Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump: I'll Fire Fed Chair Powell If He Stays Past Term On May 15; Former AG Bondi Faces Contempt Threat After Dodging Subpoena; Justice Dept. Moves To Dismiss January 6 Seditious Conspiracy Convictions For Proud Boys, Oath Keepers; Iran Threatens Shutdown Of Shipping Operations Amid U.S. Blockade; Mother Tosses Children From Window Of Burning G.A. Apartment. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired April 15, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right. Thanks to my panel. Really appreciate you all being here. Thanks you at home for watching as well. But don't go anywhere.

Phil Mattingly is still standing by for "The Lead."

Hi, Phil.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Kasie. Thanks so much. We'll look for more tomorrow in "The Arena."

HUNT: Have a great day.

[17:00:36]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: It's tax day. People are getting bigger refunds. But that's not the only major money news today. The Lead starts right now.

The feds turned away at the Federal Reserve as they try and investigate its chairman, Jerome Powell. Today, President Trump's new threat against the Fed chair if he doesn't leave in exactly one month. That's when his term is up. Plus, despite the pushback, the president keeping the Jesus controversy alive, this time calling his latest post, quote, "quite nice." And a mother's desperate decision during a fire, tossing her children from a third story apartment window to firefighters waiting below.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TANASIA GRANT, MOTHER WHO SAVED CHILDREN FROM APARTMENT FIRE: Can I drop them nicely (ph)? I cannot breath.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come here. Come here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: We'll speak with that mother here on The Lead. Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper. We start and our money lead the Cornerstone Independence of the central bank, the U.S. Federal Reserve, today it's headed for another major stress test. Just one month from today on May 15, Jerome Powell's term as Fed chairman is set to expire. Now, Powell has promised to stay on the job as chairman pro tem until a successor is confirmed, saying that is what the law calls for. But in a new interview that aired today on Fox Business, President Donald Trump was asked what would happen if Powell does stay.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And I'll have to fire him. OK. If he's not leaving on time, I've held back firing him. I've wanted to fire him, but I hate to be controversial, you know?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: It is not clear whether Trump has the authority to fire Powell. He's considered it and been dissuaded from doing so because of that lack of authority many times in the past. And Powell also has the option to remain on the Fed board because his chairmanship ends in May. But his Fed governor seat actually isn't up until 2028. Now, if that wasn't complicated enough, here's what really makes it all complicated.

The Justice Department's criminal investigation into Powell is centered on accusations that he lied to Congress last year about the Fed's $2.5 billion renovation of its headquarters. It followed Trump's repeated criticism of Powell. And Powell has strongly rebuked the investigation, calling it politicized. Earlier this month, a federal judge blocked subpoenas from the Justice Department, saying the investigation appeared to be a political vendetta. That, however, has not stopped the Justice Department from trying to keep the probe going.

In fact, just yesterday, two federal prosecutors showed up at the Fed's headquarters asking for a tour of the renovation site. The building contractor turned them away, referring them to Fed attorneys. Now, Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina posted a picture of the three stooges and wrote the U.S. attorney's office for D.C. at the crime scene. And while that's very interesting because it's a Republican criticizing the Trump administration in real time, what makes it far more interesting is Tillis has said if the investigation is not dropped, he will hold up the confirmation of Kevin Warsh, Trump's replacement for Powell.

Today, Senate Majority Leader John Thune appears to be able to count and know that without Tillis, this can't go anywhere. This is what he told CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD), SENATE MAJORITY: At some point, they're going to have to deal with the committee and they're going to have to deal with Tillis. And I think it's in everybody's best interest to wrap up the investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Let's bring in the panel, CNN Chief Legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tom Dupree, and former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou, founder of the Public Integrity Project.

OK, Paula.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

MATTINGLY: This investigation, subpoenas were quashed. Jeanine Pirro, who's running it from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office, said they're going to appeal. They want to keep going.

REID: Yes.

MATTINGLY: Obviously, two of her people showed up at the Fed yesterday unsuccessfully.

REID: Yes.

MATTINGLY: What's happening here?

REID: Look, this investigation is ongoing and it will continue because there is an open attorney general seat currently. Now it's being occupied by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. But there are a few folks who are hoping he's just kind of keeping it warm, that they, too, might be considered. And Jeanine Pirro is one of those people who appears at least to maybe be auditioning for that job. And what's interesting about those subpoenas is the day they were quashed, usually if a judge quashes your subpoenas, maybe you're a little embarrassed, but you could always appeal.

