Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
JPMorgan CEO Warns U.S. Could Be Entering Recession; White House: Dems "Trying To Concoct A Hoax" On Epstein; Just In: Supreme Court To Hear Trump Tariffs Case; White House: U.S. Warned Qatar Of "Impending Attack" By Israel, Qatari Officials Deny Being Told In Advance. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired September 09, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:02]
RUSS FERGUSON, U.S. ATTORNEY: We built a city that people want to live in, but we can lose that all if we allow violent crime like this to go on in our streets. And I'm here to tell you, the federal government is going to save our city from that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: The victim, Iryna Zarutska, was a Ukrainian immigrant who fled to the U.S. for her safety. Officials say the attack was completely unprovoked and that Brown has a lengthy criminal history. Brown's family members tell CNN he also has a history of mental health struggles. And he is also, we should note, being charged at the state level with first degree murder.
Thanks so much for joining us this afternoon.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Tuesday.
As we come on the air, the markets closing after a day rocked by shaky economic news. Take a look at this. The Dow, the S&P and the Nasdaq all closing in the green. That comes after news that job growth over the year ending in March has been much weaker than we thought.
This really looks like the markets apparently betting that an interest rate cut is even more likely after those revised numbers provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed. The economy added almost 1 million fewer jobs than were initially estimated for the year ending in March.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This revision proves two things. Number one, the president was right. And this is why we need new leadership at the Fed. And this makes it very clear that President Trump inherited a much worse economy by the Biden administration than ever reported. And it also proves that the Federal Reserve is holding our monetary policy far too restrictive. Interest rates are too high. The Fed needs to cut the rates because of the mess that we inherited from the Biden administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, she says that now we are living in Trump's economy. We're living under Trump's tariff regime. As you saw, the Trump administration yet again, blaming Joe Biden and Jerome Powell.
Trump has, of course, threatened to fire Powell because the Fed has yet to cut interest rates. He hasn't followed through on that threat, though. But he did fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics last month after a disappointing July jobs report.
Economists looking at those numbers don't see a conspiracy, though. They see a warning.
Today, the JPMorgan CEO, Jamie Dimon, looked at those same numbers that the White House gets, and he saw it this way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMIE DIMON, JPMORGAN CEO: The economy is weakening. Whether that is on the way to recession or just weakening, I don't know and that just confirms what we already thought, kind of.
REPORTER: And I know --
DIMON: That's a big revision.
They're still spending money. It's a little bit different depending on what income set they're coming from. They still have jobs. Now you just gave a big number. So consumers tend to react to that.
So the consumer is weakened. Commerce weakened. You know corporate profits are still up. And there's a lot of different factors in the economy right now. It's hard to figure out what it all means.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA.
Our panel is here. CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist and podcast host Lulu Garcia Navarro; the host of "The Chuck Toddcast", Chuck Todd; Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod; and the former senior adviser to the Trump campaign in 2024, Bryan Lanza.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
Chuck Todd, these economic warnings seem to be not just flashing, but blaring as we start to get more information here. Now, it does sound like perhaps this sounded -- started earlier than we knew about, perhaps while Joe Biden was still president, but that said, I mean, do you think the Trump is going be able to convince Americans that whatever pain they are feeling or that they're headed to, to be about to feel, is anybody but Donald Trump's fault?
CHUCK TODD, HOST OF "THE CHUCK TODDCAST": No. But let me get to the revisions because it's a reminder that when it comes to the economy, the public's perception is more likely to be the reality than any statistic, and I say this because remember the debate about vibes? Turns out the vibes were right about this. Okay? Because what people were feeling about the economy and you hear these Biden surrogates say, but look at the data, but look at the data and you're like, yeah, but people were -- people get it. And that's the other -- so which fast forward to today.
HUNT: Adrienne had to deal with this.
TODD: Of course she did.
ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: And I said a lot of that, too.
TODD: Yes. But it was -- you know, don't ignore the feelings. And the fact is, regardless of when this slowdown began, it is now on his watch. And then he is added pressures to this. I'm drinking coffee here.
You know how much more expensive coffee is today than it was, and every month it's been going up. Coffees to me are going to be the new gas price over the next six months, because we can't homegrown coffee. We're not going to be able to return the manufacturing of coffee to the United States, because we've never done it.
And it's just -- it's so its little things like the tariffs. It's other things like what we've done with the deportations, which only increased the cost of construction, which increases the cost of housing, which increases the cost of things like chicken and all sorts of things.
