Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Panama Denies U.S. Claims of Free Transit; USAID Workers in Danger?; Federal Workers Face Deadline. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired February 06, 2025 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:39]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Deadline day. More than a million federal workers have until midnight tonight to decide whether to take a so- called buyout offer and resign. Here's the problem. If they don't take it, they could be fired anyway as the Trump administration looks to shrink the federal government.

Plus, right now, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is meeting with top Republicans on the Hill after he backs President Trump's proposal to -- quote -- "take over Gaza." We're following the very latest.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And what caused the wildfires last month in Southern California? One utility now says it may be to blame for at least one fire and possibly more.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: Right now, federal workers are bracing for what could be a life-altering decision. They have just hours left midnight tonight to decide whether to accept the Trump administration's offer to resign from their jobs while still getting paid allegedly for several months.

We're told at least 50,000 people, about 2.5 percent of the federal work force, has accepted the so-called buyout, but that's far short of the White House's target, which is aiming for 5 to 10 percent. So this is ramping up pressure, threatening widespread layoffs soon after the deadline.

It comes as this hour workers unions are in court in Boston seeking to halt tonight's deadline and challenging whether this offer is even legal.

CNN's Alayna Treene is live for us at the White House.

Alayna, what are you hearing from the White House as this deadline looms?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, one thing to keep in mind here, Boris, is just how quick this decision really was for some of the two million federal workers who were offered this deferred resignation program, as the White House is calling it. Now, remember, it was just last week that they said, look, you can

take this offer, go on voluntary paid leave through September 30, but you have until only February 6 at 11:59 p.m., AKA tonight, to decide. Now, one thing, of course, that I have been picking up on in conversations with different federal workers is they're anxious that this is actually what the White House says it is, that they will actually be able to receive full pay and benefits through the end of September.

You mentioned the unions. The unions are actually urging some federal workers not to take this offer, arguing, one, they're questioning the legality of it, but also questioning whether or not the money will actually be there to continue paying them, especially when you keep in mind that the federal government is not funded beyond the end of March.

We know that the president is meeting with House Republicans to discuss that budget today. Now, I do want to get back to some of the numbers here. Now, I am talking to a Trump administration official. They told me the most recent and up-to-date number of federal workers who have accepted this is 50,000.

Now, they want to reach at least 100,000 federal workers with this deferred resignation program. We still have to wait and see what that number ends up being as we get closer to midnight. Now, the other key thing to keep in mind here is that, despite this, despite the number of people who are opting to take this offer, their job is not guaranteed.

I'm told that, soon after this deadline, more widespread layoffs are imminent. This is going to come whether or not people have opted into this. I want to read for you what one Trump administration official told me regarding all of this.

They said -- quote -- "The government is restructuring. And, unfortunately, many employees will later realize they missed a valuable once-in-a-lifetime opportunity."

Now, the White House and the Office of Personnel Management, which was behind this e-mail that they sent to all of these two million workers, they are calling this a generous offer, one that, again, they believe that they didn't need to offer to these different employees.

But, at the same time, it's also coming as a warning, saying, even if you don't accept this, that doesn't necessarily mean your job is not threatened. And also just to get back to quickly that two million number of federal workers, that is the number of people who received this offer.

There are still a number of people, particularly at some of the more national security-heavy agencies, that are not able to opt into this program. So some of those are deemed critical jobs for the government. They are not being offered this program. But, otherwise, the entire federal work force has been given this opportunity -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Alayna Treene, thank you so much for those details -- Brianna.

[13:05:00]

KEILAR: And here with us now is Randy Erwin, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, which represents more than 100,000 government employees across many different government agencies and departments.

Randy, thank you so much for being with us.

RANDY ERWIN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES: My pleasure.

KEILAR: And I do want to note you have called this resignation deal, this buyout a scam. You have warned federal workers against taking it. Tell us why.

ERWIN: What this administration is describing as the deal they're offering is not the deal they're offering when you read what the contract says.

