'This Week' Transcript 3-9-25: White House NEC Director Kevin Hassett, Sen. Adam Schiff and UAW President Shawn Fain

A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, March 9, 2025 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the "This Week" transcript archive.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JONATHAN KARL, ABC "THIS WEEK" CO-ANCHOR: Economic whiplash.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There will always be changes and adjustments.

KARL: President Trump's reversals on tariffs with Mexico and Canada sowing confusion and anger.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: What he wants is to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that will make it easier to annex us.

KARL: Trump's on again, off again strategy sending businesses and investors scrambling as global markets tumble.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If there's a 25 percent tariff, those prices will go up.

KARL: So, what will it mean for American consumers and the broader economy? This morning, Rebecca Jarvis reports on Wall Street's worst week in months.

Plus, top White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett, and United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain on why he likes the Trump tariffs.

Democrats in disarray. Ten Democrats vote to censure one of their own. And why is Gavin Newsom getting chummy with ultra MAGA Trump ally Charlie Kirk on his new podcast?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that.

KARL: How should Democrats respond to the Trump agenda? We’ll ask California Senator Adam Schiff.

And, does President Trump have a Supreme Court problem?

TRUMP Thank you, again. Thank you again. Thanks again.

KARL: The roundtable on the thunder on the right over Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: From ABC News, it’s THIS WEEK. Here now, Jonathan Karl.

KARL: Good morning. Welcome to THIS WEEK.

This is day 49 of the Trump presidency. And whether you love him or loathe him, no president in modern American history has had a more eventful and consequential first seven weeks as what we have witnessed here at the start of Donald Trump's second term.

Trump has enforced a stunning degree of party loyalty, getting even his most controversial nominees confirmed. And he's beginning to remake the executive branch in his image. With an assist from Elon Musk, although Musk's authority seemed to get taken down a notch this week.

On the global stage, Trump has upended relations with enemies and allies alike. It's also been 49 days of disarray for Democrats, with the opposition party failing to do much to slow Trump down.

That was on full display this week during the president's joint address to Congress. Some Democrats skipped the speech. Some walked out. Other carried small signs of protest. Almost all sat glumly through the roughly 100 minutes of Trump's address.

After Congressman Al Green of Texas stood up and raised his cane to protest, he was escorted out of the House chamber. Ten Democrats later joining Republicans in voting to censure him.

Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania took to X to call his party's behavior a, quote, “sad cavalcade of self owns and unhinged petulance. It only makes Trump look more presidential and restrained.”

But on the issue that put Trump in the White House, the economy, Trump's unrestrained and erratic moves on tariffs this week sent the stock market tumbling and triggered anxiety throughout an economy that he has promised to make better for working class Americans. It

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KARL (voice over): It was whiplash week at the White House as President Trump unleashed his favorite economic weapon.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No room left for Mexico or for Canada. No, the tariffs, you know, they're all set. They go into effect tomorrow.

KARL (voice over): On Monday, the president announced he would move forward with 25 percent tariffs on all goods from Canada and Mexico. Justin Trudeau, in one of his final acts as Canada’s prime minister, fired right back at Trump.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: Donald, you're a very smart guy. This is a very dumb thing to do.

KARL (voice over): President Trump's announcement sent the stock market reeling. You could see it in real time. Stocks plunging while the president was still speaking.

TRUMP: We are setting records right now. Records like nobody has ever seen before.

KARL (voice over): The Dow would drop more than 1,300 points in two days, wiping out virtually all the market's gains since Election Day. But on Tuesday night, in his joint session to Congress, the president wasn't yielding.

TRUMP: The tariffs are not just about protecting American jobs, they're about protecting the soul of our country.

KARL (voice over): On Wednesday, the vice president stood firm too, saying there would be few, if any, exceptions.

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think the president's been very clear here that he wants the tariffs to apply broadly. He doesn’t want to have 500 different industries getting 500 different carveouts.

KARL (voice over): But on that same day, the White House announced a big carveout, giving the big three automakers a break from tariffs on auto parts made in Canada and Mexico.

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are going to give a one-month exemption on any autos coming through USMCA.

KARL (voice over): Thursday, Trump's commerce secretary suggested more carveouts to come.

HOWARD LUTNICK, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: It's not likely to be just the automakers. I mean, the president is going to decide this today.

KARL (voice over): But later in the day, the president declared a temporary pause on a wide range of tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico. He insisted it had nothing to do with the market.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, nothing to do with the market. I'm not even looking at the market.

KARL (voice over): Through all the back and forth, the president has offered different reasons for the tariffs, raising revenue, protecting jobs, or, as his chief economic adviser put it, forcing Mexico and Canada to ack down on fentanyl smuggling.

KEVIN HASSETT, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL DIRECTOR: This is a drug war, not a trade war.

KARL (voice over): It's not the first time the president has used tariffs to try to get what he wants. Less than a week after his inauguration, Trump slapped 25 percent tariffs on Colombia, but backed down hours later when the country agreed to carry out military flights with returning migrants.

Now President Trump says full tariffs are definitely coming back on Mexico and Canada on April 2nd unless –

TRUMP: There will always be some modifications. I mean if you have a wall in front of you, sometimes you have to go around the wall instead of through it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KARL: All right, let's bring in our chief business and economics correspondent Rebecca Jarvis.

