Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Republicans Meet With Musk, Push For Answers On DOGE; Trump & Trudeau Speak Amid Escalating Trade War; NYC Mayor Refuses To Answer Under Oath If He Spoke To Trump Admin. About Dropping His Corruption Case. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 05, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: --in the 14 years I've been reporting regularly on the British royal family, John, I've never seen them roll out the red carpet, like they are for Donald Trump this time.
King Charles even offering to fly up to Scotland, whilst the President is playing golf there, so they can discuss how they can both get the most out of this unprecedented second state visit. It's set to be quite the show.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: I'm sure it will be.
Max Foster, in London, thank you.
That's all for us. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
The call coming from inside the House. Elon Musk is on Capitol Hill, giving out his phone number to Republicans, who have questions about his mass firings. What they told him about Congress having a say in the matter. My source tonight was in the room.
Also, a surprise aftershock from President Trump's trade war with Canada and Mexico. The President's tough call with Canada's Prime Minister, as the Finance Minister there says, We are not interested in meeting in the middle. He'll join me live, in a few moments.
And all signs point to a party divided. Can Democrats agree on a strategy to resist Trump? Two outspoken lawmakers, one Democrat, one Republican, are here, and they will be sitting together.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Good evening from Washington, as you are looking live at the U.S. Capitol, where Elon Musk has just faced something that he's not really used to. Pushback from Republicans in Congress, even if it was gentle pushback and some prodding and questions.
He just wrapped up a meeting with House Republicans, after sitting down with their colleagues in the Senate, earlier today. Both chambers, after getting an earful themselves from their constituents, are advocating for Musk to involve them in his effort to slash the size and the spending of the federal government. It's a clear sign that, after six weeks, Republicans are looking to reassert the power of their purse.
CNN has learned, the members vented their frustration about not being kept in the loop about what's being cut, and from where. They want to play a bigger role, we are told, in making sure that these cuts also stick legally inside the courts.
Musk essentially told them, Message received.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): He won the room. He actually gave out his number. We need a system where, if you see something that you think is not what was intended, who do you call and how do you fix it? And he said, When I -- I want to fix it quickly, is what he said, I want to keep the momentum. But from a political point of view, we need to take the work product of DOGE and put it in a rescission package.
SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): Elon. It's very up front. So, they're moving fast. It's not going to be perfect. There'll be mistakes made. But we'll correct those mistakes very quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Musk providing the lawmakers with his phone number, a decision that we'll see if he comes to regret, but one that he joked about with reporters in between his meetings today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Elon, can we get your cell phone number if you're giving it out?
ELON MUSK, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's--
REPORTER: We have questions.
MUSK: Yes. Something 8-0 -- 8-0-0-8.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Worth a try by those enterprising reporters.
But there is serious talk tonight about putting together some sort of legislative package that would codify all of these cuts, which would also mean that these members would then be voting, on the record, for these cuts and the firings that Musk is undertaking.
My colleague, Manu Raju, caught up with Elon Musk, moments ago, as he was leaving that meeting with House Republicans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUSK: There's a lot of room -- a lot of opportunities to improve expenditures in the government. And then we're making good progress.
MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Did Congress have a vote on this? Should Congress have a vote on this?
MUSK: Well, they do have a vote on it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight was in that meeting. Republican congressman, Carlos Gimenez, of Florida.
And it's great to have you here, Congressman.
What questions did you have for Elon Musk, and what answers did you get?
REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ (R-FL): I really didn't have a question for him. Actually, I gave him some ideas that the federal government owns about one-third of all the land in the United States, and then maybe we need to start monetizing some of that, that we could actually get -- kill two birds with one stone. You monetize the land. You take it off the book so we don't have to maintain it. And it's also land that can be used for housing. I mean, we've had -- we have--
COLLINS: Did he like that idea?
GIMENEZ: Yes, he said it was -- it was pretty good. Also, I ask him, Hey, if I have other ideas on how we can save money, et cetera, how can I get ahold of you? He said, There's a -- there's a website for that. And so--
COLLINS: Oh, so he didn't offer his number to House Republicans?
GIMENEZ: No, he didn't, no, he didn't give us his number.
And so, there's a website for that.
But then, a staffer came by and said, Hey, if you have some ideas, let me know, and then I'll get that to him.
COLLINS: What questions did your colleagues have for them? Because some of them, who are in districts that maybe are a little bit more divided, have certainly had -- we've seen the town halls, where they're getting earfuls from some constituents who say, We want to need to know more about this.
GIMENEZ: Yes.
COLLINS: Some of them don't like it, but some do want to know more about it.
[21:05:00] GIMENEZ: Well, they just -- they just want to be kept in the loop a little bit. Also -- but I'll tell you what. The tone in the House was probably a lot different than the tone in the Senate. Most of the House members there were saying, Yes, we like what you're doing. Keep it up. Just keep us in the loop. Make sure that you don't step on any landmines, et cetera.
Some of the things that he was accused of, like, firing of the probationary people? He said, Look, that was done by the agency heads themselves, and so they made some mistakes. And he's admitted to making some mistakes. But he's also, you know, we kind of like what he's doing. And this is an exercise that needed to be done. It hasn't been done in a long time.
And any -- any corporation, any large organization, needs to look at itself every once in a while, because inevitably, every bureaucracy just grows and grows and grows. And eventually -- eventually, you say, Hey, are we doing the things that we should be doing? And if we're not, then we need to come, you know -- slash it or cut it, because it's not our money. It is the taxpayers' money.