The woman held a press conference. And at the time I called it an audition for the job of Attorney General Pam Bondi was still in that post, but she's proving to the boss, to the president, that she is going to fight. Obviously, he is upset with Jerome Powell. This is the kind of investigation that he wants to see. Even if it won't ultimately be successful, even if it's criticized as being clearly political, this will continue because this is how you get promoted in the Trump administration.

[17:05:23]

MATTINGLY: You unflinchingly. We were on air together after that press conference, and that was the first thing you went to. And I was like, all right, (inaudible).

REID: Covered DOJ for a decade. I'm just like --

MATTINGLY: Those are stuff. She's just saying --

REID: Yes.

MATTINGLY: -- saying what is very obviously the case.

Tom, I think beyond the, like, biggest own goal in the history of ever. Like Kevin Warsh has -- I want to be very clear about this. Kevin Warsh has a majority of Republican support to be confirmed, and he could be confirmed before Powell's term is up if this investigation goes away. I'm trying to think through why there isn't somebody or something causing the administration to say, hey, let's -- let this one go.

TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTNAT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, there may be wiser heads, cooler heads, working behind the scenes to try to reach some sort of resolution. Because to your point, it does seem like there would be a pathway for allowing wars to come in, take over from Powell, and the investing goes -- investigation goes away, and everything is wrapped up. But I do think that's what's driving this, is the president has made abundantly clear that he does not want to abandon this potential prosecution of Powell. That was the reason Pam Bondi got fired. That was a message that resonated loud and clear throughout the Justice Department, that if you want to keep your job, if you want to ascend to a new job, you've got to get results.

And in President Trump's ledger, getting results means achieving the prosecution of his political enemies.

MATTINGLY: You know, it's -- another result is having Kevin Warsh's fed chair on May 16, which they could get if they drop the prosecution. I feel like --

BRENDAN BALLOU, FOUNDER, PUBLIC INTEGRITY PROJECT: It all comes together.

MATTINGLY: -- I just keep saying this with like -- this has -- someone has to be connecting these dots here. One of the questions that I've had is, look, there's a supreme case being considered right now with Lisa Cook, a Fed governor who the president tried to fire. We watched the arguments together or listened to the arguments together live when they happened. The conservative justices were just as skeptical, I think, of the administration's view on this as the Democratic appointees were -- the authority to fire the Fed chair, does he have it?

BALLOU: No. So, you know, as you said, they have already tried this as a test run in trying to fire Lisa Cook. The statute is very clear you need to be fired for a cause, and that cause needs to be related to what your actual job responsibilities are. There's absolutely nothing in this investigation so far that has revealed that Jerome Powell is in any way derelict in his duties.

If I could just add one thing, as a former prosecutor here, you know, this is inept on so many levels. You know, we've touched on some of these. But one of the last people that you want at the site of an investigation typically is an actual prosecutor. What you normally want is the FBI to be there. And actually having Jeanine Pirro send DOJ AUSAs, Assistant US Attorneys instead of FBI agents or not only FBI agents, means that those prosecutors could become fact witnesses in any future investigation. So, you know, any defense lawyer is going to be calling them as a witness, trying to get their e-mails and so forth. So, you know, you said this is an audition for Attorney General. It seems to be, at least on a legal level, a very inept one.

MATTINGLY: And also those are the same two AUSAs who were sending e- mails to the Fed over the Christmas holiday that sparked the subpoenas, because this whole thing is kind of bonkers.

You mentioned Pam Bondi.

REID: Yes.

MATTINGLY: Switching gears a little bit here, but the House Oversight Committee Democrats are pushing to hold Bondi in contempt for dodging her subpoena on the -- on the Epstein issue. Could this actually get her to testify now that she's gone?

REID: Look, it's unclear.

MATTINGLY: Is she gone?

REID: Yes, she is no longer attorney general.

MATTINGLY: OK.

REID: Todd Blanche has moved into her office. There's a little bit of transition that has to happen, but physically, spiritually, Todd Blanche is running the Justice Department and auditioning for this job.

