Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Federal Judge Lifts Hold on "Buyout" Plan for Federal Workers; Interview with Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA); Trump and Putin to Meet, Likely in Saudi Arabia; Federal Judge Lets Trump's Buyout Plan for Federal Workers Proceed for Now; Trump Elected Chair of the Kennedy Center; Elon Musk is Concerned About Declining Fertility Rates; Senate Debates RFK Jr. Nomination, Final Vote Set for Tomorrow; Ozempic Shown to Reduce Drinking in First Trial in Alcohol-use Disorder. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired February 12, 2025 - 20:00   ET

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

MARC FOGEL, AMERICAN FREED FROM WRONGFUL DETENTION IN RUSSIA: ... my family, my friends, it was so overwhelming that it brought me to my knees and it brought me to tears.

And I will forever be indebted.

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Josh Campbell, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Something so crucial to celebrate, the fact that he is home with his family. Thanks for joining us, Anderson starts now.

[20:00:33]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Tonight on 360, breaking news, a federal judge gives the Trump administration a victory just hours after the White House railed against federal judges.

Also tonight, the president speaks with Vladimir Putin, says Ukraine has to make peace but does not say Ukraine will be in equal partner deciding its own fate.

And later, new research on Ozempic, how the drug that takes off pounds may also help with too many ounces of alcohol.

Good evening, thanks for joining us.

We begin tonight with breaking news. A federal judge today, handed the Trump administration a major win. District Judge George O'Toole in Boston said he is allowed to move forward with its so-called worker buyout program for the moment.

CNN's Evan Perez joins us now with more details. So, talk more about this ruling.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, this is the first really big win for the Trump administration. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed over a number of executive actions that the president has taken in his first couple of weeks in office. And here the judge said that that the unions who had sued the administration did not have standing. Essentially, they did not have anything to lose in bringing this -- in challenging this program.

Now, this is a program called the Deferred Resignation Plan and it was offered to about two million federal employees. What it does is it promises them that if they resign, the deadline was in the last few days and actually they extended the deadline tonight at 7:00 PM, that they would get pay and benefits through September 30th if they had signed up for this.

Now, the unions which included the American Federation of Government Employees had sued, saying that Congress has not even funded this program. And so, there was a lot of uncertainty as to whether employees could even get any of the benefits that the Trump administration was promising. And so, what the judge here said, Judge O'Toole said, you know, first, he said the unions lacked standing to challenge this directive. And he also said that the plaintiffs are not really directly impacted by the directive.

So, the issue here then, Anderson, becomes who can challenge this program and where this goes from here. Obviously, now the Trump administration is hoping that they can use this program and others to try to reduce the federal workforce -- about 65,000 people we know of that had actually signed up for it so far. We don't know how many in all will take it.

COOPER: And any reaction from the White House?

PEREZ: Yes, they're celebrating. As you pointed out, Anderson, they've been criticizing the judges that have been ruling against the administration in the last few days.

Karoline Leavitt said in a statement that this was the first of many big wins that they anticipate to have. We also have a reaction from the American Federation of Government Employees, and they say that they're disappointed, but they say, importantly, this decision does not address the underlying unlawfulness of the program.

So, they're going to continue trying to fight this, Anderson. And what the judge laid out in his ruling today was simply that they have administrative ways for employees to challenge this if they want to, not through his court.

COOPER: All right, Evan Perez, thanks very much.

Now, the future of Ukraine and who decides it, which seems to be in question this afternoon. The president said he spoke at length today with Russia's Vladimir Putin about ending the war, which was begun, you'll remember, with an act of Russian aggression. He said the two will have several summits, with the first likely to be in Saudi Arabia and on social media said that both countries plan to, "have our respective teams start negotiations immediately," adding, "we will begin by calling President Zelenskyy of Ukraine to inform him of the conversation."

What he did not say, either in that posting or later on camera, is just how Ukraine would factor into these talks, which again, are about its fate and future. Here he is in the Oval Office being asked directly about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Do you view Ukraine as an equal member of this peace process?

DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's an interesting question. I think they have to make peace. Their people are being killed and I think they have to make peace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Didn't really answer the question. The president also would not commit to restoring Ukraine's pre-invasion borders, suggesting instead that Kyiv would have to give up territory.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Would you support Zelenskyy's ceding territory or exchanging territory in any agreement to end the war?