COLLINS: Yes, but I think one question with that is Congress created offices of these government watchdogs that essentially were doing what Elon Musk was doing, looking through and making recommendations to Congress. I mean, Congress -- are you saying that these inspectors generals--
GIMENEZ: No. No, no, no. No, I don't think so.
COLLINS: --weren't doing that?
GIMENEZ: I don't think they were doing the job that Elon Musk is doing.
COLLINS: None of them?
GIMENEZ: I don't think they were. And so, they're also--
COLLINS: Even the person who found the fraud--
GIMENEZ: --they're also -- they're also part of the bureaucracy.
COLLINS: --in Social Security and Medicare--
GIMENEZ: No. They're also part of the bureaucracy.
COLLINS: --and was able to claw it back. You don't think that that person was doing their job?
GIMENEZ: I don't think a lot of them were doing the job that they should be. And so, look, Elon Musk--
COLLINS: What does that say about Congress? I mean, Congress is -- Congress picked these people to do these jobs, and have oversight of these agencies, and then to report back to Congress.
GIMENEZ: Right.
COLLINS: So wouldn't that be your role, as an elected lawmaker, and -- not just yours, but your colleagues as well, to do that instead of having Elon Musk do it?
GIMENEZ: No, I like Elon Musk doing it, because Elon Musk is outside of government, and he's going to look at things in a completely different light, things that maybe these folks that were in government weren't going to be looking the same way.
Once you're in government, you have a certain paradigm, and you follow that paradigm. Elon Musk doesn't have that paradigm. He's looking at things from a completely different perspective. He's also finding and writing code and figuring out the code of the federal government. A lot of these folks don't have that kind of talent. And so, I like what he is doing.
Is it all going to be rosy and everything is going to be great? No. Are they -- is he going to stumble every once in a while? Hey, I thought that could save money, and maybe it doesn't, because we actually need that program. Yes. But the exercise--
COLLINS: So, on that front--
GIMENEZ: The exercise is a good exercise.
COLLINS: On that front, though. Usually someone with this much power, a cabinet secretary, an agency head, can come and testify. You can request for them to come and testify on Capitol Hill. Do you think Elon Musk should do that? He answered your questions behind closed doors. But should that happen in a public setting?
GIMENEZ: Well he's not -- he's not a -- he's not an employee, right? And so.
COLLINS: He's a Special Government employee.
GIMENEZ: Right. And so, but -- but--
COLLINS: A different category.
GIMENEZ: It's a different category.
So, he's got some folks that are actually heading DOGE. And so, those folks can come in front of us, and say, Exactly what it is that you're doing? How did you find these cuts, and are they valid or not? What we need to do is validate the cuts, validate the savings, so that we can then utilize that, as we're doing the reconciliation package.
COLLINS: And you -- do you want these to be codified? Do you want Congress to take these cuts that he's made and turn them into law?
GIMENEZ: The ones that are valid? Absolutely, yes. I mean, why wouldn't we? Those are valid cuts. These are -- this is, he's finding waste, fraud and abuse, all right? And he feels that he can cut -- cut billions-- COLLINS: We haven't seen examples of fraud yet.
GIMENEZ: --billions and -- oh, yes, we found some fraud, OK?
COLLINS: Where--
GIMENEZ: Billions of dollar.
COLLINS: Can you name one example of fraud?
GIMENEZ: I will give you an example. Sure.
Yesterday, the President talked about all these people that are 180- years-old, that were on the on the rolls, right, the Social Security rolls. Well, what's happened is some small business loans were made utilizing those Social Security numbers to verify that the individual was alive and was that individual. And that would -- 300--
COLLINS: Has that been recommended to the Justice Department?
GIMENEZ: It should be. $300 million in loans were given out. Not one penny was returned. So, yes, so that whole thing with Social Security, it wasn't that we're paying everybody that was on the roll. Is that sometimes those -- those folks that were obviously dead, those numbers were being utilized by other people for fraudulent purposes.
COLLINS: Yes, I think a lot of those numbers, when CNN looked into them, it was about 44,000 people. When they were saying that they couldn't, essentially have been alive, they actually found that they could. There were 86,000 people that were over the age of 100. But I do want to ask you--
GIMENEZ: We're talking -- we're talking millions, OK?
COLLINS: When you're talking specifics--
GIMENEZ: I mean, those are millions versus 88,000. I mean, those numbers that we had of people that were still on the rolls were in the millions.
COLLINS: But that doesn't mean--
GIMENEZ: Not 88,000.
COLLINS: --they were all getting paid. Because there was an inspector general.
GIMENEZ: No, and nobody said they were. Nobody said they were all getting paid.
COLLINS: But that would be the fraud.
GIMENEZ: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
COLLINS: But there is an inspector general who looks into this.
GIMENEZ: I just told you specifically what the fraud--
COLLINS: But let me ask you--
[21:10:00]
GIMENEZ: Wait, hold on. I told you specifically what the fraud was, OK? This fraud was, there were small business loans that were given to, and verified by those Social Security numbers of people that are obviously dead, they were over a 115-years-old, to verify that they in fact existed. And then the loans were given and they were never repaid.
COLLINS: Right. But I'm just saying that is something that would be recommended to the Justice Department--
GIMENEZ: Yes.
COLLINS: --if there was actually fraud being committed there.
GIMENEZ: Absolutely.
COLLINS: That was the question that we've had about actual fraud--
GIMENEZ: Yes.
COLLINS: --when you talk about waste, fraud, abuse.
But let me ask you. Because you have veterans who live in your district. And we have an internal memo that says that they are recommending 70,000 job cuts at Veterans Affairs. Do you believe that that is the right step? Is that going to benefit veterans here in the United States?
