Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump DOJ Fires Officials Who Prosecuted Him; Homan On Mass Deportation Effort: "There's No Safe Haven"; Trump Calls DeepSeek A.I. "Positive Development" But Also A "Wake-Up Call" For U.S. Tech Industry. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired January 27, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
IRENE WEISS, HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR: --keeps working, but the soul never forgets. There is a soul that does not forget any of it. It's imprinted on the soul that keeps the memory, the pain, the grief, it's just always there.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: The soul never forgets, nor should we. Irene Weiss, Auschwitz survivor, now 94. She's remarkable.
You can listen to the full interview on my podcast, "All There Is," wherever you get your podcasts. Or watch the full video interview on the CNN channel on YouTube.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
Trump's new purge and the fallout tonight, as the brand-new President fires more than a dozen Justice Department officials who helped investigate him.
And an inside source on the immigration blitz underway, across the country. As Trump's promised enforcement arrives, his border czar, the man in charge of the crackdown, will join me live, in moments.
And it's hailed as the technology that will revolutionize the world, as we know it. But tonight, a shocker. Did China just eat the U.S.'s lunch in the race to conquer A.I.? Kara Swisher is here.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
They say that revenge is a dish best served cold. But if you're President Trump, it is apparently one that's delivered by the acting Attorney General, piping hot.
And tonight, he is taking aim at his perceived enemies at the Justice Department, with the acting Attorney General firing more than a dozen prosecutors, who worked with Special Counsel, Jack Smith, on the classified documents and election interference cases against Trump.
CNN obtained this letter from James McHenry, the acting Attorney General, who told these prosecutors, quote, "You are being removed from your position at the Department of Justice... effective immediately." It goes on to say, given their significant role in prosecuting the now-President, they can't be trusted to assist in implementing the President's agenda, quote, "Faithfully."
Now, this move may be shocking in its scope and, frankly, unprecedented in its nature. But no one can exactly argue that it's surprising. Trump has made clear his anger directed at those who investigated him. He even referenced it during his inaugural address.
But this mass firing could land Trump's DOJ in court, potentially facing off against some of its now-former employees. A major question that remains, this evening, is whether these career lawyers will fight back by filing lawsuits about their firings.
But what we do know, and one thing is clear, Trump's January 6 retribution tour is also getting started underway at the DOJ, as we've learned today, that the Trump administration is taking the first step, the first concrete step, to investigate the investigators.
The interim U.S. Attorney, here in Washington, D.C., has just launched a, quote, "Special project," that is really what they are calling it, into prosecutors who brought obstruction charges against some of the January 6 rioters.
My sources are here tonight.
CNN Correspondent, Katelyn Polantz, who broke this reporting.
And former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig.
Katelyn, the acting A.G., came out and said, They can't be trusted to implement Trump's agenda.
I guess, the question was, were they ever going to be able to stay at the Justice Department, these people who worked on Jack Smith's team for the last two years?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, there wasn't an expectation that they would have -- wouldn't have been, because they are career employees of the Justice Department, people who even had worked in the office, back when Trump was the president before. People have been there a long time.
What they're doing with this, this is not the firing of Jack Smith, the Special Counsel, or a political appointee. These are people who are fired for doing their job at the Justice Department, that they were going back to their home offices, after finishing their work at the Special Counsel's Office.
And the way that this is being articulated by the Justice Department, you cannot underline how unusual this is, enough. I mean the way that it say -- saying, in this letter, that these people received in the middle of the afternoon, saying, They played a role in prosecuting Donald Trump, President Trump, and that they do not believe that the leadership can trust them as long-time career employees of the Department, who have worked on many cases.
A couple of them, at least one of them I know of in the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington who prosecuted the former White House Counsel of the Obama administration. So, these are not people that were signed up to do this political work. It is -- it is incredible.
COLLINS: Is it saying what they think they did wrong, beyond just simply working on Jack Smith's team?
POLANTZ: I mean, it really is that. There is an articulation in this letter, from James McHenry, that they believe that these people were part of the weaponization of the Justice Department, that they are people that were in U.S. attorney's offices.
This is the equivalent, not of a Saturday Night Massacre in the Nixon administration. It is a massacre in broad daylight, on a Monday afternoon, that the Justice Department is announcing very clearly, exactly what their motive is.
[21:05:00]
And these people, where do they go now? Maybe they go to a lawsuit, or maybe they go to what the administration says they should do, the Merit Systems Protection Board, which is not the easiest way to follow things.
COLLINS: Yes.
Well, on that Elie. I mean, just to break it down for people. These are not political appointees, which are the people that the President gets to pick. They're career prosecutors. As Katelyn noted, they've been there a long time.
The acting A.G. is claiming that Trump has constitutional authority over this, because, under Article II of the Constitution, to fire these people, rather than really arguing that they're being fired because of their performance or their conduct.
Is this legal?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Well, so first of all, Kaitlan, this is straight-up payback, and there's no dispute about it.