TRUMP: Well, he's going to have to do what he has to do. But, you know, his poll numbers aren't particularly great, to put it mildly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: When asked whether Zelenskyy would be frozen out of the peace process, the president said, "I don't think so, as long as he's there. But, you know, at some point you're going to have to have an election too." He did not say anything similar about Vladimir Putin and there didn't seem to be many comforting words for Ukraine from the president, there was little either earlier today, from his Defense Secretary meeting with NATO allies in Brussels.

[20:05:15]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine, but we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective.

The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Now, those are very clear positions the administration is taking. One question tonight is why take so many bargaining chips off the negotiating table before talks with Russia even get started?

CNN's Kaitlan Collins asked the White House specifically about that today. She joins us now. What is the administration saying?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we spoke to Karoline Leavitt about this. And then President Trump himself was also asked later about this notion of whether there was anything that they would like to see happen before Trump would agree to sit down with Putin.

We've seen that in other situations with world leaders. It was certainly a question that President Biden faced time and time again about whether or not he'd sit down with President Putin, and this is what Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said today

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Are there any preconditions that President Trump has that President Putin must do before he goes and meets with him, withdrawing some forces, withdrawing all forces, anything like that?

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Not that I'm aware of. That doesn't mean they don't exist. But I was just talking with the president and our National Security team. I wasn't made aware of any conditions, but if they exist, I'm happy to provide those.

COLLINS: And on the president himself, you know, he sells himself as this master negotiator. He is now deploying these negotiations, saying that they start immediately.

We did hear from the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, today saying that NATO membership is not realistic for Ukraine and neither is returning to pre-2014 borders.

Aren't they giving away bargaining chips before these negotiations have even started?

LEAVITT: Again, I haven't talked to the president about Ukraine's NATO membership and he appointed several individuals to negotiate on his behalf.

He is directly involved in these negotiations as well. And I'm sure if you ask him that question in the near future, when you're able to, he'll give you an answer. I just don't want to get ahead of him on it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Now. of course, Anderson, this is key because those are two things that Vladimir Putin really wants to not have Ukraine join NATO and to also not have to return to the borders before 2014, before he illegally went into Crimea. That was before even 2022, when he invaded Ukraine. And so. those are real questions when it comes to what this dynamic looks like going forward and what concessions President Zelenskyy might be expected to make in terms of how they're talking about this negotiated settlement and how this war could end.

And so, you saw President Trump, obviously speaking very optimistically about his sit down with President Putin happening. He said it likely will be in Saudi Arabia, though it's not set yet. But the questions are also what that looks like at the table. And who is at that table, including whether or not if President Zelenskyy is there.

COOPER: Yes, it's also interesting saying that he had this conversation with Putin and then was going to call Zelenskyy unclear if there was some sort of prior conversation with Zelenskyy about this call with Putin.

What more do we know about the calls with both Putin and Zelenskyy?

COLLINS: And he did call Zelenskyy shortly after this. We know the call with Putin was about 90 minutes. The Kremlin told us that obviously there's translation, typically, part of that. That's why sometimes they're a little bit longer. And the call, according to the Ukrainians with Zelenskyy, I believe, was clocked in right about an hour.

So, still a pretty lengthy call between the two of them. And it's kind of a fascinating to watch this dynamic play out between these leaders, because obviously Trump has a long history with president Putin, we watched it closely in his first term, and with president Zelenskyy, he is someone that Trump has always been skeptical of and never really has had this warm relationship with him like we've seen with some other world leaders.

And so, hearing him citing his poll numbers in the Oval Office tonight when people were asking about President Zelenskyy or an election being held in Ukraine. Those are signs that Ukrainians definitely do not want to see here in terms of what their future is going to look like.

And so, it's a real question of how they handle this and how they navigate this. Zelenskyy did have that meeting a few months ago with President Trump, where they came out and spoke in front of the cameras. But it's a major question mark of what this looks like going forward and what the negotiations are as far as what Zelenskyy can hold on to and how the United States plays a big role in that.

But obviously, this has long been something Trump has wanted to do. As soon as he took office, he promised to end this war on day one when he took office. And so, we'll see how quickly they move here.

COOPER: Yes. Kaitlan Collins, thanks very much. We'll see you at the top of the hour of "The Source."

Joining us now is Massachusetts Democratic Congressman, Seth Moulton, a Marine Corps veteran and member of the House Armed Services Committee. He also traveled to Ukraine during the war. So, Congressman, President Trump said that Ukraine is unlikely to get all its land back and not going to be allowed membership in NATO. Both of these are things that the Kremlin would have wanted out of any negotiation. Is it clear to you whether the US or Ukraine got anything from Russia in return?

