Return to Transcripts main page

The Source with Kaitlan Collins

Elon Musk Strikes Fear Among Federal Employees By Posting Names Of Workers He Wants To Cut In His Trump Admin Role; Sources: Trump Using Texas As Blueprint For Border Security; Trump Picks Kellogg As Special Envoy For Ukraine & Russia. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired November 27, 2024 - 21:00   ET

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

[21:00:00]

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: --Minnie Mouse is 60-feet tall. This gives you an idea, I'm only about as tall as her nose. But she's not the tallest balloon that's ever been in this parade. That was Olive Oyl, Popeye's girlfriend. She won't be in this parade. But she was 102-feet tall.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Wow.

TUCHMAN: Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.

John.

BERMAN: Gary Tuchman, bigger than the nose of Minnie Mouse. Thank you so much for being there, Gary.

And of course, you can all join Erica Hill, and me, tomorrow morning. We're going to be live along the parade route for the ultimate Thanksgiving morning watch-party, "THANKSGIVING IN AMERICA." It starts at 08:00 a.m. Eastern.

The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.

Fear spreading across the U.S. government, as Elon Musk publicly highlights little-known government employees and positions, he wants slashed, terrifying federal workers, turned targets of the richest man in the world.

Also, at least eight of Donald Trump's Cabinet picks and appointees have been targeted with bomb threats or swatting. What the FBI is saying tonight.

And there's been a lot of concern and urgency over RFK Jr.'s controversial stances, from vaccines to milk to taking fluoride out of America's drinking water. Our source, tonight, takes us behind the science, and says there's a better way to have those conversations.

I'm Boris Sanchez, in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE. Workers in the federal government might have been nervous, when President-elect Donald Trump announced the creation of DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. But now there's a new fear. Becoming the target of one of its founders, who also happens to be the billionaire owner of SpaceX, Tesla and X.

Last week, in between a litany of other messages, Elon Musk reposted a pair of posts that called out, by name, people holding for relatively obscure government positions. The information is available through public online databases.

But targeting people in front of his more than 200 million followers on X is now terrifying federal workers. Some current federal employees, are telling CNN, the threat of being in Musk's crosshairs might even drive them from their jobs entirely. They're afraid of being physically threatened.

Musk has gained more power than he had already, since Election Day, becoming a fixture at the side of the President-elect, with input on transition decisions, and even sitting in on Trump's call with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

It's a relationship and an influence that some have questioned. But former Trump aide, Steve Bannon says, quote, "Elon and I disagree on some things. But Elon deserves his place at the table. Look, he stroked a $150 million check for the ground game, which is not sexy, at the exact moment we needed it. He came in with the money and the professionals. To be brutally frank, it's the reason we won."

And Trump's rewarded Musk since, by naming him Co-chair of DOGE, along with Vivek Ramaswamy, both of them getting big shout-outs at Mar-a- Lago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL- ELECT: Elon Musk. Elon.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: He likes this place. I can't get him out of here. He just likes this place.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: And you have Vivek Ramaswamy. Working with Elon on efficiency. They're working on efficiency, among other things, and they're going to be saving a lot of money, and making our country stronger and better.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Now, Musk and Ramaswamy are expected on Capitol Hill, next week, when Speaker Mike Johnson says they'll address House and Senate Republicans to discuss, quote, Major reform ideas.

My inside source on this story is Everett Kelley. He's the National President of the American Federation of Government Employees. He represents more than 800,000 federal workers.

Everett, thank you so much for being with us tonight.

You say that these threats from Musk are designed to terrorize federal workers. I wonder what you're hearing from them.

EVERETT KELLEY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Well, thank you, Boris, for having me, first of all.

These threats, they're uncalled for. First of all, real leaders do not behave like this, right? Real leaders don't terrorize and instill fear in Americans. Singling out individual workers is an attempt to instill fear in federal employees, and it won't work. I don't believe the American people want to waste their tax dollars going toward the types of behavior, like this, either.

Now, our members have been here for 90 years, under several presidents and political parties. Government workers are no stranger to criticism. One-third, matter of fact, about 642,000 of federal workers that I represent are veterans. And the veterans don't bow down to the first stroke of criticism.

[21:05:00]

While criticism is understandable. When we start attacking individuals, that's a problem. No one and, I say, no one, should attack individuals, to try to prove a point. That's just not right. And the workforce I represent will not cow-down. They will not run away. But they will stand there, and stand up for their rights. And it just won't work.

