Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Signs Order To Dismantle Education Department; New York Times: Elon Musk Set To Get Access To Top-Secret U.S. Plan For Potential War With China; Judge: DOJ Response On Deportation Flights "Woefully Insufficient." Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 20, 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]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --by the NBA Board of Governors, this would be the biggest price tag ever for a U.S. sports franchise, and worth every cent. It tops the $6.05 billion deal for the NFL's Washington Commanders. That was two years ago.
The Celtics' new ownership group is led by billionaire, William Chisholm, who runs a private equity firm. The Georgetown, Massachusetts native, said in a statement he has been a, quote, Die- hard Celtics fan for his entire life. Some of us would call him a Wicked big fan. We are counting on him.
The news continues with Kaitlan Collins. "THE SOURCE" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
Inside the room, as President Trump takes a sledgehammer to the Department of Education, what I saw as the President moved to dismantle the agency, and what that means for low-income students, those with disabilities, and those with student loans.
And the guy who's been called the chief architect of Project 2025 says the President's first 50 days are way beyond his wildest dreams. And wait till you see how much of what's in Project 2025 is actually in what the President is now doing.
And another academic in the country, legally, has now just been detained and marked for deportation. His attorney is here, on the urgent efforts, underway, to stop it, and what a judge is saying tonight.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
They say the pen is mightier than the sword. And, at the White House today, President Trump shredded the 45-year-old U.S. Department of Education, not with force, of course, but instead with a Sharpie and his famous signature.
I was there in the East Room.
(VIDEO - PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER TO DISMANTLE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION)
(APPLAUSE)
COLLINS: You hear the applause.
It was set up to resemble a classroom, as the President was at his signing desk, but flanked by children at desks of their own, as he made a huge step toward something that Republicans have been trying to do for decades.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Department of Education, we're going to eliminate it, and everybody knows it's right.
We're going to shut it down, and shut it down as quickly as possible. It's doing us no good. We want to return our students to the states.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, the President said that this was 45 years in the making. He's right on that point. Ronald Reagan wanted to get rid of it, not long after the Department of Education was first established, under his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, in 1979.
In 1980, the Republican Party laid out a policy platform, encouraging Congress to take back what it started. And years later, we heard President Reagan call for doing so, during his State of the Union address.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN, 40TH U.S. PRESIDENT: The budget plan I submit to you on February 8 will realize major savings by dismantling the Departments of Energy and Education.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, Reagan was not successful in dismantling the Department of Education. Neither were any of the Republican presidents who followed him, until the current officeholder who made his intentions quite clear, out on the campaign trail.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I will immediately close the Federal Department of Education.
Move education back to the States.
(CHEERING)
TRUMP: We will drain the government education swamp.
Demolish the corrupt education bureaucracy and liberate our children.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, today's order will dismantle the agency, it starts that process, but it doesn't get rid of it.
Congress created the Department of Education, so it'd take an act of Congress to eliminate it. And it's not clear to us exactly tonight that that will happen. The Republican-controlled House failed to do so, just two years ago, when 60 Republicans stood in the way. Yes, a lot voted for it, but 60 voted against it.
And for now, big questions still remain about what happens to the agency's critical programs and functions. There's a lot of low-income families, students who have disabilities, and a lot of people with Pell Grants and student loans, certainly paying close attention to that question tonight. Right now, the Education Department is where a lot of those funds come from.
And at that signing event today, there were several Republican governors in the room, cheering this move. I caught up with Texas governor, Greg Abbott, and asked him what he thinks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: What is the biggest impact that you believe this is going to have on education across the United States? Because obviously, this is something conservatives have sought to do for decades, since President Reagan was in office.
GOV. GREG ABBOTT (R-TX): It achieves two things at once. One is it eliminates all this wokeism, this ideology from the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., issues that we had to deal with under the Biden administration.
It gives more power to states who are closer to the students, closer to the parents, and more power to parents themselves. And so, this is a win-win, for states, for parents, for children, across the United States.
COLLINS: And obviously, a lot of states and local governments do 90 percent of the funding, you know that, in the curriculum. But in terms of students with low income, they get money from the Department of Education, for federal student loans, how does that work? Are you sure that those students will be negatively impacted by today's move?
ABBOTT: According to what the President said, and according to what his office issued, those funding programs are going to continue, just under a different agency name, other than Department of Education.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:05:00]
COLLINS: But as I pointed out to the governor, right after that, our CNN's Kayla Tausche is told that the Department of Education has actually struggled to find a viable alternative agency that can manage that massive student debt portfolio. They've looked at other agencies, like Treasury and the Small Business Administration. But one source told CNN, quote, Treasury doesn't want it.
My deeply-sourced White House insiders start us off tonight.
New York Times Correspondent, Zolan Kanno-Youngs.
