Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
White House: Abrego Garcia Is "Never Coming Back" To U.S.; Van Hollen: Abrego Garcia Told Me He's "Traumatized"; IRS Head Replaced After Musk-Bessent Power Struggle; NYT: Trump Admin Says Letter Of Demands Sent To Harvard By Mistake. Trump Administration Makes A List Of What Students Can And Cannot Read; White House Easter Egg Roll Looks Different This Year. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired April 18, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: And maybe the way to go do that is to announce that they're going to be providing more arms and more help to Ukraine until the Russians get serious, and it's sort of hard to imagine this administration doing that.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, a lot of questions about just the impact of that statement and where this goes from here.
David Singer, thank you for your reporting tonight.
SANGER: Thank you.
COLLINS: And thank you all so much for joining us. CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip is up next.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Tonight, the meaning of a meeting. A Democratic senator turns a handshake into a symbol of resistance.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Trump administration wants to plat out one.
PHILLIP (voice-over): While the White House --
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He's a fake. I know him, I know them all. They're all fake.
PHILLIP (voice-over): Attacks the messenger and the man in the middle.
Plus, power struggle. The acting head of the IRS is out of a job, falling victim to a fight over Elon Musk and Scott Bessent over who has more pull with the President.
Also, erasing history. A new lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of ignoring the First Amendment by deciding what kids can and cannot read and bought and paid for. The White House turns the Easter egg roll into a sponsor showcase. Live at the table, Jemele Hill, Melik Abdul, Ashley Allison and Coleman Hughes. Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here they do.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
PHILLIP: Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America is talking about. Games with a life and possibility -- possibly the Constitution on the line. Tonight, Kilmar Abrego Garcia's case is commanding the attention of both the President and Democrats who say that he is abusing the law.
Last night, Senator Chris Van Hollen met with Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, where he was confined in a notorious prison meant for terrorists and criminals of the worst kind. Nine days ago, he was moved to another detention center. But this morning, Van Hollen found himself the target of a presidential Truth Social tirade. Trump calling the senator a grandstander.
El Salvador's President, Nayib Bukele, posted this image showing Van Hollen and Abrego Garcia with salted glasses as if it was some kind of white lotus tourist lunch. Now, for the record, there are no pictures of Van Hollen sipping margs. And the senator responded, noticeably miffed.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D), MARYLAND: Nobody drank any margaritas or sugar water or whatever it is. But this is a lesson into the lengths that President Bukele will do to deceive people about what's going on.
I've mentioned the fake margarita scandal. They actually wanted to have the meeting by the side of the pool, right, in the hotel. They want to create this appearance that life was just lovely for Kilmar, which, of course, is a big fat lie.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
PHILLIP: Bukele may well have hung a mission accomplished banner over this whole episode. He posted, "I love chess" on X, implying that the ploy worked exactly as it was intended to, getting Van Hollen to talk about the altered images instead of the core issues at hand here.
Now, Trump also seemed to play into the idea that Van Hollen was playing into MAGA's hands.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Photos have emerged of Senator Van Hollen sipping what appears to be margaritas --
TRUMP: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- with Abrego Garcia down in El Salvador. Do you encourage other Democrats to fly down to El Salvador to meet with this illegal alien who's an accused white beater?
TRUMP: I like this guy. See now, this is the kind of a reporter we like. There aren't enough of them. We got to get some more of them, but no, I appreciate that question. No, look, he's fake.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
PHILLIP: More evidence that MAGA thinks the optics are in its favor, though, is this post from the White House scrawling over a New York Times headline and making a promise about Abrego Garcia's future. "He's not coming back".
Criminal defense attorney Donte Mills joins us in our fifth seat. Now, Donte, if you're an attorney and you have to defend this White House's position in court, and the White House's social media interns just posted what they posted, do you worry then that you've just posted for the world to see a willful disregard of a court order to facilitate this guy's return?
DONTE MILLS, CIVIL & CRIMINAL ATTORNEY: I guess it depends on who you are. I mean, if you are the White House, you don't care. They've shown that. They -- it really doesn't matter to them. They're -- they have no plans on following the rule of law. And that's a huge problem.
And we just have to break that down as to why. Law provides stability. You need to know what you can and cannot do. And if you don't, if we're operating outside of the law and just based on Trump's opinion of who people are, and in this instance, he thinks brown immigrants are dangerous, right?
[22:05:04]
So we're operating on that premise, then he can decide what happens to those people if they're shipped away to a prison in El Salvador, if they're put on planes without any due process, where they say they didn't meet anything that requires them to be deported or violated the law, but he has this opinion of them. And that's all that matters.
PHILLIP: I think it's really -- one thing I think is super interesting is that they've been calling him a terrorist and an MS-13 gang member. They moved him out of the prison for terrorists and gang members. Why? I mean, it seems to kind of indicate that maybe they realize that they are not going to be able to support those allegations.
