Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Trusts Putin Will Keep His Word On Any Peace Deal; Trump Accepts "Unprecedented" Invite From King Charles; Federal Judge Orders DOGE To Answer Questions Under Oath. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired February 27, 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]
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: -- still though, there are senior Ukrainian officials, who admit that the geological information they're working on, dates back to 1946 or 1960.
Huge damage done to Ukraine's energy grid, its infrastructure, making mining, resource extraction, exceptionally complex. And so many questions exactly what this means in the future, if indeed, there is a piece that enables that kind of production to take off.
Anderson.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Nick Paton Walsh, thanks very much.
That's it for us. The news continues. "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.
Another day, another European leader imploring President Trump not to side with Russia. Why Trump says he trusts the Russian leader to abide by a deal, as he is just hours away from sitting down face-to-face with Ukrainian president Zelenskyy.
And as Elon Musk's power is expanding, every day here in Washington, a federal judge is now ordering Trump officials to testify about DOGE under oath.
And after all of the hype about releasing the so-called Epstein Files, even handing what were (ph) binders to about 15 right-wing influencers today, what was actually in the first wave of files released by the Justice Department, and why there is a meltdown inside MAGA over it tonight.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Today was the U.K.'s turn in the hot seat, as the parade of world leaders through the Oval Office has continued, with each one seemingly intent on persuading President Trump that any peace deal between Russia and Ukraine should not abandon Ukraine, or reward the Kremlin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: It can't be peace that rewards the aggressor, or that gives encouragement to regimes like Iran. We agree history must be on the side of the peacemaker, not the invader.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, was the world leader who probably had the sharpest comments yet, on Russia's aggression, as he stood next to President Trump inside the East Room, and argued that not just any peace deal will do.
While they sought to portray a close agreement between the two of them, the differences in their attitudes, on Putin himself, could not have been clearer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think he'll keep his word, I think -- I think he's -- I've spoken to him. I've known him for a long time now, you know. I've known him. We had -- we had to go through the Russian hoax together. That was not a good thing. It was not fair. That was a rigged deal, and had nothing to do with Russia. It was a rigged deal with inside the country, and they had to put up with that too.
I don't believe he's going to violate his words.
REPORTER: It sounds as though one of you completely trusts President Putin and one of you doesn't trust him an inch. Have I got that right? And why do you trust him?
TRUMP: No, look, you know, it's trust and verify. Let's call it that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Trust, but verify. Of course, the Verify part is a big question that these European leaders have.
And Trump is embracing Putin and trusting him, he says, as he is hours away from sitting down with Ukrainian president Zelenskyy, at the White House, tomorrow, whom Trump recently called a dictator without elections, a comment that the President was asked about today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Do you still think that Mr. Zelenskyy is a dictator?
TRUMP: Did I say that? I can't believe I said that. Next question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: While, Trump did not repeat it there, he also later did not apologize for it, with a notable shift in his tone overall toward Ukraine's wartime leader.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Will you take the opportunity to apologize to him for calling him a dictator while praising Vladimir Putin, who is a dictator?
TRUMP: I think we're going to have a very good meeting tomorrow morning. We're going to get along really well, OK? We have a lot of respect. I have a lot of respect for him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My sources tonight to start us off.
The former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner.
And the Ambassador to the E.U. during President Trump's first term in office, Gordon Sondland, who was a key witness, I should note, during -- against Trump, during his first impeachment.
It's great to have you both here.
Beth, what did you make of what you heard in the Oval Office from President Trump? Not surprising views on President Putin. But what they mean, at this moment, right now?
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Look, I think I've said this before. There are two things that have to happen here. He has to get Russia to the negotiating table, and Ukraine does need security guarantees to make this work.
And I do think that President Trump is continuing to kind of butter Putin up a bit, to try to keep him on side. But, at the same time, I also think he does somewhat trust him, but it may be a little different. In that, I think he trusts that he -- Putin is going to respect Trump. And that when he says, He's going to -- he's going to uphold this deal? It's because he thinks that, Yes, he didn't do it with Biden-Obama, but he's going to do it with me.
COLLINS: I mean, you are someone who served inside the Trump administration. You've dealt with this directly as well. What do you make of his comments, going into this?
[21:05:00]
GORDON SONDLAND, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EU UNDER TRUMP, MEMBER, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Oh, I think this is all Kabuki. I don't think he trusts Putin any farther than he can throw him.
I think this is setting up a situation, where he can look Putin in the eye, and say, Look, I made the best deal you are ever going to get, and if you take one more inch of Ukraine after we make the deal, all bets are off.
But publicly, think about it, the contrarian view is what he's doing. He can sit there and condemn Putin as a dictator, and say that Putin is a murderer and a thug, and all of the things we know are true. But where does that get him? Every president has done that since Putin took office, and it hasn't gotten anywhere.
So, he kind of takes a little bit of a contrarian standpoint, and Putin wonders, Does he like me? Does he not like me? It kind of throws him off his heels a little bit. And it's a very interesting way of doing things.
