Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Justice Department Failed to Redact in Epstein Files; Political Parties Stance on Immigration; Tara Copp is Interviewed about Anthropic's fight with the Defense Department. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired February 26, 2026 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:11]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: We are standing by for the deposition of Hillary Clinton to begin in front of the House Oversight Committee in their ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.

There's new reporting also this morning about the files, the Jeffrey Epstein files, that have been released by the Justice Department. A CNN analysis finds that for nearly a month, DOJ failed to take down more than a dozen images in the files that should have been redacted.

CNN's Marshall Cohen led this new reporting. He's joining us now.

Marshall, lay it out for us what you and the team have found.

MARSHALL COHEN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Hey, so we've known for a while about redaction problems in the Epstein files, but this is much more widespread than we thought. So, we worked with an A.I. company called Visual Layer to examine more than 100,000 images that the DOJ posted to its Epstein files website. And we found more than a dozen photos that definitely should have been redacted but weren't and remained on the public DOJ site for nearly a month.

Now, I'm about to show you some of these pictures, but keep in mind, CNN blurred the versions that you're going to see, but they were available, fully unredacted, on the DOJ site for weeks. So, there were pictures of a young girl kissing Jeffrey Epstein on the cheek. There were also non-sexual but unredacted images of other young children and toddlers who are obviously minors and should have been redacted. And also, there were several pictures of passports and driver's licenses revealing private data, like I.D numbers, addresses and dates of birth.

CNN asked the DOJ about these images on Monday, and by Tuesday they were all taken down and replaced with properly redacted versions.

Kate, let me read a statement that we got from a DOJ spokesperson about this situation. Here's what they told us. Quote, "our team is working around the clock to address any victim concerns, additional redactions of personally identifiable information, as well as any files that require further redactions." Kate.

BOLDUAN: And are you hearing more, Marshall, about potentially explicit images being posted to the DOJ site?

COHEN: This is where the story takes an even darker turn. It's incredibly disturbing because we found also, in addition to everything I just described, more than 100 sexually explicit photos that the DOJ actually posted online last month.

Now, they did take these down pretty quickly. And some of them were replaced with redacted versions, which is what we're about to show you on your screen. There were dozens of photos showing what appeared to be two naked teenagers on a beach. There were also multiple, uncensored nude selfies and at least one image showing Epstein with an undressed female.

Now, we spoke to legal experts and advocates for survivors of sexual abuse. Everyone is stunned that these images made it through the DOJ's review, especially because top officials were adamant that they redacted every single woman in the Epstein files. Advocates said this situation could retraumatize the victims. And even though the DOJ did take down the explicit photos, we all know it's basically impossible to truly delete something from the internet after it's posted.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: Yes. Marshall, thank you for your reporting on this.

John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, the president spent a great deal of his State of the Union Address talking about immigration, which is notable because the president is now underwater in the polls on immigration, especially after federal immigration agents killed two American citizens in Minnesota. But that's the president. What else is going on here? Maybe for the people who were listening to that speech.

CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten is with us now.

So, we've talked about the president and immigration.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yes.

BERMAN: That's one thing. But as a partizan issue, it might be another.

ENTEN: Yes, this, I think, is so important to note. After all the events in Los Angeles, after all the events in Minneapolis, after all the events of the last year on immigration, can Democrats actually take advantage on this issue? And a look at the polling suggests, actually, no, they're in a worse position -- in a worse position than they were at this point during Donald Trump's first term.

Take a look here, trusts which party more on immigration. In 2018 Democrats had an edge of about six points. You come over to this side of the screen now, look at that, Republicans are the ones who actually have an edge on immigration. So, this whole idea that Democrats are going to be able to take advantage of the immigration group, of the immigration issue actually doesn't bear itself out in the polling, despite everything that's been going on. In fact, Democrats are in a worse position than they were during Donald Trump's first term.

[08:35:00]

BERMAN: Yes, maybe they don't like what Donald Trump, the president, is doing, but they don't think Democrats will do a better job.

ENTEN: Correct. They think Democrats will do a worse job on immigration than Republicans.

BERMAN: All right, what about border security in general?

ENTEN: OK, border security in general. So, this is immigration at large. What about border security?

