Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Judge Dismisses DOJ Cases Against Letitia James And James Comey; NBA Head Coach Pleads Not Guilty In Alleged Poker Scheme; Ongoing Talks On Peace Plan Ahead Of Trump's Deadline; FEMA Insider Speak To CNN About New Boss Nicknamed "The Terminator". Aired 6-7p ET

Aired November 24, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Erica Hill in for Jake Tapper.

This hour, major news today in two legal cases of two Trump foes. A federal judge throwing out the indictments against James Comey and Letitia James. The White House says this, quote, will not be the final word on this matter. So, what does come next? Could these cases be brought again?

Plus, President Trump was expected to roll out a new plan today about healthcare costs. That announcement though now delayed. So, what is in the Republican plan? Could it save your family money? I'll ask a GOP lawmaker in moments.

And NBA Head Coach Chauncey Billups appearing in court today officially pleading not guilty to charges in a massive sports rigging and gambling probe. It's also allegedly linked to the mafia. We're going to dig into what happened during today's hearing.

And her nickname was The Terminator. Now she's in charge of leading the federal government's response to disasters, including hurricanes and tornadoes. What CNN is learning about the woman at the helm of FEMA directly from current and former agency insiders.

The Lead tonight, a federal judge throwing out criminal cases against two of President Trump's political enemies, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, the judge calling Trump handpicked prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's appointment unlawful. James responding to the dismissal in his statement saying, quote, I am heartened by today's victory, adding, I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day. Comey responding on Instagram.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: I know that Donald Trump will probably come after me again, and my attitude's going to be the same. I'm innocent, I am not afraid, and I believe in an independent federal judiciary, the gift from our founders that protects us from a would-be tyrant.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Joining me now, CNN Crime and Justice Correspondent Katelyn Polantz and CNN and Chief White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins. Good to see you both.

So, Katelyn Polantz, to you first. Walk us through the judge's finding here and the determination that Halligan was in fact unlawfully appointed and what this means for these cases.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erica, what this means is that everybody is gearing up for more. But, first, exactly what happened today. This decision by Judge Cameron Currie, she was looking at the authority of Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, and she said in the last nine weeks when Halligan has been in that post and working without Senate confirmation after the time that others had served as interim for very long, longer than the law says, it's all invalid.

And that means that the cases against James Comey and Letitia James that Donald Trump had brought and Lindsey Halligan herself alone had secured in the grand jury, that those are also invalid and are dismissed. Those cases in the court docket, they are now closed. James Comey is no longer a criminal defendant in the federal system, same goes for Letitia James at this time.

But like I said, everybody's gearing up for what's next, fights, perhaps. The Justice Department's attorney general, Pam Bondi, she just said in a public statement she was defending Lindsey Halligan saying shame on people for not wanting her in that office, and that there would be appeals promising for those filings to come. In the office internally in the Eastern District of Virginia, prosecutors have been given a couple different directions, but, ultimately, they were told near the end of the day that they should keep Lindsey Halligan's name on their court filings.

And then on the Comey side, you hear from Comey's lawyer today, Pat Fitzgerald, saying in a statement that they believe there can be no further indictment of James Comey even if these cases were dismissed in a way where they could be potentially charged again or tried to be charged again outside of the appeals process. The other thing I'm waiting for is what do the district judges do in this decision.

Judge Currie wrote that it is up to the district judges now to put someone in place to be the interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia until at least somebody is sent by the executive branch and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. That is not something that could happen quickly. So, we're waiting to see exactly what the judges in this district do too.

HILL: As we wait to see all of that, Kaitlan Collins, the White House is weighing in, pretty strong reaction as well.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, we actually heard from the White House Press secretary on this before we heard from the attorney general, as Katelyn just noted. She weighed in a little while ago, but we had heard from Karoline Leavitt speaking with reporters just in the short aftermath after the judge outright dismissed these two cases. And this is what Karoline Leavitt had to say about what they believed the next steps were going to be.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I know there was a judge who is clearly trying to shield Letitia James and James Comey from receiving accountability.