Now, the question here is, what do you want to achieve on the Hill, right? I was up there when Todd and Pam both went to try to, I think, stave off this subpoena. They talked to lawmakers behind closed doors. Democrats didn't ask any questions. They said they only wanted to ask questions of her in a sworn deposition that would be released to the public.

Republicans asked some questions, but the idea of contempt is getting sort of a mixed reaction from Democrats. So what do they want to do? Is it probably worth it to get Pam Bondi to answer some questions about what the hell happened over the last year and a half when it comes to the Epstein files? Yes, that's probably great for the historical record. But when we talk about victims and getting answers for them about what is going on at DOJ?

What is next? What else can we get? They've already told us there aren't any current criminal open investigations. The person who can probably best answer those questions is Todd Blanche, because he oversaw the review of those documents. He's currently in charge of the Justice Department.

Will Republicans want to subpoena him? It remains to be seen. But at this point, they need to decide what exactly they want to do. Do you just want to cause trouble for the administration? Do you want to show your constituents that you care about these victims and you're not going to let powerful people get away with this?

[17:10:02]

You need to make a political calculus here about your next step.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's a really important point. I actually want to ask both of you about this, because the Justice Department is moving to dismiss the January 6th related seditious conspiracy convictions of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. They are, of course, the only people who still face charges for the Capitol riot, given Trump pardoned literally everybody else.

Tom, just to start with you, kind of your reaction to this move?

DUPREE: Well, I'm not shocked. I mean, the President has signaled that he thinks these people have been treated unfairly, and he also has not hesitated to direct the Justice Department to take whatever steps he deems appropriate to either vacate convictions, drop pending prosecutions, and the like. But look, I will say, as someone who generally respects the rule of law, that what's really being questioned here by the Justice Department is not the judgment of Biden era prosecutors, but frankly, the judgment of jurors and judges, dozens of them, hundreds of them, throughout the system, who all looked at these cases, who looked at the evidence, who looked at the facts, rendered convictions, and then those convictions were passed upon in most cases, if not all cases, by a federal judge. So I don't think it's quite right to say that these were all political vendetta prosecutions. These were tested, they were means tested by the judges, by the juries.

And so to set them all aside doesn't sit right with me.

MATTINGLY: Brendan.

BALLOU: I mean, I spent two years being on the team that prosecuted January 6 rioters. I was a very small part of that team. There were a lot of us involved. But to see this is obviously horrifying, and I think it lays the foundation for more extreme acts. You know, one is the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers trying to sue the government for monetary damages, which would be a great way for the Trump administration to essentially fund paramilitary and militia organizations that are allied to him, but beyond the reach of the law I think it also is part of a broader effort to rewrite the history of January 6th for a very specific reason, which is that if Donald Trump is able to get people to either forget about January 6th or worse yet condone January 6th, then he knows he's going to be able to convince people to accept any attack on democracy.

So this isn't just about the past, it's about the future.

MATTINGLY: Brendan, Tom, Paula, you guys, there's a lot going on in your world, so I appreciate you guys very much.

Well, on the Iran war today President Trump says Chinese leader Xi Jinping of all people will want to give him a, quote, "big fat hug." Yes, that's actually in Truth Social post. We're going to get in to what in the world that's all about.

Plus, two weeks in a row now a public appearance by first lady Melania Trump. Her big announcement this time on Capitol Hill ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:16:15]

MATTINGLY: In our world lead, the Trump administration feels, quote, "good" about the possibility of a deal between the U.S. and Iran. A second round of negotiations is expected sometime soon. In the meantime, there's still serious concern over the global economic fallout. On Truth Social today, President Trump wrote, quote, "China is very happy that I am permanently opening the Strait of Hormuz. I am doing it for them also, and the world."

Adding, "They have agreed not to send weapons to Iran. President Xi will give me a big fat hug when I get there in a few weeks."

But at the White House today, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports goes beyond the Strait of Hormuz.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This includes all Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. We are supporting the freedom of navigation, just not with respect to any tanker or vessel that would benefit the economy of Iran as these negotiations continue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Joining us now is the former British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. He's now the president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee. And I want to start with what is and isn't going through the Strait of Hormuz right now because there's a blockade, obviously there is the threat that Iran has repeated over and over again over the course of the last six weeks about ships transiting, particularly those who don't go through their route as being told monetarily as they do. So what is stuck right now and what is actually moving in your sense?