[20:10:07]

REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): It's pretty clear that they did not. I mean, Trump and Hegseth literally appeared to be negotiating on behalf of Putin. They're trying to sell us on the things the Kremlin wants, and it is everything wrong with running a good negotiation. I mean, it violates every principle of negotiation you can imagine.

I mean, first of all, he's saying he's desperate for a deal. Putin knows that Trump is desperate for a deal. He promised the end of the war on day one, and he's already broken that promise. So, now he's scrambling to get a peace deal, and he's selling the house before he -- or he's giving away the house, I should say, before he even puts it on the market.

I mean, it's just crazy negotiating tactics. Unless you understand that Trump is literally trying to sell us on what Putin wants.

COOPER: Is it possible he didn't know that his own Defense Secretary was going to be saying today about NATO membership?

MOULTON: I mean, there's a lot of chaos in this administration, I would agree with that. But this is one of the most important things that Trump is going to do, because negotiating over the future of Ukraine is not just about ending this war, it is about telling dictators all around the globe, especially Xi Jinping in China whether or not democracies are going to stand up to authoritarian regimes that try to take over foreign countries.

And we all know that if China decides to take over Taiwan, it could literally start World War III. You could see tens of thousands of American Troops die in that kind of conflict.

So there's a lot at stake with what's going on here. This negotiation really matters. We can't come out of this negotiation with Putin thinking that he has a win, and Trump is already literally handing him victories before the negotiation has even really started.

COOPER: It was interesting because Secretary Hegseth laid out this vision of a security infrastructure in Europe, of Europe, taking the lion's share of responsibility for Ukraine's security. Do you think Europe is actually capable of deterring Russia from future aggression? Do they have enough forces that would be needed to stay on the ground, on the front lines in Ukraine?

MOULTON: Look, Europe has stepped up big time to support Ukraine. They've increased their spending on defense and I'm all for that. I do want the Europeans to do more.

But the whole foundation of NATO, the whole principle behind NATO is that America has the Europeans' backs. That's the way it's worked for 75 years. That's the way that we've deterred conflict in Europe for 75 years.

So, if you suddenly take that off the table and say, oh, yes, no, America has checked out. Now, let's not forget that Trump has said this before, too. Trump has literally said, we will not support certain NATO countries where he's trying to take away territory from some of our NATO allies -- trying to take Greenland away from that. And this is just totally nuts.

And the problem is that it's very dangerous for the future stability of Europe. And because we do have NATO commitments, because that has been a bedrock of how NATO works, the next time Putin decides to start a war, because he said, hey, I got to win out of Ukraine, let's go to Poland next, let's go to Latvia next. American troops are going to be on the line.

COOPER: I want to play something that President Trump said to reporters today and get your reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I have the Secretary of Treasury right now who's actually quite brave. He's over in Ukraine on a train and there's a lot of things happening around that train that aren't so good.

And he's going there to get a document done where we're going to be assured that were going to, in some form, get this money back, because we're putting up far more money than Europe, and Europe is in far more danger than we are.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: How do you see that arrangement working out in the future?

MOULTON: I mean, it's really unclear what he's trying to ask for. I mean, I was actually just as a Marine veteran, thinking about the fact that a commander-in-chief is telling the enemy where one of his top deputies is.

Like, literally, he's on a train. You want to you want to kill a top official in the United States. You know what train he's on? I mean, this is a reminder that Donald Trump dodged the draft to get out of serving in Vietnam. This commander-in-chief knows nothing about what it is to go to war.

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

I want to get perspective now from someone who for whom defending Europe was part of the job description, CNN military analyst, retired Army General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark; also, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, senior fellow at the Center for New American Security.

General Clark, how do you think these negotiations are going to impact American NATO allies with regards to their own security? Does NATO have enough troops that they can police this?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Actually, if you take away American troops, the answer is no. They don't have enough troops. They do need to spend more on defense. I'm glad President Trump said move it up to five percent, that's great. They should have done that a long time ago and actually we need to spend more on defense.

But part of that is because we have a huge stake in the stability of Europe. And if we don't support Ukraine, were going to lose that stability, just what Congressman Moulton was saying.

[20:15:19]

And so, this negotiation is going to end up asking for Europeans to put troops on the ground. The question is, does the American military provide the backbone? Are we going to provide the support, the air support, the intelligence support, the logistics support, the fire support to back these troops up or not? And if so, we are engaged, it might then stabilize.

