Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
WH: Amy Gleason Is Acting Administrator Of DOGE; After Drama On House Floor, GOP Advances Trump Budget Blueprint; Trump Signs Memo To Review Security Clearances Of Law Firm Employees Who Worked With Jack Smith. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired February 25, 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]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GAL DALAL, BROTHER OF ISRAELI HOSTAGE GUY GILBOA-DALAL: --to prevent this from happening again, to make them realize that they can't take any hostage, and making a -- make a cynical show out of him. And that's a torture, both for us and the families. It's not about the faces. It's not about the deal. It's simply about being human.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Thank you so much for talking to us.
DALAL: Thank you so much for having us.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Well, that's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
The top DOGE, we now know who the White House says is actually running Elon Musk's government overhaul. But technically, it's not Elon Musk. Why it took weeks for the White House to reveal that, as federal workers are still asking tonight who they should be listening to.
And in a chaotic scene on Capitol Hill that just played out, House Republicans barely passed that first version of Trump's big, beautiful bill. Why the easy part wasn't so easy? As Democrats are warning that massive cuts to Medicaid could be coming.
Senator Elizabeth Warren is here, and will join me live.
And also, we have the latest details on that deal that's been struck between the United States and Ukraine, as President Zelenskyy is booking a ticket to Washington, to meet with President Trump, just days after he called Ukraine's leader, a dictator.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Despite pledging to be maximally transparent, one of the biggest secrets, for weeks now, surrounding Elon Musk's DOGE effort has been who is actually running the place. After asking for weeks, and even being told just this afternoon that the White House wasn't going to reveal the individual's name, we have now learned who it is. And surprise. It is not Elon Musk. At least not on paper, it's not.
A White House official tells me that it is actually an individual, who you've likely never heard of. Her name is Amy Gleason, and we have learned that she is the acting Administrator of DOGE.
Now, legally, this could have a real impact on what exactly Musk and Trump are trying to accomplish, when it comes to shrinking the federal government and the workforce. Just yesterday, Justice Department officials were being grilled by a judge, on who exactly was leading DOGE, and they couldn't tell her.
Even tonight, we don't know exactly how long Gleason has been in this acting position. We do know she has a background in health care. She previously worked at the U.S. Digital Service agency. That's that existing agency that was founded by President Obama that when Trump took office, he rebranded as DOGE.
And Gleason also worked in Trump's first term, including on the White House COVID task force data team. It was her background in health care tech, which is pretty extensive, that actually brought her to the federal government.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMY GLEASON, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, DOGE: One thing that I've learned about joining the government is you get to work on really cool problems that affect all of Americans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: More on who Amy Gleason is in a moment.
But it was just a few hours ago that we heard from the White House press secretary, saying that they were not going to reveal the person's name, at least not from the briefing room.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you tell us who the administrator of DOGE is?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Again, I've been asked to answer this question. Elon Musk is overseeing DOGE. There are career--
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is he the administrator?
LEAVITT: There are -- no. Elon Musk is a Special Government employee, which I've also been asked, and have answered that question as well.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is he the administrator?
LEAVITT: There are career officials at DOGE. There are political appointees at DOGE. I'm not going to reveal the name of that individual from this podium.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now the fact that the White House ultimately did reveal who it is may have come as a surprise to Gleason herself. The New York Times reports tonight that she was scheduled to be on vacation in Mexico.
When she gets back, there is certainly a lot going on. That includes just today, 21 staffers from her own department resigning, in protest of what DOGE was doing. Several judges across the country questioning the constitutionality and the legality of some of the actions that they are taking.
And also, federal workers tonight still searching for clarity, on what they should do if Musk emails them again to ask, what they have been doing, or risk being fired.
Any clarity on that last one is pretty hard to come by.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACQUI HEINRICH, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Elon Musk said a failure to respond a second time would result in termination. So is that a real deadline? Should federal workers be looking to that guidance, or should they be looking to the agency heads, like, what is the actual deadline?
LEAVITT: So, again, the agency heads will determine the best practices for their employees at their specific agencies. Again, this was an idea that Elon come up with. DOGE worked with OPM to actually implement the idea. And the secretaries are responsible for their specific workforce.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you see it as voluntary, like OPM has said, or mandatory?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Yes, well, it's somewhat voluntary. But it's also, if you don't answer, I guess you get fired.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:05:00]
COLLINS: The President is set to host the first cabinet meeting, I should note, of his second term, tomorrow. It will be our first opportunity to see DOGE's leader, and all of Trump's other cabinet officials meeting face-to-face. That of course, being Elon Musk, not the acting Administrator.
My first source tonight to lead us off is CNN Political Analyst, Maggie Haberman of The New York Times.
And Maggie, as we've been looking into this, and talking about how long it took to find out who was actually the administrator here, what does it say to you, in why they waited so long to reveal this person's name?
MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, a couple of things, Kaitlan. And I apologize for looking down. But as you know, better than anybody, the work does not stop right now.
I think that they, despite their professed commitment to transparency, have been operating in great secrecy around DOGE, and what it is up to, and what Elon Musk's group is doing.
