'This Week' Transcript 3-16-25: White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and economist Diane Swonk

A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, March 16, 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.

ABC "This Week" Full Show Transcript

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC "THIS WEEK" CO-ANCHOR: Breaking news overnight. President Trump orders his first widespread military strikes of his second term, targeting Yemen’s Houthi rebels, while the president demands the release of the last U.S. hostage in Gaza, and the administration pushes Russia for a ceasefire in Ukraine.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Some pretty good vibes coming out of Russia.

RADDATZ: The latest this morning with White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.

Plus, Democrats divided.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): A shutdown would allow DOGE to shift into overdrive.

RADDATZ: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer under fire from his own party after voting with Republicans to avert a government shutdown.

REPORTER: Is it time for new leadership in the Senate?

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Next question.

RADDATZ: Is the backlash just beginning? We talked to one of the Democrats who voted against the bill to keep the government open, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

And –

What do you think when you look at Washington?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that we just need certainty moving forward.

RADDATZ: We traveled to the sunshine state where business owners are bracing for impact from President Trump's tariffs. We'll break it all down with economist Diane Swonk on whether a recession may be around the corner.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: From ABC News it’s THIS WEEK. Here now, Martha Raddatz.

RADDATZ: Good morning and welcome to THIS WEEK.

President Trump has ordered his first major military strike since retaking the White House and issued a stark warning to Iran. The U.S. carrying out what the president called decisive and powerful military action against the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen this weekend. This in response to their continued attacks across the region.

As the Trump administration launches this fresh battle, it's looking to wind down the conflict in Ukraine, claiming some progress this week on getting Russia and Ukraine closer to a ceasefire.

Meanwhile, the president escalated his trade war as U.S. allies counterpunched with tariffs of their own.

And a battle in Congress over funding the government exposed deep rifts within the Democratic Party.

We'll get to all of that this morning and White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz will join me in a moment.

But we begin with ABC's senior White House correspondent Selina Wang on the latest national security developments.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SELINA WANG, ABC NEWS SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Houthi targets in Yemen bombarded by U.S. air and naval strikes over the weekend. President Trump announcing the strikes against the Iranian proxy on Saturday, writing on social media, "they have waged an unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence, and terrorism against American and other ships, aircraft, and drones. We will use overwhelming lethal force until we have achieved our objective."

U.S. officials tell ABC, the strikes hit radars, air defenses, and missile and drone systems. The attacks could last for several days and intensify in scope and scale.

The strikes come as President Trump's national security team is working to end the conflict in Ukraine. Trump's top advisers jetting to Jetta, Saudi Arabia, striking a deal with the Ukrainians for a 30-day ceasefire.

MIKE WALTZ, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: The Ukrainian delegation today made something very clear, that they share President Trump's vision for peace.

WANG (voice over): The two countries repairing a relationship that appeared on the brink of collapse just two weeks ago. The U.S. now putting the onus on Russian President Vladimir Putin to sign on.

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: We hope that they'll say yes. That they'll say yes to peace. The ball is now in their court.

WANG (voice over): Putin saying he supports the idea of a ceasefire in theory, but pushing for concessions from Ukraine and insisting it must lead to a long-term peace.

With Russian forces on the verge of retaking its Kursk region from Ukraine, the Russian president, dressed in military uniform, visiting a command center for the first time. A signal that he may want to keep the fight going. But the president still sounding optimistic.

TRUMP: He put out a very promising statement, but it was incomplete. And, yes, I’d love to meet with him or talk to him, but we have to get it over with fast.

WANG (voice over): This as tensions with Hamas ally Iran escalate.

TRUMP: I've written him a letter saying I hope you're going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it's going to be a terrible thing for them.

WANG (voice over): Iran's supreme leader rejecting the president’s offer to enter into negotiations over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

The ayatollah noting the previous deal to limit the country’s program, saying Trump tore it up.

And despite Trump seeking a new deal, the administration reportedly considering banning all travel to the U.S. from Iran, as well as ten other so-called red countries, including Afghanistan, North Korea, and Venezuela. "The New York Times" reporting on a draft list of 43 countries the U.S. could target. Eleven countries categorized as orange, where travel could be sharply restricted, but not outright banned. And 22 others categorized as yellow, that would have a 60-day deadline to address concerns or face travel bans of their own.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WANG (on camera): A White House official says no decision has been made about those travel bans reportedly under consideration. But in his message on Saturday announcing the strikes on Yemen, the president had a stark message for Iran, writing that their support for the Houthis must end immediately, while also warning the Houthis that if their attacks in the region don't stop now, then, quote, “hell will rain down upon you like nothing you have ever seen before.”

Martha.

RADDATZ: Selina Wang, at the White House, thank you.

Let’s turn now to President Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz.

Good morning, Mr. Waltz.

Let’s get right to this.