COLLINS: Do you think that's the case, in terms of how Putin views what Trump is saying? Or does he -- Putin think that he's been successful here, in his own strategies that he's taking?
SANNER: Yes, I think that you have two dealmakers who think that they're zooming the other. But, yes, I don't think that -- I don't think that Putin is confused at all.
And in fact, I think that Putin thinks that he's winning. And that's why Putin is actually taking a page from "The Art of the Deal," by going in with the absolute, maximalist position, as Trump himself says, I start very, very high, and I keep pushing. That's exactly what Putin is doing today.
COLLINS: Well, we keep talking about security guarantees, which basically means, if they have an agreement, and there's European troops on the ground, what is the backstop there? That's what the British prime minister came here to get. He didn't get them -- get that today, I should note.
SONDLAND: Well, he's not going to get it because it's not ready yet in the negotiations.
We don't know -- I mean, we're looking at the tip of the iceberg, and there's a huge iceberg under the water that we can't see, because this is all going on in private. It's going on with phone calls between Witkoff and Putin, and between Witkoff and Zelenskyy, and Yermak is involved. Everyone is involved in these conversations.
COLLINS: The Ukrainian adviser.
SONDLAND: The Ukrainian adviser.
But let me tell you, Trump is not a chump at all. He loves the flattery. He loves being -- you know, he loves having, as they say, sunshine blown up his skirt. He likes that. But he's also very sober as to what's going on.
So, I'm actually quite impressed with the way he set this up. Remember, he didn't start this. He left office. There was no war. There was no problem. Ukraine had its post-2014 borders. And then, all of a sudden, he takes office, and this thing has to be solved. And he's told the American people, he's going to solve it. He's done with the fighting, and he wants to move on.
COLLINS: Well, Russia didn't give back Crimea while Trump was in office. There was no effort to negotiate a peace deal with, or to get that land back that they illegally annexed, I should note, because that did happen before Trump took office.
But on this, overall, we keep talking about European forces being on the ground in Ukraine. Is that something that actually would be acceptable to Putin? Because Trump said he thought that he would be OK with it. But that is the very thing Putin has argued against--
SANNER: Right.
COLLINS: --so much.
SANNER: I mean, I -- they are saying that absolutely, under no conditions will that be accepted.
Now, I think that we have to understand that we have an enormous amount of leverage here, and this is what I hope that -- you know, that we just don't understand what's happening. We're looking in from the outside. We don't really know what the White House position is.
But, no, Putin is not -- I don't think that Putin's positions are negotiating positions. I think they actually are, in many ways, red lines.
I think he thinks -- Putin thinks that we're going to give, and that we're desperate for the deal. And in fact, we should have the other mentality. Putin needs this more than we do, and the key will be whether Trump is willing to walk away, if he doesn't get what's really required to make this a lasting peace.
SONDLAND: Wouldn't it be ironic if the argument when Trump walked in the door was, is Putin going to get Ukraine, or is Ukraine going to keep Ukraine, or whatever part of Ukraine it keeps?
And there's a third alternative. The United States gets Ukraine. And by that, I mean, it doesn't conquer Ukraine. But it, all of a sudden, has these strong economic ties. It gets the rare-earths. It helps them with their bond rating, which they were bitching about since 2018, when they came to see me.
And all of a sudden, U.S. folks are all over Ukraine, and Putin is going to go, Wait a minute. Now I can't attack Ukraine because if I'm attacking Ukraine, I'm attacking Trump.
COLLINS: But that's the question, in terms of the minerals agreement. And it's still -- there's a lot of skepticism over how much rare-earth minerals there are. But in terms of the minerals themselves, what that looks like? Who's protecting those interests on the eastern side of Ukraine? And a lot of this is in Russian-occupied areas. So, it's not clear how this minerals deal would shake out exactly.
SONDLAND: Well, but we don't know what the final lines are going to be. In other words, Trump may ask Putin to move those lines, where those minerals are because--
COLLINS: But would Putin say yes to that, do you think?
SANNER: Well, no. [21:10:00]
But President Trump did say today, which surprised me, he said, You know, well, we're going to be trying to get some of that Ukrainian land back.
Did you hear that?
COLLINS: Yes.
SANNER: Yes. And I thought that that was kind of interesting. So again, you get these little glimpses of maybe there's more going on here. But in fact, if the minerals are near that ceasefire line, that actually helps Ukraine, and it helps the Europeans.
COLLINS: Yes, because it's in the -- it's close to the frontlines--
SANNER: Sure.
COLLINS: --where a lot of the fighting is happening right now.
SANNER: Yes, yes, right.
SONDLAND: The other irony is, once we are -- you know, once we are in the country, and we have people there, and the Europeans have whatever, 30,000, 40,000 peace keepers? Isn't it ironic if all of a sudden, the Europeans are calling us, and saying, Well, you need to do more. We're protecting your interests now, in addition to the Ukrainians'. Why don't you have any people here with us?
COLLINS: That's the whole question about the backstop here, and if the U.S. is going to provide that.
SANNER: Yes.
