Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump: "Not Really Involved" In Controversial Deportation Flights; Trump: Musk Visited Pentagon For DOGE, Not China; Lutnick: Seniors Won't Complain About Missed Social Security Check. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 21, 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]
JOHN KING, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: This weekend, on "THE WHOLE STORY" with Anderson, CNN's Chief Climate Correspondent, Bill Weir, travels the globe, to find innovative solutions that will allow us to build communities that can withstand any climate disaster. "THE WHOLE STORY" airs, this Sunday, 08:00 p.m., only on CNN.
Hope you have a wonderful weekend.
The news continues now. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts right now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
President Trump says he didn't sign what might be his most controversial order yet. The President says, Go ask Secretary Marco Rubio, when asked about the deportations at the center of a massive court fight playing out in Washington, despite a proclamation bearing Trump's signature, right there at the bottom.
Also, what we've learned tonight about Elon Musk, and his hour-long visit to the Pentagon today, after that report about a top secret China briefing sent shockwaves through Washington. The lead reporter on that New York Times bombshell is here, with me live.
And the President's Commerce Secretary, who also happens to be a successful billionaire, says, If Social Security checks didn't arrive for a month, the only people who would complain are fraudsters. I'm not sure they want to test that theory.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, the President of the United States is in New Jersey, for the weekend. But he didn't leave Washington today without triggering a potential legal headache for his administration. The President declaring that he's not really involved in what, right now, is shaping up to be one of the biggest legal battles of his first two months in office.
The day started with a deeply-frustrated federal judge, in Washington, insisting that the Trump administration answer for what he calls a, quote, "Awfully frightening" use of the 1798 wartime statute, known as the Alien Enemies Act. It's what we've been talking about all week.
The judge seems skeptical about its use, but also the timing of how and when this policy was invoked. Specifically, the judge wants to know who made the call to let the flights, carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members, going to El Salvador, keep going, despite his order asking them to turn around.
Judge James Boasberg vowed, and I'm quoting him now, "I will get to the bottom of whether they violated my order, who ordered this and what the consequences will be."
He's gotten few answers in the nearly one week, since those first two flights took off from Texas, last Saturday. About an hour after that, the judge verbally ordered any planes carrying people being deported, under the Alien Enemies Act, to turn around. Then he issued the order in writing, before any of those planes touched down at their destination, calling for a pause on the entire process. But those planes didn't turn around, and they did eventually land in El Salvador.
So, as he sought answers today, the judge wanted to know why this proclamation was essentially signed, in the dark, on Friday night, early Saturday morning.
When a reporter posed that very question to the President, Trump said he couldn't answer when the Act was signed, because he didn't sign it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't know when it was signed, because I didn't sign it. Other people handled it. But Marco Rubio has done a great job, and he wanted them out, and we go along with that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Moments later, Trump again, deferred to Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, when he was asked if he could deport people using that same policy, right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I would say that I'd have the Secretary of State handle it, because I'm not really involved in that. But the concept of getting bad people, murderers, rapists, drug dealers, all of them, these are really some bad people out of our country. I ran on that. I won on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: However, when it comes to this issue of signature or no signature, if you look at the proclamation, invoking this wartime power, over the weekend, it's on the White House's website, it is listed as a presidential action, and it reads, By the President of the United States of America. But even further than that, when you look at the version that is filed in the National Register, it bears President Trump's recognizable signature, right there at the bottom.
Now, given all of this, at 08:46 p.m. tonight, just a few minutes before we came on air here, the White House put out this statement. I'm going to read it to you in full.
Says, President Trump was obviously referring to the original Alien Enemies Act that was signed back in 1798. The recent Executive Order was personally signed by President Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act that designated Tren de Aragua as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in order to apprehend and deport these heinous criminals.
So they say Trump was very obviously referring to the original Alien Enemies Act that was signed back in 1798, even though that is not what the reporter asked him.
Just, let's listen to what the President himself said, one more time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I don't know when it was signed, because I didn't sign it. Other people handled it. But Marco Rubio has done a great job, and he wanted them out, and we go along with that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:05:00]
COLLINS: I have two of my top legal sources here.
CNN Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig.
And retired judge, Jill Konviser.
Elie, was the President obviously referring to this Act of 1798?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Yes, was he telling us that, I'm not John Adams, the guy who signed it back in 1798?
Here's why Donald Trump's statement earlier today -- well, the obvious thing he was saying here is, I did not sign this proclamation that was used last week to deport these aliens.
If that's true, if Donald Trump did not actually sign that proclamation, it's a big problem, because the law specifically requires a proclamation by the President. The law says that there has to be -- the president has to make a public proclamation of the event.
So, if he was telling the truth, if in fact, he did not sign this thing? Everything that followed, the deportation of these individuals was all illegal, was all null and void. That's why they're trying to walk it back with this ridiculous attempt to walk the tightrope.
