Return to Transcripts main page
Erin Burnett Outfront
New Images: Trump Demolishing East Wing For $300M Ballroom; Trump Says He Canceled Putin Meeting: "Just Don't Feel Right To Me"; Dem Who Says "If They Go Low, I'm Going To The Gutter". Aired 7-8p ET
Aired October 22, 2025 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[19:00:33]
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:
The breaking news, Trump's demolishing of the entire East Wing of the White House and a price tag growing by $100 million, about a third, as the world watches the massive destruction.
And if they go low, I'm going to the gutter. The exact quote of the Texas Democrat who said that. She is our guest tonight. Why does she think her party just doesn't get it?
Plus, an OUTFRONT exclusive tonight. Our David Culver goes to Ecuador to track down the survivor of Trump's strike on an alleged drug boat. We'll show you what he found. Let's go OUTFRONT.
(MUSIC)
BURNETT: And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett.
OUTFRONT tonight, we begin with breaking news. The Trump wrecking ball. We are learning this hour that the White House demolition project is getting much bigger. Live pictures tonight of what was the historic East Wing of the White House in Washington, D.C.
You can see they're still working even at this hour. The East Wing now being completely demolished in order to make way for what Trump says will be a $300 million ballroom. That's an increase of a third in price since yesterday. It was a $200 million price tag that the White House had claimed.
And moments ago, Trump was asked about the project being far more extensive than anything he had talked about before.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, certain areas have been -- yeah, certain areas are being left. We determined that after really a tremendous amount of study with some of the best architects in the world, we determined that really knocking it down, trying to use a little section, you know, the East Wing was not much. It was not much left from the original. So, over the years, many presidents have made changes. This obviously would be the biggest change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Trump boasting about his project, as you can see, then holding up those pictures, showing them off. There was even a model of the new structure sitting on his coffee table as he spoke to reporters.
Trump plowing ahead with this as if everyone is happy about it, of course, the decision to gut the White House on the East Wing of the White House, a globally recognized symbol in this way, is obviously jarring. It, of course, is the White House for the president of the United States, for the American people.
And these new images that we have of the demolition are tough to watch. It's a project that Trump claimed about three months ago, actually wouldn't even touch the White House itself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: And it will be beautiful. It will be a view of the Washington monument. It won't interfere with the current building. It won't be.
It will be near it. But not touching it. And pays total respect to the existing building, which I'm the biggest fan of. It's my favorite. It's my favorite place. I love it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Of course, Trump going back on that word. As you can see now, it's not a fire. It's not a missile. It's just destruction, demolition of the East Wing. The White House now not being left the way it was as Trump said he would. Just listen to him as the Republican frontrunner back in 2016, actually.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. Trump, you're a builder. What would you like to do with the White House if you got your hands on that building?
TRUMP: Leave it the way it is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Well, that's one thing Trump is not doing -- leaving the White House the way it is. He's doing with it what he wants. He paved over Jackie Kennedy's Rose Garden to make what he calls the Rose Garden Club. He covered the Oval Office in gold medallions, mirrors and eagle figurines, something much more common in other parts of the world.
Now he's getting this ballroom, something that he has always wanted, actually dating back to 2010. At that time, he called up Obama's then chief strategist, David Axelrod, to say this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: We don't have a ballroom at the White House. I offered, by the way, Jerry, years ago to build a ballroom at the White House free of charge.
I offered him a ballroom over 100 million. I called David Axelrod. I said, David, I see you have all the heads of state and all the biggest people from China, and you're in a crummy tent. I said, I will build free.
And I said, look, I will offer free of charge to build the most beautiful ballroom there is in the country anywhere. I will do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Now, David Axelrod will join me in just a moment. But there is anger across the political spectrum on how this is happening and when it is happening.
Independent Senator Angus King said in a statement, "President Trump's desecration of the White House is an insult to the American people, and betrayal of the obligation to safeguard our history and heritage."
[19:05:06]
And Republican Senator Thom Tillis was also upset for different reasons.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): We're talking about building a ballroom, and we're trying to get the economy squared away. Timing is bad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Timing is bad.
Kristen Holmes is OUTFRONT live outside the White House to begin our coverage, where I guess you can hear it. I can hear it. I believe I can hear it coming through your microphone. I mean, you know, he originally said this wasn't going to touch the White House. And you've got new reporting tonight that, that -- well, of course you can see it touching the White House. We can all see that demolition.
But that you're reporting the ballroom is going to be even bigger than expected. What are you learning?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. And I do want to note one of the things we were just talking about is it's clear that President Trump wants this done and wants this done quickly, because they are working into the night. They are essentially working around the clock right now through this demolition.
What we are learning is that he does want this ballroom to be bigger. How much bigger its going to be is the question. However, what we have heard from multiple sources is that recently, he's been showing visitors two drawings, two models of this ballroom, one smaller, one larger than originally planned, and asking them which one they, like many of them, saying they like the larger one, and President Trump agreeing with them. Well, as you noted today, it sounded like that larger ballroom comes with a larger price tag because we hadn't heard him say 300 million before. It had been 200 million, then 250 at some points now up to 300 million.