SANCHEZ: I do wonder, Everett, what you make of the substance of what Musk was getting at, with some of those tweets, when he talks about positions like advisor on climate diversification.

I mean, there's this Gallup poll that finds a majority of Americans, 55 percent of them believe the government simply does too much. Do you think that this Efficiency department should get a fair shot at trying to address some of that?

KELLEY: I don't -- I don't have an issue with efficiency. I think that we need to look at efficiency. But I can tell you where we can start, you know? Because efficiency is something that we need to really consider.

If the proposal is to, I think, cut 75 percent of government, under the Department of Government Efficiency, and the point of the materials (ph) is unimaginable. There will be drastic impacts, right, not only on the workers, but on the services that the American people rely upon.

For example, we're talking about cutting 75 percent of the workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Those aren't Washington bureaucrats. We're talking about cutting doctors and nurses, and those who schedule appointments and administer benefits for the American veterans.

Where Mr. Musk need to focus, is about $759 billion that the government had paid for service contracts, right? Just service contracts. Now, that's compared to $270 billion that goes out to federal employees, and paying benefit each year. Not contracts for materials and equipment and planes, you know?

And I'm asking every American to convey this, to their elected official, and ask them to really look at what the federal employees are doing, to provide the services for the American people versus government contract. That's what we can start working and looking.

SANCHEZ: Yes, as you know, Elon Musk is on the other side of a number of lucrative government contracts for SpaceX, and other ventures that he's had. I wonder what you make of his relationship with the federal government, and whether this presents a conflict of interest.

KELLEY: In my opinion, it certainly presents a conflict of interest. I mean, are you going to scrutinize the people that regulates you? I mean, it's commonsense to me, it's definitely a conflict of interest.

SANCHEZ: Everett Kelley, we have to leave the conversation there. Very much appreciate you sharing your perspective with us.

KELLEY: Thank you, sir.

SANCHEZ: Now to my sources.

CNN Political Commentator, Bakari Sellers.

Republican strategist and former Director of Press Communications for the 2020 Trump campaign, Erin Perrine.

And Professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, Kim Wehle.

Thank you all for being with us.

Erin, first to you. There's obviously an argument to be made for making the government more efficient. I do wonder if targeting individual federal workers is the most efficient way to do that. Is it even appropriate?

ERIN PERRINE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, AXIOM STRATEGIES, FORMER DIRECTOR OF PRESS COMMUNICATIONS, TRUMP 2020 CAMPAIGN: I think that we all know the answer to that is no, it's not appropriate.

Doxxing people, we're seeing it on both sides, right now, right?

You're seeing numbers of the Trump cabinet that are being targeted, that are swatted, that they're having bomb threats called to their house.

And then we're putting out the names of federal employees. True, all of that is publicly available.

But even in the small world that I've worked in, it's sometimes not that small, I've received online threats. It's not fun. It's not OK. It makes you uncomfortable. It makes you nervous. It makes you wonder if that person in the crowd is somebody who might know who you are, and who hates you. It gets you second-guessing a lot of things.

So, people in power really do need to be careful about sharing that kind of information, when you have a large platform.

Yes, there is a major case for government efficiency. And yes, I am sure there are plenty of programs and employees that can be cut, to make sure that we are spending taxpayer dollars more appropriately. But we can't do that if we get off-mission, by pointing people out by name in this fashion, because there are a lot of very angry people on the internet.

SANCHEZ: Bakari, I'm curious to get your perspective on this, in part because you heard a moment ago, how Trump ally Steve Bannon sees it, that Musk deserves not only a seat at the table, but influence, for helping Trump win.

How far do you suspect that influence goes, when he's going after individual federal workers that, let's be honest, aren't really responsible for the contracts that the government makes, generally?

[21:10:00]

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, (D) FORMER SOUTH CAROLINA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: There are a few points to be made.

I think first and foremost, we know that this Trump presidency won't have any guardrails. We know that to be true. Whether or not it's FBI background checks, or whether or not it's kind of limiting their ability from the Supreme Court, we know that those guardrails simply won't exist.

But I also, I just have to give some props to Susie Wiles here for a moment. Because she put Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk kind of out to pasture. She put them in the kids playground. She put them over there in the sandbox.