So, Rebecca, we saw how the markets didn't like Trump's tariff announcement at the beginning of the week. But then when he backed off, at least temporarily, they didn't seem that reassured by that either.

REBECCA JARVIS, CHIEF BUSINESS, TECHNOLOGY & ECONOMICS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jon, you can really feel the uncertainty on Wall Street. And the closing numbers tell one story. But when you look at what's happening inside of a single day on Wall Street, the gigantic volatility is the kind that we haven't seen since Russia initially invaded Ukraine since the pandemic. And that's really playing out. It's a very headline-sensitive market. They're always listening to the White House for what's coming next.

The other issue here is that the real tariffs, the even larger tariff that this White House has signaled, they’re not coming until April 2nd. So, Wall Street is waiting on that.

And then, finally, we're in the midst of an orchestrated slowdown. Inflation was a persistent problem for a number of years. The Federal Reserve, in order to attack that inflation, has been hiking interest rates. They started in March of 2022. And the economy has been slowing down as they've hiked interest rates and tried to get inflation under control.

And this White House, in addition to that, is looking at cost-cutting measures that will eventually, in their view, move spending from the public to the private sector. All of those things make an economy slow down. The question is, can you slow it down without causing a recession? The Fed's been eyeing that for a long time, but it is still a question for the economy overall.

KARL: And how will Trump's threat to go forward with more tariffs, as you said bigger tariffs coming ahead, complicate his promise to bring inflation down?

JARVIS: It does complicate things. Tariffs will likely be a one-time price adjustment higher. And those larger tariffs, those reciprocal tariffs that take effect in April, will have an impact. American companies who import products, they're going to be paying this higher tax at the border. Generally speaking, they pass that tax in some form to consumers, which means consumers pay higher prices.

And I've talked to a lot of businesses. They're doing – a lot of the small businesses right now are doing everything they can to pass as small of that amount to customers because they know customers will eventually stop spending if prices get too high. And they're working on splitting things. Even one business I spoke to, they're trying to share that added tax with their counterparts in Mexico.

But the big question going forward for the economy is, if consumers start pulling back dramatically, if they stop spending and buying things because prices have gone so high, that eventually does ripple through to things like jobs. And in a very real way, if you look at something like an avocado – vegetables coming from Mexico certainly an area that will be impacted with these tariffs. If you look at an avocado, that 25 percent tariff takes the cost of your $3 avocado to about $3.75. That is inflation. That is a cost of a very everyday good and item going up on American families.

KARL: And quickly on jobs. We saw the jobs report Friday, 151,000 jobs added. A little less than expected. But it only included 10,000 jobs lost from the federal government. What do we expect going forward?

JARVIS: Right. So, Jon, because of the timing of the DOGE cuts, they – they actually came after that report was taken. And so, when you look forward, you're going to see a larger reduction in government jobs because of the DOGE cuts.

And then the big question is, what does it do to our confidence? We're starting to see consumer confidence wane.

If consumers start feeling less confident because they see smaller job numbers and because they start to see things slowing down, they pull back on their spending. Our spending is what generates most of our economic growth. If that goes down, so does the jobs picture because companies start looking at what they're doing, and they start having to cut those jobs as well, Jon.

KARL: All right. Rebecca Jarvis, thanks for joining us this morning.

JARVIS: Thanks for having me.

KARL: I’m joined now by President Trump's economic advisor, Kevin Hassett.

Thank you so much for joining us this morning.

KEVIN HASSETT, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL DIRECTOR: Thanks for having me.

KARL: So we saw the president this week impose tariffs, delay a bunch of the tariffs, and then on Friday, he said there are more bigger tariffs to come, suggesting possibly as high as 250 percent on Canadian dairy and lumber.

Can -- can you just explain in short what is driving the president's decision-making on this?

HASSETT: Sure. Let's go through what happened this week because I -- I didn't really think that the way you guys characterize the tariffs made sense to me. So I just want to go back to what happened.

What happened was that we launched a drug war, not a trade war, and it was part of a negotiation to get Canada and Mexico to stop shipping fentanyl across our borders. And as we've watched them make progress on the drug war, then we've relaxed some of the tariffs that we put on -- on them because they're making progress. And so, that drug war is something that's been going on since really the beginning of the Trump administration.

We've also announced that we're going to put out a study, April 1st, that says what is the harm to America of all the asymmetrical trade practices of foreign governments and what are we going to do about it. And that's the April 2nd number that you keep hearing the president say.

So, between now and then, we've got the drug war which we're hopefully going to solve by the end of the month. Hopefully, that we'll actually round up, you know, the people in the cartels and stop the flow of fentanyl that's killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, and then we'll be focused on the reciprocal thing.

And now on the reciprocal thing, remember that just about every country on Earth charges a much higher tariff than we do. And so, when we pass an act that says that we're going to have the same tariff they charge us, then you're covering it as if the only possible outcome is that our tariffs go up. But maybe they decide to go down, right?

If you look at Indian tariffs, up 85, 90 percent. Are they going to keep those 85, 90 percent so that we put 85, 90 percent on everything that comes from India or are they going to lower them?

