Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Judge Pauses Deadline for Federal Workers to Accept Trump's Resignation Offer; Interview with Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY); Trump: No Soldiers by the US Would Be Needed to Take Over Gaza; Aired: 8-9p ET

Aired February 06, 2025 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: ... IA out in the US, once again triggering National Security fears over data privacy and the growing power of another app controlled by China's Communist Party.

Will Ripley, CNN, Taipei.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: It was amazing just to look at the answer? No answer on Tiananmen Square and the immediate Chinese Communist Party line on Taiwan.

Thanks so much for joining us and it's time now for AC360 with Anderson.

[20:00:30]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Tonight on 360: The world's richest man. How his decisions are affecting the world's poorest people, America's largest workforce, and federal functions touching all of our lives.

Also tonight, the president's handlers are backpedaling, but no one seems to have told the boss. President Trump pushing his condo-driven plan for taking over Gaza.

And later, the alarming turning point in the bird flu outbreak. Scientists say the virus is one key mutation away from possible human- to-human transmission.

Good evening. Thanks for joining us.

We begin tonight with Musk and Big Balls. That's the online name according to "Wired" Magazine, of a teen tech-whiz who, along with others, are helping the world's richest man do whatever it is he's doing dismantling parts of the federal government.

Today, a Massachusetts District Court judge named George O'Toole extended tonight's midnight deadline for federal employees to accept a deferred resignation offer, which purports to pay them through September if they quit now.

An administration official telling us about 50,000 people have taken advantage so far, about 2.5 percent of the federal workforce.

Now, the judge has scheduled a hearing for Monday before deciding whether this program should be blocked. If the brain child as you know, of Elon Musk, who has been seemingly popping up everywhere with the president lately, and his Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, which, as you may also know, is not an officially constituted federal department, though it is now involved in gutting them.

It's still an open question, as today's court ruling shows, whether Musk or Big Balls and the others on his secretive team, or even the president has the authority to do it, but even from the start, the intention was there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD LUTNICK, US COMMERCE SECRETARY NOMINEE: We set up DOGE.

ELON MUSK, CO-DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY: Yes.

LUTNICK: How much do you think we can rip out of this wasted $6.5 trillion Harris-Biden budget?

MUSK: Well, I think we can do at least $2 trillion.

LUTNICK: Yes.

MUSK: Yes.

LUTNICK: Two trillion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, that's the third of the federal budget, of which there are actually very few opportunities to cut once you factor in defense, Medicare, Social Security, and interest on the national debt.

What Musk and DOGE, with the president say so appear to be focusing on instead, is making wholesale government staffing cuts, which also may not pass legal muster because most federal employees have civil service protection against being fired without cause and due process, or, in the case of the US Agency for International Development - USAID, simply eliminating the entire department, which, again, the president is totally okay with.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MUSK: We're looking forward to making a lot of changes. And you know, this victory is the start, really.

DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you, Elon.

I always say we have to be protective of our geniuses because we don't have too many, but that one is a good one.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: So, that was Sunday, January 19th, the day before the Inauguration Day. On the 20th, as one of his first acts in office, the president signed the executive order establishing DOGE and calling on the heads of other agencies to ensure that it has, "full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems and IT systems."

That same day, the president froze all spending on foreign aid. Now, by the 28th, the Office of Personnel Management had sent out the first deferred resignation offer under the subject line, "Fork in the road," which is the same title and featured a similar message as the e-mail that Musk sent Twitter staffers when he bought it.

Said one former Twitter employee, in a seemingly prescient social media post. It, "feels eerily familiar to when Elon took over. They come in, get no context, turn off everything without knowing who does what."

Now, they in this case, were a team of young computer whizzes, the aforementioned Big Balls and others who rolled right into the Treasury Department's previously nonpartisan payments office.

Another of Musk's posse, who is 25, resigned today, according to "The Wall Street Journal" after being linked again, according to "The Journal," to a deleted social media account that advocated for racism and eugenics.

In any event, these do not seem to be people with any experience in the workings of federal government or any sense of responsibility government has for delivering often vital services.

Keeping them honest, neither does their boss, at least not when it comes to his first target, USAID.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

MUSK: As we dug into USAID, it became apparent that what we have here is not an apple with a worm in it, but we have actually just a ball of worms, and so it's a point at which you don't really -- like if you've got an apple that's got a worm in it, maybe you can take the worm out, but if you've got actually just a ball of worms, it's hopeless.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

COOPER: He also called the agency a criminal organization and said it was time for it to die. The following Monday, he tweeted, "We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper. Could have gone to some great parties. Did that instead."

