Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Sharply Escalates Trade War With Sweeping Tariff Blitz; Democrats Gloat After Defeating Musk's Candidate; Filing: U.S. Using Tattoo, Clothing Guide For Deportations; Amazon Puts In Last-Minute Bid To Buy TikTok; Amber Ruffin Speaks Out After WHCA Drops Her From Dinner. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired April 02, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: All right, everyone, you better brace yourselves because we're all part of President Trump's experiment of sorts of totally rewiring the American and global economy. He is now revealing the full extent of his sweeping trade war, and it touches virtually everyone and virtually everything. And starting at midnight tonight, Trump's new 25% tariffs on all foreign-made vehicles will go into effect. And the big hammer, it's coming in just a few days. We're talking about reciprocal tariffs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Foreign leaders have stolen our jobs, foreign cheaters have ransacked our factories, and foreign scavengers have torn apart our once beautiful American dream.
We will charge them approximately half of what they are and have been charging us. So, the tariffs will be not a full reciprocal. I could have done that, I guess, but it would have been tough for a lot of countries.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Oh, it's still going to be tough for a lot of countries. I mean, every country is getting hit with at least a 10% universal tariff. And Trump brought out a kind of a prop to show just how much tougher it's going to be for the 60 some countries that he is calling the worst offenders, starting with one of his favorite targets, China.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Sixty-seven percent. So, we're going to be charging a discounted reciprocal tariff of 34%. You think of European Union, very friendly. They ripped us off. It's so sad to see. It's so pathetic. Thirty-nine percent. We are going to charge them 20%. Japan, 46%. They would charge us 46% and much higher for certain items like cars. You know, little items like cars. Forty-six percent. We're charging them 24%. Cambodia. Oh, look at Cambodia. Ninety-seven percent. We're going to bring it down to 49%. United Kingdom, 10%, and we'll go 10%. South Africa, oh, 60%, 30%.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, if you're wondering where this fall in terms of what we expected, perhaps, well, here's how CNBC put it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JON FORTE, CNBC HOST (voice-over): This, I think fair to say, is worse than the worst-case scenario of the tariffs that many in the market expected the president to impose.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, the markets, they're panicking. Futures are way down for the Dow, Nasdaq, and S&P 500. And you might be asking, what does all this mean for you? Well, you know those auto tariffs coming at midnight? Here's what one car salesman told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
How much more would it cost for a car, you think?
RUSSELL RICHARDSON, CAR SALESMAN: It really depends. A lot of people are estimating 5 to $10,000 on the average range.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: And even if you don't plan to buy a car this year, the new tariff still might blow up your expenses.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: It's thousands of dollars. Thousands of dollars. And when you know the median household income in -- in this country, we're talking at least 2% of the median household income that this will cost American households.
VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: This is about, can America produce these products? The answer for something like bananas or for coffee is no. And Napa Valley, while wonderful, cannot produce enough for Americans to consume.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You know, even Republican lawmakers are worried about Trump's tariffs plan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Tariffs are just bad. International trade is mutually beneficial, and that's how we've gotten richer and richer and richer.
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): And the long run is right. But as I've said, in the long run, we're all dead. Short run matters, too. Nobody knows what the impact of these tariffs is going to be on the economy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But Trump is betting that it's the long run that matters most. He says that in the long run, it will stop illegal drug smuggling, bring back manufacturing, reduce the national debt and taxes for Americans and, he says, make trade more fair.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says he hopes the rest the world won't have a knee jerk reaction.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: Everybody, sit back, take a deep breath, don't immediately retaliate. Let's see where this goes because if you retaliate, that's how we get escalation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Take a deep breath. And one of our money experts says, at CNN, don't hold your breath on that one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR-AT-LARGE: There's going to be escalation. It's the nature of the beast. This is why it has never been done. This is why Ronald Reagan famously said, don't start a tariff trade war.
[23:05:02]
It ends up in an unholy God mess, everyone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, senior columnist for Yahoo Finance, Rick Newman, and the president and CEO of Gerber Kawasaki, Ross Gerber. Thank you for the wave. We're going to start with you, Ross, here because the future markets, they really took a hit. People are worried about their 401Ks for obvious reasons right now. How bad could tomorrow be?
ROSS GERBER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, GERBER KAWASAKI WEALTH AND INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT: I don't worry too much about tomorrow. I worry about the short, medium, and long term with these policies. So, tomorrow is just, you know, a little bit of appetizer for what could be horrendously worse because the U.S. markets are certainly not cheap by any standard, and we went from almost an ideal market environment over the last year or two to now complete other sort of destruction of the system of trade that we've had for a very long time, that has benefited America greatly with lower prices. That's the whole reason that this is set up the way it is. But, you know, I was just thinking about it and I've studied this for over 30 years, and I want to try to, you know, reassure people that things are going to be okay but, honestly, this is just a disaster of idiocy that I can't even tell you beyond proportions.