They come right out and say, if you look at that letter, what the acting Attorney General says is not, You've done something wrong here. All that letter says, it's about one page, is, You were part of the team that tried to prosecute Donald Trump. We therefore don't trust you. Therefore you're out.
Now, as to what can be done. What's really remarkable here is this. It is common, ordinary and expected that any new president, new administration will fire the political appointees, the Attorney General, the U.S. attorneys, usually those people resign before that, so it doesn't even come to that.
But the people who were fired today are what we call career prosecutors, meaning what I once was, a non-political person, who's working on the line, who's doing cases and trials, and has no political affiliation. That's what makes this so unusual.
Now, can they seek recourse in the courts? It depends a bit on how senior they are. At a certain level of seniority, you have greater civil service protections than the less senior people.
But the conflict here, ultimately, is going to come down to the civil service protections on the one hand, versus just the blunt force of Article II, of the President being able to do whatever he wants in the Executive branch. So, I think we'll see this play out in courts.
COLLINS: I mean, Elie, Pam Bondi has not yet been confirmed as the Attorney General. So, this is not coming from her. It's coming from the acting Attorney General. One, what do you read into that? And two, I mean, is this going to prompt more questions, when she's back on Capitol Hill, this week?
HONIG: Well, I think, first of all, they've done a huge favor for Pam Bondi, by doing the dirty work before she arrives. Look, this is an ugly task. We knew they were going to do it. They forecasted it to you, Kaitlan, both Katelyns (ph), and others, that this was going to happen. And now it saves Pam Bondi from having to do this herself.
But when she goes back for more questioning, 100 percent she should and will be asked this. Do you approve of this type of firing? Will you continue to fire non-political career prosecutors like this?
COLLINS: Yes. Elie Honig. Katelyn Polantz.
And I should note, this is all happening, as the President has been outside of Washington. He's just landed at Joint Base Andrews. He was speaking to House Republicans in his backyard at Mar-a-Lago, at Doral earlier. We're waiting to see if he speaks to reporters, when he gets off the plane, and if he weighs in on this.
In the meantime, as we keep an eye on Air Force One, we have our White House insiders, here at the table with me as well.
Meridith McGraw is a White House Reporter, at The Wall Street Journal, and Author of "Trump in Exile."
And Isaac Arnsdorf is a Senior White House Reporter at The Washington Post.
Isaac, what are your sources telling you about these firings, and just what this means that the DOJ is going to look like for the next four years?
ISAAC ARNSDORF, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: I mean, everything that we've been talking about, the difference between a political appointee and a career official, the White House just doesn't see it that way. Trump and his team just don't see it that way.
They see these as people who were going after Trump, trying to take him down. And it's only natural for them, now that he won, and he's the president, that he doesn't want them on his team. They don't trust them.
And the people who are taking over the Justice Department are his personal lawyers, who represented him in those same cases.
COLLINS: Yes, a lot of them have experience with these people, Meridith, and have been in the courtroom with them.
I think, to the point of Elie, of saying how unprecedented this is, and as Katelyn noted, calling it just a massacre in the middle of Monday, not Saturday night, like we saw with Nixon. But this was kind of inevitable, in terms of what Trump's very clear desire to reshape the DOJ looked like.
MERIDITH MCGRAW, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, AUTHOR, "TRUMP IN EXILE": Completely. It was unprecedented, unusual, but I think, wholly unsurprising.
And anybody who's been paying attention to what Donald Trump has been saying, what his allies have been saying, what he's been broadcasting from his very first 2024 campaign rally, when he was in Waco, and he had the Jan 6 choir, singing the anthem there. He's been talking about this for years now.
And him taking this swift action, I don't think should come as any surprise. And that's what people in the White House have told me today, when I was asking about it.
COLLINS: Yes, and it comes as they're also launching this so-called Special project. I mean, that's what they are referring to it. To investigate the investigators who prosecuted the January 6 rioters, and used basically a statute that admitted up to the Supreme Court, of whether or not it could be used to prosecute them.
What does that tell you about the priorities of the Justice Department here?
[21:10:00]
ARNSDORF: Well, again, the acting U.S. Attorney in D.C. was in the private sector, before this, representing defendants charged in the January 6th riot. And now, he's on the other side of the table in that prosecutorial capacity, also in an acting capacity, right?
So there is, like Elie was saying, a little bit of what, how far they can push, and what kind of stuff they can get out of the way, before the actual Senate-confirmed officials come in and face those tough questions. COLLINS: Yes, how much of the decisions, Meridith, that are being made right now, have to do with, as they're watching the confirmation schedule on Capitol Hill? Because it's Pam Bondi. Then it will be the DAG, the Deputy Attorney General.
But we are seeing other Trump officials already working. Emil Bove, for example, who was in Trump's case, when he was being prosecuted in Manhattan, has already been out there on the ground, doing the work, on the job. We're seeing these attorneys already get to work.
MCGRAW: Yes, we are. I mean, and like you were saying, the new acting U.S. Attorney, here in D.C., getting right to dismissing these January 6 cases, opening up this investigation. So many of these appointments, they are coming in waves. It's bit by bit. But they're already starting to chip away at Trump's agenda.