[16:05:11]
So, look, I -- there -- if I were in the Trump administration, I'd say, aha. See, it all started under Biden. That's nice. It's still now on your watch and your policies. It looks like now are adding on, sort of creating even more headwinds that were already there.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think the thing that to me is most interesting about these numbers is manufacturing. There is some real problems right now in the manufacturing sector that are being hit by tariffs that had started earlier, but this whole idea that somehow manufacturing was going to be resurgent, I think, is really showing a lot of weakness. And those are numbers that I look at.
We see these big numbers and these big revisions. It was the biggest revision, I think, ever. And that is serious. People understand that there are problems in the economy. But when we look at the sectors in the economy that are really being hit, that I think tells a story.
HUNT: Yeah. Well, and, Bryan Lanza, you know, the word recession, Jamie Dimon used it. He wasn't asked about that, right? I mean, the who do you -- who do you believe about the economy? Karoline Leavitt or Jamie Dimon?
BRYAN LANZA, SENIOR ADVISER, TRUMP 2024 CAMPAIGN: Yeah, listen, I believe the local mother and father that have to deal with buying gas and buying coffee. I mean, that's pretty clear as, as what Chuck said. You know, in the last campaign, we litigated of actually how good the economy was. The Biden folks says, look at the numbers. But everybody felt differently, right?
Everybody feels differently now. It's a little bit different, right. Because what you had that's happening, that didn't happen during Biden is you actually have wages going up, too. So, you have prices going up. You have wages far exceeding the growth of prices. So that's a little bit of a buffer.
But that's not much of a buffer. I mean, you we only have truly until July of next year to convince the American people that the economy is going to be in sound condition. We can blame Joe Biden for this current economic condition. His policies led to this. Trump's trying to reverse those policies. I think that's pretty clear. You can make the case that maybe Trump's adding to it.
But let's remember what the tariff conversation was all about. It was about trying to remanufacture the United States, trying to reindustrialize it. It wasn't just tariffs to bring money in and to target and punish people. It was to bring American jobs back.
And they felt the tariffs was the fastest way to do it, as opposed to the slow way of going through Congress negotiating these long term deals. And so, the policy itself was good. Tariffs are obviously having a negative effect, and some -- in some products and other products, they're not.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think the other problem though, is that -- it's not just if it was taken in isolation. Thats one thing, but it's also married to the fact that there is less money being given by the federal government to things like wind farming, to actual industries that help gird the economy, give people jobs. So, you are seeing a double-edged sword here where they're actually sort of limiting the economy in two different ways that I think is really going to show and is showing.
And I think the word recession is, is one that -- I mean, it's been a while since we've seen one, and we might be due to it -- due for one.
LANZA: But let's be -- let's be clear.
ELROD: We didn't have a recession during Biden, and by the way, I want to correct you --
LANZA: Let me say that --
ELROD: -- we did see wage growth under President Biden.
LANZA: But not enough.
ELROD: Record wage growth. Yeah, but we saw record wage growth under President Biden. And he also kept us out of having a major recession after a once in a generation pandemic, Bryan. So, let's be clear about that. LANZA: And, listen, we can debate whether Biden was the cure for that.
I think we can look at the facts and say Biden was clearly not the cure for getting us out of the economy after the pandemic.
ELROD: That's -- that's your -- that is your opinion.
LANZA: I think it's the opinion of American voters. American voters --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Well, the, quote/unquote, soft landing was certainly something --
LANZA: Was artificial, we've learned, now we know that there's nearly a million less jobs --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Well, here I -- actually -- hold on one second. To that point. I want to show you some of what Donald Trump said on the campaign trail when he was running against Joe Biden, when Biden was in office about job creation. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want to address the fake job numbers on top of everything else, fellas. Fake jobs, the fake job numbers that the Harris-Biden administration has been reporting for the last year. They were phantom jobs, they call phantom jobs.
Their job numbers last week were corrupt. Did you see, they added 818,000 fake jobs on to try and make their numbers look better.
Eight hundred and eighteen thousand phony, fake, disgusting jobs that don't exist.
They're going to revise the numbers right after the election. These are crooks, okay? They just screwed you for a million jobs in order to look better.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Adrienne, what do you make of that?
ELROD: Well, look, I think that this is why Trump is losing so much credibility. Whatever credibility he had going into this, he won -- I think he won the election largely on the fact that inflation was high, and the American people wanted to see inflation numbers go down. We are now seeing that not be the case.