But if it's the way it's being portrayed, it's up to you Europeans. You know, we are really interested in China. Look, this is the fourth time in a little over a hundred years that we've seen instability arising in Europe. We stayed out. World War I happened, we had to go in. We didn't learn our lesson. World War II, we learned our lesson after World War II. And now, apparently, we've forgotten the lesson again.

We have another aggressor. He wants Europe. He's not limited to being happy with half of Ukraine. He says he wants to get at the root causes, well, the root cause is he wants more of Europe and he doesn't believe Ukraine should exist as an independent nation. So, we're not off on a good start on this.

COOPER: Andrea, in December of 2021, Russia presented NATO countries with a series of security demands that one of them was NATO deploying no forces or weapons in countries that joined the alliance after1997, a commitment to no further enlargement of the alliance.

Do you expect Putin to demand similar concessions to end this war?

ANDREA KENDALL-TAYLOR, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN SECURITY: Yes, I mean, I think it's clear that where Putin stands is just leagues away from where President Trump is. I mean, I think President Trump is grossly misreading where the Russians are, as the general was saying, at least in terms of Ukraine, he is talking about getting at these, "root causes of the conflict."

And so, for the Russians, that means he wants leadership change in Kyiv. He wants no NATO membership, and he actually wants the Ukrainians to amend their Constitution to enshrine that in their Constitution. And he wants to severely diminish the size and the capability of the Ukrainian military that it can't defend itself anymore.

Those are really serious concessions that he's asking for. And I think your point, Anderson, is spot on that this -- for Putin, it is about Ukraine, but it's also about much more than Ukraine. And you can be assured that President Putin will be pushing the envelope to see how much he can get from United States, especially when President Trump is making concessions before the negotiations have even started.

COOPER: General Clark, I mean, Ukraine is asking for security guarantees to ensure peace. The Defense Secretary Hegseth has ruled out boots on the on the ground. You talked about the United States providing kind of the backbone. What would that actually look like?

CLARK: You'd have air power. You'd have air defense. You'd have logistics. You'd have intelligence and there's a lot more to talk about on this, Anderson, because something like this, you have to have confidence building measures.

So, that if the Russians do reinforce, it looks like an attack is coming, then what are you going to do? And besides, we haven't yet talked about reparations. We haven't talked about the 250,000 Ukrainian children who have been abducted. We haven't talked about the war crimes. We haven't talked about the torture and the murder that the Russians have committed in Ukraine.

It's as though this negotiation has started -- it is like two little boys on the schoolyard who are all swinging at each other. Let's us separate and lets be nice to each other.

This country, Russia, started a major war in Europe. It is bent on aggression. It is the aggressor. It needs to suffer the consequences. And there's nothing in these negotiations that's been laid out thus far. It's going to have Russia pay any price. And that's a real bad signal for the rest of the world going forward.

COOPER: Andrea, what do you make of the release of Marc Fogel? Was that Vladimir Putin trying to curry favor with the new administration?

KENDALL-TAYLOR: Absolutely, I mean, I think that, you know, Trump is being manipulated by President Putin. Putin, from the time that Trump entered office, has had nothing but compliments and nice things to say about the president. And now, the release of this political prisoner was absolutely trying to shape the context in which these negotiations would move forward.

But you be assured that he is manipulating him because, you know, moments after the announcement was made of this phone call, air raid sirens were continuing to go off in Kyiv and there were threats of a ballistic missile attack. And by the way, that's not the first time that President Putin has escalated after talking to the president.

They had a phone call in the earliest days after Trump entered office or after he was elected, where Trump asked him not to escalate. And what did President Putin do? He used a brand new missile, the Oreshnik missile, which was a clear signal of escalation.

So, consistently we see president Trump being manipulated by Putin. So, that that is that is all part of this process.

[20:20:37]

COOPER: Andrea Kendall-Taylor, General Clark, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Next, more on that court victory for the White House. But also complaints about judges from the White House and Elon Musk. Do they have a point or is this legal hardball playing out in public?

Also ahead, more breaking news. President Trump now is the chair of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. He said it was a unanimous decision by the board there. But there's new reporting on that from CNN's Jake Tapper ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: More on our breaking news tonight. A federal judge has lifted the hold on the administrations federal worker buyout program. That in the larger backdrop to it. Now, the ruling from a Boston judge who was appointed, by the way by Bill Clinton, coming as it did shortly after the White House press secretary railed against just such district court judges.

[20:25:11]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Many outlets in this room have been fear mongering the American people into believing there is a constitutional crisis taking place here at the White House. I've been hearing those words a lot lately.

But in fact, the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch, where district court judges and liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump's basic executive authority.

