Return to Transcripts main page

Erin Burnett Outfront

Trump Revokes Biden Clearance; DOGE Staffer Re-Hired; Toe To Toe With Trump. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired February 07, 2025 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:36]

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:

Payback. President Trump says he's revoking former President Biden's security clearance. Those details just coming in.

Plus, you're hired again. Musk vowing to rehire a staffer who's been linked to racist messages as we're learning new details tonight about the young men working for the billionaire.

Going toe to toe with Trump. The chair of the Federal Election Commission says Trump fired her. But she tells me he doesn't have the authority and she's not going anywhere. She's my guest.

Let's go OUTFRONT.

And good evening. I'm Erica Hill in for Erin Burnett.

OUTFRONT tonight, the breaking news, President Trump just moments ago announcing that he is removing former President Biden's access to classified information. Now, that includes putting an end to his daily intelligence briefings and also revoking his security clearance.

The president writing, there is, quote, no need for Joe Biden to continue receiving access to classified information, going on to say he set this precedent in 2021 when he instructed the intelligence community to stop the 45th president of the United States, me, exclamation point, from accessing details on national security, a courtesy provided to former presidents.

The Hur report revealed Biden suffers from poor memory and even in his prime, could not be trusted with sensitive information. He goes on to say, I will always protect our national security. Joe, you're fired. Make America great again.

This move, like so many others that we have seen in just the last couple of weeks, it's about payback. You may recall Biden revoked Trump's access to intelligence weeks after the January 6th attack at the time saying this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, FORMER PRESIDENT: I just think that there is no need for him to have that intelligence briefing. What value is giving him an intelligence briefing? What impact does he have at all, other than the fact he might slip and say something?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Jeff Zeleny is OUTFRONT, live at the White House for us tonight.

So, Jeff, is this really more of a tit for tat? What's behind all of this?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's definitely a tit for tat. There's no question about that. And President Biden clearly has been on the mind of his successor, quite often. We've heard it in day after day, speech after speech. President Trump still referring to President Biden. He did it in today's economic report. He did it in a speech yesterday.

But look, this is something that the president, as he was flying down to Mar-a-Lago, where he's spending the weekend posted on social media out of the blue, that he decided to revoke the daily classified briefings. There is no doubt that this is just one in a series of steps right after President Trump took office, he revoked the security clearances for several former officials. So this is a continuation of that, if you will.

But there's no question, when President Biden made those comments, you just played there, Erica, he could not have envisioned or imagined that Donald Trump would be back in the White House only four years later.

HILL: No, it's an excellent point, Jeff. When we look at this, though, when it comes to give us just a sense of the precedence here, right, in terms of former president's security clearances, daily briefings, how does that generally work?

ZELENY: Look, I'm told that presidents, actually, and former presidents do not have security clearances. Once you are president, of course, you have access to whatever classified information you would like to have. If you're a former president, unless you had a security clearance before from, say, a previous job and perhaps the FBI or the intelligence community, you do not have a security clearance, but you are entitled to a briefing.

And the reason former presidents get briefings is when they go out and give speeches or talk to groups, or perhaps have discussions with foreign leaders. They're given some intel on what they can say. And in the case of Jimmy Carter, for example, he received intelligence briefings because he was still going around the world.

So he was briefed on things, and then he would come back with things he heard. So that is the reason for former presidents having a security briefings here, though. But as for the security clearance, the people I've talked to at least just quickly here, believe that is -- is essentially irrelevant. But the daily briefings, that is something President Trump can do. It's what Biden did four years ago -- Erica.

HILL: Certainly. Jeff Zeleny at the White House with the breaking news for us. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Also with us tonight, David Axelrod, Erin Perrine and Ryan Goodman.

David, when we look at this here, what is your initial reaction? Yes, there's a tit for tat. But as Jeff laid out, there is also -- I mean, security clearance, daily briefings. It sort of depends where you're at post-presidency.

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. Well, like this is another norm that's just going by the wayside in the era of Trump. But, I don't think it has particular meaning. And I think that it, it is completely predictable because the president's been on a vengeance tour since he, he took office.

The thing that worries me and the thing I think is more relevant is not the people he's taking security clearances away from, it's the people he's giving security clearances to. He signed an executive order on his first day, essentially giving him the ability to give top secret security clearances to anybody he wants as they went through the security review process. So you could get it without filling, you know, fulfilling that process.