GIMENEZ: I would say that the agency head, over Veterans Affairs, the Cabinet Secretary--
COLLINS: Doug Collins.
GIMENEZ: --OK? Needs to verify that. All right? It's up to them.
Look, in my druthers, what I would have done, a little bit different. I used to be the Mayor of Miami-Dade County, and I did cut Miami-Dade County a lot when I was the Mayor.
You have to have people that understand the government, how it works, and then you have to have some people from -- that give you a little bit different perspective. Hey, look over there. And then you can make that judgment call whether, Hey, yes, I'll accept that, or No, I won't, because I understand exactly how that works.
I think that, today, I was pleasantly surprised that, yes, Elon Musk is actually using people that are inside those agencies to kind of guide him through. But some of those agency folks are also making some mistakes. Some mistakes. But you're not going to throw out the entire operation or the exercise, simply because you're making some mistakes. This is a huge government. And you are -- and you are going to make some mistakes.
COLLINS: But are they being transparent enough with the mistakes? Because sometimes--
GIMENEZ: Yes, I'm sorry?
COLLINS: Are they being transparent enough with the mistakes? Because they'll post contracts or numbers that they say they've gotten on their website. And then, quietly, they're deleted. It's only because reporters notice that they've been deleted that--
GIMENEZ: Right.
COLLINS: --that attention is drawn to it.
GIMENEZ: Well, they found that there was -- there was--
COLLINS: Should DOGE own up to that?
GIMENEZ: Of course. When you make a mistake, you own up to it and say, Oh, hey, I was mistaken. Because then that leads to your credibility. If you just say, No, that wasn't a mistake. It really was a mistake, but I'm not -- going to hide it? No.
I like the fact that, Hey, we made a mistake. Take it away. And it was a mistake. You own up to it, and then that leads credence and gives you credibility with us, in Congress, but also the American people.
COLLINS: Congressman, thank you for running over here, and joining us, after that meeting.
GIMENEZ: Thank you.
COLLINS: Really appreciate your time tonight.
GIMENEZ: Appreciate you.
COLLINS: We also have political sources here at the table tonight.
Democratic strategist, Alencia Johnson is here.
And the former senior adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell, Scott Jennings is joining us.
Scott, your thoughts on Elon Musk taking this trip to Capitol Hill. Do you think it was the right move?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO MITCH MCCONNELL: Absolutely. Good idea.
And I'd just give one more piece of public relations advice, which is, at some point they'll have collected enough information, and put together enough of a presentation, where they could go up to a hearing, have members of Congress ask them questions about it, and really display for the American people the waste, fraud and abuse that they're finding, and what they might want to do about it. I do think members of Congress should be brought in on this. I think this meeting is a good step. Eventually, a public presentation, I think would help the President, and the whole Republican Party, with the project of cutting government.
COLLINS: What should that look like? On Capitol Hill or?
JENNINGS: Absolutely -- a hearing. I think we ought to do it--
COLLINS: You think Elon Musk should testify on Capitol Hill--
JENNINGS: I think--
COLLINS: --about what he's doing?
JENNINGS: I think that Elon, and his team, and the people that the President designates who have been working on this project, I think they should have no fears, because I do think they are finding things. I think the American people need to know about it.
And I think if the President is going to continue to sell a program, where we're reducing the size of government, they're going to have more than enough evidence to make the political case.
COLLINS: Alencia?
ALENCIA JOHNSON, SENIOR ADVISER, BIDEN 2020 CAMPAIGN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Listen, I think this meeting today was very interesting.
And the fact that it actually took this long for Elon Musk to actually answer to members of Congress, who actually decided on these budgets, right, that built (ph) these agencies, that made sure these federal workers had their positions, it was actually time for him to go on Capitol Hill.
But it also comes after a lot of Republicans have shut down their town halls because a lot of their constituents are saying, We don't like the way that this is going.
I think both sides of the aisle do agree that we have to make sure the government is running efficient, right? We can agree on that. But it's the way in which Elon Musk is doing this, the way in which they're gutting the government.
And quite frankly, he's continuing to get his billions of dollars in federal contracts. And yet, so many of the programs that people rely on every single day, Republicans, Democrats, and everyone in between, are being cut. As well as, this is devastating the economy, when you have people who are unemployed and scared.
I talk to -- I talk to a ton of federal workers all the time. I live in the DMV area. They are concerned about not only their job, but also cuts to the benefits for those who continue to still work in the federal government.
And so, it's going to be interesting to see how this continues to play out. And I actually do want Elon Musk to come to Congress for a hearing, so that he can face actual -- Democrats too, about the questions about what he's doing.
COLLINS: Bipartisan agreement between the two of you.
[21:15:00]
You mentioned those town halls. Rich McCormick of Georgia is one of those lawmakers who did get an earful from his representatives at one of those town halls. He was asked by Manu today about Elon Musk and the cuts he's making, and what he wants to see differently.
This is what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RICH MCCORMICK (R-GA): If he just takes a half step back, we'll do something that I think can be compassionate, at the same time, something that's impactful when it comes to saving America's money, that's hard-earned and hard-spent.
RAJU: What do you mean half step back?
MCCORMICK: We -- he's admitted to things. He said, Look, we've done some things wrong, but we're learning. I just want to continue that learning process. We can do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That is similar to what Congressman Gimenez just said there, in terms of, They've made mistakes. The question is, how they are acknowledging those mistakes, I think.
JENNINGS: Well, I think they acknowledge as they go. They've obviously updated the information, they've put out on their website.
