Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip

Delta Plane Crashes In Toronto; Airport CEO Says, No, Critical Injuries In Delta Crash; NTSB Assisting In Toronto Crash Investigation; "NewsNight" Tackles DOGE's Deep Cuts; Near Disaster In Toronto Becomes The Latest High Profile Aviation Accident In Recent Weeks. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired February 17, 2025 - 22:00   ET

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

[22:00:00]

SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST: Good evening. I'm Sara Sidner in New York in for Abby Phillip.

We begin tonight with the breaking news out of Toronto, upside down and burning. For 80 passengers and crew on Delta Airlines flight 4819 in Minneapolis, a terrifying end to their trip. Social media videos showing passengers in an upside down plane, scampering over overhead compartments, being tugged through exit doors only to turn and see the plane smoking, laying wrong side up on a snow covered tarmac.

It's a shocking scene. But the true shock is that everyone made it out alive. Officials revealing 18 people were though hurt, but most injuries are minor and everyone's expected to survive.

Airport traffic in Toronto just opened back up again for hours. Flights were diverted to Montreal while first responders tried to get control of the situation on the ground there.

Listening to air traffic control and the survivors, there were scant signs they were about to face a disastrous landing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Endeavor 4819, Toronto Tower, wind 270, 23, gusts 33, cleared to land Runway 23. Might a slight bump in the glide path, there will be an aircraft in front of you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Cleared to land 23, Endeavor 4819.

JOHN NELSON, SURVIVED DELTA PLANE CRASH IN TORONTO: When we hit, it was just a super hard light, like I hit the ground and the plane went sideways. And I believe we skidded like on our side and then flipped over on our back. Where we ended out, there was like a big fireball out this left side of the plane. And when we got finished it was -- I was upside down. Everybody else was there as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Paula Newton joins me now with more. Paula, you had landed at that airport not long before all of this happened. What are sources telling you as to what they can say about the investigation in the very preliminary parts of it?

PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Listen, they're obviously not going to say much now. They don't want to assume anything because that's part of a good, fair, and balanced investigation. Now, look, Canadian Transportation Safety Board, they're there now, as is the NTSB, right from the United States, will have a preliminary report out in about a month from now.

But when you are looking at this, you obviously have to look at the weather, right? It is the wind. It is the accumulating snow. Toronto had gotten over a foot of snow really in the last week.

Sara, I was at the airport. You could see the blowing snow, and I remarked that I have never seen that much snow blowing around at Toronto Pearson Airport, and I've gone through there hundreds of times.

At issue now, though, is also the fire chief weighing in this evening at Pearson and saying, look, I didn't notice any crosswinds and there was no snow or ice on the runway. Obviously, the investigation has to bear that out. But as of right now, they are looking at everything, because at the end of the day, yes, the conditions were poor, but could it have been also something with the landing gear? Could it have been pilot air at this point? We don't know.

But you listen to the eyewitness accounts, I mean --

SIDNER: Unreal.

NEWTON: On your side, then flipping over.

SIDNER: Yes, something that you don't normally hear about a plane. A car, yes, a plane, no. And the pictures are stunning to see that plane upside down with some of it looked like it was burnt. You know, some of the wings just torn off.

The emergency response, though, it was lightning fast.

NEWTON: Yes, it was lightning fast. It was textbook. I have seen those operations behind the scenes. In fact, I've been through every crevice of Toronto Airport. This is what they practiced for, and it was textbook. And they've only got usually a minute or less.

An incident happened in 2005 with Air France, Sara, same thing. 297 people, the plane stuck in a ravine. It blew up, it was destroyed. 297 people got out alive.

This should hearten everyone because I know everyone around the country and beyond is thinking right now is it safe to travel? But you just said it, right? Think about a car, right? If you're in a car, would you think that you could make it out that way in the same conditions? Here was an airplane. Yes, there were 18 people that did -- that were injured, including one child, but they're saying that, look, no one has life threatening injuries at this hour, and the investigation will continue. SIDNER: That absolutely seems impossible when you look at the state of the plane, and knowing -- listening to what the passenger said, that it had a very hard landing, and then it just started to tumble.

[22:05:01]

NEWTON: Yes. And, Sara, I cannot tell you how windy it was. There was -- even just to come out of that airplane, into that wind, onto that ice, it definitely would have been absolutely terrifying. And also for those first responders that knew that they had inside of 60, 90 seconds to get to that airplane.

SIDNER: All right. Paula, we're so glad to hear that no one lost their lives and everyone is expected to be okay. I appreciate it.

NEWTON: Thank you.

