President said it. There's no question this was a massive screw-up. There's no question they're going to fix it, and there's no question that's going to -- people are held accountable.
But, again, I go back to the -- you know, some of these folks, my colleagues, many of whom I have great respect in the Senate, you know, they weren't calling for the resignation of Secretary Austin when he went missing for a week, unaccounted for. They weren't calling for Hillary Clinton's legal prosecution when she had classified servers in her basement.
So, there's no question this was a screw-up. There's no question that there needs to be an investigation. And there's no question people will be held accountable. That's been made very clear by the President, and Senator Wicker, and others.
COLLINS: The White House said it was case closed, today. I mean, is that sufficient for you? Or do you want them to respond to those letters that Senator Wicker fired off?
SHEEHY: Well, I mean, the investigation is going to happen. Roger Wicker said that. And the reality is, I think Jeffrey Goldberg has done his amount of (ph) investigating as we can get. I mean, he's posted everything online. We see what's happened. Now the President has to decide whether or not he's going to make any changes to his team, which I don't think we need to.
[21:15:00]
I mean, at the end of the day, every team screws things up. There's certainly been plenty of screw-ups on the Biden-Obama team. The reality is, these air strikes were effective. The Houthis were emboldened by an Iran-first policy that Obama started and Biden continued. There's no question they loosened sanctions on Iran, again, and again, and again, over the years, giving them billions of dollars in oil revenue, literally handing them billions of dollars in cash. Forces that I personally fought.
COLLINS: Well and we've seen--
SHEEHY: And the fact that those administrations allowed Iran to do what they did in the region, both directly and through proxy regimes, proxy groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, not only led to the dead Americans and dead Israelis, but it's the reason we're having to deal with the Houthis today.
So, this was a screw-up, no question.
COLLINS: Well, and those American strikes have continued against that.
Lastly, just as a Senator, do you believe the Constitution is clear that President Trump cannot seek a third term in office?
SHEEHY: Yes, the President gets two terms. I think that's pretty clear.
COLLINS: Senator Tim Sheehy, thank you so much for your time tonight.
SHEEHY: Thank you.
COLLINS: Really appreciate it.
Up next. We're going to talk more about those new tariffs and farmers, how they could impact them, who obviously, they were hard hit during Trump's first term. Our next source, a former Agriculture Secretary who knows it better than anybody.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As Americans and businesses are bracing for what President Trump's tariff plan will look like, when he unveils it on Wednesday, American farmers may be having flashbacks to 2018, when the President's trade war from his first term had a major impact on farm life.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It would devastate us. 70 percent of what we produce is exported. So that could wreak havoc on us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is really the toughest year that we've ever had, and I've ever had.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's anxious times, yes, no doubt about it, because it's painful right now.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It does concern the growers. It does concern the processors. It concerns everybody in the industry.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Agriculture is definitely the tip of the spear in the retaliatory tariffs that are placed against the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My next guest knows the impact of tariffs on farm communities from his time as the Governor of Iowa, and as the Secretary of Agriculture, under the Biden and Obama administrations.
Great to have you here, Tom Vilsack. And I really appreciate you.
As you heard President Trump say that he has decided what is going to happen on Wednesday. We're still waiting on the exact details. What are farmers bracing for tonight, do you think? TOM VILSACK, FORMER AGRICULTURE SECRETARY, (D) FORMER IOWA GOVERNOR: I think probably two things.
First, the extent to which tariffs may impact inputs. If tariffs, for example, are assessed against fertilizer, things of that nature, it may increase the cost or reduce the supply of necessary inputs, as they begin the process of planting this year's crop.
I think they are probably more concerned, at the end of the day, in terms of how other countries will respond in terms of retaliation. That is, I think, where the impact is. As I think, one of your folks on the introduction said, it's the retaliatory tariffs that can be really hurtful to our farm economy and exports.
We export 30 percent or so of what we produce in this country of all agricultural production. It's a pretty significant risk. That's why you're hearing folks talk about the need to bail out farmers through USDA resources.
COLLINS: And when you say that, just so everyone is aware, what Trump implements on Wednesday, countries have promised to respond to it, that they will wait and see what he does. But they have warned, they don't want to respond, but they will have their own tariffs in retaliation for that. And that is what you're saying is the biggest concern to these farmers?
VILSACK: Right. Oftentimes, the other countries are looking strategically and politically, what will basically provide the greatest political leverage, in terms of the negotiations that will take place on these tariffs.