I think that it's an interesting question the president is putting things on the table that are basically, you know, core fairness issues.

KARL: So --

HASSETT: Let's just be fair. Whatever you do to us, we'll do to you. That's what he's asking for in April and it's not a radical idea at all.

KARL: But let me ask -- I’m -- I am confused now about what you're saying about this being a drug war not a trade war. So -- so let's just take Canada.

HASSETT: Uh-huh.

KARL: I mean, you said Canada's shipping fentanyl into the United States. I mean, I don't think that's happening.

I mean, 1 percent of fentanyl is being smuggled across the border, 1 percent. I mean, Canada is not a major source at all of fentanyl in the United States, are they?

HASSETT: Well, there -- well, yes they are a major source. And I can tell you that in the Situation Room, I’ve seen photographs of fentanyl labs in Canada that the law enforcement folks were leaving alone. Canada's got a big drug problem, even in their own cities.

KARL: OK.

HASSETT: Go walk around, you know, Toronto and -- and see what it's like and -- and you'll see that it is a big problem.

And frankly, you know, we have intelligence that Mexican cartels operate in Canada as well.

And so, if you want to get the cartels out of the U.S., you got to get them out of Canada and Mexico.

KARL: Okay, but if you're saying that this is an effort to make them crack down and it's worked --

HASSETT: It's working, yes. It's working.

KARL: Then -- then why are these tariffs going -- the very same tariffs going back into effect on April 2nd?

HASSETT: Well, if -- we'll see what -- what happens.

So what's going on with the trade war is, is that we're going to have reciprocal tariffs in April. What's going on with the drug war is we're trying to make progress on fentanyl.

KARL: So, there is a trade war? So there is a trade war?

HASSETT: In -- in April, there's going to be a reciprocal tariff and -- and then if they lower their tariffs, we'll lower ours.

But between now and then, the age -- the act that created the tariffs that you're seeing in Canada and Mexico was 100 percent about progress in the drug war, and that's the clear meaning of the executive order that the president signed, and the clear focus of the intel briefs we're getting almost every day.

KARL: I -- I know you occasionally read “The Wall Street Journal”.

“The Wall Street Journal” editorial board this week suggested the tariffs aren't legal. But then they also wrote this: He's treating the North American economy as a personal play thing as markets gyrate with each presidential win.

How do you respond to “The Wall Street Journal”?

HASSETT: Well, I think what the president's tried to do is make it so that when we produce something, we produce it at home. Make no mistake: the trade deficit with Canada and Mexico, they cumulate about a trillion dollars a year. And China, it's one and half trillion.

And in a free market that didn’t have any kind of finger on the scale, then what we’d see would be that those trade deficits would decline over time as currencies adjusted. Be that's not happening.

And so what happens now is, for example, in a typical month, $35 billion worth of cars are imported, and our manufacturers export about $13 billion worth of cars. And those are all jobs that Americans don't have.

President Trump wants to bring the jobs home, bring the wealth – the wealth home, and bring the wages home. And you saw that in the first jobs report. So, what you saw in the first jobs report, after having 110 manufacturing – 110,000 jobs destroyed in the last year of the Biden administration, we had 10,000 created in just the month of February, 9,000 of them are going to be auto jobs, because auto manufacturers and thinking, geez, ahead of the tariffs we need to start to move the stuff back home.

Now, what that does is it bids up the price of labor, it makes wages higher, makes incomes higher, and it makes it easier for people to pay for things. And so, if you’re looking at tariffs in isolation and not thinking about the job creation that tariffs create, then you're doing only half the picture.

KARL: OK, so you've suggested that perhaps other countries react by cutting their tariffs.

HASSETT: They might.

KARL: They – and they do what we want in terms of the drug – just, in terms of – of fighting drugs, are tariffs, in the president's mind, a temporary measure or is this a permanent plan going forward? Because he’s also talked about tariffs being a way to end the budget deficit.

HASSETT: Well, I think the way to think about it is that if we have reciprocal tariff and we have a country that doesn't lower their rates – and so right now, for example, there's a 10 percent tariff on American autos sold into Europe. So, if we put a 10 percent tariff on Europe cars sold into the U.S., then maybe that becomes a new equilibrium. If that is a new equilibrium, then what's going to happen is that more and more production is going to happen onshore here in the U.S. and we're going to be creating great American auto jobs.

And if they lower the tariff right away, then maybe there will be more movement back and forth, both for U.S. cars and for foreign cars. But right now there's a very, very asymmetric trade policy around the world where everybody’s putting high tariffs on our stuff if we sell it there, and we've got very low tariffs when we bring it in here. And they've got value added taxes as well. So, it's like 30 percent charge to sell a U.S. car in Germany for example, right now, and just a sales tax if you – if you sell it here in a state sales tax at that.

And so that's something that's led to this huge trade deficit. And President Trump believes, as I believe as an economist, I think as all economists believe, that that lowers the demand for labor, it lowers wages, it makes it harder for people to get good, hard – high-paying jobs here in the U.S. And that's the thing that we're fixing.

And again, looking at the jobs report that we just got this Friday, you can see that it's already working. In just one month alone, after losing 110,000 manufacturing job, we made 10,000 in February alone, 9,000 of them were auto jobs.