And when you talk to members of Trump's team, White House officials, they say they were ready for this kind of pushback, that they had looked into what they were legally allowed to do. And I will note, this is what preservationists argue with. They say that they don't believe that the White House had the right to do this, but what they say is that the White House is that they only have to go to the national capital planning commission once they start building that, there is no rule for them to go at this point when they're doing demolition.
But then they'll submit the plans when they actually start the construction. Well, one thing to note about that commission, it is now run by these staff secretary, Will Scharf, as well as two other Trump loyalists who were appointed to those positions by Donald Trump himself. So, the idea that they wouldn't get smooth sailing on any of this construction, obviously seems to be questionable.
But this is right now one of the things President Trump is talking about almost constantly. And as you noted, he had the drawings, he had the renderings, he had the sculpture, the sculptures and buildings next to him today when he was having a meeting with the secretary general of the United Nations or -- of NATO, excuse me.
BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Kristen Holmes, with all of your new reporting.
Edward Lengel is OUTFRONT now. He served as chief historian of the White House Historical Association in Trump's first term. And Lulu Garcia-Navarro is also with us, along with David Axelrod.
So, appreciate you all very much.
Edward, "The New York Times" is now reporting that the entire East Wing of the White House is going to be torn down by this weekend, which is a pretty stunning thing, right? Trump had said this wasn't going to touch the White House. Now, the entire East Wing is going to be torn down by this weekend, according to the New York times.
I'll put up the picture because we've been showing a live camera of the actual demolition, and obviously, it's a bit dark, but, our photojournalist there is going to, you know, zooming in will pull out a little bit if he can, just to see the proximity up. Here we go. Sorry. We're communicating here over earpiece.
You can see it right there next to the actual, center of the White House itself.
You are warning, Edward, that there could be a lot more surprises to come. I mean, this is a pretty big surprise. Not going to touch the White House and now demolishing the whole East Wing. What do you mean, with more surprises?
EDWARD LENGEL, FORMER CHIEF HISTORIAN, WHITE HOUSE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. I think we're going to see more and more surprises down the road, both in terms of the impact on the executive mansion itself. It could go beyond the East Wing. It could affect the executive mansion building itself. The original 1800 building.
But I think much more likely what we're going to see is a ballroom that's going to be even more ostentatious, and it's going to turn the executive mansion into an annex to the party space.
BURNETT: Okay, wait, just let me just make sure I just to put -- as I'm hearing you say this, I'm just thinking about it, right? A White House that I've seen as a tourist, that I've seen as a journalist on the inside. You're saying that the upshot of all this may be that the actual White House itself, that people think of as the White House, will essentially become an annex to a large ballroom in terms of how it appears. If this goes ahead as currently planned.
LENGEL: Yeah. If you look at it now and look, I was born in Washington, D.C., I lived most of my life there. If you look at the executive mansion, now, you see 225 years of history even further back to the influence of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and the architect James Hoban. And you see that history.
Now, your attention is going to be drawn to this giant ballroom, which really has one man's name on it.
[19:10:06]
It's going to cast the executive mansion into the shade and turn it much more into a presidential palace.
And I just say, as a Founding Fathers historian, spent most of my life with George Washington, I think all of the founders would have been disgusted by this.
BURNETT: A president -- much more of a presidential palace.
Lulu, just hearing Edward, who was the chief historian of the White House Historical Association, Trump's first term, right. That's his life studying this, talking about the ostentatiousness that that's going to look like the White House itself is a small, it's an annex to an actual ballroom that it's going to look like a presidential palace and other countries so different than what the White House is in the United States. Whoa. What's your reaction to that, Lulu?
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think this is going to be delivering President Trump's opposition a huge gift. You know, at the end of the day, we in America are a country of forgetting, right? We forget our history. We don't often celebrate it. We are a country that famously moves forward all the time and looks to the future.
This is one of those places which I think most people hold in their hearts because it is the most visible symbol of American history, the best of American history, and this president has decided, without any consultation, without any preservation, to simply tear it down.
And I think, you know, what we've seen this White House do is bet that the American people will forget that there will be another thing, that they will be upset about, another thing they'll find interesting, and they won't focus on this. But this ballroom will endure, and I think it will cause this administration a lot of headaches in the future, because what will have been lost and what is being built are two very different things. And I think Democrats and others can point to it and say, this is where this president has put his focus. And it really isn't a symbol of the America that most people want to embrace.
BURNETT: You know, David, you worked at the White House. You were there every single day. How --
DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.
BURNETT: What's your reaction when you look at these pictures? You look at the demolition itself and then after that visceral, emotional reaction, you then hear what Edwards saying about the outcome here being that this would look like a presidential palace in another country, a ballroom with an annex.
AXELROD: Yeah. No, I think its revealing about the mindset of this president. I will tell you, Erin, every single day when I work there, I walked into that building with reverence and a deep awareness that every nook and cranny, every wall was witness to history. History of our country and some of the greatest leaders in the history of our country worked in that building dealing with the challenges and crises of their time and building our future.
And, you know, the want and, you know, this is sort of a metaphor for a lot of what we've seen. The sort of reckless destruction, on the one hand, and the erasure of history, and these are the hallmarks of what this president has done.
