Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump, Vance Claim Taking Over Greenland Ensures U.S. Security; Vance: Trump And I "Standing Behind" National Security Team; Wisconsin A.G. Sues Over Musk's Million-Dollar Giveaways. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 28, 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)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's actually more dangerous to stop using if you're already pregnant.
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Do people need to be using methadone for life?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I'll put one in each cheek, OK.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have accepted that whatever I have to do to be sober, I'm going to do it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: It's a very strong documentary. "Fentanyl in America: A Way Out" on "The Whole Story" this Sunday at 08:00 p.m., here on CNN. I hope you catch it.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. Have a great weekend. I'll see you, Monday.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
An icy reception for Vice President Vance, as his boss is dead set on getting Greenland, no matter what stands in his way. How far President Trump says tonight he's willing to go.
Plus, the President's revenge tour leaves some of the nation's top law firms with the choice of giving in to his demands, or fighting back and risking a blow to their bottom line. A judge has just weighed in tonight.
And Elon Musk is again promising million-dollar checks to swing state voters. But his new fight, to put his money where his mouth is, could end up in court quite soon.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE. At the White House, on this Friday night, the Trump administration is planning a takeover. And from my reporting, I can tell you, this isn't some ploy or a negotiating tactic.
Even behind-the-scenes, President Trump is completely serious about the United States getting Greenland. It's far from being just bluster. And that's why you saw his second-in-command spending the day, freezing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JD VANCE (R), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: It's cold as shit here. Nobody told me.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now the White House was bracing for a frigid reception, but you can see the Vice President there also got a literal one. Vice President Vance found himself 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle, or is a balmy minus three degrees outside, at a U.S. military base, a space base, on the northwest coast of Greenland, in the Kingdom of Denmark.
Vice President Vance wasted little time in laying out the case for why he believes Greenlanders would be better off with America than sticking with the Danes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: We can't just ignore the President's desires.
When the President says we've got to have Greenland, he's saying, This island is not safe. A lot of people are interested in it. A lot of people are making a play. We know that America cares about the security of this island for the people, for the sake of the people of Greenland, but also for the sake of the national security interests of the United States of America.
Our message to Denmark is very simple. You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, the VP's pitch was that Denmark really hasn't done right by them, but that America would. And if that message from him wasn't clear enough, today, the President put out this video, directed at Greenlanders.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: While Germany controlled Europe, the Nazis set their sights on the Arctic. Greenland became an unwitting combatant, and the United States stepped in, not to conquer but to protect. Today, Greenland faces new threats from Russian aggression and Chinese expansion. Now is the time to stand together again, for peace, for security, for the future. America stands with Greenland.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now that message is not exactly subtle, reminding them of the United States helping stave off the Nazis, and also warning about a future that is potentially rife with Russian aggression.
It was notable from the President, and also notable where you saw the Vice President make his pitch today. He was in a military base flanked by U.S. forces. That's because the visit was originally supposed to be a cultural tour by the second lady, triggered such a storm in Greenland that it turned into the Vances, instead, going together, but only back to the -- to the base and then back here, as you can see, climbing the stairs of Air Force Two, eventually taking them home to Washington.
The Vice President's total time on the ground in Greenland was four hours and 17 minutes.
My sources tonight are:
Donie O'Sullivan, CNN Senior Correspondent, who recently went to Greenland to speak with locals about how they feel about all of this.
And Harry Enten is CNN's Chief Data Analyst.
And David Sanger is also here. He is a White House and National Security Correspondent for The New York Times.
And Donie, with this trip, the Vice President is now the first sitting Vice President to go to Greenland, which kind of shows that this isn't something that we've seen other administrations focus on, or prioritize. He obviously didn't speak to people on the ground there, because he was only on this base, surrounded by walls, no protests inside, obviously.
DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Yes.
COLLINS: You were on the ground. Just tell me, what's the difference? What are people on the ground there view -- how are they viewing this?
O'SULLIVAN: Yes. I mean, to your point, yes, he was 700 miles north of the Arctic Circle, I think about a 1,000 miles north of the capital city of Nuuk. There were no Greenlandic people around him on this base, right? Because the concern, of course, was that if he went somewhere publicly, there would be protests.
[21:05:00]
And from the folks that we spoke to, while we were there. I mean Denmark, as you mentioned in your open, is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and -- sorry, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. And people there want independence. The concept of independence is very, very popular.
And they also believe that, if they do go independent of Denmark, that they will need some form of strategic military, and also economic relationship with a big country, whether it's the U.S., whether it's Canada, or whether it's the European Union.
But nobody I spoke to there actually wants the U.S. to become or wants Greenland to become the 51st state of United States, even the people who are big Trump fans there.