We have seen strikes like this before under the Biden administration. The Houthis kept firing missiles. What’s different with this?

WALTZ: Well, thank you.

And the difference is, these were not kind of pin prick, back and forth, what ultimately proved to be feckless attacks. This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out. And the difference here is, one, going after the Houthi leadership and, two, holding Iran responsible. It is Iran that has repeatedly funded, resourced, trained and helped the Houthis target not only U.S. warships, but global commerce, and has helped the Houthis shut down two of the world’s most strategic sea lanes.

We have, Martha, 70 percent of global shipping is now diverting around southern Africa, adding to the cost of goods, disrupting global economies, adding to – or shutting off supplies to the United States. President Trump has found it unacceptable. What we inherited was – was a terrible situation. And this is one of what will be a sustained effort to right that wrong and to reopen global commerce.

RADDATZ: And, Mr. Waltz, let me read from what President Trump said on Truth Social. He said, “to Iran, support for the Houthi terrorists must end immediately. Do not threaten the American people or worldwide shipping lanes. If you do, beware because America will hold you fully accountable.”

Does that mean direct military action on Iran is possible?

WALTZ: Well, all actions are always on the table with the president. But Iran needs to hear him loud and clear. It is completely unacceptable and it will be stopped. The level of support that they’ve been providing the Houthis, just like they have Hezbollah, just like they have the militias in Iraq, Hamas and others. The difference here is the Houthis have incredibly sophisticated air defenses, and they also have anti-shipping cruise missiles, drones, sea skimming types of attack drones and other ballistic missiles even. They’ve launched dozens of attacks on multiple war ships, dozens of attacks, over 175 on global commerce, sank multiple ships.

I just think the American people need to understand what has happened here. The previous administration had a series of feckless responses. President Trump is coming in –

RADDATZ: So – so –

WALTZ: With overwhelming force. We will take – we will hold not only the Houthis accountable, but we’re going to hold Iran, their backers, accountable as well. And if that means they’re targeting ships that they have put in to – to help their Iranian trainers, IRGC and others, that intelligence, other things that they have put in to help the Houthis attack the global economy, those – those targets will be on the table too.

RADDATZ: And the president has said Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, a week ago warning that Iran – something is going to happen very, very soon that will solve the problem if there is no peace deal and talking about nuclear weapons.

So, what is he talking about? Is he talking about a possible strike on the nuclear facilities by Israel, and would the U.S. join in that?

WALTZ: Well, what the president has completely -- has repeatedly said is that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. All options are on the table to ensure it does not have one. And that’s all aspects of Iran's program. That’s the missiles, the weaponization, the enrichment. They can either hand it over and give it up in a way that is verifiable, or they can face a whole series of other consequences.

But, either way, we cannot have a world with the ayatollahs with their finger on the nuclear button. We cannot have a situation that would result in an arms race across the Middle East in terms of nuclear proliferation. And President Trump is determined, one way or another. Iran has been offered a way out of this to make sure that we don’t have a world that can be threatened by a radical regime, not only our ally Israel, but the entire world that would be threatened with a -- with -- by a radical regime that could destroy, not only Israel, but its neighbors, and have the capability to hit the United States.

Martha, we cannot imagine a situation like that, and we’re not going to have it.

RADDATZ: I want to turn to Ukraine now. You were in Saudi this week meeting with Ukraine -- Ukrainians, crafting this so-called 30-day ceasefire. Vladimir Putin basically rejected that, saying he wants a long-term peace deal but this one didn’t work.

So, what’s next and will there be a meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin soon?

WALTZ: Well, I was in Jeddah with our great secretary of state, Marco Rubio. And, you know, we walked through a number of -- of aspects, a number of factors that have to be in place to achieve a permanent peace. You know, a fundamental aspect of the approach here from President Trump is that, you know, this has to be permanent. That’s what we continue to hear from the Ukrainians, that, you know, we cannot have a situation where this continues to break down.

At the same time, we are engaging with the Russians. What we heard from President Putin was that he will absolutely consider a ceasefire. There are some other thing that he would like to see that President Trump’s national security team has -- is considering over the coming days.

So, this back and forth diplomacy is -- is ongoing. As the NATO secretary general just said this week, only President Trump could have broken this log jam.

Just think where we were a few months ago. I mean, we were literally this far apart. And we are now driving both sides together to achieve a permanent peace, stop the killing, stop the bloodshed that is on the battlefield with thousands of people being lost a day.

RADDATZ: Mr. Waltz --

WALTZ: And what I find so interesting about the criticism is, essentially the criticism is, we should just continue open-ended warfare, which has devolved into trench warfare, a meat grinder of people, national treasure, munitions, with no end in sight.

RADDATZ: Mr. Waltz --

WALTZ: President Trump’s determined to end it, and we are – we’re having to deal with both sides to do that.