Now, Thom Tillis is right that, you know, we have people who are day to day in this country trying to struggle on their on their paychecks to take care of their bills and you know, hope for something better. And, I think that the visual of this, it will just compound their sense of revulsion about what's going on here.
BURNETT: Well, also, I mean, I will say, and I know we sit here and think of this, but, you know, thinking of places I've traveled in recent years that the world has seen images from and that we all have seen images from, of such destruction, right? And to think that you're seeing an image like this, and it's the actual White House in Washington, D.C., there's something so deeply jarring about that, Edward.
When the White House says that this ballroom is just another renovation, right? There have been renovations in the past that this is just one in a long line. Is there any truth in that? I mean, obviously it sounds like you're making it clear that no, this is very different.
LENGEL: Yeah, I'd say first of all, I've got a lot of attention from media outlets all around the world who are very interested and very upset by what's going on. So, we're sending the wrong image abroad.
But the administration's talking point that this is just like any other change is absolutely disingenuous. And it's a misdirection because they're suggesting anybody who criticizes this is just a stick in the mud. They don't want change. The issue is that this addition turns the White House and the executive mansion into something that it is not.
[19:15:00]
It is no longer the people's house. It is no longer in tune with what the founders intended, and it's no longer in tune with the history of our country. It sends the wrong message.
BURNETT: David, this conversation that Trump talked about it, and I know you were -- when you -- he -- you -- he called you in 2010 about the ballroom. You were at the White House, obviously working for President Obama.
AXELROD: Yes.
BURNETT: So you write in your book about this, he referenced it, but you write in your book about it and about what Trump told you. You said he said, build ballrooms, beautiful ballrooms. You can go to Tampa and check out one of them for yourself. I see you have these state dinners on the lawn there in these bleep little tents. Let me build you a ballroom you can assemble and take apart. Trust me, it'll look great.
What do you remember about that conversation in the context of what we're looking at right now?
AXELROD: Well, first of all, he was suggesting a modular ballroom that could be constructed in apart, and that's not what's going on here. This is literally the replacement of the East Wing of the White House with a ballroom. And you know that that is something quite different. He obviously knew then that that wasn't going to fly, with us.
He thinks it should be a palace. He thinks of himself that way. You know, it's so ironic. We're going to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our declaration of independence from a king. And he aspires to be one.
And the surroundings that he's creating, he thinks, are befitting that. The thing that made the White House so dignified was the simplicity of it, that it wasn't about -- we weren't about kings. We were about people kind of working every day to try and make the country better in relatively modest, you know, surroundings.
But -- so this is -- this is really quite different. But my recollection of that was that he thought it wasn't right for the country, that it was bad for the country to not have a kind of palace like setting for these state dinners. And he misunderstands why people were so eager to come. It's because of what America represented, not because of the gold that we had around us. And so, he is -- he is acting on the feelings that he expressed that
day, but he's doing it with a kind of wanton destruction, that he didn't even propose then.
BURNETT: All right. Thank you all very much.
And next, we have breaking news. Trump's team announcing new sanctions on Putin. Okay, so what does this mean in the dramatic roller coaster of Trump and Putin's relationship?
Plus, former President Obama, like we have not heard him before. Is he done with it? Is he done with the mantra when they go low, we go high.
And the battle between the biggest podcaster and the governor of America's biggest state is now getting personal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE ROGAN, PODCASTER: You killed Hollywood, like Hollywood doesn't exist anymore. It's literally gone.
GOV. ANDREW NEWSOM (D), CALIFORNIA: I'm punching Joe Rogan, okay? That son of a bitch is not used to that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:22:14]
BURNETT: Breaking news, Trump and Putin are a no go. Trump now says he will not be meeting with Putin, despite saying last week that he planned to meet the Russian leader within two weeks for another summit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We canceled the meeting with President Putin. It just -- it didn't feel right to me. It didn't feel like we were going to get to the place we have to get. So, I canceled it, but we'll do it in the future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: So, what accounts for Trump's sudden change of tune?
NATO secretary general was there today, making a last minute trip to Washington to meet with Trump today. The secretary general, Mark Rutte, has been very clear, very consistent since the beginning about what he thinks of Russia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: Russia, China, North Korea and Iran work together to try to reshape the global order. It is my absolute conviction that it will not be a one front war. They
will probably first call their junior partner the famous paper tiger in Moscow and ask him to attack somewhere in NATO territory here in Europe. So, we have to be prepared for that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: He was talking there was he was saying, when China goes into Taiwan, they're going to have Russia invade Europe. I mean, these are incredible things for the secretary general of NATO to say. They really are. They're the kinds of things that you would think maybe get set in private, but now are being said in public.
But when it comes to being in public and getting what he wants from Trump, Rutte sounds a bit different because he seems to know how to speak Trump's language.
(BERGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUTTE: My colleagues want to help to basically deliver on your vision of peace in Ukraine, and I really want to thank you for everything you are doing, including breaking the deadlock with Putin.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Okay, Rutte has serious things he wants to accomplish, and when he needs Trump to get those serious things accomplished, he tries what he knows works with Trump. And that, of course, is flattery.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUTTE: Mr. President, dear Donald, this is really big. This is really big.
I want to commend President Trump's leadership here.
