Return to Transcripts main page


Will U.S. Deaths in Syria Change Plans to Withdraw U.S. Troops; New Tape of Trump & Pence Holding Naturalization Oath Ceremony; Kristen Gillibrand's Changing Stance on Immigration; Trump to Propose Extending DACA Protections in Announcement; Democrats to Propose $1 Billion for Border Security, No Money for Wall; Feud Expands as Pelosi Tells Trump to Delay SOTU, Trump Grounds Plane, Outs CODEL to Afghanistan; Trump Says 2nd Summit with North Korea Set, Location Chosen; Will U.S. Deaths in Syria Change Plans to Withdraw U.S. Troops. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired January 19, 2019 - 15:00   ET



[15:00:03] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: We're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Hello on this Saturday. I'm Ana Cabrera, in New York.

Our breaking news, we're about to see President Trump put the "Art of the Deal" to the test. Success or failure could determine whether the ongoing government shutdown comes to an end or drags on longer for the 800,000 federal workers affected. In just about an hour from now, the president will address the nation from the diplomatic reception room at the White House. And a source telling CNN, here is what he is going to put out there. He is going to offer Democrats extended protection for DACA recipients, or DREAMers, in exchange for some of his border wall funding.

We got a small preview from the president this morning.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I hope that Speaker Pelosi can come along and realize what everybody knows, no matter who it is, they know that walls work. And we need walls. And whether it's personal or not -- it's not personal for me.


CABRERA: Let's check in with our reporters, CNN's Sarah Westwood and CNN's Ryan Nobles, both in Washington.

Sarah, let's start with you.

What can we expect to hear from the president?

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ana, we expect President Trump to lay out what would be his broadest offer yet so far, in this shutdown process, one that would involve him trading wall money for some of the immigration reforms that Democrats have been pursuing. This deal would involve the president holding firm at that demand for $5.7 billion in funding for his border wall in exchange for a temporary renewal of protections for DREAMers, those young undocumented immigrants protected under DACA, and an extension of temporary protected status for some immigrants that would allow those people to stay in the country.

Sources tell CNN that the president decided to make this announcement on Saturday because the White House wanted to project an image of progress after a week of escalating feud with Speaker Pelosi. So White House aides worked into the night last night to try to have this proposal ready by Saturday afternoon. And we're told Vice President Mike Pence, Jared Kushner, acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, all led efforts to get this proposal together.

Let's be clear, even though the White House is expected to bill this as a compromise of sorts, it would not involve the president making any concessions. It would just simply return to an existing idea in an effort to get the Democrats to the table -- Ana?

CABRERA: But why now? Wasn't this a proposal that Senator Lindsey Graham suggested way back in December?

WESTWOOD: That's right. Senator Graham came to the White House in December to present this idea to President Trump. At the time, he was not interested. Over the past few weeks, President Trump has been saying when he was asked about DACA that he would prefer to wait until the courts resolve legal challenges to his earlier attempts to remove DACA.

Let's take a step back. Even though Senator Graham proposed it in December, even at that time, it was not a new idea. It has been tried and failed on Capitol Hill repeatedly, because both sides haven't been interested in trading wall money for some kind of DACA protection. So it is unclear, Ana, if the deal has the deal has the potential to gain traction this time.

CABRERA: Let me turn to Ryan Nobles.

Sarah, thank you. Stand by.

We do know, in the past, Ryan, Democrats have tried to make a deal to protect DREAMers, so might they be able to go somewhere with this?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The early read on that, Ana, is no. And there's a couple of reasons behind that. The first reason is that Democrats were not involved in this process. The White House basically had an insular conversation about this with Mick Mulvaney and the vice president and Jared Kushner, where they hatched this plan, but they didn't involve any of the congressional leaders, particularly the Democratic congressional leaders that would have a big say in whether or not this would pass both the House and Senate. In fact, one Senate Democratic aide told me, quote, "The Democrats were not consulted on this. And have rejected similar overtures previously. It's clearly a nonserious product of negotiations amongst White House staff to try to clean up messes the president created in the first place, and POTUS is holding people hostage for the wall."

We've had similar reporting on the House side of things. Jake Tapper hearing from a source, on the Democratic House, that said that they were not involved in this process at all, and from what they've heard, they just would not agree to it.