DOGE, for example, has no statutory authority, has no budget, has no employees. And all they can do is, is literally just go on Twitter, and say, We should do X, Y and Z. And yes, I do believe that they're going too far by targeting individual employees.

But DOGE has the same amount of authority that I have, right now, in Columbia, South Carolina, as a Democrat, who voted for Kamala Harris. So, that's first. If you think a United States senator is going to listen to Elon Musk, or Vivek Ramaswamy, on what they should cut, then that's just pure lunacy, so. But that's kind of the first thing.

But to go back to this blur of where the lines are. I find the hypocrisy of many Republicans on the fact that Elon Musk grew a multi- trillion dollar business, off the back of American taxpayers, through subsidies and grants.

And if you want to start with eliminating those government programs? If you want to start with cuts? Start with SpaceX. Start with Tesla. Start with every other company, The Boring Company, I think it's called. Start with these grants and subsidies that go to Elon Musk. Because for me, that is somewhat of the -- of just that bit of irony, and that bit of hypocrisy, which makes people frown upon what government is today.

SANCHEZ: Kim, I wonder, from a legal perspective, if Musk has exposed himself to some risk by going after these individuals.

KIM WEHLE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW: Well, possibly there are potential civil remedies that would -- a private citizen could bring.

I think he knows going into this administration, that pretty soon, the hands of justice at the federal level, the criminal justice system, are going to be controlled by Donald Trump. And that the Supreme Court has given Donald Trump carte blanche, effectively, to abuse the criminal justice system, under this immunity ruling.

But it's really, I think, ironic, we're having a conversation about what Elon Musk is going to do to the federal government. He was not elected. He's not even being nominated for an actual position. As was indicated, DOGE could not be created without an Act of Congress.

So, what we're seeing is not only massive pay-to-play, Steve Bannon saying, Listen, he got us elected, so we owe him something, a private individual. But also blurring the lines around the transition, national security, the communications between the Trump transition and the Biden administration.

All of these, there are many sort of holes in the system that Donald Trump is pushing and exploiting. And I think that's going to come back to not just haunt federal workers, but haunt the structure of government itself, moving forward.

SANCHEZ: It does seem like he has a receptive audience, not only with Donald Trump, but with Republicans.

And with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy coming to Capitol Hill, next week. You sort of alluded to a question of the constitutionality of DOGE. Whether it's constitutional or not, it seems like he might have sway over a Congress that's now led, in both chambers, by Republicans.

WEHLE: Yes. Again, back to the immunity decision. I don't think we can overstate the power of law enforcement and prosecutorial power and investigative power, over -- across not only Congress, state legislators, media, individuals -- federal workers.

And the -- of course, the Republicans in Congress understand that if they want to have their own power secured, they need to make nice-nice with the President-elect incoming. And so, I don't think we're going to see a lot of pushback with this particular Congress. And of course, that's how the supreme -- the Constitution is structured, that we've got branches that check the other branches. Question, right now is, who's going to check Donald Trump?

SANCHEZ: Yes, it is an outstanding question.

I do wonder, Erin, as we're getting this news that Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, met with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Meta, the broader company, the umbrella under which Facebook falls under, confirmed that today. It seems like billionaires are really leaning into the idea that they can court Donald Trump, and perhaps get some influence. I wonder what you make of his visit.

[21:15:00]

PERRINE: I think it makes a lot of sense. I think that if you're any business leader in the United States, engaging in a thoughtful conversation with the President-elect, and his incoming administration, about your priorities, about the government's priorities, and about the American people's priorities, that's a good thing to do.

It's clear that Zuckerberg didn't -- didn't endorse in this campaign. But Zuckerbucks were a big part of previous campaigns. There's been concerns about shadow-banning and conservatives on social media.

These are good conversations for people to be having, no matter what. And it shows that there's much more of a business appetite for a conversation with Donald Trump as the President-elect, going into 2024, than I think you saw in 2016. People are taking this really seriously, and they should.

SANCHEZ: My first thought was that he might be trying to broker that cage match with Elon Musk that they never fulfilled.

PERRINE: Yes, right.

SANCHEZ: Bakari, on a more serious note, one thing that Elon Musk has raised about is Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in government, DEI. At one point, he called it another word for racism.

And today, we're seeing Trump's pick to lead the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, replying, "Nope" to DEI in the military. This was a reply, a one-word reply, to a clip on X, of an Air Force official saying that DEI helps the U.S. military have the most capable forces on the planet.

