Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
ICE Plans to Give Officers Gloves that Can Give Electric Shocks; Conflicting Accounts After ICE Officer Points Gun at Woman; Trump Claims He was at "Greater Risk" than Those Left on Other Plane; Trump Sued on First and Fifth Amendment Grounds Over Paid Truth Social Access; Washington Post Reports Trump to Spend at Least $900 Million on White House Construction Projects; Protests Over Trump's Border Security Project at Big Bend National Park; Colombian President Says Earthquake Death Toll Rises to 265; Total Solar Eclipse Sweeps Parts of Europe, Partial Eclipse in 27 U.S. States. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired August 12, 2026 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: ...whole new kind of awakening on some of this but, all right, Neil, I appreciate you as always, it's wonderful to see you and thank you for helping U.S. Just end on a more positive note than sometimes we get to do.
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON, ASTROPHYSICIST: Any time we get an excuse to look up, I'm all for it.
BURNETT: All right. it's wonderful to see you Neil, I appreciate you.
TYSON: Thank you.
BURNETT: And of course, we appreciate all of you for being with us every night. AC360 begins right now.
[20:00:30]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Good evening, from the Newsroom. We begin tonight with two new developments, putting ICE, which has been more quietly following White House orders to make 2,000 a day very much back in the spotlight. Neither of these developments is quiet, least of all this one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Back with the gloves.
(A DEMONSTRATION OF A PAIR OF ELECTRIFIED GLOVES WORN BY THE MAN ON THE LEFT.)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: That is a demonstration of a pair of electrified gloves worn by the man on the left, and soon by ICE officers. According to the Department of Homeland Security, ICE is planning to spend as much as $20 million to buy these electrified gloves. Unclear how many that would mean or where they go into use, but deliveries are expected to start by the end of next March.
Now, the manufacturer says they deliver up to 380 volts. For comparison, a household socket is 110 volts, but the current may be different, so it's hard to compare. The gloves are marketed as a way to de-escalate encounters with individuals; that's one ICE development.
Tonight's other development concerns an encounter just outside Washington, which saw a U.S. citizen and mother of two looking down the barrel of an angry ICE officer's gun. This is a frame from the cell phone video; Carolina Molina recorded on Monday. We're going to show you the encounter, and we want to warn you there are some profanities used by Miss Molina toward the ICE agent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ICE AGENT: You almost ran us over.
CAROLINE MOLINA, U.S. CITIZEN: I didn't almost ran you over.
ICE AGENT: You almost ran us over, stop playing.
MOLINA: You are so full of sh*t.
ICE AGENT: Stop playing --
MOLINA: You are full of sh*t.
ICE AGENT: --All right, you're not funny.
MOLINA: You're not funny.
ICE AGENT: I will arrest you. Keep it up.
MOLINA: I'm a legal citizen. I don't care. Oh, my goodness.
ICE AGENT: I'm going to lock you up.
MOLINA: Okay, for what?
ICE AGENT: She's the one that tried to run us over.
MOLINA: Run you over, when? I got recording, I got dash cam. I got dash cam. That's a lie.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: She did have a dash cam, two in fact, facing forward and back from her car. She tells CNN affiliate WUSA that she's a therapist who works with immigrants and was on her way to meet immigration lawyers when she says she saw ICE officers handcuffing two Latino men. Now, the video does not show that handcuffing, nor does it show her doing what the ICE officers accuse her of, trying to run them over.
Miss Molina has released a little more than two minutes of dashcam footage, of which 37 seconds are that gunpoint encounter you just saw, but from a different angle.
So, we're going to play you a little more than a minute. The forward- facing camera in her car is at the bottom of the screen. You'll see that, and then the backward facing cameras at the top. Again, we do not know what, if anything, was not caught on camera. Here's what we can see, starting with her shouting at the officers, then turning her car around because she says she did not want to call their attention to the office she was visiting. We bleeped out the "f" words, the curses she hurled at the officers.
In it, you see the officer from before getting out of his car with his gun already drawn. This is the moment in question so you can get a closer look, and again, there is profanity.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOLINA: Yo ho, You're "F***ed" up. You're "F". Are you really --
ICE AGENT: Are you following us?
MOLINA: No, I'm not.
ICE AGENT: Are you following us?
MOLINA: I'm actually leaving cards.
ICE AGENT: This is a warning, once.
MOLINA: I'm leaving cards.
ICE AGENT: Just so you know, you need to stop following us, all right? This is your warning. Stop following us. Yes, you recorded us. You almost ran us over.
MOLINA: I didn't almost ran us over.
ICE AGENT: You almost ran us over. Stop playing.
MOLINA: You are so full of sh*t.
ICE AGENT: Stop playing --
MOLINA: You are full of sh*t.
ICE AGENT: --All right, you're not funny.
MOLINA: You're not funny.
ICE AGENT: I will arrest you. Keep it up.
MOLINA: I'm a legal citizen. I don't care. Oh, my goodness.
ICE AGENT: I'm going to lock you up.
