Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Vance Denies Waltz was Let Go, Argues New Role Could Be Promotion; Trump Judge Slams Trump; WSJ: Tesla Board Opened Search For A CEO To Succeed Elon Musk; Trump Called Jeff Bezos After Learning Amazon Considered Breaking Out A Tariff Charge; Syracuse Lacrosse Players Accused Of "Hazing On Steroids"; 3 Black Voters Explain Why They Went From Not Supporting Pres. Trump To Casting Their Ballot For Him. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired May 01, 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: ...go pick one more.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: I always let them pick one more and there's just something still so wonderful. Maybe more than ever in this world of social media, of just going in a bookstore.

And CNN's all new series is just an amazing cast of people, people taking to their happy places around the world. This weekend, don't miss an all new episode. She gets to go to Bali, so that's pretty awesome. "Happy Place" Sunday night at 10 o'clock.

And before we go, a headline on this program last night said Ed Martin, Trump's nominee for U.S. attorney for Washington contradicted himself in statements to the Senate. Martin said he did not recall making controversial statements about Democratic politicians and January 6th police officers. And thanks so much to all of you for being with us. Anderson starts now.

[20:00:46]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Tonight on 360, the President had four National Security advisers in his first term. Now, he's on his second this time around. Mike Waltz was just shown the door. And J.D. Vance says Waltz's new position would be a promotion.

Also tonight, a Trump appointed judge lays down the law and deportation, saying the President cannot use wartime authority during peacetime to remove people from the country.

And later, we're learning more about that alleged hazing targeting young members of a high school lacrosse team. What a relative of one of the 11 accused players is saying, and how the community where it's happening is reacting.

Good evening. Thanks for joining us. President Trump's first National Security adviser in his first term lasted 22 days. So by that standard, President Trump's first National Security adviser in his second term, Mike Waltz, has lasted a long time. But today, after just passing the 100 day mark, he was removed along with his deputy.

Now, the President says Mr. Waltz will be nominated to be his U.N. ambassador. And perhaps it's only fitting that the man who jeopardized both his position and, more importantly, National Security by using the commercially encrypted app Signal when he shouldn't have, would be photographed using Signal again during what would turn out to be his last full day on the job.

That is then National Security Adviser Michael Waltz at yesterday's Cabinet meeting. And yes, he is peeking at Signal, same as he was using when he accidentally let "Atlantic" editor, Jeffrey Goldberg onto that text chain discussing an upcoming airstrike on Houthi fighters in Yemen.

The same text chain, we should point out, in which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted a detailed roadmap on how that attack would play out. And the same attack, by the way, that Secretary Hegseth later discussed with his wife, his brother and his lawyer in a separate Signal chat.

But Secretary Hegseth, he still has his job for now. Mike Waltz does not. Secretary of State Rubio will take on an additional job, filling Waltz's position until a successor is named.

Now, in normal times, that kind of major personnel and National Security change would have been known by spokespeople for the various departments involved. But not this time. Take a look at what happened during a press briefing at the State Department, which Marco Rubio is head of.

The spokesperson for the State Department, Tammy Bruce, had no idea this was happening. Heard about it from CNN's Kylie Atwood during the briefing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: The President has just written on Truth Social that Mike Waltz is going to become the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

TAMMY BRUCE, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON: Well, there you go, Fabulous.

ATWOOD: And in addition to that, he says that in the interim, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve as National Security adviser while continuing his strong leadership at the State Department. Do you know how long he is going to be serving in both roles?

BRUCE: It is clear that I just heard this from you. I had -- this is the magic --

ATWOOD: You had no heads up at that this was coming today?

BRUCE: I have some insights as to the potential of certain things that might happen. But when the President and this, of course, is all Presidential decisions, right? So, I'm with the State Department, it is as I think would be clear to all of you, you don't want to get ahead of your skis and drawing conclusions or speculating about what may occur. And you can have a general sense of what's possible. And then you see that manifest usually. But I think the one thing I certainly that I've learned is that things don't happen until the President says they're going to happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, what you just saw there was a spokesperson blindsided by news directly involving her own department because the news was made solely by the President, apparently, before anyone further down was fully prepared for it. That's something we've seen before, quite often. It's a carryover from the first administration. The same goes for the way everyone showers the President with praise at Cabinet meetings, which Mike Waltz certainly did just yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE WALTZ, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Mr. President, the last four years the world experienced a total lack of zero leadership under Biden. And then we had 100 days of your leadership with respect, with strength.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, high praise. It likely wasn't a last ditch attempt to save his job, however, a source familiar with the matter telling CNN that someone made it clear to Waltz earlier this week that his time as National Security adviser had run out.

