Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Judge Orders Trump Administration to Preserve Chat Massages on Yemen Strikes; Interview with Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY); Attorney General Pam Downplays Signal Chat on Yemen Strikes :"This was Not Classified Information". Tufts University Student Detained By ICE Agents In Dramatic Video; Rare, Defiant Protests In Gaza Demanding End Of War, Hamas Rule; "MAGA Junkie" Regrets Trump Vote After DOGE Cuts In West Virginia. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired March 27, 2025 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Bezos is living his life.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: He is living --

BURNETT: He is living his life. And yet his favorability numbers are impacted.

ENTEN: This was a real shocker to me, which is, you know, Elon Musk, we've seen his net favorability tank as he has aligned himself next to Trump. But he's actually more popular than Jeff Bezos is. Look at the net favorable ratings here. Elon Musk is 21 points underwater but Jeff Bezos takes the cake. He is 26 points underwater, Jeff Bezos not a well-liked guy.

BURNETT: So, really, that is -- okay, that is something to think about.

ENTEN: Yes.

BURNETT: So, I guess we're going to leave it there. I like to leave it on something to think about.

ENTEN: Think about it, Erin.

BURNETT: All right, thank you.

ENTEN: Thank you.

BURNETT: And, it's time for Anderson.

[20:00:37]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Tonight on 360, breaking news. A federal judge rules those Signal chat messages with attack plans have to be preserved, but the Attorney General says there will be no investigation.

Plus, what looked like a mugging caught on camera, but it's a graduate student being arrested by masked immigration officers in a Boston suburb. The latest on the woman snatched off the street.

And later, a stunning protest in Gaza. Palestinians marching against Hamas in a place where that used to be unthinkable.

Good evening. We begin with breaking news about the Trump administration's alarming breach of National Security and the continued questions over what, if anything, will be done about it. Some answers tonight, not from the White House, but from the Judiciary.

A federal judge ruled late today that the signal messages seen here in screengrabs, provided by Jeffrey Goldberg of "The Atlantic" magazine and animated by CNN, have to be preserved. Ordering key departments and agencies to keep messages sent between March 11th and March 15th, the day the U.S. attack on Yemen was launched.

Now, the ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by a watchdog group accusing the administration of violating the Federal Records Act. The lawsuit asked the court to, "Prevent the unlawful destruction of federal records and to compel defendants to fulfill their legal obligations to preserve and recover federal records created through unauthorized use of Signal for sensitive National Security decision making."

Now, the judge assigned to this case is Federal Judge James Boasberg, who happens to be the same one presiding over the case involving the Trump administration's use of the Alien Invasion Act to deport migrants to that draconian prison in El Salvador.

Now, just before air, Attorney General Pam Bondi was asked about the case and the judge.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: He has multiple cases. I guess it's a wild coincidence against Donald Trump and our administration. And now he has the Signal case. He shouldn't be on any of these cases. He cannot be objective. He's made that crystal clear. These judges are taking personal attacks too it at many of the Cabinet Secretaries and these judges across the country, and again, they think they have authority. But it's going to be short lived because these cases are going to get to the Supreme Court very fast.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Now, today, the Justice Department said the administration is already working to track down and preserve the Signal text from that period.

Now, let's be clear, under normal circumstances, in any other administration, Republican or Democratic, the Attorney General is supposed to be independent, would launch an investigation into the handling of classified material, as was done regarding Hillary Clinton and President Biden, but this Attorney General made it very clear today she sees her role and the role of the Department of Justice very differently. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: In terms of the Signal's chat controversy that's going on. Is DOJ involved at this point? If so, why? If not, why not?

BONDI: Well, first, it was sensitive information, not classified and inadvertently released. And what we should be talking about is it was a very successful mission.

Our world is now safer because of that mission. We're not going to comment any further on that.

If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was at Hillary Clinton's home that she was trying to Bleach Bit, talk about the classified documents in Joe Biden's garage that Hunter Biden had access to. This was not classified information.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Now, you might think, all right, that sounds like something we'd hear from a strong supporter of the President, maybe the administrations spokesperson, a member of Congress, a pundit on TV bringing in Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, it's like singing and sweating to the oldies.

But Pam Bondi is now the Attorney General of the United States, and past Attorney Generals have launched investigations involving Presidents or other members of their administration. That's how the rule of law works or supposed to work.

