Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Slams Zelenskyy As "Dictator" Who's Done "A Terrible Job"; Trump Considers Plan To Give Americans 20 Percent Of DOGE Savings; No Ruling In Hearing To Dismiss NYC Mayor's Corruption Case. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired February 19, 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]
POLO SANDOVAL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: --signal jammers to try to mess with the wireless surveillance systems that some of these players may have in their homes.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: So, they were able to overcome burglary alarm systems--
SANDOVAL: Essentially--
COOPER: --in some cases?
SANDOVAL: --they were able to know exactly when to go in.
COOPER: Right.
SANDOVAL: And that's the key here. What your -- one of the experts that you just heard from, saying, it all boils down to what the player, the celebrity may actually be doing. Not to advertise some of their high-dollar, high-price goods on social media. Because it's very easy for you and I to simply go on to their schedule, especially if it's a sporting team, certainly--
COOPER: Right.
SANDOVAL: --and know when they're going to be playing out of town. It is -- it is very advanced.
COOPER: Yes.
SANDOVAL: The way, it was described by an expert today. They are highly intelligent, very sophisticated. And just because these guys have been charged, it's not the end of this.
COOPER: Yes.
Polo Sandoval, thanks so much.
SANDOVAL: Thank you.
COOPER: That's it for us. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
President Trump says the foreign leader who poisons dissidents, kills his opponents, and jails his critics, as a dictator. Oh, wait. He said that about President Zelenskyy, not President Putin.
Also, the President is contradicting his own White House attorneys, saying that Elon Musk is in fact running DOGE, which will almost certainly be brought up in court cases. As the President is also teasing that taxpayers could get a cut of the DOGE cuts. But just how much have they actually found?
And we are left with a really big cliffhanger tonight, after a dramatic day in a New York courtroom. The Justice Department denies a quid pro quo with New York City Mayor, Eric Adams. But they also told the judge, Even if there were, the case can't stay alive.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, the door in Washington that was once wide open to Ukraine, now appears to be slamming shut. The President of the United States calling the democratically-elected leader of an ally, under attack, a dictator. And Vladimir Putin, the actual dictator in this situation, is sitting back and probably enjoying every minute of it.
The tension had been building here, after Ukraine was excluded from high-level talks between the U.S. and Russia, this week, followed by the President's suggestion that Ukraine started this war, which it didn't.
But after hearing that combination of Kremlin talking points, President Zelenskyy flashed his anger.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Unfortunately, President Trump -- I have great respect for him as a leader of a nation that we have great respect for, the American people who always support us -- unfortunately lives in this disinformation space.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: As you might imagine, President Trump did not take kindly to hearing that. It's actually what spurred his tirade on Truth Social, this morning, echoing in part Putin's own propaganda, and then later repeating it in front of the cameras.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, President Zelenskyy, talked the United States of America into spending $350 billion, to go into a war that basically couldn't be won.
He refuses to have elections, is low in the real Ukrainian polls.
Somebody said, Oh no, his polls are good. Give me a break.
The only thing he was really good at was playing Joe Biden like a fiddle.
A dictator without elections, Zelenskyy better move fast, or he's not going to have a country left. Got to move. Got to move fast.
I love Ukraine. But Zelenskyy has done a terrible job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: Now, I want to take a moment to go through what you just heard there, one by one in order.
Zelenskyy did not start this war. Putin did.
And he was not a moderately successful comedian. He was, in fact, so successful on TV that it propelled him all the way to the presidency in Ukraine, which sounds familiar.
Zelenskyy didn't talk the U.S. into anything. The United States and Europe rallied to protect a sovereign nation that was being invaded.
He is right that there was supposed to be an election in Ukraine, last year. It was called off because the country has been under martial law for three years now. And as the Ukrainian constitution calls for, no elections during that time, given it's quite difficult when Russian missiles are raining down on your cities.
Now, on the polling front, it's obviously hard to gage that during a war. The latest figures that we've seen, put Zelenskyy at about 57 percent approval in Ukraine. That's a real drop from where he was, when this war started. But it's far higher than the 4 percent that we have heard Trump repeating in recent days.
But maybe most importantly, of everything you heard there, it's that Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He won a free and fair election, actually, in a landslide. And the irony here is that he is fighting Putin, who maintains power through sham elections, has his opponents jailed, or they seem to mysteriously die.
When I traveled to Ukraine, one year ago, President Zelenskyy sat down with me, and told me that when it comes to this war, and Putin and his ruthlessness, he says Trump just doesn't get it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZELENSKYY: I think he can't understand what's going on here. He can't solve it, with Putin and with Russia, because we'll never be ready to give our territories, just for the stopping of the war, give them sort of a sense of our country.
[21:05:00] I think he doesn't really understand that Putin will not stop. Even in this case, Putin will never stop and he wants to occupy us, totally. That's why I think that Donald Trump doesn't know Putin. But I know that he met him. And I don't know the spirit and mood of their dialog, their things. But he never -- he never fought with Putin. American army never fought with the army of Russia. Never.
K. COLLINS: So, you have a better view than he does?
ZELENSKYY: Right.
K. COLLINS: A better understanding?
ZELENSKYY: Better understanding.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: Russia's former President, tonight, Prime Minister, and Putin-confidant, Dmitry Medvedev, summing up the feeling at the Kremlin today, writing, quote, "If you'd told me just three months ago that these were the words of the US president, I would have laughed out loud." Donald Trump is "200 percent right." He capped off this post by calling Zelenskyy, quote, a "Bankrupt clown."
