Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump's Trade War With China Thaws For 90 Days; Democrats Cite Americans Speaking Out As Reason For Trump Deal; Trump Defends Accepting Qatar's Luxury Jet To Use As AF1; Flight Carrying Dozens Of White South Africans Granted Refugee Status Lands In Virginia; CNN's Scott Jennings Promotes His New Book. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired May 12, 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]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, as Donald Trump's scores a string of wins, a debate over whether the rollercoaster ride is just ending up where it began.
Plus, gift or grift?
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I could be a stupid person to say, oh, no, we don't want a free plane.
SIDNER: A foreign nation donates a new Air Force One, but even MAGA says it flies in the face of swamp draining.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This kind of skeezy stuff needs to stop.
SIDNER: Also, the administration that's closed the door on most refugees welcomes white South Africans with open arms.
And a liberal lightning rod says fear struck the party.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let's go find the safest white boy we can find.
SIDNER: Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Ashley Allison, Kevin O'Leary, Congressman Seth Moulton and Ana Navarro.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Good evening to you. I'm Sara Sidner in New York in for Abby Philip.
Let's get right to what America is talking about, is President Trump, the arsonist, celebrating, putting out his own fire. Trump touting a huge win with China as the two countries drastically lower their tariffs in the trade war? Now, both agreed to allow 90 days for more negotiations. As part of the agreement, both sides significantly rolled back the amount of their tariffs. Global investors in U.S. markets responded favorably today. But is it really a win that the crisis was made by Trump himself? Even by the White House's own standards, they appear to have fallen short. This was Karoline Leavitt on Friday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: He is not going to unilaterally bring down tariffs on China. We need to see concessions from them as well. And, again, that's part of the reason that Secretary Bessent is going to talk to his Chinese counterparts this weekend to start those discussions in person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: So, what exactly were those concessions? Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods, which were in response to Trump's tariff announcement, are the same as they were on April 3rd. And for a president who said he was going to be tough on China, his posture is softening.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're not looking to hurt China. China was being hurt very badly. They were closing up factories. They were having a lot of unrest. And they were very happy to be able to do something with us. And the relationship is very, very good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Joining us in our fifth seat at the table here, Natasha Sarin. She is the president of the Budget Lab at Yale and is a former Treasury Department official in the Biden administration.
All right, let us begin to you first, Mr. Kevin O'Leary, because I remember when you said, hey, let's put these tariffs up to 400 percent. China needs to be punished here. Do you feel disappointed by seeing these lower the way they were because Donald Trump did pull back?
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN, O'LEARY VENTURES: Not at all. I wanted an embargo. I wanted to shut China trade down until they came to the table. They are at the table in Geneva. It could have been in Riyadh. It was Geneva. That's fine. But it's not just tariffs, because I'll tell you where I think we're going. I'm looking at this saying, all right, it's a ten and ten reciprocal right now with a 20 percent bump on the whole fentanyl thing. That could come off any time when the Chinese stop shipping fentanyl here. And they know that. And they're working on that.
But it's not just the tariffs. Where are we on WTO grievances? Remember, they joined in 2000. They've been abusing that rule forever. I'm an investor. I love China. I want to do business there, but I want a level playing field. That means I need I.P. protection, access to their courts, to settle grievances, and I want to shut them down here raising capital if they won't abide by GAAP rules on the NASDAQ and New York Stock Exchange. And from what I understand out of Geneva, this is all rumors and innuendos, all of those are on the table. So, Bessent is doing a hell of a good job here. I give him a hundred out of a hundred, but we're not finished yet. And, by the way, if you want the index of the market, we have recovered everything since April 3rd and then some.
So, listen, keep going, but China is a special situation. When we get that deal done, it'll become the hallmark for all the other countries. And I think where we're going is a ten in ten reciprocal on everybody, call it a VAT tax. That's really what's going on here, consumption tax in America. But you can't sell that to Congress, so you call it a tariff.
SIDNER: Representative Moulton, I'm curious to hear from you because Donald Trump over the last few days has touted win after win. He's been doing so many things and it appears that Congress is sitting at the sideline saying, okay, I guess there's nothing we can do.
[22:05:06]
And that's how the public views Congress right now. What is your response to that, the way that the public is seeing all of this?
REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): that's accurate, that is what the Republican-led Congress is doing, is absolutely nothing. We're legislating on reducing regulations for walk-in refrigerators. That's the kind of stuff that we vote on right now. And, actually, I think the public would like us to have a say in tariff policy.
I mean, I don't think that Trump gets a lot of credit for cleaning up his own mess. You know, my four-year-old gets credit if she cleans up her own mess, but the president, not so much. What are we actually getting here?
Donald Trump is weak on China is the bottom line. He's weak on China. He's been weak on China for a long time. And, look, I've gotten quibble with the Chinese people, but the Chinese Communist Party, yes, like I don't like it when they're stealing our ideas and our businesses. I don't like it when they're trying to start a war over Taiwan. I don't like it when they disappear people who disagree with the regime, although maybe that's where Trump finds some companionship with Xi Jinping's, the same way he has a bromance with Vladimir Putin.