And I think they have some political leash here to make a few mistakes. Because people look at this government. I mean, today we spend about $6.2 trillion. In 2019, we've spent $4.45 trillion. How did we go from $4.5 trillion to $6.2 trillion in just the last five years?
COLLINS: Tax cuts, CRs.
JENNINGS: No, this is spending, this is federal spending, and so.
COLLINS: Rampant spending on Capitol Hill.
(CROSSTALK)
A. JOHNSON: Well, and also -- but also these--
JENNINGS: And on the VA -- and on the VA memo--
A. JOHNSON: --these mistakes are impacting everyone's lives.
JENNINGS: If I might -- if I might -- if I might finish?
A. JOHNSON: Like, literal lives.
JENNINGS: On the VA memo that we've been talking about, these job cuts. If you read the memo, they're going back to 2019 staffing levels. The VA operated in 2019. We somehow lived with those staffing levels.
COLLINS: Yes, but you know what's passed in between then. The PACT Act, which is to help burn pit victims.
JENNINGS: I know. I know. But--
COLLINS: That's why it expanded.
JENNINGS: I know. But here's the -- here's the point that Republicans are making.
COLLINS: Yes, but that's more people who needed eligible--
JENNINGS: And--
COLLINS: --who were eligible to being covered.
JENNINGS: Did we need 70,000 federal workers to cover it?
My question, and what the Republicans are asking, is simply this. Is it not possible for us to approach getting back to 2019 spending levels? Or maybe, did we go too far with the size of government? It always gets bigger. It never gets smaller. There will be sob stories. There will be sad stories. But overall fiscal health--
A. JOHNSON: But that can't--
JENNINGS: --of this country matters.
A. JOHNSON: That can't be a talking point that these are sob stories. These are, again, people's livelihoods, and also the health of this country, right? They have -- some of these mistakes that people keep talking about are gutting our agencies that are taking care of, I don't know, paying attention to the bird flu, Ebola, these things that actually can have detrimental impacts on the American people.
JENNINGS: We have Ebola in the United States?
A. JOHNSON: Well, we are helping the world be a safer place as well, Scott. And we know that.
JENNINGS: I mean, on the bird flu, we did -- Biden slaughtered all the chickens. I don't know if there's any left to kill.
A. JOHNSON: Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. Come on.
COLLINS: On that note--
A. JOHNSON: Come on, Scott. I mean you-- JENNINGS: It was a bloodbath. You all love that word.
A. JOHNSON: You can laugh about this. But these are things that people are actually scared about. I mean, measles is coming back. There's so many things that are happening that our federal government makes sure--
JENNINGS: You're saying Elon Musk caused the measles?
A. JOHNSON: I am saying what is happening in this government, right now, with Donald Trump appointing--
JENNINGS: You're saying Donald Trump caused the measles?
A. JOHNSON: I am saying that what is happening in this federal government, under Donald Trump, allow Elon Musk, and allow all these people that he appointed, to run this government like this, is actually making us unsafe, for the American people.
COLLINS: Thank you both, for being here.
JENNINGS: Elon caused the measles. You heard it here first.
COLLINS: Scott Jennings. Alencia Johnson.
A. JOHNSON: Not what I said.
COLLINS: Not what she said.
Ahead. We're going to speak with a top Canadian official. You saw what happened at the White House today. The President told the Prime Minister, during a call, that his attempts to prevent those tariffs as very clearly evident were, quote, not good enough.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I just left the White House press briefing, where the big topic of the day were tariffs, and the tariffs that President Trump has put in place on Canada and Mexico.
But also an announcement that we got, about a last-minute reprieve that the three big U.S. auto makers are getting as a result of a phone call that they had with President Trump. The question is about the time of that short break that they are getting. What's behind it, and what happens when it's over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the three biggest auto makers in the United States are getting a little bit of a break, with the White House granting a one-month exception, allowing them to escape the tariffs that have been imposed on all goods from Canada and Mexico. But why 30 days, and what happens when that month is up? That is the question that I posed to the White House press secretary today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: One on the reprieve that is being granted to these three auto makers for one month on the tariffs on Canada and Mexico. How did the President settle on one month?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The reciprocal tariffs will go into effect on April 2nd, and he feels strongly about that, no matter what, no exception -- exemption. So that's where the one month come from -- comes from.
COLLINS: So, does he expect them to be able to shift production within a month?
LEAVITT: He told them that he -- they should get on it, start investing, start moving, shift production here to the United States of America, where they will pay no tariff. That's the ultimate goal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My deeply-sourced White House insiders are here tonight.
Astead Herndon of The New York Times.
And Reuters' Jeff Mason, who is sitting next to me in that briefing.
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Right.
COLLINS: And Jeff, obviously, this is a huge relief for Stellantis and GM and Ford. But it's a real question of what happens in one month from now. Obviously, the idea of shifting production is not feasible for these auto makers.
MASON: No, I mean, these are big companies that have a lot of production that would have to be shifted way too rapidly to make that realistic, by getting it done next April -- they just -- this coming April.
Also, I mean, a month is not very long in general as a reprieve. It was good for them. It was good for the stock market. It was good for their shares today. But as we saw, he gave a reprieve about a month ago, generally, to the Canada and Mexico tariffs, and then put them in to place this week. So, the reprieves, at least so far, under Trump 2.0, have not been for very long.
COLLINS: Yes, and it just shows the capricious nature of these tariffs that, once Trump implements them, everyone is trying to get a waiver or an exemption, if it's for a month or permanent, because they realize that there is a way to achieve that sometimes.
