Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Defends Hegseth: No Dysfunction At Pentagon; Pope Francis' Residence Sealed, Symbolizes Start Of Mourning; Harvard Sues Trump Admin. Over Funding & Academic Freedom. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired April 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]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
POPE FRANCIS (through translator): He was a non-believer, but he had all four of his children baptized. He was a good man. Is Dad in heaven?
His father wasn't a believer but he had his children baptized. He had a good heart.
Does God abandon his children?
AUDIENCE: No.
POPE FRANCIS (through translator): Does God abandon his children when they are good?
AUDIENCE: No.
POPE FRANCIS (through translator): There, Emanuele, that is the answer.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: And his final message for Emanuele was, Talk to your dad. Pray to your dad.
That's it for us. We'll be in Rome, tomorrow.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
A second Signal chat where the Secretary of Defense shared military plans. This time, his wife, brother and attorney were all on it. Is Pete Hegseth's job at risk because of this story? We'll bring you our latest reporting from the White House.
And as the world is mourning Pope Francis tonight, the intrigue has begun about who will emerge from the Conclave as his successor, and what happens inside the Sistine Chapel after the Cardinals are locked inside. Also tonight, she has Secret Service protection. But even the Homeland Security Secretary can still fall victim to a purse thief, that had $3,000 in cash inside.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, at the White House, a sequel to the Signal controversy is playing out. As President Trump is standing by his Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, after it was revealed that he shared details about a military operation in a second group chat.
Some of the President's allies are questioning whether or not that confidence in Hegseth will hold, despite this very public show of support today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Ask the Houthis how much dysfunction they have. There's none. Pete's doing a great job. Everybody's happy with him. We have the highest recruit -- recruitment numbers I think they've had in 28 years. No, he's doing a great job.
It's just fake news. They just bring up stories. I guess it sounds like disgruntled employees. You know, he was put there to get rid of a lot of bad people, and that's what he's doing. So, you don't always have friends when you do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: So I'm told that the President and Secretary Hegseth, spoke, directly, last night, after this story broke about that second group chat, which included Hegseth's wife, his personal attorney, and his brother. Those last two now work at the Pentagon, but neither serves at a level that is usually involved in planning military strikes.
Hegseth side is asserting, no classified information was discussed or shared on that second group chat.
But as the Secretary, and his wife, attended the annual Easter Egg Roll at the White House today, we saw Hegseth strike a similar -- stick to a similar script from last month, amid the first Signal group chat controversy, and blamed disgruntled former staffers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: This is what the media does. They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees, and then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations. Not going to work with me.
So, you're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes, time and time again, to include the, I don't know, the hoaxes of Russia, Russia, Russia, or the Fine people on both sides hoax, or Suckers and losers hoax. So, this is the guy that peddles in garbage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, separating the signal from the noise, you'll notice that the Secretary there, did not deny sharing detailed military plans in a group chat. But he did seemingly blame the very people that he had hired to previously serve in his inner circle inside the Pentagon, three of whom were abruptly fired, last Friday.
That includes Dan Caldwell, who was Hegseth's former senior adviser, and denied, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, tonight, ever leaking information.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: Did you leak classified information, against the wishes of your superiors, to media outlets?
DAN CALDWELL, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO SECY. HEGSETH: Absolutely not.
CARLSON: Did you photograph classified material and then text pictures of that material to an NBC News reporter?
CALDWELL: Absolutely not. And I have not spoken to an NBC reporter while at the Pentagon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, just to give you some background here, given Caldwell is not a household name. He's not some random career staffer who was assigned to work for Hegseth. He's known the Secretary of Defense for years. He worked with him when he ran a non-profit for veterans.
And also, if you remember back to that first group chat, as we were looking through it, it was Caldwell, who Hegseth said was his best point of contact, showing how close the two were and how often they spoke.
[21:05:00]
Now, this is all coming as the former top spokesman for the Pentagon is also warning in an Op-Ed, over the weekend, about a, quote, "Near collapse inside the Pentagon's top ranks," saying that, "The building is in disarray under Hegseth's leadership."