As for the length of that time, Anthony Scaramucci, who was famously fired from the Trump White House after 11 days on the job, he piled on today, tweeting Waltz last 9.2 Scaramuccis. In fairness, though, Waltz is not exactly out of the street. He's been nominated for a prestigious job at the U.N. However, unlike National Security adviser, his new position needs Senate confirmation, meaning he could face tough questioning or even outright rejection from senators, it remains to be seen.

In any case, the administration now seems to be accentuating the positive in all of this.

[20:05:33]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CHIEF POLITICAL ANCHOR: Why was Mike Waltz let go?

J.D. VANCE (R), VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So, he wasn't let go. He is being made ambassador to the United Nations, which of course is a Senate confirmed position. I think you can make a good argument that it's a promotion.

BAIER: Was a direct result of the Signal chat. I mean, you were on that chat and we saw the fallout from it. Is this a result of that? VANCE: You know, it's not, Bret.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: As for Secretary of State Rubio, he's only the second person, along with Henry Kissinger in 1973, to serve as both Secretary of State and National Security adviser.

In a moment, we will be joined by John Bolton, who like Mike Waltz, if he's confirmed, was both a U.N. ambassador and a National Security adviser at different times. First, CNN chief White House correspondent joins us, Kaitlan Collins.

Does anyone you talked to the White House believe this was a promotion?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: They're arguing it's a promotion, Anderson. But obviously it's not, because I mean, maybe if you look at the job in and of itself, it's obviously a job that a lot of people want. Elise Stefanik certainly wanted to be the ambassador to the United Nations, but anyone around Trump and anyone who has covered Trump knows that to be in his inner circle, you have to truly be in the inner circle. Proximity to him is everything, and that's why we always look at the West Wing real estate to see who's sitting where, who's the closest to the Oval Office, because this is a President who will shout out the door of someone's name, that he wants to come into the room to talk to them.

And so, obviously, by sending Mike Waltz to New York, if he is confirmed to this position it just changes things and it certainly won't keep him in the inner circle. But he kind of struggled to stay there anyway, Anderson, ever since the Signal gate thing happened when he had inadvertently added Jeffrey Goldberg to that chat, he had been on pretty shaky ground the last several weeks inside the White House, and really, it was more of a resistance to not want to fire anyone very early on in his tenure that kept Mike Waltz around according to what we were told by sources.

But once they had hit that 100-day mark, there were real questions about whether or not they were going to keep him in that role. Essentially, I mean, he was clashing with people in the West Wing. Other senior aides didn't feel that he was the right role. His foreign policy views never truly meshed with those of the America first President. And so, that was a real question that all played a role here.

And so, notice that this was reported earlier this morning. CNN and other outlets quickly confirmed that that Mike Waltz and his deputy were expected to be ousted. It sat out there for hours before the White House said anything about him becoming ambassador to the U.N. I've been talking to people yesterday when I was hearing rumblings about Mike Waltz being in trouble, none of them said a word about him becoming the ambassador to the United Nations.

I'm told that is a decision that President Trump came to this morning, even though it was already clear that he was on thin ice and likely on his way out the door. That was this morning when Trump actually offered him this job.

COOPER: Fascinating, Kaitlan Collins. Thanks, We'll see you at the top of the hour for "The Source."

Perspective, now, from someone with firsthand experience serving as National Security adviser for President Trump and experience being ousted by him, John Bolton, who held that role for the in the first Trump administration and as we mentioned, also served as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. years earlier, which is what Mike Waltz will be nominated for.

Ambassador, good to have you on. Obviously, representing the U.S. and the U.N. is an important job. Do you believe Vice-President Vance, his claim that Mike Waltz is leaving his job not because of the Signal scandal, but because the White House wanted to promote him.

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Of course not. I mean, I think it really just shows how little about National Security J.D. Vance knows. If you took a hundred people anywhere in this country who know anything about National Security Democrat, Republican, Independent, whatever, and ask them objectively, do you think National Security adviser or U.N. ambassador is the more important job?

I will bet a small amount -- I will bet a large amount of money that 90 out of a hundred, if not 99 out of a hundred would say National Security adviser is the more important job.

COOPER: By the way, you have a lot of credibility on this, given that you both -- you have held both of these positions. So in your opinion, having been the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., you say the National Security adviser is a more important job?

BOLTON: I don't think there's any question about it. I love being U.N. ambassador, don't get me wrong. But it just -- it doesn't compare. I think what Kaitlan Collins just said about Trump making the decision this morning is interesting. That was my sense that they were -- that this news that Waltz was imminently on his way out, not that he was just a dead man walking and would go maybe in August or at some point so that nobody could claim Trump had bowed to media or Democratic political pressure, and somehow it took on a life of their own, its own and Trump wanted to find a way to ease the passage. They had a vacancy given Elise Stefanik's nomination had been pulled and somebody said, maybe Trump himself, hey, why don't we give the U.N. job to Mike Waltz.