SIDNER: All right. Now, let's talk about how all this happened. The plane was attempting to land in high winds. And CNN's Tom Foreman is in D.C. at the Magic Wall to help illustrate what exactly went on here.

Tom, we mentioned those strong winds. Paula saying she'd never seen so much snow being picked up by these winds there in Toronto. Give us some sense of what that might have all looked like.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, investigators have to look at all of this, Sara. They have to look at those 40-mile-an-hour wind gusts. Some say they could have gone higher. They have to look at the temperature at the time. The wind was coming in this way. The plane was landing that way.

So, if we were to look at the plane in this fashion and say it's trying to hit a runway that runs like this, well, the gusts were coming at it from roughly this angle. And, again, we don't know entirely how strong they were at that moment or if there was a rogue gust, but many things could have happened here. This could have worked its way under this wing because they're doing maneuvers to avoid that, and it could have tipped it up. The plane could have been coming in at an angle, to try to angle into the wind, which is a common maneuver that pilots do, and then adjusting on the ground, the way they do that, and something could have gone wrong there. It could have slid on something, or it could have gone off the hard top in some type.

In any event, if they had a failure of the landing gear on one side, if they touched a wingtip, if they simply got off the main path they needed to be on, all of those could be one reason that the plane wound up like this, and yet people did survive.

SIDNER: They did. You have looked at sort of the configuration of this plane and the seats on the plane. What role do the seats on this plane potentially play here in keeping people safe?

FOREMAN: As much as people complain about the things that don't work in regulation and government, this really did work. One of the things that they require in here are called 16G seats. The G is like when you hear about fighter jets talking about G forces. It used to be 9G. Some years ago, they started requiring 16G, 16 gravitational force.

What that means is that these seats, unlike previous seats, could survive an impact like this, could roll over with people strapped into them, and they wouldn't tear loose from the floor. They wouldn't collapse. This doesn't happen in every plane crash, obviously, but when the fuselage manages to stay together, they want people to be able to survive. This type of seat, required in all the planes here, made a big difference in this, according to all the airline experts we've been talking about today, making it possible for people to survive an accident that otherwise it might have killed them.

SIDNER: And I say 16G, it's important to bear in mind the reason they stop at 16 gravitational force, 16G, is because any force beyond that would probably badly injure or kill you even in the seat. So, this is a very high level of security, and today, Sara, it worked.

SIDNER: I got to tell you, I learned something every single time you were on the air. I did not know that these seats had been upgraded that way. A lot of us are seeing these sort of thinner seats. It feels like they're tighter, but the safety of the seats is better. And that is better for all of us.

FOREMAN: That's what you're really paying for. Comfort is one thing. What you're really paying for is getting on the plane and coming off alive.

SIDNER: The same thing when it comes to flight attendants as well. They are there for our safety.

FOREMAN: Sure.

SIDNER: Tom Foreman, thank you so much. I really appreciate it.

All right, I want to bring in Daniel Elwell, former acting administrator of the FAA under President Trump's first term. He's also a former commercial and military pilot. Sir, thank you so much for coming on the show.

I first want to let you listen to what one of the survivors said happened. And as a former airline pilot, what do you think about these comments and if it tells us anything about what may have caused all this? Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NELSON: When we hit, it was just a super hard light-like hit the ground and the plane went sideways. And I believe we skidded like on our side and then flipped over on our back. Where we ended up, there was like a big fireball out this left side of the plane. And when we got finished it was -- I was upside down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: All right, so you heard that it hit hard, it went sideways, it skidded, they also talked about a fireball, he also talked about a fireball. Does that tell you anything of what may have had potentially caused all of this?

[22:10:00]

DANIEL ELWELL, FORMER ACTING FAA ADMINISTRATOR, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: Yes, it does. It does inform and the accident itself and the investigation will bear out all these things. But what interests me is that it hit hard, which could be indicative of a lot of things. But in heavy winds and gusts like that, it's not uncommon for there to be turbulence just before you land. And I did hear when you played that tower replay, that the controller said, be prepared for perhaps a bump, plane in front of you, or plane preceding you. And that indicates possible wake turbulence.

We call it from the preceding aircraft and all of those things. You think about the blowing snow and the icy -- perhaps icy surface and the gusting winds makes it a very challenging approach. And it is highly likely. I think that on that landing, they briefly lost control and it was enough to upset the aircraft and put it on its back.

SIDNER: Yes. Our senior correspondent and anchor here, Paula Newton, had talked about, she had just landed there and had left just before all of this happened. And she was remarking about how much the wind had picked up all the snow and sort of moved it all around. Is there a possibility that this sort of skidding, that the runway was part of the problem and helped to exacerbate the problem?