COLLINS: How much of this is this, not just what we're seeing with the moves of the DOJ, but overall.
You had some great reporting today about just kind of this flood-the- zone strategy that Trump is employing. I mean, we saw the executive orders, last week.
And I should note, there's Trump coming down the steps of Air Force One now. We'll see if he speaks to reporters, and bring those comments if he does.
But what this is going to look like as far as far as executive orders, and all of these executive actions that he's taking in his beginning days in office.
ARNSDORF: Yes, he just previewed that he'd be signing four more tonight.
And flood the zone was Bannon's term. And I think he's frankly, a little bit jealous of how they've done it this time around versus when Bannon was in the White House. I mean, we were talking about the I.G.s, the inspectors general, all being fired on Friday night. And now, we're talking about the DOJ massacre today.
So, it's just one thing after another. And that makes it hard for us to keep up as reporters. It makes it hard for you to keep up as viewers. And it makes it hard for the Democrats, to figure out what they want to be talking about. And lawyers, if they're going to try to challenge this.
COLLINS: Yes. And also, it seems like for Republicans, when it comes to them being questioned about it on Capitol Hill.
Meridith and Isaac, great to have you both. That's our White House insiders here.
And meanwhile, as you see Trump getting a Marine One there, we'll be watching that return to the White House. This comes as he just made a major change to the U.S. military, with these executive orders that Isaac mentioned, and his new Defense secretary, who was just confirmed on Friday now -- Friday night, is vowing to rapidly enforce them on his first official day.
Plus, tonight, we're going to speak to Trump's border czar, live, as our critical inside source on the sweeping immigration blitz underway across the country.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: President Trump has capped off his first week in office by welcoming House Republicans, to spend money at his Florida golf club. The same president who, hours before, had executed a purge of officials, at the Department of Justice, he was touting this as one of his accomplishments.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I also signed an order to end the weaponization of our government against the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Ending the weaponization. Of course, that comes after he executed that purge of those career prosecutors.
My Republican source tonight is Texas congressman, Dan Crenshaw.
And it's great to have you here, Congressman.
On what we saw happen today, do you believe that the American people elected Trump, to get revenge on federal prosecutors?
REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX): I think a lot of people did. Whether this is considered revenge or not, I think, is open to interpretation. I think a lot of these federal prosecutors, one might argue, were going outside the bounds of what their prosecutorial duties might be. I mean, you go on a case-by-case basis, but.
COLLINS: But do you have any -- I mean, there is no really indication that they committed any wrongdoing or did anything improper. I mean, there's a difference, obviously, between those at the top, who are calling the shots and making the decisions, and those who are the career employees, who are -- who are just doing their jobs.
CRENSHAW: It's just hard to say, because we're not talking specifics. But if we're talking about, say, Crossfire Hurricane and Russiagate, I mean, there were some people, who very much ignored actual facts and correct intelligence, in order to go after Trump. It did happen. So, it's not that crazy to see what's -- to see him purge a lot of the ranks, right now.
COLLINS: Yes, but do you believe that it's legal?
CRENSHAW: It's his administration. I mean, it's his administration.
COLLINS: They do enjoy civil service protections.
CRENSHAW: By definition, it's his administration. They work for him, at the pleasure of the President. And if it's illegal, it should be legal. And that's, look, the firing of federal employees being so difficult as it is, that's something that we need to address as a country, just to make our government more efficient. I mean, that's a longer conversation. But it should be legal, yes.
COLLINS: But if it's not currently legal, and they do enjoy these protections because they are civil service employees, they're career prosecutors. And the point of that is, is to have people who are insulated from the politics of the political appointees, who he does have the right to put in place, there.
CRENSHAW: No, every federal worker works for the administration, which works for the President.
So, and this is -- this is a bigger problem than just these particular employees. I mean, one of the reasons a lot of our agencies don't work well is because it's so hard to fire a federal worker. Businesses couldn't operate that way, if you could just never fire anyone. It creates a highly inefficient agency, right, whatever agency we're talking about.
[21:20:00]
COLLINS: But is there the other side of that argument, where it's if every single person at the Pentagon was a political appointee, then when every four years, every eight years, every single person would be replaced, and there'd be no one who knew their way around the hallway, or where certain house -- certain decisions are made. I mean, there is a benefit to that kind of institutional knowledge, is there not?
CRENSHAW: Of course there is.
COLLINS: That's the whole point.
CRENSHAW: But not everybody is being fired either. I mean, I think -- I think we're overblowing what's actually happening.
Again, whether you're a federal employee, or a political appointee, you still work for the President, directly. That's -- that is the case. And what we -- we have a much bigger problem with the way that federal unions have become so institutionalized, that we can't actually fire people who aren't doing their jobs. It's a much bigger problem.
COLLINS: Yes, well, I mean, obviously the argument there, we'll see if they take this to court, and if there are lawsuits here. There certainly could be, from our legal experts.