What's your reaction?

SELLERS: I mean, I think that Elon Musk, and one of the biggest fears that people have, which is being realized, is that he really wants to turn America into pre-1990 South Africa.

And you look at Elon Musk, and some of the things that his own parents have said about him, and kind of coming into his own right now, you see, with the xenophobia, or the language that he uses, to hearken back to those days. It makes people have these palpitations and fear.

The fact is, I mean, you have people who say now, when they get on an airplane, that those pilots must be DEI-hire, simply because of the color of their skin.

I believe that individuals who can build rockets are geniuses. I believe people who can take individuals to Mars are geniuses. It doesn't mean that you can't be stupid or ignorant, when it comes to issues of race or issues of making sure that people feel safe or comfortable in their own skin, in this country.

There's nothing about Elon Musk, in what he says, regardless of how much money he has, which represents what Abraham Lincoln calls, The Better Angels of Our Nature.

And so, his thumbprint is going to be on this government, for the next four years. I read a Semafor article today, about the reason that Chinese state media is fearing people leaving X, because of their investment in going to other social media networks, because of the influence they have over Elon Musk.

History books are going to write about the fact that Elon Musk took this country backwards, that my father nearly died in this country, in 1968, being shot by law enforcement, fighting for rights of people who look like me, to be sitting in front of you today. And Elon Musk is working damn hard to take us backwards.

The elections have consequences. So God bless you and your state. Down at Mar-a-Lago, you get four years of influence. And then, we have to get this country back on track.

SANCHEZ: Bakari Sellers. Erin Perrine. Kim Wehle. Appreciate all of your perspectives. Thanks for being with us tonight. And Happy Thanksgiving.

Next. More Trump Cabinet picks, current and former, announcing that they too have been the targets of pipe bomb threats, others involved in swatting incidents. We have the latest from the FBI.

And President-elect Trump just appointed this man, for a critical foreign policy role. Can he help end the war in Ukraine?

We'll be right back.

[21:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Tonight, we're learning two more Trump Cabinet picks have been targeted by bomb threats and swatting.

The latest are Pete Hegseth, Trump's pick for Secretary of Defense, and Howard Lutnick, chosen to serve as Commerce secretary. That's on top of threats against nominees to lead the United Nations, EPA, Agriculture, HUD, Labor, and the CIA.

Matt Gaetz, who recently withdrew as Trump's pick for attorney general, also says he faced a similar threat.

The attacks have ranged from swatting, which entails falsely reporting a dangerous person is at a particular address. To pipe bomb threats at these nominees' homes.

We've learned that President Biden has been briefed on these incidents.

And tonight, the FBI says it's investigating and taking all potential threats seriously.

Let's discuss with my source, Andy McCabe, former FBI Deputy Director.

Andy, thank you so much for being with us tonight.

From the scale and similarity of these incidents, it's fair to suspect that this was coordinated, right? What does it tell you about who may have carried it out?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Boris, I think that's a logical assumption. But we don't have quite enough information to really be confident about that.

It's entirely -- well, it's entirely possible this could be the same person or the same group of individuals who are embarked upon this campaign of harassment and terrorizing nominees in the new administration. But it's also possible that one person started it. Others, who weren't coordinated, saw it, and felt the same way, and jumped on and then started to engage in the same activity.

So, it's really too early in the game. Until we can start identifying someone who -- some of these actors, it's a little too early to say whether or not it's coordinated.

SANCHEZ: I'm wondering what kind of security, Cabinet picks usually get, before they're confirmed.

MCCABE: Not very much, to be perfectly honest. Because let's remember, these folks have not been officially nominated yet, because, of course, the President-elect is not yet the president. So, this is a somewhat of a long-term, kind of a slow burn of a process, if you will.

[21:25:00]

We know that these are the expected nominees. I'm sure they will become that, once the President is inaugurated. So, they don't qualify for any particular level of government security protection. I would assume most of them, particularly high net worth individuals, are engaging private security to try to help them through this time.

Unfortunately, this has become a very common element of life for people who assume high profile positions. It is not something that we see just targets, people of Republican-leaning, or people of Democratic-leaning, is, across the board, kind of a campaign of low- cost, easy-to-do, harassment and terror. SANCHEZ: And swatting, specifically, over the last decade, has become so much more common, so much more prevalent.