And I think that they were trying to avoid being pinned down in the course of legal cases. And then, I think it became clear that that was not going to be sustainable. And so, they went ahead, and they said, it's this -- you know, this person who is a career person, Amy Gleason.
She's worked in the previous Trump administration. For a little bit. She worked in the beginning of the Biden administration. And she is not somebody who people are going to dwell on. She's also described as acting. And we know from Trump's previous term that he likes calling people, Acting, even if it's not a job that's Senate-confirmed, and doesn't require an Acting title.
So I make of it that this is -- this is another moment, when they have been forced to say something, because there were such a crush of stories around it. These are things that could be dealt with on the front-end more easily, and just are not.
COLLINS: Yes, I think that's a good point, in terms of the fact that they are calling her as Acting. This is not a Senate-confirmed position. But it does matter, because--
HABERMAN: Right.
COLLINS: --it could determine whether this person has to file a financial disclosure form that's public, whether or not they are named in lawsuits here. I mean, essentially, this means that Elon Musk, if on paper he is not technically leading DOGE, will not be that person, presumably.
HABERMAN: No, that's right. I mean, it appears to shield Elon Musk from certain levels of disclosure that he might otherwise have.
We already know, he is a Special Government employee. He does have to file a financial disclosure. But they are not planning to make that public, as far as we know.
We do not know whether President Trump has granted him a conflicts of interest waiver, although I suspect that if he had, we would have heard about it. And we know that Musk has many companies that have contracts with different government agencies, or permit issues with different government agencies.
The President just keeps saying, Well, if there's a conflict, we're not going to let him do it. But I don't know how the public would know that, or know that that was indeed being adhered to. COLLINS: Yes. And for the pledges of maximal transparency, it's actually taken a bit of time to get a detail like this one.
HABERMAN: Right.
COLLINS: And this comes as we've been following this story about the mixed messages federal workers are getting. Are they going to be fired if they don't respond to an email, or are they not, and who should they be listening to?
Trump himself was actually asked this question in the Oval, earlier today, and this is what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Is he speaking for you when he says--
TRUMP: Yes, yes, everybody speaks for me. I'm the one, I'll take responsibility.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Is that clear to you, Maggie?
HABERMAN: Well, it's certain -- no. I mean, depending what we're talking about, Kaitlan, it certainly is not clear exactly who is speaking for him. For instance, in some of these negotiations with Ukraine about a minerals deal, number one. It is not always clear who is speaking for him on other foreign policy matters, or on even on trade matters.
It is clear, though, that he and Elon Musk so far are in lockstep. That doesn't mean they're in lockstep with the federal government, or even with aspects of the executive branch, and various agencies that have to give guidance to other agencies.
And so, do I think that so far, this relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk has proven pretty durable? It has. But they appear to be echoing each other. Aspects of the government seem a little less certain.
COLLINS: Well, and Elon Musk will be in that cabinet meeting tomorrow. Obviously, the first one in Trump's first term kind of became lore, because officials--
HABERMAN: Right.
COLLINS: --were heaping praise on him during that.
What are you going to be watching for, in that briefing, or in that cabinet meeting, tomorrow?
HABERMAN: I think most eyes are going to be on Elon Musk, tomorrow, to see how he engages with President Trump, and how he engages with cabinet officials, who have had to go through confirmation processes, and to have had to turn over a lot of information, about their personal businesses, or their personal finances, and who have had to go through a pretty rigorous and often public process that Elon Musk has not had to.
COLLINS: Can I just ask you, finally, as we will be watching that very closely, tomorrow, including where he is sitting, though I think he might be more deferential to the cabinet members than people are expecting.
HABERMAN: Yes.
COLLINS: The other thing Trump talked about, in the Oval today, was creating a Gold Card instead of a green card. This is what he said.
HABERMAN: Right.
[21:10:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're going to be selling a Gold Card. You have a green card. This is a Gold Card. We're going to be putting a price on that card, of about $5 million. And that's going to give you green card privileges. Plus, it's going to be a route to citizenship. And wealthy people will be coming into our country, by buying this card.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It's not clear how that will be different than an investor visa, which already exists, and allows foreign investors--
HABERMAN: Right.
COLLINS: --to become permanent residents if they meet certain standards. I mean, maybe the baseline will be higher. He mentioned $5 million.
But what do you make of that, given all the talk about merit-based immigration we hear from Trump?
HABERMAN: I mean, look, I think that Trump's immigration policy doesn't always have a clear throughline, and he is not always as hard- right as some of his supporters, or even some of his advisers, like Stephen Miller.
I think that Trump sees everything, in terms of a financial exchange, and he sees this, as a way of looking as if he is bringing more dollars to the U.S. Treasury. I just don't understand exactly how this is going to work. And I don't think it's clear.
And to your point, there is something like this that exists already. It would be a limited pool of people, who could afford that. But we'll see what it looks like.
COLLINS: We'll see what Congress has to say, as well.
Maggie Haberman, as always, thank you for your excellent reporting. HABERMAN: Right.
COLLINS: And up next, my political sources are here.
Democratic congressman, Ro Khanna, of California.