It was also pretty clear that they had not picked a successor. Whatever the state of play in Waltz's departure was. An organized White House would announce the successor immediately. And the fact that they didn't have a successor showed they weren't ready to make the announcement and to have Marco Rubio serve on an interim basis is just absolutely bizarre.

I mean this -- compare this with Richard Nixon in the depths of Watergate, almost about to lose his job, he loses William Rogers as Secretary of State. He nominates Kissinger because he knows he can get Kissinger confirmed. There's only one Henry Kissinger. And then, serving through Nixon's resignation. What kind of look is that for the Trump administration?

[20:10:58]

COOPER: I mean, also, you know, Laura Loomer, who's a MAGA influencer, had been in the Oval Office with a list of people she thought the President should fire, a number of Mike Waltz's people around him were part of that group who actually got let go before this. I don't know if this is a victory for her as well.

You've been critical both of Waltz as, but also Pete Hegseth as Defense Secretary. I mean, Waltz at least has a background in what he was working on as National Security adviser. Does it surprise you that Hegseth, who actually shared sensitive information on Signal about an imminent military operation, is still in that position?

BOLTON: Well, I think he's a dead man walking, too. I think they don't want to have to go at the same time. So, I think Hegseth has more time. And we don't know exactly what influence Laura Loomer had in Mike Waltz's departure, but if she had any, this really is the inmates running the asylum. I mean, the notion that a person like that can have any influence over Presidential personnel decisions --

COOPER: She wanted the NSA -- the NSA head out, and he was let go.

BOLTON: Yes, that's extraordinary, too. I mean, I think this is a point where I disagree with some of some of the analysts on what was the real cause of Waltz going. Because I think it also says something important about Trump. People say with great confidence, oh, well, you know, Waltz wasn't in tune with the President and that's why he had to go. Well, who hired Waltz? I mean, who knows who's in tune with the President better than the President?

This shows Trump has no philosophy, no National Security strategy, doesn't do policy. He hired Waltz and many other people because he expected fealty from them. And, when Waltz exposed Trump to political liability because of the Signal group chat, that was all Trump needed. That was not sufficient fealty that's what the what the cause of the departure is.

COOPER: This is par for the course. I mean, this is exactly what you experienced, what you saw during the first administration in terms of how Trump makes decisions particularly with involving National Security, Foreign Policy.

BOLTON: Yes, these are random neuron flashes. This is not Trump playing three dimensional chess, as his advocates say.

COOPER: Wait, random neuron flashes, wow.

BOLTON: This is Trump playing regular chess one move at a time and no further ahead than that.

COOPER: That's kind of terrifying. BOLTON: Yes, well I must say it was a struggle to try and keep the wheels of government moving in the Trump administration. That's why I compared it to living inside a pinball machine, rather than making coherent National Security policy.

COOPER: Ambassador John Bolton, thanks for being on.

Perspective now from former Middle East and North Africa coordinator of the National Security Council, Brett McGurk, who served in senior positions under the last four Presidents, including President Trump during the first term and former senior advisor to President Obama and CNN chief political analyst, David Axelrod.

So, David, does the Vice-President's claim that Waltz is being promoted -- I mean, you had Ambassador Bolton, who's been the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., saying it's not a promotion, does it pass the laugh test?

DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: It does not. I think it reflects the political need they had to, you know, the President dispatched so many National Security advisers in the first term that I don't think they wanted to concede that this was what it was but it is. And, you know, frankly, I haven't heard the President elevate the position of the United Nations ambassador. He doesn't think that much of the United Nations. They want -- basically, Waltz got waltzed out of town to New York and out of the action.

But I want to say one other thing, Anderson. Listening to John Bolton discuss this, the job of a National Security adviser and Brett is much more attuned to this than I am, but to organize the National Security process to bring together a consensus among the various National Security agencies, but the word process in Donald Trump just does -- that doesn't go together. And it's a -- you know, whoever is in that job and we'll see how Secretary Rubio fares in the interim has to respond to the firing neurons as Ambassador Bolton just said.

That is really disconcerting because you want a considered process. You want agencies to be working together and coordinated. And if you can't do that it puts the nation at risk, I think.

[20:15:53]

COOPER: Brett, I mean, as you said, you've served in four administrations. Can you just how do you read this, this whole situation?

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I think, Anderson, I was on your program a month ago, after Waltz's staff was fired, his hand- picked staff was fired. I think I said it's really untenable for him to stay in the position.

COOPER: You did.

