Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Biden Mulls Letting Ukraine Use Long-Range Western Missiles; Donald Trump Again Stokes Fears About Undocumented Immigrants; Campaigns In Las Vegas; Trump, Harris In Battlegrounds As Race Enters Critical Phase; Justice Jackson Talks Supreme Court's Image, Writes About Raising An Artistic Child In New Memoir; How Justice O'Connor Rebuffed Pressure To Overturn Roe v. Wade; El Salvador's Crackdown Challenges Trump's Migrant Claims. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired September 14, 2024 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:01:01]

JESSICA DEAN, CNN ANCHOR: You're in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jessica Dean in New York.

And we begin with President Biden on the verge of a major decision that could dramatically reshape the war in Ukraine.

The president is considering whether to allow Ukraine to use a western long-range missile that could strike at targets deep in Russian territory.

U.K.'s Prime Minister Keir Starmer refusing to answer whether that came up in his meeting with President Biden. But Russian President Vladimir Putin is warning that if Biden does give the green light, Russia will quote, "be at war with NATO".

CNN's Kevin Liptak is following this for us. Kevin, what are you hearing about the president's thinking around this?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, President Biden certainly seems more open to this idea than he had in the past. And I think that tells you the enormous amount of pressure that President Biden is feeling not only from the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but also members of Congress including some senior Democrats to ease some of these restrictions on long-range missiles that would be fired deep into Russia.

American missiles, but also British and French missiles that would require sign off from the United States. President Biden still has some concerns and certainly officials within the administration have voiced those concerns over the last week or so.

One of them is just a practical concern. They say that Russia has already moved some of its highest value assets out of range of these missiles. The other concern is just the general concern about escalation. And certainly President Biden has had that at the front of the mind every time a new capability comes along that could help Ukraine win this war.

In this case, you do hear Russian President Vladimir Putin really ratcheting up the rhetoric saying that if the president allows this new capability, it would mean that Russia is directly at war with NATO.

President Biden responded to that yesterday. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you say to Vladimir Putin's special law (ph), Mr. President?

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't think much about President Vladimir Putin.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIPTAK: Now neither of these leaders came out of this meeting with any kind of announcement or decision. And certainly beforehand, American officials said that they weren't expecting this to be a decision- making meeting.

But we did hear from the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who suggested that a decision could be coming soon. He said that this discussion would continue at the United Nations General Assembly talks later this month.

And we do know that President Zelenskyy will be meeting President Biden on the margins of those talks.

Now, one of the things that's in the backdrop of all of these discussions is the American election. And certainly we saw President Trump just this week at the debate, refuse multiple times to say that he would be committed to a Ukrainian victory.

And I think when you talk to the western alliance officials in Europe and here in the United States, they really do want to do everything they can to help Ukraine win and position Ukraine for victory before the uncertain outcome in November.

DEAN: All right. Kevin Liptak at the White House for us. Thank you so much for that.

Let's discuss more with former director for European Affairs at the National Security Council, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman. Great to have you here with us. Thanks so much for making time this afternoon.

LT. COL. ALEXANDER VINDMAN, FORMER DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL: Hey, Jessica. Good to be on with you.

DEAN: Let's talk first about the fact that the U.S. has sometimes been slow to respond or acquiesce to some of these requests from Ukraine. They ultimately do come around though, like F-16s, the Abrams tanks, for example.

Do you think that ultimately Biden and his administration will come around on this particular issue.

VINDMAN: I think it would be a big policy change. I think the fact is that the Biden administration has been very, very careful to avoid any real risk of escalation in a direct confrontation with Russia.

[17:04:44]

VINDMAN: This would be a pretty significant departure. Once we've handed weapons over to Ukraine in whatever kind of slow sometimes plodding process, those become national weapons of Ukraine.

Those are not American weapons anymore. America really has nothing to do with those weapons systems. And by international law, they're sovereign weapons of Ukraine.

So in this case, it would be us delivering weapons to Ukraine, those becoming sovereign weapons. And Ukraine making the decision to strike out at targets in its national defense against an aggressive, belligerent Russia that launched a provoked -- unprovoked attack.

This, this would though be a pretty significant departure in that though maybe the slightest increment change in that Russia -- mainland Russia would be attacked by these weapons.