KARL: So just quickly before you go, I want to ask you about something Treasury Secretary Bessent said. He said that – this is a quote, “access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream.” Is – is he suggesting essentially that higher prices are not a problem if the – if the end result is more higher-paying good, American jobs?

HASSETT: Let's think about it just the way we would do it in Econ 101. If I buy a Mercedes, then it goes into consumption.

KARL: Yes.

HASSETT: So, you know, I – the, say, $100,000 for a Mercedes goes into consumption, but then it comes out of imports and so it has no effect on GDP. And a lot of times when we think about the welfare of Americans, we're thinking about GDP per the number of Americans, per capita.

If you buy a Buick, then it goes into consumption, but it doesn't come out of imports. And so it goes into GDP. That's why – that’s what the “d” is, it’s domestic production. And so, if you want to increase the welfare of Americans, then it’s better to have the stuff produced here. And that’s a very, very simple fact that the president is pushing very hard.

KARL: OK. All right, Kevin Hassett, I really appreciate you being with us this morning.

HASSETT: Thanks, Jon. Great to be with you.

KARL: Thank you very much.

Coming up, Democrats coordinated colors, waved signs, walked out, and even got kicked out of President Trump's address to Congress. So, why did their opposition appear to land with a big thud? We'll ask California Senator Adam Schiff when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY KIMMEL, LATE-NIGHT HOST: The big question going into this, at least on cable news, was whether the Democrats were going to do anything to disrupt the proceedings. They did. Some of them wore pink clothes which was pretty wild.

STEPHEN COLBERT, LATE-NIGHT HOST: The Democrats came ready to fight back with their little paddles, OK? That is how you save democracy, by quietly dissenting, or bidding on an antique tea set. It was hard to tell what was going on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: Late night's take on the Democratic opposition at Trump's State of the Union address this week.

I'm joined now by Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California.

Senator, thank you for joining us this morning. There's obviously been a lot of hand-wringing over how Democrats treated the State of the Union address. Let me read you what your colleague in the Senate, John Fetterman, had to say. He called the Democrat response a sad cavalcade of self-owns and unhinged petulance. It only makes Trump look more presidential and restrained. We're becoming the metaphorical car alarms that nobody pays attention to, and it may not be the winning message.

Does Senator Fetterman have a point?

SEN. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Well, I think the lack of a coordinated response in the State of the Union was a mistake, and frankly it took the focus off of where it should have been which is on the fact that the president spoke for an hour and 40 minutes and had nothing to say about what he would do to bring down costs for American families that were watching that lengthy address, sitting at the kitchen table, hoping that he would offer something to help them afford a new home or pay their rent, afford health care or child care.

There was nothing for the American people, and that's where we need to keep our focus. I was just listening to your guest precede me trying to explain that these tariffs, these on-again, off-again tariffs, are not about trade. It's a drug war, and then -- but next month it's a trade war, but now it's a drug war. It was incomprehensible, and he was also trying to say that numbers, the job numbers that came in less than expected are somehow good news.

They're destroying the economy, and they're making it harder and harder for Americans to afford things. That's where we need to keep the focus. That's why we lost the last election because we weren't razor-focused on -- laser-focused on the high cost of living, and what they're doing now is just making it so much worse in the administration, and that's really what we needed to emphasize.

KARL: You've made it clear you're opposed to these tariffs. Is there anything that Democrats can do to stand in the way?

SCHIFF: Well, look. I think we need to bring home to the American people what these tariffs are going to mean. They voted for Donald Trump supposedly because they wanted lower prices, and these tariffs are just going to drive prices up. I think they already are.

In California, the top issue for people is they need more housing. They need more affordable housing. Well, if you begin by deporting construction workers and then you continue by raising costs on construction materials like lumber, you're just driving those housing prices even further beyond the means of most Americans. So this is deeply destructive what they're doing. We need to make that case to the American people because they're going to feel it, but, you know, taking our eye off the ball I think is very dangerous, and so let's be focused on what matters most to Americans.

Let's point out all the destructive harms they're doing with, you know, the cutting of services, the slashing of the Medicaid and what that's going to mean for increased health costs and less access for people. That, to me, is the winning case to make.

KARL: I'm going to be talking shortly to UAW president Sean Fain. He was obviously, you know, a big supporter of Kamala Harris, a prominent speaker at your Democraticconvention over the summer.

He likes Trump's tariffs.

Is there a risk that in your opposition to this -- and I mean you, the party's opposition to this -- that Democrats could lose even more ground among working-class Americans?

SCHIFF: Oh, look, I read Shawn's statement. I think he doesn't favor tariffs if they're about drug or unrelated policy, and I think it may make sense to look at targeted actions that can -- we can take to bring back American jobs like auto jobs.

But these are cross the board tariffs that are indiscriminate, that that are imposed one day and taken down the next.

I can tell you the effect that they're having in California because I talk to people -- I talked to citrus farmers for example who still haven't recovered the market share they lost during the first Trump administration with these tariff wars.

So I think these broad, indiscriminate and on again, off again tariffs don't help anyone.

KARL: I mean, we’ll --

SCHIFF: They don't help farmers. They don't help auto workers. They're a mistake.