COLLINS: What is your take on the shift in Trump's tone on Zelenskyy? I mean, he went from saying, Dictator without elections, last week, to today, he said, I greatly respect him.
SONDLAND: Kaitlan, stop listening to every word he says about everything. You have to--
COLLINS: But Trump often says--
SONDLAND: You know him well enough.
COLLINS: You're acting like Trump is always -- is playing 3D chess. He often says what he--
SONDLAND: No.
COLLINS: --how he genuinely feels about something at all--
SONDLAND: Well he was -- he was pissed off at the moment when he called him a dictator because Zelenskyy wouldn't sign the document that Witkoff or Bessent shoved under his nose. Because we know, that document, he would have been a fool to sign it. It had no security guarantees. It had $500 billion worth of rare- earths, or whatever he likes to call it. And of course, he's not going to sign it.
So, someone called Trump and said, We tried to get him to sign it, he wouldn't sign it. Zelenskyy says, you're a -- or Trump says, You're a dictator. I mean, it was just lashing out.
SANNER: Yes, but -- you know, but Trump doesn't like Zelenskyy.
SONDLAND: I don't agree.
SANNER: And he hasn't liked him for a long time.
SONDLAND: I don't -- I don't agree.
SANNER: I do.
SONDLAND: I don't agree.
SANNER: I mean, that's what I think.
COLLINS: What evidence do you have to the contrary?
SONDLAND: I don't think--
COLLINS: Because there's plenty on the other side of it.
SONDLAND: No, no, no, I don't -- I'm not saying they're friends and they're close. But I don't think he dislikes Zelenskyy. I think this is very transactional.
If you go through his readout of his -- of his telephone call, the perfect phone call? That was a very friendly call. And actually -- no -- read it. Kaitlan, read it again. It was a--
COLLINS: I've read it a 100 times--
SONDLAND: No, it was a very--
COLLINS: --during the impeachment.
SONDLAND: It was a very friendly call. In fact, it's funny, because everyone was complaining that Trump fired Masha Yovanovitch.
COLLINS: OK.
SONDLAND: And in fact, it was Zelenskyy who said, We don't like her either. So.
COLLINS: OK. But you're missing the part where--
SANNER: I mean--
COLLINS: --he shook him down for an investigation into Joe Biden's son. Are you not?
SONDLAND: He said, Do me a favor, take a look at this.
COLLINS: Then he was impeached for the matter.
SANNER: Yes.
SONDLAND: Yes--
COLLINS: I mean.
SANNER: I mean, look, President Trump is very good at compartmentation. He is very good at being charming when he wants to. And he still is charming to people whom he doesn't like. That's negotiating.
SONDLAND: That's true.
COLLINS: What are you going to be watching for, tomorrow, in that -- in that Oval Office sit-down?
SANNER: I am going to very, very much watch, as I always do, body language, little snippets here and there of what is said, whether the President interrupts, those kinds of things. We saw that briefly with Keir Starmer today.
And then I'm going to look for, is he going to sign this agreement? And then what else will they talk about? Because the other things are, if he talks all about bilateral agreement with Russia, and off to the races with getting a new mineral deal with Russia, which I wouldn't be surprised he talks about, it's a whole different thing.
So, we'll see. Is this about Ukraine? Is this about helping Ukraine? Or is this really just checking the box, the gateway to the bigger drug that's sought, which is U.S.-Russia, relations, and maybe beyond.
COLLINS: Yes.
SONDLAND: Don't forget one thing. Sometimes, 90 percent of a negotiation happens in the last 10 percent of the time. And don't be surprised if just before Zelenskyy signs, he asks for some significant changes.
COLLINS: Zelenskyy. Not Trump.
SONDLAND: No, Zelenskyy. The document that Trump will put under Zelenskyy's nose, tomorrow, will be a document that Trump wants and that the team wants. Zelenskyy's still not there.
COLLINS: Yes, we've looked at the draft of it. We'll see what happens there.
SONDLAND: Yes, Zelenskyy's still not there.
COLLINS: You don't think he's there? SONDLAND: No, no. He wants -- he wants more definitive security guarantees. And there're so many ways of providing security guarantees that actually have some substance to them, not BS security guarantee.
SANNER: Trump's not ready to do that. So, it's not going to happen. So he'll either sign something--
SONDLAND: Well let's see.
SANNER: --that looks close, or not. Because he's not going to add security guarantees.
COLLINS: We will be watching very closely, just hours from now.
Beth Sanner. Ambassador. Thank you both for being here.
Up next. President Trump got a surprise invitation today, from King Charles. It was hand-delivered by the British prime minister.
And also, last night on this show, you saw Speaker Johnson accusing Democrats of lying, about Republicans wanting to cut Medicaid. We're going to talk to a Democrat, for his response.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: When the British prime minister arrived at the White House, to meet with President Trump today, he was carrying a key piece of mail with him, as Keir Starmer hand-delivered to Trump, a letter from Buckingham Palace, an invitation from King Charles for a second state visit, making Trump the first elected political leader, in recent times, that will be hosted for two state visits by a British monarch.
