Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Interview with Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA): Admiral Ordered Second Strike on Alleged Drug Boat; White House Vows Immigration Crackdown After Shooting of National Guard Members; Americans Paid More, Got Less for Their Money. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired December 01, 2025 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: This afternoon, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt revealed that a follow-up strike killed survivors aboard an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean on September 2nd. The White House says it was done, quote, in accordance with the law of armed conflict. We've also learned that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has spoken with lawmakers who've expressed concerns.

Members of both parties are vowing to conduct oversight on the matter. Let's discuss all of this further with Congressman Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts. Congressman, thank you so much for sharing part of your afternoon with us.

First, I just want to get your reaction to the White House saying that all of this was legally above board, and further, whether you perhaps were one of the lawmakers that the secretary spoke with.

REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D-MA): No, the strikes would not be legally above board under the law of armed conflict.

[15:35:00]

More fundamentally, the law of armed conflict doesn't even apply here because we're not at war with Venezuela. And I know that because I'm a member of Congress and I haven't voted to declare war against Venezuela nor will I.

And this, Boris, is what obscures the deeper reality here. This president is trying to pull a blood for oil version 2.0. Twenty years ago, a different Republican president told Americans that we had to effectuate regime change in a distant country in order to protect democracy and uphold national security. But really it was about the oil.

And now, yet again, a Republican president is telling Americans that for national security we have to topple a regime in a foreign country. But really it's about the oil. Venezuela has the biggest oil reserve in the world and the president's oil friends want their hands on it. And so they're convincing him and he is complying to launch boots on the ground.

And the question that I'm going to call for my Republican colleagues here in Congress is, are they going to be a rubber stamp for blood for oil version 2.0, or are they going to do something about it?

SANCHEZ: I do want to ask you more broadly about policy toward Venezuela, but specifically on these boat strikes. If you believe the administration committed a violation of international law, a potential war crime, what should be the consequences?

AUCHINCLOSS: Secretary Hegseth and the officers in the chain of command should be allowed to present their side of the story. They should be able to put facts in front of a candid audience under the uniform code of military justice. And the outcome of that investigation can either be that they are cleared or that they should be held accountable for a war crime, in which case they should all be prosecuted.

Certainly, Secretary Hegseth should lose his job if that's the case.

SANCHEZ: I take it that I just based on what you said that Secretary Hegseth did not reach out to you, though he's apparently concerned, or rather spoken to lawmakers who are concerned over these boat strikes. I read that both Senate and House Armed Services Committees have promised vigorous oversight. Do you trust your colleagues on the House side at least to fully investigate this, even filing subpoenas?

AUCHINCLOSS: Do I trust Republicans to hold Donald Trump to account? No, I would say the last decade has proven that trust to be hollow. They need to step up, though, for the rule of law, whether it's on the Epstein files, whether it's on ICE raids in American cities, whether it's on troop deployments that violate posse comitatus, whether it's on military adventurism overseas, whether it's banning stock trading by members of Congress, whether it's holding this president to account for meme coins and his crony capitalism.

Republicans in Congress need to remember that they are Article I, that they represent their constituents, and they are not subservient to the president, but rather must conduct oversight and investigations. The moment they do that -- the moment I'll work with them.

SANCHEZ: Last month, officials told members of Congress that the U.S. does not have a legal justification that would support attacks against any land targets in Venezuela. Do you have any information to indicate that that has changed?

AUCHINCLOSS: No, I have no indication that that has changed. Congress has the authority to declare war against Venezuela and to authorize the president to conduct hostilities against a foreign power. Congress has not done so.

Congress will not do so because Democrats are united and Republicans themselves are actually divided on this issue. The votes are not there. And the reason the votes aren't there is because the American public doesn't want to go to war with Venezuela.

They do not want to see American troops shed blood so that the oil majors here in the United States can get even richer. And this version of crony capitalism masquerading as national security or diplomacy is undermining respect for the rule of law here at home, and it's undermining American strength overseas.

SANCHEZ: So how should the U.S. then handle Nicolas Maduro, who is widely known to be a dictator who is ruthless with his own people and who is suspected, credibly, of being involved in some form of drug trafficking?

AUCHINCLOSS: Nicolas Maduro is a terrible leader who has immiserated his people. And we should support, through civil society measures and through information resilience measures, the people of Venezuela in deciding for themselves who will govern them and govern them better. But parking an aircraft carrier off the coast of Venezuela is, in fact, the greatest gift that Maduro could ask for, because what it does is it allows him to set up a steelman argument saying, see, I told you so.

This imperial nation to the north is trying to stomp on the will and the voice of the Venezuelan people, and you need me, a strongman, to push back against the Americans. This type of clumsy use of force actually helps his hold on power. What we should be doing is supporting Venezuelan civil society through means both overt and, if necessary, covert, to actually allow them to self-determine.

SANCHEZ: Lastly, Congressman, I do want to ask you about something else.

