Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

State Department Orders Stop To New Student Visa Interviews; Trump Says Putin Is "Playing With Fire!"; Trump Asks Supreme Court To Halt Order Allowing Migrants To Challenge Deportation To South Sudan; King Charles: Canada Will Stay "Strong And Free"; Former Assistant To Sean "Diddy" Combs Testifies, Detailing Fits Of Rage And Threats By Musician. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired May 27, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:05]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Sleep experts say that if you want to stop hitting the snooze button, set your alarm as late as possible and change your bedtime by no more than 30 minutes each night, even on weekends. They always suggest, you know, getting that recommended seven to nine hours of sleep per night for good health.

You can also just do what CNN's Randi Kaye does, which is just get hammered before bed.

(LAUGHTER)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The martini, the nightcap.

SANCHEZ: I'm kidding.

KEILAR: That was purely research. Yeah, that was just -- it was professional assignment.

SANCHEZ: A reward for viewers that watch this show.

KEILAR: That's right.

SANCHEZ: Thank you so much for tuning in.

KEILAR: THE ARENA --

SANCHEZ: "THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.

(MUSIC)

MANU RAJU, CNN HOST: It's the president versus the universities.

Let's head into THE ARENA.

Breaking news, the State Department is pressing pause on all new student visa interviews. This as the White House prepares to cut the very last of Harvard's federal funding.

Plus, President Trump escalates his public frustration with Vladimir Putin today, warning the Russian president is playing with fire. President Trump, now facing bipartisan pressure to take action.

Royal rebuke. King Charles says Canada will remain strong and free. So how will that square with President Trump's talk of a 51st state?

(MUSIC)

RAJU: Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Tuesday. Kasie Hunt is off. I'm Manu Raju.

Breaking news and a major escalation in the Trump administrations fight against America's universities. The State Department pausing all new student visa application interviews. And while that pause is in place, the government is developing new guidance for social media screenings of foreign students who want to study in the U.S. This comes as the White House moves to cancel all remaining federal contracts with Harvard. Two senior administration officials tell CNN that those contracts are worth about $100 million. This on top of more than $2 billion in grants that the administration froze last month.

And on Monday, the president threatened to give that money to trade schools. Here's Harvard's president in an interview that was taped before news broke about the latest contract cancellations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN GARBER, HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT: I don't know fully what the motivations are, but I do know that there are people who are fighting a cultural battle. I don't know if that is what is driving the administration. They don't like what's happened to campuses. And sometimes they don't like what we represent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: In a letter last month, the administration accused Harvard of civil rights violations, ideological bias in allowing antisemitism on campus. That letter also included a lengthy list of demands, including reforms to international student admissions. Harvard refused to comply, and the administration responded by revoking the university's ability to enroll foreign students. A federal judge then halted that order. Next big hearing in that case is set for Thursday.

Still, President Trump is insisting that Harvard immediately turn over a list of all its international students and their disciplinary records.

An excellent panel is here, along with CNN's Kylie Atwood.

So, Kylie, you're live at the State Department for us.

Tell us what they're thinking and the latest about this move.

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. So, this was a memo sent to all State Department embassies and consulates around the world, putting a halt on any new visa application, interviews, processes for students. This comes as, according to this memo, the State Department is undertaking an effort to develop guidance to expand its social media vetting and screening process.

Now, we should note that obviously this puts in limbo any students who are planning to apply for those visas but didn't yet have a scheduled appointment on the books. As far as we know, any of the scheduled appointments haven't been canceled yet, but I spoke with some former consular affairs officers who said, typically around this time of year, its actually these appointments for students who are prioritized. Obviously, that isn't the case right now, as this review is taking place.

The key here, however, is we don't know how long this review is going to be undertaken at the State Department, how long it's going to take for them to change these vetting of social media practices. So that is a major question here. While they put a halt on these appointments.

The other thing to consider is that according to this memo, the cable notes that the new -- the changes could have potentially significant implications for consular section operation processes and resource allocations, indicating that the process for getting those visas might actually take longer with this new social media vetting in place. We should note that currently the process does already include vetting of social media. So, we're looking to see what this bolstered vetting of social media would look like.

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce was asked about this during the State Department briefing today, and she simply said that she wasn't going to discuss anything that hasn't been in the public space on this yet.

RAJU: Yeah. A lot of questions about the implications about this move.

Kylie Atwood from the State Department -- thank you.

And my excellent panel joins me now, national political reporter for "The Washington Post", Sabrina Rodriguez, NPR's Steve Inskeep, the host of "Morning Edition", who just interviewed the president of Harvard, former Biden White House communications director Kate Bedingfield and Republican strategist Brad Todd. Both, of course, are CNN political commentators.