So we don't really know who all has that, you know, who among the DOGE crew, Elon Musk and the Musketeers as they go rampage through agencies. What? What clearance? They have some of the appointees Tulsi Gabbard, you know, is another example, and this has been, of course, discussed in the Senate hearings. So we should focus on the here and now. And the question is, who does have security clearances now and should they?

HILL: Erin, to that point, do you think the administration has been transparent enough about those clearances? And even when we look at, you know, we heard I believe it was Karoline Leavitt saying in the briefing just yesterday when asked about, Elon Musk and conflicts of interest, this week was basically said, well, he's going to police himself and pull himself out or, you know, sort of raise his hand if he thinks there may be a conflict of interest.

Is there enough transparency and oversight at this point in the administration, Erin?

ERIN PERRINE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, AXIOM STRATEGIES: Well, I don't believe there's ever a full list of people given security clearances that is put out by any administration. So I don't think that that would be something that the Trump administration would or should do. If were trying to go by norms here.

When it comes to transparency, I mean, you can certainly try and argue about -- about DOGE if you want, but technically, Elon is a special government employee, so he is bound by the ethics and the rules that exist within that type of position. So there is certainly oversight in this. And at the end of the day, the buck ends and stops with Donald Trump.

He's been clear throughout this process that Elon does report to him. It's clear that Elon does report to President Trump and that any decision that he makes has to be cleared by Donald Trump. Nothings just being done unilaterally.

And I know that Democrats are making Elon this big, scary monster for themselves, but they have to take a deep breath and remember, every time they get themselves spun up about Elon Musk and DOGE, they are off base on what the American people want from them, which is what they want from everybody in elected office right now, which is lower cost of goods.

Democrats are all over the place chasing Elon Musk right now, and its because they're a lost party in the woods without a leader and without a policy platform. So instead they're just flailing in the wind, chasing Elon around D.C.

HILL: Ryan, what do you make of these developments?

RYAN GOODMAN, JUST SECURITY CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: So I think its within president Trump's legal prerogative to do what he wants to do with the security clearances. It seems a little petty. I have a middle schooler. It kind of reminds me of some of that.

But he can certainly do it. The premise by which he's doing it on the Hur report, Special Counsel Hur. I mean, that's kind of odd because Special Counsel Hur, in fact, gives Biden a clear he actually says that he did not intentionally mishandle the documents, that he didn't necessarily even know that he had classified documents because it was staff that had handled it or mishandled it.

And Donald Trump is the one who, in fact, is indicted for mishandling the documents. The most close legal observers think that it was an open and shut criminal case under the Espionage Act. So that's a little bit of the -- that's not exactly a parallel universe in which he's invoking this idea.

But can he do it? Absolutely. It's his prerogative.

HILL: David, when we look at where things stand, there was, as I mentioned, at the top of the hour, there was a temporary reprieve for a couple of thousand USAID staffers tonight. I know you're getting some pushback from comments that you made this week.

I'm paraphrasing a little bit here, but basically saying, look, Democrats, I guess in some ways, to your point, need to pick their battles, but noting specifically that this fight over foreign aid -- I mean, it's one that could actually be won in the court of public opinion. People look at foreign aid and they say, yeah, we need to cut things. Let's take care of things here at home.

The pushback coming from Senator Brian Schatz telling "The New Yorker", quote, I'm not going to let some pundit dictate whether or not I exercise my obligations as a member of the Article One branch, mentions you, James Carville, saying you haven't been in the trenches legislatively or electorally, in a full generation, going on to say, in order to be a Democratic strategist, you have to actually do politics currently, not just podcast about it.

I'm curious, first, your reaction to those comments, David? AXELROD: Well, I guess I'd say to senator -- to the senator that if

he feels like things are going well, then keep on doing what he's doing.

[19:10:03]

I -- you know, there are a lot of folks, a lot of Democrats who are disappointed with the result of the last election. And my question whether the party was on the right path.

And look, I agree, you know, I don't agree with Erin that people should be unconcerned about what Elon Musk is doing. Elon Musk is shutting down federal aid. I mean, there's a reason why federal courts are stepping in to slow this process down, because Elon Musk is in flagrant disregard of rules and laws and norms here.

And so, you know, we have an article, one of the Constitution that gives the Congress certain authorities, Article Two that gives the president certain authorities. And you can't just because you're the wealthiest man on the planet or a famous disrupter, come in and disregard that. So we should worry about that.