[20:05:10]

Now, whatever you might think of foreign aid or government efficiency, or even whether the federal government should have a role in any of this, it does, or at least it did. Congress funded you funded the agency. Thousands of USAID employees administered the programs in some of the neediest, hungriest, and most turbulent spots on Earth. Thousands more private contractors worked to deliver things like medical care and development assistance and childhood vaccinations and education around the world. It's not, as Elon Musk said, they're just something to skip a great party for.

He has not stopped there, though. A few days after launching the attack on USAID; on the 31st of January, he and his team gained access to the Treasury's payment system, which again was designed to simply write checks that Congress already approved, not decide what to pay or not pay. It's not clear exactly what they're up to there.

The administration claims they just have read-only access to the payment data, other reporting contradicts that. On the 31st, DOGE also took control the General Services Administration. Just yesterday, "The Wall Street Journal" reported that DOGE gained access to payment systems at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Also, just yesterday, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy tweeted, "Big news -- Talked to the DOGE team. They're going to plug in to help upgrade our aviation system."

It is something to see. It would in fact, be interesting to see, except we aren't actually seeing it. There's almost no transparency about what these unelected, unconfirmed, apparently unvetted or lightly vetted people are really doing inside the federal government, our federal government. And Republican lawmakers are not exactly clamoring for more information.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ERIC SCHMITT (R-MO): I applaud this. I think the American people have waited far too long for real accountability in their government. I think exposing the waste and the grift and the fraud in these agencies, the time is coming.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: That's Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt and here's North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, after being asked about the authority for eliminating USAID, which Congress established and funded.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): We'll look at the Legality of it. But the outcome that's getting "the how," maybe there are some questions about "the how," but "the what" of getting USAID focused on its core originating mission is critically important. I think President Trump had the courage to get out there and explain it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Beyond spreading some falsehoods about USAID like that it sent 50 and later claimed a hundred million dollars' worth of condoms to Gaza, the president has done little explanation.

In a moment, you'll hear from Samantha Power, who served as USAID administrator until last month. But first, a quick and troubling late note about Elon Musk's people.

It concerns the Department of Energy, which is responsible, among other things, for the nation's nuclear weapons. Two people knowledgeable with the situation tell CNN that a representative from DOGE was granted access to DOE's IT system yesterday. His name is Luke Farritor, a 23-year-old former SpaceX intern. He got access over objections from members of the Department of General Counsel and Chief Information Offices.

Officials for those offices said that Farritor had not had a standard background investigation, one of them telling CNN, "He's not cleared to be in DOE on our systems. None of those things have been done."

Our chief White House correspondent, Kaitlan Collins, and anchor of "The Source" joins me now. So, is there oversight of Elon Musk and his coterie?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT AND ANCHOR OF "THE SOURCE": Our sense is really that for Elon Musk himself, it's basically unchecked. I mean, yes, obviously there is President Trump. And when it came to the FAA thing, they said they had the authority granted to them to start working on the nation's aviation systems, granted by President Trump himself.

Musk is obviously in charge of his team, which has grown in the more than two weeks now that Trump has been in office. And clearly, you're seeing who he is adding to his team, and just, you know, which agencies they're going in to.

And now, for the Department of Energy. It said that essentially that Luke -- this person that they had brought on -- had gotten basically basic IT access. The question I think that a lot of people have and the reason we're following this so closely is where that goes and how expansive that power becomes.

Because for Elon Musk, in these last few weeks since Trump regained power, it has been virtually unchecked. And there have been times where, you know, people were -- that I've been talking to inside the White House, we're keeping up with his Twitter feed to see, you know, he's posting constantly about what they're doing, the fact that they're working on weekends.

And there were moments where some senior staff inside the West Wing were caught off guard by things that he was working on or talking about or stances on this.

COOPER: So, they're finding out, some folks in the White House are finding out what Elon Musk is doing by his X feed.

COLLINS: Yes, and not everything. But there are some things, and I think that's unsettling to people because Elon Musk is not just your average coworker inside the West Wing.

Yes, there's power dynamics always and struggles inside any West Wing, but he's Elon Musk, he is the world's richest man. And this has kind of been the dynamic that has taken place since Trump won the election, which is Elon Musk sitting in on interviews with candidates and whatnot, and not just sitting there and listening, speaking up and asking questions to people who wanted to be Treasury secretary or in other top positions.