They're making it sound like federal workers are going to be put on administrative leave and paid until the end of September. There's no guarantee of that. They're probably going to have to continue working. So it's that -- we're opposed to it. All of the union attorneys have looked at it. There's a consensus among them.

And who are you going to believe? You going to believe this administration that is dead set against federal employees and has said they just want to get rid of them, or you going to listen to people who represent them?

KEILAR: So OPM sent out a follow-up memo Tuesday. It says effectively if the Trump administration backtracks on the buyout deal, which is something that I have heard from federal workers, something that concerns them -- quote -- "An employee would be entitled to request a rescission of his or her resignation."

But there's a sample buyout agreement that states that only an agency head has the discretion to rescind the agreement. It's not subject to review in any forum and an employee -- quote -- "forever waives and will not pursue through any judiciary, administrative or other process or any other action related to the offer -- or other process any action related to the offer."

Has OPM made clear the apparent contradiction of that language and its memo?

ERWIN: No, it has not made it clear.

And they can try to backtrack and try to give some assurances, but nothing's going to change the fact that this whole -- everything that they're doing here with these resignations has not been authorized by Congress.

And it is just very clearly a bad deal for federal employees. KEILAR: So what do you make of the fact a lot of people are taking

it? A lot of people are not. We need to be very clear.

ERWIN: Yes.

KEILAR: But some people are taking this agreement, 50,000, according to the Trump administration. They're saying that's up from 40,000 last night. There's still a deadline of tonight.

ERWIN: Sure.

KEILAR: What does that mean to you?

ERWIN: Well, I'm disappointed that any percentage is taking it. So what are they up to, 2.5 percent of the federal work force?

They really need to think. It's very clear from this that they don't care about the services, the critical services that federal workers offer and deliver for federal employees. We were just talking about wildland firefighters.

What if half of those wildland firefighters that battled that blaze out in California that we represent, what if they had walked off the job or not walked -- you know, taken an early resignation? They're gone. We don't have the people to put out those fires. That fire would have been made considerably worse.

Those are the stakes if we don't have the work force to deliver these services for the people.

KEILAR: When you look especially on social media at the caricatures of federal employees, a lot of people don't associate, say, some of those wildland firefighters with federal employees.

ERWIN: Sure.

KEILAR: They're surprised to learn what some of them do.

ERWIN: Sure.

KEILAR: And they're portrayed as kind of lazy freeloaders off the government.

ERWIN: Sure.

KEILAR: What do you make of that caricature, where that comes from?

ERWIN: Yes.

KEILAR: The work that may have not been done to defeat that?

ERWIN: Yes, look, it's done on purpose. It's done for not good reasons.

But federal workers provide -- I will tell you what they are, OK? Only 13 percent are here in Washington; 87 percent are spread throughout the country doing critical services, keeping our military ready, caring for our veterans, guaranteeing our homeland security, clean air, clean water, safe borders, all of those things.

And they do it at great efficiency for the American people. The people who are giving a wrongful impression that they're bureaucrats in Washington, lazy, they don't know what they're talking about. They're ill-informed or they're lying to people on purpose.

KEILAR: Who do you think -- I mean, which agencies do you think are going to be hurt the most by an exodus of federal employees?

ERWIN: Well, you're going to see the most at DOD because of the size of it. It's about one-third of the federal government, 700,000 people. Number two is Department of Veterans Affairs.

Because of these initiatives by this administration, veterans are -- it is just sad and criminal what's going to happen to veterans in this country. If this DOGE wanted to cut 75 percent of the federal work force, if we lost 75 percent of the VA work force, we would no longer make good on the agreement that we make to care for people in our military when they get out.

And it's just -- it's just really a sad situation.

KEILAR: Randy, we are still very much in the middle of this. We appreciate you coming in to speak with us.

ERWIN: Thank you so much for having me.

KEILAR: Thank you -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: So a court hearing is set for this hour on that deferred resignation offer. And that's not the only legal clash over this so- called Trump buyout.

[13:10:05]

Lawyers for the administration are defending Elon Musk's influence over the department that sent this offer with the subject line of "Fork in the Road."

