Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Judge Extends Deadline For Federal Workers To Accept Buyout Offer; Trump Administration Accused Of Violating Two Court Orders; Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Ordered To Stop All Work; Trump Orders End To "Wasteful" Production Of The Penny; Eagles Fans Celebrating Team's Epic Super Bowl Rout Of The Chiefs. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired February 10, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Happening now, breaking news, a judge just extended the deadline for federal workers to accept or reject the Trump administration's so-called buyout offer. Thousands of government employees in limbo right now as the court weighs whether the plan is legal.

Also breaking, the White House is being accused of failing to comply with court orders to unfreeze federal grants and to reinstate USAID staffers, this as Vice President J.D. Vance is fueling fears that the Trump and Musk team may ignore judges' decisions that they simply don't like.

Plus, does the president really have power over pennies? We're making sense of his order to stop producing one cent coins.

Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in the Situation Room.

And we begin with breaking news, one of President Trump's most aggressive efforts to force out federal workers on an extended hold tonight after a judge heard legal arguments for and against the Deferred Resignation Program, as it's called.

CNN's Paula Reid is joining us right now to break it all down for us. Paula, what are you learning?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, federal workers did not get the clarity they were hoping for after today's hearing but the judge did extend the deadline for federal employees to have to reply to this deferred resignation offer. And while this deadline has been extended, the judge up in Boston, a Clinton appointee, will contemplate the arguments that he heard today about the validity of this offer.

Now, lawyers representing federal workers unions have been discouraging employees from accepting this offer, saying, one, it's not clear exactly what they're being offered, it's also not clear if the Trump administration has the authority to enforce something like this. It's not clear if employees would actually get their paychecks through September. They also told the judge today that these employees had only been given, quote, two weeks' notice to make important decisions about their futures. They said this is not what Congress envisioned when they reformed the civil service and suggested that the Trump administration is trying to push out civil servants so that they can replace them with Trump loyalists.

Now, the Justice Department, they argue that this buyout program offers, quote, a humane off ramp to federal government employees who might have structured their life around remote work opportunities, which, of course, have come to an end, and they insist that this is all within the purview and the power of the federal government to manage its workforce. So, now, all eyes are on this judge as we await a decision on the legitimacy of this offer.

BLITZER: Interesting. Paula, two federal judges, I take it, are now accusing the Trump administration of defying court orders. Walk us through this.

REID: Yes, this is fascinating because this is happening in the wake of this tweet from Vice President J.D. Vance, where he seems to suggest that maybe the executive branch of the president doesn't necessarily have to heed orders from judges. Of course, he tweeted, quote, if a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal.

That is not an accurate representation of the separation of powers. But it raised the question of whether the Trump administration may not abide by orders from the courts. And, of course, the courts are really considered the only check on the executive right now and the actions specifically that President Trump and Elon Musk are taking.

And then we see these two significant events today, first, a federal judge today, for the second time, telling the Trump administration that it cannot cut off grants or loan payments that have already been allocated. They've tried to do that. That has been litigated. Their order is on hold. But while it's on hold, they do need to disperse that money, according to a judge's order that so far they have ignored. And then a federal worker also told a judge Monday that the Trump administration hasn't reinstated USAID employees who were put on leave.

So, Wolf, these are two concerning examples of perhaps the Trump administration deciding they don't need to abide by court orders.

BLITZER: Yes, I suspect there could be more to come.

Paula Reid, thank you very, very much.

There's more breaking news we're following right now. President Trump has been signing new executive orders over the past several minutes.

CNN's Jeff Zeleny is joining us from the White House.

[18:05:01]

What can you tell us, Jeff?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, we do know that the president has been in the Oval Office for about a half an hour or so, signing a flurry of executive orders, as you said, and taking questions from reporters as well. This is the first thing that's been on his public schedule all day long.

Of course, he was at the Super Bowl last evening, returned early this morning to the White House, but signing an array of executive orders. And, Wolf, this is really by design, coming pretty fast and furiously throughout the day. Of course, we have seen the White House reacting to all of these legal rulings, and this is really setting up, as we begin the fourth week of this Trump administration, a showdown between the administrative branch, the executive branch, and the federal judges across Washington, and indeed, throughout the country.