SIDNER: Scott, you want to jump in? I see you.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I just -- this whole idea that he's weak on China, did you not read the news about what Secretary Bessent found out in these meetings that during the Biden administration, the Chinese officials said, yes, we knew we could ignore Biden, we could ignore whatever agreements we had because he was too weak and would never ever stand up to us or stop us. Now, they've been drug to the table by a strong American president.
And for all the talk from China, from Beijing, oh, we're going to outlast the Americans, we're fortified to outlast the Americans, a few days into this, they're in Switzerland, cutting the beginnings of a deal that's going to be good for the United States, admitting some of the things that they have to admit in order to get a more balanced situation with us. This is a total win for the president and it's a total win for the rock star, Scott Bessent, who goes overseas and pulls an amazing rabbit out of a hat.
But do not forget they told him we ignored Biden because he was so weak and we could afford to do it.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know you're losing when you have to bring Joe Biden into the narrative.
JENNINGS: I didn't say it. The Chinese did. They are losing. I agree with you, that Chinese are losing. They brought it up.
ALLISON: No. The reality is when you have to make your point, you refer it back to Joe Biden.
JENNINGS: It's not me, it's them.
ALLISON: What is happening is not working in your favor, actually, because you're the expert on this, but I'll say what I have to say after.
SIDNER: All right. I want to quickly ask you just a question about this. Because, normally, if Donald Trump would've started with, we're going to put a 30 percent tariff on China, the markets would likely have freaked out.
NATASHA SARIN, PRESIDENT, THE BUDGET LAB, YALE: Cataclysmic.
SIDNER: Correct? But now their response is, oh, this is way better than the 145 and the back and forth. And we're not sure exactly what's going to happen, but it looks like things are moving. What do you make of this?
SARIN: So, let's just start with some numbers about where we are today relative to where we were on Friday. So, today, we have effective tariff rates in this country. The Budget Lab at Yale that I run, ran the numbers of 17 percent inclusive of this deal. When President Trump took office in January, effective tariff rates were 2.5 percent. Kevin's right. These are consumption taxes. They're going to be borne by low and middle income people who are going to see prices increase by an average $2,800 price increases for a family as a result of these tariffs that are in place.
And 30 percent tariffs on China are lower than 145 percent, but they are still extremely, extremely high, and they are high on literally everything that the American people buy. So, I think that if this is the framework for how we expect these trade deals to go going forward, I think we're in a place where things aren't actually going that well from the perspective of a trade war that we've launched.
Though I want to agree with Scott, I think we actually have to give Secretary Bessent a fair bit of credit because he understood that we were in a position that was fundamentally untenable. And he started the process of trying to retreat. But it's a mistake to say that the administration has gotten anything from that retreat. I mean, a lot of what you said, Kevin, you said rumors and innuendo. I haven't heard anything about I.P. or anything about access to courts as a result of this deal.
ALLISON: I also remember being at this table and saying, we have to stick it to China because they're our greatest national security threat, and I don't see how this deal actually plays into our favor in protecting our country anymore. The bottom line is that the tariffs were rolled out, they should have been rolled out better. This is not the first pause.
The reason why it's pausing is because the headlines were not working in Donald Trump's favor. We have reporting from inside White House staff saying this to reporters at our own network that he did not like the reporting, was afraid of no food on shelves. And people didn't like just being able to buy two dolls if they wanted to buy ten. And so he needed to do something.
So, call it a win if you want, but the cost of living for Americans is still going to go up.
JENNINGS: Don't take my word for it. Don't take Mr. Wonderful's word for it. Take the market's word for it today. They know it's a win. They know we're in a better position. They know we're in a better position.
ALLISON: But it only had to do that, and it only rebounded because for the last, what, so many days, since April 2nd, it's been in total instability because of Donald Trump.
[22:10:08]
JENNINGS: We're ahead of where we were. We're ahead of where we were on April 2nd.
SARIN: Scott, we're actually -- in a worse -- the market is in a worse place today. That chart is very helpful. The market is in a worse place today than it was on inauguration day. So, the market --
JENNINGS: So, you're going to pick a date, where were we on April 2nd? And what was it year-over-year?
SARIN: When the market responds positively, it's always when the administration moves away from the Trump administration's focus on protectionism. That's exactly when the market reacts positively. And that's what we expect.
O'LEARY: Well, I think what you're not liking is you don't like watching sausages being made because this administration does something none other has. Make it all open, make it all transparent. There's going to be volatility, which, by the way, has ended up being an incredible buying opportunity. Just when you're in the guts and concerned about how bad it's going to get, had you bought the market at the dip, you've had a phenomenal year. The point is, you can't just look at it by the hour. You got to wait for the outcome. Now, Trump is unusual. And, look, what I've learned is don't look at the noise. My goodness, you can't deal with Trump's noise. Look at the signal. What's he trying to do? Reset world order on trade. That taxes work in almost every economy on Earth, between 7 and 14 percent, including all the European countries in Canada. And this is a consumption tax that we can't put through here a popular basis at all. It's coming in the form of tariffs. And I think it's going to --
SIDNER: Hold on. Let me get Congressman Moulton in here, because I do want to talk to you about the numbers you just heard from the Yale Budget Lab. If Americans voted in Donald Trump because they wanted their prices to be lowered, and the prices are what the Budget Lab came up with, which is about $22,000-plus a month, more or a year more that they would have to pay, is this worth it?
