Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Hearing Today on Wrongly Deported Man as White House, El Salvador Defy Courts; Global Markets Rise After Trump Considers Exemptions on Car Tariffs; New Details Emerge About Suspect Charged in Arson Attack at Pennsylvania Governor's Residence. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired April 15, 2025 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

JORDYN ZAKFELD, MARKETING DIRECTOR, WERSELL BIKE SHOP: We're a little bit nervous, but we trust in Jill. We know that she knows this business really well.

JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Back at Swanton Welding, also a new generation, one hoping Trump's tactics will benefit their industry. Allison Fagerman is an 18 year old welder who works with her father.

ALLISON FAGERMAN, WELDER: I'm hoping that it gets better, and I'm sure it will. I feel like we're on a bumpy road and eventually we'll get to a smoother road.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: The fate of a man mistakenly deported to El Salvador, very much still in limbo, as the White House essentially tells the court you can't make me. And a federal judge calls them all back into court today.

Plus, we're standing by for the opening bell on Wall Street. President Trump now considering another tariff exemption for automakers. How long that could last and what that could mean for the markets?

And a wild and dangerous mountain rescue, a hiker clinging to the edge of a cliff. Rescuers able to find -- finding her after she was able to send an emergency text through her watch.

Sara is out this morning. I'm Kate Bolduan with John Berman. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: This morning, big foundational questions. What happens if the Trump administration outright defies a court order and who's going to stop them if they do? Today, Justice Department lawyers are due to face a federal judge in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

He is the immigrant who was scooped up in Maryland and deported last month to El Salvador, where he is being held in a notorious super prison. The Supreme Court has upheld that federal judge's ruling, ordering the Trump administration to facilitate his return. Abrego Garcia had a legal order that was supposed to protect him from being deported.

DOJ lawyers have acknowledged he was removed from the country in error. But in a circular moment of logic in the Oval Office, both El Salvador's visiting strongman president and Trump administration officials insisted there is nothing any of them can do about it. Attorney General Pam Bondi has alleged that Abrego Garcia is a member of the violent Salvadoran gang MS-13 and the DOJ has labeled him a terrorist. But the federal judge in the case has said the administration has offered no evidence of that.

So let's get the CNN's Alayna Treene at the White House for really what's next here and how far the administration will push this.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, I think what next is a question we'll see actually play out today when Trump administration attorneys are going to be back in front of that same judge who initially made that court ruling that ultimately found its way to the Supreme Court. I think, you know, it's going to be a key question of whether or not this ends up getting caught up back in the courts because of what the Trump administration is saying here.

And look, John, I mean, this is something we've really seen this White House, this administration inch closer to over several days now, essentially arguing that the judge in this case, the Maryland judge, had overstepped her bounds and that they could not be told by a court.

And in this case, even the Supreme Court, how to move forward with this, that they cannot be forced to return this man to the United States from El Salvador. But also this idea that the court should not be getting involved in foreign policy set forth by this administration. Now, what was made very clear yesterday in the Oval Office is that both President Donald Trump, but also El Salvador, have no plans of returning Abrego Garcia to the United States.

If you watched that Oval Office scene yesterday, the White House essentially argued that they didn't have the power to do so and that the power was now in the hands of El Salvador because Abrego Garcia was already deported there and is in that prison there. We heard from Bukele as well, President Bukele of El Salvador, saying that why would he do that? Essentially arguing that to return or facilitate this return of Abrego Garcia to the United States would almost be like smuggling him into the country.

So all of this, of course, creating really huge questions, because as you pointed out, John, the Supreme Court had ruled that the Trump administration must facilitate the return of this Maryland man to the United States. We heard Attorney General Pam Bondi say yesterday that they believe that term facilitate means providing a plane to do so.

Now, one thing, though, that I think is very notable from what happened over yesterday but is somehow getting lost sometimes in some of this coverage of this, is what else the president had said.

Essentially, he had said that he wants to ramp up the deportations of not only undocumented migrants who are in this country illegally, those who may be allegedly committed violent crimes, but also potentially deport U.S. citizens to El Salvador as well. Listen to how he put it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[08:05:00]

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We always have to obey the laws, but we also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways, that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat when they're not looking, that are absolute monsters. I'd like to include them in the group of people to get them out of the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: So as you heard the president say there, he'd like to include them in the group of people that are leaving this country, referring to, again, in his words, homegrown criminals, a.k.a. U.S. citizens. Of course, there are many legal questions of whether the Trump administration could even do that. But President Donald Trump said yesterday he was going to direct Attorney General Pam Bondi to look into it.