[21:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STARMER: So this is a letter from His Majesty the King. It's an invitation for a second state visit. This is really special. This has never happened before. This is unprecedented. And I think that just symbolizes the strength of the relationship between us.
This is truly historic and unprecedented second state visit--
TRUMP: That's a great, great honor.
STARMER: --he wants to talk that through with you.
TRUMP: The answer is yes. On behalf of our wonderful first lady Melania, and myself, the answer is yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My fellow White House insiders are here.
Semafor's Shelby Talcott.
And Jeff Mason of Reuters.
Jeff, there was a very key strategic effort behind hand-delivering that letter before they got into the nitty-gritty of everything on Ukraine, obviously.
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Absolutely. Come in and start with a gift, and start with something that will flatter him, particularly emphasizing the fact that it was going to be historic. Those are words that President Trump likes to hear.
And he said later, at his press conference, that the Prime Minister had been a really tough negotiator. But he clearly exercised a little bit of a charm offensive, and it seems to have paid off.
COLLINS: Yes. And this is such a fascinating thing to watch, Shelby, every time world leaders come in, to how they handle Trump and try to flatter him, and certainly try to get on his good side, which was obviously incredibly high stakes for the British prime minister.
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Yes, I mean, this is a hugely high stakes, particularly when you're talking about Ukraine, but also potential trade deals with the U.S. So, there's a lot at stake here. So, it was absolutely intentional and a smart move.
And we've seen how this visit was quite different from Macron, for example, who kind of needled Trump in the Oval Office, last week, during one remark. And you didn't really see that as much. You did see him push back and offer vastly different comments on Vladimir Putin. But besides that, it was a little bit different than his last world leader meeting.
COLLINS: Yes, we actually have those moments. Because Keir Starmer seemed to try to kind of recreate what the French president did, when he corrected Trump. And listen to this, when they interrupted him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Europe is loaning the money to Ukraine. They get their money back.
EMMANUEL MACRON, PRESIDENT OF FRANCE: No, in fact, to be -- to be frank, we paid. We paid 60 percent of the total default. And it was--
TRUMP: Oh (ph).
MACRON: --like the U.S., loans guarantee, grants, and we provided real money.
TRUMP: You know, they -- they get their money back by giving money. We don't get the money back.
STARMER: We're not getting all of ours. I mean, quite a bit of ours was -- was -- was gifted. It was given. There were some loans, but maybe it was gifted actually. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It's fascinating to see them walking a fine line of having the flattery. But also, taking those moments to push back, knowing, their press is also in the room, watching these moments very closely.
MASON: They've got constituents at home too, and they have to go back and say, This is what we did, this is what we said, this is what we stood up to, when we were in Washington with the -- with the President of the United States.
And Europe has a real interest as well, in what happens next in Ukraine, and with the war in Russia. And they can't just flatter President Trump about everything that he believes. They have big disagreements, certainly about some of the rhetoric that the President has used, and also about his policies.
COLLINS: Is it clear that either world leader got what they were seeking when they came here this week? Because, I mean, we're watching -- this week will really be a capstone in terms of Zelenskyy's visit tomorrow, and watching that closer than either of these world leaders when it comes to just the dynamics overall.
TALCOTT: Yes, I don't think it's clear that they got what they wanted. I think Donald Trump has been pretty evasive, on certain matters, when it comes to Ukraine.
And clearly, for example, here today, they want security guarantees. Donald Trump kind of dodged on that. So, we haven't heard much about exactly what the U.S. is going to do.
And what was interesting is Donald Trump actually said, at one point, that he would talk about sort of security guarantees after the peace deal was made. But you heard the Prime Minister sort of say, Well, that's a priority. So, clearly, there are differences there that have not yet been fully sorted out.
COLLINS: Well, and Jeff, you asked such a key question, in terms of what this is going to look like, those security guarantees that they're trying to get, which was just when it comes to Article 5 of NATO--
MASON: Yes.
COLLINS: --if Trump is still going to abide by.
And in between the second, when you asked that question, and Trump answered, I was watching very closely to see. Because it wasn't clear what he would say.
MASON: Agreed. Agreed. No, I asked him, if he supported Article 5, in part, because that may be an issue if European troops, peacekeeping troops end up in Ukraine and are attacked. And he said he did support Article 5, but he said he didn't think that was going to be necessary. But I think I can guarantee you that leaders in Europe were happy to hear him say, I support Article 5. COLLINS: Yes, and we had heard his National Security Adviser, Mike Waltz, say that, last week, which stood out, obviously because people like Ambassador John Bolton, who used to serve as the National Security Adviser, say Trump is going to try to ultimately get out of NATO, and that Collective Defense Agreement.
MASON: Yes.
COLLINS: There was another moment where the British prime minister was asked how the King feels about Trump, saying, sometimes joking, sometimes seriously, about taking Canada and annexing it.
And this is how the British Prime Minister responded to that question from a U.S. reporter.