JEMELE HILL, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Well, not just that. If you have to create fake propaganda, that means that you don't believe your story. So it's what an old adage, you ain't got a lie to kick it. And it seems like they are more than happy to lie to kick it. And I think they know the way this country like processes information that narratives sell.
So if they can sell the narrative to you that this is a dangerous person, that margaritas and sipping by the, you know, and then by the pool, as he said, that the fact that they want to stage this, I'm like, if you really can stand 10 toes down, that this man is dangerous, he doesn't belong in this country, why you need to do the extra? You don't.
PHILLIP: I do think, though, that there is a real question about the politics of this --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh yes.
PHILLIP: -- and the optics of this, because it is very easy. And I think a lot of people, you were making this point, a lot of people would say, well, why do you all care so much about this guy? And they are saying that. Is it risky politically for Van Hollen to literally go to another country to make this point for someone who at best perhaps has a checkered past?
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, if you are solely in the business of working in politics to be the person who wins the campaign and not actually care about the outcomes of our laws and the impact of the American people, then maybe it's not the best conversation to be having right now, because people did vote on November 5th around immigration and the economy.
I think there were other reasons why Donald Trump won, but we do know that immigration was a big issue. But I hope that people are in politics for something bigger than just Republicans winning or Democrats losing or vice versa. I hope they're in it because they respect the Constitution, they respect our institutions, and that America should try and live up to its greatest ideals.
And I think that is why Democrats are paying such close attention. So today, it's Garcia. Tomorrow, it could be fill in the blank. Who is an American citizen? And if this open --
MILLS: Well, it actually happened, in Florida.
ALLISON: Yes, exactly. So the possibility of this happening and happening at an expedited clip, if you don't say no to even the thing that doesn't have the best political packaging, makes our Constitution so much weaker.
MILLS: I think that we have to bring that part up. In Florida, it happened where an American citizen was arrested. The charges were dropped, but because the arresting officer determined that he was an illegal immigrant, when those charges were dropped, the criminal judge couldn't release him.
He had to be held in jail until he was processed through ICE, despite the fact that his mom is in court showing his birth certificate --
PHILLIP: Yes.
MILLS: -- his Social Security card, but he was determined to be an illegal immigrant, and he was an American citizen.
PHILLIP: Yes. Because perhaps he spoke a Mayan language, not English as his first language. You know, this is why -- this conversation is happening, I think, in liberal circles right now. Here's what the Pod Saves folks. This is Dan Pfeiffer talking about, I guess, what some Democrats want to see from their electeds on this issue.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
DAN PFEIFFER, FMR. OBAMA SENIOR ADVISER & CO-HOST, "POD SAVE AMERICA": Democrats look cowardly, calculating -- ridiculous. If our response to the father and husband of a U.S. citizen being sent illegally in defiance of the Supreme Court order to a foreign gulag is to vomit up some poll-tested talking points about tariffs, to turn our back to it, like, that is absurd. Like, who are we and what do we stand for if we do that?
Democrats are learning the wrong lesson from 2024. We did not lose on immigration because we talked about people like Kilmar Abrego Garcia too much. We lost because we ceded the issue to Donald Trump.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
PHILLIP: It could be that a lot of Americans will, at some point, look at this and say, why don't they just follow the law? Why are they fighting so much to send this guy, you know, to El Salvador when they could just bring him back and then deport him lawfully?
MELIK ABDUL, REPUBLICAN POLITICAL STRATEGIST: I wish that the administration had actually done that from the beginning. And fine, I say, bring them back and ship them off again. You started talking about the optics. Now, Bukele doing his thing, I don't like that at all.
But Donald Trump, you're right, immigration and the economy. If you look at where Donald Trump is still doing well, it is on the issue of immigration. Politically, this is a win for Republicans and Donald Trump. Politically, optics-wise, it is not a good win for Democrats because Republicans will be able to use this next year.
[22:10:02]
And this is after Democrats throughout the Biden administration, even starting at the beginning of the Biden administration, where they decided that there was no -- that was not even a crisis at the border. So Donald Trump has a lot of room here. And I think that the American people will give him a lot of room because we're talking about criminals.
We're talking about people who don't have the right to be here. That is so much different --
PHILLIP: Sometimes we're talking about criminals.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Sometimes we're not talking about criminals, which I think is the problem. Yes.
ABDUL: Yes, but that's nuance that most of you talk about. You remember you said narrative?
HILL: Narrative, yes.
ABDUL: Most people won't look at the narrative.
HILL: OK. So Melik, can I ask you a question, though? All right, so if the right is selling this narrative that, you know, we obviously, we don't want criminals to be here and understand that, especially if they've committed crimes, obviously on American soil. But can you sell that this is a bad affiliation for Democrats, when the Republicans, I mean, technically, I mean, not to throw shade, but to throw shade, you all going to hit you all whole party to a felon.