COLLINS: What do the numbers show us? I mean, that's what he's hearing on the ground. What do you see from this, in terms of how popular this is, whether it's there? Or how do people in the United States view this?
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yes. So we can take it here first. And let me tell you, it's not a popular idea here.
We're talking the vast majority of Americans, 70 percent of Americans, No, no, no, they don't want to join Greenland. Look at this. Just 26 percent say yes. I think that's the same percentage of Red Sox fans in New York City, for goodness sake. Even among Republicans, it's basically a 50/50 split, Kaitlan.
But of course, the big question is, how do they feel about it in Greenland? Well, if you thought that 26 percent was low, when it came to the yes category, check out how Greenlanders feel. You know what percentage say that they want to join the United States of America? 6 percent. 6 percent. 85 percent say no. 6 percent is lower than the percentage of Americans who believe we faked the moon landing. This is unpopular all over the place.
COLLINS: Wait. Say that number again.
ENTEN: 6 percent. That's the percentage of Greenlanders who do not want -- who do want to join the United States. That is lower than the percentage of Americans who believe that we faked the moon landing.
COLLINS: OK, that's a pretty good comparison.
ENTEN: There you go.
COLLINS: OK. So that's what the numbers show. That's what you're hearing on the ground.
David Sanger, when I -- we talk about things that Trump wants to do, some people may see this and say, That's not serious. That's not real.
I mean. But when you look at what he's done, and talked about Greenland, Canada becoming the 51st state, Panama Canal, Gaza turning into the Riviera of the Middle East, as he's called it. This one, he is the most serious about, when you talk to his team and to his top aides. He's not wrong, when he says that there could be strategic advantages for the United States in this.
What have you heard from people about the likelihood of the seriousness of this?
DAVID SANGER, WHITE HOUSE & NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, Kaitlan, he is serious. And as you point out, he's not wrong. Of the ones that you just mentioned, of Greenland, and Panama Canal, and Canada, and Gaza, this is the one where you've got the largest strategic imperative to actually make it happen. And he's not the first one to try to do it.
You may remember that Seward, who was president -- was Secretary of State under President Lincoln, and President Johnson tried this in 1868. Didn't work, but he tried it. And Truman tried it after World War II, because he knew we were headed into the Cold War, and he was worried about Soviet submarines and so forth.
Now there is a contest for the Arctic that involves the Chinese, the Russians, the United States. And the President is right that there's a strategic imperative. But that doesn't mean that he needs to own it.
We already have an air base. It's the one you just saw JD Vance, and his National Security Advisor, and his Energy Secretary, and his wife, Usha, all land at today. There were other American bases in Greenland. And those were closed by the U.S. You could imagine, they could be reopened.
So, it's not clear why it is that the President feels that it needs to be part of the United States in order to be part of the Alliance network. And by the way, Denmark's a NATO country.
COLLINS: Yes, small, by the way, there, that was not forgotten, as Vance was criticizing Denmark today, and obviously talking about that.
And Donie, when you look at this, and what David mentions there, in terms of just the acquisition aspect of this, what that would look like. We saw from your trip to Greenland, it's obviously beautiful. It's three times the size of Texas, only about 56 miles of paved roads.
I've spoken to officials about this, who, you know, European officials are very nervous about this, watching it very closely, who say they don't fully know what the administration would get out of it, should Trump succeed here.
O'SULLIVAN: Well, look, I mean, I think that video that you showed, that Trump posted on his social media tonight, is that there is this history there, and that's what they are trying to do, is tug on these heartstrings to say, Look, when the Nazis took over Denmark, the U.S. stepped in to help you guys.
[21:10:00]
But this sort of carrot-stick approach where, at one point, they're trying to harken on these memories and the actual existing relationship, but on the other, you have Trump basically saying, Well, we're going to get it one way or the other? That certainly is not something that is going down well with Greenlandic people.
COLLINS: I want to talk to someone who may be able to speak well to this as well, as Qupanuk Olsen is here. She is a new member of Greenland's parliament, the well-known -- who is also well-known, in the country, as Greenland's biggest influencer. So, it's great to have you here tonight.
I just wonder what your perspective on all of this is, when we're hearing that message from the Vice President today, about the United States needing to take over Greenland because of security threats. And, I mean, how do people in Greenland feel?
QUPANUK OLSEN, GREENLANDIC PARLIAMENT, CONTENT CREATOR & OWNER OF "Q'S GREENLAND": We're just very relieved that he only went to the space base in Pituffik. We are very glad that he leveled down his activities by not going to Nuuk and Sisimiut, because that would have interrupted the local dogsled race a lot. So, I'm grateful that he's only in the American space base today.