COATES: Rick, let me bring you in here on this so-called disaster of idiocy. The new tariffs, they go into effect on Saturday. How widespread do you think the impact will be to prices? And frankly, how soon might everyday people start actually noticing and feeling it?
RICK NEWMAN, SENIOR COLUMNIST, YAHOO! FINANCE: It depends on whether there are any changes between now and four or five days from now. We've got two deadlines. Some of the tariffs go into effect on April 5. Some go into effect on April 9. There -- there are some products in the pipeline. So, if we assume that all these tariffs are going to stick and they might not, then you will probably start to see price increases within a month or six weeks once this -- the products that are in the pipeline are get sold off. And we know that they're -- you know, car dealers are saying they've had a surge of buyers showing up trying to, you know, buy a car before the tariffs kick in. This would hit pretty quickly if they stick. I want to emphasize if they stick. These are draconian levels of tariffs that almost nobody was expecting from the Trump administration even though he has been talking about tariffs, you know, since last year when he was running for president.
So, I think there is some expectation that these few days between now and when they're supposed to go into effect, maybe there will be some negotiations that will mitigate the effect of these tariffs. But you can't -- there is no sugarcoating this. I mean, I try -- I've been trying really hard not to light my hair on fire over all the Trump tariff rates.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
NEWMAN: Pretty bad. This is pretty bad. If -- if this stick, more or less, we're going to have the biggest tax increase on Americans since probably the 1940s.
COATES: I mean, sitting here today, and that's part of it, Ross, you don't have any indication these are -- these are conditional or that they might not stick. It seems that he is resolved. Whether that's indeed true, we'll have to wait and see.
But, Ross, 25% tariffs on foreign-made cars, that goes into effect in less than an hour. Frankly, minutes from now, at midnight. And we're hearing that cars are going to cost thousands of bucks more. So what position is this putting, say, the auto industry specifically in?
GERBER: Well -- and especially the way cars are made. Even, you know, Teslas that are supposedly made in America, which they're assembled in America, use parts from all over the world. That's just the way the supply chain works for literally every company and almost every product, even ones made in America. And that's why this is so troubling.
But I think the idea here and the only way this can come out okay is if Trump capitulates and just does deals and all these people just call him and say, okay, you know, let's do a deal, and then this doesn't last very long.
But any way you do the math, and I swear I've done this a hundred times in my head, like, and once again, my whole life, I've done this, it's just stupid, stupid policy beyond belief, like -- like, I mean, it's -- I -- I can't even describe to you the potential cost increase for just the average American, you know?
And that's really the problem with this all, just to extend tax cuts for to the wealthy that they currently have today. He's actually proposing that I would get a tax cut, of all people, which I don't want, okay, to fund these tariffs that effectively will bankrupt the lower and middle class of America. So, this is a startlingly high-risk scenario for this country that should not be taking this risk when we have a dominant position in the world. It's literally beyond belief. I'm sorry. I -- I just, like, can't believe this is happening.
[23:10:00]
COATES: No, I -- I certainly can appreciate how incredulous you are. Rick, let me bring you in because Trump does claim -- he thinks there is a total upside. He claims his policy will actually produce trillions of dollars in revenue for the country. The former vice president, his former vice president, Mike Pence, calling it -- quote -- "the largest peacetime tax hike in U.S. history." So, who's right?
NEWMAN: Listen, if anybody wants to donate their tax cut coming down the road to me, I will take it --
(LAUGHTER)
-- because I'm going to need it, because all my investments are going to go down the tubes, and I'm going to be paying more for everything. So, it's really important for people to understand, tariffs are a tax on imported goods, and American businesses are the first ones that pay that tax, and then they pass as much of that tax as they can on to consumers.
There's no way around the fact that this is a tax cut on -- you know, we import about $3 trillion worth of products into the United States every year. This is a lot of stuff that we buy that is going to go up in price.
So, I keep going back to what it -- what -- where is this going to settle out at the end of the day because this may -- might be an opening bid for Donald Trump. But I think it's safe to say that Trump just wants to put tariffs in place. He just believes in them. He -- he says he loves tariffs, the most beautiful word in the English language. And after maybe you have to say wife and -- and daughter are more beautiful, but then tariffs, he just loves tariffs. So, these are going to stick to some extent. It is going to drive our prices.
He wants to revitalize manufacturing in the United States. You know, the U.S. economy has moved, industrial production is important, but 88% of the U.S. economy is services. That -- the growth in the U.S. economy comes from technology, it comes from innovation, it's in the digital economy. The good jobs of the future, even if you don't have a college degree, are in (INAUDIBLE). They are not in working on an assembly line to build -- you know, to put socks together or something like that. So, this is not where you want the U.S. economy to go, but it might be where it's going, anyway.