RADDATZ: Sean Hannity from Fox -- from Fox News laid out to you what he thought a deal would look like. He said, rare earth minerals deal, a component that keeps U.S. involvement and a presence in Ukraine, maybe European troops, Ukraine will not be part of NATO, and parts of Ukraine heavily populated by people from Russia, maybe the Donbas region, would go to Putin.

You agreed with that, correct? Is that the plan?

WALTZ: Well, those are the components of negotiations that have happened before in 2022. And even before then. This is going to be some type of territory for future security guarantees, the future status of Ukraine. We talked about, as -- as secretary of defense has said at the NATO -- the NATO defense ministerial that, you know, a pathway -- a permanent pathway into NATO, or a permanent membership into NATO for Ukraine is incredibly unlikely. And that’s not just from the United States. That’s from a number of other --

(CROSSTALK)

RADDATZ: But -- but let me -- we’re just running out of time here.

WALTZ: That’s from a number of other countries as well.

So, those are all the components, Martha. We know the components. There is a deal that will be had here. And we’re -- we are -- we are talking to both sides to figure out how we can get both sides to the table and shuttle diplomacy and stop the killing and stop this war.

RADDATZ: So, quickly – quickly – Mr. Waltz, and I – I don’t mean to interrupt, but so Russia could be given the Donbas in addition to hanging onto Crimea, even though they invaded Ukraine. Quickly if you can, please.

WALTZ: Martha, we have to ask ourselves, is it in our national interest? Is it realistic? We’ve talked to the Europeans about this, and the Ukrainians. Are we going to drive every Russian off of every inch of Ukrainian soil, including Crimea? And what the strategy of the Biden administration was, was, as long as it takes, as much as it takes, no matter what the timeline is, which is essentially endless warfare, in an environment that we are literally losing hundreds of thousands of people in a matter of months. And could escalate into World War III. So, we –

RADDATZ: Mr. Waltz –

WALTZ: We can talk about what’s right and wrong. And we also have to talk about the reality of the situation on the ground. And that’s what we are doing through diplomacy, through shuttle diplomacy, through proximity talks.

RADDATZ: We’ve got to stop right there.

WALTZ: And I – you know, it astounds me how that is criticized.

RADDATZ: OK, thank you so much for joining us this morning. I appreciate it, Mr. Waltz.

Up next, ten Senate Democratic, including their own leader, Chuck Schumer, helped Republicans pass a bill to avert a shutdown. We’ll talk to Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse about why he didn’t join them and the divisions now embroiling his party.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RADDATZ: Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer set off a firestorm heading into this weekend when he changed course and announced he would vote to move forward on a Republican-backed funding bill to avert a government shutdown. Nine Democrats joined him, but many others in his party expressed outrage.

ABC's Jay O'Brien has all the fallout.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAY O'BRIEN, ABC NEWS (voice over): Nearly two months into Donald Trump's second term and unified Republican control of Congress, this week's government shutdown showdown exposing a fracture in the Democratic Party.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): I think there is a deep sense of outrage and betrayal. I think it is a huge slap in the face.

O’BRIEN (voice over): Speaker Mike Johnson holding House Republicans together to pass a six-month funding extension that increases defense and border funds while cutting non-defense spending. Senate Democrats then left with few options and little time before a looming shutdown.

On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer suggesting Democrats were willing to take that path and risk the government grinding to a halt unless Republicans compromised.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Republicans do not have the votes in the Senate to invoke closure on the House CR.

O’BRIEN (voice over): But less than 36 hours from the deadline, Schumer surprising many, pledging to vote to advance the bill.

SCHUMER: I believe it is the best way to minimize the harm that the Trump administration will do to the American people.

O'BRIEN: The move breaking with fellow Democrats who'd push the party to stand firm against President Trump.

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): I'm heading now to my office to head to the Senate floor to vote no, hell no on the Republican continuing resolution.

O'BRIEN: Even former speaker Nancy Pelosi criticizing the strategy, writing, "This false choice that some are buying instead of fighting is unacceptable. We must fight back for a better way."

Ultimately, nine other Democrats voting with Schumer, but tensions flaring.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): That is an absolute dereliction of duty on the part of the Democratic leadership.

O'BRIEN: The Senate Democratic leader defending his decision.

SCHUMER: We all know that Musk and DOGE and Trump want to decimate the federal government. Allowing them to shut down the government, they would have done it.

O'BRIEN: But Schumer failing to unify his party or outline a clear strategy for opposing Trump. Even House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declining to throw his support behind his fellow New Yorker.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Have you lost confidence in him, the fact that you guys see this so differently?

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Next question.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

O'BRIEN (on-camera): Martha, there was another provision in that government funding package that would have stripped a billion dollars out of Washington, D.C.'s budget prompting concerns of citywide cuts to vital services. The Senate unanimously reversed that, and so while that government funding package was signed into law by the president yesterday, that D.C. bill now has to go back to the House for them to take up when they return next week. Martha?

MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: Our thanks to Jay O'Brien on the Capitol Hill.

I'm joined now by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island who voted against the funding bill.

Good morning, Senator. You said Democrats were given no good road on funding the government and said that it was a choice between two MAGA options. What do you mean by that, and why did you vote no?

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): Well, we, in a normal world, would have had three options. One would be shut down the government. One would be this really awful deformation, I would call it, of a CR, and the third would be continue with a short-term clean CR, conclude the nearly concluded agreement between Republicans and Democrats on appropriations numbers, and go back to regular order and bipartisan appropriations.

That would ordinarily -- that third choice would have ordinarily been the way we went, but the Republicans refused to allow it because they wanted to force us to choose between the CR and the shutdown. And the key to the shutdown here is that in an ordinary world, the executive branch wants to get out of the shutdown, wants to go back into normal operations.

With these MAGA extremists in charge, they don't necessarily want to come out of shutdown, and they have tools in shutdown, contingencies and non-essentialness determinations and riffing and things like that, that they can use to destroy the government just like doggy, DOGE is doing, except with a veneer of legitimacy, with the authority of shutdown powers.

So they were both extremely, extremely dangerous options, and my view is that as Democrats, we need to stop the intramural quarreling about who voted what way and get back to work saving our democracy.

RADDATZ: So of course it was Democratic leader Chuck Schumer's decision to support the bill that stunned and angered many Democrats coming just hours after he said he would block the bill. Your reaction to that, and what do you think his strategy is? I mean, what do you think we would be doing right now sitting here if the government was shut down?

WHITEHOUSE: Well, we'd be in real trouble. There's a guy over at the Office of Management and Budget named Russell Vought. He's got a little side kick over there named Mark Paoletta who is one of the people in the portrait with Harlen Crow and Leonard Leo and Clarence Thomas. He's part of that court fixer operation. These are very extreme people, and OMB gets wild powers during a shutdown.

So what we'd be doing is probably voting first to bring the Department of Defense back out, then voting to bring Homeland Security back out, then voting to bring veterans back out while they went through other agencies of government they don't like so much, and said that this part of the agency, that part of the agency is unessential, and therefore we're going to reduce in force all the employees.

We're going to remove it, stop funding it, shut it down, and then you get a very, very different government. Ultimately, we get to a point where they never bring the Department of Education, for instance, back out of shutdown.

RADDATZ: Senator, I guess my question is, let's talk about Senator Schumer. He did not want the government shut down because he felt that would not be good for Democrats either.

So what is your reaction --

WHITEHOUSE: Right.

RADDATZ: -- to what he did and how would Democrats deal with that now?

WHITEHOUSE: I think that he and the other nine colleagues of mine who made that decision made a very conscientious and principled decision after a lot of reflection. I’m not going to throw any of them under the bus for the choice that they made. When you understand how dangerous a shutdown is, it's even more, sort of, understandable why they would feel that way.

And so I think what we need to do is stop the intramural fighting and bleeding as quickly as we can. We are in a fight for our democracy right now, and if we're having a fight in our dugout, we're not out on the field, and the other team is scoring runs.

So everybody needs to have their say. Everybody needs to you know respond to their own passions and emotions. But as soon as we can, we got to get back on the field and fight Trump and Musk and MAGA.

RADDATZ: You have supported Senator Schumer, but let me play again what House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Has Senator Schumer in your mind acquiesced Trump?

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): That’s a question that is best addressed by the Senate.

REPORTER: Is it time for new leadership in the Senate?

JEFFRIES: Next question.

REPORTER: Have you lost confidence in him, the fact that you guys see this so differently?

JEFFRIES: Next question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RADDATZ: Is it time for new leadership?

WHITEHOUSE: That is not my agenda. That is not a helpful narrative right now. I think that, obviously, there is a lot of distress back and forth between the House and the Senate. That is not unheard of before.

And one can read Leader Jeffries' answers as basically, look, move on, I’m not going to dwell on internal infighting among Democrats and not necessarily like I’m throwing Schumer under the bus.

They've known each other a long time. They're experienced politicians. We need to pull this back together and get back to work.

RADDATZ: Okay. Thanks so very much for joining us this morning, Senator. We appreciate it.

Coming up, we're on the ground in Florida talking to farmers and business owners about the uncertainty sparked by President Trump's tariff tactics.

