Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Judge Allows Trump To Move Forward With Dismantling USAID; Supreme Court Rules On Trump's Ability To Fire Government Watchdog; Trump Admits Russia Attacked Ukraine But Blames Biden And Zelenskyy; Sources: Musk's Private Security Detail Deputized By U.S. Marshals; Accused CEO Killer Luigi Mangione Appears In Court. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired February 21, 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]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Happening now, breaking news, the Trump administration scores a big win in court as a judge allows the president to move forward with dismantling USAID. It's yet another victory for his very aggressive push to slash and remake the federal government.

Plus, President Trump turns up his attacks on Volodymyr Zelenskyy again, saying he's sick of the Ukrainian president. Trump also blaming Zelenskyy for Putin's invasion, even as he finally acknowledged it was Russia that launched the war.

And in New York, the judge overseeing the case against Mayor Eric Adams just vacated his trial date but refused to drop the charges. We're going to tell you why the court is also appointing an attorney to challenge the U.S. Justice Department's decision to end the case.

Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in The Situation Room.

The breaking news tonight, a federal judge gives the green light to President Trump's plan to dismantle USAID, the humanitarian agency. That's become a flashpoint in the administration's slash and burn campaign inside the federal government.

I want to bring in CNS Jeff Zeleny right now. He's over it at the White House for us. Jeff, so what does this ruling mean for thousands and thousands of USAID workers who have already been put on temporary leave?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, in short, this ruling means that the Trump administration can go ahead with its efforts to dismantle the USAID. It was one of the first actions of this administration, signing those executive orders, moving forward. Those actions were held, suspended for a moment as the judge reviewed them. And the judge is ruling this afternoon, Judge Carl Nichols, that the Trump administration can go forward and begin its plans, continue its plans to effectively dismantle this aid organization.

One of the questions here was the harm of workers who were overseas or who were working other places, so would they be protected as they were potentially losing their jobs or being reassigned, but the judges essentially being assured that they would not be. Let's take a look at one line from the judge's ruling. He says, the court concludes that the prospect of plaintiff's members suffering physical harm from being placed on administrative leave while abroad is highly unlikely. And this is from Judge Carl Nichols, who's appointed by President Trump in his first term in office, and effectively giving this administration one of its biggest wins in terms of legal cases here.

Now, this obviously can be appealed, as most of these are, but certainly this is just the latest in many rulings here this week alone, where judges are siding in favor of the White House in this matter in particular, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, we'll see how it unfolds. Jeff Zeleny at the White House for us, thank you very much.

I want to bring in our political experts to get some serious analysis right now. Alyse Adamson, I'll start with you. After some initial setbacks, Trump has had a recent string of victories, legal victories. Does this mean the courts are unlikely to stop the Trump administration from dismantling much of the federal workforce?

ALYSE ADAMSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, Wolf, that's a good question, but I think it's important to understand how Donald Trump is achieving these legal victories and I think it's because this is a very well thought out legal strategy, and they are narrowing the issues, so they're winnable. So, for instance, with the USAID workers, what happened here is the labor unions framed this as a dismantling of USAID, but the judge and the government were able to narrow the issue and call this really a labor dispute and said, this is more about the workers who are being put on administrative leave and that USAID is still standing. So, they refuse to reach the constitutional issues, which is, can Donald Trump's actually issue an E.O. or dismantle USAID, they didn't even touch that on the merits.

Similarly, all of these mass firings have been probationary period employees who don't have federal protection. So, it's like they're taking the low hanging fruit as the winds, but the harder legal questions are still yet to come.

BLITZER: Lauren Tomlinson is with us as well.

[18:05:00]

Lauren, Trump brushed the question aside, when asked about the frustration from voters about these firings. I want to play a little bit of that. Watch this and listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Americans voted for you on the immigration and the economy, but these voters say they're angry and frustrated by these firings. They don't like the work of Elon Musk and these other actions. What do you say to that?

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Who do you work for?

REPORTER: I work for ABC News, sir.

TRUMP: Who?

REPORTER: ABC News.

TRUMP: No wonder. Let me just tell you, I have today the highest poll numbers I've ever had.

They like the job that we're doing, they like the job that Elon's doing. He's doing something that a lot of people wouldn't have the courage to do. We want to streamline our country, we want to streamline. You know why? Because we want our country to survive and thrive. And we're finding billions and billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Lauren, what did you make of that?