Mr. President, dear Donald, that is thanks to you pushing us to sometimes do strong language to get stuff.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: OUTFRONT now, Republican Congressman Don Bacon, he sits on the House Armed Services Committee. He's also an Air Force Veteran. And he has also been unequivocal in his support of Ukraine.
Let me just ask you, Congressman, I appreciate your time. Trump said today. Okay. Forget the whole two-week meeting. We're going to have this big summit. He's not doing it for now, at least.
The thing is, Congressman, as you know as well as anybody, because of where you sit, Trump has shifted course again and again and again and again on Putin and Ukraine, right? It's deeply confusing as to where he stands. And if you think, you know, it could change tomorrow.
[19:25:00]
Right now, do you think President Trump is swinging back definitively towards Ukraine's side now?
REP. DON BACON (R-NE), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: I would say a little. It's a shame, though, that he takes two steps forward, two steps back, two steps forward. And it really leaves NATO and our allies in the lurch.
And our Ukrainian friends, who are -- they want democracy. They want free markets. They want to be rule of law. They want to be part of the European Union. They'd like to be part of NATO, but we leave them in the lurch because they don't know which way this president is going.
And I find it sad that on one hand, the president is so good with Israel, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, in my view. But it's so confused and I would say morally sort of blind to what Putin's all about and what's going on here with Russia and Ukraine.
I would sure like to see him be more resolute to send it -- be sending weapons to Ukraine, to doing tariffs in secondary tariffs against Russia and making a clear statement to NATO and the free world where we really stand.
But he's not done so with Russia and Ukraine. And so, it is a very confusing posture. Every day, it's something new and it's not helpful.
BURNETT: You know, when you talk about every day, it's something new. Of course, there was the infamous red carpet in Alaska, right? The literal red carpet for Putin when Trump and Putin met for that summit. And then last week, Trump wanted to meet, he said, with Putin, and it was going to be within a couple of weeks.
And then it was after that call. Then there was that that was saying, oh, wait, Trump is going to provide those desperately needed Tomahawks to Ukraine. After that, he has a 2-1/2-hour-long phone call with Putin.
And then after that phone call again, the tomahawk seemed to be off the table. Theres an acrimonious meeting with Zelensky, according to the reporting out there.
And today, Congressman, Trump said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Every time I speak with Vladimir, I have good conversations. And then they don't go anywhere. They just don't go anywhere.
So, in that sense but -- no, look, he's fighting a war. He's in a war. That's two very competent sides.
And that's the way war is. You never know with war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: You know, you just brought up use the word moral, congressman. And I jotted it down because I know in August, you use that word as well. You were frustrated. You said you were disappointed in the lack of moral clarity from Trump when it comes to Russia.
I'm curious, congressman, if you feel you understand why -- why Trump lacks that moral clarity.
BACON: I've been asked this before. There's three or four possible reasons. I really don't know. I'm not a psychologist, by the way. Our fellow leaders, like the NATO leaders who come to speak to our president, should have to study psychology to figure out how to talk to him. We should just be frank and honest.
I just know this, that we have one side that's a democracy, free markets. They want to be with us, and they want to be independent. They've had two centuries of abuse from the Russians. You can go chapter after chapter, four million Ukrainians starved to death intentionally in the 1930s by the Soviet Union. That's just one example. They want their freedom.
On the other hand, you have Putin, who wants to regain his old borders. He's an imperialist. He's murdered all of his adversaries. He's bombing cities. He's murdered POWs. They've kidnapped 20,000 kids.
I mean, it's just totally stark difference. The side we should be on and the side that we should be opposing. And I'm a Ronald Reagan Republican. I see it clearly, peace through strength. You stand up to bullies, and I just cannot figure out why -- I know there's four or five different possibilities. I just can't see why President Trump can't see it so clearly.
And again, he was so clear with Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran. But for some reason here, he's very befuddled. And it's -- and it's not healthy. It's not good for our country. It's not good for the free world.
BURNETT: I want to ask you about one other topic, if I may, Congressman, before you go the top of the show, you know, we were showing these images. Trump's demolition of the East Wing of the White House. Originally, it was not going to touch the White House, but now it is a demolition of the East Wing. And there's going to be that that ballroom, which is, gotten bigger than some of the renderings that that we've seen.
This -- I don't know if you can -- I don't know if you ever turn there, Congresswoman, but "The Washington Post" has an image in daylight. They're working through the clock. They're still working now, but it shows the entire side of the building, demolished.
And I'm just curious. You know, politics aside, Congressman, when you look at that image as just a person, as an American, and you see that, what goes through your mind?
BACON: Well, I have some mixed views. I'm a history guy. I enjoyed reading how the White House has changed over the years, starting with John Adams all the way through. I think in the end, we need a larger ballroom, frankly. For future presidents, we need them now.
I was listening to your show earlier.
[19:30:01]
I tend to agree with some of your folks that were on that. I prefer more simple taste. I'm not into an ostentatious look.
But I think in the end, we need a large ballroom for the White House. And I think in the end, it's going to cost nothing for the taxpayers. To my knowledge, it's all being contributed in. So, this could be value-added in the years to come.
We do need an East Wing for the first lady, and I'm sure they'll make some provisions for that. But I do. I think in the end this could be good in the long run. And so, I have a less negative view on what people are saying.