But, Ana, to back up your point about whether or not this is similar to proposals we've seen in the past, yes, there was a time back when House Democrats were in the minority and Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader said to President Trump, I'll give you $25 billion for a wall if you give me permanent status for these DREAMers, a 10-to-14- year path to citizenship, then we can start the conversation. At the time, President Trump flatly rejected that. He even threatened to veto a measure like that. Now the conversation is different. Yes, it's less money, only $6 billion for a wall, but what the president is offering is only a temporary protection for these DREAMers and for some of the people under temporary protected status. And what Democrats are telling me is they are not going to trade permanent for temporary under any conditions, regardless of the amount of money at stake.

[15:05:14] And, Ana, furthermore, as Sarah points out, they are not in a mood to negotiate both the shutdown and immigration at the same time. They feel that these are two distinct and different conversations. And they're not even going to talk about immigration, including the wall, until the government is back open.

CABRERA: And the Democrats were in the minority back when they were talking about that deal you laid out.

Ryan Nobles and Sarah Westwood, thank you both for the insight.

Now, as the president prepares for his remarks, we are hearing that House Democrats plan to move forward with a path of their own and a plan that they are proposing. A source telling CNN they plan to vote next week, on adding a billion in border security spending. The "New York Times" also reporting that that includes $524 million to improve ports of entry, and $563 million to hire 75 new immigration judges. But guess what? It doesn't include money for the wall. Instead, Democrats will make the case that there are other more effective security measures.

We have an excellent group of journalists to get us ready for the president's remarks. CNN senior political analyst, Mark Preston is with us, also Michael Shear and David Sanger, of the "New York Times."

Mark, what do you think Trump's goal is today?

MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It certainly to try to turn public opinion back in his favor. This is all a political messaging stunt in many ways. If you take a step back and think about what he's doing and the timing of what he's doing, first of all, 24 hours ago, that he decided that he was going to announce that he was unveiling some kind of proposal that they kept under wraps until early this morning. And then from there, if you look amount what he did the rest of the day, he did what a president should do and he did the dignified transfer, and then he came back. And what he is going to do in the next hour or so, he will come out on a Saturday afternoon and try to project that he is working, that the White House is working on a Saturday to try to get the government back up and going when the Democrats are not there. He's also going to offer what he says is a compromise, but as our reporting shows, and as we all know it, is not a compromise. This is all about messaging. This is all about trying to turn public opinion against the Democrats, and back in favor of him.

CABRERA: Michael, I want to play for you what Republican Senator John Kennedy said after he spoke with the president earlier this week about the current state of play and the shutdown. Listen?


SEN. JOHN KENNEDY, (R), : He is a carnivore. And on this one, I can tell you, he believes he is right.


CABRERA: Now, consider what the president wrote in the "Art of the Deal." He says, "The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood. And then you're dead."

So do you think there's any way Trump makes a deal without the wall or the steel slats? Is he desperate enough?

MICHAEL SHEAR, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it doesn't seem like he's desperate enough to completely abandon the wall. The question I guess is, can he, could he back off of some element of it, could he -- would he be willing to go with a little less money. That's unclear. It certainly doesn't look like it. In fact, go can into the speech this morning, he told reporters, as he was leaving to go to Andrews Air Force Base, wall, wall, wall. He wasn't backing off at all. I don't think that is the only reason why everyone should be skeptical about the deal. As your reporters have said, not only are Democrats highly skeptical about this, these are programs that ultimately Democrats want extended permanently to give some permanent relief to these immigrants that are in the country and have this sort of threat of deportation constantly hanging over their head. And don't forget that there's one more element, which is the real right wing in the Republican Party and in this administration, the people that are most conservative about immigration, don't think the wall is enough. So when we get to the -- if we were to get to real negotiations on this, it is highly likely that that element in Donald Trump's administration would start adding even more conservative things, an end to chain migration, an end to the diversity lottery program.


CABRERA: Which is what happened last time around.

SHEAR: Which is what happened last time around, and which are essentially all but poison pills for any kind of negotiations for the Democrats. So, I mean, we are a long, long way. This is not something that is going to be wrapped up this afternoon or tomorrow morning. I mean, even if there were to be some crack in the negotiations and they were to start, it is not going to be over any time soon.