LAUREN TOMLINSON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I believe that Donald Trump he, it does have the highest polling that he has had from Trump one or what and whatnot, so he's not wrong in that, but he is doing a really great job, I think, of reorganizing the government to keep us solvent for the long-term. And that's the key thing.

I don't think that people are going to fully recognize the great work that he's doing to balance the budget until it is, you know, several years from now, which means voters are not going to initially agree with maybe some of the chaotic nature of the reorganization of the government, the efficiencies that are going to come up this, but in the long-term, once we are decreasing taxes, achieving a budget that is sustainable for long-term, that is going to be very popular, I think, for the long-term, and he's not wrong on that.

BLITZER: All right. Everybody stand by for a moment. I want to bring in Oren Liebermann, our Pentagon correspondent. We're learning about some additional federal firings. Oren, update our viewers.

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, we have wondered when the firing of probationary employees would reach the Pentagon and we just got our answer a short time ago. The Pentagon announcing that the first tranche of 5,400 probationary employees will start being terminated as early as next week.

But that's only the beginning. The numbers they're looking for are 5 to 8 percent of the probation of the civilian workforce, a number that could go as high as 76,000. Worth noting, of course, that the Pentagon has a civilian employee population of 950,000. Still, that's 76,000, the larger number as high as they could be aiming for.

Of course, the question, why not just fire them all at once? Well, as CNN reported earlier this week, any mass firing or termination of employees requires by law that the Pentagon effectively do a study and look into the effect that might have on military readiness. And the Pentagon says they will further look into reducing the number of civilian employees. They say that's the ultimate goal here, but that requirement to make sure that it doesn't affect military readiness or to see the impact it may have on the military, that has at least led this to take place in phases.

Again, the first phase of the firings next week, the Pentagon announces including 5,400 of the first employees to be let go.

BLITZER: All right. Oren, stand by. I want to bring back our expert panelists. Lulu Garcia-Navarro, what's your reaction to these Pentagon firings?

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I mean, we know that this was going to hit the Pentagon as well. The broader question here, though, is what are they aiming to do? How is this actually going to impact America's readiness, military readiness? I mean, we're seeing Donald Trump talking about being -- you know, allying essentially with Putin, you know, dismissing the Ukrainians, making Canada and our traditional allies in Europe feel alienated from us. And now our military is basically getting a sledgehammer to it and we, again, don't know why who exactly are making these decisions and what exactly is going to be cut.

This is America's very important, you know, military that protects us. And so I think a lot of questions still need to be answered.

BLITZER: Many questions, indeed. Gevin Reynolds, let me get your thoughts. What does this tell you about the Trump administration right now?

GEVIN REYNOLDS, FORMER ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF SPEECHWRITING FOR V.P. HARRIS: Well, Wolf, I think the American people deserve so much better from the Trump administration right now. It's not surprising that President Trump and Elon Musk started with agencies like USAID, agencies that honestly a lot of people haven't really heard of before. They don't really know what USAID does. You know, but I think you're seeing the Trump administration now start to move through other agencies and the consequences, in my opinion, will be drastic. Take USAID, it's going to have real impacts, not only on the people who are laid off and their families but on people around the world who depend on the U.S.'s leadership on the world state. And I think it's going to have a real impact on the U.S.'s national security interests as China makes inroads from a development perspective in regions where USAID has long been operating.

[18:10:05]

I think looking at the broader, you know, context here of what's going on, I think it's important for Democrats to endorse things like government efficiency, saving money. Those are good things. Jimmy Carter, former governor of my home state of Georgia, made those things priorities when he was governor. He reduced the size of the state government, but he did that because he actually wanted to create a government that could better serve its people.

And if you're looking at what the Trump administration is doing, look, if you're thinking of taking your family on a spring break trip to a national park, it's important to know that President Trump has fired over a thousand National Park Service employees. And if you're thinking of -- you know, if you're thinking about will your community get help after a forest fire, whether you're in Colorado or Montana or Connecticut or California, it's important to note that President Trump has fired over 3,000 Forest Service employees. If you want to have peace of mind when you're flying from point A to point B, right, you want to know that President Trump has fired FAA employees. And just today, it was reported that they're next moving on to an agency called NOAA, which is responsible for tracking hurricanes. So, if you want to know if a hurricane is coming toward you, it's important to know that those cuts are coming as well.

