Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Federal Unions Challenge Email Demanding Workers Justify Jobs; Trump Names Right-Wing Podcaster Dan Bongino As FBI Deputy Director; Trump's Cost-Cutting Moves Risk Exposing Government Secrets. Aired 2- 2:30p ET

Aired February 24, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:41]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Top officials at some federal agencies pushing back against Elon Musk's latest ask of federal workers. The ask? Justify their job in five bullet points by midnight or they could get fired.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: Plus, later this hour, President Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron take more questions from reporters. And this comes after really a critical Oval Office meeting that showed some cases the strained dynamic between the two leaders over Ukraine- Russia peace talks.

And how did a conservative podcaster with no experience at the FBI become the second in command at the bureau? Well, take a look at the unlikely rise of Dan Bongino to FBI Deputy Director. We're following all these major developing stories and many more coming in right here to CNN News Central.

KEILAR: President Trump is weighing in as some of the heads of U.S. federal agencies push back on an ultimatum from Elon Musk. There's a midnight deadline for all federal employees to submit five accomplishments they've achieved in the last week. But there is a growing list of agencies defying those demands. Leaders at the Department of Justice, the Pentagon, the FBI, State Department, Homeland Security and the Department of Energy are all telling employees not to respond individually to the email. Just moments ago, President Trump had this to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, 45TH & 47TH U.S. PRESIDENT: We got the last email that was sent where he wanted to know what you did this week. You know why he wanted that, by the way? I thought it was great because we have people, nobody even knows if they work for the government. So by asking the question, tell us what you did this week, what he's doing is saying, are you actually working? And then if you don't answer like you're sort of semi fired or you're fired because a lot of people are not answering because they don't even exist.

There was a lot of genius in sending it. We're trying to find out if people are working. And so we're sending a letter to people, please tell us what you did last week. If people don't respond, it's very possible that there is no such person or they're not working.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: All right. No evidence that there is a widespread affliction of nonexistent federal employees, we should mention. We have CNN's Rene Marsh tracking all the latest developments here. How, Rene, are federal employees navigating this?

RENE MARSH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I mean, they're struggling. There is a lot of confusion, lots of chaos at the Department of Health and Human Services. They were first told to respond, and then the agency reversed course and said not to respond. Who I've spoken to who are federal employees today who said that their agency told them to respond, but their union is telling them not to respond. But yet the union says you should respond if your manager says you should respond.

It's very confusing for these employees. We can tell you that at this point, some seven agencies, including the Department of Defense and the FBI, have told employees not to respond due to the sensitive nature of the work that they do. Trump ally FBI Director Kash Patel telling the workforce in a very clearly worded email that the FBI, through the Office of the Director is in charge of all the review processes. So for now, they should just pause in any responses.

But it is worth noting that Elon Musk, not an elected official, not Senate confirmed to run any agency across the government and is asking employees to report outside of their chain of command, clearly not something that some of these agency heads are willing to go along with. But it's also something that the unions are saying are just not legal. And so they are amending a lawsuit to push back legally against this request that came via email from Elon Musk over the weekend. We should also note there are some agencies in which employees have not received any guidance, so they're unclear what they should do here.

So, Brianna, lots of confusion amongst the federal workforce. Many of them saying that, you know, when you put in the full context that they're dealing with mass firings, paid leave, this is just another layer here leading to the mental anguish. And perhaps in many ways that is what Elon Musk wants. People who just get fed up, this is an uncomfortable place to work and they may leave without any fight.

[14:05:04]

And that might be what he wants. Brianna?

KEILAR: Yeah, maybe the ones who have other alternatives for sure. That could be a lot of talent lost. Rene Marsh, thank you so much for the report. Omar?

JIMENEZ: Well, Brianna, a lot to discuss. I want to bring in Rob Shriver. He's the Former Acting Director for the Office of Personnel Management and is now a senior advisor at Democracy Forward. Thanks for being here. Okay, let's, let's start with that email because it was titled what did you do last week? You don't have to tell me right now, but it came from your former office. Have you seen the email? I mean, what was your reaction when you saw it or heard about it?

