Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Supreme Court Appears Skeptical Of Allowing Trump To Implement Birthright Citizenship Plan; Whitmer On 2028; Walmart CEO: Trump's Tariffs Will Cause Price Increases; Now: Cross-Examination Of Cassie Ventura. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired May 15, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: -- green gate.

[16:00:03]

And she used to come out and ride her horse. And unlikely sanctuary for horse people and horses alike, a slow-paced country gem in the land of vast freeways.

May it survive the onslaught of human development and let the horses reign.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: I love that. A new episode of my happy place airs Sunday at 10:00 p.m. only on CNN.

I'm surprised that Sara didn't pick our mutual hometown of Hialeah, Miami Lakes, Florida.

THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's the justices versus the judges.

Let's head into THE ARENA.

Right now, the Supreme Court divided. Inside today's explosive arguments over President Trump's battle to end birthright citizenship, and whether the high court is also ready to upend decades of precedent once again.

Also this hour, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer addressing 2028 rumors, as well as that new book about former President Biden and why she says it has her questioning what she thought she knew.

Plus, new warnings on the economy ahead of Walmart saying today prices will soon go up, putting the blame squarely on President Trump's tariffs.

(MUSIC)

HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA, live from New York, on this Thursday. It's wonderful to have you with us. Breaking news, the Supreme Court appears torn as it weighs Donald

Trump's argument that courts shouldn't be allowed to freeze his order, ending birthright citizenship. The justices today sounding deeply skeptical that denying citizenship to children born in the United States was constitutional or even realistic.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, U.S. SUPREME COURT: It's just a very practical question how this is going to work, what do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?

JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, U.S. SUPREME COURT: If we're afraid that this is or even have a thought that this is unlawful executive action, that it is Congress who decides citizenship, not the executive. If we believe -- some of us were to believe that, why should we permit those countless others to be subject to what we think is an unlawful executive action?

JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT: So this one isn't clear cut on the merits.

D. JOHN SAUER, U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL: This one, in this case, we want the court to address the remedial issue.

JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, U.S. SUPREME COURT: On the merits, you are wrong, that the E.O. is unlawful.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

HUNT: But of course, this case isn't just about citizenship. It's also about the ability of lower courts to place nationwide holds on the president's policies while they're being challenged in court. That's what's actually being argued here. Since inauguration day, judges across the country have issued over a dozen nationwide injunctions preventing the White House from enacting various policies from ending immigration programs to cutting federal funding and slashing DEI programs, giving Trump, President Trump, yet another reason to attack judges.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Radical left judges. Radical left lunatic judges. A nasty judge. Extreme far left judges. Really crooked judges. These are rogue judges, horrible judges.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Today, the court's conservatives indicated they might agree that lower courts are going too far. But several of the justices, especially among the liberals, expressed concern that limiting those nationwide injunctions could leave people with little recourse to challenge government abuses and overreach.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, U.S. SUPREME COURT: The real concern, I think, is that your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view, at least into a catch me if you can kind of regime from the standpoint of the executive, where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights.

SAUER: I think the catch me if you can problem operates in the opposite direction, where we have the government racing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, having to sort of clear the table in order to implement a new policy.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. Our panel is here today.

But, first, let's go to CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid.

Paula, wonderful to see you as always. You listened to all of this. Help us understand the differences between where it seems like the judges are going on the big picture birthright citizenship question versus this more narrow but very relevant question of whether or not nationwide injunctions should continue to be allowed.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Let's start with the more narrow issue. Before the argument, Trump's lawyers told me they were thrilled to get this question about whether district court judges have too much power before the Supreme Court, because while these so-called nationwide injunctions have annoyed every modern president who has seen some of his policies blocked, none more so than President Trump because he makes such prolific use of executive orders. He has been blocked a record 39 times by one of these injunctions in just the past few months.

[16:05:05]

So, it was high stakes for the administration. And based on what we heard during arguments, it appears that he might very well have a majority of justices who agree to limit or end this power altogether. And if that happens, that will have enormous consequences on his ability to implement his agenda.

I want to note, though, this is not just a Trump issue. The past five administrations, the Justice Department has said that these are an issue. But what makes this complicated is that this case that appeared before the justices, this is about a challenge to his executive order, his day one order ending birthright citizenship.