COLLINS: I mean, Judge Boasberg has Google. He wasn't asking who signed the 1798--
HONIG: Yes.
COLLINS: This wasn't like a history class that was happening in the courtroom today.
JILL KONVISER, RETIRED JUDGE: Exactly. And Elie and I had all we could do to keep from laughing, when we heard that, at 08:46, because it's so -- it's so silly. And of course, if these Venezuelan alleged gang members were taken from this country, under no rule of law, no reason, then of course, we really have a problem here.
There's probably a problem with the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 anyway, to the extent that that Act is a wartime power. Someone can say, Well, if there's an invasion or an incursion. But there has to be a ruling, there has to be a judicial determination, that this is what was going on. It is an emergency provision. It was used by FDR during World War II to inter Japanese Americans. It's one of the darkest chapters in American history.
And here, we have a situation where he's doing it, it's not wartime, and he's not even and -- not even admitting that that was the reason that he did it. It's extremely troubling.
COLLINS: Well, and all week, we've been talking about this issue of whether they were abiding by the order. That's a separate issue from the skepticism that he introduced today, which I had not heard from the judge yet, on whether or not they do have the authority to use this power, in this situation.
HONIG: Yes, Judge Boasberg is not buying that the Alien Enemies Act applies to this situation. And Judge Boasberg, I think, correctly identified a couple flaws.
First of all, there has to be an invasion, and it has to be by a foreign government. And Donald Trump, if you look at the proclamation, which maybe he did or didn't sign, tries to sort of put together a very stretched argument that, Yes, this was an invasion, yes, it was somehow tied with the Government of Venezuela.
But I think the response to all this is, you hear the rhetoric as well. People who are against this want these violent criminals in this country.
No. If they committed crimes, they should be prosecuted.
KONVISER: Right.
HONIG: If they're here illegally, they can be deported under normal immigration procedures.
But instead, they're using this 1798 law, they're stretching the definitions beyond all belief. And that's why the judge, Boasberg, today, expressed skepticism, as Judge Konviser just did too.
KONVISER: Exactly. I mean, the whole concept that they're just picking people up off the street that they believe are part of a vicious gang.
No one wants gang members here. No one wants murderers. But there are.
But there is a process which is, you come before a judge like me, and you get a fair trial. You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to a jury trial. Whether you're an American or you're not.
So, we have no idea what type of process to which they were afforded, and it appears like there was none. It is un-American and it is unlawful.
COLLINS: But the White House, from what I had heard from people all week, felt pretty good, actually, about their -- the legality, behind them invoking this.
And so, that's why, watching Trump leave the White House today, saying, putting total distance between himself and this, and instead actually saying, Well, you ought to check with Secretary Marco Rubio on this. He's the Secretary of State, obviously. He's saying that he wanted to get them out of here.
I mean, we have seen this with Trump before, where, if there is a controversial decision, he will often say, Well, actually, it was Elie Honig who did this, you know?
HONIG: Always blame me.
Yes, look, he's obviously distancing himself. And before today, before this hearing, this afternoon, we had no idea. Judge Boasberg was a -- had a poker face. It was hard to tell where he was.
And by the way, despite the accusations from Donald Trump, he's a liberal, left-leaning, I mean--
KONVISER: Yes.
HONIG: You reported this the other night, Kaitlan, I mean, he -- this is the same judge who said, Donald Trump does not have to turn over his tax returns, years ago, when Congress was trying to get them. Same judge, who said, Hillary Clinton did have to turn over thousands of her emails. So, he's no ideologue.
But I thought it was interesting today that he did come out so clearly, saying, I have real doubts whether this applies.
COLLINS: The real question, though, that I have been having all day with -- the conversation with sources, is, what does Judge Boasberg do here? Because he is between a rock and a hard place, in terms of he has given them the whole week, he still hasn't gotten any answers, I mean. And he's saying, he's vowing to get to the bottom of this, on whether or not they ignored the order.
But if they did, what options does he have?
KONVISER: Well, that's really the $64,000 question. And it's a concern. [21:10:00]
So, we've heard many times that we have three co-equal branches of government. But we've also heard that the judiciary, as a rule, is the weakest of the three. Alexander Hamilton talked about that, and the other Founding Fathers did, and they said that.
Because, well, the judiciary doesn't have a military. They don't have the power over the budget, right? They have a different -- they have a different role, which is really to make sure the executive follows all the rules set down by -- that are passed by Congress.
So, what option does he have? He can hold someone in contempt. He can fine someone. Short of that, there's not that much. But generally, historically, the threat of contempt has always been enough, from a court -- from a state court or a federal court judge, to make someone fall in line, and do that with which is required.
HONIG: Can I just add? All that has happened, this week, in that court, is bonkers. This is not the way the world works.