As for the details of what she said, I mean, there's a lot to unpack. First off, the question over classified information, four people familiar with the matter told CNN that the information Hegseth disclosed was classified. One of the people said they saw documents sent within the Department of Defense about the operation, which were marked, classified and included the same information Hegseth disclosed in the Signal chat about specific weapons, platforms and timing.

Now, secondly, the pivot to Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. It's like ninth grade debate tactic and in this case, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden's mishandling of classified information were investigated by the FBI and the Department of Justice. And in the case of President Biden, by a special counsel who was originally appointed to be the U.S. Attorney of Maryland by President Trump.

Neither Clinton nor Biden were charged with a crime. And while you can disagree with the outcome of either or both, plenty of serious legal minds have, you can't claim the Justice Department under President Obama and the case of Hillary Clinton or the Justice Department under President Biden during his documents case, didn't look further into these issues.

But that's apparently what is happening now, at least so far with the Justice Department under President Trump.

[20:05:30] Now, meantime, on Capitol Hill, there are a small but growing number of Republican Senators asking for accountability. Very small. Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker cosigned a letter with his Democratic, I should point out counterpart, Senator Jack Reed requesting an Inspector General's investigation that read in part: "If true, this reporting raises questions as to the use of unclassified networks to discuss sensitive and classified information, as well as the sharing of such information with those who do not have proper clearance and need to know."

Now, to be clear, for now, Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker's opinion on this is the minority in his own party, even amongst other Republican senators on the Armed Services Committee, this is Republican Senator Eric Schmitt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ERIC SCHMITT (R-MO): Clearly, the journalists shouldn't have been added to the Signal chat. I'm not saying that, but let's put it in the context, right. The plan was executed. These were broad ranging policy discussions. The journalist probably should have come forward and said, hey, I'm on this chat that I shouldn't be on, but whatever. But yes, that was clearly a mistake. But to turn it into all of this, sorry, I just think is honestly, again, a way of gaslighting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: More now from our chief White House correspondent, Kaitlan Collins, who anchors "The Source" at the next hour. How do officials on the West Wing think this is going for them so far?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, we're now on day four of this being the driving story of what's happening here at the White House, and had certainly hoped that it would disappear from the headlines, or at least the front pages by now. And clearly that it has not, not just because of the reaction that were hearing from other Republicans on Capitol Hill, unlike Senator Eric Schmitt we've heard from Senator Roger Wicker and others saying that they do have questions and concerns about the investigations into this and these practices being changed going forward.

But also, the White House, you know, now with the courts being involved in this and Judge Boasberg ruling that these officials do have to preserve all of these messages that were exchanged from March 11th to march 15th is just keeping this in the headlines even longer now. And that is something that the White House was hoping would go away.

Now, to be clear, with the judge's finding tonight, he's not saying that there's anything wrong. He hasn't found any kind of violation that the administration has committed. But what he is saying is that he wants to make sure these messages don't go away, because the problem with Signal messages and for people who don't use Signal, is the messages disappear. And so, the judge is essentially moving to preserve those, to make sure that all of those messages as part of this complaint can still be found and used, and that they can't simply say that they've disappeared or gone away. He made that quip tonight in court, saying, "I'll put all of this in my written order so you can understand it as well," because Judge Boasberg has been at the center of the fight that this administration has been going over when it comes to using that wartime statute to deport alleged gang members.

And it was, of course, his verbal order that they believed that the critics said that the White House ignored, that the judge is still very much looking into. And so he later wrote it down, of course, but he was saying that this is an order from me. I will write this all down.

And that's the other aspect of this. It's that -- this is the judge who is going to be handling this lawsuit when he was assigned it yesterday, which I should note was random. I was talking to White House officials who kind of rolled their eyes at the idea that Judge Boasberg would be the one handling this, because Trump has been calling for him to be impeached even before this ruling today from him, this order saying to preserve these records, Trump was writing on Truth Social and blasting him, and now he's going to be the one handling the fate here as well.

It was random, there's not that many judges in Washington. And so, certainly just luck or maybe not luck as the administration views it that Judge Boasberg will be making the determination here going forward.

COOPER: Kaitlan Collins, thanks very much. We'll see you at the top of the hour. Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman, who sits on the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees, wrote a letter with four of his colleagues to Attorney General Bondi asking her to appoint an Independent Special Counsel to investigate the Signal group chat. I spoke to Congressman Goldman shortly before airtime.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: So, congressman, the attorney general is indicating there will not be a justice department investigation to the group chat. The Republican Chairman and Democratic ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They've requested an investigation by the Pentagon's acting inspector general. Do you think that's likely to happen?