I'm a big supporter of it. I think that Putin is full of bluster on this one. There is no interest for Russia to engage in a direct competition with the U.S. and NATO. But he is trying to do the best he can to try continue to warn off the U.S. And the West from providing the robust support that Ukraine really needs for its national defense.

DEAN: That's so interesting because it sounds like what you're saying is you don't think Putin will really go -- go that far, that because he's warned that it will be war with NATO if these weapons are allowed to be used deeper in Russia. But you think that could potentially be bluster.

VINDMAN: I could say with very high confidence that it is bluster because it is not in Russia's interest to go to war with NATO.

A war with NATO would mean that conventional forces of Russia that are severely depleted and really kind of in a lot of ways you know, not -- not so relevant with regards to the competition with NATO would be going up against the U.S.

That would be folly, the height of folly. So that's unlikely because in that scenario, you could see a rapid escalation to use of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons meaning mutually-assured destruction.

Not in Putin's interest at least, especially in a scenario where his regime, his personal survival are not at stake.

That's not what's going on here. Limited strikes on Russian territory against military targets, against war-related targets do not threaten Putin's regime. And therefore, again, do not warrant this kind of direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.

But it is in Putin's interest to use every tool in his arsenal to try to get in the head of our administration, of our national security community, of President Biden to warn him off of providing this capability.

And that's what he's been doing all along. And what you see is a ratchet up and rhetoric.

Will the Russians respond they, they will -- they may respond in the way they have been thus far. They're already conducting war against the U.S. and NATO in a hybrid fashion.

They're conducting sabotage operations. They're conducting information operations, propaganda -- it's all part of a hybrid warfare that Russia has been employing against us for a long time.

Just think about the recent revelations about indictments by the FBI. That's the lower increment. The higher increment is this actual sabotage that's going on. The Russian intelligence services blowing things up that they think are going to send a signal to the West.

That's the kinds of things he's going to probably ratchet up on. But a direct confrontation is not in his interest, it does not threaten his regime. Its bluster. The U.S. should be doing more to support Ukraine to defend itself, and really frankly pressure Putin to think about an exit strategy.

That's what this is about. Enabling -- this is not going to be a game changer scenario where we provide some additional missiles and some having to result in the end the war.

But it does ratchet up the pressure on Putin to then think through what does he want to continue this war? Is there a benefit to him to continue?

That's what we're talking about, making it easier for Ukraine to ultimately get to a negotiation -- a fruitful negotiation.

DEAN: I want to take a listen to what President Zelenskyy told CNN's Fareed Zakaria about this.

Let's listen to that clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Everybody is looking the decision of the United States. Everybody is waiting for (INAUDIBLE) after they make decisions. It's true.

And so we wanted very much to use this weapon and just to attack these jets on the military bases, not civilians infrastructure, military bases. We need more permissions.

But now you will tell me maybe we will get give you 100 or 200, but for what -- to destroy what if they began to move. So we are again, like with a packages, again slow decisions. And again, we can't win in such circumstances.

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: Do you have permission now to --

ZELENSKYY: No. Until now no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: How critical is this ability to use these long-range weapons deeper into Russia to -- and I know you just were explaining kind of what it could do, but how critically does Ukraine need the ability to do this?

[17:09:44]

VINDMAN: They would have been far more critical a year ago. They would have been able to strike Russian aircraft on bases. These aircraft are the ones that are launching these devastating glide bombs that destroy entire blocks, destroyed strong (ph) points.

The Russians have adjusted their -- their methodologies and pushed these aircraft back, but it still allows the Ukrainians to go after high-value targets as they find them on the battlefields in Ukraine and in Russia -- staging bases, command and control nodes, critical infrastructure.

Think about the Kerch Bridge that would be in play with some of the new capabilities that are being discussed. So it would make a difference. None of these things individually are a game changer but all combined and frankly, with a more robust support coming from the U.S. over the course of the year, I think we have a new administration coming in.

If it's a Harris administration, it could be an opportunity for policy review -- review, and more aggressive fulsome support to Ukraine in that regard. We could start seeing what shapes up to be a theory of victory. All lots of different pieces coming together to give Ukraine an opportunity to conduct an offensive operation.