The Department of Justice will be appealing very soon, and it is our position that Lindsey Halligan is extremely qualified for this position, but more importantly was legally appointed to it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[18:05:08]

COLLINS: So, arguing that she's legally allowed to be in this job, obviously, that is at the center of it. It has nothing to do with her qualifications or the fact that she hasn't prosecuted a case before being in this position that led to the judge's decision today. And I'll tell you, this isn't surprising for the White House. It is definitely a setback. It's definitely embarrassing, but it wasn't exactly surprising because this was an argument that legal experts had been making when they rushed to put Lindsey Halligan inside this position. She'd been inside the White House before this, Erica then obviously was a personal attorney to Donald Trump before he won back the White House.

And so one thing though to the question of what happens next here, yes, Pam Bondi says they're going to be appealing this and defended Lindsey Halligan, but remember that the day that Letitia James' indictment came down, it shocked senior leadership at the Justice Department. They did not know that this was coming and it wasn't really cleared with them or discussed with them beforehand. And so there has been a lot of back and forth and people not on the same page at the Justice Department over this case. A lot of it had to do with the strength of the case. They did not believe that it had a lot of merit there.

And so that'll be the question is if they do decide to redo it, who takes over? But to Katelyn's point there about them still putting Lindsey Halligan name on the filings today, it also speaks to the kind of chaos and confusion that has reigned at EDVA ever since this happened.

And so that's really the question of going forward, what they decide to do here. But the president feels very loyal to Lindsey Halligan. She is one of his favorites. And so obviously that also influences a lot of how the decision-making happens here as they defend the, the legal qualifications that she has to be in this position.

HILL: Right, which could have, a pretty wide ranging impact given the cases that come through the Eastern District. We'll be watching all of that. Katelyn and Kaitlan, thank you both. And, of course, Kaitlan Collins will be back with much more tonight on her show. Tune into The Source with Kaitlan Collins at 9:00 Eastern here on CNN, and also available on the new CNN app.

Also joining me this hour, Republican Congressman Nick LaLota of New York. Congressman, it's good to have you here. You know, I'm curious, just your take as we look at this opinion, you know, we heard from the attorney general, we heard from Karoline Leavitt there, but the judge was very clear and, frankly, very detailed as I was reading the opinion earlier today, in her opinion that Halligan was unlawfully appointed. Do you have any concerns about the potential further ripple effect on a number of cases in the Eastern District and even perhaps DOJ writ large?

REP. NICK LALOTA (R-NY): Well, we'll see what happens with the other cases, but just to remind your viewers, James Comey was indicted by a jury of his peers just two months ago for lying under oath to Congress and obstructing a Congressional proceeding during a September 2020 Senate hearing. What happened with Mr. Comey today is not the last chapter in the book. It's a mere procedural issue.

The court said that there were procedural flaws in the indictment. That doesn't mean that the case was decided on its merits. James Comey, when he was indicted by a jury of his peers, said he looks forward to his day in court and that may be a part of his future as well.

HILL: We'll be watching to see. We know there are questions about the indictment itself, of course.

So, as we wait for those other developments and we look at where things stand, again, do you have any concerns that the appointment itself of Lindsey Halligan, that her appointment was in fact unlawful as the judge wrote in her opinion?

LALOTA: Yes, I suspect those sorts of things will get ironed out in the next few weeks and months. If it was flawed, the administration will likely correct it and justice will prevail throughout the district. Time will tell where that exact issue goes.

HILL: So, the president was said to unveil today a new healthcare proposal outlining an alternative to these enhanced Obamacare subsidies. There's some 22 million, nearly 22 million Americans, of course, as we know who rely on those. The White House though then said the announcement was being postponed. There's not a lot of time left on the calendar here, a little over a month to get something done on subsidies before they expire. People could see premiums and some cases double. Do you have any insight for us into what caused this delay with the announcement today?

LALOTA: Yes. And, again, let's start from the beginning on this. In 2010, without a single Republican vote, Democrats passed Obamacare, and since then, premiums have increased 60 percent more than inflation. Nearly one in three claims are denied, and insurance companies are making a gazillion dollars. This patch that Democrats passed three years ago was meant to be temporary and pandemic related with respect to these premium tax credits.