BURNETT: Than they have. And I -- and I totally understand what you're saying. And, you know, having to put the tents up and all of that, right?
BACON: Yeah.
BURNETT: That -- that's the issue that, that they're addressing. I don't know if you heard there, Edward Lengel, though. He was the chief historian of the White House Historical Association, actually, during Trump's first term.
And so, you may have heard him because I think you said you heard part of the conversation, but his description was that the way this is being done and he said, is going to make it no longer the people's house. Those were his words. He said it would no longer be in tune with what the founders intended.
And he described it as it would look like a presidential palace where you had a ballroom with an annex, and the annex was the White House itself.
Does that concern you? Right? I understand the practical point that you're making, but from a historical perspective, do you share those fears?
BACON: Well, I think I agree with the one point. I'm more of a simple taste person. I like more reds and blues versus gold. And so, I would -- my personal I think it's more of a matter of taste in my view. I would prefer more simple taste.
But I would think down the road, the presidents will be able to modify this to more to their taste. You know, for example, President Trump has modified the Oval Office with a lot more gold color. Future presidents can make it more their style as well down the road.
So, there is some leeway for presidents to modify the White House to their liking. And I just don't -- I'm sure the future president will put their fingerprints on this and make it more towards their liking.
BURNETT: All right. Well, Congressman Bacon, I appreciate your time and thanks so much for joining us. I know you're out of Omaha tonight.
BACON: Thank you.
BURNETT: Thanks.
All right. So will -- what -- we're talking about these new sanctions. That was another development today and sort of the back and forth that Trump always has with Russia. There was new sanctions.
OUTFRONT now, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, he is the president of Yale's Chief Executive Leadership Institute, also the author of a brand new piece for "Time Magazine" titled "Three Myths Preventing the West from Sanctioning Russian Energy".
And, Jeffrey, it's great to see you.
Now, you have written about the sanctions from so many different angles since the very beginning of the war. Okay? And I guess it's in that context that I want to ask this question. You know sanctions on the two largest oil companies in Russia, additional sanctions. Okay, that you got to hit them where it hurts, understandably.
But then I always come back to the question of how is it possible that there are things to sanction, that the United States can sanction, that have not yet been sanctions when it comes to Russia and oil, which is its single most important asset?
JEFFREY SONNENFELD, PRESIDENT, YALE CHIEF EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE: So many things packed into that. But let me start with an apology. Apparently, I've been sending you too many emails with too many articles, so I hope I haven't flooded you with too many.
BURNETT: Well, I've seen all the ones on sanctions. Yeah.
SONNENFELD: Well, we do write a lot on them. And part of it is because he keeps changing his mind that we should write these things with Velcro or erasable ink or something like that, because he does flip flop. The old TACO view about, you know, Trump always chickens out or whatever. He changes his views.
And as Congressman Bacon was saying he's had consistent messaging, very importantly, consistent messaging on the Mideast. Agree with it or not, it's been very --
BURNETT: Consistent, right.
SONNENFELD: It's been -- it's been effective. He's had allies, putting together wealth and power. He's shown that that military force is -- makes a big difference and that and imagining an economic future. I have to admit, I worked with Jared in the earliest days of the -- Jared Kushner -- in Aabraham Accords, and there was some hope and all that and breaking history.
But when we move over here to Russia, Ukraine, it is bizarre how he keeps flip flopping. Right now, it's sounding pretty good. But I must admit though, too, as you bring up, how could Lukoil and Rosneft, these two major Russian oil companies, still not be sanctioned? Everything else is sanctioned. The Biden administration has to be fair here. Didn't want to do that because they were afraid it would drive up oil prices.
Oil prices never, ever hit. When you put it back in your old business reporter hat, you remember JPMorgan was saying oil was going to jump to $420 a barrel. It never got anywhere near that for a couple seconds it was $100 a barrel, but it's basically been about $80. And right now, it's below -- as of tonight, it's 60. It's quite cheap.
And that isn't going to be an issue. But the Biden administration, we argued with them and treasury and state that they should go after more sanctions, especially secondary sanctions. And Scott Bessent looked like he was going that way today because that would mean if we wouldn't even care about tariffs, wouldn't care about sanctions, tariffs, if you could, if you could put on these secondary sanctions, which would mean that France and India, China, they couldn't buy it.
[19:35:01]
BURNETT: Right. And I will point out, by the way, there's a sanctions bill in the Senate that goes even further than this that the Senate has supported. Republicans have supported, that Trump has refused to sign that, that this is separate from that, what Bessent is announcing in part, but separate.
I also wanted to ask you, because Congressman Bacon was talking about this, the psychology of dealing with Trump, okay. With Trump as a leader, because you study leadership.
You heard the NATO secretary general, Rutte, he has things he wants to accomplish. So he's decided when he walks in the room with Trump to accomplish them, he is going to tell Trump how great he is and that he thinks that will help him get over the finish line. He is not alone from in that. In fact, he is far from alone. World leaders, CEOs, they are all trying that same tack.
BURNETT: Here are just a few.
SONNENFELD: The dear leader charts that we go around the cycle seeing that.