MOULTON: They're not there yet, but they're going up. And I just want to agree with Kevin. I think that if you bought the dip, it's great. I agree with you. You know, it's great that the stock market rallied. But I thought this was about working people. I thought this was about lowering prices.
I have a Marine buddy of mine I served with who's a hedge fund manager, and he loves this right now. He loves the volatility. He's making a lot of money off of it. I haven't seen any jobs come back to American factories. I haven't seen prices improve for American families. I think it's going in the opposite direction for the people who Trump says it's --
(CROSSTALKS)
ALLISON: So, most folks that are in the dip, when it goes lower, they just lose more money. They don't have the disposable income.
JENNINGS: I'm sorry.
ALLISON: And I don't mind watching the sausage being made. I just want to make sure there's sausage at the end and that I can actually afford it.
JENNINGS: We sat here night after night after night, you know, with our night, it's about the market this and the market that. Today, the market is good. We have recovered everything, and then some since April the 2nd.
ALLISON: He blinked. Because blinked.
JENNINGS: No. He's making a deal. This man was put on Earth to make deals. And regarding manufacturing, I recommend you should read the job reports. We are having manufacturing coming back. Government jobs are going down, which is fine with me, but manufacturing is coming back and investment announcements, $8 trillion, so far. It's amazing.
SARIN: Scott, tariffs today are higher than they've been at any point in the last century. That's going to mean the most inflationary policies of our lifetimes. That's going to mean a smaller economy. GDP is going to be 0.6 percentage points lower. O'LEARY: It's fair that the immediate taxes is 110 percent in the tariff on automotive parts and we tax 2.5. You think that's okay?
SARIN: I think we're in a situation where there are actually no winners from a trade war. And we're talking about retreat and the market's going up. We're in a situation where the market's in a worse position than it was in January, and it's not because there's been a financial crisis. It's not because there's been a pandemic. It's not because the jobs market is doing poorly.
O'LEARY: Which you have to be happy with the U.K. deal.
SARIN: It's because this administration launched a unilateral trade war.
O'LEARY: Tell me you're not happy with the U.K. deal. I can finally sell --
SARIN: I'm actually not happy. That's actually a very helpful point for you to bring up, Kevin. I'm not happy with the U.K. deal.
O'LEARY: We could never sell grapes (ph) while we were part of the U.K. Now we can.
SARIN: What the U.K. deal tells us is that even with our close ally, even with the United Kingdom, a 10 percent across the board tariff with maybe an exemption for Rolls Royces is what the reality's going to look like.
JENNINGS: You don't like the ag markets?
SARIN: And that means higher prices for Americans.
JENNINGS: Do you not like the ag market?
O'LEARY: Why?
SIDNER: Yes, there was an exception for Rolls Royces or for --
MOULTON: Wait.
JENNINGS: Sure, go ahead.
MOULTON: You left out something really important. It's Rolls Royces and Bentleys.
SIDNER: My bad.
JENNINGS: The market, by the way, I think, didn't just rebound over China today. I mean, it's Monday, but he is already having a phenomenal week. You got the deal with China, the E.O. with Pharma, Edan Alexander.
O'LEARY: U.K. on ag.
JENNINGS: U.K. deal last week, Zelenskyy and Putin meeting the president in deal-making mode, headed to the Middle East this week. They have momentum here for a lot of things. Some of it's trade related, some of it's just more peace in the world related and some of it is just momentum of strong leadership related. So, I think they're on a little bit of a roll. And the China piece is obviously huge for the markets, but there's more going on, I think, with the administration than just them.
[22:15:03]
SIDNER: But to be fair, the most times that we've seen the markets go up and down is just about strictly about economic policy. But that's where we've seen it jump and jump.
ALLISON: This administration's economic policy.
SIDNER: Correct, that's right.
MOULTON: Again, cleaning up your own mess.
ALLISON: Yes.
SIDNER: Fair enough. All right, we are going to keep discussing a lot of different things. Natasha Sarin, thank you so much for joining us. Everyone else, stay put.
Next, MAGA voices are among those who right now are ripping the president for accepting a new Air Force One from Qatar. Is it ethical? Is it legal? Another special guest is going to join the table to discuss.
Plus, while the administration is keeping out most refugees fleeing war and persecution, they just welcomed dozens of white South Africans with open arms. Why?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
SIDNER: All right. Tonight, gift or grift? President Trump is defending plans to accept a multimillion-dollar luxury plane from the Qatari Royal family for, he says, free of charge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think it's a great gesture from Qatar. I appreciate it very much. I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer. I mean, I could be a stupid person to say, no, we don't want a free, very expensive airplane. But it was -- I thought it was a great gesture.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Now, sources is telling CNN reporters that the jet would be retrofitted and used as Air Force One, but the move is raising some serious, legal, ethical, and security questions. And it's worth pointing out that Trump didn't always speak this way about the country he's now praising as they gave him such a lavish gift. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level, so we had a decision to make. Do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action? We have to stop the funding of terrorism.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Ana Navarro has joined us at the table and we're starting with you. What is going on here with this lavish gift?