REP. DANIEL GOLDMAN (D-NY): Probably not, to some extent, I suppose that that Inspector General could, in theory, start an investigation. But the fact is, Donald Trump fired the Inspector General of the Department of Defense just for this reason, which is so that there is no accountability for his unqualified political appointees who he had to know we're going to make significant mistakes.

And the fact that Pam Bondi is not going to investigate what so clearly warrants an investigation, just goes to show how much she is actually politicizing the Department of Justice, despite her promises, repeatedly at her confirmation hearing that she would not do that.

The only reason an Attorney General would not start an investigation into this is because of political favor and partisan reasons, and that is clear that it is driving Pam Bondi.

[20:10:33]

COOPER: Yes, I mean, in any recent administration, the Department of Justice would investigate this. I mean, Republicans or Democrats, it would be investigated. At the very least, it is incredible, not surprising, but incredible that the Attorney General, Pam Bondi --

GOLDMAN: Right, and --

COOPER: -- is not going to do this and told reporters that they should be talking about Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden's handling of classified information, both of whom were investigated and reported on, and no charges were ever filed.

GOLDMAN: Exactly. There weren't investigations, ultimately, and James Comey made it very clear it was reckless, but it was not criminal after an extensive, exhaustive investigation.

Joe Biden, his own attorney general appointed a Special Counsel to investigate his boss, the President of the United States, who sat for a five-hour interview with the Special Counsel.

So, you're trying to tell me that we should be focused on these past investigations instead of the fact that you won't even initiate an investigation into what is far more egregious behavior, I should add.

COOPER: Does it surprise you how tough it's been for the White House to get its stories straight about what happened? I mean, the President and National Security adviser, at one point were giving conflicting explanations of how Jeffrey Goldberg was involved in that discussion. The President was saying it was a staffer and then Waltz said, no, it wasn't a staffer that that he put Goldberg had done something nefarious. And then I just want to show you what he said on Laura Ingraham. This -- I -- let's just show this.

MICHAEL WALTZ, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I'm sure everybody out there has had a contact where it was, said one person, and then a different phone number.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST, "THE INGRAHAM ANGLE": But you've never talked to him before. So, how's the number on your phone? I mean, I'm not an expert on any of this, but it's just curious -- how is the number on your phone?

WALTZ: Well, if you have somebody else's contact and then somehow it sucked in --

INGRAHAM: How would someone send you that contact?

COOPER: I mean, do you have any idea what he's talking about? Have you ever had a phone number sucked in to something? I don't understand what he means.

GOLDMAN: Well, I can guarantee this. I've never had a random phone number that I didn't know who it belonged to. And put it on a Signal chat with the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, CIA director, chief- of-staff -- the list goes on. It is absolutely preposterous

But what it goes to show you, Anderson, is when you are lying, you can't keep a story straight; if you're telling the truth, then the truth is the truth and everyone is on the same page.

COOPER: So does all this just fade away? I mean, no FBI investigation, no Department of Justice investigation? Probably not, Inspector General is involved. Does it just get forgotten?

GOLDMAN: No, it certainly will not be forgotten. Because I guarantee you that we will be raising it every single day and every single witness that comes before Congress who has anything to do with anyone close to this will be asked all about it. We will not let this go. Secretary Hegseth needs to resign immediately. He is unqualified. He is incompetent and he is endangering American soldiers and our National Security.

He can no longer lead a department where he doesn't follow the law, and he doesn't even follow the rules of his own department. How can he ask all of the other employees of that department that they -- to do the -- follow the law and their own internal rules, if he can't do it himself?

And we will keep banging this drum because it is completely unacceptable. Not only that it happened, but the absurd effort to cover it up and the lack of an acceptance of responsibility and a recognition that it was wrong and that it was dangerous and that it will not happen again.

COOPER: Congressman Dan Goldman, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

GOLDMAN: Thank you. Anderson.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Joining me now is former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, our senior law enforcement analyst. Andrew, I mean, given your experience in the FBI, in the Department of Justice, have you ever heard an Attorney General speak like Pam Bondi speaks? I mean, it sounds very much like a pundit on T.V., a spokesperson for the administration.

[20:15:04]

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST. Yes, I've never seen anything like this before, Anderson. She speaks, as if she's a lawyer or a political operative representing a campaign. The attorneys general that I worked under and some of whom I worked very closely with, and there are many. Each one of them, I didn't always agree with the things that they decided or the directions they decided to take the department.

