Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

President Trump Criticizes Judges for Pausing His Executive Actions Pending Court Hearings; Former New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu Interviewed on President Trump and Elon Musk's Moves to Reduce Federal Workforce and Cut Wasteful Spending; Watchdog Warns Gutting USAID Means Money Could Reach Terror Groups; DHS Recruiting Treasury Workers to Help Carry Out Immigration Agenda; Federal Workers Who Accepted Trump Deal Concerned About Fallout. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired February 11, 2025 - 08:00   ET

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Are we headed for a constitutional crisis? President Trump slamming rulings by federal judges and his top allies are suggesting he should defy the courts, all because the judges keep blocking Trumps plans to overhaul the federal government. Everything from Trump's push to end birthright citizenship to DOGE leader Elon Musk's effort to shrink federal agencies and slash federal funding have been thwarted so far by the courts.

So what comes next in this unprecedented situation? Will the president simply defy those rulings which could possibly set the country on the path to a constitutional crisis?

CNN Katelyn Polantz is with me now. A lot happened on Monday. A lot of things were said. Explain all the ways the courts have essentially put on pause or blocked Trumps policies from being implemented, at least for now.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Yes, it is for now, Sara, as of this time. But the courts are acting fast. There was one judge on Monday, a federal judge in Rhode Island, who said, hey, the administration, you don't seem to be listening to the court order. I already put in place saying you can't freeze federal funding going to various programs in the health care space and the environment space. Listen, and I'm ordering you again, make sure that money keeps flowing.

So that was a real marker of raising the question of, is the administration listening to the courts? But Sara, what's happening right now is the courts are largely saying, let's keep the status quo. These cases fall into a couple different buckets. A lot of them are challenges to Donald Trump's efforts to reduce the federal workforce or fire different people in the federal government. Also, attempts by the administration to rewrite some of the social policy, especially around immigration. There also are quite a lot of efforts by the federal government to cut back the federal workforce, as well as spending in different ways.

And the judges have largely said, especially when spending is being cut back immediately, don't do that right away. Let's look and see at the legality of these things. So a lot is getting paused very quickly as these cases spring up, Sara. But every day is a new day in court. And these challenges are just being filed fast and furiously. There are hearings coming that are being set with a half-an-hour's notice sometimes. Especially yesterday, that happened, I think twice yesterday.

SIDNER: Yes. I mean, we heard from J.D. Vance, we heard from Donald Trump, we've heard from Speaker Johnson all seeming to be on the same page here about what they might do in the future, what they might do. What are you seeing as the next steps from the administration?

POLANTZ: Yes, Sara, there's a couple different things where Trump and his administration are coalescing in how to push back against this in court. Trump himself is starting to -- surprise, surprise -- attack judges and trying to discredit them, calling these very bad rulings, saying they're not actually looking at the law.

He's right in a small sense in that these judges haven't fully examined the law here. What they're doing is putting in place temporary holds on things so that there will be more time before irreversible damage is done for the law to be looked at. And of course, right now it's just trial courts that are making decisions on what these Trump policies are that are coming into play. There will be appellate courts, maybe even the Supreme Court that gets involved.

And then there's the administration arguments in court, Sara. This is really where we see things heading. And the Justice Department is already trying to say in court, hey, he's the president. He can do what he wants. And judges should respect that and step out.

One example of this, we just got a little taste of this in a case where a judge said, you can't put all of these USAID workers on administrative leave. Bring them back. And the Justice Department wrote to the court, the president's powers in the realm of foreign affairs are vast and generally unreviewable. So just a taste of what we're very likely to hear in many other court cases to come from the Justice Department and Trump himself. Sara?

SIDNER: Last time I checked, there are three branches of power. We will see how this power struggle clearly plays out over the next weeks and months. All right, Kate.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Let's talk more about all of this. Joining me right now is the former Republican governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu. I'm still going to call you governor. You were governor like since I was born, basically, you've done so many terms.

CHRIS SUNUNU, (R) FORMER NEW HAMPSHIRE GOVERNOR: I'm only 50 years old.

BOLDUAN: I'm kidding, I'm kidding.

SUNUNU: The gray hairs are coming in.

BOLDUAN: It's good to see you. Thank you for coming in. Let's talk about this, because executive orders, an extraordinary number of executive orders has resulted in generating an extraordinary number of legal challenges against them.

[08:05:00]

And the senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy, he was on last night, and he said, if the president moves to openly declare publicly, like, openly declare he is going to defy judges' orders, he says, then we are in the most serious constitutional crisis in the last 100 years. Do you think this is what a constitutional crisis looks like?

SUNUNU: No, no. There's no constitutional crisis here. The White House has known that all these executive orders would be challenged. And for those who don't know, this is -- conservatives do it and liberals do it. They judge shop, right. It's not an accident that these cases ended up in the Boston federal circuit court, because there's more politically likable judges for this case there, just like a lot of the abortion cases in the previous administration. Those challenges end up in the Texas court. So that's a problem in itself.