And most legal experts agree that that is likely unconstitutional, not something you can do through executive order. And the liberal justices appear to agree with the challengers that this is exactly why you need one court order governing the entire country. You can't have a situation where you get a birth certificate in one state. If your parents aren't citizens and you're born here, but not in another. The chief justice, John Roberts -- he is going to be key to whatever

they decide here. And he did think there was a workaround to that threat of chaos. So, Kasie, next month, we'll be watching so closely to see what the justices do here on nationwide injunctions. And if they do anything on birthright citizenship, because whatever they decide here will have an enormous consequence, not only on President Trump's second term, but on all future presidents.

HUNT: Yeah. For sure. I mean, we spent a lot of time talking about states' rights and how that plays into all these various decisions. It seems very squarely that the question of, are you a citizen of the United States of America is a federal decision.

Paula Reid, thank you very much, as always. Really appreciate it.

And our panel joins us now. National political reporters for "The New York Times", Astead Herndon and Shane Goldmacher, former communications advisor to Pete Buttigieg, Liz Smith, and CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you very much for being here.

Scott Jennings, I want to start with you on this because it feels like one of those situations where the politics of this, if a Democrat were in office trying to put their policies through the courts and the courts out of Texas said, nope, you can't do it, you would be totally fine with a nationwide injunction that says, you know what? We're going to challenge this in the courts. What has changed?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I actually disagree. I don't think these individual district court judges no matter who the president of the United States is ought to be able to overrule a president. I respect the Supreme Court, but individual district court judges that are easily venue shop, which is what's happening to Donald Trump right now can go out and effectively grind an administration to a halt, run out the clock, be a boat anchor around a popularly elected president.

So I -- I don't agree with that. And I just think Trump's got a great argument. I think any president would have a good argument on this. I think the Supreme Court, I don't know what they're going to do on the birthright citizenship issue, of which there's also a good argument for, by the way, but on this nationwide injunction thing, I'm with the president on this and, you know, future implications aside, I think this is the real constitutional crisis. Our judges usurping the power of the president.

HUNT: Lis Smith, how do you see it? And especially I mean, there are so many layers of politics here, right? The fact that President Trump is trying to put birthright citizenship into question. Another example of, you know, he moves the Overton window quite regularly on a wide variety of issues. But of course, he's been, you know, the American public has been closer to Donald Trump on immigration of late than they have to the Democratic Party.

LIS SMITH, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS ADVISER TO PETE BUTTIGIEG: Well, it will surprise no one that I view this a little bit differently from Scott over here. But this is what I don't get. It is pretty crystal clear in the Constitution, if you're born here, you get citizenship.

And why is Donald Trump picking this fight? Only 25 percent of voters support getting rid of birthright citizenship, less than 50 percent of. Republicans do. And you know, I am not in the business of giving Donald Trump advice, you might be or giving Republicans. You're a smart guy.

And like, this is why I don't get, like, Scott is, you could call up the president and give him some really good advice and say, hey, you know, that comprehensive immigration bill that you helped tank last year --

JENNINGS: Are you still on that?

SMITH: Yeah.

JENNINGS: Even after you lost the election over it.

SMITH: Scott, let me --

JENNINGS: I mean, honestly.

SMITH: Don't interrupt me, but you could take that bill. You now control the White House, the House and the Senate and pass it. Presidents from both parties for decades have been trying to get this through. He could be a historic president by doing that.

Instead, he's taking on a fight like birthright citizenship, which is a loser for them, will not go through. And I think that this is why, you know, people are turning against Trump on an issue that was one of his strongest against Democrats in November.

JENNINGS: I'll just briefly answer. We didn't need the bill. We just needed a new president. As Donald Trump has argued, he changed executive branch policy and has effectively closed the southern border.

[16:10:00]

And now he's taking executive action to get rid of the violent people who were here. We don't need legislation. We just need the executive branch to be able to do what's clearly enumerated them to do in the Constitution. That's our argument.

SMITH: I don't know that. I don't know that I would argue that the immigration system is all fixed under Donald Trump, and I don't think that will be a winning argument in 2025, '26, '27, '28.

HUNT: I do take Scott's point that there are certainly fewer crossings.

SMITH: Yes.

HUNT: Quite a dramatic amount. Let's bring in I want to turn to our reporters here, as well as to CNN

Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck.

And, Steve, let me let's set the stage with this sort of big picture constitutional question, because, of course, this is the text of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, quote: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Is this case cut and dry to you, or did you think the justices were open to changing this in some way?

STEVE VLADECK, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: So, Kasie, I think two things are true, and they're going to sound inconsistent. I think it is clear that a majority of the justices don't think that the president's limits on birthright citizenship are constitutional or even legal by statute. I mean, there's a 1940s statute with which they're inconsistent.