Nice to see you all this afternoon.

Steve, I'll start with you about this interview that you had this morning. Very timely interview with the president of Harvard. What was your takeaway about how Harvard views this fight and how far they're willing to go?

STEVE INSKEEP, "MORNING EDITION" HOST, NPR: They feel they have no choice but to push forward because for Harvard, it is a First Amendment question. Not that Harvard is entitled to money, but the demands the administration has made is for Harvard to allow the United States government to influence the opinions of their faculty, the opinions of their students, and that for that university is a line they don't want to cross.

I think the university may also feel they really can't negotiate with this particular administration. And in this circumstance, what Alan Garber the president is trying to do is make a case for his university knowing that people have mixed feelings about this extremely elite school. Some people really hate it. Obviously, some people really love it.

And he argued that the grants and contracts that Harvard has received is not a gift. That's a word that he used, not a gift. It's money for work that the federal government has wanted done, money for medical research that benefits all Americans.

He argued that he is on the same side as other Americans who may not realize what the university does for them, but it's a hard case to make in this environment.

RAJU: Just to follow up on one point, you're making saying that they don't really see the need or really the -- it would be effective to negotiate with this administration. Why not? Why not try to cut a deal and stave off this big battle?

INSKEEP: I can't speak with a lot of insight as to what the Harvard Corporation is thinking about that based on my own reporting. But we do know what happened with Columbia University. They preemptively made some changes and didn't get anything for it, so far as we know.

I should emphasize, though, Alan Garber like the officials at Columbia, has been wanting to make some changes at the university. He came in as a new president after a series of controversies at Harvard University, and has wanted to make some changes in the culture, has wanted to allow a little bit more openness, a little bit more viewpoint diversity, as people say.

And in fact, he made an interesting point. He said, if you want viewpoint diversity, which is something that conservatives say, let the international students come because they come from all over the world with all kinds of different viewpoints. It is interesting now to learn this news about vetting of social media posts, which presumes that we would like a little bit less viewpoint diversity in people who we bring from overseas.

RAJU: Sabrina, you covered the White House. Theres a concern not just with Harvard, but higher education institutions across the country. How much is that weighing on President Trump's decision here that he's causing a lot of fear and concern among higher education officials and students?

SABRINA RODRIGUEZ, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: I mean, right now, I think Trump welcomes some of this controversy, and specifically with Harvard. You know, he -- Trump doesn't necessarily shy away from a fight, and a very public fight at that. You know, he has been going after various universities, has frozen contracts and grants with many universities.

But right now, Harvard is at the forefront because Harvard sued and is being very public and sort of even their PR campaign around explaining what these contracts and all of this funding does. So, this gives sort of Trump someone to fight with publicly, someone to go back and forth with.

But I think what's really interesting is Trump clearly is already thinking about the politics of this by proposing yesterday that, oh, maybe the $3 billion could go to trade schools. Theres clearly a calculus here that for a lot of people in the United States, there is this perception of Harvard as, oh, home of the elites. And really, he could be bringing the money to other people, even though, of course, those plans have not been described.

RAJU: On that trade school point, Steve actually asked about that to the president of Harvard, and this was the response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GARBER: The real question is, how much value does the federal government get from its expenditures on research? There is a lot of actual research demonstrating the returns to the American people have been enormous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So, I mean, Brad. I mean, shouldn't Trump be concerned about that, that research that the United States could benefit from, that could go away?

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Of course, he should, but it can be done at Texas or Michigan or Purdue, which Purdue hasn't had a tuition increase in 12 years, by the way. That doesn't have to happen at Harvard.

And that's part of the problem is these elite Ivy League institutions think they're irreplaceable. This year was the largest group of students ever applying to college, 1.4 million families this year picked a college this month. At Harvard and Columbia, those numbers of international students keep going up, which are places that American students aren't getting.

I think that's part of the pushback here. It's Harvard and Columbia, and institutions like that see themselves as pieces of the world economy, not pieces of the American economy. I think that's part of why the politics is good for Trump.

INSKEEP: Thanks for promoting Purdue from my home state.

(LAUGHTER)

[16:10:02]

KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I will say, I think as a political matter, yes, there's the -- there's the populist argument. Harvard is an elite institution. There are institutions across the country that serve a broader base of students, no question about it. And I think the politics there is pretty clear what Trump's trying to do.

But there is another -- there's a countervailing political piece here, which is that most Americans don't want to have a government that tries to punish institutions that they disagree with. And so, I think that there's -- yes, you know, if Trump could fight this out purely on this popular along these populist lines that you lay out, it may be a winner for him. I do think increasingly, though, we're seeing Americans are concerned about the way the Trump administration is picking on institutions that it may have disagreements with.