[21:25:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STARMER: You mentioned Canada. I think you're trying to find a divide between us that doesn't exist. We're the closest of nations, and we had very good discussions today. But we didn't discuss Canada.
TRUMP: That's enough. Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Canada is obviously a member of the British Commonwealth, which is why Andrew Feinberg asked that question. But he just didn't answer it at all, essentially.
TALCOTT: Yes, it was actually a little surprising, I thought, the way he answered it, which was essentially a non-answer. And I think it goes to show how delicate this balance is, when these world leaders are visiting Donald Trump, just given the stakes, like, what to push back on, what to sort of not answer, and just let maybe be an argument for future discussions.
COLLINS: Yes, and Trump is serious about this. He's not joking about it--
(CROSSTALK)
TALCOTT: He's serious about it.
MASON: He's absolutely serious about it. But the Prime Minister came prepared with an answer that would not get him in trouble, on the--
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: Yes, it'd be fascinating to see the briefing levels that go on before these visits.
MASON: Sure.
COLLINS: Shelby Talcott. Jeff Mason. Great to have you both. Up next. There's key questions that we might get answers to soon on DOGE. That's because a judge has ordered the Trump administration to have their officials sit down for sworn testimony on Elon Musk's effort.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: A federal court could be on the verge of answering key questions that the White House is yet to answer, on DOGE.
That's because a federal judge today ordered a member of Elon Musk's cost-cutting initiative to explain, under oath, details, like the leadership structure at DOGE, who makes the decisions in that group, what sensitive data they have access to, and what, if anything, they're doing with it.
This is part of a case that was brought by labor unions, attempting to block Elon Musk's team from accessing that data. And four government officials from DOGE, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may be questioned over a total of eight hours.
It's the kind of testimony that Democrats in Congress have tried but failed so far to get.
My congressional source is the California Democrat, Congressman Ro Khanna.
And it's great to have you here, Congressman.
You're a member of the Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill. What does it say about Congress' ability to be able to do its job, that it's going to potentially take a court, to get those answers?
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Well, it's a dereliction of our duty. I don't understand why Chairman Comer doesn't just call Elon Musk to explain what he's doing. I mean, today -- tonight, we've learned that 500-plus NOAA federal officials have been fired. These are folks who monitor extreme weather, monitor hurricanes, monitor what's happening with the climate.
Now, I know Elon had a problem with SpaceX, and he thought that they were too regular -- too restrictive on protecting whales. But he should come and explain that to Congress and the American people. Not hide behind bureaucracy.
COLLINS: Do you believe that they're cutting NOAA jobs that are critical to what they do?
KHANNA: Absolutely. I mean, we're coming into hurricane season. These are the scientists who help figure out where the hurricanes are coming, how severe they're going to be, whether we're going to have an earthquake, whether we're going to have a wildfire, certainly, as a Californian. And I guess, my point is, if Musk really thinks, and DOGE really thinks, that these jobs are not important, why doesn't he come to Congress and explain that, explain to the American people. Instead, what's happening is people are being laid off. They're not being consulted, and we're putting the country at risk for an awful event.
COLLINS: Elon -- excuse me. Elon Musk did meet with Republican senators today. And afterward, they said there was an agreement for more coordination with Capitol Hill.
There are Democrats on that DOGE committee as well. Do you feel like you have gotten the answers that you want, as a member of Congress?
KHANNA: No. I mean, the first thing we need to know is, what is the process? I mean, how are they deciding who should be fired? Are these people being notified? What is the process, if someone feels like they were unfairly fired?
There are cases of people -- there was one case, where someone was promoted, and they were fired from their old job, and they weren't -- the people didn't even know that the person had been promoted. So, there's absolutely no thought about it, and there's no recourse for these people who are being fired.
We need to know what's going on. And it's sad to me that it's taking the courts to get involved. I mean, the Republicans are touting DOGE should be -- want to brag about this. Bring Musk there, and have him explain to the American people what he's doing.
COLLINS: We had House Speaker, Mike Johnson, on, last night. He was praising what Musk has been doing. But this comes as Congress may be on the verge of passing a short-term spending bill to continue to keep the government funded.
I asked him about those two, the coordination between those two, and this is what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Well, you just talked about how important the work that Elon Musk is doing is. If you pass a continuing resolution, won't that just refund all the programs that he says he's cutting that are full of waste, fraud and abuse?
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): No, look, you can -- that's why I say, you add anomalies to a CR. You can increase some spending. You can decrease some spending. You can add language that says, for example, the dramatic changes that have been made to USAID would be reflected in the ongoing spending.
It would be a clean CR, mostly, I think, but with some of those changes to adapt to the new realities here. And the new reality is less government, more efficiency, better return for the taxpayers. And I think that's something everybody should welcome.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Congressman, if that comes up for a vote, a CR with the changes made, to account for what DOGE has done so far, how do you think your party should handle that?
[21:35:00]
KHANNA: We should vote, No. I mean, there's no way we can go along with just blanket cuts where Congress hasn't been consulted.