DAVID MILIBAND, FORMER BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY: Well, obviously, the oil and gas is stuck. You've covered that a lot yourself. Fertilizer, 30 percent of the world's fertilizer goes through the Straits of Hormuz. And at the moment, that is well and truly stuck. Also, people don't know that there is a humanitarian hub, the global setting for humanitarian goods, medical supplies, critical food supplies, malnutrition supplies.

That's in Dubai, so that's stuck as well. And it's because of that choke point that we're saying, look, we've had this for six weeks. We desperately need a humanitarian corridor. This is a call on all sides of the conflict. No one can be against allowing humanitarian goods, fertilizer, critical food supplies for kids who are starving, medical supplies to get through there.

That humanitarian corridor is literally a lifesaver, because at the moment in West Africa, the fertilizer is not going onto the ground. We're priming a time bomb, a famine time bomb to go off in June. My own organization, $130,000 worth of medical supplies stuck in that humanitarian hub in Dubai. They're needed in Sudan, where there's a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions.

MATTINGLY: Have you gotten a response to the proposal yet? I guess to Karoline Leavitt's point of, look, freedom of navigation strait is open minus the blockade. I assume that's not necessarily tracking with what you've seen.

MILIBAND Well, we're all lulled into a full sense of security before February 28th because there was freedom. Dubai was chosen as a humanitarian hub because, well, we've got confidence that freedom of navigation is everyone's interest. We're saying, when it comes to these humanitarian goods, surely no one can object to those going through. No one's going to threaten those ships when they're going through.

MATTINGLY: The president's Truth Social post about Chinese leader Xi Jinping, the hugging part when he goes to Beijing aside, it has been interesting. I think there was a sense inside the administration from folks that I talked to that to the extent they miscalculated on Iran's willingness to close the strait, to do what they've always said they would do in the midst of an existential crisis for the regime that China has not stepped in or made calls diplomatically behind the scenes and saying, look, we -- our energy is very reliant on this. You cannot close it. Do you think that will change in the days and weeks ahead?

MILIBAND: Well, we know that the Chinese have stockpiled for this very carefully. So they've planned for this. We also know that the Chinese relationships are global and they are hedging all around the place.

[17:20:07]

I also read, and I think this was pretty well sourced, that when it came to the push for the ceasefire, because the ceasefire, at least in Iran is still in place, the Chinese did push on that. They did step in. So I thought that was quite interesting. Obviously the president's visit next month is important. It's beginning to loom.

He won't want to put it off again.

MATTINGLY: What's your view right now on how U.S. Alliances have navigated this moment? In particular, obviously, Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister of the U.K., I want to play something he said. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: It is not our war. And a lot of pressure has been applied to me to take a different course. I'm not going to change my mind. I'm not going to yield. It is not in our national interest to join this war and we will not do so.

I know where I stand.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Historically there have been divergences when U.S. driven conflicts are occurring with their allies in the U.K. But the effort by the U.K., France, other European countries to try and think through how to reopen the strait, but it seems to be going in parallel to the U.S. no overlap whatsoever, how does that reach an outcome?

MILIBAND: Well, I think that the pressure from Europe, the pressure from Asia, from allies of the U.S. is to make this cease fire stick and to get back to the status quo ante. From a -- from a European point of view, the number one security threat is Russia. The big winner from the war is Russia. That's why they were against the war from the beginning. They could see how an oil price hike would benefit the Russians and that's absolutely critical as one thinks through this.

Secondly, the economics of this are very, very difficult for Europe. It's more exposed on the energy front. You've covered this yourself. I mean, this is a stagflationary hit on the European economy and that's why there's so much passion on this. I think they do want to -- they're always trying to take the -- any sense of animus out of this.

They're trying to be very practical. That's why they've got this 40 nation group trying to work on how you keep the straits open. But it's after a ceasefire is agreed.

MATTINGLY: Yes. The critical point there, keeping animus out with President Trump complicated on some level. David Miliband, really appreciate your time, the work you and your organization are doing as well. Thanks so much for coming.

MILIBAND: Thanks very much.