COLLINS: What did you hear in that message, though? Because I do think that's what you're -- he only went to the space base -- you were going to see the second lady go to the very popular dog race, tomorrow. Obviously, that's not happening now.
But in that message, I mean, this wasn't just -- they were only in the ground for a matter of hours. But he had a message saying, This is why we think it's better. Almost while he was there, Trump was saying that he'll go as far as he needs to, to get Greenland.
OLSEN: Yes, I kind of get the idea that they need their own military to be present in the waters, near Greenland, and on land as well, because Denmark is not doing its job to protect the territory sufficient. So, I kind of get that. But he also -- yes, and I kind of also agreed on the part where he said that Denmark hasn't done its job well, so.
But I do not wish to become a state under the United States. And it's like, we cannot be fooled or cheated on by saying that U.S. would be a better colonizer. So yes, in my opinion, I'm just listening to another colonizer talking.
COLLINS: What would you like to see happen?
OLSEN: I would like to see or hear them ask gently, what -- How can we collaborate? What do you need? Or, We want this, do you agree on that? And it's like, instead of forcing themselves into our country, they should, like, politely ask.
And the thing -- the whole entire way of doing it should be on our behalf, not on their behalf, or not Denmark's behalf. So, it should be based on what -- on our needs, the way, yes, we are being, yes, the whole thing.
COLLINS: And Harry, when you look at the numbers here in terms of what this looks like and where this could go. There's also a question of how exactly this would happen.
ENTEN: I don't understand this.
COLLINS: Not a small question.
ENTEN: This is not a small question. But like, this feels like some idea that Donald Trump got from looking at history.
David was mentioning Seward, back in the 1860s. Harry S. Truman in the 1940s. Even then, it was not that popular of an idea in the United States. It was this idea that we could buy it for a billion dollars. And then you still saw the noes outnumber the yeses.
But we're still at like this -- you know, this is something that Donald Trump almost consistently does, right? He draws up some idea in his mind. Then he says, We're going to go do it. But then the question is, how the heck are we going to do it?
And I haven't heard something of any degree, of any sort of plan, especially given the case, as we were just hearing from the Member of Parliament, that Greenlanders don't want this. Nobody wants this. So, how is Donald Trump going to make it happen? I have no freaking idea.
O'SULLIVAN: And--
COLLINS: Well, I will say -- go ahead, Donie.
O'SULLIVAN: Just to Qupanuk's point there as well that like, look, Danish control of Greenland is not popular.
And Americans who are -- Americans who are in favor, and who know about the situation in the Arctic, make a pretty good argument to say, Well, the U.S. is in all practical steps, already protecting Greenland. That the Danish military, Danish Navy, is not big enough. That the U.S. has a presence there, that the U.S. is already patrolling those waters.
And so like, all like there -- as to Qupanuk's point, there is already this strategic relationship there. There is a potential, I think, for a relationship. But this approach, this sort of hard-handed approach--
ENTEN: Yes.
O'SULLIVAN: --isn't going down too well.
COLLINS: And that was the point Ambassador John Bolton made, who was Trump's first National Security or -- National Security Advisor in his first term, was saying he doesn't actually think this is a dumb idea. He thinks it's the way Trump is talking about it, he thinks, is not the way to go about it.
There are teams meeting behind-the-scenes on this at the White House. They have people assigned to this.
[21:15:00]
And David Sanger, while, I have you. We're also hearing from President Putin today, who made some notable comments about just this idea and this prospect overall. And he was referencing American history and Andrew Johnson's purchase of Alaska in 1867.
This is what the Russian president said. Oh, and he said -- I thought it was a sound bite. This is the quote, and I'll read it to you. He said, The United States has serious plans regarding Greenland. These plans have long historical roots... It is a profound mistake to treat it as some preposterous talk by the new U.S. administration.
What do you make of that, David?
SANGER: Well, just because Vladimir Putin is saying it does not mean, in this particular case, he's wrong, right? I mean, the U.S. did make a serious effort. I don't think we've talked about Seward this much in modern times, and in some period of time.
COLLINS: Certainly not on cable TV.
SANGER: Certainly not. This is certainly -- this is Seward's -- Seward's 15 seconds going on here.
And obviously, the Russians are concerned about it, because this has been pretty much a free territory for them.
But the reason everybody is racing for this Arctic operation here is because global warming has basically broken up the ice enough and thinned it out enough, that suddenly you've got these polar routes that have opened, both for commercial purposes and military purposes. And it can be used by the Chinese to expand their nuclear reach. It can be used for the Russians. It can be used by everybody, for commerce, depending on how this sort of sorts out. So that's what this is all about. It's also about the resources on Greenland.