Politico reporters. Sophia Cai. And Alex Isenstadt, who is the Author of "Revenge: The Inside Story of Trump's Return to Power," an excellent new book.
Zolan, what did you make of what you saw today? And obviously, the big questions that we still have about the actual impacts of this. Because, yes, he's not getting rid of it, but they're reducing the workforce, and trying to strip it, really, of its critical functions that the DOE has.
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: The administration clearly sees that this can be politically advantageous. We heard -- we've heard Trump talk about this, for a while now, trying to use it to galvanize his base, in a similar way that Republicans tried to target the Department of Education in the 80s as well.
This -- that was obviously renewed and energized that momentum with sort of the resurgence of a parents rights movement, after the pandemic, and to combat inclusive policies, progressive policies in schools as well. So, the politics is clear that the White House sees that.
How this actually plays out is a little bit unclear. We talked -- the Department of Education is essentially a bank, right, for a lot of this funding that goes out to public schools. That money is already appropriated by Congress. So, that money should theoretically continue to go out.
But now who's going to take ownership of distributing those loans, and getting those payments? That has raised alarms amongst some experts, I've talked to education advocates, around the bureaucratic hurdle that this could create. If you're somebody who wants to find out about your student loans, but now you don't know what agency is actually handling it, that's not going to provide you too much confidence at that point.
But I think also, just even before this signing, Trump has already put sort of his stamp on education policies. A significant number of staff has been slashed. Research has been closed. And the Civil Rights Office has also really been restricted as well.
COLLINS: What are you hearing from White House officials on this? Because it is notable how long it took to get to today. That was about a month ago that they were talking about signing this executive order, and they waited a little bit, in part, because of the student loan question. SOPHIA CAI, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, POLITICO: Yes, so student loan is a big hurdle. Who's going to take that? I mean, I think, right now, the Education Department, as of today, is still going to be doing the student loan program.
Another question is, did we really need an executive order? How are they going to do this legally? And I think that is still something that's being figured out.
But I think the biggest point here is that, unlike some of the other DOGE cuts that happened in private, and in secret, this one is happening in broad daylight.
And they've rolled out this entire ceremony in the East Room, with dozens of students, in front of desks, to do this, which means that this is something that they are trying to have all of the governors come in, and say, Trump has allies in his decision to dismantle the Education Department.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, there's Republican lawmakers who want to help. Senator Bill Cassidy has said tonight, he's going to introduce legislation to this. We saw another House Republican saying the same.
I do think that's a question of, you know, we keep saying, Trump can't do this, Congress has to do it.
Will -- could Congress do this?
ALEX ISENSTADT, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, POLITICO, AUTHOR, "REVENGE: THE INSIDE STORY OF TRUMP'S RETURN TO POWER": Well, so that's -- it's actually a really good question.
Because if you look at polling on this, it's actually broadly unpopular to get rid of the Department of Education. When you ask voters, do they want to -- do they want to abolish it? They actually aren't that supportive of it.
And so, let's say you're a House Republican, and you're going back to your district, and you talk to voters who don't want to get -- who don't want to get rid of the Department of Education, but then you've got pressure from Trump and, say, Elon Musk, to do it? Well, you're caught in a vice.
Because do you want -- what do you -- do you want to get attacked by Trump and Musk? Do you want to face a Truth Social or maybe ads running in your district against you, if you oppose them?
KANNO-YOUNGS: Or a primary.
ISENSTADT: Or a primary?
COLLINS: Yes.
ISENSTADT: So, this is going to be the vice that, I think, congressional Republicans are going to be caught in, over a number of different issues, potentially over the next 18 months, up to the midterms.
COLLINS: I'm glad you brought up how mayors feel about this, who may be opposed to it, or may think it's not a good idea.
We actually have the Democratic mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson, on the line, who is also a former teacher, I should note.
And Mayor, I'm curious to your view of this. Because the argument from the White House is that whatever the Department of Education is doing isn't working, because out of the 325,000 students, we'll look at Chicago Public Schools, nearly 72 percent of them are classified as economically disadvantaged. One in six Chicago students has a disability.
So, when you hear the White House say these programs, the most critical programs that DOE handles, that they won't be affected? Though it's not clear, exactly, who will be overseeing them. The President says that they'll go to other agencies. The White House press secretary said, DOE still. What does this order mean for them today?
MAYOR BRANDON JOHNSON, (D) CHICAGO, ILLINOIS: Well, thank you for the question, and thanks for having me tonight.
[21:10:00]
Look, public education is one of the most significant victories that our country has secured, as we have collect -- collectively, to ensure that working people have access to public accommodations. When you look at equalizers in our country, the achievement gap between low- income students and students of privilege, that that gap has continued to close, particularly as we put forth investments.
