Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Calls For Perceived Opponents To Be Jailed In Rare Political Address At Justice Department; Democratic Anger Rising After Schumer Backs Down On Spending; SpaceX Launches Crew To ISS, Paving Way For Two Astronauts To Return To Earth After Nine Months. Aired 9- 10p ET
Aired March 14, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAKE TAPPER, HOST, "UNITED STATES OF SCANDAL," CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: And obviously, there was criminal activity going on.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: It's fascinating. Look forward to it.
Jake Tapper, thanks.
TAPPER: Thanks, Anderson.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Well the Enron scandal is the latest episode, of "United States of Scandal," this Sunday, 09:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, right here on CNN.
That's it for us. Have a great weekend. "THE SOURCE" starts now.
JOHN KING, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
Shockwaves from President Trump's grievance and falsehood filled tirade, while speaking at the Department of Justice. The President promising law and order, while delivering a bitter, blatantly political speech, demanding investigations into Democrats, while saying those he sees as enemies should be put in jail.
Plus, the civil war erupting inside the Democratic Party, with younger Democrats now enraged over Senator Schumer, helping avoid a government shutdown, by relenting to Republican demands.
And a blast-off for Elon Musk's SpaceX, on a mission now to help bring back a pair of astronauts who have been in a space jam for nine months now.
I'm John King in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
He's the only president ever convicted of a felony. But Donald Trump overcame the Justice Department's federal cases against him, well, by winning the election. And today, he took a victory lap by visiting that very same Department of Justice, now under new management, his own, with Trump loyalists in many of the top positions, including some of his former personal attorneys.
The President was there for what was billed as a speech about law and order, and he did talk a bit about things like cracking down on the spread of fentanyl. But things got dark early, and they quickly took a turn toward a litany of grievances.
And in case you were not convinced yet, clear signs, this President is out for revenge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We begin a proud new chapter in the Chronicles of American Justice.
We must be honest about the lies and abuses that have occurred within these walls.
The thugs failed, and the truth won.
There could be no more heinous betrayal of American values than to use the law to terrorize the innocent, and reward the wicked.
And it's exactly what you saw with Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, and their cronies.
Now as the chief law enforcement officer, in our country, I will insist upon and demand full and complete accountability for the wrongs and abuses that have occurred.
We had an amazing judge in Florida, and her name is Aileen Cannon. The case against me was bullshit.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: And she correctly dismissed it.
They're horrible people, they're scum.
The people who did this to us should go to jail. They should go to jail.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: That, the President of the United States, in front of the seal of the Justice Department, declaring that his perceived enemies, including some who used to work for the DOJ, be put in jail.
He accused federal prosecutors of terrorizing innocent people, and he called for investigations of his opponents. Mr. Trump there, laying out a scenario that sure sounds like weaponizing the Justice Department after he, of course, campaigned endlessly on doing just the opposite. And just in case, even after all that, you've had any doubt that politics are at play here? Well, that event began with Hail to the Chief, and it ended with the unmistakable anthem of a Trump rally.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: My legal sources tonight, former federal prosecutors both, Shan Wu and Elliot Williams.
Gentlemen, thanks.
To you first, and then Shan. You both worked in the building.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes.
KING: You both understand how it's supposed to work.
President Trump breaks a lot of norms, breaks a lot of glass. What most jumped out at you today, listening to that?
WILLIAMS: Well, the scene in the room, the fact that there were very few actual career Justice Department attorneys in the room. If it was ostensibly a speech, to the rank and file, at the Justice Department, why was it all invited guests, or largely, invited guests? It's because it was a political speech.
And having been there, I worked in Main Justice for six years, in that very building, those kinds of events typically would be open to everybody, or at least subject to space.
And so, right there, right off the bat, who they had in the room was alarming, and the nature of the speech, of course, yes.
KING: Praising judges who go his way, slamming a former Attorney General in the building he worked at just a couple of months ago, and a whole long list of other people saying they belong in jail.
SHAN WU, FORMER COUNSEL TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: It's kind of hard to know where to start with this.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
WU: When I worked for the Attorney General, I'm so -- what I kept thinking of during this, was how conscientious everyone was, about avoiding even the slightest hint of things looking political. I mean, there are second, third, fourth, rungs of review, before you even would reach out the White House Counsel's Office. Everything was being buffered.
[21:05:00] And this is just him, directly making a campaign rally speech, or playing Village People at it. I mean, it's really hard to understand where to begin.
WILLIAMS: To put it in perspective. There have been, I think, four times, since 2000, that a president has even stepped foot in the Justice Department.
WU: Right.
WILLIAMS: One was for the dedication of the building by George W. Bush, when he put the name, the Robert F. Kennedy building. One was Mukasey swearing-in by Bush. One was Eric Holder's final day, where Obama came in to say goodbye to him. And one was Obama talking about FISA intelligence. There's just no precedent--
KING: That was related to Edward Snowden, right, that was?
WILLIAMS: Related to Edward Snowden.
KING: Right.
WILLIAMS: But it was a very -- if you read the speech, it's a sterile speech about U.S. national security interests.