It's interesting that Putin's worried about it.
But you've got it exactly right. It's the approach that the President has taken.
If you listen to Vance today, he was saying, This choice is up to Greenlanders. You're going to have to choose between associating with Denmark or with us.
And at the same time, the President comes out and says, No, it's got to be us. It's got to happen in some way or another.
COLLINS: Yes, quite remarkable.
David Sanger. Qupanuk Olsen. Donie. Harry. As always, thank you all for being here.
Up next. How much does it cost for a major law firm to avoid an executive order? We have one that just announced that price tag today, as Trump is going after those who were connected to people who worked on the investigations into him.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump is claiming another victory in his mission to go after the major law firms that are connected to investigating him. The prize to avoid an executive order targeting a firm now seems to be about $100 million.
This was the President today, announcing what he likened to a settlement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We appreciate Skadden's coming to the table. As you know, other law firms have likewise settled the case. And it's a shame what's -- you know, what's gone on is a shame. But we very much appreciate their coming to the table.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Not everyone is coming to the table. Other law firms are choosing to fight this in court.
And late tonight, two federal judges have taken steps to block the orders, targeting other law firms.
My legal sources tonight are:
Former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig.
And retired New York State Supreme Court Justice, Jill Konviser.
And it's great to have you both here.
Elie, the President used the word, Settlement. Is that the word that you would use here?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY: No, I'd use the word, Shakedown. I mean, it reminds me of when I used to try extortion cases, right?
So let's be clear about where the fault lies. The primary fault is with Donald Trump. I mean, this whole effort is an outrage against the legal profession, against many different provisions of the Constitution.
I read the proclamations the President's been issuing when he names each of these law firms. It's like, Orwell. It's like disfavored activities. It's almost like subversive elements. It's this vague condemnation of law firms. And what's their sin? They hire people or represent people who he does not like.
Now, I do want to reserve--
COLLINS: Not just doesn't like.
HONIG: Well--
COLLINS: It's people who worked on investigations into him or--
HONIG: Exactly. It's payback.
COLLINS: --were connected to them.
HONIG: It's people from Mueller's team. It's people who represented Hillary Clinton, that kind of thing.
JILL KONVISER, RETIRED NY STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: It is his perceived enemies, and he is going after the firms--
HONIG: Exactly.
KONVISER: --who represent his perceived enemies. And you cannot think of a less American thing.
And to use the word, Settlement, is laughable. They had a gun to their heads, and that's why they were at the table, and for no other reason.
COLLINS: But are you surprised to see them so -- I mean, these are huge firms, huge firms. And no one is shedding a tear for these firms, I don't think. But they are -- with all the last pro bono number that was announced, it was $40 million. Today it's now at $100 million. And there are other firms that are watching this, and wondering what it's going to do to them.
KONVISER: Right. I mean, a $100 million to us is an unbelievably big figure, and it is. But Big Law is called Big Law for a reason. I think Skadden cleared something like over $3.3 billion last year. This is the price of doing business. If they -- you know, this is a business decision. People talk about law, and maybe people go into law for altruistic reasons. Some don't.
And although running a business is not exactly something negative, but they need to preserve themselves. They need to preserve their flank. They need to make sure the lawyers work for them, have jobs, and they have a client base that they want to keep. If they want to be a going concern, they're like, This is the cost of doing business. We're going to do it.
I think you're right. No one is going to shed a tear for these big firms. But, at the end of the day, I think you're right--
HONIG: Yes.
KONVISER: --this is extortion.
[21:25:00]
HONIG: I'm going to save a little condemnation for the two firms who have buckled. Because there's two paths here, right? A lot of these firms, that we just had the update, are fighting this in court.
And by the way, I'm going to make a prediction. Donald Trump's going to lose every one of these fights in the courts because--
KONVISER: In the district court.
HONIG: District courts, right. Because judges, anyone who's part of the legal profession, understands how dangerous this is.
And here's the problem with these firms paying $40 million or a $100 million. They're not paying. What they're saying is, We will dedicate this much, lot of pro bono hours, which is free legal services. OK, sounds good, right? Everyone loves pro bono. It's for a good cause. The problem is, they've said, That is approved or furthers the administration's interest.
So, real quick. I was at Covington & Burling, one of the firms that's been targeted. When I was there, I spent hundreds of hours on two types of pro bono cases. One was a death penalty defense case. One we represented Black Farmers, who've been discriminated against, in agricultural lending in the South. Both of those would have been squashed. The administration would not have allowed any of these. So, these firms are inviting the government into their own decision- making.