And all you have to do is look at my home state of Georgia, Roswell, Georgia, where Congressman Rich McCormick last night faced a barrage of constituents who are voicing their displeasure and their dissatisfaction with the Trump administration. That's a district that voted for Trump by 22 points.

So, look, the Democrats need to connect these dots and make it clear to the American people, as these firings and layoffs are happening, they will have very real impacts and implications on their lives.

BLITZER: They certainly will. The impact of all these thousands of federal employees who are being fired will be significant, will be enormous in their ramifications, very significant.

Everyone, thank you very much for your analysis.

Just ahead, we're getting new comments that are coming in from President Trump on Russia's war in Ukraine. But he's now saying about a potential face-to-face meeting this year with Vladimir Putin.

Plus, the latest example of Elon Musk's growing influence in the federal government. And why he showed up to a political gathering with a chainsaw.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

BLITZER: There's more breaking news coming into The Situation Room right now. We just got an important ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on President Trump's attempt to remove a top federal watchdog.

Our Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic is joining us right now. So, what did the High Court just say, Joan?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure. Good to see you, Wolf. This is the very first Supreme Court test of Donald Trump's second term agenda. And I can tell you that the justices already were struggling. They essentially punted. This case, as you said, involved President Trump's ability to remove an appointee of President Biden who should have been able to serve a full five-year term.

He was just appointed last year, but Donald Trump is trying to remove this man. And lower courts had put a pause on Donald Trump's effort. He had come to the Supreme Court then appealing. And the justices said, we're not going to quite decide yet. We're going to let this man, Hampton Dellinger, who's over this watchdog agency stay in place for now, but we're going to revisit this probably after next Wednesday when a lower court is going to have a hearing on the merits of this case over whether President Trump can remove this individual.

This all goes to, as you know, Wolf, Donald Trump's efforts to really flex his executive branch authority. He's trying to remove so many people from offices. This is one of literally dozens of lawsuits that are now percolating. And in this first one, the justices were not quite ready to say the extent of President Trump's power, but they did. This is a partial win for the challengers to Donald Trump because they're letting this individual, Hampton Dellinger, stay in office. So, you know, what the president had wanted was to the court for the court to immediately say he has to go.

Now, there was a split in the in how the justices decided this and let me just lay it out. First of all, it was an unsigned opinion but the majority was saying that it needed to postpone any action until at least next week. Justices Gorsuch and Alito, two conservatives, said that they would have sided with President Trump and let him act in this case. Two of the strongest liberals, Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, said they would have totally sided with the challengers here with Mr. Dellinger.

So, it shows you that and we get a little bit of a glimpse of some of the dilemma of the justices in this first major test, and we're just going to keep seeing them come week after week after week. Wolf?

BLITZER: I'm sure we will. All right, Joan, thank you very much for that update.

I want to bring in our legal experts to assess what's going on. Jennifer Rodgers, how big of a setback potentially is this for the Trump administration?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, we don't know yet, Wolf. They've really just put it on pause. This isn't the merits of the matter. This case came up on a temporary restraining order. And there's a question as to whether a temporary restraining order is even appealable in the first case. So, that may be where the justices kind of got sideways. Some of them wanted to hear it on this basis. Others maybe didn't. That may be why they've come out the way they did right now. But we won't know until they take the case on the merits, what actually the court thinks of what the case is really about, which is what obstacles can Congress place in the way of the president in firing someone like the special counsel.

There's been kind of a narrowing over the years of Congress' ability to stop the president from firing people inside of the executive branch.

[18:20:04]

And so we won't know until we actually get a merits ruling what the court is going to do on that question.

BLITZER: Steve Vladeck is also with us. He's an expert on the Supreme Court. You know the court well, Steve. Are you surprised, first of all, by this?

STEVE VLADECK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: A little surprised, Wolf. I mean, I think it's odd for the court to issue a ruling that says we're not going to issue a ruling. But I think, I mean, Jennifer's right that the procedural way this got to the court has a lot to do with why the middle of the court has acted the way it did.

I think you had some real wariness not just from one end of the court from the other of what would happen if the court started inviting the Trump administration or other litigants to come up to the court, even when all that's happened in the first lower court is a temporary restraining order.