It's, there is simply no precedent for a president coming in and giving that kind of politically-charged speech. It just has not happened, Republican or Democrat.
KING: So, what is the impact. He is methodically, started right from day one, putting his top loyalists, including some personal attorneys, former personal attorneys, who don't have any federal prosecutorial experience, but his people in charge. But there's just dozens and dozens and dozens below that.
And we know a lot of career people have left. Some of them have been forced out. But when the President of the United States, calling himself the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States, stands in front of that logo in that room, and says, what he says, what does it do throughout, not just in that building?
WU: Yes.
KING: But on the U.S. Attorney's Office all around the country?
WU: I mean, I think the message is that the rank and file, the careers, don't count, that he's only interested in the loyalists. I mean, we recently had this bizarre scenario, where the Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, was actually arguing cases, in courts (ph). Either they don't trust any of the people to do that, or there's no one they can find to really take some of those positions.
But the message is loud and clear. Your voices don't count. I only care about the top political people. And in terms of the pragmatic aspect of it, I'm not sure how you get the business done. WILLIAMS: And another practical point about yes, the president -- yes, the Justice Department is in the executive branch. The President appoints the attorney general. But there's a -- and Shan talked about this a moment ago. There's been a long separation between the two.
Even Barack Obama, soon after he appointed all the U.S. attorneys, this is in 2009 he gives a speech to all of them and says these words: I appointed you, but you don't serve me. You serve the American people. And I expect you to act with independence and integrity.
That's all the people that he appointed and put in, but telling them, You are not there to carry my water. And every president up until this point, even where they've slipped up, has had a long tradition of that separation from the Justice Department.
KING: Right. I can see -- well, I cannot -- I didn't see any president, previously I've covered, been here since the end of the Reagan administration, saying anything like that in the Justice Department.
WILLIAMS: Right.
KING: But if a president talked about meddling in federal cases, or singling out people to be prosecuted, you would assume that at least a few members of his own party would come out and say, Whoa, whoa.
WU: Whoa.
KING: It's a big deal even for the Attorney General to go to the White House, never mind the President going to the Justice Department. But they talk about that. If the Attorney General is coming, why, is it just for a Cabinet meeting? Is it to talk about some big investigation?
What about that?
WU: I mean, the fact that he comes right out and says it, he is the chief law enforcement officer, it couldn't be any plainer than that. I mean, that's what the message is.
KING: Right.
WU: He decides the shots. He's basically saying, I'll prosecute -- I'll tell you who to prosecute, I'll tell you who not to prosecute.
And really, I think it's very, very hard for the department to do its normal business. I mean, all this talk about the executive orders, but all the stuff they normally do, how are they going to get done?
KING: Playing devil's advocate here. What if one person on that long list he has--
WILLIAMS: Yes.
KING: --actually has done something wrong? When he singles them out like that, in that building, in that way, if you're that person's defense attorney, isn't that gold--
WILLIAMS: Well--
KING: --to say, This is all politics?
WILLIAMS: Absolutely, it's gold. And you have a presumption of regularity, to use a legal term, of the affairs of the Justice Department.
Attorneys are playing this speech back, and going to put this in filings to the judge, saying, there is no presumption of regularity at the Justice Department. We can now presume that the work that they have is tainted because you've got a President of the United States giving speeches, and sort of putting a thumb on the political scale.
It's actually bad for the work of the Justice Department.
KING: Right. Sure.
WILLIAMS: If he actually cares about carrying this stuff out, he's shooting them in the foot by giving speeches like this.
KING: So, listen, we've heard from multiple former Justice Department officials, when they leave or are forced out or told to go.
I want you to listen to just a sample of talking here about being terrorized by their own department.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LIZ OYER, FIRED U.S. PARDON ATTORNEY: The last seven weeks have felt like two years. It's been incredibly stressful. Every single day is fraught with difficult decisions.
Every word that is uttered, whether in a meeting or in writing, is something that we are all scrutinizing carefully, or thinking very carefully, about how we choose our words. Because we know that if we say the wrong thing, we're not going to be in the next meeting.
JAKE STRUEBING, FIRED FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I am deeply concerned about the independence of the Department of Justice, and the FBI, going forward.
STACEY YOUNG, FOUNDER, JUSTICE CONNECTION: They're terrified. They're being terrorized by this administration. They're terrified about their careers. Many are terrified about their safety, and they're terrified about the institution they serve.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:10:00]
KING: Now, Trump and his loyalists would say, Deep Staters, good riddance, we're glad you're out of there.
That was all before the speech. That was all before the President of the United States went to that building, and said what he said today, in the way he said it.
What happens? You both know--
WILLIAMS: Yes.
KING: --still know people who work in the building. You've worked there yourselves for years. What is going on today, and tomorrow, and the next day, now that everybody thinks, Whoa?
WILLIAMS: So, the argument made in defense of the way they are acting at the Justice Department is that, Well, the President is the Commander-in-Chief, he's been elected, and he needs people to carry out his mission or his vision. That's what they've said.
It is simply not the way the non-partisan civil service is supposed to work. Even if people come in as Republicans or Democrats, we've all served under Presidents of different parties, and the work still gets done. That is not a way to do the work of the American people. And it's dangerous.