But you just said that there are people who did elect Trump to do this. But there were a lot bigger campaign promises that were made by Donald Trump. And I think some people may look at this, and say, How does this further the priorities that Republicans promised to voters on the trail, whether that came to lowering grocery prices, or confronting China? I mean, is this part of that agenda?
CRENSHAW: Well, look, this is part of about a 1,000 other actions that Trump has taken, in the very short time that he's been in office. Let's talk about the ones that really do matter to people, like LNG exports. That's huge for our -- for our energy sector. Getting our border under control. I mean, he's doing a lot more than just firing a few prosecutors, let's be honest.
COLLINS: Yes, and we're going to talk to his border czar in a few moments.
I just think obviously every decision made in the first week is seen as a priority and important.
But let me ask you about some of the executive orders that Trump has been signing. Because you have said that any American, who is willing and able to serve in the military should be allowed to do so. Do you oppose Trump's ban on trans people serving in the military?
CRENSHAW: No, not at all. And I'm not sure where you got that quote. But you could find a lot of other quotes from me that would say that we should never allow anyone in the military to undergo transition surgery, which would make them medically-unqualified to deploy, and therefore reduce the readiness of the military.
So, I'm not sure what President Trump is going to do exactly on this policy. It's probably going to look a lot like his last administration, which was, you can say that you're another sex, but you can't undergo treatments to become another sex, because once you do that, you make yourself unready to deploy. It's the medical procedures themselves disqualify you.
COLLINS: But there are trans people who serve in the military, right now, who would disagree with that.
CRENSHAW: They can disagree all they want. I'm the one who's -- I know what war is like, and I know what it takes to deploy. I was not allowed to deploy for vision issues.
Now, what if you need to be on a bunch of medications, and your -- and your entire body has been -- has been changed radically into another gender? It makes it very difficult to deploy you into the places that we need to deploy you.
I had to be medically-retired for my condition. And my condition, arguably, is far less -- is far less severe than undergoing a transition to a different gender.
COLLINS: Yes, but people obviously take medical leave from the military all the time, in return.
And you said you didn't know what quote I was talking about. This is from 2021. This is -- this is the quote.
CRENSHAW: Yes, I'm sure -- I'm sure I said that. But there's--
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CRENSHAW: I think people should be able to serve openly, and tell people what their identity is. And anybody who can meet those standards should be able to serve.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CRENSHAW: And then I probably--
COLLINS: Do you still?
CRENSHAW: And then I -- and then I -- and then I probably went on to say -- if the conversation was about transgenderism in the military, I probably, in that interview, went on to say exactly what I just said. Because I've never changed my mind on this.
COLLINS: So, when you say, I think people should be able to serve openly and tell people what their identity is, anyone who can meet those standards. I mean, aren't you arguing that those people that if someone who is trans is in the military, and they can meet the standards, that they should be able to serve? I don't -- I don't know that--
CRENSHAW: What I'm saying is by--
COLLINS: Why would you be making that decision, and not a medical professional, or someone who makes those decisions about vision, or whatever issues they evaluate, before deploying somebody?
CRENSHAW: I'm saying, by definition, if you -- if you have transitioned into a different gender, you are not meeting our medical standards. There's -- you're creating--
COLLINS: Right. But that's your opinion.
CRENSHAW: No, it's not an opinion. That is -- that is a pretty easy -- that's an easy-to-prove fact. It makes it much harder on our units to deploy. Period. Like, full stop. And again, there's a--
COLLINS: But then how are there trans people serving in the military, right now, Sir?
CRENSHAW: There's a difference between identifying -- like, again, look, you could -- you could -- Kaitlan, you could show up to your job, the next day, and say that your name is now, Ken. That's different. You can identify that way. And that was Trump's old policy, by the way. They would allow you to serve that way.
But there's a very big difference between doing that, and actually undergoing medical procedures that take you -- that take you out of service. And there's -- and, yes, you call it medical leave. But that's some pretty severe medical leave. So, why would we allow that? And then you -- and to say that you're deployable to austere environments? No way. That's just not true.
COLLINS: OK. But Congressman, I-- CRENSHAW: And so, I've never -- I've never changed my mind on that.
COLLINS: The executive order is banning all trans people. Period. It's not making a caveat that you're making there.
CRENSHAW: I don't think we've seen the text of the -- of the order, have we? I don't have the text.
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: Are you -- this is what was -- how it's been described to us by our sources. Are you telling us that--
CRENSHAW: Yes, but we don't -- but we don't have the--
COLLINS: --it makes that distinction?
CRENSHAW: I don't -- I don't have the text. If you're making any guess on what the text is, I have a feeling it'll look a lot like the last administration. We don't know yet.
COLLINS: OK. So, you're in favor of this, though, regardless?
CRENSHAW: Yes. Yes, my position on this has always been very clear, so.
COLLINS: Congressman Dan Crenshaw, thank you for your time.
CRENSHAW: Thanks.