Of course, the converse is a Trump administration which would be a U.S. withdrawal and it would mean a collapse of the battlefield. Ukraine would fight on, Europe will continue to support. But the risks of escalation spillover, magnify exponentially.

There, without the U.S. backbone, Russia would start to potentially lash out against what it sees as vulnerabilities, fractures within the NATO alliance.

And we could also see European forces -- worst for European troops, Polish troops, troops from the Baltics arrive in Ukraine on the theory that it's better to fight on Ukrainian territory than their own. Recognizing that Poland and the Baltics think that there next on Russia's list.

So a lot of things in play. This is not an easy decision for the Biden administration. I think the fact is as that they -- as they've done, they've reassessed the real risks of escalation. It's not going to materialize. They'll probably make the decision to move forward with this. Longtime coming but hopefully it happens sooner rather than later.

DEAN: All right. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, thank you so much.

VINDMAN: Thank you.

DEAN: Still ahead, Donald Trump turning up the anti-immigrant rhetoric while he defends a far-right activist supporter. How it could hurt him with swing voters he needs to win this election.

Plus El Salvador, the central American country Trump blames for the border crisis. Well, CNN went there, and we found a very different story.

And exclusive CNN reporting, the inside story of how "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor rebuffed pressure from other conservative justices to overturn Roe v Wade back in 1989.

[17:12:21]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DEAN: Campaigning in Nevada, former President Donald Trump has been claiming, with no evidence, that undocumented immigrants are quote, "taking over our country from within".

He has bemoaned the state of affairs in Springfield, Ohio due to a mass influx of Haitian immigrants, but hasn't repeated his debate claim that Haitians are stealing dogs and cats in the town to eat them.

That completely baseless allegation has created major problems in Springfield where bomb threats forced the closure of city hall and the cancellation of school.

CNN's Alayna Treene joining us now from Las Vegas. And Alayna, just a few moments ago, Donald Trump was asked about those threats.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He was Jessica. He briefly made a stop at the Las Vegas Police Protective Association where he thanked local law enforcement and he made false claims about Kamala Harris having no support from law enforcement in this country.

But what I found interesting and what you just mentioned is that a reporter had asked him toward the end whether he denounces the bomb threats reported at schools in Springfield, Ohio that have led to two consecutive days of school closures.

I want you to take a listen to his response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you denounce the bomb threats in Springfield, Ohio? DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I don't know what happened with the bomb threats. I know that it's been taken over by illegal migrants. And that's a terrible thing that happened. Springfield was this beautiful town and now they're going through hell. It's a sad thing.

Not going to happen with me. I can tell you you're right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: Now just a couple of things I want to break down there.

One is that he claimed that the city has been taken over by illegal immigrants. But we know that the surge of Haitian migrants in Springfield, that most of them are actually here legally and they have temporary protective status.

The other part of that though, is that he claimed he doesn't know so anything about these bomb threats, however, on Friday, during a press conference in Los Angeles a reporter asked him specifically about these bomb threats. He dismissed the claims and then went on to say that actually the bigger problem is immigration.

Now, I want to be very clear here about these claims about these migrants taking pets and eating them.

We have now heard from the mayor of Springfield, the police chief of the city, as well as the Republican governor of Ohio. All of them saying that there is no evidence to support these claims that both Donald Trump and his running mate continue to promote.

We actually heard Donald Trump first bring it up publicly at the debate earlier this week, but they have continued to talk about this. Now when I talk to advisors close to Donald Trump and people, some of his allies, they argue that even if these rumors end up being untrue, proven false, they say at least people are talking about.

So keep that in mind. It really is trying to play into that rhetoric we have become so accustomed to about Donald Trump trying to stoke fear about undocumented immigrants in this country, Jessica.

[17:19:52]

DEAN: All right. Alayna Treene reporting on the trail in Las Vegas. Thank you so much for that.

Joining us now is CNN senior political analyst and senior editor at "The Atlantic", Ron Brownstein. Ron, good to see you.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi Jessica.

DEAN: I know you have written extensively about the issue of immigration.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

DEAN: What do you make of Springfield, Ohio becoming this flashpoint in this issue right now?

BROWNSTEIN: Well look, I think it is giving Americans a very clear preview of what a second Trump term would be like in multiple respects.