ELWELL: That could have been part of the issue. As Tom was explaining, when you're doing an approach to the runway in heavy crosswinds, you are pointing the aircraft into the wind, which puts the aircraft in a sideways position for landing. So, you have to correct that just before touchdown, where the wheels will sort of hit sideways.

And when you do that, you drop the downwind wing, the wing up -- the wing that's pointing into the crosswind. And if on touchdown, you relax and it's very easy to do that because when you land, you tend to okay, I got there. But if you relax, the controls and don't continue to fly the aircraft and control it on centerline. Then if you're not really careful, especially in icy and blowing snow conditions, you could have a wingtip hit and then that could cartwheel the airplane and put it on its back.

SIDNER: Terrifying just listening to you talk about what could have happened. And then we see these images that are unprecedented. I mean, I don't remember the last time I saw a plane upside down. We have seen other scenarios, certainly, where it's broken apart, where it is heavily damaged, but usually staying right side up.

I do want to ask you whether or not pilots and flight attendants train for this particular scenario where the plane has gone topsy-turvy and landed on its back?

ELWELL: Well, I don't know if they specifically trained for an upside down evacuation. It's a hard emergency to model in training, but I can assure you that almost every conceivable scenario, fire on one side and not the other, ripped open fuselage, there's every conceivable -- we even brief and train water landings and ditching. So, it doesn't surprise me, although it does make me kind of proud to see how wonderful those flight attendants handled and how the first responders were there almost immediately. And it shows you a little known fact that of all aircraft accidents, 75 percent survivability rate of aircraft accidents, and that's because the vast majority of them happen either on landing or take off.

So, most people usually survive and it's because we have amazing survivability built into these aircraft when things go awry, and we have very, very proficient first responders, flight attendants, pilots. It's really a tribute to them.

SIDNER: Yes, it truly is. You see some of the flight attendants helping people out and they're smiling and they're calm and they're just sort of doing their job with a smile on their face, trying to reassure people as they have just been through this, the pilots and the flight attendants themselves, terrifying situation where they were upside down, and to see that everyone survived is truly remarkable.

I do want to ask you this because, as you know, politics has played into what is happening at the FAA. It's played into the deadliest plane crash so far this year that happened over the Potomac. The FAA and its workers have been under a bit of attack by the president and the administration is laying off hundreds of probationary employees.

Is this a good idea right now when we know that the FAA is already lacking when it comes to the number of employees it needs or, for nothing else, the optics of it all?

[22:15:06]

ELWELL: Yes, it's -- these are very interesting times, of course. So, I think the effort is to reduce the total head count in government. And I will tell you, the FAA is not immune from that. But I do know that the recent rift, as we used to call it, reduction in force, as it applies across the government, will not apply to safety officials and safety workers at the FAA who are responsible for critical safety items, like controllers and safety inspectors and mechanics. They will be exempt from whatever they're doing with the probationary employees.

SIDNER: Yes. I think it was radar workers, but there is some concern that safety will be touched here. Is there anything else that you can glean from what you saw today on that runway? And can you reassure the public that it is safe to fly? It is hard for people to believe that in some sense, just looking at these pictures, though, everyone did survive and expected to be all right.

ELWELL: Yes. I mean, the only thing I can remind the public is that it is the safest way to travel. And you've all talked about how horrific this looks, and yet 80 people walked away, some injuries, but nothing life threatening. And you mentioned the accident we had at DCA a couple weeks ago. It was the first commercial airline crash in the United States in 16 years. That is no solace, of course, for those who lost loved ones in that crash, but it is still exceedingly safe, and the FAA is very, very good at inspecting aircraft, checking out pilots, and controlling air traffic. SIDNER: Generally, more people die in car accidents than they do in plane crashes.

Dan Elwell, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate your time for being here tonight.

ELWELL: Thanks for having me. Thank you.

SIDNER: More on our breaking news. We'll discuss what investigators will be looking to as they examine this plane and the upside down evacuations passengers faced. You're watching CNN's special live coverage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:20:00]

SIDNER: Tonight, cause unknown. The FAA will send investigators to Toronto to help figure out the how and why a commercial plane flipped over and put 80 passengers in a life or death situation. But Canadian authorities will be in charge of the investigation.

And joining us now is CNN's Safety Analyst David Soucie, who was a safety inspector at the FAA. It is so good to have you here. You are a voice of knowing and you know exactly how these things go down. What is the first thing you think investigators should look at or will look at?

DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: Well, one thing that stands out to me real clearly is the fact that this aircraft when he when Peter, I think it was the eyewitness said that they hit hard up front. Typically, if this was an aircraft that had undergone a side wind or some kind of gust, you wouldn't describe it as a hit hard, like nothing happened before then.

So, the first thing I'd be looking for is to see if -- a physical inspection of the airplane to see if the landing gear is still in the wing or not, in the wind wheel wells, because it would tell you whether they were extended or not, or whether they were crushed on the landing. Those are the first things I would look at. Also look at the fuselage to see if it has any cracks or bends in it from that hard landing. But that would give you a lot of clues as to what actually happened with that airplane.

SIDNER: You can see in the pictures just, you know, from the video that we're seeing not close up that the plane's missing a wing and a tail, and it looks like there's some blackening there from what it was described as a fireball by one of the passengers. What does all this tell you? I mean, is it possible that perhaps the wing hit and maybe flipped it over, or something else?

SOUCIE: Well, I think that wing hitting or the flipping over was subsequent to the initial impact. So, that's one of the things that I was mentioning before about this hard hit.

Now, one of the things that I'm so impressed with, and you know, I've been doing safety for a long time with the FAA and trying to get -- someone had talked earlier about the 16G seats and the fact that it made these survivable. So, for someone who's worked so many years in this, in 1987, there was an airplane crashed, a DC9 in Denver, that turned upside down, and I was there for that, and this aircraft did not have the 16G seats, and there were 25 people that perished in that, and we weren't able to get them out. In addition, the wings didn't break away when that aircraft rolled over like it did in this one. And that's actually by design. It's supposed to do that. If it didn't do that, it would have torn the fuselage in half and certainly would have resulted in fatalities.

So, for me, I know I have a strange perspective having done a lot of aircraft accidents, but for me, to see everyone walk away in this case, and it is testament not only to the flight crews and how they got everybody out, but also what went on before, long before this aircraft accident to make sure that these kinds of things are indeed survivable.

SIDNER: You just said something that sparked my interest because I hadn't heard this before. This is why we have you on Mr. Soucie, and that is that the wings are -- one of the wings sort of broke off. We would all assume that was a default, not by design.

[22:25:01]

Why is that?

SOUCIE: Well, I'll go back to this 1987 accident. So, the wings did not break off on that aircraft. It was a DC9, wasn't designed for that. It was supposed to be as strong as possible. So, in that case, it rolled over and the wings were still on the aircraft. So, when we were trying to get the people out of the airplane, the wing continued to push down and was causing additional fatalities because of the fact that we couldn't get the aircraft back in the right place.

So, in this case, with them breaking off, it allows the aircraft to slide slowly to a stop and remove all that inertia without destroying the aircraft as the wing is torn off. So, those are some of the, and there are many others we don't have time to get into, that actually made this a survivable accident. And I am so thrilled to see that all the work from the FAA and the NTSB and all the safety engineers along the years over the last 40 years have created an aircraft that was survivable in this situation.

SIDNER: The design and the people both helped make this happen.

I do want you to listen to a survivor who had this to say about evacuating the aircraft.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NELSON: It was a mass chaos. I was upside down. The lady next to me was upside down. We kind of let ourselves go and felt to hit the ceiling, which is surreal feeling. And then everybody was just like, get out, get out, get out. We could smell like jet fuel. Even now I smell like jet fuel. And then we just crawled out the back of their airplane. The firefighters, the M.T.s were there right away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: They were there so quickly. And you hear, they were upside down. So, everyone was upside down. The pilots, the flight attendants, and yet they were able to help people off. Are you amazed at how calm they are and smiling at each passenger they pull out?

SOUCIE: I really am. I'm so impressed with that. And not only that, but the airport, you know, preparedness starts at the top. And I forget the CEO's name. I think I wrote it down. Debra Flint, the CEO of that airport. Safety and preparedness starts at the top. And that CEO dibs credit for all that she's done to prepare for this, to be able to have that truck out there as quickly as it was. If he's covered in jet fuel, if that flame had gone any further, that would not have been a good situation. But they were able to extinguish those flames right away. And it starts at the top and goes right down to the person who's actually applying that foam.

So, I am so pleased with how that all came out, but trying to sit upside down in an airplane, I've done this before in a certification test for the Airbus 380 over to Luz, France, and trying to be upside down in an airplane and have the guts to pull that belt and fall down straight down onto your head is not something you take lightly. I'm so proud of how everyone reacted. They left everything on board. The flight crew was guiding people out, guiding them, calming them, keeping them assured that they're safe. It was just -- it was so amazing how everything came together properly for this accident.

SIDNER: And thank goodness it did. Everyone survived that crash.

