Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
White House Claims Judges Are "Usurping" Trump's Authority Amid Escalating Attacks On Judge In Deportation Case; WH Confirms Russia & Ukraine Agree To Halt Attacks On Energy Sites; Fired FTC Commissioner: Trump "Afraid" What I'll Tell People. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 19, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: --I got Alabama. I love the State of Alabama.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Sure.
ENTEN: I got Houston number one.
COOPER: Yes.
ENTEN: I think they're going to go all the way. But I had to have the St. John's Red Storm, as well.
COOPER: Yes.
ENTEN: They are the hometown teams. So, I'm a big fan of theirs. Rick Pitino has really--
COOPER: Who's hometown?
ENTEN: It's our hometown. New York, baby.
COOPER: Sure. Of course I knew that.
ENTEN: Yes, of course you knew that, yes.
COOPER: Yes, yes, yes, the St. John's, of course.
ENTEN: The Red Storm. Rick Pitino has really turned that program around.
COOPER: Totally.
ENTEN: So, I think the Johnnies are going to do quite well.
COOPER: They're called the Johnnies?
ENTEN: The St. -- yes, the St. John's, they're Johnnies.
COOPER: Oh, OK, all right. Cool.
ENTEN: Yes, that's their nickname from the Red Storm. COOPER: Yes, I know. All right. Got it.
ENTEN: Can you give me one more wave with the finger?
COOPER: No, I can't do that.
ENTEN: OK. I tried.
COOPER: Harry Enten, 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.
A boiling point in President Trump's attacks on the judiciary, accusing a federal judge of being what he says is a radical left lunatic. But a closer look at that judge's past rulings doesn't exactly line up with that. Despite all of that, Elon Musk is putting his money where his mouth is, and his push to get the judge impeached.
Also, she says, quote, The President just illegally fired me. Why Trump's dismissal of this Democratic commissioner is putting his executive power grab back in the spotlight, tonight. She'll join me live in moments.
And there's a new warning, this evening, from this former Social Security Commissioner that DOGE cuts are, quote, absolutely going to crater Social Security. He's here tonight to explain why he thinks so.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
As we come on the air tonight, here in Washington, the White House is upping its attacks on that federal judge who is overseeing a deportation case that has now turned into an absolute lightning rod.
The Trump administration outright accusing Judge James Boasberg of trying to usurp President Trump's authority by, quote, Derailing his agenda, threatening that he should be impeached, for a temporary ruling that they disagreed with.
That same judge just gave the Justice Department one more day to respond to his demand, for more information about why those alleged Venezuelan gang members were still deported, and flown out of the United States, after he issued an order to turn those flights around, or stop them, as they figured everything out, and the legal aspect here of Trump's invoke -- Trump invoking those wartime powers.
Now, the judge is trying to determine if they ignored that order openly. And he issued that extension today, moments before the deadline for Justice Department attorneys, after they made an emergency request to push it back.
Adding to that pile on though, against the judge, tonight, we're hearing from the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, who had this to say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We will answer appropriately. But what I will tell you, is this judge has no right to ask those questions. You have one unelected federal judge trying to control foreign policies.
He came in on an emergency basis, on a Saturday, with very, very short notice, if any, to our attorney, to run in the courtroom. This judge had no right to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That emergency hearing was triggered, after Trump signed a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, the first time that had been done since World War II.
Everything happened so quickly, actually, on Saturday, that the judge said he didn't even have time to put on his suit, or a judicial robe, for that Zoom hearing, Saturday night. He apologized to everyone who in attendance, for doing that.
But really, things have escalated so quickly here, in this battle, in Washington, that it was just two days ago when the White House was noting that while maybe his allies were calling for Boasberg's impeachment, Trump himself was not.
But now that he is, and everyone is doubling down on it, the White House is defending that call.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The President has made it clear that he believes this judge in this case should be impeached.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: How does a president define a bad judge? It's just someone who disagrees with him?
LEAVITT: No, it has nothing to do with disagreeing with the President on policy. It's with disagreeing with the Constitution and the law, and it's trying to usurp the authority of the executive branch of this country. It's having baseless reasoning for these injunctions. And it's a clear effort by these judges to slow-roll this President's agenda.
The Supreme Court needs to rein in these judges who are acting as partisan activists.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, that comes at the briefing today, as The New York Times is reporting tonight that Elon Musk is now donating the maximum, that is allowed by law, to the campaigns, of all of these Republican members that you see here on screen, of Congress, who have expressed support for judicial impeachments. In particular, for this judge, one of those congressmen, that's Brandon Gill of Texas that you see there, in the middle, on the bottom of your screen, he filed an Article of Impeachment, accusing Boasberg of abusing his power and overstepping his authority.
Of course, as you heard from Senator Bernie Sanders here, last night, it would take 67 senators to actually impeach and remove that judge from the federal bench, something that he quickly said is not going to happen.
But still, President Trump or his aides have been lashing out at judges for their decisions. That is certainly not a new phenomenon, if you've been following Trump.
[21:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It's totally the wrong decision by obviously, an Obama-appointed judge.
An Obama appointee.
An Obama judge.
Obama, Democrat-appointed judge.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, we heard that again, inside the White House briefing today.
But there are some things about Judge Boasberg worth highlighting tonight. He was actually first appointed to the bench by a Republican president, George W. Bush. He was later elevated by President Obama to the Circuit Court in Washington.