COATES: I grew up near a Ford plant in Minnesota and certainly, I can imagine the impact this would have on the economy then and, of course, in the future now. Thank you, guys. I appreciate it.
GERBER: Thank you.
NEWMAN: Yeah.
COATES: Well, here to help us sift through the political fallout from these tariffs, CNN analyst Zolan Kenno-Youngs. I'm so glad you're here. I need you to help make sense of the politics here because we are hearing, you know, hair on fire. We're hearing about the idiocy. We're hearing about all the things that are making everyone's blood pressure rise and 401Ks go down. But we've also seen Trump pivot in the past on tariffs and -- but it feels like this time, despite what one of our guests was saying, he's not pivoting --
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah.
COATES: -- at all here.
KANNO-YOUNGS: So, I think to answer that question, one thing, I -- I don't think he -- the president or the White House would see those times as pivoting. Right? In a way, for Trump, when it comes to tariffs, the threat of tariffs and hanging tariffs over a nation can be the win. Right? You -- we have seen already since he has come into office that he threatened tariffs against Mexico --
COATES: Yeah.
KANNO-YOUNGS: -- and Canada. And suddenly, you have Mexico saying, okay, we're going to send more troops to the border, we're going to take these various actions to stop fentanyl. Some of those, actually, they were already doing in the past. But now, you have the appearance of a nation giving in to Trump when he's now in office. So, it's that appearance of a win that -- that -- that he likes in that case. So, in -- in that sense, he would see that as a win. Even the threat of a tariff, that forces, that rattles a different nation, that rattles the world and forces a nation to do something.
COATES: What was interesting about that is if he can see the threat as a win and somebody takes an action whether it was on its course or not.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Sure.
COATES: The threat now is very negative. I mean, the -- the threat of, you know, economic downturn is really there. You have Republicans who are not quite on board, some who are not. I mean, you've got four Senate Republicans joined Democrats in a symbolic vote against tariffs on Canada. It is pretty rare to see that. Does the White House not view the criticism as enough of a deterrent to the actions that he's now taking?
KANNO-YOUNGS: I don't think the president does and many around the White House. I'll get to that point. For one, the president, I don't think that you can fit -- tariffs, without a doubt, are a central part of his foreign policy agenda --
COATES: Yeah.
KANNO-YOUNGS: -- as well as how he's pursuing the economic policy.
COATES: And he said it on the campaign trail.
KANNO-YOUNGS: And he said it on the campaign trail. We know that from last time around. There's a difference from last time around that we'll talk about. But I don't think that you can fit him into kind of the traditional political labels we use for foreign policy like isolationist, expansionist, what have you. He's really transactional. Right?
[23:15:00]
The reporting shows, even going back to before he came into politics, when he was in business, he does feel -- we often hear when we're around the White House talking to his aides that the U.S. is getting ripped off. And there is a belief in this gamble that you can -- that they can weather through people feeling economic frustration, economic anxieties, in order to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.
COATES: But that long run, you think, is more for him his focus. But how about making point about what happened the first time around?
KANNO-YOUNGS: That's right. Because I do think we also have a difference here. Right? First time around -- I mean, these tariffs that we're seeing, your last panel got it right, I mean, they are more than we've seen in the past.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Right? And more than many people were expecting them to land on as well. But last time around, you saw him pursue tariffs, but not to this extent. And I think that makes this yet another example of the difference between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0.
COATES: Different advisers.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Different advisers. Remember, they made effort to conduct loyalty tests for those that were coming in this time around. There was not going to be resistance for Trump's instincts, for Trump's ideas when it came to policies such as what we saw today. And I think that's a primary reason why you are now seeing this willingness to pursue something this aggressive even if you have those on the Hill, even those in the Republican Party, and major economists saying, hey, look the people that are going to bear the brunt of this are going to be consumers, and that can lead to political fallout for you.
COATES: Forty-five minutes till it takes effect. Zolan, stick around. Up next, Wisconsin takes Elon Musk down a peg with a major victory against the man he funded and stumped for. Gloating Democrats now appear to want Musk to hang around. The question is, do Republicans? We'll talk about it next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: One person MIA from President Trump's sweeping tariff announcement -- Elon Musk. The world's richest man is a frequent White House guest, as you well know. He even brought one of his young children to the Oval Office. But Musk wasn't at the White House today after yesterday shellacking in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, a race that Musk poured $20 million into and gave away $1 million checks. Plural. A race where he wore a cheese hat. I'm from Minnesota. (INAUDIBLE) with it. And a race that Musk proclaimed could change -- quote -- "the entire destiny of humanity."