And also, CNN Political Commentator, and Republican strategist, Shermichael Singleton.
I would like to ask you both about the Gold Card. But I'll start with DOGE. Because Shermichael, we do repeatedly hear this pledge of transparency from the White House, from Elon Musk himself, on this effort.
But if you look at the website, where they have been putting their contracts and saying, This is how much money we've saved from canceling all this stuff. They quietly today canceled or pulled down the ones that they claimed to have canceled that were really the biggest ones.
One was, it claimed to be $8 billion from ICE. It was actually $8 million. Another one, they said it was $655 million in cuts at USAID. They just counted it three times. Another one was from the Social Security Administration. But actually, it was a fraction of the $200 million they claimed that they had.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Sure.
COLLINS: What does that say about that effort?
SINGLETON: Well it just says that numbers are very technical.
And I think this is why they are appointing an administrator, someone who actually has the technical skills, to make sure that, as the American people and members of Congress are assessing this information, whether that's via X, or via the DOGE's website, that the numbers presented are accurate. And I expect for those numbers to be so.
Look, this isn't (ph) a new process. We haven't attempted anything like this as quickly as we're trying. Clinton did. It took him about five years to get to this point. They're trying to do something a lot quicker over, what, a month and a half? And so, you're going to have some glitches, you're going to have some errors.
But I think the recognition of the errors are, Let's appoint someone with the technical skills and experience, to make sure that these things don't continue moving forward. And I expect for us to see -- to see that come to fruition.
COLLINS: What's the conversation on Capitol Hill? I mean, we're even hearing from Republicans like Nicole Malliotakis in New York, who say that some of the decisions here, that are being made, are quite rash.
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Well, the problem is, it's having a consequence on real people's lives. We had 15 people today, talk about their experiences, many of them Trump voters, veterans, saying that they voted for Trump, just two months ago. They're fired, doing jobs like helping other veterans.
One person who worked at the Department of Agriculture said that he's expecting a new baby, and now, he doesn't know how he's going to take care of his family. And they appealed to President Trump, as did I, to have a reinstatement. Because many of these people were doing good work. They had good performance reviews. In fact, one person was fired after being promoted, because DOGE didn't even realize that the person had been promoted.
So, it is totally irrational, beyond the human cost. And that's because you're going -- something that President Clinton did, over five years, with Congress? You have an agency doing like private equity. Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. That's how they work in Silicon Valley, would know -- but you can't do that with the federal government.
SINGLETON: But I just want to say, even if we were to slow the process down, you are going to have people with stories that will sort of make us sad, or pull on the heartstrings, if you will, that ultimately will lose their jobs.
I mean, we saw the same thing, if you go back to some of the reporting during the Clinton era, where there were people, who said, I needed my job because of my relative or spouse was ill, or, I had to take care of a child that had some type of issues. They still ultimately lost their jobs.
That is a part of the process. And I just think people should expect that. Even if we were to slow this thing down and be a little more methodical, you're going to see people losing their jobs, because it's ultimately, the objective here.
KHANNA: Sure. But like you--
COLLINS: But is there--
KHANNA: You wouldn't have a -- what they are calling, those folks, the Valentine's Day Massacre. We're on Valentine's Day. They're getting a call saying they no longer have a job, no performance plan, no reviews. Most of them told they were good performers in departments, where they're doing good work. I mean, it's just, it's like there's a lottery ball of being fired. There's no rational plan around it.
[21:15:00]
COLLINS: And I hear what you're saying, Shermichael. But I want you to listen. Because that is the question, the compassion here. And I also think there's a difference in finding out you're getting fired via in an email that you didn't respond to, potentially where you're not totally clear if you had to respond or not.
But Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene weighed in on this very thing, today. And this is what she had to say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): Those are not real jobs producing federal revenue. By the way, they're consuming taxpayer dollars. Those jobs are paid for by the American tax people who work real jobs, earn real income, pay federal taxes, and then pay these federal employees. Federal employees do not deserve their jobs. Federal employees do not deserve their paychecks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SINGLETON: I don't understand--
COLLINS: That's not really pulling on the heartstrings.
SINGLETON: I don't -- but I don't understand why there's such a conundrum, about people replying and responding to what they did the previous week.
COLLINS: Wait, no, but can you respond to that first?
SINGLETON: I don't know -- I don't know--
COLLINS: No. That's a different take, Shermichael.
SINGLETON: But, Kaitlan, I have to show up to work. The Congressman has to show up to work. You have to show up to work. We don't get paid, if we don't show up to work.
KHANNA: You know what people think?
SINGLETON: Why is that expectation different--
COLLINS: But that's not the same thing.
SINGLETON: --for federal workers?
COLLINS: Well, one, you're ignoring the comments that I just played for you.
KHANNA: You know what -- you know what people--
SINGLETON: I'm not.
COLLINS: Smooth -- not smoothly, by the way.
SINGLETON: I'm not.
