Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Speaks With Russia's Putin & Ukraine's Zelenskyy; Judge Lets Trump's "Buyout" Plan Move Forward For Now; Trump Admin Suing Kathy Hochul, Letitia James Over Immigration. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired February 12, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: --and they seem to be. They seem to be. Again, I want to emphasize, these are small studies. They're going to need to be replicated. No one is saying that these are going to be medications that you're taking solely for alcohol use disorder, or solely for smoking.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Right.
GUPTA: But, again, there is a lot of enthusiasm around this, and we'll see what the data sort of bears out.
COOPER: Yes. It's really intriguing.
Sanjay, thanks so much. Appreciate it.
GUPTA: You got it.
COOPER: That's it for us. The news continues right now. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. I'll see you, tomorrow.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
Trump and Putin vowing to negotiate an end to the war that Putin started. Their 90-minute phone call today, and the bargaining chips that the White House may have just given away, and what we know about their plans to meet face-to-face.
Also, a major win for the President, this evening. After getting stopped by the courts on several occasions, he just got the green light on a key part of his plan to reduce the federal workforce.
And they were all abruptly fired by Trump, on a Friday night. Now, eight inspectors general are suing the administration. They want their jobs back. One of them is my source tonight.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, from here in Washington, to across the Atlantic with our European allies, everyone is talking about the 90-minute phone call that President Trump had with President Putin, the first confirmed conversation between the two leaders since Trump took office, and what it signals about how the groundwork is potentially being laid to negotiate an end to Russia's war in Ukraine.
Not only did they discuss an end to the war, on some of Putin's terms, they also agreed to meet in-person.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We ultimately expect to meet. In fact, we expect that he'll come here, and I'll go there. And we're going to meet also probably in Saudi Arabia. The first time, we'll meet in Saudi Arabia, see if we can get something done. But we want to end that war. That war is a disaster.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, the President says that Putin told him on their call that he wants the war to end. And Trump says he thinks that Putin wants peace.
Of course, everyone can note here, Putin could have peace tonight if he withdrew his troops from a sovereign country that he invaded.
But this comes as Trump was on the phone with Putin, shortly after we heard from his Defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, laying out the administration's opening stance on ending the war, which includes two major concessions from Ukraine that Putin prefers.
When I asked the White House press secretary, whether or not the Russian leader would have to make any concessions of his own before he got to sit down with Trump, she said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Are there any preconditions that President Trump has, that President Putin must do, before he goes and meets with him? Withdrawing some forces? Withdrawing all forces? Anything like that?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Not that I'm aware of. That doesn't mean they don't exist. But I was just talking with the President and our national security team, I wasn't made aware of any conditions. But if they exist, I'm happy to provide those.
COLLINS: And on the President himself, you know, he styles himself as this master negotiator. He is now deploying these negotiations, saying that they start immediately.
We did hear from the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, today saying that NATO membership is not realistic for Ukraine, and neither is returning to the pre-2014 borders.
Aren't they giving away bargaining chips before these negotiations have even started?
LEAVITT: Again, I haven't talked to the President about Ukraine's NATO membership. And he appointed several individuals to negotiate on his behalf. He's directly involved in these negotiations as well. And I'm sure if you ask him that question, in the near future, when you're able to, he'll give you an answer. I just don't want to get ahead of him on it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: When the President was asked that same question, later, by reporters, he said people will have to make their own determination, but that he only wants peace.
As for the subsequent phone call that he had, with President Trump, President Zelenskyy described it as productive. Though, it's safe to say what Trump said in the Oval, a little bit later on, may leave the Ukrainian president privately alarmed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Are you freezing out President Zelenskyy of this process a bit? Isn't there a danger of that?
TRUMP: No, I don't think so. As long as he's there. But, you know, at some point, you're going to have to have elections too. You're going to have to have an election.
REPORTER: Do you view Ukraine as an equal member of this peace process?
TRUMP: It's an interesting question.
I said, that was not a good war to go into, and I think they have to make peace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: He was asked if he views Ukraine as an equal partner in the peace process, to that answer that you got there. The President suggested also that the Ukrainian president may not be around.
And note the difference in how the President talks about President Zelenskyy and Ukraine, and how he talks about President Putin and Russia. It's stark, and it is certainly not one that is lost on the governments in Kyiv or in Moscow.
My source tonight is one of the few people to see how President Trump and President Putin interact, when the cameras aren't necessarily around.
Ambassador John Bolton was Trump's National Security Adviser in his first term.
And it's great to have you here, Ambassador.
Because you've previously said that you believe Putin sees Trump as an, what you described, as an easy mark. You were there, for their first meeting in Helsinki. What are your expectations for this one?
[21:05:00]
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Well, I don't have any expectations anymore. I think -- I think we know exactly what's going to happen. President Trump has effectively surrendered to Putin, before the negotiations have even begun.