And so, certainly he is actually taking a really active role, one that has only gotten more active since Trump took office.

[20:10:18]

COOPER: I mean, the thing is, there's no doubt, look, Elon Musk is a genius, brilliant and I'm sure all these people around him are wicked smart and, you know, maybe really want to do good things. I don't understand why it all has to be done in secret and without any transparency.

COLLINS: Well, the one question has been also, what kind of background checks they have and whatnot, because one, you know, we paid attention to so many of the executive orders Trump signed on day one. I think you and I were on air that night talking about he had just signed one that essentially said for six months they can grant a security clearance to whoever he wants --

COOPER: To anybody.

COLLINS: Yes, not having had passed an FBI background check. This was a huge issue during Trump's first administration.

And so, we don't have a clear picture of who all has been granted these background checks. Just saying someone has a clearance doesn't mean they've passed a background check.

COOPER: We're talking about like 19, early 20s, you know, folks who, you know, their lives are just starting. Like, we don't know who these people are.

COLLINS: Yes, and I've talked to some people inside the administration who say the reporting initially has been too dismissive of them, just simply because all of them are young. But I think there are other questions --

COOPER: I'm sure they're wicked smart. I mean, there's no doubt.

COLLINS: But there's still other questions, it is the federal government. And just because, you know, this happened with officials who were being questioned about their loyalty, you know, if you're a career civil servant who has worked in the federal government for 20 years, and you have someone who has just fresh out of college asking, you know, if you're loyal to your job and loyal to the president's agenda, that's the dynamic that we're seeing now.

COOPER: Mark Zuckerberg was reportedly at the White House today. Is he wanting to get in on this or what? Do we know why?

COLLINS: I was told he was there to talk about AI that, obviously, has been something that the Trump administration does not feel the Biden administration was on top of, in terms of what this looks like with the race that's happening, certainly with DeepSeek that came out, you know, when Trump first took office, as they were trying to figure it out as --

COOPER: Yes, a Chinese company.

COLLINS: Totally disrupted the AI community here in the United States.

There is a lot for them to discuss, but we don't really know the full scope of the meeting or if he was just meeting with President Trump or what that looked like.

But this has kind of been what the West Wing has been like for the last few weeks. A lot of high profile guests coming in and meeting with Trump. I mean, he brought reporters in the other day to sign some executive orders, and Rupert Murdoch was there and that was not planned, I was told today. He just brought the reporters in because Rupert Murdoch was there in part.

And so, you're seeing this, which we saw play out in round one, playing out in round two. The differences we're seeing how all of these tech leaders are kind of lining up and also seeing how much power Elon Musk has to reshape the federal government despite heavy conflicts of interest, which the White House said the other day he is policing himself.

COOPER: Right, I mean, it's amazing to me that they don't really know all the computer stuff he's doing once he has access. I mean --

COLLINS: Or would the FAA, I mean, he, obviously, I think after what happened with the collision in Washington, it raised real questions about what was happening with air safety and air traffic control.

Certainly, the president raised those questions. We don't know the results of that investigation. But Elon Musk is someone who has also feuded with the head of the FAA over his contracts and his launches. He called on the last FAA head to resign, and he did.

COOPER: And he did, he resigned right before this crash.

COLLINS: So, so there are so many dynamics here that I think, is the reason people are paying such close attention to what he's doing, and also trying to figure out what this looks like, including people inside the West Wing.

COOPER: Kaitlan Collins, thanks so much. Kaitlan will be back at the top of the hour for the source.

Now, Samantha Power and the gutting of USAID until January 20th. She was the administrator of the agency. I spoke to her shortly before air time.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Ambassador Power, "The New York Times" is reporting tonight that the Trump administration intends to cut the USAID staff from about 10,000 people down to about 290. What does this mean for the US? Why is that a bad thing, in your opinion?

SAMANTHA POWER, FORMER USAID ADMINISTRATOR: Well, these are staff who are overseeing programs that are saving lives or were saving lives until a few weeks ago. These are people who are making sure that kids who are on the brink of starvation get access to food that is currently now stuck in ports in Kenya, in the United States itself, food that American farmers have grown, the food that families are desperate to get their hands on.

And even if a switch were flipped and someone were to reconsider and say, yes, let's go back to using American farmers' food to reach people, there would be nobody to administer these programs.