And that's where people really start to get uncomfortable. And that's the reality of the situation that I don't think Trump is dealing with right now.

TODD: I agree with you that Americans don't want picking winners and losers by big institutions, but there's a feeling that Harvard has been picking winners and losers. So many of the Ivy League schools, when they had strict speech codes for speech they didn't like, and then they let antisemitic speech go unpunished.

So I think that that's part of the problem is the fact that these institutions have been out of touch and picking the wrong winners.

BEDINGFIELD: But there's a difference between addressing deeply problematic antisemitic behavior on campus, which I would absolutely agree. There have been issues there and more needs to be done. And I think the leaders of these schools --

TODD: Harvard's own reports have said, yeah.

BEDINGFIELD: -- have said as much, right? I mean, they've said as much, but, you know, canceling student visas across the board, revoking billions in grant money that's going to medical research. I mean, that's not addressing the specific problem, antisemitism on campus. And that's where this is deeply problematic.

TODD: I think it's a lightning strike to get the attention of higher education. Higher education in this country is broken. And I think that's what this is meant to be.

But Harvard is trying to fight this on behalf of other institutions as well. That was part of the point of the interview.

INSKEEP: Yeah, the Department of Homeland Security, in one of the documents announcing the latest action against Harvard, said this is a warning to other universities and educational institutions. And when I asked Alan Garber about that, he said, yes, this is a warning to other universities and educational institutions.

And from his point of view, we need to stick together, maybe from a different point of view. That means lots of universities need to change in some way that the administration demands. One of the things that the Harvard crimson editorial board said is part of this pushing back against the Trump administration's attacks. This is -- the Trump administration defends its choice to put our classmates' future in jeopardy under the guise of combating antisemitism, racist DEI policies and anti-American sentiment on college campuses.

And then they went on to say, what could be more anti-American than banishing potential immigrants who have come to our country to learn and contribute to our society? Has the White House responded to that level of criticism yet?

RODRIGUEZ: Not fully. I mean, what we've seen is this is part of the broader immigration crackdown that we see the administration putting in place, whether it's coming out of DHS or the State Department.

What's interesting here, though, and what I've been hearing from sources, you know, on both sides of the aisle, one of the arguments that they are making, depending on what state they're in, is there's an economic argument here. A lot of these international students, the majority that come to the United States, are paying top dollar to attend the elite universities and are paying that means very expensive rent in these places are contributing to the U.S. economy.

And when President Trump was on the campaign trail last year, he was oftentimes talking about the types of immigrants that he wanted in the United States. And among those were the ones that attend these elite universities that go on to contribute in the, you know, in Silicon Valley and going and, you know, contribute to industries that he, you know, prides the United States standing on. So that is a consideration that some folks are raising.

RAJU: Steve, I want to ask you about one other thing. News today about this lawsuit that your -- that NPR and is fighting after Trump tried to cut this funding that would federal funding that goes to NPR and PBS, he did an executive order. Theres a question about whether he can do that without the consent of Congress. What are the implications of that? Executive order goes through and cuts funding to NPR.

INSKEEP: Well, I don't speak for NPR. I'm a journalist. I'm covering the story.

RAJU: Yeah.

INSKEEP: I will tell you that NPR has reported that they're suing, and that the reasons have to do with the fact that congress appropriates money for a particular purpose and various arguments that they're making, actually, about viewpoint discrimination.

You're asking, what are the implications of the executive order? Day to day right now, in what I do, I'm just doing my job.

And I had a show today. I got a show tomorrow. I'm going to keep going as long as anybody let's me do it.

RAJU: Amen. Keep doing it, brother.

INSKEEP: Thank you, I appreciate it.

RAJU: Thank you, Steve Inskeep, for coming by.

And the rest of the panel, stand by.

Up next, President Trump again lashing out at Vladimir Putin. What he's now saying just a day after saying the Russian leader has gone, quote, absolutely crazy.

Plus, the other fight the president is picking today, this one with California saying he's going to get Gavin Newsom on the phone today or else.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:19:16]

RAJU: President Trump warning Russian President Vladimir Putin today that he's, quote, playing with fire. In a Truth Social post, Trump said if it wasn't for him, lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia. Sources tell CNN that Trump is considering moving ahead with new sanctions on Moscow, as the president grows increasingly frustrated with Russia's escalating attacks on Ukraine.