We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law. This is part of a larger, concerted effort by Democrat activists, and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Now, along those lines, Elon Musk posted a kind of a weighted poll question of sorts online today. The proposition reads -- Federal judges who repeatedly abuse their authority to obstruct the will of the people via their elected representatives should be impeached. Yes or no?

Joining us now, former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin, bestselling author and supreme court biographer whose newest book, "The Pardon" has just hit the stores. Also with us, former Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin.

Jeff, I mean, how big of a of a victory is this ruling? JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Oh, it's definitely a win for the Trump administration. But what's worth remembering about all of these cases, including the many so far that the challengers have won, is that these are all preliminary rulings. All of them could be overturned in the district court, where the judges will now take fuller consideration, and then they will start working their way through the appeals process.

So yes, this is a victory for the Trump administration. And yes, the opponents of the Trump administration have won a number of cases along the way. But all of these cases have a long way to go before they are fully resolved.

COOPER: Judge, what do you make of what the press secretary is saying there that the real constitutional crisis taking place is these activist judges abusing their power?

SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE: Well, I couldn't disagree with that more. They're not activist judges. They're judges doing their job and following the law. Because in 1803, Chief Justice Marshall said on Marbury versus Madison, the judge decides what the law means.

So, the judge is doing his or her job. A case is brought in, the judge doesn't bring the case. Somebody brings the case to the judge. Judge listens to both sides. Judge makes a decision, follows the law as he or she sees it. So in no way do I think they're causing a constitutional crisis or acting like or masquerading as a judge.

TOOBIN: In fairness, I do think it's fully appropriate to criticize federal judges. I mean, the press secretary, like everyone else, has a First Amendment right. The claim of judicial activism is something that is raised all the time against judges on both sides.

So, I don't think we should, you know, be too fastidious about saying, you know, the press secretary is challenging the independence of the Judiciary. Not that you said that, you didn't say that.

SCHEINDLIN: I have no problem with that. But the question I was asked, are they causing a constitutional crisis? No, I don't think judges are causing a constitutional crisis.

COOPER: This judge wasn't ruling really on the merits. It was more that whether or not there was standing,

SCHEINDLIN: -- standing, yes.

COOPER: The people who brought the --

SCHEINDLIN: Right, which was the union and what the judge said the union didn't have standing. They're not affected by this. It's the workers that are affected. So, actually it's a win, but it's a really small win.

It looks good, so the Trump administration can claim a win. But it's a very small win because they can bring it back with the right plaintiff and try again. TOOBIN: The ridiculous Elon Musk question on X, it is a little closer to an outright threat. I mean, obviously no one's going to be impeached because of a question -- on a question on X, but, you know, when you start talking as Vice President Vance did in a in a tweet on X about not following the orders of the of judges, he didn't quite say that, but he certainly implied it. That's more troubling.

Criticism is fine and one thing that was good that happened yesterday is President Trump said clearly that he was going to follow court orders. That hasn't been a consistent message.

COOPER: He also said something about kind of looking at the judges.

TOOBIN: Right, which again, is a kind of threat. But, you know, First Amendment rights go to the president --

SCHEINDLIN: By the way, JD Vance said that three years ago when he wasn't vice president, he was running for vice president. So, he said what he said to get the job. But would he say now, today, we don't intend to obey orders? I don't think so because as the president said, oh, I always obey court orders and I intend to do so. So, I'd like to believe him this time that he means what he says.

COOPER: The concern about federal judges being impeached is that real?

SCHEINDLIN: No, it's absolutely not real. Now, the term impeachment means theoretically, it could get voted. I don't believe that could possibly happen. This isn't bribery. This isn't treason. This isn't high crime or misdemeanor. This is disagreeing with somebody's opinion. So, I don't see an impeachment. And even if there were to be articles of impeachment, there'd never be a conviction.

COOPER: Anyway, I should point out the new Attorney General, Pam Bondi, she declined to support Musk's call for impeachment.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, AUTHOR, "THE PARDON": Right. And you know, that shows she is part of the legal system in a more -- in a more conventional way. But, you know, Musk has a lot of support. So it is worth keeping an eye on how intense the criticism gets.

COOPER: Yeah. Jeff Toobin, Judge Scheindlin, thank you so much. Appreciate it as always.