The positions that Defense secretary, Hegseth, announced in Brussels, which I'm sure I'd be stunned if Trump didn't convey them directly to Putin in their phone call, constitute terms of a settlement that could have been written in the Kremlin. Maybe they were written in the Kremlin, and got out in propaganda channels.
But it's a complete reversal of the U.S. and NATO position on a number of issues. For example, up until today, the official American position was that Ukraine should be returned to full sovereignty and territorial integrity. That's gone. The question of NATO membership, as far back as 2008, had been that ultimately Ukraine would become a NATO member. That doesn't look like that's around anymore, either.
Putin has scored a whole series of victories today. It's hard to encompass them all. But I think, one, in addition to these substantive concessions is that he has now, it seems, exactly what he wants. Putin doesn't want to negotiate with Zelenskyy. He wants to negotiate with Trump, because he thinks he'll get more out of him. And he's absolutely right.
COLLINS: On your point that you just made, about not having Ukraine be in NATO, borders returning to what they were pre-2014, which Hegseth said was off the table. If a Trump official was here tonight, and they argued, Well, that's just being realistic. What would you say to that?
BOLTON: I'd say that if you're going into a negotiation, you don't announce what's acceptable to you before it begins, and give away positions.
I tell you, I've done a lot of negotiation with the Russians. And there's no country, out there, that's better at pocketing concessions that you make, and then wanting more.
We used to joke, in Soviet arms-control days, about a famous Russian negotiator, who used to greet the Americans, every morning, with a jovial, What have you got for me today? And that's what we're hearing from Russia.
This is something Putin prepared the ground for. Last week, he said he agreed with Trump that the comments Trump had made in the election, that the war never would have taken place had Trump been President. So, he began the flattery campaign.
The release of Marc Fogel, the American hostage, part of the flattery warm-up campaign, make Trump look like the center of attention. Belarus' decision to release an American and a couple others, part of the flattery campaign. It's obviously working.
COLLINS: Trump said today, also in his own readout of the call that he put out, that Putin repeated back to him about using commonsense to end the war. Do you think that's part of that flattery campaign? BOLTON: Right. Well, there was a tweet, or whatever you call those things, on Truth Social that said, Putin used my very effective campaign slogan, commonsense. I think we all believe in commonsense. But he noticed that Putin had picked up that line. It's another stroke of flattery. I mean, you got to say, Putin hasn't forgotten his lessons as a KGB agent, maneuvering an operative around.
And there are broader significances than just in Ukraine. This is a palpable harm to American national security, because what Hegseth and Trump did today was not only blow up the NATO position on Ukraine, they blow up -- blew up a thing called the Belovezha Accords that Ukraine, Belarus and Russia signed, in December of 1991, that broke up the Soviet Union along the lines of the internal republics.
So, it means that not only is unprovoked aggression by Russia against Ukraine now OK. Every other former republic, in the Soviet Union, is vulnerable to the same thing, without any indication that the U.S. will do anything about it.
And I think the people, who are paying the closest attention to this, outside of -- in Ukraine, are in Beijing, where they see the United States unwilling to act against unprovoked aggression in the center of Europe. What are they thinking now about Taiwan?
COLLINS: If there is any chance that this works, when you -- when you look at the dynamics here, do you believe that there's -- there's a way that this could be successful, that it could end this war that has gone on, for as long as it has now?
BOLTON: Well, I think it will be successful for Russia. It was -- it was -- it's a war of attrition. Russia is the bigger country.
I think, three years of mishandling by the Biden administration, dribbling out weapons assistance, one system at a time, after months of argument, prevented a really strategic response to the Russian invasion. So, there's a lot of blame to go around here. But the surrender is going to be signed by Donald Trump.
[21:10:00]
COLLINS: Can I get you just before -- you know, Trump swore in Tulsi Gabbard, this this afternoon, in the Oval Office. Pam Bondi swore her in, but Trump was there, obviously, inside the Oval.
How does that presence, as the Director of National Intelligence, by Tulsi Gabbard, do you think, shape the Trump-Putin relationship in a second Trump term?
BOLTON: Well, I think, Putin couldn't be happier. I'd tell you, they're drinking vodka straight out of the bottle, in the Kremlin, tonight. It was a great day for Moscow.
I think Tulsi Gabbard's role as Director of National Intelligence is going to be extremely harmful to our national security. I think many allies are now going to think twice before they share intelligence with us. I think it will impair our ability to gain confidence around the world. It's -- it was -- it was one of his worst nominations, beyond a doubt.
COLLINS: Ambassador John Bolton, thank you for your perspective tonight.
BOLTON: Thank you.
COLLINS: Also here is the former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner.
And it's great to have you. You know what it's like to be in the meetings for these -- these kinds of calls.
We don't know about Zelenskyy's involvement in any meeting that Trump may have with Putin. We do know that Saudi Arabia is potentially the destination for that first meeting. What significance do you see in that, if any?