HUNT: I think the point is that what some of what he said on the trail is turning out to be true here, right? Like they're having to revise these numbers downward, which I think people felt at the time.
ELROD: Yeah. Correct. But the bottom line is this I think the American people thought they were going to see inflation numbers go down, costs go down.
[16:10:00]
They did not see that under Trump. And the gig is up here. You can't -- you cannot continue to go out there credibly with any degree of credibility and say, this is Biden's fault. This is Biden's economy, because Donald Trump has been the president for eight months at this point.
LANZA: I remember Barack Obama blaming George W. Bush for four years. So, so yes, we can't --
HUNT: Voters' memories are not that long.
LANZA: Yeah.
ELROD: And to Lulu's point, we have not even seen the impact of these tariffs yet hit the economy. We're starting to see prices go up on home building on, you know, things that are affecting the economy. But we're not seeing this to a level that we will see if these tariffs go into effect, which we --
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But I think the point --
HUNT: Last word.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think the point that was being made there is the correct one, which is the economy was doing much worse than we knew. And now we are going to see the effects of that. And it is up to Donald Trump to figure out if he can --
LANZA: He's got to fix it.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: -- course correct.
HUNT: Yeah. All right.
Coming up next here, we are also following breaking news overseas. The White House now criticizing an Israeli military strike on Qatar. New reaction just coming in from Qatar's prime minister. We'll get to that.
Also coming up, what the president and Republicans are saying today about the Jeffrey Epstein birthday book that features Donald Trump's name.
Plus, those rare public comments from some members of the Supreme Court. Two justices talking in public about whether President Trump would be allowed to serve a third term, even with that thing called the 22nd Amendment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, SUPREME COURT: No one has tried to challenge that. Until somebody tries, you don't know. So it's not settled because we don't have a court case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:16:07]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: In fact, I have already seen many forensic analysts of signatures coming out. I believe it was "The Daily Signal" that published a piece with three separate signature analysts who said that this absolutely was not the president's authentic signature. And we have maintained that position all along. The president did not write this letter. He did not sign this letter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: This morning, President Trump called the Epstein birthday book a, quote, dead issue, refused to comment further. This afternoon, though White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was clear it is their position that the quite distinctive sharpie squiggle, not Donald Trump's work, that this is forgery by someone else. They're not saying who, however.
When you put it next to some signatures that we know to be Trump's, you take a look, you judge for yourself.
Now, of course, Republican Thomas Massie, who is one of the congressmen leading the push to release all of the Epstein files, has this warning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): Do you think that it does bear on the credibility of the people who are trying to keep these documents from being released? I mean, I mean, it's sort of indicative of the -- of the things that might come out if we were to release all of the files. In other words, embarrassing but --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Joining us now to discuss, Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, he sits on the House Intelligence Committee and the oversight committee that's, of course, investigating the handling of the Epstein case.
Congressman, thanks so much for being here.
I want to start there with what Congressman Massie was saying there and get your take on what else is out there. Do we anticipate that there are more things that might come out that could implicate President Trump?
REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): I don't know, but I think that it's fair to say that Mr. Massie is correct that there's probably a lot of stuff in there that people don't necessarily want others to see, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't, you know, get those documents. We got about 33,000 pages of documents, but it was largely stuff already in the public domain. And there's like terabytes, hundreds of thousands of pages, potentially, that have not been disclosed. The types of information that I'm particularly interested in are financial records.
You know, Ron Wyden, the senator from Oregon, wrote a letter saying that perhaps $1 to $2 billion in wire transactions were actually, performed in connection with this child sex trafficking ring. And so, we need to follow the money, and we need to know who received this money and who paid out the money.
HUNT: Do you buy that this is not Donald Trump's signature?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: No. I have yet to meet a single person on Capitol Hill who privately says that that was not Donald Trump's signature. I don't think that the people at "The Wall Street Journal" are probably quaking in their boots, over this lawsuit that the president has filed. It just strains credibility that it's not his signature.
HUNT: Can I also ask you, I mean, one -- one thing that some Republicans defending the president are leveling at Democrats, and it seems like a fair question. Why didn't you want this stuff to come out when you had the chance to put it out, when Democrats were in power?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think we should have. I think we should have investigated it then. I think we should investigate it now. I met with -- along with many members of the committee, the survivors of this just horrific sex trafficking ring for about two and a half hours, Kasie. I don't think, you know, if you were not moved by what they said, you're not human.