The winking at violence that we saw in that answer, you know, without a clear denunciation of these bomb threats similar to the message he is sending with his promises to pardon the January -- some of the January 6 rioters and declarations that they've been treated very unfairly.

And then it is also a reminder that even though we have not really been discussing it very much in part because there wasn't a real Republican primary -- contested Republican primary -- he is running on a much more militant and aggressive agenda than he did in 2020 or 2016 on a lot of issues, but especially immigration, where he is talking about mass deportation of millions of people complete with internment camps and using the National Guard from red states to be deployed into blue states as well as, you know, deputizing large numbers of federal law enforcement.

And the last piece I think that the Springfield story tells us is that there is effectively no resistance in the Republican Party if he wants to move down this road, even though the Governor Mike DeWine has said these charges from J.D. Vance and Donald Trump are baseless, he is in pretzels (ph) himself to avoid criticizing them for making these accusations in the first place, even though the real-world consequences of those accusations are becoming scarier by the day.

DEAN: Yes. It is ironic that immigration is an issue we have seen over and over again that Americans are concerned about. They want some direction and answers. It could be a real winning issue for the former president.

It could be, it is a vulnerability for Vice President Harris, for the Biden administration. And yet he's talking about all of this instead of he could just stick to the facts and potentially have a real argument on merits that he could make to people and let them decide.

It is ironic he chooses to go way over here.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes, you know, I've been writing about public opinion about immigration since Prop 187 in California in 1994, which was the famous ballot initiative to deny public service to undocumented immigrants.

And public opinion is remarkably consistent. They want order at the border. They want the laws to be respected, but they are also practical and humane.

There has -- you know, there has not been majority -- there has consistently been majority support for allowing people who have been here for an extended period of time who have not committed any crimes to transition to legal status at some point.

The discontent over Biden's management of the border has increased support in the public for some of these more draconian solutions that Trump is putting forward. But it's not at all clear that that support would be sustained once you had people and images of, you know, mothers with U.S. citizen children kind of reaching beyond barbed wire in an internment camp, you know.

And the story that I wrote for CNN.com the other day, Jeffrey Passel of Pew calculated that one quarter of all Hispanics in the U.S. are in families of mixed status where some people are here legally and some people are not.

The sweep of this kind of deportation that they're talking about could be enormous. And disruptive. What is it -- a fifth of agricultural workers, roughly a sixth of manufacturing workers and one out of 12 service workers are undocumented.

Removing all of those people from the economy at once as Trump is talking about, most economists say, is a great risk of reigniting inflation.

DEAN: I also want to ask you about your latest piece for "The Atlantic", in which you write that Harris may have won the debate against Trump, but she didn't do enough to convince voters that she's better for the economy than former President Trump.

How does she convince them of that? Does she have enough time to make that case now?

BROWNSTEIN: She certainly has time, but I think she has to make a more concentrated case than she has. You know, whether it was a convention speech or that first question, that kind of core "are you better off than you were four years ago" question at the debate, she's leaned into her middle-class identity. Basically saying I'm from the middle class, so I will defend the middle class.

She just kind of chewed up all the time she had to answer about her economic plan focusing on those. I think she needs -- and I think many Democrats really need a broader, more comprehensive answer about she's going to make people's lives betters.

[17:24:52]

BROWNSTEIN: She's emphasizing two policy proposals in particular -- expanded tax credits for starting a small business and for first time homebuyers and also for parents in the first year of life, a child tax credit.

But you know, that universe of people who are directly affected by those ideas is not nearly as large as the universe of people who are concerned about what the economy has produced over the last four years.

And I think ultimately a more both candid and comprehensive answer about what's gone right over the last four years, the large amount of private sector investment triggered by the IRA and clean energy and other cutting-edge industries and what's gone wrong. Plus some clearer ideas about how she might make it better is something she's almost certainly going to have to do between now and November to get those last few points she needs particularly in the heavily blue collar, former blue wall states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin where the race will most likely be decided.

DEAN: It is so tight there.

All right. Ron Brownstein, always good to see you. Thanks so much.

BROWNSTEIN: Thanks for having me.