I've heard people say, and report, Judge Boasberg requested information from DOJ, asked for information.
That's not how it works. Judges don't request. They don't ask. They order. Definitionally, if it comes out of a judge's mouth, that's an instruction, that's an order. That's not optional.
DOJ has treated it as optional all week. And Judge Boasberg is still sort of saying, I'll get to the bottom of this.
COLLINS: Well--
HONIG: But I don't know how.
COLLINS: Elie, can I also ask you?
HONIG: Yes.
COLLINS: Because the DOJ, today, Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, I believe, opened a criminal investigation into what they say are leaks.
Because The New York Times published a report saying that Intel officials had actually come to the assessment that Tren de Aragua was not directed by Venezuela's government, about committing crimes in the U.S. on its orders, essentially casting doubt on a lot of the legal basis behind what they've said of why they have to deport these people, who are alleged Venezuelan gang members.
HONIG: Yes, leaks of Intel and classified information can be criminal, and prior administrations, including the Obama administration, have been quite aggressive in cracking down on leaks.
But the reason that this one bothers them is because, in order for this law to work, they have to show not just that there was a gang, not just that there was an invasion, but that it came from a foreign government. And if the U.S. government's assessment is Tren de Aragua is not affiliated with the Venezuelan government, undercuts the whole basis for what they did.
KONVISER: And again, it's alleged. This is all alleged. Because the President decides someone is a gang member, is not grounds to deport them without all these factors that Elie's talking about.
COLLINS: But they have been making this argument, and I think that's the question, if people say, If they are, obviously that they do have the right to do this. But that's the question that the judge was saying, Let's figure out and make sure that what you're alleging here is backed up by evidence.
KONVISER: They have to answer the questions. And the government is, to a great extent, dragging their feet, and not answering the questions, because they don't have a whole lot of respect for a federal district court judge, or for the judiciary, my branch of government. And it's really, it's troubling. It should trouble every American.
COLLINS: Judge Konviser. Elie Honig. Great to have you both here tonight.
Up next. President Trump today says that Elon Musk was never going to be briefed on military plans for a potential war with China. The story that you heard here, last night. Musk was at the Pentagon today, there he is greeting the Defense Secretary. More with our top reporter, next.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: The man who often boasts about taking a chainsaw to the federal government, metaphorically, arrived at the Pentagon today, with Elon Musk visiting, as it is raising new questions about just how far his authority extends.
When he walked out after this meeting that you see here, it was about 80 minutes later, the part-time Special Government employee, who holds billions of dollars in defense contracts, was seen with the Secretary of Defense, smiling and laughing at times.
Musk then traveled, as we saw today, on the South Lawn, with the President, to New Jersey tonight.
Now, obviously he is at the White House a lot. But here's the reason these two instances are notable. They come after vehement denials from the White House following a report in The New York Times that dropped, last night, about plans to brief Elon Musk on top secret war plans for China.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: And the first thing I did is I called Susie, and I called Pete. I said, Is there any truth to that? And they said, It's ridiculous. I just wanted to make sure. I called up Chief of Staff, and I called up Pete, and I said, Is there any truth to that? Absolutely not. He's there for DOGE, not there for China.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, the President and the Secretary both rejected that idea that Musk was set for a briefing, on plans for a potential war with China, even as Trump pointed to Musk's many conflicts of interest.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I don't want to show that to anybody. But certainly, you wouldn't show it to a businessman.
Elon has businesses in China, and he would be susceptible, perhaps, to that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: So exactly what happened here behind-the-scenes? My source on this tonight is Eric Schmitt, who helped break the story for The New York Times.
And Eric, you're the lead reporter on this story. Can you just walk us through what has happened in the aftermath, since the story was published last night?
ERIC SCHMITT, SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, the most important thing that happened was something that didn't happen, Kaitlan. That was this classified briefing on the China war plan that Elon Musk was supposed to get at the Pentagon today.
When he arrived at 9 o'clock, he instead went straight up to the office, the third floor office, of Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, where, as you said, they had about 80-minute meeting, talking about a number of things.
We don't know a lot about what went on in that meeting. Admiral Chris Grady, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also attended parts of that meeting. Later, they talked a little bit about some of the DOGE efficiencies that have been carried out.
But really what was interesting came afterward, as you pointed out, at the White House, where President Trump, for the first time, really, seemed to put some boundaries on Elon Musk, and what he can and cannot do, at least when it comes into the national security realm.
[21:20:00]
As you pointed out, in your report, just now, how he basically said, Look, I don't want anybody, much less Elon Musk, who has businesses in China, getting some top secret briefing on how the United States military fight a war in China. So this is -- this was pretty interesting, as this thing developed today. COLLINS: Yes, that was also what stood out to me the most was not just denying the story, which obviously after it published, if they were worried it was going to cause backlash, could be scaled back.