MCGURK: If you can't protect your own staff, you just don't have the authority. This is one of the most important jobs in Washington. You are basically, it's not -- and its completely different than the Secretary of State job. I want to get to that because that -- this kind of, this face saving switcheroo and with Rubio becoming the National Security adviser makes no sense.

But this job is not just diplomacy. It is the integration of intelligence, military, international economics. It is running the entire National Security apparatus and facilitating the agenda of the President. It is so important, and we're at a time now this idea that this was maybe a planned or promotion, look at the National Security crises here that are starting to pile up.

Now, first of all, the President in about ten days is heading on his first multi-day trip overseas to the Middle East. We have a crisis with two nuclear armed powers, Pakistan and India right now. Secretary of State Rubio is on the phone just yesterday with the Pakistan Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of India. You have the Yemen bombing campaign. We're now in day 50, which the Signal gate kind of exposed the internal debate about that. Who is coordinating that, not only the military application, but what is the political objective?

You still have the Gaza hostage crisis. You have Iran negotiations ongoing, the back end of which, if they fail, is a potential military strike against Iran. And the Secretary of Defense yesterday, Hegseth just tweeted a real threat against Iran, which Trump backed up today.

So, like, what's on the agenda is massive. It is important. This is our National Security at stake. You need a strong National Security adviser. You cannot be the Secretary of State and the National Security adviser at the same time, that does not work.

I will say one thing, Secretary of State Rubio has a very good deputy in Chris Landau. Perhaps he can delegate to him as he takes on the duties of this new position. But you can't do both. It's not 50 years ago. It's not Kissinger as Ambassador Bolton said.

So they either have to get somebody in place in that job soon, or Rubio has to decide that he's really going to be the National Security adviser and delegate to his deputy, because this can't work.

COOPER: David, the Defense Department inspector general, by the way, is now looking into the second Signal that the Defense Secretary Hegseth took part in, which included his wife, his lawyer and his brother. To you, who worked in the Obama White House, does it make sense that Marco Rubio can be both Secretary of State and the National Security adviser? As Brett was saying, this is not you know, the 1960s, you know, this is not the Nixon administration.

AXELROD: Well, it didn't work that well then either and Kissinger was a unique character. But, you know, one of the reasons it can't work is the job of the National Security adviser is to mediate between the viewpoints of the various National Security agencies. That's one of the jobs. If you represent one of the major agencies, as the Secretary of State, can you be an honest broker in those discussions? Because the State Department may have a completely different view of the situation than The Pentagon does.

So, no, I don't think that that makes sense. I also don't think it makes sense that the Secretary of Defense survive this. But, you know, at the end of the day, with all this talk of war fighters, I mean, Mike Waltz was actually a war fighter. He was a Green Beret. He was an officer of the Army for decades. A serious person, you know, and Pete Hegseth did serve, and I honor that service. But he's there because he's a culture war fighter, not because he's a war fighter.

COOPER: Well, Brett, I mean --

AXELROD: He has backing from the Laura Loomers of the world.

COOPER: Well, Brett, I want to ask you about -- I mean, Laura Loomer told CNN today that she had previously tried to raise concerns about Waltz directly with the President during that Oval Office meeting, where she was urging the removal of a number of other National Security officials, and a number of them were removed.

I mean, especially the head of the NSA, who I understand was incredibly well respected, really well thought of, very good at the job. What do you make of her apparent influence or at least that she has the President's ear like this?

[20:20:10]

MCGURK: Yes, General Haugh, the director of Cyber Com of NSA, who's basically in charge of overseeing all of our signals collection all around the world, which is really the early warning of National Security threats, was fired and does not have a replacement fired for really no apparent reason.

Look, it's very difficult to work with him, I worked for two years in the Trump administration. I eventually resigned because it just proved impossible to execute foreign policy with constant decisions. I was trying to execute a policy in a war zone where people's lives are at risk.

You know, but look, someone like Steve Witkoff, I worked with him on the Gaza negotiation. He's a very capable guy. He has the trust and confidence of the President. I mean, he's out there trying to get a ceasefire in Ukraine, trying to get an Iran deal. But, you know, he needs some support. I mean, this team is just right now in a state of chaos.

COOPER: Yes, and we see him meeting alone there with Vladimir Putin the last time. Brett McGurk, thank you, David Axelrod as well.

Coming next, the Trump appointed judge who just ruled against the President on a pillar of his deportation policy, where the judge said and the impact that may have.

Also, was Tesla's board looking to pull the plug on Elon Musk. The story plus insight from Kara Swisher, who knows Musk well.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:25:43]

COOPER: President Trump isn't really shy when it comes to posting social media attacks on judges who've ruled against him. Nothing so far lined, though, about Texas U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez. Even though the judge today ruled that the President unlawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act and blocked the administration from using it to either detain or deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.