But I can say honestly that every one of them at least tried to uphold the appearance that they were -- that they maintained some independence from the White House and that if presented with facts that that demanded an investigation, that they would embark upon that investigation and they would put that in the hands of capable FBI agents and leaders to ensure that we uncovered the facts and applied them to the law and the correct way. And where that ends up, you know, who knows? The facts of each situation are different.

But yes, Miss Bondi doesn't seem to be even remotely interested in doing anything other than toting the Trump line.

COOPER: She said about the contents of the Signal chat. And I quote, "It was sensitive information, not classified, and inadvertently released." I'm not an attorney. I didn't go to law school. I'm probably not smart enough to go to law school, but are those conclusions she could plausibly reach without actually any kind of investigation? And the fact that the information was released inadvertently, how would that affect, you know, whether it was a crime -- whether a crime was committed?

MCCABE: Well, for a guy who didn't go to law school, you sure are asking the appropriate questions. How could she possibly know that this was inadvertent? Having done no inquiry, no investigation whatsoever. How could she possibly know that this information was not classified, which basically anyone who's had the most rudimentary training about how to handle classified information could read these texts and tell you, yes, this is clearly classified material.

You know, there's -- the investigation that needs to be done here. It requires technical competence. It requires -- the first thing you would do is grab each one of those phones and analyze the data on those phones to understand if there are -- if there have been any attempts to invade or to kind of break into those phones by hostile actors, cyber actors, cyber threats, who knows?

You would also want to see how often this group was convened for these sorts of conversations, because that would go to this question of whether or not it was inadvertent. You'd have all kinds of good questions to ask -- each one of the members of this texting group. And the goal might not ever be to charge someone criminally. But let's remember that the FBI has an obligation to investigate when there is a possibility of a threat to National Security.

There is absolutely that possibility here now that we know the highest level of the Cabinet in our military and intelligence community are discussing classified matters on an off-the-shelf messaging application that is not protected by the many systems that we provide to government leaders to conduct classified communications.

COOPER: And one of them was in Russia at the time. The other Tulsi Gabbard was in, Southeast Asia.

MCCABE: Yes, I mean, and both of them travel with communicators and security specialists who bring these systems with them, who make them available to them. There's no class of people in government that has the same level of access and ease of access to these classified systems as the 18 people on this text group, but nevertheless, they chose to ignore all that.

COOPER: Andrew McCabe, thanks very much.

Coming up, more on whether there should be, at the very least, an investigation into Defense Secretary Hegseth's decision to announce attack plans on that Signal chat, the President, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, joins me ahead.

And new comments from Secretary of State Marco Rubio about the tough student arrested by law enforcement on the street, a scene not usually associated with American justice.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:23:44]

COOPER: During Attorney General Bondi's remarks on Fox a short time ago, she made this rather declarative statement about the safety of that attack information discussed on the Signal chat app.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think Signal is a very safe way to communicate. I don't think foreign adversaries are able to hack Signal as far as I know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Some National Security sources say there's potential for a foreign adversary to hack a Signal chat and other potential ways an adversary to overcome Signal's encryption would be a phishing attack directed at the person's phone that may compromise the phone, allowing messages to be read. There's also the question of whether any or all of these officials were using personal cell phones or government issued ones.

Joining me now is John Bolton, who previously served as National Security Adviser in the first Trump term and as un ambassador in the George W. Bush administration.

Ambassador, first of all, what is your reaction to Pam Bondi saying she doesn't think Signal can be hacked by foreign intelligence services, and there's no point in any investigation?

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, there's a lot of ignorance going around here. You know, the Department of Defense itself issued a circular not too far back saying Signal could be compromised. Who owns Signal? Who has access to it? Who's overseeing the network? Who has backdoors to it? Who knows?

I just think this idea that some commercial product, could -- anybody could deem it, the equivalent of the secure telecommunications facilities the U.S. government has spent billions of dollars over decades developing as sort of an okay thing.

That's just a huge mistake and, you know, there's another point -- some of the members of the group have made that Signal was on their computers when they arrived. Put there, I suppose, by the Biden administration. I don't know the background, but it's a mistake to think that something like that is an acceptable substitute for going to the secure communications line.

[20:25:38]

So, this is a deadly mistake. And one question is, how many other Signal group chats were there? We know about this one by sheer happenstance. Is this their first rodeo?

COOPER: Well, also --

BOLTON: -- or they've been doing that for the past two months?