Look at this. Look at these numbers. Hello. Party trusted more on border security. Again, at this point, Trump's terms. Look at this, in 2018 Republicans had a 13-point advantage. If anything, the advantage is a little bit larger now. Republicans up by 15 points.

So, when you put it all together, you put immigration with border security. And the idea that Democrats will be able to take the ball and run away on it, the polling data suggests, no, no, no, this is actually an issue that Republicans should be more comfortable running on than Democrats. Democrats running on immigration may actually be to the Republican's advantage.

BERMAN: What about when you compare President Trump with former President Biden?

ENTEN: Yes, OK. So, you know, we speak about President Trump's approval rating, right, on immigration not being as high as it once was. But I'll tell you who the heck it's a lot higher than at this point in his term, and that's the predecessor, Joe Biden. Look at this, approval on immigration at this point in a presidency. Biden was at just 34 percent. Donald Trump looks a whole heck of a lot better when you compare him to the alternative at 45 percent.

And this, I think, is the big takeaway from this segment, which is, you can't just look at something in isolation. You have to compare it to the alternative. And in this particular case, when you take a look at immigration and you compare Republicans to the alternative, Democrats, this is an issue that Republicans should really like, and President Trump should like the comparison to Joe Biden.

BERMAN: It's interesting. It may be that it's not as bad as a lot of people would like to think for Democrats, but it might be -- it might -- the Republicans may not be as high as they were a couple of years ago on the issue.

ENTEN: Correct. They are not necessarily as high as they were during Joe Biden's term, but they are much higher than they were during what I think is the correct comparison, which is during Donald Trump's first term.

BERMAN: Very good.

Harry Enten, thank you very much for that explanation.

ENTEN: Thank you, my friend.

BERMAN: Kate.

BOLDUAN: Let us talk about this. Joining me right now, CNN chief political analyst David Axelrod is here.

It's good to see you, Axe.

DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Good to see you.

BOLDUAN: What do you think of this? Democrats not capable right now of capitalizing on what has been a lot of criticism coming at Donald Trump for his immigration crackdown? What do you think of these numbers?

AXELROD: Well, first of all, I wish Harry Enten would speak up, OK.

BOLDUAN: He does -- he is a little low energy.

AXELROD: His just timidity is really killing me here.

Look, Donald Trump gets big plaudits for the border. A lot of support for that. He was doing really, really well on the immigration issue before ICE was unleashed in the way that they were. But it's still an advantage for the Republicans. And he believes that, obviously, because that was a focus of his. Despite everything that's happened, that was a focus of his State of the Union speech. He said last year he wants the midterms to be about immigration, crime and tax cuts. And that's largely where his State of the Union speech was focused.

The problem he has is by large numbers Americans are very focused on the cost of living, and he is not doing well on that issue. So, this is a battle of definition going into November. What is the election about?

BOLDUAN: That's a great point. And speaking of a battle of definition in a very different way, Jim Messina, whom you know well.

AXELROD: Yes.

BOLDUAN: He was -- he was on the show just a little earlier, and he was making the case that take -- taking the abolish ICE position, that many Democrats have, is walking into a trap for Democrats. The way he -- his point is this, "Democrats should resist the impulse to again align themselves with slogans that temporarily meet the passion many in the party are feeling but will alienate voters come election day."

Do you agree?

AXELROD: Yes, I mean, look, if you look at polling, that question is much closer now than it was.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

AXELROD: But it's -- it is a -- it is a bit of a trap. And I think people believe that we need border enforcement. They -- that we need enforceable immigration laws. They just don't believe it should be done in the manner that ICE is doing it now. And so, you know, that's an unnecessary trap.

I understand the rage. I felt it about the things that we saw in Minneapolis. I lived through it in Chicago. And so, I understand that -- that rage. But we ought to be able to say, we need enforceable borders. We need immigration laws. They need to be prosecuted in a way that respects people's rights and the law.

BOLDUAN: Another thing that is happening today, Hillary Clinton sitting down to be deposed in the House investigation over Jeffrey Epstein. She has said she has never even met Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton is going to be deposed tomorrow. A former president has never been forced to sit for a deposition from Congress. I mean what do you do with this? What do you think it -- what do you think it does, right?