BETH SANNER, FORMER DEPUTY DNI: The Saudis are definitely playing this very well for themselves. Because the Crown Prince -- I mean, Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, is saying no to Trump on a lot of things. He's saying no on Palestinians being forced out of Gaza. He's saying no on pumping more oil. And so, here's something he can say yes on, and be part of a solution. So, there's a lot going on with that.
But I think that the main thing about this is that this idea of just having Trump and Putin alone, negotiating in Saudi Arabia, is just a terrible idea. And they really need to turn this into proximity negotiations, just like with Hamas and Israel in Qatar, where they're there, but not in the same room. That would be the right thing to do.
COLLINS: So, you think it's not fair, or it can't be fair, for Ukraine, if they don't have a presence, at least in the same building, or country?
SANNER: It can't be fair. But it's also just this whole idea that, as Ambassador Bolton said, one of Putin's main things is that he just wants this to be a negotiation between the two great men, and the pawn on the table is Ukraine.
This whole idea of spheres of influence, and great powers can do whatever they want, and they can just go in and take a country by force? And President Trump said this like they fought for this land, right? And that means, as Ambassador Bolton said, What's next? It kind of is, opens up the whole Pandora's Box.
COLLINS: Trump also talked about, they agreed to go to each other's respective countries. Obviously, if Trump went to Russia, that would be the first time a U.S. President was in Russia since 2013. And if Putin came to the U.S., that would be the first time he was here since 2015.
What do you -- what would you be looking for? I mean, what does that say to you that it's been that long, since either of those things has happened?
SANNER: Well, I mean, obviously, war crimes and a war of aggression is what went wrong.
But I would say this. Look, I am not as extreme on this call today being the worst possible thing. I mean, they're two things.
COLLINS: You think it makes sense, actually?
SANNER: I think it makes sense. You have -- look, how are you going to end a war, if you do not talk to the protagonist? This whole idea about order and all of that, I don't know.
Look, he spent an hour on the phone with Zelenskyy. If you're not having instant -- if you're not having translations, that's more time than he spent on the phone with Putin.
You have Zelenskyy meeting with Vance.
And you have the Secretary of Treasury there, talking about an agreement, which he described as a security shield. This is the economic -- and he termed it economic and resource and security agreement.
So there's something there. It's just some of these instinctive things that Trump says that makes your hair stand on end.
COLLINS: Like, what -- what did Trump say today that made your hair stand on end?
SANNER: I think that he basically said that Ukraine was the cause of this war. He said -- I can't remember the phrase, Kaitlan. You were there. But he said, that they -- they should have not gone into this, I think, was the phrase.
It's like, Well, I don't think they had a choice, when the paratroopers were going into the airport, right outside of Kyiv.
COLLINS: How much of that, do you think, is the personal relationship factor in this, between Trump and Zelenskyy, in shaping his view of this, or Trump and Putin potentially?
SANNER: I kind of feel like this gets a little bit deeper into this idea of big, powerful countries, and big, powerful people should talk, and small countries are weak, and they are, again, the pawn. So, I think it's just this very instinctive thing that he can work it out with Putin, and it will be OK.
[21:15:00]
And there wasn't as much today that was said that is different than Biden. There were some important things that were. But Hegseth said those things in the context of a negotiated settlement. No one expects NATO to be a -- a NATO membership as part of negotiated settlement, or getting Crimea back. People want it to be frozen, so things can be dealt with later.
COLLINS: Yes. And the question is also pre-2022 borders--
SANNER: Right.
COLLINS: --and what that looks like.
SANNER: Right. Exactly.
COLLINS: We'll be watching that meeting, and potentially in Saudi Arabia, very closely, maybe in-person.
Beth Sanner, great to have you here.
SANNER: Thanks.
COLLINS: Ambassador Bolton as well.
Up next. A federal judge has just ruled that President Trump can move forward, with a key agenda item, when it comes to reducing the federal workforce. It's a major win for the Trump administration. We'll tell you more.
Plus, there are new hires to the federal government that may now need approval from Elon Musk, first. More on the expansive power that Trump granted him and his DOGE team.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: President Trump notching his first major legal victory, as a judge has given the green light for his federal worker buyout plan to go ahead and go forward for now.
The website offering the so-called Fork in the Road program, to about 2 million federal employees, is now closed, as you can see here, essentially telling those who did not accept that offer before 07:20 p.m. tonight that now it is too late to do so. We do know at least 65,000 federal workers, the last time we checked, had accepted the buyout before that deadline went into place.
My political sources tonight.
Brad Todd, a Republican strategist.
And Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist.
It's great to have you both here.
Brad, the administration had been really frustrated, in recent days, by getting blocked by the courts, and kind of getting stymied, and trying to put these workers on leave. They're praising this decision, tonight. But earlier, at the briefing, they were saying, The real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch.