Plus, top economist Diane Swonk on what most concerns her about the economy right now.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: There is a period of transition because what we're doing is very big. We're bringing wealth back to America. That's a big thing. And there are always periods of -- it takes a little time. We may go up with some tariffs, it depends. We may go up. I don't think we'll go down, but we may go up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RADDATZ: That was President Trump trying to ease concerns about the state of the economy after his rocky tariff rollout. But how are businesses across the country dealing with the fallout? We traveled to Trump's home state of Florida to hear from leaders across a variety of industries about the impact of the president's trade war.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RADDATZ (voice-over): It's the nation's fourth largest economy. From the millions of acres of Florida's rich farmland to the factories that bottle its renowned orange juice and the wood sourced for the tables where that juice might be served. The Sunshine State exports more than $72 billion in goods every year, with a large portion going to Canada and Mexico.

JOHN HUNDLEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, HUNDLEY FARMS: We grow about a dozen different types of vegetables.

MARC CRAEN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PERRICONE FARMS: We make a full range of products, citrus products.

DAVIE MAHARAJ, CENTRAL WOOD PRODUCTS OWNER: I primarily deal with hardwoods.

LUIS FEIJOO, SALES MANAGER, CENTURY METALS: We produce sheet metal.

RADDATZ (voice-over): But the future of Florida's robust trade relationships and the bottom line for these local businesses are now potentially in jeopardy because of America's escalating trade war with its closest neighbors. Davie Maharaj sells wood products in central Florida, about 10 percent to 15 percent of which comes from Canada.

MAHARAJ: This is the one that my vendor has said to expect an increase in my cost.

RADDATZ (voice-over): She says she is already struggling with what the tariffs will mean for her.

MAHARAJ: As a small business owner, there is that kind of sense of, OK, you have to plan, don't panic, plan, wait and see what happens. But you have to constantly be thinking, OK, if this goes into effect, what next?

RADDATZ: If your price is doubled, it seems like you would absolutely have to pass that on to the customer?

MAHARAJ: Yes, if I still have a demand for that particular product, then that's what is going to happen.

RADDATZ: But here in Florida, like so many places across the nation, it is not just the tariffs that business owners and farmers are concerned about. It is the uncertainty. Luis Feijoo is the Sales Manager at Century Metals. He says President Donald Trump's 25 percent tariffs on aluminum and steel have complicated business.

RADDATZ: How do you deal with it?

FEIJOO: It's very difficult, honestly.

RADDATZ (voice-over): Feijoo says prices skyrocketed on Trump's first day in office after he announced tariffs on Mexico and Canada.

FEIJOO: Our basic conversion price of metal more than doubled over the last six weeks since he just made the mention of tariffs. We import, you know, probably 40 percent of our metal. We've had to look for alternatives.

RADDATZ (voice-over): And Feijoo says even with the threat of tariffs, he is already paying the price.

FEIJOO: I think that we just need certainty moving forward. If -- if we're going to institute tariffs, then let's institute tariffs. But let's not go back and forth and decide today, yes, tomorrow, no.

RADDATZ (voice-over): Just about 30 miles due west of President Trump's home in West Palm Beach, third-generation farmer John Hundley runs his 25,000-acre family farm. He says the majority of his produce stays domestic, but some is exported to Canada.

HUNDLEY: They'll be importing a lot of sweet corn from us. We send them green beans, different dry vegetables such as, you know, peppers and cucumbers, squash.

RADDATZ (voice-over): Though it may take a while to see effects, Hundley says tariffs on Mexican produce could limit competition for domestic suppliers.

HUNDLEY: I think it would be mostly positive for U.S. growers. I've seen the foreign supply just create such an oversupply situation that a lot of these crops end up getting destroyed. They're never harvested, it's waste. I think ultimately, the consumer is going to benefit because what's going to happen is, is you're going to have a better consistent U.S. supply, which is a safe supply.

RADDATZ (voice-over): Perricone Farms, which recently acquired Florida-based brand, Natalie's Orchid Island Juice, exports its manufactured juice product all over the world.

CRAEN: We have seen a dip in orders from Canada since the tariffs went in place.

RADDATZ (voice-over): Senior Vice President, Mark Craen tells us he hasn't seen a change in material and production costs yet. While most of the fruit they source is domestic, Natalie's relies on limes imported from Mexico.

CRAEN: So if there was a tariff, a 25 percent tariff, we would do our best to mitigate that and not pass all of it on to the consumer. But ultimately, consumers will have increased prices.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RADDATZ: A lot to watch for there.

So, let's bring in Diane Swonk, the chief economist and managing director at KPMG, one of the largest accounting firms in the world.

Diane, it's always great to see you.

Let's go straight to that piece. Those Florida business people. They say uncertainty is really the problem. Tariffs one day, not the next. Tit for tat with some of our allies.

What impact do you see?

DIANE SWONK, KPMG CHIEF ECONOMIST: Well, we're seeing measures of uncertainty. Everything from consumers, to small business, hitting a record high, to globally uncertainty now lapsing the pandemic in terms of uncertainty and domestic measures rapidly catching up.