But Kaitlan, one of the things with the Speaker, and I think he'd admit this, they just passed a budget that adds $2.8 trillion to the deficit, on top of the projected $21 trillion. So, for them to say that they're somehow saving money is just not true. The reality is they're adding to the deficit, while Musk is trying to save a few $100 billion. By his own admission, they're adding $2.8 trillion to the deficit.
COLLINS: Well, Speaker Johnson accused Democrats of lying, when saying that they're going to cut Medicaid as a part of that blueprint, as you noted. That's not final. It is going to change, because we'll see the Senate obviously make changes. Senate Republicans have made that clear.
But what is your response, when he says that your party is lying, that they're not going to touch Medicaid?
KHANNA: Well, I'll just stick to the facts. The blueprint says that they need to cut $880 billion from Medicare or Medicaid. They say they're not going to touch Medicare. That means they have to cut Medicaid. They say they want to have a work requirement. I oppose that. But that only would save $100 billion. So, where is the other $780 billion coming from?
What they want to do is give the states, less money. That's in their plan. That's how they save it. And that's going to mean less people are going to be covered on Medicaid, and hospitals aren't going to get that Medicaid funding, and hospitals are going to close. And they should just be honest about it. It's in the budget.
COLLINS: Yes, we asked about that, that federal funding match. He said that that was not going to be touched.
But do you think ultimately that -- I mean, the question is, where else they would find that money? Because even if they account for waste, fraud and abuse, it's about $100 billion that was found between Medicare and Medicaid combined, I should note. So, there is a real question of where that could come from. He talked about how big Energy and Commerce is.
Do you think there's anywhere else where they could find something that would account for that number?
KHANNA: There isn't. And they keep emphasizing, oh, they want to have this work requirement. Again, I oppose it, because, by the way, if you don't have the -- if--
COLLINS: Why do you oppose the work requirement?
KHANNA: Well, first of all, if you have the work requirement, and you have someone who is not working, they're still going to fall sick, they're still going to go to the hospital.
The hospital is still going to treat them, probably in the ER, and the hospital now is not going to get reimbursed. So, it's going to hurt the rural hospitals and community hospitals. It's not -- all the studies show that people are still going to get health care. It's not like they're not going to get health care.
But even if you take them at their word that it's -- that they just keep emphasizing, because it's a talking point, the work requirements? As you point out, that's only $100 billion. There's still $780 billion more of cuts they want, and they're just not being honest.
That means they have to cut that money from the states. That means less people will have Medicaid. It means less people are going to get Medicaid reimbursements, and you're going to have hospitals closed. And if that's their priority--
COLLINS: Yes.
KHANNA: --to fund tax breaks, they should just be honest about it.
COLLINS: Yes, and he said to reserve judgment. We'll see what that ultimately looks like.
I do want to ask. You introduced a bill that would ban White House officials from accepting gifts from lobbyists or from becoming lobbyists themselves, while they -- during the Trump term. Tell me why you introduced this now. Why didn't -- why not introduce it before, and when a Democrat was in office?
KHANNA: Well, it's simple. It's called the Drain The Swamp bill. And because President Biden had this policy. He had a policy with his executive order that said that if you worked at the White House, you couldn't accept any gifts from a lobbyist, and you couldn't become a lobbyist until at least two years after you left the White House.
And in the first few days, President Trump rescinded President Biden's executive order. Now, I'm not judging why he did that. But he should be willing to sign this Drain The Swamp bill, and the MAGA movement should be willing to support it.
Which all it says is, For every future president, you should not be allowed to get gifts from lobbyists, if you work at the White House, and you shouldn't be allowed to become a lobbyist for at least two years after. That, to me, seems draining the swamp. He overturned President Biden's executive order that did just that.
COLLINS: But do you wish you had codified it into law when Biden was in office?
KHANNA: Sure. I mean, we -- I didn't think that President Trump would be running on drain the swamp, and then repeal the executive order. We should have probably codified it into law with President Biden. But it's important to note that this is codified into law, not just for President Trump, but for all future presidents. It would be permanent.
And the good thing is, I mean, from my -- actually just X feed, there are a lot of MAGA -- a lot of the MAGA movement, they don't like a lot of the things I say. This is one of the things they actually agree on. And I hope that we could get this through.
COLLINS: Yes.
Congressman Ro Khanna, we'll see what happens there. Thank you so much for your time tonight.
KHANNA: Thank you.
COLLINS: Speaking of something that MAGA on X does not like, the DOJ has released its first batch of what they are describing as the Epstein Files. The Attorney General, though, is now accusing the FBI of hiding documents. The new deadline that she has just set, that's next.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, there is a civil war that is brewing within MAGA world, over the disclosure of files related to the late sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, including inside the federal government, tonight, where the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, is accusing the FBI of withholding documents.
[21:45:00]
In a letter to Director Kash Patel, she requested all files related to Epstein's case, but says she's only gotten about 200 pages, and claims, quote, The FBI field office in New York was in possession of thousands of pages of documents related to the investigation and indictment of Epstein. And now, she is demanding that those be all turned over to her office by 08:00 a.m., tomorrow morning.