ASTEAD HERNDON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes, I mean, that's been what the last kind of couple months have shown us. They were supposed to be ironclad until they weren't, right? Like, is this a reprieve, is this a capitulation, is this an acknowledgement of reality that this was causing some economic unrest?
I mean, I think that the chaos that has led to -- that has led to this reprieve is still going to be looming come a month from now. And I feel like that's the question that you are asking us, out of the question in the air (ph).
[21:25:00]
I also think there's a real political consequence to this. I mean, it's a little early to be looking at things like approval ratings or things like that. But Donald Trump's under water on economic handling.
People do not seem to feel as if he is reacting immediately to the concern that most brought him to the White House. And I don't think last night's speech really told Americans a story about why they would be bearing the brunt of these inflationary tariffs.
And so, until the White House clears that burden, I think there's a looming political backlash that we see from the auto industry, but also from Republican senators. As we all know, they were also the ones going to the White House saying that they were hearing some concerns about this.
And you would hear, you -- I heard Senator Markwayne Mullin say that, maybe his constituents be OK to pay some of that brunt and cost. I look kind of skeptically at that. And I think that's some of the things they're informing this kind of change in position in the White House.
COLLINS: Yes, they kind of keep having this message of, Be tough, be prepared for a little bit of pain, but in the long run, this is going to pay off.
I mean, Trump's message to farmers, last night, I think, was one of the standout lines of his address to Congress, where he was essentially arguing, this is what's going to happen in a month from now, when that reprieve stops for these auto makers, and also when the other tariffs kick in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Our farmers, starting on April 2nd. It may be a little bit of an adjustment period. We had that before when I made the deal with China -- $50 billion of purchases. And I said, Just bear with me. And they did. They did. Probably have to bear with me again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, when he's saying that, it's a reminder, they had to bail farmers out in his first term to--
HERNDON: Yes.
COLLINS: --to the tune of $28 billion right?
MASON: That's right. Just bear with me, is a -- can be a tough ask, if you're the one who's looking at losing your farm, losing your business, losing your livelihood, which is happening to a lot of people.
He also said there would be a little disturbance from the tariffs. And the little disturbance manifested itself -- manifested itself, this weekend, a huge drop in the stock market, which, of course, recovered a little bit today with that one-month reprieve. But the seesawing will continue.
COLLINS: Yes, and the White House seemed to dismiss the stock market.
But this is all -- Trump had these calls with the Prime Minister of Canada. We're going to speak to a senior adviser to him, coming up. But -- from the Oval Office today.
And also, in the Oval today, we saw that Trump met with the survivors of October 7th, people who were taken hostage on that day, and just most recently, were released, several of them who were in the Oval Office.
And Trump posted after, about this, as we've learned, he's negotiating directly with Hamas, at least his administration is, which is a notable change to see. I mean, that is something that, as was Peter Doocy pointed out in the briefing today, is not something that the United States, I believe, has ever done before.
HERNDON: Yes, I thought that was really notable to keen -- to see that tone and shift, the truth that he put out recently, making clear that kind of Hamas has a certain amount of time before, he says, they're going to pay hell on earth.
Clearly, Donald Trump is moving at this furious pace that's hard to keep up on a lot of fronts, whether it be tariffs, whether it be foreign policy. Elon Musk and the cuts at DOGE. The looming kind of deportations in immigration. He has laid out a suite of kind of America First policies, but they're all happening at once.
And so, one thing I do think, is that there is a sense of -- he acknowledged that in the speech, last night, We know that we're moving quickly. But what is -- are there going to be limits that either the public or the courts or anyone imposes on them, to really make that agenda possible?
Because we know that they're not going to stop, right? Like, they are kind of living in the Project 2025 version of this, where they can do it all at once. We're going to see whether that kind of resistance shows up, either in backlash, internationally, or in backlash, domestically.
MASON: Also remember, in terms of norms that he, during his first term, invited the Taliban to come to Camp David, before the backlash to that ended up leading them not to end up doing that.
HERNDON: Yes.
MASON: But the norms, in terms of what he's willing to throw out the window, apply to the economy. They apply to tariffs.
HERNDON: And some of it is -- some of that's-
(CROSSTALK)
MASON: But they also -- they also apply to negotiations with--
(CROSSTALK)
HERNDON: For sure.
COLLINS: Yes. Well, and that post tonight was, it said, "Shalom Hamas," which he wrote, "means Hello and Goodbye - You can choose. Release all of the Hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you." And there will be hell to pay. He said, "This is your last warning."
MASON: Yes. That echoes language that he's been using repeatedly since before he came into office, and now that he's been in office. The hell-to-pay sort of rhetoric. What does that mean exactly? He hasn't let us kind of nail him down on that.
COLLINS: Yes.
Astead Herndon. Jeff Mason. Great to have you both here. Thank you so much.
And when you're working at the White House, you never know who you are going to run into. Today, it was the newest and youngest member of the Secret Service.
During his address to Congress, last night, you saw President Trump make 13-year-old cancer survivor, DJ Daniel, an honorary agent.
Today, we spotted DJ, and his dad, outside of the West Wing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DJ DANIEL, 13-YEAR-OLD CANCER SURVIVOR HONORED BY PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You know what's crazy?
COLLINS: What?
DANIEL: You know who I caught in the White House?
COLLINS: Who?
DANIEL: From Tesla's (ph).
COLLINS: That -- Elon, you saw him?
DANIEL: Yes, I just caught him in the hallway.
COLLINS: Did you say hi to him?
DANIEL: Mm-hmm.
COLLINS: And what did he say?
DANIEL: I said, Can you do me a big favor? When we get back to Houston, can you send us a Cybertruck down there?