But him coming out and saying, Not only is this not happening today, it's not ever going to happen, or, It's not going to happen because he's a businessman.
That quote there from the Oval, I want everyone else to be able to listen to that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I might add that I think Elon, if you -- if they ever wanted to do that, I think Elon wouldn't do it. I think he wouldn't do it. He wouldn't want to put himself in that position.
He's there for DOGE, not there for China. And if you ever mentioned China, I think he'd walk out of the room.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That's remarkable, given this is a president who says that he is self-policing conflicts of interest for Elon Musk, that he'll make sure he stays away from any potential ones, given what you heard from very well-sourced people last night.
SCHMITT: That's right. And what was also interesting, in all this, was clearly, the President was not aware that this briefing had been scheduled with Elon Musk.
And you could sense a little bit of anger in his voice, when he was talking about, when he called up the Chief of Staff, when he called up Secretary Hegseth, and said, Is this really happening?
Our sources say it was going to happen, if the President hadn't called, and essentially just voiced his displeasure about this. Despite the denials, our sources tell us, this was the plan to give Musk a briefing on China. It got turned off, because of this, and later was turned into more of the visit that Secretary Hegseth has said it was, you know -- said that actually happened later, when they talked more about the efficiencies.
And DOGE, of course, has had teams in the Pentagon. And just yesterday, the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, talked about some $500 million -- $580 million worth of contracts that have been canceled with the help of DOGE. So, Hegseth has been trying to work closely, with Elon Musk, in that regard.
COLLINS: Yes, and you were actually at the Pentagon today. You asked Secretary Hegseth what they talked about. What did he tell you?
SCHMITT: Well, he basically -- he basically told me -- he turned around and said, Why would I tell you that, in terms of the reporting of the meeting going on. So clearly, there's a little bit of a tension, I think, here between the White House, the Pentagon, and Elon Musk, over this whole episode, and they're trying to move on from it.
COLLINS: Eric Schmitt, thank you for joining us on that reporting last night and tonight again.
SCHMITT: Thank you.
COLLINS: Also here is President Trump's former National Security Adviser from his first term, Ambassador John Bolton.
And Ambassador, it's great to have you here.
You heard Eric's reporting there, along with the rest of The New York Times' team. If -- this meeting didn't happen. So, he's right. That's the most notable here, in terms of what they were expecting it was going to be. What would it mean if Elon Musk got access to sensitive U.S. war plans for China?
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, there's utterly no reason, whatever, for him to see anything having to do with any American war plans, in any connection with DOGE, whatsoever.
I thought what was significant, not only about what Trump said in the Oval, about Musk and China and the Pentagon briefing, but what he said about Marco Rubio, and the Venezuelan gang member deportations.
One of Trump's defining characteristics is he never makes a mistaken decision. When decisions go right? He not only made the decision. It was his idea. He pushed it through recalcitrant advisers, and the Deep State, and saw it through to success.
When a decision goes wrong? Somebody else did it. He didn't have anything to do with the Venezuelan gang members. That was Marco Rubio. He didn't have anything to do with this briefing at the Pentagon. That had to be somebody else.
I think that's a danger signal, both to Rubio and to Musk, that they're causing Trump trouble, and in Trump's cost-benefit world, he doesn't like that.
COLLINS: Yes, I'm so glad you brought that up, because I wanted to ask you what you thought of those comments from President Trump, tonight, on the -- who signed the statute invoking the Alien Enemies Act, this time around. And he said, I didn't sign it. Even though, obviously we can see in the National Register that it is his signature affixed to the -- to the bottom of it.
And then, when he was asked if they could deport people right now using it, does he believe they could? And he said, You'll have to ask Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, about that.
BOLTON: Yes, this is classic Trump, ducking.
And it's interesting that he pointed the finger at Rubio. He could have pointed it at Homeland Security, which is really carrying out the deportations. He could have pointed it at Justice, which is making these legal arguments. He could have pointed it at the Department of Defense, which whose airplanes are carrying the Venezuelans to El Salvador. Instead, he pointed to Rubio.
[21:25:00]
I think what Trump is doing here is self-defense against subordinates that he thinks have put him potentially in a difficult position. It goes directly to the issue for Musk, of how long he functions as a heat shield for Trump, and when that starts to turn into trouble for Trump directly. And I don't want to draw too many conclusions from one incident, but this was not good news for either Musk or Rubio, I think.
COLLINS: What did you -- yes, it was interesting how he was -- he was so clear that Elon Musk would not get access to this. He said he's a businessman and I don't even think he would feel comfortable with that, which I thought was notable.
But he was also very defensive of Elon Musk, and has been all week, and really ever since the Tesla stock was hurt, as we saw with people starting to protest against them. And then we saw the vandalism, and the violence that has happened against charging stations, Tesla showrooms. He has been incredibly defensive of Elon Musk, as he was in the Oval today.