MATTINGLY: Still ahead, the decision of a desperate mother tossing her children from the window of an apartment building on fire. Days after the terrifying moments that mother will join us next here on The Lead. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:27:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRANT: Can I drop the them nicely (ph)? I cannot breath.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come here. Come here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, move.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (Inaudible)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have to push.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on. You OK? Christ.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: A heart stopping moment. That was Sunday morning in Savannah, Georgia as smoke and flames engulfed that apartment building. As police arrived on the scene first you can hear the mom begging to throw her two daughters from a third floor down to the officers. Then even when everyone was on the ground, another moment of panic.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, your kids are fine. Your kids are fine. I got your kids.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Unfathomable as a parent to think through that. The mother who made that split second decision joining me now.

Tanasia Grant, I really appreciate your time. I can't tell you how grateful I am that everyone is OK. Just to start, tell us about that moment. Waking up to the smoke and the flames.

GRANT: It was about 3:30 in the morning. I kind of woke up because I smelled something. I sat up in the bed, and something told me to get up. I got up and I opened the room door, and the front door was on fire. I called for my brother.

He came out of his room, and once he turned the corner, he realized that the door was on fire. He went into his bedroom. He looked over at his balcony, which is in his bedroom. He thought we would be able to get out that way. And the balcony was already on fire.

So I thought quick. I thought about my kids. I went back into the room where we were sleeping. I grabbed the girls out of the bed, and my brother was up in the window at the time. I thought just to get my kids out, and it was something that I had to do.

My brother went out doing the first, and he was hanging from the windowsill on the outside. And I looked down. It was really far. And I thought that I just had to get my kids to safety. My brother went to lower them down after he jumped down, but he wasn't able to jump down because that's just how far it was.

So I kind of thought I just needed to get them out. I asked my brother, should I throw them down? We seen two officers. They got out the car first. I was yelling help to signal them where we were.

They came over. I asked, could I throw my kids down? I was devastated, and I'm heartbroken. I threw my youngest down first. She was terrified. My oldest, she would not let me go. And she was the second that I had to let go. She went out the window and she caught onto my brother. My brother told her to let go so she would be able to be caught by the officers.

MATTINGLY: And I just --

GRANT: And I just --

[17:30:00]

MATTINGLY: Yes, I just wanted to ask, how's everybody doing?

GRANT: We are all fine. We're taking it day by day, but we are fine. My kids are traumatized, and I can tell you I'm traumatized. It was very detrimental for me.

MATTINGLY: Well, what you did was heroic in a moment that no parent I can ever think of would want to be in. And you saved your kids' lives. They're safe. And as much as I know you guys are going through right now, we can't be more grateful for that reality and your heroism. Tanasia Grant, I really appreciate your time. Thank you so much.

GRANT: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: This just in, a rare apology from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Why she's making this public statement, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:35:14]

MATTINGLY: We have some breaking news in our Law and Justice Lead. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has just issued a rare public apology over comments she recently made about the parents of a fellow Supreme Court justice. I want to get straight to CNN's Joan Biskupic. Joan, what's going on here?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: So unusual, Phil. It's highly unusual and pretty much unprecedented. I can't even think of another episode to compare it to. Justice Sotomayor's statement came about a week after she had complained about her colleague Brett Kavanaugh and something he had written in a case last September that involved a Trump policy for what a lot of people called roving patrols in Southern California that allowed ICE to stop various people in part based on their ethnicity and language.

Those were factors that were allowed. At the time, Brett Kavanaugh had written about why those stops really wouldn't be that harmful. And what Justice Sotomayor said last week at the University of Kansas Law School, she said, this from a man whose parents were professionals and probably doesn't really know any person who works by the hour.

Now, Phil, you know that Supreme Court justices criticize each other all the time, but this was something that crossed the line in terms of referring to his family and being highly personal. And we had asked for comment from her and comment from Brett Kavanaugh over several days. And today, after probably a real drumbeat of people wanting to know why was Justice Sotomayor saying that kind of thing about a colleague, she issued this statement.

At a recent appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law, I referred to a disagreement with one of my colleagues in a prior case, but I made remarks that were inappropriate. I regret my hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague.

I think, Phil, this was really the only thing she could have done. First of all, it seems perfectly right that she would have apologized to Brett Kavanaugh for what she said because her remarks really were of a different nature. And then to have also let all of us know how she had followed up with something that was such a departure from the decorum of the justices, even when they're sniping at each other, they usually don't bring in families as perhaps the president has at times. The justices usually just don't do that, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Yes, I think when I saw your reporting, I said, wow, this is definitely no precedent that you can see. And that says pretty much everything.