WU: Yes.
WILLIAMS: And when you're talking about counterterrorism work being jeopardized, because of the fact that people are leaving, it will make America less safe.
KING: There are a lot of people out there, including just about everyone who voted for Donald Trump, who think every piece of this town needs to be shaken up, and he has convinced them that that department is corrupt.
WU: Right.
KING: So what happens?
WU: I think what happens is the people actually doing the work, agents, prosecutors, they are afraid to do that work now, because they'll know, What if I choose to investigate something which has proper predicate, but the President doesn't like it? What if you're doing counterintelligence, the President doesn't like the idea that there's something against Russia developing? So you're really afraid.
So career people, smart move here? Keep your head low. I mean, if you want to stand up, and make a stand, very dangerous.
KING: That part, dangerous. And what about you have the man appointed acting U.S. Attorney--
WILLIAMS: Yes.
KING: --here in D.C., says he's the President's lawyer?
WILLIAMS: Right.
KING: Prosecutors, I mean, again--
WILLIAMS: Yes.
KING: --every -- every rule is meant to be broken, I guess. But that's a big one.
WILLIAMS: Right. So quick spoiler alert, he is not the President's attorney. He's the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the District of Columbia -- or of the U.S. Attorney's office there.
Quickly to the point of, is the whole place corrupt, and does the whole enterprise need to be burned down? People talk about Strzok and Page, and the dossier and so on. And certainly, there are isolated incidents of misconduct. All of them have been dealt with by either criminal investigations, civil suits or congressional investigations.
Of the 110,000 people at the Justice Department, misconduct is exceptionally rare, and it's dealt with when it comes. So, this idea that there's rampant misconduct or fraud, there is simply not the case, and not borne out by the evidence.
KING: Does he run the risk of raising expectations, as they did with the quote-unquote, Epstein Files, they were going to release all this beautiful, brand-new information that he said was out there, that Biden and others were covering up, and they released information that had already been released that said absolutely nothing new?
Does he run the risk when he says something like this, that six months from now, and a year from now, the people who are saying, Where's all the -- OK, where are those cases?
WU: Yes, the political risk for him seems, as usual, a different calculus. He says stuff, he changes mind, he lies about it, just backs off of it. So, I don't think he really cares, and I don't think there is that much political risk for him.
But from a legal standpoint, in terms of what can DOJ get done? I mean, I really echo Elliot's sentiment here. I just don't see how they're going to go about their business.
KING: The basic stuff.
WU: The basic stuff.
KING: Even the basic stuff?
WU: Yes, even the basic stuff, exactly.
KING: Gentlemen. Shan Wu. Elliot Williams. Thank you for coming in on Friday night. Appreciate it very much.
Up next for us. Tensions come to a boil, a major boil, in the nation's capital, with some Democrats very clearly voicing rage at the Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, for helping push through a Republican budget bill to avert a government shutdown.
Even the House Democratic Leader, a fellow New Yorker. Well, you make the call. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have you lost confidence in him? The fact that you guys see this so differently.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Next question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: The first real test for the Democrats' congressional minority has yes, kept the government open, but also blown wide open the real anger and frustration within the party. The Senate today passing a bill to fund the government through the end of September. Republicans got that plan to the finish line, thanks to nine Democrats and one Independent who caucuses with the Democrats.
Over in the House though, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responding by mobilizing her supporters against her fellow New Yorker, the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): It is almost unthinkable why Senate Democrats would vote to hand the few pieces of leverage that we have away for free.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Senator John Fetterman, one of the Democrats who did side with Schumer, in voting to pass that spending bill and to keep the government open, well, he offered this take.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): They can yell and fundraise off of that. But I'll be the only Democrat that's going to tell America the truth about shutting the government down, and that would be a (bleep) disaster.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: The former House Speaker, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, calling that, quote, a "False choice."
As for Schumer himself, well, he defended his decision.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): I think it was an act of strength, of courage. And I knew that most people wouldn't agree with me. But I am confident I did the right thing, and I think history will vindicate that. (END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: The tension in the party on full display, when Schumer's counterpart, across the Capitol, in the House, the Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries, was asked this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have you lost confidence in him? The fact that you guys see this so differently.
JEFFRIES: Next question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: My Democratic source with me in studio tonight, Senator Gary Peters, Democrat of Michigan. He is one of the members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, who voted with Senator Schumer, to allow that bill to advance to the final package.
Senator, appreciate your time tonight.
SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MI): Good to be with you.
KING: Is Chuck Schumer's job, as Leader, in peril?
[21:20:00]
PETERS: No, no, he still has, certainly, confidence, I think, of everyone in the caucus. We had a very difficult decision, as you know. This was a choice between a very bad bill, but what would have been catastrophic shutdown.
KING: You say, he has the confidence of everybody in the caucus. There were only nine, including him, and Angus King, an Independent who votes with you guys most of the time. That's not everybody. So he may have their confidence. He didn't have their votes today.
PETERS: Yes.
KING: That's a big deal when people don't follow the leader.