Agriculture is one of our principal export opportunities. They recognize the politics of agriculture in the United States. And obviously, it puts farmers in the crosshairs, which is why the administration continues to assert that if, in fact, there's harm, that they'll figure out a way to essentially hold farm -- farmers harmless.
The reality is, farmers would prefer markets to government payments, and that's just the way they are.
COLLINS: That's a great point, I think, because, as the Senator was just saying here, that Congress is prepared, Republicans in Congress at least, are prepared, to bail farmers out, should that be needed. Obviously, Trump would have to likely go to Congress to get that.
But you're saying that they don't want to get a payment from the government. They'd rather just be able to do business as normal.
VILSACK: Two things. One, they don't necessarily have to go to Congress to get relief.
COLLINS: Right.
VILSACK: The Commodity Credit Corporation provides a vehicle for the Secretary of Agriculture to provide the relief. Secondly, I mean, the reality is that as farmers receive this help and assistance, market share is being lost. It's not as if this check is going to maintain the market, so when things sort of straighten out in the future, markets get restored.
Once we lose the market, it's very difficult to get it back, which is why farmers would preserve -- would prefer keeping the market, as opposed to getting a payment. A payment is a one-time, a year-to-year situation. Markets can be on the long-term. So it is important, I think, necessary, to figure out ways in which markets and market share can be preserved.
COLLINS: And the President's argument has been that the United States is being ripped off, as he's put it, and that that is why he is doing this, that he wants to reshape the global economy, and how this is structured.
And President Biden, who, obviously you served under, did keep some of the tariffs that Trump had implemented his first time -- his first term in office. And when you look at that, apple and cherry farmers, for example, found new markets outside of China.
[21:25:00]
Is there a chance that that could happen, that it could be helpful to them? Do you see any positive outcomes in this for farmers?
VILSACK: It's pretty difficult when you're dealing with the quantity and quality of what we export. When the 30 percent or so of soybeans are exported, it's pretty difficult if, if one of your major customers, or several of your major customers, decide to look elsewhere.
And the reality is they can look elsewhere. They can look south. They can look to Brazil, a major producer of soybeans, and produce -- basically, Brazil benefited from the last go-around. They invested in their infrastructure, and they essentially came into a very competitive circumstance with the U.S.
That's why it's really important, I think, for whatever negotiation is going to take place to be relatively quickly, so that if there is retaliation, it's limited, so we don't lose market share. And so, frankly, farmers don't necessarily need as much relief from the government as perhaps they may have to have, if it's a long-term type of situation.
COLLINS: Yes, that's a good point on the timeline, and how long this goes on for.
Former Secretary, Tom Vilsack, it's great to have you. Thank you for joining us tonight.
VILSACK: Thank you.
COLLINS: We also heard from President Trump inside the Oval Office today, bringing in one particular celebrity. You see Kid Rock, standing there. He's kind of hard to miss. Why he was in the Oval Office today? And our White House insiders are here to break down and explain it all.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, Kid Rock appeared alongside President Trump inside the Oval Office, as he signed an executive order aimed at ending ticket price gouging for live entertainment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I've spoken to him over the years about it, and it's been -- it bothers him. It bothers a lot of other artists, too, it seems.
KID ROCK, AMERICAN MUSICIAN AND SINGER: It does.
TRUMP: The artists. And they go out with a $100 ticket, and it sells for $2,000 the following night.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: This is an order that directs the Federal Trade Commission to work with the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to make sure competition laws are enforced for the concert and entertainment industry. It also upholds price transparency throughout all stages of the ticket-buying process.
And you see this scene that you're looking at here, Kid Rock next to President Trump.
You may not realize, this actually builds on an effort that we saw under President Biden, to crack down on junk fees in the concert ticket space. Some bipartisanship.
My White House insiders are here tonight.
Jeff Mason.
Shelby Talcott.
And Alex Isenstadt, who is the author of the new book, "Revenge: The Inside Story of Trump's Return to Power." An excellent read.
Jeff, you were inside the Oval Office. One, something you certainly don't see every day. What stood out to you as you--
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Yes.
COLLINS: --as you were in there?
MASON: Well, a couple of things. I mean, certainly, the Kid Rock aspect, it reminded me a little bit of Elon Musk being there, the day that we were in there, for his Oval Office spray, without being told in advance. The difference in attire was pretty striking. But just the surprise guest piece was interesting.
COLLINS: Hard to miss.