Now tonight, Caldwell is echoing that same concern about rampant chaos inside the Pentagon, while defending the Secretary himself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CALDWELL: I've been a friend and supporter of Pete Hegseth for a long time, and I'm just personally devastated by this.
Pete Hegseth needs to be a successful Secretary of Defense. And the entire Department of Defense cannot continue to be consumed by chaos.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My lead source, tonight, is a Democrat, who opposed Pete Hegseth's nomination. Virginia senator, Tim Kaine, is here.
And it's great to have you, Senator.
Because you serve on the Armed Services Committee, which has oversight of the Defense Department, I'm curious, have you spoken with any of the political appointees who were recently fired, or anyone who represents them?
SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): Kaitlan, I haven't. But this is a sad but very predictable situation.
I think those of us, on the Armed Services Committee, who looked at Pete Hegseth's material, and it was voluminous, before his hearing and the vote on his confirmation, two things were plain.
When he was in the uniform of the United States, he served admirably. But in his leadership positions, in many organizations, since his uniformed service, he's demonstrated appalling lack of judgment, both professionally and personally, and that's why many of us, including Republicans, voted against him to be Secretary of Defense.
And what's happened, in the last few weeks, about these two Signalgate atrocities, just shows the lack of judgment, and that he is the wrong person to be our Secretary of Defense.
COLLINS: For those -- those members of his inner circle that have been ousted, do you want to speak to them?
KAINE: I would very much appreciate speaking to them.
But we saw the same thing in the committee hearing. Numerous individuals had come forward and alleged very serious, substantive claims, against Pete Hegseth, that he could not rebut. And he just said, Oh, those are anonymous smears. Even though they were dozens of people with names attached who had made serious allegations against him.
And so now, he is claiming that those that he hired, that he hired to be his inner circle in the Pentagon, are disgruntled. I think these are gruntled people who are patriots, and they're very worried about Pete Hegseth continuing to lead this most important Cabinet Secretariat.
COLLINS: We heard from the only Republican so far, who has come out and been this strong in their reaction, and that is Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska, saying that he believes this warrants Pete Hegseth's firing. Do you agree with him?
KAINE: Yes, absolutely. And you'll notice that even Republicans, who voted to confirm Pete Hegseth, like my Armed Services Chair, Roger Wicker, they have come out, almost immediately, and criticized him for idiotic comments about Ukraine, and other things that he's done, the first Signalgate challenge, and now this one.
This guy is just racking up one gaffe after another. Gaffe is a diplomatic term. But these things were completely apparent to anyone who had looked at his record as the leader of organizations after he got out of uniformed service.
COLLINS: Is there any part of you that thinks, just given how the President has responded to uproar, backlash, over some of his picks, standing by them, is there any part of you that thinks if a Democratic senator calls on, says that he should be fired over this, that maybe it makes Trump less likely to fire him?
KAINE: It's possible. But I don't have the luxury of gaming out the President's mindset. I've just got to do what's best for the country.
And I almost feel like some of the President's nominees, Pete Hegseth, RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, he nominated people who he pushed out there, to see how much he could get Republican senators to swallow, in the sense of, If I can get them to vote yes on this, I'll own them for the next four years.
[21:10:00]
But I'm starting to see, there were three Republican votes against Pete Hegseth. We saw Republican votes against President Trump's idiotic Canadian tariff imposition, a couple weeks back. You're starting to see Republican senators say, Hold on a second. You think we'll follow you like lemmings over the cliff? We're not going to it.
COLLINS: We'll see. Because one thing that I was thinking about today is, there were a lot of questions for your Republican colleagues after the first Signal chat story, and a reporter being inadvertently added.
We heard some, like Senator Lindsey Graham say, it fell into the category of lessons learned. This is what else they said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOMMY TUBERVILLE (R-AL): Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, he'll get it corrected. And, you know, that's just part of transition and growing.