It originally started with these video gamers sort of pulling pranks. But now, it's being used more often against, as you said, high-profile individuals, including Special Counsel Jack Smith, and the judge overseeing Trump's federal election subversion case, Tanya Chutkan.

It doesn't just pull away from law enforcement focusing on something that isn't a threat. But it could also be a danger in itself. We've seen some fatal accidents because of swatting.

Talk to us about the challenges, for law enforcement, to discern between a call that is simply a prank, or an attempt to intimidate, versus an actual dangerous situation that squat -- that a SWAT team is required for.

MCCABE: Sure. So, there's no question that this activity can create danger and risk for the people involved.

When you provoke an intense kind of highly-stressed law enforcement response, whether that's with a SWAT team, or any sort of response to a residence, there's always the possibility that wires get crossed, things happen, and innocent people get hurt. So, there -- they are absolutely creating a danger here.

We should also note that the burden of this activity is really falling disproportionately on the shoulders of local law enforcement. This is something that police -- police agencies and sheriff's offices deal with, every day, trying to protect the people that are within their jurisdiction.

It is so common that they might be pretty sure that a call or an email or a communication along -- that engages in swatting is likely a hoax, but they can't -- they can't just ignore it. They have to conduct some sort of activity to make sure that citizen is not in danger.

So, many law enforcement agencies have developed procedures, where they first respond very subtly. They may call the residents, and engage in a conversation. They may send out a small patrol force, to just look at the block and the residents, to understand, to try to develop any intelligence, to see if there's any actual activity going on at that place. And then, of course, bring out the big guns and the SWAT team if that's necessary.

But it is really -- it's something that law enforcement has had to adapt to, and it's really unfortunate total waste of resources, and puts people's lives in danger.

SANCHEZ: I also want to ask you about the bomb threats.

Because I remember, during the closure of schools and local facilities, in Springfield, Ohio, over false accusations of residents there, eating cats and dogs, by President-elect Trump, there was a statement put out by officials that they suspected foreign actors were being involved in starting these calls. Would it surprise you if these bomb threats were coming from foreign actors? And how does law enforcement track that kind of activity?

MCCABE: Boris, it wouldn't surprise me at all. We've seen it many, many times, across a whole different range of targets. Several years ago, like I think, 2016, we saw a massive number of threats called into Jewish community centers and synagogues across the country. And ultimately, we tracked that activity down to an individual who was actually located in Israel.

So, this is -- this is oftentimes, when we are fortunate enough, and work hard enough, and are able to figure out who's behind this activity, we very frequently find it's foreign actors. Now, whether or not that's state actors and people who are directed or supported by state intelligence agencies, or just simply deranged individuals who happen to live overseas? That can be -- there's a whole wide range of possibilities there.

But law enforcement has to go into this, really thinking that they begin with a global possibility of locations for the folks that are involved.

SANCHEZ: Andy McCabe, thank you so much for the analysis. And Happy Thanksgiving.

MCCABE: Thanks, Boris. You too.

SANCHEZ: Ahead. President-elect Trump's promise to close the southern border and mass deportations, has some immigrant rights activists taking action now. A DACA recipient is my next source. Stay with CNN.

[21:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Tonight, sources tell CNN, Trump's team plans to use Texas as a blueprint for his mass deportation plans.

While state leaders have often feuded with the Biden administration, on Border Patrol policies. Trump plans to rely on those hardline border tactics being employed in the Lone Star State, so that federal personnel can be freed up to detain undocumented immigrants within the United States. It's a plan that Trump wants other border states to adopt as well.

And as Texas launches Border Patrol units on horseback, and offers the government land for Trump's mass deportation centers, immigrants, asylum seekers and advocates are bracing for a new reality.

[21:35:00]

My source is Cesar Espinosa, a Leader in Houston's Hispanic community, and the Executive Director of FIEL, the largest immigrant-led civil rights organization in Texas.

Cesar, thank you so much for being with us. There are a lot of folks who rely on your advocacy group, for help and information. And I understand that you've gotten a lot of calls since Trump won the election. What are you hearing from those folks?

CESAR ESPINOSA, LEADER IN HOUSTON'S HISPANIC COMMUNITY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FIEL, AN IMMIGRANT-LED CIVIL RIGHTS ORG., DACA RECIPIENT: Well, number one, thank you so much for having me.