But the Kremlin is dismissing Trump's newfound criticism of Putin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SERGEY LAVROV, RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINSTER (through translator): President Trump is a person who wants a result. Of course, he as a person does not like obstacles on his way to achieve the noble goals. He developed certain assessments and certain rhetoric. The main point here is not to concentrate upon his rhetoric, but to achieve that, Europe stops to sabotage the movement towards peace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[16:20:01]

RAJU: CNN's special correspondent Jamie Gangel joins our panel now.

Jamie, nice to see you.

Youve covered Trump for many -- for many years. Trump and Putin, his handling of it. What do you --what's your takeaway with this uptick in rhetoric? And will that uptick in rhetoric be met with action?

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm not sure it means a thing other than he has a reason to use a lot of capital letters right now. Crazy.

RAJU: He likes to do that.

GANGEL: Not just bad, but really bad in capital letters.

Look, when I talk to national security sources and State Department folks, the Kremlin, let's face it, doesn't seem worried. Vladimir Putin seems to feel very confident that he's holding all the cards. A couple of weeks ago, someone compared it to Lucy and Charlie brown and the football with lucy being Putin.

So, look, we're hearing about sanctions. We're seeing these posts. Vladimir Putin does not seem to want to change what he's doing in Ukraine. And until he does, I'm not sure these posts mean much of anything.

RAJU: But there is this bipartisan pressure that is now growing for more sanctions. As you're referring to. There's this bill that Senator Lindsey Graham has with Senator Richard Blumenthal in the Senate. It has more than 80 co-sponsors. And there's a push for a vote on that essentially, snapping sanctions, primary and secondary sanctions on Russia could be significant.

This is what Senator Grassley, Chuck Grassley, the longest serving Republican senator, said. He said in two posts on X, he said, I believe President Trump was sincere when he thought his friendship with Putin would end the war. Now that being the case, it's time for sanctions strong enough so Putin knows game over.

He went on to say in a second tweet today, President Trump should take the decisive action against Putin that he takes against Harvard. Sanctions for Putin, like no fed grants for Harvard, as Chuck Grassley's famous shorthand on X.

But, nevertheless, I mean, well Trump act facing these calls from Republicans.

TODD: I think the president is very clearly frustrated with Vladimir Putin. And we have to remember that Russia has basically one product that they sell oil and gas products mostly to Europe and Asia. And so, a round of sanctions can hit Russia pretty quickly and hurt them pretty badly. They can't make money if oil drops to $50 a barrel. That's Putin begins to bleed muscle at that point.

So, I think Trump will probably consider sanctions because he's clearly decided that his previous approach is not getting where he want to be.

BEDINGFIELD: I think its worth noting this is essentially the Biden administration's approach to this conflict, one that Trump, you know, pilloried on the campaign trail, said that he would come in on day one and would be able to end the conflict.

RAJU: Even criticize sanctions at the time.

BEDINGFIELD: He did. Absolutely. And now he's sitting in -- he's sitting on --

TODD: Sanctions to --

BEDINGFIELD: Now, he's sitting in the seat where he's having to deal with the reality of the tough decisions, and his policy is looking a whole lot like what the Biden administration tried to do.

So, you know, I think it's also interesting you talk about Republicans and, you know, Grassley, we know that a lot of Republicans who had a lot of misgivings about Trump's approach to the conflict in Russia and Ukraine, were absolutely willing to say on the campaign trail, you know, that they were fine with where Trump was going. And, you know, now there's a little I think there's a reckoning here that they're having to deal with. RAJU: What are your sources saying?

RODRIGUEZ: I mean, I think one of the big things to hear is this is personal for President Trump. You know, he has prided himself in part of the brand around Trump is the art of the deal. You know, that is something I still consistently hear supporters just a few weeks ago, I was in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, swing area and talking to folks who voted for Trump.

Part of what they want to see is him really cutting deals, making things happen, whether that's on tariffs and trade or that's on Ukraine.

You know, that is something that he again, has touted is part of the persona. So, this chips away at that. If he is not able to deliver on some kind of progress, on some kind of movement on this war.

RAJU: I mean, the American public's view of this has been mixed. Theres actually not the waning support about providing money for Ukraine. This is what a Pew poll from February said, that in February 2025, 30 percent of Americans who say Ukraine is supporting Ukraine too much. That was from November 2024, 27 percent. There were 43 percent of Americans are concerned.

There's a separate poll saying 43 percent of Americans are concerned that Ukraine will be defeated and taken over by Russia. So there's this mixed opinion. Theres this feeling about giving too much money to Ukraine, but there's also this feeling among the American public that they can't see Russia -- they don't want to see Russia take over Ukraine.

GANGEL: So, my question is, he is considering sanctions, but will he do it in the end? The other thing that we're hearing from, you know, White House reporting is he also may throw up his hands in the air and walk away from it.