[15:40:00]

You fought in Afghanistan and supported the withdrawal and the repatriation of Afghans who assisted U.S. forces. In light now of the shooting of two National Guardsmen by one of those Afghans who was repatriated to the United States, do you have concerns about either the vetting process to allow them in the country or the potential for radicalization?

AUCHINCLOSS: The Afghans who were repatriated to the United States were our allies and our compatriots in Afghanistan. They are some of the most vetted individuals in the country. This shooting is a tragedy.

This individual must be held to justice and if found guilty, I hope he spends the rest of his life in prison. But we should not collectively punish the Afghan community for the actions of one individual. That's not who we are as Americans.

We don't punish people because they look like somebody else who committed a crime or they came from the same country of origin as someone who committed a crime. We judge individuals based on their own integrity, their own talent, their own work ethic, and we should do so here.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Jake Auchincloss, we have to leave the conversation there. Thanks so much for sharing your perspective.

Stay with CNN. We'll be right back.

[15:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Just moments ago, the Trump administration vowing that the suspect accused of shooting two members of the National Guard in D.C. last week will face, quote, the most severe punishment.

SANCHEZ: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the suspect was radicalized after arriving in the United States from Afghanistan in 2021. Today, the White House is pledging to examine all Afghan immigrants.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Nearly 100,000 Afghans were recklessly released into the United States with little to no vetting. There was no regard for the disorder and violence that this would unleash on American communities and American culture. As a result, the Trump administration is now actively reexamining all of the Afghans imported into the country by Joe Biden.

In the wake of last week's atrocity, it is more important than ever to finish carrying out the president's mass deportation operation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Let's discuss with Andrew Sullivan. He's the executive director of No One Left Behind, a veterans nonprofit that helps to resettle Afghans and Iraqis who risked their lives to serve the U.S. government during its post 9-11 wars. Andrew, thanks so much for being with us.

First, what is your reaction to hearing that someone that the CIA and the U.S. military trusted is now a suspect in this heinous act?

ANDREW SULLIVAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NO ONE LEFT BEHIND: Firstly, it's a tragedy. And I think we should focus on the victims and their families. That is paramount to me.

It is, quite frankly, surprising that this happened. The zero units that fought alongside our CIA paramilitary officers were the most vetted and trusted Afghan allies that we had. In the nearly 20 years of war, there was never a green-on-blue incident, so an attack by a zero unit on a CIA officer.

So it's incredibly surprising and it's tragic.

KEILAR: I think the other thing to notice here is that this is someone who, as a lot of the talking points coming out of this, is about vetting. This is actually someone who was vetted, right, through multiple administrations. They were working on sensitive U.S. operations during, it appears, the Obama years, the first Trump administration. They came to the U.S. and applied for asylum under the Biden administration, granted asylum by the second Trump administration. So when you hear the Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, saying he was radicalized after arriving in the U.S., is that how you see it? And what kind of red flags should have been noticed in certainly the time where he became someone who would carry this out?

SULLIVAN: In short, I don't know. I mean, I think we shouldn't jump to conclusions that's, you know, policymakers and then myself as well. You know, we need a fulsome investigation to see what led to this, whether it was some sort of mental health crisis from a decade of intense combat on America's behalf.

You know, she has said that he was radicalized abroad. If there is evidence for that, I hope that it is, you know, made available. And you know, a fulsome investigation into how this happened needs to occur before we start having, you know, policy prescriptions come down to address it.

SANCHEZ: We were speaking with former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe earlier, and he made the argument that it's quite possible that some of the pressures that he felt as he was trying to navigate living in a new land and not necessarily knowing the culture, the language very well, and struggling to provide for his family, that ultimately could have compounded and led him to a very dark place. Is that something common for folks that result?

SULLIVAN: I don't think it's common. I mean, I think when you look at the Afghans that have arrived, you know, following the withdrawal, there's some of those patriotic, dutiful members of our society. They've integrated well.

But it certainly can happen, especially when you look at the, you know, the level of combat they experienced on our behalf. It certainly is a real thing. I mean, you look at U.S. veterans and how many of them struggle with adjusting after combat. So not feeling welcome to some of the challenges that faced with employment, those can certainly exacerbate those challenges. And so I think it's incumbent both on, you know, the U.S. government and then civil society organizations, resettlement agencies, groups like ours, to ensure that our Afghan allies, our Afghan friends that kept us safe, are thriving here in the U.S.

KEILAR: This reaction by the Trump administration, a pause in asylum application decisions. The president says it could be indefinite. You heard what White House press secretary said earlier this afternoon. Who do those policy changes impact?

And what are you hearing from other Afghans who I'm sure also looked at this in horror, what happened here in D.C.?

SULLIVAN: Firstly, I mean, I'll take the second part first, which is the Afghan community.

[15:50:00]

Everything I've seen is they are absolutely horrified. You know, they're terrified that this has happened from another Afghan and that they're worried they're going to be smeared with it. And really, they're standing with the family. There was actually a candlelight vigil outside of the White House last night. It was attended by numerous members of the Northern Virginia and D.C. Afghan community. I think they're very much concerned with how the families are doing more than anything.

