Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

GOP Leaders Leave White House Meeting With Huge Questions on Trump Agenda; Judge Pauses Trump's Buyout for Federal Workers; NTSB Chair Says, Helicopter Recovered from River, Unclear if Advanced Safety Tech was Installed. Aired 6:00-7p ET

Aired February 06, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, breaking news, a marathon meeting just wrapped up at the White House with major questions about passing President Trump's agenda still unanswered. We're learning new details about the growing Republican power struggle, and whether the president is taking sides.

Also breaking, President Trump's so-called buyouts for federal workers have just been paused by a judge. Details on the legal challenges to that program, and what happens now to millions of government employees, including thousands who had already accepted that buyout offer.

And we're closing in on another Senate vote tonight for a controversial Trump cabinet nominee. Why Democrats are sounding the alarm about the man tapped to lead the White House Budget Office and his close ties to Project 2025.

Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. Wolf Blitzer is off today. I'm Jim Sciutto, and you're in The Situation Room.

The breaking news tonight, House Republican leaders leave an hours- long meeting at the White House with more questions than answers. The party deeply divided over how to pass President Trump's ambitious agenda.

CNN's Jeff Zeleny is at the White House with details. Jeff, I wonder, did they make any progress?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Jim, that is a central question, and the short answer is it appears not. This meeting, I'm told, went for several hours, perhaps around four hours or so. And Republicans, of course, control all corners of the government here in Washington. That does not mean that they are on the same page in terms of accomplishing the president's legislative agenda. That has become very clear in recent days. Deep divides between the House and Senate Republicans.

So, the president had House Republicans here to the White House for a meeting that was scheduled to start before lunchtime. I'm told it started shortly after that, but went until about 4:00 or so this afternoon.

At issue here is how the House and Senate Republicans are going to go forward here in terms of the budget bill. Is this going to be one bill or two separate bills? And I'm told the president did not take sides once again. He said, one bill, two bills, I don't care. He wants his agenda to be accomplished.

But, Jim, that is a central question here. He wants to extend and renew his 2017 tax cut package, as well as many other things. The question, how to pay for it, and how to get some of those hardline conservatives on board.

Of course, he has deep support across the House and the Senate, but they do not have a deep track record of governing. So, that is the central question. So, they're going back to the drawing board tonight, but he is scheduled to meet, I'm told, with Senate Republicans tomorrow night as he begins another weekend at Mar-a-Lago.

SCIUTTO: Yes, that's debt ceiling looming as well. Jeff Zeleny at the White House, thanks so much.

Now to an update from our Chief Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju on Capitol Hill. Manu, I wonder what you're hearing from House and Senate Republicans who took part in that meeting.

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. The House Republicans are indicating they plan to press ahead with their own strategy, even as it is running into a collision course with Senate Republicans who have their own plan. Part of the speaker's plan would include basically every aspect of the Trump agenda, including a major tax overhaul.

The Senate Republicans say that tax piece simply is not ready. They want to punt on that issue and they're moving on the first step on this process next week, taking a different approach. But there's another problem. The House Republicans still don't have an agreement among themselves about what this initial proposal would actually look like.

And in talking to the members coming out of the meeting, they sounded more optimistic, but they also indicated there was more work ahead, even as they are facing a confrontation with Republicans on the other side of the Capitol.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Our message to our friends and colleagues in the Senate is allow the House to do its work. We are moving this as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.

REP. JODEY ARRINGTON (R-TX): The Senate's going to talk about doing what they want to do. I think that more importantly, the majority leader, Thune, understood the politics of our chamber is different. He understood that we have a bigger challenge with a thinner majority and that having one bill might be more advantageous for us.

REP. KEVIN HERN (R-OK): The conversation has been about how you work all this together.

[18:05:00]

And I think that was really the -- it's been a tripping point going forward.

RAJU: How hard has it been, though, to get to this point, to get to --

REP. DON BACON (R-NE): I think we're making progress, but we got more work to do.

REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE)?

BACON: Well, he gave us some guidance.

RAJU: Was it was a tense?

BACON: at times.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So, that was Congressman Don Bacon, saying it was tense at times in this meeting today that all those Republicans that you heard from there were part of that closed door meeting. They did indicate they believe some differences were narrow, but also major questions about how exactly they will structure the first piece of this proposal that the speaker wants to move forward next week. That plan would be an overall budget blueprint that they have to adopt first in the House and have passed an identical plan, right?