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): A mistake was made, and they'll fix it and learn from it.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): They'll figure it out, and they'll improve the process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do you believe that that has happened here, Senator?
KAINE: No. If you look at Pete Hegseth's record, before he became Secretary of Defense, it was one glaring professional and personal mistake after another. And there's no magic wand that waves over you, once you get a narrow Senate confirmation vote that turns you into a wise person.
This is a guy, again, I will say, when in uniform, he served admirably. But his leadership positions, post uniformed service, have been unmitigated disasters, one after the next after the next. And that's clearly why he's gaining so much attention, more than any other Cabinet secretary, in the first 90 days of the Trump administration, because of his glaring mistakes of judgment.
COLLINS: Senator, before I let you go, this isn't related, but I do have to ask. The other major story today is the death of Pope Francis, who I know you met with back in 2017.
KAINE: Yes.
COLLINS: And I just wonder, as a Catholic, how you're feeling today.
KAINE: It's a very emotional day. I woke up to the news, and I was incredibly saddened.
But I also thought about the way that Pope Francis lived his entire life, but especially his last few days, visiting prisoners and washing their feet on Holy Thursday. That's what you do on Holy Thursday. Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, to show that leaders should be servants.
Being out on the Saint Peter's Square, yesterday, inspiring people, giving a powerful last sermon, saying that, humankind, we're not made for death, we're made for life. If you could design your own passing, you could hardly have designed it better. His message of compassion, and also the need for leaders to be humble, humility, were really transformative in my church.
COLLINS: Senator Tim Kaine, thank you for your time tonight.
KAINE: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: My White House insiders are also here.
And Shelby, as we've been listening to the White House defending Pete Hegseth today. Karoline Leavitt came out earlier, and was saying that it's him working against the entire Pentagon, essentially, or them trying to work against him. What are you hearing about how people are viewing where this stands tonight?
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Well, the people inside the administration, publicly and privately, are largely defending Pete Hegseth. I've talked to several White House officials, who say he's not going to be fired. The President is, as you reported on Sunday, spoke to him and said that he is behind him.
But there are people close to the administration who are really confused about this, and there is some skepticism that this time around, Pete Hegseth can withstand another round of sort of the repeat of the tough confirmation hearings that we had just a few months ago.
And there's also a lot of confusion over these firings. I've talked to several people, close to the White House, who are confused about why Pete Hegseth would fire, numerous people who are so close to him. And one person described Pete Hegseth, right now, as essentially being on an island at the Pentagon, which is not where you want to be when you're under siege. COLLINS: Yes.
And Zolan, obviously, we saw him at the White House today. But I do think it's real questions that have been raised just about what's happening at the -- you know, the President seems to agree with Hegseth. There're leakers, we have to get rid of them. Obviously, we played Dan Caldwell, denying ever leaking anything. But what do you make of what people around Trump and how they're viewing this?
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I think Shelby is right that they're digging in their heels here.
In many ways, Pete Hegseth is sort of emblematic of what Trump was prioritizing when he made up this -- his administration, his top circle, when it comes to the second stint in the White House. Prioritizing loyalty, and claiming to bring in merit. If you know you were to discipline Pete Hegseth here, I think Trump allies worry that that would be undercutting the argument that he was prioritizing merit here.
[21:15:00]
When you prioritize loyalty, bring somebody in, just by definition, that could also mean a lack of experience at the top of these agencies. And critics are saying that we're seeing a prime example of that now. Also, it knocks them off their message, any time like this happens.
You can imagine the White House and the administration wanted to continue to draw a split-screen on something like immigration today, with Democrats going to Central America. You can't do that when news like this occurs.
COLLINS: Yes, you could see the President's irritation, saying, Are you guys asking about Signal again?
KANNO-YOUNGS: Yes.
COLLINS: Was kind of how he phrased it to reporters.
Alyssa Farah Griffin, you're also here with us.
You used to work at the Department of Defense, under the last Trump administration. You were the press secretary there. I wonder, one, just what your view of this is, now that Hegseth is without several of his senior advisers, key members of his inner circle, after these firings last week.