This afternoon, the White House was giving its own binders full of documents and redacted documents, it looks like, related to Epstein, to 15 right-wing social media influencers. But what is in those binders is not exactly satisfying other MAGA influencers, or even lawmakers, who say that the files either don't have new or enough unredacted information.
My legal source, Elliot Williams, a former federal prosecutor, is here. Along with my two political sources, Alencia Johnson, and Doug Heye.
Elliot, first off, as Julie Brown, who is the reporter on this, said, a lot of this information already came out in trial.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER DEPUTY ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. COLLINS: Was there anything -- is there anything new to come out?
WILLIAMS: Literally nothing, Kaitlan.
And this is a staggeringly poor use of Justice Department resources, right now, particularly when you have a new FBI director, who ought to be getting acclimated, ought to be getting his footing. Why is he going back and forth with the Attorney General over this MAGA fever dream of what's happening with the Jeffrey Epstein files?
So no, nothing really new was released today--
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: There's no client list--
WILLIAMS: No client list.
COLLINS: --or anything like that?
WILLIAMS: I mean, it's flight logs that people were aware about. No bombshell name or anything like that.
COLLINS: That came out at trial.
WILLIAMS: Came out at trial, or in the public record in some other way, right.
COLLINS: I mean, just when you see the right-wing influencers, who were at the White House today, holding up these binders, and grinning in some pictures, which was odd, just given--
DOUG HEYE, FORMER RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes.
COLLINS: --I mean, obviously there are victims at the heart of this in a very real way, as we all know from covering the Epstein case, and the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
What do you make though of what's happening inside the MAGA world tonight? Because there's a lot of anger over this.
HEYE: So, I'll be honest. I try and pay as little attention to that as possible, because it's all a fever dream for a lot of them, and it's -- some language I can't use. It involves one word, and the other word's giggles. But the reality is, there're real victims here, and--
WILLIAMS: I think you can say that -- you can say that at 09:00 p.m. on cable TV, I think, you probably get--
(CROSSTALK)
HEYE: Other channels.
WILLIAMS: Other channels. Interesting. HEYE: But I thought it was interesting. I did see Dave Portnoy, who's, I think, best-known as the pizza by the slice reviewer, who has millions of followers, ask the tough questions of this and other things that Trump's doing.
But you highlighted, I think maybe unknowingly, a big part of what Trump administration policy is. 08:00 a.m., tomorrow, Pam Bondi wants to see this.
The Donald Trump mantra is, Tune in tomorrow. So everybody tunes in tomorrow. And then we're not talking about potential layoffs at the Veterans Administration, the impacts of what may happen if there are massive layoffs at the Social Security Administration.
Donald Trump, or people who work for him wave a red flag, and we all chase it like a bull. They know that. That's why this happens.
COLLINS: But members of Congress are actually dedicating time to this too. I mean, Anna Paulina Luna was tweeting tonight, saying, This is not what we, or the American people, asked for, and a complete disappointment.
I mean, it is remarkable to see these Republican allies who are so loyal to Trump firing off on Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, or Kash Patel, the FBI director, because they thought that they were going to get, I don't know, a list that had people they don't like on it, or something like that.
ALENCIA JOHNSON, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, BIDEN 2020 CAMPAIGN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think about like, this is a waste of time, like you were talking about. But it's also an easy way for some of these Republican members to say, Oh look, we're being tough and standing up to this administration. But not really.
HEYE: Yes.
A. JOHNSON: Because the reality is, we've seen what is mostly in all of these files.
But there are two things that have already come up in this panel that I really want people to pay attention to.
One is the piece of wasting DOJ and FBI resources. But, oh my goodness, didn't Donald Trump say he wanted to be in office to get rid of the waste, fraud and abuse, that is using up resources in our federal government? This is actually a waste of resources.
And two, these victims. And victims of sexual assault in this country are incredibly scared. I mean, after this case, I believe victims receive around $121 million. This was a very serious case. And so--
COLLINS: Beyond disturbing.
A. JOHNSON: Beyond disturbing. And so, we're talking about this little catfight between kids and the administration, right, the head of DOJ and FBI. But yet they're very real implications here. And also, the resources piece, right? You have Elon Musk and Donald Trump ripping through this government to find waste of resources. And yet, here's one that we're all having to talk about.
HEYE: Yes, and by the way, nobody who've spent a lot of money buying eggs today, I did about an hour and a half ago, $8 on eggs, then says, Oh, and what's going on with the Jeffrey Epstein files? We need to get to the bottom of this. They're concerned about the economy and the direction of the country.
COLLINS: Well, and just in terms of releasing this.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, when they were releasing other documents and pledging that, I mean on the JFK files, the -- we heard the same thing, which is, There is nothing new here, and you're kind of extorting this painful moment for people and victims and their family.
And in this, I mean, Julie Brown, as she said today, whatever is in these binders has likely been public since 2015, all you have to do is Google it.
[21:50:00]
WILLIAMS: Yes, I believe the Attorney General, I don't recall if it was her, specifically, said that it was a symbolic release of information. There's nothing -- it is -- it allows the administration to give the impression of transparency and openness. And that's a wonderful thing.