But look -- what I said I feel strongly about USAID. I think that, what it's done around the world has been extraordinarily important, not just for the millions of lives that it has helped save, but also for our own national security. And if you don't believe me, just listen to what Marco Rubio has said in the past and what Lindsey Graham has said in the past, all of whom have argued for the -- the continued and strengthening of that program over the years, there's a reason for that.

But my political argument is Erin's argument, which is that you have to pick your battles in terms of communication. I think Senator Schatz and others should be pursuing every avenue to go after what's happened to USAID. But when you use your media time, you should use it talking about the stuff that's close to home, because people are not talking about USAID over the dinner table.

HILL: David, just to follow up on that, do you see a cohesive strategy among Democrats at this point?

AXELROD: Well, I mean, I do think that there is a -- there's a temptation to wait, and -- because Trump seems to be rumbling toward some sort of big self-destruction here in terms of the recklessness with which he's pursuing some of these things, and because we're going to have a budget battle in which he's going to pit tax cuts that will favor wealthy Americans and corporations versus Medicaid and other programs, and that's going to be a winning battle for Democrats.

But I think Democrats have to do more. They've lost touch in some ways with the very people that they're advocating for, and they have to ask why. And one of them is that they are not talking about the same things over the dinner table that people are talking about, and they need to explore that.

HILL: Erin, when we look at, you know, pulling back for a minute, looking at president Trump, the fact that this came out about the security clearance tonight, you know, there is, as Jeff Zeleny is pointing out, the president does still have -- does still seem to have this daily focus on Joe Biden. Everything seems to come back. He has to go back at Joe Biden in almost every answer.

He's the president now. He's the guy in the White House. Is it time for him to move on?

PERRINE: He absolutely has every right and should point out that if it's the jobs numbers or the numbers coming down of illegal border crossings or whatever the statistic may be, or whatever he is speaking about, to contrast that with what was happening in the previous administration. I see no problem with that. Sure. Should he be focusing more on the future? I think he's looking ahead plenty, but I would push back on David just a moment here when he was talking about the fact that the courts are involved because he was saying that Elon is somehow breaking the law or doing something nefarious.

The courts are involved here because right now Donald Trump is on a live by the pen, die by the pen strategy. All of this is being done by executive action. It doesn't have the strength of law.

All of this could be undone if a Democrat is to take power, or if Congress was to legislate in a different way. That's why the courts are involved, not because Elon is doing something nefarious or illegal as of this point. So I just want to be clear on this is because the strategy right now is through executive action and not through legislative.

HILL: Not through legislation. Ryan, there was an anticipation that a lot of this I do want to just get Ryan in here quickly, if we could. There was the anticipation that so much of this was going to end up being legislated, right?

And I know a number of Democrats had been preparing for that ahead of time, just in case. I spoke with one this morning from democracy forward. That being said, Republicans have also been preparing for this moment. As we look at the way this is playing out, is ultimately all of this just going to end up being decided by the courts, and that's where well find out, in fact, whether what Elon Musk is doing is above board.

GOODMAN: I think a lot of it right now, it looks like the courts are the place in which this will be decided, and then the courts are only deciding it on the basis of law.

HILL: Right.

GOODMAN: So they're just saying, is this legal? Is it constitutional? They're not saying is it a good policy. So I do think that's a separate question.

So whether or not we should be, you know, eradicating USAID, it's even hard to say those words.

[19:15:00] It's illegal. I think they have a very strong argument about that in court.

But today, the judge is actually a little bit skeptical. The temporary restraining order is going to put in place is limited. So even that is like limited what law can do. It's really a policy question that's left up into that arena.

HILL: All right. Appreciate it. Thanks to all of you especially for pivoting with us there at the top of the hour.

OUTFRONT next, the more breaking news that we're following. CNN obtaining a new internal memo from the Treasury Department warning that DOGE's access to the department poses a, quote, unprecedented insider threat. This, as were learning more about those very DOGE staffers.

Plus, a stalemate tonight inside the Federal Election Commission. Trump claims he fired the group's chairwoman. She's a different opinion, and she's my guest.

And a federal judge putting a stop to Trump's efforts to gut the nation's humanitarian aid agency, at least for now, as Musk begins to move on to his next target.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:20:18]

HILL: Tonight, Elon Musk vowing to rehire the DOGE staffer who resigned just yesterday after being linked to racist social media posts, an account that appears to be connected to that staffer, 25 year old Marko Elez posting in December, quote: I just want a eugenic immigration policy. In September, there was this, quote, normalize Indian hate.

