shows, movies. sports? cooking shows. >> is she talking to us? >> tell me, how does directv put all your favorite stuff on one home screen? uncanny content suggestions based on your watch history. or mind control. crip',

and then you can cancel them right in the app. >> everybody downloads spaceship. bank. >> rocket money. >> happening now. breaking news. the supreme court rejecting president trump's plan to keep billions in foreign aid frozen. i'm pamela brown. >> we want to welcome our viewers here in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer. you're in the situation room. >> this is cnn breaking news. >> and we begin with breaking news from the nation's highest court. in a54 ruling, the supreme court has rejected the trump administration's request to keep foreign aid frozen. the billions of dollars in aid had been approved by congress.

>> here with us to break all of this down, it's very, very significant. cnn's chief legal affairs correspondent, paula reid. this was an incredibly fast decision by the u.s. supreme court. >> it was. and it's rare that the supreme court drops a decision on us at 9:00 in the morning. and look, this decision was pretty technical, but it really reveals a lot about the divides within the court itself. this is the second time that trump's efforts to reshape the federal government have gone up to the high court. and here specifically, the trump administration was asking the court to keep foreign aid frozen. but the court declined to do that. they actually sent that whole issue back down to the lower court to decide if those funds need to be released. now, this is the second time that the supreme court has declined to intervene on trump's behalf. but i want to note the larger questions about what trump can and cannot do with doge with this kind of foreign aid. those questions have not been answered. the supreme court has not weighed in on what we call the merits, or

the larger constitutional questions. that's going to take some time. but again, twice they've asked the supreme court to help them out, and twice they have declined. >> and basically correct me if i'm wrong, the house of representatives and the senate both passed authorizing legislation for these billions of dollars in foreign aid. then they passed separate appropriations bills. and then the president signed both bills into law. the supreme court saying, if you want to change that, there's got to be additional legislation on the hill and more action by the president. >> so i think eventually the supreme court will have to get at that issue. right now, the issue they're deciding is really whether a district court judge can compel the administration to pay these billions of dollars in foreign aid that they're saying they don't want to. so. conservative justices were sort of outraged at the idea that a district court could compel the administration to do that. eventually, though, they will have to answer these larger constitutional questions that

you just touched on. if congress appropriates these funds, can the administration just say, no, we're not going to send them out? those questions will likely take a few months to get to the court, because it has to go back to the lower court and work its way through the system. and the supreme court really isn't looking to jump the line right now. >> yeah, that would be the bigger constitutional question, right? what is the direct impact then of this? >> so right now it's going to go back down to the lower court. and the litigation over this larger question will begin in the district court can decide if the administration has to disburse these funds. i think what really stood out to me in this decision, though, is again, this is right now, this is very preliminary. this is a very technical issue. we're not answering these larger questions yet about the separation of powers, but four justices, they all got together and they wrote a really powerful dissent. and what's notable about that is this is, again, like i said, it's a pretty it's not a minor decision, but it's not a massive decision. and the fact that they all took time to really lay out why they disagree

with the majority, that signals that they're really are pretty entrenched. partisan divides on this court, and that will be incredibly significant when these larger constitutional questions do come before them in the usual formal way, where there are arguments and a big opinion. because we know, i know from talking to my sources that the trump white house, their long game for all of these efforts with doge and reshaping the federal government, are designed to eventually go before the supreme court, and they hope they expect that they will likely side with president trump. it's going to be a it's a long game. that's a long path. but that's how all of this has been designed. they knew these would be challenged in court. they didn't expect to win initially, but they do expect to win at the high court. >> the chief justice, john roberts, was the tiebreaker. >> exactly. here. yeah. he just said, look, we're going to send this down. we're not going to keep this frozen. we're going to send this down to the district court, and they can handle it. but i think everyone expects that one of these big doge related cases is likely going to come back before the supreme court in the coming months. >> excellent explanation, paula reid, thank you very, very much.