But, Kasie, what the justices were really focused on today was a ruling that might actually not even reach that question and might just say, you know, these district court orders that are blocking President Trump from carrying out this policy on a nationwide basis are too broad. And so, we're going to actually narrow these district court rulings.

You know, maybe we'll get to the merits soon. But at least for the moment, we want more lawsuits. We want more people to have to challenge these policies versus having one person or one set of plaintiffs run to one court in one part of the country.

And, Kasie, that's really important, not just because of what it would mean for birthright citizenship or the president would be able to carry out a policy that the court might think is unconstitutional, maybe for months, if not a year or two. But, Kasie, there are so many other policies currently being attempted by the Trump administration that have been subject to these so-called nationwide injunctions where the policies might actually go back into effect quickly against at least most of the people who are affected by them. If not the plaintiffs. So it's a procedural twist on what should have been a straightforward, substantive question.

HUNT: Right.

Well, Astead Herndon, I mean, it may be a procedural focus, but the implication for people who are here in the United States having babies and wondering what their citizenship status is, it's very real. It's not procedural or theoretical.

ASTEAD HERNDON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's profound. And in fact, it could have on the administration, obviously, the ability to carry out its agenda, but the emboldening that it gives the administration to be able to, you know, as that Overton window expands to choose policies that even might be on the fringe, is now empowered.

I think it's a big difference between the first term and the second term of Trump, too. The first term. There was really a sense, even among conservatives, that he was being stymied from the inside, that there was a non-united front, that folks like Mitch McConnell and Congress were blocking him. You saw that motivation even at Trump rallies.

Now, because that unity is there in terms of the administration and what the party broadly, that ire is now turned to these conservatives, to these judges who they feel are blocking the agenda. And so, there's also a grassroots pushback against this that conservatives in the Trump administration has forced.

HUNT: Yeah.

SHANE GOLDMACHER, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I mean, there are not any other checks on Donald Trump's power right now. Congressional Republicans are mostly unified in support of his agenda. Congressional Democrats don't have enough votes to stop most of his agenda. And so, people oppose Trump have turned to the courts and they've turned to venue-shopping, friendly district courts to get rulings to slow things down, the same way that the other party has done before, too.

But if the court rules that there are no longer these nationwide injunctions, it does give even more power to the presidency, a presidency that's been growing in power for decades at this point.

HERNDON: And it forces that resistance to go back to the voters. They need to have the public actually push back against the administration.

HUNT: Yeah, very briefly, Steve Vladeck, before I let you go, what did we learn from John Roberts today about whether we might get the big picture answer to the underlying question here?

VLADECK: I don't think we learned much, Kasie. I mean, as ever, the chief justice played his cards pretty close to the chest. I do think that it seems pretty clear there are at least five votes to give the Trump administration at least something of a win, even if it's not getting rid of nationwide injunctions. Maybe narrowing them.

Again, Kasie, that raises the question. So, what would that mean on the ground? What it would mean on the ground is, again, one of two things. Either, yes, the Democrats challengers to the policies would have to resort to the political process or, Kasie, we're going to see even more chaos in the courts where instead of 200 lawsuits against the Trump administration, now there are 2,000 because everyone is in a position where they can't vindicate their rights unless they sue personally.

[16:15:09]

And I think the question for John Roberts at the end of the day is, are the federal courts really better off in that world versus the one that we've had over the last four months? In the first four months of the Trump administration?

HUNT: All right, Steve Vladeck, always grateful to have your expertise on the show, sir. Thanks very much for joining us.

VLADECK: Thanks, Kasie.

HUNT: Our panel will be back throughout the hour.

We are going to talk more about this case with the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Jamie Raskin. That's ahead.

But, first, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer making a little news in an interview right here on CNN addressing her political future. And that new book on former President Biden.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GRETCHEN WHITMER (D), MICHIGAN: It does make me question a lot of things that I -- that I thought I knew during the -- during -- over the course of the last year and a half.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:20:16]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WHITMER: My thinking is trying to do everything I can for Michigan. I've got a year and a half left as governor of this great state. I love my state and I'm going to continue to fight to get good things done for Michigan, and I'm going to fight back when people are trying to harm the people of Michigan. And that's the one thing I know and the one thing you can count on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Another key Democrat not really answering the question, but also not ruling out a run for president in 2028 when she was asked by our Pamela Brown this morning, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who is term-limited, taking a slightly different approach from some of her other potential presidential hopefuls, she's at least not yet made the post-2024 trek to Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina.

And according to new polling from "The Associated Press", a new approach might be what's needed. Democrats are less and less optimistic about the future of their own party, with just 35 percent having a favorable view. That is down from 57 percent last June.