DEAN: Still ahead, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks with CNN. What she has to say about the public perception of the highest court in the land.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:30:29]

DEAN: Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson this week sat down with CNN's Abby Phillip at a time when public approval of the court is at an all-time low. She weighed in on how public opinion affects the court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Do you have concerns about that perception that the public might think that legal differences are aligning so closely with political differences?

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: So you mentioned Justice Breyer, who was one of my mentors. And this is something that he has talked about a lot.

And that I think it is a concern for the court as an institution because public confidence is basically all we have. The court does not have the power of the purse. It does not have an army. It can't make people enforce or follow it's opinions.

And so it's really important for maintenance of the rule of law that people believe in the justices and their rulings, especially in these very contentious cases.

So you asked me, do I have a concern? Yes. But as at a sort of institutional level. The entire court is concerned about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Justice Jackson also talked about her family and her home life, including raising a child with special needs while working full-time as a lawyer and a judge.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JACKSON: If I had known earlier, I probably would have just decided that I needed to care for her full time.

PHILLIP: Are you glad that you didn't make that choice considering everything that's followed it.

JACKSON: Everything that's happened. You know, it's hard to look back and feel regret. I mean, I'm, honestly, very honored to do what I'm doing. And she's at a good place now. We've figured it figured it out. And so I think, in general, I ended up making the right choice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: You can find more of Abby's interview with Justice Jackson on CNN.com.

We're also getting a rare look at the inner workings of the Supreme Court, thanks to the personal papers reviewed by CNN from the late Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

In the trove of letters and correspondence, we're getting insight into how the first female Supreme Court justice interacted with her male colleagues as cases came before the court that attended to chip away at abortion rights.

CNN chief Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic, has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Good to see you, Jessica.

Abortion rights are at the center of this presidential election campaign. And we recently were able to see once-private papers of the late Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in abortion cases.

They give us an inside look at how she became a vote, an unlikely vote to preserve Roe v. Wade for decades until the current court's reversal of the landmark in 2022, of course.

Justice O'Connor, the first woman on the court, died last December. She had arranged to have her papers available at the Library of Congress after her death.

Not all justices do that, but those who do, these documents, personal correspondence, handwritten notes, offer a window into how this very secretive institution operates.

There was a particularly important abortion case in 1989 when Justice O'Connor pivoted from what had been a consistent vote against Roe. What we see now in these materials is the pressure she faced to cast the deciding vote to overturn that landmark case.

The pressure came as three of the Reagan appointees were all in place in it looked like there was a chance Roe would be overturned for the first time since 1973, when that case made abortion legal nationwide. But Justice O'Connor flinched. Part of her change trajectory appears

to be from the pressure that then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia, strong opponents of Roe, how they implored her to get on board.

After arguments were heard on the restrictive Missouri abortion law at issue in the case, Rehnquist began working privately with the five conservatives, including O'Connor, on an opinion.

He sent them a confidential note that said, because of all the quote, "media hype," unquote, that this case has received, and because we are cutting back on previous doctrine in this area, I think it more than usually desirable to have a court majority. That is five justices.

[17:35:12]

And he wanted his colleagues to respond to his draft opinion in just a few days. O'Connor bristled at this deadline.

But more importantly, she told him, you're including a disclaimer that you're not really overruling Roe, but the legal rationales you're using would, she wrote, quote, "effectively overrule Roe," unquote.

Then Justice Scalia came in with another note that hadn't been publicly available before now. He was known for his forceful, even bullying style.

All of these pleas rubbed O'Connor the wrong way and she ended up breaking from her conservative brethren.

She agrees that the Missouri restrictions should be upheld, but she didn't vote to under not undermine Roe v. Wade. She wrote that there would be time enough to reexamine Roe and to do so carefully.

This set her on a new path to reaffirm Roe three years later in 1992. And she effectively became it's champion.

These new documents highlight the difference on abortion rights between the court of that era and the contemporary court that threw out Roe in 2022.

But the documents also bring us up close to some constants from then and now. The justices negotiate behind the scenes through memos, personal overtures and various means of persuasion. Some are more successful than others.

And these O'Connor papers show that pressure on individual justices can sometimes have the opposite of the intended effect -- Jessica?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DEAN: Fascinating stuff.

Joan Biskupic, thank you so much.