But there are many other places, right now, in government, you've been talking about them on the program all night, where transparency would actually be more valuable. This isn't exactly one of them.
COLLINS: Yes, that's a good point. Thank you all for being here.
Up next. The Pentagon is planning to kick out transgender service members. I'm going to get reaction from an active-duty lieutenant commander, in the Navy, who is transgender, to that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:55:00]
COLLINS: Tonight, the U.S. Military is preparing to remove transgender service members from the ranks, disqualifying them from serving if they don't meet specific requirements under a new Pentagon policy.
This memo with this policy was made public as part of a lawsuit that is challenging President Trump's executive order that he signed, banning transgender troops from serving. It's a move that could have major impacts, across the Armed Forces.
And independent researchers have estimated, there are about 14,000 trans service members, many of them who serve in critical roles. That includes my next source tonight, Lieutenant Commander Geirid Morgan, who has served in the Navy for 14 years, starting out as a Navy diver, and now a Medical Service Corps research physiologist.
And it's great to have you here, especially just given all of your expertise in this.
What is your takeaway, and just thought, initially, on this new memo, and this new policy.
LT. CMDR. GEIRID MORGAN, U.S. NAVY: I mean, it was -- you know, it was jarring to kind of see in black and white. So, there were no surprises. We knew something like this was coming for a long time. But really, I'm just concerned. I'm concerned for my sailors. I'm concerned for their families. I'm concerned for what the impacts for -- this might be on the Navy and other services.
COLLINS: And if someone is sitting at home and thinking, what does this do to impact military readiness? And something that this administration has emphasized is so important to them, from morale to recruitment numbers. What kind of impact do you think this will have?
MORGAN: Well, I mean, just using myself as an example. I have 14 years of active-duty service. As you mentioned, I started out as a enlisted Navy diver before getting my commission as an officer. I've done a variety of billets as an officer. Accumulated a lot of experience.
I've been deployed for years of my life. This is -- you know, this is something that I chose to do as my career. This is a lifetime of experience that I've gained in doing this job. And it would be -- it would be a big loss to the Navy.
COLLINS: And just to dig into this policy. Essentially, what it says is that if a member can demonstrate, quote, 36 consecutive months of stability in their sex, or if they can prove they have never attempted to transition to any sex other than their sex, that is how -- those are the exceptions, essentially.
I mean, obviously, as someone who has served? And you served for more than a decade before you came out in 2022, I believe. Can you just walk me through what that -- what that's like, and what reading that, and how that's going to change people's lives?
MORGAN: Yes, I mean, so -- I won't speak too directly about the policy, as I'm not a policy person. That's way above my paygrade.
Just from my own experience, when I came out in 2022, it was a very straightforward process. I just communicated my feelings and my medical needs to my health care providers, and we got a transition plan started. Brought that to my command, and they signed off on everything, and were kind of working with me in lockstep through that process.
And it really had a negligible impact on my work, my ability to perform my duties. There's always going to be some downtime around surgeries and things, but it's no different than any other surgery, as sort of -- a knee surgery or a shoulder surgery. So that, yes, it's -- it's a -- we've been doing this for 10 years, right? And we've got kind of a system in place now, to support people that want to transition. And there have been no incidences, really, with the service members that have been serving openly for that -- for that time period, so.
COLLINS: Just when you were walking through your deployments and everything you've done, what is it that made you want to serve?
MORGAN: Gosh. I mean, I've always been interested in the military. I come from a military family. My grandfather was a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel. So, I was kind of grew up on his stories. Sometime in my teenage years, I got kind of fascinated with military diving, so I joined the Navy to be a Navy diver. It was one of the singular accomplishments of my life, was making it through Navy dive school in 1999, long time ago.
COLLINS: Which is an incredibly difficult thing to do.
MORGAN: It is, yes. It was -- it was very challenging, and something that I'll kind of carry with me for the rest of my life.
COLLINS: When you first joined the military, did you know right away, did it feel like the right thing? Or--
MORGAN: Yes.
COLLINS: What was that experience like?
MORGAN: Yes, I mean, when you're 18-years-old, it's kind of hard to know what--
COLLINS: Yes.
MORGAN: --what you're feeling, in real-time. It's, you kind of just go from one thing to the next, right? But I think that you gradually start to come into your own with that.
[22:00:00]
And by the time I got out to the fleet, and got to work as a Navy diver, I felt very much at home. I loved my job. It was the best job in the Navy. It was very sad to leave, when I decided to walk away from my enlisted service to pursue a college education.
COLLINS: It's just -- it's striking to see the impact it's had on your life, and to think that -- the others who may not get to experience that.
Lieutenant commander, thank you for joining to share that experience.
MORGAN: Yes, it is.
COLLINS: It's vital for everyone to hear. So, I appreciate your time.
MORGAN: Thank you for the time. Thank you for the interest. COLLINS: Yes, of course. Thank you so much.
Thank you all so much for joining us. It was great to have you.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