Bottom line here, John, this strategy we've seen this White House, this administration really use in recent days, particularly when it comes to deporting migrants to El Salvador, is something they are not planning on backing away from. When I spoke directly with Stephen Miller yesterday, the deputy chief of staff for policy, also someone who, of course, has really been shaping the immigration policy of this administration, he told me they have no upper limit. That's a quote from him and his words for how many people they plan to deport to El Salvador -- John.

BERMAN: There may be no upper limit for how far they're willing to push the courts. Alayna Treene at the White House. Great reporting. Thank you -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: Joining us right now to talk about this is CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck. He's also a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. It's great to see you, Steve. Thank you for coming in.

Let's start -- I guess let's start at the end where Alayna Treene and John were just talking and then let's go back to the president going this -- toying with going, taking this even further, saying that he's asked Pam Bondi to now study the law, potentially sending, he would say, violent U.S. citizens deporting them out of the country to El Salvador. Legal grounds for that are what?

STEVE VLADECK, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Nonexistence, Kate. I mean, I think it's worth reminding folks, you know, one of the complaints that we had in the Declaration of Independence at the beginning of the American Revolution was that King George was sending criminals to far away prisons. It's almost like history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.

There's no legal authority to send a U.S. citizen to serve a U.S. criminal sentence in a foreign prison. And, you know, Kate, it would be pretty striking if there was, because that would mean any of us could be effectively disappeared into a prison with no U.S. legal constraints, with no potential human rights limits, you know, no matter what. And that's a pretty scary proposition just arising out of this one immigration case.

BOLDUAN: Which is why getting your take is important. And also the fact that the president says he's asking the attorney general to then study the law when there is no legal grounds for it is noteworthy. Let's take it back then.

I remember hearing you describe the Supreme Court's decision with regard to the Abrego case as madding -- maddingly -- maddeningly vague. Is that then this what's happened now, the necessary result of that vagueness? I mean, is the Trump administration continuing to ignore a judge or a justice's ruling just exactly what they were going to do, given how vague it was?

VLADECK: 100 percent. I mean, Kate, I think a lot of us, you know, at CNN and elsewhere were saying Thursday night when the Supreme Court handed down its ruling that by switching from what Judge Xinis had done, which was say you must return him by a date and time certain to this, you know, wishy-washy word facilitate, the court had created exactly this wiggle room. And, you know, Kate, maybe the Supreme Court was hoping that the Trump administration would take the hint that that decision was unanimous and would actually try to exert some pressure, diplomatic pressure, financial pressure on El Salvador to comply.

I think we now know, even if we didn't last Thursday, that that's not going to happen. And so to the question of so what's the next step in court? I don't doubt for a second is going to urge the government to take more aggressive steps to facilitate a Abrego Garcia's return, to put diplomatic pressure, to put economic pressure on El Salvador. You know, if the Trump administration says, you know, we tried and we can't, one, Kate, that's a pretty stunning concession of impotence on the part of this administration.

But two, I think the other piece of this is that's going to create a lot of pressure on federal courts in every other immigration case to not let anybody be removed from the country until we're absolutely sure that all the I's have been dotted and all the T's have been crossed.

BOLDUAN: Yes, the trickle effect from this is interesting. I haven't thought about that. You said that maybe -- there maybe they were hoping they would take the hint.

It's the exact opposite. The Trump the -- from the Oval Office in the discussion yesterday, they are calling what came out of the Supreme Court a huge win. I mean, I want to play for you how President Trump's aide, Stephen Miller, is trying to interpret the Supreme Court's decision, how he believes it leaves them with no obligation to do anything further.

Let me play this from yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[08:10:00]

STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: Yes, it was a 9-0 --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In our favor.

MILLER: In our favor against the district court ruling, saying that no district court has the power to compel the foreign policy function of the United States. As Pam said, the ruling solely stated that if this individual at El Salvador's sole discretion was sent back to our country, that we could deport him a second time.

No version of this legally ends up with him ever living here because he is a citizen of El Salvador.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Just want to get your take on his interpretation here.

VLADECK: I Mean, you know Kate. It's not a very long decision from the Supreme Court. It's about two and a half pages It doesn't say anything like what Stephen Miller said It says -- folks can read it for themselves and see that. I think it's quite telling that Stephen Miller has to try to spin the decision as saying literally the opposite of what it said in order to justify what the Trump administration is doing.