>> and there's interesting on the heels because we saw president trump briefly talking to chief justice roberts last night. >> he said thank you to him. he said thank you. i'll never forget it. >> we don't know what he was talking about, but it's just such a fascinating. yeah, absolutely. all right. thank you so much. i want to continue this discussion with cnn's senior legal analyst, elie honig. so how are you viewing this, elie? >> well, pam, i think this is a substantial setback for the trump administration. now, the winning side here, the challengers, they had argued in the lower courts that essentially the president has no power to block this federal funding because congress had already allocated it. and under article one of the constitution, congress has the power to tax and spend. that was ultimately the argument that prevailed here. now, the other side of it, the trump administration and the dissenters in this case argue, first of all, the district court judge had no power to do what he did, that he overstepped. second of all, that the way this case was brought by private businesses was procedurally improper. and third, the dissenting conservative justices

argue what we, the supreme court should have done is put this whole thing on hold so that we can have the full rounds of briefing and argument that we'd ordinarily have. and as the dissent correctly notes, the practical impact of this is that $2 billion is almost certainly going to get out the door, and nobody can stop it at this point. >> when can that happen? that's what i'm trying to get at, just sort of the direct impact from this. yes, we're seeing it back to the lower court, but what does it mean for that aid that's frozen right now? >> so, as paula said, the supreme court has now sent this case back to the district court, the trial level court. and this is the same judge who previously ordered the federal government. you cannot block this. you need to get it out the door. he gave him something like 36 hours to get it out the door. well, now the supreme court has said back to the district court. u.s. district court judge, you do have jurisdiction and authority to order that this money be paid, and you need to work with the parties to get this money out the door in a way that's quick, but also feasible, not impossible from a technical point of view. >> so what does this tell us about pending disputes about federal funding? international

funding with with usaid and also within the u.s. domestic funding? >> yeah, this is why i think this case is so important, because we need to get ready. we're going to see a whole series of these lawsuits about doge, the firings, the withholding of federal funding. they are making their way through the federal courts as we speak. and this is one of the first two, really, to reach the supreme court in general. this is a conservative supreme court in general. this court is going to side with broad conceptions of executive power, of presidential power. however, i think one big exception we need to watch for, and we see it in this case, is when it comes to federal funding, because these these justices are conservative, but they can read the constitution. and again, article one, the very first enumerated power is given to congress. so if congress has decided to spend money, i think under a strict reading of the constitution, then the president cannot block it. so watch for that pattern. i think, to repeat itself in the coming weeks and months, generally siding with the president, but not necessarily on these issues of withholding federal funding.

>> what is the significance, in your view, of how the justices split in this ruling? >> yeah, so a really interesting breakdown here. we had the chief justice and justice amy coney barrett, siding with the three liberals to give a 5 to 4 majority. and again, i think when we look forward, you're basically going to have three. the three liberal justices, jackson, sotomayor and kagan, they're generally going to be locked in against broad executive power, against the trump administration. it's a safe bet moving forward to count on elite justices alito and thomas and gorsuch basically being in favor of executive power. and so that leaves us, really, three justices in the middle, the chief justice kavanaugh and barrett, who are going to serve more or less as the middle of the swing. now, we know they're conservatives. but as you see in this case, if you can, if the liberals can win over two of those three, then they can actually pull out a decision here and there. >> all right, elie honig, as always, thank you so much. >> thanks, panel. >> and still ahead, we'll sit down with president trump's senior counselor for trade and

manufacturing, peter navarro, on what a tariff compromise potentially would look like. >> and we'll speak to democratic senator chris on new reporting that the u.s. is pausing intelligence support to ukraine. stay with us. you're in the situation room. >> world. i like it, i got you.

>> in. >> breaking news, the u.s. is pausing intelligence support to ukraine. cia director john ratcliffe says president trump has a, quote, real question about whether ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy is committed to the peace process. with us now is cnn national security reporter zachary cohen. what more are you learning about this?