The both chambers have to agree on that first approach, Jim. And then they have to write the details of that binding legislation that has all those issues involving energy, immigration, border security, national defense, and major spending cuts. Huge questions ahead about whether they can do all that with the narrow majorities they have, particularly in the House.

SCIUTTO: Manu Raju, thanks so much.

Our political experts joining me now. Alex Thompson, I mean, the history of quickly and expeditiously, as the speaker described it there, with this Republican majority, it's not great. How significant are the disagreements at this point?

ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Incredible. I mean, this could really hinge what Trump does that the Republican Party does in the midterms, and the entire Trump agenda. The thing is if you do one bill, the big risk is that it drags out longer and longer and longer, and then Trump does not have a signature piece of legislation for months and months and month, and it gets -- you know, whenever you're dealing with Congressional negotiations, always choose the over in terms of time.

At the same time, Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, is saying, we need money now if you want to accomplish your campaign promise of doing these deportations. At the moment, they're only at Obama levels.

SCIUTTO: Lance, I mean, the issue with, particularly the Freedom Caucus here, and the debt ceiling, that seems to be one of the biggest barriers. Is that a surmountable barrier?

LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Take the over. Alex called it. I mean, these things take time. Even when you have full control of Congress, this is going to be -- this is not the last time this is going to be discussed on this show, I can promise you. We have a long way to go.

But, look, the one thing that I saw today is the tightness of the numbers in the House. You know, Republicans have a pretty slim majority. But being at the White House for as long as they were is very promising, in my view, because the White House has to take the leadership role to deliver on the president's promises. And I saw a lot of pro working class agenda stuff, no taxes on tips coming out of there.

This SALT issue is going to be huge because Republicans from blue states are going to have to -- they're going to have to do something with that. But, again, this is going to be a long, long process, but they're going to get it done.

SCIUTTO: Karen Finney, does this present an opportunity for Democrats? I imagine it does because they will presumably need Democratic votes to get this across the finish line if the Republican caucus -- if the Freedom Caucus digs their heels in.

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, it presents an organizing opportunity for Democrats and a place where we actually have a little bit of power that can be wielded. Think about what happened when that OMB memo went out. People across the country freaked out and called their members. If the bill, if they did the one package, and as Alex was saying, it hangs out there for a long period of time, that creates an opportunity for Democrats to organize against, they're going to cut your Medicare, they're going to cut your, you know, Social Security.

So, I hope that across the Democratic Party, across the progressive movement, they use that as an opportunity to get people to make their voices heard. And at the same time, if they can negotiate to, you know, make it less awful, that would be -- they would be wise to do so as well.

But, again, with Democrats, both sides have to be in the House and the Senate, they've got to come together and fight this fight.

SCIUTTO: Are you confident Democrats have that leadership, though, and that messaging? Because one lesson of the first couple of weeks to the Trump administration is they're struggling and then there's a fair amount of infighting. There's a lot of self-flagellation, self- questioning.

FINNEY: Well, a couple of things. Number one, I do want to give props to the U.S. -- the attorneys general, Democratic attorneys general. They were ready to go. They were organized in December, ready for the things that we saw happening very quickly.

And, look, we just elected our DNC chair, Ken Martin. We'll see what happens when he occupies the DNC and if he can bring everybody together. I hope they will. We were able to do it when I was at the DNC after John Kerry's loss about 20 years ago, a similar moment, where we had to come, we realized the only way we were ever going to drive message, get things done, was if we did it together.

SCIUTTO: Alex, notably, at least at this meeting, the president apparently didn't take sides between the various factions in there. I imagine that's for now, as he judges the landscape. But where does his leadership take this? Can he paper over or bridge those differences?

THOMPSON: I mean, he might be able to, but clearly he's nervous about picking a side. You saw that he basically picked a side just two or three weeks ago in a Truth Social post and then quickly backed off it. He backed the one big bill and then backed off. You know, I think there is an instinct within among a lot of his advisers of get points on the board.

[18:10:03]

If you just have a package that's defense spending and immigration spending, there's also going to be some swing state Democrats and swing district Democrats, they're going to feel maybe some pressure to vote for that. You can make it a bipartisan package. That's sort of, you know, why the Senate is pushing this direction. But then there's the risk, they're not going to be able to get the second bill done. That's the problem.