And so, you know, Wolf, I'm a little surprised that they're deciding to not decide, but I think two critical points are the one Jennifer made that they're still going to have to decide this sooner rather than later. And, Wolf, two, you know, this is about as good a case as there is for the Trump administration when it comes to the strength of the arguments against the removal protection for the special counsel. There's a reason why the Department of Justice wanted to bring this case to the justices. First, even if the court ultimately sides with President Trump, we shouldn't assume that that's an indicator of where it's going to go in the rest of its cases.

In the flipside, Wolf, if Hampton Dellinger survives, if the court actually sides with Dellinger as early as next week, that's not just a big blow to Trump here, that is a sign that this court's going to be much more aggressive pushing back against President Trump than I think a lot of people might expect.

BLITZER: Alyse Adamson is still with us as well. Alyse, as you know, many of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court have traditionally favored executive power, certainly in past cases. So, what does that tell you about what they may ultimately decide in this case?

ADAMSON: Yes, Wolf. And I think we saw that just in what we just heard from the reporting with Gorsuch and Alito willing to take up the case on the merits rather than deciding to not decide. It's just been described.

I do think that we have seen an extreme expansion in the interpretation of executive power, and this is a real test. There's a federal law that created this office of special counsel in Congress tried to make very clear the reasons why an individual could be terminated. They tried to outline this. And so this is going to be a test of the separation of powers.

And so I think we can expect to see this court continue on their streak of their interpretation of executive power. And I do think there is a chance that the Supreme Court will rule in the Trump administration's favor in this case for those reasons. BLITZER: Jennifer Rodgers, our legal analyst, is still with us. Jennifer, this was, as we noted, the first U.S. Supreme Court test of the second Trump administration. So, how should we read into this for future cases? What do you think?

RODGERS: Well, it's really hard to say. I mean, as Steve was just saying, this is a unique case and the circumstances of this case won't necessarily hold over to some others. That's probably why the Trump administration wanted to take it up first. So, even if they win, I don't know that it tells us a lot. But, I mean, you know, a lot of cases are in the process of making their way up to the Supreme Court. So, we may learn some things about the way the splits go with the justices on one side or the other. Maybe it'll give us a little bit of a clue, but, of course, every case is different. So, it will depend on the facts too.

BLITZER: We're always looking for those clues. Everyone, thank you very, very much.

And we're going to have much more on all the breaking news that's coming up just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

BLITZER: Let's get some more now on the breaking news, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling a top government watchdog can remain on the job for now, despite President Trump's attempts to fire him.

Let's get some analysis from Democratic Congressman Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

I want to get your reaction to the Supreme Court saying this watchdog fired by Trump can stay on the job, at least for now.

REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D-MA): Good evening, Wolf. Thanks for having me on checks and balances, the separation of powers is going to be the dominant theme of this first year of Donald Trump's presidency. The presidency, Article 2, is in a boxing match with Congress, Article 1, and the courts, Article 3, over our ability to prevent an imperial presidency. And the Supreme Court has at least here held its own in round one. Round two is going to be Congress and the presidency boxing over appropriations and Congress' claim on the power of the purse.

Speaker Mike Johnson is definitely not a prize fighter, and so Democrats are going to have to step up and insist that to fund the government this spring, the president needs to respect the fact that, one, he cannot use emergency powers to spend money that we did not appropriate, and number two, he has to appropriate the funds that we have called for. That is the power of the purse. That is not up for debate.

BLITZER: I want to play, Congressman, while I have you, at least part of a town hall that's getting a lot of attention that Georgia Republican Congressman Rich McCormick participated in. [18:30:04]

Listen and watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are all freaking pissed off about this. You're going to hear it and feel it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why is a supposedly conservative party taking such a radical and extremist and sloppy approach to this?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The crowd was very enthusiastic with those questions. Should Republicans, Congressman, be concerned that this DOGE effort, as it's called, has overreached?

AUCHINCLOSS: Republicans should be concerned that DOGE is just the beginning of how mad their constituents are going to be. This is before congressional Republicans vote to take $880 billion out of Medicaid, which helps pay for one in five Americans to get primary care or at home care and before Republicans explode the deficit to give tax cuts to people who don't need tax cuts.

I understand why Donald Trump is pushing this agenda. He owes Elon Musk and all these other tech billionaires for their support of his candidacy. I, for the life of me, can't understand how congressional Republicans are going to explain their votes on axing Medicaid to their constituents back home. This is critical support for children and for senior citizens in their districts, and they will be punished for it.