COLLINS: And so what is that -- I mean, for those who aren't -- those are -- we've seen the ones who aren't fighting it, that are writing -- making these deals, some of them are going and meeting with Trump.
For the others who are fighting it in court, that update we got tonight, I thought it was interesting what the judge was saying. He's only freezing parts of it, so we'll see what happens here.
And obviously, you pointed out district court. They could -- they're going to try to appeal this and try to fight it, likely.
KONVISER: Yes.
COLLINS: But on the one -- the executive order targeting the law firm Jenner & Block, which is one of the ones linked to the Mueller investigation, the ruling -- and the judge said tonight, he said that it was disturbing and troubling, what the executive order was doing, criticizing that pro bono work, and saying, it's something for unpopular clients, or clients who can't afford law firms that are this prestigious.
KONVISER: That's what pro bono means. It is to provide legal services to those who can't get the benefit of big firm law because they can't afford it. So, as a matter of policy, states and the federal government have decided law firms should be doing a certain amount of pro bono work. I mean, that's reasonable.
But here, we're looking at pro bono work that's going to assist the administration. That's sort of giving something -- giving something to someone who already has it. It's not -- the money isn't going to the right place. It's not going to true pro bono work. And that should be troubling.
But it's also a very, very strong chilling effect on these law firms, and which clients they take, and which clients they're afraid to represent fully. And it is striking at the heart of the rule of law that we've talked about, at this table, many times before, and it's deeply troubling.
HONIG: By the way, Bush-appointed judge just made that ruling striking -- or putting on pause some of this.
I actually don't think the Supreme Court's going to support Trump on this either. I think--
COLLINS: Really?
HONIG: Yes. I think the Supreme Court may well side with him on some of the other cases, the executive powers cases, the immigration powers cases. I think these justices, look, they were all lawyers once. A lot of them came from this Big Law world. I think they will recognize clearly what a threat this is.
COLLINS: But even if the Supreme Court doesn't side with Trump on this, if it gets up there, and this is what we're seeing play out, hasn't the message already been sent? Isn't the work already done, by sending these executive orders? Because Trump did the first one. We thought -- I think Covington & Burling was the first one.
HONIG: Yes.
COLLINS: And then we've seen the cascade of others come in its footsteps.
KONVISER: I think you really are asking the right question. And the reason why I say that is because, even if the Supreme Court doesn't come out, on the side of Trump, you've got people working for Trump who are, you know, some are hard-working government employees, and some are just sycophants.
And if they say, Oh, that's the firm that we know our boss didn't like? Well, you know what? We're not going to give you access. And your client, who's looking to get that government contract, or to work on a patent, or to get something approved by the FDA? Well, you know what? We're going to slow roll you.
And that is a real concern, and it's something that I think we should continue talking about, and call it out for what it is, which is a chilling effect on the right of litigants, who have a right to pick which firm they want, and a right to be zealously represented.
When we talk about our branch of government and lawyers, that's what we do, and that's what we should do, and we shouldn't have the Executive stepping on our necks.
COLLINS: Yes, I think Trump recognizes that. I think he recognizes he's not going to have any resistance, meaningfully, from Congress, from his own DOJ. It's going to come from courts and lawyers.
And you know that Shakespeare quote, right? First, kill all the lawyers. That's not because we, lawyers, are annoying, which maybe we can be. But that's because, what -- if you look at the play--
KONVISER: Speak for yourself, Elie. HONIG: I'm not a Shakespeare scholar, but I did look at this today. If you look at the play with the character, who's saying--
COLLINS: So, you brought the CliffsNotes?
HONIG: I do, yes. CliffsNotes is like my age. Now it's called SparkNotes, apparently. Not putting plugs in.
But what the character is saying is, if you want to subvert the law, if you want to take over as an autocrat, get the lawyers out of the way.
And you're right. Lawyers are freaked out by this, across the spectrum, big firms, small firms, because of the message that it's sending, unmistakably.
COLLINS: Unless you're a lawyer who worked for Trump, and now you're in pretty high demand in this moment.
HONIG: For sure.
COLLINS: Elie Honig. Judge Konviser. Great to have you both here.
[21:30:00]
Up next. Vice President Vance, while he was in Greenland, giving those first public remarks today, we also heard from him on the Signal scandal. As Republicans, back here in the United States, are facing real heat from their constituents.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will you demand the immediate resignation of Pete Hegseth?
(CHEERING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:35:00]
COLLINS: The fallout from the leak of a group chat, where President Trump's top national security aides planned strikes in Yemen, while not realizing a reporter was on the line, is beyond -- spreading beyond Washington tonight, all the way to Indiana, actually.