Coming to his defense today, the vice president, J.D. Vance, whose wife and children, of course, are Indian-Americans. Vance posted, quote, I obviously disagree with some of Elez's posts, but I don't think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid's life.

President Trump backing him up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I don't know about the particular thing, but if the vice president said that, did you say that? I'm with the vice president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Rene Marsh is OUTFRONT.

So, Rene, what more do we know about this DOGE staffer? And frankly, some of the other young engineers and staffers who are working for Musk? RENE MARSH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Erin -- Erica, the 25-year-old DOGE

staffer is also linked to a social media post that calls for the repealing of the Civil Rights Act. We know that Marko Elez graduated from Rutgers University in 2021, and shortly after that began working at Musk's company, SpaceX.

And as a DOGE staffer, he was considered a special government employee. He had access to sensitive federal agency IT systems and data similar to the slate of other 20-something-year-old engineers who are on Musk's DOGE team.

And it does not appear that he has any prior federal government system.

But again, the DOGE team that Musk has compiled, again, it consists of these 20 something-year-olds or early 20s who have impressive accomplishments in the tech world. They're engineers, but again, there are novices when it comes to their experience and understanding the federal government and how it works.

Musk's team includes a 23-year-old software engineer from Nebraska. He used A.I., for example, to help decipher an ancient scroll buried for centuries. Then there is another who was a runner up in a hackathon contest last year as a Harvard senior, and a third is a CEO of a multi-billion dollar startup.

So that just gives you a sense of just, you know, who these people are. I can tell you tonight here in Washington, D.C., there is high concern, especially from Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill, about the lack of transparency, about who exactly is being hired under the DOGE team, the security and background clearances that they've undergone, what sort of data they're accessing and what they're doing with that data. We just learned, and this is just coming in, that an internal treasury memo warns that DOGE's access to Treasury's payment systems poses an unprecedented insider threat.

So that is the latest, again, this internal memo going around at Treasury essentially saying that these individuals who had access to these internal IT systems, that this poses a, quote, unprecedented insider threat. So lots of concern here in Washington about just who these people are, what they're getting access to, and what they plan on doing with it.

HILL: Yeah, a lot of that clear as mud at this point. Rene, really appreciate it. Thank you.

OUTFRONT now, Katie Drummond, who's the global editorial director at "Wired", which is breaking -- been breaking story after story when it comes to Elon Musk and DOGE.

And you actually had, as Rene was just referring to this internal memo, you had that first "Wired" talking about this unprecedented insider threat risk. This was an internal Treasury memo.

What more do you know about -- about that memo and the concerns surrounding it? KATIE DRUMMOND, GLOBAL EDITORIAL DIRECTOR, WIRED: Absolutely. So we

know that this memo was sent out by a bureau, the fiscal services, the bureau of fiscal services, which sits within Treasury. It was sent out yesterday to several hundred employees.

And the memo, you know, outlines several serious concerns with the DOGE team, how they have been operating, the potential access to sensitive information that they may have had, and actually states, you know, even read only access, which means access that doesn't involve being able to change any code is the single greatest insider -- insider threat risk the bureau has ever faced. Pretty strong language.

HILL: Very strong language, to put it mildly. So as were looking at that, you also have some other reporting when it comes to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Musk actually posting tonight after the article was published on "Wired", RIP, CFPB.

What are those plans? What's happening there? I mean, it's tough to keep all of this straight. So thank you.

[19:25:01]

DRUMMOND: We're doing our best and so are so many other incredible journalists and outlets. I have to say, across the country, which has been -- been so great to see. Musk did indeed post that on X. It's -- it's not difficult to read between the lines there.

Now, what we know here is that CFPB staff, we're told, in the last 24 hours that several people from DOGE were, you know, entering the building, so to speak. They were coming into the bureau. They would require access to data, to systems and to equipment, specifically access to HR, procurement and finance systems.

So, you know, in theory and according to everyone, we spoke to, the DOGE team could use that information to inform decisions about things like cost cutting, but certainly about reductions in workforce.

HILL: Which is -- which I'm sure a number of them are zeroing in on. You know, we were talking a little bit about Marko Elez, this 25 year old, what we're learning about some of the people who are working for Donald Trump or pardon me, in DOGE for Elon Musk, the fact that there was all of this support, right, that we're seeing for Marko Elez. So you have the vice president basically saying, look, I am not going to let some stupid social media post cancel this kid.