The result? The liberal-leaning candidate beat the conservative- leaning candidate by 10 points. After such a bruising loss, there's speculation that Musk may leave Trump's side. Now, the White House, they're shooting down those rumors completely. But just this week, Trump hinted that Musk's special government employee role, that may end soon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, I think he's amazing, but I also think he's got a big company to run. At some point, Elon is going to want to go back to his company.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Zolan Kanno-Youngs is back with me along with CNN political commentator Karen Finney and Republican strategist Matt Gorman. Glad to have you all. Let me start with you, Matt, on this because we already knew, first of all, the title of the special government employee only lasts 130 days. Anything more, different requirements kick in, et cetera. But is this loss in Wisconsin going to accelerate when that might be up or does it have any impact?
MATT GORMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Probably not accelerate. No. I mean, look, he even alluded this during the interview with Bret Baier last week, too --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
GORMAN: -- where (INAUDIBLE) himself so you would go back to this. I think Elon has done a good job. Exactly. What Trump and they all knew what he was going to do is be the human heat shield for Donald Trump on a lot of these decisions.
COATES: Hmmm.
GORMAN: Right? He can go in and take a lot of the heat so Trump's approval rate can stay around 50% as it is right now, according to CBS. And nobody cares what Elon says because Elon is not running for anything any time soon or ever.
COATES: And are Republicans tired of his -- I mean, as that heat shield role, does that impact how they view what his role should be?
GORMAN: Sometimes, it's the heat shield against other Republicans, too. I mean, the way you talked about in the opening is Elon Musk in Wisconsin. It wasn't Republicans. It wasn't Trump even. Right? I think it's important now. He is taking kind of the -- the opposing role on this. And look, let's be honest here. We lost by 10 last night. We lost by 11 in a -- in a comparable nationalized Supreme Court special election in 2023. So, you know, that's apples to apples comparison here. So, I think that was kind of noted, too, in the way people are phrasing it.
COATES: But the Democrats want him -- I mean, there is a nuance of Wisconsin and Elon Musk, et cetera.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Sure.
COATES: But the Democrats like Elon Musk being around for political reasons.
FINNEY: You know what? Here's the thing. Even if he physically isn't around, he's not going anywhere. We all know that. Because the bottom line is, number one, he is Donald Trump's assurance, and he's the way that he is keeping the GOP in line. Because they're afraid of what he might do. Remember what they did to Joni Ernst early on in the nominations process, right, where it was clear they were going to come after her. So, he's a bit of an insurance policy.
I agree with Matt that he has played this role of heat shield in that people. As we've seen, Musk's numbers are down. He's, you know, not for the violence, but certainly, you know, Tesla stocks have really -- and just owning Tesla has become a real problem. And so, he takes on a lot of that. But he's not like Steve Bannon. And there has been a conversation with the Democratic circles about this because, you know, we're not going to get rid of him.
The other thing about Elon, he owns X. So, he's invaluable to Donald Trump because it's such an important platform in communication for Republicans.
[23:25:00]
But the other piece about Elon Musk, I think we have to remember, we've talked about this before, he has gotten the most invaluable thing he can, and that is access to our data. And while they may say Musk is going back to his company, they didn't say his little minions were leaving any time soon either. So just because he's not there doesn't mean that his presence won't be thought -- felt in the White House, in Washington, and at these agencies.
COATES: They want his money, too. I mean, even if he's not physically there, right, he poured what, $20 million of his own money into the Wisconsin campaign. He gave away two $1 million checks. He poured $300 million into Trump's campaign as well. Whether he is physically present or not, that's a lot of money and a lot of influence and access.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Yeah. My colleagues have some reporting on this today at "The New York Times." Even once Elon's status as a special government employee, you know, runs out, even if he leaves government, you should not expect the president to cut ties with Elon Musk.
You mentioned the money that he poured into his campaign, and you mentioned also he owns a major communication platform as well. That is power and influence, particularly for somebody who's already in the White House.
And then I also wouldn't expect DOGE to stop, too. In fact, the president said the other day, when he said Elon will eventually want to go back to his company, he said, well, look, this work can continue under some other officials in government as well.
FINNEY: It's a really important point because one of the things I think Democrats need to be careful about is it has been -- you know, people have had their fun piling on Elon, but Trump is accountable. Elon Musk has been -- the DOGE effort is that is about Donald Trump, that is something he wanted, that is something he gave the orders to make it happen. So, even if Elon isn't out front, Trump still owns that process.
COATES: And that's a good point because it's not that he's scapegoating Elon Musk. He is praising and uplifting what he's doing and talking about it continuing. But I do wonder, even though Elon Musk is the target, maybe the heatshield you're talking about, does he at some point become a political liability if people associate Elon Musk as synonymous with Republicans?