You can contrast that with Republicans, 55 percent of them like were their party is headed.

Our panel is back. And, Lis, this one is for you. What do Democrats need here? Because I

mean, look, I do appreciate this. We're getting more of them coming out and saying acknowledging that they are thinking about running for president.

The primaries kind of already underway which at one South Carolina state rep told "Politico" that it's important to voters that honest, that they're honest and authentic. So, if you're running for president, you're running for president. Don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining. Don't run for president and tell me you're not.

So, you know, fair enough. But are voters happy with their choices right now? Are they looking for, like, a fundamentally different approach?

SMITH: Well, I don't think most voters are tuned in to 2028. I think we are, because we're a bunch of sickos. But I don't -- I don't think voters are.

But what do Democrats need to do? And what should any hopeful do? First of all, look at 2024 and look at what went wrong. And I would say a few things.

Democrats got very much stuck in their liberal echo chamber in many different ways. We thought we were right about everything. We didn't try to reach out to different audiences. We didn't try to reach out beyond our base.

You know, obviously, we've talked a lot about Kamala Harris not going on Joe Rogan's show or flagrant or whatever it was. We need people who can -- who can do those things and talk to a variety of audiences. I think we also need to listen to people and meet them where they are.

We dismissed voters' concerns on costs and instead talked about how great Bidenomics were. We dismissed their concerns about the border, got creamed by Trump on that issue. And so, I think we need to learn from those mistakes of the past and then figure out how we go forward.

And like a big, big thing and a big, big thing that we need to understand is that voters are really unhappy with the status quo. They want change. And Democrats got so wrapped up in just being anti-Trump. And so, when Trump was attacking institutions and the status quo, we ended up like defending them. And that is not a place we want to be in.

So, I do think that voters may end up looking more for like an outsider, anti-status quo change candidate a la Barack Obama in 2008. But, you know, long way between now and 2028.

HUNT: Yeah. You know, it's funny, Astead, when we were in the earlier segment when or perhaps I guess we were chatting in the break. If you say we want a big field of candidates, which many Democrats are talking about now, I am reminded of 2016 when Republicans wanted a big field of candidates and they found themselves with Donald Trump, who was, of course, an outsider candidate that no one thought was actually able to win. HERNDON: Yeah, obviously, there's pitfalls there. I mean, even

thinking back to 2019, those two debates stages, right, where Democrats were having two nights of a debate stage. But I also encourage though --

HUNT: What do you call it, the kids table?

HERNDON: Yeah, yeah. There was like a, a team and. A team. Yeah. But I also would encourage an open discussion of ideas that got kind of shut down at the end of that, partly because of the primary, partly because of the coronavirus pandemic.

But I think this is right, that Dems just didn't hash out where they were on several of these issues, and I think after 2020 really told themselves a kind of lecturing story about why they won and tried to impose that vision on their own voters. I think the kind of thinking about how to reconnect with base is important, but I also just think a more a more interactive relationship with their base, their base has changed.

And I think some of the stories they told themselves about what increasing diversity would mean were just too simple. And so, you cannot just collect people of all black and brown type, say the other side is racist and win. And so, that was a flattening of those identities. And I think they have to wake up to the reality that those people have three dimensional views of politics, and they have to respond to them.

GOLDMACHER: I mean, the biggest difference between today and the last time that Donald Trump won is the Democratic Party base is angry with the Democratic Party, right? They were angry at Trump last time. Now they're angry at Democrats.

They're angry at the Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill. They're angry at the potential candidates. They feel like the party isn't with them.

And so, talk about the potential for an outsider, somebody who's different. Theres a real desire to have something that doesn't feel the same.

JENNINGS: And why are they angry? Because the party isn't being ornery enough in Washington and liberal enough? I mean, that's -- that's just it, right? The lesson that the base has learned from the last election is we're just not far enough. And until you shed your allegiance to illegal aliens, boys and girls sports and higher taxes, the American people do not want this.

And it doesn't matter who you nominate, because if the base is going to push the nominee of the Democratic Party in those three directions, and I have no reason to believe that they won't do that in the 2028 primary, you're going to have a devil of a time convincing people that you can actually act normal during a --

(CROSSTALK)

HERNDON: They'll split off the Democratic base, though, because they lost a lot of those voters, working class people of color in cities who were to the traditional Democratic base. I think what you're talking about is the echo chamber that happened among a specific college educated, liberal crowd, and that has gotten more voice in that party and pushed them in a direction that disconnects them from what I would call their base.