COLEMAN HUGHES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I'll tell you why it's a bad affiliation, because -- it's a bad affiliation because a lot of Americans get the sense that Democrats care more about illegal immigrants than American citizens, right? There's been five actual American citizens held hostage in Gaza for the past 18 months. Most Democrats don't even know their names.
And yet, this guy, you know, his name is on every Democrat's lips right now. So people get the sense that there's this heightened concern, this making a martyr out of people you shouldn't make a martyr out of.
MILLS: No, that's not. So we're not going to Gaza, right? What we're concerned about, are we going to be picked up in Gaza and held? But we are walking the streets. And if somebody who looks like us can be picked up walking the streets for no reason, no justification, no due process, we should care about that more than if we're in Gaza, whether we can be picked up in Gaza.
So I don't think this is a red herring issue where you can say, why is America concerned about these illegal immigrants? Because we're showing, and they're showing that this is trickling to American citizens. And now American citizens have the right to be afraid that they're going to get the same kind of treatment.
HUGHES: I think (INAUDIBLE) because he didn't speak English or Spanish.
MILLS: Who cares?
HUGHES: Well, I'm saying --
MILLS: That doesn't mean you're an illegal immigrant. It doesn't mean you're dangerous.
HUGHES: It was a mistake that happened and he was out of --
ABDUL: Because he filled out a form. He filled out the form that was earlier. He was in Mexico from 2 to 16 years of age. And he filled out some form. And it alluded to the fact that he wasn't actually a citizen. They had to produce his birth certificate. But on the issue --
PHILLIP: We're talking about the case of the American in Florida. OK.
ABDUL: Right, the -- yes, the one in Florida.
PHILLIP: I just want to make sure everybody's clear. Yes.
ABDUL: I just wanted to put this out there. On the issue of, you know, care, concern, to piggyback off of what you were saying, there seems to be more energy for Democrats to support these illegal immigrants than, for instance, Chris Van Hollen and I believe Cory Booker, both of them, neither one of them voted for the Laken Riley Act.
So if you're concerned about Americans, American citizens, those who were killed by these illegals --
ALLISON: Yes, I --
ABDUL: -- then you would have voted for the Laken Riley Act.
ALLISON: I --
ABDUL: They didn't. They went to El Salvador.
ALLISON: I think what happened to Laken Riley is awful and it's terrible. And I think that the person who killed Laken Riley should go to jail just as they are. But the Laken Riley Act, the reason why they did not vote for them is the same reason why Democrats are making their case right now, is because the law was vacant of due process.
That is what makes America the shining city on the hill. And so it just is -- I've been dying to actually have this conversation with all people of color, so I'm going to do it right now.
ABDUL: Go it. Let's do it.
HILL: Let's do it.
ALLISON: We know how these things play out in America. And we know why due process is actually so important, particularly for people of color, because it gives us -- we didn't have due process always in this country. And so at some point, people who looked like all of us sitting at the table would be stopped.
And when the judge decided they were done with the case, they were. But due process allowed us to have a whole thing, what allowed us to have a jury of our peers. And that is what we are fighting for. It is not -- I actually am not saying Garcia should not be deported, I'm saying that I want him to have the same due process that the Constitution affords everyone.
MILLS: And that battle isn't over. And I have to say -- listen, even -- let me speak to Carmelo Anthony right now. He should be afforded due process. Carmelo Anthony, you don't have to be afraid to go to court, to make it to court. You have the right to defend yourself. We have to have that.
PHILLIP: You're talking about the -- he's the young man who's charged --
MILLS: Absolutely. Who's --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yes.
MILLS: They're being threatened to even make it to court so he can put up a defense.
PHILLIP: Yes.
MILLS: I'm not saying whether he was right or wrong, but we got you. We're going to back you in the process because you owed (ph) that process.
PHILLIP: Let me ask Coleman and respond to what Ashley just said about the due process and the particular sensitivity that people of color have to that. Do you agree with that premise?
HUGHES: I completely agree. I think due process is incredibly important. It's more than just words on a page. It's more than a political football. It's what ensures we have the rule of law rather than the rule of whatever the heck the people in power want. So I completely agree with you about that.
The question is, whether is this -- is this good politics for the Democrats? I would say right now you've got two issues. You've got immigration, where people basically agree with Trump. And you've got the economy, which Trump is destroying. And he's hemorrhaging people in the middle. So I'd say focus on your winning issue.
[22:15:08]
PHILLIP: All right. We'll leave it there for that conversation. Donte, thank you very much for joining us.
Everyone else, stay with us.
Coming up, the acting IRS chair, another one, was just removed, the same week that he was appointed. Is it because of Trump's world power -- Trump world power battle? We'll discuss that.