KHANNA: --what people think are not real jobs? Are members of Congress. That's the irony. The people who are doing the real jobs are the federal workers, who are actually taking care of our parks, who are helping veterans, who are helping people get bank loans. They think the political appointees are the ones, who are actually not doing the real work. And so, I think that Representative Greene has it backwards. And you know what? You want to go after waste and fraud. This is -- this is what's so frustrating. They're not going after any of the big- ticket items, the subsidies to fossil fuel companies, the Pentagon budget with the Five prime contracts.
SINGLETON: Well, Hegseth did say he want to--
KHANNA: Yes. You know what Hegseth said?
SINGLETON: --cut that by 8 percent.
KHANNA: Yes, and he said he wants to reinvest it in the other parts of the department, so that the topline doesn't go down. It's all smoke and mirrors. They're not going after Medicare Advantage fraud. They're not going after prescription drugs that are costing the government money.
SINGLETON: So Congressman, if I can interrupt.
KHANNA: Yes.
SINGLETON: I hear everything you're saying, and some of it I actually agree with. How come Democrats haven't presented an alternative plan?
KHANNA: We have. Senator Warren has. I have.
SINGLETON: Not you. And not Senator Warren. But the leadership of the Democratic Party. I haven't seen that plan from Hakeem Jeffries.
COLLINS: They are Democrats.
SINGLETON: I haven't seen a plan from Chuck Schumer.
I have not seen a plan from the leadership of the party, saying, Look, we recognize that we have to have cuts. We recognize that government is bloated. Let us present the Democratic plan to work with the President, to work with Republicans, to do what's in the best interest of the American people.
KHANNA: We did. We got burned. I've known Elon for 15 years. When he got appointed, I said, I'm willing to work on substantive cuts. Senator Warren said that. Senator Sanders said that. Senator Fetterman said that. Many of us said that.
But we didn't expect him, in one month, to take the attitude he took to Twitter, to the federal government, where you have this Valentine's Day Massacre, and Trump voters are out there saying, I don't know how we just lost our jobs, and had no notice. And he's engaged in no conversation with Congress.
You know what the irony is? If he's so confident in what he's doing, why doesn't he come to Congress, and present it to the American people?
SINGLETON: To--
COLLINS: We're going to talk about that coming up.
SINGLETON: OK.
COLLINS: As I'll let you guys debate, who has a real job or not.
Congressman Ro Khanna. Shermichael Singleton. Thank you both for being here.
There was drama in the House tonight, not necessarily around DOGE, but also a win for Trump's agenda. The chaotic scene we saw play out on the House floor.
And also, how are Democrats going to respond? Senator Elizabeth Warren is here.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Some breaking news tonight. After a chaotic night on Capitol Hill that just ended with a win, ultimately for Speaker Mike Johnson and President Trump, after the House voted to adopt Republicans' sweeping budget blueprint, but not without some drama.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): We have a lot of hard work ahead of us. But we are going to deliver the America First agenda. We're going to deliver all of it, not just parts of it. And this was the first step in that process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: CNN's Chief Congressional Correspondent, Manu Raju, was standing right there, as we heard from Speaker Johnson.
Manu, this is supposed to be the easy part. Tell us what happened today, and what this means about what's going to happen next.
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this was a day full of whiplash, and a high-tense moment, high-stakes moment on this House floor, and something that really never happens.
The House leadership sending members home, saying that they simply don't have the votes, and they got to figure out what's next. And then, just minutes later, putting that same plan on the floor, because something changed. And ultimately, they did get the votes by the narrowest of margins, 217 to 215, to pass this budget blueprint out of this narrowly-divided Republican House.
And what changed? Ultimately, the lobbying behind-the-scenes to get some of these Republican members, some of whom had demanded deeper spending cuts, to get on board. He ultimately got Victoria Spartz, who is an Indiana Republican who told me just hours ago she was a, quote, hard no, and then voted for it. And also, Warren Davidson, another Republican who indicated he was going to vote against this plan. We know that President Trump himself was on the phone, with some of these members, ultimately urging them to get behind this plan.
But, as you mentioned, Kaitlan, this is the easy part. They need to adopt a single budget blueprint out of the House and the Senate. The House and the Senate still have to agree on the one budget blueprint. They are in much different courses, right now. So, they have to negotiate and reach an agreement on that.
And then, they had to pass it again through the House and the Senate. And then they actually have to draft the legislative text. And that is going to be incredibly difficult, as you're talking about a sweeping overall, of the tax code, energy provisions, immigration provisions, defense program, as well as increasing the national debt limit, and a massive array of spending cuts that is bound to divide their party, Kaitlan.
[21:25:00]
So, they have to write those details, and then get the votes again before it becomes law. So today was the first step, and it shows you how hard it was, just to do that, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Yes, going from a hard no to a yes is the most Capitol Hill thing ever.
Manu Raju, thank you for being there for us tonight.
RAJU: You bet.
COLLINS: Meanwhile, as Manu mentioned, the President was involved here. He's been keeping his options open, between which plan he likes, the House or the Senate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: So the House has a bill, and the Senate has a bill, and I'm looking at them both.
Each one of them has things that I like. So, we'll see if we can come together.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My deeply sourced White House insiders join me now.
Shelby Talcott is White House Correspondent for Semafor.