The fact that Donald Trump, when he was asked about it, so he was asked about that earlier today and he almost for a minute you could see he did what he would normally do, which is just deflect. I don't know what you're talking about, but then, all of a sudden, it was, oh, you said it was okay, J.D. Vance, I'm going to back you up.

What does that tell you about not only the support for Elon Musk that is coming from the top, but also the power that he has? DRUMMOND: This is something that is so interesting to me, and its

something that I know many journalists are keeping a very close eye on, right? Which is the dynamic between Musk and Trump, sort of everyone waiting and anticipating, maybe where is this collision? Like, where do these two egos, you know, come to a head?

I think everything we have seen so far up until today, with Trump exactly supporting the reinstatement of this individual on the DOGE team, indicates that, you know, Trump remains happy and enthusiastic about what Musk and DOGE are doing, which again, brings us back to this entire dilemma that every federal agency finds itself in, that our country finds itself in, which is a tremendous amount of power being wielded by an unelected official inside of federal agencies, individuals working at his behest, and a very enthusiastic president watching the entire thing play out.

HILL: What's fascinating, too, is and we were talking about this at the top of the show, but there is this sense, if there are plenty of Americans who could get behind an idea of trimming government, right? Getting rid of the fat. Yes, there's likely cost cutting. Perhaps there's also reduction in staffing. The concern is the lack of transparency in the way it's being carried out. We really don't know anything.

DRUMMOND: We know very little. This is very opaque and it is moving. I can tell you from the week I just had it is moving very quickly. It is incredibly difficult for anyone, even people inside of these agencies, even some people inside of the administration, very close to the president to follow along with exactly what is happening. And that's kind of the point.

HILL: I was going to say, isn't that the strategy in many ways? Yeah. Well, great to great to have you here tonight. Thank you again.

OUTFRONT next, breaking news. Trump's plan to gut USAID stopped in its tracks, at least for now. A judge appointed by Donald Trump ruling the president cannot place thousands of employees on leave tonight.

Plus, the chairwoman of the FEC is now pushing back on Donald Trump's claim he fired her. She says he doesn't have the authority. She's my guest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:32:58]

HILL: Breaking news, a major blow for Donald Trump from a federal judge he appointed. That judge blocking Trump's plan to gut USAID, at least for now. A ruling that the president must pause his plans to place some 2,200 employees on leave.

That decision, coming after Trump made it clear that he was shutting the humanitarian aid agency down, writing, quote, USAID is driving the radical left crazy, and there is nothing they can do about it, because the way in which the money has been spent, so much of it fraudulently, is totally unexplainable. The corruption is at levels rarely seen before. Close it down.

In response from Elon Musk, quote: Yes, Mr. President.

While crews today were removing the agency's name from its headquarters in Washington, Donald Trump was moving on to his next targets, the Department of Education and the Department of Defense, which of course, has billions of dollars in contracts with Elon Musk.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Have you directed Elon Musk to review Pentagon spending, given it's the biggest discretionary spending in the federal budget?

TRUMP: Yes, I have Pentagon, Education, just about everything. We're going to go through everything just as it was so bad with what we just went through with this horrible situation we just went through.

REPORTER: Is there anything you've told Elon Musk he cannot touch?

TRUMP: Well, we haven't discussed that much. I'll tell him to go here. Go there. He does it.

They're finding massive amounts of fraud, abuse, waste, all of these things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Now, Donald Trump has not provided any evidence. It's important to note of massive amounts of fraud, abuse or waste. Since Musk started dismantling the U.S. government, including any of that evidence at USAID.

OUTFRONT now is Andrew Natsios. He's a lifelong Republican. He ran USAID under President George W. Bush.

Andrew, it's good to have you with us tonight. I know that you initially called President Trump's plan to essentially eliminate USAID illegal, outrageous, criminal. The fact that this was temporarily halted a short time ago, how do you think this is going to end?

ANDREW NATSIOS, FORMER USAID ADMINISTRATOR: I have no idea.

[19:35:01]

I don't -- I don't know what the courts are going to rule. I don't know whether he's going to listen to the courts. I don't know what the Congress is going to do.

I only can tell you the enormous damage this has done to our image in the world. In the developing world, AID is regarded as one of the premier development agencies in the world. Heads of state rely on AID for advice on development. Ambassadors rely on it to get things done its operation.