But is this not just how the process works that if a judge thinks something looks suspicious, when someone files something, that they pause it for a temporary basis? BRAD TODD, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, we just spent the last four years, or at least three of the four years, the Democrats railing on the courts, and AOC coming on this network, and demanding that the President ignore the court rulings over abortion pills. And so, people who don't get their way in courts typically are unhappy with the courts.
I saw Pam Bondi's news conference today, where she seemed very confident that they're following the law, and that they're going to win in the courts. And I think we just have to let it play out.
COLLINS: Paul, do you think Democrats set a bad precedent here? Because it wasn't just--
PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I didn't know AOC said that. It's a terrible thing to say.
COLLINS: Well, it wasn't just AOC. It was certainly a lot of lawmakers--
BEGALA: No, Democrats -- that's just not true.
COLLINS: --criticizing it.
BEGALA: Democrats gave up the White House, when the Supreme Court ruled against them in Bush versus Gore, OK? The Democrats follow. It's not a -- it's not a--
COLLINS: OK. But I'm talking about in 2022--
BEGALA: You can't both sides this.
COLLINS: --to 2023 and 2024.
BEGALA: When Joe Biden tried to do certain things, I think student loans, and a court stopped him, he stopped. It's just not true to say that Mr. Trump and -- President Trump and President Biden are just the same Even-Steven.
By the way, this is just a procedural thing, OK? This is on standing, whether the AFGE Union had standing. They could find another plaintiff. They're going to have to litigate this on the merits.
I have a pro-tip, though, for President Trump. If you want to reduce the federal workforce, maybe a good idea, try going the constitutional route.
You know I worked for President Clinton. We passed, I had to look it up, the Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994. Buyouts. By the way, it passed the Senate, 99 to one. It passed the House, 319 to 17 -- 391 to 17. And we reduced the federal workforce by 351,000 employees, a lower headcount than any president--
TODD: A quarter. A quarter.
BEGALA: --any president since Eisenhower. And we still took care of special needs kids, and our veterans, and created 30 million new jobs.
So you can do this, but you got to follow the Constitution. Mr. Trump is not following the Constitution.
TODD: Here's my question. So, when you all passed that, on the cloture vote, eight Republicans voted with the Democrats on Bill Clinton's buyout plan. Do you think there will be eight Democrats will vote with Republicans to a buyout plan right now?
BEGALA: Oh, sure, if you had a -- if it was following the Constitution, if you said, Here are the -- here are the parameters, here are the rules.
Congress has the power of the purse. Mr. Trump is taking it, and the Republicans who run our Congress are handing the most important power Congress has, over to the Executive branch. And it is -- it's a constitutional travesty. They're going to regret it.
TODD: It's going to play out in the appropriations process, this year. But what I think is more notable is that Democrats, who have campaigned on making government more efficient, now are nowhere to be found. They should -- if they want them to bring it to Congress--
BEGALA: That's not true. There were several, who wanted to be part of DOGE.
COLLINS: Can I ask you, Brad, quickly though?
BEGALA: Trump wouldn't let them in.
COLLINS: You used appropriations. For everyone sitting at home, there is a real question about if this is a real buyout, and how genuine it is, and if they can trust it.
Because, as we all know, Congress has only funded the government through March 14th, really, I mean, and they're saying, We'll pay you through September. There is a question of whether or not they can live up to what they're offering these workers.
TODD: Well, I did. Attorney General Bondi is incredibly confident that what they're doing is abides by the law. I'm going to take her word for it. I'm going to watch it be litigated.
The White House, I think, is moving fast, and that's got a lot of people startled that they're moving fast. But I think the American people, meanwhile, are excited to see this action. You know, President Trump's approval ratings are greater than they've ever been at any point in his political career. Maybe they were higher when he was on "The Apprentice," I don't remember.
But, right now, the American public's very happy with this action. They're happy at swift. And frankly, it's because people in both parties have campaigned on cutting government forever. And now, you have a president who actually is doing it. I think that's what--
BEGALA: He's going after-- TODD: --why the polling numbers--
BEGALA: --as a political matter, his own voters.
COLLINS: Well, can I ask you, Paul, though? Because there is this EO that was signed, after that press conference that Trump and Elon Musk held in the Oval.
TODD: Right.
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: He, like, forgot to sign the EO, had to sign it afterwards. But he did sign it. And I was looking in it, and it grants sweeping powers to the DOGE team.
BEGALA: Right.
COLLINS: And part of that is, for every one person that they hire, four people have to leave an agency. That DOGE Team Leaders are going to be consulting with agency heads, which means Cabinet members, who are confirmed by the Senate, and that they have to submit hiring reports to DOGE, of what that looks like.
That is giving a lot of power, where they're essentially working in conjunction with a Cabinet secretary to hire people.
BEGALA: Well, who the hell voted for Mr. Musk? Who the hell voted for, excuse the phrase, a guy who calls himself, Big balls, a 19-year-old kid going in there, and trying to fire cancer researchers, and scientists, and teachers, and agricultural specialists. It's appalling.