MOLINA: Okay, for what?
ICE AGENT: She's the one that tried to run us over.
MOLINA: Run you over, when? I got recording, I got dash cam. I got dash cam.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Miss Molina was not arrested. She just spoken with reporters and saw federal officials who are making what's become a familiar accusation that she weaponized her vehicle.
CNN Shimon Prokupecz joins us now with details on both. What else is she saying about this encounter?
SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, she certainly denying that she tried to run anyone over, that she was following them, that she was using her vehicle in any way to try and prevent them from doing what they were doing.
She also talked about her cell phone and why she had the camera, and how that kind of changed what was happening there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOLINA: When I decided to bring out my cell phone and record and that is when it feels like the situation changed. It feels like then he started planting the seed of, you are trying to run us over, she was trying to run us over, et cetera, et cetera and that is not the case. I was actually trying to leave.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:05:30]
PROKUPECZ: You know, the thing is, when you see those officers that especially that officer, come out with his weapon there, they are already agitated. So clearly something was going on, but they are very agitated. And what is so striking and what we see time and time again is them quick, so quickly go for their gun like there's nothing else. Theres no de-escalating, it's just grab the gun and just how close they are to her, her face pointing it through her windshield essentially at her and that's the tactic here, as we've seen other times.
COOPER: What is DHS saying?
PROKUPECZ: So, like you said, Anderson, you know, it's always that common word they use, the weaponization of the vehicle. So, in the statement, they said that on August 10th, on Monday, while ICE was conducting targeted immigration enforcement in Falls Church, Virginia, an anti-ICE agitator, what they're calling her began to drive her car in circles around ICE officers and then attempted to harm officers by weaponizing her vehicle against them all in an attempt to help illegal aliens get away.
She, of course, denies all this, and from all the video that we have of this, two plus minutes from her, none of it shows that. And specifically in that moment when they pull, when that one officer pulls the weapon on her, that's the most significant part.
COOPER: The dash cam does not show them arresting the two people that she says she saw. And so, we only see about 30 seconds or so before she's actually, they box her in and --
PROKUPECZ: Right, but it's again, we're in a situation here, you know, officers pulling their weapons. Why? Why did it escalate to that situation where this officer needed to pull his weapon?
COOPER: I want to bring in former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin, also former acting ICE Director John Sandweg and former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.
Andrew, we obviously limited to the two minutes of video that's been released, but do you see anything that would warrant an officer exiting his vehicle with his weapon drawn like that?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: No, there's no facts in the video that we've seen that really support that. In fact, I think the video would be a very effective training tool in most police academies as to how to not conduct an arrest of this sort. I mean, he, you know, from the video that we have two minutes of footage. There's nothing in there that substantiates their claim.
I should also say that if in fact, they thought that she had tried to run them over and they thought they needed to arrest her for that, you don't do it in the way that you see here in this video. You would box her in, you would get out of the other side of your vehicle, you'd take a position of cover, and then you would call her out of her vehicle, have her prone out on the street and, you know, handcuffed and take her into custody. None of that happens here.
So, it's just the whole thing doesn't add up. And of course, you have this really frightening escalation of the encounter by getting out of the car with a drawn weapon, walking right up to her open window. Again, a danger, she could easily in. That in that moment, they don't seem to be worried about that at all. They put the gun right in her face and just start to scream at her.
It does not support the version of events that we have heard from ICE and that should not surprise us at all. It's just the latest encounter to fall into that category.
COOPER: Jeff, I mean, you know, the driver is saying she did curse at the officer. She used the "f" word at them as she was driving by. She cursed while she was rolling on her camera as well. Does that factor in, does that matter?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: No, you don't get to, you know, the potential use of deadly force just because someone said bad words to the cops. People say bad words to the cops all the time, and their job is to try to deescalate those situations.
I do want to just be clear that we really don't have the full story of what happened here. And even though we have two minutes of video, which is more than we often have in these situations, but, you know, the larger question of what is ICE doing? And are people effectively trained for these kinds of encounters? That's come up over and over again.
You know, the outfits they were wearing, they weren't exactly in plainclothes, but they weren't exactly in a uniform. I mean, all of those have been controversial, certainly were controversial in Minnesota, which led to the two deaths there.
You know, ICE is not something we can talk, you know, the former head of it. But this is not the kind of work that they have done. And particularly not well lately.
COOPER: John, we should note ICE arrests seem to be increasing, not decreasing. Earlier this summer, according to "The New York Times", ICE detained more than 10,000 people in just a five-day period. How do you see this incident in Virginia?
JOHN SANDWEG, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR, US IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: Well, that goes for me, Anderson. Like Jeff said, this is not historically what ICE agents have done, right?
Remember, we spent the last six years where ICE primarily was picking up people who were already in federal custody. We had that huge surge of people at the border. ICE had to pick all those, you know, a good number of those immigrants up from the border patrol stations and of course, ICE always is pulling people out of prisons and jails. But the thing is, all those people are already in custody.