CABRERA: David, in terms of what happened, and what the Democrats are now saying they're going to offer in new legislation next week, a little more than half a billion to improve ports of entry security and another $500 million-plus to hire more immigration judges, how big of an impact would that money have? Because the president has mentioned wanting those things in addition to the wall.

[15:10:02] DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: The answer is not much, when you consider how much money was allocated last year that went unspent in a lot of border security issues, including some for the wall. I think at this point the question that the president is facing is whether or not he can convince everybody that he's actually more determined to get the government up and running and get out of this. He has really painted himself into a corner. And I think what he has failed to do over the past four weeks of the shutdown is actually convince the American people that this is a security threat, that is worth all of the economic damage, far more than the $5 billion, and the personal displacement that he's caused along the way by shutting the government down along the way. You know, in just a week or two, he's going to watch as his intelligence officials release their annual threat assessment of major threats to the United States. We don't know what this year's will show. But in last year's, the first time the border issues came up was on page 14 long after cyber threats and nuclear proliferation and China and Russia, and many other issues. I think the president has basically failed at this point to demonstrate to Americans that his number-one priority is actually their number-one threat. If he doesn't manage to do that in his comments today, I'm not sure how much he is going to really move the ball.

CABRERA: In fact, I was just looking at a stat that I had dug up, and that is, here in the United States, since 9/11, 455 jihadist terrorists have been charged or convicted or died before they faced trial. Not one of these terrorists crossed the southern border. So there's information like that, which obviously is counter to the president's argument for why this wall is necessary.

Getting back to the politics, though, of this discussion, Mark, I'm wondering, can Trump really say Democrats aren't for border security if they pass this legislation in the next week, that would be providing money for border security?

PRESTON: Well, he will. I mean, whether it's true or not, he will continue to parrot it. In many ways -- and I joke about saying whether it is true or not, because I don't think you will even find Republicans who will privately tell you that they don't think that Democrats are for border security. In fact, these are many of the same Republicans who don't think that President Trump is handling this shutdown very well. But you are going to hear this from President Trump. I suspect you are going to hear him appear very presidential in the next hour or so. And it's amazing that we have to actually say that about a president. But he will appear very presidential. But you only have to harken back to some of his tweets and some of the things he says when he is negotiating. Openly negotiating, as he is going to do in the next hour or so, is really not negotiating. Again, this is a political stunt, a messaging stunt on his part. And he will say that Democrats are not for border security. Perhaps he won't say it today. But he will certainly say it tomorrow, and he has certainly said it earlier this week.

CABRERA: Do you think we would see more Republicans sign on and take sides with Democrats if they pass this bill this week, Mark?

PRESTON: I think there's going to be issue on some Republicans to join on, but I don't think we're at that point yet. When we say the government is shut down by the way, we're not saying the whole federal government is shut down, we're seeing a certain aspect is shut down. That's why we haven't felt the full effects of absolute outrage from people across the country.

CABRERA: Look at poll after poll, and more than 50 percent of Americans put the blame on Trump and congressional Republicans right now for the shutdown. One of the president's own economic advisers we heard this week saying that the economic impact of this shutdown is actually worse than originally thought or predicted.

Michael, assuming that the talks are still stalled after today, at what point does the president make the decision, the economy or the wall?

SHEAR: Well, I mean, I think that pressure is on President Trump. But let's just not be too quick to not realize that these things often shift. And if the president -- I mean, as Mark says, this is definitely part, at least part political stunt and an effort to kind of change the narrative. If the president is successful in shifting to the Democrats the idea that they're obstinate and they're the ones refusing to come to the table, you can imagine a situation where some of those poll numbers shift, and the pressure becomes either more equally shared or even goes the other direction. I mean, at the moment, it doesn't look like that is going to happen but these things are dynamic. And if the shutdown continues another week, another 10 days, another two weeks, there's lots of people in Washington who will feel that, not only the president.

CABRERA: And not helping matters is that the president and the House speaker are in a nasty feud that seemed to just accelerate this week. She told him to put off the State of the Union for security concerns. He grounds her plane and outs her trip to Afghanistan. Here she is.


[15:15:12] REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: You never, never advance -- you never give advanced notice of going into a battle area. We just never do. Perhaps the president's inexperience didn't have him understand that protocol. The people around him though should have known that. That is very dangerous.


CABRERA: David, what was your reaction to all of that?