COLLINS: Meanwhile, Trump's sweeping immigration crackdown that he pledged to carry out on the campaign trail is here. More than a 1,000 people were arrested in one day.
Border czar, Tom Homan, is here, live, for the first time since taking on his new job, here with us on THE SOURCE.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Today in Tijuana, you probably saw the -- I got a call from Tom Homan, and some of the people. They said, Sir, it's unbelievable.
We're deporting 100 percent of all new trespassers apprehended at the border.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:30:00]
COLLINS: The Trump administration's promised immigration blitz is now well underway, across the U.S., and just getting started, as multiple federal agencies are now swarming cities, across the country.
As the President today compared his deportation flights to a 1990s Nicolas Cage movie.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You got 300 people sitting in a plane. Every one of them either a murderer, a drug lord, a kingpin of some kind, a head of the mob, or a gang member. And you're flying that plane, it's not going to end well. You ever see the movie Con Air?
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: That's what -- yes. Except here's the difference. The people in Con Air were actors. They weren't nearly as tough as these guys.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is President Trump's border czar, Tom Homan.
Don't worry, Tom Homan, I'm not going to ask you about Nicolas Cage, or any movies.
But on the numbers and what we're seeing, you guys actually put into practice. Just today, ICE says it has made 1,179 arrests. How many of those people had been convicted of crimes in the U.S.?
TOM HOMAN, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BORDER CZAR: Look, I don't have exact numbers with me. But for -- I'll give you an example. I was in Chicago, yesterday, for that operation. And everybody but I think four were collateral -- with four collateral arrest, everybody else was a criminal.
And when I walked out at the end of my shift, we already had, I think, nine Tren de Aragua. Two of them were actually being charged with crimes, because there was -- here's an illegal alien -- illegal alien gang member in the United States, selling illegal guns in the neighborhood. And they even sold the switches, which turned the gun into fully automatic machine guns.
We arrested, I think, we had a total of seven sexual predators, crimes -- sexual crimes against children. We had two illegal aliens, convicted of murder that were released by the state prison back to the streets.
So everybody we arrested in Chicago, yesterday, was -- it was a significant public safety threat. There were several collateral arrests that happened to be there, when we arrested the bad guy. So, this operation, right now, is concentrated on public safety threats and national security threats throughout the country.
COLLINS: So the majority of those yesterday were -- did have criminal records. And do you believe the majority of today's numbers have criminal records?
HOMAN: I won't see those numbers till midnight tonight. But, again, we're focused on -- we're focused on criminals. But I think you and I discussed before. Well, in sanctuary cities, you're going to see a higher number of collateral arrests. I mean, we're going to have more criminals, but there's going to be a big number, what we call, collateral.
Because when we're forced into the neighborhood, to find the bad guy, he's probably going to be with others. And we're not going to instruct the ICE agents to ignore their oaths, ignore the law. If they're here illegally, they're going to go -- they're going to go to jail too.
And that's why I just -- I'm imploring the sanctuary cities, let us into jail, to arrest the bad guy in the jail, where the community's safe, the officer's safe, the alien's safe. If you're forcing into community, you're going to get exactly what you don't want.
COLLINS: And when you say--
HOMAN: More agents in the neighborhood, and more collateral arrests.
COLLINS: When you say collateral arrest, you mean someone who doesn't have a criminal record, but is here, is an undocumented immigrant. They still get deported as well, right? You're not letting them go back to their neighborhoods, or to their jobs. Is that right?
HOMAN: Yes, if they're in the country illegally, they're going to get arrested too.
COLLINS: Now that you're officially in your position, you've been here about a week on the job. We spoke to you last, before you would actually come in formally to the role. Do you have a better target number for how many people you want to deport overall?
HOMAN: As many as we can. My goal is -- I think success is removing every criminal gang member out of this country, every public safety threat, illegal alien, out of this country, every child trafficker, illegal alien, out of this country. Then that aperture opens, right?
We got 1.4 million illegal aliens in this country, who had due process at great taxpayer expense. They were ordered to remove by a federal judge, and didn't leave. They became a fugitive. They're next. So, we're going to keep opening that aperture, and enforcing immigration law. And all for those in the country illegally--
COLLINS: And how long--
HOMAN: --those who don't have a final order, those who have not been ordered by an immigration judge, if you're in the country illegally, you should leave.
Because if we have to formally deport you, you can face the -- anywhere it's from a five- to 20-year bar from ever coming back, either as a student, a visitor visa, a tourist visa, or be petitioned by a U.S. citizen child. If you're in the country illegally, you have been ordered to be deported? Leave and come back the right way--
COLLINS: Yes. HOMAN: --because there will be other opportunities.
COLLINS: You're talking about going after public safety threats, national security threats first. But you just said that aperture is going to widen, meaning, the scope of the people you're going to go after. How long do you anticipate, before you're in that next phase where the aperture has gotten wider?
[21:35:00]
HOMAN: Very soon. I mean, sanctuary cities are making it very difficult to arrest the criminals. For instance, Chicago, very well- educated. They've been educated how to defy ICE, how to -- how to hide from ICE.