PETERS: Well, we're never going to be unanimous, especially on something as contentious as this vote. We had a series of meetings this week. It was very intense. Everybody has a chance to talk about their view, on how we handle the situation. But we came out of there, and we understood that we had different views, but we were still united.
We can't be fighting each other. We have to understand, we have to be fighting the Republicans, and Donald Trump, and Elon Musk.
KING: Right.
PETERS: And if we're fighting each other, we're going to be weak.
KING: At the moment, some of you are fighting each other. That's the way it goes.
My colleague, Dana Bash, reporting today that one of your colleagues, Democrat Michael Bennet of Colorado, Senator of Colorado, accused the leadership, quote, No strategy, no plan, and no message.
Senator Bennet right?
PETERS: Well, certainly we had a -- we had a message that the shutdown was -- would have been absolutely catastrophic. There's no question we were dealing with a bad bill that the Republicans sent over.
But we have to remember, had we gone to a shutdown, we would have actually given more power to Donald Trump, more power to Elon Musk, and more power to the OMB Director, Mr. Vought. They basically would have free rein. When you don't pass a budget, there is a vacuum, and then that vacuum is filled by the President that has powers well beyond what was in that -- in that bill.
KING: So help me with the specifics of that. Because, as you know, many in your party, especially progressives, and a lot of voters out in the country who just want to see somebody stand up to Donald Trump, say, OK, get your point, you don't want to shut down the government. However, if they keep doing all these things, why not shut down the government?
You say, They would exercise their powers. There's some people out there, say, Let them be like Thelma and Louise, and get in the car, and drive off the edge.
And then, number one, his approvals drop, his support drops. Maybe some Republicans decide it's time to stand up to him. And at a minimum, it helps you in the midterms in two years. Why not take that approach?
PETERS: Well, because American people get hurt. So clearly, that's a big price to pay.
When folks say, Let's fight, you have to remember that's going to be federal workers who are furloughed and are not getting their pay. Then that shutdown could last a very long time. The last one was over a month. This would last longer. You have people who are working, and yet they're not getting paid. So there is a real price to be paid. People are not getting services.
So the idea for me, and I think for my caucus, is that we have to be focused on what I think is the main issue, and that's what's coming up in just the few weeks with this reconciliation.
We've got a president, who wants to basically make massive cuts, including against Medicaid, which will hurt millions of people in this country, in terms of their ability to have health care, and he wants to give big tax breaks to billionaires.
We can't be fighting ourselves. We can't be in a shutdown, where every day we're trying to get open again, and we don't know if they would ever want to open it. That would distract us from the major fight that we all have to be organized against. Protecting Medicaid, other critical services, and blocking basically, tax breaks to billionaires.
KING: Among the nine, were yourself, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, two Democrats who've said they're not going to run for reelection.
Would you have voted differently, if you're going to be on the ballot in two years? And did the Leader come to you, and to Senator Shaheen, and say, I need a couple more votes. You're not going to be on the ballot anymore, Gary, I need you on this one?
PETERS: No, he did not do that at all.
I have a long history, of the time that I've been in Congress, I've been against shutdowns. I've always been passionate. I think it's a failure of Congress, if we can't come together and pass a budget. We've basically abdicated our Article I responsibilities.
And then, that's a void, and the President fills it, and then the President has unbelievable power to determine who's an essential employee, who's not. That's going to lead to more layoffs. It could mean departments disappear. Shutdowns are simply unacceptable. I worked on legislation, to try to end them.
KING: Right.
PETERS: So, this is something that I've had -- that I feel very strongly about, and I've done that since the day I came to Congress.
KING: So, you mentioned the fight that's coming, which you view as the bigger, more consequential fight.
PETERS: Yes.
KING: There's a lot of raw anger in your party right now. Not your first rodeo.
PETERS: Right.
KING: You've run the Senatorial Campaign Committee, going through primaries and all that.
PETERS: Right.
KING: That's like herding sheep, sometimes.
PETERS: Yes, it is. It is.
KING: You got to deal with a lot of different opinions and things like that.
PETERS: Yes, I do.
KING: So, when you have people in the House who are clearly furious, whether it's former Speaker Pelosi, all the way down to a relatively new member, AOC, and you have a couple of your own Senate colleagues saying, No strategy, no plan? How do you fix this? If you have that big fight coming, how do you heal those wounds? It's hard to be the party out of power. But how do you get better at it, more clearly at it?
PETERS: Yes, and that's where we have to come together. And I would just step back, everybody realize who we have to be fighting against. And that's Donald Trump, and there're Republicans, and understanding that they're out to hurt the American people. And we won't be successful if we're fighting each other.
[21:25:00]
Every day, we're talking about another member of the Democratic caucus, whether in the Senate or House, we're falling behind. All of us have to lock arms, and understand, the real fight is coming. It's big. It's cutting Medicaid to millions of people. It's about tax breaks to billionaires. Changing the very foundations of this -- the democracy that we live in. That's the fight.
Let's stop fighting each other and understanding that we have a real fight ahead, and we've got to be locking arms, or we're not going to be successful.