David Soucie, you are such a marvel and a great source of information and we really appreciate you coming on.

SOUCIE: Well, thank you, Sara.

SIDNER: All right. How do Americans feel about the Trump administration's sweeping changes so far? Is DOGE doing too much or not enough? We have a look at what you are saying, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:32:52]

SIDNER: Tonight, are Americans happy with DOGE and its deep cuts? This afternoon's near disaster in Toronto was the latest high profile aviation accident in recent weeks. Right now, there are federal aviation agency investigators heading north of the border, but as the crash is in Canada, it is being investigated by Canadian authorities, as well.

We're also learning that DOGE, the Elon Musk-led agency, is already beginning its purge of the agency, charged with keeping U.S. skies safe. My panelists are here.

This seems a bit counterintuitive. I'm going to start with you, my friend Scott Jennings. The "A.P." reporting that their employees that are being laid off are on probationary status, so it's easier to lay them off because they're still on probation.

They include radar, landing, and navigational aid, maintenance. But isn't there already a shortage at the FAA? Why do this now, especially considering what's happened in the states, and now, of course, you have this other incident and a few others?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, well this one happened in Canada, but --

SIDNER: Yes.

JENNINGS: And I can only tell you what the Secretary of Transportation says. There are 45,000 employees at the FAA. We're talking about fewer than 400 people, and he says, zero air traffic controllers and critical safety personnel were let go. So, that's true. I don't really have a problem with it, to be honest with you.

I do like the idea of keeping the people who are in the direct chain of command of safety and the air traffic control system and so on and so forth. But I have a hard time believing that there is a single government agency that doesn't have a bloat of administrative personnel that we could probably do without.

And I think that's why a lot of voters are happy that Donald Trump and Elon Musk are finally going through the federal government and trying to take out some of this bureaucracy that we probably just don't need. So, I'm reading to you what Sean Duffy says. He's the Secretary of the Transportation. I have no reason to doubt his numbers.

SIDNER: Karen, when you hear this, I mean, look, Americans are concerned about bloat in the federal government.

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, of course.

SIDNER: They have been for a very long time. What do you make of how it's been meted out?

FINNEY: So, the concern that I, and I think a lot of Americans have, we can all agree there's bloat. We can all agree that we need to deal with that. At the same time, what we're seeing is speed for the sake of creating momentum to create a sense of things are happening.

[22:35:04]

At the same time, look what happened Friday. We had nuclear scientists fired and then they said, oops. We need those people because they have a technical skill that nobody else has. So, the problem that I have with the way they're doing it is, and I went to the DOGE website to see if they would say anything about, look, we are conducting this process to make sure we don't harm American safety, their health, or take money out of their wallets.

They don't say that. And so, we're finding out the consequences and the impact of some of these things. If you're a doctor for the V.A. in the Midwest and you're told you're going to be fired or you're waiting for this, you know, court to play out, what are you supposed to do with your client, the veteran who's got PTSD?

Are you trying to find them someone else to go see because you're not sure if you're going to be there in two weeks? Or are you assuming you're going to -- you'll be spared because someone will figure out that it's probably not smart to get rid of doctors at the V.A. who may be working on a critical function?

So, that's the concern. I think this could have been done with a lot more thoughtfulness about how do we protect people's safety, even if you said, look, we're going to take two weeks at each agency and try to do some kind of rubric to make an assessment, not putting it into an A.I. system, by the way, which is some of what we've read that they've done. And I think what we're going to find is a number of these oops moments that could be dangerous.

SOLOMON JONES, AWARD-WINNING COLUMNIST, "PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER": I just think they need to read the room. I mean, there have been three major plane crashes in just, you know, less than a month. One of them was just a few blocks from the high school I went to in -- in Northeast Philadelphia.

And, you know, tell that to the little boy with the medal in his head, trying to protect his sister during that plane crash. I think that not only do you have to protect the safety of Americans physically, but I think you have to protect our safety mentally.

You know, we see you laying off people from the FAA. At this point, nobody at the FAA is dispensable. I think you have to keep everybody there at least, you know, for the time being because we've had these major plane crashes that you haven't seen in 16 years.

SIDNER: Kevin, the optics of this is --

KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN, O'LEARY VENTURES AND "SHARK TANK"INVESTOR: No, no.

SIDNER: -- what you're referring to.

O'LEARY: I think the issue is they're not whacking enough. There's this concept in private equity when you get a bankrupt company and you go in there, you cut 20 percent more than your initial read. And then you find like a pool of mercury, the organization gels back together again. Always cut deeper, harder when there's fat and waste.