>> yeah, guys, it's clear that there's at least a partial pause in the intelligence sharing between the u.s. and ukraine. what's not clear is how far these limitations go. what? how much is that intel being limited? what kind of intelligence is being paused here? it's also not clear how long this pause could remain in place, but trump's cia director, john ratcliffe and national security adviser mike walsh both suggesting that it could be lifted in the short term if the ukrainians demonstrate that they've come further in the negotiation process towards the negotiations to satisfy what they would like to see as far as coming to the table and engaging with russia. now, look, it remains to be seen whether or not ukraine has done enough to satisfy the trump administration's demands on that front. but it's hard to overstate how important the intelligence sharing relationship between the u.s. and ukraine is to ukraine's ability to fight russia on the battlefield. that's something that john ratcliffe himself was told at length when he first became cia director by u.s. officials from the outgoing administration. so this is something that is really critical. and every minute that goes by that this intelligence is paused, could have real

effects on the battlefield for ukraine. >> so quick question if the u.s. intelligence community has specific hard intelligence that russia is about to bomb a civilian area, a major city in ukraine, with churches and schools and hospitals and kill potentially a lot of ukrainian civilians, the u.s. government, the u.s. intelligence community is no longer going to share those specifics with the ukrainian government. >> that's really the key question here. we're not sure. it is clear that there is some pause that is taking place here. but whether it's an example like that, that they would not communicate that it remains to be seen. but look, that's why mike waltz and john ratcliffe are both expressing hope that this could be lifted soon, because they both know the importance, as you just outlined, that it could be a life or death scenario, whether or not that information gets to ukraine. >> a lot of lives are at stake right now. >> right. and zelenskyy put out a statement saying that he wants peace. he talked about president trump and his strong leadership. what more does the administration need from zelenskyy in order to continue on with the intelligence sharing and the aid?

>> well, even donald trump himself last night indicated that zelenskyy had taken steps to sort of reconcile their oval office dustup, which really did seem to derail discussions between ukraine and the u.s. and prompted this effort to by the trump administration to push ukraine to go further as far as engaging with russia. so it remains to be see where the bar is for the trump administration. what does ukraine have to demonstrate to get intel sharing back on track to get military aid back on track? but it's clear that the white house and the trump administration is not yet satisfied by what it's seen from zelenskyy, despite the fact that top trump officials have been back-channeling with the ukrainians trying to urging a reconciliation on that point. >> i want to ask you about something else the suspect involved in the planning of that 2021 terror attack at the kabul airport that tragically killed 13 service members, american service members is now in the u.s., and you're learning some new details about, um, how he was apprehended and what comes next. >> yeah. that's right. and actually, it was intelligence from the cia that they shared with pakistan that ultimately led to the arrest of this individual. we've identified him as muhammad sharif ullah,

and he is somebody who was on the radar of intelligence community, it seems, for several years. and an indictment that was unsealed last night suggests that he was recruited by the terror group i.s.i.s. back in 2016. he was ultimately again approached about taking part in the 2021 bombing at the abbey gate. and he was really, it seems, based on the description in the indictment, more of a spy. he is somebody who went to the airport, surveyed the scene and basically told the bomber where he could go without being detected by american or taliban checkpoints. so this is somebody who is now in the u.s. in custody and is facing criminal charges in virginia for these terrorism related activities. >> question how significant is it that pakistan, not necessarily the closest friend of the united states, was fully cooperating and apprehending this terrorist suspect? >> it is noteworthy that donald trump made a point to thank the pakistanis and the pakistani president last night. in his speech. again, that was reciprocated by the pakistani president as well. and so clearly giving credit to the pakistanis, but also making clear that this was largely the work of the trump administration. >> good point.