COOPER: I mean, from what Goldberg released, nobody is saying, hey, why are we on Signal or wow, this is the first time were doing this, or wow, I'm surprised were doing this on Signal or is this a good idea? It seems like this is something they had done before. They were all used to in -- when you were in the administration in the first term. I mean, did you get on Signal groups like this?

BOLTON: No, I didn't -- I rarely send e-mails, frankly, even classified e-mails. The place for a group chat is in the Situation Room and the argument, you know, people are busy or they're traveling -- too busy for war? You've got something else a higher priority?

Every one of those people with, with some exceptions like Steve Witkoff, God knows what he was doing in that group. Every one of those people, 24/7 has secure telecommunications within an arms' reach -- at home, in their office, in their cars, where they're -- every one of them has protection of one kind or another.

So, there's simply no excuse for a Signal chat, in my view. And there's no excuse for what Pete Hegseth said that he was keeping people informed. The only other person on that group who really had a need to know the kinds of details that we saw in those texts was Waltz, because he might need to tell the President something.

Everybody else on that group could learn about the operation after it was over.

COOPER: If you're an intelligence official in Russia or China or Iran this week, how pleased are you to learn that the top American National Security officials have been using a commercially available texting app, probably on their own phones?

BOLTON: Unfortunately, they probably know by now. They probably knew long before tonight or before --

COOPER: Before we did. BOLTON: -- this story came out. Because, yes, because obviously, it's not just the Signal app itself. It's the phones, computers and other devices that are not on the government's classified network that these people may get into.

That's why when you when you fly overseas frequently, you leave your phones and your computers on the military airplane that you're flying, and you get a burner phone and a one-time computer, or you just don't take a laptop in at all until you get to a secure place in an embassy or something like that. That's just basic.

COOPER: Do you think part of this is not wanting there to be records? I mean, I know there was disappearing messages set on this. I think it was changed from one week to four weeks at some point in the in the conversation, according to the Goldberg transcripts. Do you think that's part of this, or do you think it's more sort of ease, convenience?

BOLTON: Look, I don't understand it at all. I'm not trying to preach about these people. My mind never gets to the to the level of understanding why this got started at all, or why somebody on that group, like the Director of National intelligence, the Director of the CIA, the keepers of the secrets didn't say, isn't it time to go to the high side?

COOPER: These are people who should have known better. I mean, you have the head of the CIA. The DNI is on this.

BOLTON: Right, and the daddy of all there, the most senior official is the Vice President of the United States. Think of the signal this sends to, no pun intended, to everybody in the Intelligence community, The Military, the State Department -- That really, 99.9 percent of them bust their chops to protect sensitive information. And when they see their superiors using Signal, for God's sakes, what kind of message does it send to them?

COOPER: Ambassador Bolton, I really appreciate your time. Thank you.

BOLTON: Thank you.

COOPER: Coming up next, a woman from turkey, a PhD student at Tufts University, suddenly stopped and taken off the streets near Boston. According to her attorney, she's now locked up in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Louisiana without charges. We'll have more on that.

And later, an unprecedented show of dissent in Gaza. Protests against Hamas. We'll show you what happened.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:34:32]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: A Turkish graduate student attending Tufts University, Rumeysa Ozturk, has become the latest international student to have a visa revoked by the Trump administration for alleged activities related to terrorist organizations. Ozturk was detained by immigration officers on Tuesday evening close to her apartment in Somerville, Massachusetts. She's not been charged with a crime.

I want to play a surveillance video of you -- for you of the encounter. You can hear her as plainclothes officers wearing masks approach her, identify themselves as police. One officer grabs her arms to restrain her.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

(INAUDIBLE)

(END VIDEOCLIP)

[20:35:22]

COOPER: Now, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Trump administration may have revoked more than 300 visas, citing an obscure immigration law. It comes amid a larger crackdown of people who participate in protests against the Israel-Hamas war. Rubio confirmed today that includes Ozturk.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATES: Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're saying it could be more than 300 visas?

RUBIO: Sure, I -- I mean, at some point I hope we run out because we've gotten rid of all of them. Why would any country in the world allow people to come and disrupt? We gave you a visa to come and study and get a degree, not to become a social activist that tears up our university campuses. And if we've given you a visa and then you decide to do that, we're going to take it away.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

COOPER: There's no publicly available evidence that Ozturk tore up the university or committed acts of vandalism. In March of 2024, she co- wrote an op-ed in her school's newspaper criticizing the university's response to the pro-Palestinian movement.