So, now we're left holding the bag trying to fix a lot, which is broken. There are a lot of good-willing people --

HILL: So, respectfully, Congressman, for years, for 15 years, we have been hearing from Republicans about how terrible Obamacare is. President Trump has said for years that he had a plan. Speaker Johnson, I believe, said he had books full of ideas. Where is the Republican plan? I understand you're unhappy with what exists, but where is the idea from Republicans to change that?

[18:10:00]

LALOTA: I was just getting to it before you cut me off. But here's the issue. The issue is I think that, and the president said this a few weeks, so quite clearly, the money the federal government spends should go directly to people and patients, not to insurance companies. That hasn't worked for 15 years. So, the plan includes that prong, it includes an income cap as well. The premium tax credits as issued right now are going to folks who make $500,000, $600,000, $700,000 per year. We think that's not affordable for the country long term.

And then finally, some audits and controls on, on these insurance companies who are making a lot of money. You could look at some of these stock charts and some of these insurance companies who have been laughing and taking the money to the bank while Republicans and Democrats have fought each other for 15 years on this issue. There needs to be more audit and controls if the federal government is going to be continued to be in this subsidizing business. Those are the three key prongs where Republicans are focusing right now.

HILL: So, based on those three key prongs, it does sound like you have the at least framework for a deal, which brings me back to the question of if there is this framework, right, of what you're laying out with these three key points, why the delay today? Is it ready to go or no?

LALOTA: No. So, the tax credits have not expired. Unfortunately, we were delayed by 43 days because obstructionist Senate Democrats decided to shut the government down while these good faith discussions were happening two or three months ago. I'm part of the Problem Solvers Caucus, the Republican Main Street Caucus. These issues were being dealt with in candor, in earnest, with both sides of the aisle months ago. Those issues got both delayed and a lot of the good faith that was being built up before the Democrat-led shutdown got stalled and thwarted a lot of our progress.

So, we're back at the table. Folks are meeting. I had a meeting today on the issue. We'll continue to meet on it because we understand that key issues are at stake and Americans want more affordable and more accessible healthcare.

HILL: That is true across the board, I think people find Americans saying they want that no matter where they get their health insurance from. But to your point about these discussions, isn't this exactly what Democrats were asking for? LALOTA: Until they derailed everything. And you probably -- I think your network played a clip of my New York colleague, Mike Lawler, confronting Hakeem Jeffries early during the shutdown and challenged him, hey, listen, sign on to a one-year extension of the status quo on extending the premium tax credits. And then Jefferies didn't want to do it. He shunned my colleague, who was trying to reach across the aisle in order to provide relief for constituents, because I think a lot of folks know what's going on here.

Not both -- both parties aren't working in earnest in this. Republicans have been coming to the table trying to figure out solutions while Democrats in some cases, not all of them, there's some folks working in good faith here, but some of them would rather have a political win than one that actually makes healthcare more affordable for everyday Americans.

HILL: You're talking about wanting to have that conversation. But to be clear, it was Speaker Johnson who kept the House home.

LALOTA: Well, it was Democrats who shut the government down and we wanted to ensure that the government was reopened, that we paid our troops, we paid our air traffic controllers, we funded SNAP. Holding those folks hostage was never right. Both parties always used to agree to keep the government funded while we sorted at our other issues. The tactic of politicizing things in our military, holding money back from SNAP and WIC and not paying air traffic controllers I hope is something that they don't repeat anytime soon.

HILL: Congressman Nick LaLota of New York. I appreciate your time tonight, sir. Thank you.

LALOTA: Thanks so much.

HILL: NBA Coach Chauncey Billups appearing in court today over charges stemming from alleged mob-run poker games. We'll tell you what happened inside that hearing next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

HILL: In our Sports Lead, Portland Trailblazer's Head Coach Chauncey Billups pleading not guilty today to charges stemming from an alleged scheme to help lure unsuspecting gamblers to a mob-run poker game they didn't know was fixed. 30 other people who are charged also entering pleas today. Billups is on leave from the trailblazers and posted a $5 million bond to stay out of jail.

CNN's Chief Law Enforcement Analyst John Miller joining us now. So, John, the judge today said even though there are many defendants and prosecutors have a lot of evidence, he's hoping that this trial can start in September, which is not that far away. I mean, just walk us through what these cases are like in terms of how difficult or not they are to prosecute.