SCIUTTO: Notably, Republican Congressman Tim Burchett not invited and he says it was, quote, stupid not to invite him to the White House meeting. He didn't say he could be a potential no vote. You know how slim the Republican margin is in the House. Was that a mistake?

TROVER: Look, I'm not going to get into the egos of members of Congress and whether they're invited to the White House.

SCIUTTO: They need his vote. It's not an ego issue. They need his vote.

TROVER: They do need his vote. I get it. Obviously, he was not happy, but, I mean, that's at the discretion of the White House, I would guess, and who gets there.

But I want to go back to something Karen said. If the Democrats can get organized, and I think that's a big if, is their message going to be with the tax cuts expiring that we're for a big tax increase on the American people? So, I think that's how Republicans would flip it back.

FINNEY: No, we're going to say we don't think billionaires deserve to keep lining their pockets if anything gets cut. Like, so far, we've seen Donald Trump sign millions, hundreds, I should almost say, all these, you know, executive orders. Not a single one on something like, I don't know, how about price gouging? Nothing -- he's not done anything to lower costs for Americans. That's what we're going to be looking for in the budget --

TROVER: Well, isn't that what the tax cuts are about? Assuring Americans don't get a tax increase when they're struggling to pay?

FINNEY: Well, millionaires and billionaires, not working class people.

TROVER: He raised the carried interest loophole today. I mean, that's closing the loophole on billionaires.

FINNEY: Let's wait and see where we end up.

SCIUTTO: Lobbyists have a pretty strong voice on that one, in my experience covering that.

But I wonder on the SALT issue, the SALT deductions, right, which particularly affect blue state voters, and, of course, you have these Republicans in these states, particularly in New York, who want to get this. Could that be a carrot that gets Democratic votes?

FINNEY: Possibly. It really depends again. It also depends on what else is in the bill. It depends again if it's two bills or one big bill. I mean, I think there's going to be so many pieces to it that are just so untenable, it may just make it impossible.

SCIUTTO: It's a lot. Has anybody tried to put that much in one bill? When you think of this giant basket, we're talking about tax cuts, immigration. I mean, you name it.

FINNEY: Well, remember, President Biden tried it with Build Back Better and ended that agenda and they ended up having to cut it into pieces.

TROVER: And it didn't work. And, you know, as you note, You know, you remember very well from 2009, the longer Obamacare hung out there, the more you were able to go into the details and find parts that were unpopular. Giving people healthcare is not unpopular, but when you go into details, it'll be the same thing on the tax cuts, it'll be the same thing on every single little piece of this legislation.

SCIUTTO: And someone eventually is going to do the math and look at what it adds to the deficit. At some point, they're going to do it. You know, we might do it ourselves.

Everyone, thanks very much.

Just ahead, new reporting on talks between President Trump and Congressional Republicans, also putting the spotlight on Democrats. We're going to speak to Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy about what his party should do.

Plus, why a piece of advanced surveillance technology is now the focus of the investigation into the deadly D.C. midair collision.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

SCIUTTO: Back to the breaking news. Republican leaders still divided over major questions around President Trump's agenda despite a marathon meeting at the White House today.

Let's get reaction, plans for next steps from Democratic Senator Chris Murphy. Senator, we appreciate you taking the time this evening.

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Yes, thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: Republicans, at least at this point, don't have an agreement on how to proceed, even whether they try to do this all in one fell swoop. I wonder, though, what is the Democrats' strategy for attempting to slow this down, or attempting to stand in the way of the pieces of this legislation you're most opposed to?

MURPHY: Well, the centerpiece of this tax bill that Republicans are talking about is a massive tax cut for millionaires, billionaires and corporations. In their announcements today they dressed it up with some small help for folks of lower income. But the centerpiece is, you know, old fashioned trickledown economics. We're going to lavish huge tax cuts on these corporations and these very, very wealthy people. And we hope that it just trickles down to the rest of Americans.

The difference between the tax cut bill this year and the one from Trump's first term is that this time they say they're going to pay for it with spending cuts. And in the House, they are talking about spending cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act. So, they are going to gut services for seniors, for poor people, for the 20 million Americans that rely on the ACA for insurance, in order to help finance the tax cut, the benefits of which are going to go mainly to the very, very rich.