Our lead source tonight is CNN's Fareed Zakaria, who perhaps maybe thought he had seen it all, when it comes to what we're watching on the world stage.
And Fareed, when you see this. I know European leaders were bracing for Trump, and the Trump administration, to maybe take a hardline stance on Ukraine, not to continue the policy of the Biden administration. But were they expecting this?
FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST, FAREED ZAKARIA GPS: Nobody was expecting this, Kaitlan. This is a breath-taking reversal in U.S. foreign policy. It's in some sense, the largest reversal in U.S. foreign policy in eight decades.
The United States, since the late 1940s, built the Western world as a free democratic alliance, determined to maintain its sovereignty, maintain its prosperity, maintain peace and, in many ways, to repel aggression from dictators.
For the United States to be flipping and almost siding with the aggressive dictator, against the democratically-elected country that is a victim? That has stunned not just European leaders. It's stunned people all over the world.
I've heard -- gotten messages from Asian leaders, from people all over the world, wondering if the United States is not going to defend a liberal democratic state in Europe, if it's not going to defend the threat that its European allies believe is the most vital threat they face, who is it going to defend? Who is it going to support? Can American guarantees be taken seriously? Can American foreign policy be taken seriously?
I think we're witnessing history, right now, in a very tragic way.
K. COLLINS: Well, and on that front, there's a real question of how these world leaders will respond to this. I mean, we saw the British Prime Minister phone Zelenskyy, after Trump called him a dictator, and pointedly, as we were told, he reaffirmed support for him as Ukraine's democratically-elected leader.
The British Prime Minister is coming here to Washington, next week. I mean, it really does raise the question of what that dynamic -- that dynamic looks like.
ZAKARIA: Yes, look, the dynamic, right now, between Trump and all liberal democratic leaders, seems to be very bad. The one -- the Trump's dynamic with the autocrats, Putin, seems much better.
But the reality is, in the short run, Western allies of the United States are in a bind. They have relied on the United States for their security. They have accepted U.S. leadership, for decades now. And the entire security system has been built on the idea that the United States was the guarantor of the peace, the United States was the underwriter. So, they can't easily find other options very quickly.
But in the long run, Kaitlan, what is going to happen is these countries, which are rich, powerful countries, are going to start asking themselves, what kind of independent path they have to chart. That's going to happen with Canada. That's going to happen with Europe.
And that means these countries will move away from the American sphere. They will look for a better relationship with China, they will look to find new ways, to find markets, to find friends. This is the greatest gift, not just to Vladimir Putin, but to Xi Jinping. China will benefit from this more than any country, perhaps in the world, other than Russia, because this means that--
K. COLLINS: Yes.
ZAKARIA: --a lot of American allies will have to find a way to make their way in the world, which means having better relations with China, and not subordinating their relationship with China to what America wants.
[21:10:00]
K. COLLINS: You're talking about what this means for the world, the world order.
On the Ukrainian Front, what realistic options does Zelenskyy have, now that this is the -- I mean, without U.S. aid, he told me in that interview, a year ago, they will lose the war. What happens -- what are his options now?
ZAKARIA: He doesn't have many options. The Europeans can try to ramp up supplies.
But the truth is, again, the whole Western system has been built on the idea that America is the pivot. America is the guarantor. Even when Europeans build their military spending up, they buy American goods. That has been the deal. The United States guarantees the Europeans buy American defense equipment, defense products.
So, if the linchpin of the whole system, suddenly pulls the rug from under, it's very difficult to see how Zelenskyy is able to survive. No, this -- this feels like one of the biggest kind of American surrender, since Vietnam. It's difficult to imagine -- to recall another moment, where the United States has just decided that it wanted peace so badly that it was going to -- it was essentially just going to surrender the struggle.
K. COLLINS: Fareed Zakaria, thank you, as always.
Also, my next source here tonight is New York Times Senior Political Correspondent, Maggie Haberman, on the domestic front of all of this.
I think this is one of those situations where shocking, but not surprising, really fits what we are watching play out.
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes, if anyone is surprised, they haven't been paying attention, not just for the last several years, in the interregnum between when Trump was last in office, and when he is now.
But the campaign in 2015 and 2016, where he was very skeptical of Ukraine, where he was talking about Russia's annexation of Crimea as something that some Ukrainians actually liked, which was just not true.
He was always very skeptical of NATO and the Alliance. That should not be a surprise. And he has been talking about -- he has a very mercantilistic approach, where he has been talking about foreign countries ripping off the U.S. for a long time.
And he admires strongmen, and he admires Vladimir Putin, and has for a long time.
I think this is different than just a policy switch. A policy switch would be the U.S. is not really going to fund Ukraine the way it has, or we're going to see security guarantees on the aid.
This is different than what Trump himself said, on Sunday, to reporters, which was that he had asked Putin, does he want all of Ukraine, summing the effect of, does he want all of Ukraine? And that would have caused a lot of problems for us. And he said, No.
In the last day, Trump is saying that Zelenskyy better move fast, which sounds like better move fast to accept the deal Trump wants, or he's going to get run over. That is -- that's more than a policy switch.
K. COLLINS: And what's changed in the last day is Zelenskyy coming out, and he's saying that--
HABERMAN: Criticizing him.
K. COLLINS: --Trump is surrounding with--
HABERMAN: Yes.