And I say, again, it is Mr. Trump's voters, who are far more dependent on government than the Democratic voters. The 10 states who rely most, for example, on education funding for their schools, federal funding? All 10 voted for Mr. Trump. 19 of the 20 states. So, he's--
TODD: We could give them even more.
BEGALA: --he's stabbing his own people in the back--
TODD: We could give them--
BEGALA: --so he can help billionaires, like Mr. Musk.
TODD: We could give them even more, if we get rid of the bureaucrats in Washington, in the Department of Education.
BEGALA: Oh--
TODD: We could flow more money to the schools.
BEGALA: How many--
TODD: We can flow-- BEGALA: You know how many people work in the Department of Education?
TODD: About 10,000.
BEGALA: Four.
TODD: Yes.
BEGALA: 4,100. And they have $79 billion budget. That is incredibly efficient.
Mr. Musk's company, which is about $95 billion, has a 140,000 employees. So maybe Mr. Musk got to go home--
TODD: Say what.
BEGALA: --and fire a bunch of his people.
TODD: My mom was a Title I teacher, and I'd love to have 4,000 more, Title I Reading teachers, instead of 4,000 employees in Washington.
BEGALA: You just had to have somebody to make sure there's no waste, fraud and abuse.
TODD: Well, back to your point about Elon Musk. Everyone who voted for Donald Trump knew that he was going to bring Elon Musk in, to bring efficiency to government. Everyone knew it. And the technicians he's brought in, everyone knew that.
COLLINS: Yes.
BEGALA: So, in that efficiency, is he cutting any mister -- Mr. Musk's subsidies, or SpaceX subsidies, or Tesla subsidies? No. He's cutting poor people to help rich people. That's a Republican playbook.
COLLINS: We're going to leave it there.
Paul Begala. Brad Todd. Thank you both.
Up next. My next source, speaking of IGs, that is inspectors general, my next source is one of the 19 government watchdogs who was fired by President Trump. He is suing to get his job back.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Some top Republicans in the Senate want President Trump to explain why he fired more than a dozen government watchdogs without giving lawmakers a required heads-up.
By law, the administration, any administration, is required to give 30 days' notice to Congress, and spell out the reason for firing any inspector general.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): The only thing I don't like about the way we had this mass firing is the law that says that Congress should get notified 30 days ahead of time, besides the firing, that the President hasn't abided by that law.
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Certainly, inspector generals play an important role. I don't know what the reason for firing these particular inspector generals were, but that's something we're going to continue to look into.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is one of the inspectors general, who was fired by the President. Robert Storch was working at the Department of Defense, and is now one of the eight who is suing to get his job back.
President Trump said today, quote, I have to follow the law on this.
You believe your firing was illegal. Do you think you'll ultimately get your job back here?
ROBERT STORCH, INSPECTOR GENERAL FIRED BY TRUMP, FORMER DEFENSE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL: Well, it will be up to the courts to decide.
But it clearly violated the very specific provisions of the Inspector General Act that, as you pointed out in your intro, require that if a president is going to fire an inspector general, that he give at least 30 days' notice and specific reasons to Congress.
And it's not just a technical requirement. That enables Congress and on -- acting on behalf of the American people, to look into what those are, and to ensure that a watchdog isn't being silenced.
COLLINS: Or punished for something that you've reported on or whatnot.
STORCH: Absolutely.
COLLINS: In this terms of this, you came to this recent position under President Biden when he was in office. But you were actually at the National -- at the NSA as the IG, the first one appointed by a president, when Trump was in office the last time.
So were you surprised to be fired, this time?
STORCH: Well, IGs are appointed -- are appointed without regard to partisan affiliation.
So I was, as you say, honored to be nominated by President Trump to be the first presidentially-appointed Inspector General at the National Security Agency. I served in that position, almost five years.
I was honored to be nominated by President Biden to be the Inspector General for the entire Department of Defense, and confirmed on a very bipartisan basis for that important position, and honored to work with the women and men of that office, doing oversight over the entire Department of Defense.
COLLINS: So, you're just at home, on a Friday night, though, after that, and you get -- and you find out that you are being fired?
STORCH: Yes, actually, you hear the remnants. I had this respiratory thing, and I was home and not feeling so great. Though, I had worked all day from home. And got a call from one of my colleagues, asking if I'd been fired. I didn't know what he was talking about. I checked my email, and got back on the phone, and said, Yes, it looks like I've been fired. Or at least I got an email, saying I was terminated. That's what the lawsuit's all about.
COLLINS: Was the -- did the email offer any justification?
STORCH: Yes, I got the email that I think was subsequently the same that everyone received. And what it said was due to changing priorities, my position as the Inspector General at the Department of Defense had been terminated effective immediately--
COLLINS: So--
STORCH: --Thank you for your service.
COLLINS: That's interesting to me, because about the priorities, your job, for people who aren't familiar with what you do, is to find waste or fraud and abuse, and to report on that. And that's the reason you're insulated from politics, in that role.