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. This is one of those crazy things that when you first hear it, you say to yourself, this can't possibly be true. I mean, we can't possibly be talking about Donald Trump accepting a $400 million jet from Qatar, you know, out of all countries, and then you hear him defend it this morning, and you're like, okay, not only is it true, but it seems like he actually intends to go through with it.
Look, I think it's part of a bigger pattern with Trump and his family of profiting off the presidency. And what I'm very troubled by are your colleagues in Congress who were, rightfully so, scrutinizing Hunter Biden, and would probably scrutinize anybody else who was profiting off their family name. But when it comes to Trump and the crypto grift, when it comes to Trump and Melania's $40 million documentary, when it comes to Trump and a $400 million jet, few, even though some are actually speaking up. I was surprised to hear the senior senator from Florida, my senator, Rick Scott, who's been locked up with him on everything, say, eh, you know, Josh Hawley, there's been some that are speaking up and more should. And that's why we need checks and balances, and that's why we need oversight, which we are sorely lacking today.
SIDNER: How do you see this, Scott, as you sort of listen to this? I mean, there is an emoluments clause that is pretty clear. Can we just throw that up on the screen to give people an idea of what Section 9 of this clause says? It says no person holding any office a profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind, whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state?
JENNINGS: Yes. Well, first of all, he's not accepting it personally. It's being given to the U.S. government. So, that's number one.
NAVARRO: But he says he's taking it with him through some loophole from the library.
JENNINGS: Well, it's going to -- I found where I assume it'll sit just like the one sits at the Reagan library. So, that's number one.
Number two, I think multiple things can be true, and I think there's a reason that numerous Republicans have encouraged him not to go through with it today because they know the optics of it given his previous statements about Qatar and given what we know about their funding of terrorism. That's all absolutely true. At the same time, I actually think there's a larger scandal going on here, which is that Boeing cannot deliver an Air Force One week, gave these people a contract in 2018. Now, they're saying it's going to be 2029. This plane is old. I was on it the other day. I mean, it's fine, but it's an old plane.
And I just -- I don't know. To me, there's a scandal here. We paid lots of money to a company, they cannot deliver. The president rightfully says we should get a new Air Force One. So, he's scrambling around to try to figure that out.
So, I think there's multiple things that can be true. I don't know whether they're going to go through it. I don't know how long it takes to retrofit a plan like this to even temporarily serve in this capacity. So, I don't know what's going to happen, but I see why lots of reactions have occurred today the way that they've --
NAVARRO: But I don't think it's just the optics. I think there's -- I mean, don't you think it could lead to a conflict of interest? Don't you think that Donald Trump likes to get gifts and likes to get his ego stroked and that's a better way to have --
JENNINGS: Well, you assume the worst of everyone and I don't know --
NAVARRO: No, I don't I assume the worst of everyone. I assume the worst of Trump.
JENNINGS: I mean, I don't know of anything he has done for these people to cause you to say that.
O'LEARY: What's the fastest growing region on Earth? UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, circle of friendship. In fact, what a great topic we're having, because he's leaving this week to go there.
[22:25:00]
This is a sign of friendship. Would you rather have the Chinese getting this plane or the Americans?
SIDNER: I guess the question is there's no free lunch.
ALLISON: Right.
SIDNER: We've heard that, right? So, wouldn't you -- if you handed someone at your business, if you said, here is this multimillion dollar gift, wouldn't you think that there was an expectation that you would get something for it? And that's where everyone is worried.
O'LEARY: Well, I have to agree, Boeing has no executional skills. You don't need one aircraft when you need two, okay? So, this one was actually given to them for purchase. They bought it when Boeing used to make aircraft. They can't deliver anymore, but they bought it back then. They're gifting it back to the U.S. as a signal of friendship, as a sign of friendship, as an olive branch to actually do more business with the entire region is a good thing. They're the fastest growing region on Earth. I just got back last night from UAE.
SIDNER: Congressman Moulton? MOULTON: But Boeing has a legitimate problem. That's not a scandal.
O'LEARY: No kidding.
JENNINGS: Sure it is. How much we paid them and why can't they deliver on taxpayer money?
MOULTON: It's not a scandal. It's a problem.
JENNINGS: It's a scandal.
MOULTON: This is a bribe, and a bribe is a scam.
JENNINGS: For what?
MOULTON: That's the question.
JENNINGS: What execution? You're alleging a bribe. A bribe means he's already done something to get this supposed person --
MOULTON: No.
JENNINGS: So, you tell me what it is.
ALLISON: Well, guess what?
MOULTON: I think it could mean that he's going to get -- we're going to get something -- we're going to get something to --
JENNINGS: So, you're predicting something in the future?
MOULTON: Yes, I am.
ALLISON: Wait, I have a question. So, we're just going to take this plane and just going to sit there, he doesn't want to fly on it? That's the assumption that it's just going to a museum.
JENNINGS: No. Of course, they're saying it's temporarily going to serve as Air Force One. I don't know how long it will take to get through.
ALLISON: Okay, so he is going to fly it, right? So, he is going to get to use it, which is what most people call a gift. And guess what? If there's a scanner with Boeing, guess who is in control of the House that could call hearings and actually ask questions of Boeing.