[16:20:05]
And I think it kind of just goes to show that at least three things have to happen. One, they deserve justice. Two, there has to be accountability for people who are like, literally at large, who may be connected to that child sex trafficking ring. And three, we have to figure out how to prevent this from ever happening again.
More than a thousand girls were victimized by this particular, child sex trafficking ring. And we have to figure out how to prevent this from happening.
HUNT: Did the survivors, when you met with them, say anything about what happened to Ghislaine Maxwell, considering that the Trump administration has moved her from a high security prison to a less high security prison?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: They are extremely upset. Not only that, but they were extremely upset about the platform that Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, gave to Ghislaine Maxwell in that interview, in which she was essentially allowed to rewrite parts of their history, and deny essentially the wrongdoing that occurred. And so, I think that was a tremendous mistake to give her that
platform to conduct that interview. And now, just like the survivors are saying, we have to get the files, we have to get the documents, we have to get the truth out there. It's been 20 years. It's taken way too long.
HUNT: Sir, I do want to ask you in the electoral context, because obviously the president's base of supporters had been very interested in seeing these files come out, and he had seemed to agree with them. Sarah Longwell of "The Bulwark" did a focus group with a Biden to Trump voter asking about whether this was going to matter for them in a political context. Let's watch that and we'll talk about the other side.
(BEGIN AUIDO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You can't say things about the Epstein files to get people to vote for you, and then not do anything with them, which at the end of the day, who cares? The Epstein files don't affect my paycheck or my groceries, but there's too much wishy-washy.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
HUNT: What do you make of that?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think she's right. I think you can't for years and years talk about the Epstein files. And then when it comes time to producing them, change your mind or change your tune on that particular issue. I think it -- I think that particular voter that you're talking about is going to have and I've heard this personally from my constituents as well, they're having second thoughts with regard to a range of issues involving the president in light of what's happened with the Epstein files.
They're questioning why, you know, the price of vegetables at the wholesale level went up 40 percent in one month. And why groceries are so expensive at the retail level. They're asking why these tariffs are creating so much chaos for their small businesses. Just his credibility as a president is being questioned on a number of fronts.
And I think he's giving a big kind of ounce of, I don't know, doubt in people's minds about his management when he's not even producing these Epstein files, which is kind of pretty easy to do right now.
HUNT: All right. Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, thanks very much for spending some time with us today, sir. I hope you'll come back soon.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you so much.
HUNT: All right. Our panel is back.
Chuck Todd, what do you make of what that voter had to say there? Like the way they're thinking about the fact that the administration campaigned on releasing these files, and now they're not doing it?
TODD: Well, you could foreshadow the ad in the midterm that says, here are all the things Donald Trump said he'd do this, and he said he'd do this. And he said, the golden -- you know, if you can't trust him on this, can you trust him when he says that these tariffs are going to create the golden age of the economy? Right? If you can connect the dots and if you have voters that are hearing it this way.
This is where his credibility in the Epstein files is potentially lethal. I say potentially because he's, you know, this is -- he throws so much at the wall. His ability. I mean, I -- you know, I think Karoline Leavitt has made herself put herself in quite the box to be as Orwellian as they are on this signature and all this stuff. It kind of looks --
HUNT: It seems like the MAGA media sphere is buying, though.
TODD: It is sort of accepting it, but it really does sort of -- I think that's the riskier move. And I go back, I think there's going to be communications classes that are going to look and say, why do you not do full denials? Yes. You think you live in an environment where you can control things if you have a bubble, but when you do full denial, then you make -- he could have said yes, I knew Epstein, and of course, and then this stuff comes out and it wouldn't have -- it wouldn't have hit as hard.
This is hitting harder and getting more attention because he's denying it. Right? I really think this has been a real PR mismanagement.
[16:25:02]
It all goes to Donald Trump and those -- there's nobody around him that tells him first term Trump I think would have handled this differently. Second term Trump, everybody just lets him do these crazy things.
HUNT: I mean, Bryan Lanza, how much you know, this is if there has ever been an issue where Donald Trump's base has had questions for him about what he's doing, it's this and it's in no small part because the nature of this is one that says, well, our powers that be conspire to hurt vulnerable people and protect the powerful. And in this case, Donald Trump is one of the powerful.