MASON: What struck me is not just what the executive order was, but some of the other things he said on trade. He talked about being a little kinder on tariffs than people were expecting. I'd be curious to see if that has any impact in the markets tomorrow.
And I asked him a question about Russia, and whether he was serious about putting these tariffs on oil, and people who buy, or countries that buy oil from Russia. And he said he was, and he repeated that there's this -- his kind of frustration with Vladimir Putin.
COLLINS: Can I actually--
MASON: That's a little bit of a shift.
COLLINS: I have that moment, because I also thought that was really important--
MASON: Yes.
COLLINS: --what he said to you about President Putin, as he was quoted over the weekend, telling NBC News that he was pissed off--
MASON: Yes.
COLLINS: --at President Putin. That's what he told Kristen Welker.
This is what he said in response to Jeff's question today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MASON: Can I just ask you briefly on President Putin, you said over the weekend, or indicated over the weekend, some frustration with him. How serious are you about imposing oil sanctions on Russian oil?
TRUMP: I want to see him make a deal so that we stop Russian soldiers and Ukrainian soldiers and other people from being killed.
I want to make sure that he follows through, and I think he will. I don't want to go secondary tariffs on his oil. But I think, you know, it's something I would do if I thought he wasn't doing the job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It was a pretty notable answer.
MASON: And I just think it's notable that he's shifting a little bit, if he is. But it's a little bit of a shift in terms of his rhetoric about President Putin, which has always been very positive. And now, it's just a little bit more negative. And that is a change.
COLLINS: Shelby, what do you attribute that to? Is it the time going on where, obviously he had said for weeks and months on the campaign trail, he'd solved the Ukraine war in one day. That has obviously proven trickier than promised. What do you attribute this to?
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Yes, I think he's growing frustrated. I think he said repeatedly on the campaign trail, for months and months and months, We're going to end these wars on day one. That was always a very ambitious goal. But he sounded serious about it.
And the longer that this goes on, this is a key thing that he ran on that he is now not able to complete, and you're seeing those frustrations play out. And so, I think it is growing frustrations.
I also think he's leaning into the tariffs. We saw him announce secondary tariffs on Venezuela. We saw him threaten secondary tariffs on Iran, this weekend. And so, this is sort of leaning in even further on this tariff theory, which is, of course, if I impose tariffs, I'm going to get what I want.
[21:35:00]
COLLINS: Yes, and obviously the President was inside the Oval. There was a moment today, where the White House has been saying case closed on the investigation into what's been dubbed, by some, Signalgate. Obviously, the reporter being inadvertently added to that group chat about military strikes in Yemen.
The All-In Podcast often host a lot of the President's Cabinet secretaries. They generally are pretty positive on the President, overall. But they had some interesting comments on this today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHAMATH PALIHAPITIYA, CANADIAN-AMERICAN VENTURE CAPITALIST: Here's my big problem with Signal. I think it was (bleep).
JASON CALACANIS, AMERICAN ENTREPRENEUR AND ANGEL INVESTOR: Instead of taking ownership, like Chamath said, you just take -- just own it, no big deal, and this is a, you know, a chance for us to learn and iterate on the security protocols, yada, yada, we apologize, let's move on. They attack. And this is Trump's like playbook. We have to attack the journalist. So, what did they do? They attacked the journalist. They take no ownership.
And the second thing, which this administration really has an Achilles' heel for, is on top of just taking -- not taking ownership and attacking. The hypocrisy. Because this was the entirety of the anti-Hillary movement was, Oh my god, she did this exact same thing with her email.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: What do you make of that?
ALEX ISENSTADT, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: Pretty interesting. David Sacks is a part of All-In, and he's a big -- big Trump guy, right? Here's what I've heard from the sources I've talked to is that Trump is going to stay -- standing behind Mike Waltz for now, his embattled NSA advisor. But that doesn't mean Waltz is going to be safe forever. Doesn't mean he's going to be safe six months from now. But for now, Trump is standing behind Waltz.
What I've heard Trump is also frustrated with is some of the leaks that have come out, some of the palace intrigue surrounding the Signalgate furor over the last week or so. He's frustrated with some of those leaks, the palace intrigue stories you've seen. But for now, he's staying behind Waltz.
COLLINS: And what do you attribute that to, in the sense of -- the question, I think, is maybe he does stick around, but doesn't mean--
ISENSTADT: Right.
COLLINS: --a diminished standing inside the White House.
ISENSTADT: Right. Yes, no, I mean, that's always the question, right? Like, given the palace intrigue always in the building, and the shifting of responsibilities, you never really know what someone's stature is at any given point. So it's a good point.