That is a long way away from what he said on the campaign.

[16:25:00]

Before I even arrive at the oval office, we will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled. So, let's see where he goes from here.

RAJU: But look, by Trump saying that he wants this war to end in 24 hours, what is the incentive for Putin to cut a deal here? Because he knows he can draw this out as long as possible, and U.S. support is probably going to fizzle. And he can essentially do what he wants.

TODD: Well, he's had trouble with Vladimir Zelenskyy being able to take yes for an answer. And he's you know, that's part of the problem is we have two leaders of two countries that are mired in this morass of a war, and neither one of them can execute their preferred way out of it, and nor will they accept anything short of that. And the Europeans are not there. I think their interest may be as much to be against President Trump as it is to solve the problem. So that's a complicating factor as well.

But in the end, with everything that deals with Russia, we have to drive the price of oil down. We have to try to bankrupt them by making their product not sellable.

RAJU: All right.

BEDINGFIELD: Well, yes, he's giving away leverage to Putin, but he's also now it's been nearly five months where he's essentially given Russia more time. He's allowed them to, you know, to kind of re capitulate here.

So it's unfortunate that this period of time that they've been given, this period of time when pressure could have been, you know, continuous from the time Trump took office.

RAJU: We'll see what President Trump decides to do. He's got options on the table. Up next, Wall Street reacting to the latest delay by Trump in his global trade war. We'll talk with the member of Congress who represents Silicon Valley Democrat Ro Khanna.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJU: We have breaking news just coming into THE ARENA.

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to make it easier to deport migrants to South Sudan and other countries.

CNN's Paula Reid joins us now.

Paula, what are you learning?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Manu, this is just the latest in a series of controversial immigration policies that Trump administration has wanted to put in front of the conservative supermajority at the high court. Here, specifically, they want to make it easier to deport people to South Sudan or other countries that are not their homeland.

Now, this all stems from a policy that they adopted early in the administration, where they wanted to be able to deport people to other countries, again, not necessarily their country of origin, because they believe it would make it easier to deport these people without having to give them the kind of due process that would allow them to raise questions about potential threats or other reasons they could not be deported to that other country.

Now, a lower court judge has put a pause on this. So here the administration asking the Supreme Court to weigh in. And, Manu, this is really one to watch. If the Supreme Court wants to take up this question and weigh in here, they give us some insight into how the justices view the immigration policy of this administration, which has really been playing at the edges of what we have seen in the past.

Of course, really, the only time we've seen them weigh in so far, really clearly on a national level, was the Abrego Garcia case, where some people think that the court ordered him to be returned, but that is not in fact, the case. They ordered the government to facilitate his release -- to help facilitate his release, not necessarily mandate his return.

So that was sort of a nod to what the Trump administration was doing, which is why we're going to be watching this one very closely to see if the Supreme Court takes it up. And if they do what they say.

RAJU: Paula, what do you think this the likelihood is of the Supreme Court siding with Trump?

REID: I think, look, it's a conservative supermajority, Manu. And more often than not, Trump wins before the high court. The question is whether they'll take it up at this stage or if they'll let litigation continue and then take up some of these larger constitutional questions.

The question here is how much process are these individuals do if they are going to be deported back to a country that is not their country of origin? So, it is a really fascinating question, and it's unclear if they'll take it up. If they do, we have seen again and again is that they have been pretty tolerant of Trump's expansive use of executive power. These more aggressive immigration policies, but they have not sided with him in each and every case.

So, this could be the exception. Where they do argue that these individuals are entitled to more process than the administration would like to give them.

RAJU: Yeah, another big test for the courts and the institutions here in the U.S.

Paula Reid with the breaking news, thank you.

And joining me now to discuss is Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California.

So, Congressman, what is your reaction to this move by the Trump administration as really the latest immigration salvo here? What's your reaction to it?

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): It violates Americans' basic sense of fairness. It violates the Constitution, the 14th Amendment says every person in America. Not every citizen is entitled to due process. The Supreme Court in the Abrego case made that point, and it said Trump needs to try to facilitate the return. And I believe they're going to stand up for that fundamental fairness.

But you have, Manu, assault on basic immigration by this administration. I mean, they're banning all international students from Harvard University. They just announced today that for any student visa person, they're going to do a social media vetting. And if the person happened to say something that they disagree with, they won't let them in. I mean, it is a huge overreach.

RAJU: I mean, do you are you concerned that Trump may win in this case with this conservative Supreme Court majority?