ROB SHRIVER, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: Well, it all began, as it usually does, with a post on X from Elon Musk announcing to the federal workforce you should expect to get this email soon. If you don't respond, you will be deemed to have resigned your position.

And then the email came and the email didn't have that resignation threat, but it did ask folks to respond to this new government wide email from OPM about five bullet points summarizing what they worked on last week. This is just another ill conceived, poorly executed stunt to torment federal employees, Omar.

JIMENEZ: And you know, part of how Elon Musk justified the ultimatum, which we'll call it that he posted, quote, the reason this matters is that a significant number of people who are supposed to be working for the government are doing so little work that they are not checking their email at all. And he says in some cases we believe nonexistent people or the identities of dead people are being used to collect paychecks. We also just heard that from the President in the Oval Office answering questions as well.

I mean, you are acting head of OPM here. What do you make of that claim? Is that something that's even possible?

SHRIVER: It's an absurd claim and it's why this email system that they've set up is such a poor solution. Because agencies have information on their employees. Agencies execute payroll. There are processes for employees to report their time, to get credit for their time, to take leave. And the agencies have all of that information.

It's the agency email systems that are up to date. Maybe this new government wide system put together apparently by some of these tech folks, maybe it's not as good as what was already in place at the agencies if they're having those kind of problems.

JIMENEZ: And you know, some of the people who got these emails, I mean there are a lot of them. A lot of people in the federal government, you know, I know you've heard from a lot of these people and many of them are literally in a state of limbo right now, either hearing their jobs going away and it hasn't happened yet, or at the very least unsure about whether their job or position could go away at any point in the near future. What are you hearing from the federal workers you're in contact with about maybe their state of mind right now?

SHRIVER: They're just so confused and so stressed out by all of this because look, it's a normal thing for somebody's supervisor to ask them, hey, let me know what you worked on last week. I'd like to see how you're doing, how it matches up with my performance expectations. That's actually a good management practice.

But to have this be announced on X and then have this email come out through this government wide email system and then you have multiple agency heads telling their workforce, don't respond. We don't want you to respond to that. It's just creating so much stress and confusion for everybody. Federal workers are rule followers. They just try to come in every day, do the job that they're hired to do, try to make a difference for the American people. And so all of this confusion and drama stirred up on X is just undermining their ability to do job for the American people.

JIMENEZ: And look, you know, the last 30 days, I think with the amount of pressure that's been on a lot of federal workers, there are a lot of people, I think, who are learning about what Office of Personnel Management is for the first time. They haven't heard OPM this much probably in their entire lives unless you work in the federal government.

But at this point, right now, look, you want to see if people are productive. Is there a process through OPM in which that happens or is that something that can really only happen at an agency specific level? For example, and leader at the Justice Department might determine, okay, this person isn't pulling their weight. Is OPM typically involved in that type of evaluation?

SHRIVER: No, Omar. There are 2.2 million federal employees who work around the world. 85% of them work outside the Washington, D.C. area. It would be hard even at the agency level to track with specificity an individual employee's performance.

We talk all the time in the HR community about having supervisors, frontline managers, be really engaged with their employees, that they understand what the organizational requirements are and priorities and that they align what the employees are doing day to day to those priorities. It's just not feasible for OPM, an agency of some 3,000 people, most of whom process retirement benefits to track performance for 2.2 million people.

[14:10:08]

JIMENEZ: Rob Shriver, really appreciate you being here and explaining to I think many what OPM actually is.

SHRIVER: Thanks, Omar.

JIMENEZ: Thanks for being here.

We still got a lot to come, including how did a right wing podcaster become second in command at the FBI? We're going to take a look at Dan Bongino and how he got the job.

And growing concerns the Trump administration's cuts could be compromising national security. We're going to tell you what the CIA is doing to see if the President's cost cutting moves might have risked exposing people who work undercover.