In 2017, Judge Boasberg dismissed a lawsuit that was seeking Trump's tax returns, initially ensuring that his taxes did not become public. And in another high profile case, he ordered the release of more than 14,000 of Hillary Clinton's emails. Despite that, all of the attacks that we have continued to see.
Joining us on this tonight, two of our top legal sources, and two deeply-sourced White House insiders, to start us off.
Elie, when you look back at Judge Boasberg's rulings?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Yes.
COLLINS: Some people have also mentioned, he's also a pretty close friend of, you may know him, Brett Kavanaugh, Trump's Supreme Court Justice that he picked.
HONIG: Oh? Did not know that. COLLINS: They were roommates. They still go on trips together. Obviously, that doesn't dictate how he's going to rule.
But it does speak to the nature of what Jeff Zeleny was getting at is, how do you determine which -- who is a judge you don't like? Is it just because they rule against you?
HONIG: Well, that seems to be the rule with the Trump administration.
But let's remember. This judge has been, if anything, remarkably patient and solicitous with Trump's DOJ. I mean, I've been watching what DOJ has been doing, the way they've been responding to this judge, over the last three days, with awe and astonishment.
I mean, this is now the third consecutive day, the judge has said, I want specific details from you, Justice Department. And they have responded by saying, We'll give you a little bit. But nah, you don't need the rest of that. We're not giving that to you. I'm halfway horrified by this, as a DOJ alum. I'm halfway, I guess, impressed. I mean, they're sort of really standing up to him.
Today, they said to this judge, You are beating a dead horse. In writing, they said that to the judge. I mean, that is unimaginable. As a DOJ alum, I guess, I've fantasized about saying that to a judge, but I would never say it out loud. And yet this judge continues to give them more time.
The other thing is, what's the big ruling that the judge has made here that's apparently so contrary to the Trump administration? All he has said is, Let's try to pause here, so I can take a couple days and work through this complicated legal issue. He hasn't actually even ruled against them yet. Yet, this response.
COLLINS: Yes, it's just temporary. He might actually agree with them--
HONIG: Yes.
COLLINS: --on the underlying issues here.
What did you make of Attorney General, Pam Bondi, saying, Coming out here, he's asking all these questions.
I mean, isn't that how this works with the judiciary?
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Judges like to ask questions. It's kind of their job, some would say.
And look, I've been in front of Judge Boasberg. I've argued in front of, I've had cases in front of him. Last time--
COLLINS: Is he a radical left lunatic?
DUPREE: He's not. He's a smart, thoughtful judge. The last time, he ruled in my favor, so he's smart, he's good.
But I will say this. I think what Bondi is saying that he shouldn't be asking these questions. This gets to the administration's fundamental legal point here, which is simply, that federal judges don't have a role to play, when it comes to these types of immigration removals.
I'm not saying that's ultimately the correct legal position. The Supreme Court presumably will sort that out. But the administration, the way they see this is, this is akin to a federal judge trying to micromanage a president in his, you know, putting troops on the battlefield, or organizing a war, fighting a war, that judges just don't have any role to play.
I think Judge Boasberg certainly sees it differently. And again, the Supreme Court, ultimately, will be the arbitrator of precisely what role, if any, federal judges have to play in this whole scheme.
COLLINS: Well, and to Elie's point, this doesn't so much have to do with the actual issue here. Because we heard from Tom Homan, tonight, about immigration, whether or not this is stopping them from deporting people. And this is what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: No, we're out there arresting people every day. We're doing several operations across the country right now, including TDA. So, we're going to keep arresting, we're going to keep detaining, we'll keep removing them. We're not slowing down. We're keeping President Trump's promise.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But it's less about what they're able to do with the deportations, and more of, Are they listening to a federal judge here, were they openly defying him?
ISAAC ARNSDORF, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, Trump needs to have an adversary. And the Democrats are nowhere to be found right now. So, he's found someone who he can turn into an opponent in this judge who, as we've pointed out, is just asking for a pause, while we sort this out, not saying they can't go forward with this ultimately.
And this is a direct escalation from the argument that Trump has been making, throughout the campaign, of trying to delegitimize the independent judiciary. Karoline Leavitt, in the -- in the briefing today, made that an explicit connection between the prosecutions of Trump, during the campaign, drawing a through line, to the judicial review of the President's actions in office.
COLLINS: I thought it was interesting how today, she also was defending Trump's calls for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg.
Because I was in there on Monday, in her previous briefing, when she was saying, Well, Trump himself is not -- the President himself has not said that. Yes, Elon Musk had said it, on Sunday, when he was tweeting it. But Trump had not gone that far.
Today, she was defending the calls for his impeachment. [21:10:00]
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Yes, I think this is an example, and we saw this on the campaign trail a lot.
Ultimately, aides and people who work on the campaign, with the President, in any capacity, have to be ready to shift their opinions, because you never know what Donald Trump is going to say, you never know how he's going to react to something. So, we have seen that, over the years, with people who work for the President.
But I also think what's notable about this fight is the administration is ready for this. They've planned for this. They talked about invoking the Alien Enemies Act on the campaign trail, and they anticipated legal pushback. So, they're ready to sort of fight this in the long haul. And they truly believe that this is something that their base wants to see. The base wants to see that fight, and so they're giving them that fight.