BURNETT: Let me -- let me just play a few of them. These are just recent people, not even from the cabinet here. They are.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL GATES, MICROSOFT FOUNDER: Thank you for incredible leadership, including getting this group together.
MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: You were are a transformative president.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The A.I. action plan under your leadership, I think is a great start, and we look forward to working together. And thanks for your leadership. GEORGIA MELONI, ITALIAN PRIME MINISTER: Something is changing.
Something has changed. Thanks to you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President. Thank you so much, for bringing us all together. And the policies that you have put in place for the United States to lead.
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: With your family roots in Scotland and your close bond with his majesty the king, it's good to know that the United Kingdom has a true friend in the Oval Office.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: And then, you know, Tim Cook gave the infamous, you know, gold, 24 karat gold glazed plaque.
SONNENFELD: Just between the two of us, Erin, we have a book coming out in January which is called "Trump's Ten Commandments". I'll bother you about it in the future, but it actually takes a look at what tech titans, heads of state, and other sycophants do to try to court favor with Trump.
There is a way of dealing with him. You can't attack this guy publicly. CEOs have learned that, especially individually, or they -- he can be quite vindictive. So, he'll be like a wounded animal in a corner. But he does listen to CEOs.
A failing of the prior administration is they didn't listen to CEOs. He listens to them. And there are some that pay him nothing. IBM has never paid a penny for -- since their founding for any government lobbying. Nvidia got what they wanted. Apple got what they wanted, despite the weird gift that Tim Cook brought him. There was no cash involved.
He does listen to them, but it's -- there is a notion of sycophancy, of sucking up to the boss, and there's a notion of divide and conquer. But I should also mention that there is some hypocrisy with the E.U., is since the war broke out, they dropped all their gas purchasing from Russia, and now they're the second largest purchaser.
They've gone from -- it's like in France at the top of the list. And so, they should be called out for that. They are blood. It's blood money's coming in from the E.U. and that's -- that's a problem. And that that hasn't been made clear.
And the India tariffs, it makes no sense. It -- they can buy from anywhere at everybody's price is the same now in oil.
BURNETT: Yeah. Right. It's one market.
All right. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, thank you very much. Always great to see you. We'll see you about that book soon.
SONNENFELD: Oh, good.
BURNETT: And next, I'll talk to the Texas Democrat who says when Republicans go low, she's going to the gutter. She says that her party needs to follow that playbook.
And tonight, an OUTFRONT exclusive, our David Culver travels to Ecuador to find one of those men who survived one of the Trump strikes on those boats in the Caribbean. So who was he? What was he doing? Well, wait until you see what David Culver uncovered.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:41:37]
BURNETT: Tonight, Barack Obama no longer going high when they go low. In fact, he's saying fight fire with fire. The former president is urging Democrats to support redrawing congressional districts in California the same way Republicans are doing in Texas.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: If you are going to play that game, then we are going to try to counteract that abuse of the system.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Well, that sounds a lot like our next guest, Democratic Texas state representative running for a U.S. House seat, who is telling "Axios", quote, "If they go low, I'm going to the gutter."
OUTFRONT now, Texas State Representative Jolanda Jones. She owns it. I see her there. She's unafraid.
All right. So, Jolanda, thank you very much for your time.
Representative, when I did see that quote, it made me stop in my tracks because, you know, you weren't mincing words. You weren't sitting in the corner. It has been a long time since we've heard anything like that.
Democrats, in fact, have been known for saying when they go low, we go high, right? The famous mantra of the former first lady, Michelle Obama. But you are saying, no, that is not going to work anymore.
JOLANDA JONES (D), TEXAS HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE: No, it absolutely doesn't work. I'm from the hood. Okay? So, when a bully comes, like, if there are no rules, you literally have to figure it out.
So, Donald Trump has changed things and people trying to do what's always been done is not going to work. And I think that's why Democrats are losing Black people. That's why they're losing poor people, because poor people, all they want is for us to fight. So, if you hit me in my face, I'm not going to punch you back in your face. I'm going to go across your neck because we can go back and forth fighting each other's faces. Youve got to hit hard enough where they won't come back.
And so, yeah, for the same way, I went to New York and spoke with Governor Kathy Hochul and said, if they're going to try to wipe us out in Texas, we need to wipe out every Republican in New York, in California, in Illinois. So, no one can make me feel bad about fighting for the people that I represent, because the people that I represent need someone who's willing to go in the ring and fight for them. And that's exactly what I'm going to do.
BURNETT: So, Representative in that context, the reality of the world is we are living in a moment where, yes, there's this shut going, shut down, going down. And Democrats on Capitol Hill are, are, are standing up for that in the way they think is working. But we hear from them. I have sent a letter. I have made my point. Right. That has been the strategy that's been being used. And in fact, some people have been very quiet about it.
President Obama has said really nothing except for he just said something that sounded very unlike anything he said before telling Democrats to fight fire with fire on this redrawing of congressional maps, right? In your state, Abbott is going to redraw those Republican seats. Newsom wants to do it in California. He's fighting with Schwarzenegger on that.
And you have President Obama stepping into the fray and saying, go ahead, do it. When you hear that from him, is that more like what you're talking about?