JENNINGS: I hope they do.
MOULTON: So, guess what? Qatar is absolutely crazy stupid if they don't bug every nook and cranny of this plane.
JENNINGS: But I also think that --
(CROSSTALKS)
ALLISON: Well, I think the one thing -- O'LEARY: They're going to retrofit it, they'll clean all that out.
ALLISON: Yes. But I think one thing is that when most people are like what -- most Americans might think, why wouldn't we just take this gift from a country that's trying to be nice to us? One, it's in the Constitution that we can't, so maybe that is the starting point. But this president questions whether he has to follow the Constitution. So, if you need a second point, two because they are not our friend. Qatar is not actually our --
JENNINGS: We do have a base there.
ALLISON: It doesn't mean they're our friend.
MOULTON: I think you just stop at point one. It's just against the law. It's just against the law.
JENNINGS: They are absolutely state sponsors of terrorists, so there's no doubt about it.
ALLISON: Okay. So, we want gifts from state sponsors of terrorists?
JENNINGS: Listen I do not approve of and like the way they act, and in other countries at Middle East don't like the way they act either. And so that's why the optics of this are -- and, plus, Trump has himself admitted.
NAVARRO: But it's not just the optics. It's the actual --
O'LEARY: And you have to be happy it's not an Airbus, because they can build a plane faster than Boeing can.
NAVARRO: I have to be happy that what's not an Airbus.
O'LEARY: It's not an Airbus. They could have offered an Airbus.
NAVARRO: No. I don't have to be happy, Kevin, that the president of the United States thinks it's okay to take a $400 million gift, which he then plans to take with him when his term ends.
O'LEARY: Why aren't you not unhappy with Boeing that can't finish the plane?
NAVARRO: Oh, because I think they're two separate issues. And I'm not going to let you divert one with the other.
O'LEARY: I'm very good at that.
NAVARRO: No, you're not. Not with me.
SIDNER: Not here because it's going to get called out of the table.
All right, stay with us. There is something else to discuss. It's going to get everybody's ire up, I think. Next, white South African farmers get a special welcome to the United States from the White House while the administration is rejecting other refugees trying to run for war and famine. Is this special treatment and why is it happening? We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
SIDNER: Tonight, special treatment. As the Trump administration closes the door on asylum seekers from around the world, a flight carrying dozens of white South Africans who were granted refugee status landed in Virginia today. The White House moved to expedite the processing of Afrikaners as refugees over alleged discrimination. Donald Trump is claiming it is a genocide.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Why are you creating an expedited path into the country for Afrikaners but not others?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Because they're being killed, and, we don't want to see people be killed. It's a genocide that's taking place that you people don't want to write about. Farmers are being killed. They happen to be white.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: The South African president says people arriving in the U.S. today do not fit the definition of refugees and that what Trump has been told about their persecution is false.
All right, table. You're hearing from the South African president, and there are two bits of information happening here at the same time. The United States itself has never officially said that there is a genocide in South Africa, none whatsoever.
But they have said officially that there is a genocide going on in Sudan. So, why are Afrikaners being allowed in who are white and the Sudanese are being closed out? I'll start with you, Scott.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't know. I don't know if they weigh one against the other that way. I mean, I do think it's not alleged discrimination that these people are facing in South Africa. I mean, the law there absolutely allows their property to be confiscated. They are subject to racial discrimination.
Some have been subject to violence from some reports that I have read. I mean, we're talking about 50 something people, and the people who seem to be angriest about this today had no problem with 20 million coming here.
[22:35:01]
Some of the worst people in the world coming here, including gang members and, so on and so forth. So, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the folks who are outraged today after what happened to this country over the last several years, over 50 something people, who are clearly being discriminated against in South Africa.
SIDNER: But I think there's the reasoning for this. Allison?
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Oh, okay. So, if you think about the history of South Africa, it being under an apartheid system, where I think it is 80 percent of the population that are black Africans, only own four percent of the land. That is because they were put in shanty towns and moved into, areas where they had no rights.
And so, 35 -- 30 plus years ago, they went through a -- the apartheid system ended. And they reformed their constitution under the great leader of Nelson Mandela, and that allowed for a racial reconciliation, one that this country has yet to do.
But South Africa did it, and they reformed their constitution. And part of that is that the people who are native to that land deserve their rightful land back. That is not what the Afrikaners actually want to have happen, which are the white Africans. And so, who are not originally from Africa, who colonized South Africa also. And so, that is what they are saying is discrimination.
Now, if the constitution in South Africa is discriminatory, they have their checks and balances in that land just like we do and that is for them to -- so if the Afrikaners don't actually like the land, they can leave that country.
JENNINGS: They are. They're leaving to come here.
ALLISON: No.
JENNINGS: Because these refugees are coming here.
ALLISON: They can actually even go to where their native land is, which is probably Germany --
JENNINGS: Are you against them coming here?
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Holland.
ALLISON: -- Holland.
JENNINGS: Are you against them coming here?
ALLISON: I'm against the hypocrisy of this administration.
JENNINGS: No. No. That's not the question. The question is, are you against them coming here?