COLLINS: What do you make of that strategy?
HONIG: They might win. I mean, we don't know yet.
But look, I think political -- I think -- I think you're both right. I think that we can sit here all day and talk about, are they complying, are they defying? But to me, the much more viscerally-appealing political point here is, Do you want to turn that plane around or not? Right? So I think they have the better of the political argument.
But let's keep in mind, there's a chance, a decent chance, Trump ultimately wins on this either--
COLLINS: What if they win with Justice Boasberg--
HONIG: Yes.
COLLINS: --Boasberg though, and then he actually does rule in their favor, after everything they've said, and the calls to impeach him, and?
HONIG: It could happen. I mean, look, this judge clearly is not taking things personally.
And, I think back to last week, when Trump got up at the Justice Department, he made that speech, right, in the Great Hall, which was remarkable. I guess, I'm using the nice word there.
But remember, Trump went on this whole thing about Bobby Knight, the Indiana basketball coach. That wasn't just an aside. The point he was making was, I respect how Bobby Knight used to ride the referees, and harass the referees, because sometimes that would push them towards ruling in Indiana, in his team's favor. And I think we see Trump doing just that now.
COLLINS: His argument is, You may not get this point--
HONIG: Right.
COLLINS: --You may not win this argument. But they're going to be less likely to call it against you, the next time--
HONIG: Right.
COLLINS: --if you scream and yell and--
DUPREE: And the other thing that we shouldn't lose sight of is, look, the fact is, I don't think many Americans are going to know, or remember, very long, the arguments that the Trump lawyers made in court, their refusal to answer the judge's questions, what they wrote in the legal briefs.
But they will never forget the video that they've seen of the deportees taken to the prison in El Salvador. That is what I think a lot of people are seeing here, that they know that there are a lot of lawyers arguing in court. There's at least one federal judge who's infuriated with the Trump administration.
But I think a lot of people are also looking at this, and saying, Look, yes, maybe he's going up to the line, maybe he's even crossing the line, but he's making things happen. I think that's the perspective that a lot of people are taking from this.
COLLINS: Yes. And one thing that is being completely left out of this conversation, when people say, Well, if you're arguing for Judge Boasberg's argument here, then you're pro-alleged Venezuelan gang members.
Even Judge Boasberg, on Saturday night, was saying, Well, they don't pose a harm to the American public because they're already detained. They're not -- you're not releasing them into the country. So if they sit and don't go anywhere, it doesn't hurt anyone. Of course, we'll see how that shakes out.
Also, on the White House front tonight, I have to ask you all, tonight. We reported, earlier in the week on, you know, obviously Trump is trying to reshape the federal government. He's also doing a lot of changes at the White House, including inside the Rose Garden specifically.
And we've been told work was scheduled to start any day to pave over the grass in the Rose Garden. Here's what he said tonight about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Are you -- are you paving over the grass here?
TRUMP: What was happening is, that's supposed to have events. Every event you have, it's soaking wet.
INGRAHAM: Soaking (ph). Yes.
TRUMP: It's soaking wet. And people can't -- and the women with the high heels, it's just too much.
INGRAHAM: That's where you did the Kavanaugh--
TRUMP: That's where I did--
INGRAHAM: --Kavanaugh thing.
TRUMP: That's Right.
INGRAHAM: Amy Coney Barrett.
TRUMP: And the grass, just, it doesn't work. And we have a gorgeous stone and everything else.
INGRAHAM: OK.
TRUMP: But, you know, we use it for press conferences, and it doesn't work, because the people fall into the, you know, into the wet, soaking grass (ph).
INGRAHAM: The roses stay, the grass goes?
TRUMP: Roses stay. No, it's a Rose Garden. No, all of this stays. Just the center section. It's going to -- I think it's going to be beautiful. I think it's going to be more beautiful.
Look at that view over there. See that?
INGRAHAM: Pretty nice.
TRUMP: Look at that. How is that? Pretty good?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I talked to White House officials, who said he's taking this kind of redesign very seriously, and kind of wants it to look more like the Mar-a-Lago patio instead.
TALCOTT: Yes, I mean, he's spent the last four years at Mar-a-Lago. And part of that time, he was sort of sequestered. The Republican Party didn't like him anymore after January 6th. And so, he sort of was a king there. And clearly, he wants to recreate that in some sense, here at the White House.
ARNSDORF: But it's also like repainting Air Force One. It's like renaming the Gulf of Mexico. It's about putting his mark on things, and places.
COLLINS: All right.
HONIG: As somebody who wears high heels at the White House, are you for this or against this?
COLLINS: I've never fallen into the rose bushes. That's certainly--
HONIG: Yes, but-- COLLINS: I don't know who that is, but I feel bad for that person.
Great to get our legal experts on the home-decorating tips.
Up next. On a more serious note, President Trump spoke to President Zelenskyy today, for the first time, since that infamous Oval Office blow-up, and, of course, following that call with President Putin. What questions we have now coming out of that.
And also, one of those two Democrats, that Trump fired from the Federal Trade Commission, is speaking out right here on THE SOURCE tonight, after saying that Trump's firing of her was illegal.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, after two days of mixed messages, top Trump administration officials appear to be confirming what we heard from Russia, and their take, on what exactly was agreed to, during that phone call that happened earlier this week, between President Trump and President Putin.