K. COLLINS: --surrounded by disinformation, and not hearing the truth.
HABERMAN: Yes, and Trump is not fond of Zelenskyy. I know he keeps saying he is. But according to a number of people in his world, he isn't and hasn't been for a long time. There's all kinds of historic reasons why.
Trump has a vision of Russia from its days as a superpower, and I think that he is looking at it as a more significant country. But this is not something that should surprise anyone.
What is striking is just the near -- it's not silence from Congress, and from Republican senators, who had been pretty hawkish on Russia before, and who had supported Ukraine, at least to some extent.
It's, again, we're back to this gaze aversion from Republicans, criticizing Trump. And instead, it's just, No, I don't agree with that word, or, I wouldn't say that. And so, Trump knows that he can essentially do what he wants right now.
K. COLLINS: Well, one senator today said that she needed to see the context of the comment.
HABERMAN: Right.
K. COLLINS: I don't know what the context is to calling him a dictator.
HABERMAN: I don't -- I don't think that -- I don't think there was a setting, in which calling Zelenskyy a dictator was going to make more logical sense.
K. COLLINS: The question also is how this fits in with Trump's national security team, in terms of Mike Waltz, who is the National Security Advisor, was certainly someone who was supportive of Ukraine, when this war broke out. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. I mean, they are two of the people who were leading this, these negotiations.
So what this looks like going forward, in terms of how it changes. The position at the bargaining table is already pretty -- pretty weak for Ukraine right now.
HABERMAN: Correct. And as we know, from term one, it's very difficult for people who speak for Trump. They often then see him say something contradictory to what they said publicly.
I think that Rubio and Waltz in particular, and Steve Witkoff have been pretty careful to just say what they think Trump wants, and to channel him. But at the end of the day, Trump is showing, again, he is the person with the last word. K. COLLINS: You wrote an entire book on just Trump's upbringing, and making of him as a young man and then a young businessman, and what that looks like, and how it manifests itself in his presidency and his politics.
[21:15:00]
I mean, how much of this is just getting to having a deal, and getting a deal done on his term, on his watch, I guess.
HABERMAN: I mean, that's -- that is a lot of it. But he does have some leverage points over Putin. And he has -- in fact, you asked him that question, I believe. You asked Karoline Leavitt that question, last week, in the briefing room. He has given away certain pieces of that leverage with these comments.
So yes, I do think he wants a deal. Yes, I think that he wants it to go quick. Yes, I think that he truly believes that the U.S. should be repaid for some of its aid, and that's what this deal -- that resources deal that he's pushing with Ukraine is about. And I think you might see him try that with other nations. But what you give up in the process is the question and the message it sends.
And this is, look, the approach he's taking, to your point, about his history and his background and how he sees things, is actually how he treats everything, essentially. I mean, it's you could -- you could close your eyes, and he could be talking about how he wants certain senators to support his nominees, or--
K. COLLINS: Or tariffs.
HABERMAN: Or tariffs. Or judges who he doesn't like.
K. COLLINS: Yes.
HABERMAN: But it's very different when it's domestic politics versus what we're talking about between Russia and Ukraine. However, that does not make the American people care more about it. And this has just not been a top-of-mind issue so far.
K. COLLINS: And I wonder what that looks like, in terms of what is the guiding factor for him here. We know what his instincts are.
HABERMAN: Right.
K. COLLINS: And he has made clear what he wants to do. I mean, ever since we did the town hall with him, he said he just wanted to stop the killing in this. And he wouldn't say who he wanted to win, Ukraine or Russia. Which, when I talked to Zelenskyy, he didn't think that was a good sign.
But in terms of, is there anyone in the administration who was saying, Well, actually, here's the guardrail of that, or here's the concern, if this is the path we go down.
HABERMAN: I think there are people who raise certain concerns about some of what he is saying.
But he is very much heeding his own counsel, on a lot of matters, these days. He often -- you know, there's a lot of discussion about strategy around Donald Trump. And he absolutely has, what David Axelrod often calls, some kind of a feral impulse for certain things, including weakness, in other people.
There's often not sort of a long-term thought on the throughline of what comes next, If I do X, then Y will happen. And right now, this just seems to be about flexing muscle.
K. COLLINS: Yes. And it was remarkable to see Mike Pence today, pushing back on this, saying he disagreed.
HABERMAN: Yes. And he was, I think, the most vocal, sharpest voice about it, and a pretty lonely voice once again.
And so, you will see that. I think you will see certain people who are going to push back on him. But at the moment, it looks like it is going to remain the way it did toward the end of 2020, when he was president, or, you know, for parts of 2020 and there were these sole voices. He has driven all of his critics, for the most part, out of the party.
K. COLLINS: Yes, which is the point for him.
Maggie Haberman, great reporting, as always. Thank you for that.
HABERMAN: Thanks.
K. COLLINS: Up next. President Trump got a little bit of pushback from some of the members of his party, on that comment about dictator. Well we're going to speak to a Republican senator himself, and see what he has to say his view of all of this.
And stimulus checks could be coming soon from the Musk-Trump overhaul of government?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: There's even under consideration a new concept, where we give 20 percent of the DOGE savings to American citizens.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
K. COLLINS: It's not often these days to hear lawmakers, in the Republican Party, disagreeing with President Trump, publicly, on almost anything.
When it comes to naming and labeling Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, a dictator, though today, we did hear this pushback.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): I would certainly never refer to President Zelenskyy as a dictator. It is quite clear who started the war. It was absolutely Russia, at Putin's directive.