BLITZER: In our new CNN poll that's just out, Congressman, 73 percent of Democratic voters now say your party, the Democratic Party, is not doing enough to oppose President Trump. What's your reaction to that?

AUCHINCLOSS: The most important thing that Democrats in Congress need to do is win this fight over appropriations in March. I understand the anger. I share the anger. We are using oversight. We are using litigation. We are using legislation. But the harsh reality is we have one moment of maximum leverage in this first year, and that is to fund the government in March because the Republicans can't fund it on their own. They need our votes. And what we must demand for our votes is that Article 2 respects Congress' power of the purse and that Elon Musk gets out of Americans' personal information and sensitive payment systems.

BLITZER: As you know --

AUCHINCLOSS: The next step for us --

BLITZER: I was going to say, go ahead, finish your thought. No, finish your thought.

AUCHINCLOSS: The next step is going to be to point to Republicans votes on this reconciliation package to gut Medicaid, to hook up the wealthy with taxes and demonstrate the contrast between these efforts and the rising cost of home insurance and car insurance and utility bills for average Americans. We have a long way to go until the midterm elections. And by the time voters walk into that ballot box, they will see that their cost of living has gone up because of President Trump's policies. And the programs that they rely on from the federal government Republicans voted to gut.

BLITZER: Congressman Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, thanks so much for joining us.

And coming up, there's more news we're following right now, President Trump now going after Ukraine's president as he talks more and more about Russia's willingness to make a deal.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

BLITZER: I want to get to another major story we're following tonight. The relationship between President Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy takes yet another turn for the worse.

CNN's Nick Paton Walsh is standing by for us from Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine. Nick, President Trump has disparaged President Zelenskyy several times today. Update our viewers.

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, look, we've had a bid over the last 24 hours to try and repair the relationship with Trump's special envoy to the Ukraine and Russia conflict, Keith Kellogg, here talking to President Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy saying the meeting was productive, that it restored hope, and indeed Kellogg himself in very few comments he's made calling Zelenskyy in battle courageous with a talented security team, saying they had long and intense days, trying, I think, to restore an atmosphere of their ability to work together.

But, again, after calling Zelenskyy a dictator, suggesting that aid money had gone missing, multiple separate false accusations against Zelenskyy, we heard again Trump speaking to Fox News radio suggesting that Zelenskyy essentially had somehow failed to stop the war. He did admit Russia attacked at the beginning of it. That's some kind of concession. And here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: And then he complains that he's not at a meeting that we're having with Saudi Arabia trying to intermediate a peace. Well, he's been at meetings for three years with a very -- with a president who didn't know what the hell he was doing. He's been at meetings for three years and nothing got done.

So, I don't think he's very important to be at meetings, to be honest with you. He's been there for three years. He makes it very hard to make deals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALSH: Now, he also said that he was sick of it, sick of it, he said, the idea that Zelenskyy had no cards to play in negotiations.

Look, regardless of where we are in terms of the peace deal, this damage is increasingly palpable here in Kyiv to the relationship between the United States and Ukraine. It is clearly a personal thing between Trump and Zelenskyy. Clearly, Trump does not, it seems, have much respect or time for Zelenskyy and his team continually refer to what they consider to be a damaging or unhelpful rhetoric from Zelenskyy.

Zelenskyy, when he said Trump lived in a different information circle said that he respected Trump and the American people. But I think regardless, the damage of those comments was done. Trump felt he had to respond and that continues to echo constantly.

[18:40:00]

The major question right now, I think, is very urgent and very practical. Is Ukraine going to sign the rare earth mineral deal presented to it by the Trump administration? Initially, it was about recouping money given to Ukraine during the Biden administration through natural resources, a chunk of those being given financially to the United States. Now, Ukraine seems to want to insert what an official referred to me as security elements. But this seems really to be the be all and end all of the Ukraine-U.S. relationship. If they don't get it signed soon, that could severely be stalled or in worse trouble. Wolf?

BLITZER: It's pretty awful, this relationship right now.

Nick Paton Walsh, reporting from Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, thank you very much.

I want to get some analysis. Right now from Anne Applebaum. She's a staff writer over at The Atlantic and the author of the book, Autocracy, Inc. There you see the cover right there.

Anne, what do you make of Trump slamming Zelenskyy, saying he has no cards and that it's not important for him to be in meetings with Russia?