COLLINS: And did Elon Musk say he'd send you a Tesla?
DANIEL: Mm-hmm.
[21:30:00]
COLLINS: A Cybertruck?
DANIEL: Mm-hmm.
COLLINS: I love it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: We'll follow up with DJ to see if that happens.
Up next. After that fiery meeting with President Zelenskyy, we're hearing from the administration, it has now paused intelligence sharing with Ukraine. That is, of course, what affords them to know where to strike Russia, and when Russia may strike them. I asked the White House about it directly earlier.
And we'll speak with lawmakers from both parties here on set, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Is that temporary? Or is that permanent?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:35:00]
COLLINS: The White House has now decided to stop sharing and helping Ukraine with critical intelligence needed to fight Russian forces. It's a move that comes just days after they decided to pause sending military aid to Ukraine.
I questioned the White House press secretary about this today, though she declined to say how long that intel sharing pause could last.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And on the conversations between the White House and the Ukrainians, and the letter that President Trump revealed, last night, that he got from President Zelenskyy. Director Ratcliffe said today that the President has paused, also intelligence sharing with Ukraine. Is that temporary, or is that permanent?
LEAVITT: I believe what the National Security Council told me in regards to that was that they paused, or they are reconsidering the funding for Ukraine, as you saw, the pause on the funding. As for intelligence matters, I would refer you to either the National Security Council or the CIA as well.
COLLINS: But they're considering lifting the -- or reinstating the military aid going to Ukraine, which they paused--
LEAVITT: Again, it's a pause for a review.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My sources tonight, both members of the Problem Solvers Caucus.
Democrat from New York, Congressman Tom Suozzi.
And a Republican from Pennsylvania, Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick.
It's great to have you both here. And it's great for our audience to hear from people.
You obviously have traveled extensively to Ukraine. You've spoken to Ukrainian officials, as all of this has been going on since the blow- up, last Friday. Are they concerned that the White House is not sharing intelligence with them anymore, which they use to either strike Russian forces, or if a Russian missile is coming to Ukraine, to figure out where it's going?
REP. BRIAN FITZPATRICK (R-PA): Yes, I mean, they've been concerned about the developments for several weeks now. Obviously Friday -- ever since Friday, I've been in very frequent contact with President Zelenskyy's Chief of Staff, Andriy Yermak, as well as his other members of his team.
In terms of the intelligence, we're going to be getting a brief on this, I suspect, next week. But I think it's important what they're not saying here. Intelligence can mean a lot of things. What I suspect is going on here is maybe the over-the-horizon type intelligence, about striking across the border into Russia. And moreover, they didn't say who else can share it.
So, all the intelligence that the U.S. has is seamlessly shared with the U.K. The U.K. is not prohibited from sharing that with Ukraine. So, I think this might be a strategy to try to get the parties to the bargaining table.
COLLINS: What do you make of the fact that they are withholding military aid to Ukraine, and also intelligence, even though maybe they could get in -- indirect ways, because of that blow-up that happened inside the Oval Office, last Friday, that there was no minerals deal that was signed. It still hasn't been signed. And we saw, obviously, how everything went down.
REP. TOM SUOZZI (D-NY): I think it's a wrong-headed move.
And I want to start by complimenting Brian, because he's a Republican, and he's standing up for Ukraine, despite the fact that the administration has taken a different posture, and he's really put a lot of effort and showed some real guts on this issue. So, I just want to compliment him on this.
This is a tough issue for all of us. I'm the type of guy that wants to work together and get things done. That's why we're in the Problem Solvers Caucus together. But I'm pissed off about this.
Because I think it sends the wrong message to our allies, and it sends the wrong message to other countries that are small countries that border Russia, that are going to worry that if we abandon Russia, what are we going to do about Latvia, or Lithuania, or Moldova, or other countries in the region? So it's just the wrong message.
COLLINS: The New York Times reported tonight that Zelenskyy had been having conversations with other officials, in France and the U.K., about the right approach to Trump. I mean, I don't think anyone thinks that how Friday happened went well.
But what is -- what have you heard about whether or not that's going to change? Or if they feel like they've now done enough with the letter he sent to Trump and the public post, to have these conversations begin again?
FITZPATRICK: No, I think President Zelenskyy would be well-advised to understand the psychology of President Trump a little better. Obviously, a very, very different personality than the previous president. And that's important.
There's a language barrier. There's a cultural barrier. He's dealing with a new president. Obviously, he dealt with President Trump during the 45th administration, but under very, very different circumstances, obviously.
And I think that President Zelenskyy needs to understand that as many supporters of Ukraine, in their fight against Russia, as there are here in the United States, he still needs to be cognizant of the fact that these are taxpayer dollars going to a cause that, I believe, is an act of global security. Many Americans believe it's an act of charity. That's why you see a lot of people talking past each other on this issue.
But my urging to President Zelenskyy, when I met with him, in the Munich Security Conference, was to understand the psychology of President Trump, and when you engage and communicate with him.
COLLINS: Yes, and obviously we've seen that that has not gone well so far. We'll see if it changes.
You're lawmakers from both sides of the party. You're both sides of the aisle. You're here tonight. I have questions for each of you respective to matters that are happening.
[21:40:00]
I'll start with you, though. Because part of what Trump addressed in that address, last night, was Ukraine. We were seeing how Democrats were responding. Some were protesting. Some were walking out. Some had signs. Some had whiteboards. No one seemed unified, though.
Why has your party not been able to kind of coalesce around a single strategy, when it comes to resisting Trump?