What that means is, it's kind of akin to a broken stoplight at a busy intersection. When you have that broken stoplight, traffic backs up. Nobody knows quite how to cross the intersection. Some people opt out and do a u-turn and wait for traffic to clear or the light to be fixed. That in and of itself has a dampening effect on economic activity. It causes hesitation in making big investment decisions by firms. It causes hesitation by households to buy big ticket items. And those are the things that we're watching right now because that is unfolding in real time in the U.S. economy.

RADDATZ: And the latest survey of consumer sentiment, which – which you talk about here, attitudes about the economy showed another decline on Friday. How concerned are you because of that about a recession?

SWONK: Well, it is certainly a risk, and not an insignificant probability now. We have a bout of mild stagflation where the economy slows to a crawl, and prices move up, as both producers have to absorb these margin pressure from tariffs, it's higher cost going in, and pass some on, as you saw in your piece, to consumers. That one-two combo is not great for the economy.

But it's really important to look at the consumer sentiment surveys because they have seen a deterioration across all age groups, all income, all wealth, all geographies, and all party affiliations. We've seen a deterioration in their views about their job security and an increase in their expectations for inflation, which is the very definition of stagflation.

RADDATZ: You know, that's fascinating because I – I wanted to ask you about the Trump factor. I mean he's got very loyal supporters and lots of them. And they seem more patient, but that's not really what you're seeing.

SWONK: We're seeing a much more broad-based view of uncertainty now across party affiliations, and especially in some of the small business surveys which really tend to be very supportive of the president and the administration. Those ones have shown uncertainty spiked to record highs. And that's important because, you know, small business, what we've seen over the decades, but most notably since the pandemic, is trust in small businesses is the one thing that all Americans agree on. They trust small business at almost a 90 percent rate regardless of party affiliation. It's something we come together on in a very divisive economy, and a divisive political environment.

On the flip side of it, those are the very businesses that have the least wiggle room to deal with some of what's coming down the pike in terms of increases in costs, which you already saw. Some of those costs already rising ahead of tariffs as there's this rush to stockpile ahead of tariffs and that’s a self-fulfilling prophesy in terms of it having to either be passed on in prices or cuts their own staff.

RADDATZ: And, Diane, the administration talks about this as a short-term disruption. You heard President Trump say this. It might just take time. We'll get jobs back. We'll get more money. Break that down, what he says. Is that possible?

SWONK: Well, the bottom line is that we know, as economists, just through the economic lens, we've studied tariffs forever, and we know what their impacts are. Now, there are some reasons to have tariffs for national security and to protect certain industries. We know that.

That said, the kinds of, one, the uneven way in which they're being applied and the scope and magnitude of which they're being applied, this is something we really worry about because the costs of tariffs, even the 2018/2019 trade war, which pales in comparison to what we're seeing right now, that cost us more jobs than it generated in the – in the steel industry. Overall manufacturing employment actually contracted because it increased costs going up. You can't just simply substitute out for a domestic-made item and it takes years to build factories. And factories that are going to be competitive here in the United States to produce anything that's affordable for consumers are going to have to be highly automated and not necessarily have the kinds of jobs that we once saw in the 1950s and ‘60s in the manufacturing sector.

So I think that's the important as we know that there's trade-offs with trade. That's why it's called trade. But the winners are far fewer than the losers when you're dealing with an overall impact on prices, and only the protected industries getting a benefit and even there them being having spillover effects, unintended consequences for even some of those sectors you want to help.

RADDATZ: Okay. Thanks, Diane. Always great to hear your very smart take on things. Thank you.

Up next, are Trump's moves on the economy already taking a toll on his political standing?

Donna Brazile and Reince Priebus join our roundtable when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. CHUCK EDWARDS (R), NORTH CAROLINA: Actually, I believe that the president is very supportive of Ukraine.

CONSTITUENT: If uncovering waste and fraud was the goal why hire hackers and not auditors and forensic accountants?

EDWARDS: Like him or not, Elon Musk has brought a lot of really smart people to DOGE.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RADDATZ: A very rowdy reception for North Carolina GOP Congressman Chuck Edwards who bucked guidance from party leaders to avoid town hall events after backlash to cuts in Washington. Edwards eventually had to leave with security.

The roundtable is here ready to dive into all of that right after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RADDATZ: And we are back with the Roundtable. Former DNC Chair, Donna Brazile; Former RNC Chair and Former Trump WHITE HOUSE Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus; Jonathan Martin, Politico's Senior Political Columnist; and Marianna Sotomayor, who covers Congress for the Washington Post. Welcome to all of you this morning, so much to talk about.

Let's start with you, Donna, the Democrat. Quite a week, Chuck Schumer's support created basically massive blowback.