These judges haven't had a chance to look at all this. You do have to abide by the law, of course. But there's a question about whether he's really broken the law in a lot of this. And most of these cases, I think these executive orders are fine. They're aggressive, they're fast. But frankly, Congress hasn't done anything, and the White House is saying, if you guys are going to sit on your hands for 30 years to find efficiency, to hold agencies accountable, I'm going to do it.

BOLDUAN: But if its Congress's sole responsibility in the way the judges are saying, it is like plain text, like Congress is the one that creates an agency and can dismantle an agency. Do you think that Donald Trump should be able to do that?

SUNUNU: Yes, he's in charge of the executive branch. So what he's going to do is say, look, we're effectively going to not spend the money in this agency and push Congress to do the ultimate dismantling. You're absolutely right. Most of this has to go through a legislative process eventually. But he's in charge of the executive branch. He can say who's hired and fired. Congress appropriates money, but they can't compel every dollar to be spent. Some dollars have to go. There's a whole process there, but it doesn't mean the checks get written tomorrow.

BOLDUAN: But, Governor, to steal a phrase from my good friend John Berman from this morning, we remember a time when there were a lot of Republicans who walked around Capitol Hill with pocket Constitutions, like they literally, I remember on Capitol Hill to be like, have you read this today? This seems to go counter that.

SUNUNU: No, no, it's a challenge between the executive branch and the judicial branch. I had them as governor, right. And a lot of what we tried to pass was challenged either in federal or local court. It was challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court. Sometimes it got overturned, sometimes it didn't. You need to abide ultimately by what the courts say. And when they say it, they'll say, this isn't allowed because x, y, and z. And then Congress gets involved. BOLDUAN: You're not, you're not concerned, you're not concerned yet,

but you think --

SUNUNU: No. We're 30 days in here.

BOLDUAN: You think Donald Trump and all should abide by judges' orders?

SUNUNU: Ultimately, yes. And if the judges' orders stand through the Supreme Court, then Congress gets involved and changes the law.

BOLDUAN: One of the federal judges who is stepping in in a temporary way with an injunction is a federal judge in New Hampshire. This federal judge just stepping in yesterday to say that temporarily blocking Trump's move to end birthright citizenship. Should Donald Trump follow that judge's orders?

SUNUNU: They should challenge. I don't think the order is -- I think what he is trying to do is legal. I think they should challenge that judge immediately, appeal it up, whether it has to go to the Supreme Court or not, and get a final ruling and move forward.

BOLDUAN: The person leading many of these moves, leading the charge with many of these moves is Elon Musk. Before the inauguration, your read on Elon Musk, my read on your read was that you were hopeful in kind of how he was going to lead the way. You even told Dana that you like the fact in a way that he's so rich that and so removed from the potential financial influence of it. Putting the financial influence part of this aside for a moment, do you like what Elon Musk is doing?

SUNUNU: Yes. And I'll tell you what, I don't like everything. But the fact they're going hard, they're fast, they're being transparent. And I go back to they're doing what Washington hasn't done for 40 years, accountability and transparency in agencies that have never had to show a product, that have never had to say where's the result.

BOLDUAN: There's the thing about -- transparency is like, what's your definition of transparency?

SUNUNU: How about some, any?

BOLDUAN: No, no, because Elon Musk is not necessarily being transparent about what he and his DOGE team are accessing, let's say, at the Treasury Department with sensitive payment systems. Do you want Elon Musk and people with no security clearance and have not gone through it to have the Social Security information of --

SUNUNU: Do you know how many people --

BOLDUAN: -- you or of your former constituents in New Hampshire? Would you be comfortable with that?

SUNUNU: Do you know how many people have your Social Security number right now?

BOLDUAN: So you're just saying, cool. SUNUNU: I'm saying I don't like it, but that's the society we live

in. I mean. It really is, guys. So many people that you don't know that have no security clearance have all that information. Don't fool yourself.

WALKER: You're just OK with it.

SUNUNU: I don't like it.

BOLDUAN: You're OK with them having access to Treasury Department information?

SUNUNU: I understand that about a million people have access to my Social Security number right now. And if you don't think that's the case, America. I'm sorry, it just is. I have to ask you, what information does he is he going to get that you're most concerned about?

BOLDUAN: This is a system that distributes tax returns, Social Security benefits, disability payments, federal employee salaries.

SUNUNU: This is the system that hasn't gone through an overhaul ever. Like ever, guys. Everybody says we want to get $39 trillion under control, but no one wants to tell me what they want to cut. Everyone wants it to get better, but no one has the will and the force to say, I'm willing to take some short term pain for long -- for a long term reset and economic stability in this country, getting to a balanced budget.