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Listen, Pete Hegseth was always going to have an uphill battle, navigating the Pentagon. He never worked in the building. This is a 20,000-plus-person operation that, four stars spend their careers learning the way that the E-Ring works and the way that you work within the Pentagon. And I predicted from the outset that while the President is entitled to who he wants on these Cabinet posts, Hegseth did go in under- qualified and was going to face challenges.
But what I think is happening right now is Donald Trump is very much clearly doubling down, and saying that he's standing by him. But what might change is a couple of things.
Trump doesn't like to let someone else become his problem. If the headlines keep getting too bad, and there's just another shoe that drops, that could get in the way of it.
But Trump World is also very much, you know this, Kaitlan, like Game of Thrones. People smell blood in the water, and they're thinking, Who can jockey next to be Secretary of Defense? Or aides around him who have an idea of who might be better to work with in that post, are going to be getting in his ears, and giving him some ideas of the people that could be in that post, and make his life a lot easier, but also carry out his agenda.
So those two things happening at once are not good in the long run for Pete Hegseth.
COLLINS: Yes, I was -- it's so funny you say that. Because I was on the phone with someone today, asking about this. And they were saying, they believed that Secretary Hegseth was going to stay on the job. He was going to stay in this position. But then also, moments later, were talking about people who would be good replacements for him, and that they thought would serve the President well. Just to verify exactly what you're saying is how this works behind-the-scenes.
But I wonder -- we do know Secretary Hegseth is going on Fox News, tomorrow morning. He went on TV, also, when there were moments, where his nomination seemed like it could be in jeopardy. Obviously, that changed.
I wonder, from working inside the White House, is that something people do to appeal to Trump, to appeal to his allies? What's the strategy in something like that?
FARAH GRIFFIN: It certainly helps. Listen, if he can make a formidable case on Fox News, and Donald Trump sees it, that's going to buy him some time.
But listen, Donald Trump demands loyalty from his Cabinet Secretaries. But he also wants a level of competence. And I think he's always held his Defense Chief and his Secretaries of State in sort of a higher regard. You know how he sort of esteemed that Jim Mattis, Mad Dog Mattis was working for him.
So I think when he hears of somebody in such a sort of esteemed role to him, that just doesn't really seem up to snuff, I think that that's going to be something that becomes a problem for him. This is the person who would be meeting with his Chinese counterpart, the Minister of Defense. And I think that I could see, unless Hegseth really convinces him that he's up to the task, and there's not more bad news coming, I think Trump could sour on him pretty quickly.
COLLINS: Yes.
And Shelby, that interview with Tucker Carlson that Dan Caldwell did, one, says a lot that he felt, you know, he did this 90-minute interview, kind of defending himself.
But I wonder what message that sends, in terms of, to President Trump directly, where Tucker Carlson, someone who's a close ally of Trump's, is voicing skepticism of what's really at play here, and why these people were actually fired?
TALCOTT: I think it matters. I mean, Donald Trump watches a lot of TV. He is a close ally of Tucker Carlson. He keeps an eye on all of these things. And so, going on someone like Tucker Carlson's podcast, and talking openly about it, that's a sure fire way to potentially get to the President himself, and sort of muddy the waters in terms of this entire situation.
And so, I think it's notable that pretty much everyone is making different public avenues. You saw the Op-Ed in Politico as well. Everyone is sort of trying to get their own message out. And part of that is because they're trying to get to the President.
KANNO-YOUNGS: All of this fuels a lack of discipline these past couple weeks. When you take this, as well as IRS shakeup, as well as admitting, you deported somebody in error? The administration has celebrated more discipline this time around. This cuts through that.
COLLINS: Yes, that's a good point in terms of what this looks like, inside the White House. And obviously, people are not happy that this is in the headlines again. They don't want to be talking about this.
We'll see what happens. Everyone, stay tuned.
Thank you all for being here.