JONES: Absolutely. When the -- when the first lady said, when they go low, we go high. I was -- I've never subscribed to that because in the hood that I come from when they go low, if you go high, they're going to take your feet out from under you and you will not recover from that.
And so, you've got to fight like we've never fought before.
[19:45:02]
This country is under attack. People are being wiped off of their Medicaid and Medicare. He's stealing our Social Security. He's literally being a troll. Like, in what world do we live in that the president of these United States is being a freaking troll, picking on little guys. People have got to hit back. And all these people that are going around flattering him and telling him he's great and he's wonderful. That's weakness as well.
You know what? You have got to demand respect, and you have to try whatever it is you need to try in order to change the trajectory of this country. He's literally, you know, people are upset. People are upset that he's getting rid of DEI. He's erasing white history, too, by tearing down the East Wing of the White House.
He is attacking everyone. He's attacking U.S. citizens. He is at war with America. And we need to stand up. We need to bow up. And that's exactly what we need to do.
BURNETT: Representative, I really appreciate your time and thank you so much. Look forward to talking again soon.
JONES: Thank you. BURNETT: And next, the OUTFRONT exclusive, David Culver going to
Ecuador to find out, you know, who's being killed on these boats that the U.S. is striking in the Caribbean while someone survived one of those strikes. David Culver went and found him. Who is he?
And the bad blood between Gavin Newsom and Joe Rogan. What's behind the growing feud?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BURNETT: Breaking news, President Trump insisting he has legal authority to carry out deadly U.S. military strikes on ships, strikes that just expanded to the first strike on a boat in the Eastern Pacific. Two people were killed there. These strikes are now blamed for at least 34 deaths since they began in the Caribbean last month.
So, who are they, right? Is the Trump administration says this is all about drug smuggling. Well, our own David culver went to Ecuador to track down one of the people who survived one of these strikes.
So tonight, David is OUTFRONT in Ecuador with this OUTFRONT exclusive.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID CULVER, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In this small Ecuadorian coastal town, nearly everyone knows someone who has left for work and never come back.
(SPEAKING SPANISH)
CULVER: This is all her brother Andres closed the mattress where he slept up until nearly a year ago. She says he was desperate for work that he was concerned about providing for his six kids, and he said he needed to go to work. And like many in this small coastal town, he is a fisherman.
The thing is, and this is what she found odd. He left behind all of his fishing gear. She says he's a good person and that was just trying to make ends meet. President Trump says your brother is a terrorist.
[19:50:00]
CULVER (voice-over): Her brother, Andres Tufino Chila (ph), isn't a stranger to U.S. law enforcement. Court records show he was arrested, convicted and jailed in 2020 for smuggling drugs off Mexico's coast before being deported. Now, after surviving the latest U.S. strike on a suspected drug vessel in the Caribbean, he's believed to be back in Ecuador and free. Officials here say they have no evidence he broke local laws and released him.
Yet his case has put a spotlight on a broader question who and what exactly are these U.S. strikes trying to stop?
Since early September, the U.S. has carried out at least seven strikes off Venezuela's coast. The Trump administration says they're about saving American lives from drug overdoses. Yet most U.S. overdose deaths aren't from cocaine. They're from fentanyl, largely produced in Mexico and smuggled over the border, often by U.S. citizens.
It's not clear where exactly the U.S. has been targeting suspected drug running boats, but our analysis of U.S. military flight data shows dozens of surveillance flights just north of Venezuela in the Caribbean, far from Ecuador's shores, where cocaine from Colombia in the north and Peru in the south pours in before moving out to sea, using Ecuador essentially as a transit hub to the Pacific. This is how about 70 percent of the world's cocaine supply gets to the U.S. and Europe and beyond.
And the drug runners, the ones risking it all at sea, mostly are not gang members. They're fishermen, often seen as expendable by the gangs that control them. Ecuadorian officials say they're also cracking down, even with limited resources.
Still, many here say the trade feels impossible to escape.
CULVER: When you ask them about the amount of involvement in narco and drug trafficking, some are hesitant to disclose it.
He says, as he looks at it, probably 25 to 30 percent are working in illicit drug trafficking activity.
CULVER (voice-over): Some say they have no choice.
In 2023, gangs ambushed a fishing village in the north, targeting those who refused to pay extortion. Nine were killed, dozens wounded. Others say the money makes it worth the risk.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We put a box in the hull of the boat to hide the drugs. As a fisherman, I could make $300 a month. But doing an illegal run up to just off the coast of Mexico, I can make $30,000 to $60,000 a month. It's good money.
CULVER (voice-over): If you survive the trip.
Since 2024, Solanda Bermello's group has documented more than 2,800 Ecuadorian fishermen missing, dead or detained abroad. These women, some two dozen who wanted to share their stories with us, know their loved ones broke the law. But they also know why.
We don't have work. We don't have any way to support ourselves, she says.
As the U.S. strikes continue far from these shores, the ones caught in the crossfire are rarely cartel leaders. But the men who take the risk for them.
CULVER: She says she really wants to talk to her brother, Andres. She's grateful that at least he's alive, especially considering her other two brothers are both in prison. One here in Ecuador, the other in the U.S., both of them accused of being fishermen turned drug runners.