With the border numbers dropping and this mass deportation campaign hiring and this mass hiring of ICE agents, we've now seen the administration push these agents out into positions hat's really not what they're well trained to do, and certainly not consistent with their experiences. And, you know, Anderson, it does, again, this this is what, we're had 20 shootings, turning out of vehicle stops.
[20:10:49]
COOPER: Do you think they're getting enough training?
SANDWEG: No, I think listen, Secretary Mullin came out what about just a month ago and said we need to pause these stops in order to do some additional training and take a hard look at why this keeps happening. The President overruled him, but I have to tell you, I mean, there's clearly a problem here and the Secretary was right to call for that pause.
COOPER: And Shimon, I want to talk about these gloves, these gloves, have you seen these before?
PROKUPECZ: No, so, I just --
COOPER: They're used in some, in some --
PROKUPECZ: In prisons and jails. And the reason why is because in jails, so they are, it's a confined space. You can, you know, if inmates are agitated or if inmates are not complying, you put your hand on them and perhaps try to gain some control.
But this idea that they want to now give them to ICE officers, should be concerning for everyone because you're dealing in a much different environment. You're in the streets. These officers, they already have tasers, but they seem to never use those. They're always going for their guns first. And I think just giving them more equipment. If you ask any experts on this, they'll say, right now, what ICE needs and these they need better training. They need more training, not more equipment.
COOPER: Well, John, let me ask you, if you don't feel there's enough training as it is, what do you think about the addition of like shock gloves, of gloves that actually give electric jolts?
SANDWEG: You know, Anderson, there might be a time and a place, right, for ICE officers to have these. As was mentioned a second ago, right in a, in a prison environment. But what concerns me here is we have this widespread use of force problem. Now we're going to add another tool, right? An administration that's really cut back on the training available to the officers rather than increase it.
We have new officers coming on board, and one other thing quickly that you just pointed -- the way they've effectuated that increase is by really focusing in on non-criminal populations, and those non-criminal populations, it's easier to make the arrests. You can make more of them, but the quality goes down in terms of that nexus to public safety. But were seeing all these airport arrests.
We're seeing a lot more arrests when people are coming in for immigration interviews, people coming in to get their green card, people showing up in immigration court or checking in ICE offices. So, when you say, okay, now were going to be deploying these new less than lethal type tools, right? When we're focusing more on a civil immigration enforcement, you know, arrests against individuals who have no criminal history whatsoever, obviously, it's going to raise concerns.
COOPER: Yes. Andrew, I mean, the manufacturer says the gloves, you know, are intended to deescalate encounters. Do you have concerns about it.
MCCABE: Yes, absolutely do and I agree with John's comments entirely. The idea that we're going to take a population of folks who we think are probably not adequately trained, maybe not adequately led, they are currently suffering under a ridiculous, like politically generated burden of trying to execute 2,000 arrests a day under that pressure, exhibiting a real challenge is in terms of dealing with the public, being able to interact with the public in moments of frustration and pressure, and now we're going to give them shock gloves that will basically enable them to punish people who don't comply in a completely unaccountable way.
This is not like firing a taser gun or a firearm in which witnesses will know that that happened. Right? This is a very, taken outside. it's probably intended use and facilities and prisons and unleashed on the streets to be applied to anyone in any one of these encounters that we've seen. It's really a kind of a frightening concept and unfortunately doesn't give the organization and its officers what they actually need.
COOPER: It's kind of amazing with just looking at those gloves, Jeff, I mean, if you see an ICE officer, you'd have no idea whether or not they have these gloves.
TOOBIN: Absolutely, and you know, de-escalation is a very much a two- edged sword because, you know, what the ICE is saying is, well, instead of shooting people, we'll use these gloves. But in fact, what often happens is if you give people, if you give law enforcement a tool, they will use it more.
So, the idea that, well, we'll just, you know, give people gloves and it won't be as bad as shooting people. They shouldn't have to. You know, that in itself will probably create more problems than it will solve.
COOPER: I appreciate it, Jeff Toobin, thanks very much, John Sandweg, Shimon Prokupecz, Andrew McCabe as well. Jeff's going to be back a little bit later in the program.
Coming up next, what we are learning about who went with the President on the plane, he snuck on to avoid a feared Iranian attack and the high government officials who flew on the decoy plane that he left.
Later, the new challenge to the plan to charge for early access to the President's social media feed, and how much money it may make him.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:19:36]
COOPER: New details tonight about who was on the smaller Air Force jet with the President after he snuck off the bigger Air Force One, leaving the NATO Summit in Turkey. You see, it circled there. That and who was stuck on the big one to be, in a word, decoys, if Iran is feared, actually tried to take it down.
Turns out, it wasn't just members of the press flying on the decoy plane. Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.
Traveling with the President on the other plane, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the President's assistant, Natalie Harp, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino and Director of Oval Office Operations Walt Nauta.
They flew in secrecy and presumably greater safety compared to the big 747 the others were on. Though when asked about it, the President seemed to think or claim he was actually taking the greater risk by escaping in the catering truck.