SMITH: And why Democrats are mad, why the base is mad at some of the leaders in Washington is not because they're not left enough. Its because, you know, Chuck Schumer came out with no strategy, no forewarning, and just said, were going to fold on the CR.

I mean, I think he could have done a better job of explaining what the strategy was and what we're going to do, but there wasn't anything like that. I think Democrats are learning, and I'm going to agree with you that Democrats cannot only be the party of resistance.

We cannot -- like we resisted so hard between 2017 and 2024. We impeached the guy like we prosecuted him, convicted him of 34 felony counts. And guess what? He still got elected.

So, I don't know how much harder we can resist right now.

JENNINGS: Are you admitting that that the case against Trump in New York was part of the organized Democratic Party resistance?

SMITH: It was a Democratic prosecutor, and at the time --

JENNINGS: Okay.

SMITH: At the time, I said I thought it was unwise. I went on Fox News and said, I said it was --

HUNT: There were Democrats who said this at the time.

SMITH: There were a lot. There were a lot.

JENNINGS: Just to be clear, this wasn't -- just to be clear. Everybody who now touts the 34 felonies, take it from Liz. This was not a real case. This was a plot to upend the presidential campaign, which.

SMITH: I just think it was a boneheaded move by Alvin Bragg. But it's not his first or last one. So --

HUNT: This is why we invite Liz, because she's a plainspoken New York ball who can really tell it straightforward -- in a straightforward way.

I mean, and I will ask you one other question, given all that, I understand the arguments you're making about what Democrats did wrong or what Democrats did wrong in those ways, the way the party did it. But ultimately, this also comes down to Joe Biden, President Biden and voters were telling all of us, right, in the polling that they clearly thought he was not fit to run for another term, and the party ignored that.

Do you think that he's responsible for Donald Trump getting elected because of that?

SMITH: I mean, he plays a very large role in that. It was obviously a catastrophic mistake for him to run again. And frankly, every time I see him on TV again now, I think it's a catastrophic mistake. And he needs -- he needs to exit the stage.

I don't think he's doing himself a favor, not doing the Democratic Party any favors, you know, and Astead has reported on this a lot, that in 2020, Joe Biden said, I will be a bridge to a future generation of Democrats. He should have been that bridge in 2024. But since he wasn't then, it's now time for him to do that.

HERNDON: I will never forget that, like 2023 period, where there was just such a level of assumption among Democrats about Joe Biden's renomination, and it kind of just haughtiness that the president, the nominee, gets to run again. And they had actually -- his age was an issue in 2020. And they took real steps to tell the public they would not be in that position four years later.

And frankly, just frankly, change their minds amongst themselves and never communicated back with their own base. That was their own, I think, selfishness that really put them in that position. But it took a party not stepping up to make that really go the way it did.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, the Supreme Court appears ready to dial back the power of some judges across the country, which, of course, could have major impacts on President Trump's agenda.

Congressman Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, standing by to join us live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:33:27]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We're the only country in the world that does this with birthright, as you know. And it's just absolutely ridiculous. But, you know, we'll see. We think it -- we have very good grounds. People have wanted to do this for decades.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: One of President Trump's earliest executive orders his effort to end birthright citizenship, taking center stage at that high stakes Supreme Court hearing today, while some of the justices appeared hesitant about the president's underlying policy, several of the conservative justices signaled openness to the administrations argument that lower courts shouldn't have the ability to issue nationwide injunctions, which, of course, means to stop the policy across the country.

Joining us now to discuss, Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

Congressman Raskin, always wonderful to see you. Thank you so much for being in THE ARENA.

I want to start with what the Supreme Court discussed here today. They seemed open to limiting the ability of district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions.

Do you think there's potential validity to that?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Not really. It would mean, for example, in this case on birthright citizenship, that every family in America that might be affected or every person who might be affected would have to go themselves to court to sue. And that's enormously inefficient and really unmanageable. And it doesn't make any sense.

It would be like saying, if, you know, the schools were discriminating today, that it wouldn't be enough to get one case going up to the Supreme Court on school segregation.

[16:35:07]

Everybody who is being discriminated against would have to go in their own district. And so, I don't see the logic of that.

I know that some of the justices are trying to avoid dealing with the substance of this case about birthright citizenship, but that's because it's so clearly a loser for the Trump administration. There are four district court rulings, all against Trump on this. Two Republican appointed judges, one from a Bush nominee, one from a Reagan nominee, and Obama and Biden judge.