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): I do not agree that President Zelenskyy is to blame in any way. And this was--
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, guys.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator, President Trump just weighed in that he--
S. COLLINS: This was a rogue invasion by Russia.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I didn't hear that. I'll let other people use their words. It's not a word I would've used.
REPORTER: Would you call Ukrainian President Zelenskyy a dictator, as President Trump has?
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): Well, I -- like I said, the President speaks for himself. What I want to see is a peaceful result, a peaceful outcome.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: My source tonight, the Republican senator from Missouri, Eric Schmitt.
And Senator, it's great to have you here.
You just heard from your colleagues.
But on the relationship between Trump and Zelenskyy overall, do you believe it's just essentially fractured at this point? Is there any repairing it?
SEN. ERIC SCHMITT (R-MO): I think somebody is giving Zelenskyy really bad advice. If the idea is to go on European television and criticize President Trump, who is trying to bring peace to his country? I think that's terrible advice.
And so, look, President Trump was pretty clear about this on the campaign trail. He wants to bring peace in the Ukraine-Russian war, and he's trying to do that right now.
And so, I just don't think it's a good idea for Zelenskyy to be openly critical, saying he's listening to misinformation. I just don't think it's helpful.
K. COLLINS: But when Trump says a dictator without elections, I mean, is that a more accurate description of Putin or Zelenskyy? SCHMITT: Well, look, I think he was stating the obvious, which is Zelenskyy ought to have elections, and stop lecturing the American president who is trying to bring peace to his country. I mean, hundreds of thousands of people have died. There is no endgame here. There is no strategy for victory. So, I think President Trump is doing exactly what he campaigned on, which was to bring peace.
So, I just think it's a flawed strategy by Zelenskyy. And President Trump, I think, is right to point out that they need to hold elections. I mean, Churchill learned that he lost at Potsdam. Abraham Lincoln ran against a former general in the Civil War.
[21:25:00]
So, if you want to be a paragon of democracy, if you want to hold yourself out there as that, you got to sort of abide by that. And I think, by the way, part of the point of JD Vance's speech in Munich too, was to say, If you want to be a democracy, you got to live up to those principles and believe in free speech.
K. COLLINS: But game that out for me, though. Because, I mean, one, as you know, Russia doesn't hold fair elections. You would agree to that, right?
SCHMITT: Yes, 100 percent.
K. COLLINS: That Putin has never been fairly or freely elected?
SCHMITT: Absolutely, yes. No, no, I'm not disputing that, but--
K. COLLINS: But Trump is only saying this about one person though. And--
SCHMITT: Well, Zelenskyy was being openly critical. I mean, look, the United States of America, and President Trump specifically, is the only person in the world, who can deliver peace in the bloodshed.
K. COLLINS: But I want to game-out this--
SCHMITT: So, I just don't think it's smart.
K. COLLINS: I want to game-out this election thing, though. Because I went to Ukraine, last year, and interviewed Zelenskyy, and this was a topic of conversation.
But in terms of, OK, so say he wants to hold elections as well. Because he was democratically-elected in the first place, and against someone who was trying to take up too much power. How do you hold an election in Ukraine, right now?
SCHMITT: Well we do it. We had it in our Civil War. We had an election during World War II.
K. COLLINS: But we're not having missiles falling on American cities, right now, and half of our young men aren't on the frontlines. SCHMITT: It's just -- it's just hypocritical to claim that you are a true, free democracy, when you're unwilling to hold elections. I think that's the only point that President Trump was making.
But again, this is all sort of, I think, noise. Ultimately, a lot of it's just going to be depending on how this thing gets settled. President Trump, I trust him. He's a master negotiator, and he's going to, I think -- he said in the clip, right, that he loves the Ukrainian people, and I think that's who he's doing this for.
K. COLLINS: You just talked about all the deaths that have happened as a result of this. But who do you hold responsible for that?
SCHMITT: Well, look, Russia invaded Ukraine, right? There's no question about that. But the reality is--
K. COLLINS: So, when Trump says Ukraine started the war--
SCHMITT: No, but, look, it's just more complicated.
K. COLLINS: --what is your response to that?
SCHMITT: This is a centuries-old dispute. I mean, you want to -- if you want to go back and, like, really -- you got the Crimean War. Russia wants a warm weather -- or a warm water port. A lot of these things. To try to -- you know, do I think that they're going to go back to the lines pre-2014? I don't know. I don't want to hamstring the negotiations. But I think people have to be realistic.
The shift that you're seeing, I think, in the foreign policy of the United States of America is a shift to realism, right? Like, the idea that the United States of America has core national interest, protecting the homeland, and China is our chief adversary. The American taxpayers are tapped out of this war in Ukraine.
So, again, President Trump campaigned on the idea of bringing peace. That's what he's trying to do.
I do find it interesting, Kaitlan, though, that the people who are screaming about this the loudest, called President Trump a dictator all the time, like the American media is so willing to criticize President Trump.
K. COLLINS: Don't say American media here. I've never called Trump, a dictator.
SCHMITT: Well, I've heard it for--
K. COLLINS: That's an unfair--
SCHMITT: --for two years.
K. COLLINS: That's an unfair criticism. But on this--
SCHMITT: Well, I don't think so. They've called--
K. COLLINS: --on this substance here--
SCHMITT: I mean, on this very network--
K. COLLINS: But on--
SCHMITT: --called him a threat to democracy, a 1,000 times.
