Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Trump: Putin is Going to Make a Deal; Putin Praises Trump for Sincere Efforts to End War; Zelenskyy: My Position is not Changing, Putin has no Right to Ukraine's Land; Trump Dismisses Concerns His D.C. Police Takeover Is Pulling Federal Agents Off Bigger Cases; DHS Posts Condemned By Experts For Undertones Of White Nationalism; DHS: ICE Received More Than 100,000 Applicants Amid Hiring Push; New Blood Pressure Guidelines Recommend Cutting Out Alcohol; "American Prince: JFK Jr." New Episode Saturday At 9PM ET/PT. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired August 14, 2025 - 20:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: ... and will be up to the Senate to confirm.

NICK ADAMS, FOUNDER FOUNDATION FOR LIBERTY AND AMERICAN GREATNESS: Mr. President, I pledge to you that I will never falter in representing the interests of the United States, both at home and abroad.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ATWOOD: Kate, we made attempts to reach out to Adams for comment, but we didn't hear back.

When it comes to career diplomats that I spoke with, they were really stunned by nomination, both because of Adam's inexperience diplomatically and these controversial comments when it comes to an actual scheduled date for his Senate confirmation hearing, there isn't one yet, we'll watch and see when that happens.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: Kylie Atwood, thank you so much and that will be a doozy.

Thanks so much for joining us, AC360 starts now.

[20:00:40]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Tonight on 360, what's at stake for the summit and where will it leave Ukraine? The President, Vladimir Putin, weigh in with the President already looking ahead to a quick sequel.

Also tonight, with the military presence growing in Washington, some very public displays of anger by residents and in one case, a thrown sandwich brings a felony charge and a firing to the man who threw it. And later, new federal guidelines on blood pressure and booze, and how far they've come from the days when a glass of wine was thought to be good. Good evening, thanks for joining us. We begin tonight with tomorrow's summit in Alaska, and with the two principals are saying in advance about it. President Trump had a lot to say. There was this already looking ahead to a follow up summit to include Ukraine's President, possibly others, or maybe not.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I would say that tomorrow all I want to do is set the table for the next meeting, which should happen shortly. I'd like to see it happen very quickly, very shortly after this meeting.

We're going to have a meeting with President Putin, President Zelenskyy, myself, and maybe we'll bring some of the European leaders along, maybe not. It's -- I do know that it's going to be very important. We're going to see what happens.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: See what happens is one of the Presidents favorite cliffhanging catchphrases. He also added this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We're going to find out where everybody stands, and I'll know within the first two minutes, three minutes, four minutes or five minutes, like we tend to find out whether or not were going to have a good meeting or a bad meeting. And if it's a bad meeting, it will end very quickly. And if it's a good meeting, were going to end up getting peace in the pretty near future, okay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Now, Ukraine, on the other hand, is downplaying the idea of any quick follow up get together. Ukrainian source telling CNN's Matthew Chance that it would be, "hardly feasible logistically" for President Zelenskyy to quickly make the trip. Zelenskyy was in London today for a pre-summit breakfast with Britain's Prime Minister making an Alaska trip somewhat simpler to accomplish, it might seem. Neither leader spoke about the summit to reporters waiting outside 10 Downing Street.

As for Vladimir Putin, he signaled today his desire to broaden the scope of the talks and was complimentary of President Trump, which, as we've seen, it never hurts to be with the President before you meet him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): To tell you about the stage we are at with the current American administration, which, as everyone knows, is making, in my opinion, quite energetic and sincere efforts to stop the hostilities, stop the crisis, and reach agreements that are of interest to all parties involved in this conflict in order to create long-term conditions for peace between our countries and in Europe and in the world as a whole. If by the next stages we reach agreement in the area of control over strategic offensive weapons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: I do just want to point out that what Vladimir Putin just proposed is exactly what Ambassador John Bolton, one of President Trump's first term National Security advisers, predicted he would propose just last night on this program.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: There's been speculation that that Putin may come and say, you know, we need a better bilateral relationship here. And one of the key things is that the New Start Nuclear Weapons Treaty expires in 2026. Let's agree today to start negotiations immediately on a successor treaty. I think Trump would jump at that.

So, you know, you have to watch what the bounds of the playing field are going to be and I think Putin as his effort to show that he and Donald are good friends again, is going to try and make it as broad as possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: The President was not asked about Putin's proposal, but he did get a question about another way Russia might try to widen the discussion into one about the NATO alliance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Would you support or agree to reducing NATO troops in Europe? In countries like Poland, in order to get Russia to agree to a peace deal?