The FAA, it's not the people. The code is cobalt. It's from the '60s. It needs CapEx put into it for the technology to be upgraded to make it safer. Fat like a chicken. All of these agencies are like big fat chickens dripping over barbecues of fat. This is the best barbecue I've ever seen, but I don't think it's happening fast enough.

They're not cutting enough. Keep slashing. Keep hacking while you have a 24-month mandate before the midterms. Cut, cut, cut. More, more cutting. Believe me, it's going to work out just great. Everybody should be happy with this. SIDNER: Even people with the nuclear codes, cut them, too.

O'LEARY: Cut everything because if you don't see what they're doing and they can't show you that they're adding value, you whack.

FINNEY: But it's clear that they're even asking people to show them, show us what you're doing. Again, this was a story Friday and literally, Elon said, oops, we got to rehire them because nobody knows how to do what these people know how to do.

O'LEARY: Yeah, they need to think, okay, gets it wrong once in a while, big deal, so what? I agree with that 10 percent of the time.

JENNINGS: It's okay. I actually think it's okay if they run into a stumble here or there because the project is so massive. The need to cut is so massive. The government is so massive. It's inconceivable that you wouldn't make a mistake here or there. But I think that's acceptable if the greater goal is achieved, which is a smaller government, more efficient government, trim the fat.

FINNEY: Even if someone is -- if someone dies?

JENNINGS: Are you alleging that someone has died from this?

FINNEY: I don't -- we don't know. I'm talking about when the rubber meets the road. I'm talking about, for example, Kansas City. Thirty thousand government employees might be laid off. It will destroy the economy of Kansas City. That's okay?

O'LEARY: Why do you say that?

FINNEY: Because I'm reading what the individuals from Kansas City have been saying, that they're very concerned.

O'LEARY: What do you think they're going to say when they're going to get whacked?

FINNEY: Of course they're going to say that, but my point is, do we think that's smart, to live in an American city, just go under?

JENNINGS: How many American cities need a massively oversized federal government to stay afloat?

FINNEY: Okay.

JENNINGS: I mean, isn't that more about the city than the government?

JONES: But when did we get to the point where presidents are measuring themselves by how many people they put out of work instead of how many people they get jobs for?

JENNINGS: Not a moment too soon. Not a moment too soon.

JONES: This is -- this is crazy. This is absolutely crazy. And if they're big fat chickens, hopefully they lay some eggs and maybe then we can afford it. MICHAEL MOORE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: This strikes me as something that

was done just for the sake of doing. And I don't -- I think it was a tone deaf move. It wasn't a big enough cut to do anything.

[22:40:00]

It was a completely tone deaf move. I mean, I find people are always interested in efficiency as long as it doesn't affect them. And it's strange to me that we've got enough people to go and ride around the racetrack behind the presidential limousine and such and to guard three residences.

And we're never cutting people from there. But to come now and make sort of a tone deaf move to cut the FAA is again, this is just an image thing and they won't be seen as doing something.

SIDNER: Michael Moore, I want to ask you about what your take is on the fact that DOGE is expected to gain access to the IRS. And this has caused a lot of stir, obviously, because everything from your address, how many kids you have, who you married, what business you're in. That's all in there, all of your information, what you make, who you donate to. What do you make of them sort of being able to access some of this information?

MOORE: Yeah, I mean, I think there's really a few places that we're as protective of our privacy as in our social security information and our health records. And just like I wouldn't want Elon Musk and his friends going through my doctor's office, looking at my health records just to see if they might find something where they can cut, I don't think we necessarily need them in our -- in our IRS office.

You know, this is not -- this has gone sort of from an efficiency move to almost an enforcement move now. Maybe that's what the E is for in DOGE. They're wanting to go in and hunt out criminal enterprises and hunt people who are doing for fraud. That's not what this was set up for.

This was sold as an idea that we're going in and sort of look at it. You know, how many number two pencils and staplers are we cutting and trimming back? Not that we can then use the information that we gathered to go track people down and try to sort out fraud from the taxpayer.

That's not what efficiency is. There's an agency to do that. DOJ does this. They prosecute people who commit tax fraud. But for Musk to go in and let his people kind of look through the records and try to find fraud, I think it's a bad slope.

FINNEY: You know, state in the obvious, it doesn't matter what any of us around this table think. It really will matter as the rubber meets the road, how Americans feel. And we know that the pooling is a little bit mixed. There are people who --

O'LEARY: Really?

FINNEY: Yes. O'LEARY: So far, so good. People are loving this. The first time ever

-- the first time ever you're asking government to actually say, what do you do with my money?