There was a standing ovation at Republican congresswoman Victoria Spartz's raucous town hall in Westfield, when she was asked if she'll demand resignations over the matter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will you demand the immediate resignation of Pete Hegseth? (CHEERING)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will you demand the immediate resignation of Pete Hegseth, Michael Waltz, and the rest of the group chat?
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
REP. VICTORIA SPARTZ (R-IN): So let me just address, no I will not demand their resignations.
(BOOING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My White House insiders tonight are:
Meridith McGraw with The Wall Street Journal.
Axios' Marc Caputo.
And The Washington Post's Isaac Arnsdorf.
And Isaac, some people in the White House have said, It's time to move on from this story. Even Republicans, on Capitol Hill, they've kind of framed this, Inside the Beltway story.
But I wonder what this moment, from Congresswoman Spartz's town hall tells you about whether or not this is a story and a scandal that's breaking through to people.
ISAAC ARNSDORF, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: I mean, this is just happening tonight. I'd like to see some more reporting about the people in the room, with some of these town halls previously, they've been organized. And nothing -- nothing wrong with being organized and mobilized.
But the question on the political impact of this is, Are these Democrats showing up to a Republican town hall? Or are they swing voters who voted for Trump and have second -- are second-guessing it, have regrets, are mad about it? Or, maybe even more impactful, are these new people who didn't vote, and are being brought into the political process, based on what they're seeing?
COLLINS: Yes. Meridith, we heard from Jeffrey Goldberg, who is the reporter, The Atlantic's Editor-in-Chief, who was added inadvertently to this group chat, and reported this story out this week. He said this tonight about how he believes he ended up in the National Security Advisor Mike Waltz's phone.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFFREY GOLDBERG, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE ATLANTIC: I just want to note for the record that I did not suck my phone number into his phone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, he is -- obviously, you could hear the laughter in the background there.
He was saying that in reference to something we heard from the National Security Advisor, earlier this week, when he kind of went from saying they were trying to figure out how the number was sucked into his contact list, but also saying he takes full responsibility.
But I think what's important here is, that is a question the President himself has been asking behind-the-scenes.
MERIDITH MCGRAW, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, AUTHOR, "TRUMP IN EXILE": Yes, President Trump has been asking this.
And we know that there has been increased skepticism of National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, in the aftermath of all of this. President Trump was irritated with him, all week.
And I think that spilled into Trump pulling the nomination of this U.N. ambassador -- or who was going to be as U.N. ambassador, Elise Stefanik, because of just the tight margins in the House, but also the really tight race that they're now seeing in Mike Waltz's old district. And there was some (inaudible) about that, and within the White House, from President Trump, about some of those tight margins.
But, I think they're trying to get to the bottom of how Goldberg's number may have gotten in there. But for people who use Signal, all the time, it syncs up with your contact list. And so, while there might be some finger-pointing and conspiracy theories that are being drummed up about it, there was probably a less nefarious reason for why his number was somehow there.
COLLINS: Yes, he was a member of Congress, obviously, before this.
And Marc, we heard from the Vice President today, on what Meridith was referencing there. This question of, how long is Mike Waltz going to stay in this job? Is his -- is his job secure, or is he kind of teetering on the brink?
And on this premise of whether or not anyone will be fired, this is what the Vice President said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: We all accept that a journalist should not have been invited into the chat. And members of the administration, including my dear friend, Mike, have taken responsibility for it.
The same American media that covered for the Biden administration after the untimely death and the unnecessary death of 13 brave Americans is really, really interested in forcing the President of the United States to fire someone because of a Signal chat, because of a Signal chat.
And if you think you're going to force the President of the United States to fire anybody, you've got another thing coming. President Trump has said it on Monday, on Tuesday, on Wednesday, on Thursday. And I'm the Vice President saying it here on Friday. We are standing behind our entire national security team.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Marc, when you hear that, do you do believe that that is something that will hold?
[21:40:00]
MARC CAPUTO, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS, TRUMP WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, AXIOS: Well, there's two separate questions embedded with that one question. Do I think Waltz will definitely be around? I'm not sure, because it just depends on how Trump feels and what he thinks at the time.
But on day one, we had Axios first wrote that the White House is going to circle the wagons, and Waltz's imminent departure was unlikely. That has been proven true, despite some other reporting elsewhere.
And that's probably going to remain true for a while, in great part, because Donald Trump doesn't want to give a win to his critics. He hates The Atlantic. Doesn't want to give it a win. There are other publications he also dislikes. So, that's just kind of a big part of it.
But you can hear in JD Vance's voice a certain amount of annoyance and peak at this. So, you can expect that going forward, they're going to get more and more annoyed and angered by this line of questioning, because they keep saying they've asked and answered it.