And still ahead tonight, Trump recently said El Salvador is partly to blame for the border crisis. So CNN went there and the question, are droves of migrants really trying to flee for the U.S.?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID CULVER, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: But in the past three to four years, this country has seen a radical transformation. Locals tell us that they finally feel safe enough to to be outside.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:41:42]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They're coming in from all over the world, from prisons and jails.

It's not just South America. This isn't Honduras alone and Guatemala, El Salvador.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Former President Donald Trump repeatedly makes claims like that. But at least when it comes to El Salvador, he's flat wrong. El Salvador's migration to the U.S. has fallen sharply amid a stunning drop in crime as the country has cracked down on gangs. It's also raised human rights concerns.

Here's CNN's David Culver.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CULVER (voice-over): On the U.S. southern border, we've seen the desperation and determination of folks trying to get into the U.S., often fleeing the unimaginable.

DIEGO MORALES, VENEZUELAN: Sometimes you go to sleep and you never know if you're going to wake up.

CULVER: Diego Morales dreamed of a better life, escaping the horrors of El Salvador's brutal civil war.

(SHOUTING)

MORALES: I like United States. We're here for most 30 years. So I can say, you know, this is my country.

CULVER (on camera): Hi. Hey, I'm David. Nice to meet you.

(voice-over): He's made Houston, Texas, home, starting a business and a family here. But Diego now noticing fewer Salvadorans following his path.

MORALES: And always safe, you know, so people staying over there.

CULVER: Less than a decade ago, El Salvador was labeled the murder capital of the world. Gangs were essentially in charge.

(on camera): But in the past three to four years, this country has seen a radical transformation. Locals tell us that they finally feel safe enough to be outside.

(voice-over): Which may explain the sharp drop in migrants from El Salvador attempting to enter the U.S.

CBP data shows a 36 percent decrease in Salvadorans crossing the southern border from 2022 to last year, with numbers expected to fall even further this year.

But the data only tells part of the story.

(CROSSTALK)

CULVER: We meet Blanca Flores and Victor Bolanos. They fled El Salvador in 2003, leaving their three college-age sons behind.

(on camera): From all the people you worked with.

(voice-over): Planning to eventually bring them to Colorado. At least that was the plan.

(on camera): They were able to get their kids through schooling and everything through their work in the U.S.

(voice-over): And after 15 years, the couple lost their asylum claim and was forced to accept a so-called voluntary departure back to El Salvador.

(on camera): It's a lot of work.

VICTOR BOLANOS, EL SALVADORIAN: Yes.

CULVER (voice-over): Returning just ahead of the country's pivotal 2019 presidential elections.

(SHOUTING)

CULVER: A 37-year-old Nayib Bukele won in 2022, declared a controversial state of emergency that is still in effect.

(SHOUTING)

CULVER: Arresting more than 81,000 people and counting. He's consolidated power, tightened his grip of control, and essentially eliminated any political opposition.

BLANCA FLORES, EL SALVADORIAN: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE:

CULVER: And yet Blanca says Bukele is more like a concern father.

Two years ago, the Bukele administration introduced financial incentives for citizens looking to return to El Salvador. The government reports nearly 19,000 Salvadorans have moved back under this program.

(on camera): And you think the economy will get better because security is better?

BOLANOS: Yes, immigrant can stop. We have our job.

[17:45:00]

CULVER (voice-over): Human rights groups, though, question Bukele's tactics in cracking down on gangs, alleging widespread abuse and claiming that many innocent people have been swept up in the mass arrests.

But the government stands by its actions, as does nearly everyone we meet here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can imagine how afraid I was that one of my sons were going recruited for the gang member or here.

CULVER (on camera): And you think President Bukele save him from that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right.

CULVER (voice-over): In some places, the Millennial leader and his social media posts are seemingly revered and good for marketing, attracting locals and folks visiting.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This can't be the same country. There's no way.

CULVER (on camera): This is your families --

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is my aunt.

CULVER (voice-over): Jessica left as a child with her parents during the civil war. This is her first time back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I'm like kind of sad that I've lost so many years and now have seen my family for like 30-something years.

CULVER: Investors also seeing the potential here. We meet up with one of them, a familiar face.

(on camera): Diego, how are you? What a place you have.