SUOZZI: Yes, I think it was a mistake. I think those -- the outburst we saw, last night, I saw a lot of -- and people are upset, and I understand that they're upset.
But as a strategic matter, instead of talking about Ukraine, and Social Security, and Medicare, and Medicaid, and rising prices and grocery costs, we're talking too much about how people conducted themselves in the chamber last night. So, I think it was wrong.
And I'm an old school, traditional type person. I don't like it when Republicans interrupt Democratic presidents, and I don't like it when Democrats interrupt Republican presidents. So, I just think it was a boneheaded move.
COLLINS: The other thing Trump said, last night, was when it comes to the CHIPS Act, which boosted semiconductor manufacturing, here in the United States, so we don't get all of our chips from Taiwan. Obviously, a real concern the U.S. has. You voted for that bill. It was bipartisan. So did 17 Senate Republicans.
Trump doesn't want the rest of it to move forward. He wants it to be canceled. He directed Speaker Johnson to do something to that effect.
Would you vote for that? Could that happen?
FITZPATRICK: I did vote for the CHIPS Act--
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: And would you vote for them to cancel--
FITZPATRICK: If they want to -- if they want to reform or re-engineer the funding stream? Then I'd take a look at that. I mean, obviously, the goal is, is to reconstitute the supply chain and domestic production of semiconductors.
Taiwan, TSMC produces over 80 percent of the high-end fab semiconductors. Semiconductors are needed for literally everything in our lives. And when Taiwan is currently in the crosshairs of China, it's very, very important that we build up our domestic supply chain here, so.
COLLINS: But does it need to be reformed?
FITZPATRICK: Well, we need to take a look at it, right? I mean, we always pass bills. I supported the CHIPS Act. The intention is always there. But then when you see it in application and practice, there's always things you can fix about it.
So, I wouldn't support a wholesale repeal of it, obviously, because that funding stream, companies like Intel have already, you know, many steps down the road in their investments in Ohio, for example, TSMC in Arizona.
COLLINS: In New York as well.
FITZPATRICK: Yes.
SUOZZI: Yes, these issues are so complicated. Everything we deal with in Congress really is complicated. And you can't solve a complicated problem with everybody yelling and screaming at each other, or walking out or fighting or protesting or berating people.
COLLINS: So what's the answer--
(CROSSTALK)
SUOZZI: The answer is to work together across party lines, the way Brian and I try to do, as part of the Problem Solvers, to sit down and say, I don't agree with you on this. Well, I don't agree with you on that. But how about this, how about that? And try and find some common ground.
Every problem we face is tough. There's a reason they haven't been solved for so long. And the idea of just undoing a great bipartisan bill, like the CHIPS Act, it really doesn't make sense. But if we're going to undo it, we have to do it together, across party lines, to try and actually get stuff done.
COLLINS: And you would not vote for that?
SUOZZI: No.
COLLINS: Tom Suozzi. Brian Fitzpatrick. Great to have you both here.
FITZPATRICK: Thank you.
COLLINS: Republican and a Democrat. Thank you both.
Up next. There was a call between Trump and the Canadian Prime Minister that Trump said it ended somewhat friendly. Apparently not friendly enough to stay off that trade war. We're going to speak with a top Canadian official, right after this.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, there is no sign that President Trump is retreating from his overall trade war with Canada, following his 50-minute phone call that he had with the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
According to the President, that call ended in a "somewhat" friendly manner, apparently not friendly enough to immediate -- to find an immediate compromise to the massive 25 percent tariff that Trump placed on nearly all Canadian imports. That mean prices going up for bread, cereal, clothing and furniture, all coming from Canada. You can see it not just go up, but way up.
My inside source tonight is Canada's Minister of Finance and Intergovernmental Affairs, Dominic LeBlanc.
Thank you so much for being here, sir.
After that call that happened today, is it clear what Canada needs to do to get these tariffs lifted?
DOMINIC LEBLANC, CANADIAN MINISTER OF FINANCE & INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS: I think it was a constructive conversation, Miss Collins.
My -- I spoke to the Prime Minister, after the call. My understanding is that they agreed that Secretary Lutnick and I would continue to work on ways to go forward. I spoke with the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, a couple of times this afternoon. So, we're going to continue to talk to our friends in the American administration.
Canadians are understandably quite upset, quite emotional, by what we think is a completely unnecessary step taken by President Trump that will hurt the Canadian economy, of course. We think it will also hurt the American economy. And it will prevent the two countries from working together on shared prosperity and shared economic opportunities and dealing with threats like, for example, coming from China.
So, we're confident that we'll find a way forward, and the tariffs can be removed. But we'll continue to do the work necessary, and to stand up for the Canadian economy. But it's an unprecedented circumstance.
COLLINS: In those calls that you had with Secretary Lutnick, this afternoon, obviously, who we've seen, on the forefront of this issue, talking about it publicly, do you expect that there will be any more exemptions, if Canada lowers its retaliatory tariffs that it put in place because of these tariffs?
LEBLANC: That -- my conversations with Secretary Lutnick, as I said, have been positive.
You'll remember, the original justification for these tariffs was the fight against fentanyl in the United States and illegal migration.
We, as a Canadian government, have done a great deal, in partnership with the United States, to fight against Mexican cartels, against illegal fentanyl. Some days, some weeks, per capita, more Canadians die, sadly, of fentanyl overdose than Americans.