But we do know a few of these executive orders, as we are seeing them come through, one is a surprising pardon of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. He served about eight years of a federal sentence. It was about a 14-year federal sentence. He has issued a pardon for Rod Blagojevich, of course, a former Democratic, a governor of Illinois, a former Democratic member of Congress. He was sentenced several years ago for trying to effectively sell a Senate seat back when Barack Obama was elected president. So, this is a long time coming, but he has been a big supporter of this president. So, that is one of the things the president is doing.

Wolf, he's also signing an array of executive orders on things such as eliminating paper straws, saying the time to have paper straws in the country is over. So, some shiny objects, some serious things, but as well we are getting new information. He's also going to be signing later this week some tariffs on steel and aluminum.

BLITZER: Well, tell us about that, the announcement on imported aluminum and steel, the new tariffs that he's about to impose.

ZELENY: Well, this is something that he talked about yesterday when he was talking with the reporters as he flew to the Super Bowl. And this has been a longstanding position that this president has had. Of course, in his first administration, he imposed a tariffs on a steel and aluminum, so he is going to do the same thing. It's a bit hard to determine between the threats of tariffs and the actual tariffs.

Of course, a week ago, he was threatening tariffs on Mexico and Canada. He put a pause on those. But in terms of the steel and aluminum, that is something he's going through it. And he's signing these as we speak. We'll see him shortly again taking a variety of questions. It's a rolling news conferences most days here had become, Wolf.

BLITZER: We'll see what else he says.

All right, Jeff Zeleny, thank you very much. I want to bring in our panel of legal and political experts, and, Alyssa Farah Griffin, let me start with you on this comment that we just heard from the vice president, J.D. Vance, about judges and executive power, you know many of these key people who are still inside the White House right now working for Trump. How likely is it that the Trump administration could simply defy formal court orders?

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think the Trump White House is setting the stage to defy federal courts. And, listen, there's some precedent here. I don't want to overstate it. You know, Joe Biden did challenge the courts on the student loan relief in his presidency. But I think, broadly speaking, the second Trump term is really about stretching the parameters of the executive branch, seeing how far he can go as president and within reason, that's his authority. And I think Congress has largely ceded its authority, whether it's the power of the purse, whether it's even challenging any of his cabinet secretaries. But the courts have seemed quicker to intervene. I think you are going to see this will not be the first or last time that you're going to see this White House potentially challenging these judges' rulings.

BLITZER: Yes, it's potentially very significant development, indeed. Laura Coates, what do you make of this federal judge accusing the Trump administration of violating his order? Is there any enforcement mechanism to prevent this from actually happening?

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: It seems we're back in the land of, in case of emergency, break glass, and a lot of people wondering if there's any meat on the bone to the judicial branch being able to do anything about it.

We're reminded of two key points in history, one involving Andrew Jackson, who famously told the Supreme Court, he said that Georgia has no authority over Indian country and the Cherokee Nation, and said John Marshall has issued his opinion, now let him enforce it, and then signed the Indian Removal Act. It brought up a very key moment of trying to show a tension between the judicial branch and the executive branch of who actually has to be able to follow things. Then fast forward to Nixon, who said, well, I'm not going to turn off the tapes at the Supreme Court because I have to. And then Thurgood Marshall is saying, well, this is a conundrum for us and biting heads yet again, ultimately chose to do so.

Here we are in a third moment in history. Everything happens in threes where the Supreme Court could very well, or a lower court say, listen, we have an agreement. Co-equal branch of government, the agreement is called the Constitution. But the only real mechanism here is normally that second -- that now third branch of government, the legislative branch saying, well, we could impeach you if you don't abide by a Supreme Court. That's not going to go over well with this Congress, or it's the voluntary compliance or even a lower court's ruling.

[18:10:04]

All of this, I say, to suggest it is no man's land here, and the Wild, Wild West when a head executive branch opposite the president of the United States does not abide by the rules of law.

BLITZER: Yes, it's amazing. Lance Trevor, let me get your thoughts on this. Why is the Trump administration even suggesting they could defy court orders?

LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I mean, as was noted, Alyssa said it. I mean, it's not the first time that court orders have been defied by an executive. But let's take a step back. This is going to be an epic fight and massive fight. And it is a fight that Donald Trump wants to have because he is backed up by at least 77 million Americans out there.