SANGER: Well, I think in canceling the State of the Union or at least suggesting that it be canceled, there may have been a bit of overreach by Speaker Pelosi. I mean, this is a tradition that has gone on for some time. Even at times of very great political division and even during the Nixon impeachment, even during the Bill Clinton impeachment. So there was that overreach. But then canceling the trip seemed to be not only petty, but in an interference in congressional oversight. And then, of course, Ms. Pelosi and her delegation were planning to go commercial, and they believe that was leaked by people in the administration. The administration denies that. But this is not the way adults conduct either congressional oversight or American foreign policy. Clearly, given what is going on in Afghanistan and beyond, it is important that congressional leadership get out there, and for the president to interfere in that seems to me to be a pretty far reach. Certainly, Speaker Pelosi was recognizing that the one thing President Trump values the most is a direct line to the American people. And she wasn't about to go give him that moment on TV. We haven't seen that before either.

CABRERA: It doesn't seem like either of them score points with each other though, that's the other problem here.

SANGER: That's right.

CABRERA: And talking about the shutdown stalemate.

Thank you, everyone. Please stand by. More to discuss.

We will bring you the president's announcement about the government shutdown, live from the White House, when it happens. It is scheduled for 4:00. So that is about 45 minutes from now.

Meantime, President Trump also talking about North Korea today and a second summit with Kim Jong-Un. It's set for next month, he says. What can the president hope to gain this time? We go live to Asia next on CNN.


[15:21:37] CABRERA: President Trump says a second summit with North Korea's Kim Jong-Un is on and they have now picked a location. This from the president earlier today.


TRUMP: We had a very good meeting yesterday with North Korea. That was an incredible meeting. It lasted almost two hours. And we've agreed to meet sometime, probably the end of February. We've picked a country but we will be announcing it in the future. Kim Jong-Un is looking very forward to it, and so am I. We have made a lot of progress that has not been reported by the media but we made a lot of progress.


CABRERA: CNN's Will Ripley is in Beijing.

Will, President Trump not saying the location of this next summit yet, only that it has been chosen. We know the first meeting, the first summit was in Singapore. What are your sources telling you about where and why is the location important?

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNTIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Ana. There were three locations that sources were telling us were kind of being tossed around by the United States. Hawaii, I could rule that out almost completely. The North Koreans would not agree to that. Bangkok was thrown out as another possibility. But I'm being told the most likely scenario is Vietnam. The reason for that, it's close to North Korea and a relatively short trip for Kim Jong-Un. It has good relations with North Koreans and the Americans. And Vietnam is a country that fought a war with the United States and rose from the ashes and transformed its economy. A potential model for North Korea if they decide to open up their economy, which is something that Kim Jong-Un has stated he wants to do. We have to wait for the official announcement. It could be a surprise that nobody is considering but we're hearing likely Vietnam at this point.

CABRERA: Will, you covered that first U.S./North Korea summit in Singapore and you traveled back and forth over North Korea many times. I remember back, around the last summit, Kim promised to take steps to denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Has he done that?

RIPLEY: In the sense that he hasn't launch a missile in 2018. I was there when they blew up the nuclear test site. These are confidence- building measures on the part of the North Koreans, but nothing substantive in terms of reducing the size of the nuclear arsenal. Quite the opposite. Analysts are telling me U.S. intelligence, spy satellites have observed North Korea expanding missiles basis. I'm told that North Korea has likely more nuclear weapons today than they did at the beginning of the diplomatic process. But that's not necessarily going against any agreement that was signed in Singapore. The problem was that it was just so vague. And Kim Jong-Un walked away thinking that the U.S. was ready to ease sanctions almost immediately and President Trump walked away thinking North Korea was ready to start the process of shipping its nuclear weapons out of the country. That hasn't happened. The sanctions are still in place. North Korea still has all of its nuclear weapons. So the big sticking points and the reason talks have kind of fallen apart in the months since Singapore is the two sides have been so far apart about what they think denuclearization should look like and how long it should take.

So the big question we need to find out is, are these discussions between the U.S. and North Korea -- and there are lower-level meetings today in Sweden, in Stockholm -- are they willing to compromise. Is the U.S. perhaps considering lifting some sanctions as start of a step-by-step process? And is North Korea actually willing to take steps to reduce its arsenal? Those are unanswered questions.