BISKUPIC: Right.

MATTINGLY: Joan Biskupic, great reporting as always, my friend. Thanks so much.

BISKUPIC: Thanks.

MATTINGLY: Well, turning now to our National Lead, a rare appearance by First Lady Melania Trump on Capitol Hill today, joining lawmakers to advocate for a bill to expand resources for children in the foster care system.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MELANIA TRUMP, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: Foster youth face a special set of challenges with the new legislation. We can ensure that the opportunity is more than helpful for individuals in the foster care community. It can be their birthright.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: The foster care system has been a central focus of the First Lady's during her husband's second term, but the Trump administration's immigration crackdown may actually be contributing to the problem. According to a ProPublica investigation between January and August of last year, the parents of more than 11,000 U.S. citizen children were arrested or detained under Trump's immigration crackdown.

Joining me to discuss is the executive director of Children's Rights, Sandy Santana. Sandy, I really appreciate your time. The federal government doesn't track how many children enter foster care because a parent is detained for immigration reasons. Based on your experience, do you have a rough estimate or any type of numbers about how often this happens, how many children may be displaced in foster care as a result?

SANDY SANTANA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHILDREN'S RIGHTS: Phil, the answer is nobody really knows. We know that the federal government is not tracking the number of children in foster care that are there because of immigration enforcement action. States have a hodgepodge of rules around this. Some states have reported numbers. Other states have not. Some states have cited privacy concerns because they fear that maybe that leads to families being investigated as well.

So we don't know the true numbers. A publication did a study, wrote to states and asked for self-reported numbers. They found that 32 children were in foster care because of immigration enforcement over seven states. We think those numbers are very, very low. As you pointed out, in just the first seven months of the Trump administration, 11,000 parents of U.S. citizen children were detained. There were in February 70,000 or so people in immigration detention facility. So we think those numbers are much higher than those that have been reported by states. And there's also no coordination between the federal government and child welfare systems on this issue. So there's no way to really know.

[17:40:06]

In addition, there's a lack of training for social workers to identify kids who have been removed from their parents because of enforcement issues, immigration enforcement issues. And so we have no clue, but we know based on those numbers and based on anecdotal evidence and everything we're seeing that those numbers have to be much higher.

MATTINGLY: Can you just walk people through what happens to a child if ICE detains their parent? What are they taking? What are the conditions like? Can they communicate with their parent?

SANTANA: Yes. So parents are detained. There are procedures for communicating with the child. There's an ICE directive that actually says that ICE is supposed to make or have processes to connect the child to parents or kin, family members that are around the family, in some cases connect through the child welfare system. We don't know how closely ICE is following that directive, so we don't know how they're adhering to that.

MATTINGLY: To that point, is there no reporting on compliance? It seems strange to me that we wouldn't have any insight into that.

SANTANA: There's no reporting on whether ICE is complying with that at all. We don't know. The other thing we do know is in certain cases we have mothers detained at the Dilley facility in south Texas with their children. And we are one of the few organizations who can visit those children, speak to them, and we know that right now they're experiencing stress, anxiety, fear.

There have been instances of water that's not drinkable, worms in food, lights on all night so that kids are not able to sleep, no access to educational services in certain cases, and no access to mental and physical health services as well.

MATTINGLY: Sandy Santana, I really appreciate your time, sharing your perspective. Thanks so much.

SANTANA: My pleasure. Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, repeatedly today President Trump was urged to stop publicly attacking Pope Leo. At least twice that messenger was the top Republican in the Senate. Here's what he said. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[17:46:32]

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think it's very, very important for the Pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Indeed. That's the Vice President. About 24 hours ago, weighing in on the ongoing Pope's -- Pope's ongoing feud with the President. Let's reverse that. On the President's ongoing feud with the Pope. Then today, the top Republican in the Senate, he got involved. Urging Trump and Vance to, you could say, cut it out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: One of my colleagues said it well. And the President and the Pope are both outspoken people. But they both have lanes and hopefully they'll stay in them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: As of last night, it was President Trump keeping this front and center. He posted on Truth Social, "Will someone please tell the Pope or tell Pope Leo that Iran has killed at least 42,000 innocent, completely unarmed protesters in the last two months."