We've been trying to nail this down all day, along with our White House team, and because of the initial readouts from each side didn't exactly align on some really significant points here. I'll explain.
The Russians insisted that they had agreed to stop attacking Ukraine's energy facilities. While the White House initially said it was, energy and infrastructure. Obviously, a much broader agreement that would save a lot more lives.
My colleague, Jeff Zeleny, asked for clarity, in the briefing room today, on which one it was.
[21:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZELENY: There was a couple different readouts from the Kremlin and the U.S. on a couple different points. One was energy and infrastructure. The U.S. statement said, energy and infrastructure. The Kremlin said, energy infrastructure.
What is your understanding of what the actual substance of that disagreement was? Then I have one other question on that.
LEAVITT: I would defer you to the readout that was provided by the White House. That's our understanding, and that's the truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Shortly after that moment, we heard from top officials, releasing this readout of President Trump's call today with President Zelenskyy. It aligns with what the Kremlin first indicated. It says this is a partial ceasefire against energy. That's the same readout that also noted the President spoke to Zelenskyy about the U.S. taking ownership of Ukraine's nuclear power plants, as a way to protect its energy sites. Those are the very same sites that, we should note, Putin has agreed not to attack for now.
Earlier, I caught up with the Energy Secretary at the White House, and asked how exactly that would work.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: During the President's call today, with Ukrainian president Zelenskyy, he proposed this idea of the U.S. taking over nuclear power plants, in Ukraine, and utilities potentially as well. How would that work, given it involves both of your portfolios?
CHRIS WRIGHT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF ENERGY: No -- no discussion about that, right now. The United States and this President's agenda has more energy, more energy, ideally produced in the United States, but more energy to better lives and drive down prices.
COLLINS: But you haven't discussed the United States taking over nuclear power plants with the President?
WRIGHT: No discussion of that today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight, Rahm Emanuel, CNN's Senior Political and Global Affairs Commentator, and also the former Ambassador to Japan under President Biden, and the former Chief of Staff to President Obama, among many top jobs. We're not going to list your whole resume.
But given your foreign policy thoughts, on just the discrepancy in the readouts, and what we saw. Because obviously, it makes a huge difference what exactly they have agreed to not attack.
RAHM EMANUEL, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF UNDER PRES. OBAMA, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN UNDER PRES. BIDEN: Well, there's that. But I think you have to put it in the context of issues.
One is this, basically, if I look at this, basically, the Trump administration basically agreed to what President Putin wanted. You never got the ceasefire. In the first 24 hours, you never got a ceasefire. You've got a limited, very narrow definition. And President Zelenskyy was in a position, he had to say yes. And I don't see anything that the President set out to do to get anything done.
And more importantly, President Putin has not given up on any of his long-term goals, which is basically the ending of this sovereignty of Ukraine.
You have to put that in context. Now go to the Middle East. You have the administration doing something no administration has ever done, which is talk to Hamas, a terrorist group. They've been isolated, refusal to talk to, they talk to them with the idea to get a hostage release. And what do you end up with is starting up of military aggression by Israel, again, to force that situation. You have violence, again, going on the Houthis in that area.
The one positive sign was the Iranians sent their Foreign Minister to Oman. Oman has played a role between the United States and Iran. And that is a positive sign, putting pressure on the two kind of groups, given what's happened to Hezbollah, that's left for Iran to manipulate.
And then if you go to Asia and China, China is basically intimidating Japan, Australia, Vietnam, and there's nowhere to find the United States.
So in all that context, I find this basically what I've always believed. I think President Trump is a very poor negotiator. He did that with North Korea, in his first term. He did it with China, on the trade deal, in the second term. He has gotten nothing for all the things that he says he's going to set out to do.
COLLINS: So, the White House argument on that, which we've heard is, OK, well, at least there is some agreement here, on stopping attacks on something, because Zelenskyy also agreed to stop attacks on Russian energy targets, that they've actually been pretty successful at.
So what would you say to that, in terms of, President Biden, and President Putin, weren't speaking at all. And this White House is arguing--
EMANUEL: Well--
COLLINS: --You got to at least have a conversation with the Russians.
EMANUEL: Yes, but you've given already one thing -- that is not -- they've made that decision. I think that, given that they've agreed on certain things, like no NATO for Ukraine, that they're going to have to keep -- Russia's going to keep the 20 percent that they fought for.
You should have said, then, if you wanted to be the mediator, Zelenskyy and Ukraine get into the EU, and they get to do X, and here's what we're going to do on military equipment for Ukraine. There's been no kind of being an honest broker in this area.
And there's a fundamental difference here. And they are right about they've got at least this peace, but nothing that the President set out to do, and nothing that has legitimized the United States as a kind of arbitrator and negotiator, or a mediator between two parties.
And, in the end of the day, President Putin has been very clear, as it relates to the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, which is a principle in the United Nations, which is the sovereignty and independence of individual nations. He is not giving up on that ever. He said, They cannot -- not only not have NATO. They can't have their own military force. They can't have any parts of Europe to ensure the security agreement.
Remember, Ukraine-- COLLINS: Yes.
EMANUEL: --has been lied to in the Minsk agreement, in the Budapest agreement. They have a right to be very cynical.