(voice-over): Diego Morales in town with his family, checking in on his boutique hotel, which opened a year ago on the land his parents once worked, but could never afford to buy. Now, he is the owner.

MORALES: But here, they can stay here alone. Everything is safe, you know?

CULVER: While some locals make it clear, their land is not for sale, the surging prices along the coast are too good for others to pass up.

(on camera): This used to be a gang lookout basically. They would have scouts to keep their eyes --

MORALES: Yes. They called it post, you know, having people were hid over there, you know?

CULVER: But now it's potentially the sight of luxury and relaxation.

MORALES: Yeah, just totally different now.

CULVER: During a period of time, the noise that we would hear there would be say, gunfire.

MORALES: Gunfire.

CULVER: But now its construction noise.

(voice-over): New roads, luxury homes and resorts all coming soon.

Diego is not the only one in his family who sees the possibilities here.

(on camera): You can see building the future here?

JAIRO (ph) MORALES, SON OF DIEGO MORALES: Exactly.

CULVER (voice-over): His son, Jairo (ph), born and raised in the U.S., an American now looking south for his Salvadoran dream.

CULVER (oc): So, Jessica, for a lot of the folks who we met in El Salvador, including some of the migrants who, at one point had come into the U.S. but now have returned to their homeland, they're grateful that security-wise things seem to have stabilized.

But their focus now is on the economy. They say, for them to sustain a life in El Salvador, the economy has to get better. It is struggling and it's dire for some right now. It's something President Bukele himself has also acknowledged.

They say, if that is sorted, then, for them, it's a future that remains in El Salvador.

And for a lot of the folks who, at one point, considered coming to the U.S., well, they say they're willing to rule that out if they feel like they have a life that they can build back home -- Jessica?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DEAN: All right. David Culver, for us, thanks so much for that report.

And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:52:47]

DEAN: The spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories has flourished on the alt-right, but left-wing progressives can also sometimes be susceptible.

In tomorrow's "THE WHOLE STORY WITH ANDERSON COOPER," CNN senior correspondent, Donie O'Sullivan, looks into so-called MAGA Communism and meets one of its true believers who spreads pro-Russia, pro-China propaganda.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The men that we met here weren't always this way.

JACKSON HENKELS, MAGA SUPPORTER: My name is Jackson Henkels.

O'SULLIVAN: A few years ago, Jackson was campaigning for progressive causes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was BLM originally. BLM has been co-opted by NATO, by the government.

And Adam, A/K/A Charm Hold, had changed as well.

O'SULLIVAN: So you --

(CROSSTALK)

O'SULLIVAN: -- you were a big liberal, Democrat. You were a Bernie Bro?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bernie Bro, through and through.

O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): I wanted to find out what had them change.

(on camera): Why do you think the Russians like you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I speak truth.

O'SULLIVAN: Good to see you, man.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: American politics is schizophrenic. You've got one side saying you're crazy, you've got the outside saying you're crazy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Be sure to tune in an all-new episode of "THE WHOLE STORY WITH ANDERSON COOPER," one whole hour, one whole story. It airs tomorrow at 8:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific only on CNN.

In Arizona, thousands of children are in foster care. Many of them are Native American and seeking connection to their roots.

This week's "CNN Hero" is a foster parent who was shocked by the lack of resources available to vulnerable children in their foster and adoptive families.

Wanting to help bridge that gap for all Native American children, no matter who's raising them, she made it her mission to provide services, support and ways to connect to their rich culture and history.

Meet Elisia Manuel.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELISIA MANUEL, CNN HERO: When I tell people I was abundantly blessed within six months, I became a mom to four children that we're all under the age of 2-years-old.

That's where kind of knew we needed to make a change.

I started out just providing basic resources, clothes and shoes and diapers. I really wanted to create family engagement, a cultural experience.

(SINGING)

MANUEL: When we can incorporate our culture and you have that sense of identity, your world changes.

[17:55:01]

I had non-native foster parents and grandparents raising children, even some group homes say, how do I get my kids connected to culture? I don't know where to go.

There's thousands of native children that are in care and could be connected.

(DRUMMING)

MANUEL: I want kids to come and actually feel like their sense of identity and culture is right there.

(SINGING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)