KARL: I mean, we'll -- we'll talk to him in a few minutes, but I mean, he seemed to be saying that he favored these, you know, broad tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and also didn't seem troubled by the one-month pause.

But -- but let me -- let me ask you more broadly on -- on the Democratic response. Here's what James Carville had by way of suggestion to how Democrats should handle this moment. It was somewhat counterintuitive.

He said: With no clear leader to voice our opposition and no control in any branch of government, it's time for Democrats to embark on the most daring political mover -- maneuver in the history of our party. Roll over and play dead. Allow Republicans to crumble beneath their own weight and make the American people miss us.

Is that a possible course of action?

SCHIFF: You know, I have great respect for James Carville, but I don't agree with him on this. I do think that that the abundant corruption of the Trump administration, the self-dealing, the inconsistency, the economic decline that they're advancing with their inconsistent and half-hazard policies, yes, will cause the administration to collapse of its own weight.

But that's I think, first of all, not an answer to what Democrats need to do, which is we need to have our own broad, bold agenda to improve the economic well-being of Americans, to answer really the central question I think at the heart of our political challenges which is, if you're working hard in America, can you still earn a good living?

We need to be advancing policies and making the arguments about what we have to offer, not simply standing back and letting them collapse over their own corrupt weight.

To me, that's not enough. We need to effectively use litigation as we are. We need to effectively use communication to talk to new people in new ways, as we are. So I -- I don't agree with that philosophy.

KARL: One approach we're seeing from -- from your governor, from Gavin Newsom, he's got this new podcast. He made some waves by bringing conservative commentator Charlie Kirk on the debut of his podcast.

Let me play you a little section on this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLIE KIRK, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: Would you do something like that? Would you say no men in female sports?

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, it's -- I think it's an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness.

KIRK: So --

NEWSOM: It's deeply unfair.

There's also a humility and grace, you know, that -- that these poor people are more likely to commit suicide, have anxiety and depression. And the way that people talk down to vulnerable communities is an issue that I have a hard time with as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: I mean, I guess, first, what would you think about Newsom sitting down with Charlie Kirk? But more importantly, do you think -- do you agree with those in your party who say it is time for Democrats to have a different approach to transgender issues?

SCHIFF: Well, first of all, I agree that we should be broadening our reach and talking to people we haven't been talking to. I’m not sure that I would start with Charlie Kirk.

But I also think, as I was mentioning earlier, that we need to keep the focus on what matters most to the American people, and that is the economy. We need to be talking to people about how we're going to improve their quality of life, and we can make sure that if they're working hard, they're earning a good living, to the degree that we get after -- we get away from focusing on those things I think it's a mistake.

In terms of the particular issue that the governor was talking about -- look, I played in sports. Our kids played in sports. I want all young people to have the experience of playing in sports, every young person.

And I want those sports to be fair. I want those sports to be safe, and I have confidence that local schools and local communities can make those decisions without the federal government making them for them.

(CROSSTALK)

KARL: But is he right on that? Is -- is he right on that?

SCHIFF: I think to the degree -- to -- well, to the degree though, I think as a -- as a political matter, that we remove the focus from where most Americans are concerned and that is they're concerned about their ability to provide for their family. I think to degree that we getaway from that, that's a mistake.

KARL: OK. All right. Senator Schiff, thank you very much for joining us on "This Week."

Up next, just a few months ago, the United Autoworkers, United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain was calling President Trump a scab who is going to go up against anything and everything that the union stands for. But now, he's all in on Trump's tariffs on Canada and Mexico. We'll ask him why when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: And who I don't know, but wasn't a supporter, although the other workers were big supporters, I watched him last night and he said, Donald Trump is absolutely right on tariffs. He said what he's doing on tariffs is an incredible thing and it's about time somebody had the guts to do it, because we're going to save auto manufacturing. And I said to people when I was campaigning, you're going to have so many auto jobs, you're not going to believe what's going to happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: President Trump there praising UAW President Shawn Fain who came out in support of Trump's tariffs, and Shawn Fain joins us right now. So, the president may have slightly misquoted you --

(LAUGH)

KARL: -- but the essence is there. You have come out strongly in favor of his tariffs. Can you explain why?

SHAWN FAIN, PRESIDENT, UNITED AUTO WORKERS: Hey, thanks for having me, Jon. And look, yeah, it's simple for us. Look, we're in a crisis mode in this country. There is no single issue in this country that has affected our economy and working class people and their jobs. The NAFTA, the USMCA and our trade laws, our broken trade system, and we're in a crisis mode. And we are triaging right now.

So I hear this debate about blanket tariffs and all this stuff. But look, we're in a triage situation. Tariffs are an attempt to stop the bleeding from the hemorrhaging of jobs in America for the last 33 years. So -- and as we speak right now, I mean, decisions are still being made. Warren Truck Plant, right here in Michigan, there's over 2,000 people laid off.

And a simple decision, Stellantis is shifting truck production to Mexico. They could change overnight and move those trucks right back here to Warren, Michigan and put people back to work. You know, you have Deere workers in Racine, Wisconsin, we have Mac truck workers in Allentown, Pennsylvania, where the company is saying they're going to move their jobs to Mexico. So, tariffs aren't the end solution, but they are a – they are a huge factor in creating and fixing this problem.