And the Reagan judge said it was the easiest case he'd ever decided in four decades, because it's so clearly contradicts the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, which just says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

HUNT: Congressman, if the Supreme Court were to limit on the underlying issue, as you point out, or you suggest that they're trying to avoid doing so. But if they were to weigh in on the ultimate legality of ending birthright citizenship, and they prevented President Trump from doing that, are you convinced that he would abide by that ruling?

RASKIN: Well, I think he would. He would have to it would be very difficult for him to get around it. I suppose he could say, for example, don't give passports to any U.S. citizens who would not be citizens, in his view, or to deny Social Security payments to U.S. citizens who are not citizens, in his view.

But I think that the courts would reject that. And, you know, like Judge Boasberg, who was a Bush appointee to the court originally, he has said there's probable cause to find that the Trump administration is in contempt of his orders by not ordering those planes to come back, that they had sent off with a bunch of people to El Salvador without any due process.

So, I think that, it actually turns out to be very difficult to defy the authority of the court.

HUNT: Congressman, let me switch gears, because one of the things, of course, that has dominated conversations recently is the president's interest in accepting a $400 million gift from the Qatari government in the form of a 747 that would serve as Air Force One. Under normal procedure, emoluments, gifts to presidents from foreign leaders and foreign nations not allowed unless Congress says, okay.

Is there any way in which Congress weighs in here? Is there anything Democrats might or could do to force something like that?

RASKIN: Yes, indeed. Well, we introduced a resolution by all the judiciary Democrats yesterday demanding that Donald Trump bring his proposed $400 million flying gift from the Qatari government to congress so we could pass upon it and either vote to approve it or disapprove it. This is what every other president in all of American history has done. When Abraham Lincoln got two beautiful elephant tusks from the king of Siam in the middle of the civil war, he thought it was that important to come to Congress, and he asked whether he could keep them.

And Congress actually said, no, we love you, honest Abe. You're doing a great job in the war. But no deposit those with the department of interior. I don't know how much those were worth in those days, but, you know, maybe a couple hundred dollars. Here, we're talking about a $400 million gift that is also riddled with all kinds of national security problems. It could set the stage for surveillance and espionage and so on.

So, it's a very complicated thing. And that's why the framers, in their wisdom, guaranteed that Congress would have to review a proposed present like this to the president of the United States.

HUNT: It would, of course, have the ultimate effect, also, of putting Republicans on the record as to where they stand on this particular matter.

Congressman Jamie Raskin, I have quite a few more questions for you, but I'm being told that you have to run and go vote on the floor, so I don't want to stand in the way of that.

RASKIN: I got to go vote. Thank you, Kasie.

HUNT: All right. Have a good one.

Coming up next here. Get ready to pay more at Walmart.

Plus, the new evidence revealed today in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:43:42]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back. Coming soon to store shelves near you. President Trump's trade war.

Today, the CEO of Walmart warning that even the world's largest retailer will not eat the cost of tariffs.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

DOUG MCMILLON, WALMART CEO: We will do our best to keep our prices as low as possible, but given the magnitude of the tariffs, even at the reduced levels announced this week, we aren't able to absorb all the pressure given the reality of narrow retail margins. We're positioned to manage the cost pressure from tariffs as well or better than anyone. But even at the reduced levels, the higher tariffs will result in higher prices.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

HUNT: There you go. In very simple terms, higher tariffs, higher prices. And we have known that this was coming.

The president repeatedly said he would impose the tariffs even if the details were murky, and the rollout has been bumpy. In March, spending at U.S. retailers surged because shoppers were trying to stock up. This morning, the Commerce Department announced that spending plummeted in April. Economists at one firm put it this way, quote, the tariff shopping spree is over.

Scott Jennings, 90 percent. I'm going to put up some stats about Walmart here for a second. Okay, 90 percent of Americans live within ten miles of a store, one in five grocery dollars spent in America are spent at Walmart.

[16:45:04]

There are 1.6 million people who work at Walmart.

President Trump has gotten very angry whenever a company has come out and said, yeah, our prices are going to go up or our shelves are going to be empty because of your tariffs. But this is like the biggest fish right in the ocean. It's a big fish in a big pond. And they're saying things are going to get worse. Americans are actually going to feel it.

How can this be good for a president who promised to come in and on day one, make it better? Right? People already can't afford it.

JENNINGS: Well, I think were selectively looking at the data and we're going over what Walmart said today. But there's other data. And I'll just read what our friends at "Axios" said today. None of the data is showing the kinds of recessionary, or inflationary conditions implied by business and consumer surveys.

I mean, I think maybe some of this is being overblown, number one. Number two --

HUNT: The data does come in on a lag. I will say that. Continue.