AXELROD: Well, look, obviously, there's going to be a lot of interest in it because this -- this is like watching a slow rolling neutron bomb.

[08:40:03]

I mean it's just like radiating out globally, this Epstein story. And it's become symbolic of the ability of wealthy elites to do as they please without any accountability. And so, it's become a huge issue. And, of course, the Republicans would like to shift attention in Congress to President Clinton and any prominent Democrat and away from this president. And so, I expect they're going to -- they're going to ask some, you know, very probing questions but --

BOLDUAN: Even the chair of the committee has said that he doesn't -- there's no allegation of wrongdoing against them, they just have a lot of questions.

AXELROD: Well, they have a lot of questions. A lot of pictures of President Clinton with --

BOLDUAN: Do you think --

AXELROD: With Epstein.

BOLDUAN: Right. That's -- yes.

Do you think this makes it any more likely that Donald Trump will face questions?

AXELROD: Not between now and next January.

BOLDUAN: Yes. AXELROD: And, obviously, it's more problematical when we get a sitting president to sit down and answer --

BOLDUAN: Absolutely.

AXELROD: Answer questions.

But, look, there's no appetite in -- among Republicans in Congress to discomfort the president in any way.

BOLDUAN: But this has been that one issue. This has been the one issue that the MAGA base broke from Trump. I mean Marjorie Taylor Greene is the epitome, you know, kind of the encapsulation of how this was a step too far, right?

AXELROD: Yes. No.

BOLDUAN: And I totally hear what you're saying. It's just, this is such a moment, especially the -- with this new CNN reporting that dozens of FBI witness interviews from the investigation appear to be missing. And among those missing records, three interviews related to a woman who told agents that Epstein repeatedly abused her, starting when she was about 13, and who also accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her. The White House calls the allegations false and sensationalist. But --

AXELROD: Yes.

BOLDUAN: It's a -- you know, this -- there's -- as you said, like, it's like a slow moving bomb that's continuing to explode.

AXELROD: Well, there were apparently four -- there were apparently four interviews -- four interviews with this woman. Only one was accounted for in what was released. What are the other three interviews? And if she was -- if these were, as they suggest, unfounded lies, was she lying to the FBI in four different interviews? I would think that would be actionable. So --

BOLDUAN: Right. And this is contrast of nude photos, explicit photos, as Marshall Cohen's reporting, are out in the files, but these records are missing.

AXELROD: Listen, this is a huge problem for the president. It's obvious he pulled members into the Situation Room to try and ask them not to force the exposure of the Epstein records. So, it's clearly a source of concern for him.

We don't know what are in these files that haven't been seen, but I don't think the story is over by any means.

And, you know, you talk about the midterm elections and why is he so concerned about the midterm elections.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

AXELROD: If Democrats take control of Congress, I imagine some very hard questions are going to be asked of a lot of people relative to what the president did, what he knew, what he saw. You know, that's -- I think that's likely.

BOLDUAN: Even setting aside doing right and getting accountability for survivors that deserve it.

AXELROD: A hundred percent.

BOLDUAN: A slow -- a slow, exploding, you know, nuclear bomb, as you're describing it, is still very serious.

AXELROD: But you know what, give the survivors credit. They've been persistent.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

AXELROD: And you can see it's sending tremors all over the world.

And, Kate, I keep thinking about the book that may be written someday about how this web of Epstein's was spun all over the world, who funded it, what was behind it? I mean this is an incredible story. It started off as a -- as a -- as a conspiracy theory. It's turned into quite a mystery.

BOLDUAN: Yes, absolutely.

Axe, it's great to see you.

AXELROD: Good to see you, as always.

BOLDUAN: Thank you so much.

John.

BERMAN: All right, this morning, sources tell CNN that FBI Director Kash Patel ordered the firing of at least ten employees who worked on the investigation into President Trump's handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Patel reportedly ordered the firings after a larger investigation uncovered the bureau subpoenaed his communication records along with those of now White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles during the 2022-2023 probe.

With us now, CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez.

What's the latest on this, Evan?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Hey, good morning, John.