(AUDIO GAP) dominant humanitarian response agency. And I might add, there is an obsession in AID and has been for decades with accountability.

The notion that they found a lot of fraud and abuse is garbage. It's a bold faced lie, and I can tell you that from personal experience. I examined the books when I was there because I -- I have a background in management. I've run seven institutions in the last 45 years.

AID was the best managed. The employees are among the smartest. Given the stress they're under, I find it astonishing that people would make comments like that. And the fact that that Musk made this after looking at the records for two weeks with a bunch of young kids who have no experience in development and probably have never even been to a developing country and seen an AID program, have they ever been to a refugee camp or a famine, or an AID program in Africa or Latin America -- I don't think so.

So why are they reviewing -- reviewing all the projects? I'm told by people who've watched it that they just cross out -- randomly cross out programs for defunding them. They don't look at any of the documentation or whether the program is well run or not, because sometimes we -- we have program failures. I know that.

All human institutions are fallen business, labor, government all have weaknesses because were weak. We're human beings, and so are there problems. And of course, there are there are problems in every federal and state and local agency in the United States.

But there is a index used in the federal government about how well managed an agency or department is. AID is ranked the third best in the federal government. Now, how did -- how did that happen when Musk is making these charges, it doesn't make any sense.

HILL: And yet here we are. I know you have been in touch with folks who are still currently at USAID. I understand why so many of them are concerned about coming forward publicly. You've also been talking with former staffers, some of them your former students.

Where are their heads at in this moment? How concerned are they about not only what comes next for a number of these programs and the communities around the world that they were helping, but for themselves as well, and what they do next and where they can go?

NATSIOS: Well, I have to tell you, in the emergency area, they're all worried that people are going to start dying in the refugee and displaced camps. The Secretary Rubio did announce that food was not on the chopping block. Well, I have to tell you, the secretary and I have great respect for Marco Rubio, that order is not being carried out.

The food is not being ordered. It's not -- not moving on ships, and it's not being distributed. There is a hole in everything.

The thing that I don't think they understand is if you fire everyone, who's running the system? No one is. That's why nothings happening.

So we're putting millions of peoples lives at risk all over the world when there's arbitrary decisions being made in Washington with no -- with no consultation at all, with the field. They're just -- they ordered all the AID staff back from the missions.

Why did they do that? It's the craziest thing I've ever heard.

HILL: Questions that I know we are continuing to ask. It is not clear when we'll get those answers.

Andrew Natsios, really appreciate your insight and your expertise tonight. Thank you.

NATSIOS: Thank you.

HILL: OUTFRONT next, the chairwoman of the FEC is taking on Donald Trump after he tried to fire her. She's not about to go, though, without a fight. She's OUTFRONT next.

Plus.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They feel traumatized. I feel low (ph) --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: We take you to Uganda to see firsthand how Donald Trump's decision to shut down USAID. What we were just talking about with my last guest, how that is putting young lives at risk.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:43:48]

HILL: New tonight, not backing down. President Trump announcing he's fired the chairwoman of the FEC. But she says not so fast.

Ellen Weintraub, who's a Democrat posting online, quote, there is a legal way to replace FEC commissioners. This isn't it. I've been lucky to serve the American people and stir up some good trouble along the way. That's not changing anytime soon.

That message was in response to this very brief letter from the White House, which was sent to Weintraub. We're going to put it up on your screen for you there. It said, you are hereby removed as a member of the Federal Election Commission, effective immediately. Thank you for your service on the commission.

Ellen Weintraub is OUTFRONT in her first TV interview since getting that letter telling her that she was fired.

It's good to have you here tonight.

I know you've said this isn't the way this goes down at the FEC. President Trump can't just fire you. The White House told us here at CNN, quote, our message to Ellen Weintraub is simple. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.

The updated the FEC website, which now shows your term, ended this month. I'm curious tonight, do you still have access to your email? Could you get into your office? What has happened in the last day or so?

ELLEN WEINTRAUB, FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION CHAIR: Well, they changed the website.

[19:45:02]

I am no longer listed as a current commissioner. I no longer have access to my office. They turned off my email. So I don't know. I actually don't know what message people will get if they try and email me at my FEC address because I no longer have access to it. And I think they shut the account down.

HILL: And have you had any further communication from the White House?

WEINTRAUB: No. What you just read is, was news to me.

HILL: Okay. Well, I'm glad we could let you in on that as we wait to see what happens now.

What -- what is happening with the FEC at this point?