Plus, President Trump's White House is taking on the Associated Press and its journalists are fighting back. We're going to have the details on the legal battle ahead today. Plus much more coming up on CNN News Central. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: Welcome back, everyone.

[14:15:29]

Today, we are learning new details about what may have led to President Donald Trump selecting Dan Bongino, a right wing podcaster and Former Secret Service Agent, as the new FBI Deputy Director. Now, the role is traditionally held by a career FBI agent. And FBI Director Kash Patel had previously told agents it should stay that way.

So what change? It appears to be a recent standoff between interim FBI leadership and the Justice Department over demands for names of agents involved in the January 6th and Trump related investigations. But there's a lot more to it. CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez joins me now. So, Evan, what more are you learning about how we got here?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right. Everything was set for Robert Kissane. He is the head of counterterrorism in New York for the FBI and he was brought down here as part of the interim leadership before Patel got named as a nominee. And everything seemed to be fine with him and Brian Driscoll, who is still the head of the Newark FBI office.

And then there was this confrontation which happened a couple of weeks ago where Emil Bove, the acting deputy attorney general, was demanding these names of everyone who touched these January 6th and Trump related investigations. And that's where things seem to go awry.

So we now know obviously from the weekend social media post from the President that he has instead gone in the direction of Don Bongino, who is a very public supporter of the President. He's somebody who obviously would not necessarily stand up to the Justice Department if he's asked to do something he doesn't necessarily like because everything that comes from them will probably be something he supports. So, you know, I think that's part of the issue here.

If you saw the FBI Agents association over the weekend also said that they had been promised this job would remain a career agent position. So the question is what makes -- what was -- what changes now when you have someone who is this politically attuned to the President with this job?

JIMENEZ: And again, Dan Bongino, not someone that needs to be confirmed by the Senate in any way --

PEREZ: That's right.

JIMENEZ: -- his deputy director.

PEREZ: Right.

JIMENEZ: -- its impact will be felt pretty immediately.

PEREZ: Yeah, exactly. JIMENEZ: Evan Perez, thank you for being here. Really appreciate it. Brianna?

KEILAR: We're going to turn now to someone who used to be deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe. He is CNN Senior Law Enforcement analyst. What is your reaction to hearing of this appointment?

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Well, I'm stunned, I think, Brianna, in the same way that I would expect most FBI people, current and former, are really shocked. I've heard from many of them in the last 24 hours.

And this departure from 117 years of history and tradition is really remarkable. Not because it's historic and that's a reason for continuing, but because the demands of the job are so unique, they are so broad, of such immense scope and responsibility that it takes people an entire career, 15, 16, 17, 18 years before typically they're ready to fill this role.

So a deep understanding of the FBI, its mission, how it accomplishes that mission, the different tools that are to be used, the capabilities of the workforce, all those things go into it. So to bring in someone who has no connection to that whatsoever is really stunning and dangerous, I would add.

KEILAR: Sources say this hiring of Bongino happened after a week long standoff between Acting Deputy Attorney Emil Bove and the Acting FBI Deputy Director, Robert Kissane. Bove had demanded the names of FBI agents involved in the January 6th and the Trump related investigations. Kissane resisted Bove's demands. Kissane had been expected to get the job. So when you look at that, do you think that could have contributed to this?

MCCABE: It certainly could have. You know, I don't know the internal machinations of how this played out, but there's no question that Kissane, Driscoll are the two people that the Trump administration chose from within the ranks to run the FBI. But what they showed during that brief period was they were not blindly loyal to the dictates of DOJ and specifically Emil Bove.

They acted to protect the people, the agents and analysts and all those FBI folks who did the right thing, who complied with the law and with FBI policy and working on the cases, the January 6th cases to which they were assigned.

[14:20:07]

And that sort of adherence to duty and honor is not something that is valued by the current administration. And so they had to go.