Michael Scherer is a staff writer for The Atlantic.
That comment from Trump reminds me when it was in the Republican primary, I think in Missouri, when he endorsed both Erics -- or he endorsed Eric--
MICHAEL SCHERER, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Yes.
COLLINS: --and there were two Erics running. He didn't say which one necessarily--
SCHERER: Both were Erics (ph), yes.
COLLINS: --he was getting behind here.
SCHERER: What's amazing about this debate. We've been talking about DOGE for weeks, right? And Elon Musk's promise was, We're going to save $2 trillion a year, initially. That was his promise.
If you look at the details of this budget resolution, which just passed, gives you, like, the spending levels. It's going to add $3 trillion, over 10 years, to the deficit. You're talking about, like, a percentage point more in GDP will be spent in -- on the deficit over the next decade because of this bill. And no one's really talking about it. It's a totally separate conversation.
COLLINS: So, even if he gets all this cuts it would basically--
(CROSSTALK)
SCHERER: Well, he's not going to get those. There's no way Elon Musk.
COLLINS: Right. But if he did?
SCHERER: Yes, even if he did -- I mean, they're just two totally different conversations.
Elon Musk is doing this song and dance about how, We're cutting spending, and we're going to get the public house in order.
And Congress is up on Capitol Hill. They're going to do spending cuts, but the tax cuts are much larger, and the deficit is going to grow.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, this was, as Manu was saying, obviously, not easy. They had to get those hard noes to a yes. But this is only the beginning, when they actually have to commit to what they want to cut, and what this looks like in order to pay for the tax cuts.
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Yes, this is certainly a win for Mike Johnson and Donald Trump. But it's a small win in the grand scheme of things.
And remember, Senate Republicans have already drafted their own separate bill, and they've had a lot of problems with the House Republican bill. So the next step, one of the next steps, is going to be convincing Senate Republicans to get on board with the House bill.
And what's interesting is Donald Trump has, sort of, as you saw in that clip, been a little bit wishy-washy on it, which is unusual for him, historically. And there have been some lawmakers, on the Hill, who have sort of privately complained and wished that Donald Trump would take a stronger stance, because they feel like it would -- it would help them ultimately, in getting this all the way across the board, looks like it.
COLLINS: If we needed any evidence in how slim this is. I mean, obviously Thomas Massie was the only no, of Kentucky, tonight.
This is what Mike Johnson said about Elise Stefanik, who is supposed to be Trump's ambassador to the United Nations, and when she's going to change jobs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: If we get the budget resolution passed this week, which is the plan, then it's possible that Elise Stefanik would go ahead and move on to her assignment at the U.N., as the ambassador there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It is remarkable that she cannot move to that position, even though she can easily get confirmed because of this.
SCHERER: And like everybody said, this is the easy vote. I mean, the -- one of the sticking points here was about $800 billion in Medicaid cuts, which Speaker Johnson says we can get through eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.
Democrats and a lot of Republicans don't think there's that much money in waste, fraud, and abuse. That means there's actually going to be Medicaid cuts. And if there're actually Medicaid cuts, it's going to be really hard to get the same vote one more time, and we're going to know that when the appropriations process happens.
TALCOTT: And something to remember also is one of the reasons that the Trump administration is pushing so much through, so quickly, is because they recognize that, yes, Donald Trump has four years, but really, he only has two years with the trifecta in Washington. And already, the majority is so narrow, you're seeing how difficult it is for him to get this stuff done, even now.
COLLINS: Yes.
Shelby Talcott. Michael Scherer. Great to have you both. We'll have you back for the next vote.
Up next. We're going to speak to Senator Elizabeth Warren, about what this plan looks like, and also, what does she make of Elon Musk's ultimatum that federal workers got, and who is really running DOGE.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Even with tonight's Republican win in the House, the future of what President Trump's plan, to slash trillions in federal spending to pay for trillions in tax cuts, faces a very long and uncertain road on Capitol Hill.
Democrats, though, have been wasting no time in warning about what tonight's vote could eventually translate to, and mean, for programs like Medicaid. While that is playing out on Capitol Hill, in places far and wide from Washington, we're seeing protests to the cuts that the administration has been making playing out.
My source tonight is the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren.
On just this vote tonight, and what this is going to look like.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): Yes.
COLLINS: You're not in power, your party is not, obviously, as you very well know. What's the best strategy that Democrats have here? Is it just hoping that Republicans can't get it together?
WARREN: No, the best strategy is to make sure everybody in America knows exactly what the Republicans are trying to do. And that is, they want to give, literally, trillions of dollars in tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires and billionaire corporations.
And they want to pay for it on the backs of seniors, who are living in nursing homes. Cut the funding for that, and just put those folks out on the street. They want to do it on the backs of Meals on Wheels. They want to do it on the backs of hot lunches for kids.
And I got to tell you. I don't care whether you're Democrat, Republican, Independent. Nobody likes that deal, except billionaires.
COLLINS: We had a House Republican here, last night, who was saying, Getting this passed is just to get them on the dance floor, and they'll see what cuts they commit to. He said -- his quote was, We don't want to push granny off a cliff, was the phrase he used.