The President of the United States, and his animus towards public accommodations, is really an affront to everything that is decent about our democracy. These cuts will be harmful. What it means, in real life, is that teachers will lose their jobs, schools will be closed, resources and services for our special education students, and individuals with disabilities, those services will be cut.
This type of behavior from this President, who obviously is clearly a convicted criminal, continues to behave unlawfully. He doesn't have the constitutional authority to do it.
And that's why cities like Chicago that are fighting to make sure that children across our city, and across America, have access to a high- quality public education. We will continue to fight to ensure that that becomes the reality of not just for the City of Chicago, but cities across America that really need these investments.
COLLINS: Well, and the White House has acknowledged it would take an act of Congress to dismantle it.
But on the numbers we see in Chicago. In 2024, it showed that fewer than one in four students who were in 11th grade were reading at the level that they should be. Fewer than one in five can do math at a 11 -- in a 11th grade level. And less than a quarter of all third through eighth graders are proficient in either of those subjects.
So, what do you say to people who look at that and say, Maybe President Trump has a point that the Department of Education is not working, it's not helping, at least in these matters from where it's perched in Washington.
JOHNSON: Yes, cutting off resources is not the answer.
Here's what we do know, and I can tell you this on a very personal note, as a beneficiary of public education, as a former public school teacher, as well as a mayor who trusts the public education system, in the City of Chicago, so much so that I send my own children to our public schools in Chicago.
One of the greatest predictors of a child's educational outcome is essentially things that require investments, like housing, access to good-paying jobs for parents. At the height of unionization in this country, the achievement gap between Black and White students had almost disappeared. There's a direct correlation to investing in housing, investing in good-paying jobs, as well as investing in our educators that ultimately closes the achievement gap.
What this President is doing is taking us backwards, at a time in which the City of Chicago, and America, are desperately calling for a pathway forward. This is not the hopes and dreams of our ancestors, where public education, again, at the expense of the state, really comes out of the hopes and dreams of the aspirations of enslaved, formerly enslaved, and people across America.
That's why, as Mayor of the City of Chicago, I've invested more dollars through TIF surplus and other means than any other mayor in the history of Chicago, because I believe that much in the public education. We need leaders in this moment, who believe in the people of this country, and are committed to actually ensuring that that belief comes with resources.
The Bible says something very clearly. I'm a son of a preacher. Where your treasure is, there your heart will be. Also, our treasure has to be aligned with the heartbeat of America. And that's investing in our public education system. That's what we're doing in Chicago. That's what people want in Philadelphia. That's what they want in Oakland. That's what they want in Houston. That's the pathway forward.
This President is off. And it's up to us, as Americans, to make sure we turn on the light, and turn on the switch, towards justice. And that's what this moment calls for, in this moment.
And as the Mayor of the City of Chicago, I'm going to continue to fight to ensure that every single child, in the City of Chicago, has access to high-quality public education, and that's what every single American wants.
COLLINS: Yes. We'll see what that looks like and, of course, the impacts of this.
Mayor, thank you so much for joining tonight. JOHNSON: You're welcome. Thanks for having me.
COLLINS: We're also tracking some breaking news this hour, as The New York Times just dropped a new report, saying that Elon Musk is going to be getting a critical briefing, at the Pentagon, tomorrow, where he has vested interest. What he's going to be learning, and from whom? Next.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Breaking news this hour, with The New York Times now reporting that Elon Musk is about to potentially get access to some of the nation's most closely-guarded military secrets.
According to what The Times just reported a few moments ago and published on their website, The Pentagon is scheduled on Friday to brief Elon Musk on the U.S. military's plan for any war that might break out with China.
After The Times published this article, just a few moments ago, Sean Parnell, the chief Defense Department spokesperson, provided this statement, and I'm quoting him now. He says, "The Defense Department is excited to welcome Elon Musk to the Pentagon on Friday. He was invited by Secretary Hegseth and is just visiting."
Eric Schmitt is one of The Times reporters who broke this story, and he joins me now on the phone.
Eric, thank you for jumping on, on this breaking news.
What can you tell us about what you're learning about the purpose beyond this visit? Is it more than just visiting? As the spokesperson said in the statement.
ERIC SCHMITT, SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES (On Telephone): Well, that's not what we had heard, Kaitlan. We had heard that he was going to be brought in to get one of these -- a very unusual briefing, as you mentioned, on the Pentagon's top secret war plan, for how they would deal with a conflict with China.
[21:20:00]
And what this would do is providing Musk with access to the some of the nation's most closely-guarded military secrets. It would be a dramatic expansion of his already-extensive role as an advisor to President Trump, and a leader of his effort to slash spending, and purge the government people and policies, the administration opposes.
But it would also, I think, spotlight the questions about Musk's potential conflicts of interest as he -- as he ranges across the federal bureaucracy, while continuing to run businesses that are major government contractors.