[21:50:00]
So, it's an entirely shared concern. There's zero daylight between the Government of Canada, and the Government of the United States, in terms of fighting against fentanyl, or having an orderly immigration system. And all of the facts, in our meetings with Tom Homan and others, we hope will convince the American administration that, in fact, we're doing our part. We're always ready to do more. That was my conversation with Secretary Lutnick. Howard, if there are things, additional things, that we can do in partnership with the Americans, in the fight against fentanyl, we're all in. So, it's that to me is an emerging--
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: Did they say--
LEBLANC: Sorry?
COLLINS: Did they -- did they give you -- have they given you a standard to meet? Do you kind of know what you need to do to get these tariffs lifted from Canada? Or is that still unclear to you tonight?
LEBLANC: That's one of the challenges, Miss Collins, is that, as I said, we worked over the last number of weeks.
There were meetings with the border czar, Mr. Homan in Washington, and our federal police, with the FBI and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. We've been working on a joint plan, and we think that plan is effective and achieving the results. But I said to Secretary Lutnick that if there are additional things that the American administration would like to work on with us, again, we're all in.
So, the solution is not to put tariffs that will hurt, ultimately, American consumers and American businesses. And for sure, it'll hurt -- it'll hurt the economy in Canada. We were very clear that we would--
COLLINS: Yes, and what did--
LEBLANC: --respond with similar tariffs. And that's what we've done.
COLLINS: What did he say to that?
LEBLANC: He said we should keep the conversation going. He's obviously working with the President.
It's -- the United States-Canada-Mexico Agreement, the USMCA (ph) Free Trade Agreement that Mr. Trump in his first administration negotiated and signed, we think is exactly the place we need to start, if we respect the terms of that agreement -- we think Canada is respecting the terms. If the American administration wants to discuss parts of the agreement that they'd like us to review together, again, we'd be, of course, open to do that.
But you can't do that when you have these unprecedented punishing tariffs on the Canadian economy. Canadian businesses and Canadian people think of Americans as our best friends, and our closest ally, and our only real neighbor, and don't understand why the American government is doing this to us. COLLINS: And so, one thing your Prime Minister suggested was that Trump wants to see the Canadian economy collapse, because it would make it easier for him to annex Canada.
Do you think that that is what the U.S. is trying to do here?
LEBLANC: Miss Collins, I don't presume to imagine what the President or his administration have as their ultimate objectives. They made this decision, which we think is unfair and unwise. Canada is never going to be the 51st State of the United States.
But Canada wants to be, as it has been for decades, America's most trusted partner, closest security partner, economic ally. That's been the proud history when Ronald Reagan signed the first Free Trade Agreement, over 40 years ago. And the shared history, security history, goes back decades.
So Canadians are a proud independent country.
COLLINS: Yes.
LEBLANC: But value the partnership with the United States more than any other country.
COLLINS: Dominic LeBlanc, as always, thank you for your time. Keep us updated on how those talks are going, please. And thank you very much.
LEBLANC: You're very -- you're very kind. Thanks for having me in your program.
COLLINS: Of course.
Up next. The indicted mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, was grilled on Capitol Hill today. He did not answer whether or not he had spoken with President Trump about his case, under oath.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Today on Capitol Hill, New York City Mayor Eric Adams was grilled by members of his own party, over his efforts to help Trump White House on immigration, after the Justice Department dropped his corruption case, last month, prompting accusations of a quid pro quo.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): Have you ever talked about your case with anyone in the Trump administration?
MAYOR ERIC ADAMS (D-NYC, NY): I'm going to say this again. This case is in front of Judge Ho, and out of deference to Judge Ho, he is going to determine the outcome of this case.
SUBRAMANYAM: That's not answering the question. I'm going to ask you one more time. Have you ever talked about this case with anyone in the Trump administration?
ADAMS: This case is in front of Judge Ho, and out of deference to Judge Ho, Judge Ho is going to decide--
SUBRAMANYAM: I--
ADAMS: --the outcome of this case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My legal source tonight is Tom Dupree, the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
That sounded like the crafting of a lawyer's statement, to me, listening to that.
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: You were absolutely right.
Look, if I were his lawyer, that's the advice I would have given him. You do not want to testify under oath about whether you had conversations with Donald Trump.
This was the equivalent of taking the Fifth. Anything he said in this hearing could and would have been used against him in the Judge Ho proceedings. His fate is in the hands of Judge Ho. He didn't want to upset the applecart. So, I get where he was coming from on this.
COLLINS: Does that mean the answer could still be no, and he just didn't want to entertain it? Or do you think that means the answer is probably yes?
DUPREE: You know, it's--
COLLINS: And when I don't get an answer to a question, I normally think it's because it's in the affirmative.
DUPREE: That would be a safe bet.
But here, honestly, I think his lawyers probably said, Don't go anywhere down that road, right? Because if you answer one question, well, then they're going to have a follow-up question, and then they're going to start leading you down the primrose path, and you're going to end up saying a lot more than you wanted to say.
COLLINS: Yes. And he was up there. This is -- we do have this hearing that is going to happen in front of Judge Ho, the judge he referenced there that this is going to go before. There's a real question of how much time he's taking here. What do you read into that?
DUPREE: Yes, I think he is taking more time than we might have anticipated, because he wants to get it right. As we know, he actually solicited an outside opinion from a well-known conservative lawyer about what his powers here are.
[22:00:00] And I think he wants to make clear that he's not a rubber stamp. I think that there's a sense in the law that maybe when prosecutors want to drop a case, the judge has no choice but just to sign his name to it. And I think Judge Ho wants to say, I'm going to kick the tires a little bit on this, before I give it my stamp of approval.
COLLINS: It's a great point.
Tom Dupree, thank you for all of that.
DUPREE: Thank you.
COLLINS: And writing our lawyerly statements.
Thank you so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT" is up next.