Plus, this year's White House Easter egg roll is gathering some sponsors who may have more on their minds than peeps and jelly beans. We'll explain that ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:02]
PHILLIP: Tonight, musical chairs, IRS edition. President Trump replacing the acting chief of the IRS just two days after announcing Gary Shapley to the position. It comes as a power struggle is brewing between Elon Musk and the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent.
The New York Times is reporting that Bessent complained about Musk going around him to get Shapley placed in the role, even though the IRS is under Bessent's jurisdiction. Those complaints apparently paid off for him. Bessent's deputy, Michael Faulkender, will now lead the agency as Trump's nominee, Congressman Billy Long, awaits confirmation.
Faulkender becomes the fifth person, you see them all there, to hold this role since Trump's inauguration. And I think it's the third acting director just this week?
ABDUL: That is -- yes.
PHILLIP: It's like --
ALLISON: Try fun.
HILL: Geez.
PHILLIP: You know, I mean, it is a question of what is going on here in this administration. I mean, there are a bunch of stories to this effect. This story, another one about how the tariffs ended up being paused because they took one guy, yes, a pro-tariff guy out of the room so they could go talk to Trump and get him to send a tweet.
This is the kind of stuff that they accused Joe Biden of doing. Who is running this administration?
ABDUL: So I think in -- I should have checked it before I came here. It may be that they're waiting on confirmation for the IRS actual commissioner, because typically --
PHILLIP: They are. Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
ABDUL: No.
PHILLIP: But the issue is who is the acting commissioner? They've just been changing acting commissioners every few weeks.
ABDUL: So I have said, and I'm going to say it again, and I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of hate for it. I've always said that Elon Musk, he wants to undermine the people around Trump. He wants a straight line to Donald Trump, and it doesn't matter who he undermines in order to get there.
This story with Bessent and Elon Musk is yet another example of that. But what I'm happy about here, much like when Elon Musk decided to work around Susie Wiles and go to Donald Trump and say that we want federal agencies to send out, we want federal employees to give us five things that they did the previous week.
That's not something that -- he went straight to Donald Trump on that. This is after Susie Wiles said that he needed to better coordinate with federal agency. Those Cabinet members, Donald Trump sided with the Cabinet members on there, which is why that story actually died.
So I'm actually happy that yet another time, Donald Trump chose his Cabinet members over Elon Musk, and I think this is just, the clock is ticking at this 133 days where Elon Musk next month will be out (ph).
PHILLIP: Bessent has been defending DOGE, actually, up until this point. And Trump is using the IRS in pretty unprecedented ways to actively let off the hook, some of his friends to go after his enemies, institutions, individuals.
Treasury Secretary Bessent put this on X today. "Trust must be brought back to the IRS. And I'm fully confident that Michael Faulkender is the right man for the moment." That almost seems like an acknowledgement that some of the things that maybe DOGE has been doing have eroded trust, that the IRS is a place that's not going to invade your privacy in order to pursue separate policy goals.
HUGHES: Well, I doubt that Trump is trying to take a dig at DOGE. However, I do think that this is probably a good thing because, you know, the reason that Scott Bessent and Elon feuded is because Elon wants to tear everything down and start from everything anew. And Scott Bessent really wants more gradual change, which I think is probably better for the country.
And that said, I do kind of celebrate this for the same reason you said. There's been this narrative that Elon Musk is secretly running the whole government, and he's the prime minister of the United States of America. I think we saw one of many examples today where he does not have even close to infinite power.
There are forces that are completely able to smack him down, and he doesn't always get his way. I think that should restore some people's faith who have become a little too alarmist.
PHILLIP: I forgot to mention that the 5th -- April 15th was just --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So they've been going through it over at the IRS. Just one more thing. This just came out from the New York Times tonight. It's brand new. It says, "Trump officials blame the mistake for setting off a confrontation with Harvard. An official on the administration's antisemitism task force told the university that a letter of demands had been sent without authorization".
So they sent, allegedly, according to this official who talked to the Times, this letter to the New York Times, it's like six or seven pages, making all kinds of incredible demands that then prompted the administration to threaten to pull back $2 billion in funding by accident? Do you believe it?
ALLISON: I don't know what to believe with these folks sometimes. I think if it was an accident, they would have walked it back, but they haven't. So maybe --
PHILLIP: They doubled -- they have doubled down.
ALLISON: They doubled down.
PHILLIP: Which they are known to do even when they make mistakes. That's true.
ALLISON: Yes. So they've made another --
PHILLIP: Yes.
ALLISON: -- big mistake, and instead of correcting for the mistake, they make perhaps the mistake worse.
[22:25:09]
Or they believed it and it just got hit sent a day too soon. So whatever the case is, the demands are extreme. I think it was always going to be more than a kerfuffle between Harvard and this administration. And I've said this many, many times. This administration does things like this as test balloons to see how it will land, how the public opinion will land, how politically it lands, and how across this administration it lands. So I don't really know if it was a mistake or not.