WEINTRAUB: Well, the FEC has a bare quorum. They still have four commissioners, but -- and they will -- they will proceed to do their job. As I said in my -- in my message, this isn't the way this is supposed to happen.

The FEC was set up as an independent, bipartisan agency. It is unlike most other government agencies. It isn't the kind of place where the president comes in, and he gets to appoint a new chair. That just isn't the way this works. We're not subject to the whims of the president in the same way that some other agencies are expecting to have a new head of agency appointed with a new administration.

Our agency, as I said, it's bipartisan. By law, there are supposed to be six commissioners, no more than three from any one political party. All decisions are made on a bipartisan basis, and the chair is elected on an annual basis, and it switches back and forth from Democrat to Republican on an annual basis.

This happens to be -- it happened to be my year. It was just my turn to be chair this year, and I was duly elected and was and started to serve until I got this letter yesterday.

HILL: Until you got the letter yesterday.

You know, we should point out, you have called out President Trump in the past during his first term. I know you pushed back after January 6th writing, no, Mr. President, the election was not stolen. You lost a free and fair election, fair and square seven, an iota of patriotism. You went on to say, concede the election you've lost, condemn the violence you have incited. You'd also push back when he was trying to move the 2020 election.

He campaigned on retribution in many ways. Do you think this is some sort of payback, or was it simply because you were the chairwoman?

WEINTRAUB: I do not pretend to know what is going on in the head of the president. All I know is that the FEC has a proud 50-year legacy and history. It's -- we are supposed to be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the FEC this year. I hope they will celebrate it. I'm sorry I won't be there to lead the celebration.

And this has never happened in the history of the agency. The law sets out a path for replacing FEC commissioners. It requires the president to nominate a successor, and for the Senate to confirm that person.

And, you know, the Senate -- the president's track record on getting confirmations is pretty good. It wouldn't have been that hard for him to do it the legal way. But there is nothing in the statute about replacing -- just removing FEC commissioners in this way, and it has never happened before.

HILL: To your point about, you know, appointing and then being Senate confirmed to be on the commission there, we should point out, you know, you've been there for, what, 22 years? So I know your initial term expired 17 years ago. You're still there. That's all perfectly legal. People at home might be surprised, but no one has been, I guess, nominated and then confirmed to replace you in your seat.

Do you think the length of your tenure could in any way have worked against you?

WEINTRAUB: Well, it -- it may have aggravated the president that I was still there, that I hadn't left, but I made a commitment to the American people to stay in this job until I got replaced. And I regret that I was not able to fulfill that commitment.

When the FEC was set up, Congress understood that this was going to be an unusual agency that played a unique role actually regulating political actors, regulating the president, regulating members of Congress. And maybe they wouldn't like it that much. And if they didn't like it, they might just want there to be not commissioners on the FEC, so that it couldn't really do its job.

So in order to protect against the possibility of seats going vacant, they created this holdover status so that commissioners could stay until there was a replacement appointed in their place. And that's the way it's supposed to work. That would be the legal way of doing it.

HILL: But here we are.

WEINTRAUB: That's not the way it happened here.

HILL: Speaking of legal, I know you didn't have a warning that sort of came out of left field for you real quickly before I let you go, what is your next plan here? Do you plan to sue for your job?

WEINTRAUB: It is just over 24 hours since I received that letter, and I am still considering all of my options.

HILL: All right. Well, please keep us posted if you would. We appreciate you joining us tonight, Ellen. Thank you.

WEINTRAUB: Thanks for having me.

HILL: OUTFRONT next, officials telling CNN people could die because of Trump's moves in Washington.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:54:44]

HILL: Tonight, a federal judge saying he will pause a midnight deadline to shut down USAID. But how long will that pause last? The reality is, there are real consequences tonight to the agency being shuttered. It is a lifeline to millions.

Larry Madowo is OUTFRONT.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SAMUEL LINDA, HIV PATIENT: They feel traumatized.

[19:55:03]

I feel low.

LARRY MADOWO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Thirty-six-old Samuel Linda (ph) has been living with HIV since 2014, getting his life saving drugs from a USAID project. But his supplies are almost out.

LINDA: I feel like the world is ending tomorrow because I don't know where I'm going to go. I don't know my tomorrow if I'll be alive or dead.

MADOWO: He distributes U.S. funded condoms in his community to stop new infections and make sure the infected keep taking their medications.