This is devastating, and it is ceding the field as well to the people's Republic of China, to the Russian Federation and other malign actors who would like nothing more than to see the US' ground game in American foreign policy -- the face of American values disappear like this and that's what the Trump administration --

COOPER: Do you think this is a victory for dictators, autocratic regimes around the world who are competing with the US in Africa, in South America, all around the world for influence?

POWER: Well, it's not even an opinion. They are out relishing this moment and celebrating it, including a statement, an official statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry today.

So, this is a disaster, not just from a humanitarian standpoint, from the standpoint of all the beneficiaries who may in fact die because they won't have access to US resources, but it's a disaster for US national interests and National Security.

[20:15:32]

COOPER: Elon Musk has called USAID evil, a criminal organization, a left wing psy op. The president himself says its run by radical lunatics.

Why do you think your former agency has drawn their ire to this degree?

POWER: Well, I would note that there is so much misinformation, so many falsehoods now circulating about USAID, that would be heartbreaking enough in any circumstances. But they've also taken down the USAID website, which actually lists what we do.

It's a $38 billion budget, 60 percent of the budget goes to humanitarian emergencies, literally to provide shelter, food and medicine to keep people alive.

In addition to humanitarian emergencies, out of that, 60 percent is global health programs preventing malaria, TB, helping people with HIV, and very critically, in the wake of the pandemic, actually helping do surveillance to make sure that we don't have another COVID- style outbreak that makes its way to the United States and kills Americans. COOPER: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who actually used to be a

proponent of foreign aid, and I saw a talk he gave where he said, you know, he pointed out what a small percentage of the overall spending of the United States this is. I think it's one -- less than one percent or so of US overall spending annually and he praised the big impact it actually has.

He's now saying that walking away from the foreign aid entirely -- that the US isn't walking away from foreign aid entirely, but that this is, "the least popular thing" that the government spends money on.

POWER: This is essential work and there is no question in my mind that the United States is going to return to doing this work. It will have just spent billions and billions of dollars dismantling the architecture that took six decades to build and that is cost ineffectiveness in the extreme.

COOPER: I mean, all the people, professionals who have made this their life's work, who know how to do this, they will be unemployed, and that knowledge base, that institutional knowledge base goes away.

Does it make sense folding this into the State Department? I mean, I guess some people will say, what difference does it make if there's USAID or if this is just, you know, the work is folded into the State Department.

POWER: The important aspect of USAID's work that has been entirely lost in many of these debates in the last weeks is that it takes actual expertise to know how to get rid of malaria. It takes actual expertise to think about how to build disaster resilient infrastructure so that the next extreme weather event doesn't take out a whole community.

It actually is really complicated to figure out how to work with communities to do de-radicalization and to get economies back on track.

And currently, these are the people who are being told, having given their whole lives to this enterprise, to representing the United States and representing US interests in the world, having been sent out by Democratic administrations, Republican administrations. They're being told they have 24 hours to pack their bags and come home.

They don't have homes, necessarily in the United States. They've been working in some of the most dangerous parts of the world on behalf of the United States.

If we did this to military families, just summarily told them to pack their bags and leave a place that they had been deployed, there would be broad bipartisan outrage. And that is what we are doing to public servants who have also given their lives serving alongside our military in really hazardous places. ' This is no way to treat public servants, and it is no way to advance America's interests. COOPER: Samantha Power, thank you for your time.

POWER: Thanks, Anderson.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, coming up, we will continue tonight's conversation to tell you about a new "Wall Street Journal" report as we reported a key staffer on Elon Musk Department of Government Efficiency has resigned. It came after "The Journal" says it questioned the White House about deleted social media posts that, according to the report, "advocated racism and eugenics."

We're also learning more details about some of the other young men that Musk has hired to remake the federal government.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:24:15]

COOPER: More on breaking news on three separate reports on three individual members of Elon Musk's DOGE task force.

Now, again, "The Wall Street Journal" reports on a staffer who until today had been okayed to review sensitive treasury information. This is how "The Journal" reports it in their lead paragraph: A key DOGE staff member who gained access to the Treasury Department's central payment system resigned Thursday after he was linked to a deleted social media account that advocated racism and eugenics.

"The Journal" reports the account was deleted in December. Now, this comes as sources tell CNN that one of Elon Musk's DOGE representatives was granted access to the Energy Department as we mentioned to their IT system by the newly installed Energy secretary, despite objections from the department's general counsel and chief information officers, because that person hadn't yet had a standard background check.