FINNEY: Sixty-six percent of Americans are saying they're not doing enough to lower costs. And they're saying that at a time when inflation is up, unemployment is up, gas, groceries, rent, costs are up. And while we see Trump using his power to strong arm Putin or and Joe try that and you know go after the "Associated Press" or "Paramount", we don't see him using that power to say I'm going to lower your cost right now -- not you.

O'LEARY: He said he was going to do this. He got elected on this mandate.

FINNEY: But he's not doing -- he's not -- but I --

O'LEARY: He said to the American people, are you tired of the waste? You want me to fix?

FINNEY: But they didn't vote to have Elon Musk going -- rooting through their data. My point is something different. My point is, ultimately, I don't care who you are. I don't care if you're Joe Biden or you're Donald Trump.

If people don't feel like you have materially made their lives better, if people don't feel like you've got inflation down or cost down, you will pay the price. And the people who pay the price are the Republicans who are up in the midterms.

JONES: It was funny that he said, you know, he said, yes, I'm going to cut government, I'm going to cut waste, I'm going to cut fraud, I'm going to -- you know what else he said? He was going to cut prices. That hasn't happened. That's not something that -- well, in three weeks he could fire --

FINNEY: Well, he got rid of a whole agency.

JENNINGS: Do you think it's a legitimate political debating point for the previous administration to have overseen historic inflation over four years and then you to come out and say, four weeks, I guess Trump's a failure. Let's move on.

JONES: He said on day one, I will lower your gross meat prices and he has not done it. Prices have gone up.

JENNINGS: On your point, I agree with you that the ultimate measurement of him will be on whether people feel less economic anxiety. I disagree that he hasn't done anything. A lot of his executive orders were aimed at energy, which is the, I I think the fastest thing he can do and issue regulations.

FINNEY: Energy prices are going up.

JENNINGS: But really, what he does now over the next couple of months with the Congress, I mean his real agenda will come in the reconciliation bill. Taxes, energy, immigration. I mean the stuff he really ran on, that's where the real policy rubber hits the road and he's going to have to get these guys in Congress to go along with them and they're obviously, you know, working on it right now. But if they cannot get that done, that will be a problem. But I think they'll get there.

O'LEARY: By the way, Elon Musk has no executional mandate. He can just -- he's unique. He's got his own international broadcast network called X. He just finds these issues. He, in 48 hours publishes them and you read them and every --

FINNEY: Not exactly.

O'LEARY: -- American goes what is this?

FINNEY: Doesn't exactly work that way.

SIDNER: Let me --

FINNEY: I've checked the site. It doesn't quite work that way.

SIDNER: To that point --

O'LEARY: There's no executional rights.

SIDNER: -- to that point, he is using X and he is using the website and you can go on the website and sort of, you know, track some of it.

FINNEY: You kind of, it doesn't always tell you what the thing was.

SIDNER: But here is something that has struck me and that has kind of come up recently.

[22:45:01]

You know, DOGE has gotten some things wrong. We know that they're going to, right? Here are some of the things that they've gotten wrong. USAID did not give millions of dollars in direct grants to "Politico". It did not fund the visits of celebrities to Ukraine. It did not fund the send $50 million worth of condoms to Gaza for Hamas nor anywhere else, actually. And it did not pay $84 million to charge people.

O'LEARY: That's $200 million versus billions that they have found.

SIDNER: What I am saying though here is this is false information that is put out then on X and then it is used to troll people including those who have gotten some of these grants who are regular Americans just trying to live their lives and some of the information is false.

O'LEARY: False information on social media? Oh no.

SIDNER: Right.

JONES: But when the owner is working for the government, I mean, it's a problem. SIDNER: When the owner is working for the government --

FINNEY: And he has no accountability.

SIDNER: So, is this a good way to do business, is what I think.

MOORE: I think it's great. I think that --

FINNEY: I'm sure you do.

O'LEARY: Because all it's doing for the first time ever is saying, look, here's a guy that's getting paid nothing, that is doing this as a patriot and saying, look. I have this remarkable execution skill, you can't say Elon Musk doesn't deliver what his mandates are, putting people into space and landing rockets. I mean, look, let's just give the guy some credit -- he can deliver.

You may not like him, but he's saying, look, I own this network called X, I paid $45 billion for it. Let me go into these agencies. I'll pull the data out. I'll publish it, you look at it. Tell me what you want to do and let the government decide on their own because I have no executional rights. I'm just shining the light of transparency on the fat dripping off every chicken and I'm looking at it saying, whoa.

SIDNER: He is getting a lot of the fat, though, right? Elon Musk is one of the biggest beneficiaries of government aid.