We are hearing a lot of people that are worried. We're hearing a lot of people that are uncertain of what their future is like.

What we want people to understand is that many of the folks, who are calling us, have been folks who have been living here for well over two, three decades. So these are not newly-arrived immigrants. Rather, immigrants who have lived here, who have contributed, and who are now very worried about what their future might be like, in the next four years.

SANCHEZ: Some of those people, like yourself, are in so-called mixed- status families. They're made up of U.S. citizens and undocumented immigrants. And they're worried about family separations.

What goes through your mind, when you contemplate how you might react to something like that? And what do you tell others in a similar position?

ESPINOSA: Well, I mean, there's certainly a lot of worry, there's certainly a lot of uncertainty.

When you marry somebody, or when you fall in love with somebody, it's really rare that somebody really looks at the immigration status, and says, Well, I'm not going to marry you because you don't have documents, or things like that.

So these are just mixed families, who have come together, or have fallen in love, who have started families. I myself have a 6-year-old child, who's a U.S. citizen. And it's just -- and there's a lot of uncertainty, even for them, to not -- to know that one day they might not have a parent here, or one day they might have to -- we might have to uplift our entire -- uproot our entire family, and move to a place that they don't know, and that they don't call home.

SANCHEZ: You were a DACA recipient up until this summer, when you got your green card. Do you worry that your legal status may be at risk, and that you could be deported?

ESPINOSA: After -- I've heard, throughout my entire life, I've heard, Why don't you just do it the right way? Why don't you just apply for citizenship? And things like that. And I tried. I tried many ways. I've consulted with hundreds of attorneys, at this point.

And it wasn't until, you know, until five years ago, when I met the love of my life, that we got married. And then, we barely started our process, about two years ago, and I was able to get a green card now. But it took me 33 years to get to the point. And one of the things that boggles my mind, and that we talk about with my wife, is the fact that after waiting for 33 years, after finally getting to this point in my life, I could very well be denied citizenship, or even as a legal permanent resident, could still be deported.

SANCHEZ: So, given the personal story you just shared, I wonder how you respond to the argument, from Trump supporters, and specifically those who immigrated to this country, that they came here legally, going through an ordeal, to do it the right way, and they argue that those who did not, have broken the law, and should be processed as criminals.

What do you say to folks who have that perspective?

ESPINOSA: In the case of me, I was brought here as a young child. At 5-years-old, I couldn't decide whether I wanted to come here or not. I did -- I went to school here. I started. I set roots here in Texas. And so, it's a little bit different.

But for some folks who came as older people, sometimes they have to make very tough decisions, leaving everything behind, in trying to immigrate legally.

My parents try to immigrate legally. But unfortunately, the backlog is so big that they -- that they would rather have come this way, rather than have to -- having to wait two or three decades, for god knows what could have happened.

SANCHEZ: So, ahead of Trump's deportation plans, several groups, including the ACLU, are securing money and lawyers, anticipating legal challenges. Is that something that FIEL is also preparing to do?

ESPINOSA: We are looking forward, to partner up with organizations, like ACLU, MALDEF, and other organizations around the country, to challenge some of these policies.

But more importantly, we are securing funding to make sure that our folks, here on the ground, folks who are contributing every single day to American life, can at least have access to an attorney, or have access to legal counsel, because we don't know how massive this project may be, at the very end.

SANCHEZ: Cesar Espinosa, we appreciate your time. Thanks for joining us. And Happy Thanksgiving.

ESPINOSA: Thank you so much for having me.

[21:40:00]

SANCHEZ: Ahead. A new announcement from President Trump, who he's just tapped to help end the war in Ukraine, and what that retired General might have in mind.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SANCHEZ: New tonight, President-elect Donald Trump has picked his longtime defense adviser, retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, to be his Special Envoy to Ukraine and Russia. That role, obviously, will be key in fulfilling a major campaign promise. To end Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

CNN is reporting tonight that Trump officials will likely push for a ceasefire, early on in his second term, to kickstart negotiations that might end the war.

[21:45:00]

My source tonight is retired Air Force Colonel, and CNN Military Analyst, Colonel Cedric Leighton.

Colonel, thank you so much for being with us, on this Thanksgiving Eve.