HILL: But this is why I would have a hard time, and I admire the faith that both you gentlemen have in terms of giving, I guess, the Trump administration some credit for sort of, I guess, forming some kind of blockade around Elon Musk. It feels very much in the territory of, you know, when a dad said, I'm babysitting my kids, it's like, oh, so you give credit -- they're your children.
It's like, so this, just put this in the entire box of who is really running the show, because mistake is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Because if Harvard had capitulated, would they be claiming it was a mistake?
ALLISON: That's right.
HILL: They would just take credit for the victory.
PHILLIP: Yes.
ALLISON: Yes.
HILL: That's why I can't really believe it was a mistake. I believe, like you said, this is another example of them saying, how far can I push it?
ALLISON: Can I go.
HILL: Like, this entire administration feels like, you know, when you have little kids, and they're constantly saying, like, if I put the fork in there, let me see what happens. Like, it's just like, why are we always in this panic, chaotic mode of, let me see what I can get away with?
PHILLIP: Well, it's also like Trump 2.0 is maybe not Trump 2.0. It's just like, a longer Trump 1.0 --
ALLISON: 1.0. PHILLIP: -- because this is exactly the type of thing that would happen, the interpersonal fights, the disputes between personalities, who's closer to Trump literally, physically, because if you are not in the room, when a conversation is happening, he's just going to go with whoever's talking to him.
HILL (?): Yes.
PHILLIP: That's all the same stuff that was happening in the first administration. And major decisions are being made on those terms. That's extraordinary.
ABDUL: And I'll say this about the Harvard issue. One of the things that attracted me to the Republican Party and conservatism is this idea of small government conservatism. I am not comfortable with the administration. Now, I think that when it comes to protecting students on campus, whether that's anti-Semitism, whether that's racism, you know, homosexual, you know, homophobia, whatever it is, I think that there is a duty.
And I think that Harvard, in that when Claudine Gay, President Gay, when she made those comments in the Senate hearing, where she kind of seemed to downplay anti-Semitism, I do believe that they stepped in it. But the same position that Conservatives have around whether or not the federal government should be involved in, you know, education- wise, as far as schools are concerned, on the state level, I feel that same way when it comes to colleges and universities.
That the federal government, despite the fact that Harvard has, you know, billions of dollars of endowment, I don't think that the federal government should be heavy-handed in dictating what they should teach. It's different when you're talking --
ALLISON: Yes.
PHILLIP: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
ABDUL: Or who should they should hire.
PHILLIP: -- hire, and some people have described it as affirmative action for MAGA --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
PHILLIP: -- is what they were demanding in this letter.
ABDUL: Ideological diversity. Like, how can you do that?
PHILLIP: I'm still kind of stuck on, like, was this an accident or was it thought through? Because they might be doubling down, but I do wonder what the consequences are when this goes to its logical end. It's going to get litigated. The courts are going to have to have some kind of say. And there are some real First Amendment concerns here about what they're asking of Harvard. I mean, do you think that they kind of went a little bit too far here?
HUGHES: Yes, I mean, so I don't think you can tie federal dollars to hiring more Conservative professors. Because, you know, there's nothing in U.S. law or civil rights law which says you have to hire an ideological balance. Like, I would prefer that. I think it's much better to have Liberal and Conservative professors.
But that doesn't mean it's the law, right? I think you can say you have to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which says you cannot hire people based on their race in one direction or the other. I think you can tie federal funding to that if you want to be in the business of funding these private institutions, which is a legitimate question.
ALLISON: Can I go back to Elon real quick? I will also say that, I do think Elon has been reined in a little bit. But I think the timing of it is coincidental. It has been since that Supreme Court race in Wisconsin that he kind of put his finger on.
This is also why it's a 1.0 issue, because when you kind of make a wrong political move, Trump is quick to --
PHILLIP: He did step on a bit of --
(CROSSTALK)
HILL: I mean, he can't even convince his baby mama to take 15 minutes, so.
PHILLIP: That's another story entirely.
Coming up next, the ACLU is suing the Defense Department's school system. They say books banned over DEI violate students' First Amendment rights. So does it? We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, Thought Police, the Trump administration, is making a list of what students can and cannot read. The schools are run by the Defense Department. They are for kids of service members, and they're scattered all over the world.
And now, if they go to the library to take out a book that's out of favor with the President's people, they won't be able to find it. Now, some of the books that were banned include "To Kill a Mockingbird", "The Kite Runner", "Freckleface Strawberry" and "Hillbilly Elegy".
[22:35:06]
The memoir written by the current vice president, J.D. Vance. The ACLU is now suing to undo this. Their senior supervisor attorney says the consequences are that the government can't scrub references to race and gender from public schools and libraries and classrooms just because the Trump administration doesn't like certain viewpoints on those topics. Now, reached late today by CNN, the Defense Department refused to comment on the ongoing litigation.