But Kate if we step back for a second, there's a larger point here, which is no court has ever actually determined that Mr. Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13 as the Trump administration claims. That he was properly removable. And so, we're at the point, Kate, where if this is an argument that anyone finds persuasive that means they can do it to us too.

They can say I'm a member of MS-13. They can say, you know, Joe citizen is a member of MS-13 and use that as this justification for removing them, disappearing them, right, into the Salvadoran prison. You know If that's a world in which the courts are going to be powerless, Kate, again, I think the key is, the courts are not going to take that lightly and I think the result will instead be courts imposing far more onerous restrictions on the government's ability to remove folks from the country in the first place. Ironically thwarting, right, the whole sort of justification for this policy in the first place.

BOLDUAN: So interesting and the way you've described it make me even more fascinated to what happens when they head back into court today. It's great to see you. Steve Vladeck as always, thank you so much -- John.

BERMAN: Great discussion there.

This morning the man accused of setting fire to the Pennsylvania governor's mansion is behind bars and has been denied bail. We've got new details about a possible motive. And Mark Zuckerberg set to take the stand this morning to defend his

social media empire. Why he says the case against Meta, quote, ignores reality.

And Tax Day is here. Whoo-hoo! How major layoffs of the IRS could complicate your returns?

[08:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLDUAN: We're standing by for opening bell on Wall Street next hour. The latest twist that investors, consumers, companies, countries are all digesting is that President Trump now says that he's considering another short-term tariff exemption for automakers. The tariff of 25 percent is something carmakers and economists have warned will raise the cost of buying a car by thousands of dollars.

CNN's Zain Asher back with me once again. You just can't quit me, Zain.

ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR AND BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: I love you, Kate. That's why.

BOLDUAN: So what is likely to be the impact? Do you think even considering an exemption is enough in this environment?

ASHER: In this environment, with all this uncertainty, any sliver of good news is great news. I mean, this exemption, temporary exemption, is a welcome relief to car manufacturers. If you look at where the big three closed in terms of their stock price -- if you could pull it up -- all closing 3 to 4 to 5 percent higher, everybody is sort of excited about this news.

And that is because these tariffs, Kate, would be devastating for car manufacturers. Nobody builds a car 100 percent in America. We're talking about really complicated supply chains.

So, for example, some car manufacturers might import parts from Mexico, from Canada, from other parts of the world. They will cross the border several times before being finally assembled in the United States. And so if the transmission, let's say, gets built in Canada, and then the car crosses the border through Mexico where the wiring is installed, the idea of having tariffs on both sides of those borders would be untenable for automakers.

We're not just talking about rising prices. We're also talking about literally shortages and unavailability of certain types of car parts.

BOLDUAN: But the way that Trump's talking about it, Zain, is that it's to give them a little bit more time because the automakers are making moves to bring more of the production back into the United States, something that we know autoworkers unions, they have been plotting and hoping for. So how does that add into this?

ASHER: The idea -- and this is what one analyst said to me -- the idea that you're ever going to see a fully American-made car with American- made parts is a fantasy. This idea that we are going to see the sort of Detroit of the 1960s and 70s, I mean, that is just not on the cards anymore.

Just in terms of being able to manufacture certain types of car parts, America doesn't have the capacity for that. And in terms of bringing back jobs, which is a big part of why Trump is doing this, automation has meant that the demand for those types of jobs is really tricky, that they're just not coming back.

I think what's really hard for car manufacturers is obviously the uncertainty, that is a big part of it, but also it's that the goalpost keeps on changing.

Previously, these car manufacturers thought that, listen, under NAFTA and under USMCA, the new NAFTA, as long as you had a significant number of these car parts built in the U.S., Mexico and Canada, you treated North America as a single market, that things would be OK. And they're quickly learning that under Trump 2.0, that is just literally not the case.

[08:20:00]

BOLDUAN: And the goalpost for all industries is unclear because the actual goal of the policy has been defined and evolved multiple times over. They're making moves, the administration now, towards what he said is coming, which are tariffs on semiconductors, computer chips and also on pharmaceuticals, which will be a very big deal.

ASHER: This is huge. So there's just so much confusion, I'm glad you pointed it out, because in addition and aside from some of the tariffs that are being paused, they're launching a new investigation into semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. So this is a formal investigation that is conducted by the Commerce Department. It can take up to 90 -- nine months, rather, 270 days to look into it. But obviously, it's going to be really difficult for companies like Apple, NVIDIA, Microsoft. Semiconductors are literally in everything, Kate. So the prices of those will, of course, go up.