President Trump alluding to the fact that they are making great progress behind the scenes. And if that's case, the second summit, whatever agreement they signed, could amount to something, as opposed to Singapore, which was a vaguely worded statement and no real action.

[15:25:11] CABRERA: You mentioned the meeting today in Sweden. There was the meeting yesterday, right here in the U.S., with the president talking to North Korea's former spy chief, who is now the North Korean envoy here. And we know he also met with Mike Pompeo. Everybody was all smile, thumbs up after the meeting. But you mentioned some of the sticking points. Do we know what was specifically discussed during that meeting? Do we know what each side wants?

RIPLEY: We don't have a readout of what Kim Yong-Chol talked about when he met less than an hour with Secretary Pompeo. He later had lunch with him after the Oval Office meeting, which stretched 90 minutes. Obviously, there was the issue of handing over a letter from Kim Jong-Un and finalizing the agreement that the two sides are willing to sit down for a second summit, which is something the North Koreans have been pushing for, because I'm being told they feel they can't work with anyone other than President Trump. They have been frustrated with members of the administration, including Secretary Pompeo and his negotiation strategy. Whereas, Trump and Kim apparently had such a great rapport, that the North Koreans feel Trump is going to be the one who can give them a deal that is favorable to them, something that they can accept. And so did they talk about the specifics of that deal in the Oval Office? President Trump not revealing much about that. I guess that is something that we will have to wait and see if he leaks more information out, including the location of the summit as well.

CABRERA: They fell in love, Kim Jong-Un and the president, according to President Trump.

Thank you, Will Ripley.

We will bring back Michael Shear and David Sanger, of the "New York Times," and CNN's Mark Preston.

David, we are officially heading into a second summit, it sounds like, but what have we gotten out of the first summit?

SANGER: We haven't gotten very much. As Will points out, there has been a cessation of testing of both missiles and nuclear tests for the past 13 months. That's good. We don't know very much about the destruction of their nuclear test site. When Secretary Pompeo went to North Korea in September, he emerged saying that Kim Jong-Un had agreed to allow in inspectors. That still hasn't happened. That gives you a sense of the challenge ahead, Ana, as they head into this next summit.

The president's got to get a few things done. First, he needs to go into this much better prepared than he did last time. Whereas, Will suggested there was an extremely vague agreement that didn't set out what was to be done and when.

Secondly, the North Koreans need to start the process by turning over an inventory of what they've got. How many weapons? How many missiles? The fuel that they've got. The president's got to get the North Koreans to freeze their

additional production of fuel and weapons. Otherwise, as Will suggested, the arsenal is increasing while you're negotiating.

And then, fourthly, they have to be on a hard schedule of who gives up what in what order. So far, they have been stuck because the North Koreans believe we start with sanctions relief and we believe that they start with weapons being turned over.

Clearly, there's going to have to be some very carefully orchestrated dance there.

CABRERA: Michael, what do you make of the timing of this summit and the president's announcement about it, because it doesn't seem like there's an imminent threat.

SHEAR: There's not an imminent threat. There's continued and very serious threat from North Korea, as David points out, and Will talked about. There really hasn't been a fundamental and substantive change in the amount of weapons that North Korea had. And the previous administration had identified North Korea and the North Korea threat as among the most serious in the world to the United States, so to that extent, that it is an ongoing threat.

But, look, I think you know, the layer that we haven't talked about yet is the politics and the optics of this. The president of the United States is facing a very difficult political period in the next few months that will, we think, involve all sorts of revelations out of the Mueller probe and continued fighting with the Democrats who are now in charge of the House. And so for him, if he can orchestrate another elaborate meeting like he did with Kim the first time, it at least makes him look presidential, puts him on the stage. And while the aftermath of that first summit didn't really accomplish much and there has been criticism, you know, he got the pictures that he wanted to get the last time around. And I think he feels like if he can get those pictures again, you know, him on the world stage in that kind of triumphant moment, that helps to distract from some of his other problems.

CABRERA: I'm going to turn to Syria.

And, Mark, I wonder, do you think the death of four Americans -- God rest their souls, bless them -- does it change the political calculation of pulling U.S. forces out of Syria, or at the very least, how the president talks about it?