>> all right, zachary cohen, thank you so much. >> i want to continue this conversation right now. joining us from capitol hill, democratic senator chris of delaware. senator, thanks so much for joining us. i know you're a key member of the senate foreign relations committee. the cia. cia says it's paused intelligence support to ukraine, at least for now. just how crucial is this intelligence and what will the impact be to ukraine? and now that america is no longer sharing critically important intelligence? >> well, i think it is critically important that we continue to support ukraine's fight for freedom against russian aggression. and our intelligence community provides critical resources and insights on targeting, on battlefield conditions. that's publicly reported. and i am concerned that president trump is pausing both military equipment going to ukraine and intelligence cooperation. we should not do this. president trump last night made it clear in his speech to

congress that he received a positive letter from president zelenskyy that they may soon move forward on that critical minerals deal that should have been signed last friday. and our european partners, who have already contributed more than we have to, ukraine's fight against russia, have stepped up further and pledged hundreds of billions of dollars of additional support. it wasn't clear from his speech last night where president trump intends to take our relationship with ukraine. i think if he wants to achieve a just and lasting peace in this ongoing war of russian aggression, he should make it clear that we stand with ukraine and drive a hard bargain with putin. >> you know, i thought it was significant. in his speech last night, he announced and revealed that he had just received a letter from president zelenskyy outlining ukraine's decision to continue the negotiations, to try to come up with some sort of agreement. i thought it was

significant that the president announced that in his joint address last night. let me get your reaction to another breaking story we're following this morning, senator, while i have you. as you know, the u.s. supreme court rejecting the trump administration's request to keep billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid frozen. how big of a loss is this for the white house? >> well, this is a big deal for the nonprofit organizations that are the implementing partners for foreign aid. they have been stiffed by the trump administration to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. and it's led to them laying off thousands of americans and of people working around the world, delivering food aid, combating pandemics, confronting terrorists, pushing back on chinese and russian disinformation to just stiff our contractors. those who have signed agreements and were providing vital services last year. look, that's just reprehensible. so i'm

encouraged that the supreme court has said, no, you have to pay your bills, and i hope there is still room for us to work with the administration on restoring the funding to the programs that work that have enjoyed bipartisan support for decades, like president bush's program that combats hiv aids like programs that combat human trafficking and migration in mexico and colombia, like programs that push back on china and promote human rights. all of those have been shut down for the moment. they should be restored. >> all of those programs authorized and appropriated by the u.s. congress, signed into law by the president. and the question is, can the president united states unilaterally without additional congressional action, kill all those foreign aid programs? i want to quickly turn while i have you, senator, to president trump's address to congress last night. did the democratic response from your colleague, senator elissa slotkin, hit the points you

think it needed to? >> yes. it was a tremendous response from freshman senator alyssa slotkin. she came across as a balanced, grounded, bipartisan focused on the issues that i hear from delawareans. they care about. the president gave a rambling and an unfocused speech. he spent as much time talking about greenland and retaking the panama canal and onward to mars as he did about anything related to prices at the pump or the grocery store, or how to bring down the price of eggs and deal with the challenges that working families are facing. senator slotkin gave a great response, and i was proud to have her representing the democratic party last night. >> yeah, she gave a very effective brief, only about 10 or 15 minutes or whatever it was compared to what, an hour and a half speech by the president. trump is strongly defending, as you know, senator, is very steep tariffs on america's top three

trading partners canada, mexico and china admitting they will cause in his words. and i'm quoting him now a little disturbance a little disturbance. what will that so-called little disturbance look like for everyday americans? >> well, while that little disturbance president trump is talking about is like that moment when the doctor says, oh, this won't hurt a bit. right before you get a tough jab in the arm. this is going to be a shock to the pocketbooks of millions of americans. our biggest trading partners are canada and mexico. if we have problems with housing and affordable housing, the fact that we import most of the plywood that we use to build housing from canada means those prices will go up. if we're concerned about prices at the grocery store, the fact that we import, particularly in winter, most of our fruits and vegetables from mexico, more than from any other country, means those prices will go up. whether it's prices at the pump, the price of vehicles, the price of housing or groceries, these big tariffs and the retaliatory tariffs we will get

from mexico and canada will create chaos in the marketplace and further raise prices. trump promised again last night to make america affordable again, but this isn't going to help make it more affordable. >> senator chris of delaware, as always, thank you very, very much. >> thank you, wolf. >> and still ahead, president trump is expected to talk to canadian prime minister justin trudeau after the back and forth over tariffs. we are live at the white house next.