(END VIDEOTAPE) CULVER: We did ask, Erin, that fisherman turned drug runner who showed us how he hides drugs inside of a boat. If drug smuggling is slowing down amongst fishermen, given the recent strikes that are taking place, and he said really nothing has changed right now. In part, he says it's just another risk of which there are many in suggesting that we may not come back home at all. And that seems to be the reality for a lot of these folks doing it, because they say they have no other choice. But many are also doing it because there's a lot of money that they can gain from this.
BURNETT: All right. David Culver, thank you very much. On the ground to find the truth there in Ecuador.
And next, the insults are flying between Gavin Newsom and Joe Rogan. How come?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:56:26]
BURNETT: Tonight, Newsom versus Rogan, two political powerhouses going head to head. The California governor feuding with arguably America's most influential podcaster, Joe Rogan.
Elex Michaelson is OUTFRONT.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NEWSOM: We start with Joe Rogan. I'm going to start cursing.
ROGAN: He wants to be president so bad.
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The governor of the most populous state and the host of one of the most popular podcasts are feuding.
NEWSOM: This is Gavin Newsom.
MICHAELSON (voice-over): California Governor Gavin Newsom, who hosts his own podcast, has invited Joe Rogan onto his show and publicly asked to be invited onto Rogan's show.
NEWSOM: Joe, why won't you have me on the show? You won't have me on the show. It's a one way, and he has guests coming and attacking and bashing, but he will not have me on the show. Period. Full stop. He should have me on the show. Come on my show, Joe.
ROGAN: I think I'll probably vote for Bernie.
MICHAELSON (voice-over): Rogan expressing support for Bernie Sanders' presidential run in 2020.
ROGAN: It's stand up. It's funny stuff.
MICHAELSON (voice-over): And back President Trump in 2024, though he's criticized some of his policies in recent months. NEWSOM: What we're experiencing is America in reverse.
MICHAELSON (voice-over): But Rogan doesn't seem impressed by a potential Newsom presidential run in 2028.
ROGAN: You can't ruin a city and then go on to ruin a state and say, guys, that was just practice. I know once I get it as a president, I'm going to fix it. I fix it all.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean, it's so crazy, but he's such a great politician. I mean, he's so smooth.
ROGAN: No, he's not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don't think so?
ROGAN: No, no, I think he's terrible.
MICHAELSON (voice-over): Rogan attacking Newsom's job performance in California.
ROGAN: You have the highest unemployment. You have the highest homelessness.
UNIDENTIFEID MALE: With Hollywood.
ROGAN: That is missing. You killed Hollywood, like Hollywood doesn't exist anymore. It's literally gone.
MICHAELSON (voice-over): Newsom, responding to Rogan on X, posting, California is the fourth largest economy in the world. But number one in manufacturing, farming, new business starts, tech and VC investments, Fortune 500 companies, public higher education. I could continue.
Invite me on any time, Joe rogan.
ROGAN : It was (EXPLETIVE DELETED) before you were there. It was all that (EXPLETIVE DELETED) forever. It's because the weathers perfect, man. It has nothing to do with you.
MICHAELSON (voice-over): Newsom's team posting this photo on X, writing that quote, little Joe is snack size because he can't handle full size debates.
NEWSOM: I'm not afraid to go. I'm punching Joe Rogan. Okay? That son of a bitch not used to that. And he's going to dismiss it. He's going to laugh it off. I mean, you know, tough guy, all that. But he's going to have me on.
Here's a guy who celebrated Bidenomics just this week.
MICHAELSON (voice-over): Newsom debated Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Fox News in 2023.
NEWSOM: You are making a damn dent. MICHAELSON (voice-over): And hosted conservative guests like Charlie
Kirk on his own podcast.
NEWSOM: I'm debating these sons of bitches. I'm out there on these right wing shows, so I'm not scared to do that. Where the hell is the Democratic Party? Where's our equivalent of Turning Point USA?
MICHAELSON (voice-over): Newsom's team doubled down, repeating the snack-sized slap on X. "Joe Rogan is a snack-sized podcaster who can't stop talking about me. Obsessed! Crush? No thank you, but is too scared to have me on and let his audience hear the truth."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's talking some (EXPLETIVE DELETED) on Twitter.
ROGAN: I know. It's like, you think that's going to work? Like that's so stupid. Like, this is such a bad look. It's such a bad choice.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a little desperation in it.
ROGAN: But it's just stupid. It's like, this is a bad strategy. Like, I probably would have had him on.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.
ROGAN: But now, I'm like, what are you doing?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is a fun version where you just do it and cook him, you know?
ROGAN: He'll cook himself.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MICHAELSON: Governor Newsom has repeatedly said that Democrats need to do a much better job attracting men, especially young men, who are often drawn to podcasts.
And, Erin, nobody does that better than Joe Rogan. His interview with then candidate Trump last year got 60 million views on YouTube alone.
BURNETT: Wow, that is pretty incredible. That was all just fascinating and entertaining, both to watch.
Thanks so much, Elex.
And Elex's new show debuts very soon here at CNN. He'll be on for midnight to 2:00 a.m. Eastern. That is, 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. Pacific. And we're going to hear a lot from the governor of California there.
Thanks so much for joining us.
In the meantime, "AC360" starts now.