Now, the judge, who is a Trump appointee, by the way, writes that letting the President himself define the conditions when he might invoke the act would, in the judge's words, strip the courts of their traditional role of interpreting congressional statutes.

Joining us now, former federal judge himself, John E. Jones III, and CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. The judge's decision, Elie, that that the merit -- ruling on the merits instead of technicality.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, so, that's why this is historic, Anderson. This is the first time any federal judge in U.S. history has rejected a President's effort to use this Alien Enemies Act. And this is really a double rejection of what Donald Trump did.

First, the judge said, the way you've tried to apply this act just doesn't work. This is not wartime. This is not an invasion or an incursion. This is a gang. It doesn't fit.

But even more importantly than that is the fact that this judge said, we, the courts, do have the power to rule because the Trump administration had argued you courts, you can't even review this. This is entirely up to us. You have no power here. And this Trump appointed judge rejected that. He said, no, you don't get to do this on your own. We get to review it.

COOPER: And Judge Jones, this judge looked back in history. I mean, he did seem like a lot of work to look at this law.

JOHN E. JONES III, FORMER CHIEF JUDGE, U.S. MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA: Well, of course, Elie is quite right. And what's really brilliant and interesting, Anderson, about this decision is that the judge accepted the rationale that was proffered by the administration as true. And the judge said, all right, I'm going to accept this as true, and I'm going to see if the statute applies using kind of originalism, and saying, you know, were going to look at the plain meaning of the enactment in 1798.

And heretofore, you know, the government said you "you can't pry into what we know and how we know it." And he said, fine, I'm going to accept what you're telling me. And he said, it just doesn't fit. This is a wartime enactment used three times during wars. As you said, Anderson, he went into the extensive history and said, there's no way that this applies to a gang, dangerous though it may be. That is that is sent into the United States by Venezuela.

COOPER: And judge, when this heads to the Supreme Court, as I assume it will. What -- how do you see that playing out at the Supreme Court? JONES: Well, you know, if past is prologue in history, we're going to see probably a split court on this. And it's possible that, some justices will say that it is not for courts to question the authority of the President.

I frankly find that to be an illogical argument, because accepting even the President, at face value, what they're saying, it just is a bad fit in this case, and stands for the proposition, as we know that, the President, if he says it then you can do it under the act. And the judge today, Judge Rodriguez, in what I thought was a really well-done opinion, said that's a bridge too far.

COOPER: Elie, if this does go to the Supreme Court, I mean, would this be fast tracked?

HONIG: Yes, I think so. I mean, there's an interesting sort of calendar logjam here, which is usually the Supreme Court ends its term by the end of June, early July. So I think they understand they have to understand the importance of this. And, you know, with respect to what the Supreme Court would do, I completely agree with Judge Jones. I think some of the conservatives will Alito and Thomas will say that's not for us, but, it's such a stretch the way the Trump administration has tried to apply this.

I mean, it's a wartime law or you need an invasion or an incursion. And this judge, in this opinion today is meticulous. He goes through the history, he goes through the case law, he goes through the etymology, the dictionary definitions and says the presence of a gang just does not fit. And for conservatives, proper conservatives usually try to construe laws narrowly. And so, this really would take a lot of leeway to rule in Trump's favor.

COOPER: Elie Honig, thank you, Judge Jones as well. Thanks so much.

Still ahead tonight, more fallout in the wake of what authorities call a way beyond hazing of high school lacrosse by their older teammates. Also next, what it, what was it something that the President said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You know, you're invited to stay as long as you want. If at some point, he wants to get back home to his cars.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, when he said that yesterday, "The Wall Street Journal" was about to report that Tesla's board had been looking to replace Elon Musk, when we come back for reporting, the reaction perspective from Kara Swisher.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:35:23]

COOPER: Interesting reporting by the Wall Street Journal to tell you about. They say that roughly one month ago, members of Tesla's board reached out to several executive search firms in order to, as the Journal wrote, work on a formal process for finding Tesla's next chief executive, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Now, the report outlined tension with the electric vehicle company after Chief Executive Elon Musk had been spending much more time with his DOGE initiative in Washington than at the wheel of Tesla. And first quarter profits fell more than 70 percent. In a post on X, Tesla's chair called the claim the board was looking to replace Musk absolutely false and said they are highly confident in his ability to continue executing on the exciting growth plan ahead.

Joining me now, Tech Journalist Kara Swisher, CNN contributor and host of the On and Pivot podcast. Karen, who do you believe here? The Tesla's board or the Wall Street Journal?

KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: The Wall Street Journal. I mean, the fact that finally the board said something would be great because he's been not working at this company for a while. And they're sort of a rubber stamp board. So I tend to believe the reporting of the Wall Street Journal, which has been accurate about a lot of stuff that they've denied. So, I'm going with the Journal.

COOPER: So the article says that early last year, Musk confided in someone close to him that he was frustrated to still be working nonstop.

SWISHER: Yes.

COOPER: But Tesla later said to the same person that he no longer wanted to be CEO, but was worried that nobody else could sell his vision of the company. How important is Elon Musk's vision and his presence, I guess, to Tesla?

SWISHER: Well, it is critically important because he's made it that way. He's created that company. And, you know, every company can survive. Founders -- or he's not even the founder actually, didn't found or create the technology. But, you know, Steve Jobs died and Apple's done great.

It doesn't mean it's not a significant loss for the company. So I think any company can do that. They do need a CEO that is focusing on cars. And it does seem like Elon's not very interested in cars. He hasn't come out with an innovative one in a while.

The product we got was the Cybertruck, which has been a real dud for them, selling, I think, about 39,000 cars. They thought they were going to sell 250,000 a year. And so they need someone who's really focused. And this board has constantly been doing whatever Elon Musk wants to do, which is not the way public boards, at least, are supposed to run.

COOPER: He appeared at President Trump's most recent Cabinet meeting in what appeared to be kind of a swan song, wearing two hats --

SWISHER: The caps (ph). Yes.

COOPER: -- literally wearing two hats.

SWISHER: Yes.

COOPER: Do you think -- I mean, is he going to be gone from Washington? He said he's going to keep his office at the White House. Do you expect him in and out?

SWISHER: I have no idea. This guy does whatever he wants. And that's the problem with running a public company. You're not really supposed to. And the board is supposed to be there to make sure the CEO is doing their job.

And, you know, maybe he could come up with a great car, but they've missed every turn. And other competitors are just breathing down their necks. And, you know, it's a rise in EVs. It's just Tesla that's not doing well for a lot of reasons, including, and I think most specifically, they don't have a car people want to buy anymore, as many.

They did that one car was fantastic, their first car. And they've had a lot of -- they were great pioneers. But they've got to keep up in these kind of things. So I don't know what he's going to do. I think probably he'll dip in and out. But I suspect he's trying to declare victory and run away when the fact of the matter is DOGE probably cost the taxpayer money the way it was done. And will be in litigation for years and years and created all kinds of havoc and didn't really improve government efficiency.

COOPER: How much does he really run Tesla? I mean, what kind of a manager is he?

SWISHER: Yes. Well, very a micromanager from people who are there. They kind of like it when he's not there because he's kind of a micromanager. That said, he's got a lot of bold visions. And, you know, he was the first to think of Starlink and things like that.

And so he's one of these sort of visionary leaders. And I suspect they need someone who is executional there who really wants to get down and dirty. He's quite good on logistics and some of the, as I said, bold ideas. But Tesla is not a new, fresh company. And it needs to have someone who can really run it and run it efficiently, like they do over at SpaceX with Gwynne Shotwell, who is not very well known, but who's, you know, going to face challenges because of Elon's other antics.

But, you know, very well run company and fast growing and being used. And so, there's lots of -- they could bring it back. They certainly could. It's a great brand name. It's a global brand, but he's definitely done damage to it. And most of the cause is him and his board who declines to manage him.

COOPER: I'm not sure if you're a meditator, but when reporters asked him if he would lead his DOGE initiative after he stepped back, he said --

SWISHER: Yes. COOPER: -- is Buddha needed for Buddhism? Was it not stronger after he passed away?

SWISHER: Oh, God, he's got the -- you know, he talked about getting shot from a window at the White House, all that stuff.

COOPER: He talks about getting shot a lot, like --

SWISHER: He does.

COOPER: -- he did it on, I think, on Joe Rogan's podcast as well.

[20:40:05]

SWISHER: It's unfortunate. It's unfortunate. And I absolutely would be a terrible thing. But one of the things that he does a lot is put himself -- he's, you know, Jesus, Buddha, that he's this figure, ready player one. He's very dramatic that way without, you know, humanity will be doomed. He talks in very dramatic, you know, video game terms. And so, yes, he thinks himself as the Buddha, I guess. He's not very calm.

COOPER: I'm wondering what he made of this report from Punchbowl News that Amazon would start displaying the cost of tariff related price increases beside their products. President Trump called Jeff Bezos directly to complain and the company --

SWISHER: Yes.

COOPER: -- denied the policy was going to happen. How much influence do you think President Trump has -- I mean, it seems like --

SWISHER: A lot.

COOPER: -- a lot.