K. COLLINS: I've never called Trump, a dictator.
SCHMITT: OK.
K. COLLINS: But on this -- on this very front here, in terms of what happens next. You just mentioned you're not sure if a return to pre- 2014 borders, when Russia illegally annexed Crimea, could happen.
When Trump says that, when Pete Hegseth says that, flat-out, are they giving up what they could be using to negotiate? Aren't they weakening Ukraine's position in these negotiations?
SCHMITT: I think the United States -- President Trump has a lot of leverage with Vladimir Putin, and I think he intends to use that. I think -- I'm not going to speak for the negotiators who are at the table.
But the good news is, the war, hopefully, is coming to an end. I would hope that, as Americans, we could cheer that. That's why President Trump is trying to do this. So, I just don't understand. It's almost like people want this war to continue. And you have to ask the question, why. President Trump--
K. COLLINS: I think the question is how it ends.
SCHMITT: OK, right. But--
K. COLLINS: So, you talked about lasting peace, right?
SCHMITT: Sure.
K. COLLINS: You were saying that that is what Trump wants to get to here. Trump has talked about ending this war. But is that defined by giving Putin what he wants here, letting him take all the land that he invaded?
SCHMITT: No one's talking -- no one's talking about that.
K. COLLINS: So, what does that look like?
SCHMITT: I don't know what it ultimately looks like. That's what the negotiation's for.
But what I do know is that Joe Biden didn't want to have these discussions at all, and it was just about how much more money we could spend over there.
And by the way, our industrial base, even if you wanted to send tens of billions of dollars more, it doesn't necessarily mean more munitions. We have a strained industrial base. Europe doesn't have a military industrial base to speak of, right? These are long-term challenges.
But the truth is, I think the conversation needs to start going to the end of the war, as opposed to people promoting endless war. And Joe Biden didn't have the ability or the desire ever to try to bring peace.
K. COLLINS: I think it's a fair argument in terms of what the U.S. consent to Ukraine. Obviously, most of that -- you know, we talk about how much money has been sent. Most of that is in the forms -- in the form of military weaponry that has come a lot from U.S. military and weapon-makers.
SCHMITT: Yes.
K. COLLINS: But I want to ask you about what's happening in your place of work, right now. Because the top Republican, in the Senate, said -- has set up for you all to vote, later this week, on your budget plan.
Trump came in today and endorsed the House's plan. Your plan would be two separate bills with his priorities. The House plan is one giant plan with his priorities.
Are Senate Republicans still going to move forward with that? Or what does that look like?
[21:30:00]
SCHMITT: Yes, look, President Trump made clear his preference. I mean, he had indicated this before, and made it clear again today. He prefers the one big, beautiful bill. And everybody is rooting. If the House can go do that, that's great.
K. COLLINS: Can they do that?
SCHMITT: I don't know. We'll see. I mean, I hope they can.
But I think from the Senate perspective, we want to provide another option, get some wins up on the board, on border security, on military spending, on energy, and make sure we do the tax provisions, also, in a second tranche.
But look, objectively, I think it's important for us to kind of move forward. But at the end of the day, everybody's on the same team. We want to deliver the victory that President Trump promised on the campaign trail, and that American people deserve.
K. COLLINS: The House plan calls for, potentially, cuts in Medicaid. They instruct them to find $880 billion, I believe, is what it was. Would you support cuts to Medicaid, if it's in the plan that comes to the Senate?
SCHMITT: No -- and I want to make clear. No one is talking about cuts to benefits in Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Period. Full stop. K. COLLINS: So, there will be no cuts to Medicaid, when this comes out?
SCHMITT: Not benefits, there are no cuts to benefits at all. So, I think one of the things that we're talking about is, how do you find greater efficiencies in governments? It's what DOGE is all about, right? But ultimately, we want to make sure those programs help the people that need it most.
K. COLLINS: Is Congress going to pass what DOGE is doing? Trump said that last night.
SCHMITT: I would hope so. That's certainly something I would support. I think they have the ability, within the executive branch, to find savings. I think all these cases, as they work their way through, the courts are going to find that. But I do think we should make these cuts permanent.
K. COLLINS: Senator Eric Schmitt, thank you so much for your time tonight.
SCHMITT: Yes.
K. COLLINS: Great to have you here on set.
Up next. We are seeing President Trump just landing, touching down here in Washington. He's at Joint Base Andrews, after returning from Florida. He spoke to reporters on the plane. We'll tell you what he said.
Also, Trump and Elon Musk, as the Senator, mentioned, they are making cuts to the U.S. government. They're now floating the idea of maybe dispersing checks to taxpayers. We'll tell you what the likelihood of that is up next.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
K. COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump claims he is considering a plan to maybe send Americans cash, if his DOGE team reaches its savings goals.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: There's even under consideration a new concept, where we give 20 percent of the DOGE savings to American citizens, and 20 percent goes to paying down debt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: That idea appears to have originated from an entrepreneur, who pitched DOGE dividends to Elon Musk, on X, arguing $5,000 checks could be sent to Americans if they meet that goal of $2 trillion in cuts.
That is a very big if, my friends. So, we'll start there.
My political sources are here at the table, along with my White House insiders.
Shelby. One, we don't know that they're going to get to $2 trillion. We've seen even Trump and Elon Musk saying different numbers on that. Is this a realistic thing, though that's being discussed? Because I just remember the stimulus checks that went out when Trump wanted a signature on them, and what that looked like in round one.