DONNA BRAZILE, FORMER DNC CHAIR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Massive. Look, the Congressional Republicans have a strategy. They want to pass the Trump agenda no matter how reckless it is. They want to, you know, pass all -- I mean, make sure all of his -- all of his cabinet people are secured and laid on his tax cuts. They have a strategy. We know it, it's radical. It's reckless. It's producing all kind of uncertainty with the markets, Main Street, Wall Street upset.

But where's the Democratic strategy? We knew March 4th was the State of the Nation address, and we didn't know it. Was it red, pink, green? I don't care. I love rainbows. But, we didn't have a strategy then and we didn't have a strategy going into the CR. It should have been vote 'no' in the House and vote 'no' in the Senate on cloture and vote 'no' on the CR. Why?

Because it hurts people, because it destroys our economy, and because it cedes Congressional power to the executive. We didn't have a strategy and now, people are upset.

RADDATZ: And Reince, the Republicans really thought this was lose-lose for the Democrats with Donald Trump even thanking Chuck Schumer, probably the last thing he wanted to hear from Donald Trump?

REINCE PRIEBUS, FORMER RNC CHAIR & FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF & ABC NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, the Democrats have had two horrific weeks and it really just comes down to what Donna said. They've got no leader; they've got no movement. The only thing they've got is Trump derangement syndrome. It's the only thing that brings them together.

And the only thing they got out of this week was, well, who's going to primary Chuck Schumer? What are we all about? AOC and Bernie Sanders are the only people in their entire party that can get a crowd of over 20 to show up. So, the only thing they are -- I mean, they're afraid of Trump. Trump owns them. And it was a total slam dunk for the Republican Party.

RADDATZ: And Marianna, what's your -- what's your take on this? Your reporter's take on this?

(LAUGH)

RADDATZ: I mean, particularly on Hakeem Jeffries and what he was saying.

MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR, WASHINGTON POST CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, I mean, listen, Jeffries is not one to publicly criticize anybody. This is kind of what he was saying. No answer. No answer. That's typically his style to be respectful, especially of the senior Senator from New York. But there is tension. I mean, Hill Democrats are divided. The House Democrats really felt like they had to respond to the base, not just the liberal activist base, but a very angry Democratic voting base.

The fact that Schumer took so long to make a decision, that really alienated and upset a lot of Democratic senators, and now there's this division. I mean, there are -- could potentially be other points of leverage where Democrats can be, you know, influential, be united, but there is a trust deficit now between the leaders.

RADDATZ: And Jonathan, is there a message? Is there a messenger? And could there be a challenge to Schumer's leadership? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was one of the loudest.

JONATHAN MARTIN, POLITICO SENIOR POLITICAL COLUMNIST: Sure. Well, first of all, he's not up until 2028.

RADDATZ: Right.

MARTIN: So he's got almost three years before he's in cycle so that's significant. The more immediate question is his actual leadership role among Senate Democrats. I don't think that that's at risk right now. But I think he's now on the clock for the first time that he has been since he has headed to the leadership of his party.

Democrats lived through a really painful experience the last few years with Joe Biden, in large part because of age. Chuck Schumer is not getting any younger. He's obviously more vital than Biden was, but his tactics are dated. And his strategy has always been sharp but he profoundly misread this.

Here's why. Two weeks ago, the Republicans passed a party line vote, the budget reconciliation package with only one dissenting vote, Tom Massey. That's important because this. The vote in every single roll call in the House and Senate is about Donald Trump now. He is the person who represents the Republican Party. They're only voting for Trump yea or nay, and Schumer should have realized that there's no Republican, there's not a Tom Massey, who's going to vote against Trump on any bill that Trump is for, and I think Schumer misread that.

BRAZILE: I agree.

RADDATZ: And go ahead, Donna. I want to bring something else. Rachael Bade who is a contributor here and obviously at Politico, had a really great point, I thought. Kind of off your point there, Reince. The Trump administration must be loving the stocks are tanking because of tariffs. Polling suggests the public is turning on DOGE, and yet the biggest story in Washington right now is that Hakeem Jeffries is dodging questions about whether Chuck Schumer should be leader. Something I've never seen in my tenure covering Congress.

BRAZILE: Again it's a missed opportunity. But I also think it's also -- we should just state the obvious. The leadership that's going to emerge during this period is not going to be the Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill. It's going to be the American people, the veterans who marched on Bismarck, the veterans who got out on the mall this past week. It's going to be those teachers who are getting cut, those firefighters, those ranchers, those engineers, those scientists. They are not just federal workers. They are American citizens. That's what the opposition --

REINCE PRIEBUS, ABC NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: They're not going to follow them, Donna.

BRAZILE: They are -- they, they --

PRIEBUS: They're not going to follow them. Gas price is down. Inflation is down. Groceries are going down, and the most important thing, illegal crossings on the border is down by 94 percent, and they're not -- the teachers and the ranchers can't follow nobody. And right now there is nobody in the Democratic Party for anybody to follow. Who are they going to follow, Chuck Schumer?