This is just the latest of these purges by the FBI director, Kash Patel, with, you know, basically targeting employees who were involved in any of the investigations involving Donald Trump and the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. In this case, what we're told is happening is that the FBI is doing a deeper dive, an investigation of these records that have been uncovered. What Patel is saying in a statement is that they have found that his communications records, as well as those of Susie Wiles, who is now the chief of staff at the White House, that those records were seized in 2022 and 2023.

[08:45:07]

Now, this is the time when the FBI was investigating the alleged mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago by the -- by the now president of the United States, by Donald Trump. And so, what this -- this is a wider look at that. But, again, they've been targeting people associated with Trump related cases since Patel took office. Actually, even before Patel took office last year in 2025.

And so, what we know is this, that this is -- they've now determined that these records, including toll (ph) records, perhaps emails and other records were seized as part of this investigation. Now, this is a routine part of the investigation, right? This is, if you remember, obviously, the president faced these charges for mishandling -- allegedly mishandling classified documents. And so it's routine for the FBI to seize some of this. But we don't know the full extent of it.

I'll read you just a statement from the FBI Agents Association, which is drawing a lot of criticism against Patel for some of his actions. They say that they condemn the "unlawful termination of FBI special agents, which like other firings by Director Patel, violates the due process rights of those who risk their lives to protect their country."

This is a story, John, that is not going to end with this. It's clear the FBI believes that there's a lot more here that they can make hay over, over the treatment of Patel and others in this investigation.

BERMAN: All right, we will watch and see what happens.

Evan, thank you for sharing your reporting on this.

So, how would you like to own C-3PO's head, or maybe the Marauder's map from "Harry Potter"? You soon can, maybe, for the right price.

And cow on the lam. A new one. This is happening again. Is this a symptom of a larger problem?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:51:25]

BOLDUAN: The clock is ticking on an -- what is an arbitrary deadline set by the Pentagon for A.I. giant Anthropic. The Pentagon giving the company an ultimatum, drop its safeguards on the military's use of its critical A.I. model or else. Anthropic has said that there are basically two areas that they want to remain off limits. The military using its A.I. model for mass surveillance of Americans, and also for fully autonomous weapons.

Joining me now is Tara Copp with "The Washington Post," who's been doing quite a bit of reporting around all of this.

Thanks for coming in. I was looking at your reporting, and I was interested, you're reporting that a person familiar with the discussions from Tuesday said that Anthropic's CEO had argued that neither of the limits that they're kind of standing on here would impede or get in the way of the Pentagon's work. Why is Anthropic pushing back? Is it mistrust in its own A.I. model, or mistrust in how it could be used?

TARA COPP, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Good morning.

Well, what we're hearing is it's basically mistrust on both sides. Anthropic's Claude is still in its early stages of training for its use in classified networks and its potential use in autonomous weapons. And there is a sense that the technology itself is not ready yet for that type of use. And the Defense Department, if they are going to provide Claude to the Defense Department for this manner, it essentially will give up control on what Claude learns on what a future Claude could look like, because each A.I. is going to be as good and make its own decisions based on the information its trained on and what sort of decisions it's enabled to make.

The Defense Department has pushed back and said, we are not trying to use Claude for autonomous weapons. We're not trying to use it for mass surveillance. It said that basically this is a disagreement over hypotheticals. But it has also said, look, China is developing this technology. Russia's developing this technology. We need the best and we need to be able to experiment with it as we see fit.

BOLDUAN: And also the Pentagon basically making the case as well, right, that we -- if you're -- we don't -- we don't take this kind of direction from government contractors. When we -- when we set a contract like this, we you, you sell us the tool and we do with it what we want.

But what do -- what of then the Pentagon's response with these threats? Are they likely to get Anthropic to comply?

COPP: It's quite extraordinary. And whether or not we see Anthropic comply, I mean, from conversations that we've had, we get the sense that Anthropic is willing to walk away from this if it needs to. But by invoking the Defense Production Act, the Pentagon may be able to compel Anthropic, one way or another, to provide Claude and to basically take away Anthropic's ability to control how Claude would be used. It's kind of similar to what we saw during the Covid pandemic, when both administrations were allowed to use the Defense Production Act to compel firms to say produce ventilators, but the firms had no say on how those ventilators were used or where they were distributed. They were just told to produce them.