TRUMP: That hasn't been put before me and I'll think about that for later. But it has not been put before me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: He didn't rule it out, which can't make Poland or other countries on NATO's eastern frontier very comfortable tonight and as he's done on many occasions before, didn't acknowledge a central fact of Russia's war with Ukraine, namely, who started it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I think that what we have is a situation that should never have started, should have never started. It didn't start under me, and for four years it wasn't even discussed and I could see it was going to happen. After I left, I could see what was happening. Everything that we did was wrong. Everything that was done was wrong. Everybody's to blame. Putin is to blame. They're all to blame.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Joining me now from Anchorage, Alaska for more on the summit, CNN chief White House correspondent, anchor of "The Source", Kaitlan Collins. So, we've heard the President say -- the point of the summit is to set the table for another meeting that would include President Zelenskyy. Does that mean that tomorrow could involve negotiating some sort of framework for a deal that would then be presented to the Ukrainians, or is about getting Vladimir Putin simply to agree to more talks and leaving the details for another day?

[20:05:24]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, I mean, when President Trump spoke to European leaders and Zelenskyy on the phone earlier this week, Anderson, what the European leaders later said that the President had conveyed to them was that he was not going to make any agreements about territorial concessions or anything like that without Ukraine in the room.

They were saying they wanted to see it get to a ceasefire first, and then have those conversations with President Zelenskyy also at the table, which seemed to be what the President himself was setting up today, saying that this is kind of the meeting to take the temperature, to see where the Russian leader stands and then, he sounded quite optimistic that it could be followed by a second meeting with President Zelenskyy. He suggested Alaska but I've heard, similar to Matthew Chance, that it would be very difficult, obviously, for Zelenskyy to get here any time quickly, that maybe that could be a meeting that could happen somewhere in Europe.

But a lot of that is conditioned on what is going to happen here tomorrow, because one, Putin has given no indication that he is changing his goals on the battlefield, or that he is done fighting this war in Ukraine. I mean, you can see that from what's playing out on the ground in Ukraine. And two, he also hasn't given any indication that his goals here, when it comes to taking over Ukraine and he believes it is rightfully Russia and has basically denied its existence has shifted either.

And so, those are key questions going into this meeting when he and Trump are going to come face-to-face yesterday, the one thing that I have heard from Ukrainian officials is that Trump is the only factor here that could get Putin to potentially shift if he thinks that Trump is serious about putting those secondary sanctions in place, that he did not do, despite the deadline that he had self-imposed just last week. If that happens, if that's on the table, that is kind of their wild card is how they're seeing this and what White House officials have been doing in the days leading up to this, Anderson, is just setting the bar fairly low here when it comes to what is going to happen when Trump and Putin are in the same room together tomorrow.

You heard the President saying that he'll know that within the first few moments, and also saying that he believes Putin wants a deal. That is something he also said, though six months ago, back in February, that he believed Putin actually wanted to get a deal. Obviously, that has not happened, he has continued to strike Ukraine and kill civilians and innocent civilians. So, all of that is really going to be the question that is shaping up to see what is going to happen when these two world leaders are in the room. And if there is a second meeting that follows, or if, as the President suggested today, he just simply returns back to Washington.

COOPER: President Trump has said he thinks there's a 25 percent chance this summit fails. It seems like he's putting pretty high odds on there being some form of success here, however, he may define that.

COLLINS: But that's the key question is how he defines success and one thing that we've heard from experts dealing with Russia, dealing with Ukraine, is that President Putin is likely going to show up with some kind of business prospect or trade and kind of investment suggestion that will appeal to President Trump. And so, the question is how he answers that, whether or not they only talk about Ukraine when they get in the room tomorrow, or if there are other things on the table.

Obviously, Russia has been incredibly isolated for years now and has not been afforded an audience with a U.S. President. So, just simply that factor alone is helping restore Russia's image on the world stage. And so, the question is, you know, we've seen what concessions that people have expected Ukraine to make and the President playing that role in mediating that. The key question for him is, you know, what concessions he wants Putin himself to make here.

COOPER: Yes, Kaitlan, thanks very much. We'll see you at the top of the hour for "The Source."

Also, in Anchorage is CNN's chief global affairs correspondent, Matthew Chance, who just spoke with the top Kremlin official. Matthew, what did what did he tell you?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's Kirill Dmitriev, he makes himself very available to us because he's the sort of shop front, if you like -- the shop window for Russia. He's the dealmaker in chief. He's a special envoy to the Kremlin and it's interesting that he is part of this delegation from Russia to meet the U.S. President and other U.S. officials, because it just underlines, you know, how many other areas of cooperation, economic cooperation, arctic exploration for oil and gas reserves, even space exploration that the Kremlin wants to focus on.

It wants to broaden out that agenda away from the question of Ukraine. So, I put to Kirill Dmitriev that one of the main reasons Russia was doing that is to draw President Trump away from the focus on Ukraine. Take a listen to what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIRILL DMITRIEV, CEO OF THE RUSSIAN DIRECT INVESTMENT FUND: I think let's wait for the discussions to happen. I think there is general discussion about arctic and many other possibilities. But again, Ukraine is the main focus. Our political leaders, our diplomats will be at the front stage and then we'll see even if we get to economic questions or not. CHANCE: But do you think it's even possible for there to be progress on economic questions? You know, if the question of Ukraine remains unanswered? Do you do you accept that there will be no economic cooperation unless Ukraine is answered?