e have more breaking news.

president trump is expected to hold a phone call with canadian prime minister justin trudeau this morning, a day after a tense exchange of words and tariffs. also new this morning, the administration's point man on the tariffs says that a trade deal could be announced as early as today. the commerce secretary says it could include exemptions on products such as cars. >> the president is listening to the offers from mexico and canada. he is thinking about trying to do something in the middle. he is thinking about it. we're talking about it. we're going to. when i leave here, i'm going to go talk about it with him. and i think early this afternoon or this afternoon, we expect to make an announcement. and my, my thinking is it's going to be somewhere in the middle. so not 100% of all products and not none somewhere in the middle, because i think mexico and canada are trying their best and let's see where we end up. so i do think somewhere in the middle is a likely outcome. >> i want to bring in cnn, white

house reporter alayna treene and business and politics correspondent vanessa yurkevich in new york. alana, let's begin with you. what more can you tell us about this trump trudeau phone call today? >> well, look, pamela, it's still unclear when exactly that is going to happen. but of course, it comes after we heard some of the harshest language we have yet from the canadian prime minister. but one thing that i find just very interesting is, of course, what is actually what this tariff announcement that howard lutnick is referring to is actually going to look like. it seems like he is saying that they're going to keep that 25% blanket tariffs on canada and mexico, but there could be some new exemptions for automakers, perhaps, and other different products. now, one thing to keep in mind here is that i know from my conversations with white house officials that both they but also the president himself, have been closely monitoring what's going on with the stock market. if you look the last two days, the dow dropped about 1300 points. we also know that donald trump is someone who is very much fixated on that. in

addition to the overall state of the economy. now, another key thing to keep in mind is what howard lutnick said in his phrasing of all this. he called this a war, a drug war, not a trade war, basically a war on fentanyl. now, i asked national security adviser michael waltz about this because of that and said, you know, what is going to happen with tariffs? it seems like there could be some sort of agreement that is reached today. listen to what he told me. >> we've seen incredible movement on the part of the mexican government, but we need to see more on canada. we're talking about additional border security. their borders are cutting off fentanyl, but also things like arctic security, northern bases and other pieces that we need to see as, as, as part of this tariff negotiation. so but i don't have anything to add in terms of, of the timing or what may or may not happen today. >> so key words there from waltz is that he called it a tariff negotiation. that is exactly how

the president views this. pamela views tariffs more broadly. so it did seem like he was almost hinting that there could be something later today, but had no details. and look, i do find it as well. just very interesting that this does come after the president last night in that joint address to congress, really dug in on tariffs. so it's very unclear what we could be seeing from any sort of announcement later today. >> we will wait and see. vanessa. the tariffs have rocked the u.s. markets in recent days. as elena was talking about, how are the markets responding right now? >> well it's mixed. if you look at the dow that's up slightly, but the nasdaq and s&p down slightly and i would say mixed is the right word because they're getting mixed messaging as elena just noted. you heard from the president last night essentially saying that he might escalate the trade war. and then you heard from howard lutnick this morning saying that they could meet in the middle. and he also talked about talked about exemptions, exemptions for the auto industry. i want to see if we can bring up just the big three u.s. auto makers and take

a look at how they're doing. at last check, we saw there they go. we saw that this news from howard lutnick this morning, that there could be an exemption from the auto industry actually boosted those stocks. gm, ford and stellantis. but investors are also looking at the overall economy. just this morning we got a report from adp that is the private sector payroll service that showed that private sector hiring was less than expected, 77,000 jobs added later this week on friday. we're going to get that big government jobs report. that is something that investors will be looking at also. but we know the president will be watching that very closely, and his administration will be taking a look at what those job numbers show. government positions, as we know, have been eliminated in recent weeks that could show up in that key report on friday. pamela. >> all right. vanessa yurkevich alayna treene, thank you so much. well. >> important developments indeed. up next, president trump's senior counselor for

trade and manufacturing, peter navarro, joins us live here in the situation room. we'll talk about those tariffs

and possible exemptions. >> this morning. bonnie. bonnie yes i can. i'm pamela i'm wolf.