Given he is not always like that with aides, I wondered, what you -- what stood out to you about that?
BOLTON: Well, I think he's defensive about Trump. His administration has made a lot of mistakes in connection with Musk.
Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce, was out telling people, the other day, Buy Tesla's. That's an ethics violation. You're not -- when you're a public official, you're not entitled to endorse commercial brands. That's a flat-out violation of ethics. Trump, as President, isn't bound by that, so he can bring the Teslas to the White House. But Lutnick's in jeopardy on that point.
And I think the film of Musk walking into and out of the Pentagon today is the stuff of bid protests by other Pentagon contractors, who are going to say, This guy has privileged access. Doesn't matter whether he sees China war plans or not. That affects bid decision- makings, all up and down the Pentagon bureaucracy. So, this is potentially causing a lot of confusion, a lot more litigation, a lot more waste, in a complicated Pentagon procurement process.
COLLINS: Yes, even just -- if it wasn't what the China war plans meeting, as they said, explicitly, it wasn't. Having an 80-minute meeting with the Defense Secretary today, with the video of them being escorted in, and escorted out, is quite notable.
And I just wonder what you made of that, given his extensive contracts that Elon Musk does have with the Department of Defense.
BOLTON: Yes, well, Musk was being greeted like a foreign head of state or a defense minister, when the Secretary of Defense comes down on the River Entrance there to greet them. There was a lot made of the fact that the meeting wasn't in The Tank, the Joint Chiefs secure conference room. It was made in the Secretary of Defense's office.
All I can say is, The Tank is a very secure place. But the Secretary of Defense's office is a secured classified information facility too, a SCIF, just like many office is. My old office was a SCIF. You have to have the ability to talk about classified information in those jobs. You can't run out of your office every two minutes.
So transferring the meeting up to Hegseth's own office didn't necessarily mean they didn't talk about sensitive information. They say, it wasn't China. OK, that's what they say.
COLLINS: Ambassador John Bolton, as always, great to have you. Thanks for joining us on a Friday night.
BOLTON: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next. We're going to get the latest on the ground after that huge fire knocked power out of London's main airport that led to global travel chaos. My next source will join on why this meltdown matters on this side of the pond.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, London's Heathrow Airport still not fully back up and running after a major fire at the airport's electrical plant. Some flights have started to come and go, as you can see here. But the airport, we're told, will not be operating at 100 percent, until tomorrow.
This impact, though, is being felt far outside of London. It is global, as more than 1,300 fight flights were affected with hundreds of thousands of travelers' plans now thrown into absolute chaos. All of it, a lesson on what can happen when critical infrastructure fails.
My source tonight led the TSA, under President Obama. John Pistole is here with me.
And John, it's great to have you. Because the question is, does it concern you when you -- when you see this, and how easily something like this can just disrupt major global travel?
JOHN PISTOLE, FORMER TSA ADMINISTRATOR: Well, you've hit it, the nail on the head, Kaitlan.
Because, as you mentioned, over 1,300 flights, nearly 300,000 passengers impacted one way or another. And just in terms of context, there's about 2,800, 2,900 flights every day, just in the U.S. that take off and land. So almost half that number, not quite, that are just at London, Heathrow, so a major, of course, international hub.
And the -- yes, a couple questions come to mind, such as, obviously, what was the root cause of this fire, this electrical substation, which supplied, apparently, most of the electricity to Heathrow? And then things such as, was it mechanical? Was it lack of maintenance? Was it just whatever it may have been?
[21:35:00]
But there's also some other things that the Metropolitan Police and, I'm sure, the British Security Service, MI5, and the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, are looking at with the police, and their international partners, Was there some intentionality? Was this caused by some bad actors, whether terrorists or somebody else?
And probably, most of your viewers know that something like this can be done through a cyberattack, if certain--
COLLINS: Yes.
PISTOLE: --intrusions are made, and how that could impact something that would result in a fire. So, yes, huge impact. And the concern then is, could this be replicated someplace else? And so, the question is, what are the backup systems? Was there a single point of failure that--
COLLINS: Yes.
PISTOLE: --allowed this to happen?
COLLINS: Well, that was my--
PISTOLE: So, yes, a number of questions.
COLLINS: That was my question when I saw this, this morning was, how did this happen? Was this foul play? Right now, they say there's no indication that there is foul play here.
And so, with Counter Terrorism police leading the investigation into this, but others obviously helping, as you noted there, how do you make sure that this is something where -- you know, how do you basically make sure it wasn't foul play, and that there isn't something more sinister happening here?
PISTOLE: Right. So obviously, you look for the evidence, the intelligence. Nobody's claimed responsibility that we're aware of, and that doesn't mean that that person or that group was responsible. But again, getting back to that root cause of what, how did it actually happen that led to these thousands of gallons of fuel to catch fire, that led to the -- to the shutdown.