Finally, this news story from "Wired" magazine, the headline: DOGE teens owns "Tesla.Sexy LLC" and worked at startup that has hired convicted hackers. Here's how the article describes this person: A young technologist known online as "Big Balls" who worked for Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency -- DOGE, has access to sensitive US government systems.

The article went on to say that, "Tesla.Sexy LLC controls dozens of web domains, including at least two Russian registered domains."

I am joined now by the executive editor of "Wired," Brian Barrett.

Brian, you guys have been doing fascinating reporting on this and I think everyone likes the theoretical idea of super smart people helping the federal government cut waste, fraud and abuse. But there is so little transparency about this group with Musk and what they're doing.

Based on what "Wired" is reporting, what stands out to you about this one person with the, you know, the very noticeable screen name?

BRIAN BARRETT, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "WIRED": Well, yes. you know, everyone or people who are defending the DOGE project say, look, we want -- it's a new Manhattan Project, right? But it's really not. It's 19 to 25-year-old kids, some with backgrounds that are potentially unsavory.

This one in particular, Edward Coristine, we found in his background, he runs, as you said, "Tesla.Sexy LLC," dozens of domain names, including one that appears to sell AI chatbots for Russian Discord servers. He's also got a domain that is in Russian and in a Chinese language domain.

He has worked for this company that sort of has this background of hiring that actively recruited, convicted hackers.

It adds up to a picture of, you know, they may be very talented coders, but are they the people that you want digging into the United States' governments HR systems, IT systems, going to all of these different agencies and having unfettered access to sensitive material?

COOPER: And do we know anything about security background checks they may have had or if any?

BARRETT: No, I mean, typically the experts that we talk to say that a background check or especially for a security clearance would take 50 days; for a more elevated security clearance, up to 90 days or longer. This is an initiative that started a few weeks ago. So, the idea that they've been through any kind of rigorous background testing seems unlikely.

I think there's also a sense that we don't really know, in a lot of cases, what these people are doing. We have reports about cases where they're getting access to federal payments data, going into various buildings doing code review, but the amount of opacity around this and the lack of transparency makes it hard to even know what clearance level they should have, much less whether they would qualify.

COOPER: But also, I was talking to Kaitlan Collins earlier and she was saying it seems unclear to some people in the White House at least what exactly they're doing and they're kind of following Elon Musk's feed on X to kind of -- and surprised by some of the things he's saying.

BARRETT: Yes, it sort of seems like it's Elon Musk's hit squad sort of going out to various agencies where he has an interest or may gain ground into some of his objectives. It seems detached from what the White House wants. I know that there's a little bit of back and forth, and I know there have been reports that, you know, Elon Musk has been apparently pulled back from certain things.

But really, you're getting a 25-year-old situated at the Treasury Department who is able to change the code of the federal payment system. This seems remarkable and seems, frankly, unsustainable.

COOPER: So how many people around Musk who are involved in this -- I mean, is it clear the total number of people involved?

BARRETT: No, I think not only is it not clear with the total number of people. We have reporting that shows that people who work for DOGE are trying to do so in secrecy, they're not saying their names in meetings, they are not being introduced.

So, you could be a career civil servant and walk into a code review at the GSA and not know who this 20-year-old is, who is making you defend your job.

There's been a lot of messaging from the government saying, we have to protect these DOGE staffers' privacy, which is ironic given the level of access to sensitive data of everyday Americans that they are demanding without much justification.

COOPER: Brian Barrett from "Wired," thank you so much, fascinating.

Coming up next, more on this subject and the lack of transparency surrounding it. Congressman Dan Goldman joins us.

Also, the president's Gaza takeover plan, which he keeps talking about. He's recommitted to it today, despite the White House trying to walk it back yesterday.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:33:54]

COOPER: I want to continue our focus on Elon Musk's effort to dramatically reduce the federal workforce, plus the reports we just mentioned about the questions surrounding some of the people he's hired to who have now have access to sensitive information.

I'm joined by Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman. So, how big is your concern across the board about the access provided to Musk and his teams and what we know and don't know about who these people are?

REP. DANIEL GOLDMAN (D-NY): I mean, the concern and the risk couldn't be any higher right now. And it's not because of any effort to streamline the government or make it more efficient.