So, Democrats are not going to be for that. And we are also not going to be in favor of raising the debt ceiling in order to allow them to finance a lot of this tax cut.

So, we'll let them have this discussion internally, but what is going to result from these discussions, no doubt, is going to be a piece of legislation that is deeply unpopular in the American public.

SCIUTTO: We will have much more on this later in the hour. I do want to get your reaction to a judge pausing, at least, Trump's, quote/unquote, buyout offer to federal workers. In your view, do you believe that this is legal, but more broadly, do you think this is just a first step intended to carry out a larger culling of the federal workforce?

MURPHY: So, I mean, let's just talk about the insanity of the offer in and of itself. What we know is that about 2 percent of the workforce took advantage of the buyout. That is essentially the number of people who regularly leave the federal workforce on a regular basis to begin with. So, all we did was just waste a bunch of money. A bunch of people that were going to leave government service anyway just potentially got a big cash buyout. So, it cost the American taxpayers money. Yes, of course, Donald Trump is trying to destroy big parts of our federal infrastructure that helps regular people. Yesterday, Head Start programs all across this country couldn't get payments.

[18:20:01]

Next on the chopping block, the Department of Education, which funds two thirds of our public schools, the Department of Labor that protects workers from corporate abuses. Donald Trump wants to eliminate the parts of our government that help regular people. And part of that agenda is so that he can save money, bank money, so that he can afford a massive tax cut for his billionaire friends.

SCIUTTO: I want to get to broader -- how Democrats like yourself plan to pursue that messaging and strategy? But to the point of cuts to the federal workforce, there's just breaking news into CNN. And that is that the Trump administration is expected to drastically reduce the workforce of the USAID to just under 300 of what it calls essential direct personnel that out of a workforce of some 10,000 around the world. Tell me your reaction to a move such as that to, well, basically eviscerate USAID, which has been priority of Republican and Democratic administrations for decades.

MURPHY: Yes. What the Department of Defense routinely says is that if you get rid of USAID, you have to buy us twice as many bullets. Because USAID tries to combat instability around the world, tries to prevent civil conflict that would draw the United States into war. So, when USAID disappears, it puts our military members at risk.

Now, that doesn't matter to Donald Trump and his Mar-a-Lago crowd, because their kids aren't going to serve. In these conflicts, but, you know, the folks who live with me in the south end of Hartford, it's their kids who sign up for military service. They'll be sent overseas to fight the wars that will be caused by the growing instability.

The question is, why are they doing this? Because as you said, Jim, it used to be that there was no controversy over USAID. It was just smart for us to spend money around the world to try to combat terrorists in China and Russia. I think some of this agenda is pretty simple. The biggest beneficiary of USAID disappearing is China, because China now doesn't have anybody contesting their nonmilitary influence around the world.

Elon Musk has huge business interests in China. He sells more cars in China than any country except for the United States. He makes half his cars in China. He's got big issues that are open with the Chinese government. China delights at the disappearance of USAID, and that may benefit Elon Musk's bottom line.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this then, because many Republicans are taking shots at USAID, sometimes based frankly on disinformation, right, you know, the millions of dollars for condoms in Gaza that just frankly wasn't true. But we were surprised to see that some Democrats saying that this is not the hill to die on, David Axelrod telling Politico, quote, my heart is with the people out on the street outside USAID, but my head still tells me, man, Trump will be well satisfied to have this fight. Rahm Emanuel says, quote, while I care about USAID as a former ambassador, that's not the hill I'm going to die on.

Do you think that would be a mistake to cede this ground in effect as Democrats and say, listen, we really just can't sell it at this point, so it's better to move on?

MURPHY: I mean, listen, I just think authenticity is the coin of the realm. You should talk about what you care about. And the fact of the matter is, if USAID disappears, America is at risk. We are going to go back to war in a country far overseas. And so it matters, and we should talk about it.

But it does also fit into the broader messaging about the corruption of our foreign and domestic policy by Trump's decision to hand over policy to the billionaires. What I'm telling you, I think, may be true. Elon Musk is running our foreign policy today. He's running his foreign policy in order to enhance his personal financial interests.