[15:30:00] MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't think so. I mean, look, I think he made his decision and he's going to move forward on it. And he is not someone who is very careful with his words. I think we're all kind of numb to that at this point. But what is even more troubling, when you're talking about Syria and when you're talking about North Korea, and as we're talking about all of these really hot spots, you're talking about President Trump who has been very, very unreliable in that he hasn't been able to take a very traditional path. He's -- you don't know what he is going to say. You don't know what he is going to do. You don't know what his motives are. And when you see the likes of Jim Mattis, the defense secretary, leave because he said he -- his values don't necessarily measure up to the president's values, certainly strategy values, that is something that is very scary. So as we head into this difficult time, I think as Michael was laying out, there are some big obstacles that lay ahead outside of the borders of the United States that could be very terrifying.

ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: David, there have been a lot of Republicans, including Trump allies and supporters, who are really balking at this move to pull troops from Syria. And yet, you have some, like Senator Rand Paul, who are cheering it on. And he says these four deaths have nothing to do with the president's decision.

And I want you to listen to what he had to say today on CNN.


SEN. RAND PAUL, (R), KENTUCKY: To those who say, oh, they were killed because we're leaving, no, they're killed because we were there. And the longer we stay, the more of our soldiers will be killed.


CABRERA: There's a lot of political theater around all of this. But what do U.S. national security officials think, David?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: So the four deaths were a deep tragedy, particularly because these seem to be four people who were working extremely well with the Syrian people. They were in a cafe, actually, talking to some Syrians at the time the suicide bomber came in. But it has very little to do with the strategic question of whether or not we should be in Syria and whether or not having 2,000 forces there's enough to make a difference. Remember, we had 170,000 in Iraq. And it's arguable that we were able to change the course of that country by having them there for that long.

I think the central problem we run into with the Syria withdrawal is the president, whether you agree with his instinct to leave or not, did it in the worst possible way. He did it, according to Brett McGurk, the adviser for Syria, who also resigned, the State Department adviser, without considering the down sides of this, without checking with allies in advance, without consulting with his generals. He announced a timetable that was unrealistic. He gave the sense to ISIS that we were pulling out that quickly and emboldening them to come into places they might otherwise not of. So whether you agree with him or not, the process that he went about this basically made the situation vastly worse.

CABRERA: David Sanger, Michael Shear, Mark Preston, thank you all. Good to have you with us on this Saturday.

Held in Russia, a self-proclaimed sex coach, who claims inside knowledge of Russian election meddling, taken from a jail in Thailand and flown to Moscow where she says she is being detained. Is the Kremlin trying to keep her quiet? We're minutes away now from what President Trump is calling a major

announcement from the White House about the government shutdown and border security. Don't go anywhere.


[15:38:06] CABRERA: We have new tape just into us, moments ago, at the White House, President Trump and Vice President Pence holding a naturalization ceremony. Let's listen.




NIELSEN: Of whom or which.

OATHTAKERS: Of whom or which.

NIELSEN: I have, heretofore.

OATHTAKERS: I have, heretofore.

NIELSEN: Been a subject or citizen.

OATHTAKERS: Been a subject or citizen.

NEILSEN: That I will support and defend.

OATHTAKERS: That I will support and defend.

NEILSEN: The Constitution and laws of the United States of America.

OATHTAKERS: The Constitution and laws of the United States of America.

NEILSEN: Against all enemies.

OATHTAKERS: Against all enemies.

NEILSEN: Foreign and domestic.

OATHTAKERS: Foreign and domestic.

NEILSEN: And that I will bear true faith.

OATHTAKERS: And that I will bear true faith.

NEILSEN: And allegiance to the same.

OATHTAKERS: And allegiance to the same.

NEILSEN: That I will bear arms.

OATHTAKERS: That I will bear arms. NEILSEN: On behalf of the United States.

OATHTAKERS: On behalf of the United States.

NEILSEN: When required by the law.

OATHTAKERS: When required by the law.

NEILSEN: That I will perform.

OATHTAKERS: That I will perform.

NEILSEN: Noncombatant service.

OATHTAKERS: Noncombatant service.

NEILSEN: In the armed forces of the United States.

OATHTAKERS: In the armed forces of the United States.

NEILSEN: When required by the law.

OATHTAKERS: When required by the law.

NEILSEN: That I will perform work.

OATHTAKERS: That I will perform work.

NEILSEN: Of national importance.

OATHTAKERS: Of national importance.

NEILSEN: Under civilian direction.

OATHTAKERS: Under civilian direction.