MARTIN: Well, who was there in '17 and '18, Reince?

PRIEBUS: Who are they going to follow? Senator Kelly was crying over a Tesla?

MARTIN: Reince.

PRIEBUS: Come on. These -- you know --

MARTIN: Reince, who was there in --

(CROSSTALK)

BRAZILE: And all those are going down under Joe Biden's leadership. But the Republicans did not acknowledge it. These are American citizens who are fed up with the recklessness.

PRIEBUS: They're fed up with --

BRAZILE: They're fed up.

PRIEBUS: 76 percent of the American people are supporting the DOGE --

BRAZILE: Your tariff, we can do a poll because Donald Trump is now underwater.

(CROSSTALK)

MARTIN: Just 10 seconds.

BRAZILE: Under water.

MARTIN: Two things can be true.

BRAZILE: On the economy.

MARTIN: Two things can be true. There is obviously no clear leader for the Democratic Party. We also have a precedent here. It's called 2017 and 2018.

BRAZILE: Right.

MARTIN: There was no obvious leader for Democrats then. Guess what? There was a massive backlash to Donald Trump's excesses that propelled Democrats back into power. Now the question is, is the Democratic brand now so weakened and so damaged that they can't have a 2026 like they did the first Trump midterm?

RADDATZ: OK. And Marianna, I want you to bounce off of Reince there, and talking about all these great things that are happening, but we've got tariffs. You saw that piece down in Florida. You heard what Diane Swonk said. That's a real issue for Donald Trump, right?

SOTOMAYOR: Yes, and I mean, privately, obviously Hill Republicans are not going to publicly criticize Trump and the tariffs right now, but privately, they are concerned. I've heard it coming from the Hill, and the reason why is that if these tariffs do stay in place for way longer than this back and forth has been, they absolutely know that that's going to affect businesses in their districts. It's going to affect voters who just wanted a more affordable economy.

If the prices start going up even more, Hill Republicans know that they're the ones who are going to pay the political price of this, not necessarily Trump.

RADDATZ: And they've got to know that, Reince. They've got to know that.

PRIEBUS: Well, I think --

RADDATZ: I mean, you heard Diane Swonk. I mean, this is across the board. I said, you know, Trump voters are patient. Trump supporters are patient.

PRIEBUS: I think people are going to be patient to see where this thing lands. And I think once this thing lands, whether it be a global tariff at a smaller amount, deal with Canada and Mexico on your own through USMCA, I think until that happens, I think there's going to be some concern. But, the fact of the matter is, I think what generally people agree with is that if you're getting charged a hundred percent for a Harley Davidson in Japan or India, then we ought to charge them a hundred percent for Honda.

Now, that is something that the American people could live with, which is fairness, which is what the Trump Administration is trying to do.

RADDATZ: And Donna, how do you see going forward? With that -- with all these other things that are happening now, do you see the Democrats having an opportunity here?

BRAZILE: Well, first of all, the Democrats in the minority, and they have to be very strategic when they pick their fights and how they pick their fights. This is not about being deranged, it's about making sure there's some certainty in our economy, but it's also the Democrats got to continue to say what we stand for. And it's not just Democrats in Washington, it's Democrats, it's governance, it's mayors, it's everybody. They need to have one sheet of music.

RADDATZ: OK, what is that message?

BRAZILE: That message --

RADDATZ: Simply put, and who is the messenger again?

BRAZILE: Well, the messenger is going to come. But the message is we're standing up fighting for working people, working families and we will protect Medicaid. We will protect the vulnerable and the poorest in our society, as well as businesses and others.

RADDATZ: And we have about 45 seconds left. I want to get to, 'the messenger will come.'

JONATHAN MARTIN, POLITICO SENIOR POLITICAL COLUMNIST: Yeah.

BRAZILE: Well --

RADDATZ: Is that Rahm Emanuel? Is that a Pete Buttigieg who wrote about (inaudible) --

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGH)

MARTIN: Yeah. I wrote a column this week about Rahm Emanuel, the Former Obama Chief of Staff, who may have White House ambitions, or may have at least cabinet ambitions for the next Democratic President. Look, Democrats, I think for the first time in decades, don't have a Biden, a Clinton, or an Obama, obviously, in the wings. So they got to figure out who their next leader is.

It's not clear who it is right now. That's why they -- these primaries play out. It's going to be a challenge though, Martha, for the next year and a half, two years, because there's -- it's not going to be clear. Recall in 2005, at this time, nobody thought Barack Obama was going to be the Democratic nominee. So these things do take time. But right now, it's a huge challenge to not have a leader. There's no question about it.

RADDATZ: OK. Thanks to all of you. Great to see you. Much more to talk about next time. Thank you. We'll all be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RADDATZ: And that's all for us today. Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Check out "World News Tonight" and have a great day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)