[21:35:00]
WARREN: You notice that's what's top of mind, though, as he's thinking about which cuts to make?
COLLINS: But if you're an American, and you are wondering if there will be cuts to Medicaid, to programs that provide food stamps, I mean, what is the option that this is going to look like, going forward?
WARREN: It's going to cut -- look, you have to think of overall, what are you trying to do here?
You cannot cut trillions of dollars giving as giveaways for the billionaires and millionaires. And either you're going to have to run the deficit through the stratosphere, or you're going to have to make cuts in the investments we make, in making this country work for ordinary families.
Let's go back to square one. Donald Trump ran for office saying he would cut costs for ordinary families, remember his words, on day one. His words. He would do it immediately, those were his words. Now we're in the second month. And what we're watching is, oh, cuts for billionaires in their taxes, but paid for by driving up costs for middle-class families. What are you going to do if the nursing home, where your grandma is, loses its funding? Then either she's out on the street, or where is she going? Because that's the fundamental problem here.
There's no magic math here. There's no secret key. And what the Republicans want to do is hope that there will be enough of a sandstorm, over renaming the Gulf of Mexico, and over 25 percent tariffs with Canada, and over shutting down agencies across the government, that nobody notices that the fundamental drive here, where the rubber hits the road, is tax cuts for billionaires paid for by regular families.
COLLINS: And you're saying this is serious, that this isn't being exaggerated by your party.
But Democrats have struggled to really rally your bases, since Trump won. In 2018, we saw the -- what Democrats, the line of attack on, on changes to the Affordable Care Act that Republicans wanted to make, be it pretty salient.
WARREN: Yes.
COLLINS: Do you think this is going to be the 2025 version of that?
WARREN: Oh, I absolutely do. In fact, let me just remind you, the part that drove the hardest against Trump was exactly this.
In his first term, he had one legislative accomplishment, and that was about $2 trillion in tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires and giant corporations, paid for on the backs, then, of working families. And what happened? It drove his popularity so low, and became the jet fuel for the 2018 -- I have to kind of watch my years -- the 2018 blue wave, and also helped us on into 2020.
That single legislative achievement that they had, no Republican ran on it, because it was so unpopular. And I got to tell you, I cannot believe it, they are planning to run exactly the same play again. Only the two differences are, they're going to make it even bigger, and they hope to do it in the middle of a sandstorm when nobody notices.
COLLINS: Well, this comes as Elon Musk is trying to slash federal spending, and improve government efficiency. He's been criticized by even some Republicans today, for in part, this email that went out, saying that workers had to justify their jobs, or potentially lose them. They're saying they may send another one.
What is your view on that, that email that went out?
WARREN: Look, what Elon Musk is doing, in my view, is plainly illegal. He's trying to take the legs out from under--
COLLINS: Well, what law is he breaking?
WARREN: Oh, with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Congress passes the laws. We have an agency. The agency has obligations, legal obligations, that it has to meet. Under the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the administration to administer those laws. And if they fail to do that or do it inappropriately, it is the responsibility of the courts to make them do it.
Right now, we are in the courts, and asking the courts to enforce the law. And that is to let that agency do its work.
Over the last dozen years, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has found more than $21 billion in fraud from these creditors, and it has forced those creditors to return the money, directly to the people they cheated. That's making government work.
COLLINS: On your point about the courts, though, doesn't that mean the courts are basically doing their jobs here?
WARREN: Yes.
COLLINS: That they are stepping in where they believe it isn't -- these judges believe it's necessary?
WARREN: Yes, that's exactly right. That's exactly what the courts are doing. And that's what they're doing, for example, with the CFPB, when Elon Musk breaks the law.
COLLINS: Here's what I'm fascinated by on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for people who don't know the acronym, which you have a massive responsibility in helping create. Because Elon Musk wants to shut it down.
WARREN: Yes.
[21:40:00]
COLLINS: I think he tweeted, RIP CFPB--
WARREN: Yes.
COLLINS: --with the emoji.
WARREN: Gravestone emoji.
COLLINS: A headstone emoji.
WARREN: Yes.
COLLINS: He owns X, formerly known as Twitter.
WARREN: Yes.
COLLINS: He wants to turn it into this app that can do basically everything, I believe, is as he's referred to it.
WARREN: Right.
COLLINS: Including cash payment -- or make payments like Venmo or Apple Pay. That is something that would be regulated by the CFPB, would it not?
WARREN: Right. Exactly right.
COLLINS: Do you believe that's a conflict of interest for him to be?
WARREN: Yes.
COLLINS: Because the White House says that they're making sure he doesn't have conflicts of interest.
WARREN: Oh, yes, sure.
Because the CFPB is the financial cop on the beat.
And actually, Elon already has some competitors in that field who have also set up these payment platforms. Elon has already announced he wants to set up the same kind of payment platform. Only, his plan is to get rid of the cop on the beat, who would make sure with that payment platform, that you actually follow the law.