This has been bubbling up in the DOD schools, you know, world, for a while now because these are students who don't have a choice about where to go to school. And they're taking sort of like American canon books out of the library. And it's -- it is a problem. And it's interesting that the Trump administration -- I think they're doing this because they can because DOD schools are kind of under their control. But it is a signal of what's important to them.
JEMELE HILL, "THE ATLANTIC" CONTRIBUTING WRITER: Yeah, I mean we just went through this with this Department with Jackie Robinson, like one of the most celebrated Americans ever, probably the most important baseball player of all time. They erased his military history from the Department of Defense website and then they only put it back because of public pressure.
It's like why are we still in this? Like, it's just -- this is what's so frustrating is picking these battles just out of meanness. Like this is -- there's -- this doesn't serve anybody. Like you have a military that is very diverse. You have children who want to learn about some of the best American heroes or some of the things that happened.
"To Kill A Mockingbird" is a great book. It's a great story that children should learn. So, what is the upside in picking these kind of fights? What are they afraid that they're going to learn?
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Why are you bad on your own V.P.'s books?
HILL: Right. What's the point? What's the problem?
COLEMAN HUGHES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Correct me if I'm wrong, Abby. My understanding of the story is that Trump has made a lot of executive orders --
PHILLIP: Yeah.
HUGHES: -- saying don't do DEI, don't do affirmative action and certain bureaucrats have interpreted that to mean they have to get rid of "To Kill a Mockingbird". He didn't -- no, the Trump administration, correct me if I'm wrong, has not put "To Kill a Mockingbird" or "Hillbilly Elegy" on a list, right?
PHILLIP: Yeah, but if you know that's happening --
HUGHES: So, that's huge difference because --
PHILLIP: - then wouldn't you do something about it?
HUGHES: Certainly, you should clarify, absolutely.
PHILLIP: Yeah. HILL: Right.
HUGHES: I'm not defending Trump. He's chaotic but what we're witnessing, I think, is a weaponized over compliance. You know, there --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I don't know if that's necessarily the case because I know that that's been said. But the problem is that, this has been happening across the government. I think the schools' issue in particular is problematic because kids just want to learn freely without having that control by the government. But the scrubbing of the websites has been happening. It's still happening.
UNKNOWN: It's still happening.
PHILLIP: And there is - are still articles about you know, there was a female firefighter pilot. Her article was scrubbed from the website. That's happening. When the Jackie Robinson thing happened, DOD defended it initially. You know, so, I think that if they don't want it to be misinterpreted, they ought to clarify and they have not clarified.
MELIK ABDUL, REPUBLICAN POLITICAL STRATEGIST: So, I do believe that this is a lot -- bureaucrats are actually doing this. I think that there are a number of things that the administration is doing. And I've said -- I've said here before, a lot of what we're seeing is that DOD. And I believe this is because P. Keg said has made himself a champion of it.
Well, not a champion. The anti-DEI cabinet member. And this is a lot of this stuff that you're seeing is happening at DOD. And I think that in this case, when you're talking about these books now, for instance, I don't think that anybody -- to piggyback off of what you said.
I doubt very seriously if the Trump administration expected "Hillbilly Elegy" to be removed from the bookshelf. But on the other hand, the recent story about the naval -- the Navy school and everybody was talking about the Maya Angelou book, forgot which one it was.
HILL: But I think Stacey Amal's book was also one --
(CROSSTALK)
ABDUL: But Maya Angelou book -- I want people to go and actually look at that list. There are about 381 books. The first book on that list is Ibrahim Kendi's book that they removed. Maya Angelou's book was number 357. So media, as they were talking about this story, they cycle through books explaining whiteness, ratio, linguistics, all of that to get to that book.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yeah, but I guess that's actually a good point. What is wrong with books on topics that you disagree with? What's wrong with Ibram X. Kendi's book being in a library?
ABDUL: Yeah, I --
PHILLIP: I think that's literally the question.
ABDUL: I encourage everybody to go and look at the list. I was actually shocked that these books -- now --
PHILLIP: So, you do think that certain books should be --
ABDUL: Oh, I think that a lot of these books are much better-served if they were in a collegiate environment.
PHILLIP: So, you don't think that a high-schooler is capable or a college student --
ABDUL: I do.
PHILLIP: The Naval Academy is a collegiate environment. You don't think they're capable of reading books that --
[22:40:00]
ABDUL: I absolutely think they do.
PHILLIP: -- are of a different ideological persuasion from this administration?
HUGHES: They're very much capable of reading those books. But when people have actually looked at how -- how libraries are already curated, so many libraries in America, though, have all the books by Democrat politicians, all the, memoirs, they have, you know, Barack Obama's memoirs, but they won't have anything from George Bush or Reagan or Condoleezza Rice.