[21:25:00]
And I'd also say one other thing. Donald Trump used this phrase, the other day, Trust and verify. Ronald Reagan said, Trust but verify, with the emphasis on, verify. They are putting whole eggs in the, Putin they trust and they believe. And Steve Witkoff (ph) said it today, I believe what President Putin said about the missiles. I find this a very bizarre position.
COLLINS: Yes, that's--
EMANUEL: And the second thing is they legitimized--
COLLINS: --Steve Witkoff.
EMANUEL: Yes, Steve. I'm sorry.
And they legitimized President Putin, who was isolated internationally, and have given him the legitimacy that he always wanted to counter the United States. I think they've given way, way much, and very little to show for it.
COLLINS: And so, what do you think this looks like in the next -- I mean, Trump is moving on a pretty quick timeline here, is what he wants to get to.
EMANUEL: You know -- you know here's--
COLLINS: Does it actually advance to that, you think?
EMANUEL: Look, I mean, having done massive amount of negotiations, both domestic, local as well as international. As I said to President Clinton during the Balanced Budget negotiations, If you want to get a yes, the other side has to believe you can live with a no.
And right now, President Trump, which is why I say he's not a very good negotiator, is more desperate for a deal than either one of those parties.
COLLINS: Yes.
EMANUEL: And I think he is losing the crown that the United States has, the kind of the currency and the power that they have, and he's underestimating how vulnerable President Putin is.
COLLINS: Yes, well, and obviously the White House would disagree with that. But we'll see how this plays out.
EMANUEL: That's OK.
COLLINS: But I also want to ask you, because we're reporting tonight-- EMANUEL: That doesn't mean they're right.
COLLINS: I'm sure that is how you feel.
EMANUEL: Yes.
COLLINS: But we're also reporting tonight about what's happening inside the Pentagon, as we've just been talking about these wholesale changes happening at the federal government.
They have removed or flagged for removal an order to scrub diversity content. But so far, this has included maybe not just what you would expect, but also things about articles about 9/11, cancer awareness, sexual assault, also the Holocaust, including survivor stories from the Holocaust.
I just wonder, when people say, We're getting rid of DEI, or what this is going to look like, do they fully understand what all of that is going to include, if it's things like this?
EMANUEL: No, I don't think they understand the ramifications. They also, while you're focusing on this, one of the things you didn't list, if I can, is an office that's about planning, and how Brance (ph) has written about this, other people have written about this, the planning for future conflicts.
It's a small office. It's $20 million a year. But it's people sitting around thinking about the future. What are the weapons we're going to need? And it's literally an essential kind of nerve center of thinking about not what's in front of you, but around the corner.
They're getting rid of that. They're getting rid of the DEI. They're not thinking about the ramifications. And they're getting rid of very talented people, who have spent a lifetime working their way up through the Armed Force -- Armed Forces, who have been selfless and have led major operations. They have institutional knowledge that is essential.
One of the things I will say to you, as an Ambassador in Japan, dealt with all the leadership out of INDOPACOM, I have -- I come away immensely impressed when you think about where the United States Armed Forces was in Vietnam, on its back heel, a broken institution. You look at where it is today, the quality of people, the diversity, not just in the sense of ethnicity, background, race, but the talent, the intellectual capability. It is one of the greatest turnaround stories in America. It's beats--
COLLINS: And are you worried that's being erased now?
EMANUEL: It beats, first of all, it beats anything you've ever seen in the private sector, anything. And the quality of the people. And they are literally breaking that spirit.
America's Armed Forces and the people that make it up is incredible, in the sense of where it was 40 years ago, and they are destroying -- destroying is a little strong, but degrading it to the way that is actually turning itself, not looking outward against threats, but inward against itself. And that is a destructive culture to create.
COLLINS: Ambassador Rahm Emanuel, thanks for joining us tonight.
EMANUEL: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next. She says that President Trump illegally fired her from her position, as a Federal Trade Commissioner, along with another Democrat, and says Trump is afraid of what she'll tell the American people. Rebecca Slaughter will join me, right after this.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: It's typical, when you're reporting at the White House, to run into West Wing officials, Republican lawmakers, Cabinet Secretaries, as they're making their way to and from meetings.
One of the best ways to catch officials, to ask questions, is when they have TV interviews on the North Lawn of the White House. Often when they are coming back, the reporters are standing there. That happened today with one of President Trump's top economic advisers, Kevin Hassett, as soon as he wrapped an interview.
This was coming about 24 hours after President Trump had summarily fired both of the Democratic commissioners, who serve on the Federal Trade Commission, which they argued was an illegal move by the President.
And it also raised questions, certainly in the business world, about whether or not that could mean that Trump is preparing to seek to fire other independent agency heads, like potentially the Fed Chair, Fed board members, a question that I posed to Mr. Kevin Hassett.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The President fired, last night, two members of the FTC, the Democratic members of that. It raised questions about whether or not he does respect the independence of the Fed, or he thinks that they are fair game as well. What is the President's view on that?
KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES: We very much respect the independence of the Fed. There's a massive literature, the independent central banks perform better for our economies. And so, I don't think that's a decision (ph).
COLLINS: So he doesn't think he can fire the Fed chair?
HASSETT: I think that that's been resolved in the previous administration. You could go back and find a clip, where I talked about it, right in this space.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Those comments come after the press briefing where we heard from the White House press secretary, on the firing of the FTC officials, as she defended it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: The time was right to let these people go, and the President absolutely has the authority to do it. And they were given ample notice in a letter that I believe your outlet reported on. So, it pretty much explains exactly why this administration chose to let those individuals go.