But right now, it sort of feels like Trump doesn't want to give in to what he sees as the media mob surrounding this. And so, he's sticking with Waltz.
Here's another interesting thing to watch, though, which is that if Republicans somehow lose the special election for Waltz's seat, tomorrow night, which is unlikely to happen, does Trump then blame Waltz for that, somehow.
COLLINS: You've been--
MASON: Yes.
COLLINS: That's a great point, because that's a seat that Waltz coasted to--
ISENSTADT: Yes.
COLLINS: --33 points, I believe, last fall.
ISENSTADT: Yes.
COLLINS: And now it's become surprisingly competitive.
MASON: Yes, which is another reason, I mean, broadly, why they decided not to let Elise Stefanik stay as the nominee to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. They are looking at races that shouldn't be tight for Republicans turning tight.
And I think that's a great point, like, if it becomes tighter, or if they were to lose, then that blame game would probably be spread to his National Security Advisor. COLLINS: Is that what you're hearing?
TALCOTT: Yes. And I also think, you know what, the big reason that Trump is not firing Mike Waltz over this is simply because Democrats want somebody to be fired over it.
And there is a sense of resistance, in this Trump administration, where they're saying, OK, if my perceived enemies or opponents want somebody's head over this, I'm not going to give it to them, like I did in the first Trump administration.
COLLINS: Yes. And they've said, Well, President Biden didn't fire anyone over that Afghanistan pullout--
TALCOTT: That's right (ph).
COLLINS: --withdrawal, so we're not going to fire anyone here.
We'll see what happens.
Great to have all your reporting here. Thank you so much.
Up next tonight. We are watching New Jersey Democrat, Cory Booker, on the Senate floor. He says he will speak as long as he is physically able. What is he talking about? Well, he's protesting President Trump. We'll take you live there, next.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: You are having a live look, right now, at the Senate floor. That is Democratic senator, Cory Booker, right there, kicking off what he says is going to be a marathon speech to protest President Trump.
Senator Booker says he will keep speaking as long as he is physically able. So far, we've been clocking it, he's been going for 2 hours and 43 minutes, after he started at about 7 o'clock tonight.
My next source tonight is Democratic congressman, Dan Goldman, of New York.
And I should note, the Senator is not -- it's not actually a filibuster, because he's not blocking a nomination or anything. But do you believe that this is the most effective way to protest President Trump?
REP. DAN GOLDMAN (D-NY): I believe it is an effective way, and we need to come up with every effective way possible.
But what's really important about what Senator Booker is doing is he is bringing a lot more attention to the incredibly dangerous attacks that Donald Trump and Elon Musk are using and taking against our democracy.
And yes, we're very focused on the tariffs. We're very focused on cuts to all of the benefits that Americans have come to trust and rely on. But he's also very methodically whittling away the foundation of our democracy. And I think Senator Booker is doing a very good job of highlighting that.
COLLINS: But should is -- I mean, the question, I think, is, should he be doing this when the Senate is trying to take something up for a vote? Or is there another higher profile way? Or do you think this is an answer to that?
GOLDMAN: Well, you're asking me about it. You're going live to the Senate floor at 09:44 at night.
So, look, is it the silver bullet? No. But the combination of doing this, the combination of holding more rallies, of going into Republican districts for town halls, because they won't hold town halls. We have to use everything available to us because we're in the minority. We don't have subpoena power, and we can't introduce legislation.
[21:45:00]
And so, we are getting aggressive, and we're getting creative. And we're going to continue to do that, because the American people are angry about what Donald Trump is doing, not only to their pocketbook, but to our democracy.
COLLINS: Yes, and Democrats have been searching for momentum, any momentum, really, since Trump won the election. Obviously, that has been something your party has struggled with.
Without reading too much into the special elections that are happening, tomorrow night, what are you going to be looking for as in terms of how voters are feeling, what tea leaves you can be reading, whether it's in Florida or whatnot. What will you be looking for?
GOLDMAN: Well, look, you're obviously looking at the results. I mean, the expectation is that there will be some regression to the mean from November, and that the Democrats will do better in their elections than the respective Democrats did in November, or than Trump -- than Kamala Harris did.
But what's interesting to me is the fear, the palpable fear that the Republicans have, and the White House has, over that Mike Waltz seat, Florida 6, where Waltz won by 30 points. And that combined with that Pennsylvania state senate race last week, where a Democrat won for the first time in a century, and Elise Stefanik getting pulled.