According to reports, she wasn't herself a leader in the protest movement on her campus. Ozturk attorneys say she's currently being held at an ICE facility in Louisiana. Now, on Tuesday, a Boston district court judge ruled she was not to be moved out of the state without advance notice. The timing of whether the order came down before or after Ozturk was moved remains unclear.

Joining me now is Amy Spitalnick, CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and a Tufts alumnus, and CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor.

Elie, I mean, obviously the video is disturbing. It's got a lot of pickup. What do you make of how she was taken into custody, the case against her?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So the first thing we have to say when we're talking about this is we don't actually know because this is not a criminal case. So we don't have an indictment, which typically would lay out the charges. All we have is statements like the one we just saw from Secretary Rubio.

It seems like the law that Secretary Rubio is invoking is this thing called the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which gives the secretary of state very broad discretion to determine. And the question is, can he do this on his own or do the courts have to get involved?

But to determine that a person is a potential national security threat, not a citizen, and this person was a visa card holder. So it is -- the big question that's going to play out in the courts is, is this up to the secretary of state unilaterally to make this decision or can it be challenged in a court? And can a court review that decision?

COOPER: Now, Amy, you're a Jewish-American activist. You're squarely in the fight against anti-Semitism. You have concerns about this case.

AMY SPITALNICK, CEO, JEWISH COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Absolutely. Look, multiple things are true at the same time. Of course, anti- Semitism is real. It's real on college campuses. It's real at Tufts. But that doesn't --

COOPER: You have a history with Tufts.

SPITALNICK: I do. I was a student, Hillel president when I was there a number of years ago at this point. And I'm currently on the board of directors of the Hillel at the university. And it's a school with a large Jewish population.

Of course, anti-Semitism exists on a number of college campuses, including at Tufts. That doesn't give the administration an excuse to exploit our community's legitimate fears and concerns about anti- Semitism to undermine the rule of law, due process, civil liberties, and our fundamental democratic norms. Yet that's exactly what we're seeing here.

And the ways in which the administration is exploiting these concerns, using it as this excuse, are not just going to target the students who are directly impacted, the seemingly 300 plus students who have already had their visas revoked.

Ultimately, by undermining our democratic norms and the cores of our institutions and democracy, it's going to fundamentally make Jews and every other community less safe. We know the Jewish community is safest in inclusive democracy.

COOPER: You're saying if you start to sort of look the other way, when some people's rights in this country, whether they've done something wrong or not, we don't know. But when some people's basic rights are violated, it ultimately comes back. It's a slippery slope. SPITALNICK: Exactly. And we've seen that time and time again. Three weeks ago was the Mahmoud Khalil arrest at Columbia. At the time, that was seemingly the first. We've now seen what appears to be, again, over 300 cases, some of which were higher profile like this, in which, again, it doesn't start and stop with one Palestinian activist on one college campus.

COOPER: And we don't know -- I mean, Elie, we don't know who's made allegations. We don't know what the allegations are. The --

HONIG: These immigration cases largely play out in a black box. They are not like criminal cases where you have to present all your evidence in court. And to Amy's point, the argument that I think you're going to see from the lawyers representing these people is that their First Amendment rights have been violated.

If they are being targeted for simply for things they've said, as objectionable as they might be, then that would typically violate the First Amendment. Now, a non-citizen doesn't get exactly the same First Amendment protections as a citizen, but you still get some.

You don't lose your First Amendment rights altogether. So the difference there is going to be between, is this just based on their statements or is this based on something more, some specific conduct.

[20:40:09]

COOPER: And what about the -- like, are law enforcement masked normally?

HONIG: That was -- that is bizarre.

COOPER: I mean, maybe they're very COVID sensitive. I mean, what?

HONIG: I mean, I did a triple take when I saw that. Look, I've worked with every federal agency, including ICE and DHS, FBI, you name it, on hundreds and hundreds of arrests over the years, other than during COVID, other than in 2020.

The agents don't wear masks. Part of that is you need to -- you want people to see your face. You have to explain who you are. There's also a safety concern, by the way. If a Somerville, Massachusetts police officer saw that scene, they might not know that those are cops too. So it's actually dangerous.

And the statement that John Miller got from DHS about why it was done that way was ridiculous. They said, well, we don't want these agents to be targeted. I mean, I've seen agents arrest gangsters and terrorists. They don't wear masks.

COOPER: I mean, do you think this actually does anything to combat anti-Semitism?

SPITALNICK: No. Look, if this administration were serious about combating anti-Semitism, there's so many things they could do. One, they wouldn't appoint people to the administration who espouse neo- Nazi conspiracy theories or beliefs like the new DOD press secretary or Elon Musk and his salute.