Up next, president Trump now in charge of one of the most iconic performing arts organizations in the country. He says it was unanimous decision, but a source says that's not the case. We'll discuss this new front in the culture war with our Jake Tapper. Also tonight, a lot of attention paid to Elon Musk's adorable son, who he's been seen with a lot lately. Less well known, Musk concerned about low birth rates in some places which he considers a risk to the future of the human race. Details on that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:35:19] COOPER: There's more breaking news tonight. Today, President Trump announced that in addition to being president of the United States, he's now chairman of Washington's Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. He was elected by a board that he recently shook up, replacing appointees by Democratic presidents with Trump loyalists. He claimed the election was unanimous, but a source familiar with that vote tells us it was not, that there were both abstentions and no votes.

As for the board, it now includes Attorney General Pam Bondi, Second Lady Usha Vance, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, Allison Lutnick who's the commerce secretary's wife. CNN's Jake Tapper obtained audio tonight of the president and now Chairman Trump talking by phone with the new board.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It's a very exciting development. It is going to be great. I think we're going to do something very special. It got very wokey and some people were not happy with it, and some people refused to go. And we're not going to have that. We're going to have something that will be very, very exciting and we'll do things both physically and in every other way to make the building look even better.

I think we're going to make it hot. We made the presidency hot, so this should be easy. And it's just really, it is great to have -- I've just gone through all the names. It's great to have all of you with us. We're going to add a few more to get up to the, whatever the number is that we are supposed to be up to. But, it is going to be really exciting, really fun. I think you're going to enjoy yourselves and you're going to have a lot of good nights also, nights and days watching performances of great artists.

So, thank you all very much for your time and for being willing to do it. But I think it's, again, it's something a lot of people want and I think it's something you're going to enjoy for a long time to come. And thank you all very much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well join us now, CNN's Jake Tapper. So what more do you know about that vote, Jake?

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, the votes to make Donald Trump -- President Trump the Chairman of the Kennedy Center was not unanimous, as he said it was. There were some votes that were abstentions. There were some votes against. But I mean, he has packed it with loyalists. So, it was an overwhelming vote in favor of him.

And then there were two votes after that. President Trump called in, in the middle of the call. The first was to get rid of the current director, Deborah Rutter, who by all accounts has done a really good job as Director of the Kennedy Center. She was set to retire in August anyway, but basically to fire her and then to replace her with Rick Grenell and the president called in, in the middle -- in the midst of the voting on that and spoke for about four, four-and-a-half minutes. And you showed a little -- you played a little excerpt of that.

COOPER: So for people who aren't in Washington, I mean, the Kennedy Center is obviously -- it's probably best known for the Kennedy Center Honors. It is a program that is broadcast around Christmas time, usually honors big Hollywood actors and musicians. Well, President Trump then and the new board now choose which artists are to be honored at the program?

TAPPER: I mean, there is a -- there is a board of directors and they will supervise and they will be in charge of it. And you know, a lot of the people that the president has appointed to the board are political appointees, such as his new Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, his aide Dan Scavino, the Second Lady Usha Vance, et cetera. They will be replacing a lot of Democratic appointees, you know, President Biden appointed, his top aide Mike Donilon, Karine Jean-Pierre, et cetera.

Hopefully, the Kennedy Center will continue with the tradition of letting the people at the Kennedy Center make the decisions about which artists perform. The Kennedy Center, we don't have a Broadway like you fancy folks up in New York do.

(LAUGH)

COOPER: I work nights. You know, I don't get to go see these things.

TAPPER: I know, I know. It's a tough life. The -- you know, we have some theaters, Warner Theater and others, but generally speaking, the Kennedy Center is where -- it's where I took my daughter to see Hamilton. So there is just a lot of other business that goes on. But you heard Mr. Trump, President Trump, they are talking about how it got too wokey and I think that probably was a reference to the fact that there was a, I believe, I don't know enough about it, but there was some sort of a show involving transgendered or drag queen individuals.

And so, that was what he was talking about. Again, I don't know enough about that. But yeah, I mean, it is pretty remarkable for him to come in like he has and declare himself the Chairman of the Kennedy Center.

[20:40:00]

COOPER: And conventional wisdom was that in his first term that, you know, I guess, the arts and crowd in Washington wasn't all that welcoming to him. Has that changed, you think, for the second term?

TAPPER: I don't know that that's even true that the arts crowd wasn't welcoming to him. I mean, first of all, the Kennedy Center does make an effort to not, when they do their honors, you know, there, it's not just stuff that would appeal to blue states. There is usually, there's a country music artist that's honored as well. I mean, it's -- they do make an effort to have a diverse slice of Americana.