KING: Before we go, Donald Trump is, without a doubt, the leader of the Republican Party, a very unified party.
Who's the leader of the Democratic Party?
PETERS: Well--
KING: Is there one?
PETERS: Well, it's a little -- it's different, when you have a president.
KING: Right.
PETERS: We don't have a president now.
KING: Yes.
PETERS: So, I think there'll be a number of voices that will be coming out.
KING: Is that part of the problem?
PETERS: That's always a challenge--
KING: Yes.
PETERS: --for the minority party, when you don't have the bully pulpit of the presidency.
KING: Senator, appreciate your coming in very much. Gary Peters, thank you very much. Ahead for us, can President Trump turn his shaky economy around, after a wild, wild week on Wall Street? Fears of a recession perhaps coming. And an escalating trade war. Our White House insiders weigh in.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: A long time Trump strength is suddenly a weakness, and the President can only blame himself and his yo-yo like on again, off again, on again, threats of tariffs.
Wall Street likes predictability, and appears to be turning its back on Trump's chaotic economic agenda. Yes, financial markets did muster a bit of a bounce back today. But all three major indexes closed the week in the red.
While CNN's market index, a snapshot, look at that, of investor emotion right now is pointing to extreme fear, tonight. And U.S. consumer sentiment down for a third consecutive month, sinking to its lowest point since November of 2022.
My White House insiders are here.
Semafor's Shelby Talcott.
Reuters' Jeff Mason.
Along with Mark Zandi. He's Chief Economist for Moody's.
Mark, I want to start with you, and thank you for your time tonight.
MARK ZANDI, CHIEF ECONOMIST, MOODY'S: Thanks.
KING: Is there anything? Trump says it was a graveyard. He says it was a catastrophe. He inherited the strongest economy in the world. Yes, it had some potholes, but it was the strongest economy in the world. Now we've seen turbulence in the markets, consumer confidence down.
Is there some structural thing happening in the economy? Or is this all about Trump changing his mind every 15 minutes about tariffs?
ZANDI: Yes, it's all about economic policy, John. Front and center is the tariffs, the trade war, we're now in at full-bore, and the President keeps bringing up April 2nd. That's the date when tariffs go up, across the board, the cynical and reciprocal tariffs.
But it's other things. It's the uncertainty created by the haphazard DOGE cuts to jobs and government funding. Now there's concerns about immigration policy.
The shutdown was averted. But the other big thing that's coming up, John, is the Treasury debt limit. That's something that we're going to have to grapple with. The Treasury's going to run out of cash by late July, early August, of doing (ph) piece of legislation. And there's, of course, a lot of stuff going on in Congress around taxes and spending, and just on and on and on, and I think it's just too much to bear.
I think it's unnerving businesspeople. They're becoming very cautious, and at some point they're going to -- they're going to start cutting. And so recession risks are, you know, there's still less than even, I'd say, and there's still time to turn this thing around. But the time is running short, and probability for recession is rising.
KING: OK. Just that. Just that. And the President himself has said that, and then he tries to back.
But you covered him. You know how much he reveres the stock market. You understand how his economic -- standing on the economy was a strength in the first term, even helped him get through early in the pandemic.
Now he's underwater when it comes to the economy. The stock market has been in turmoil since he took office. He says it's distraction, or he says it's going to be temporary. But what does he really think?
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: He genuinely -- it's actually really interesting, because historically, you're right, he is really focused on the stock market. And he still clearly is, because you'll see his Truth Social posts, where he'll repost sort of the positives of his administration. So he's clearly keeping an eye on it.
But internally, the administration is doubling down on the argument that they're focused on the long-term, and they're willing to take some of these short-term bumps. That's what I'm hearing from all of his advisers. We've heard that from the President himself. They're doubling down on tariffs. They're doubling down on going back and forth on tariffs. But that's exactly how the administration is thinking right now.
Now, I say that with a caveat, because the longer this drags out, there is a very real possibility that the President, who has historically focused on the stock market comes back and becomes increasingly concerned, and we might see some changes as a result of that.
KING: Yes, and part of that is, I mean, they don't say much publicly, but you have a lot of jittery battleground House District Republicans, or purple-state Senate Republicans saying, Sir, this was supposed to be our calling card, and it's a little dicey right now.
And Mark mentioned all the market factors and the economy, the CEO factors. Like, when these tariffs take effect, consumers won't see them right away, but they will eventually. They will eventually, whether it's avocados, whether it's picking up a can of beer, or aluminum, or anything like that.
So, how does the White House process that? Is that -- will that do it, if it hits Main Street, if it hits Trump voters, will that change the course, or at least get stability? Again, a lot of people say, Whether you're for or against tariffs, Mr. President, just make up your mind. JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: I think that, to your question about, how will the White House react? They're going to stick to the talking points that Shelby is just mentioning. And I think that that is a change from Trump 1.0.
I mean, President Trump, as you rightly said, cared a lot about the market, during his first term. I remember, being in the press room, when he would come and talk about the latest highs that had happened under his watch. He's not doing that now for the for the lows or for the things that are going down.