NEILSEN: When required by the law.

OATHTAKERS: When required by the law.

NEILSEN: And that I take this obligation freely.

OATHTAKERS: And that I take this obligation freely.

NEILSEN: Without any mental reservation.

OATHTAKERS: Without any mental reservation.

NEILSEN: Or purpose of evasion.

OATHTAKERS: Or purpose of evasion.

NEILSEN: So help me, God.

OATHTAKERS: So help me, God.

NEILSEN: All right. It is my privilege now to be the first to call you my fellow Americans.


[15:40:06] NEILSEN: Upon taking the oath of allegiance, you have joined a nation of citizens, both naturalized and native born, who are united by a belief in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of our great nation. As you start your lives as United States citizens, I ask that you serve and contribute to your country as you fully meet your responsibilities and exercise your rights guaranteed to you as a citizen of the United States of America.

I congratulate you on this milestone and welcome you as fellow citizens of this great country.

It is now my pleasure to introduce to you the 45th president of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I would like to begin by saying that, to the best of our knowledge, it goes back a long way, this is the first such swearing in that we've ever had in the great Oval Office. So that's a pretty big thing right there. They might find something back 100 years ago, I don't know. But we looked and we couldn't find it.

So, please sit down. Please.

Secretary Nielsen, thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

And I am truly thrilled to welcome the five newest members of our great American family -- that's what you are, American family. Thank you.


TRUMP: You are now officially United States citizens. You have just earned the most prized possession anywhere in the world. We know that. There's no higher honor or greater privilege than becoming an American citizen. Our whole nation embraces you with open arms and joyful hearts. And I know that you will treasure this day forever. It's my honor to be with you. I will say that.

Each of you worked hard for this moment. You followed the rules, upheld our laws, and contributed to the strength and success and vitality of our nation. Now each of you stands here today before your proud and beam can families -- looks at those families -- in the Oval Office in the White House. Very special place. I look and sometimes I look and I say, wow, this is it, the Oval Office.

So congratulations.

I would like to share a few brief words about each of our new citizens.

Esterbrook Adele al-Sayad (ph) came with her husband to the United States.

Please. That is a good idea. I wasn't going to do that but I like that.


TRUMP: That's very nice.

With her husband to the United States from Iraq in 2013. She is the proud mother of two children and is expecting a third. Since coming to America, she has become a teacher's assistant in our public schools, doing a fantastic job, I might add, preparing the next generation of young Americans to make the most of this magnificent country that she, too, now enjoys.

And I just want to congratulate you, Esterbrook (ph). Thank you. Congratulations.


TRUMP: Matthew Hemsley is from the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Matthew.

He is an Anglican pastor who came to the United States in 2006 and entered a master's degree Gordon-Conwell Seminary in North Carolina. Fine place. His grandmother was an American citizen whose ancestors first came to North America in 1637 -- that means you beat us --


TRUMP: -- as part of the Plymouth Colony. Now, the Hemsley family history of the United States is renewed and the next chapter of their American story begins.

Matthew, it is an honor. Great luck.


TRUMP: Joryka Anjoy (ph), from South Korea and came to the United States in 1992 to pursue a master's degree. She earned a PhD from the University of Maryland and is now a professor at Azusa Pacific University. Her husband teaches statistics at George Mason. And it is a great school, too, by the way. And they are proud parents of two sons.

I want to congratulate you. And you're going to have a good time, a great time. Thank you very much. We really appreciate it.




TRUMP: Robert Castle is from Jamaica. And he immigrated to the United States in 2009 as the husband of a then-active duty servicemember of the United States Army. Robert is a warehouse supervisor. A strong guy, a smart guy. And they have a beautiful 4- year-old son, who was born here, in the United States.

Robert, congratulations. Thank you.


[15:45:14] TRUMP: Marcell Ramos Ramirez (ph) is from Bolivia, and has a beautiful, lawful, permanent resident of the United States, and has been since 2013. He is the co-owner of a staffing company with his son, Marciel (ph). The business is thriving and he it is doing very well and it's expanding in all different ways. And he says, "I know that in the United States, you can achieve anything that you want, and I am a perfect example." In other words, he is making a lot of money.


TRUMP: Marcell, thank you very much.


CABRERA: You've been listening in there to the president speaking at a naturalization ceremony inside the White House today, welcoming some members from South Korea, Japan, and Bolivia to the United States. They are now American citizens.