[08:10:04]

I mean, Congress isn't going to pass a balanced budget, but that's at the core of all this.

BOLDUAN: Elon Musk can't balance the budget. Elon Musk, at least as far as I know right now, he's not in control of budgetary matters. Again, that's Congress's job.

SUNUNU: I don't know if this was Elon or not, but something that went under the radar. On Friday, Trump tweeted something he's never tweeted, "Balanced budget!" exclamation point. He's never said it. And he tweeted it just this Friday. I think that's a huge step in a whole new direction when Trump is now supporting a balanced budget, and you have votes in Idaho and Montana for a constitutional convention on a balanced budget, that's going to happen soon. Only three or four more states. And now Congress will be compelled to actually balance the budget and make hard cuts that for too long politicians haven't been willing to do. And that's the benefit of Elon Musk. He's not a politician. He doesn't worry about getting votes and appealing to a constituency. He's just there to find optimization.

BOLDUAN: Would you say that you've learned -- what, you, I mean, you did not like Donald Trump. I'm not even going to quote you all your quotes.

SUNUNU: He was my 13th top choice for president. BOLDUAN: Exactly right. And are you saying you have come around?

SUNUNU: No, no. Look, I think there were 12 better choices, to be honest about it. But what he's doing is exactly what he said he would do. What he's doing is clearly supported by America because his poll numbers ain't going down, guys. They're only going up. And he's being hard, fast, and transparent about it. He's not hiding behind what they're doing. Every time they do a move, everyone is tweeting about it and saying, well, this is what we're going to do next. He's going forth aggressively. And whether it's on pennies, straws, and by the way, I hope we get -- Mr. President, get rid of daylight savings time. I hope that's the next one to go.

BOLDUAN: But it costs more to make a nickel. Like some of this stuff is just, like, hilarious on its face.

SUNUNU: And so what he does, he's going after this wonky, very complex efficiency stuff. And then he'll throw out some what I call the kitchen table issues that everyone kind of gets and kind of gives them approval ratings for.

So it's hard. It's fast. It's not the way I would do it. But believe me, Washington is in a crisis mode. They have been for a long time, and he's saying enough is enough. If you guys won't do your job, I'll do it, I'll do it for you.

BOLDUAN: Even if it might not be legal. But we'll find out.

SUNUNU: We'll find out, we'll find out. I mean, certain parts will go and certain parts won't.

BOLDUAN: Thank you. Good to see you as always. John?

BERMAN: All right, a new warning that the sweeping moves from Elon Musk and the White House could help fund terrorists.

And this morning, some buyer's remorse. Why some federal employees who took President Trumps buyout offer are now wishing they had not.

And egg thieves on the lam. New surveillance video shows the moment they stole more than 500 eggs from a local restaurant.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:17:09]

BERMAN: All right, new this morning, a government watchdog warns that President Trump's dismantling of USAID has made it harder to track potential misuse of taxpayer funded aid, meaning that money could end up in the hands of terrorists.

CNN's Jennifer Hansler is at the State Department with this reporting. What have you learned?

JENNIFER HANSLER, CNN STATE DEPARTMENT PRODUCER: Well, John, there's really that eyebrow raising conclusion in this new watchdog report from the USAID inspector general that is saying that because of these reductions in staffing at USAID, as well as this foreign aid freeze, their efforts to conduct oversight of humanitarian assistance, this is taxpayer funded humanitarian assistance has basically ground to a halt, and that this could lead to potentially inadvertently having terrorist groups or their supporters benefiting from that assistance.

Now, under USAID regulations, programming in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Syria, the West Bank in Gaza and Yemen, they received what's called partner vetting to ensure that this funding does not unintentionally end up in the hands of groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, or the Houthis.

But according to this report that citing USAID staff, they were told that the counterterrorism vetting unit that supports the assistance programming has been told not to report to work because they were either placed on furlough or administrative leave, and therefore they cannot conduct any partner vetting. This gap leaves USAID susceptible to inadvertently funding entities or salaries of individuals associated with US designated terrorist organizations that's coming from the report.

But more broadly, John, this report paints a really startling picture of the fact that there is basically no oversight that's happening of humanitarian assistance right now of more than $8 billion of this funding has that that has not been distributed because of the shortages in staffing -- John.

BERMAN: Decisions have consequences. Jennifer Hansler at the State Department, thank you very much -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right, ahead, some federal workers who jumped on President Trump's buyout offer are wondering what happens now and perhaps regretting their decision.

And thick snow, power outages and potentially life-threatening conditions. Three consecutive winter storms taking aim. We will tell you where, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:23:44]

BOLDUAN: The Department of Homeland Security is now asking the help of the IRS to help carry out its immigration crackdown. CNN's Priscilla Alvarez explains.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The Department of Homeland Security is looking for more help within government to carry out its immigration enforcement priorities. This time, looking to the Treasury Department.