>> there's more breaking news. we're following here in the situation room. president trump and the canadian prime minister justin trudeau are expected to speak this morning amid a growing trade war between the united states and canada. it's a crucial conversation, pam. >> yes, it is crucial. and it comes after president trump's commerce secretary suggested that he could back off some of the tariffs on canada and mexico. so let's talk about that. joining us now is president trump's senior

counselor for trade and manufacturing peter navarro. first off i want to talk about. >> great to be on set. i just love your your new set here. and congratulations on the morning show. >> thank you very much. we appreciate that. it's been we're a few days in and it's been a very newsy ride so far. >> we hope you'll be a. frequent visitor. we certainly do. >> so speaking of newsy, of course we're all waiting to see what's going to happen with these tariffs. what's going to happen with the call today between trump and trudeau? what can we expect to happen from that call. do you expect a deal to be struck? >> well, the boss says let's see what happens. it's really not my place to get ahead of the president on this. um, what's interesting to me, as i watched all your coverage this morning, is that there was no discussion. for example, uh, when you're talking about tariffs and inflation, that petroleum prices have fallen very significantly and we've had mortgage rates fall very significantly, which are all part. so there's this is

a big picture attack on inflation. and the other thing and what i've done a really deep dive on, and i think your viewers would really benefit from, from understanding as, as the secretary of commerce said today, it's a drug war. and here's the issue. fentanyl. it's it's been called a slow moving weapon of mass destruction. and it's i think it's the most insidious. material that's ever been invented because it's very low cost. it's highly addictive and extremely potent. so here's the thing. i think people don't really understand about this. it's not just the fentanyl that kills directly. it's laced into methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin. it's far. heroin is like five times more expensive. so so they put it in there basically to up the high increase the addiction. but here's what people. >> don't know. i want. >> to just follow up with you on this. >> but let me just say the other

part, which is the buried lead. um ambiente. xanax, um, all these painkillers, vicodin, these all now are being spiked, spiked with fentanyl. the dea, the drug enforcement agency, got 80 million. >> pills because i. >> have to. and i want. >> to let you jump. i also. >> want to remind everybody why. >> the president is doing this. >> to across. >> the board. >> over a million people have died from this. >> most of them primates. >> that is true. >> but you heard let's always remember. >> why the president is doing this. >> you heard. well. >> justin trudeau, for his part, said this isn't about fentanyl. that's a false pretext. less than 1% of fentanyl crossing the border comes from canada. he said there was a 97% drop, according to the cbp. he said from december to january, because of what canada has done to try to crack down on fentanyl. >> what i say to him, i say to him that 12 pounds of fentanyl

coming across the borders, which is what they got, is enough to kill 3 million americans. i would say to mr. trudeau that he has allowed mexican drug cartels to embed themselves across canada, bring up their little pill presses and manufacture these fake prescription drugs, which then find their way. so i think, mr. trudeau, it would be really useful if he just toned stuff down. he's campaigning. >> so you say this is a war. >> on drugs. but what if the practical effect is, he says, is a trade war with our top trading partners? because that is what he is saying. this is leading. >> to. >> again, the rhetoric of the trade war. again, i think what's really important for people to understand is why the president has embarked on a mission to restructure the way the trading world works. the problem is that every country in the world which we trade with has higher tariffs and higher non-tariff barriers in canada is absolutely no exception to that. they stick it to us on lumber,

they stick it to us on dairy, they stick it to us. a wide variety of products. and the president will not tolerate that anymore. so i would i would just i watched the conference yesterday with mr. trudeau and he's calling the president dumb. he's, he's he's calling him donald instead of respectfully the president. and we're all talking trade war. it's not. >> about that. >> presidents reaction to him. >> saying that wasn't there when he was doing that. >> but i can i can reaction. >> i do not and i don't i don't involve myself in that. my job, pamela, is to basically look at the chessboard, look at what the president is trying to do. and, and this fentanyl stuff is like it all comes from china, okay. and 2019, the president tweeted, president xi promised to stop the fentanyl. he hasn't. okay. that was in 2019. and look here's it is it comes over on these.