LANZA: Yeah. Listen, I think this issue may be, you know, was able to catch fire at the end of Q2. You had a lot of coverage about it from the base. You had people from the base reaching out, like what's going on with Donald Trump?
I think today, I hear from nobody from the base on this issue. I think they've looked at this issue as something that the Democrats have decided to co-opt. They cared nothing about this issue for the better part of 20 years.
You heard the congressman just say, I recently met with the victims. The victims have been around for 20 years. What took you so long?
And so, from the standpoint of how is the base reacting today, I think they've gone to the point where they believe that, you know, Trump, you know, is done, is not going to do anything more. But more importantly, the Dems have decided to weaponize this issue and they don't want to give them that weapon to hurt Trump. And they've just moved on.
I've dealt with pollsters. I've been in focus groups. This is never in the top 15 issues of open-ended questions like, you know, without us giving you any issues, what do you think are the most important questions? Nobody brings up Epstein.
HUNT: Yeah, Lulu, let's watch a little bit more from the or listen to a little bit more from the focus group, because there is some more meat on this bone.
Let's listen.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The other thing that was a big thing for me, that this made me regret me voting for him was the disappearance of the Epstein client list. That was like one of the things that he ran on. And I was -- that was like the thing that sold me on voting for him a lot of ways.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It just made me so disappointed, hugely disappointed. It's the biggest disappointment that I've had with him so far.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: These are swing voters, people that voted for Biden.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah. I agree with everyone that this is not going to be -- no, but that this is not going to be the issue that swings the election. But what it has is this accretion, right? It's like there's this thing underneath it that it's clearly a problem. He promised to do something he didn't do. This is a really bad guy.
That picture is very damning. I mean, regardless of where you might fall on the spectrum of if you believe Trump or if you don't believe Trump, it is very damning. At first, he said it didn't even exist. It clearly exists and it came from Epstein's own sort of estate.
So, it's a drip, drip. We know this with voters, right? Theres never one thing that breaks you. It's just a kind of thing that happens over time.
And I think Epstein -- it's a popular issue. It's one word people understand it, they see it, they know about it. And so, I actually think -- yeah, it's not going to be that that breaks people. But it is an underlying issue that's going to haunt him. I believe.
HUNT: Adrienne, is -- what Democrats are doing here ultimately hurting the overall cause. Is it making it easier for Donald Trump and Donald Trump's base to be able to say, well, look, this isn't actually true, because look at all these Democrats who didn't, you know, give a crap about this before. ELROD: It's a good question. I think at the end of the day, though,
this is not something that really affects Democratic voters. This is something that affects the MAGA base. And I don't know what polls you're seeing, the polls I'm seeing are -- is this something that the MAGA base still very deeply cares about.
It has fractured the base. It may not be one of the top 2 or 3 issues that voters are voting on, but to Lulu's point, it is something is the drip, drip, drip. It is the underlying factor that hinders Trump's credibility because he said he was going to release this information. He didn't do it.
Now, I will also say, I think the congressman saying that he wishes Democrats had done this when you asked him this question that we had released the files, I wish we had done that.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Why didn't --
ELROD: Well, I don't know.
(CROSSTALK)
ELROD: I think one of the reasons --
LANZA: Let's be honest, it's Bill Clinton.
ELROD: No, that is not the case.
LANZA: He was on the Lolita express. For all we know, he's been on the island like Bill Clinton --
ELROD: I think the reason why we didn't do it, why the Biden DOJ didn't do it, is because the MAGA base would have said, oh, they doctored these files. They like -- they they amended them like or they redacted information.
Okay, you can believe what you want to believe.
LANZA: I was a clear supporter, I remember the era.
ELROD: I definitely don't think that is the case.
HUNT: I will say that they did go along with subpoenaing in the committee. Democrats when they went along and voted for this.
But unfortunately, we have to take a break. Coming up next, growing confusion over who was told and when they were told about Israel's attack in Qatar, with the White House saying the strike is not moving the region closer to peace.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): There is no answer to Gaza until Hamas disarms and leaves, or is defeated militarily, and that needs to happen by the end of this year. I told Israelis, wrap this up one way or the other. (END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:34:16]
HUNT: All right. We have some breaking news just in here to CNN from the Supreme Court. It's pretty significant. And it looks at the tariffs that were put in place by President Trump.
Let's get to CNN's Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic.
Joan, what is the Supreme Court going to do here?