And just to go one step further, I want to say this, because I think it's important. You know, in 1992, I was a 23-year-old man. And I voted for Ross Perot. And the reason I voted for Ross Perot was during the debate between Clinton, Perot, and Bush, Ross Perot talked about that giant sucking sound. And I'll tell you, in 1993, there was a debate between Al Gore and Ross Perot on "Larry King Live,” and Al Gore talked about the four living presidents, Nobel laureate economists and everyone said, this was going to create a, you know, 400,000 jobs in the first year of NAFTA’s inception. And you know what happened? We’ve lost millions of jobs since then. We’ve lost 90,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States since the inception of NAFTA. That's 1,800 manufacturing plants per state.

KARL: Yes.

FAIN: If any – if any nation in the world lost that, their economy would be wrecked. So, you know, we’ve got to stop the debate and the stupidity on this, and leaders got to lead. And that's where we’ve got to go with this. And to end that statement, I’ll just say this, Al Gore was wrong, Ross Perot was right, and NAFTA sucks.

KARL: So, you said in your statement that you have been coordinating with the Trump White House on – on this. Have you spoken directly to Donald Trump?

FAIN: No, we haven't spoken directly. But, you know, we’ve been working with – with his team. Members of my team have been working with him. And we're telling these stories. We're telling, you know, the realities of what Americans are experiencing, you know, and working to find solutions, you know, so we can – so we can move forward and fix this broken trade system, and get this corrected because, you know, the United States is the cash cow. The United States is the – is the – is the market everyone wants to sell in.

KARL: Yes.

FAIN: And we should have reciprocal trade laws where – where people have the same standard of living. I mean, and I'll say this, you know, our neighbors to the south, Mexican – Mexican workers aren't the enemy. They're being exploited, you know, and it's because of corporate greed. And that's what's got to stop in this country.

KARL: So, I'm sure Trump remembers this, and you do as well. You had some choice words for him at the convention in Chicago over the summer, the Democratic Convention. Let me just play a short clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FAIN: When Donald Trump was president, corporate America ran wild. Donald Trump did not bring back the auto industry. When Donald Trump was president, auto plants closed. Trump did nothing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: So, you see something different now? Do you think that it's possible that Donald Trump might just be the president after those long three decades you just described? He might just be the president this time to bring back – or help bring back manufacturing jobs to the United States?

FAIN: Well, and, look, I'll say this, you know, the election's over. Donald Trump is the president. And we want to get to work to fix the problems that are wrong with this country, with our economy. And the American people expect that. They expect leaders to stand up and lead. They don't expect us to sit back and – they don’t care about politics. They don't care which party somebody's from. They care about solving their problems.

And so, that’s one thing Donald Trump has done. He's acknowledged the USMCA didn't go far enough. And so, you know, there's an urgency now to fix this problem. And that’s what we’re going to work on. We're working with the administration now. And we’ll see where it ends up. But – but I will say this, I mean, name me one president in the last 25 years that's – that’s talked about doing these things, and trying to fix this broken system.

KARL: All right, Shawn Fain with the United Auto Workers, thank you for joining us.

Coming up, Donald Trump remade the Supreme Court in his first term, but now many Trump supporters are up in arms about one of the justices that Trump put on the court. The roundtable takes on that and more when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Some details have come out of your cabinet meeting with Elon Musk, and some clashes potentially between Secretary Rubio and Secretary Duffy --

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No clash. I was there. You're just a troublemaker and you're not supposed to be asking that question because we're talking about the World Cup.

Elon gets along great with Marco, and they're both doing a fantastic job. There is no clash.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: No clash. President Trump denies there's any tension between his cabinet and Elon Musk. The roundtable is here to debate that and more when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL: Let's bring in the Roundtable. Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile, Former RNC Chair Reince Priebus, and Former Trump Justice Department Spokesperson and Dispatch Senior Editor Sarah Isgur, Democratic Strategist and Bernie Sanders 2020 Campaign Manager Faiz Shakir.

So Donna, Democrats had a pretty rough week. I mean, we heard from Senator Schiff, he didn't like the display at the State of the Union. What is the state of the Democratic response to Trump?

DONNA BRAZILE, FORMER DNC CHAIR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, first of all, it's been -- it's been a very difficult two months. The political vacuum left from the Biden-Harris Administration, the Democratic Party needs time to sing from the same hymn sheet. What you saw on Tuesday night was a party that probably didn't watch a lot of Donald Trump's speeches or his inaugural address. Donald Trump is always speaking to the choir, speaking to his base. He's not going to ever speak to the congregants or the American people.

So, Democrats came in there with somewhere in different colors, somewhere bringing what I call church fans, and then many of them deciding to walk out. That was not the best impression that the American people wanted to see. They want to see the Democratic Party focus on the American people, on lowering prices, on protecting Medicaid, on making sure that we don't simply fire every veteran. So missed opportunity, but I think the Democrats can rebuild and rebound.

KARL: And Faiz, let me ask you, so I'm sensing some real unease with the current state of the Democratic leadership, as if the leaders, specifically in Congress --

FAIZ SHAKIR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST & BERNIE SANDERS 2020 CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Sure.