And the case revolves around the use of a new e-mail address used to send that message. Meantime, there's all kinds of other legal fights. There are legal challenges being brought against the Trump team,the latest one happening in federal court in Seattle, this one involving President Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

On top of that, earlier, a federal judge held a hearing on whether Democratic-led states can continue to receive congressionally appropriated funding from the federal government. That one is a huge deal. And then there's this other lawsuit brought forth by FBI agents.

During a hearing today, they asked the court to block the administration from collecting and then publicly releasing the names of agents who worked on investigations related to President Trump and January 6.

There's a lot to get through here. Fortunately, we have Elliot Williams, a CNN legal analyst, also a former federal prosecutor, to walk us through the details.

So, Elliott, first on Musk and the Office of Personnel Management.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Right now, there's a judge in Massachusetts who's hearing arguments from federal unions who want to freeze tonight's deadline, essentially, to defer resignation.

They argue that Trump doesn't have the authority to implement the plan. So who has the best case?

WILLIAMS: All right, these workers do have a decent case, Boris.

And here's the thing. There's a few different arguments they have for why the president might be out of order here. One is just a basic H.R., human resources, question, which is, if you start suspending people's employment, number one, what benefits do they have? When do they have to stop?

Can they seek other employment when they do? There's just open questions there. And then there's a much bigger constitutional question, which is, when -- deferred resignation requires spending money, paying people in the future. That's money that Congress hasn't appropriated yet.

SANCHEZ: Right.

WILLIAMS: And so there's a basic Article I of the Constitution spending power question that is open here. And I think they may have a good argument on it.

SANCHEZ: Let's dig deeper on Musk, because DOGE is under scrutiny in court.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SANCHEZ: We learned yesterday that a judge approved this deal that would allow some Musk associates, these DOGE associates, read-only access to this Treasury payment system, highly sensitive.

It has a ton of private information. Lawyers for the DOJ, though, say that they don't believe any private data has been breached. Where do things go from here?

WILLIAMS: Even if private data hasn't been breached, the mere disclosure of it is itself sensitive.

Boris, if you and I are friends or colleagues...

SANCHEZ: Yes. WILLIAMS: ... I still don't have access to your Social Security

number, even if I'm not going to do anything with it. I mean, I might. I might go buy a boat with it.

SANCHEZ: I'm not going to give it to you, no.

WILLIAMS: No.But even if I'm trustworthy, the mere fact that I have it is itself a problem.

So the mere fact that it's only two employees, that their access is limited, and that privacy hasn't been breached still doesn't eliminate or obviate the basic legal question here. So just expect some back- and-forth and some more argument on that one as well.

SANCHEZ: I might let you see it, if it is for a boat, only on that condition.

(LAUGHTER)

WILLIAMS: Well, you can come with me on it. We can go fishing.

SANCHEZ: There we go. That's what I'm talking about.

WILLIAMS: Yes. Yes.

SANCHEZ: Meantime, there is this challenge to the executive order to end birthright citizenship. A judge issued a preliminary injunction. For those of us that don't have a legal degree, what does that mean?

WILLIAMS: OK, so, again, lots of states are suing here over this question.

You have got a preliminary injunction. That just means the judge would pause it, pause the action until the whole thing can go to trial. Why you have a preliminary injunction is when there is something that might happen that's an emergency that can't be walked back.

Once you issue that order, people would be seen as what's called irreparably harmed.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

WILLIAMS: And then -- and the case would be moot. So what the judge does, issue that preliminary injunction, let's wait until we get to a trial and pause it through the whole pendency of the proceedings, basically.

SANCHEZ: On to yet another case, the funding freeze, right?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SANCHEZ: This happened last week. OMB rescinded its order to basically freeze all federal funding of important programs, which was money that was already allocated by Congress.

WILLIAMS: Yes. SANCHEZ: Why are there hearings still being held on this case if OMB rescinded that order?

WILLIAMS: OK, and here's that million-dollar word. It is -- I just...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: There we go. That's close enough.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: But rescinded, right? It's -- so, OK, they have rescinded it. It's gone. It's not in place anymore.