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Very big news. They've decided to take the Trump administration up on its request to fast track the tariffs case. You remember that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the federal circuit had said that Donald Trump had exceeded his authority when he imposed these liberation day tariffs.
But -- and the Trump administration came up to the court and said, don't wait to hear this appeal in the normal course. Take it right away.
And today, the justices have announced that indeed, they will take up this case sooner rather than later.
[16:35:05]
They've required fast track briefing. So, the administration and the challengers to Donald Trump's tariffs are going to be submitting briefs over the next couple of weeks. And then in mid-November, the justices will hear the case.
And, Kasie, given the path that the justices are putting this case on, normally, as you know, Supreme Court cases take months of briefing before the oral arguments. They'll hear oral arguments in November. And we could conceivably have a ruling by the end of the calendar year, as opposed to a ruling in the normal course of things that would have taken us to June 2026.
And what Donald Trump's lawyers had said, Kasie, was, if you wait, Supreme Court till next June, which would be the normal course of things, we're going to -- we might be on the hook for billions of dollars that have been collected in these tariffs. That will then have to be rolled back. So, what they did was try what the administration did was really try to point up the importance of a resolution on this.
And the Trump administrations lawyers, as well as the challengers' lawyers also had urged the court to take it up sooner rather than later, just because of the uncertainty out there. And just to remind everyone, these tariffs, the tariffs, you know, there's been so many tariffs that the administration has imposed, these date back to what was known as liberation day back in April against goods from China, Mexico and Canada. And where Donald Trump had tried to use his powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the lower appeals court here had said, no, that you -- you overread the powers that the executive would have in that law from the 1970s. And if you want to impose tariffs, you're going to have to do them another way.
But bottom line is the constitution does give congress the main authority for tariffs. So, the Trump administration was trying to have an exception. And this exception may fly with the Supreme Court now. But the ruling that's on the books from the appeals court said no, it won't.
But here's another thing for as a pocketbook issue, the tariffs that are in place right now will remain until the Supreme Court rules.
HUNT: Really interesting.
All right. Let's bring in CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.
Kristen, what are we hearing from the White House on this?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: We haven't gotten a reaction yet. This is just breaking news. Of course, we've reached out to hear what exactly they're going to say, but they wanted this to be taken up by the Supreme Court.
In fact, you heard Joan there talking about some of the things that the lawyer for the Trump administration had said. At one point. They said that these earlier rulings were decisions that could destroy or threaten to destroy the United States.
And so, what you're seeing here is really setting up, laying the table for the biggest legal test that Trump's tariffs are going to face. And it's not just tariffs, it is Trump's complete overhaul of the U.S. trade system. The way that we have done trade for years.
And this is what the administration was hoping for to get this in front of the Supreme Court to continue with those tariffs. There are a lot of questions. If you talk to experts as to whether or not this is going to be a case that they rule in favor of the administration on. There are a lot of questions, even among conservatives, when it comes to these tariffs and to the presidential power over them.
So, it's going to be something, obviously, to watch closely and wait and see. President Trump thinks that most things, as he has made clear that go to the Supreme Court, are going to be ruled in his favor, which we have seen a number of cases go in the favor of the Trump administration. But with this one, there are a lot of questions as to how these justices would actually come down when it comes to tariffs.
And, Kasie, just one more point in all of this. This is the backbone of almost his entire economic strategy here. I mean, this is really where it comes down to. President Trump saying they're making billions of dollars from these tariffs, waging the relationships and the status of the United States in these various fights over trade. I mean, this is -- this is a very critical part of President Trump's legacy and his administration and what he has been trying to do. So, this sets up a big legal battle around that for him. HUNT: Joan Biskupic -- I mean, what's -- what's your sense of where
the justices might come down on this? Because they have been pretty deferential to executive power, at least with President Trump. There have been a few notable exceptions to that, but they've been pretty few and far between.
BISKUPIC: Very few and far between. And in fact, you know, we just had that ruling yesterday, you know, in the in the L.A., you know, roving patrols case, you know, in areas of immigration and deportations and the firing of independent agency officials, those are places where it's clear the Roberts court is all in with the Trump administration.
This one is trickier, in part for some reasons that Kristen just put her finger on is that, you know, a lot of times, you know, conservatives and Republicans have been against tariffs. You know, it's a -- it's an important economic, economic issue here.
[16:40:01]
And the law that Donald Trump cited to impose these liberation day tariffs, you know, that was -- it just -- seems like he over -- overread his authority under that and had to say not only that tariffs could fit for the first time in history under that law, but also that he was declaring an emergency and an emergency in this case. He said it was related to the drug crisis.