GORMAN: I think, again, in the era of Trump, who are you going to associate more with Republican if you're a random congressional candidate on the ballot? Elon Musk or Donald Trump, who you probably actually either voted for or against when you go to the ballot box.
I think Donald Trump's fortunes, and whether they're good or bad come next November, are far, far, far more impactful for Republican candidates running for Senate and the House than they -- than whatever Elon Musk's approval ratings may be or may not.
COATES: Yeah. And they're -- they're lower, by the way, than -- than Trump. People are protesting Tesla and everything else when it comes to Elon Musk. And yet there's that mandate issue, though. They say the mandate is trust whatever Trump wants and trust whoever
he decides to anoint to these different roles. So, if people are faulting Elon Musk, they're really faulting the decision making of Trump. How is that reconciled by Republicans? GORMAN: Well, I -- I -- I take issue with your premise on that. I think, again, people can disagree with Elon Musk. And people actually -- they want that. Elon Musk can take the heat. There's a form they use. They call it the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. It closes our base around the world. And what it does is totally unaccountable, and you can't really be affected by it.
Elon Musk is a human form of BRAC. He is untouchable, rich. He can't be affected by the normal balance of power and conflicts that Trump or other Republicans can. That's the asset. That's why Trump likes him to do these sorts of things, can get dirty while others can't.
KANNO-YOUNGS: One thing to watch, though, is, and this kind of connects to our previous panel, if consumer prices do go up. Republicans are already hearing from their constituents who are frustrated and starting to point to Elon Musk. Now, if you have a president who's also attached to the world's richest man, upending the federal bureaucracy, and then you add consumer prices going up, that could spell trouble for -- for the White House.
FINNEY: The world's richest man who spent almost $300 million to get him into the White House.
GORMAN: The money was always the most overrated part of this because, again, you spent $300 million. Kamala Harris spent more. It was outspent. In Wisconsin, last month, the whole point --
FINNEY: That's not --
GORMAN: -- the money -- the money is such an awful lot.
COATES: Hold on. I can't hear both of you.
GORMAN: The money is such a right hearing in all of this.
COATES: Got it. What was your last point?
FINNEY: That the money says he bought access. It doesn't matter how much each campaign spent. It says Musk bought the access to Trump, and now they're thick as thieves. And people -- it's one of the things that unifies people across the political spectrum.
COATES: Red herring or red flag? Well, thank you, everyone. Up next, how exactly is the administration deciding who to accuse of being a gang member and who not to accuse? Well, tonight, the ACLU revealing what they say is a scorecard being used as part of the administration's sweeping deportations. What it reveals next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: They had no criminal records, and they got no due process. Yet some Venezuelan immigrants were still deported to El Salvador's notorious mega prison. Why? Well, it turns out the Department of Homeland Security is using a kind of handbook, the Alien Enemies Validation Guide.
That's according to a court document released by the ACLU. It's a point system that is used to determine if a migrant is in Tren de Aragua before deporting them. Now, if you've messaged with known gang members, that's six points, apparently. Gang-related tattoos, four points. Gang hand signs, two points. According to the document, an individual need to have at least eight points to be deported and it shouldn't be based on tattoos alone.
[23:34:56]
Now, these are some of the tattoos that DHS considers to be tied to Tren de Aragua: Trains, crowns, stars, clocks. They also look at clothing, apparently, as well. Quote -- "High-end urban streetwear" or even Chicago Bulls jerseys are red flags, even if not definitive indicators, according to court documents.
Now, in a statement, ICE says, officers rely on a range of law enforcement and intelligence techniques to identify aliens who are present in The United States without authorization or are otherwise removable; who may represent threats national security, public safety and border security; or otherwise undermine the integrity of U.S. immigration laws.
Joining me now is Lee Gelernt. He is the ACLU's lead attorney in the lawsuit against the Alien Enemies Act. He's also deputy director of the Immigrants' Rights Project. Let me begin with you on this. We've been focusing a lot on the idea of the potential for mistakes having been made and who's deported. But you say the use of the Alien Enemies Act alone is enough of a reason to question their authority.
LEE GELERNT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ACLU IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT: Oh, absolutely. The Alien Enemies Act goes back to 1798. It's a wartime authority. It was not meant to be used during peacetime, not against the gang. It's when the United States gets into a war with a foreign government. That's why it has only been used three times in our country's history, the war of 1812, World War I and World War II. This is --
COATES: Trump claims an invasion is worthy of it, though.