What I find perplexing is the Democratic Party continues fighting these fights that he has already litigated and won with the American public. If you look at the CBS poll from over the weekend, he has a 53 percent approval rating. My guess, it is much higher than that, if you look at the internals of that poll, saying that 70 percent of the people say, agree, yes, he's doing exactly what we sent him to Washington to do. If you look at the numbers on immigration, we also know that people often who support Donald Trump don't tell pollsters they support Donald Trump. So, yes, he's got the wind at his back, it is a fight he wants to have.

What I for the life of me don't get is, why are the Democrats continuing to fight him, when this is something that the American people want him to do, which is take a sledgehammer to Washington, D.C.?

KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I would argue what the Democrats need to do is to make this about the impact that these kinds of things are ultimately going to have on the American people. I actually agree with you somewhat, that a -- I know, watch out. I actually agree somewhat that an argument from Democrats about the unconstitutionality of this or about what this is doing to our institutions is not going to resonate with the American people right now. We just litigated a campaign in which this was a major argument the Democrats tried to make. It wasn't persuasive relative to other arguments about, for example, bringing down costs and a broader sense of change.

I don't think, however, the Democrats should abdicate, so just roll over and say, you know, do what you will. Because to Laura's point, what will happen if the courts -- if there's an impasse between the president and the courts is the situation will be worked out politically. And it will be whether the American people say, this is what we want from our president. We like what he's doing. We like that, you know, these cuts he's making means we're not getting the benefits that we were getting from our government, or you know.

So, I don't think that there should be a total abdication by the Democrats. But they need to target their message in a way that says, what Donald Trump is doing has a real impact on your life. And because, ultimately, there will be political accountability here if there isn't legal accountability.

COATES: Well, first of all, a poll is not litigation. The litigator in me is saying no one litigated anything in terms of the elections in that sense. But just follow the thread, if you will. If you say that a president does not have to follow a court order, okay, then court orders are optional. Does that mean if they have a warrant out for somebody's arrest, they can just ignore that and say, well, I don't care about that, the president didn't tell me to do so? If it's a violent criminal, I know that the Republicans talk a lot about violent crime, can they ignore that? If there's an immigration, someone who's detained on a deportation order, well, who's court? You and what army are you going to take me around?

There's a thread to follow it in terms of when you want to decide when the law works and when it does not. And if the overall thought is, people who violate the law ought to be brought to justice, no matter what type of crime they have committed, then you must abide by the fact that the law has to mean something. It is really that black and white.

BLITZER: I want to turn to some other news coming out of the White House right now, Laura, while I have you get your thoughts. The president is expected to sign an executive order reducing enforcement of a law that makes it illegal for U.S. companies to bribe foreign officials. It's a pretty unusual move, isn't it?

COATES: It is. I wonder about the mandate that Lance has spoken about and others have addressed it. I don't know that the American public was saying, you know what I'm voting for? I want to make sure that bribery can actually have its place in this world. There are reasons in why the legislative branch has said they want to have laws in the books. And it's the executive branch's decision to enforce what the law is as written. Not so they can have discretion of what they want to actually pursue, but to do away with enforcement would be laughable.

BLITZER: Alyssa, you know -- Alyssa is still with us as well. Alyssa, what would a move like this, in effect, allow bribery say about the Trump administration?

GRIFFIN: I want to be careful because I haven't had a chance to read the specific executive order. I know that there were previously some restrictions pulled back around foreign agents and their lobbying efforts with foreign entities. I think that it feels like it runs counter to draining the swamp, but I don't want to prejudge it having not had a chance to read it.

But broadly speaking, I have to say this, like for all my criticisms of Donald Trump, most of what he's doing, he did say he was going to do. Now, I don't think he was elected, to Laura's point, because people wanted to make it easier for people to bribe when they engage with companies or easier for people to engage as foreign agents, but he did telegraph what he was going to do. But what the American people elected him on, and we know this and we see it in all the polling, including the CBS one that was referenced, people want him to deal with lowering costs and with securing the border.

[18:15:04]

He's working on the border. I would love to see more effort around just lowering costs for Americans and less of these other issues.