Of course, Musk is the billionaire Chief Executive of both SpaceX, and Tesla, is a leading supplier to the Pentagon, and has extensive financial interest in China.
COLLINS: Right. That is a real question here, in terms of as the Chief Executive of SpaceX and Tesla, what something like this in Starlink would mean in terms of his financial interest there.
Is there any reason, given his efforts with DOGE, and they've set his sights on the Pentagon, that that could be driving why he is going and receiving a briefing like this one?
SCHMITT (On Telephone): Yes, there is -- there is a possible reason for this that he would need to know some aspects of this war plan. Is his team of cost-cutters from DOGE, if they want to trim the Pentagon budget, in a responsible way, they may need to know what weapon systems the Pentagon plans to use in a potential fight with China.
Take aircraft carriers, for example. If you're cutting back on future aircraft carriers with, you might say, billions of dollars, and those -- that money could be spent on drones or other weaponry. But if the U.S. war strategy relies on using aircraft carriers in innovative ways, that would surprise China. Mothballing or cutting existing ships or stopping production of the metal in the future, could cripple that plan.
So that could be a reason why the Pentagon wanted to give Mr. Musk, this kind of an unusual briefing.
COLLINS: What do we know about what this briefing will actually look like? Is it -- is he shown documents of what they believe the war plan could be? I mean, how would this typically -- obviously, a lot of that--
SCHMITT (On Telephone): Well--
COLLINS: --we'd expect it to be classified. But what would that look like?
SCHMITT (On Telephone): It is. And Mr. Musk has a -- he has a security clearance.
But the typical briefing, and this is a briefing that Secretary Hegseth himself got in two parts, one part, last week, and then the other part, just on Wednesday. It's typically anything from 20 to 30 slides, in a presentation that's given, we are told, by Mr. Hegseth and the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As well as the top commander in the Indo-Pacific, Admiral Sam Paparo, will do the actual briefing, we were told.
But it basically walks through and lays out the options that the -- that the military would present to President Trump, should such a conflict arise, the kinds of targets that you might hit in China, the timing of these kind of strikes. So, it can get into very technical detail.
And we don't know, exactly, what the briefing might be that Musk would receive. But that's what makes this kind of so unusual, as somebody who's not in the chain of command, he's not a formal military advisor to the president. So, there are just questions that have been risen -- rose this evening, about why he's getting this kind of briefing now.
COLLINS: One, he's not even a full-time employee. He's what's known as a Special Government employee, which means he's on a time limit, essentially.
But what's so striking to me about what you just said is that it was just days ago that the Senate-confirmed Defense Secretary got this briefing. And now, Elon Musk is on the cusp of receiving the same information, only days after the Pentagon chief got it.
SCHMITT (On Telephone): That's right. And we don't -- again, we don't know the timing of how long this has been in the works. But it is -- it is kind of unusual for him.
Somebody in this kind of position, usually it takes several days to kind of work through the clearances, even for top government officials, in the White House, the State Department, if they wanted to receive this kind of briefing, make sure everything is clear, and everybody understands the purpose of the briefing, and what the objective is.
In this case, this is very close-hold, and it's still unclear exactly what the purpose was for this briefing, and well -- whether he'll still get it tomorrow.
COLLINS: It's remarkable reporting, Eric Schmitt. It just broke a few moments ago. Thank you for hopping on the phone with us to break it down. Appreciate your time.
SCHMITT (On Telephone): Thank you.
COLLINS: And as we're continuing to monitor those developments, we'll stay on track of that, and what we hear from the Pentagon.
Also tonight, there is new developments in the Georgetown fellow that was detained by the administration in the country legally, but now a judge is blocking his deportation temporarily. Why the judge is weighing in what she has to say? As his attorney is here, next.
[21:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, a federal judge has just intervened to stop the Trump administration from deporting a Georgetown University fellow temporarily.
Badar Khan Suri was arrested by federal agents, on Monday night. Khan Suri is an Indian national in the U.S., legally on a visa, and is married to an American citizen. But the administration is accusing him of, quote, "Actively spreading Hamas propaganda," and of having "Close connections to a known or suspected terrorist."
His family maintains he's done nothing wrong.
And what we're hearing from Georgetown officials this evening is that they are unaware of him engaging in any illegal activity.
His attorney, Hassan Ahmad, is my source.
And thank you so much for being here.
I understand, you spoke to him last night. What does he have to say about all of this?
HASSAN AHMAD, ATTORNEY FOR BADAR KHAN SURI: Well, thank you, first of all, for having me.
[21:30:00]
And it's just a lot for him to take in. He's never had a brush with the law like this before. And now he's detained in Southern Louisiana, and it's just very, very difficult. He's still fasting as an observant Muslim during Ramadan, and trying to keep his spirits up. But it is very difficult.