[21:35:00]
REPORTER: Is the ultimate goal to get this to the Supreme court to try to overturn the 1935 precedent?
LEAVITT: The goal was to let these individuals go. If we have to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court, we certainly will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: One of the fired commissioners, Commissioner Bedoya, told The New York Times, and I'm quoting now, "When people hear this news, they need to not think about me. They need to think about the billionaires behind the president at his inauguration."
My next source was appointed to the FTC, by President Trump, actually, during his first term in 2018. She was the other Democratic Commissioner fired by him, yesterday. Rebecca Slaughter joins me now.
And it's great to have you here.
Because the statute, that governs the FTC, says that someone who is in your position cannot be fired. Only if -- they can be removed for cause, if there is neglect, malfeasance or inefficiency. Were you given any of those reasons, when you were fired?
REBECCA KELLY SLAUGHTER, FIRED FTC COMMISSIONER: No, absolutely none.
COLLINS: And so what was essentially -- was there just any argument, whatsoever, beyond the letter you received?
KELLY SLAUGHTER: The President can fire you, and so he chooses to do so, was the argument.
COLLINS: But you believe that's illegal?
KELLY SLAUGHTER: It is absolutely illegal. The statute that you referenced is very clear on its face.
And in fact, the Supreme Court has evaluated whether it is a constitutionally-valid statute, and whether a president can remove an FTC commissioner. Exactly this question, they faced it 90 years ago, when FDR tried to remove an FTC commissioner, Commissioner Humphrey, and they said, No, the law is clear. They cannot be removed other than for cause, and that is a constitutional law.
And that precedent has not been overturned. COLLINS: You said something interesting in your statement, when you were fired, and you said that you believed, in part, it was because, quote, I have a voice and he is afraid of what I'll tell the American people.
What is it that you have to tell the American people?
KELLY SLAUGHTER: Yes, well, it's a really important point. I'm a minority commissioner right now. That means I am not in charge of the agency. But what the FTC minority commissioners can do, and what commissioners at other independent agencies can do, is bring transparency and accountability to the work of the agency.
So, without the voice of the minority commissioners, if you see, for example, the FTC dismiss one of our many litigations against some of the big tech CEOs, who flanked the President, in his inauguration, you may not have any reason to know what was going on behind-the-scenes, or what some other explanations or counterarguments will be. And that transparency and accountability has served the FTC really well, for over 100 years.
COLLINS: And that's a very real thing. I mean, we have that picture of all of the CEOs, who were flanking Trump, at his inauguration. But the FTC is in active litigation with some of, maybe all of, a lot of these people?
KELLY SLAUGHTER: Almost all of them, almost all.
COLLINS: You're looking at the names and you're--
KELLY SLAUGHTER: I'm looking at the names right now.
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: --almost all of them?
KELLY SLAUGHTER: Almost all of them. And--
COLLINS: And so, you're saying that, in your position, you'd be able to speak out and say, OK, hey, they just dismissed this case against this company. Here's why I think that's a problem, or I disagree?
KELLY SLAUGHTER: Yes. So, for example, in 2019, when I was in minority commissioner at the FTC, the FTC settled a big privacy case with the company that was then called Facebook for $5 billion -- a $5 billion payment.
The majority, at the time, touted it as the largest payment ever, and a huge successful win for law enforcement.
But I said, I disagreed, that I thought it wasn't nearly what the violations merited, and people should understand it as a slap on the wrist, for a company that had the kinds of profits and revenue that Facebook had at the time. And that kind of accountability is important. And for what it's worth, it is the kind of accountability that our now-Chairman provided to the FTC, when he served in the minority. He had no hesitation to dissent and express disagreement. And that actually makes the work of the agency better.
COLLINS: Yes, and he wrote a lot, when he was a minority member as well.
I mean, and they have cases, one coming up against Meta, with Mark Zuckerberg, who we often see at the White House.
The new FTC Chair that you talk about, said in a statement that he wished you well. He thanked you for your service. But he said, quote, I have no doubts about Trump's constitutional authority to remove commissioners, which is necessary to ensure democratic accountability for our government.
How long do you plan to fight your firing?
KELLY SLAUGHTER: As long as it takes.
I think the principle is really important. And to be very clear, this is not about me. I agree with what Commissioner Bedoya said. It's not about me or it's about my job. It's the principle that our laws need to be enforced without fear or favor, and specifically without commissioners fearing that they will get fired, for failing to do a favor for the President's allies. That is a problem.
COLLINS: And do you believe that's a real possibility now?
KELLY SLAUGHTER: I absolutely believe that's a real possibility. The President has been very clear, about directing law enforcement to target his enemies, and favor his allies. And that is really concerning, not just to markets, as you mentioned, but it should be really concerning to real people.
[21:40:00]
I think it's easy to forget what agencies, like the FTC, do in the soup, the alphabet soup of Washington. Last year, the FTC returned $330 million back into the pockets of Americans who were victims of frauds and scams. We are actively suing large pharmaceutical pharmacy benefit managers, the pharmacy middlemen, over the high price of insulin. The FTC is the cop on the beat in kids' privacy.