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: It is serious. I asked around, I texted a few White House officials, and they seem interested in it.
But as you say, A, first they need to reach the $1 trillion to $2 trillion in cuts. Then there's the question of, does -- do the DOGE cuts need a vote in Congress, which some lawmakers have argued has to happen. Donald Trump has told me, last week, that he's OK with that happening. But we'll see. So that's another barrier.
So, this is a really long process to getting there, and there's a lot of things that have to happen, in order for those checks to actually get sent out.
ALEX THOMPSON, NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, AXIOS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, other members of Congress have already said, Well, if you're not going to spend the money, you need to give it back to Congress, and they would have to then send the checks out.
You also have different issues, where, are they just cutting the spending and they're going to reallocate it to other of Trump's priorities? We've seen that with, like, some of the discussion with the Pentagon budget. Are you just going to reallocate it to border enforcement rather than actually cutting the spending? To Shelby's point, there's -- this is -- this is step three in step 500.
K. COLLINS: Yes, exactly. And getting Congress to do that, obviously, is like moving a mountain.
But you mentioned the defense cuts, which is interesting, because Defense secretary, Pete Hegseth sent out a memo, tonight, saying that by next Monday, less than a week from when he said this -- yesterday, I should correct myself -- that he wants them to prepare budgets for the next five years of 8 percent, which is obviously quite a huge cut for the Pentagon to make.
Is that realistic, in your view? What do you -- what does that look like to someone who is inside the Pentagon, looking at the 2025 fiscal budget?
RAMESH PONNURU, EDITOR, NATIONAL REVIEW: I think that that's going to cause a fair amount of heartburn.
A lot of Republicans, particularly Republicans on the Hill, still think that the defense budget needs an increase, not a decrease. That has been the traditional view of the Republican Party. And it's not really one of the things that Trump has disturbed, even though he's disturbed so many other things about the Republican consensus.
So, I'd be -- I'd be surprised if this is something that actually happens, because the fact of the matter is, almost all of what DOGE can do is recommend things to Congress.
K. COLLINS: And I should note, this is Trump getting off the plane, descending. He just spoke to reporters on Air Force One. We'll see if he speaks here, or back at the White House.
But your thoughts?
ASHLEY ALLISON, FORMER OBAMA WH SENIOR POLICY ADVISER: I'd just like to say, I said yesterday about those checks, because that's like, Trump 101. Now whether or not he can execute it, but he would love to, like, throw folks a bone.
But I think on the defense budget, the question is, well, where are the cuts coming from? We know the person who is running DOGE, Elon Musk, has contracts at the Defense Department. This is where the real transparency questions start to come up.
We know that he has contracts with the government in other places, but like a significant amount of his contract sits there. And so, will he be -- will he be even allowed to oversee this, even though when they say he's not overseeing it. And if he oversees it, will he cut any of his own contracts?
K. COLLINS: It's also a real question of how much money there is. I mean, they claim to have saved $55 billion so far. But when you dig into some of the numbers, they're not always right. There was -- there was one contract, where they claimed canceling a single ICE contract saved taxpayers $8 billion. The contract was actually $8 million.
TALCOTT: Yes, and this isn't--
PONNURU: So, they're just off by a factor of a thousand.
TALCOTT: It's a small amount.
K. COLLINS: No big deal.
TALCOTT: And--
K. COLLINS: I'm not a math person, but.
TALCOTT: And this is also -- remember, Elon Musk, last week, said, Yes, we're going to make mistakes, but we'll correct them. We'll be transparent about it.
What's interesting about this is, yes, they ended up correcting it, but it was kind of in a sneaky way, and they haven't really addressed it.
[21:40:00] So, I think this is sort of the byproduct of Elon Musk's theory of moving quickly and breaking things. The result is they make mistakes.
ALLISON: Can I just -- $8 billion?
TALCOTT: Big mistakes.
ALLISON: Versus $8 million?
THOMPSON: Yes.
ALLISON: I've never seen either amounts of that size -- type of money, and most Americans haven't. But that's a really important zero that you are just citing (ph). And I would be honest if, as someone who runs a small business, if anyone who ever runs a small business, if you add an extra zero on your profit and loss sheet?
PONNURU: Or three.
ALLISON: Or three? You're going to go bankrupt, or you're going to be audited by the IRS, like this -- these are not just like--
TALCOTT: Yes.
ALLISON: --Oops, we thought this program. We thought it was Gaza in Mozambique -- or into Hamas versus Gaza in Mozambique. No, this is real money, we're talking about.
K. COLLINS: It also raises questions, again, to this central premise of who is running DOGE, and technically has the authority making on decisions here. We heard a White House attorney say yesterday, it wasn't Elon Musk.
Here's what Trump said today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I signed an order creating the Department of Government Efficiency, and put a man named Elon Musk in charge. Thank you, Elon, for doing it.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
THOMPSON: Well, I mean, obviously those two things contradict, which also speaks to a little bit of a divide between what Trump's rhetoric is, and what all of his lawyers are saying in courtrooms around the country.
Because so many of these executive orders were intentionally designed to prompt court challenges, because they do want to get a Supreme Court decision to expand their executive authority. But lawyers are often speaking different languages than politicians, and that's exactly what we saw there. K. COLLINS: Yes, and an appeals court just rejected Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, so that is going to the Supreme Court, which was by design.