[20:20:30]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Why was it too dangerous for you to fly on Air Force One, but not too dangerous for the press?
DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, I don't know, I think actually, the plane that I flew on was at greater risk. I think it was at greater risk because that would be the plane, I think that we, that they would be more likely to go for. I have a lot of threats. I have a lot of threats that you don't know about. Any consequential President has a lot of threats. Non-consequential Presidents don't get threatened, and I think that I may be the most consequential President.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, joining us now is CNN chief White House correspondent and anchor of "The Source" Kaitlan Collins. So, is there any indication how the decision was made as to who went on which flight? I mean, Marco Rubio is fourth in line to the presidency. Scott Bessent is fifth in line. Marco Rubio is the Secretary of State and the National Security adviser.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN'S CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT AND THE ANCHOR OF "THE SOURCE": Yes, Anderson, it doesn't seem to have been based on stature inside the Cabinet or within the West Wing, really, it's proximity to the President, because the people who traveled with him are the people who typically are on the road with him the most, when he's in the motorcade, when he's gone away from the White House or Washington. Those are the aides who are often by his side.
Dan Scavino, Natalie Harp and Walt Nauta, certainly, especially in the West Wing but also when they're on the road. And "The Washington Post" is reporting tonight that Secretary of State Marco Rubio knew what was happening, that the President was not actually going to be flying on the aircraft that was billed as Air Force One, that primary aircraft, and also knew about the threat against the aircraft, is what led to the change here and still decided to board that primary plane with the unsuspecting members of the traveling press corps, other White House staff, members of the Secret Service, members of the U.S. Military, all on board that other flight.
And so, it's not clear how they made the decision who was going with President Trump on that other plane that also included the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth. And also, Anderson, one thing that the White House has also not answered our questions on is whether any extra precautionary measures were taken for that plane they believed was under threat by the Iranians as part of this intelligence that they got before they carried out this elaborate ruse for President Trump to get on board.
And also, I think one other thing that were missing still, as we've been trying to report this out, is Turkey's role in all of this. Obviously, NATO, they're a NATO ally, and that is where the President was flying out of. So, for the concern to be this high that it warranted the President changing planes, as he said last night, he was told by the Secret Service to do so. Those are still questions that we have not gotten answers to yet. COOPER: We heard, you heard the President there say that the secret plane he was on was actually the one at biggest risk. Does that -- I mean, does that make any sense? I mean, that the Secret Service would take him off, you know, the bigger Air Force One put him on a plane that was actually a greater risk. It seems to contradict the entire idea of sneaking him onto the plane in the first place.
COLLINS: Yes, that comment stood out to me as well, because also, I mean, the reporting has been and what has been confirmed by our sources, not just at CNN, but also several other outlets, including "The New York Times" and "Wall Street Journal" is that other plane, it wasn't able to be tracked. It didn't have a call sign that said Air Force One, obviously, because it was a secret plane that the President was on. It was a military style plane that typically just carries VIPs like the Defense Secretary and top Cabinet officials when they're traveling without the President.
And so obviously, they went to the lengths to make it look like the President was on this plane that took off, the Air Force One plane when he was not. And so, you know, I was talking to Barbara Starr, our longtime Pentagon correspondent, about that. She was saying if the concern was a shoulder fired missile, as we have been reporting, that potentially it is something that could use that using as a heat seeking missile and that would warrant the concern.
But obviously, the entire plot of this and the point of it was that the President was taking a plane that whoever was going to potentially carry out this attack would not know he was on. And so therefore, it's not dangerous. And so, when you listen to those comments or you hear the President even right after when reporters were asking him about the threat and he was saying, well, if I go, you go. I mean, that's obviously not the case because he was not on the plane.
And I want to make sure this is not just about the media and concerns for their safety here. There are members of the military that are flying Air Force One that are on that plane, that serve the food and take care of the guests who are on board. There are members of the Secret Service who are on board. There are members of the Cabinet. There are members of the President's own White House staff. There were unwittingly on a plane that they did not know, did not have the President on it, and was actually the target of an Iranian assassination attempt, potentially.
COOPER: Yes, Kaitlan Collins, thanks very much. We'll see you on "The Source" at 9:00.
Coming up next, the constitutional challenge to the President selling early access, selling early access for up to $100,000.00 a month to his social media feed, never been done before.
Later, new reporting on the skyrocketing price tag for the President's White House construction projects. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:29:22] COOPER: Well, President Trump is now being sued over selling early access to his Truth Social posts. And yes, this is one more thing the President of the United States is selling. The lawsuit has been filed by the Freedom of the Press Foundation and The Intercept. It alleges the expense of subscription for instant access to his post is unconstitutional and violates their First and Fifth Amendment rights.
The lawsuit also states, "The President stands to gain financially by giving market moving government information to those who are willing and able to pay his personal company. There is no legitimate interest, let alone a significant one, in permitting President Trump to profit from selling government information."