SWISHER: Obviously. A lot. I mean, I'm sorry they deny it. But I think they were absolutely thinking of doing that. And again, I go with the reporters in this one. You know, it's difficult to make people understand the cost of these things. And that's one way of doing it.

So because the prices will rise and Amazon is especially exposed because it gets a lot of its products from China. And so the fact they were considering it is perfectly fine. A lot of people are doing it. I think Trump called him and said, this is political. And of course, they attacked Amazon from Karoline Leavitt did that.

I think they called it hostile political or whatever they called it. And so I think it mattered a great deal. It wasn't a very good look for Jeff Bezos. That's for sure.

COOPER: Yes. Kara Swisher, great to have you on.

SWISHER: Thank you.

COOPER: Thank you so much. SWISHER: Thanks.

COOPER: Coming up next, they say it was a prank, but now 11 high school lacrosse players from this school in Syracuse, New York, are facing misdemeanor criminal charges tonight. How it allegedly all unfolded and what school officials are doing now.

Also, later, black Trump voters tell CNN's Van Jones why they cast their ballots for the President, whether any of them regret their votes now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:46:29]

COOPER: Continuing to follow the bizarre story out of Syracuse, New York, new fallout from what the local DA calls hazing on steroids involving a high school lacrosse team. Sources say that school officials have started suspension hearings on 11 players who are facing misdemeanor charges after authorities say they initially targeted several younger teammates and ended up abducting one of them.

Shimon Prokupecz walks us through what we know about the alleged incident.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is where it happened, while watching two crosstown rivals play a close game. Members of the West Hill High School boys lacrosse team hatched a plan to prank their younger teammates. The prank involved faking a kidnapping. It started with a ruse to go to McDonald's and ended with a younger student tied up and left in the woods.

J. RYAN MCMAHON, ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY EXECUTIVE: For these students who made this horrible mistake, this is a real life lesson. The fact that they are a spotlight nationally right now because of their stupidity.

PROKUPECZ (voice-over): CNN spoke off camera to a family member of one of the accused players who said the entire ordeal lasted about 15 minutes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They were armed.

PROKUPECZ (voice-over): The family member also disputed the district attorney's characterization of the alleged handgun, telling CNN it was an airsoft gun, a non-lethal weapon that fires plastic pellets. The incident has left this close-knit community reeling.

For the first time, head coach Aaron Cahill commented about the incident, posting on LinkedIn, quote, "This week has been one of the hardest of my life, as we all begin the long process of healing and figuring out the path forward".

The season is now canceled, and 11 students are facing misdemeanor unlawful imprisonment charges. Two people familiar with the process tell us suspension hearings are underway.

MCMAHON: These kids got very lucky. Something horrible didn't happen to these victims. And because of that, they will have the opportunity to learn from this and grow from this as young men. And that's what I hope happens.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

COOPER: So, Shimon, misdemeanor charges, what are the potential penalties of that? And could there be additional charges in the future?

PROKUPECZ (on-camera): No, we don't expect additional charges. But the one thing is, yes, they could get up to a year of the adults. But it's expected that they are going to take pleas. Look, the families here on both sides just want this to go away. The district attorney indicated that he plans to do that if they all abide by the conditions.

And so, we do expect them to appear here in court in May, where they're going to plead guilty. And then hopefully this will be over for this community, which is just reeling and trying to just move forward and get over what just truly has shocked this community. Anderson?

COOPER: Shimon Prokupecz, thanks so much.

Coming up next, 102 days into the second Trump administration. Black voters share with Van Jones why they back the President and whether they have any regrets.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:53:59]

COOPER: We started off the broadcast tonight with the President's Cabinet shakeup, and that's, of course, only a fraction of what's unfolded over the last 102 days of the second Trump administration. The question is, what are voters making of it all.

CNN's Van Jones has been talking to Trump supporters dating back to 2016. He is, as you know, a Democrat who was a former senior adviser to President Obama. For tonight's report, he met with a small group of black voters, a man and woman from South Carolina and another woman from North Carolina, all of whom voted for President Trump.

CNN's exit polling shows Mr. Trump got 8 percent of the black vote in 2016, and that grew slightly into the teens over the next two elections. Here's Van's report from Greenville, South Carolina.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

SETH DAWKINS, VOTED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: You do well.

VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR (voice-over): And here we are in South Carolina with three Trump voters.

JONES: You weren't always a Republican.

DAWKINS: No. Actually, I come from a family that was, like, super Democratic. My first time voting, I voted Democrat. I voted for Joe Biden.

JONES: What about Trump appealed to you?

DAWKINS: Am I allowed to gossip (ph)?

[20:55:02]

JONES: Yes, you can, yes. It's OK.

DAWKINS: I mean, part of it is, he's an asshole. I like authenticity.