[21:35:00]
And the administration says every day, that they are focused on finding waste, fraud and abuse. Do you think it's odd that they are firing the very people who are in those positions, to help them do that?
STORCH: Yes, it's very troubling, and particularly doing it in the widespread way they did, and without giving Congress, and through Congress, the American public, any rationale, it's extraordinarily troubling.
But if I can, you make a really great point, Kaitlan, that the emails themselves say that we were fired due to changing priorities. And that misperceives the whole role of inspectors general. We're independent watchdogs, working with our teams, within the agencies to, as you say, uncover waste, fraud, abuse and corruption.
Administrations come and go. And IGs typically stay on, despite the change in administrations, because the administration is entitled to whatever priorities they want to have. Whatever their priorities are, we do effective oversight to ensure that the taxpayers' interests are protected
COLLINS: Well, and I was looking into the work that you've done. And Ukraine, and spending there, from the U.S. aid money, has been a particular target and complaint of President Trump's. You actually did a report on this, last year, to say that how that money was being used was not being tracked as it should be, that it wasn't being followed closely enough by officials at the Pentagon. And because of that work, that improved, as you later said, and tell me if I'm wrong. That is exactly what President Trump says is a priority to him.
STORCH: Yes, we did a whole robust range of oversight, over U.S. security assistance to Ukraine, and as the congressionally-designated Special Inspector General for Operation Atlantic Resolve, which included all aspects of U.S. assistance to Ukraine, partnered with others in the oversight community, to make sure we were covering all the risks associated with that.
One of the things I always told my folks, and we really emphasize, to your point, is I and my office and our offices take -- took -- take and took no position, regarding whether there should be assistance to Ukraine, what the policy should be regarding Ukraine, anything like that. That's up to the administration. That's up to Congress to decide.
And so, that's one of the reasons the independence is so important. If we were perceived, as people who were there, to advance the administration's policies, whatever they may be, then we wouldn't be able to do that hard-hitting oversight, and it wouldn't be credible with the American public.
COLLINS: You're suing to get your job back. If you got it back, what do you think it would be like, to return to the administration?
STORCH: Well, again, we do oversight, regardless of who the administration may happen to be.
One thing I want to make clear. We're suing to get our jobs back, unless and until the President follows the prescribed statutory mechanism.
Look, I was honored twice, as you pointed out, to have presidentially- appointed Senate confirm positions. And you understand when you take one of those that the President has the ability to fire you. But there are rules, and one of the things as an inspector general, we do, is we ensure folks follow the rules. And essentially, that's why we're suing.
COLLINS: Which is 30 days. And he hasn't even been in office 30 days yet, so.
Robert Storch, great to have you, and thank you for sharing just what that experience was like for us.
STORCH: Entirely my pleasure. Thanks for having me.
COLLINS: Really appreciate that.
Up next. President Trump himself has a new role. He is now the Chair of the Kennedy Center. A source, tonight, says though, it was not a unanimous vote, as he claimed. You're going to have to hear this recording that my colleague, Jake Tapper, obtained.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think we're going to make it hot, and we made the Presidency hot, so this should be easy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: We've just gotten some new audio, tonight, of President Trump, when he called in to the Board of the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts, here in Washington, as its new Chairman.
In this phone call, that was obtained by Jake Tapper, Trump previews the changes that he wants to make as that new Chairman.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It got very 'wokey' and some people were not happy with it, and some people refused to go, and we're not going to have that. We're going to have something that will be very, very exciting, and we'll do things both physically and in every other way to make the building look even better.
I think we're going to make it hot, and we made the Presidency hot, so this should be easy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Trump has been really pretty critical, as you can see there, the past programming at the Kennedy Center, which you can see the building here. That includes his criticisms of the feature of drag artists that they've had perform there. That is among some 2,000 artists and performances that are featured there, on a yearly basis.
And the President today touted that he was unanimously elected as the Center's new Chairman. But a source familiar with the vote, is telling CNN, tonight, that that is not how things went down, that there were votes against Trump for Chair, and votes of people who said they were abstaining.
My deeply-sourced White House insiders tonight.
Michael Scherer, a staff writer for The Atlantic.
And Laura Barron-Lopez, CNN Political Analyst, and White House correspondent for PBS NewsHour.
And Michael, you have been doing some reporting on this. I mean, Trump's embrace of the culture wars, he used the word, wokey, there--
MICHAEL SCHERER, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Yes.
COLLINS: --is something that obviously has followed him on the campaign trail.
But going into the Kennedy Center, this caught a lot of people, including the Chairman, David Rubenstein, who I think had just signed on to another four-year term, off-guard here.
SCHERER: When he says some people didn't go to the Kennedy Center because it was too woke? He's talking about himself. He was the one, during his first term, who never stepped foot in the Kennedy Center. Never went to the Kennedy Center, our first president since the Kennedy Center Honors started to do that. And the reason was they rejected him.