It's because Elon Musk has a bunch of unvetted teenagers, one of whom resigned today because of racist posts, but none of whom have gone through a very important security clearance process that are accessing personal, private information of all Americans, as well as the payment systems for federal funding that has been appropriated by Congress, that has been already granted and designated to a wide variety of agencies and organizations that rely on it and this is not an audit.

[20:35:09]

This is an infiltration and a usurpation of power of the entire federal government by Elon Musk, an unelected billionaire who is looking at government contracts while he has billions of contracts, government contracts of his own. This is a personal mission for Elon Musk, who is not being held accountable by Donald Trump or by the Republicans in Congress and it is eviscerating our federal government as we know it today, very illegally.

COOPER: It doesn't seem like there's -- I mean, Kaitlan Collins, I was talking to you earlier saying, you know, there's folks in the White House who are surprised by what they're hearing Elon Musk is, you know, tweeting about or X-ing about -- it doesn't seem like there's any real oversight here.

GOLDMAN: There's none. There's no oversight of Elon Musk. He clearly spent his $250 million to get Donald Trump elected, and now has a puppet in the White House who has given him the authority to go into every federal agency.

Rumors are, reporting is now that he'll go into the Social Security administration. He's not stopping at Medicaid. He's not stopping at Medicare. He's not stopping at Social Security and he is stopping payments.

This is not a situation where he is analyzing whether there's waste, fraud and abuse and how are we going to deal with it. Let's go back to Congress, which has the power to appropriate funds, and let's amend whatever the funding is.

No, he's just stopping it on his own. And this is going to cause people, American people, millions and millions of American people to be severely hurt and to go hungry, to go homeless, and in some cases, to die.

COOPER: And I mean, what if, I mean, are you hearing like, do your Republican -- I don't know if people in Congress talk to, you know, across the aisle anymore, but are your Republican colleagues telling you anything privately? Is there any concern here?

GOLDMAN: Well, the thing that's remarkable is that you see Congressional Republicans buying into this bogus narrative that Elon Musk is just going in and rooting out fraud and waste and that's a good thing. That's Congress' job.

You can root out waste, fraud, and abuse but Congress has appropriated this money.

So, all of these Republican members of the Senate and the Congress are allowing and enabling Elon Musk and Donald Trump to take all of their own power in Congress.

What is the point of them being there if they're just bending the knee to Donald Trump? They're not asserting Article I of the Constitution and Congress' is prerogative, and they're allowing Elon Musk to go unfettered through these government agencies to jeopardize our National Security, to jeopardize the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans, which are now at risk of easy hacking because they're not secured on our government systems anymore.

And also, that he can grift himself and he can become a powerful man who can make more billions of dollars.

COOPER: You and Musk got into an argument, I guess, on social media. He called you a corrupt politician. You accused him of breaking the law by using American's personal data for what you called his, "corrupt grifting."

I mean, when you say corrupt grifting, what do you mean? What's the evidence of that? I mean, does the president have a wide berth to give Musk access basically to what he wants in the executive branch? Is that in the purview of the president?

GOLDMAN: No, you can't just give some non-Senate confirmed, non- appointed official who has not gone through ethics review to have total access and power to cancel payments that the federal government is obligated to make or to fire federal officials that he doesn't like. There's no accountability here.

When you have a Senate confirmation process and you have the secretary of an agency that wants to do a review of that agency, well, they are Senate confirmed. The Senate gets to give advice and consent and make sure that they promise to do what they're going to do, and if not, they're subject to perjury for lying to the Senate.

Right now, there's no accountability for Elon Musk. He has unknown powers. He has unknown access. There's no question that this is a security breach and a National Security risk.

And it is a clear violation of the Impoundment Control Act because he is stopping payments and shutting down agencies that were created and/or passed by Congress. This is completely lawless. This is a total takeover of the federal government.

COOPER: Congressman Goldman, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

[20:40:10]

Coming up next, the president doubles down on his condo-centric Gaza takeover plan despite what his top officials are saying about it.

And Dr. Sanjay Gupta on a new mutation of the bird flu spotted in dairy cattle in one state and the implications it could have on future human-to-human spread.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:44:49]

COOPER: So who knew President Trump actually means what he says, no matter what his top officials say he means.

Case in point tonight, his plan to take over Gaza.

Tuesday, he laid it out. Americans would take control and turn it into what he described as a Middle East Riviera and send the two million Palestinians who live there to Egypt, Jordan and/or several other unspecified places. Kaitlan Collins asked who would end up living in the Gaza Strip, in the newly refurbished Riviera and he said the world's people, Palestinians included, when asked, and the US would have what he called a long-term ownership position.