I think that his sort of overall paradigm about everything that he's doing policy-wise, right now, is, Tear it down, and then maybe build it back up. And that's applying to the economy too.
[21:35:00]
I started my career as a business reporter. I've spent most of my career as a political reporter. But what is--
KING: You can do math.
MASON: But I -- I know what companies care about--
KING: Right.
MASON: --having covered business news. And I also know that when that uncertainty creeps in, that you were referring to in the intro, and when they start not knowing how to bolster their bottom lines? They cut jobs. And that will have a political, in addition to an economic effect.
KING: Right.
And so, Mark, you're always looking for hints of factors, of what people think. Investors are pouring money into gold. Gold price is going through an all-time high.
The former Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, he's the Democrat, but he also was a thorn in Joe Biden's side, sometimes, said this about the gold rise today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LARRY SUMMERS, FORMER CLINTON TREASURY SECRETARY: It's a sign of the amount of uncertainty that's being created, that amidst everything else, the asset that's done well is gold. And that's what people do, when they don't have confidence in the people who are managing the country's currency. And that is, unfortunately, what we're seeing from the administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: You agree with that, people out there don't have confidence?
ZANDI: I think they're bearing -- their confidence is waning, and they're bearing (ph) being a nerd. And I think Larry's right. I mean, the price of gold does reflect that uncertainty. That's where investors go, when they just don't know where else to go, to find a safe haven.
You know, John, you talked about short-term pain and long-term gain. I'm so perplexed by this, because I can see the pain. You can see it in the higher prices that people are going to pay. You can see it the job losses that are going to occur because businesses are going to have to grapple with the retaliation of other countries, when they impose their own tariffs on our products. But I just don't see the gain.
I mean, I hear the arguments, like the argument that the tariffs are going to bring investment here into the United States, that foreign companies are going to invest here because of those tariffs.
But, I just -- I don't get that, because these tariffs can be changed with a stroke of a pen. They're on again, off again. You don't know which countries, which products, which companies, over what period of time. So, was that -- why would any company anywhere invest in the United States of America? So, I see the pain. I just don't see the gain.
And I think that's what's unnerving investors, unnerving consumers, you could see it in the confidence measures that came out today, from the University of Michigan. They're incredibly low. Even Republicans, Republican respondents to that survey, are now losing faith in the economy's prospect.
KING: Right.
ZANDI: So, I think we're at a very critical juncture here. I think it's really important that the administration really thinks about this carefully, because it could do a lot of damage.
KING: That University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey is one of my favorite political barometers. It's outside of Washington. It tells you what -- how people are feeling in their hearts about their wallets.
Jeff and Shelby, I want you to listen to two clips about how do we define tariffs? What do tariffs do? One of them was right here on this show. And then after, how the White House describes them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): Tariffs is a tax, and it will be passed on consumers.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people, and the President is a staunch advocate of tax cuts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: And the winner is? MASON: Yes. I mean, it's just -- it's just a fundamental difference in how they view/how they portray economics. And they won't be convinced, or at least they won't be convinced in a public manner, about what they -- what the impact of tariffs are, and neither will, certainly neither will the President of the United States.
I think it's also worth mentioning one thing that they say is, He put in tariffs on China during his first term, they didn't have a negative impact, major negative economic impact on the U.S., and the Biden administration kept them.
That is true. What I've been told, or what I've read and seen, is that these tariffs are different insofar as A, the chaos of it, and the impact of all of the sectors that are applied.
KING: The cost of living, is what undid the Democrats in the last election. Do they worry about that?
TALCOTT: Yes, well, I know Republicans have been worried, for quite some time, about the threat of tariffs. We've been talking to them for the past month. And there's growing concern within the Republican Party, writ large.
But again, Donald Trump genuinely believes that he came in with a mandate. He talked about tariffs all on the campaign trail for the past two years. He's doubling down on doing that right now.
KING: We'll watch how it plays out, as Mark noted. Some big debates and events ahead.
Shelby. Jeff. Mark. Appreciate coming in on Friday night.
Up ahead, for us. Severe weather warnings, massive dust storms, dangerous winds, wildfires, sowing chaos across much of the country. Tornado watches in effect in multiple states throughout the weekend. We're live at the Extreme Weather Center. That's next.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Some breaking news tonight. A dangerous storm moving across the central United States, powerful winds whipping up blinding dust storms in Texas, causing more than three dozen cars to collide along a highway, while several semi-trucks in Oklahoma, look at that, have flipped over. Just the opening act to a weekend of severe thunderstorms, tornado watches and wind-fueled fires.
Joining me now is CNN Meteorologist, Derek Van Dam. He's in the Extreme Weather Center.
Derek, tell us what you're seeing.
DEREK VAN DAM, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Yes, John, this really is the appetizer for the main dish that will be served up tomorrow, with a major severe weather outbreak across the Deep South. [21:45:00]
But if this video gives you any indication what we're working with, I think it's pretty clear this is actually some mandatory evacuations from a brush fire in Stillwater, Oklahoma. Look at how it turned the skies, orange. That is because it's mixing in with the dust that was whipped up with winds, over 80 miles per hour across portions of the plains.