And I've seen many pamphlets from many NGOs, Here's how you escape ICE from arresting you, Here's what you need to do. They call it, Know your rights. I call it, How to escape arrest. There's a warrant for your arrest, and they tell you how to hide from ICE. No -- don't open your door. Don't answer questions.
OK, they can call it Know your rights, all you want. But if there's an order for the removal, they've been ordered to remove by a federal judge after due process, at great taxpayer expense? They need to go. But if we got to play that cat and mouse game, that's what we're going to do, till every one of them gone.
COLLINS: In terms of how you're messaging this, obviously you've been speaking publicly. We know that officials were told to be ready, to be in front of the cameras. Agents were, that they could be around when these arrests were happening. We saw Dr. Phil was along and embedded with one of your teams.
How much thought are you putting into, to making this kind of a made- for-TV moment, in order to publicly message? Or, whatever your strategic goal is here?
HOMAN: Well, look, we got Kristi Noem who's just -- she got her vote this weekend. You're going to see a lot more from Secretary of DHS, should be out here, talking much more. We've -- the new CBP Commissioner, who's being nominated, Rodney Scott, he will empower the Chief Patrol Agents to talk. So, we want all the frontline managers to talk throughout the country.
But the message that I'm sending is that we're going to force it -- we're going to force immigration laws in this country. And if people don't like -- they like it, then they need to change the law.
Because ICE isn't making this up. We're enforcing laws enacted by Congress and signed by a president. But we're doing it in a smart way. The Trump administration, in the beginning, says, we're going to concentrate on public safety threats and national security -- national security threats around the country (ph). The worst, first, and that's what we're doing.
But as, like I say, as we go on, we're not going to say it's OK for 1.4 million illegal aliens to ignore a judge's order to deport. So, they're going to be next. And we're going to keep opening that aperture up.
So, we're sending a message. It's not OK to be in this country illegally. It is not OK to enter this country illegally. It is a crime. And there's going to be consequences.
COLLINS: Do you have a number of how many people you'd like to have deported by this time next year?
HOMAN: I don't have a number. As many as we -- as many as we can arrest and deport. We're going to enforce the law.
COLLINS: OK. But no firm number?
HOMAN: If you're here in the country illegally -- if they're in the country illegally, they got a problem, and they're not off the table.
COLLINS: Yes, but on numbers, you have been clear that your success here, in this effort, will depend on how much money you can get from Congress.
Now that you're in this role, do you know how much money, what kind of budget you would need to deport the people that you say are public safety threats, national security threats? And also, the 1.2 million that you just referenced there, who have gotten orders from a judge?
HOMAN: 1.4 million. And yes, like we needed -- we needed more than the 100,000 beds. Right now, we got about 34,000 beds. We'll fill them up in a week. So we need -- we need at least a 100,000 beds. We need more international air flights. We need more grounds transportation. We need more money to hire more officers and Border Patrol agents.
And that's why we're bringing, right now, the whole of government is coming in, right? In the Chicago operation, in every operation throughout the country, now, we got DEA, we got FBI, we got U.S. Marshals, we got ATF, we got HSI, we got ERO. So right now, we're bringing the whole of government into this, so we can create more teams and arrest more people.
So, this dynamic is constantly changing. And depending on the city.
COLLINS: Yes, and if you--
HOMAN: Is it a sanctuary city, not a sanctuary city?
COLLINS: Yes, you're using them as like a force multiplier.
But when it goes to the real money that you'll need from Congress, to get more beds, and to hire more agents, if Congress is not reliable, as I'm sure you are well-aware, in terms of what they can get passed? I know they believe this is a big part of Trump's agenda. But if you don't get what you need from Congress, can you achieve what you're trying to achieve here?
HOMAN: We're going to do everything we can with what we have, and we're going to arrest as many as we can.
However, you're right. We can be more successful if we have more money, if we can buy more beds. Because every time we arrest an illegal alien, we just don't deport them that day. We have to detain them for a few days, or a few weeks, to get travel documents, get landing rights in their home country. So, the more money we have, the more we can do.
COLLINS: Mr. Homan, I've got a few more questions for you, if you'll stick around, for a few minutes, with us.
We're going to take a quick break, and then we'll be back with Mr. Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, after a short commercial break.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: And we're back with President Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, whose name came up at the confirmation hearing, for the newly- confirmed Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ANDY KIM (D-NJ): I guess I'm uncertain about roles and responsibilities regarding your position, and Tom Homan's.
How are you going to work with Mr. Homan? What is the division there? I'm trying to get a better sense of who's in charge.
KRISTI NOEM, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Yes, Tom -- Tom Homan is an incredible human being, who has over 30 years of experience.
KIM: Incredible experience, I get that.
NOEM: Yes, at the border, and the inside--
KIM: I'm just trying to think through decision-making process--
NOEM: Yes.
KIM: --when it comes to your work. For instance, will he be giving orders directly to CBP, ICE, USCIS?