Up next here. The world tonight is mourning the passing of Pope Francis, as the Catholic Church is now preparing to choose a new leader. My sources are going to take us inside the Vatican, right ahead.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, at the Vatican, the Pope's official residence has been sealed, marking not only the beginning of a mourning period, but also the formal end of Francis' reign. The Vatican says he died this Easter, Monday, of a stroke and a heart failure. His death initiates a centuries-old process to elect a new pope.
CNN Vatican correspondent, Christopher Lamb, reports on just how the Conclave will work.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRISTOPHER LAMB, CNN VATICAN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): How do you elect a new pope?
LAMB (voice-over): Well, the process is a mix of ancient tradition, religious ritual and politics.
[21:25:00]
Technically, any Catholic male can be elected. But since the 14th Century, all popes have previously been Cardinals.
Once the voting begins, they write the candidate's name on a piece of paper, and in order of seniority, drop that piece of paper into a chalice. Cardinals aren't allowed to vote for themselves. And the votes are counted by three designated Cardinals.
To be elected Pope, a cardinal must receive a two-thirds majority. If that doesn't happen, they vote again and again. In total, four rounds of voting can be held a day, until they reach that threshold.
LAMB (on camera): If no man is elected after four days, the Conclave breaks for prayer and further discussion, and then they try again.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: My papal sources tonight are:
Philip Shenon, the Author of "Jesus Wept," an inside look at the personalities, politics and the power struggles of the modern Catholic Church.
And John McCarthy, who is a former Senior Adviser to President Biden, and a longtime adviser to Democratic politicians on the Catholic Church.
And it's great to have you both here.
Can you just take us inside, what this process looks like now? Obviously they've been preparing for this. The Pope had been quite sick for some time, was in the hospital. What does this process look like, and when it's kicked off in earnest?
PHILIP SHENON, AUTHOR, "JESUS WEPT": Well, it's kicked off right from the moment the Pope dies. And there's now a process in place, dating back centuries, in which the world's Cardinals will gather in Rome, they'll meet for several days, will have a funeral of the Pope. And then, through a series of meetings that will lead up to the Conclave, the world's Cardinals will be locked inside the Sistine Chapel to select a successor to Francis.
COLLINS: And in terms of the church and how that works in the interim period, what does that look like?
JOHN MCCARTHY, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PRES. BIDEN, LONGTIME ADVISER TO DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: Well, we're in this really interesting period now called sede vacante, which is Latin for the seat being vacant. And right now, you have the Camerlengo, who's actually an Irish American, Cardinal Farrell, who was actually--
COLLINS: Dublin and Dallas, right?
MCCARTHY: Dublin and Dallas. But he's actually an auxiliary bishop, formerly here in Washington. And over the next few weeks, you're going to see that he's someone who is very reflective of Pope Francis. He's someone who has a non-traditional background. He has an MBA from Notre Dame, and is tied to many of those social justice issues in the church that Pope Francis made the kind of highlight of his pontificate.
COLLINS: And so once the Cardinals are -- essentially, they're actually locked inside the Sistine Chapel, as this voting goes on. I mean, do we have any idea if there are any favorites, how this process works? Do they go into this having people who could potentially become the next pope that they know? Or is it kind of anyone could essentially emerge from that as the Pope?
SHENON: I think in this Conclave, there is no clear favorite. If there's somebody who is more likely than not, there's Cardinal Parolin, who is the Secretary of State of the Vatican, was very close to Francis, and would be a moderate voice in the church. Other than that, though, it really is all bets are off. There doesn't seem to be a frontrunner.
COLLINS: And you were the liaison with President Biden, to the Catholic Church, to the Pope. In terms of, I know that, obviously he spoke with him right after he took office. And then, in terms of -- President Trump is going. He confirmed today, he and first lady Melania Trump will go.
The differences between the two of them on immigration could not be clear, even though it was an issue that has kind of defined both of them.
MCCARTHY: It's certainly true. I mean, there are a lot of differences between President Trump and the Pope.