Now, the main act, the tornado threat. That is ongoing right now. We currently have what is called a particularly dangerous situation, throughout central portions of Illinois, stretching further south into the Memphis, Tennessee region.
These tornado watch boxes continue to pop up minute-by-minute. And in fact, we're looking at tornado-warned storms radar indicated just west of St. Louis. I do (ph) not like to see these individual clusters or supercell thunderstorms racing towards a major metropolitan.
What's to come, tomorrow, we have a rare high-risk day. That's a level 5 of 5. Give you an idea, just how confident they are in a major tornado outbreak, tomorrow across the Deep South. This is only the third time in history they've issued a high risk of tornadoes this far in advance. So that's really saying something.
So timing it out, tomorrow morning, we do believe that the storms will be rolling through the border of Mississippi and Alabama. By the evening, it moves into Birmingham, and then we focus our attention on overnight tornado threat into Atlanta.
So that 01:00 a.m. to 04:00 a.m. time frame, early Sunday morning, the potential for nocturnal tornadoes exist. Have multiple ways to receive emergency alerts, not just your cell phone. And this is very key, John, don't rely on tornado sirens to wake you up in the middle of the night.
Back to you.
KING: Derek Van Dam, grateful for that update.
And hope you, at home, listen to that advice. Have multiple sources to get your emergency alerts.
Derek, thank you.
Tonight, a battle brewing in Congress, over whether members who are new parents should be allowed to vote remotely, while they are out on leave.
Republican House leaders have long opposed this idea. But a big challenge came to a head this week. A dozen Republicans, led by staunch conservative, Anna Paulina Luna, teamed up with Democrats, to defy the House Speaker, Speaker Johnson. He calls proxy voting, unconstitutional.
The group, though, passed a petition this week, to force a vote on a bill that would allow members who have given birth, or whose spouse has given birth, to vote by proxy for up to three months, after childbirth. It would also cover pregnant members, who are unable to travel safely, or have a serious medical condition.
Just last month, Colorado Democrat, Brittany Pettersen, flew to Washington, with her 4-week-old son to vote on a budget bill. Now, over the years, several lawmakers have also brought in their babies, at times, for critical votes.
My source tonight is Reshma Saujani, a leading advocate for child care, and the Founder and CEO of Moms First, that's a non-profit dedicated to supporting mothers in America's workforce.
Grateful to have you with us tonight.
This is discharge petition, they call it. It would get the legislation to the floor. The Speaker can't stop that, if you get enough votes for it. But he says he's trying to find a way around this.
Listen to this. Speaker Johnson says, Nice idea, right idea, can't do it.
Oh. I thought we were going to hear from the Speaker there. I'm sorry. Let me read it to you.
It's unfortunate. I have great sympathy, empathy for all of our young women legislators who are of birthing age. It's a real quandary. I'm afraid it doesn't fit with the language of the Constitution. That's the inescapable truth.
Do you believe that? Is it unconstitutional for the House to change its rules?
RESHMA SAUJANI, CEO & FOUNDER, MOMS FIRST, FOUNDER, GIRLS WHO CODE: I mean, absolutely not.
Listen, I think that this proxy vote is a bellwether for how Congress is going to treat working parents. I mean, it's pretty simple. You're a new parent. You should be able to vote by proxy. You shouldn't have to choose between caring for your baby, and taking care of your constituents. But the Speaker says, No.
And the reality is, is, if Congress can't make its own workplace, work for families, then how do we expect it to pass legislation that's going to make it easier for them to do that?
And when it comes to the Constitution, it feels like the Republicans love to point to the Constitution, when it's convenient.
KING: Well, they were -- they raised that argument, back when Democrats wanted proxy voting during COVID and other issues. But we'll see how it plays out.
I want to bring Donald Trump into the conversation, because Speaker Johnson, as we know, often listens to Donald Trump, often takes advice from Donald Trump, often does what Donald Trump asks him to do. During the campaign, the President made several commitments to working families. He also talked about this, in his first term, back as president.
But he spoke at The Economic Club of New York, and you asked him about how he planned to bring down the cost of child care.
SAUJANI: Yes.
KING: This is a little bit of what the President said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're going to be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it's, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we'll be taking in. We're going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Now, he's doing a lot in his first 50 days. Have you seen any evidence he's following up on that commitment, trying to do anything on this issue? And let me add to it, separate issues, the expensive cost of child care, and whether new moms or dads who need to be at home could vote by proxy in the House.
[21:50:00]
But could he make a statement if he said, Speaker Johnson, get this done as part of a plan to help families who have just had children, and then get to the child care piece.
SAUJANI: I mean, he absolutely should, and could, right? But the opposite is happening. I mean, child care, like the price of eggs, is just going up, up and up.
And child care is crushingly devastating for American families. 40 percent of parents are in debt because of the cost of child care. And working families don't have very many choices. They can either cut their hours, or drop out of the workforce entirely. I mean, child care costs more than rent.
And the reality is, in this focus on the economy, it is -- it is bankrupting cities and states. I mean, we lost $23 billion in New York City alone. And this isn't just in blue cities. It's in red cities and states. So the reality is, is 85 percent (ph) American mothers are still waiting for Trump to -- President Trump and Vice President Vance to make good on their commitment to us, to reduce the cost of child care.