Great to have you all here. Thank you very much.
As I said, we're monitoring Trump's return.
Also, in New York today, the Mayor was in court, as the Trump Justice Department is arguing to get his corruption charges dropped. A judge indicating he's not writing in just yet. What happened when this scene played out. That's ahead.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
K. COLLINS: Tonight, New York City mayor, Eric Adams, is maintaining his innocence, as a federal judge is weighing what to do, and whether to dismiss his corruption case.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR ERIC ADAMS (D-NYC, NY): I did nothing wrong. I did not break a law, and I have been committed to that my entire life.
I'm a victim of a very overaggressive investigation. And I'm telling you, it hurts, and I'm a victim.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: Adams' interview with Spectrum News there, follows his appearance in federal court today alongside the acting Deputy Attorney General, Emil Bove, who personally defended the Justice Department's motion to end the case against Adams.
Bove telling the judge, quote, "The fact that Mayor Adams is sitting to my left right now is part of the problem. He's not able to be out running the city and campaigning, so I think that this motion is actual interference."
At least eight federal prosecutors disagree with him. They've resigned in protest over all of this. Four of the deputy mayors, who served under Eric Adams, have quit as well.
Given the stakes here, the judge said he wasn't going to issue an immediate ruling in court today. He said, quote, "I'm not going to shoot from the hip right here on the bench."
My legal source tonight is Elie Honig, former federal prosecutor.
Elie, what did you make of the arguments that we heard in court today?
ELIE HONIG, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Let me tell you what confused me. So, we heard time and again Emil Bove saying, There's no quid pro quo. There's no dismissing the indictment in exchange for Eric Adams helping us on our immigration agenda.
But he did say, We're dismissing the indictment because he's helping us with our immigration agenda.
That is a really fine, tight rope to try to walk. You're saying, We're doing this because he's going to help us politically, but not in exchange for him helping us politically. That is very dicey territory.
And by the way, that's what makes this case such a big deal. It's not just about United States versus Eric Adams. I mean, this is not the biggest case in the SDNY's history. Plenty of governors, mayors, senators have been indicted.
What has people so up in arms is the fact that DOJ is on record, the number two official, right now, went into federal court today and said, Yes, part of the reason we're giving him a huge break, criminally, is so he can help us politically.
K. COLLINS: He is the number two at the DOJ. Emil Bove, as who, for those who don't know, previously was Trump's personal attorney. Is it normal for him standard to be in court?
HONIG: No. I can't ever remember an instance. I'm sure it's happened. But it's extremely unusual for the Deputy Attorney General, the acting Deputy Attorney General, to be in court.
But I do give him credit. I think he did the right thing. Because clearly, he was the driver of this, from inside the Justice Department. And also, the people who signed that motion for him were clearly strongarmed into signing it. And so, he had to make an argument today. So, I think his calculation is, I can't send one of these people who doesn't really believe in this.
K. COLLINS: Yes, who else is going to make that argument?
HONIG: Yes.
K. COLLINS: Chief of Staff to Pam Bondi -- the Chief of Staff to Pam Bondi was making an argument on Twitter today that I noticed.
HONIG: Right.
K. COLLINS: Is that the same thing that you heard in court? Or was it a different argument?
HONIG: Completely different.
What the Chief of Staff tweeted today, right before the hearing was, Well, there are problems with this case. There's problems with the evidence. There's problems with the legal theory. And the Supreme Court has rejected a series of corruption cases.
If Emil Bove, and DOJ had said that from day one, if they had just come out and said, We've taken a very careful look at this case. We don't think it's up to par in terms of the evidence. We're dismissing? You and I would be having a conversation about, Is that right, is it not? I would say, I disagree, I think they should have kept the indictment.
What makes this a next-level scandal is that explicit trade of dismissing the indictment for the politics.
So, Emil Bove did not argue the strength of the evidence in court. In fact, he was asked by the judge, Does this have to do with the strength of the evidence? And Bove said, Has nothing to do with it either way.
K. COLLINS: And dismissing it with the ability to bring it back here.
HONIG: Yes.
K. COLLINS: The judge said, he didn't want to shoot from the hip. What do you think the judge is going to do?
HONIG: So, there's really only two possibilities.
[21:50:00]
We could get a ruling from the judge that says, I sort of reluctantly accept this, because it's not exactly my role as the judge. Although the judge does have to sign off, prosecutors have very broad discretion about whether to bring an indictment or drop it.
But there's another possibility that I would like to see the judge do. The judge has the ability to hold an evidentiary hearing. And if I was in this judge's shoes, I would have said, Very well, Mr. Bove. I have your position. However, there are public letters from high-ranking people, in DOJ, Danielle Sassoon, that differ substantially with what you just told me, and I'm going to need to hear from them. So he does have the power to do this.
I mean, if you think back to the debate over Michael Flynn. When DOJ, under Trump and Barr, was trying to dismiss the Michael Flynn case, there was a series of evidentiary hearings.
K. COLLINS: Yes.
HONIG: So, I don't know if the judge wants to go down that road. He seems to want to wrap this thing up. But that's possible.
K. COLLINS: Judge Honig--
HONIG: If I -- I will never make it on the bench. But that's what I would have done.
K. COLLINS: Thank you so much.
HONIG: Thanks.