They wouldn't gut the Department of Education and the Office of Civil Rights, which is the office specifically responsible for protecting Jewish and all students on campus. They wouldn't pardon anti-Semitic January 6th insurrectionists.

They wouldn't advance policies that have, for example, led to the banning of Holocaust Remembrance Day commemorations at federal agencies. There's a litany of things this administration could do if they were serious about combating anti-Semitism. But what we're seeing them do here is exploiting our community's real concerns to undermine our democracy.

COOPER: Amy Spitalnick, thanks very much. Elie Honig as well, thank you.

Next, we'll take you inside the rare and bold protest against Hamas in the streets of northern Gaza, where just years ago, something like this would have been really unthinkable.

Later, why a once MAGA supporter now regrets supporting President Trump's re-election. We'll tell you why ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:46:39]

COOPER: Unprecedented and defiant protests in Gaza challenging Hamas's authority. For the last few days, hundreds of people have marched through several towns demanding the end of Hamas's rule and the end of the war with Israel. The protests come as Israeli airstrikes in Gaza continued this week with no sign of a renewed ceasefire.

Hamas says the protests, quote, "do not reflect the general national position". But this sort of public protests against Hamas is extraordinarily rare. And I want to show you one reason why it's hard to watch.

I was reporting from Gaza in 2012 during another conflict between Israel and Hamas and witnessed myself how Hamas dealt with alleged opponents and others took video of this. This is a screenshot from a longer video we're about to show you. It shows you the body of a man being dragged through the streets of Gaza by men on a motorcycle.

Now, the men were reportedly shouting that he was an Israeli collaborator. This is the video of that act that made headlines around the world. You can see more of the other motorcycles traveling alongside the one dragging the man's body.

They're dragging him through the streets so that everybody would see him. This is how Hamas has sometimes dealt with those it believes threaten its rule and why these new demonstrations are so remarkable.

Jeremy Diamond has more.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE) CROWD: Yalla, Yalla, Yalla. Hamas, get out!

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Calls for ousting Hamas echo through the rubble lined streets of northern Gaza. After 17 months of war, public exhaustion and rising anger at the Islamist militant group has spilled out into the open, marking the war's largest anti-Hamas demonstrations.

CROWD: (Speaking in Foreign Language)

DIAMOND (voice-over): No Hamas, no jihad, they chant. We want to save our country.

Over two consecutive days, a few thousand Palestinians poured into the streets of Beit Lahia. The protests represent a relatively small share of Gaza's population of more than 2 million, but it is still a remarkable stand against a group that has not hesitated to violently quash dissent.

Some carried white flags as they raised their voices against Hamas and against the war. This Gazan surgeon calling on Israel to stop the bloodshed and on Arab nations to drive up the pressure. But his final message is to Hamas.

Enough is enough, Dr. Ahmed (ph) says. You have ruled long enough. Give others a chance. Give others the opportunity to govern.

We have no food. Our children find nothing to eat, this man says. We walk while stumbling over everything. We say no to Hamas. We have had enough. We are tired.

Small protests also broke out in other parts of the Gaza Strip, including in the central city of Deir al Balah.

"I will not be ruled by a masked man", reads one sign. "The blood of our children is not cheap", reads another.

Israel seizing on the protests, calling on more Gazans to rise up. But there is also a message here for Israel.

"Not all the people in Gaza are Hamas, nor are they terrorists to be treated so severely", this man says, condemning Hamas's indiscriminate attacks. Hamas, he says, must also stop gambling with their lives.

[20:50:03]

Anger at Hamas has largely stayed below the surface.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (Speaking in Foreign Language)

DIAMOND (voice-over): Revealing itself only in the cries of those cursing Hamas after their loved ones were killed. And so it is no surprise that northern Gaza is where the anger boiled over. No part of the Strip has been more devastated.

But there are still children here, and hope is not yet extinguished. (END VIDEO TAPE)

DIAMOND (on-camera): In a statement, Hamas's government media office said that the protests, quote, "Do not reflect the national position", insisting that these protests are being driven by the, quote, "unprecedented pressure our people are experiencing amid the war".

The question now, Anderson, is whether these protests continue to grow, and if indeed they do, whether they will influence Hamas's position on ceasefire negotiations. Anderson?

COOPER: Jeremy Diamond, thanks so much.