BOLDUAN: OK, good to see you. Thank you so much, Zain, I love you.

ASHER: I always bring you good news.

BOLDUAN: I wait for that. I wait for that. We will -- here's hoping.

Coming up for us, some other big headlines we're watching this hour. Sean Diddy Combs back in court, pleading not guilty to an expanded set of criminal charges.

Now, and also, new details about the man accused of setting fire to the Pennsylvania governor's residence. The legal and financial turmoil in the man's past.

[08:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BERMAN: This morning, the man facing attempted homicide and terror charges for allegedly breaking into and setting a fire in the Pennsylvania governor's residence was denied bail. State Capitol Police said prior to the incident, they alerted Governor Shapiro's security detail of a possible breach. This, and frankly the whole episode, has prompted a security review.

Let's get right to seeing as Danny Freeman in Harrisburg for the latest here. I mean, honestly, serious questions surrounding security this morning, Danny.

DANNY FREEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, certainly a tremendous amount of questions surrounding security, John. But what's so fascinating about this story is, amazingly, we actually have a really good picture and idea of exactly how police believe this suspect set fire to the governor's mansion. Part of it is because so much of it was captured on video.

But, John, the biggest outstanding question still at this point is motive. What drove him to actually walk to the governor's residence and set fire to the mansion?

But let's go over what we do know at this point.

38-year-old Cody Balmer, as you noted, was officially arraigned yesterday here in Harrisburg. As he went into that small judge's office and was taken out of that state police squad car, he stuck his tongue out at reporters as though he was bored. And that was as dozens of reporters shouted questions at him, including, why do you hate Governor Josh Shapiro so much? He didn't answer any questions.

But we did get some interesting content from that arraignment. The judge, as you noted, denied bail because she said, while she was appreciative that he ultimately turned himself in, she said that ultimately he should be in prison because he presented danger for the safety of himself and the community.

Now, notably, when Balmer inside of that courtroom was asked if he had a history of mental illness, Balmer said, that's the rumor, but no, ma'am.

Now, remember, John, all these charges that he's facing include attempted homicide, terrorism charges as well. Then there's aggravated arson and aggravated assault.

Now, when it comes to the fire itself, John, we know from court documents yesterday, Balmer hopped the fence behind me. He was carrying makeshift Molotov cocktails with beer bottles filled with gasoline. That's how he lit fire to the mansion.

And he also said in court documents that he was planning to beat Governor Shapiro with a hammer if he found him. But again, amazingly, motive. What brought this man to this house? Still an outstanding question.

Take a listen to what the Dauphin County District Attorney told CNN last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRAN CHARDO, DAUPHIN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: But we're getting a picture of what his intentions were and that they were geared towards the governor. We're looking at it because we want to know why he did it and we're looking at the possibility that it was geared towards the governor's, well, his religion and his views on Israel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FREEMAN: Now, John, I will note that a source familiar with the investigation at this point still says there's no indication that anti-Semitism did play a role in this particular incident. But again, everyone is looking at all aspects as to why this man came here. Balmer's next court appearance, John, is next Wednesday.

BERMAN: All right, Danny Freeman for us in Harrisburg. On top of all of this, Danny, thank you so much -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely.

Also, today, Mark Zuckerberg is expected back in court in the Federal Trade Commission's case against his company, Meta. He's also expected to be back on the stand as well, trying to fight against accusations that his company has built up an illegal monopoly.

CNN's Clare Duffy is following all of this for us. It was a big first day. What's to come today, Clare?

CLARE DUFFY, CNN TECH WRITER: It was a very big first day. Mark Zuckerberg took the stand immediately after opening arguments. He is expected to be back on the stand today.

And what we heard the FTC asking him about yesterday was, of course, his acquisition of Instagram. This trial really focuses on Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. And the FTC was probing him about his thinking and internal statements ahead of the 2012 acquisition of Instagram.

He was asked specifically about documents that suggested that he may have been concerned that Facebook's now defunct camera app was not prepared to successfully compete with Instagram. And in one 2011 e- mail, he said, in the time it has taken us to get our act together on this, Instagram has become a large and viable competitor to us on mobile photos, which will increasingly be the future of photos. He also said in a February 2012 e-mail that Facebook should consider spending a lot of money on Instagram.

So you have to imagine that that is all going to play into this FTC's case that Meta acquired these two platforms in an effort to quash.

[08:30:00]