Among many things, the President often uses Truth Social to announce policy decisions, executive orders, personnel changes, even war declarations. This week, Trump Media said it signed more than ten customer agreements with mostly high frequency trading companies that are willing to pay between $60,000.00 to $100,000.00 per month for access, which would mean anywhere from $7 million to $12 million a year. Just from those ten customers.
[20:30:37]
Joining me again, former Federal Prosecutor, Jeffrey Toobin. And is this -- I mean, I was on vacation, so I missed this little nugget of --
(LAUGH)
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: This story, even by current standards, is almost unbelievable.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: I didn't even know it was --
TOOBIN: Unbelievable.
COOPER: It never occurred to me you could monetize an early --
TOOBIN: Well, and you can really -- and you can see why people want to buy it, because --
COOPER: Sure, yes.
TOOBIN: You know, like just on the Iran War, he keeps announcing, you know, that we're in a truce, we're not in a truce, all of which affects the price of oil.
COOPER: Yes.
TOOBIN: And that, especially for high-frequency traders --
COOPER: Yeah.
TOOBIN: -- you can make a great deal of money. COOPER: Right, and if your company didn't have access to this, you're at a disadvantage compared to others.
TOOBIN: Absolutely. And -- but the thing is, as with so much that the president has done, it's not clear that it's within the reach of the law. These two plaintiffs, it's not clear to me that they would have even standing to bring this case.
COOPER: They say it's violating their rights.
TOOBIN: Well, yeah, but the fact is, these Truth Social posts are public, ultimately, so the legal question is, does the fact that other people have early access to it violate these plaintiffs' rights? I think that's going to be a tough case to make.
The real issue here is bribery, is straight-up bribery, you know, money to the president in return for acts. But thanks to Trump v. United States, official acts are off-limits for prosecution, so I think he's probably unfair (ph).
COOPER: So his posts on Truth Social are official acts?
TOOBIN: Absolutely.
COOPER: So he can make money from official acts?
TOOBIN: The remedy for that --
COOPER: Because I was going to say, well, what about the argument that these are, you know, he's privately just posting stuff?
TOOBIN: Right. Well, the -- as far as I can tell, I mean, this is all so unprecedented, you know, no president has had the gall to do anything like this before. But the real --
COOPER: Because there used to be a thing called shame that existed.
TOOBIN: Yeah, shame. I read about that in the books.
COOPER: Yes.
TOOBIN: But bribery is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a ground for impeachment. Remember impeachment?
COOPER: Sure.
TOOBIN: That, you know, is obviously something that could happen theoretically. You look at Congress now, of course, it's never going to happen. That, to me, is the most appropriate response to this. But politically, that's just never going to happen.
COOPER: What does that even matter?
TOOBIN: What?
COOPER: What does that even matter? TOOBIN: Well, it --
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Isn't it twice already?
TOOBIN: Well, that's just it. That's why it's not going to happen again.
COOPER: Yeah.
TOOBIN: But the idea that even that they thought of this, profiting so directly --
COOPER: Does anything matter? Seriously.
TOOBIN: That's kind of a Zen question.
COOPER: No.
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: I don't know.
COOPER: Isn't that the feeling?
TOOBIN: Well, you know, he's not very popular, so, I mean, things, you know, have had an impact. But in terms of his bank account, things have been great.
COOPER: It's -- I mean, there's -- of all the things to sell, I mean, the vodka, the phones, which I can't even remember the phrasing of it. I think it's -- they're not -- they can't say they're manufactured in the U.S. because they're not. But they are designed with American values in mind, I believe, from memory that was what --
(LAUGH)
TOOBIN: Right. Well, this is a quantum difference from those because, you know, the phones, the steaks, the vodka, none of them were part of his official duties. Here, he's selling --
COOPER: Right.
TOOBIN: -- presidential actions in a direct way, which I think is without precedent in American history. And nothing's going to happen.
COOPER: Yeah.
TOOBIN: I mean, this lawsuit, we'll see. But I think they're going to have a tough time.
COOPER: Yeah. Jeff Toobin, appreciate it. Thank you.
Coming up now, a new reporting on the ballooning price tag for President Trump's construction projects at the White House. The Washington Post reports the Trump administration is set to spend at least $900 million, a majority of that for the new ballroom complex, but also includes the new helipad and a new Visitor Screening Center. That number is primarily taxpayer dollars which the president, of course, once said would not be spent on the ballroom.
Complicating the money trail, The Post finds the administration is moving some funds through an obscure office called the Executive Residence, which is normally used for housekeeping and repairs on the residential side of the White House. The Washington Post investigative reporter, Jonathan O'Connell, is on the byline, joins me now.
Jonathan, so just walk us through your reporting on this. How much of this $927 million, according to the reporting by you, is going to projects that could be considered necessary and might have been undertaken no matter who was in the White House, compared to how much is going to President Trump's personal priorities like the ballroom, the new helipad, the rose garden revamp? The list goes on.
