Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Luigi Mangione in Court; Trump Downplays Affordability Crisis; Pete Hegseth Defends Boat Strikes; Trump Holds Cabinet Meeting. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired December 02, 2025 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:30]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Another made-for-TV meeting, the president sitting down with his Cabinet as the administration faces serious foreign policy challenges. We're following the latest from the White House.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And Costco wants a refund. The retail giant is now suing the White House over tariffs and looking to recover all the extra cash that it paid on imported goods.

And cease and desist. Lawyers for Sean "Diddy" Combs are accusing Netflix and 50 Cent of producing a documentary using stolen footage.

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

SANCHEZ: Happening right now: President Trump hosting a Cabinet meeting, as the White House confronts scrutiny over a deadly follow-up strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean.

Moments ago, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended what he says was a Navy admiral's decision to carry out the attack that killed survivors still in the water. And he says they're not done yet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: We've only just begun striking narco boats and putting narco-terrorists at the bottom of the ocean. We've had a bit of a pause because it's hard to find boats to strike right now...

(LAUGHTER)

HEGSETH: ... which is the entire point, right? Deterrence has to matter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Meantime, in Russia, the president's envoy, Steve Witkoff, and son-in-law Jared Kushner are meeting as we speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin for peace talks aimed at ending the war in Ukraine.

Let's go live with the White House with CNN's Alayna Treene.

And, Alayna, we should tell our viewers this Cabinet meeting is still ongoing and we are monitoring it right now. Walk us through the highlights so far.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, look, I mean, these Cabinet meetings tend to -- excuse me, I'm getting a little feedback -- these Cabinet meetings tend to go on for quite some time because they're televised.

You saw the president at the start of this really going into detail about some of the things he wanted to focus on, specifically the economy and the issue of affordability. I can tell you I have had several conversations with people in that building behind me at the White House about how the president has been very frustrated that he doesn't feel like he's getting enough credit for trying to lower prices.

So he spent a lot of time airing some of his grievances over that. And then he began, Boris, going around the table, as he normally does, to ask each secretary to give an update. They tend to always have a lot of flattery and complimentary rhetoric for the president. That's the case today as well.

But what was notable is that the first person two presidents left where he started was with Secretary Pete Hegseth. And that really is, I think, going to be the key question that many of the members around that table, but specifically Hegseth, as well as the president, are going to be getting from reporters when this ultimately turns over to the point where they begin taking questions, and, particularly, of course, that double tap strike back in September.

I'd note that we have heard now repeatedly from Cabinet officials, including Secretary Hegseth, but also White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, lot of people trying to argue that it was a strike that was authorized by Hegseth, but that it was carried out and directed under the leadership of Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley.

And so we kind of heard Hegseth do what he did yesterday in a post, which was say that he supports Bradley and the decision that he made, but also make clear that it was his decision, and so kind of distancing himself a little bit from the strikes there.

So that's going to be, I think, one of the key things to pay attention for when we start getting questions. One person who is not in the room, he's also not a Cabinet secretary, but just because you mentioned Ukraine, that is also going to be, I think, a key focus as well, knowing that Steve Witkoff, the president's special envoy, as well as the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in Moscow right now meeting with President Vladimir Putin as we speak, as this Cabinet meeting is ongoing. We will have to see where that leads. But, of course, I think that

will be a main question for Secretary Rubio when they get around the table to him and he begins speaking on the latest regarding the negotiations on that.

KEILAR: Yes, we will be looking for that.

Alayna Treene live for us at the White House, thank you.

We're joined now by former NATO supreme allied commander General Wesley Clark.

General, thanks for being with us.

And you hear, as we're into multiple days now of this story, the Pentagon press secretary saying, Hegseth and Trump are ultimately the ones directing any strikes made by the U.S. military against alleged drug boats,but repeating this position by the Trump administration that it's Admiral Mitch Bradley who made the decision to conduct a follow-up strike that killed survivors of a first strike.