ALLISON: If there was actually a genocide happening like there is in other places in Sudan, in The Congo, I would not I'm not opposed for Congolese and for the Sudanese to come to Africa just like I'm not opposed to Venezuelans and South Americans coming to America if they are fleeing and looking for asylum.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Oh -- you're just -- these 50 people you are against. ALLISON: What I am against, it's not about being against them. What I am against is that they are being given special treatment when there is not a genocide happening in South Africa, and they just don't like the law of the land. You know what they tell people.
JENNINGS: Well, there's been violence.
NAVARRO: But there's -- there's huge -- there's a very high crime rate in -- in South Africa. They have a current problem. I suspect that part of what's going on here is that there is a very high profile white South African named Elon Musk who is very close to President Trump and is probably, making this a very high profile, issue, and -- and talking to Trump about it.
You know, it's been, I mean, Elon Musk has tweeted about it. He's, I think, told the president of South Africa about it. He's been talking about this for a long time. Look, here's -- here's the problem. There's -- there's Afghanis who helped us over there at the -- at risk of their own lives, whose refugee status had been approved, who are now being told to get out.
There -- there is actually a case in court right now -- Pacito. Pacito, the lead plaintiff, is from Congo, and he is, where there is an actual genocide. And there were 12,000 refugees from countries where there is genocide who have been processed, who sold their homes. Some of them have been waiting for years in third countries who have been approved for refugee status, which Donald Trump has banned.
So, it's very difficult to reconcile and understand why these white Afrikaners are okay, but the black and brown people fleeing political persecution and fleeing actual genocide are not. And so the word of the day, which is, I guess, hard for some people to say, is selective racism.
REP. SETH MOULTON (D) MASSACHUSETTS: Look, I'll just be on the record and be very blunt. I'm against them coming here. And it's exactly for what you said, that they're taking spots from people who are being massacred.
And the -- the issue of Afghan and Iraqi translators is very personal for me, because I wouldn't be here, without these Afghan or Iraqi and American heroes risking their lives for our troops. And I'm one of the many veterans on both sides of the aisle who have fought tooth and nail to get these veterans here because they're -- they're being hunted down right now in these countries.
And the Trump administration has said no, you -- you don't -- it doesn't matter if you served. It doesn't matter if you protected our troops. You don't get to come here. We're going to give these 50 slots.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: I want to -- I want to speak to that because Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, said this today about the temporary protected status. For Afghans, she said, "We've reviewed the conditions in Afghanistan with our inter agency partners and they do not meet the requirements for a TPS designation. Afghanistan has had an improved security situation."
[22:40:00]
Do you believe that?
MOULTON: She has obviously not talked to veterans who know, because we're still in touch with these heroes, that they are being hunted down as we speak.
ALLISON: That's a ridiculous thing for her to just say. Like --
MOULTON: It's completely ridiculous.
ALLISON: it's just ridiculous. And I just think that --
MOULTON: And there's a lot of Republican veterans who will tell you the same thing, by the way.
ALLISON: Yeah. I just think that, like, sometimes you got to call a spade and spade. If, again, if anyone, regardless of the amount of melanin in their skin, is experiencing a genocide. I do think that this land, this great land of America should be a place of refuge, but only when there is actually a genocide happening and only when they're actually seeking asylum. And I think it should be offered to all people and that doesn't seem to be the case right now in this administration.
SIDNER: How do you see this, Kevin? How can you explain this when you see what is happening here, with the selective choices that are being made by Donald Trump? And the words he's using, and there's no proof. No agency. No one who tracks genocide is saying that there's a genocide in South Africa.
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN, O'LEARY VENTURES: Isn't this narrative going on in almost every country that was either colonized way back, gone through multi generations where the indigenous people feel they're not really part of the new society? Pick a country. Canada, Cyprus, Germany, South Africa. What is the answer to this? It is a very difficult situation. We in North America --
NAVARRO: Is there a genocide going on in Canada?
O'LEARY: Listen, if you talked - talk to Canada -- indigenous people in Canada 100 years ago.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: No, no. I mean, you're Canadian. I'm asking you.
O'LEARY: They'll call it genocide and they were right. And the government had to make it right for them. The same thing happened to many countries. If you were a native in Canada, those school systems they had back just 50 years ago, it's horrible. That's one example. And yet, most democracies, including America and Canada, want to make it right. That's the general tone of it.
Now, these are 50 or 60 people. It's a unique situation. They're coming into the country legally. You may not like it, but they are not stealing their way in. They have found a way in on -- on a legal basis. And we can debate it, and we are, but this narrative about indigenous populations, there's something rather remarkable in North America.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: The 12,000 people being represented under --
(CROSSTALK)
O'LEARY: How many generations does it take for a Dutch person to have children in South Africa before they become South Africans? How many --
ALLISON: But that doesn't make them indigenous to the land.
O'LEARY: Why not?
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: The people who were born there are indigenous to the land.
O'LEARY: How many generations do they have to be there for? They never get accepted ever?
ALLISON: I'm not saying that.
O'LEARY: They have children.
ALLISON: No.
O'LEARY: I don't know what you're talking about.
ALLISON: No, that's not what I'm saying.