BLITZER: All right. Everybody stand by. We're going to continue these conversations in just a few minutes. Thanks to all of you. And, Laura, of course, will be back later tonight, 11:00 P.M. Eastern for her show, Laura Coates Live.

Just ahead, does President Trump expect to someday pass the political torch to Vice President J.D. Vance? Wait until you hear his answer.

And CNN rides along with federal agents patrolling the southern border. What it reveals about the president's immigration crackdown.

Stay with us. You're in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We're tracking President Trump's full on assault against key government agencies, the administration now ordering the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to stop all work, a move led by the Project 2025 architect who now serves as the president's budget director.

[18:20:11]

We're back with our political experts, and Lulu Garcia Navarro is with us. Lulu, does the Trump administration have the authority right now to just shut, shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Agency? What is the thinking behind a dramatic move like this?

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: What we're seeing is dominoes falling one after the other and they don't have the authority. It is not under the presidential executive purview to be just shuttering agencies all together. But that's why you're seeing this fight being set up. They want this to go to the Supreme Court. They want to expand what executive power can do.

And so I think at this point what we're going to see is more legal fights, more blocking of some of these executive orders, and then more pushing to see how far Donald Trump can actually go.

BLITZER: You know, it's interesting, Lance, because this agency that we're talking about right now has over the years, returned nearly $20 billion to American consumers. So, how is shuttering it good for Americans?

TROVER: Well, where did that $20 billion come from? Fining financial institutions, suing small businesses out there? That's their record of what they've done. I mean, that's -- some would argue that they've increased prices. That's what their whole purpose is, to find financial institutions and all that good stuff. So I think that was --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: They act as actual guardrails. They're actually -- what the federal government does, they act as guardrails to make sure that actually when they're trying to defraud the public, that there is a federal -- this is literally what they were there to create it to do. TROVER: They were suing small businesses in Chicago and taking the task over minor stuff. I mean, they whole fight --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Illegal stuff or just minor stuff?

TROVER: Minor stuff. That is a fact.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But that's what you're saying it's minor stuff. But they've also managed to protect --

TROVER: They get the money -- take the money away from financial institutions. That's what they were built on. This was designed and created by Elizabeth Warren, one of the most far left senators in the country. And so, yes, absolutely --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So, you're actually like, just, yay, banks, yay, big business, let's have no oversight whatsoever. Is that --

TROVER: Well, no one's saying there's no oversight, but I'm saying if Wolf's talking about $20 billion, where is the $20 billion coming from?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Who's supposed to have the oversight, Lance? Who's supposed to have the oversight?

TROVER: That's what we have a government.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Exactly. But if you get rid of the institutions that do it, then who's supposed to have the oversight, Lance?

TROVER: So we'll just create new agencies, and they'll take $20 billion out of our financial institutions. That's what you're suggesting that we do?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: No. So the plan is, what, to create new agencies?

TROVER: Look, there's obviously a --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So, Donald Trump is now in the government, right?

TROVER: Yes, absolutely.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So, he is the federal government. So, if you're suggesting there should be no oversight, then what is going to take its place?

TROVER: What are you talking about, no oversight? I'm discussing where the $20 billion dollars is coming from. It's coming from financial institutions, which has a direct impact on people who have funds at those banks. That's absolutely what happens. That's absolutely what this agency's been doing. There is obviously a difference of opinion in terms of this agency and what it should be doing and who's holding what accountable based on the Trump administration. And, yes, they're trying to shut it down.

And, again, this is yet another fight that we're ready to have. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Part of the problem is that, you know, it becomes difficult to understand why this is happening when you have someone like Elon Musk, who is one of the wealthiest men in the world acting against an agency that has oversight over his businesses. Does this not become a little bit of a suspect?

TROVER: I get it. I expect -- you're for the status quo. That is what the majority of Americans are in this country are for the status quo. And that's what you're arguing for. That's what the Democrats are currently arguing for in this country.

BLITZER: Let me get into this. Senator Elizabeth Warren, as you know, and other Democrats held a rally outside the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau earlier today. But do they need to take more aggressive moves right now to combat these latest moves from the Trump administration?