The irony here is that it comes on a day in which the president is set to address the nation about the government shutdown on the very issue of immigration. Those remarks coming at the top of the hour. A new plan, he says, to hopefully get the government reopened and start the negotiation with lawmakers.

Now, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand today is in Iowa making the rounds after forming a presidential exploratory committee for a possible 2020 run. Here she is.


SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, (D), NEW YORK: We, the people, have to take back this democracy. We, the people, have to fight for it. And if you're unwilling to fight for it, you will get what you got. And what you have today is not good enough.


CABRERA: The New York Senator has been a leading Capitol Hill voice on women's rights and the "Me Too" movement. But her stance on immigration issues over the past decade has changed, and that could become one of the central questions about the strength of her possible candidacy against President Trump.

Let's turn to CNN's Athena Jones, in Des Moines, Iowa, this afternoon.

And, Athena, what more did Senator Gillibrand had to say to the crowds gathered for the women's march.

ATHENA JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Ana. She certainly seemed to be in her element. Senator Gillibrand has made women and issues of importance to women and families central to the campaign. But she did address the controversy surrounding the national women's march, saying there's no room for anti-Semitism in our movement and injustice against one of us is an injustice against all of us.

And separately, she talked about the importance of making sure that women are represented, the importance that making sure more women are elected to political office. Listen to what she said about that.


GILLIBRAND: The truth is, if we change who is at the decision-making table, we would change everything.



GILLIBRAND: President Trump has chosen to divide this country, to spew hate, to divide us across every line, every racial line, every religious line, every cultural line that he can find.


JONES: She went on to say now is the time to reclaim our power. It is going to be a long battle, but we shouldn't lose heart.

Right now, she is on a walking tour. She made several stops in this area of Des Moines, just a little ways from the capitol. She's about a block away right now, at a store talking to voters. She went to a coffee shop and met with almost everyone who wasn't a journalist in that coffee shop talking about their views and issues important to them. So this is her first swing and she's kicking it off with a lot of different events in Iowa -- Ana?

CABRERA: Athena, immigration, that issue front and center today. How exactly has Gillibrand shifted when it comes to immigration?

JONES: Well, she's shifted a good deal. She explains this as, you know, she first ran for Congress in 2006, representing a 98 percent white, mostly rural district, a more conservative district, and she uses that to explain her changing stances later on, on issues of immigration and guns. Later, when she was representing the home state of New York, her views on migration modified.

But it is important to remind folks, in 2007, that she told an interviewer you have to close the borders to begin to right-size immigration. She was for denying driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. She was for making English the official language. And she voted repeatedly to give more money to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.

Of course, now she believes in abolishing ICE and splitting up the duties of ICE. So she certainly shifted. But she explains she got to meet more immigrant families concerned about deportation and immigrant rights. And her own spokesperson says, look, it is hard to admit when people are wrong, the Senator has, and she is for immigration reform, and she certainly modified those views as she looks to possibly run for president -- Ana?

[15:49:58] Athena Jones, in Des Moines, Iowa, for us, thank you.

Any moment, President Trump set to bring announce a proposal to end the government shutdown. We will bring you President Trump's announcement about the border wall live from the White House as soon as it happens. Again, expected in a few minutes.


CABRERA: Tomorrow night, the CNN original series, "AMERICAN STYLE," continues its journey through the decades with a look at the 1980s.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The '80s have this extravagance, this excessiveness. Everyone wanted to be shiny and wear sequins and have big hair and excessive make-up.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jewelry was big. Earrings were big. The bigger the hair, the smaller the hips look.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Volume was in, with the big puffy sleeves and the big poof skirts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The shoulder pads were bigger than the New York Giants shoulder pads, with the nipped-in waist.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was about things being over-scaled. And it was vulgar in a way.

[15:55:06] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As someone who suffered through the 1980s, we've really lost our way from a style perspective.


CABRERA: Tune into "AMERICAN STYLE" tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN.

Coming up, on our breaking news. President Trump is about to put a new offer on the table to end the government shutdown and get funding for a border wall. We're moments away from his announcement, live, from the White House.


[16:00:00] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

CABRERA: You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Ana Cabrera, in New York. Thank you for being here.

Breaking news, we're about to see President Trump put the "Art of the Deal" to the test --