SIDNER: It's not about acceptance.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: You're not making my point for me. You're saying that the indigenous people of Canada were mistreated from a hundred years ago. The South Africans were mistreated a hundred years ago --
O'LEARY: My point is they are all --
ALLISON: -- by the Afrikaners. And so they're trying to make right by it because they do live in a democracy now which they did not live in under apartheid. And the people who are now seeking refuge in this country don't want the indigenous people to get their rights.
O'LEARY: What you just said - - and I disagree with.
JENNINGS: To get their passport. Their right. Could they get their land. Just to be clear --
ALLISON: Well, if they get their land, it's their right.
(CROSSTALK)
O'LEARY: If you have a passport in South Africa --
ALLISON: No. I want them to say they live in what the law says.
MOULTON: These are great technical debates, but the bottom line is that they are -- there's not a genocide in South Africa.
ALLISON: That's right.
MOULTON: And there -- we have a refugee plan.
O'LEARY: I'm sure there's been violence against one side of the world.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: There has been violence but that doesn't -- hold on a second. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. I want to make a point. Violence does not equal genocide. So, we need to be really, really clear about that because if you look at the violence --
O'LEARY: If you're the dead guy, you may not say that.
SIDNER: No, I would say that, actually. Because if you look at what genocide is, it is very specific that you're trying to get rid of a people, a whole group of people. There is violence in South Africa. They've had a very big uptick in violence, but black people have seen the brunt of that violence --
O'LEARY: Okay.
SIDNER: -- not just white Afrikaners.
O'LEARY: So, let me ask this question of the panel. If you get a passport and you're South African, and you have that passport and you're of Dutch descent and someone else has the same passport, is this a tainted passport?
ALLISON: No.
O'LEARY: Is it not equal? Are you not a citizen? Do you not have the same right?
ALLISON: No. You know what?
O'LEARY: Are there special --
ALLISON: No. No. And you're right. It's the same passport. That means you have to follow the laws, that each person has to follow laws. And right now what the Dutch is saying, they don't want to follow the laws of the land.
So, they're saying their passport, like it was during apartheid, when Africans didn't even have a passport because they had a passport.
O'LEARY: I'm hearing them saying my passport's not the same, and I fear for my life and I'm leaving the country. That's what I'm hearing.
MOULTON: I also thought Trump said we're going to enforce immigration laws, and this is not enforcing immigration laws. It's breaking a law that clearly says if there's a genocide, you get to come as a refugee.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Well, he's put he's put a refugee ban on practically everybody else. Most of that everybody else that I can think of are either black people or brown people. We are seeing right now, Cuban mothers torn away as they are breastfeeding one year old U.S. citizen child and sent back to Cuba, where there is a cruel dictatorship.
[22:45:00]
We are seeing Nicaraguans and Venezuelans and Haitians, where the country is hell in a hand basket, and Cubans who had parole status to come into this country --
O'LEARY: Ana, fair enough.
NAVARRO: They're told they have to leave. Okay.
O'LEARY: But let's celebrate one thing together. America is still the country where the persecuted want to come. Period.
NAVARRO: Oh, yes.
SIDNER: That's true.
O'LEARY: And that's the American dream.
NAVARRO: But the problem is that the white persecuted are being allowed in?
O'LEARY: It's still --
NAVARRO: And the black and the brown are not --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Well, for the record, we did -- we did allow 20 million people to get in legally, and this is 50 people. So, I mean --
ALLISON: I get it. I get it. I get it, right? The numbers don't -- the math doesn't math, but it doesn't mean the -- the facts of the situation are any different. I also just want to take great issue with the thinking that they are being persecuted, that they are suffering a genocide.
O'LEARY: Why do they leave their homes?
ALLISON: Because they're -- because they're - JENNINGS: If everything is fine, why are they fleeing?
MOULTON: Because guess what? They want to come to America like a lot of people in the world.
O'LEARY: Oh, the American dream is working? Oh, no. That's horrible.
MOULTON: But we have a system to prioritize people who really need to come here.
O'LEARY: Well, that's a debate we can have and we are.
MOULTON: No. No.
SIDNER: That is -- we're in a debate. It's still the process that has been set.
JENNINGS: Well, the previous administration had priorities about who to let in, including, you know, all kinds of folks who I would argue shouldn't be here. This administration, I guess, is going to set priorities about who would -- who not to let in.
MOULTON: But let's just be honest about what those priorities are, right? And by the way, I'm a Democrat here. I did not defend the Biden administration on immigration.
JENNINGS: But you voted for him.
SIDNER: So, what --
MOULTON: It doesn't mean that I --
JENNINGS: And you voted for a continuation of it in 2024, did you not?
MOULTON: I -- I did not vote for his policies on immigration.
JENNINGS: But you voted --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: But you voted -- you voted to extend the immigration policies of the last administration.
MOULTON: No. No. No. I did not vote for that.
JENNINGS: The point is you -- you're in a party that -- that opened the borders, and I'm in a party that closed the borders, and I think the American people prefer our way.
SIDNER: Well, he's closed the borders to certain people.
ALLISON: That's right. That's the difference.
SIDNER: That's the debate.
JENNINGS: The -- the people who are coming illegally, of course. SIDNER: The debate though is he's closed the borders to people who are seeking refuge.