It's going to be new territory. I think that it's a much bigger fight than it needed to be and it has chilling effects because there are a lot of firms out there with novel technology that are watching this fight and wondering, if we produce something the Defense Department wants, but they want to use it in a way we're not comfortable with, will we be forced to hand it over anyway?

[08:55:03] BOLDUAN: Yes, because, I mean, right, ventilators is one thing. Ventilators don't evolve and change and get smarter as you input information, right? Like this really is a new realm in what this fight is over.

Where do you think this is headed? I mean, does the Pentagon seem to need Claude more than Anthropic seems to need the government contract, or is it the other way around?

COPP: It's really very closely interconnected. You know, there are a couple of large language models out there. The Defense Department basically wants all of them because the question is, let's say that Anthropic does walk away. It doesn't prevent another company, in another country, from doing the exact same thing that Anthropic can do and not having safe guardrails. So, the question really is, you know, will the Pentagon have the best technology it needs? Will Anthropic be able to maintain the safeguards that it has pledged as part of its ethics? And if not, what happens to that company? Does it lose other potential commercial customers because they don't like that Anthropic is conducting business with the Pentagon or, you know, does Anthropic decide that it does want to go ahead with this and that it can find a way forward with DOD that actually matches with its own business ethics?

BOLDUAN: Yes. I mean this really -- this one -- this episode is beginning to raise some much bigger, important questions about the evolution of A.I., where it's going, where it's headed, not just now, but far into the future. Hypotheticals very quickly not becoming so hypothetical anymore.

Tara, thank you so much. Great reporting on this.

John.

BERMAN: All right, this morning, new video shows former WWE boss Vince McMahon speeding on a Connecticut highway and crashing his Bentley into several vehicles. This happened last summer while he was being chased by a state trooper.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why were you driving over 100 miles an hour?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) granddaughter's birthday. I got to get -- it's the next exit.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you see me trying to catch up to you behind you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I didn't see that. I saw lights, but it -- it looked normal.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I'm trying to catch up to you, and you keep taking off.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, no, no, no, I'm not taking - I'm not trying to outrun you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: No one was seriously injured. McMahon was cited for reckless driving and following too closely.

More 1,500 pieces of movie memorabilia go up for auction next month in Los Angeles. Some pretty cool stuff, including a C-3PO head from "The Empire Strikes Back," a harpoon gun used in "Jaws," and a Marauder's map from the "Harry Potter" films. None of it is going to be cheap. This C-3PO head alone, oh, there it goes -- I think that's a lightsaber right there. Ooh, I might want that. There's the Marauder's map. All very cool. The C-3PO head is expected to sell for up to $700,000.

New this morning, a preview of the new CNN original series on the world's worst nuclear accident, "Disaster: The Chernobyl Meltdown." It covers the explosion, the KGB coverup and all the way up to today's war in Ukraine. CNN chief global affairs correspondent Matthew Chance explores the history of the disaster and the nuclear risks that still exist today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: The nuclear disaster at Chernobyl. A radioactive nightmare that woefully unprepared Soviet firefighters struggled to contain.

PETRO SHAVREY, FIREFIGHTER (through translator): Smoke, pockets of fire, (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): (INAUDIBLE).

SHAVREY: What do you mean scary? (INAUDIBLE).

CHANCE: But the catastrophic meltdown was at first kept under wraps by the Soviet authorities, exposing oblivious locals to radioactive contamination.

OLENA MOKHNYK, PROYAT (ph) RESIDENT: We woke up as normal. And, as usual, we went to school. Before the accident, we never talked about safety measures. The power plant was perceived as the safest thing.

CHANCE: Even the annual May Day Parade in Kyiv went ahead as Soviet authorities desperately tried to cover up the unfolding catastrophe.

VITALLI SKLIAROV, FORMER ENERGY MINISTER, UKRAINE: They should have been evacuated a lot earlier. Information was always controlled. This was our usual practice.

CHANCE: And the casualties were high, 31 killed in the immediate blast aftermath, thousands more believed to have died since then from the fallout. A tragic indictment of how the disaster was managed from start to finish.

[09:00:00] RAY RICHARDSON, FORMER CIA NUCLEAR ANALYST: The Soviets' initial attempt to try to cover over the destroyed reactor building, it was leaky. It was not as structurally strong as it could have been.