KARL: -- have not met this moment.

SHAKIR: Yeah. Well, I -- I agree. And also, the opportunity is there to fight. And I -- I believe, like if you look at Shawn Fain, I thought he's giving you a good message. I think Bernie Sanders, if you are watching him, he's got thousands and thousands of people yesterday in Warren, Michigan, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. There's a populist revolt brewing, Jon, there's -- people are angry. They want something integrity and conviction against the fight against Musk and DOGE.

They know that a lot of these things are betrayal of just whether government should work, whether you should care about people's lives and operate with integrity and honesty. So I think for many Democrats, just like grow a spine and care about Medicaid. When you -- when we talk about Medicaid, know that there's people in nursing homes and childcare providers and people -- young kids who just -- who need these programs. Fight like it matters to you.

KARL: Reince?

REINCE PRIEBUS, FORMER RNC CHAIR & FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF & ABC NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I agree with some of it. I think you're a hundred percent right that we are in a place in America today, where you have populism of the left or populism of the right. You're right about that. And that's why Bernie Sanders gets big crowds and Fetterman does as well. But it's this wacky -- this progressive leftism that's being rejected.

I mean, the Democrats are holding a hand now that the dealer wouldn't even bet on. And you could -- the evidence of that is Gavin Newsom.

KARL: Why would he want to be part of it (ph) --

(CROSSTALK)

PRIEBUS: -- he wants to be separated.

(LAUGH)

(CROSSTALK)

KARL: -- by the way.

PRIEBUS: He's not holding a good hand.

KARL: Yeah.

PRIEBUS: He's not holding the card, but he wants to separate himself from this sort of -- these nut job type fascination with, we're not going to punish people who steal from CVS and Walgreens. We're not going to deport illegal felons. We're not going to stand up for girls against boys in sports. I mean, this is -- it's wild and it's -- and that's why the Democrats are at 20 percent approval.

KARL: So, what did you make of Newsom's gambit here? And he's going to do more of it. He's -- that was Charlie Kirk. I think you'll probably see Steve Bannon next.

SARAH ISGUR, THE DISPATCH SENIOR EDITOR & FORMER TRUMP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah.

KARL: I don't know. I mean, what --

ISGUR: We've seen so many politicians try to -- where are my people going? I must lead them and it doesn't work for them. Right? The voters want authenticity. The problem for the Democratic Party is that there is no Democratic Party. Parties have become so weak as to be non-existent. They'll have to wait four years, frankly, to have a leader of the Democratic Party.

In the meantime, though, I thought Senator Schiff's answer was bonkers. When asked, "What should Democrats be doing about tariffs?" And his answer was "messaging." No, you're in Congress. Your job is not to be on the news -- vote. Congress gave this power to the president --

(CROSSTALK)

KARL: Well, they're in the minority.

ISGUR: Then say that what you're going to do, if you can take back the majority, is to repeal the president's power to have this much control over tariffs. But you don't hear Democrats saying that. It's sort of these words about the economy.

PRIEBUS: And they're losing the working class in the meantime.

BRAZILE: No, they're not. Look, Democrats understand what the fight is all about. We are not sleepwalking. What we are trying to do is to stand up, not just the minority opposition, but to ensure that we protect working families, veterans, rural hospitals, farmers, ranches, people who are losing their way of life.

ISGUR: Make Congress great again. Stop trying to just play over who's controlling the presidency.

BRAZILE: Look, look. Absolutely.

ISGUR: Then can have this pendulum every four years.

BRAZILE: Look, look, this week --

ISGUR: Congress.

BRAZILE: What we saw yesterday the House Republicans, they have put out their roadmap for slashing the federal budget in order to give billionaires tax money that we cannot afford.

KARL: OK, so let me ask this.

BRAZILE: So Democrats will be able to stand up for those values that we all care about as Americans. We will not be just standing up and cherry-picking through the litter because Donald Trump does not have an economic plan. Every day he throws something out to somebody saying, here's a bone. Go suck on it, but there's no real coherent plan out there.

KARL: Democrats are going to have a choice possibly to make this week, which is what to do with government funding.

BRAZILE: Thank you.

KARL: So if the House manages to pass this, you know, continuing resolution to keep the government running until the end of September, the only way it passes is if Democrats in the Senate vote for it. What's going to happen, and what should happen?

FAIR SHAKIR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: The anger brewing is around Musk and this arsonist approach to government. 80,000 veterans being fired, just for no good reason, and I think people know. They're waking up to this. They understand what --

KARL: Should they threaten a shutdown to stop it?

SHAKIR: Well, you have to preserve Congress's role over the fact that when funding is delivered, it should be delivered. Right now you've got an executive authority under Musk, not even Trump it seems, who's apparently just making -- they go onto spreadsheet and they just press delete. It's like Homer Simpson had a nuclear facility, saying, what does this button do? Oh, it turns out thousands and thousands of people get fired and a whole community gets decimated. Well, maybe we need to wind that back. Maybe we need to rehire CDC. Maybe we need to put that -- want it back. So yes, Congress needs to assert, this is our role. Musk, we don't work for you. You work for us.