Let's remember, Donald Trump knew what the margins were in January when he nominated Elise Stefanik. It's not because he's worried about what is currently going on in the House. He's worried that she was going to lose her seat when she -- that she won by 24 points.
So there is a lot of fear, and for good reason, because Donald Trump's approval ratings on so many of the critical issues are going down. Consumer confidence is at its lowest point in years. He is tanking the economy. And it's going to get worse, because no businesses are spending. All of these businesses are just holding back, because Donald Trump has no strategy. These tariffs are just completely random and arbitrary. Elon Musk is totally random and arbitrary. It's not doing any of the things that Donald Trump said he would do on the campaign.
COLLINS: Well, and part of that New York state, they -- the White House was worried about how long the Governor was going to keep that seat open before they could have a special election there.
But you mentioned Elon Musk. And he was in Wisconsin, last night. There is a high-stakes supreme court race there. And I want you to listen to what he said he believes is at stake in this election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELON MUSK, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Whichever party controls the House, you know, to a significant degree, controls the country, which then steers the course of Western civilization. So it's like, I feel like this is one of those things that may not seem that it's going to affect the entire destiny of humanity, but I think it will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, to say the entire destiny of humanity is riding on tomorrow night's elections is quite something.
But I wonder, how do you see it in terms of what's at stake here?
GOLDMAN: Well, I mean the irony of Elon Musk saying, Who controls the House controls the destiny of Western civilization. When literally, everything he is doing is violating the law, and is taking power away from the House. So, the congressional Republicans should be sticking up for the power of the purse in Congress, and they've just given it over to Elon Musk.
I don't even know what he's saying, in terms of his own behavior. But the broader point is, Elon Musk is, yet again, trying to buy another election. He's put $20 million into a state supreme court race.
I don't hear outrage, on the Republican side, when that we -- when we constantly hear George Soros all the time. And other than the fact that George Soros is Jewish, I don't see how any Republican can stand against George Soros, and for what Elon Musk is doing.
And the anti-democratic way that Elon Musk is going after people, wielding his money, holding it out as a threat for primaries, and then just trying to pave the way for more tax cuts on himself, is a gross attack on democracy, from an unelected billionaire, who has no experience running a government, and is really harming American lives.
COLLINS: Well, and I will say, George Soros and JB Pritzker have both been spending a lot of money here. They're both respectively billionaires.
GOLDMAN: Less than one-tenth of what Musk has spent.
COLLINS: So how would you -- but how would you compare that, and make that argument to a voter? I mean, Elon Musk is obviously handing out million-dollar checks to voters, which he says is not just for voting. It's because they signed his petition.
But when you view that, but also the fact that two Democratic billionaires have donated in this race, do you think that Elon Musk of it all, will backfire on Republicans when they -- when they look at the results of what happens in Wisconsin, given how closely involved he's been in this?
GOLDMAN: Well, look, I think, by all accounts, when you look at the advertising, when you look at the, what's going on, on the ground in Wisconsin, a lot of it is about Elon Musk, and a lot of it is about what he's doing to just whack.
[21:50:00]
In an arbitrary way, it is not waste, fraud and abuse, because it can't possibly be, because he hasn't done any investigation into it. He's just stopping funding, stopping programs based on key words. That is not searching for waste, fraud and abuse.
And he's coming after Medicaid. He's coming after Social Security. He's coming after the Department of Education, HHS, the list goes on down. And he's doing it indiscriminately. And the Wisconsin voters know that, and they will have an opportunity to hold a referendum on Elon Musk, tomorrow.
COLLINS: Yes, and of course, he's argued he is being discriminant. And we'll see what the voters think.
Congressman, thank you for joining us tonight.
GOLDMAN: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next, and I'll be noting that I'll host election coverage tomorrow. We'll be live at the White House at 05:00 p.m. Eastern. Our special coverage will continue all night long, as we watch these key races, that state supreme court race in Wisconsin, and also those special elections in Florida. Be sure to tune in here, tomorrow night.
Coming up next for us, though. Harvard has just become the latest university under pressure from the White House. Why its $9 billion in federal contracts and grants could be in jeopardy tonight.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the Trump administration is taking aim at Harvard University, as part of its crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations.
Three federal agencies, the Education Department, U.S. General Services Administration, and the Health and Human Services Department, are all reviewing nearly $9 billion in contracts and grants between the government and the Ivy League school.