ANNE APPLEBAUM, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: You know, what's really extraordinary is that, in fact, nothing has changed. Russia has not stopped fighting. Russia has not made a peace proposal or suggested that it would conform to any kind of ceasefire. There's been no movement forward that we know of. The only thing that has changed is Trump's rhetoric about Ukraine. He suddenly, you know, moved. I actually don't know whether it was really about the rare earth, the supposed mineral deal, or whether it was something he heard in his conversation with Putin.

I mean, Trump has made clear all of his career that he doesn't like allies. He doesn't respect allies. He has always had an attraction to autocratic leaders. Maybe Putin talked him into thinking that the war that he should take different sides. I mean, it's an extraordinary moment. As I say, nothing has changed except the way Trump is talking.

BLITZER: It's a good point. How do you interpret Trump's envoy to Ukraine and Russia for that matter, talking about Keith Kellogg, giving a very different message than President Trump about President Zelenskyy?

APPLEBAUM: You know, look, and this is what Keith Kellogg has been saying for a long time. Kellogg's argument was that the war should end and could end if we ramped up sanctions, if we armed Ukraine fully. The Ukrainians have been arguing for two years that we never really gave them what they asked for. We dripped weapons into Ukraine with constant delays. Keith Kellogg has been arguing that we bump it up. And it seemed actually until really a few days ago that Trump agreed with him. And Trump said something along those lines just a few weeks ago. And there's been a very sudden switch. And as I said, you know, one can only speculate as to what it was.

BLITZER: Good point. A former Russian minister tells CNN the Kremlin appears to be, in his words, totally astonished with the way Trump is giving Putin exactly what Putin wants. What's your reaction to that?

APPLEBAUM: I mean, it is strange to hear the American president saying things that up until now only Russian propagandists had said. For example, that Ukraine started the war or that Zelenskyy has 4 percent popularity, or that Zelenskyy is somehow illegitimate. You know, it's an odd moment.

BLITZER: How does Ukraine prepare for this new reality where they have a strained relationship with the U.S. president and further US aid to them, presumably could be very unlikely?

APPLEBAUM: Well, first of all, there are other parts of the U.S. government that are still working with Ukraine. There hasn't really been a formal change of policy. We haven't stopped doing anything that we were doing before, as far as I know. Ukraine also has a wide range of allies and contacts around the world. The Ramstein group, which is this group of countries who support Ukraine militarily, actually has 50 members, some approximately 50, that includes all the members of NATO, other European countries, other countries around the world who've helped Ukraine, South Korea, Japan, others, Australia. So, there's a big group of countries.

Ukraine also has its own resources. Ukraine made more than a million drones last year, plans to make many more than that this year. They've created their own software. They have a way of fighting that is unlike almost anything anybody has ever invented. You know, some of our equipment proved even to be not unnecessary, but not as useful in Ukraine as we thought it might be, tanks in particular.

So, you know, they have weapons, they are going to keep fighting. And remember they have no motivation to stop fighting in the absence of a ceasefire and the absence of some kind of security arrangement, or some kind of certainty that Russia won't use a pause in fighting to turn around and attack again.

[18:45:04] They have no motivation to stop fighting. You know, if the Ukrainian stop fighting, then they will be occupied by Russia, and Russia will impose the same totalitarian regime on them, that it's imposed on all the areas of occupied Ukraine -- prisons, torture, kidnapped children. There's no -- nobody in Ukraine can accept that. So for them, it's not really a question of whether to fight. It's a question of how effectively they can fight.

BLITZER: Anne Applebaum, thanks very much for your expertise. Appreciate it very much.

And coming up, why Elon Musk's private -- private security detail is getting an upgrade courtesy of the federal government.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Elon Musk's growing influence inside the U.S. government now includes his extensive personal security detail.

CNN's Brian Todd is on the story for us.

[18:50:03]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On the same stage where he confidently brandished a chainsaw to symbolize how he slashed jobs and costs in the federal government --

ELON MUSK, TECH BILLIONAIRE: This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy.

TODD: -- the world's richest person responded to a comment from his interviewer that his security detail is, quote, enormous.

MUSK: That enormous. Maybe it should be bigger, I don't know.

TODD: Whether it gets bigger or not, Elon Musk's security detail will seemingly now have more access.

Members of Musk's detail private employees have been deputized by the U.S. Marshals Service, giving them some rights and protections of federal law enforcement agents. That's according to new reporting from CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz and Whitney Wild, citing three law enforcement officials familiar with the matter.