So both the law enforcement and the security services are going through every step to look at what is -- what was -- what was that -- was there a single point of failure? And why did the redundancies didn't kick in?
The CEO of Heathrow interview, and, course, said, Well, yes, it -- there were systems that kicked in, but they weren't sufficient, because it's like a mid-sized city. COLLINS: Yes.
PISTOLE: So that's an issue, because you think it was a major global transportation hub, they would have a backup system that would power the entire airport.
COLLINS: Well, that raised my question. Atlanta is the world's busiest airport. It's here in the United States. What happens if something like what happened to Heathrow happens there?
PISTOLE: Right. Very -- good point. And it'd be a very similar situation, and I'd like to think, because I know Atlanta, the airport, better than Heathrow, but it's something that I don't think would happen here. But I'm sure, all airport executives, and obviously the TSA and FAA, here in the U.S., are looking at, what are those possibilities.
And if you think of an airplane with the two wings where you got safety and security, planes don't take off and land unless there's adequate safety and security. TSA, of course, handles the security, and FAA handles the safety aspects. Those are all things that are exercised and worked on here in the U.S., in a way that tries to anticipate something catastrophic like this happening.
Fortunately, nobody killed, no injuries that I'm aware of.
COLLINS: Yes.
PISTOLE: People evacuated. So, it's almost not a good thing. But it could have been much worse if it had caused incidents where planes were actually en route, and air traffic control was knocked out, and they were forced to modify their landings--
COLLINS: Yes.
PISTOLE: --or takeoffs, or whatever, so.
COLLINS: That's a great point.
PISTOLE: Could have been much worse.
COLLINS: Yes, that's such a good point about the landing, and we've seen, obviously, how critical that's been and scrutinized in recent days.
John Pistole, thank you.
We'll continue to follow this as we learn more about what happened here.
Also, here in the United States, angry voters have been descending on town halls, not just calling out lawmakers, on one side of the aisle, but both, as out of touch. Trump's Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, said this today, about what he would -- believes would happen, if Social Security did not send out a monthly check.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Here at THE SOURCE, we have been closely watching frustration boiling over at town halls, as constituents are filling these events, with their elected officials, demanding answers from lawmakers, in both parties, with many feeling like Washington is out of touch with their reality.
It's important context, when you listen to what's been happening across the country, these different moments in town halls. Where, some Democratic constituents have asked their Democratic lawmakers to do more, to stand up against the administration. And Republicans have demanded to know more about what's happening with DOGE, and its efforts inside the federal government to reduce federal spending. Some of them have been worried about how it will affect them personally and their benefits.
That brings us to what President Trump's Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, said about some people potentially missing a Social Security check.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOWARD LUTNICK, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: Let's say Social Security didn't send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law, who's 94, she wouldn't call and complain. She just wouldn't. She'd think something got messed up, and she'll get it next month.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
LUTNICK: A fraudster always makes the loudest noise, screaming, yelling and complaining.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, Secretary Lutnick, who is a successful billionaire, is making the argument that only someone who is committing fraud would complain about not getting their Social Security check for one month.
More than 73 million Americans get Social Security benefits, and many of them are retired workers who rely on those checks, each month, when their bills are due, to make ends meet. Very few have a billionaire for a son-in-law, potentially.
My political sources are here with me tonight.
[21:45:00]
And S.E. Cupp, I just wonder, the argument he was trying to make there is talking about -- I mean, they have talked -- when they talk about Social Security, they often talk about fraud and whatnot. But I wonder, how that sounds to voters, who might be worried about it touching Social Security, despite the vows not to touch it?
S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It sounds very out of touch. And this very weird mirror opposite thing has happened, where at least from where I sit, having covered the election the way I did.
Republicans had their listening ears on, during the campaign. They really listened to voters.
And I think Democrats not only didn't listen, they actively told voters, they were wrong.
Now that they got elected, they've turned their listening ears completely off, Republicans, and they have decided to crawl into this MAGA cave, this vacuum, where it's all about Elon, and MAGA, and Trump, and they're really actively not listening to voters.
Democrats, on the other hand, didn't listen during the campaign. It's like they're -- now, they're like, Let's check in with voters. It's like, What do they think? It's a little late.
But yes, I think this stuff sounds increasingly out of touch, for a party and an administration, that is supposed to be really going where the voters want.
COLLINS: Yes, and I think you can see this on display at rallies that Democrats are doing. Bernie Sanders and Co., we had him, the Senator, on the show, earlier this week. And then town halls where you see Democrats screaming at some of their more moderate lawmakers, or people that they feel are not fighting enough against this administration.
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR TO VP HARRIS, CO-HOST, "TRAILBLAZE" PODCAST: Absolutely.