BEDINGFIELD: I think this fight is a good one for the Democrats. I think relative to the conversation we were having in the last segment, I don't think every single knee jerk response to the idea that Trump is upending institutions is a good fight for the Democrats. I do think this one is a very good fight, because this is this is an org -- this puts Democrats on the side of the average person. This puts Democrats against the big banks, who are generally unpopular with Americans. There is a sense in this country that, you know, the government, the status quo, works for the wealthiest, works for the big banks, works for the big institutions. And this is an issue where, you know, Democrats and those opposing Donald Trump can say, I'm for you, I'm standing for you, I'm making sure --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: And to be clear, I'm asking you as a journalist, like, what is the plan here? Because, I mean, the problem here with all of this is that the administration is taking actions with nothing on the other side of that, with no explanation, with the signing of a pen that has -- you know, that has no oversight, that there is -- and the answer that is given at every point is, well, you know, the American people have wanted this, they have a mandate. You know, if that were true, then every single president who has come before, if wishes were pens, then, you know, every president would have gotten everything on their wish list.

[18:25:05]

And that is not how that works.

BLITZER: I want to get Alyssa into this conversation as well. Alyssa, the Trump administration has acted with lightning speed, taking action on so many of these federal agencies right now. How far do you think they are willing to go?

GRIFFIN: I think they're willing to go quite far. And to be honest, I think President Trump wants to force this very debate that we're seeing right now. He wants people to have to, Democrats, justify existing agencies at the spending level that they exist at. And while I have major issues with some Republicans in the Elon crowd demonizing federal workers and agencies outright, criticizing them, I also think that Democrats' reflexive posture of kind of saying that, you know, federal workers in these agencies are basically saints who are not worthy of any sort of criticism, scrutiny, or cutting back on waste and fraud is also problematic.

So, I think Donald Trump wants to force that debate. Now, that doesn't mean there's not going to be gaps that come up. I think we're going to -- we're seeing in real time aid that should be going out the door because of the shuttering of USAID isn't happening. But he wants -- the American people wanted him to be a disruptor. He's disrupting in a huge way. But I actually agree with Kate. I think this is where you need Democrats to be arguing. This is going against some labor commitments that Donald Trump made, not arguing over broad foreign aid, like the issues they were dealing with last week. I think it's interesting footing for him to put Democrats on.

BLITZER: Lulu, I want to play for you and for our viewers a just released, newly released part of Trump's interview with Fox News. Listen and watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Do you view Vice President J.D. Vance as your successor, the Republican nominee in 2028?

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: No, but he's very capable. I mean, I don't think that it -- you know, I think you have a lot of very capable people. So far, I think he's doing a fantastic job. It's too early. We're just starting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: It's a pretty unusual statement, I must say, to hear a sitting president speak about his vice president this way.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: In this I'm going to say that Donald Trump is right. I mean, it's a little bit strange to be asking someone who their successor is a few weeks into their term. You know, I understand what the impulse might have been. But the fact of the matter is, I think if you'd asked Biden who their successor would have been, I don't think -- I think that would have been a very strange question to ask.

So, I don't think In this case he was actually undermining V.P. Vance and, in fact, I think V.P. Vance has been incredibly useful and helpful, especially on the Hill for the president negotiating a lot of these issues. So, you know -- but, you know, Donald Trump, he doesn't think anyone is a successor.

BLITZER: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very, very much.

Coming up, a key member of the House Intelligence Committee on a new test of Tulsi Gabbard's very controversial nomination as director of U.S. National Intelligence. Congressman Jason Crow is standing by live.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

BLITZER: We're following more breaking news right now up on Capitol Hill, a vote by the full Senate on whether to advance Tulsi Gabbard's nomination to be the next Director of National Intelligence. It's a key test of support for one of President Trump's most controversial cabinet picks.

We're joined now by Democratic Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado. He serves on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

It looks like Tulsi Gabbard appears to be passing this procedural vote, setting the stage potentially for her to be the director of National Intelligence. What's your assessment?

REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Well, Wolf, you said that this was one of the most controversial picks. That is only half true, because there are two different worlds in Washington right now. There's one world of people who are interested in maintaining standards for those who are in the most sensitive positions of American national security, making sure people are vetted, that they have the experience, that they have the competency, that they can be trusted. For those folks, this is controversial. Then there's the whole world of people who are interested only in appeasing Donald Trump and/or preventing him from being angry at them. For them, it is not controversial. So, we're really in a split screen environment here right now.

BLITZER: It's certainly true, indeed. A federal judge, as you probably know, has accused the Trump administration of violating a court order that comes as Vice President J.D. Vance is suggesting that the administration could defy judge's orders. What do you make of these latest developments?

CROW: Well, you know, what I make of it is that there are all these violations of court orders because they're doing a bunch of things that have nothing to do with lowering costs or actually doing the things that American people and my constituents are worried about, right? I paid almost $13 to buy a dozen eggs this weekend. They continue to do things to engage in their culture wars to engage of dismantling their supposed deep state, as they call it. They're not doing anything to make people's lives better.

So, you know, that's my focus and I hope that it becomes their focus at some point, but I'm not holding my breath.

BLITZER: Do you think we're heading towards a constitutional crisis right now?

CROW: Yes, I do believe that. You know, people throw these terms around constitutional crisis. Listen, what that means is this, is we have somebody in the White House who doesn't believe that our checks and balances, that the court system, that rules apply to him, that the law applies to him, and why that matters for Americans is because our economy, the way that we structure our local government, the way that we live our lives rely on folks following the rules, rely on people generally following the law and going to courts to seek redress when people don't.

[18:35:08]

If you have somebody in charge of the country that disregards all of that, that seeps into every part of American society and we will be less safe. Our economy will be, you know, less healthy and every aspect of American lives eventually will be impacted by that. We may not feel it now, but I guarantee you will feel it in the future.

BLITZER: Very worrisome development. The Trump administration has ordered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to stand down, their words, from all their tasks. What's your reaction to this move? Can Democrats really do anything to stop this?

CROW: Well, let me explain. You know, there's all these acronyms in different departments and agencies. And, listen, I'm for reform. There are certainly ways we can streamline things, make things more efficient. But this agency was created in the wake of the 2009 financial crisis, where millions of people lost jobs, millions of people lost their homes. There was vast abuse by banks and by the financial sector, all of these, you know, weird, crazy private equity exchanges that didn't really mean anything other than on paper, and it destroyed Americans' lives. After that, we said, you know what? We can't let this happen again. We've got to put some checks and balances in place. And that's what the CFPB was created to do.

So, this actually is important to create (ph) abuses and actually protect Americans, and I'm going to fight to make sure that those guardrails remain in place, whatever they happen to look like or whatever they're called.

BLITZER: Donald Trump is now warning that all hell, his words, all hell will break out, will break loose in Gaza if Hamas threatens to postpone the next release of Israeli hostages scheduled for this coming weekend. Listen and watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Saturday at 12:00, we want them all back. I'm speaking for myself. Israel can override it. But from myself, Saturday at 12:00 and if they're not here, all hell is going to break out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: What do you make of that, Congressman?

CROW: Well, tough talk rarely ever gets people released in situations like this. What actually gets people released is the behind the scenes work, the hard work of diplomacy and security to get it to have happen. But, really? Really, Donald Trump? All hell is going to break loose? Have you seen pictures of Gaza recently? Have you seen the fact that it is completely destroyed and leveled, and that, you know, tens of thousands of people, mainly women and children, have lost their lives there? So, I don't know what he's talking about. Clearly, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Let's actually get these hostages released, because they need to get released. They need to go home. And let's figure out how we can engage in real discussion, to have real solution to bring peace to this region.

BLITZER: Congressman Jason Crow, thanks as usual for joining us.

CROW: Thank you.

BLITZER: And just ahead, an in depth and up close look at Trump's immigration crackdown. What federal agents are finding at the southern border with Mexico. CNN is with them on patrol.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

BLITZER: Tonight, CNN is getting a new, very inside look at Trump's immigration crackdown. CNN's Rosa Flores rode along with ICE agents on patrol at the U.S. Mexico border.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 960, radio check.

ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, what we look for is any disturbance in the ground?

In the dark by ground, and at racing speeds on the Rio Grande at daybreak.

CHRISTINA SMALLWOOD, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION AGENT: We had a shooting incident.