COLLINS: Well, and Isaac, I think part of that is also just the story overall, and the fact that it's still in the headlines has, has also annoyed the White House and, you know. But part of this is because we're hearing different things from the White House.
I mean, the President himself was saying, last week, It wasn't classified information that was discussed in that group text. But then later, after the full messages came out, he backtracked on that some, and said that's what he had been told, that there was no classified information in there.
And we heard from the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, today. He's continuing to face questions about this. He was in the Philippines today, and this is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: I'm quite proud, quite proud of what our forces in CENTCOM did on that initial series of very effective and devastating strikes and the ongoing campaign that we are undertaking.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Capitol Hill, is asking for an investigation into this.
ARNSDORF: Yes, I mean what the Vice President said there, you know, We acknowledge that there shouldn't have been a reporter in the chat. Like, that's not the problem. That's just the reason that we know about the problem.
The problem is that they were discussing sensitive national security information, on an unsecure platform. And the reason that that's supposed to be done in a SCIF, in a secured facility, is so that you don't accidentally have people, who aren't supposed to have that information, in the room.
COLLINS: Yes, a big question, of course, of what this looks like, going forward. Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, last night, was defending using Signal still. We'll see what these practices look like.
Great to have all of your reporting here on a Friday night. Thank you so much to my insiders.
Up next. Why is Elon Musk now offering million-dollar checks in Wisconsin this weekend? We have new reporting about another visit that he's expecting to make to another federal agency, in Washington, next week. Where is he going? Right after this.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Elon Musk has no shortage of attorneys, and may need to call one, after Wisconsin's Democratic Attorney General has now filed a lawsuit against him.
That's because the world's richest man is headed to Wisconsin for a talk, this Sunday, two days before a critical race that will determine control of the state's Supreme Court. And in a return to his 2024 election playbook, Musk has promised $1 million checks to attendees who have already voted in that race.
But about 12 hours after that promise, Musk seemed to walk back that pledge that he made, amid legal questions and legal scrutiny. He quietly deleted the initial promise, and clarified that the checks would go to those who have signed his Super PAC's petition in opposition to activist judges.
My next source tonight is the veteran tech journalist, Kara Swisher, host of the "On" and "Pivot" podcasts.
And Kara, obviously, the legal scrutiny had been building, and we have now seen the Attorney General, the Democratic Attorney General in Wisconsin, say that he plans to seek a court order to stop this from happening, overall. I wonder, what his level of involvement in this race says to you?
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, HOST, "ON" & "PIVOT" PODCASTS: It says he -- well, there's a couple of things. Obviously, he's saying it's about ideology. But actually, there's a court case that's really important to his company, Tesla, around how they conduct their business and sell cars there, although they're not selling very many cars across our country and in Europe right now.
But there's a lot of self-interest here. And he also wants to see if he can just show -- flex some power, political power, that he can show other places he can go in, and flip courts, or flip seats, or primary people, and things like that.
COLLINS: Yes, and the court case is important backdrop, because basically, Wisconsin law prohibits carmakers from being able to sell directly to customers. I mean, you can't just go into a dealership and leave with a Tesla.
SWISHER: Right.
COLLINS: They're suing over this. And I mean, that could have a large determination here in how this race ends up.
SWISHER: Yes, I guess, if you think a lot of people in Wisconsin want to buy Teslas. This is not a huge market.
But I think it's just a matter of, he wants to flex his political power, and he's using his greatest hits from the presidential campaign, which worked pretty well for him.
COLLINS: Yes, and he's not the only billionaire involved. Governor Pritzker is spending money. George Soros' is there. I think Musk has spent about $3 million.
When Elon Musk was asked, though tonight about potential conflicts of interest, as the head of DOGE? That's been a big thing for him. He talked about how actually doing this job, this role, is hurting his companies. This is what he had to say on Fox News earlier.
[21:50:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELON MUSK, TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: If I wasn't in the government, I could lobby, and I could -- I could -- I could push for things that are advantageous to my -- to my companies and, probably get it, probably receive them. I -- my companies are suffering because I'm in the government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SWISHER: Well--
COLLINS: Kara, I wonder what you make of that.
SWISHER: I don't make of it. He can lobby. He's at the White House all the time, he's surgically attached to Donald Trump, right now, I mean. And it's ridiculous. He has enormous amounts of influence. He does -- it's a different kind of influence, I guess, but he certainly does. He's gotten a lot of contracts before, and he looks like he's probably getting a lot more in the future. There's so many conflicts of interest here.
The other thing is, a lot of the difficulty with his business has to do with his behaviors, and the things he says, and the things he's doing. So, the poor-little-me thing is a little bit rich, from someone who's that rich and will get richer from his affiliation with the government.