JENNINGS: Well, I'm just -- I'm just reading you the journalism here. And I'm a pro journalist kind of guy.

And so -- and so I think maybe, maybe some of the concerns have been overblown. That's number one. Number two, we have seen some softening in the inflationary pressures. There have been some indications that some prices have been coming down in some things. Eggs, for instance, are now much.

HUNT: Not strollers or car seats.

JENNINGS: Okay. I mean, does the country run on strollers or car seats.

HUNT: Every single American family who has a child needs a car seat?

SMITH: Yes.

JENNINGS: I'm just -- I'm just -- I'm just saying, I think -- I think --

HUNT: You're talking to a couple of moms with young kids.

SMITH: Yeah.

HUNT: And you got four of them. You spent probably a fortune in your life on car seats. Okay?

JENNINGS: I'm just -- I'm just telling you that I think when were trying to, we collectively trying to make a case against Trump, we selectively look at certain data, but then we ignore other data.

HUNT: I'm trying to make a case against Trump. I'm just saying things are about to get more expensive.

JENNINGS: We're ignoring the massive amount of private investment that's coming into the country. We're ignoring the rebound in the stock market. Were ignoring the trade deals that have been cut and are currently being cut. So I'm not arguing that the -- that Walmart shouldn't be listened to.

But at the same time, there is some indication that maybe some of these fears have been overblown. I'll just say one more thing, when inflation was raging out of control under Biden, every Democrat rushed to every television camera to argue that it was corporate greed. So I'll be interested to see if Democrats are anxious to take up Walmart on this today, is it still corporate greed or is it going to be total Trump blame?

SMITH: Oh, that's painful. Look, I'm just going to say this simply -- high prices are bad. Policies that cause high prices are bad.

And with other things, you know, during the pandemic, you could say, okay, well, we have a pandemic, a supply chain crisis, some inflationary policies. With here, there is a direct line between Donald Trump's ill-advised tariffs and prices going up.

And this isn't some liberal plot. The Walmart board is not filled with radical leftists. And if Walmart is having this issue, Walmart that has the biggest purchasing power of any retail company in the country, probably the world, imagine how this is going to trickle down to smaller businesses.

So, I think it is really bad. I think primarily, it's really bad for American families that are going to have to shoulder these costs, but it is also going to be really bad for the Republicans who ran on the issue of lowering costs and clearly are not even trying to deliver on it.

JENNINGS: I mean, I mean, there's literal reporting today that says the doom and gloom predictions from April that everybody rushed out to make are simply not coming true. And you keep making them. But there's literal reporting today that says --

SMITH: There is literally the CFO of Walmart on TV today saying, we are going to have to raise prices.

JENNINGS: I'm just telling you what the data says and what they're reporting.

SMITH: I know.

HERNDON: The tangible impacts are coming to Americans, which means that the political impacts will certainly come after. It reminds me kind of what Democrats were doing in 2021, to which was ignoring the reality of the -- of the kitchen table issue.

(CROSSTALK)

HERNDON: -- pointing at data that regular Americans do not care about.

I'm saying the Walmart -- Walmart raising its prices matters a lot. I was just at home. My family was talking about how she was stockpiling on frozen fish, because they think all of these things are going up, of clothing brands are emailing people, telling you that theyr'e no longer shipping to America because of tariffs.

Those are literal impacts on people. And I think it reminds me of like after this happened with Biden, that colored how folks viewed the entire administration, the foreign policy aid was bad because inflation was going up, right? When you ignore the fundamental issue, it could also -- it could also impact the administration broadly.

And I think the Republicans are doing the same thing, prioritizing their own ideological project over the kitchen table.

HUNT: I would argue that Biden's foreign policy challenges started with the withdrawal from Afghanistan --

HERNDON: For sure.

HUNT: -- more than -- more than inflation. But I do take your broader point. And, Scott, I'm just reminded, I realize you're trying to defend the

Trump administration. But when Biden folks were on sets like this, trying to defend --

JENNINGS: I'm not arguing --

HUNT: -- the very big -- the big infrastructure bill, and they were trying to say, oh, yes, it's transitory, it's transitory. It's transitory -- wasn't transitory.

JENNINGS: I'm not arguing that high prices don't have political impacts. Of course they do. And if people don't feel good about the trajectory next summer, it will have an impact at the ballot box.

[16:50:03]

I'm just -- I'm just simply reading the data analysis.

HUNT: I hope you're right. I got to be honest with you. I hope that you are right, that it is all overblown. We shall see.