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, this case is going to be difficult to prosecute because it's unwieldy. It's 31 defendants in one gambling case. So, imagine 31 defendants sitting at the table, each one of them with one or more lawyers crowded into that courtroom and the testimony has to be about each one in their role and a jury has to keep track of it.

So, September isn't that far away but it's long enough so that what we're going to see over the next coming weeks and months is some of these defendants are going to get their discovery evidence from the government, see what they have on them, and decide to plead guilty in order to get less time based on the likelihood being convicted of the court. Some of them may become cooperators or even witnesses in return for leniency, and some of them may elect to go to trial.

Either way, by September you're going to see a smaller crowd than 31 sitting at that table, and I think the judge is counting on that.

HILL: Yes, so the indictment says that the suspects used Billups' notoriety here to help lure unsuspecting victims into these rigged poker games. Do we have a sense of how widespread something like this might be?

MILLER: Well, I mean, anybody who knows about professional sports figures know there's a lot of testosterone. They're high risk takers. And a lot of that, you know, comes with gambling. There's the stories about the gambling that goes on the team plane and on the team bus and so on. But there's certain rules, right? You know you don't bet on your own games. You know you don't bet against, you know, or for your team or within the league. I mean, there's a lot of regs that go with that, depending on what league you're in.

But in this case, poker games, offsite gambling, online gambling, the difference here is the sports figures.

[18:20:01]

Billups, D. Jones were called the face cards. They were the draw to get the other players to the table, figuring, well, if they were there, it probably had to be on the level. And plus there were celebrities.

Here's the other difference. The government alleges they weren't just the draw, they were in on it. They actually were participants on the cheating team that used technology to figure out what the other players had in their hands, when to play, when to bluff, and how to take their money. One player, we are told from the court papers, lost $1.8 million, which is bad enough when you owe that money. But when you owe it to the mob, they make it clear what happens if you don't pay.

HILL: Yes, absolutely. John Miller, I appreciate it, my friend. Thank you.

MILLER: Thanks.

HILL: So, the White House says, President Trump is, quote, hopeful and optimistic that a deal can be struck to end Russia's war against Ukraine. What we're learning about what's happening behind closed doors during negotiations today, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

HILL: In our World Lead, talks of the United States 28-point proposal to end the Russia-Ukraine War are ongoing. It is unclear though just how much progress is actually being made in these back and forth discussions and whether Ukraine will accept the proposal by President Trump's Thanksgiving deadline.

Joining me now, New York Times White House and National Security Correspondent David Sanger. So, when we look at this, David, where do things stand in this moment? What are you hearing from your sources about how much movement, if any, there is?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, there's been a fair bit of movement after the trip, Erica, that Secretary of State Rubio took to Switzerland over the weekend. You'll remember he was very heavily criticized because the original document, the original 28 points read like they had been dictated from the Kremlin. And so he got objections from Republican senators. He got objections from the Europeans who were cut out of this. He got objections from the Ukrainians, who the administration says were consulted, but I'm not sure they were really listened to.

So, by the time he left Switzerland, the 28 points have gone down to something closer to 20. That Thanksgiving deadline that you heard the president lay out is, you know, the absolute moment when President Zelenskyy of Ukraine had to say yes to this, that's gone. No one will publicly say it or say when the next deadline is, but it's not there anymore.

And what's really interesting is they have now pulled out for later negotiation some of the most controversial elements about giving the Russians land that they had not yet militarily taken over and giving sovereignty or giving a voice to the Russians about whether or not Ukraine could join NATO or have peacekeeping forces in the country. So, the big question now is, will the Russians still be interested?

HILL: And is there any sense that they would?

SANGER: You know, I think it was unclear before whether or not President Putin would accept the 28-point plan. As described to me, the 20-point plan violates a lot of his red line. So, my guess is that while the president thought he could jumpstart this and get an agreement by Thanksgiving, this is in for a long haul.

HILL: Yes. We're sort of back where we started, right. It is Russia digging in its heels, if you were not looking to give.