[13:05:13]

How are you seeing this?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: I'm seeing that it needs to go into a congressional investigation to really lay out all the facts.

If the secretary of defense was there watching it live, did he say anything and what was his attitude? And what did the admiral say at the time? And, yes, maybe the admiral did make the statement, but was it at the direction of the secretary of defense?

So I think it seems, from the discussions thus far, number one, it's illegal what was done. It's a violation of international law, probably the laws of war. So the question is, where does the responsibility lie?

Certainly, it lies with the men and women that executed the strike. It (INAUDIBLE) lies with their superiors. How far up the chain does it go? That's what Congress has to investigate and tell us. This is a question of fact.

SANCHEZ: General, if it's determined that -- if it's determined that the mission itself was to eliminate the vessel that these targets -- that these people were on -- rather, that the target was the vessel itself and not the people on it, does that change your thinking at all?

CLARK: Well, it makes it more clear that the second strike was unnecessary. The vessel was basically disabled. It wasn't going anywhere, and the people were hanging on for dear life.

And the basic rule is that, when an enemy vessel is disabled and hoists up a red -- a white flag, you don't continue to pound it and sink it. Now, in this case, we don't know all of the assets that were in the area. We don't know whether a helicopter was standing by. We don't even know how the missile was fired at it.

So we don't know whether there was a possibility of rescue or a possibility of determining that the cargo of the vessel was still intact and so it hadn't actually been destroyed. So, again, these are all questions of facts, but the basic law is that you don't kill wounded adversaries. You don't kill prisoners. You don't kill people who are no longer a threat to you.

KEILAR: Lawmakers are demanding audio and video of this strike, of the follow-up strike. What do you expect exists? I mean, do you expect that kind of thing would exist in something like this so that they can easily look at that and make a determination? And what would you be looking for?

CLARK: I think they will see it, and I think they will also have the testimony of the people who were there on the calls in the chain of command, in the room when various discussion was held, the order was apparently given, who it was given to, what they thought about it, why they considered it illegal.

I think there will be JAG officers involved in this and asked, what was your opinion, what did you say, what were you told, et cetera. I think it's going to involve more than this second strike. I think it's going to go into the mission itself.

Is this a violation of the laws of war to strike these boats? We say they're narco-terrorists. That's what the administration says, but are they a direct threat to the United States? And what's the purpose of this? Is it really to stop drugs?

And if that's the case, why start with Venezuela? Because they're not the source of most of these drugs. So I think, once this gets started, I think it's going to be very hard to contain it to the specific issue of the second strike on the boat.

SANCHEZ: General, pivoting to Eastern Europe, as Russia's Vladimir Putin describes his meeting with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner as potentially productive, saying that there's more than ever a chance to end this war, do you see this as a serious attempt at a deal or are we going to wind up where we were just a few months ago after talks essentially led nowhere?

CLARK: Oh, I'm on the negative side of this, just based on experience and what we believe President Putin's real objectives are.

He has used military force to try to produce the breakthrough on the ground. He's using his rockets and drones to demoralize and delegitimate the government of Ukraine. And he's using diplomacy to divide allies and stall further military assistance and economic sanctions against Russia.

[13:10:06]

So, when he says it looks positive, that serves a dual purpose. It's not necessarily that he's honestly saying it's positive. What he's saying is, give me more time. Let's don't do anything. We're still working on the ground, and don't put any more sanctions in. And, yes, I love these dialogues.

Because what it's done is, if you look back over the last nine months, it's continuously stalled further pressure on Russia. And based on what Putin has said, based on what his subordinates and ideologues say, they want all of Ukraine destroyed.

And they're going after that objective with military force, diplomacy, pounding the population, and trying to engage in Ukraine to create corruption. So he's got four major tools he's working to take down Ukraine.

So it would be wonderful if there was a cease-fire, we could resolve all these issues. Nobody wants to give up on those discussions. But there's a big asymmetry between what happens in Western democracies when you do negotiations like this and what is going on with Vladimir Putin.