NOEM: Tom Homan has a direct line to the President. He is an adviser to the President, the border czar.
I obviously will be, if nominated and confirmed, and put into the position of being the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, and responsible for the authorities that we have, and the actions that we take.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:45:00] COLLINS: And Mr. Homan is back with me.
And who is the person, who will be issuing those orders, to the Senator's question there, to ICE agents, to Border Patrol? Is that your purview here? Or is that Secretary Noem's purview?
HOMAN: Secretary Noem has the authority of Border Patrol and ICE. That's in statute.
But as the Senior Adviser to the President, I'm writing strategic vision, and operational plans, and coming up with a strategy to secure the border, and to run this deportation operation, to find over 300,000 missing children. And me and Secretary Noem will work very close on those plans, and to implement them, and do what the President wants us to do.
So, me and Kristi Noem will be shoulder to shoulder every day. We talk every day. So, we'll be working together, to achieve the President's goals.
COLLINS: How often are you talking to the President himself about this?
HOMAN: Several times a week.
COLLINS: And on one of the things that we've been seeing, as you're publicly talking about this first week. I saw the numbers that ICE put out tonight, that we started asking you about.
We also saw this video, last week, of something you told me was going to happen, using military flights. This is a C-17. It's flying about 80 people back to Guatemala. The flight costs from El Paso, for that is about $252,000 numbers, based on an estimate we got from the government today. Do you think that's a better use of taxpayer money than a charter flight, which would cost closer to, I believe, a $9,000?
HOMAN: Well, it's a force multiplier. We got a lot of planes flying every day across mostly to Central America and South America. So, they're adding, they're adding a resource to us. So, again, the cost of this operation is expensive. It's expensive to enforce the laws, and protect our national security. But I don't put a price tag on securing that border.
Once we secure the border, and we show consequences -- the numbers are already down. We had like 500 crossings in one day. Compare that to 10,000 to 12,000 a day under Biden.
COLLINS: Right. But why is it better to use a military plane?
HOMAN: 500 a day? I mean, that's one of the lowest I've seen in my 34- year career.
COLLINS: But why is it better to use a military plane that costs so much more than just a charter plane, which is what was happening before? HOMAN: Charter planes are still running at full capacity. This is just an added thing. And they can put a lot more people on the plane, rather than -- that can make a long distance, such as going to Columbia. We'll use them for European removal. So, it makes sense to fill that plane up, a lot of people, and get them moving.
Again, it's an added asset, because our air contracts now are full, 100 percent capacity. So, as we add more flights, I'm sure we'll add more charter flights. But right now, DOD is working with us on the border, building infrastructure, appearance denial (ph). They're down there, building, putting razor wire up, and they're flying planes.
COLLINS: OK.
HOMAN: They'll also probably do some ground transportation. We're going to use DOD.
COLLINS: And I should note that, we are told that the Department of Homeland Security will not be reimbursing the Pentagon for these flights. That sometimes is the case. But we were told today, that that's not the case.
On what you said earlier about your big priority, right now, is deporting public safety threats and national security threats. How does changing the ICE policy that allows agents to conduct arrests and enforcement at churches and schools help with that?
HOMAN: There's no safe haven for public safety threats and national security threats.
People will say, Well, will you really go into a high school?
Well, people need to look at the MS-13 members and Tren de Aragua members, who enter this country, a majority in between the ages of 15 and 17, many are attending our schools. And they're -- and they're selling drugs in the schools. And they're -- and they're doing strong- armed robberies of other students.
So, we do not go into schools or hospitals, as a matter of practice. But if it's a -- if there's a significant public safety threat, or a significant homeland security threat, there's no safe haven. We'll go where we need to go, to take them off the street.
COLLINS: But you obviously are someone -- you've been working on the border for years, Sir. I mean, you got an award from President Obama, for people who don't know watching. And you also have worked through these administrations. This was the policy that's been in place, I believe, since 2011, and it wasn't changed before.
I mean, do you have any reason to believe that elementary schools or churches are harboring these violent immigrants, who are here illegally?
HOMAN: Like I said, and when the circumstances arise, we got national security threat, or a significant public safety threat? We're going to go where we got to go, whether it's a school, a church or hospital. The national security is important.
And look, name another law enforcement agency. Does the FBI have those requirements? No. Does DEA have those requirements? No. So, ICE shouldn't have those requirements either.
We have a national security responsibility. And we're going to take those people off the street. If it's out of school, then that's what we're going to do. Again, it takes a lot to get approval to go into school or church. But if there's a national security threat, we're going.
[21:50:00]
COLLINS: What does it take -- what is the standard, I guess, to go into an elementary school? Because what we had heard from immigration advocates, is that this is going to provide a chilling effect to parents in the school drop-off line, or something of that matter.
HOMAN: It shouldn't be a chilling effect, unless your child is a terrorist, or a public safety threat. If they're a public safety threat, a national security threat, they should be chilled, they should be afraid, because we're looking for them.
COLLINS: Well, if their parent is here, and they're an undocumented immigrant, I think was, was more of the argument that they were making.