DMITRIEV: Yes, I think we understand that unless there is major progress on Ukraine and diplomatic efforts succeed, then economic cooperation will take a while to be relaunched.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[20:10:37]

CHANCE: Yes, so, Anderson, that was actually quite an encouraging response. It was an acknowledgment, a rare acknowledgment, in fact, that that it's the Ukraine issue that is standing in the way of the Kremlin and the White House's, you know, possibilities and dreams of sort of building a much better, much broader relationship.

And look, I mean, that may herald some sort of compromise at the negotiating table, but I will say that up until now, there's been no sign from the Kremlin whatsoever of any kind of move away from the maximalist demands that he's been asking for since the start of the Ukraine war, territory that it has annexed formally into Russia, but hasn't conquered on the battlefield. And basically the entire subjugation of Ukraine. But we'll see what comes out in these face to face talks between President Trump and President Putin tomorrow.

COOPER: Is your Ukrainian source downplaying the prospect of a meeting -- involving Zelenskyy purely on logistical grounds, or is there a skepticism that President Trump would even be able to secure a second summit, or the desire or the fear of what the terms may be.

CHANCE: We'll, definitely skepticism, but just logistically, the source told me that, you know, you've got to remember that every international trip out of Ukraine for the Ukrainian President starts with a 12-hour train journey to the border. There's no flights inside Ukraine. It's too dangerous to do that.

And so, you know, just in terms of getting here quickly after the after the summit is over tomorrow, it's just not going to happen. It's just not practical but there were other reservations as well, particularly that the Ukrainians, according to this source, would not really be up or would not be interested in sitting down in trilateral negotiations with President Putin and President Trump. If there's still a conflict underway and people are being killed on the front lines and in towns and cities across Ukraine. And so, that source told me that it would be a nonstarter for the Ukrainians unless there was a ceasefire from the Russian side.

So far, as I say, there's been no indication that the Russians in the past have been willing to offer that. And so, that could be another stumbling, stumbling block.

COOPER: Matthew Chance, appreciate your reporting. Thank you. I'm joined now by former Senator Chuck Hagel, who also served as secretary of defense under President Obama from 2013 to 2015. He was part of the National Security team dealing with Russia's takeover of Crimea in 2014. Secretary Hagel, appreciate your time tonight. You heard President Trump saying that Putin is not going to mess around with him and that the summit is just to set the table for a trilateral meeting that would include President Zelenskyy. Do you think that's how Vladimir Putin sees this?

CHUCK HAGEL, FORMER UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, I'm not sure. I don't think anybody is quite sure, but I think one thing is particularly important here, and you've heard it from other speakers. And I think John Bolton's comments, you just had on were important. Number one, the President has got to stay focused on the issue at hand, and that's Ukraine. But also, he's got to remember that he represents not only the United States, but also all of our European allies, NATO, Ukraine, those Baltic countries and Poland.

And so, this is not complicated in a way, but it is complicated. But he's got to keep that in mind, and he's got to control that focus and control the agenda.

COOPER: One of the other things that Ambassador Bolton had said last night is that he thought that if Vladimir Putin, you know, came in and immediately tried to expand the, you know, the platter of things on the table, not just Ukraine, and say, you know, let's look at, you know, restarting nuclear talks, which, which have not, you know, been undertaken in quite some time that President Trump would jump at that.

HAGEL: Well, he can acknowledge that. He can say, yes, we need to address that. That's critically important for us and the world. But he's still got to bring it back to the whole point of the meeting. Why the President met with our allies and Mr. Zelenskyy on Wednesday, getting their input. I mean, this war has been going on for a long time. It was President Putin, as you have noted as the aggressor, the invader. He started the war.

And so, we can't afford to let this opportunity drift off into parallel issues or not even parallel issues. So he's got to stay very disciplined on this.

[20:15:20]

COOPER: When you hear President Trump talk about land swapping. I mean, he's said more than once he and Vladimir Putin would discuss land swapping between Russia and Ukraine in order to secure a ceasefire. Though yesterday, obviously, while talking to a European leader, as we reported, he said that Ukrainian territory is not for him to negotiate. Do you he sticks with that or is it possible he does start to negotiate that?

HAGEL: Well, I think to start with, the President of United States does not have the authority in any way to, give up land for another country, an independent nation. He can speak for another nation in general terms with our allies represent them. But he can't be the final arbiter or decision maker in something like that. And I think that's also something that's got to be made very clearly to President Putin. I mean, the fact is, President Putin is a brutal despot. He was molded and shaped by the KGB. He lies --the tremendous damage he's done to Ukraine, the threat he is to Western Europe. So, I think all of that's got to be present in the President's mind as he engages, as he so called, negotiates whatever it is.