Coming up next, why a self-described former MAGA junkie in West Virginia now regrets supporting the president.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:55:43]

COOPER: More fallout from the cuts by Elon Musk and his DOGE team. President Trump got more than 70 percent of the vote in Wood County, Western Virginia, last November. But some people who find their federal jobs in limbo now say they regret supporting him.

Randi Kaye has more.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

JENNIFER PIGGOTT, FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE: This flag used to hang there.

RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This was the flag Jennifer Piggott proudly hung outside her home during campaign 2024.

PIGGOTT: We had the flag. I had the shirt. I was a MAGA junkie.

KAYE (voice-over): A MAGA junkie who thought her government job would be safe with Donald Trump in office. She was wrong.

PIGGOTT: I cried. It's scary, you know? It's a really scary thing. And I was embarrassed.

He's a good boy.

KAYE (voice-over): Piggott was abruptly fired last month from the Treasury Department's Bureau of Fiscal Service based here in Parkersburg, West Virginia. The reason given for the firings of 125 probationary employees at the bureau? Poor performance.

PIGGOTT: I had my last review on the 31st of January, and I had the highest rating that you can get on a review less than 21 days before I was terminated for my performance.

KAYE: You voted for Donald Trump.

PIGGOTT: I did.

KAYE: Do you regret that vote?

PIGGOTT: Yes, I do. To cut the knees out of the working class Americans just doesn't make sense to me. I expected more from President Donald Trump.

KAYE (voice-over): Since speaking out, Piggott says she's received death threats and her home has been egged. This woman asked us not to show her face for fear of retribution. She recently retired from the Bureau of Fiscal Service because she was afraid of losing her health insurance if she was fired. She also voted for Trump.

KAYE: Would you still have supported him?

PIGGOTT: I'm not sure that I would have. The way that it's been done, I'm for balancing the budget, that type of thing, but not in this context. It's just not right.

KAYE (voice-over): Earlier this month, a federal judge ordered half a dozen federal agencies to immediately offer thousands of probationary employees their jobs back. But this week, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to put that judge's ruling on hold and stop those employees from returning to work.

Eric Engel is a representative for the National Treasury Employees Union.

ERIC ENGLE, CHIEF STEWARD, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTER 290: They are fully reinstated, all 125 of them. They are on paid admin leave.

KAYE: Now they're getting paid for not doing their job. So did the government really save any money here?

ENGLE: Not at all. No, no. That's not -- I personally don't believe that was ever the point, but they -- no, they're not saving any money from these probationary and trial period employee firings. This has nothing to do with eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.

KAYE: The Bureau of Fiscal Service employs more than 2,000 people here in Parkersburg. People we spoke with told us it's considered the place to work. Jobs at the Bureau are hard to come by, and people have always believed it was one of the most stable employers.

KAYE (voice-over): Ronda Bragg is another probationary employee who was fired from the Bureau. She didn't vote for Trump because she feared something like this might happen.

KAYE: A lot of people who voted for Donald Trump lost their jobs now. What do you think about that? What do you want to say to them?

RONDA BRAGG, FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAGIE: You know, at first I wanted to say, when all this happens, you deserved it. At the same time, they're in the same spot that I am. And I honestly don't think any of us deserved it. It's not even $50,000 a year. You know, it's not that much money. I'm blue collar just like the rest of them in this valley.

KAYE (voice-over): In a statement regarding the reinstated employees, a spokesperson for the Treasury Department told us they are weighing how best to consider their performance, Treasury's operational needs and the Trump administration's government-wide effort to increase efficiency.

PIGGOTT: That's hardly any consolation to Jennifer Piggott and her family.

KAYE: If you could say anything to President Trump now, what would you say?

PIGGOTT: I expected better from you. I really did. I expected that you would do what was right and cut waste and fraud and all of those things that you promised us before we elected you in office. But you're not doing that. You're creating a disaster. And I don't know what America is going to look like if this continues.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

COOPER: And Randi Kaye joins us now. What's next for those federal employees?

KAYE (on-camera): Well, Anderson, they're really in limbo as they wait for their case and their reinstatement to be appealed. Since it is on appeal right now, they're not even sure if they're going to have a job to go back to. But in the meantime, the union rep we spoke with said that he believes these firings are actually illegal.

He said that the Trump administration was required to give them 60 days notice, which he says they didn't. He also said that the firings were performance based. And he said these people performed well, their conduct was excellent --

COOPER: Yes.

KAYE (on-camera): And there was no reason to fire them, Anderson.

COOPER: Randi, thanks very much.

The news continues. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now.