KHANNA: Well, look, I have some confidence, hope in Justice Roberts that he's going to read the Constitution and find what any conservative or liberal scholar would say, which is that in this country, people have due process. And that's fundamental to the country.

[16:35:04]

They did that in Abrego. I wish they had gone further, but I -- it would be a stunning rejection of the Constitution for them to conclude that there is less due process for immigrants than there is for citizens.

RAJU: Congressman, I want to turn to the economy. Today, stocks surged on news that President Trump is pausing the 50 percent tariffs on the E.U. But that's far from the end of this trade war. President Trump has threatened tariffs on 25 percent on smartphones if they're not manufactured in the United States.

You represent Silicon Valley. Youve repeatedly called for the revitalization of the industrial base. So, isn't that exactly what Trump is trying to do here with these tariffs?

KHANNA: No, he's not. The revitalization is federal investment in our workforce. Federal investment like the Chips Act. What Trump has done is the exact opposite. With blanket terrorists that are on one day off the other day, he's created uncertainty.

I mean, he posted on social media, let's do these tariffs on iPhones. Then, Kevin Hassett, his economic director, is on CNBC today saying, no, no, no, we don't want to do the tariffs because they could hurt the iPhone.

And so, the business community is just totally confused. The only one who knows what they're doing economically frankly, is Bessent. And everyone else is just out to lunch. And Bessent keeps reassuring the markets, no, were not going to be irrational about this. And I'm glad that he has some understanding of what happened that Trump's policies had done.

RAJU: Have you spoken to Apple or Samsung about these tariff threats, and how are they planning to respond? What have they told you?

KHANNA: I have spoken extensively. I mean, they say it would basically hurt American consumer prices if people want to pay $1,500, $2,000 for their phones, that's what it would cost.

But the other thing is that what they say is they're going to move to Malaysia, to Vietnam, to India. If you want to bring back advanced manufacturing, you have to invest in the local workforce. You have to finance the new factories.

That's what we did with the Chips and Science Act. Thats what President Biden did with bringing solar and battery manufacturing. That's how we've industrialized the base. Yes, tariffs can be one part of it, strategic tariffs, but it can't be

blanket tariffs without federal investment.

RAJU: Today, Trump also threatened to withhold federal funding from California over a transgender athlete's participation in an upcoming sporting event. He said he plans to speak with Governor Gavin Newsom, who himself recently said that its, quote, deeply unfair when trans women play in women's sports.

So, I wonder, given that what Newsom said and Trump's threats, do you think that Newsom should comply with Trump's demands and ban this transgender athlete from competing in order to get these federal dollars?

KHANNA: No, we should not bend the knee to Donald Trump. Look, this is a pattern of threatening states, threatening institutions. He threatened to take away all funding from Maine because the governor dared to speak out against him. He's threatened Harvard university to revoke all the funding for cancer research, for medical research, because they have foreign students. Now he's threatening California because he disagrees with what the California interscholastic association is doing to figure out a fair solution.

The real issue here is less about transgender athletes and more about Donald Trump acting like he can threaten any state, any institution in this country that he disagrees with. And it is a total violation of federalism and the Constitution.

RAJU: There's a recent vanity fair article that came out with this headline, Ro Khanna really believes blue MAGA can save the Dems, and Steve Bannon loves it.

So, you've been traveling in Republican districts for some time now. In your travels, why do you think are why are Democrats failing to connect with working class voters?

KHANNA: We haven't centered the anger and the concerns of working class Americans in places like Johnstown, Lorain. We need to be talking and prioritizing new factories, new high paying jobs, the skilled trades, (AUDIO GAP), dealing with child care costs. I call it a new economic patriotism. And too often the Democrats seem sidetracked in dealing with the economic issues of the working class that are going to improve their lives and recognizing that many were shafted by NAFTA and globalization.

RAJU: What about just the candidates themselves? I want you to listen to Dan Pfeiffer, the former Obama adviser, about the concerns about who Democrats have been putting up as candidates.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN PFEIFFER, HOST, POD SAVE AMERICA: So, for an entire more than a decade, the face of the Democratic Party was someone that was not -- could not connect with young people on a cultural level. We're -- we're not cool. We're not interesting.

We have become the -- in the minds of a lot of artists. Not always fair, but sort of the crossing guard party.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[16:40:04]

RAJU: Do you agree with that, Mr. Khanna?

KHANNA: I agree with a lot of Dan Pfeiffer's comments, but not this one I sort of disagree with. I mean, Kamala Harris, for whatever you say about her, did connect with people. Culturally. There was the brat summer. There were all these people putting up the coconut memes.

I think the problem with the party is that we didn't have a clear economic vision for working class Americans. We didn't say, here's how were going to restore communities that were hollowed out. Here's how were going to actually improve your life in lowering huge costs or raising your wages.