Well, they said that the memorandum was rescinded. That's a very important word there. However, was the underlying actions behind the memorandum rescinded?

SANCHEZ: Right.

WILLIAMS: They are still reviewing the spending, just the order -- so what does that mean in practice?

Is -- so if you are a grantee around the country waiting on funding, waiting on a grant, does the fact that this memorandum is no longer an order, are you good, are you going to get your money or not?

SANCHEZ: Yes.

WILLIAMS: And if you're relying on that money, it's some ambiguity. And so a lot of what's important in the law, Boris, is just ensuring that people know what rights they have in the future.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Whether we like this funding or not, it's just good for letting them surround the country and know...

(CROSSTALK)

[13:15:01]

SANCHEZ: There's also a question about whether the executive branch can basically decide that what Congress does, Congress, who holds the purse strings when it allocates money, is justified or not. So that's another can of worms.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SANCHEZ: But we have another can of worms to get to.

WILLIAMS: More cans of worms.

SANCHEZ: This is the case brought by FBI agents, right? When the bureau handed over certain information regarding these 5,000-plus agents that worked on Trump cases or January 6 cases, there's an argument from some folks in this class action lawsuit that their privacy was breached. Talk to us about that.

WILLIAMS: OK, their privacy is breached.

Now, the information them was anonymized.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

WILLIAMS: So what you just have are numbers and cases that they worked on and so on. But, again, if there's anything that we take away from living in America in the last century, it's that privacy issues matter and people have a right to sue to protect their information, one.

Number two, because these are FBI employees, there's a question that their employer is the government, right?

SANCHEZ: Right.

WILLIAMS: And if the government is possibly punishing them based on what it believes their political views to be, that's a First Amendment question.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

WILLIAMS: That's a free speech question.

So all of these things wrap into a very confusing set of legal issues. You have this privacy question, is your data out, but also are you as an employee being punished because of what the government thinks you think? All of that makes for a decent case here that these employees have.

SANCHEZ: These are like four or five huge cases that would be consuming our hours were they not all happening at once.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Elliot Williams, we appreciate the expertise and walking us through that.

WILLIAMS: Of course.

SANCHEZ: Still plenty more news to come on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

The lives of USAID workers upended, as the administration works to dismantle the agency, and some are in dangerous hot spots around the world with no clear way to get home.

Plus, they are alerts that could be the difference between life and death, and now the National Weather Service's weather warnings could be on the line amid government cutbacks.

And setting the record straight. Panama's president is batting down a State Department claim about the nation's canal and how much the U.S. pays to actually use it. The details in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:21:34]

KEILAR: As of tomorrow midnight, all USAID direct hire personnel will be placed on administrative leave globally. That is a quote.

That's the lead line on the agency's Web site right now if you go to it, as President Trump and his billionaire ally Elon Musk move quickly to dismantle the U.S. agency that delivers humanitarian aid overseas.

The shutdown has left thousands of workers scrambling to figure out what comes next. And many who are posted in dangerous hot spots around the world are actually afraid for their safety.

CNN's Alex Marquardt is here with us now.

And Alex, you have spoken with many USAID employees. What are they saying?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: They're in a tailspin, Brianna. They don't know what to think or do. They have been shut out of the systems they use to communicate to keep themselves safe. They have been shut out of jobs they love that they feel are really only helping people.

And they really don't know what's going to come next. So my colleagues and I have been speaking to a lot of USAID officials, not just here in Washington and all around the world. And the reaction is extremely dramatic. It's a lot of sadness. It's a lot of anger.

I want to read to our viewers some of what they have told us. One USAID diplomat said: "We feel like psychological warfare is being waged against us."

Another diplomat said: "It's beyond surreal. It feels like a cruel joke," that they have been kicked out of embassy systems that are designed to keep diplomats and their families safe.

And then there was a third USAID official who simply said: "It's a shameful, vile, unprecedented way to treat public servants."