The Education Secretary cited Harvard's failure to combat anti- Semitism during this protest last year. And this all comes just weeks after we saw the government pull $400 million in funding from Columbia. I should note, in all, 60 colleges and universities are under review by the Trump administration, over these allegations of anti-Semitism.
My political and legal sources are here.
And Tom Dupree, as the attorney with us, it wasn't totally clear what Harvard needs to do, in order to keep this funding.
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Exactly. I think with Columbia, they were very specific in the demand list, the changes they want to see Columbia implement. They haven't been quite as clear with Harvard.
But look, I'll say a few things. One is that the Harvard money at stake is much greater than Columbia. $9 billion compared to Columbia's mere $400 million.
The other point is that Harvard, and I say this as someone who grew up about a block outside the Harvard campus, Harvard is deeply embedded in the community, not just Boston, but the greater New England community.
And so, a lot of the money that we're talking about, the grant money, doesn't go to kind of the advanced Marxist studies or feminist theory courses. But it goes to things like research grants for hospitals, basic scientific research, and things that really serve the much larger community, outside of what most people would consider kind of the typical narrow academic setting.
COLLINS: Yes. But T.W., obviously, this is a pattern that we are seeing the administration continue to take. I mean, the broad scope that they've used, whether it's law firms or schools here. I wonder, how do Republicans see this? Are they supportive of this?
T.W. ARRIGHI, VP, PUSH DIGITAL GROUP, FORMER AIDE TO LINDSEY GRAHAM & MIKE POMPEO: Yes. Look, I think this is part of the great reexamination of all of our institutions of power that took place with Donald Trump's reelection. I think you saw COVID uncover a lot of distrust in our federal government.
And I think you saw these protests unleash a new level of distrust toward Ivy League institutions, that we had not seen before. You had people chanting, Globalize the Intifada, to Jewish students in their dorm rooms. You had people holding protests that shut down operations of campus activities, Jewish students feeling threatened, that you don't need to take my word for it. Just read The Harvard Crimson. They spoke about it at length.
And people are looking at Harvard, and saying, Here is a school with an endowment that is larger than the GDP of the country of Jordan. Why are we spending $9 billion with them, when they couldn't protect Jewish students? And then ask yourself, Would they do the same if people were supporting al Qaeda or the Nazis? The answer most people come to is, no.
COLLINS: Well, and there's a question in terms of support, material support, free speech, and where that line, obviously, is drawn.
SIMON ROSENBERG, VETERAN DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes. And I think what's important about what was said earlier is that the investigation now is not into whether Harvard is complying, and what they've done to take -- they've taken dramatic and concrete steps to improve. The President stepped down and took responsibility.
They're evaluating the grants, right? So, they jumped a step in the process, right? There's not a discussion about whether they're actually doing the right thing. They're going immediately into the intimidation tactics. And I think it really speaks to two broader challenges with Trump, right now.
One is that he seems to want the citizens of the United States to be subjects who bend the knee, right, to the king, and not in a traditional way that we operate in a democracy. There's so much intimidation, arbitrary and capricious use of power.
And the second thing is that this attack on our universities, our research institutions, our scientific leadership in the world, will make us far less prosperous. This is an attack on our economy, our prosperity that is broad, much broader than this single individual issue with Harvard. And so, I think there are legitimate concerns about what -- you know, that Trump is in this process, making us less free, less prosperous and certainly less great.
COLLINS: Well, and in its statement, Harvard released a statement, and they said anti-Semitism is a critical problem that they will and continue to address. They say, As an institution and as a community, we acknowledge our shortcomings--
ROSENBERG: Yes.
COLLINS: --Our commitment to these ends -- and to the teaching and research at the heart of our University -- will not waver.
They didn't really push back on what the White House is doing, and they seem to be treading very carefully here.
DUPREE: Yes, and look, I think it's important to keep in mind also, that the Harvard of today is actually very different from the Harvard from just a year or so ago.
ROSENBERG: Yes.
[22:00:00]
DUPREE: They have a new president. They removed from duty several professors that were causing controversy. And I do think they are genuinely committed to taking anti-Semitism seriously. It's why they're in the crosshairs, right? They're the Alabama of the North, super-prestigious, well-known, well-recognized, they're an easy target. But we'll see how it plays out.
COLLINS: The Alabama of the North.
ROSENBERG: Well done.
COLLINS: That's the only way I'm referring to Harvard from now on. Unfortunately, except for that whole (ph) situation.
ROSENBERG: Yes, yes.
COLLINS: Thank you all for being here.
Thank you all so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