So, you know, it's incredible to me that they're not concerned about their future as much as they are standing with the families affected and with National Guard soldiers. The other thing that I would say is there are really two groups that are impacted. There are the Afghans that are already here that, you know, are going to potentially go through another round of security vetting.

But then we still have tens of thousands of wartime allies in Pakistan and elsewhere that are at, you know, critical danger, critical risk.

KEILAR: They've made it out of Afghanistan into Pakistan.

SULLIVAN: Correct. And so the special immigrant visa program that has supported them is one of the other things that's been paused. And so we worry that they could be, you know, deported back to Afghanistan by Pakistani officials and then face torture and death at the hands of the Taliban.

And so, you know, for the Trump administration, I hope that as they address this, they look at using a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer. They recognize that the Afghans that fought on our behalf for two decades worth of the war in Afghanistan are our closest allies. They're brothers and sisters in arms to me.

And I hope that we can, you know, whatever vetting they feel needs to be changed. They can work constructively with civil society to make sure that it's a scalpel, not a sledgehammer in doing that.

SANCHEZ: Andrew Sullivan, thank you so much for the time.

SULLIVAN: Thank you for covering this.

SANCHEZ: Pleasure.

KEILAR: And ahead, it is Cyber Monday. Have you been shopping between commercial breaks, Boris?

SANCHEZ: Maybe a little.

KEILAR: Maybe just a tiny bit.

SANCHEZ: For my loved ones.

KEILAR: That's right. And for me, I want something. All right, so millions of Americans with money to spend could make it the biggest online shopping day of the year. Just like Boris is doing. Just kidding.

I didn't see him doing any shopping just for our bosses to know. But we will have this story next.

SANCHEZ: They're actually included in the loved ones.

KEILAR: Oh, yes.

SANCHEZ: So they might be incentivized.

KEILAR: OK. That's right. OK. Sure. Yes.

[15:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Now that we've made it through another Black Friday shopping spree, almost made it. There is something you should know.

KEILAR: According to the experts who keep track of U.S. consumer spending, we spend more this year for holiday gifts but got less for our money. Wah, wah. Matt Egan.

Matt Egan with us from New York. Why? What's going on here?

Come on, man.

MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Boris and Brianna, unfortunately, inflation does not take a break for the holidays, not even Black Friday or Cyber Monday. Now, at first blush, the numbers from Black Friday, they look pretty solid, right? Salesforce reporting that Americans spend $18 billion online shopping on Black Friday alone.

That's 3 percent more than last year. Adobe Analytics says that there was a 9 percent increase in online shopping. All that's pretty solid, given how much consumer confidence has crumbled.

But the problem is these figures don't account for higher prices. And when you do that, the numbers don't really look nearly as strong. So Salesforce says that average selling prices were up by 7 percent online Black Friday.

That is more than twice the overall rate of inflation. And because prices were up, Salesforce says demand actually fell, right? Order volume was 1 percent lower.

So that means Americans were paying more but actually getting less for their money. And Salesforce is blaming at least some of this on the president's historically high tariffs, because they note that some of the categories that are seeing the biggest price increases are exposed to tariffs, right? 6 percent increase for the price of clothes on Black Friday, 7 percent for electronics.

And look at this, 24 percent for furniture and appliances and other home goods. So yes, people are spent more money on Black Friday, but unfortunately they often got less.

SANCHEZ: So Matt, how is Cyber Monday expected to fare?

EGAN: Yes, well, look, today's expected to be another record shattering day. Cyber Monday, Americans expected to spend over $13 billion online shopping alone. That's 4 percent higher than last year.

Now, again, these numbers don't account for prices. So I'll be interested to see whether or not volumes actually increased or if this was really just reflecting higher prices. But look, the good news is that, yes, there are still deals to be had.

Cyber Monday deals projected to have 23 percent discounts on those home goods, 35 percent for health and beauty. And look at this, 37 percent for clothes. But one last point for you is these numbers don't often tell you who is doing the spending.

And Gallup surveyed Americans before the holiday shopping season began, and they found that people making less than 50 thousand dollars a year were expected to actually cut back on spending significantly, middle income as well. It's really only the higher income Americans that were expected to increase their spending. So just another reminder that lower income and higher income Americans, they're really experiencing this economy very differently.

Back to you guys.

KEILAR: Important to note. Matt Egan, thank you.

Have you ever seen something so enraging on social media that you end up spending more time with it? Yes, I know you have. Well, there's a name for online content that has a sole purpose of making you angry and increasing your engagement. It's called "rage bait."

SANCHEZ: Yes, the Oxford English Dictionary just named "rage bait" its word of the year. The dictionary saying that the word's use increased threefold this year, suggesting because people are aware that they are getting into debates and arguments more quickly because of the addictive nature of outrage content, truly infuriating.

[16:00:00]

Yes, it's pretty obvious, like the most profitable thing to get you to click on something is rage. So maybe if you disengage with it, not only will you be a little bit less mad, but the world might be a better place. Who knows?

KEILAR: We could be calmer, people. Go now to "THE ARENA" with Kasie Hunt, which starts right now.