What Democrats want, Democrats in the field, right? I've been in Michigan, helping somebody who is running for office. And what Democrats want is they want people who have courage, people who have confidence, people who are going to say what's on their minds and be very direct. They want to take on Donald Trump. But they also want people to have a vision for an alternative reality, right?
So what's happening, right now, is Democrats are just playing defense, and there's not the kind of offense that I think people want to hear about, What would the world look like if the Democrats were in charge -- in charge. Nobody really knows.
Let's talk about Howard Lutnick, for a second. He's never really been in touch. I mean, I was just looking at something from October 27th, that rally at Madison Square Garden that got overshadowed by the Puerto Rico comment about the garbage? He said in that rally, he wanted to go back when America was great in 1900, a 125 years ago, before the income tax, when we had so much money that all the biggest businessmen in the country had to get together to figure out how to spend it, right?
You know what happened right after that? We got an income tax. In 1909, the Conservatives put on the ballot, income tax amendment. 16th Amendment passed in 1913. It's because there was so much money sloshing around at the top of the pyramid that Americans wanted to make sure everybody was participating and taking care of the country.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, I guess the question is, what does it say to voters about the consistency of the message on Social Security. Because President Trump will say, We're not going to touch it. And then, you'll also hear people say we're not going to touch it, except for the fraud aspect of it, and what's happening there.
CUPP: Yes.
COLLINS: But we're also seeing -- you know, we were talking to Martin O'Malley, the former Social Security Administrator, the other night, about the real concerns that voters have, in terms of being able to go to an office, and verify their benefits if they can't do so online.
CUPP: Yes, I think, listen, for the very online MAGA, hypocrisy does not matter. It does not bother them at all.
But I think for voters, especially for voters, who gave Donald Trump, or Republicans, maybe their first vote, or an Independent who said, you know, I'm really disappointed in Democrats, I'm going to try this out? This is not what they were expecting.
And they were promised transparency. They were promised, We're going to work for you, we're going to -- we're going to lower the cost of your goods. We're going to do all these things on day one? They're doing everything, but that. They're doing all the other stuff, again, in this very, like, online MAGA cave.
And so, the doublespeak is really bothering people, because these are things they can feel and see. This is not culture war stuff that might not matter depending on where you live. This is stuff that they can see in their bank account, in their checking account.
SIMMONS: Kaitlan--
COLLINS: Well, and that's why it was a big driver in the election.
But I want to ask you, because--
SIMMONS: Yes.
COLLINS: --I have been fascinated by Senator Bernie Sanders. It's this anti-oligarchy tour. But watching the response that he's getting and the people that are showing up.
Obviously, Bernie Sanders has always been able to pull a crowd. But he's been out on the road with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And I want you to listen to part of what she had to say to voters today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): I don't want us to live like this anymore, Greeley.
(CHEERING) (APPLAUSE)
OCASIO-CORTEZ: We deserve better than this.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
OCASIO-CORTEZ: And this isn't just about Republicans. We need a Democratic Party that fights harder for us too.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Bernie Sanders had a -- he's an Independent, but caucuses with the Democrats. He had a scathing message about Democrats, the other night.
SIMMONS: Yes, Democrats want Democrats who are fighting, and who are standing up for the values that they think really tie everybody together.
COLLINS: Why haven't Democrats been able to coalesce around a message? I mean, Trump won the election in November. He's been in office now for two months.
[21:50:00]
SIMMONS: Well, we're Democrats, and so we're going to go back and forth. There's a lot of that that happens.
Listen, I think there're going to be primaries, and we're going to see people who are going to lose their job. It's going to be a little bit of a messy process, but Democrats will get there.
I would argue that the thing that got Democrats in trouble with Joe Biden was the 2022 election. Democrats did better in the 2022 election, than they probably should have, and that gave a false sense of confidence, going into 2024.
COLLINS: Yes.
SIMMONS: Let me tell you what Democrats don't have right now. A false sense of confidence.
COLLINS: Yes. I think there's--
CUPP: Yes.
COLLINS: There's no sense of confidence there.
Jamal Simmons. S.E. Cupp. Great to have you both. Thank you so much. Still ahead, eat now, pay later. Maybe it's a sign of the times. DoorDash is going to be letting their customers take out loans for their food delivery. Harry Enten will break it down for us, what could this could mean, next.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: This week's new episode of "UNITED STATES OF SCANDAL WITH JAKE TAPPER" follows Justice Clarence Thomas, his nomination to the Supreme Court, as it held the nation's attention, when one of his former employees, Anita Hill, accused him of sexual harassment, leading to what became unprecedented congressional hearings.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANITA HILL, AMERICAN LAWYER AND EDUCATOR: It seems to me that the behavior has to be evaluated, on its own, with regard to the fitness of this individual to act as an associate justice.
LEAH WRIGHT RIGUEUR, AUTHOR: She's not just calling out Clarence Thomas. She is calling out an entire cottage industry of sexual harassment, of good old boys. It is telling of the reaction of the senators to her testimony.