[21:45:00]
In his first year in 2017, three of the four Kennedy Center honorees said they wouldn't go to the White House to meet with him. Back then, he didn't know what to do about it.
And this is sort of -- we see it in every aspect of what the White House is doing. This is a do-over administration. He's learned the ways of Washington. He's learned that he has the power, in this case, to fire the Kennedy Center. And he's taking over all the parts of the establishment, basically here, that resisted him the first time around.
COLLINS: Yes, and they got rid a lot of the people who either worked for Biden, or big Biden allies that were on the Board. That includes Mike Donilon, a top senior adviser to his. Karine Jean-Pierre, the press secretary.
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: Yes.
COLLINS: When you look at who are the new board members, Ric Grenell, Trump's envoy, is one of them. Usha Vance, the second lady. Dan Scavino. Sergio Gor, who was the one who sent that email firing the Inspector General. Susie Wiles, the Chief of Staff. Howard Lutnick's wife, Allison, the Commerce Secretary, also there.
I think the question is, what looks different about this, in these four years. As Trump and his crew never really fully assimilated into Washington, their first time in office.
BARRON-LOPEZ: Yes.
COLLINS: I think those people who worked there would tell you. The question is, what does that look like this time around?
BARRON-LOPEZ: Well, it's not so much assimilation, right, as it is takeover. I mean, to Michael's point, he was rejected by so many parts of the establishment, or held in check by so many parts of the establishment, across all of these institutions.
And now, instead of trying to meld his way in, it's just a brutal- force takeover, which is what the President is doing. And he's doing it with the Kennedy Center, and he's doing it with all these other agencies and institutions, because he believes that he has the right to do it. So, I mean, that's what we're seeing here.
COLLINS: Yes, it's just from our -- I mean, wokey. The Grateful Dead was honored there, last December, at the Kennedy Center Honors. It's not exactly very wokey.
But let's talk about what else happened here at the White House today, which was the White House has now barred The Associated Press from three events that have happened.
Not the press briefings, but from three events, where the pool of reporters goes in. Which, for people who don't cover the White House, on a daily basis, because you can't put everyone in the Oval for a pool spray of his meeting with a world leader, there's one person representing each medium, print, radio, TV, producers that go into this.
The AP is a wire. They distribute their news widely to thousands of people across the U.S. They are now barred over the fact that they will not use the term, Gulf of America. They still use Gulf of Mexico.
And the White House was asked about this today, and this is what they had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Which White House official made the decision to bar the AP reporter from the Oval Office, and the Diplomatic Reception Room last night?
LEAVITT: Well, first of all, let me just set the record straight. It is a privilege to cover this White House. It's a privilege to be the White House press secretary. And nobody has the right to go into the Oval Office, and ask the President of the United States, questions. That's an invitation that is given.
We reserve the right to decide who gets to go into the Oval Office. And you all have credentials to be here, including The Associated Press who is in this briefing room today.
COLLINS: But isn't it retaliatory in nature, is the argument, because the reason that the AP was barred, which they said, was because they're not using the phrase, Gulf of America. They're using Gulf of Mexico, in line with their standards.
And so, the question here is, is this setting a precedent that this White House will retaliate against reporters who don't use the language that you guys believe reporters should use? And how does that align with the First Amendment commitment that you were just talking about?
LEAVITT: I was very upfront in my briefing, on day one, that if we feel that there are lies being pushed by outlets in this room, we are going to hold those lies accountable. And it is a fact that the body of water, off the coast of Louisiana, is called the Gulf of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP) SCHERER: Depends who's speaking. Some people call it the Gulf of America.
You know what? What's remarkable about that exchange is Meta just settled with the President, in a lawsuit over jawboning, which is the idea that if federal officials pressure a company into changing what they're allowing on their platform, or how they're speaking, that's a violation of the First Amendment. It was kind of a ridiculous case. Meta settled anyway. There's going to be other settlements coming out.
That's like a classic case of jawboning, right there. There you have a federal official, saying, The Associated Press cannot say what it wants to say, in its paper, or they will be punished by the federal government.
And so, there's a remarkable turn here that the President's sort of embracing the things that he was very critical of, when Twitter, and Facebook, and other social media platforms were saying, We don't want you on our platform, because you're saying things that are inciting violence. Now, they're embracing as a policy, the idea that the federal government can dictate what publications can say or not. And if they don't, they will be punished.
I mean, the other thing I'd mention there is that the President -- I interviewed him back in 2015. I asked him, Would you ever punish reporters, keep reporters you didn't like out of the briefing room? He said, back then, No, I wouldn't. This is another example of him kind of learning he has these other mechanisms of power, and then embracing them.
[21:50:00]
BARRON-LOPEZ: It's also partially right. Because, right now, he's seen no checks. I mean, Congress has basically abdicated on a variety of areas. I mean, the courts are providing some check.