And he understands that he is a political prisoner. Those were his words. And he's grateful for the outpouring of support that he has received.
COLLINS: Have they told him of a crime that they believe he committed? Or what reason did they offer to him? Did they say it was because he was spreading Hamas propaganda, as the administration is saying, on Twitter, tonight?
AHMAD: Nothing. They have told him nothing. The only thing that he has received is a notice to appear in immigration court, with the same exact provision of law that was on the notice to appear, given to Mahmoud Khalil.
COLLINS: And of course, he was not accused of a crime yet either.
But the question here of where the DHS spokesperson said tonight, that he is have -- he is known of having close connections to a known or suspected terrorist. We looked into this. His father-in-law is a former Hamas spokesperson official. CNN cited him actually as that in the late 2000s.
And his father-in-law told The New York Times, this week, that he left Hamas more than a decade ago. He said October 7th was a terrible error, he believed, in his view.
Do you -- what did he have to say about his father-in-law, or why he believes that could be part of the reason here?
AHMAD: As far as I'm aware, the only time he has met his father-in-law was when he asked for his daughter's hand in marriage. That's about the extent of his connection to his father-in-law.
COLLINS: So he's only met him one time?
AHMAD: Once or perhaps twice.
COLLINS: OK. So, you would say maybe a handful of times?
AHMAD: No, not even that. I'm only aware of one, and possibly -- possibly two times that he's met his father-in-law.
So, for the administration to say that it's a close ties to a known and suspected terrorist? Well, where's the evidence? No administration official has put forth a shred of evidence that my client, Dr. Khan Suri, has been involved or is affiliated with any known or suspected terrorist.
COLLINS: And what about the claim that he was spreading Hamas propaganda, as the DHS spokesperson said tonight? How do you respond to that?
AHMAD: I think I would say that it's becoming unfortunately emblematic of this administration to conflate the acknowledgement of Palestinian humanity with Hamas propaganda.
COLLINS: Do you -- have you seen the post that they're referencing? Do you know what they're talking about here?
AHMAD: I don't. I don't know what they're talking about.
COLLINS: And so, what's next for you here? With the judge weighing in, saying, You cannot deport him unless I issue a ruling to the contrary. What is next for you, as his legal representation?
AHMAD: Well, we're fighting, of course, to get him released. This is a man who has extensive family ties to the United States. He is not -- has zero criminal record, and is not currently being accused of any wrongdoing. So, what was the reason to detain him?
If they wanted to put him in removal proceedings, they could have easily done that by issuing him a notice to appear, and letting him show up in court. But instead, they detained him. They sent him down a 1,000 miles away, away from his family, away from his legal counsel, making it difficult for us to represent him.
So, we want him back, here in Virginia, and we want him out of detention, so that he can meaningfully respond and receive the due process that he, and any American, in this situation deserves.
COLLINS: And on the arrest with the DHS officer -- DHS officers showed up. We are told that they were brandishing weapons. What did he say about how that scene played out?
AHMAD: It was extremely nerve-wracking, it was extremely scary, for both him and and his wife. They were completely masked, and did not initially identify themselves, as to who they were and what they were there for.
She could not see their faces. No one could see their faces. They -- it was covered in some sort of tactical mask, and the only thing that was visible was their eyes. And they were all armed, and came in in multiple cars, with lots of people, as if they were coming to take away a dangerous individual. This is a scholar. This is a scholar, who came to the United States, and whose work is -- has renowned work in the area of conflict resolution, in the area of conflict resolution. And our government is saying that his presence in the United States is bad for the United States foreign policy.
[21:35:00]
And I just would respectfully submit that, if that's what Marco Rubio is saying, then perhaps the problem is with him, and with our government, and not with my client.
COLLINS: Mr. Ahmad, please keep us updated on what happens next with your client. Thank you for taking the time to join me tonight.
AHMAD: Thanks for having me.
COLLINS: And here at the table with me, Congressman Don Beyer, a Democrat from Virginia, and also the Representative of Khan Suri's -- Mr. Khan Suri's district.
It's great to have you.
What do you know? Have you heard anything more about this, as his attorney is saying, he has not been accused of a crime, but we've certainly seen the accusations from the DHS.
REP. DON BEYER (D-VA): Well, certainly, very concerned about how this happened, last night. He shows up at 09:30, and the three masked men armed, they did tell him what was happening. They handcuffed him right away. They let him call his wife in the apartment, upstairs, who came running down, and then whisked him away in an unmarked black SUV off to Louisiana.
What's really concerning, trying to read as much as I possibly can about this, is that it seemed that it was his wife who was really active on social media. She's an American citizen. They have three children, American citizens.