COLLINS: Well, and I wonder, the thing that President Trump has said repeatedly, including the other day, when we were in the Cabinet Room, I believe, was that Elon Musk has never asked him for anything. He says, This is someone who's never asked me for a favor or anything like that.
SWISHER: Oh, OK, sure, I guess. I don't know what to say. I mean, that's not how -- that's how power works, right?
His proximity has helped a lot of his businesses. Just his X, suddenly, they have more advertisers, people nervous, because they want to be affiliated with him. They -- you know, he -- there's all kinds of -- he has so many companies that are in -- within the federal government that are critical.
And he's also cut agencies that have regulated him, and cut people who are doing the regulations. He walked -- he walked right through, and cut agencies that had issues with different companies of his.
You don't have to see it. It's just so obvious, so many of these things are just not true what he's saying.
COLLINS: One thing that I've watched closely is his relationship with other Cabinet officials, and how that's kind of shaken out. We had the V.A. Secretary, Doug Collins, on, the other night. He was saying that the V.A. -- that Musk himself has not actually been there, employees of DOGE have, but not Elon Musk himself, and that he's the one who makes the decisions.
SWISHER: Sure.
COLLINS: We've learned tonight -- I had heard from someone earlier that Elon Musk is going to be visiting the CIA on Monday. He has not been there yet. But this was at the invitation of the Director, John Ratcliffe.
And he was actually asked about DOGE, and the CIA, this week, when he was testifying on Capitol Hill, and this is what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: As of this date, no one from DOGE has been on the CIA campus, and I've had no direct communication with DOGE. Other than conversations with Elon Musk at Cabinet meetings, I would say the impact is zero.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: What does that say to you that he has now invited him?
SWISHER: Well, he hasn't gotten there yet, right? He's busy at the Smithsonian this week, or wherever he happens to be. No, that's JD Vance, actually.
I think he's been going through them, and going through agency after agency. The CIA, eventually, I suppose, if they're going to look at it to make cut -- cost cuts, but that's not where you'd necessarily look. But these people want to stay on good terms with Elon Musk, because he's so close to the President. And so, you have to -- you have to be friends with him, or at least feign interest in him, or feign friendliness.
COLLINS: That's an interesting point. So you think part of this is they realize how much time he spends with Trump, and that's why -- that determines how these--
SWISHER: Sure.
COLLINS: --these Cabinet secretaries are acting toward him?
SWISHER: Yes, absolutely. It's like a court, you know? The Court of King Henry the Eighth kind of thing, that people who are close to the king are valued, and that it's -- you know, it's all political. And among -- between these people, they want to make sure that they continue to have power as Cabinet officials. But they know Elon can get in their way, if something -- if they go crossways with him, I suppose.
COLLINS: Yes. He is incredibly influential.
Kara Swisher, thank you for your--
SWISHER: Thank you.
COLLINS: --for your shout-out tonight.
SWISHER: Thanks.
COLLINS: Up next. I'm going to give you a sneak peek to this week's new episode of the "United States of Scandal." It's the story that turned the sports world upside-down. The rise and the hard-fall of Lance Armstrong.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: This Sunday, on the latest episode of the "United States of Scandal with Jake Tapper," Jake follows the story that shocked sports fans everywhere.
Lance Armstrong was a role model for many, and the symbol of resilience as a cancer survivor, winning multiple professional cycling competitions. But his legacy was tarnished when doping accusations came to light.
This episode takes you through the rise and fall of Armstrong's public image.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAKE TAPPER, HOST, "UNITED STATES OF SCANDAL," CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): During his winning streak, though some insiders may have known, Lance Armstrong was reliant on performance-enhancing drugs.
TAPPER (on camera): To most of the world, he was simply one of the greatest athletes of all time.
TAPPER (voice-over): And suddenly, Lance was moving in A-list circles and even dating superstar Sheryl Crow.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was on a whole different level as a celebrity, but also financially and how much he was paid. Probably the best cyclists at the time were making maybe $1 million a year. I was making, I think, $60,000 or something. And he was probably making tens of millions of dollars or somewhere in that neighborhood.
TAPPER (on camera): Mainly from sponsorships, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. And his--
TAPPER (on camera): From Nike or whatever.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. He had big corporate sponsors.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From Trek Bikes to Nike shoes to Nike cycling gear. RadioShack had sponsored him at one point. So, he was just a juggernaut. And so, once the story took off, it was almost too big to fail.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: Don't miss the rest of that episode. "United States of Scandal with Jake Tapper." That airs this Sunday, 09:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only here on CNN. You don't want to miss that one.
Thank you so much for joining us this night and every night this week.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT" is up next.