Joining me now is former Trump campaign advisor, David Urban. Former senior spokesperson for the Harris-Walz campaign, Adrienne Elrod. And the esteemed Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today. Susan, of course, has a new book out, "The Queen and Her Presidents: The Hidden Hand That Shaped History," which we're going to get to in a minute.

But David, my fellow brother in Catholicism, we sometimes attend the same church. What are we doing here?

DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, Phil, look, I said this before. I don't agree with the Pope on everything, right, clearly. But you don't want to pick a fight with the Pope. You don't come out, it's like, you're not going to win. In Pennsylvania, there are 3.5 million Catholics. In Wisconsin, you know, all these Catholics. We're running -- we have midterms. Why do you want to alienate a huge block of the electorate?

You know, what the President did say in this last iteration of his comments, I do agree with. I'd like to see the Pope kind of come out and forcefully condemn the Iranian regime as strong as he is condemning the President. I'd like to see him say the IRGC, you know, the regime in Tehran who's slaughtered thousands of their own people and who's exported terror for years, I'd like to see him condemn them as well. But picking a fight with the Pope is just generally a bad idea politically.

The Pope is, you know, his message is like, the job description is literally peace, love, and understanding, to go around the world and try to sow, like, good things and, you know, like, end wars. That's his job. And so I'm not sure the back and forth is worth it. I agree with Senator Thune. Both these guys have lanes, and they might want to stick to them.

MATTINGLY: Do you really think the Pope is picking a fight with the President?

URBAN: I think the Pope is -- I don't know if he's picking a fight with the President, but I'd like to see, like, I don't know why the Pope just can't come out and say, look, I -- you know, with Donald Trump's position here and saying, like, the Iranian regime just slaughtered 40,000 of his own people. I didn't hear the Pope condemning the Iranians for the destruction of their own culture or killing their own people or exporting terror or, you know, blowing up kids. I mean, they do a lot of awful things, and I haven't heard the Pope, you know, utter a word about that. So I would like to see that. But again, like, I'm not here to fight with the Pope.

MATTINGLY: Feels like it.

URBAN: No, no. I'm saying --

MATTINGLY: I'm kidding.

URBAN: I'm not here to fight with the Pope about these things. I'd like to see the Pope speak out more forcefully about those things, right? But again, just politically, you know, this is about addition. This midterm 1 plus 1 plus 1, we don't need to subtract voters. We need to add voters.

MATTINGLY: Adrian, just days after facing backlash for posting a Christ-like image of himself, the President posted today an A.I.- doctored photo of Jesus hugging him. I'm pretty sure it's A.I. He's baiting your party, posting, the radical left lunatics may not like this.

[17:50:06]

ADRIENNE ELROD, FORMER SENIOR SPOKESWOMAN, HARRIS-WALZ CAMPAIGN: I have been wondering for many, many years. He's baiting your party, posting, the radical left lunatics may not like this. I have been wondering for many, many years what is going through Trump's head when he's doing some of the many things that he has done, Phil, that we have questioned that have been very controversial.

This one continues to baffle me. It makes absolutely no sense. I mean, I think it's somewhere between 55 percent and 60 percent of Catholics voted for Trump in the last election. He is alienated. It feels like he's doing everything he possibly can to further alienate voters. And of course, we've got high gas prices.

We've got a war that many Americans don't understand why we're even over there in the first place. A lot of people voted for him in the last election because they were concerned that President Biden was not addressing affordability in the right way. They are now saying, what is he doing about affordability? So it feels like these are continuous self-inflicted wounds that are only going to make things worse for Republicans going into the midterms.

MATTINGLY: Susan Page, I've been doing this long enough with this President at various iterations. There are oftentimes pronouncements of, like, this is going to be the thing, the political thing, that's really going to come back to bite him. And they're never right. And so I'm wondering politically, like, where does this net out? He's picked fights with the Pope before. He's gotten in trouble with evangelicals for very clearly not having a great understanding of their faith. What is the outcome of this?