Meanwhile, patients at this USAID funded facility in the Ugandan capital, Kampala, wait, hoping their treatments are still available. Nearly 1,000 employees here have been furloughed after the U.S. stop work orders. It's still running for now, though. No one knows for how much longer.

Its leader, Dr. Andrew Kambugu, is a UC Berkeley alum who is grateful for American generosity but worries about the future for his staff and patients.

DR. ANDREW KAMBUGU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INFECTIOUS DISEASES INSTITUTE UGANDA: We are in the throes of an Ebola outbreak, and before the Ebola outbreak, Uganda is grappling with an Mpox outbreak. So we find ourselves in a situation where a number of infectious diseases have converged.

MADOWO: USAID is a lifeline to millions here, millions who would be stuck without it. These are "thank you" notes from patients here to the medical team at

the Infectious Diseases Institute in Uganda. They cover HIV, TB, Mpox and even the current Ebola outbreak, the country's eighth. The implication is that U.S. funding has kept patients like these ones alive.

The U.S. is one of Uganda's largest donors, spending more than half $1 billion in health care alone every year. More than a third of USAID funds came to Africa in 2023. Those dollars saved lives, but also supported many Americans.

WINNIE BYANYIMA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNAIDS: Without U.S. funding, people die. Without global collaboration, people die.

MADOWO: Winnie Byanyima runs the UN's global response to the AIDS epidemic. They warn that up to 6.3 million people could die by 2029 if the U.S. cuts off funding. Americans will also lose out.

BYANYIMA: Actually, sometimes I say we have the diseases, they have the profits, they make money. The aid connects them to markets and markets benefit American companies and American jobs are created at home.

MADOWO: So USAID is not just charity to African countries.

BYANYIMA: No, no, no, it's mutually beneficial.

MADOWO: But the negative sentiment isn't one that's shared by all of Africa's leaders. In an exclusive interview with CNN, Rwanda's president says the continent has to wean itself off aid.

PAUL KAGAME, RWANDAN PRESIDENT: In President Trump's unconventional ways of doing things. I completely agree with him on many things.

MADOWO: Even though it will hurt you as Rwanda, which depends on some U.S. aid to fund your health care and development.

KAGAME: We might learn some lessons.

MADOWO: Self-sufficient countries might sound ideal in theory, but it brings little comfort to the millions across the world whose very survival hangs in the balance.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MADOWO: Erica, whenever I saw the last USAID administrator, Samantha Power, here in Africa, it was always around a disease outbreak or a humanitarian disaster. And she would show up for people in need with funding and with sometimes boxes. That said, from the American people.

But do you hear that sentiment from President Kagame of Rwanda, who says even though he's a beneficiary of foreign aid, African governments must wean themselves off of it? There's many here in Africa that agree that even though money from USAID keeps people alive here, the Africans must be self-reliant. And in any case, they make the argument that some of that USAID funding didn't actually get to the recipients. It was used in administrative costs, big salaries, big cars, or stolen -- Erica.

HILL: Larry Madowo with the latest for us -- Larry, thank you.

Well, before we leave you tonight, we want to let you know that tomorrow is the final installment of CNN's "Kobe: The Making of a Legend", which explores Kobe Bryant's life after basketball off the court and his role as the ultimate girl dad.

Here's a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SHERYL SWOOPES, WNBA HALL OF FAMER: The year like the WNBA orange hoodies first came out, Kobe is the first that I can remember wearing the hoodie sitting courtside.

JALEN BURNSON, NBA ALL-STAR: Once I saw his focus on wanting women's basketball to grow, they wanted his mentorship and he was more than willing.

KOBE BRYANT, NBA HALL OF FAMER: I think there were a couple players that could play in the NBA right now, honestly. I mean, there's a lot of players that have a lot of skill that can do it.

SWOOPES: You know, training with players like Sabrina, Napheesa Collier, Jewell Loyd, Kobe Bryant said, you're the gold mamba. Diana Taurasi, oh, you're the white mamba.

TRACY MCGRADY, FRIEND & NBA HALL OF FAMER: Yeah. If they put that billing label on you, don't run from it. Embrace it and turn it into being the hero.

BRYAN: I still dunk.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If he watched how he had transformed once he stopped playing basketball, you know, he's about to really be a whole another person.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: And you can catch "KOBE: THE MAKING OF A LEGEND" tomorrow at 9:00.

I'm Erica Hill. Thanks for joining me.

"AC360" starts now.