And, you know, the Supreme Court might read some broader executive branch authority into the law in question here. But will it say that there could be an emergency, in this kind of situation? Because that could down the road, lead presidents to say that that drug emergency may be a climate, a climate emergency. Some of the justices might feel that this is -- this would really open the door too much. And as I'm sure our economics reporters would tell you, that there are other ways for Donald Trump to get what he wants on the tariff front and not necessarily through this portion of the law that he used in these particular cases -- Kasie.
HUNT: Well, to that point, let's bring in CNN anchor, chief domestic correspondent Phil Mattingly on this.
Phil, what -- what do you think this means from that perspective? The tariffs are going to remain in place. And of course, the sort of overarching question about certainty, right. Like the markets are desperate for it. This seems to throw more uncertainty into the mix.
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, I'm going to try and ignore Joan just trying to bait me into going Section 232, Section 301. It is true that they have other options if this ends up being struck down, those other options are more arduous, more labor intensive. And there's a reason they went this route.
I think when you talk to market participants, uncertainty has been kind of the coin of the realm for the better part of nine months. How many times have you and I talked about it? Pretty much every time I'm on your show. And I think there is an understanding that that's going to be the case, because even if they weren't waiting for the Supreme Court on these tariffs, there's still uncertainty.
There may be a new deal. He may slap tariffs on. It's kind of the reality on some level. The question I think a lot of people have when you talk about market participants, but importers in particular right now is if this gets struck down, this is tens of billions of dollars in refunds. How the administration would do that, what that would mean in the near term. I think there's a lot of question about it.
It's possible smaller scale refunds have happened before, but this scale, particularly with a probably rather upset administration, would be complicated for those individuals.
I think the other thing, too, Kristen, made this point. I think it's such a good one. This is the -- this is the backbone of the entire the administrations entire economic agenda. This is the backbone of how the president conducts foreign policy. This is 70 plus percent of the tens of billions of dollars in new tariff revenue that they've brought in over the course of the last six and a half months.
This is helping calm bond markets, concerned about the tax cut package, because it's going to bring in an extra $3 trillion in revenue over the course of 10 years at a minimum, the way things are right now. And so, I think this is not just a potentially very, very disruptive issue. Scott Bessent, in a filing with the Supreme Court, said maybe between $750 billion and $1 trillion in total, if it gets struck down.
But I think that this is the type of thing that completely reorients and administrations entire economic agenda and how the world deals with the U.S., which would be very different than we've seen in the last nine months.
HUNT: All right. Phil Mattingly, Kristen Holmes, Joan Biskupic, thanks so much for jumping in on this story.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:48:04]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
President Trump has just made his first comments on Israels strike targeting Hamas negotiators in Qatar this morning. In a long Truth Social post, the president says this, quote, "This was a decision made by Prime Minister Netanyahu. It was not a decision made by me." He adds that he directed his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to tell the Qataris about the impending attack, but that it was too late to stop it.
Here was Qatar's prime minister just a few minutes ago in Doha.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHEIKH MOHAMMED BIN ABDULRAHMAN BIN JASSIM AL-THANI, QATARI PRIME MINISTER: The attack happened at 3:46. The first call we had from an American official was at 3:56, which is 10 minutes after the attack.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Former NATO supreme allied commander and CNN senior military analyst, the retired Admiral James Stavridis joins us now.
Admiral, always wonderful to have you on the program. Thank you so much for being here.
This is a remarkable string of events here. And to have the president say that Netanyahu made this decision, not me, tries to get Witkoff to tell the Qataris, how do you -- I mean, it seems like under other circumstances, the U.S. might have been solidly with the Israelis under, you know, no matter what. But this seems a little bit more ambiguous.
How do you understand and explain what's going on?
ADMIRAL JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: Well, first, we need to remember that Doha, the capital of Qatar, where these strikes occurred hosts the largest U.S. military base in the entire region. And so, the U.S. has significant military and strategic interests in maintaining good relations with the Qataris, who I've been in and out of that base too many times to count. They are absolutely terrific hosts.
So, I think that's what you're seeing President Trump quite correctly do, is try and smooth out to some degree with the Qataris.
[16:50:00]
Let's flip the table, Kasie, I think the question is, what's the impact on Israel of these strikes? Tactically, I think it's potentially the end of the road for the hostages. I certainly hope not. But their situation is going to be dire in the days ahead.