I do also want to ask you about what we're seeing in South America. So, these tensions between the United States and Venezuela really escalating amid the ongoing U.S. strikes on alleged drug votes. The Trump administration is now designating Venezuela's president as a member of a foreign terrorist group. Does that change -- how does this change the action President Trump could potentially take when it comes to Venezuela?

SANGER: Well, one way it could change it is that they could say that they are not going after the president of the country since they argue that President Maduro was not legally elected, and instead they could say they're going after the head of a cartel, the cartel of the sons, as they've told. The problem is it's not clear that's really an organization or a cartel, even though they have named it and named it as a terror group.

You heard Defense Secretary Hegseth say last week that once the designation takes effect, and that was today, it opens up new options for him, but he didn't say what those were. I think it's pretty fair to say you're going to see some long distance land strikes. The president said weeks ago, he expected those. I have my doubts about whether or not the president really wants to put American ground troops other than perhaps some special forces briefly on the ground in Venezuela. I don't think he wants to see American casualties for a war whose or a conflict whose real objectives he's yet to describe.

HILL: Yes, still so many questions. David, always good to talk to you. Thank you.

SANGER: Great to be with you, Erica.

HILL: Democratic Senator Mark Kelly is now responding after the Pentagon said it would investigate, quote, serious allegations of misconduct against him. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

HILL: We are following two major stories involving the Trump administration today. The first, a federal judge dismissing the indictments against two foes, former FBI Director James Comey and current New York Attorney General Letitia James, the judge finding that the appointment of the interim U.S. attorney who brought the charges was invalid.

The other major story, the Pentagon saying it is now investigating Democratic Senator Mark Kelly. He's a retired U.S. Navy captain, of course. The Pentagon accusing him of, quote, serious allegations of misconduct.

Joining me now, Natasha Bertrand. So, Natasha, just walk us through how we got to this point and what we know about this alleged investigation.

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erica, this all started because last week, six Democratic lawmakers, including Senator Mark Kelly, they posted a video on X urging service members to remember that they have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. And what these lawmakers said in the video is, quote, threats to our Constitution are coming from right here at home and they repeatedly urge both the military and the intelligence community to refuse illegal orders. And they said, quote, no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or Constitution. And they said, know that we have your back, don't give up the ship.

Now, this infuriated President Donald Trump, who repeatedly posted about it on Truth Social, calling those lawmakers seditious and treasonous and traitors. Now, we are seeing that after President Trump told Fox last week that Secretary Hegseth was looking into this, the Department of Defense has now announced that it's going to be investigating Senator Mark Kelly, the only one of those veterans in that video who can be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice at this point, because he's the only one of them that is currently retired, and that all options remain on the table as the investigation progresses, including the possibility that he's recalled active duty military service to face a court martial. Erica?

HILL: And so in terms of Senator Kelly, he's now responding. What is he saying?

BERTRAND: Well, he is pretty defiant and he does not seem deterred by this in a statement on X. It was very lengthy detailing his very extensive military service and career. He said, quote, if this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won't work. I've given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution.

Now, it's worth noting that in the attempt to court martial him could run into significant obstacles. His lawyer would probably raise issues related to undue command influence, given that Secretary Hegseth and President Donald Trump have weighed in directly on this multiple times, urging these lawmakers to face some kind of consequences. So, it's unclear if it's actually going to get to this point, but it's certainly a message being sent to any retired senior officer that this kind of language is not going to be tolerated by the department, and they could be subject to an investigation, Erica?

HILL: All right. We know you'll keep us posted on any other developments, Natasha. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Also, joining us this hour, former Marine Fighter Pilot Amy McGrath, who's running as a Democrat for a U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky. It's good to have you with us this hour.

I'm just curious your thoughts as we look at where things stand and the news that the Pentagon is investigating Senator Kelly for asking troops to defy illegal orders.

AMY MCGRATH (D), KENTUCKY SENATE CANDIDATE: Well, the whole thing is ludicrous. Nothing Senator Kelly or any of the others who posted that video, nothing that they said was inflammatory. And the American public watching this needs to know that our military has not only -- the military leaders have not only the right but a duty to not follow through with any illegal order. This is longstanding tradition, right? And military officers are taught this at the lowest level.

It comes down to this, Donald Trump does not own the military. The military's oath is to the Constitution. We don't take an oath to a political party or to one man, and, you know, unfortunately, Donald Trump is still learning this, in my belief.