For him, the negotiations are a way to exert power, to create influence, to cause division, to raise doubts, to inject a certain amount of propaganda, to undercut the resolve of his negotiating adversaries. For those in the West, it's a sincere attempt to end a conflict that we'd like to see ended.

So I think we have to approach what Mr. Putin says understanding the perspective and objectives that he brings to these statements.

KEILAR: Different objectives, certainly.

General Clark, we appreciate your insights. Thank you.

And still to come: President Trump once again downplaying the affordability issue. He called it fake. He said it's a con job by Democrats. But we will take a closer look at the numbers.

SANCHEZ: Plus, Luigi Mangione back in court as body camera footage reveals new details about his capture. We have new details from the courtroom.

And, later, armed and dangerous, an inmate on the loose after a wild escape from a Georgia hospital.

The details there when we come back. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:16:59]

KEILAR: President Trump opened his last Cabinet meeting of the year today by downplaying the affordability crisis.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's this fake narrative that the Democrats talk about, affordability. They just say the word. It doesn't mean anything to anybody. They just say it, affordability.

I inherited the worst inflation in history. There was no affordability. Nobody could afford anything. The word affordability is a con job by the Democrats.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: CNN's Matt Egan is with us on now on this.

And, Matt, a lot of Americans would take issue with this. They are certainly feeling that affordability crisis. Walk us through the numbers.

MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Brianna, it really doesn't matter what you call it, right, affordability, inflation or the cost of living. There's no doubt life is much more expensive than it was just a few years ago.

And this affordability problem is all too real for way too many Americans. Now, this is one of my favorite stats to really demonstrate that point. This is from Moody's Analytics. They found that each month the typical U.S. family has to spend $200 more than last September to buy the same goods and services, right?

So they're not getting more stuff. They're just paying higher prices for the same amount of stuff. And that's nothing to sneeze at, right? Over the course of a year, that translates to a $2,500 increase in cost. And that's over just the past year or so.

When you really zoom out to January 2021, the start of the Biden administration, monthly costs are $1,000 higher, again, for the same goods and services because of higher prices. And a lot of families, they just can't keep up. That's why Bank of America has found that an estimated 24 percent of U.S. households are living paycheck to paycheck.

Now, this is not based on a survey, a survey that the president often refers to as fake, right? This is based on internal data on one of the nation's biggest banks and their tens of millions of customers.

And to get at that, Bank of America defined paycheck to paycheck as households that are spending over 95 percent of their income on necessities, right, housing, gas, groceries and day care. Of course, that leaves little to nothing left over for the nice-to-have things, let alone for saving up for a rainy day.

And I do think this just gets to a broader disconnect on the rhetoric around prices versus the reality. Look at this. Just 27 percent of Americans in a recent CBS News poll say that, when it comes to prices and inflation, the president makes things sound about as they really are.

Far more,60 percent,say that the president makes things sound like they're better than they really are. And it does seem like today's comments can fall into that part of the poll, right, 60 percent who think that the president makes things sound a little bit better than they really are.

KEILAR: And, on the other hand, gas prices have passed a major milestone, and the president's touting that, Matt.

[13:20:02]

EGAN: Yes, just today, the national average for the first time in 4.5 years falling below $3 a gallon. You see gas prices are down by about 6 cents over the past week.

They were low around this time last year as well, but they are cheaper. And when you look at it across the map, there's 18 U.S. states where the average is less than $2.75 a gallon, including South Carolina, Texas, Colorado, Iowa, and Wisconsin as well.

And so, Brianna, gas prices, I mean, that really is one of the rare fuel-good stories when it comes to this affordability crisis.

KEILAR: The president also said electricity is coming down. Fact- check that for us.

EGAN: Yes.

Well, in a lot of ways, electricity is kind of like the new gas prices, right? You don't see it quite as often, but you have to pay it all at once. So there is some real sticker shock there.