JONATHAN O'CONNELL, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Oh, sure. I think the White House Visitor Center has been envisioned for a number of years. Previous administrations have talked about it, and there's been some planning around it.
[20:35:00]
You know, the centerpiece of this, of course, is the East Wing where President Trump would like to have a new ballroom. There have been discussions previously about whether the East Wing needs upgrades or could have a larger ballroom. The issue here really is that he just knocked it down without a plan that Congress had seen and without any funding that Congress had at least intentionally provided for it.
So now, he's somewhat locked up in court over whether he can continue going because he did this sort of workaround with Congress.
COOPER: And how much of this is it known is taxpayer money, and are there any restraints on how it's actually used?
O'CONNELL: So this $927 million, Anderson, is the best tally we have. Of that, we can see around $305 million appears to be donations, private donations. And the president has said repeatedly that the ballroom portion of the East Wing will be paid for by private donations. Sometimes he's left out the reality that the rest of the East Wing is going to be paid for by the public.
And we can see, again, like these large transfers of money by the Budget Office that are coming from the Secret Service, from the White House Military Office, that are, you know, they've been appropriated money by Congress. It's a little unclear what the sources of some of them are beyond that.
COOPER: Is there any historical precedent for renovations in and around the White House at this scope and this expense?
O'CONNELL: Man, Anderson, you've got to go back a pretty long way. I mean, in 2008, 2009, under George W. Bush, you know, President Obama, we had some upgrades to really like infrastructure of the buildings. It is a very old building, you know, like the lighting, HVAC, electrical, that sort of thing. Other than that, you've got to go back to President Truman, because at that time, a significant portion of the White House was really almost falling apart, and there was an expensive at the time renovation.
But even that, like previous presidents, when they want to make -- or previous administrations, when they want to make upgrades to the White House, the people's house, they make a proposal, they send their people to Congress to ask for money, and the Congress debates whether to provide it or not and how quickly to provide it. And then they use that money and go out and contract for companies to build it. And they just have skipped so many of those steps here.
COOPER: Has the White House responded to your reporting?
O'CONNELL: Yes. Again, they're standing firm on the idea that the ballroom, specifically within the East Wing, would be paid for by private donations. And they say that their transfers of this money, this money that has been appropriated by Congress, will be spent and is being spent according to Congress' original intent, without necessarily saying where the money is from and how much they're planning to spend it all.
COOPER: Jonathan O'Connell, as always, great reporting. Thank you so much.
Up next, a battle at Big Bend National Park in Texas. Protesters pushing back as crews move in to clear land for the president's border security project. And later, an update from Colombia, where the death toll is rising from this week's powerful earthquake. Crews are still searching for survivors. We'll have the latest.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:42:12]
COOPER: Well, we started the hour with ICE back in the spotlight over a stop in Virginia. Now, we want to take you to the Big Bend National Park in Texas, where a border security project of the president is drawing some protests. Inside the park, bulldozers have started clearing vegetation that will eventually become about 200 miles of border patrol roads. Vehicle barriers and surveillance cameras are also planned, all of it funded in part by the president's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill and fueling controversy.
More now from CNN's Ed Lavandera, who's at the national park.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Raging anger is echoing off these canyon walls.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This has nothing to do with border security and everything to do with corruption.
CROWD: Yeah.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): Protesters gathered in one of the most iconic spots in Big Bend National Park. They're horrified by the Trump administration's border security construction efforts, which is now being unleashed in this patch of far west Texas.
JEFF RENFROW, RESIDENT OF TERLINGUA, TEXAS: We are at war with these people. It's a peaceful war. But if you think what you've seen so far is bad, you wait until they unleash holy hell on this place next week.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): Last week, crews started carving through the pristine wilderness of Big Bend National Park for what's being described as a surveillance road. The sight was captured by a 27-year- old activist trying to stop what she calls this needless destruction.
NATALIE NEWMAN, ACTIVIST: Yeah, more than anything else, I feel heartbreak over all of this.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): Natalie Newman navigates the roads in Big Bend armed with her camera. She takes us to where construction crews have started their work.
LAVANDERA: Do you feel like you're just fighting a giant beast?
NEWMAN: Oh, yeah, this thing is so much bigger than us, and that's why I'm glad it's finally getting out well beyond just west Texas because there's not many of us out here, and this is huge.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): The Trump administration's plan threatens to dramatically alter the landscape of not just Big Bend National Park, but much of the region surrounding it, stretching roughly 500 miles. The plan involves five different projects costing more than $7 billion. The Department of Homeland Security and Customs & Border Protection will build nearly 200 miles of border wall, install steel vehicle barriers, and carve hundreds of miles of new roadways through part of the park's 800,000 acres and beyond.
All of this in a sector that officials say only accounts for about one percent of all illegal border crossing apprehensions. The early plan unveiled by the federal government included a border wall inside the national park, but now DHS and CBP say that's not happening.
NEWMAN: This is not the end. This is the beginning.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): That hasn't eased the tensions. The anger over this plan is visible all over the area. Banners blasting the border wall have popped up everywhere. Local Republicans and Democrats are unified in their opposition to what's happening.