HOMAN: They're not off the table either. I mean, if they're in the country illegally, they got a problem. I mean, it's not OK -- look, it's not OK to enter this country illegally. It's a crime. And that's what it's supposed to be. I wouldn't feel comfortable if I'm in Switzerland illegally. So, we're going to enforce laws in this country.
So, the schools and the churches, and sensitive location was a policy only for ICE, only for immigration, right? But national security threats and public safety threats have no safe haven in this country, and we'll go where we got to go.
COLLINS: Have you gone into any schools or churches yet that you know of personally?
HOMAN: Not yet -- not yet, of this operation.
COLLINS: Mr. Tom Homan, thank you for coming and taking our questions tonight. We hope to have you back here on THE SOURCE soon. And we do appreciate your time.
HOMAN: Thanks for having me.
COLLINS: Up next. We're going to check in with some deep panic that is underway in Silicon Valley. That new A.I. startup, DeepSeek, and what it means, as a cheaper A.I. alternative from China has emerged, and it sent U.S. tech stocks plunging today.
[21:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Just days after we saw President Trump unveil a $500 billion investment in artificial intelligence, a Chinese A.I. company today stunned the entire industry, and also sent U.S. stocks plunging. That's because this Chinese startup, known as DeepSeek, revealed a new chatbot called R1 that matches the capabilities that OpenAI's ChatGPT, and Google's Gemini has, but at a fraction of the cost.
Now, we all know, U.S. companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, to develop these A.I. models that we've been tracking so closely in recent years. DeepSeek, which launched a year ago, I should note, says it spent just over $5 million.
Here's how President Trump responded to this news today,
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The release of DeepSeek A.I. from a Chinese company, should be a wake-up call for our industries that we need to be laser-focused on competing to win, because we have the greatest scientists in the world.
This is very unusual. When you hear a DeepSeek, when you hear somebody come up with something. We always have the ideas. We're always first. So, I would say that's a positive, that could be very much a positive development. So instead of spending billions and billions, you'll spend less, and you'll come up with, hopefully the same solution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is the veteran tech journalist, Kara Swisher.
And Kara, some people were calling this A.I.'s Sputnik moment. I mean, it's obviously put so many questions in front of major companies like Meta, and Nvidia. What are your takeaways--
KARA SWISHER, PODCAST HOST, "ON WITH KARA SWISHER" & "PIVOT," CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.
COLLINS: --from what we've seen today?
SWISHER: I think everyone should calm down. I mean, the stock market didn't, because it shows -- it puts into question all the spending that's been going on with all these companies.
And I think that's the worry they have. Is that Mark Zuckerberg just announced, I think $50 billion, $60 billion, they're spending on different A.I. things. They've talked about building all kinds of datacenters, et cetera, which they should continue to do, moving forward.
I think what's interesting about what DeepSeek is, it's riding on our rails. It's riding on our open-source models. And so, the question is, is this going to be an open-source-developed industry, where everything, the prices go very low, just like the original internet was? Or is it going to be captured by only the big players?
And so, I think they were showing that it's going to be very easy for -- you know, there's an expression, the plains are covered with the bodies of pioneers. Pioneers, sometimes, they cost too much and the price is too much, and then others follow in their wake. And China is a very fast follower. And that's what's happening here.
COLLINS: Yes. What does that say about the competitiveness of U.S. companies in this space, given what we saw?
SWISHER: Well, like I said, they're riding on our rails. They're riding on our open-source models, specifically Llama from Meta, and things like that, because there's a whole -- there is a whole struggle between open source and closed companies like OpenAI that tradition (ph).
The question is, with everybody spending all this money on closed systems, only one or two are going to win, right, in that model. And so, if you open it up, and you allow more people to innovate, at lesser cost? It's good news, say, for companies, any company, who doesn't have to pay too much for A.I., when it's almost free, essentially.
At the same time, you'll have worries about lack of any safety. Because you didn't hear DeepSeek talk about possible safety problems, which U.S. companies tend to adhere to.
COLLINS: Yes.
SWISHER: And so, it's sort of this Wild West situation. And then you'll hear U.S. companies saying, No more regulations, because China is going to beat us.
China is beating us, because they're taking advantage of our innovation. And the question is, how can we make it so it's inexpensive for innovation to happen everywhere.
And so there'll be an initial panic, because of all the money spent, say Nvidia is perfect. These chips are very expensive. They've been bought up by all the big rich companies. Do you need those chips particularly? Are there better ways to do it?
[22:00:00]
And so, the question is, how can our country innovate on at all levels of this?
COLLINS: Yes.
SWISHER: Because we are the -- we are the first in line here. So, it definitely is a wake-up call for everyone to see where this is headed, which will be good for some, and not so good for others.
COLLINS: Yes. DeepSeek using just a fraction of the chips that others have.
Kara Swisher, we'll be watching it all, hopefully with you here to help us. So, thank you for your time tonight.
SWISHER: Thank you.
COLLINS: Thank you all for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.