Operationally, I think this will kind of green light the Israeli operations in Gaza, continuing to drop major apartment complexes, subdue the entire Gaza City. That's a tall order. But this is showing the Israelis' intent to do that.
And then finally, I think strategically, this is going to put pressure on the U.S.-Israeli relationship, pressure on the Israeli relationships with the Europeans and a lot of pressure on Israeli relations with their Arab partners in the Middle East.
So, it's a pretty big bill for the Israelis to have conducted this strike.
HUNT: I mean, that just leaves me wondering, Admiral. I mean, why did Benjamin Netanyahu do this?
STAVRIDIS: Because he truly hates Hamas. He thinks that by showing Hamas there are no options for you, even if you can get out of Gaza, altogether, we will find you and hunt you down and kill you unless you come to the negotiating table. So, if you put yourself in Benjamin Netanyahu's shoes, he probably
feels like he has very little left to lose with his allies. He can put pressure on Hamas, and he can ultimately inform his right-wing base that he's going after and killing Hamas and continuing to avenge October 7th. That's his perspective on it.
But I suspect it's going to end up again, being a pretty significant operational, tactical and strategic bill for Israel to fill.
HUNT: I want to bring Chuck Todd into this conversation, Admiral.
Chuck, I mean, the president also has accepted a jet from Qatar. There are other aspects of this. How do you see this decision and how do you think it impacts U.S. relationships with Netanyahu?
TODD: Well, it's crystal clear that the Israelis weren't going to ask for permission from the United States because the United States was going to say no. So, they decided to do what they did to, quote/unquote, ask for forgiveness after the fact.
You see what the president is doing. You can't help but ask yourself, how much does that plane impact how -- all of a sudden -- he is, you know, he's in that same response. He's talking about sweeteners for Qatar and creating a defense strategic defense cooperation agreement, having all of that.
And what this really could destroy, you know, one of his best foreign policy legacy, as far as I'm concerned, are the Abraham accords. And he wants to get the Saudis on board. He's got UAE, you know, UAE is now threatening the way the Israelis are dealing with the -- with the Palestinian situation.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: This is a giant --
TODD: UAE is saying this could blow it all up.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Giant middle finger from Bibi Netanyahu to the president of the United States.
HUNT: The fifth president in a row he's done this to.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah, I'm not saying that -- I'm not saying that it -- that he doesn't do it to everyone. I'm just saying he's done it to this one, too. And this is going to have big repercussions because ultimately, this president did come in saying he was going to solve these conflicts. And instead, what we're seeing in a completely unconstrained Bibi Netanyahu doing whatever he likes.
HUNT: Admiral, can I get you to weigh in on that as the -- as the last word here. Is this Bibi Netanyahu doing whatever he wants?
STAVRIDIS: Oh, absolutely. And he's been in power forever by U.S. standards. And over time, he has gotten very comfortable with doing exactly what he wants to do.
I'll close with this. If you put yourself in the shoes of Hamas at this point, they're going to fight to the death. I mean, this is like Sun Tzu went on a ground fight.
So, the Israelis are showing them, no matter what, we're going to find you and kill you, and we're coming after you in Gaza City. Thats going to be --
HUNT: I think, unfortunately, we have lost Admiral James Sstavridis. So, we will say our thanks to him.
But, Chuck, I mean, there you have it. He's doing whatever he wants.
TODD: Look, and he's got his own plane. Here's the thing. This doesn't -- this isn't necessarily popular domestically in Israel, right? He's dealing with a growing opposition of Israeli.
HUNT: Is it really just all about him? Is it all about his political survival?
TODD: It's all about his personal survival, and more importantly, in order to keep that coalition together, right, he's moved it further to the right. They're not interested in a -- forget two-state solution. They're not interested in having the Palestinians --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But there's something else at play, too. As a longtime Middle East correspondent. This is, I think, Bibi Netanyahu sees and the far right in Israel sees this as the best opportunity to actually push forward what they like, which is to get Palestinians out of what they consider to be Eretz, Israel.
[16:55:09]
HUNT: All right. With that, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks to all of you at home for watching. Thanks to my panel for spending the afternoon with us. Really appreciate it.
And if you at home miss any of todays show, you can always catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. Just go ahead, scan the QR code below. You can follow along @TheArenaCNN.
But don't go anywhere. "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.