Now, there will be other issues. I know there will be and I suppose anybody who's been following this knows that. But again, I say, you've got to stay disciplined. One other point id make in a more general framework and context, Anderson, is you were talking about the future of the post-World War II world order here. That world order has been pretty successful the last 80 years. No nuclear exchange, no world war and so much hinges on this as to how is the next few years going to look? How is the post-world war order going to play out with the institutions and the laws and so on? So, I think that's also, I don't want to complicate things here, but that's also a big part of this.

COOPER: Yes, the stakes are very high. Secretary Hagel, I really appreciate you being on tonight. Thank you.

One proposal that it's thought President Putin may put forward in Alaska is Ukraine giving up the Donbas Region of Ukraine to Russia.

Now, earlier this week, President Zelenskyy vowed he would never do that, saying for the Russians, Donbas is a springboard for a future new offensive. If we leave Donbas on our own accord, of our own accord or under pressure, we will start a third war. He went on to say if we leave Donbas today, our fortifications, our terrain, the heights we control, we will clearly open a bridgehead for the preparation of a Russian offensive.

With those comments, we thought it was worth in advance of this summit tomorrow. Taking a few minutes tonight to explain and look at why President Zelenskyy is saying that Donbas is so critical.

Joining me is retired U.S. Army Major General James "Spider" Marks, a CNN military analyst. Thanks so much for being here. Why is the Donbas such a bridgehead, as he said.

JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, first of all, the Russians have been in the Donbas since 2014, when they annexed it along with Crimea.

COOPER: And by the way, when Secretary Hagel was dealing with them back then, in 2014, they said to him, we'll never do -- we'll never have another aggressive action against the Ukrainians now that we have the Donbas.

MARKS: Correct and what Zelenskyy is talking about is the third war was the initial invasion, which fell on its face. And then that's war number one. War number two is what we see right now, which is really I don't want to use the word stalemate, but that's essentially what we're seeing. There are no operational maneuvers on either side to try to dislocate the other enemy and achieve some success.

COOPER: From the Donbas?

MARKS: Well, from the Donbas and along the front, wherever it exists.

The Russians have not demonstrated that capacity, nor have the Ukrainians. So, the third war, in Zelenskyy's mind is, if we have a ceasefire and it's agreed to whatever the conditions are, the Russians now will be in Donbas, they can continue to build up forces and could launch from there. But they did that before they did that three years ago. And that failed. If the desire is to achieve a collapse of the regime in Kyiv, whatever that looks like, you wouldn't do it from the Donbas. You'd probably relocate forces up to Belarus and drop down that way.

COOPER: Have you seen any indication that Russian forces have, you know, are they a learning enemy -- have they -- you know, obviously, there's been a lot of improvements and innovations in drone warfare on both sides over the last three years, shockingly so and they're probably advanced from the United States from what I've been hearing.

But have you seen any indication over the last three years that Russia has improved their capabilities to any real extent?

[20:20:15]

MARKS: They have, the short answer is yes but at a tactical level. What you described with drone warfare, for example, is an enabler. How do you synchronize that enabler with good solid intelligence logistics to support operations, maneuver forces, preparatory fires, the ability to reach deep. The Russians don't have that capacity. They do not have that ability. But they've learned at a tactical level how to take advantage.

Drones are one of those ways -- they have a tremendous cyber capability, which can affect command and control capacity. So, they are learning but I am sanguine. They have not learned that the ability to really apply force is something that is in their job jar in the near future. They've got a long way to go.

COOPER: I mean, I will never forget those early. I mean, I think I was there for a month right when the war began. And, you know, I just remember those videos of, like, Russian tanks just getting blown apart on these roads and getting bogged down. And it was just shocking to see, you know, this huge military force completely be stopped by, you know, Ukrainians defending their soil.

MARKS: One word, the Russian forces are leaderless. They don't have those sergeants, those noncommissioned officers.

COOPER: That makes the difference, that level, the sergeant level.

MARKS: Entirely, absolutely -- the reason I stayed in the Army as long as they did is I had sergeants that knew their stuff and were not hesitant about telling me what I needed to do to improve their ability to do their jobs. The Russians, there's no incentive for the Russian forces to take the initiative. There's nothing but bad news if they take the initiative. They're confident that somebody on the political side is going to come in and shoot them in the head and say you're not allowed to do that.

COOPER: It's a lot like, you know, tens of thousands of North Korean forces does that provide other than bodies and ultimately corpses on a battlefield? Does that provide a real advantage for Russia?

MARKS: Zero, zero.

COOPER: Just using up ammunition of the opposing --

MARKS: I hate to say that is exactly right. They put they pop up targets and the Ukrainians have to use a lot of bullets to kill them. It's a transaction for the North Koreans so they benefited. They got a bunch of money, but they did -- the North Koreans did not get that learning coming back --

COOPER: By the way, the leadership of North Korea may benefit. I don't know that the North Koreans who are laying dead on the battlefield, they haven't done so well.