KARL: Well, give us the ground truth, Reince, because I was hearing that when Musk went up to Capitol Hill this week, met with senators, met with members of the House, Republicans, all, he got some blowback and there's some real concern among at least some Republicans about the impact, and then we saw Trump in the Cabinet meeting say, no, no, no. Cabinet secretaries get to make the decisions not Musk on hiring and firing.

REINCE PRIEBUS, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Well, I think a few truths first. Number one, if you don't want to cut Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, and you want to increase defense spending --

KARL: And cut taxes.

PRIEBUS: There's not a lot of places you can go other than taking this monstrosity of a government that was at a $4.1 trillion a year in 2018 and today it's $6.1 trillion. So granted, I think there might be folks that wish that, you know, maybe we acted more like ninjas as opposed to Vikings, but, but DOGE and Elon Musk still remains very -- well, 54 percent of the American people by CNN said that they want Elon Musk and DOGE involved in these cuts.

KARL: So is he cut down? Did Trump cut him down?

PRIEBUS: So there's always been -- the same thing happened when I was in the White House. And you can go back to Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. There has always been tension between cabinets and White Houses. Because the White Houses want to control personnel and cabinet secretaries want to control personnel. I think that Donald Trump found a happy medium that said, OK, cabinet secretaries, you're in charge of your people, but Elon over here is going to be watching over your shoulder, and if you don't do it, he's going to do it.

I think that is -- that is an adult conversation that it did happen. True, but who cares? So they had an adult conversation.

(CROSSTALK)

BRAZILE: Yes, and if you don't do it the way he wants it --

PRIEBUS: Over personnel. This is --

BRAZILE: If you don't do it the way he wants it done, he's to threaten you on social media, and then he's going to throw the buckets of money at you to try to divide us even further.

(CROSSTALK)

PRIEBUS: These guys on social media.

KARL: All right.

PRIEBUS: He's wildly popular with the base, and obviously, these cabinet secretaries wanted something, and they got it.

KARL: As you know -- he's wildly unpopular with some on the right, you know, wildly unpopular because of some of the positions he's taken.

ISGUR: Right. I mean, the idea is you're a small government conservative. You want the government shrunk, but what are they actually doing? Half the time they're like we cut this $8 billion contract. Oh, sorry, it turned out to be $8 million, and we're not touching entitlements? How can you be a small government conservative and not actually do entitlement reform?

KARL: Can I switch topics here? Amy Coney Barrett was Trump's last justice he put on the Supreme Court last time has come under some withering criticism on the right. Tell me, has she gone RINO? I mean, what's going on? Why are suddenly we seeing some of Donald Trump's most prominent outside supporters saying that Amy Coney Barrett is bad? They're calling her a DEI hire. What is going on?

ISGUR: Well, you're seeing a real fracture in the legal conservative movement, right? The Federalist Society was started in 1982 really as a response to the excesses of the Warren court, this idea that we had nine platonic guardians kind of just deciding what the law should be. So the federal society says it is the emphatic role of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The federal society, the legal conservative movement was about process, not outcome. That's what originalism is, and textualism. And so, they kept putting judges and justices on the court that believed in process.

And now, you're seeing that now that they have six appointees on the court, some members of that movement are like, but what about outcome? Process? Who cares? I wanted the outcomes I wanted. So you had blowback against Justice Gorsuch when he voted to have employment protection for sexual orientation and gender identity.

Justice Kavanaugh is the swing vote on the court. What's odd about this is that Amy Coney Barrett has voted against Donald Trump and Joe Biden. She voted in Dobbs. She voted against affirmative action. She voted against the eviction moratorium. She voted against student loan debt relief.

KARL: It seems like what they expect is her to vote for everything that Trump wants and against everything that he doesn't.

ISGUR: She's one of only two justices with no experience in the Executive Branch. She's voting against presidents. She's voting to actually put that power back into Congress.

KARL: Any buyer's remorse, Reince?

PRIEBUS: No, I don't think so. I mean, I generally agree with Sarah, and she obviously knows her stuff. But I do think the frustration is that same thing happened in the White House the first round. There has been an explosion of district court federal judges taking jurisdiction over these sorts of cases. It absolutely has been. And the question is whether or not, number one, that's something that the court wants to tolerate? But number two, whether or not those cases should be sent back to those courts where a proper petition could be made to the Supreme Court?

KARL: So --

PRIEBUS: -- where the other site has an opportunity to make their case, which they didn't have this time around.

SHAKIR: Jon, what we're dealing with --

PRIEBUS: That's what people are upset about.

SHAKIR: There's a cowardice of a Republican Party and a political establishment, no one wants to stand up to him. They're worried about Elon Musk's money and whether it's going to play in a primary. And they're so hungry for somebody to stand up to a strong man of Donald Trump that they're like, oh, did Amy Coney Barrett just suggest a moral conscience and -- of a kind. We are hungry to grasp for somebody with some degree of moral clarity, who wants to stand up and say, this is crazy. This is crazy. And so I'm -- and fortunately, we've got general moral (ph) cowardice on the Republican Party.

KARL: And the battle is going to be in the courts.

BRAZILE: The battle is already in the courts. More to come.

KARL: All right. Thank you all very much. More to talk about next time. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL: That's all for us today. Thank you for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Check out "World News Tonight." Have a great day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)