HILL: You call this ludicrous. Secretary Hegseth, in criticizing Senator Kelly and the five other Democrats who are in that video, he said that this, quote, sows doubt and confusion. Yesterday, Senator Elissa Slotkin, who's also, of course, in that video she said she was not -- in her words, not aware of any illegal orders that had been issued by the president. Do you believe the video itself, as a former Marine, the video itself was appropriate?

MCGRATH: It's a -- yes. Because, look, members of Congress -- the military's not just responsible to the commander-in-chief, but also to Congress. And a member of Congress criticizing the president, or in this case, simply reminding military leaders of their oath is 100 percent within the bounds of free speech, 100 percent within the bounds of the Congressional Oversight, you know, and they're allowed to do this. It's not against the law to state what the actual law is.

So, the whole thing is ludicrous to, to bring to try to bring Senator Kelly back in and court martial on him. I mean, to say that he is a distinguished veteran -- I mean, he's not just any veteran, he's a combat pilot. He is somebody who's flown four space shuttle missions.

And, you know, Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth trying to silence any criticism of what appears to be illegal strikes in the Caribbean, I mean, that's what they're doing right now, and they're threatening the power of the federal government against anyone who criticizes, and this is dangerous.

So, in my belief, if the administration's intent here was to use these threats against Senator Kelly to silence critics of their policies, and to silence, you know, former officers in the military from speaking out, the administration's going to fail here in a big way.

HILL: We're going to continue to watch for those developments, but I did want to get your take on another story. I know you have been outspoken about your concerns when it comes to a change in federal student loans. This is part of the president's signature tax law, which would redefine which degrees are considered, quote, professional. And by doing that, for folks who aren't familiar with it, it would then cap the federal loans available to certain degrees that are being pursued as non-professional, but cap those federal loans at $20,500 annually, a limit of $100,000 for the entire degree.

[18:40:07]

What's remarkable is some of the degrees that would fall under that category, including nursing, would no longer be considered professional.

The president of the American Nurses Association was on CNN earlier today and warned of the devastating impact that this role could have. I just want to play a little bit of what she had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENNIFER MENSIK KENNEDY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION: We're in a nursing shortage. This is going to continue to drive not enough faculty to teach the future nurses. This is going to have a devastating effect for everyone trying to get healthcare services.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: She talks about the nursing shortage, but also the impact on patients. Is she right or is that an overstatement of the potential issue?

MCGRATH: Well, it's not an overstatement at all. I think, first of all, we need these professions, especially in my state of Kentucky. Right now, Kentucky is already facing dangerous shortages of nursing and health practitioners in our state. We have over three quarters of our counties are considered, you know, health professional shortage areas, and that means we need more.

And so doing this, downgrading these professional programs, like nursing, makes it more difficult to get loans to complete these degrees in those fields. And that's going to make it harder for people to want to go into these positions.

And at the end of the day, it's not just hurting nurses, you're hurting patients, because you want the highest quality best-educated people, you know, in our healthcare system. And at the end of the day though, can someone explain to me how a theologian is considered more professional than a nurse practitioner or somebody with a major advanced degree in nursing? It's just ridiculous.

HILL: Which one? That's one of the degrees, theology is one of the degrees, to your point in medicine, but not that are considered professional.

But to your point, a physician's assistant, a number of other degrees, including nursing as well, would not be. We will continue to watch those developments as well.

Amy McGrath, thanks for your time.

MCGRATH: You bet.

HILL: Still ahead here, what current and former officials are telling CNN about the woman now leading their agency, a woman once dubbed The Terminator.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:46:02]

HILL: In our national lead, FEMA's new acting administrator, Karen Evans, is set to start leading the agency next week. Evans will be the third person tapped to hold that position during President Trump's second term.

While she has yet to take her post, she is already making a name for herself. In a CNN exclusive, dozens of current and former FEMA insiders spoke with Gabe Cohen about the woman they call "The Terminator".

And Gabe joins me now.

So, what are you hearing from people within the agency? "The Terminator" is quite a nickname.