And people -- right-wing media had really picked up on her social media things, which were mostly about Palestinian rights and about the violence in Gaza, might be stuff that we don't, particularly, all of us like. But all that should be protected by free speech.
COLLINS: And do you--
BEYER: And the First Amendment.
COLLINS: Do you think that's what this is, at the heart of this, a First Amendment case?
BEYER: Oh, very much so. I think it's a blatant attack on the First Amendment, and also just on due process. The notion that you can snatch somebody, take them off in the middle of the night to a prison or a camp, far away, a 1,000 miles away, without telling them what they've done wrong, and also without giving them the ability to contact the lawyers, and be represented.
COLLINS: You heard the attorney there say he hasn't seen anything related to Hamas -- spreading Hamas propaganda, actively spreading Hamas propaganda, as the administration is accusing him of doing.
Have you seen anything related to that beyond what his wife has said?
BEYER: None at all. And this is really, you know, they're relying on this Alien and Sedition Act that goes back almost 200 years. The last time it was really used, other than the last week or so, was for the Japanese internment, which was very embarrassing. So, to make the case somehow that his wife's social media posts undermine U.S. foreign policy, is a real stretch.
COLLINS: The one thing that the administration has made clear is, even as this is being fought in court, with Mahmoud Khalil's case, or now this one, is they don't plan to stop.
What is your -- how are you going to respond to that? Or do you believe that you need to?
BEYER: Yes, I -- absolutely. I think, once again, being in the majority -- minority in Congress, it's not easy to do legislation. But we are looking at the courts.
And, in this case, once again, a judge didn't rule on whether he could be deported or not, but rather that he did have the right to make his case, to hear what the charges are against him, and let the American people, and the American courts, decide whether this is actually a deportable offense.
COLLINS: Yes, this was done using the Immigration and Nationality Act. The judge still could rule in the administration's favor. Obviously, we'll have to wait and see.
Congressman, if you learn anything else please, please let us know. But thanks for joining tonight.
BEYER: Sure. Thank you.
COLLINS: Really appreciate your time.
As President Trump is working to dismantle the Department of Education, as we laid out for you, I'm going to be joined by someone who helped write the playbook for what he is trying to do, step by step. The former Director of Project 2025 is here, next.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I'm here inside the East Room, where President Trump just signed an executive order to start the dismantling of the Department of Education. He can't simply shut the department down with a stroke of his pen, like with he signs his executive orders. That would require an act of Congress to actually eliminate it. And so far, proposals that we've seen on Capitol Hill have not been successful.
But conservatives, for decades, have sought to do this. And President Trump may have just come closer than any other president has before.
His actual Education Secretary was sitting in the front row, and he told her that he hopes that she is the last Education Secretary, with Linda McMahon laughing, as the President said that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: President Trump's move to dismantle the Department of Education was one that conservatives have sought for years. But it was laid out, step by step, in what is now commonly known as Project 2025.
On the campaign trail, that 922-page blueprint that was laid out by the conservative, Heritage Foundation, at times became so politically toxic that Trump distanced himself from it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They're going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do.
Oh, 2025 -- Project 2025. I've never read it. I don't want to read it, because that way I can be honest with you. I don't want to read it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Look closely at the actions taken over the last eight weeks, including some of the dozens of executive orders that Trump has signed. A CNN analysis found that actually more than two-thirds of those actions overlap with elements that you see in Project 2025. Moves on eliminating DEI initiatives, restricting the border, reducing spending, overall shrinking the size of the government, global organizations as well.
And as for those who crafted Project 2025, the President said this on the campaign trail.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They are extreme, I mean. They're seriously extreme.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But his administration does include many of those who contributed to it. From the person who is overseeing the downsizing of the federal government, Russ Vought, to the border czar, Tom Homan, the heads of the FCC and CIA, both contributors.
One person who remains on the outside, this term, is the former Chief of Staff for the Office of Personnel Management in Trump's first term, Paul Dans. He is the former Director of Project 2025, and my source tonight.
And it's great to have you here.
[21:45:00]
Because, the Department of Education thing was laid out. It's something conservatives have wanted to do for a long time. But how to do it was kind of laid out in Project 2025. On the effort and the end goal, why -- what did you come to? Did you come to a conclusion that getting rid of it will improve test scores for students? I mean, what does that look like for you?
PAUL DANS, FORMER DIRECTOR, PROJECT 2025: Well, thanks for having me, Kaitlan.
Today was the red letter day for the conservative movement. As the front part of this program noted, it was 40 years in the making. And I say this is not (ph) a great day for celebration. I'm the product of K through 12 public school, and my mom was a public school teacher, my mother-in-law. It made me what I am today. I went to MIT, an undergrad and graduate.