Now, Wednesday, the people around him said, no, that's not his plan. Secretary of State Rubio described a completely different kind of plan, a kind of a tear down and refurb plan for Palestinians.

[20:45:36]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, US SECRETARY OF STATE: So, what he's very generously has offered is the ability of the United States to go in and help with debris removal, help with munitions removal, help with reconstruction, the rebuilding of homes and businesses and things of this nature so that then people can move back in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: As we pointed out last night, that's really not what the president said. And today on social media, he confirmed it, quoting now from his lengthy post, "The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting."

Unclear, so, I guess the ceasefire would be done. There'd be a new war. And then at the conclusion of that war, then his tweet continued. "The Palestinian people like Chuck Schumer" -- Chuck Schumer is not Palestinian but, the Palestinians, people like Chuck Schumer, Palestinians, people like Chuck Schumer, he is not Palestinian, "would have already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities with new and modern homes in the region."

In other words, not in Gaza.

He went on to say, "They would actually have a chance to be happy, safe and free. The US working with great development teams from all over the world, would slowly and carefully begin the construction of what would become one of the greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on Earth. No soldiers by the US would be needed. Stability for the region would reign."

So, in short, the property would be, "turned over to the United States" and Palestinians in Gaza would be sent elsewhere, not to return home.

Joining us now is former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner and David Sanger, White House and National Security correspondent for "The New York Times".

Beth, I mean, how do you square the president doubling down on this plan to take over Gaza, "after the fighting" with the staff and allies walking it back, including the secretary of State, at least in part yesterday. BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think it's because there's basically a clash of goals. You know, it's clear that the president is kind of focused on something that makes sense to him. And I think that, you know, to most people it kind of makes sense. Like, yes, they live in a horrible place. Why wouldn't they want to go? And we could make this great and all of these things kind of make sense if you don't understand anything about how the Middle East works and the other people --

COOPER: Or human beings liking their homes.

SANNER: Yes, I mean, there's nothing left, Anderson. I mean, it actually would make sense to most Americans, but we're not Palestinians who have been displaced, and they never go home when they're displaced. There is this trauma of the Nakba. So, but I think that the advisers --

COOPER: You know, honestly, Beth, I've got to tell you, if New York City was destroyed, I grew up here. I really wouldn't want to leave. I don't want to try to kind of rebuild it.

I wouldn't be forced to move to Kansas but anyway go on.

SANNER: New Yorkers are very special people.

COOPER: So, let me ask, David.

David, does this make any sense to you? I mean, we're treating this as if this is like a real plan, and this is -- I mean, it's kind of remarkable.

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Anderson, you got the core problem here, which is there is no plan. You know, usually when you hear a president announce something like this, and he was reading from some papers, so clearly he had thought this out. It wasn't just something that he blurted out when he was standing there with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

There were no meetings. There was no discussion with the Pentagon, with the State Department, with anybody who might talk about whether the Palestinians would be interested in going along with this plan.

There was no discussion of whether or not the Palestinians would agree to leave, to go to Jordan or in Egypt. There was no discussion of whether Egypt and Jordan would take them.

So, what you are left with is the president talking about this. It got, you know, everybody immediately piled on for why it wouldn't work. His own secretary of State backed away a little bit, said this would only be temporary, said the Palestinians would return, although the president said everybody would return to this region, right?

And then, the president turns out this tweet to sort of double down, because I think he was somewhat embarrassed.

My bet is that he will keep repeating this, but the idea will probably just fade away.

COOPER: Beth, this plan is, according to him today, is this all starts after the fighting stops. Do you know what that means? Because right now there's a ceasefire.

So, is then the plan Israel, that the war starts up so that Israel can try to continue to defeat Hamas, which they've been unable to do, you know, unfortunately, because Hamas is a horrible organization and they're thugs and there's plenty of Palestinians who previously wanted Hamas removed, but is that, I mean, does that seem sensible? Does that seem possible even?

SANNER: It does seem like this is a plan that is kind of the Netanyahu and the far right plan, which is that the far right -- all of this is in support of what the far right wants, including, by the way, in four weeks' time, making some declaration about the West Bank.

And, you know, the plan is that they will have to go back to war and, you know, it was intended to stabilize the Netanyahu government so he could get all the hostages out, but even the president says that's not likely, and when you look at Hamas being present, it's not very likely.