These are really important things that affect every day people's real lives. And having the law not being forced without fear or favor is going to hurt American consumers, workers, small businesses. But it's going to be a big favor to corporate lawbreakers.
COLLINS: Do you think this could go up to the Supreme Court, your firing?
KELLY SLAUGHTER: I think it could.
COLLINS: And you're prepared for that? KELLY SLAUGHTER: I am prepared for that. It is not a fight that I was excited to have. But it is a fight that I care a lot about.
COLLINS: Rebecca Slaughter, thank you for your time tonight, and for sharing your story with us.
KELLY SLAUGHTER: Thank you so much for having me.
COLLINS: Really appreciate it.
Up next. Speaking of a lot of the CEOs over there, Elon Musk's Tesla was just removed from a major auto show over safety concerns, because we're seeing nationwide protest, as the fallout for one of President Trump's closest aides is continuing. The latest with Kara Swisher, next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the Tesla display at the Vancouver Auto Show is gone, as organizers pulled Elon Musk's cars from the showroom floor, citing safety concerns, in the wake of attacks on Tesla's charging stations and also dealerships that are happening nationwide.
While the President says he considers those acts to be domestic terrorism, Attorney General Pam Bondi is issuing this warning tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONDI: They're targeting Tesla owners. They're targeting Tesla dealerships. They're targeting Elon Musk, who is out there trying to save our country, and it will not be tolerated. We are coming after you. We will find you. And if you are an organized group who is funding this, we're going to find you too. You better look out, and you better stop it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is the veteran tech journalist, Kara Swisher.
And Kara, we heard from another member of Trump's Cabinet on this.
KARA SWISHER, PODCAST HOST, "ON WITH KARA SWISHER" & "PIVOT," CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.
COLLINS: Not just the person in charge of the Justice Department. But the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, who said this earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOWARD LUTNICK, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: Let me remind you, he's the guy who saved the astronauts, saved the astronauts, and he's the guy who's going to build the next-generation technology. I think if you want to learn something on this show tonight, buy Tesla. It's unbelievable that this guy's stock is this cheap. It will never be this cheap again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, Kara, in addition to just all of this--
SWISHER: Yes.
COLLINS: --the Commerce Secretary telling Americans to buy Tesla stock is, is quite notable.
SWISHER: Yes, well, the President already did that with his used car lot, you know, his -- or his new car lot -- excuse me, let me be correct. On the White House lawn, when he was doing that.
So, of course, Howard Lutnick is a car salesman, which is really cool, except that he is an official of the U.S. government and not an employee of Elon Musk. He also, I don't believe, is his PR person, which sounds like he is. Same thing with Pam Bondi. She's, you know -- just stop that.
And people can peacefully protest. That is very clear. They can boycott. It's a long-held American tradition to do that. Obviously, violence is ridiculous, and people shouldn't do that.
But it's -- you know, things are very tense, right now, largely because of all these cuts, and that stuff shouldn't happen. And they should prosecute those people, but not focus on them solely. They should be focusing on all kinds of miscreants, and people who behave like that.
I mean, what's happening now, I think Oliver Darcy of Status said it perfectly. It's a Musk-querade (ph). It's, this is just a ridiculous pretend, trying to balance the idea that, yes, he is a great innovator with what he's doing at DOGE. He should be -- good at rockets, and not be good at doing what he's doing right now, which seems haphazard and a little crazy.
And so, it's OK to -- this be complex. But again, as I stressed with you before, he is unelected, he's unfettered, and a lot of these things benefit his companies, just like what the Secretary of Commerce just did, and what President Trump did, last week.
COLLINS: Yes, and obviously, it's one thing to be maybe upset with what he's doing with DOGE, or to talk to your member of Congress about it, or we've seen these town halls.
Obviously committing a crime, committing vandalism, that is totally out of line and completely different.
But on this front overall, you know, Elon Musk has talked about he believes he's only facing this because of the role that he's in, and how close he is to President Trump, and argues that it's because he voted for Trump, and donated to him.
This -- you have covered him for a long time. And you have a new CNN Original Series, just focused on, on the work at Twitter and what happened when he took over. I want people to listen to part of that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIZ STONE (ph), AMERICAN ENTREPRENEUR AND CO-FOUNDER OF TWITTER: I woke up the morning of, and there was an email from somebody, saying, Guys, today's the day, it's going to be so exciting. Jack is moderating the tweets with President Obama, at the town hall, on behalf of Twitter. And I was like, What?
I immediately replied to the whole company. You came to me, and you asked me, Am I cool with, and I said, as long as this doesn't happen, and now we're doing exactly the thing.
JACK DORSEY, CEO OF SQUARE, CO-FOUNDER AND FORMER CEO OF TWITTER: Good afternoon and welcome to the White House. I am Jack Dorsey, from Twitter
STONE (ph): You lied to me. You told me to my face that no one from Twitter was going to be representing, and I'm really upset about this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It is so wild to think of Twitter then, and Twitter, as I still call it, now.
SWISHER: Yes. I mean, at the time, it had an outsized influence, given how bad its business was. I mean, that's -- that was always the really disconnect, is that it never -- and it still continues not to be a great business, especially compared to Facebook.
[21:50:00]
But its influence was there because politicians were on it. Initially, celebrities were on it, which I think they've abandoned it more. But politicians, the media were on it, and it created this sense, and especially President Obama, it created this sense of a town hall kind of thing, all the time.
