Sarah Isgur, ABC News contributor Interview

Sarah Isgur talks to Mendte in the Morning about the tariffs and what the ultimate end game is with these in place, while rhetoric coming out of the White House is inconsistent on what the plan truly is.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Sarah is Gary is ABC News contributor from Washington. She's
on with this right now. Sarah, good morning to you.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
Good morning.

Speaker 1 (00:07):
I So we talked about the tariffs. What is the
latest youth and we hear the President talking about all
these countries, these leaders as in his words, they're calling
me and kissing my ass. That's the president's own words.
I'm just quoting him, trying to make a deal because
nobody wants to be the last country to make a
tariff deal. Do you think we will see some kind

(00:27):
of resolution on these tariffs and will that calm the markets?

Speaker 2 (00:32):
This is the problem. You have a real divide in
the White House of what the purpose of these tariffs are.
And it's bizarre, frankly, to see a White House roll
out such a massive policy shift for the United States
without beying what the metric of success is. Why are
we doing this. On the one hand, you have one
team saying that this is about negotiation and other countries

(00:56):
lowering their trade barriers, buying more American goods and then
basically this will be a two week problem. You have
another side of the White House, though, saying that actually
this is a total reimagination of the American economy. It's
about permanency of this new world order, if you will,
about American isolation, about not being dependent on foreign goods,

(01:19):
about rehoming those manufacturing jobs. But that of course would
take years, probably beyond even a president's term, of having
these tariffs in effect and having that economic downside for
a much much longer term potential economic upside, and the
White House can't really decide which it's.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
Doing right now, And of course it'll take years, like
you said, to build factories and start manufacturing again in
the US, things that now we sort of outsource to
company countries like China. Moving along to the Supreme Court decisions,
the rulings on immigration, both the AEA ruling that's the
that the temporary block that was issued on the Alien

(02:03):
Enemies Act, and also the man mistakenly deported to El Salvador.

Speaker 2 (02:08):
What do you think about that, Well, we now have,
as you say, sort of both of these moments from
the Supreme Court on their emergency docket. Now with the
man who was sent to El Salvador, he was deportable,
they just weren't allowed to send him to the country
of l Salvador. And so that was the error. And

(02:30):
you have the Supreme Court pausing an order from a
lower court requiring them to get him back to the country.
So I expect to hear from the Supreme Court in
the coming you know, probably next week about exactly what
kind of powers the Court has to demand someone coming back,
and in particular, what is the status of people who

(02:50):
are in that prison in l Salvador that on the
one hand, America pays for it and on the other hand,
America doesn't run. We have some cases, you know that
maybe tell us something about, for instance, Guantanamo Bay during
the War on Terror, but that is exactly where the
Supreme Court is going to have to focus for that case.
On the other case about the Venezuelan potential gang members

(03:11):
who were also sent to that prison. There you have
the Supreme Court saying, look, this isn't about whether someone
gets processed, it's about where they get processed. And so
it's a very process oriented decision. You have folks on
the right very upset that Amy Coney Barrett was with
the liberal justices in this case. I'll be interested to

(03:33):
see where conservatives go with their complaints about Amy Cony
Barrett when so far their only complaints are about these
emergency docket decisions that are really process oriented, so we'll.

Speaker 1 (03:45):
See interesting And of course, as you mentioned the man
who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, it's not like
he's coming back and he'll be repatriated and get to
spend time with the woman who was living with or
married to in Maryland. He will come back if anything,
and then be back out to another country. Right, That's
the way it looks at this one, because as you said,
he is deportable.

Speaker 2 (04:04):
He was not here legally, that's correct, and he had
already been had hearings before an immigration judge who had
found that there was evidence that he was member of
MS thirteen and had come here illegally, so he was
a deportable alien. Which you know, it's funny for all
of the raging headlines about you know, the accidental deportation

(04:26):
and things like that, like ef like with most things,
the story's actually a little more nuanced than that.

Speaker 1 (04:31):
Yeah, I mean, we hear. The one story, of course
that came out in the media was oh, he married
a woman who had children from another marriage and they
had an autistic child, and he worked so hard and
he was such a good one but hello, back it up.
If you're not here legally, you know, we do have
laws that have to be followed. And of course there
were all sorts of accusations about whether he was in
a gang, et cetera, and if he was and he
shouldn't be here. He says he wasn't. The government says

(04:54):
there's evidence he was, and we'll see what happens if
such time that he is brought back to the US.
Sarah Isger, ABC News contributor. Thank you so much for
being with us this morning. Always great to have your insight,
you bet, thank you all right,