FLORES (voice over): Border Patrol agent Christina Smallwood shows us what border enforcement looks like in South Texas under Trump 2.0.

Since the new administration started, how has your job changed?

SMALLWOOD: It hasn't.

FLORES: She still tracks smuggler hotspots and analyzes footprints from border crossers.

SMALLWOOD: And maybe evening hour foot traffic.

FLORES: So, last night.

SMALLWOOD: Right.

FLORES: The most significant changes, she says, President Donald Trump ending the Biden era CBP1 app. which was used by migrants to enter the U.S. legally, and the de facto end of catch and release, a term for authorities releasing migrants into border communities after immigration processing. What is the biggest impact?

SMALLWOOD: Apprehension, detention, ultimately leading to removal.

FLORES: She says the de facto end of catch and release is not due to a directive from the president, but actually the result of extremely low migrant crossings and swift deportations.

We spoke to a Border Patrol agent.

Sister Norma Pimentel is the head of the prominent migrant respite center in the area, who over the years has received tens of thousands of migrants from Border Patrol under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

So since Trump took office, the number of migrants released to you are very few.

SISTER NORMA PIMENTEL, CATHOLIC CHARITIES RGV: Almost zero.

FLORES: Almost zero.

PIMENTEL: Right.

FLORES: So, practically the end of what they call catch and release?

PIMENTEL: Correct.

FLORES: She says not zero, but close enough. Monthly migrant apprehensions on the U.S. southern border started declining over a year ago. Last summer, after the Biden administration essentially barred asylum and upped deportations, border crossings plunged further.

Despite the sizable drop, President Trump declared a national emergency.

TRUMP: Stop the invasion at our southern border.

FLORES: Citing in part a flood of migration, announcing tariffs, some of those now deferred, all while continuing an ICE enforcement blitz across the country's interior that has led to more than 8,700 arrests.

I mean Eddie Guerra, the Democratic sheriff of Hidalgo County, says the ice blitz has taken six suspected criminals off the streets.

What types of crimes?

SHERIFF EDDIE GUERRA, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS: Individuals with aggravated assaults, sexual assaults, indecency with children.

FLORES: The Republican mayor of McAllen, Javier Villalobos, has some reservations about another looming Trump policy.

[18:45:05]

What concerns you most about the tariffs?

MAYOR JAVIER VILLALOBOS (R-MCALLEN, TX): Our economy, putting food on the table, inflation.

FLORES: Historically, migrant crossings are cyclical, which means the day facto end of catch and release could just be temporary.

Take Trump's first term, migrant crossings initially dropped, but then spiked in 2019. At the time, Sister Norma said Border Patrol was sending up to 1,000 migrants a day to her center, and ICE described it like this.

MATTHEW ALBENCE, ACTING DIRECTOR, ICE: The humanitarian and national security crisis the likes of which we have never seen.

FLORES: Which raises concerns about yet another aspect of Trump 2.0. The move to freeze federal aid that nonprofits in cities like McAllen depend on during migrant surges.

VILLALOBOS: The city should not be footing the bill.

FLORES: Back on the Rio Grande with Agent Smallwood, all quiet after hours of patrol.

Do you see any footprints?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't know, activity this morning.

FLORES: Rosa Flores, CNN, along the U.S.-Mexico border.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Thanks very much to Rosa Flores for that report.

Coming up, the bottom line on President Trump's order to stop making pennies. How it might save the government some money but force consumers to pay a price.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:33]

BLITZER: There's a new target tonight of President Trump's extreme makeover of the U.S. government.

CNN's Brian Todd is over at the U.S. Mint here in Washington with details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tonight, there's new momentum to get rid of the penny or at least stop producing it.

President Trump, in a social media post, says he's instructed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to halt production of new pennies. Quote: For far too long, the United States has minted pennies, which literally cost us more than 2 cents. This is so wasteful. It actually cost 3.7 cents to produce one penny, according to a report last year from the U.S. Mint.

One of the reasons anti-penny advocates like Professor Robert Whaples say it's time to end our ties to the penny.

ROBERT WHAPLES, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY: You see that people consider them to be a nuisance and they just don't bring them back into the store. You see them lying on the sidewalk. People don't even pick them up.