>> chinese ships. i just want to know. >> who owns the ports of mexico. >> i want to keep the i want to keep the conversation because we did talk about fentanyl at length and no one, no one wants fentanyl killing americans. i think we can all agree. >> on that. to do so, be clear, because mexico and. canada has. >> a real impact on americans response to, as you say, this is a drug war. the response. >> though, to this. >> drug war, as you say, um, could have a real impact on americans. you have best. >> buy, you. >> have target saying prices could go up. um, automakers are very concerned, as you know, parts are always going across the border with mexico and canada. what kind of compromise does the commerce secretary said? could we expect as soon as today on this, will there be carve outs for automakers? um, will will the price the 25% go down? help us better understand? >> i don't bargain on on the public airways on behalf. >> of the businesses. >> hate uncertainty. we're seeing that with the stock market. why all. >> this uncertainty? >> we've had two days of volatility in the markets and

everybody's hair is on fire and nobody's. >> really know. it's not just that nobody's the. >> adp private sector hiring dropped off dramatically in february because of policy uncertainty and the slowdown in consumer spending. consumer sentiment is down over three and a half years. so it's not just the last two days. there's overall a feeling of uncertainty. i'm sure you all know. >> the most important. >> uncertainty, pamela and wolf, the most important uncertainty right now is whether we're going to be able to get the tax cuts in the bill. that is a critical part of the next ten years. if we do not get that tax cut, we're going to have one of the biggest tax hikes we've seen, which will almost certainly drive us into a recession. and the president is working really hard on that. with respect, i don't know if you know this, but when we run $1 trillion trade deficit, one practical result of that is to shave about a point and a half off our real gdp growth rate. did you know that it's a direct subtraction because our factories are not

producing they're over in germany producing. so what the president is doing is, is something that i think would be very useful to see in and do a deep dive on this, to do a whole day on how this trade issue impoverishes america, do you know how much $1 trillion of america will buy for foreigners or real estate or. >> homes by a lot, but i just want to be precise. the prime minister, justin trudeau, he was citing the editorial board of the wall street journal, a newspaper, you know, which is usually very conservative, very supportive, it wrote in its editorial entitled trump takes the dumbest tariff pledge. and among other things, it quoted the anderson economic group as saying a 25% tariff on canada will raise the cost of a full size suv for american consumers. an suv assembled in north america by $9,000. that's a lot of money. >> let me respond in a couple of

ways here. but first of all, the wall street journal is the wall street journal. it's not the main street journal. they are republican when it comes to deregulation. >> murdoch. >> yeah, of course they're republican when it comes to deregulation and tax cuts. but the wall street journal has maintained a policy since term one of the presidents, trump, that they hate our tariffs. they hate our trade policy. i myself was was the target of a lead editorial, the lead editorial in wall street journal. navarro recession based on my my advocacy on behalf of the president on trade policy. and guess what happened? price stability and growth. so the wall street journal is not credible. anderson. very interesting. one of the projects i'm doing inside my office at the white house, um, the team has gone back and looked at everything journalists have said, everything think tanks have said everything. that wall street has said. go the goldman sachs of this world about the tariffs in the first term, we we did historic tariffs on china,

which are still in place, by the way, and then solar dishwashers, steel, aluminum. they all said the sky was going to fall, the markets were going to crash and inflation was going through the roof. what do we have? price stability and growth. what joe biden. >> had increased prices. >> the worst inflation we've had and a stagflation scenario since the 1970s, wolf. and i remember that all too well. and inflation is and will always be a product of irresponsible fiscal policy accommodated by an irresponsible federal reserve. and the combination of joe biden and jay powell at the fed led to what we are dealing with now. >> because the wall street journal also said mr. trump is whacking friends, not adversaries. >> well, when we trade with the rest of the world, we don't have allies. we have competitors. let's take germany. germany