ARLEN SPECTER, LAWYER AND FORMER UNITED STATES SENATOR: So you are not now drawing a conclusion that Judge Thomas sexually harassed you?
HILL: Yes, I am drawing that conclusion. That is my--
SPECTER: Well, then I don't understand.
HILL: Pardon me?
SPECTER: Then I don't understand.
HILL: Well, let me try to explain again.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Tune into this episode of "United States of Scandal with Jake Tapper," Sunday night, 09:00 p.m., our favorite hour, right here on CNN.
Also tonight, we're following this story, as Buy Now Pay Later plans are popular for all kinds of purchases these days, furniture, electronics, clothes. Soon, Americans will be able to eat now and pay later.
That's because the food delivery app, known as DoorDash, is partnering with the financial company, Klarna, to allow users to pay for their meals, in four interest-free payments, or to defer payment until a later date.
My source on this tonight is a veteran food delivery orderer. CNN Senior Data Reporter, Harry Enten.
I also order a ton of DoorDash.
But we've seen these use -- the use of these services before. I don't know, I'm kind of wondering, what is driving the food? Is this a sign of the time? What is this?
HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: I think it's a sign of the time. I think it's the sign of the fact that Americans are in a lot of debt, right? What are we talking about per household? We're talking north of $100,000 per household. Now, of course, that includes stuff like mortgages, but it also includes stuff like credit card debt as well. And so, I--
COLLINS: The average household has a $105,000 in debt?
ENTEN: $105,000. Yes. That is a real number. I was shocked by it, but that is the actual number.
We are recording record debts in this country. The amount of debt, it is bearing down on each particular household. And there are ton of households, at this point, they're living paycheck to paycheck. We're talking about around 30 percent of households in this country that are living paycheck to paycheck. So I just feel like this is a sign of the times. This is just the latest development, in what we're seeing.
COLLINS: Do people feel -- I mean, the immediate assumption is, this is risky, right?
ENTEN: Yes, it's -- I mean, it's absolutely risky. I mean, there's no doubt that it's risky.
And the fact is, there are more people, who are essentially using this Buy Now Pay Later that's going on at this particular point. What are we talking about here? We're talking about north of 20 percent of the country, at this point, that are using Buy Now Pay Later.
And we know that that is -- the core of that is amongst those who are under the age of 25. What are we talking about? We're talking about more than a third of those, under the age of 25, adults under the age of 25, who are using this Buy Now Pay Later.
So again, I just think that this is just part of a development, in which Americans dig themselves into more debt, and Americans are essentially wanting to get something now, which, truthfully, they should wait in the future to actually buy.
COLLINS: Yes, well, and obviously, with food delivery services, I mean, there is an surcharge increase because you're ordering at delivery, it's the delivery fee, it's the processing fee.
But on this, how many people are we talking about that are on DoorDash? I'm on it. I live in the city, obviously. So, it's pretty available here. But what about in other places? How many people in the United States are on that? ENTEN: I think this is one of the biggest numbers that we're generally seeing, right now, which is that the growth of DoorDash. You go back five years ago, what were we talking about? We're talking about like, 10 million people on DoorDash. You look at it now, what are we talking about? North to 40 million people on DoorDash.
COLLINS: Wow.
ENTEN: And more than that, when you look at DoorDash, you recognize that -- you go back five years ago. I think all of us, if we were using these delivery services, we were using something like Grubhub, right? Grubhub has gone down. DoorDash has gone up. Uber Eats is kind of in the middle.
And there are some of us, some folks in this country, who are doing it because they work late. There are some of us, who are doing it, because maybe they just don't want to cook. But the bottom line is, people are using these services. Perhaps some people who perhaps are better off, maybe, not doing it. Because otherwise, they wouldn't have to say--
COLLINS: Yes.
ENTEN: --buy now pay later.
COLLINS: Yes, what if you work late, and also you don't cook?
ENTEN: Then you are--
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: Like there's two people at this table, who--
(CROSSTALK)
ENTEN: I think there are -- I think there are two very good-looking people at this table who follow that. But I would just say--
COLLINS: That's quite a pitch.
ENTEN: I'd say--
COLLINS: Can't cook, and we're always working.
ENTEN: Fantastic. But the Dallas barbecue I had last night was quite good, those sticky wings were nice.
COLLINS: That you ordered delivery?
ENTEN: Absolutely. While watching Match Madness. They were fantastic.
COLLINS: I'm trying to think what was the last thing I ordered delivery. I think, like, a salad, probably--
ENTEN: Oh, get the hell out of here.
COLLINS: I know. I'll improve.
ENTEN: Oh.
COLLINS: Harry Enten, as always, thank you.
ENTEN: Thank you.
COLLINS: Thank you for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