And there have been studies on this. It's like, it's absolutely disproportionate as it is. So, these libraries are already --
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: Right.
HUGHES: They're already curated.
(CROSSTALK)
HILL: So, you can address that. Add them. Just add them.
ALLISON: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Let me actually add a little bit of -- I just want to add a little context to what you're saying here, because I think there's some polling that gives us some insight. There was a Knight Foundation survey that found that most Americans are pretty confident that their schools --seventy-eight percent, they're confident that their schools can select appropriate books.
They oppose efforts to restrict books in public schools -- sixty-five percent, you saw that earlier, oppose that. And they also believe that 87 percent believe it is not a legitimate reason to restrict books because it contradicts certain political views. That goes on both sides of aisle, right? Like it's not just directed at conservatives.
UNKNOWN: Right.
PHILLIP: But the idea that political books should be banned because -- books should be banned because they represent a certain political persuasion is not something anybody seems to support.
ALLISON: Pedagogy would tell you that iron sharpens iron. And so it is not that one book should be removed. It is that counterpoints should be presented and folks need to be able to have critical thinking skills, which is government sometimes also as opposed to teaching in schools, to make your own decision.
The one thing I just want to say about the bureaucrats that you all are saying are overly compliant. Then you know, if it was a different story and they hadn't removed the books, it would have been that they were the resistance within the Trump administration.
I'm not saying you would make that argument, but a lot of people have made that argument that people, the reason why Donald Trump is DOGE- ing and Elon is DOGE-ing the government is because you have lefties that are preventing Donald Trump's administration from implying their desires. And then you have people doing what they're asking you to do. And then it's like their fault. I mean, you can't -- it's a little bit --
HUGHES: I don't think anyone would care if they left "Hillbilly Elegy" and "To Kill A Mockingbird".
PHILLIP: Yeah, but what about -- what about --
ABDUL: New white nationalism conservatism playing while white masculinity from the inside.
PHILLIP: Wait, Melik, Melik. You don't think that there should be a book that exists about white nationalism? Is that a real concept? Do you think that that's real concept that people should learn about? I think that' -- the question is like where do you draw the line? All of those things are things that are about the existence of concepts. You may agree with them or you may not agree with them. But I think the kids are saying we have a right to learn.
ABDUL: I looked through all 381. The things that I was describing as far as what's in that list of books that were banned at the Naval Academy, these were the standard. There was no -- there was no counter to it. There was no alternative to it. This is --all of these books were being there and there was no intellectual diversity in that.
PHILLIP: So, in other words, you named a lot of books that were about white people. Is that the problem here? ABDUL: No, it's not just about white people.
PHILLIP: About that or not.
ABDUL: American sexual character, lives of transgender people.
PHILLIP: And books about gender and sexuality. Do you think are fair game to ban?
HUGHES: I could win money betting all day that these are books from a liberal perspective.
ABDUL: Absolutely.
HUGHES: So, it's not balanced.
PHILLIP: But why don't you just add rather than subtract?
HUGHES: I've been talking about that for years.
PHILLIP: Just add rather than subtract. I think that's an option.
HUGHES: I think we can all agree on that. I think that's a great place to win.
HILL: Attitude reflects leadership to quote, remember the Titans, right? And so, it's like if they -- I don't think this is a situation -- we can't constantly pick and choose when we think Donald Trump is in charge and what he's not.
ALLISON: Yeah.
PHILLIP: All right. It's a White House tradition but the sponsors for this year's Easter egg roll are very non-traditional and some may have some "eggstraordinary" favors to ask of the president. We'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:48:49]
PHILLIP: Your ad here, the White House Easter egg roll is going to look a little different this year. The Trump administration, through an outside event production company, solicited corporate sponsors. Now, it's prompting some concerns from ethics experts and former White House officials of both parties because for as little as $75,000, companies were floated the promise of branding opportunities at the White House and boy, did they take it.
On Monday's event, visitors will find a reading courtesy of Amazon, a Bunny Hop Stage sponsored by YouTube, an "A.I.- Powered Experience and Photo Opportunity brought to you by Meta, and a Ringing of the Bell Photo Opportunity courtesy of the New York Stock Exchange. Now, all money raised is going to go to the White House Historical Association. But we are in a new time, it's a new day at the White House. ABDUL: Hey, first of all, I thought that it was always like private
contributions that paid for the White House, Easter Egg Road. Maybe it's not.
PHILLIP: Yeah, and it's a good point because it is usually private individuals and, you know, they don't put their name -- they're not slapping their name on things.
ABDUL: I don't have a problem.
PHILLIP: Yeah, no, I mean, I'm just telling you what it was -- what it was like before.
[22:50:00]
This -- this time, what's different is --
ABDUL: Is the branding.