And you know, I can't speak to his perspective, President Trump, but you know, I don't think that the Kennedy Center was hostile to President Trump. I mean, the Kennedy Center does its job and certainly people can take issue with this programming decision or that programming decision, but as a general note, it's there to be -- there for everybody, whether you're a House Republican. I mean, I've seen, when I've gone to Kennedy Center events, there's always tons of Democrats and tons of Republicans. It just tends to be a non-partisan affair.

COOPER: Yeah. Jake Taper, appreciate it. Thanks very much. Thanks for calling in.

TAPPER: Thanks, Anderson.

COOPER: Coming up next, what Elon Musk is doing, including personally, to increase the population and what he fights what he sees as a threat to the existence of human beings in the future.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:45:50]

COOPER: One of the lasting images from that Oval Office appearance yesterday by Elon Musk was the site of his four-year-old son known as X. He's the oldest of three kids that Musk shares with Canadian singer and songwriter Grimes. Now, X has been seen at other events with Musk and the Trumps including election night, which you see here. But one of the many issues that Musk is interested in, that hasn't gotten a lot of attention, is declining fertility rates in some parts of the world. Randi Kaye tonight has to look at what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): What keeps Elon Musk up at night?

ELON MUSK, FOUNDER AND CEO, SPACEX AND TESLA MOTORS: I do think about the birth rates plummeting as being a civilizational risk.

KAYE (voice-over): In his eyes, declining birth rates in some parts of the world put us at risk for extinction.

MUSK: If people don't have more children, civilization is going to crumble. Mark my words.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is this why you have so many children?

(LAUGH)

MUSK: I'm trying to set a good example.

(LAUGH)

MUSK: Yeah. You know, got to practice what I preach.

KAYE (voice-over): Practice what he preaches indeed. Musk has had 12 children with three different women. One of his sons named X is often in toe, just like he was at the White House this week.

ZOE SCHIFFER, DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, WIRED: Elon Musk does see himself as this kind of global hero, this person who can save humanity, who has intelligence and capabilities above the regular person. It's not surprising that if he sees population decline as a core issue for the future of humanity, that he himself would play a crucial role in trying to fix it.

KAYE (voice-over): Musk who has been described as a proponent of in- vitro fertilization has denied a report in the New York Times that he offered to donate his sperm to friends and acquaintances.

SCHIFFER: He's quite preoccupied with global humanity-level extinction problems. This is part of the why he's obsessed with getting us to Mars. He's looking at a very long-time scale and saying like, the Earth is inevitably going to have an extinction0level event, and when that happens, we need to be ready.

KAYE (voice-over): Musk tweeted in 2022 that population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming.

MUSK: If the current compounding effect continues, you would see really many countries become 5 percent of their current size or less within three generations.

KAYE (voice-over): Musk is right about declining birth rates in some places. Japan's fertility rate, for example, is at a record low and deaths outnumber births. In the U.S., fertility rates are also considered below replacement level. In March of last year, The Lancet posted a link to its article declaring dramatic declines in global fertility rates set to transform global population patterns by 2100.

Still, Demographer Joseph Chamie, who has studied populations for decades, told me Musk has it wrong.

JOSEPH CHAMIE, DEMOGRAPHER, FORMER DIRECTOR, UNITED NATIONS POPULATION DIVISION: Those predictions are total nonsense. He's got so many things that he said that are wrong. The population of the world has quadrupled in the last hundred years. His remarks about collapse of population is simply not consistent with the facts.

KAYE (voice-over): Chamie says Musk is generalizing.

CHAMIE: There will be individual cases of countries that will face population decline because of low fertility, but world population is right now expected to go to about 10.5 billion by around 2085. I do not think that anyone that's looked at the data will say that the humanity is going to be extinct very soon.

KAYE (voice-over): In a biography published in 2015, Musk encouraged smart people to procreate. I'm not saying like only smart people should have kids; I'm just saying that smart people should have kids as well. I noticed that a lot of really smart women have zero or one kid. You're like, wow, that's probably not good.

MUSK: We have to take immediate steps, I think, to increase the birth rate or there just won't -- you know, no new humans means no humanity.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: And Randi joins me now. Elon Musk has actually donated money to research the population issue.

KAYE (on camera): Yeah. Anderson, the New York Times is reporting that in 2021, Elon Musk's Foundation donated $10 million to the University of Texas to study fertility and population trends. So he's clearly concerned about the future of humanity, but the population expert who we spoke with today said that without immigration coming into this country, the U.S. would see population declines within the next five to 10 years.