MARKS: No, true. North Korean leadership would think -- thank you -- thank you, Mr. Cooper. But they would bring that capability back. Well, they're not doing that. They're coming back in body bags or they're rotting on --

COOPER: Let me see, I recently heard a talk by a military official in the U.S., and he was expressing concern about the U.S. ability in drone warfare, that I think he said that in one battle in Ukraine, the number of drones used was more than the U.S. could probably had in their arsenal, just like in one day.

MARKS: Probably not a bad observation, primarily because the Ukrainians and the Russians have been in conflict for over 36 months. They have adapted to exigencies and requirements on the ground, and they've determined the real value of those drones. The United States has brought some of those lessons back, and were now in the business of realizing this is an enabler that we can use to our great advantage, because the United States knows how to bring a synchronous, you know, a synchronization, a symphony of destruction on the battlefield.

COOPER: I mean, what's happening on the ground in the war in Ukraine? I mean, is that for the near future? Is that the future of warfare? I mean, I know, obviously it's increasingly will be A.I. system against A.I. system, machine against machine weaponized. But is -- I mean, are these drones, is that what we're seeing? Is that what we should be learning in military academies, and what warfare is going to look like for the next ten years?

What we are learning is the application of force and boots on the ground still matter. The definition of deterrence still matters, and there are enablers across the battlefield that are working to our advantage. The drones are one of those, but our ability to reach deep with our intelligence collection capabilities to command aerospace so that we can reach out and we can provide precise targets that we can now go after and affect, whether it's to destroy them or to isolate them or whatever it is. So, absolutely we are seeing right now not the future of warfare. This is what's happening right now.

COOPER: And when we saw, you know, Ukraine intelligence or whoever it was from Ukraine destroying, strategic bombers inside Russia with drones from a truck that they had driven in, I mean, is the U.S. vulnerable to that kind of an attack if we had a determined enemy? I mean, the airports aren't hardened. You destroy the hangars where the planes are there. It seems like we're very vulnerable to that sort of thing.

[20:25:06]

MARKS: Yes, you are correct. What we have to be able to do is get out of our own way and let the defense industrial base create some magic and not try to overcomplicate this thing. But what we're really seeing is drones are dropping grenades. That's not a difficult technical problem to solve, but we can't try to make that a solution that fits everybody, which we tend to do. So, you're absolutely correct. We are learning those lessons and yes, in the battlefield we would be vulnerable.

We have to be able to have and in this particular case, an anti-drone capability that through electronic warfare, we can take that thing down, and take control of it.

COOPER: Because it seems like, there was extraordinary work done with predator drones and, I mean, that during the Afghan conflict and but now it's these small commercial drones that, you know, people are jerry-rigging and operating. It's just stunning what we're seeing.

Major General James "Spider" Marks, appreciate it.

MARKS: Thanks so much.

COOPER: Tomorrow, Jake Tapper and I will be lead CNN's coverage of the summit with Jake in Alaska, I mean, Washington, D.C., our special programming begins at 2:00 P.M.

Next for us tonight, the resistance in Washington to federal troops and agents on the streets that we've been seeing. We'll be joined by a former D.C. Police chief.

And later, troubling questions surrounding a recruiting effort by the Department of Homeland Security, including whether it features an appeal to White nationalists. We'll explain that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:30:00]

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- streets. Not yours.

(SCREAMING) (END VIDEOCLIP)

[20:30:54]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: That was the scene in one area of Washington last night. Protestors yelling at federal officers at a checkpoint at a popular nightlife destination in the district. According to account of the Washington Post, a number of people were detained with a woman handcuffed while the crowd booed and yelled at officers to, quote, "read the Constitution."

Just a couple blocks away, a man was arrested after first shouting obscenities at officers and then throwing a sandwich at one.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

(INAUDIBLE)

(END VIDEOCLIP)

COOPER: On the alleged assailant, a man named Sean Charles Dunn was a Justice Department employee. He's now been fired, and he's also been charged with a felony, something former Fox News anchor and now U.S. attorney for the district, Jeanine Pirro, announced on social media.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

JEANINE PIRRO, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: He thought it was funny. Well, he doesn't think it's funny today because we charged him with a felony. So there, stick your Subway sandwich somewhere else.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

COOPER: That's the attorney for the district. The President also weighed in, not on the sandwich, but on the larger question of taking federal law enforcement officers away from their regular jobs and putting them on the streets.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you concerned at all that some federal officers that are helping D.C. police might be being pulled away from other high-priority assignments they'd be doing?

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Like what? Like what?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Terrorism, for example.