But he feels emboldened, to take all of these actions. And, I guess, the question that I have is, where does it stop in terms of this, specifically, with the freedom of the press, and attacking the freedom of the press.
Is the White House going to say that all of the things that he's laid out in his executive orders, that also the free press has to abide by those, whether it's not referring to transgender people as though they exist, because that's something that's in his executive orders.
So, I think that that's a big question that we have, given the actions that he's taken, and this standoff that continues between AP and the White House.
COLLINS: Yes, or saying the 2020 election was stolen when it wasn't, and what happens when people just state that as a fact.
We'll see what happens here. Obviously, a very concerning precedent.
Great to have you both with your reporting tonight. Up next. New York governor, Kathy Hochul, is now taking a rain check. She was supposed to meet with President Trump, and have lunch with him, tomorrow. But after the Attorney General came out and sued her over immigration, we'll tell you why this announcement tonight raised questions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We have filed charges against the State of New York. We have filed charges against Kathy Hochul.
You will be held accountable, if you do not follow federal law. It's over, it ends, and we're coming after you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the Trump administration announced it is suing New York State, with the recently-sworn-in Attorney General, Pam Bondi, accusing state officials of failing to enforce federal immigration law.
She was flanked by federal agents, who were wearing raid jackets, as she made this announcement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONDI: We're here today because we have filed charges against the State of New York. We have filed charges against Kathy Hochul. We have filed charges against Letitia James, and Mark Schroeder who is with DMV.
New York has chosen to prioritize illegal aliens over American citizens. It stops, it stops today. As you know, we sued Illinois, and New York didn't listen. So now you're next.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I should note, the lawsuit had not yet been filed, as that press -- as of that press conference.
My source tonight is CNN Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig.
And Elie, based on what we know so far, I still don't think it has been filed yet. And because of that, in a statement, Governor Hochul responded to this, and said, quote, "We can't comment further on a press conference announcing a potential lawsuit that has not yet been filed in any court."
Elie, do you think -- is that normal? Is that typical to not have it filed before you announce a lawsuit like this?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: No, Kaitlan, it can only be the result of incompetence.
It is 101, when you're announcing a case as a prosecutor. You don't get out there, announce it, and then file it later. Sometimes you have to file it five minutes after your presser ends, or 10 minutes after your presser ends. But to have it go hours without filing anything is completely inexplicable.
Look, if they needed more time to investigate this thing? God bless. Take the time you need. But don't hold the presser, when you haven't even put anything on the books yet.
COLLINS: Well, it was a bit confusing, when the Attorney General came out and said she had filed charges against these officials. I think people were trying to figure out what exactly was going on, when -- and what -- what we should expect to be filed?
HONIG: What a bizarre way to open this press conference. And you just played the clip.
In the first 10 seconds of this press conference, the Attorney General of the United States said, three times, she had, quote, Filed charges against New York, against Kathy Hochul, against Letitia James.
Now, 99 out of a 100 civilians understands that to mean criminal charges. 100 out of 100 prosecutors understands that to mean criminal charges. When she said that, my phone went crazy, people saying, Wait, has Pam Bondi indicted Letitia James? Now, it turns out the answer is no. This is a civil lawsuit.
But to use that terminology is either an inexplicable screw-up by the new attorney general, although she's been a prosecutor 20 years, or was an intentional choice of overheated, misleading rhetoric.
COLLINS: So, as far as what we -- what she is saying that they are going to do here, with these lawsuits that they're filing, what do you make of the basis, based on what you heard from her? Obviously, we'll have to wait to see till it's filed. But how strong do you think the argument is?
HONIG: And we can also look to the Illinois lawsuit that was filed, last week. I actually think DOJ has a strong grounds here, legally, for what they're asking the court to do, or what it appears they're asking the court to do. Essentially, they're saying, New York State has a bunch of laws that inhibit us, that get in the way of us enforcing federal immigration law.
There's a New York State law essentially that says that if immigration authorities asked for the DMV information, for the address, or motor vehicle information, A, it should not be provided to the federal authorities, and B, the state authorities should inform, notify, tip off the person, who's being asked about.
There is a bedrock principle of law, basically, called the Supremacy Clause, that says, If the feds and the states have conflicting priorities, conflicting policies, the Fed should win out.
[22:00:00]
And I do think -- it's hard to say what's going to happen in the early stages of this case, Kaitlan. But ultimately, I think Pam Bondi, despite all the atmosphere, missteps, I think she has a pretty strong case here, on the legal merits, that the state does not have the power to interfere with, or undermine enforcement efforts at the federal level.
COLLINS: Yes, we can see why the Governor of New York canceled her lunch that she was supposed to have here, in Washington, with President Trump, tomorrow.
HONIG: Yes.
COLLINS: Elie Honig, keep us updated. We'll look to see when this is filed. Thank you so much for that, Elie.
HONIG: Thank you.
COLLINS: Thank you all so much for joining me tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