TODD: Whaples argues that because many Americans don't bring pennies back to the store and spend them, stores then run out of pennies. Ask the banks for more. Then banks ask the U.S. Mint to create more of a coin we're using less and less.

Whaples, along with groups like the National Association of Convenience Stores, also argue that getting rid of the penny will speed up transaction times at store counters and save us money that way.

WHAPLES: You know, fishing into your pocket or your purse to get one when you're doing a cash transaction adds a little time to the transaction, and it slows the line down, and our time is worth money.

TODD: But Mark Weller, director of the pro-penny group Americans for Common Sense, which is funded by a company that produces the metal discs that are used to make coins, argues that getting rid of the penny would cause inflation because businesses would start rounding transactions to the nearest nickel, and would more likely try to round up than down.

MARK WELLER, DIRECTOR, AMERICANS FOR COMMON SENSE: Businesses have a profit motive and the fact is it's not going to even out. You can price things in a way that they're going to round up.

TODD: And Weller says getting rid of the penny disproportionately harms low income people.

WELLER: There's billions of transactions that take place under $25, and those are mostly made in cash. And so, you're going to have a rounding tax on the people that can least afford it.

TODD: Does President Trump have the power to unilaterally eliminate the penny?

Experts say he likely can order the Treasury Department to stop making new pennies, but to stop the use of pennies already in circulation would take an act of Congress. And the federal government would also have to buy back the already issued pennies, which would be expensive.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD (on camera): The actual cost of producing pennies in the U.S. has actually been pretty stable over the past few years compared to the cost of producing nickels, which has risen about 20 percent since 2022, mainly due to the fact that the raw materials used to make nickels are far more expensive than those used to produce pennies -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Brian Todd reporting for us -- thank you very much.

And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:57:40]

BLITZER: The Super Bowl winning Eagles are back in Philadelphia tonight, and to say that the team's fans are thrilled about their epic victory would be an understatement.

Joining us now, Philly native and lifelong Eagles fan, CNN's Michael Smerconish.

Michael, thanks for joining us. This was an incredible game for the Eagles, as we all know, defeating the two-time defending Super Bowl champions. How are you in the city of Philadelphia, for that matter, reacting to this enormous victory?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN HOST, SMERCONISH: As you expect. It's particularly special if you spend your entire life in a particular area, mine inside a 50-mile radius at all different stages of my life, and then to see your team win, especially if you've suffered through lean years. And it's been a while since we've had the lean years.

But I remember the '70s and -- but, Wolf, let me make a point that's larger than the Philadelphia Eagles. It's a message about how sports can be such a unifier. They say, you know, the Internet is all about connectivity. Baloney.

We live in an era of disconnect. We have so few common experiences, and it has been so much fun in the build up to last night, to just be out and about and see everybody in green, Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, all age groups.

I start every day in a Wawa, which is our convenience store of choice, and to go get coffee at 6:00 a.m. and to see people who are just headed off to all different types of jobs and careers, but engaging in conversation about what we have in common. And what we've had in common, has been this ride with the Philadelphia Eagles.

BLITZER: Yeah, it's -- it's amazing. I can only imagine how all my fellow Buffalo Bills fans would have been reacting if the Bills won the Super Bowl. It would have been amazing. Your victory parade is set for this Friday in Philadelphia.

Tell us what you're expecting and are you, Michael, planning to go?

SMERCONISH: No, I am not planning to go because I've got too much work on my plate getting ready for my CNN program on Saturday. But let me do your viewers a favor. You and I are both political junkies. We've watched so many political speeches, and yet, Wolf, the greatest speech of all time, bar none, all categories. Jason Kelce in 2018, when the Eagles last won the Lombardi trophy.

Watch it. He's in full mama regalia. That's a local thing. And he delivers the ultimate takedown of every opponent and naysayer of the Philadelphia Eagles. And he exhibited such a gift for the spoken word, and now, you see with his brother the success of their podcast, if we get anything like that, it will be superb.

BLITZER: Michael Smerconish, thanks very much.

And to our viewers, be sure to watch "SMERCONISH", Saturday mornings, 9:00 a.m. Eastern, only here on CNN.

Thanks very much for watching.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.