PHILLIP: -- the corporate element of it. And of course, I mean, you know the names -- Amazon, Meta, that's Facebook. These are all people -- entities, not people, entities, that have some interests before this White House and some other smaller groups, too. The toy association, entities, not people, entities that have some interests before this White House and some other smaller groups, too.
The Toy Association, the International Fresh Produce Association, the national confectioners association, signature brands, entities that deeply affected by tariffs, right? So, this is just an easy way into this White House at this point.
ABDUL: Hey, I don't have a -- I don't have a problem with that at all. I'm assuming that none of us would have a problem with corporate sponsors for the White House.
HILL: It's not bad, as always. It's the level of trust that you have in the people who are actually doing this. Like, I have unofficially named this administration, the who's-going to-check-me-boo- administration.
PHILLIP: That's true.
HILL: Shout out to the great urban philosopher, Sheree, from Real Housewives of Atlanta. Because they just do so much. They do it too much all the time. And when we see other things like, oh, don't know, Melania Trump getting 40 million for her documentary from Amazon, it feels like so much of this administration is for sale to the point where it's disarming. You wonder like, where's this money actually going? Why is this all for sale? What is really happening?
So, on his face, I would love to trust this and say, this is just America. This is just another branding opportunity for all these countries or for all these companies. But this is very clearly to continue to curry favor with the person making decisions. And like, that I have a really big problem with.
ALLISON: Yeah, I wish it was this all for the kids.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: Right, it's not about the eggs this time. Look, I think this is actually a bigger problem across Democrats and Republicans in politics. It's money in politics, right?
HILL: Right.
PHILLIP: Yeah.
ALLISON: Having your corporate sponsorship be at the -- on the White House yard. Now, that is a little bit different because normally, there's like, there is a strict line on government property where you are not supposed to do the Hatch Act. You're not supposed to do political activity on government property.
So, it does feel like a little pay to play here. But I think that even if you rewind before November 5th on both sides of the aisle, we take donations from people that I personally have an issue with. Dark money in politics is a problem. I think the American people should be able to learn about the candidates at an equal playing field.
And it feels so transparent here because of Elon Musk's presence in the White House on top of that after he put millions of dollars paying people to register to vote or get on the rolls in Pennsylvania.
ABDUL: It didn't work in Pennsylvania.
PHILLIP: But the companies -- the corporate America actually doesn't really mind this so much because they like knowing that if they, it's like a price to enter --
ALLISON: Yeah.
PHILLIP: -- if they pay it, like it's -- they can get close enough that they can make their case. But for the rest of the country, when you don't have that kind of access and you can't pay for it, it is a problem.
HUGHES: Yeah, I mean, I think it's -- I think it's a problem both for normal people and corporate America, as well, because the uncertainty created by Trump's tariffs have been terrible for corporate America, obviously, and it could get worse, could possibly get better. But I think, part of the reason Trump likes tariffs so much is because it puts him in control and it puts him in a situation where everyone has to come to him for the exception, right?
Tim Cook is going to go to Donald Trump and say, I want an exception for these tariffs. The National Toy Association or whatever it was, they're going to come to Trump saying, can we please have an exception? This little donation, maybe it makes a difference, maybe it doesn't, but certainly that's going to be their strategy and Trump loves that.
PHILLIP: Yeah, and they're thinking it's going to be, well, worth a try. Everyone, thank you for joining us. Coming up, more on the investigation into that mass shooting at Florida State University. Two students who knew the shooter are speaking to CNN. That's ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:58:28]
PHILLIP: The comedians of "Have I Got News for You" are back and hosting legendary comedian George Wallace. As a welcome, Roy thought that he'd roast George's mother, but you don't have to become a legendary comedian George Wallace without being ready to give it back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROY WOOD JR., COMEDIAN: Before we get started, quick fun fact about George Wallace. His mama was one of the first DOGE cuts. They cut 600 pounds from the budget.
GEORGE WALLACE, COMEDIAN: Hold on, hold on. Now, wait a second. You're not going to sit here and insult me. I come down here and you're going to talk about my mama? Your mama's so fat when she gets on the elevator. Oh, it's going down. And I did meet your mom at the airport, you got a job sniffing luggage. Come on.
WOOD JR.: Time for three facts about Pedro Pascal.
MICHAEL IAN BLACK, COMEDIAN: I was hoping you were going to say time for three facts about George Wallace's mama.
WALLACE: Listen, he can talk about my mama, but keep your stay in your lane, okay?
WOOD JR.: Pedro Pascal, our facts are --
WALLACE: Because I know your mama, too. Your mom is so stupid she's walking by the YMCA she said, look baby somebody spelled Macy's wrong.
(APPLAUSE)
WOOD JR.: Time for three facts about Pedro Pascal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: You can catch the all-new episode, Saturday at 9 P.M. on CNN. Thank you so much for watching "NewsNight". You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media -- X, Instagram and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