sells us eight times more cars than we sell them. it's not about our product quality or craftsmanship. it's about the fact that german tariffs on autos are four times higher, 10% versus two and a half. plus, when you add the vat tax, the value added tax, it serves both as an export subsidy and a 19% additional tariff. now here's what happens. a cadillac starts in michigan at $50,000. by the time it gets to german markets, it's in the mid 60,000. because of the tariffs and the vat tax. a bmw comes from bavaria. here, $50,000. they sell it to us because of the way the vat tax works is an export subsidy or low tariffs. and the low 40,000. okay. do you see that's a $22,000 differential because

germany, our ally, which also refuses to pay for nato and buys a bunch of gas from. >> russia, right. those are our allies. and i can. >> go chapter and verse. >> south korea, japan. >> and i really want to. >> be respectful of that. but i also i. >> understand, i understand. >> but the wall street journal, i'm. >> throwing it right. i understand. >> we gave you ample time to respond to that, but i just want to. >> you know, just for. >> our viewers. >> right now. >> we're good. >> we're. i appreciate you. >> understanding that. but just for our viewers, you know, there is a lot of concern about prices rising as a result. you have best buy, you have target saying prices will rise as a result of these tariffs on canada and mexico. >> will you take responsibility. >> as they did as they said the last time? >> this is more aggressive than last time. this is more aggressive. and they are. so are you saying prices will not rise. >> the question. >> can you can you guarantee prices will. >> not rise as a result of these tariffs. >> right. that there there will be some disturbance. >> but if i look like.

>> what does disturbance mean. >> let me. >> let me let me describe what's the normal adjustment process and why we didn't have inflation last time. and it's it's not it's not the kind of best buy wall street journal view. if there are tariffs here goes right to consumers. that's not what happens at all. the first thing that happens is that the countries we tariff absorb most of that because. >> they have to sell to the importers. they might lose business. that is true. >> appear in the data. we know for a fact. for example, with. >> china data. >> that the produces. yeah. there you go. i you know, i totally agree with. you on lies and statistics, mark twain. but but the issue is the second thing that happens besides their producers absorbing it is the currency effects of the trade deficit. when we impose our trade policies, trade deficits fall. pamela, what does that do that brings the dollar down? what does that do? imports are cheaper. people are better off, supply chains adjust and they come here.

>> and invest. >> you can't guarantee the prices won't rise as a result. is what i'm gathering. >> i'm not i'm not i'm. >> not going there. let's see what happens when when i'm telling you. >> is that. >> any discussion of prices should also include the fact that oil prices. >> and oil prices. >> are falling. and that. >> is absolutely true. >> drill baby drill deregulation in doge you're going to save. >> a ton of money. and again, we'll. >> we'll continue. >> to track this, will continue this discussion. >> let's see what navarro, that editorial that attacked you in the wall street journal, did they also call you dumb like they call trump? >> uh, i don't know, but probably yeah, they don't like me. >> okay. and you clearly don't like them either. so, you know, they're the wall street journal. >> not the main street journal. i'm, you know, i'm a deplorable main street kind of guy. i hope cnn represents, too. >> all right. >> navarro, thank you very much for coming on. >> we appreciate. >> your time. >> thank you very much, sir. we'll see you soon. >> we'll be right back.

>> here. >> happening now. ash wednesday services are underway in rome without pope francis at the lead. the 88 year old pontiff was treated overnight with supplemental oxygen at the hospital, where he's been treated for double pneumonia. he's been in that hospital since mid-february. the vatican says the pope slept well overnight, but that his condition remains, quote, medically complex. >> and coming up. we're following the breaking news out of the supreme court. the justices rejecting president trump's request to keep billions in foreign aid frozen. we're going to speak to a former usaid worker who was fired on what she makes of that ruling. up next.

appening now. breaking news. a swift supreme court decision. five justices rejecting the trump administration's plan to freeze billions of dollars in foreign aid. i'm pamela brown. >> and we.