GABE COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. Erica, it really is. And look, just to backtrack, Karen Evans came into FEMA this spring, at that point as a senior advisor and more than a dozen FEMA insiders have told me that she really immediately became this enforcer for Secretary Kristi Noem and the Department of Homeland Security.

At that point, they were really tightening control over FEMA as we've seen them do ever since. And they were ramping up that rhetoric that we have heard that the agency is partisan, that it's bloated and that it likely needed to be eliminated. And cutting wasteful spending was one of the first pieces that we saw as part of that mission.

And Evans has played a huge role in that effort. She has been really the final gatekeeper for all funding requests before they get to Kristi Noem's desk. If staff wanted approval, they've had to go through Karen Evans, and sources say she has been cutting contracts and grants left and right, making staff review and rewrite thousands of these requests. And along the way, orchestrating dozens of firings, which has sparked that nickname that you mentioned, "The Terminator".

And a lot of senior officials at FEMA that I've spoken with say, all of this is really stifled the agency's operations and made it much harder for them to deliver necessary funds to communities across the country. Look, states have been complaining for months now. I've heard it firsthand, that hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars have been caught up at FEMA in this approval process, and there's very little guidance on whether those funds are actually going to come at some point in the future and what the state of emergency management, how much assistance from the federal government is going to be there in the months and years ahead.

Now, DHS has defended those cuts that we have seen in recent months. Obviously, they have been happy enough with Karen Evans work because now she has been promoted to the top job at FEMA. But, Erica, the timing here is critical because remember, the FEMA review council, which is co-chaired by Noem, is going to be putting out a report in a few weeks that's going to lay out a whole bunch of reforms for the agency. The question is, what's it going to look like?

HILL: Yeah, absolutely. Well, I know you will be bringing it to us. So there's that.

Gabe, appreciate the reporting as always. Thank you.

The panel is back with me now.

So I just want to follow up here. So, with some more of the reporting -- so, a former senior official who worked with Karen Evans said, and I'm quoting here, "Her intent was just to put out the least amount of money possible and not put any money into places or activities that didn't align or even suggested may not align with their priorities. She was going through line by line and disapproving things."

And here is a real kicker: she often didn't know what they meant or what would happen.

Shermichael, is someone who doesn't know what the things are that is -- that are being struck or disapproved, someone who doesn't know what they are or what cutting them would mean, the person who should be in charge of the nation's response to natural disasters and emergencies?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, that's not good operational leadership. This isn't really a partizan thing. I think any good businessperson or any good leader of an organization would say, okay, I understand the idea of starting with a zero-based budget. That means every single month you have to be able to prove why we're spending X amount of dollars, where it's going operational efficacy, efficiencies, faster execution.

That makes sense because you ultimately want to make sure you're not spending money recklessly and loosely. I think the American people would generally agree with that. But there's a process in which you would go about doing that. You want to avoid brain drain at an organization as critical as FEMA.

If the states are saying, like, hey, this is bogging down the process of us getting dollars, and that tells me that we probably should be utilizing technology to make the process more efficient, a lot quicker.

[18:50:07]

That's something that I would do if I were leading an organization such as FEMA.

And then you have to recognize, what are the priorities as you're trying to control, spend and stop the bleed? And the way the decisions have been made to me based on reporting doesn't suggest that there is a robust or sound direction, if you will, from this new appointee to how you accomplish controlling that spend that the secretary is saying is a necessity. And that's important. Otherwise, you're going to have a lot of issues as states are going to rely on that money during disasters. And that's not good for anybody.

HILL: Well, and as we just heard from Gabe, noting that he's heard from a number of states, that there -- there are already issues, right, with getting the funding that has been needed over the last however many months.

As we look at this you know, Meghan, to Shermichael's point, I think most Americans, right, even when it came to DOGE, most Americans, would agree the government could probably deal with some slimming down. It's the manner in which it's being undertaken that has been such a cause for concern. When we look at what we're hearing about what things could look like under her leadership at FEMA, what's your reaction?

MEGHAN HAYS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: You know, when I worked in the White House, I traveled on a lot of these disaster trips with former President Biden and these people who are getting this money from FEMA and who are getting assistance are at their lowest point. Their homes were destroyed in a hurricane or a fire, or their schools were destroyed. They don't have clothing, they don't have food, they don't have shelter.