So, this whole thing is going to fall apart. They're going to go back to war. And now the plan is that, okay, well, that's going to happen and then we're going to take it over.

But even though this plan isn't realistic, the damage has been done in many ways in the region in terms of setting back the broader interests that this administration has already stated. And so, that's the thing, you get this little tactical move, but the strategic damage, you know, happens right away.

SANGER: Also, Anderson, just to build on Beth's point, what are we not talking about? We're not talking about whether or not the prime minister, Prime Minister Netanyahu is still in Washington, moves to the phase two of this plan, which was the big issue, right?

COOPER: Right.

SANGER: That would involve the Israelis pulling back, having a ceasefire that's longer and more permanent. That all got wiped away in the discussion of the president's --

COOPER: What also makes the US in control of the security or responsible for the security of the Gaza Strip, which I don't know of anybody who wants that role. I mean --

SANGER: From a president who said he wanted to get out of the forever wars.

COOPER: Right.

SANGER: The other oddity here --

COOPER: Right, nation building. I mean, literally condo building, I mean, literally condo building.

SANGER: Yes and the other oddity is that he's doing this in a moment that he's dismantling USAID --

COOPER: Right, which would be involved.

SANGER: -- and rebuilding Gaza would probably cost more than you spend on USAID.

COOPER: Yes, David Sanger, Beth Sanner, I appreciated your time. Thank you, both of you.

Up next, a new development in the spread of a second potentially deadly strain of bird flu. Details on that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:56:58]

COOPER: A new potentially dangerous development in the efforts to contain the spread of avian flu in the US, six dairy herds in Nevada have tested positive for a newer second strain of the H5N1 bird flu virus.

Our chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, joins us now. So, why -- what is the concern about this new variant?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I think there's two main concerns. One is that, you know, when this first happened, when bird flu got into cattle, I think the thinking was that's a pretty rare event. That's not likely to happen again and now it's happened again. So, that's the first concern.

And also, this particular strain D1.1, that's the one that caused the more severe disease even led to the death, as you may remember, Anderson, of someone in Louisiana. So, those are the two major concerns.

So far, it's important to point out, no human cases have been linked to those particular infected cows, these new cows that we're talking about. So, that's something they're definitely going to keep an eye on.

Just to bring you up to speed quickly, Anderson, you remember this started back in November of 2023 when you first had bird flu, actually get into cattle. March of 2024 is when they detected it in the cows, specifically. April, they found it in people. So, you get an idea of just how fast that sort of trajectory was going on.

Later last year, they detected this new strain that we're talking about in birds for the first time, and now we're here seeing that that strain has now made it into cattle.

So, you know, it's really like, is this here to stay? I think that that's the real question now.

COOPER: And what does it mean for ongoing efforts to contain this?

GUPTA: You know, I talked to people back in October of last year. So just a few months ago, and I think the thinking was still even at that point, we're going to contain this and this will sort of burn out.

You remember when you had bird flu, you know, in previous times there was a lot of culling of birds. And by doing that, they were able to get control of the of the outbreak.

Here, because you've had another introduction of bird flu into the cattle, and you're seeing how it's sort of transmitting, this could be what they call endemic.

You remember, Anderson, a word that we heard a lot during COVID is the virus now just a part of life? And H5N1 might be here. The strain of H5N1 might be here to stay.

COOPER: And what does that mean for, I mean, I don't --consuming eggs and milk, I assume that's safe, yes?

GUPTA: Yes, so, you know, there's been a lot of discussion about raw milk lately. I don't know if you've heard much of that.

COOPER: Yes, of course, yes.

GUPTA: That is not a good idea, especially given what's going on now, because you could get infection in the milk. So, if you're drinking pasteurized milk, you should be fine.

When it comes to eggs, it's interesting because what typically happens, Anderson, is that the chickens will -- they'll either get sick or die so quickly that they don't really have an opportunity to lay that many eggs.

So, despite the fact that you're getting a lot of infection in these animals, the egg supply still seems safe. But I think the advice there is to make sure you're preparing your eggs as well, cooking them as well.

COOPER: All right, Sanjay, I really appreciate it.

Obviously, yes, it's frightening to even think about this.

GUPTA: We'll keep an eye on it.

COOPER: Yes, please, let's please. Sanjay, thank you.

Coming up, that's it for us. Appreciate you joining us.

I'll see you tomorrow night. The news continues right now. "The Source" with Kaitlan Collins begins.

[21:00:17]