Let's start with General Kellogg and his plans to end the war. He says he wants a negotiated settlement. What does that look like at this stage?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): Yes, that's really going to be interesting to watch, Boris. Because a negotiated settlement would probably involve a ceasefire that keeps things frozen the way they are, at that moment in time.

So, let's say it happened, right now, that it happened tonight. Then it would mean that the Russians would occupy most of the Donbas region, and the Ukrainians would have a little piece of the Kursk region in Russia. So, that is a possible type of scenario, at least for the start of negotiations.

The question is, are the Russians going to be willing to accept something like this, at this particular juncture? Because, at the moment, they seem to be gaining a little bit, in terms of territory, in terms of the initiative. And of course, Ukraine has manpower issues. It has weapons issues. And that's the kind of thing that could really put a damper, on any administration's ability, to effect negotiations, at this point in time.

SANCHEZ: Yes. There's also the aspect of NATO membership. And General Kellogg has said that Ukraine perhaps should put off joining the Alliance for some time. Vladimir Putin sees it very differently. He thinks that Ukraine should never join NATO.

Is there any daylight there?

LEIGHTON: Well, that's going to be an interesting thing.

I personally think that Ukraine has done more than enough to be a member of NATO. I think it would be the right reward for all their efforts, in this conflict.

The Russians, that's kind of a red line for them. The Russians don't want Ukraine to be a part of NATO. They see that expansion as even more threatening to them than the expansion that included Finland and Sweden, over the past year. And that is something that is definitely a point of negotiating.

But General Kellogg, I think, if he does assume this role, as we think he will, that then becomes -- it becomes important for him not to give away the story. If that's going to be a negotiating point, he should probably start with, Well, we think it might be a good idea--

SANCHEZ: Sure.

LEIGHTON: --to have Ukraine in NATO--

SANCHEZ: Sure. Sure.

LEIGHTON: --at this point.

SANCHEZ: President-elect Trump has made numerous statements about how quickly this war could end. We have a bit of a montage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Let me just put it a nicer way. If I'm president, I will have that war settled in one day, 24 hours.

We can turn it around again.

(CHEERING)

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after we win the presidency.

I will end the war in Ukraine. I will get it stopped very quickly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Of course, Trump is known for saying all sorts of things. How realistic a timetable are we looking at if there is going to be a negotiation and a ceasefire?

LEIGHTON: Well, certainly ending this war in 24 hours, and making it stick, is unrealistic. That's just not going to happen.

What could happen is there could be a ceasefire, at some point in time, within maybe the first few weeks of the new administration, or even before that. Could still happen under the Biden administration, potentially. But if it does happen, and there's a lot of diplomatic work that would have to happen before that, if it does happen, that does not mean that the war has actually ended.

What we have to keep in mind is that the Russians, Boris, will probably look at this as being something, where they can take a pause, regroup their forces, and then start the offensive once again. They did it in 2014. They took a piece of Ukraine, Crimea, and part of the Donbas in 2014, and they resumed their operations in 2022. They could do a similar kind of thing, a few years down the road. And that's something that the U.S., no matter who's in charge, should try to avoid.

SANCHEZ: An unsettling potential scenario.

Colonel Cedric Leighton, thanks so much for being with us. Happy Thanksgiving.

LEIGHTON: Happy Thanksgiving, Boris. Thank you so much.

SANCHEZ: Appreciate it.

Next. RFK Jr. could be the next U.S. Health secretary, and he's got some controversial stances on things like vaccines, fluoride and raw milk. My next source says there's a better way for public health officials to talk about those things. Emily Oster is here.

[21:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s nomination to be Health and Human Services secretary has raised serious concerns from medical experts, because of his well-known anti-vaccine views, his support for raw milk, as well as his desire to remove fluoride from drinking water.

My next source says the level of urgency and concern over these positions needs more explanation and nuance.

Emily Oster is a Professor of Economics and International and Public Affairs at Brown University, as well as the Founder and CEO of ParentData. And recently, she wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times, titled, "There's a Better Way to Talk About Fluoride, Vaccines and Raw Milk."

Emily, thank you for being with us.

I want you to take us through the data on each of these three things that I mentioned.

But first, I want to point to something you wrote in the piece. Quote, "Simply saying that vaccines are good and raw milk is bad misses specifics that people find important. People often do their research, and if they feel the risks of raw milk have been exaggerated, it can erode their trust."

[21:55:00]

So, what's wrong, Emily, with the way that public health agencies communicate?