K. COLLINS: Elie, great to have you here. Coming up. There is one person who is in the President's orbit not afraid to criticize Elon Musk. And CNN's Donie O'Sullivan spoke to him today, about why.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: You're in the very few people in MAGA world, who speak out against Elon Musk. Why do you think that is?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:55:00]
K. COLLINS: Tonight, we are hearing from one of the most prominent voices in the MAGA movement, as he is escalating his own feud with Elon Musk.
In a new interview this week, the longtime ally of Trump and MAGA, Steve Bannon referred to Musk, and I'm quoting Steve Bannon here, as "A parasitic illegal immigrant," as he accused the world's richest man of wanting to impose, in his words, quote, "Freak experiments and play-act as God without any respect for the country's history, values or traditions."
Now Bannon is talking to my next source, CNN's Donie O'Sullivan.
I think it's quite clear how Steve Bannon feels about Elon Musk. But you ran into him today. What did he have to say?
O'SULLIVAN: Yes, not a fan. He's definitely not a fan.
Yes, he's here at CPAC, this week, really holding court. And I think it does underline just how influential Steve Bannon still is in the MAGA movement. And here's some of what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O'SULLIVAN: You're in the very few people in MAGA world, who speak out against Elon Musk. Why do you think that is?
STEVE BANNON, EXECUTIVE AND FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: I don't know, but -- and Elon is doing some great work, you know. I'm a huge supporter of the deconstruction of administrative state, and what Elon's doing in DOGE. I'm a big supporter of that. I hope and my prayer is, is that these cuts are real.
I wish him a lot of luck. But I am not a transhumanist. I'm very anti- oligarch. There's certain things about the oligarchs, not just Elon, but also the oligarchs that, you know, the Bezos and Zuckerberg, particularly, all these guys don't support us. And people have to understand, and CNN audience ought to understand, they don't support MAGA.
O'SULLIVAN: Zuckerberg went on Joe Rogan, said how big a Trump fan he was. You're not convinced?
BANNON: No, he's a criminal. What are you talking about? He put up $500 million to steal the election of 2020.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'SULLIVAN: And of course, Mark Zuckerberg has not been charged nor convicted with any crimes, and certainly nothing to do with the imagined steal of the 2020 election, although it is a conspiracy theory that's often repeated in MAGA circles.
K. COLLINS: Yes, one -- it used to be part of what Trump pushed until he and Zuckerberg formed this detente--
O'SULLIVAN: Yes.
K. COLLINS: --I guess, done on Zuckerberg's part, really.
But what he said there. They don't -- they're not MAGA. They don't understand MAGA. That's interesting to me, in terms of what this movement looks like.
O'SULLIVAN: Yes. And look, I mean, one of the fascinating things, I think, about Steve Bannon is he has this show that broadcasts for four hours live, every day. I don't know if you want to try that out.
K. COLLINS: Pass.
O'SULLIVAN: It's tough going. But -- and it's everywhere. I mean, it comes pre-load -- the channel comes pre-loaded on many televisions that are sold in this country today, any smart TV, basically. So, he's reaching hundreds of thousands, potentially millions of people.
And he didn't hold back as he was talking about what he describes as oligarchs, here in the U.S.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BANNON: You can tell President Trump doesn't totally trust the oligarchs. We're putting in very tough antitrust people into the Justice Department and into the alphabet agencies, and they -- and they have the -- on War Room, we're a huge platform.
Look, I'm a -- I'm not a conservative, right? I'm a Republican, because I'm a registered Republican. I'm really a populist nationalist conservative.
O'SULLIVAN: Yes.
BANNON: As you see here today, these are working-class and middle- class people.
O'SULLIVAN: Yes.
BANNON: And they don't want the concentration of power. And by the way, those oligarchs -- and people at CNN ought to understand that just like they've turned on you now, right? They -- they've abandoned the progressive left. They will abandon us. And the same thing. They seek power. Right now, their feeling is they can see the math and they see that we have a built-in coalition.
O'SULLIVAN: Yes.
BANNON: So, they're with us, but only temporarily. I got to go.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
K. COLLINS: That's fascinating to me, because just to hear that from someone, who was at the White House, on day one of Trump's last term, and that day -- today, Mark Zuckerberg was here in Washington today. At the inauguration, we saw all of the CEOs sitting by Trump, as he was taking the oath of office.
O'SULLIVAN: He's super-skeptical.
And I mean, one thing does ring true there, that it just occurred to me, as he was speaking, that Zuckerberg and Twitter, at the time, they all banned Trump. They kicked Trump off their platforms, and many would say rightfully so, after January 6 in 2021, just as Biden was coming into office.
If you look at the dates, last month, when Trump was about to come into office, it was almost around the exact same date that Zuckerberg announced that they were getting rid of fact-checks. So, when you see this point of these companies trying to adjust to whatever administration is coming in, he certainly does have a point there.
K. COLLINS: Yes, and it's something we've seen other CEOs do as well. I mean, they announced the changes on Facebook, on Fox.
O'SULLIVAN: Yes.
K. COLLINS: Where Trump would watch it.
O'SULLIVAN: Yes, very intentional, yes. And certainly not on the Steve Bannon show.
[22:00:00]
K. COLLINS: It is fascinating. Donie O'Sullivan--
O'SULLIVAN: Thanks.
K. COLLINS: --on the ground, reporting.
O'SULLIVAN: Yes.
K. COLLINS: I love to see it.
Fascinating to see that interviews. So, we'll stay tuned for more of Donie's reporting. Thank you so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