So, to imply that the government is wasting money or that is not necessary to get that money out the door as quick as possible, is really irresponsible and disgusting, quite frankly. And it makes me very upset that an organization that is built to take care of people at their lowest moment by a natural disaster, that the government thinks it's okay to either delay or stall or not get that money out the door.

HILL: I also wanted to ask you about --

SINGLETON: Erica --

HILL: Yeah, real quick.

SINGLETON: I was just going to add quickly. That doesn't mean that there isn't wasteful spending or that wasteful spending doesn't exist, or that there isn't duplicitous spending. If you're well within programs under FEMA's direction or purview. That's not to say that but it is to say when you're looking at a budget and you're looking at every single line item on that budget, I have to do this every month and quarter for my own business, what am I cutting? And can I preserve the necessary programs for the structural intent -- again, operationally, for this thing to run the way it should?

Then you begin to look at, okay, what's unnecessary? Where should we make those cuts? Maybe we can merge something into something else so that it can run smoother. That's the --

HILL: Which is certainly -- which is certainly a lot of what we've heard and what the criticism has been, frankly, across the board when it comes to the way cuts have been made in many instances over the last several months.

I got to put that aside, though, because I do want to get your take on this next story. We know President Trump campaigned really effectively talking about the economy, economic policies, culture war issues. Well, fast forward, and earlier this month, Democrats really showing some strong gains at the ballot box by focusing on affordability. And they did very well in school board races in some of the country's largest school districts in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in Texas.

"Politico" noting that Democrats emphasized test scores and bus safety over debates about which bathrooms transgender students use and banning books from school libraries.

Meghan, what's the lesson here, moving into next year's midterms? HAYS: The lesson is that focus on things that people actually care

about. Don't focus on things that are so divisive. I don't think that any person sending their kid to school is concerned about bathrooms as much as they're concerned about the education their students are using. It just incites this divisiveness that we don't actually need to worry about.

People need to be worried about what their kids are learning, what books they're reading, that they're learning accurate history in the United States, and defunding the Department of Education is not a step in the right direction. And I think that that's what you also are seeing a reaction to when parents are going to vote for school board because they want to be more involved in what they're learning, if the federal government is going to take a complete step back.

HILL: Shermichael, the founder of a political group that backs conservative school board candidates, basically chalk this up to turnout on the Republican losses. Just telling "Politico", you know, Democrats are basically very ginned up. Republicans didn't know there was an election. So, it's just because nobody showed up to vote, that's part of it.

But could it also be, you know, in some ways, taking a page from Republicans about talking to Meghan's point, the issues that people actually care about as opposed to this sort of cultural thing that may not really be impacting people as much.

SINGLETON: Look, we made the cultural argument last year. It helped us out, but we also talked a whole lot about affordability and the fact that things were too expensive. After four years of the previous administration, we got to return to that.

And on the issue of education that Meghan just pointed out, we have talked a lot on my side about H-1B visas and that program. And a lot of companies say, well, we have to outsource or bring in some of these people from other places because we don't have the technical skills here for those jobs. Well, a great message from Republicans will be, we want more Americans who can code, who are engineers, et cetera.

[18:55:05]

HILL: That's not a schoolboard issue.

SINGLETON: Talk about education, talk about the future. Well, but what I'm saying here, Erica, the point, the reason I'm bringing it up is because we want to focus on education. And I think that starts way before you get to college. That's the overall point I'm trying to make.

HILL: Okay.

SINGLETON: I think if you talk to that issue and make that point to a lot of people, they would say, okay, I get it. I agree.

HILL: All right. We're going to have to leave it there. Nice to see you both. Thank you. HAYS: Thank you.

SINGLETON: Thank you, Erica.

HILL: The National Zoo in Washington, D.C., making a big announcement today. We'll tell you what is about to happen there for the first time in 25 years. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: The Smithsonian National Zoo has one more reason to be thankful this Thanksgiving. For the first time in nearly 25 years, one of their Asian elephants is pregnant. The calf is expected sometime between mid-January and March of next year. The exact due date not known because, turns out, Asian elephants are usually pregnant for anywhere between 18 and 22 months.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.