TRUMP: Oh, really? Terrorism? They'll stop terrorism as part of what they're doing right now. You know, in Washington, D.C., they have thousands of police. They have a lot of police, but the police weren't allowed to do their job. We have a lot of great ones, and you have some that weren't so good, to be honest, but they weren't allowed to do their job. But now they are allowed to do their job. (END VIDEOCLIP)

COOPER: Joining us now is former D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey, who's now a CNN Senior Law Enforcement Analyst. Do you see this increase in National Guard troops as helpful, as beneficial, concerns? What do you think is working?

CHARLES RAMSEY, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: You know, when this was first announced, of course, I was very skeptical, and I'm still a little skeptical, that the main motivation is to make D.C. a safer place. But having said that, the additional personnel, particularly the federal law enforcement, it can be used to actually make a difference in many of these neighborhoods.

Now, I'm not a big fan of the National Guard being used in that capacity. However, right now, they're in a support role, and I'm OK with that. But it has to be done in coordination with the Metropolitan Police Department, with the city, and they've got to target specific areas of the city that are still very challenged in terms of crime.

You can never drive crime down low enough. You have to keep pushing and pushing, because for the people who live in these challenged areas, we can talk about crime stats being down all we want. As far as they're concerned, there's been no difference. So, it's the perception of crime, as well as the reality that we have to deal with.

COOPER: Well, let's talk about the reality because the crime stats, which have been cited by a number of officials, are now being questioned by the police union in D.C. The president was asked about recent crime statistics in the Oval Office today, and he refers to that. I just want to play part of his answer.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

TRUMP: So, we will have crime under control very shortly in D.C., but they're record numbers. And sadly, what I guess the mayor did, but whoever it was, they asked the numbers to be fudged so that it would show less crime than the fact. The fact is, it's worse than it's ever been.

They are giving us phony crime stats, just like they gave other stats in the financial world, but they're phony crime stats. And Washington, D.C., is at its worst point, and it will soon be at its best point. You're going to have a very safe, you're going to have a crime-free city. I mean, I say that. You're going to have virtually a crime-free city.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

COOPER: I mean, do -- does police leadership cook the books in -- I mean, it happened in the Vietnam War --

RAMSEY: No.

COOPER: -- in the military, with the body count. It's happened -- you know, it happens in some places. RAMSEY: You know, when I was a young cop in Chicago back in the 1970s, there was a huge scandal around cooking the books or changing crime stats.

[20:35:06]

I'm not aware of anything like that going on in D.C. In fact, the union president who said that, I don't believe he's produced a bit of evidence to show that that, in fact, is the case. I mean, if crime is down, crime is down. But again, it doesn't get around the fact that you can always drive it down further. And that's really what you need to be able to do.

The biggest problem I have with this, because you can have this large surge of personnel in the district, you'll suppress crime for a period of time. But what's the plan? What's the long-term strategy for being able to maintain it, to keep it quiet, to keep it peaceful and safe? I haven't heard anybody talk about that at all. And that's what they need to be thinking about.

This many people cannot stay in the district for very long. They just can't. You've got to be able to move on and do your job --

COOPER: Yes.

RAMSEY: -- do your other job, rather.

COOPER: Chief Ramsey, I appreciate it. Thank you.

Coming up, a disturbing question with ads like this. Is the Department of Homeland Security appealing to patriotism or something perverse?

And remember when doctors were saying a glass of red wine a day was actually good for you? Now, new guidelines are out, and you might have guessed it, you may want to put your glass down until you hear them.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:40:24]

COOPER: Some recent social media posts by the Department of Homeland Security have some concerned with extremism sounding the alarm, saying that posts like this one to recruit new ICE agents have undertones of white nationalism. Now, this one shows Uncle Sam at a crossroads between law and order and homeland and cultural decline.

Now, a caption above the image reads, "Which way, American man?" That appears to be an allusion to the title of this book, "Which Way Western Man?" which was written by a white nationalist named William Gayley Simpson. That phrase has apparently become a popular meme among the far-right fringe.

Just yesterday, the Anti-Defamation League condemned the DHS post, writing in part, "In that book, which was popular with neo-Nazis and other white supremacists, Simpson argued that Western civilization was in decline and that blacks and Jews as well as Asians threatened the very existence of the white race."

Now, when contacted by CNN, DHS Spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement, and I quote, "Calling everything you dislike Nazi propaganda is tiresome." She went on to say, "Uncle Sam, who represents America, is at a crossroads pondering which way America should go."

Here with more is Juliette Kayyem, she's a former assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and currently CNN Senior National Security Analyst and Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent.

So, Juliette, I want to show a couple more posts from DHS that have garnered some criticism. There's a post depicting Washington, the 1940s, captioned, "We Can Return." Some have argued this glorifying the pre-civil rights era. There's another depicting a white pioneer family praying while holding a baby inside a covered wagon, captioned, "Remember Your Homeland's Heritage."