O'LEARY: Got it. But he's being transparent.

JENNINGS: We hire him to do things.

SIDNER: Right.

JENNINGS: We hire him to rescue our astronauts.

JONES: Which make it a problem that he can look at all the government data and see everybody who gets paid, see what they get paid, where they live in session.

JENNINGS: How many other people are rescuing the astronauts? Are there other competitors?

JONES: I mean, he has --

JENNINGS: We hired him to do --

UNKNOWN: Conflict of interest.

FINNEY: Can I just mind you, though, SpaceX, the last launch they did -- it blew up. So, if that's who we're counting on to bring the -- remember, President Trump was there.

JENNINGS: Are you really casting aspersions on this company?

FINNEY: I'm just saying --

JENNINGS: Come on.

MOORE: I think the ring of patriotism about Musk might be more true if he had divested --

FINNEY: Yes.

MOORE: -- and was not still doing contract and business work with the government. And he does have exclusive access to information without going through the background checks and the other things that we expect people to do. I mean, he basically is just a --

JENNINGS: He has security forces, though. He's had them for a long time.

MOORE: He can get anything he wants to now from Trump. And he's selling this stuff.

SIDNER: We are going to go through a break. This is a good conversation. We are going to talk about something. Coming up, that I know a lot of you all folks talk about quite a bit. Does Europe need to step up? Is Donald Trump going to capitulate to Russia or does he have some other plan? The United States benching Ukraine from key negotiations for now. What we know and what we expect, after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:52:29]

SIDNER: Tonight, negotiations will begin to try and end Russia's war on Ukraine, but Ukraine won't be part of the first negotiation. The United States is about to hold high-level talks about the future of the country with Russia first. That was more than enough to spark a frenzy of diplomatic fury across Europe.

It sparked European leaders to convene a last-minute meeting in Paris, the main topic the assembled countries want to find consensus on. What sending troops to Ukraine would look like, and what American backing they can get to make sure any deployment would have teeth.

Foreign Affairs Analyst Reena Ninan is joining me now. Thank you so much for being here. How can you negotiate anything about Ukraine where the war is happening, where they were invaded, without Ukraine there and only talking to the aggressor?

REENA NINAN, FOREIGN AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yeah. You know, we've heard National Security Advisor Mike Waltz come forward and say that actually they are. They've got a seat. And it was interesting to hear Volodymyr Zelenskyy say, I'm going to be talking to the Crown Prince in Saudi Arabia to also get his support on this issue. You know, they are the brokers. They're hosting these talks.

What's interesting is there's a big worry on the Ukrainian side that the Trump administration will cut and run. And then, whatever gains they have made on the battlefield would be lost and that sovereignty and territorial gains. But more so, the bigger concern, Sara, is what are the security guarantees? And that's also an issue for Russia. We've heard them say, no, NATO is not on the table. And then we heard

Secretary of Defense Hegseth last week say, yeah, you know, NATO is not going to happen. And then you saw the senator from Mississippi, Republican Senator Wicker, come forward and say, wait, that's a rookie mistake that the defense secretary made. You can't telegraph before you go into negotiations what's going to happen.

SIDNER: Yeah, and Hegseth also saying, look, you're not going to be able to keep the territory that Russia has taken in 2014, which is the Crimean Peninsula. I want to ask you whether or not you think that Europe can cobble together a plan without the United States, or maybe hoping to get some guarantees from the United States.

NINAN: And that's the big question. What are the security guarantees that are in place? Ukraine needs it. They will get eaten alive by Russia. Russia will be more emboldened. That's another big fear in all of this. But without U.S. backing and support on the ground, even with an allied Europe that they know that they need this for their own security, it is increasingly hard, Sara, without U.S. support to be realistic about the gains on the ground and that Russia would become more emboldened.

[22:55:00]

SIDNER: Has Trump given hints as to whether or not he will capitulate to Russia?

NINAN: You know, if he is the art of the deal and the most masterful negotiator, this deal between Ukraine and Russia could be one of the biggest deals he will ever negotiate in his lifetime. Does he have his lunch eaten by Russia at the negotiation table? And does the Russians walk away?

I want to tell you, I heard from one source that in Riyadh will be Putin's most trusted advisors, people who have spent time in the U.S. Harvard educated that really know their way around the negotiation table and also what the Russians want. So, they're showing up with their A-game and their top negotiators in Riyadh this week.

SIDNER: All right, we will wait and see. Reena Ninan, it is a pleasure to have you on tonight.

NINAN: Good to see you.

SIDNER: And thank you for watching "NewsNight". CNN's coverage continues in just a bit.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)