And so part of the reason that USAID is being dismantled is possibly, likely that it helps Donald Trump's billionaire buddy. People hate that idea. People hate the idea that our domestic and foreign policy is in the hands of billionaires who have self interest on the table.

And so if you talk about it as a core issue of corruption, that probably translates to a lot more people than if you just try to explain why USAID matters on the merits. I think you should do both. But we but it is a story about corruption as well.

SCIUTTO: The question is then, is that message one that's getting across to voters? And as you know, some of the strongest criticism has come from those who support Democrats, sometimes a little tongue and cheek. I want to get your reaction to this clip from Jimmy Kimmel last night. Have a watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE: There's so much damage being done, but I, we are not going to sit back and take it. Our leaders on the left are going to stand up for what's right.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): We are going to fight this fight. I am going to stand with you in this fight. And we will win. We will win. We will win. We will win. We will win. We will win. We will win.

[18:25:00]

We won't rest. We won't rest. We won't rest.

KIMMEL: Oh, we are so (BLEEP).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: I mean, a little bit tongue in cheek there, but that's part of a broader criticism, which I know you've heard, that Democrats just aren't reaching the voters and don't have the leaders, the messengers, to do that. Is that a fair criticism? MURPHY: Well, the rally that you just showed was thousands of people outside the Department of Treasury. Yesterday, there were rallies in 50 states. This weekend, Democrats are going to be going back home to town hall meetings that are going to be exploding. Our phone lines are melting down. And so there is a movement happening in this country to contest the seizure of our government by billionaires.

Are Democrats perfect? No, absolutely not. But we just held the floor all night last night in protest of one of the most dangerous nominees. Almost every Democrat has said that they're not voting for a single nominee to any department unless this constitutional crisis is dealt with.

Yes, Democrats can always raise their volume level, but I think what you're seeing all across the country is Democrats and activists rising to this moment, and I think it will make a difference.

SCIUTTO: We'll see the effect. Senator Chris Murphy, thanks so much for joining. I appreciate it.

Coming up, what is next for millions of federal workers after a federal judge paused President Trump's so called buyout offer?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

SCIUTTO: More breaking news tonight, a key piece of President Trump's push to slash and really remake the federal government is now on hold. The administration's plan to offer buyouts to federal employees has just been paused by a judge as legal challenges continue to play out in court.

CNN's Rene Marsh has been on the story for us. Rene, tell us how the judge explained this pause and how long does it go?

RENE MARSH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right, Jim. A win for the labor unions who brought this lawsuit, essentially hoping that it would end up this way, where the judge would halt it. And this afternoon, this federal district judge essentially said he needed to gather more information about this proposal that the Trump administration is putting before these federal employees, this buyout, to determine if it's even legal.

And so the terms of this buyout essentially said that if federal employees resigned voluntarily, they would be paid throughout the end of September. And we do know that just a small slither of the federal workforce actually accepted it. Some 2.5 percent of the 2 million people who work within the workforce accepted it. But the goal of the administration is to get 5 to 10 percent of the workforce to accept this.

But back to that hearing this afternoon, the government was told that it needed to immediately notify all federal employees of this pause. And despite that, CNN has learned just as a new wave of paid administrative leave was underway at the Environmental Protection Agency and several employees were being told that they were being put on paid leave. They were still being offered this option of the buyout. And this was several hours after the judge had essentially said that this program had been paused.

We do know that OPM just about an hour-and-a-half ago did put out an agency-wide or government-wide memo announcing the pause, but, again, creating a whole lot of confusion as these employees at that one agency were being put on leave. They were still being presented this buyout as an option, Jim.

SCIUTTO: All right. Rene Marsh, thanks so much for being on the story for us.

Our political legal experts joining me now. Let me begin with you if I can, Elliot Williams, a former federal prosecutor. Are these buyouts legal? And is the presumed next step of, well, if you didn't take the buyout, you're gone anyway, is that legal?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: There is so much ambiguity around all of this, Jim, that it's really hard to say that it's legal. You got two really, really big problems. Number one, what happens if somebody is working and seeks another form of employment while they're waiting to get their money? What happens if they want to get benefits during that period? There's these open questions that simply have not been answered by the federal government. And if there's anything the law seeks to do, it's to ensure that people know what's coming their way. So, that's one.