GELERNT: Right, but that's not what's meant by the law. It's an invasion, a military invasion by another country. And what's being lost is that if they don't want these people in the country and they're here illegally, they have all the authority they need to deport the person. The immigration laws allow them to be deported. And the judge said they can be detained. And if they've committed a crime, they can be criminally prosecuted. They're trying to use this wartime authority to bypass all the due process.
COATES: Bypassing due process, of course, means they won't have notice or opportunity to be heard. And the last part, an opportunity to be heard about something that they may not realize is the criteria that is sentencing them to deportation essentially. Tattoos, in particular.
GELERNT: Right.
COATES: We are seeing if they -- the checklist says that you cannot use the symbols or tattoos alone.
GELERNT: Right.
COATES: But how do we know that the criteria is even being followed as they say?
GELERNT: Oh, that's exactly right. They are not letting us see any of the evidence. They are not giving anybody an opportunity to contest it. We have no idea. And so, when people started learning that their family members had been sent to a Salvadoran prison, as you said, one of the most brutal in the world, maybe for the rest of their lives and held incommunicado, they said, our loved ones are not gang members. Why didn't he have a chance to show that?
They've given nobody a chance to show it. And there is undoubtedly mistake after mistake being made. And we've put in expert testimony now showing that these indicators they're using, the checklist, is not a reliable way to say that this person is a member of the gang. Yet no due process, and they're ending up for the rest of their lives, potentially, in this Salvadoran prison.
COATES: On that point in particular, if this was a normal case, so to speak, and you had a prosecutor that came in and said, I have probable cause, believe this person has committed a crime, I even have a jury conviction, I want them now sent to a prison outside of the country, a judge could not do that.
GELERNT: Oh, absolutely not. I'm glad you brought that up because a lot of people think, well, suppose they are gang members, can't they be sent for the rest of their life to a Salvadoran prison? You know, that's a wartime thing. And even during World War II, we gave Germans process, and we sent them back to Germany. You couldn't walk into a court and say, well, this person may be a gang member and they might have committed a robbery, so let's send them to El Salvador for the rest of their lives. So, everything about this is unprecedented and unlawful.
COATES: Now, being deported to El Salvador, if that were your home country, very different.
GELERNT: Very different.
COATES: Having them go if it's not their home country. But they've also alluded that if the person has mistakenly been sent, say, to El Salvador, it's out of their hands. They can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Is that true?
GELERNT: So, we don't think that's true, but that's exactly their position. And so, when they got asked in the Court of Appeals about, well, aren't you going to give people process? They said, we don't have to give people process, but maybe they could file something from El Salvador. And, obviously, everyone rolled their eyes because you're not going to be able to file something from one of those Salvadoran prisons nor is the U.S. going to let you come back.
So, we will try to get people back because we know people should not have been sent there. We'll see what the courts do. We'll see what the government does, but I hope the government owns up to the mistakes they're making.
COATES: You know, there have been a whole lot of issues happening, whether it's law firms who are essentially deciding and capitulating to the administration, whether there is funding being taken from universities as well.
GELERNT: Right.
COATES: Firing on all cylinders legally. What do you think is going to be, say, the Supreme Court's move when it comes to cases that are brought before them in this particular vein?
GELERNT: Yeah. Well, so before the Supreme Court right now, the government -- the Court of Appeals said no --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
GELERNT: -- we're not going to vacate this TRO. Let the judge do his work. He's working through the case.
[23:40:00]
That's Judge Boasberg after the government tried to get -- said we're calling for his impeachment and Chief Justice Roberts said, no, we don't impeach judges because you disagree with the rule. So, we'll see what the Supreme Court does. I will not try and predict what the Supreme Court does, but we hope that they keep this in place, this injunction, because the government has been very clear. If the injunction is dissolved, they say --
COATES: Or that TRO you're talking about.
GELERNT: The TRO. Exactly.
COATES: The idea of the injunction --
GELERNT: A temporary injunction.
COATES: Putting a pin and something inside of a chance and with all the briefings.
GELERNT: Exactly. That's exactly right. The government said to the Court of Appeals point blank, if you get rid of this temporary injunction, we will put people on planes, we believe we can put people on planes that minute. So, we're talking about them going without -- again, without any process. All the district court judges said this at this point, slow down, these people need a chance to contest that they're not even gang members. The government doesn't want to even allow that to happen, and so they have asked the Supreme Court to let them put people on planes immediately.
COATES: You're immediately skeptical when you hear nothing to see here, folks, if you're a judge. Lee, thank you breaking it all down. I appreciate it.
GELERNT: Thanks for having me.