EMILY OSTER, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS AT BROWN UNIVERSITY, FOUNDER AND CEO OF PARENTDATA, AUTHOR, "THE UNEXPECTED: NAVIGATING PREGNANCY DURING AND AFTER COMPLICATIONS": I think the core issue here, with these particular examples, and with a lot of the rhetoric around RFK Jr.'s possible appointment, is that we have lumped everything into one piece, rather than providing a more nuanced sense for people, of the risks and benefits.

My view is that public health messaging should help people understand how to make good decisions, and should explain to them why we are saying vaccines are good, and raw milk is potentially more dangerous, and help them understand the magnitude of those beliefs.

In the case of the measles vaccine, we have decades of evidence on safety. It's enormously important, and has saved millions and millions of lives. And many of the risks people are worried about are simply not there in the data.

When we talk about something like raw milk, it is true that pasteurization lowers the risk of disease. But the disease risks are relatively small.

These are just quite different, in terms of their -- the quality of the evidence. And I think that people will be more responsive, if we explain that nuance in our public health messaging, which we really do not often do.

SANCHEZ: There is a portion of his audience that is skeptical of any public health advice, in part because they think it's some sort of psychological operation--

OSTER: Yes.

SANCHEZ: --the government is out to get them. It falls under the umbrella of, That's what they want you to think.

So, I wonder if there's a way to approach a conversation with those folks, to get beyond the idea that someone is trying to trick them into giving their children autism through vaccines.

OSTER: Right. So, I think in general, people will be more responsive if we try to help them understand the alternative perspective. But I also think here, you could say, there's a set of people who are not going to be responsive to this messaging. I think that that's true.

But there is a much larger set of people, who are wondering about some of these questions. They are doing their own research. They are going out and seeing papers and reading evidence.

And there's a sense in which they're listening to one side, they're listening to the other side. And if one side is saying, Here's some evidence, or Here's why I think this? And the other side is just saying, Trust me, I'm an expert? A lot of people may not want to trust that.

And I think that the side that is the science side has to be coming with information that people can use for their good choices.

SANCHEZ: So, you mentioned the measles vaccine, the background on data there, raw milk and the benefits of pasteurization.

What about fluoride in drinking water? Because this one, there have been indications that fluoride can actually reduce IQ in children. Am I getting that right?

OSTER: So, at high doses, for example, the kinds of high doses that we see in naturally-occurring water supplies, in China and India, and in some other places, we have seen reductions in IQ.

So certainly, at high doses, fluoride does seem like it can be damaging, particularly to pregnant people. But when we look at the kinds of doses that we have in municipal water supplies, in the U.S., there is a lot of evidence of safety. We don't see those kind of effects.

And so, that is actually a hard, nuanced thing to explain, that the dose is what's relevant. But we could explain it. I don't think it's impossible for people to understand. And it will help them navigate what is a really, frankly, quite complicated issue that I'm sure we will see much more discussion of, over the next four years.

SANCHEZ: I mean, that's part of the problem, right? That the science itself is complicated.

OSTER: Yes.

SANCHEZ: The process of finding results in a scientific study, not easy. The same study can yield different results. And so, folks use short-hands at times, to try to make good decisions.

I wonder what you make of RFK Jr. as Health and Human Services secretary, being in a position to offer important medical advice for folks that are trying to make good decisions.

OSTER: I certainly think there are aspects of his positions I'm very worried about. I think many people, in the scientific community, are really worried about the existing resistance to vaccines, and how that will go over time. It's very difficult to predict exactly where those things will land. But those are the pieces that I find most worrying, about this possible appointment.

SANCHEZ: Emily Oster, we very much appreciate you sharing your perspective with us. Thanks for joining us.

OSTER: Thanks so much for having me.

SANCHEZ: And Happy Thanksgiving as well.

Don't forget to join CNN for the ultimate Thanksgiving morning watch. We're featuring celebrity appearances, a live view of parades across the country.

You can join our friends, John Berman and Erica Hill, as they host "THANKSGIVING IN AMERICA." It starts this Thanksgiving Day, at 08:00 on CNN, and streaming on CNN Max.

[22:00:00]

Hey, thank you so much for joining us tonight. I very much appreciated your company. I hope you enjoy this Thanksgiving. And enjoy "CNN NEWSNIGHT," which is up next.