COLLINS: Yes, it's remarkable. It's certainly still kind of a town- hall-esque to it now.
SWISHER: Sure do.
COLLINS: Kara Swisher, thanks so much for joining tonight.
I cannot wait to see this. There's a new episode of Twitter: Breaking the Bird. That is this Sunday, 10:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only here on CNN, for our Kara Swisher fans.
Up next here. A new social media -- or a new Social Security policy is going to potentially change how millions of new and existing recipients get their coverage and verify it. We'll talk about those changes. And a warning, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:55:00]
COLLINS: New rules being put in place by the Trump administration to prevent Social Security fraud means more people will have to go to their local office to maintain their benefits, if they can't do so online.
It's a rule change that is designed to fight the almost $100 million in fraud that the agency sees each year through direct deposit systems, and that will mean another 75,000 to 85,000 people a week, potentially trying to get an appointment, as the agency has closed offices around the country, and also fired workers, while it deals with more people than ever getting Social Security right now.
One of the new rules that is going to have a major impact here is that beneficiaries can no longer change their bank account information through the agency's telephone service. Instead, it has to be done online or in that local office.
My source on this tonight was the Commissioner of Social Security under President Biden. Martin O'Malley is here now.
And it's great to have you, because no one knows this better than you do in terms of what these changes actually mean.
So, if you're someone and you can't do this online, and you need -- you have to go in, in-person?
MARTIN O'MALLEY, FORMER COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: Right.
COLLINS: It means essentially, you can no longer do it over the phone, which they could do previously. How do you think this is going to impact people?
O'MALLEY: Yes, they're saying, Kaitlan, that they're doing this, ostensibly, to fight fraud.
And there are many things that we did, last year, and put into motion, including a system of automatic verification of -- you know, that that bank account belongs to that person. So, there are things that we have been doing that actually cut that amount in half, last year.
There are better things that we did to identify the suspect bank accounts. We had a whole team of people that would review anomalies, and then unwind them and call claimants.
But I really don't think this has much to do with reducing fraud. This is about breaking the agency's ability to provide effective customer service. This is about breaking those field offices. Everything this DOGE team and this co-presidency have done at Social Security, to date, is making it harder and harder and harder for the agency to deliver customer service.
So, you want to cram people into crowded waiting rooms? You want to give people -- turn people on the agency? How do you do that? You do that by paying people to leave the agency. You do that by doing ridiculous things like this that -- you know, here's a question I would have, for this guy, who's running the agency now, who once worked there under me, who knew this would be, where he would rise.
If they cut off the phone service for doing that, when that's 40 percent of where the fraud happens, why wouldn't they cut off the other 60 percent, which is online? I mean, this is -- this is about breaking the agency. I really don't think it's about fraud.
COLLINS: But you do make a good point there, though, about the 40 percent. Because, for people who don't know, it's 40 percent of that fraud does come from people calling to try to change the bank account information for recipients.
And so, would this, though, in theory, prevent that fraud?
O'MALLEY: Well, I guess so. And, I guess, prohibiting anybody from ever changing their bank account would totally eliminate it to zero, which is why you shouldn't have a guy who's only run an office of seven people running an whole agency.
But we know, by his own admission, he's not. It's the DOGE team that's calling the shots, and they want to break this agency, they want to wreck it, so they can turn the people against it, so that then they can rob it.
COLLINS: Well, I'm interested in what you said about the efforts that you took, when you were there, to change the fraud, to fix the fraud, to address it.
Because what we often hear is, the Inspector General found $72 billion and improperly paid out by Social Security, and recommended improvements that were not implemented.
You're saying you did make some progress.
We hear from the White House that say, Well, all this was found, and it was there, and they didn't do anything to change it.
What goes through your mind when you hear that?
O'MALLEY: Well, they lie like other people chew bubble gum. The truth is that this agency has done -- did remarkable work last year, in turning things around and in a better direction.
The first thing that this DOGE team -- well, the first thing Donald Trump and the Musk co-presidency did was to eliminate all the inspectors general. That way, you don't have a voice that can say anything about what was -- what changed and what was actually done.
The second thing that they did through this person, they elevated to be the head of the agency, in an acting capacity, was they eliminated the Division of Social Security that was called the Office of Oversight, Analytics and Review. These were the people whose job it was to double-check the work, to double-check the allowances, to, in essence, serve as the inspectional function for the agency to safeguard against improper payments. So now, their voice was eliminated.
And so, this agency is a very large agency. It actually gets a clean audit every year, year after year. And yet, there are always places where we can improve. And last year, in fact, we did. But now, in just 90 days, that progress has been undone.
COLLINS: But what--
O'MALLEY: And they're going to crater this agency.
COLLINS: What goes through your mind when you hear Elon Musk call it a Ponzi scheme?
O'MALLEY: People have been calling it a Ponzi scheme for 90 years. But there is no Ponzi scheme in the history of the planet that ever lasted 90 years. It's not a Ponzi scheme. It is a pay-as-you-go program.
[22:00:00]
All of the benefits that were paid out, last year, those were benefits paid by people that are in the economy and working. It's a pay-as-you- go program. And everything about it, restoring customer service, and extending its long-term fiscal health is a solvable problem. But these guys want to crater it.
COLLINS: Martin O'Malley, thank you so much for being here.
Thank you all so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