COATES: Remember the whole, let's say, TikTok thing? Well, Trump has until Saturday to figure how to do that. And now, Amazon is apparently throwing its hat in the ring to buy it. So, what's going on here? And is the White House even close to a deal? We have new reporting on this next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have a lot of potential buyers. There's tremendous interest in TikTok. The decision is going to be my decision. I'd like to see TikTok remain alive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: We're just days away from the deadline to sell TikTok to stop a ban. And tonight, there's a major new player throwing its hat in the ring. Sources telling CNN that Amazon is making an 11th hour bid to buy the Chinese-owned social media app. But it may not be as easy as asking Alexa how much it'll cost. That's because learning that there are several U.S.-based companies waiving their wallets, including the tech giant Oracle, private equity firms Blackstone and Silver Lake, Microsoft and Zoop, a company whose leadership includes the founders of OnlyFans.
Sources tell CNN that tomorrow, a group of advisers led by Vice President J.D. Vance will present President Trump with a proposal that includes multiple companies investing in the app to try to offset China's influence.
Joining me now to discuss, CNN media analyst and senior media reporter for Axios, Sara Fischer, an expert in this. I'm glad that you are here. It doesn't actually appear, though, that the White House is taking Amazon's bid so seriously. Should they?
SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST, SENIOR MEDIA REPORTER FOR AXIOS: Well, it's difficult because we're in this climate where there's a lot of antitrust scrutiny. Amazon is such a big company. They're already being investigated for antitrust. So, to allow them to acquire one of the most influential tech companies when they're already one of the biggest tech companies being alleged of abusing its monopoly, I think it's going to be a very hard sell for the U.S. government to hand this over to Amazon. By the way, I feel the same way about Microsoft, also under an investigation for antitrust. The types of companies that I think have a much more likely chance of getting something like this approved from a regulatory perspective would be those P.E. firms or potentially other tech firms that aren't as big or coalitions of investors coming together. You probably heard over the past few weeks people like Steve Mnuchin putting together bids, MrBeast, Frank McCourt. That seems more likely to me than just trying to hand it over to big tech.
COATES: But that's regulatory permission. What about China's permission? Because they have a huge take and actually -- aren't they the final say in where this actually goes, if at all?
FISCHER: Yes. Yes, Laura. And for so long, they said we are not going to let any of our companies divest to the US, let alone ByteDance, divesting one of the most important social media platforms. Now, they changed their tune in January. And so, they started to ease up on that stance, suggesting that maybe private companies can dictate their own future.
But at the end of the day, Laura, I think it would be very hard pressed to think that Beijing is absolutely going to approve this. Now, you would assume that the U.S. government in putting together a deal is already trying to talk to Beijing about that, but I'll tell you, from my sources who are submitting bids to the U.S. government, they're not in direct talks with ByteDance, they're not in direct talks with the CCP. The only people that they're in talks with right now is the U.S. government.
COATES: "The Washington Post," though, they're reporting something tonight about a possible scenario but what's really invaluable to anyone looking at TikTok. Of course, the algorithm.
FISCHER: Hmmm.
COATES: And they're reporting that there's a scenario where ByteDance would actually lease the algorithm to the United States. First of all, what would that truly look like? And would that actually work to bypass what Congress said cannot be done?
FISCHER: Well, who knows? Like, this is the problem.
COATES: Yeah.
FISCHER: Unless you own the app and you own the algorithm and you have full control over what it does and how it distributes content, there's always going to be this what if, if the app is being used by the CCP to advance its national security goals. Unless we have full control of the algorithm, I don't think that's ever going to really pan out.
Now, the law as it's written, it says that it has to be fully owned by a U.S. company. It doesn't really define what full ownership means. It doesn't say full ownership means you own the algorithm and you own the data and you own the centers that host the data. So, it could be up to interpretation. But if I had to guess, this went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the congressional decision, the law, because they viewed it as a national security threat. And so, if we're in a position where we're licensing an algorithm, I would imagine they'd take an issue with that.
COATES: We'll have to say. Sara Fischer, thank you so much for your expertise tonight.
FISCHER: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, torpedo bats. Amber Ruffin firing back after being cut from the White House Correspondents' Dinner and more. We've got comedian Roy Wood, Jr. to talk about it all in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMBER RUFFIN, COMEDIAN: I thought when people take away your rights, erase your history, and deport your friends, you're supposed to call it out. But I was wrong. Glad to find that out now because if they had let me give that speech, oh, baby.
(APPLAUSE)
I would have been so terrifically mean.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Comedian Amber Ruffin giving us just a taste of what could have been her roast at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
The group recently canceled her gig after Trump team called out some past critical comments that she made about Trump and the administration.
Joining me now, comedian Roy Wood, Jr. He's also the host of CNN's "Have I Got News For You," which also features Amber Ruffin. He himself has hosted the "White House Correspondents' Dinner back in 2023. My friend, Roy, how are you? Good to see you. I definitely want to hear what you have to say about Amber losing the gig this way. What's your thought?