Now, when you zoom in, yes, electricity prices, they did dip by about a half-a-percentage point between August and September. That's according to the latest inflation report, but that's not really what Americans are feeling right now. They're feeling this bigger-picture increase in residential electricity prices.

This is from the Energy Department's statistical arm, and they found that residential electricity prices are up by 7.4 percent year over year. That's more than twice the overall rate of inflation. In some states, they're seeing an even bigger increase, for example, in Virginia, 9 percent increase in prices, in my home state of New Jersey, a 21 percent increase.

And I would just note, Brianna, New Jersey and Virginia, those are two states that, of course, Democrats did very well on in those gubernatorial elections last month, and both of those Democrats focused on this affordability issue -- back to you.

KEILAR: Yes, people really feeling it there.

Matt, thank you for taking us through that.

EGAN: Thanks.

KEILAR: Still ahead: the police officer who arrested Luigi Mangione testifying in court, talking about the dramatic moments leading up to his capture. Plus, millions of Americans are now under winter weather alerts, as a

bomb cyclone brings fast-falling snow and dangerous conditions to multiple states. We're tracking the latest forecast.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:26:49]

SANCHEZ: Happening now: Luigi Mangione is back in a New York courtroom as his lawyers try to get key evidence thrown out in his state trial over the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

So far today, prosecutors have been ticking through police bodycam footage showing the moments officers first encountered Mangione sitting alone at a McDonald's in Altoona,Pennsylvania.

One officer testifying that, when he approached the alleged gunman, he asked Mangione to pull down the face mask he was wearing and he said -- quote -- "I knew it was him immediately."

We're joined now by Mark O'Mara. He's a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor.

Mark, great to see you, as always.

Just right off the bat, let's talk about this evidence that defense attorneys are hoping to get tossed out, the contents of Mangione's backpack, a gun, ammunition, this notebook with handwritten messages. What could be the consequence of having that removed from the case?

MARK O'MARA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: If it is suppressed, if the judge says, no, you should not have gotten into that backpack without a search warrant, which is a completely separate issue, but if it is suppressed, yes, it does damage the state's case a great deal, because, quite honestly, what was inside that backpack pretty much sows it up.

I mean, you have the murder weapon there. You have some of his notes documenting what he did and why he was going to do it. So it really is in that one cubic foot of space the state's whole case almost in one little space. And it's gone, if it doesn't do -- they cannot have that in a trial, then at least they're going to be using all that other circumstantial evidence.

Let's not forget they still have the video. They still have other information that they have gathered outside the backpack, but that is sort of the icing on the cake.

SANCHEZ: When it comes to the judge's decision on whether or not to suppress this, the prosecution is trying to make the case that investigators felt that there was great risk. They made the case that they didn't know whether he potentially had a bomb in that backpack.

I see you maybe disagree.

O'MARA: Well, you have to be careful. Sometimes, when you argue too hard, it comes across badly.

So here's what really happened. They come upon him and realize pretty quickly that it was him. And then, pursuant to that, once they're going to arrest him -- and they had, I think, the right to arrest him once they realized this is the suspect -- then, pursuant to that arrest, they may have the right at that point to search the bag and other things, to search his body for officer safety, for inventory purposes and whatnot.

But the idea of taking that extra step to say, oh, my God, there may be a bomb inside the McDonald's, when there's no evidence to support that, is almost trying too hard. The search incident to the arrest is their strongest way to say, we're allowed to go in that bag because we were taking him downtown anyway, and we have to see what's inside to inventory it.

SANCHEZ: What do you make, Mark, of his defense attorneys trying to make the case that he was not properly read his Miranda rights at that McDonald's?

O'MARA: So, aside from the search and what may happen with that, the question then becomes, was he -- was his Miranda rights violated? Two things are necessary, of course. He has to be in custody.

I think, even though the officer said in one of his testimony that he was -- he did not tell him he was not free to leave, the reality is, he was not going anywhere.