[20:45:00]
SHERIFF THADDEUS CLEVELAND, TERRELL COUNTY, TEXAS: I'd be all for it if it was necessary, but it's not necessary.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): Thad Cleveland is the Republican Sheriff in Terrell County. He was also a Border Patrol Agent for 26 years. LAVANDERA: They want to put in vehicle barrier in a lot of this.
CLEVELAND: Yes, sir.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): In his office, he showed us a map of where the plan in his county is to put about 160 miles of steel vehicle barriers along the Rio Grande. There's only one problem.
LAVANDERA: And these are places where it's physically impossible to drive a car through.
CLEVELAND: 100 percent. Makes no sense at all to put a vehicle barrier.
LAVANDERA: Must be scratching your head going like, what are we doing, folks?
CLEVELAND: Definitely. I'm very disappointed.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): At the beginning of the first Trump administration in 2016, we came to the Big Bend region.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I want you to tell Donald Trump that we already have a wall.
(LAUGH)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): And reported on what many feared the new president might bring to this area, and asked this question.
LAVANDERA: How in the world do you build a wall in this kind of terrain?
LAVANDERA (voice-over): Ten years later, we're sitting down with the former Superintendent of Big Bend National Park, Bob Krumenaker. He says the more pressing question is not how, but why the Trump administration is doing this.
BOB KRUMENAKER, CHAIR, KEEP BIG BEND WILD: I would say it is one of the most insane and destructive and, yes, ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. I never really thought anything this absurd would happen in any national park, let alone the one I know so well.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Ed Lavandera joins us now from Big Bend National Park. What are the chances this project gets halted?
LAVANDERA (on camera): Well, you know, there are a number of lawsuits in the works. We should point out that early on, when this was first announced several months ago, the federal government waived dozens of environmental impact laws, cultural impact laws to speed this process along. So there are lawsuits based around that as well. But really, what people here want to see is statewide elected Republicans speaking out against it. We haven't heard much. The Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, has been relatively quiet on this.
Senator John Cornyn did write a letter to the Department of Homeland Security this week, Anderson, urging the agency to listen more closely to the fears and concerns of residents here. But whether or not these things will make a difference, it's hard to say right now.
COOPER: Yeah, I mean, it's interesting to hear from that Republican sheriff who said, look, you don't need vehicle barriers in a place where no vehicles can go. You mentioned growing tension within the town nearby. What else do you see beyond banners and signs?
LAVANDERA (on camera): Well, what residents here are seeing is a lot of these companies that have been hired to do the contracting work in these projects, they're starting to bring in heavy machinery, they're setting up staging areas for the steel barriers and all of that kind of work.
They also need camps for their employees, these contract workers to live because there are many businesses, hotels, restaurants in town that are simply refusing to serve or to let any of these workers stay in their establishment. So that tension is really intensifying.
In fact, one man at the protest today earlier today, Anderson, said that he would be willing to chain himself to one of the heavy machineries and get arrested and be taken to jail if he had to do that to stop what is being done here.
COOPER: Ed Lavandera, appreciate it. Thanks very much.
Now to Columbia, this is new drone footage we want to show you showing the devastation in the hard hit city of Cali after this week's powerful earthquake. Columbia's president just gave an update. He says the death toll has risen to 265 people. Rescue teams continue to work to try to find any remaining survivors buried in rubble.
David Culver is in Cali. He joins us now. So what are you seeing there, David?
DAVID CULVER, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, I just had to step away from one of the most active search sites with probably 500 or 600 people who are actively working on multiple apartment buildings that have collapsed.
And the reason we stepped away and out of that zone because it's gone totally silent. Maybe we can pan over just a little bit and keep the signal going for you, but you're noticing they've stopped traffic here on what is a major road. And they do that during the moments of total silence because, essentially, they want to be able to listen in.
And now they've just resumed again. They want to be able to listen in on microphone devices that they have planted in some of that rubble. And you can see from above on that drone footage, if you look closely, there's a bunch of little lights that are moving around.
Those are some of the hundreds of search crews that are now within that and kind of weaving their way through the cavernous areas that they've been able to break out. I think one of the things that's really concerning right now, and it's been pointed out, is the jump in the number of missing that came in the past few hours or so from 100 to nearly 500. That number is expected to go up even more.
And increasingly there's a lot of concern, Anderson, that there aren't enough official resources, if you will, those with heavy machinery, those with the technical know-how to actually go forward with some of this search and rescue. And there's been some pushback and criticism against the government here even at times saying that they haven't been allowed in from other countries, including Mexico. That's said to be working itself out.
[20:50:00]
But one alternative to that have been just loved ones of folks who are missing, who have flown in. Even I've met several from -- one guy lives 30 to 40 minutes from me in South Florida. He came in yesterday to look for his dad, and he's still looking at this hour, Anderson.