In a memo that I obtained, the Department of Homeland Security secretary asked the Treasury secretary to deputize some personnel, including IRS officers, to assist with immigration enforcement.

It is the latest in a series of moves by the Trump administration to build out its immigration enforcement apparatus. So far, they have also extended authorities to agencies within the Justice Department, as well as to Texas National Guard.

Now, in this memo, the Department of Homeland Security secretary lists out some of the needs. That includes, for example, building cases that blend tax, immigration and money laundering, also requesting that IRS partner with the department to conduct employer investigations for those who are employing undocumented immigrants, and also identifying and dismantling financial networks supporting human smuggling.

The memo says this, and I quote, "It is DHS' understanding that the Department of Treasury has qualified law enforcement personnel available to assist with immigration enforcement, especially in light of recent increases to the Internal Revenue Service's workforce and budget."

[08:25:11]

Now, IRS criminal investigators are responsible for conducting financial crime investigations. This, however, would go a step further to also bring them in to assist with the administration's immigration enforcement. It all comes as the administration tries to navigate some of the limited resources, limited personnel that the multiple administrations have had to grapple with in recent years.

Also, this week, new data revealing that the immigration court backlog is over four million pending cases. Just another example of some of the challenges that the administration still faces as it tries to execute its mass deportation plans.

But for now, the Department of Homeland Security, looking toward the Treasury Department to try to get some assistance and to shore up more resources to carry out its work.

Back to you.

SIDNER: All right, this morning, hundreds of thousands of federal workers are asking what is next after a federal judge again extended the deadline for the Trump administrations so-called buyout program.

For those who did not take the deal, the extension buys them more time to consider whether to do so. But there's also concern and fear that if the court throws out the program altogether, the 65,000 who signed up could be targets for firing.

Employment attorney, Aaron Herreras Szot is joining us now. You have clients who have, I think, taken the deal. So, give me some sense of what those federal employees that you're representing this morning are feeling once they've seen what's happening in the courts and they're sort of in limbo.

AARON HERRERAS SZOT, EMPLOYMENT LAW ATTORNEY: Uncertainty, a significant level of uncertainty, not just with respect to their rights under the program, but how the forthcoming court order will change things and whether they can withdraw their resignation. So, given this ambiguity, we are in a wait and see what the district court does. But even if the program is upheld, federal employees will need to ask themselves whether they believe the administration will do what it has promised.

SIDNER: I'm sensing regret. Is that right? Are there some employees that you're representing that are regretful of putting in their resignations now?

SZOT: There are certainly some and that is a product of the level of uncertainty that we are seeing and what their rights are and how this court order could change things. If the program is unenforceable, their resignations made under that program should also be unenforceable. But how that's going to be implemented is yet to be seen.

SIDNER: I do want to ask you why your clients accepted the resignation offer. Obviously, there are always people who are close to, for example, retirement who might think, this is great. I'll just end a bit earlier. What if some of the circumstances that your clients decided to accept the resignation offer, which may give us a look into the 65,000 who have accepted the offer.

The administration carries out its promises. There are benefits for certain employees. From a legal standpoint, there is just a lot of uncertainty and who can rescind the agreement and whether employees can challenge that decision and/or their resignation.

So, what appeared as a benefit on its face actually has a lot of ambiguity that hopefully the district court will clear up shortly.

SIDNER: Ultimately, if the Trump administration wants these federal employees gone, I mean, in your legal opinion, can he just freely fire them and say, okay, well, you put your resignation in and now you want it back, and you know what? You're fired anyway, leaving them no recourse.

SZOT: Federal service employees do have due process protections. So case by case we would look at the grounds for termination and whether it was lawful.

Part of the uncertainty is whether employees can change their mind and withdraw their resignation. The issue with that is they make the request, but sole discretion is with the agency to decide whether to approve or deny that request.

And OPM suggests that reassignment or consolidation of positions or placement of employees on administrative leave would be valid grounds to deny such a request.

SIDNER: Just lastly, Donald Trump the president, the Vice President JD Vance and the Speaker of the House Mike Johnson are all saying that the court should not have the power to override the president in these cases.

Are you concerned in any way that they may just defy the judge's rulings? If the judges rule in favor of these employees?

SZOT: That is a concern. Ultimately, Judicial orders are binding on all parties. If one branch of government decides to ignore another that is teeing up a constitutional issue.

SIDNER: Aaron Herreras Szot, thank you so much for coming on and explaining what your clients are going through and the uncertainty that they are living with at this hour. Appreciate it -- John.

BERMAN: All right, cancel the ceasefire and let all hell break out. President Trump's new suggestion to Israel as Hamas threatens to stop releasing hostages.

And a reporter covering the Super Bowl was found dead in his hotel room. Police investigating what a so-called career criminal had to do with it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:31:01]