SUSAN PAGE, AUTHOR, "THE QUEEN AND HER PRESIDENTS": You know, not just the Pope, the Chicago Pope, the American Pope he's picking a fight with. You know, I don't -- I think there's some cumulative effect from one controversy after another. But I actually think what makes a difference is that he's talking about the Pope. He's not talking about the issues that Americans are concerned about, which is the cost of gas, the cost of health care, the cost of food and housing.

So it's like the, it's the opportunity loss of having a firestorm over here on an issue that matters to some voters but may not cut, and not addressing the issue that we're really going to see Americans vote on in November.

URBAN: Yes, Susan makes a great point, right? We had this great visual the other day at the White House of the DoorDash woman who saved, you know, who's been able to put in her pocket $11,000 more because of no tax on tips. One of the central themes of the big, beautiful bill, right, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security.

They put together this incredible event that I know Adrienne and her colleagues in the Democratic Party are just like, damn, that's a great message. I wish we had it, right? Great, great event.

ELROD: I don't know.

URBAN: Great event, but no, great event, but it got stepped on. It got stepped on because we're talking about this. And so instead of having a whole day of talking about how many people benefited from that great move in the Trump administration, no tax on tips, right, we're talking about this instead. And so that's the law -- that's the opportunity cost that Susan's talking about. We're not talking about the accomplishments. We're talking about things that aren't getting us voters, right, aren't getting Republicans.

MATTINGLY: It is April 15th. It is tax day. And tax refunds were all I've heard from every Republican who I talk to on the Hill is like, this is going to be the thing that turns it around. And we're posting about hugs with Jesus, which, like, I'm cool.

URBAN: Again, no tax on tips, right? Every time I go to a restaurant, I said, you know, there's no tax on your tips. And the people don't know. They still don't even know. So we've got to get the messaging going.

ELROD: He's stepping on it constantly.

URBAN: You've got to get the message out there.

MATTINGLY: All right, Susan, in less than two weeks, King Charles, Queen Camilla will conduct a four-day state visit to the US. You've extensively studied the King's mother, Queen Elizabeth II, and her relationships with America's presidents. Should we expect to see the King take the late Queen's lead here?

PAGE: You know, here's the message from his mother, or the lesson of his mother, which is, there are things you can do, powerful things you can do as the monarch, and there are things you cannot do. So I would not look for Charles to come here and say, let's talk about the future of NATO. But he could come here and have a good time with the President.

The President now likes King Charles. The President adores the Royal family. And that can lay a kind of groundwork that is helpful for the government that is going to have to deal with him on some of these issues that so divide the United States and the United Kingdom. Really, the most fraught time in the special relationship since at least the Suez crisis, and maybe ever.

MATTINGLY: How does -- what's your sense of how Charles will navigate that reality?

PAGE: He's been, you know, he got off on the wrong foot with President Trump in their first meeting when he was Prince Charles. Trump came out of that complaining that all he did was talk about climate change. Well, King Charles since then, and especially since he was crowned, has taken a different tact with the President. President now says he's a wonderful guy and a good friend. And we're going to have a terrific visit, even as he's castigating the prime minister.

MATTINGLY: Yes, whatever King Charles is doing, it's working. That's for sure. How do you think this goes?

URBAN: It goes well. I think, as Susan correctly points out, the President's Scottish descent, I'm sure, in his household growing up as a kid, I'm sure there's a picture of the Queen someplace, the Queen mother. And they've had, you know, every trip the President's made to England. It's come back. He's been speaking glowingly. You can see when he's there. He's in a great mood. He has a great relationship with the new King. I think it's going to be an exciting time. [17:55:14]

I think what the king is going to do is going to actually really advance the special relationship because it's very rocky now at this, you know, of the lack of involvement of the U.K. in helping out in the President's eye. So I think the King's going to do it. It's going to be a very positive outcome. He's going to have a joint address to Congress. It's all upside for the U.K. On the 27th, I think, 28th, a couple of days he's here. It's going to be a big day. I think the monarchy is viewed more favorably in the United States than it is in England right now, perhaps.

MATTINGLY: All right, you guys are coming back. Susan Page, grateful for your time again. The book is "The Queen and Her President." Susan Page, congratulations. Thank you, guys. See you in a bit.

Well, a major verdict late this afternoon against Ticketmaster and Live Nation. The jury found the two operated as a monopoly and overcharged fans. And that's just the half of it. We're going to break down that verdict coming up on The Lead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)