KEILAR: How can you explain to us sort of the interactions typically between a deputy director and an FBI director and how you think the sort of non-traditional picks here with Dan Bongino and Kash Patel are going to impact that?

MCCABE: Yeah. So the FBI deputy director basically runs the day to day operations of the FBI. You've got 37,000 employees, 12,000 of which are agents, all of whom carry guns, you know, across the country and around the world. It is an immense organization involved in many, many different types of investigations, everything from daily run of the mill stuff to like super sensitive national security cases. And so the FBI director is responsible for all of the FBI's intelligence collection and investigations operations.

It is almost impossible for me to imagine doing that. I know better than or as well as anyone what it takes to do that job. And the idea that you would try to do that without even knowing what the FBI is, how it works on a nuts and bolts level, what people are assigned to, what they're capable of, what our legal authority is, where the guardrails are against taking further action without knowing those things, it's almost impossible to imagine that you could be successful as deputy director. And if the deputy director fails, so will the director and the entire organization.

KEILAR: Andrew McCabe, someone who has a lot of insight into this uniquely so thank you so much for being with us.

MCCABE: Thanks.

KEILAR: Still to come. One of President Trump's campaign promises was to drill, baby, drill. But is that an energy policy that would actually work? We'll explain why the numbers are not adding up, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:26:54]

JIMENEZ: Welcome back. The deep cost cutting by the Trump administration has led to what some officials say is a major unforced error in national security, namely the risk of exposing names of some CIA assets or spies. Now, a source tells CNN that the CIA is conducting a review about an unclassified email sent to the White House early this month identifying people to possibly lay off.

Now, officials are trying to figure out what damage was caused, if any, since the email revealed the names of people who were slated to work undercover. CNN's Katie Bo Lillis is here with the details. Katie Bo, can you just tell us what we're learning right now?

KATIE BO LILLIS, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yeah, Omar. So earlier this month, the CIA sends this highly unusual email to the White House. It's trying to be responsive to one of President Trump's executive orders about downsizing the federal government. And it sent over a list of probationary employees, listed by first name and last initial to identify them for potential cuts.

The problem was that sent the email over an unclassified network, potentially exposing the list to foreign government hackers. Current and former officials told us that this risked not only making it impossible to send some individual officers into undercover roles, it also risked exposing the jobs themselves as CIA jobs.

In a lot of cases, the CIA publicly disguises its jobs as State Department roles in foreign embassies. And so if a foreign government was able to learn that a given role was actually a CIA role, they might be able to reconstruct who had met with past occupants of that role, potentially endangering those people.

So now what we've learned is that the agency is conducting a formal damage assessment to determine the potential harm that could take place if this information were to be hacked or exposed in any way. It really underscores Omar, kind of the depth of concern from at least some current CIA officials that Trump's move fast and break stuff approach to cutting the U.S. government might be creating some unique counterintelligence risks when applied to the CIA.

JIMENEZ: And as I understand, that's just one of the concerns here, because obviously, given the nature of the work too some of these deep cuts, officials could also be worried about disgruntled workers, which, of course, could provide opportunities for foreign adversaries. What do we know on that front?

LILLIS: That's exactly right. We've already seen an effort by the Trump administration to mass fire some members of the agency. And so we do know that there are some officials on the agency seventh floor that are quietly discussing how the buyouts and those mass firings risk creating a group of disgruntled former employees who might be motivated to take what they know to a foreign intelligence service.

Remember, unlike most other fired federal employees, anyone fired by the CIA has had access to classified information about the agency's operations and tradecraft. As one U.S. official put it very bluntly to me, you take whatever number of employees who are going to get cut loose, and if they have knowledge of sensitive programs, that is by definition an insider risk.

JIMENEZ: Katie Bo Lillis, appreciate the reporting as always. Brianna?

KEILAR: Pay down the debt or send out stimulus checks. It's been a hot debate since President Donald Trump said he's considering a plan to give 20% of savings identified by Elon Musk's to --