COOPER: There's this remarkable video that we've seen, showing a baby being rescued from the rubble. I understand you spoke with one of the rescuers. We showed this last night. What did you learn?
CULVER: He works two blocks away from here, and that rescue was happening in this site just next to me. And we caught up with him because he said he left his day job, which has nothing to do with first responding or firefighter or any sort of search and rescue work, but rather he works in a bank, and his name is Brian.
Here's what he told me about that moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN OSORIO ZULUAGA, COLOMBIAN DOING RESCUE WORK IN CALI: [Foreign Language]
CULVER: You saw that the baby's little head. He's not a first responder. He works in a bank, and he was just around the corner and rushed down the street where the collapse and rescue is still underway for several others, and he says he goes there, and he hears [Foreign Language]. What did the boys say?
OSORIO ZULUAGA: [Foreign Language].
CULVER: The voice says, I'm here. I'm here with a baby. Brian and several others immediately go in, over the course of three to five minutes, they're able to pull the baby out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CULVER: There are pockets obviously, Anderson, that have complete, if not total destruction, and there are then areas that look totally fine. However, Brian pointed out to me when I said, it doesn't seem like even those areas are getting back to any sort of normalcy. He said, no, as he described it, this city and much of the areas that have been affected are paralyzed. And he said, for him, nobody's going to want to go back to any sort of day job or any sort of regular life because they see the need to continue searching. And this, as they see it, Anderson, is the final night to really make big impact before you get that 72-hour mark after the earthquake.
COOPER: It's amazing that he went from his job and heard that, and was able to help get that baby out. Incredible. David Culver, thanks for the report. I'm glad you're there.
Next, a total solar eclipse sweeps across parts of Europe. What it looked like, the path of totality ahead. We'll show you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CROWD CHEERING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:56:38]
COOPER: Millions around the world were treated to a rare solar eclipse today. It was the first time since 1999 that a total solar eclipse was visible in parts of mainland Europe. As day turned to night, with the moon blocking out the sun, the site delighted people on the path from Greenland to Spain. And if you were trying to view it from America, you were able to see a portion of the eclipse in 27 states.
Joining us now is Adam Frank, Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Rochester and the author of the "Everyman's Newsletter." So Adam, what stood out to you about this solar eclipse? Was it great? Was it a disappointment? They're not all the same.
ADAM FRANK, PROFESSOR OF ASTROPHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: They're not all the same, but every time they happen, they are an answer to the deficit of wonder that we have in the modern world. And it reminds us that we're living in a universe where everything is moving all the time. So I was really happy to see that the skies were clear over much of Europe.
The interesting thing about this one was that it was shorter, by two minutes almost, than the amazing one we had a couple years ago here in the United States. And that's really all about the architecture of the heavens, about sort of how the moon goes around the earth and whether it's closer or further away from us when the eclipse actually happens. So that difference, I think, is a beautiful example of just sort of how subtle the motions in the sky are.
COOPER: I love that phrase, the architecture of the heavens. What does that mean?
FRANK: Well, you know, why do we have eclipses? Why don't we have an eclipse every day, right?
COOPER: Tell me.
FRANK: Basically, the moon is traveling around the earth at about 2,000 miles an hour. Its orbit is tilted, and the tilt is actually rotating as well. So it's actually kind of rare that you get that perfect alignment where the moon is directly in front of the sun.
And also, most planets don't have eclipses. The moon, we have this strange accident where the size of the moon, how far away it is from us, the size of the sun, how far away from it is, gives us this perfect overlap in size. If the moon were a little bit closer, it would completely blot out the sun all the time.
If the moon were much further away, it would just be a little tiny blip on the sun. That perfect alignment, which probably shaped human history, is kind of a cosmic accident of when we live and where we live.
COOPER: When and where is the next solar eclipse?
FRANK: I think the next one, Europe gets the next one. I believe it's actually, it might even be next year. You know, they're happening regularly at different times in the, you know, at different places in the country. But really, you know, Europe's kind of lucked out that they get the next big one.
COOPER: And I understand that there's a meteor shower that can be seen from the northern hemisphere tonight.
FRANK: Tonight, tonight. It's a cornucopia of wonder. Tonight, go out after midnight. Be willing to hang out for a while, particularly at the early hours of the evening. There's no moon, because the moon's on the other side. It's on the day side of the planet, right? So it's a moonless sky, which means it's going to be very dark skies.
And what's happening is the earth is passing through the trail of a comet from a while ago. And there's sand grains, literally, we're passing through like a cloud of sand grains. And those sand grains will produce lots of meteors, maybe 50 to 100, you know, every hour. So it's really worthwhile to have your mind blown to go out there and, again, see where we live. See the architecture of the cosmos, of the heavens.
[21:00:00]
COOPER: I have so many questions about the ever-expanding universe, but I have like 10 seconds, so I can't ask any of them. But I'd love to have you back. Adam Frank, thank you so much.
FRANK: That would be great. Thank you.
COOPER: That's it for us. The news continues. "The Source with Kaitlan Collins" starts now.