What does this mean for Musk's security agents?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: They can carry guns on federal property, on airplanes. It means they can take enforcement action, including using those firearms against someone who is perceived as a threat. It gives them a lot of authority that the security details around other billionaires just don't get.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Come here.

TODD: CNN sources say some people close to the Trump White House have been surprised by the scale of Musk's security detail since he became a more regular presence in President Trump's orbit last year. They say Musk's detail rivaled only the president's own detail.

JONATHAN WACKROW, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: Many have law enforcement or military backgrounds. They've gone to specialized schools for executive protection, for driving, for medical care, for firearms proficiency.

TODD: A person with direct knowledge of Elon Musk's comments tells CNN, Musk has become increasingly concerned with his security since Trump took office, and has told those around him that death threats against him have increased.

MUSK: I don't actually have a death wish I think.

WACKROW: Now put him into this new role, this -- this hybrid government role where he is basically going through and changing peoples lives. That is going to really agitate individuals, all necessitating an increased level of protection around Elon Musk.

MUSK: CNN's John Miller says one concern going forward is making sure Musk's security team doesn't get into a dangerous, confusing situation involving the Secret Service, whenever Musk is in close proximity to the president.

MILLER: You have the Secret Service there, and something kicks off. Somebody hears a shot. Something comes from the crowd. How do they deconflict with the Secret Service? It's not a good situation when two different teams who may not have radio communications or seamless communications, are both pulling out weapons at a time of chaos.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD: One of CNN's sources said with the new deputization of Musk security agents, if something does go awry, it means the U.S. Marshal Service could be held legally liable. CNN has reached out to the marshal service and to the Justice Department for comment -- Wolf.

BLITZER: We'll see what they say.

Brian Todd reporting for us -- Brian, thank you very much.

Coming up, the man accused of killing an insurance CEO on the streets of Manhattan back in court today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:57:28]

BLITZER: Luigi Mangione the man accused of murdering the UnitedHealthcare CEO just appeared before a judge for the first time in weeks.

CNN's Brynn Gingras has details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Accused killer Luigi Mangione back in court, flanked by officers shackled and wearing a bulletproof vest.

CROWD: Free Luigi!

GINGRAS: He walked past dozens of supporters and into a New York City courtroom, where his defense attorney argued against Mangione's restraints.

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, LUIGI MANGIONE'S ATTORNEY: I don't understand what this -- this show of danger is for. When I go visit Luigi at MDC in Brooklyn, I sit with him. He is unshackled. He walks around freely in the visiting area.

GINGRAS: This is his first court appearance since pleading not guilty to the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson last year.

Prosecutors listed the evidence that has been turned over to the defense, including cell phone records, body camera footage and autopsy reports. The hearing, sparking another surge of support for the 26 year old. This image of Mangione projected onto a New York City building last night, and on a truck that circled the courthouse.

This, while donations continue to pour in to an online legal defense fund. So far, it tops a half $1 million with fans from around the globe giving money, some glorifying Mangione, while also venting frustrations against the health care industry.

Mangione himself, expressing gratitude for the support on a new website created by his legal team. Powerfully, the support has transcended political, racial and even class divisions as mail has flooded MDC from across the country and around the globe.

Mangione is facing 11 state charges in the killing, as well as federal charges, which brings the possibility of the death penalty. The prosecutors have not said if they will seek it in this case.

Mangione eluded law enforcement for five days after the brazen. Shooting outside a midtown Manhattan hotel in December, and was eventually arrested while eating at a Pennsylvania McDonalds.

ALVIN BRAGG, MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: This was a frightening, well-planned, targeted murder.

GINGRAS: The defense, again, arguing the media attention on this case is impacting his chances of a fair trial.

AGNIFILO: Luigi's right to a fair trial is being infringed upon because he is being publicly treated as guilty and as --

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GINGRAS (on camera): And no trial date was set just yet, Wolf. But Mangione will be back in court at the start of the summer in June -- Wolf. BLITZER: All right. Brynn Gingras reporting, thank you very much.

I'm Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM. We have this important programming note. Starting Monday, March 3rd, THE SITUATION ROOM is expanding to two hours and moving to mornings. I'm excited to announce THE SITUATION ROOM with my colleague and good friend, Pamela Brown, every weekday from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon Eastern.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.