JONES: You voted for Obama, and then you voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. But 2020, you voted for Donald Trump. What made the change?

DETRA GERMAN, VOTED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: I began listening to someone. Her name is Candace Owens. And I read her book, and it just opened my eyes to, maybe he's not this person that I have been led to believe that he was.

JONES: So you voted against Trump in 2016.

KYASIA KRAFT, VOTED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes.

JONES: But then in 2020, you voted for him?

KRAFT: Absolutely.

JONES: Why?

KRAFT: I saw how things were going during his first term, and I was pleasantly surprised, and I was pleased with what was happening. I saw the economy getting better. I saw country relations in certain countries getting better.

JONES: What are some things that he's doing that you do like?

DAWKINS: For me, I like the border. I just don't like the idea of someone coming here illegally and getting benefits that can serve my community. So that's the reason why I support him on that border policy.

JONES: When you think about the border, you think about people coming here who are getting more help than people who live here, who were born here.

DAWKINS: Yes. And I got that perspective not from news channels. I got it from social media. TikTok is like a holy ground. We even see it with the things that we learn about the United States government. Outside of the United States, people are showing Americans, hey, look at what's going on. Do you all know that your government's doing this? Have you seen this? Have you looked at it from this perspective? JONES: Yes, people, when they think about a Trump voter, they usually think about a white dude with a red hat on and a pickup truck, and you all are not that at all. So, Donald Trump's team went in. They took down Harriet Tubman's picture for a quick minute. They're trying to, like, knock out the black museums. What does that have to do with the price of eggs and how does that impact you?

DAWKINS: In some ways, it's a slap in the face. In other ways, I don't care. I care more about how I'm going to take care of my children.

KRAFT: I don't think the average American cares about that. I know -- I'm frankly -- I am sick and tired of seeing black people sit there and complain about something, but not taking action as steps to actually try to change things in an appropriate manner.

JONES: Under the Trump and Biden administration, they came to certain agreements with police departments to be less brutal toward the black community. Trump has now ended all that. How does that help the black community?

KRAFT: I have a lot of issues with police reform and just with how police officers are treated as a whole. My husband is currently going through the process to become a police officer. The amount of hatred that cops get, even the best ones, I think has become a huge problem because it has been, especially around election times when it definitely comes out of, like, oh, no, the cops are bad. The cops hate you because you're black. They're immediately deemed as evil.

JONES: This man is talking about running for a third term. Now, what do you think about that?

GERMAN: I mean, a third term? For me, absolutely not. I think it's at the end of these four years, it's just -- it's time to move on.

KRAFT: This is a prime example of him trolling people because people have said, like, oh, if he gets in the office, he's going to be a dictator. He's going to try to run for a third term. So he's like, OK, you all think I'm going to do that? I'm gone mess with you all and say this to tick you all off.

JONES: I thought you loved this man because he's so authentic and he's such a truth teller.

KRAFT: But you need to know the difference between somebody trolling somebody, and this is a prime example of him being a troll.

JONES: If you had to do it all over again, would you vote for Donald Trump again, yes or no?

GERMAN: Yes, I would. Now, in the future, I am not a diehard Democrat or a diehard Republican. If there were a Democratic candidate who was more aligned for me, then I would vote Democrat.

JONES: If you go back in time, would you vote for Donald Trump, yes or no?

DAWKINS: Yes.

JONES: I think I might know the answer on the second one.

DAWKINS: She said yes. It's immediately yes. No, I'm sorry.

JONES: If you had to do it all over again, would you vote for Donald Trump, yes or no?

KRAFT: 1,000 percent absolutely yes.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

COOPER: And Van Jones joins me now. It's interesting they're -- most of the information that they are getting or misinformation they may be getting is coming from online.

JONES (on-camera): Really, 100 percent. The thing that surprised me the most was how much social media is dictating, especially the younger guy. You know, he said, look, I'm learning all this stuff about America that I didn't know. I'm like, where are you learning from? TikTok, China.

Guys, you're a Republican and you're taking the Chinese narrative about your own country to heart. But that was a big part of their whole information ecosystem.

COOPER: Yes.

JONES (on-camera): Social media.

COOPER: Fascinating. Does it seem to you that they -- do they follow news closely? I mean --

JONES (on-camera): No, that was the other thing, too. It's like, you know, one of the women said, look, I just -- I do not watch any of the media. She says, you know, I have some influencers I follow, Candace Owens being a big deal, and Newsmax. And that is their information system.

Listen, these are hard-working people. They're good people. They care about the country, but they are in a completely different information environment than people who I talk to every day.

COOPER: Yes. Van Jones, thanks very much.

And that's it for us. The news continues. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now. See you tomorrow.