And then number two, basic schoolhouse rock questions about who works in the government and how it spends its money. Congress appropriates funds. Salaries are money. Congress has not dictated how this money is going to be spent. All these payouts that the president is saying that people are going to get, where's it going to come from? That's an open legal question as well.

So, it's just a mess of legal questions that they've left open, Jim, and I just don't see it working out well for the president right now.

SCIUTTO: I wonder, Lance Trover, when you look at the extent of this -- okay, USAID gutted, CIA, that workforce has been offered buyouts as well. The FBI, beyond offers to pay people to leave they're doing a purge of anybody involved in any case that the president didn't like. Are you worried that this is going to leave the country at risk? FBI does a lot of important jobs that Americans care about to keep them safe. The CIA does a lot of important jobs that Americans care about. They may not know what USAID does, but they're going to begin to know programs that disappear. Are there costs for Republicans to this?

TROVER: No, actually, I was thinking about this earlier. I mean, the Trump folks kind of know what they're doing here, actually. I think every fight that the Democrats pick on all these issues, whether it's -- Donald Trump has already won them with the voters.

[18:35:04]

Ending the foreign aid debacle that's been going on, reducing the size of the bureaucracy, getting men out of women's sports, all of these issues are big issues.

And so every day that the Democrats team up with the bureaucracy and find some friendly federal judge in Massachusetts to come in and say, let's just keep the status quo, that's just a bell ringer.

SCIUTTO: I'm asking you about FBI agents not doing their jobs of say, I don't know, going down child sex offenders or to look at terror -- I mean, the CIA, you know, you have the last two years of hires of new CIA analysts, including folks who cover China, their names potentially exposed. I mean, China -- Trump looks at China as a threat.

TROVER: Well, first off, some of those have -- that actually hasn't happened yet with the FBI, but I have faith and trust in this administration that they're not going to do anything that puts our national security at risk. That I'm confident.

SCIUTTO: Do you have the same confidence, Karen?

FINNEY: No, not at all. And, look, they've already done it. I mean, anybody who watches a spy show knows, and if you've been on these trips. USAID isn't just about aid, right? Some of the people who participate in some of those activities have other functions, and they are part of our national security.

But I think Democrats are fighting the wrong fight on this. And here's where I disagree with Rahm and Axe. One of the things we should be talking about is the potential for rampant corruption. The senator just touched on it. What was the first agency they started with? USAID. Who's got the biggest beef with USAID? Elon Musk. Why? Because they were investigating some of the work he was doing in Ukraine with Starlink.

So, right there, you have a billionaire who is unaccountable, who has basically taken charge of USAID. How do we know it's not for his own purposes? We don't know. And so I think that's one big problem.

The second, I just also want to say, you know, you were starting to point this out, the American people are going to get harmed. I mean, farmers, about $2 billion was spent with American farmers in the last year supplying the food that goes through USAID. So, where are they going to make up that revenue? That's American farmers. Those are American businesses.

So, I do think we need to not just focus on the what, but the why, what is the motivation and what is the real impact to the American people.

SCIUTTO: Elliot, a lot of questions understandably asked about Elon Musk's role in this, given, certainly not elected, not quite clear what the bounds of his duties are, he was certainly not Senate- confirmed. Is he performing -- does he have the legal leeway to do what he's doing in these various, including going into agencies and plugging into their servers and the payments system, et cetera?

WILLIAMS: That plugging into their servers is where it starts to get weird. Certainly, an outside entity can make all kinds of recommendations to the government. I worked in government for a long time. And, of course, you partner with the private sector to get recommendations and ideas and thoughts and energies.

When you start bringing people into the government that, number one, don't have background checks or clearances and are starting to get their hands on sensitive information, background information, national security information, that's a real risk. And so it does pose some problems. But, again, if he wishes to make recommendations to the president for how to make government more efficient, smoother, faster, by all means, have at it. That is right.

SCIUTTO: The question is this about efficiency or is it about shutting down these agencies? If you're going at USAID from 10,000 to 300, that is not finding efficiencies, it seems. It seems like ending the essential functions of the agency.

TROVER: Well, one, it's been moved into the State Department where many people have had issues with this agency. And you talk about corruption, I mean, they were spending money on like trans plays in Colombia and trans comic books in Vietnam.