And there wasn't a sense that we were believable on those economic issues. I don't think that the answer is just let's figure out how we become cooler. It's how do we have a substantive vision that's going to convince working class Americans we're going to improve their lives.

RAJU: And you said Kamala Harris, she's considering running for governor. Do you think she should? Would she be the strongest Democratic candidate if she did?

KHANNA: She would be very strong. I mean, she was very successful as attorney general.

RAJU: Do you want her? Do you want her to run?

KHANNA: Well, that's up to her. But I do think if she runs, she would win. And I think if she runs, she would be able to solve some of the extraordinary problems. We've had homelessness that has not been solved. We've had basic public safety. Theres some great mayors, Matt Mahan, Dan Laurie in San Jose, now new mayor of San Francisco, are doing good things.

And I think Kamala Harris would be innovative and tackle these problems that have been piling up in California because of poor governance.

RAJU: Very quickly, your Blue MAGA campaign has gotten you some attention. As someone who potentially could be looking at the 2028 bid himself. Is that something you're considering a potential 2028 run?

KHANNA: I am focused, as I tweeted out today on making Hakeem Jeffries, speaker of the House. There are going to be a lot of new voices in the Democratic Party for the future. I want to have a say in the economic vision for the party, but I am very, very confident that we can take back the House.

And I've been traveling particularly to red districts with a which are competitive, which we can win. And my view is that Hakeem Jeffries is right now the leader of the party is doing a great job, and he is going to be speaker. That should be our focus.

RAJU: I'll let people interpret that answer however they want.

Congressman Khanna, thank you so much for joining me. Really appreciate it.

And up next, the king's speech. King Charles becomes just the second British monarch to open Canadas parliament. And he's sending a veiled message to President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING CHARLES, BRITISH MONARCH: The system of open global trade that, while not perfect, has helped to deliver prosperity for Canadians for decades, is changing. Canada's relationships with partners are also changing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[16:47:09]

RAJU: Today, Canada faces another critical moment. Democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, self-determination and freedom are values which Canadians hold dear and ones which the government is determined to protect.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING CHARLES: The system of open global trade that, while not perfect, has helped to deliver prosperity for Canadians for decades, is changing. Canada's relationships with partners are also changing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: While King Charles addressed the Canadian parliament today, he was really speaking to an audience of one. Or it seemed that way. The president of the United States, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and his government wrote the speech to be delivered by the king for what is known as the speech from the throne.

Now, it is significant not only because of its subject matter, but its rarity. Queen Elizabeth only addressed Canadians parliament twice, the last time being in 1977.

My panel is back with me. How do you think Trump's going to respond to this?

GANGEL: I think this is going to get under his skin. I just want to say, you know, he didn't sing "O Canada," and he gives a rather muted delivery.

But the words were, as you said, for an audience of one. He didn't use Trump's name, but the message was clear. He made this trip, which was very unusual to support Canada and to push back on Trump.

Now we know Trump loves the royal family. RAJU: Yeah.

GANGEL: When the British prime minister came, a big part of that oval office visit was he has an invitation from King Charles, a truly historic and unprecedented second visit. So, this is going to get under Trump's skin.

RAJU: I mean, as you said, Jamie, there's a couple of headlines. Politicos want to butter up Donald Trump, roll out King Charles. "The New York Times", Trump's admiration for the royals could make them a potent diplomatic tool.

RODRIGUEZ: Now, this is a tough one for Trump, just given all the headlines and what we know about it. But I mean, again, we've consistently seen him talk about this. And I think this goes beyond just the audience of one of Trump. I think this internally in Canada plays well with Canadians. I mean, so much of, you know, the debate around when Mark Carney came into office, now was him talking about, you know, that he's going to stand up for the sovereignty of Canadians. Weve seen, you know, boycotts of U.S. products. Weve seen concerns about the debates around tariffs.

So, while I think it delivers a message to Trump directly, I think it also is one that shows that there is a full force in the Canadian government and a united front and saying they're going to do everything possible, and that they are taking serious Trump's rhetoric.

TODD: I think it's a mistake, though, for the people of the United Kingdom.

[16:50:02]

I have a suspicion that Keir Starmer, the prime minister, is not happy with the king today because currently the United States and the U.K. are trying to negotiate a trade deal. The U.K. needs it worse than the United States does since Brexit. They're separate from the European Union. They desperately need a strong pact.

And what's happened is King Charles, he goes and sticks a finger in the eye of the president of United States. In the middle of these negotiations. I don't think this was good politics. I think it was King Charles\s vanity coming through instead.