What kind of a message do you think the DHS is trying to convey?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I don't think this is what they're conveying. It's a combination of fear and nostalgia. Fear of the other, fear of an America that is going to be overrun by immigrants and caravans and whatever, and people who are going to rape and loot and do all these horrible things to you. And nostalgia, this other world that existed at some stage where everyone is white and everyone is safe and there's no diversity and there's no cities and there's prairies. And this is purposeful.

If DHS doesn't know what they're doing, people should lose their jobs. They know exactly what they're doing. And they're doing it to create an idea of the homeland that is consistent with their immigration policy, with their policy against cities, with their policy, their economic policy.

And so this is just the manifestation of it. And I really think pushing back on the DHS spokeswoman's comment is important. It is Nazi propaganda, period. It just is.

COOPER: So, Asha, you teach a class on propaganda and disinformation. I want to point out another DHS post with a painting, American Progress, by John Gast. It's a famous painting showing settlers displacing indigenous populations. The department captioned it, "A heritage to be proud of, a homeland worth defending." What do you think the message is here? Not just with this, but with a lot of these recruitment posts.

ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Yes, Juliette is absolutely right. This has all the hallmarks of classic fascist propaganda, which has several features. The main one is an us versus them framing. You know, this isn't Reagan's shining city on a hill where everybody is welcome. This isn't the melting pot. This is -- this country is under attack, us, and we need to defend it against them.

And you're invited to draw your conclusions based on the imagery of who the us versus them is. And as Juliette mentioned, fascist propaganda often hearkens to a mythic past, this sort of glorified early days where things were unsullied and pure. And I think that's exactly what they are appealing to, which means that ICE, which is a law enforcement agency, they will have badges and guns.

They are, you know, have a lot of power. This isn't about impartial enforcement of immigration laws. This is really about a specific vision of America that is based around a racial and religious vision in particular.

COOPER: I should say we should have a poster like Uncle Sam saying join. I mean, I'm not sure. I don't think that is one of the ones that have people concerned that -- I mean, it's certainly a reference to, you know, World War II recruitment posters and the like. It's more of these other ones.

How concerned, Juliette, are you about the type of people that these posts could actually attract to the agency?

[20:45:05]

KAYYEM: Well, your two guests tonight are two women with immigrant backgrounds from -- whose parents come from different parts of the world. That is the federal government and federal law enforcement that was appealing to us because we, too, wanted to serve our nation. The imagery coming out of DHS and ICE in particular is not a welcoming one.

And we know from local to -- from local police to federal police that the best law enforcement, the best intelligence agencies are ones that reflect the world rather than ones that are at war with the diversity and the integration and the melting pot of the world. Your guests are proof of what was -- how the department and how the FBI thought about what was important for America's national security. You're not getting that message today.

COOPER: Yes. Juliette Kayyem, Asha Rangappa, thanks very much.

It used to be that a glass of red wine was considered heart-healthy, but up next, what new guidelines for treating high blood pressure are saying about alcohol consumption.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Well, pardon the pun, but some sobering news in the updated guidelines out today on treating high blood pressure and the major takeaway, people with hypertension who like to drink should give up alcohol altogether. Formerly, the guidelines said it was OK for women to have one drink or less a day, two or less for men. Not anymore, and it is certainly a far cry from the days of wine and roses.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A new study suggests that a glass of red wine every day can control type 2 diabetes. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Women, wine, and weight. A new study comes to a surprising conclusion. Women who consume light to moderate amounts of alcohol are likely to gain less weight than those who abstain altogether.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Red wine especially has some great health qualities. It's actually heart healthy for you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A new study showing that drinking a glass of red wine is just as good as spending an hour at the gym.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

COOPER: So, lots to discuss and inch forward Dr. Sanjay Gupta. So, I mean, I remember, I'm sure I said those things too. You know, everyone was saying it. I believed it. I started drinking a glass of red wine a day and now I feel like an idiot. For years, I mean, what it -- so how -- do you buy this study? Or this guideline?

[20:50:00]

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I do buy this study and I think despite -- I think the guidelines are important here and I think they do reflect sort of what we've learned. But I will tell you, I mean, going back more than 100 years, there's been debates about whether or not there's some value to -- from alcohol on your health. And there was these op-eds in the New York Times going back to the 1870s, Anderson, about this.

So there's been this back and forth. But I think if you look back over the last 50 years or so, other than like in the early 90s with this thing called the French Paradox, which may have been what convinced you to drink a glass of wine tonight, most of the data has really pointed towards problems with alcohol. You know, increased risk of breast cancer and stroke, that was in the 80s.

1992 again, that French Paradox I just mentioned. But look, over the last 10 years, increased risk of cancer again. In 2018, a significant statement that came from the World Health Organization saying no amount of alcohol is good for your health.

But I think what's really driving this concern and these new guidelines now about basically saying abstain completely has to do specifically with cardiac health and blood pressure even more specifically. If you have even moderately high blood pressure, the guidance is simply don't drink. It's too much of a risk.