SCIUTTO: I mean, those are talking points. You know that those were tiny pieces of the budget. I'm just saying, compared to, say, PEPFAR, compared to, say, PEPFAR that provides aids, medications to millions of people.

TROVER: Understood.

SCIUTTO: And, by the way, that was a program that, when you talk about the efficiency of how this was applied when this, when these payments were initially stopped, there were Republicans and Democrats who said to the White House, wait, you got to keep the PEPFAR payments.

TROVER: There are two views, I get it. Inside the beltway here, there is the constant, bureaucratic, we should keep things the way they are. I understand that. But I'm just saying, I think we have a much different electorate than we had eight, even four years ago, of people who are ready for drastic change in this country. And I think it's both of them.

FINNEY: But I think there's a difference between, I think all we're saying is, they're basically taking a hatchet with no strategy. There's no strategy around saying, Hey, let's keep the parts of USAID that or keep the CIA, for heaven's sake, which is critical to our national security interests, so we're just going to get rid of whoever wants to leave. Then what happens to our national security interests around the world where those agents themselves have contacts who are invaluable to us?

So, it's not just about -- it's a great talking point to say it's about inside the beltway but it's not just about --

SCIUTTO: Are there any Democrats credibly, in your view, making that case that you are -- because to Lance's point, there are a lot of Americans who want to see a more efficient government. [18:40:05]

They believe there's a lot of waste, and there is a lot of waste. Who's making the case that you're just describing there as one saying, here's what's important in our view.

FINNEY: Well, look, I think Senator Murphy was trying to say that, and I think there would be a lot of interest in let's -- saying, let's go agency by agency. Let's figure out what can be cut. What should stay.

WILLIAMS: And just really quickly. The American people might have voted for a smaller government, and people have been talking about it for a very long time. The American people did not vote for violating the Constitution when it comes to how our government works and how money is spent. Congress appropriates funds, the president dictates how it will --

SCIUTTO: That's a question for the courts. Thanks so much to all of you.

Just ahead, our new critical question, one new critical question being asked today as officials update lawmakers in the ongoing investigation into that deadly midair collision here in D.C.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:45:02]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Breaking news on the Black Hawk helicopter involved in the D.C. mid-air collision.

CNN's Pete Muntean is joining us.

Pete, I know we just got an update from the head of the NTSB. What was the update?

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: Well, the new remarks from the head of the NTSB comes after back to back hearings today on Capitol Hill.

And Senator Ted Cruz spoke to reporters today after investigators briefed the Senate Commerce Committee. Cruz is chair of that committee. And he said that the Army Black Hawk helicopter may have not had what's called ADS-B. That stands for automatic dependent surveillance broadcast. It's a more granular type of data than what is gathered from radar was mandated for all aircraft in the U.S. in 2020, but notably, military aircraft were exempt from that mandate.

Now, Cruz said that may now need to be revisited. And then NTSB chair, Jennifer Homendy, just spoke to reporters after briefing members of the House, and she said its still not clear if that equipment was installed on the helicopter. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JENNIFER HOMENDY, CHAIR, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD: We believe there are avionics on the -- on the helicopter that we need to evaluate, in order to determine what they did have. And what was on at the time. So, more to come.

REPORTER: But do we know for sure that -- sorry, Dave Shepardson from Reuters. But do we know that ADS-B was installed on the helicopter?

HOMENDY: We don't know that at this time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MUNTEAN: That assessment may soon change now that recovery crews have removed the helicopter from the Potomac River. That is key because investigators have also been waiting to get information from inside the wreckage so they can finally release the early findings from the craft's onboard data and voice recorder.

Right now, it is clear what happened. The collision occurred at 325 feet. That's above the 200-foot altitude restriction for the helicopter corridor near national airport, something lawmakers told me today they want to hear more from the FAA about.

Remember, they have a vested interest since they're flying in and out of that airport, back and forth to their districts all the time. And just this evening, the FAA said in a statement that it's now reviewing helicopter routes near other major airports -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: Makes sense.

Pete Muntean, thanks so much.

Coming up, a live look at the senate, where any minute now, lawmakers are expected to confirm a coauthor of Project 2025 to a top cabinet post.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:51:22]

SCIUTTO: The U.S. Senate is about to vote on the nomination of Russell Vought, the staunch conservative and Project 2025 coauthor who President Trump wants to lead the White House Budget Office.