RAJU: Miscalculation by the king.

BEDINGFIELD: Maybe, maybe. I think we've seen over the course of the last now, almost five months, that any time a world leader kind of stands up to Trump, they are met with a smackdown. And perhaps in the midst of this discussion, this negotiation with the E.U., it's not wise.

But at the same time, let's take a step back and ask ourselves if we -- if we're okay with the fact that we have a president of the United States whose skin is so thin that he is offended by response to rhetoric and policy that he's put in place to essentially smack around our oldest and closest ally.

So, the fact that we're even having this conversation, is troubling.

RAJU: But, Brad, why does Trump even keep talking about the 51st state? I mean, it's a united Canada against the United States. Just look at some of the numbers here. The number -- 76 percent of Canadians are boycotting American goods. That's according to the Angus Reid Forum and Canadian tourism into the United States is also down rather substantially by planes and cars because of Donald Trump saying, we're going to make this a 51st state.

TODD: Well, I think the -- I think the trade war we're having with Canada, if you can call it a war with someone so small, is in fact, one of the more head scratching moves in the trade movement.

But also, there are a lot of things Canada needs to change. They're not a real good faith partner to the United States. They spend 1.4 percent of their GDP on defense. Why? Because they use our defense for free. And so, I think there's some accountability from the Canadian government that Donald Trump should extract.

I don't think the American people want a long, drawn-out fight with Canada.

BEDINGFIELD: The other just quickly, the other curious thing about him constantly arguing for Canada to be the 51st state is would likely lead to a popular vote advantage for the Democrats and an electoral college advantage for the Democrats.

So I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure I get the immediate -- I'm not sure I get the --

RAJU: Permanent Democratic majority, perhaps, not with -- Trump was calculating here.

All right. Coming up inside the Sean "Diddy" Combs sex trafficking trial. Hear what a former employee told the jury about the time she said Diddy showed up to her home with a gun.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:57:08]

RAJU: We're now in week three of Sean "Diddy" combs federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial. Today we heard from one of Diddy's former employees who detailed her long and hostile workdays.

CNN anchor and chief legal analyst Laura Coates joins us now.

Laura, you were inside court today. Take us through the former employee's testimony, how it could help the prosecutions racketeering case.

LAURA COATES, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Manu, this was a very, very consequential witness. We heard from Capricorn Clark, who had worked for Diddy, was a part of the inner circle. Remember, for the RICO claims, the prosecution wants to establish her as an enterprise. This inner circle of people that they say were involved in a pattern of criminal behavior towards one particular end that includes the sex trafficking and other related crimes, perhaps other so-called predicate crimes.

She was so consequential today because she described her time with Diddy as somebody who was the recipient of the paranoia, recipient of someone who believed that she had stolen jewels from him and was subjected to five days worth of lie detector tests, she says inside of a building in New York that only locked from the outside.

She did not tell HR about it, was trying to prove her innocence by staying on in the job. She described herself as being kidnapped at one point when she says that Diddy learned that Kid Cudi was dating Cassie Ventura, unbeknownst to Diddy. She was taken out of her home, told to change her clothes and get into the car, which she did, saying that she had no other choice but to do so. It was not up to her whether she could actually go, and they drove to Kid Cudi home, as was testified by Kid Cudi and Cassie Ventura that Diddy had a gun on him and threatened the lives of Kid Cudi.

Now, there was a moment in the -- in the cross-examination where they questioned that fact and questioned her memory of those events in particular, because she said she was so afraid that she ended up calling somebody for help, but not law enforcement. She called actress Lauren London before then contacting Cassie and, of course, Kid Cudi about the revelation that they had been found out.

She also talked a lot, though, about her admiration as a businessman for Sean "Diddy" Combs and how she desperately wanted to work for him again, to quote, get her life back, because she talked about how she has a nonverbal autistic son and that she needed her life back in order to support him, and that Diddy at every turn appeared to her words, blacklist her from the industry following her departure.

RAJU: Very quickly, Laura, what is Diddy's demeanor been like in court?

COATES: You know, at times, he is very stoic, but he is always pushed back from that table. He was furiously writing notes at different times, saying to his counsel, and for the first time today, you saw the lead defense attorney, Marc Agnifilo, going back to consult with Diddy before closing his questioning. Diddy is very engaged.

RAJU: All right. Laura Coates doing an excellent job covering this trial. Thank you so much.

And be sure to watch the special edition of "LAURA COATES LIVE", Diddy on Trial, tonight at 11:00 p.m. Eastern.

And that does it for us.

Jake Tapper is standing by for THE LEAD.

Jake, you're in New York today.