JENNINGS: And by the way, I don't even disagree with the Trump leaders. I think the people who helped the American military deserve a chance to be here as long as they're vetted and as long as we know who they are. I'm in agreement with you. If you help the United States, if you help the U.S. military, if we help brave soldiers like you were, I'm -- I'm in agreement with you about that. But I don't think these things are mutually exclusive. I think we can look at --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Okay, but --
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Why aren't they letting them in?
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: Do you agree --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Assuming you -- assuming you -- you think the genocide in South Africa, let's just for a moment assume that that's true. What is apples to apples is that there are 12,000 people right now, refugees, who had gone through the process, who are part of this, lawsuit that was ruled on last week, telling the Trump administration to give a timeline for when they are letting them in and the Trump administration is saying no because they have a refugee ban for all of these people.
Most of whom come from places like Sudan and -- and the Congo. Most of whom are black and are not white Afrikaners. And so, if you are looking at this from that, you -- you say to yourself, I wonder what's the difference between the one and the other. Oh, okay. I see what it is.
MOULTON: I mean, I agree with you. Can we -- can we try to find some bipartisan agreement?
JENNINGS: I did. I just agreed with you.
MOULTON: What is it that -- would you agree that the Afghan should come first?
JENNINGS: Come first?
MOULTON: If you have 50 spots and you're only going to allow 50 exceptions here, 50 spots would --
JENNINGS: I mean, is that all --
(CROSSTALK) MOULTON: -- the refugees --
JENNINGS: I don't know why we keep doing --
ALLISON: That's all he did.
MOULTON: That's all he did.
JENNINGS: I'm -- I'm --
MOULTON: So, would you agree that the Afghans should get those spots first? That's all I'm asking.
JENNINGS: I'm in agreement that they should be here.
MOULTON: No, I'm just asking if they should go first.
JENNINGS: I don't know how many slots we have but I'm in agreement with you that if you help the U.S. military and you are vetted, and you are proven to be loyal to the U.S. government, which I don't know how you vet 12,000 of the people you're talking about.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: If they're taken -- some of them have been waiting for years.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: But that's not what's going on with the 50 Afrikaners. They did not help the U.S. government. So, then if -- if -
JENNINGS: He's asking me about the --
(CROSSTALK)
MOULTON: I'm asking you who should come first.
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
MOULTON: If they risked their lives, does that not matter?
ALLISON: If you're saying that both -- if you didn't help the U.S. government, they should come. My question is, like, if you didn't help the U.S. government but you're facing persecution, should you be able to come too regardless of your melanin -- the melanin in your skin?
JENNINGS: Look. I -- I refuse to make this about race.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: You all -- you all think all decisions are being made about race.
ALLISON: No.
MOULTON: No, we don't. SIDNER: This is not a conspiracy.
ALLISON: Why are -- why are the Congolese not being let in?
JENNINGS: What was the difference between 12,000 people in Kenya with this army?
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: But -- but also, let me tell you something. There is a very thorough vetting process for refugees. A lot of times they have to wait in third countries for years. Some of these people in this lawsuit, Pacito, people, go look it up, have been waiting for three years to go through that very rigorous vetting process.
These Afrikaners he just brought in, completely expedited, sent a plane to a U.S.-paid plane to go grab them in South Africa and welcome them with open arms while the black and brown people are being thrown the hell out.
SIDNER: All right. Everyone, we're going to end there with that big bold statement. Thank you so much for joining us. Coming up, Scott Jennings has an announcement about his future. You're going to want to talk about it. Coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Welcome back to you. And now, it's just myself and Scott. We're going to go at it. No, actually, he has an announcement to make. Do tell, Sir.
JENNINGS: Well, if you followed my social media over the weekend, you might know that I have a book coming out. And -- and --
SIDNER: I thought you were running for something.
JENNINGS: No.
[22:55:00]
The county line is all I ever run for. But that's the picture of the cover of the book. It's called "A Revolution of Common Sense". I had the idea in February to write a book about the first hundred days or so of the Trump 2.0 administration. I had the brilliant idea to try to write it while it was going on which was -- turns out I've written it now four times and, and this keep -- because things keep happening.
SIDNER: That's true. Is there -- is there a revelation in the book that something that the public doesn't know that you can share with us?
JENNINGS: Well, I've had a lot of access, spent some time with the President, talked to quite a few cabinet members, White House staff, people who've, you know, sort of been around the decision-making. Spent some time with Elon Musk, actually. So, I think all I want to reveal today is that, I was given some
access to people here who have been making the decisions that have shaped what I think, is really the most active hundred day, hundred plus day period, in modern political history.
SIDNER: I think you're right --
JENNINGS: Yeah.
SIDNER: -- that it is the most active. People might not like it and they're frustrated --
JENNINGS: Yeah.
SIDNER: -- but it is a very active one.
JENNINGS: But I'll tell you this, you know, having talked to-- talked to a lot of Republicans out there, they're more than happy with what they've gotten. That's what I picked up in the research for the book. And so anyway, you'll be able to get it in the fall. You can pre order it now. Go online. "A Revolution of Common Sense".
SIDNER: He's doing the sale, you all.
JENNINGS: Buy it.
SIDNER: Next, special coverage of a dramatic first day of testimony in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial. "Laura Coates Live" has all of the details. She was there. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