CNN's Brian Todd is on the story.

And, Brian, of course, votes ties to Project 2025, which we should note Trump claimed to know nothing about, has certainly sparked some alarm among Democrats.

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Top Democrats like Chuck Schumer calling Russell Vought dangerous and destructive. But Trump loyalists say that vote is simply pushing measures. The president ran on, however controversial they may be.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) TODD (voice-over): He doesn't have the flash of Elon Musk, but 48- year-old Russell Vought could soon be upending the workings of the U.S. government every bit as much as Musk has.

JOHN BRESNAHAN, CO-FOUNDER, PUNCHBOWL NEWS: Very controversial figure, very aggressive on the power of the executive branch, on the power of the presidency.

TODD: Vought, President Trump's pick to head the Office of Management and Budget is cast by top Democrats as a dangerous and destructive choice to lead that agency.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: Russell Vought wants to cast chaos across America.

TODD: But to many Republicans and Trump loyalists in particular, Vought is just the person to slash the ranks of a bloated bureaucracy and to grab some key powers from Congress and hand them to the president.

RUSSELL VOUGHT, OMB DIRECTOR NOMINEE: I do believe that there are bureaucracies that are weaponized against the American people.

TODD: Vought served as OMB director at the end of the first Trump administration. But it was his work when Trump was out of office that has drawn the ire of Democrats. Vought wrote a key chapter of Project 2025, a 900-page blueprint for Trump's second term that would impose an ultra conservative social agenda and enhance Trump's power.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: In that chapter, he wrote a lot about how he believed that the president has really expansive authority. The president can do almost anything that the president wants to do.

TODD: Specifically, Vought wants to hand more of the government's purse strings over to the president's control. For the Trump administration to not have to spend the money that Congress tells it to.

BARRON-LOPEZ: They believe that that the president has the power to stop payments and to redirect money how they see fit.

TODD: Last year, in a hotel suite, Vought spoke to two men who he thought were relatives of a wealthy conservative donor. They turned out to be with a British nonprofit journalistic outlet and were secretly recording him. He spoke about his behind the scenes efforts to plan Trump's second term.

VOUGHT: I want to be the person that crushes the deep state. I think there's a lot of different ways to do that.

TODD: During the campaign, Trump repeatedly disavowed any connection to Project 2025.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Project 2025, I've said 100 times, I know nothing about it. I had nothing to do. TODD: But a CNN analysis of Trump's executive orders from his first

week in office found more than two thirds of those orders reflected proposals outlined by Project 2025, including his orders to crack down on illegal immigration, to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and to undo environmental restrictions on oil and gas exploration.

BRESNAHAN: The blueprint was there inside Project 2025 no matter what Trump tried to say and we're seeing it via his executive orders and some of the actions they're taking.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD (on camera): There are still a couple of key issues where President Trump has gone against what Project 2025 recommended, namely, his pause of the ban on TikTok and his willingness to give access to some abortion pills.

SCIUTTO: Brian Todd, thanks so much.

And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:59:01]

SCIUTTO: Breaking news, a former interpreter for baseball superstar Shohei Ohtani has just been sentenced for his role in stealing from the athlete.

CNN's Stephanie Elam is in Los Angeles.

Stephanie, what do we know?

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. We just found out, Jim, that we can see that Ippei Mizuhara will be facing 57 months in prison, federal prison, because this is an aggravated felony conviction here.

And he's also been ordered to pay more than $18 million back to the superstar player Shohei Ohtani, as well as the IRS for bank fraud and also for basically embezzling this money so that he could pay his gambling debts, he could pay his medical bills and also so that he could buy some baseball cards here.

The U.S. attorney making it very clear that Shohei Ohtani was a victim in this case, saying that the behavior of Mizuhara was shameless. He said that 24 times he impersonated Ohtani to call his bank and then to transfer money to Mizuhara's bookie.

He is expected to be sentenced -- or sent to jail, begin his term in jail on March 24th. And obviously, this is a win for Ohtani, who also won the World Series with the Los Angeles Dodgers last year and was voted most valuable player.

SCIUTTO: Wow, five years in prison, millions of dollars. Stephanie Elam, thanks so much. I'm Jim Sciutto in THE SITUATION ROOM. Thanks very much for watching.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.