[20:50:00]

But he also said that overall, the global population is increasing, adding another 2 billion people likely by the end of this century. He also said that there are some projections that it would plateau eventually and possibly even drop gradually after that. But Anderson, I also mentioned that Lancet article in our story, that article notes that by 2050, it projects that at least three quarters of the countries will see a drop in fertility rates, meaning that they won't be high enough to sustain the population in at least three quarters of the countries, Anderson.

COOPER: And you mentioned Japan, what other countries are facing population declines?

KAYE (on camera): Well, certainly the U.S. Without the immigration coming in, we will see a decline. But also China is seeing a big decline. The population expert we spoke with, the demographer said that South Korea is really one of the biggest cases seeing low fertility rates and a population decline. And in Italy, Anderson, the Pope, it's become such an issue there that the Pope is encouraging married couples to have children. So, we are seeing this around the globe.

COOPER: Randi Kaye, appreciate it. Thanks very much.

Coming up next, how weight loss drugs like Ozempic may possibly help millions of Americans trying to control their drinking. New study says that. We'll take a look at it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:56:00]

COOPER: Looking there at the senate floor, members right now debating Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s nomination for HHS Secretary. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, Democrat of Nevada, speaking there. Earlier today, Republicans managed to break a Democratic filibuster on the pick. That vote this morning paves the way for a final vote tomorrow morning, which is expected to go Kennedy's way.

Several key Republicans who once were skeptical, most notably Susan Collins and Bill Cassidy, now say they will vote yes. Turning down to news on what's already a blockbuster drug. According to a new study, the weight loss injection Ozempic won't just help you lose extra pounds, it may also help curb cravings for alcohol and reduce drinking. Researchers say the findings could possibly one day help millions of Americans battling alcohol abuse. Dr. Sanjay Gupta has more.

So, you worked on a documentary late last year about Ozempic. At the time, were doctors curious about what else these medications could do?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, I mean, what was interesting is there was already a lot of anecdotal evidence coming out. They were seeing people obviously initially controlling their blood sugars, diabetics, and obviously then losing a lot of weight for which these drugs really became known. But the idea that it could also curb other things, drinking for example, that was anecdotal evidence.

And it was interesting because they were already proposing mechanisms by how this might happen. You know, the idea that these drugs would be working on the brain to some extent and actually an area of the brain there that's responsible for your feelings of reward, that you would do something and eat, for example, and not feel the same reward from the food. Maybe that would curb your appetite or at least be part of the reason it would curb your appetite. Could the same thing be happening with drinking?

So with that anecdotal evidence, this small study with just 48 people, they decided to put it to the test and basically, they had men and women in the study and these were women who drank at least seven drinks, men who were drinking at least 14 drinks. They had moderate alcohol use disorder as it's called. And they basically gave half of that group a low dose of these semaglutide medications, the Ozempic- like medications, and half the group got a placebo. And they basically followed them nine weeks later to see what would happen.

And again, small study, but it was a pretty significant finding. You know, 40 percent sort of decrease in overall drinking and you also had fewer drinks per day overall, fewer heavy drinking days, and reduced alcohol cravings. And that may go back to this reward mechanism. I think this reward mechanism is where a lot of the attention is going now. We know the drugs can have an impact on your gut. It can have an impact on your pancreas, but what these medications seem to do to the brain, I think is where a lot of the research is headed, Anderson.

COOPER: How big of a problem is alcohol abuse disorder in the U.S.?

GUPTA: It is a big problem. You know, you have about 30 million people, this is ages 12 and up who have alcohol use disorder and what is interesting, you have medications that do exist to treat alcohol use disorder, what used to be called alcoholism. Only about 2 percent of that nearly 30 million people will actually use those medications.

So I think, you know, even though some medications exist, the idea that new therapies are necessary, I think, is also what's part of -- what's driving this research. COOPER: And what about -- I mean, is there more data to come from this study, like on smoking or --

GUPTA: Yeah, so they found, and again, anecdotally, they're observing all these things. They're seeing people curb their interest and their appetites, obviously. But then the drinking and also smoking of that group of 48 people, 13 of them were smokers. And again, this wasn't part of the study, but they actually were looking at, were those habits being curbed as well. And they seem to be. They seem to be.

Again, I want to emphasize, these are small studies. They're going to need to be replicated. No one is saying that these are going to be medications that you are taking solely for alcohol use disorder or solely for smoking.

COOPER: Right.

GUPTA: But again, there's a lot of enthusiasm around this and we'll see what the data sort of bears out.

COOPER: Yeah, it's really intriguing. Sanjay, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

GUPTA: You got it.

COOPER: That's it for us. The news continues right now --