Now, we spoke to all of these people in condition of anonymity because they're afraid and they don't want to be targeted. And several people I spoke with said that what Elon Musk has said about USAID, calling it a criminal organization, has actually put them in more danger in countries around the world.

I spoke with a USAID contractor, because, remember, so many of the USAID staff, thousands of them, are contractors who are being furloughed, who are being laid off. He's in a dangerous place. And he said he doesn't know how he's going to get home. He doesn't know if the embassy is in charge of his security or evacuating him. He has to stay in a hotel.

He said he doesn't know whether that -- whether his hotel bill is going to get paid. He's thinking about checking out and going to stay on a colleague's couch. There is so much confusion. These direct hires are around the world. They have families there. They have kids in school. They're being told to get home within 30 days.

The contractors, again, all being furloughed or laid off, losing their jobs. So it's a really uncertain and scary time. There is that deadline tomorrow night at midnight, when all of the direct hires are going to be put on leave, with some exceptions. We will find out today at 3:00 p.m. Eastern time, so in about an hour-and-a-half from now, who is considered essential and who will be kept on.

But, Brianna, you can imagine that with this dismantling of USAID, it's not going to be many people.

KEILAR: No, it is not.

Alex Marquardt, great reporting. Thank you so much for sharing it with us -- Boris.

MARQUARDT: Thank you.

KEILAR: Boris?

SANCHEZ: Meantime, Panama is denying claims made by the State Department that U.S. government ships can go through the Panama Canal for free.

The agency there that sets the tolls and fees says it has made no adjustments. This comes just days after President Trump again, claimed the U.S. would take back the canal.

CNN's Patrick Oppmann joins us now live with more.

Patrick, what's Panama's president saying about this latest claim?

PATRICK OPPMANN, CNN HAVANA BUREAU CHIEF: You know, it seemed after President Trump had threatened to take Panama Canal back by force that the relations between Panama and the U.S. were getting back on the firmer ground after Secretary of State Marco Rubio was in Panama over the weekend.

[13:25:08]

And you saw Panama announce that have effectively closed the Darien Gap, limiting by over 90 percent in the amount of migrants coming from South America through Panama to the United States in many cases, and as well announcing that they were no longer take part in the -- in China's Belt and Road Initiative, so a major win for the U.S. there.

And then this media posting last night from the State Department saying that U.S. Navy ships, so U.S. military ships, would no longer have to pay to go through the Panama Canal, something that Panama's president has angrily complained about and at a press conference this morning completely rebuke the U.S. for claiming.

SANCHEZ: Patrick Oppmann, thank you so much for the update.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSE RAUL MULINO, PRESIDENT OF PANAMA (through translator): Very surprised by the statement from the State Department yesterday, because they are making an important and institutional statement from the entity that governs the foreign policy of the United States under the president of the United States based on a falsehood, and that is intolerable, simply and plainly intolerable.

And, today, Panama expresses through you and to the world my absolute rejection of continuing to explore the path of managing the bilateral relationship on the basis of lies and falsehoods.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OPPMANN: And the really remarkable thing about this, Boris, is that according to Panama Canal Authority, which is an independent body -- they set the tolls, not Panama's government -- the U.S. only pays sort of between $1 million and $10 million any given year in the entire year to go through the Panama Canal, for their ships to go through the Panama Canal.

So we are not talking about a significant amount of money. It's really not enough when it comes to possibly blowing up an entire relationship.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

OPPMANN: Potentially, though, things could be mending. Panama's president said today that he is scheduled to have a call with President Trump tomorrow afternoon, a telephone call, and perhaps they can work out some of these differences.

To be a fly on the wall, obviously, because, as of right now, what -- the gains that were made just in the last few days have all been reversed.

SANCHEZ: Yes, we look forward to the readouts of that call and potentially any discrepancies that there might be between the two versions of it.

Patrick Oppmann, thank you so much.

So we do expect to hear soon from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He's visiting Capitol Hill, meeting with Republican lawmakers, no doubt also getting questions about President Trump's plans for Gaza.

We have the latest from the Hill when we return.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)