In addition to that, while he's rummaging around, and all of the data that the CFPB collects. Remember, the CFPB does what's called bank supervision. It means they actually dig into the private books and records -- and this is true across all the banking regulators -- the private books and records of those financial companies, to make sure they're not cheating people. Because if someone were miscalculating your interest rate, for example, the odds you could catch it would be pretty small. So, this is what the bank supervisors do.
Elon Musk. Who knows? Is he rooting through all of the information about his competitors, to figure out where they're making money, where they're not making money, where they got in trouble, where they have a clear path to go ahead, how much money they're investing?
That is staggeringly valuable information to someone trying to enter the field, and staggeringly illegal, for anyone to access that information other than the authorized banking supervisors. So, Elon Musk has a conflict here that is bigger than we can describe. It is enormous.
COLLINS: What do you think of the fact that he'll be at the cabinet meeting tomorrow?
WARREN: Well, he made it to the cabinet meeting.
But I got to tell you. Today, I asked him to come to the meeting we had in Congress, where we wanted to ask him questions about trying to shut down this consumer agency. And I got to say, he was a no-show.
COLLINS: Yes. But he's not compelled to come, of course.
WARREN: He is not-- COLLINS: He's not a cabinet appointee.
WARREN: He is not compelled to do any of these.
COLLINS: Yes.
WARREN: Because, evidently, he is a guy who is both running everything, but not officially in charge of anything. So, the White House, right now, is claiming he has no legal responsibilities. And yet, somehow he's co-President of the United States. What an amazing feat.
COLLINS: Senator Elizabeth Warren, thank you, as always, for your time tonight.
WARREN: You bet.
COLLINS: Glad to have you here.
Up next. We have new details on a big deal that has been agreed to by the U.S. and Ukraine. President Trump calls it very big. And that comes as we're expecting to see President Zelenskyy, here in Washington. We'll tell you when, next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Breaking news this evening, as a Ukrainian official is telling CNN that the United States and Ukraine have now reached a deal, when it comes to revenue from the war-torn country's mineral resources, as President Trump has insisted on the U.S. being paid back for aid that has been sent to Ukraine.
This also comes, as we've learned, Zelenskyy could sign this deal, this Friday, here in Washington, with the President weighing in today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Is it true that President Zelenskyy's coming on Friday to meet with you? And is the mineral deal sorted out?
TRUMP: Yes, I hear that. I hear that he's coming on Friday. Certainly, it's OK with me, if he'd like to. And he would like to sign it together with me. And I understand that's a big deal, very big deal. And I think the American people, even if you look at polling, they're very happy. Because, you know, Biden was throwing money around like it's cotton candy. And it's a very big deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is CNN Political and Global Affairs Analyst, Barak Ravid.
And Barak, do we know what changed in this deal? Because you and I spoke, last week, and the Ukrainians were saying, No. What got them on board?
BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, POLITICS & FOREIGN POLICY REPORTER, AXIOS: Good evening, Kaitlan.
I think one of the things that got them on board is that they managed to remove from the deal, one main clause that Zelenskyy was vehemently against. And this was a clause that basically gave a number, the $500 billion number of allegedly payment that Trump was expecting to get out of this deal, as sort of a payment for the aid that the U.S. gave Ukraine, over the last three years.
And first, Zelenskyy said, Where did this $500 million is coming from -- $500 billion, where is the number coming from? And second, why this -- the money that we got, the assistance we got from the U.S., was a grant, it wasn't a loan. So, why do we need to pay it back?
This was removed, and I think this paved the way for this deal.
COLLINS: And so, looking forward to what's going to happen next year. I mean, if we do see Zelenskyy, here in Washington, I mean, that may be one of the most pivotal visits that he has had, in these last three years, which is, is saying a lot.
RAVID: No doubt. This is a key visit. Zelenskyy wanted this very much for, I think, something like two weeks. The White House sort of pushed back on such a visit.
[21:50:00]
And the fact that Zelenskyy is coming now, I think, is a very positive sign for the relationship, that I have to say, in the last two or three weeks was in a very deep crisis, maybe the deepest crisis since the Russian invasion. And Zelenskyy saw this shift in U.S. policy, and didn't really know how to digest it. And I think that this visit could somehow restore trust between the two leaders.
COLLINS: Yes, no understatement there, when it comes to what this looks like.
Barak Ravid, great reporting as always. Thank you so much.
RAVID: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next. The President is going after a law firm that is connected to the former Special Counsel.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Hold it. This is a good one. Is everybody listening?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:55:00] COLLINS: President Trump made clear, when he was a candidate, that during a second term, he would plan to go after those who investigated him. And tonight, he is acting on that by targeting the law firm now working with the former Special Counsel, Jack Smith. Yes, the Jack Smith who led the investigations into the January 6th, and Trump's handling of classified documents.
The President today, signed an executive order that would strip the security clearances of attorneys, at the big Washington firm, that is repping him, and also put an end to any federal work they may have had.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILL SCHARF, WHITE HOUSE STAFF SECRETARY: At the outset of your administration, sir, you committed to ending the weaponization of government, to holding those accountable who had participated in the weaponization of government.