ROY WOOD, JR., COMEDIAN, CNN HOST: First off, love the blue, love the red. Can't tell if that's ladybugs.
(LAUGHTER) I don't know what's going on your blouse, but --
COATES: They're flowers, not beetles, but thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
WOOD: So, you know, I feel like this is a loss for comedy and it's a loss for free speech as well. You know, my bigger question with the correspondents' dinner now is, what do you do without comedy at this event? Because what -- I think what people forget is that the larger part of the correspondents' dinner is, of course, to honor those in journalism who have done the job. Right? And you honor people who have passed away, who died while covering stories, people who are locked up unjustly abroad. And then at the end of the night, there's a group of college kids, who after seeing all of that, still want to be journalists, and they get scholarships.
And then we're just supposed to go home? You're just supposed to roll the sad reel? For two hours, we eat steak and -- good food at the correspondents' dinner. The sidebar, the beef medallion and the sea bass. Oh, my goodness gracious.
(LAUGHTER)
But I -- I don't know if you can put Kid Rock and Lee Greenwood in the place of comedy and then have the same effect to really bring truth to the magnetism of what the occupation of journalism is today. I'm curious to see if Trump still show up. Because I guarantee, if they give Trump the microphone, he ain't going to hit both sides with jokes.
COATES: Hmmm.
WOOD: So, it will be -- it will be interesting to see what happens at the end of the month. But I hate that that happened to Amber, and I hate that they did that.
COATES: I was looking forward to hearing her and those beef medallions. So, we'll -- we'll have to see. You know what I mean? You can't --
(LAUGHTER)
It's hard to get a meal right in big crowds. But there's also another controversy that's brewing in baseball. Speaking about maybe not medallions with the diamond. See my transition? The Yankees are using so-called torpedo bats, which are thicker than and wider than other bats. The baseball league is saying that they're totally legal, but they're not without controversy, Roy.
WOOD: Yes.
COATES: Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: And there's just some geek from MIT, some physicist, ruining 100 years of baseball or 200 years of baseball.
UNKNOWN: If it's illegal, that's a different matter. If it's legal and everyone is free to do it, then it ain't a controversy. Period.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Look, you're a huge baseball fan. I know. Where do you fall in this debate?
WOOD: It's legal. Let it ride.
COATES: Hmmm.
WOOD: This is the greatest thing that happened to baseball in a long time. Last time, I was talking about baseball this long, this far into the opening weeks. The torpedo bat to me, this is that innovation. You remember when Dee Brown had the Reebok pump up sneakers during the dunk contest --
(LAUGHTER)
-- and wondering whether or not that could actually make you jump high. Is it legal to pump up your sneaker? We don't know. I love it --
COATES: And at the end.
WOOD: -- and -- yeah. And we also have to -- you can't lose sight of the fact that the Minnesota Twins use the same bat. They lost three games in a row earlier this -- this year already. So, the bat itself is not some super steroid magic wand cheat code. You still got to see the ball. You still got to hit the ball.
COATES: Well, bringing up the Minnesota Twins seemed personal to this Minnesotan, but I'll let that go for a second. Thank you very much. I also --
WOOD: Don't get mad at me.
COATES: You know what? Let's move on, my friend. Okay? Let's move on. I want to talk about Iceman because you probably have ice in your veins by following that particular comment. But so many of us are remembering the beloved actor who played everything from Batman to Iceman. I'm talking about Val Kilmer. He passed away at the age of 65. Share with me, you're a movie buff just like me, what were your favorite movie moments of Val Kilmer?
WOOD: He came out in 1995, my freshman year of college. I'm old. And when I tell you we watched that bank robbery scene, or you watched the movie over and over, but then that scene with Val Kilmer just, you know, going at it in the street, was amazing.
I had the pleasure of finally watching "Top Gun: Maverick" with my son, and I have to say that I don't know if it was planned like that, but the moment between Tom Cruise's character Maverick and Iceman where he's essentially saying goodbye to Iceman, it almost serves as, you know, I don't like the word eulogy, but, like, just a sincere moment of Val Kilmer receiving his flowers. And I feel like that thank you from Tom to Ice was more -- it wasn't Maverick to Ice, it was Tom to Val, and thanking him just, you know, for his career and his contributions to the crowd.
[23:59:58]
COATES: And a thank you from all his fans to him as well. Roy Wood, Jr., let me give you your flowers. Always glad to have you on. So proud of the work you're doing. Thanks for joining.
WOOD: Thank you.
COATES: Be sure to join Roy and Amber Ruffin and Michael Ian Black who is on the all new episode of "Have I Got News for You," Saturday night at 9, only right here on CNN. Hey, thank you all for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