What we really come to the conclusion, as conservatives, is this education is best in its community, with the families, with the -- with the teachers who care, and that's where we have to push the directions. Top-down direction from Washington hasn't worked. America is earning a failing grade. This is not the same school systems I went through. And we owe it to the kids, to fix it.
COLLINS: But taking away the Department of Education, will we see a direct increase in test scores, do you think, because of this?
DANS: I think we'll free up local educators to be able to work more closely with students, and have more parent -- parental input. I think you will see a freeing up of resources, and them being able to be distributed among the states much more equitably.
COLLINS: Yes, even though DOE doesn't set the curriculum, of course. States and local governments are the ones that do that.
But overall, on what you've seen, and the analysis that CNN did, a lot of the structures and pillars that are in Project 2025 have played out over the last eight weeks. What do you make of that?
DANS: Well, what's happening now is all President Trump and his team. They really came on, and they started with a bang. And that's what we hoped that the next administration would do. But this is really all because one man got up off the mat, pumped his fist, and said, Fight, Fight, Fight.
What we're seeing is a team that's playing with urgency, every day. And this is something that's been in the making for 40 years. To be able to carry it through with a campaign promise, that's what gets us all excited. The way they'll go about doing it, they'll be working out those details to come and thrashing it out. But in the main--
COLLINS: But did the playbook come from Project 2025? I mean--
DANS: No, no, no, not at all.
COLLINS: --it very closely resembles a lot of it.
DANS: This is -- this is something that, as you remarked, dates back to Reagan. This might as well be Rush Limbaugh. God bless his soul. These are folks that even worked--
COLLINS: Well, beyond the Department of Education, the other -- the other things that we've listed. I mean, it's not just that that has lined up with what you laid out. Which was, if I remember correctly, from our last conversation, the whole point of Project 2025, was to give them a blueprint to take it or leave it as they started.
And do you believe they're taking more than they're leaving?
DANS: Well, so much of what Trump's doing now is the carryover from his first term, and it's going further. It's what he wanted to do, but wasn't able to do.
So, I mean, I think if you're looking for commonalities between Project 2025, and the Trump admin, it's that we're rooted in commonsense. These are things Americans have wanted to see all along. And the fact that they're executing on them, or actually committing to it, is just a question of courage.
COLLINS: Is there anything he hasn't done from Project 2025, that you'd like to see him do?
DANS: Well, right now, they're eight weeks into it, and it's phenomenal. I watched the State of the Union. I had to remind myself that he was only ticking off four weeks of accomplishment, not a full year.
The team's getting in place. And I think the advent of DOGE is really making this thing happen. They've been unearthing all kinds of data and facts that really make the case that conservatives have been trying to put forward.
COLLINS: That's so interesting to me. Because in Project 2025, there are multiple references to unelected bureaucrats, and a need for transparency, which is exactly the criticism of Elon Musk, from people who don't like what he's doing, who say he's an unelected bureaucrat, and he's not being transparent about what they're doing enough.
DANS: Well, President Trump was elected by over 80 million people. And he brought Elon Musk right there on the podium, in Pennsylvania, in the closing days. America wanted Elon Musk to help President Trump. And--
COLLINS: So, you don't have a problem with him in his role?
DANS: No, he's -- he is working through the--
COLLINS: Being unelected and whatnot? DANS: He's an advisor to the President. The President is the Commander-in-Chief. He is the chief executive of the federal government under Article II, Section 1, Clause 1, of the Constitution, and that's how the President is divesting his power right now, working with advisors.
Now, Elon Musk doesn't have statutory signing authority. He is an advisor. At the end of the day, he offers his advice. But hey, when the richest guy in the world, that sort of successful genius, is giving you advice? I'd sit and listen.
COLLINS: Some of the Cabinet members are disagreeing with that at times, certainly when, if he's overstepping their authority, they believe.
But on the front overall, Trump today was complaining about the judges, and the role that they've been playing, in terms of, they see it as stymieing his agenda. They're at least temporarily pausing some parts of it, to review it.
[21:50:00]
How do you see the role that the courts have had, in terms of, as Project 2025 lays out, three co-equal branches of government?
DANS: Well, what we're seeing, right now, in the district court, is troubling. These are major incursions into the core executive powers, particularly as they relate to immigration, and the ability to expel criminal aliens.
So, I think what we're seeing now, unfortunately for the left is, is a further manifestation of the weaponization of government through the third branch.
COLLINS: But is it weaponizing the government, if it's just their jobs, as the judiciary, to be a check on another branch of government?
DANS: Well, the judiciary functions in the main (ph) through restraint. They have to exercise judicial restraint, and this is one of the cases where they are not doing so.
They are really going in and usurping core executive powers. They are, in some cases, they're claiming that is because the legislative prerogatives are being invaded. But in point of fact, the judges know better, and that's what's unfortunate.