KING: You have been pushing the administration, Trump administration, for a more expensive tax cut for child care, again, something that was talked about in the first term, some effort like that, that Congress is right into the heat of this right now. Do you see any evidence they're going to include something like that in there, at a time Republicans are pushing a spending bill that also, the Democrats say, and the math says, could have cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, things like that that also help working families?
SAUJANI: That's right. I mean, the reality is, the House Republicans have said that they're cutting the only tax cut that exists for child care. The average American gets about $600 in a child care tax deduction, which doesn't even -- it's like a dent, right? The average American family pays about $11,000 a year in child care. And that one thing that they offer, they're planning on cutting.
So, I'm seeing opposite evidence of this administration, and Congress, quite frankly, listening to working families, that they are being devastated by the cost of child care. Period.
And so -- but here's the thing. People are paying attention. I mean, we talk to both Republican and Democratic moms, every single day, and they are just every day having to make unconscionable choices, between funding their daycare, and feeding their babies, and it's simply wrong.
And I think that they're going to pay the price in the ballot box, if they don't listen to working families.
KING: We'll watch as, first, this discharge petition, and then the broader debate about costs in child care play out in the new Congress.
SAUJANI: Yes.
KING: Reshma Saujani, thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it.
SAUJANI: Thank you for having me.
KING: And help is on the way, way up there, for two astronauts on unplanned, extended stay in space. Well, the essential liftoff tonight, you see it there, that will help bring them home.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Tonight, liftoff, a rocket carrying a crew of four is on its way to the International Space Station, and on its way to soon meet NASA's Barry "Butch" Wilmore, and Suni Williams. They've had quite the extended stay aboard the Space Station. What was supposed to be a day- long journey has, as most everyone knows, turned into a nine-month trip.
My source tonight has been on space missions of his own. The former NASA astronaut, and Author of "Moonshot," Mike Massimino.
Mike, great to see you.
MIKE MASSIMINO, FORMER NASA ASTRONAUT, ENGINEERING PROFESSOR, AUTHOR, "MOONSHOT": John. KING: So the end is almost here. This is not the spaceship that will bring them home.
MASSIMINO: Right.
KING: But when it docks, then they can get on that other craft and come home. What are they thinking right now?
MASSIMINO: I think they're thinking, Keep coming, you're not here yet.
They've got a -- they've got a little bit longer to get there. They're going to dock tomorrow night, and get inside the Space Station, a few hours earlier. They're going to spend a few days doing a handover.
I'm pretty sure Butch and Suni already cleaned out their bedrooms, their crew quarters, for the new guys, and they'll get them acclimated, and look forward to coming home, Wednesday or Thursday, it looks like.
KING: You know the drill. Your mission is supposed to be X number of days. You're trained to expect the unexpected.
MASSIMINO: Yes.
KING: It could go on indefinitely. So, when they come back, I think there's going to be a lot of psychological testing, really interesting, into your mindset of how you handle all this.
But just how do you prepare when you know, OK, it's supposed to be days, but it could be months?
MASSIMINO: That's kind of the name of the game. This was kind of an extreme situation, going from eight days to nine months.
We had another astronaut, Frank Rubio, went up for six months, supposedly, that was the idea, on a Soyuz spacecraft. They had a problem with that spacecraft, returned it empty, sent up another one empty, and Frank was up there for over a year.
So these things have happened before. I think the attention of the public was grabbed with this one, going from eight days to nine months.
But you never know, you never know you're going to launch, until the rockets light, John, and you never know you're coming home, until the reentry burn happens. And until those things happen, you're where you are until -- until something changes.
KING: Well, you say you never know. Most of us will never know what it feels like, to feel that rocket vibrate and start to go up. You flew on the shuttle.
MASSIMINO: Yes.
KING: Different spacecraft than the SpaceX Dragon.
MASSIMINO: Yes.
KING: But just climb back in the chair.
MASSIMINO: Yes.
KING: Tell us what it feels like when you feel that vibration.
MASSIMINO: It's extraordinary. You know you're going someplace. There wasn't any doubt like, I wonder if we're moving. You -- especially with the shuttle, the solid rockets would light, and you are moving, a 100 mile -- a 100 miles an hour, before you clear the tower, zero to 17,500 miles an hour, in eight-and-a-half minutes.
And for the first time in my life, John, after a couple -- a couple of moments, I felt like I was really leaving home for the first time. You have that sense that you're going someplace you've never been before.
It's a wonderful adventure. I'm very happy for my four friends who are going to be on the Space Station tomorrow, and I'm really happy for Suni and Butch coming home.
[22:00:00]
KING: Remarkable pictures. Every time it happens, I'm just glued.
MASSIMINO: Yes.
KING: You just sit there and you're glued to it.
MASSIMINO: Yes.
KING: Mike Massimino, really appreciate your time, sir, very much, tonight.
MASSIMINO: You bet.
KING: Thank you so much.
And thank you for joining us at home tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next. Have a great weekend.