COOPER: I mean, alcohol has been such a big part of American culture for a long time, but we are seeing more people give it up.

GUPTA: Yes, and I think it's because of these health messages. If you look at the demographics overall, younger people seem to be giving it up at a faster rate even than older people.

COOPER: Right. GUPTA: So I think some of the concerns about health are really getting through. If you look at some of the data, I think going back over the last 10 years or so, you find that about in 2001, 27 percent of people, they thought that alcohol was bad for health. It's 53 percent now.

COOPER: Wow.

GUPTA: And I don't know if you saw some of the data that came out today that basically said 54 percent of people are drinking. So just around half the people.

COOPER: Yes.

GUPTA: I think, you know, going back 20 years, you ask adults, most people would say, yes, I still drink occasionally. It's getting closer to just half a percentage of adults.

COOPER: There's also now a change in how doctors should treat high blood pressure. We don't have a lot of time, but what are the guidelines on that now?

GUPTA: I think that, first of all, these are the first new guidelines since 2017, number one, and about half the country has hypertension. Just to give you that context, I think that's really important.

COOPER: That's incredible.

GUPTA: But basically, what they're saying is, yes, it's a really high number, but 120 over 80. Below that, that's normal. If you get to be over 130, that's the top number there, that's when they say for the first three to six months, lifestyle changes, really focus on that, healthy weight, reduce salt exercise.

But then, importantly, if no change after three to six months of lifestyle changes, possibly considering medication at that point --

COOPER: Right.

GUPTA: -- and again, abstaining from alcohol. A pretty firm recommendation at that point.

COOPER: All right. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thanks so much.

Just ahead, he was considered by many to be American royalty. The public's fascination with John F. Kennedy Jr. and his wife, Carolyn Bessette.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:57:09]

COOPER: Saturday's new CNN original series "American Prince: JFK Jr." chronicles John F. Kennedy Jr.'s life from his father's assassination to his careers in law and publishing and his marriage to Caroline Bessette. CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister looks at the couple's legacy.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Caroline?

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In a nation with no royal family, John F. Kennedy Jr. and Caroline Bessette were prince and princess.

STEVE GILLON, FRIEND AND JFK JR. BIOGRAPHER: Each of them had their own charisma and their own charm. But you put them together and there was like a multiplier effect.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): With images like these saluting his father's casket at age three, John Jr. grew up as America's son.

GILLON: He just hated being called John John. He would always say, he'd mutter under his breath, you know, one John is sufficient.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): But Kennedy accepted his public life, while Bessette preferred to stay private, creating an aura of mystery and public fascination.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let him through.

CAROLE RADZIWILL, FRIEND OF CAROLYN BESSETTE AND JFK JR.: She had married, like, arguably, like, the most famous man in the world at that time. She refused to bend to the will of the press.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Carole Radziwill spent years in the couple's inner circle. She was married to Kennedy's cousin and best friend, Anthony, whose mother, Lee Radziwill, was Jackie O.'s younger sister. She says Bessette was the opposite of her public image.

RADZIWILL: I think what people take away from the photos is that she sort of seemed like a caged, scared person. And she just wasn't. She was very strong, very confident.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Bessette left a job at Calvin Klein after she met Kennedy, but never actually sought the role she's still known for -- fashion icon.

RADZIWILL: She didn't fuss over her fashion. She lived her life with style. Style for her was not, like, what she was wearing.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Her effortless, chic style is in breeze today. When fans saw early photos from an upcoming FX series on John and Carolyn, they erupted online, claiming the looks appeared more fast fashion than Bessette's classic elegance.

Producer Ryan Murphy told Variety, Carolyn Bessette is clearly a religion of her own, insisting these were merely test shots.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ladies and gentlemen, meet George. WAGMEISTER (voice-over): In 1999, Kennedy's magazine, George, was failing. His best friend and cousin, Anthony, was dying of cancer. And his marriage to Carolyn was strained.

RADZIWILL: All I can say is, there's no talk of divorce or breaking up. They were going to a wedding together that Friday.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): But then the world stopped as John and Carolyn's single-engine plane crashed off the coast of Martha's Vineyard. America's royal couple was gone.

RADZIWILL: She was the protector of all of us. She protected me. She was John's protector.

GILLON: Had John lived, he would have run for office.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Just months before his death, Gillon says Kennedy spoke of what might have been, embracing his family roots and a life in politics.

GILLON: He said, what people need is hope. They need to know that tomorrow is going to be better than today. And it was this long pause. And he looked at me and he said, I can do that. I think I can do that.

WAGMEISTER (voice-over): Elizabeth Wagmeister, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

COOPER: Well, the CNN Original Series, "American Prince: JFK Jr.", airs Saturday night, 9:00 p.m. Eastern Pacific on CNN. That's it for us. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now.