Coming up, CNN inside the courthouse as Cassie Ventura is cross- examined by Sean "Diddy" Combs' lawyers, what she and brand new evidence is revealing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. A live look outside the federal courthouse in New York City, where Sean "Diddy" Combs ex-girlfriend and accuser, Cassie Ventura, spent another day on the stand, this time being cross- examined by Combs's lawyers.

[16:55:10]

I want to bring in CNN's Kara Scannell. She's been closely covering the case from inside the courtroom.

We're also joined by defense and trial attorney, Misty Marris.

Kara, first to you take us through today's cross-examination.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ventura is still on the witness stand, has been on it all day long as Combs lawyers get their first chance to question her. And what they've done today is they brought up a number of text messages between Ventura and Combs, going back to the very beginning of their relationship, when they were effusively affectionate, telling each other that they loved each other, and when they first began discussing these freak offs, those were the sexual encounters that prosecutors say were part of the sex trafficking operation.

Back in the beginning, Ventura is saying on these text messages, im always ready to freak off. And then as late as 2017, she said, I love our freak offs when we both want it. The -- his lawyers are trying to suggest that she has brought this up a number of times, and that she was not being coerced and forced into these sexual activities. Well, in that last exchange, the Combs attorney had asked her about

that message where she said, I'm always ready to freak offs and Ventura testified that she said those were just words at that point, because earlier, she testified that she was afraid of Combs and afraid he would physically assault her if she did not engage in these freak offs.

But then Combs's lawyers pointed out those were words that you said to him, trying to underscore to the jury that the information Combs was receiving was that Ventura was voluntary in these actions.

Another big topic was drug use. Ventura just testified that Combs had overdosed on painkillers in February of 2012. She also said that when Combs was going through withdrawal, he became very irritated, and when he was both in withdrawal and on drugs, that was when some of the most violent times in their relationships occurred.

So, his team, again trying to say that this was part of a domestic violence between both of them in a loving relationship and that that Combs was often fueled by drugs. They asked Ventura why she sent a photo of her injuries to Combs, asking in a text message, do you remember? And Ventura said that, yes, it was true that Combs sometimes did not remember the physical beatings that they -- that he had imposed on her.

So really, his team here trying to underscore what their defense is, which is that this was a consensual sexual activity and that the physical violence was something that was due to infidelity and jealousy.

We heard a lot about infidelity and dating from both sides, and also fueled some of these domestic violence that they say was on both sides -- Kasie.

HUNT: So, Misty, here's some of what we learned today. We saw that in a text from 2009, Diddy says that he wants Cassie to feel safe, to let go and be comfortable with him, and this is what she wrote back, quote, I have to trust you beyond it just being sexual in order for me to be more open with the things we do in bed, I need to feel safe, like home.

What is the strategy of the defense in bringing these text messages to light?

MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE & TRIAL ATTORNEY: Yeah, the defense in opening statements foreshadowed that the text messages were going to paint a different picture about their relationship. And it's all about this idea of consent versus coercion. And this relates to the freak offs, because the sex trafficking statute says engaging in commercial sex through force, fraud or coercion so that commercial sex is the freak offs.

So what the defense is doing, they had some vulnerabilities in in Ventura's direct examination when prosecutors when prosecutors elicited that in the past couple of days where she said she engaged in these acts sometimes to keep him happy because it gave them one on one time.

And what the defense is doing is going back in time, strategically using the electronic record, contemporaneous text messages from the time to show the state of mind of both parties. Was Ventura consenting to this sexual contact, even though it might sound strange to others? Was it just part of their romantic relationship fraught with domestic violence, or was it coercion?

And so, the defense is now going through these text messages to show what was being said at the time, not in retrospect at the time this was happening.

HUNT: Kara, you've been in the courtroom all week long. What's Diddy's demeanor been like, and how has the jury been reacting to everything we've learned?

SCANNELL: So, Diddy's demeanor has been one where he's mostly watching the testimony. He's turned around a couple of times when Ventura has walked into the courtroom. Although it doesn't appear that they've made eye contact throughout her days on the witness stand.

Today, while her defense team is doing the questioning, though, he was very actively writing messages on notepads and sending them to his attorney, which would pass it along to the examiner.

So, definitely engaged today when -- when this was about his text messages and his exchanges with Ventura.

HUNT: All right. Misty Marris, Kara Scannell, thank you both very much for being with us.

And thanks as well to our panel for being with us here in New York. Really appreciate it.

Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD" -- where you're going to have much more reaction, I understand, to the reporting from your new book with Alex Thompson. You guys are going to be here in New York having a conversation with David Remnick in just a few days.