COLLINS: But what about on the deportation case? I mean, Trump is railing against this judge. We're going to get into that in a moment, and what he's saying again, even today.
It's just a temporary order. I mean, the judge, for all we know, could actually agree with the administration on the underlying aspect of it. But he's saying, I'd like to make sure there's due process being had here, before you can just deport these people that you say are gang members.
DANS: Well, there's really little to no due process for a criminal alien within the country.
And the reality is that President Trump is keeping the country safe. There isn't much of a reason not to deport these people. They've been labeled as a terrorist organization. So this is--
COLLINS: What about the fact that it's conservative judges that have ruled against Trump, at almost the same rate as liberal judges, as people who were -- they were appointed by. It's 82 percent versus 84 percent, based on the Stanford database, of their ideology.
DANS: Well, I -- you know, in the main -- the judges, it's going to be a question of what particular case they're ruling on. But the point of being a judge is to call balls and strikes, and not -- and not allow your personal, political feelings to interfere with the rulings.
And I think, what we're seeing right now are activist judges. And it's troubling. In some cases, you think recusal might be a better route for some of these folks, given their familial ties.
COLLINS: That does not seem to be the case with Judge Boasberg. He's denied that, those efforts by the administration.
Paul Dans, thanks for being here, and appreciate your time tonight.
DANS: My pleasure.
COLLINS: Up next. We are getting into this federal judge that Trump is blasting, because he was criticizing the Justice Department today, as he says they did not respond in the way he was expecting, for more information on those deportation flights. As Trump is coming out against him, tonight.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump is tearing into the federal judge who halted his deportation efforts, hours after that same judge slammed the Justice Department. With the President saying, Judge James Boasberg is doing everything in his power to usurp the Power of the Presidency, going on to call him, a local and unknown judge, whose "Rulings," which he puts in quotes, are so ridiculous and inept.
That tirade comes after Boasberg issued an angry order himself, about the Justice Department providing what he called, a "Woefully insufficient" response to the questions that he had, about whether or not they had willfully violated his ruling, about the deportations the administration carried out last weekend.
My legal source tonight is Tom Dupree, the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
You read that from Boasberg, and he is not pleased. My question is, what options does he have here? Because essentially, he's given them more time, given them more time. Wants more answers by tomorrow. What if they don't provide them? TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes. And look, Judge Boasberg is a patient judge, slow to anger. But as you said, you can read each successive order, and the steam level is rising.
As far as his options, he doesn't have a lot of great options on the table. If he is going to rule against Trump and say that, Well, the U.S. violated my order by deporting these people? The question is, So what? What sanction is he going to impose?
It's not really a practical option, for him to try to hold administration officials in contempt, or issue an order that he, the judge, is unable to enforce. So, I think he's got kind of a bit of a constraint on him, right now, in terms of ways he could work himself out of this.
COLLINS: What do you mean, it's not practical?
DUPREE: Well, if, for example, judges, if they want to hold you in contempt, they can impose fines, they can even try to put people in jail.
But the challenge for the judge is that if you want to actually put someone in jail, it's done by the U.S. Marshals Service, which is under Trump's control. So, I don't really see the judge able to impose any sort of criminal sanction if he finds administration officials violated his order. So he's in a tough spot.
COLLINS: So, the answers he wants are, What time did these flights take off? What time do you guys think my order went into effect? They are not giving him those answers, he's arguing.
If they had good answers to that, do you think they would provide them to him?
DUPREE: That's the thing. A lawyer will say, Look, if you've got a good story, you tell the story. If you don't have a good story, then you don't tell the story.
And so, the fact that the judge has given them time after time after time, chance after chance after chance, to tell the story? Just give the information. When did the plane take off? When did it leave? When did it exit U.S. airspace?
And they have not given the answer, tells me that from the Justice Department's answer -- perspective, it's not a good answer. That's what I infer.
COLLINS: But when do we know the constitutional crisis question that's kind of looming over all of this? I mean, Trump invoked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court tonight, who he just said he didn't think was talking about him. He seems to now be calling on him.
He said, If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble. DUPREE: Yes, look, I don't think we've quite hit constitutional crisis point. But I do think we are indefinite constitutional showdown territory right now.
[22:00:00]
And look, the Chief Justice, I think, saw a need to step in. I think from the Chief Justice's perspective, he thought the temperature was just getting way too high, when there were calls for Boasberg's impeachment, the personal attacks on the judge. And I think, the Chief Justice, he's an institutionalist, he wanted to protect his fellow judges. That's why he issued that statement.
COLLINS: Yes. Well, and it might get even higher than when he felt the need to respond.
DUPREE: Yes.
COLLINS: Tom Dupree, thank you, as always, for breaking it down with us.
DUPREE: Thanks.
COLLINS: Thank you all so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