TRUMP: Hold it. This is a good one. Is everybody listening? Deranged Jack Smith -- we're going to call it the Deranged Jack Smith signing or bill.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My legal sources tonight are:
CNN Legal Analyst, Elliot Williams.
And Tom Dupree, who was a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
Tom, what is the actual impact of this, on the attorneys who are at that firm that is pro bono representing Jack Smith?
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sure. Well, the impact is significant, if these are lawyers who have security clearances. And they need the security clearances to get access to information and evidence that they need, to do their job, to represent their clients. So, I think for those lawyers who are affected, it can be very significant.
But look, I will say that, I mean, kind of, you know, I like defending lawyers. And within the legal profession, there's a very long, very honorable tradition of lawyers defending clients of all nature, all stripes, scoundrels, murderers, terrorists, crazy people. But typically, you don't punish the lawyer for representing a bad client.
COLLINS: Yes, and they said that they were going to end any -- this executive order, I read through it, it says it's going to end any work that they may have had.
I should note that we heard from the firm, essentially arguing that they don't have a lot of federal work, or a lot of work in contracts with the federal government.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER DEP. ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So, here's the hot take. It's not about the work. It's not about the contracts. It may not even be about Jack Smith.
But it's a shot across the bow to other law firms across the country to disincentivize, make those firms not want to take on these kinds of cases, of these folks who have gotten in crossways with Donald Trump. What they've done here is create a scenario where, You and your law firm, other left-leaning law firms, perhaps in the country, could get in trouble, or at least have a hard time finding clients, if you start taking this work on.
COLLINS: Well, and that's a good point. Because, the way we found out about this was from the disclosure that Jack Smith filed with the Justice Department before he left. He said that Covington & Burling had given him about $150,000 in free legal advice, which he may need, because they were worried that Trump and his allies would come after him.
DUPREE: Right. And look, I think that what we are seeing in the early days of this administration is that Trump is not afraid to use the Justice Department, and all the means he has at his disposal in the White House, to send a very strong message to people that, If you assist people he views as his enemies, you yourself are going to pay a price.
WILLIAMS: And Elon Musk tweeted about it too, making the point that the law firms that help these people are the folks who are part of the problems more.
COLLINS: I think you make a really--
DUPREE: Yes, there's no secrecy here.
COLLINS: --you make a really good point, in terms of this is meant to basically as a shot across the bow, for any other law firms. Don't represent these people, or don't bring on anyone.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, this is the most high-profile one, obviously, with it being Jack Smith.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
DUPREE: Yes.
WILLIAMS: Yes. And it's also, the impact right now is sort of limited. Just because Jack Smith hasn't been charged with a crime, he's not really entitled to representation at this stage anyway.
If you play this out, if they kept this going? At a certain point, they have to let him get a lawyer, if they want to prosecute him. You can't take him to trial, if he can't get a lawyer. So, if they make it really hard for Jack Smith to find competent representation, that actually hurts their goals--
DUPREE: Well and--
WILLIAMS: --in punishing Jack Smith.
DUPREE: That's a yet another layer--
WILLIAMS: Under the law.
DUPREE: Another irony here, right, is that they were defending Jack Smith. In other words, that they weren't, as far as we know, assisting Jack Smith, in the prosecution or the weaponization. They were brought in to help defend Jack Smith from actions that the administration might be taking.
So look, the message here tonight, I think, is clear and unmistakable, that, If you assist people the President views as his enemies, his opponents, you will pay a price. That's what he's saying.
COLLINS: And what does it say just about this overall effort, though, for Trump to go after the people who investigated him, or former officials who worked for President Biden, or President Obama, stripping their security clearances, saying that maybe they should be looked into. I mean, this is not just one isolated incident.
WILLIAMS: Right. Look, he said he was going to do it, so. But that it's petty and vindictive, more than anything else. Even if there isn't a huge legal impact of some of these actions, it's just a sign of how much Donald Trump is making clear, on his promise, to go after these people, personally.
But this Jack Smith thing, I really do think far more than the legal impact, it's just the pettiness and almost the personal ill will, far more than anything else.
COLLINS: I mean, how do you think Jack Smith is viewing this?
DUPREE: Well, I don't think he's happy with it. I suspect -- Elliot has raised that. He's probably also thinking like, Well, how am I going to get a lawyer now? In other words, if any lawyer I hire immediately loses their security clearance, how would they even be able to prepare a defense of me to the extent that defense needs a security clearance?
COLLINS: Does it stand out to you that he already got a $140,000 worth of legal advice, essentially from them?
DUPREE: Well, I mean that -- the amount doesn't stand out to me, I mean.
WILLIAMS: No.
COLLINS: Yes.
[22:00:00]
DUPREE: Lawyers are expensive.
WILLIAMS: Lawyers are expensive. Expensive.
DUPREE: Lawyers are expensive.
WILLIAMS: I mean, this--
DUPREE: So, that doesn't surprise me.
WILLIAMS: --this nice necktie don't pay for itself, you know what I mean.
DUPREE: Worth every penny.
WILLIAMS: Every penny.
COLLINS: OK. Elliot Williams. Tom Dupree. Thank you so much. We'll take about those retainer fees, later on.
Thank you all so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