But at the end of the day, the next two weeks are really going to be about the American presidency going over, to see the Pope at his funeral, and then perhaps later on, at the ascension of the new pope. And at the end of the day, that's really what this is going to be about. We should put partisan politics aside here, because this is going to be an important moment in the American church.
COLLINS: Yes. And in terms of what that looks like, what will you be looking for in terms of the new pope?
And, obviously Pope Francis, as he started off with some missteps, as people would characterize it, but went on to have this defining legacy of how he viewed the church, things that he wanted to change or reshape.
What do you think this could mean in this moment as a new pope is going to be elected?
SHENON: Well, I think, if you look back at what Pope Francis said, prior to his hospitalization, in February, he was very critical of President Trump. He described the President's mass deportation plans as a disgrace. I think that was his word.
And it will be interesting to see if the Cardinals move towards a successor to Francis, who will continue to do that battle, can do -- continue to do battle on behalf of immigrants, and be willing to take on President Trump.
COLLINS: Is there a chance it could be the other direction? It could be someone who shifts more -- more and maybe not in alignment with him, but closer to where he is on the issues?
SHENON: Certainly, there are going to be many Conservative Catholics who would like to see a reverse -- a reverse of President -- excuse me, a reversal of Pope Francis' agenda.
I think that's unlikely, though, because 80 percent of the Cardinals who will vote to select the next pope are men who were put there by Francis. It seems very unlikely to me that they would go -- they would seek a successor who would move the church in reverse.
COLLINS: Am I right that I read it's 80 percent of them were put in there, by Pope Francis?
MCCARTHY: Exactly. A little more than two-thirds.
COLLINS: Yes.
[21:30:00]
SHENON: I would compare it to a President and choices for justices on the Supreme Court. Isn't he going to -- isn't the President going to pick members of the Supreme Court who are going to pursue his agenda? It seems unlikely that, in this similar situation, at Rome, the Cardinals chosen by Francis would seek a successor who would move in a very different direction.
COLLINS: Yes.
MCCARTHY: And one of the defining pieces of the Pope's papacy has really been about how he's changed the tone of the papacy. He's actually not a politician. He's really a pastor, at the end of the day. And that's something that I think has really kind of changed the way that people are perceiving the Catholic Church. And at the end of the day, I think a lot of Cardinals are going to be looking for a successor that embodies that.
COLLINS: John McCarthy. Philip Shenon. Great to have you both here tonight. Thank you so much.
SHENON: Thank you.
MCCARTHY: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next here tonight. We're hearing from the White House, on the political front, criticizing Senator Chris Van Hollen after he visited a man that they mistakenly deported to El Salvador. The administration has now shifted though, and says it wasn't a mistake. We'll get Senator Van Hollen's response, next.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, four congressional Democrats are on the ground, in El Salvador, in the latest push to free Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
But the Trump administration remains defiant in its refusal to facilitate his return, despite that nine-zero Supreme Court ruling.
And the President is offering a new interpretation of due process, tonight, posting, quote, "We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years. We would need hundreds of thousands of trials for the hundreds of thousands of Illegals" that "we are sending out of the Country. Such a thing is not possible to do. What a ridiculous situation we are in."
My source tonight is Democratic senator, Chris Van Hollen, who, of course, met with Abrego Garcia in-person, in El Salvador, last week.
And it's great to have you here, tonight, Senator.
What is your response to the President saying, it's not realistic to give everyone, he wants to deport, a trial?
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Well, Kaitlan, it's good to be with you.
What the President is saying is, You know, the Constitution of the United States and due process, that's just inconvenient. So I'm going to ignore it.
That is a very dangerous path for all of America, because this case is not just about one man, Abrego Garcia. Because, if they can trample his rights, as the President's talking about doing, then they can trample the rights of every one who lives in America.
And that's exactly what the Fourth Circuit said in a very strong opinion. They said, This is not a hard case, right? The Trump administration admitted in court that they wrongfully abducted Mr. Abrego Garcia from the United States, and landed him in a terrible prison in El Salvador. And instead of fixing the problem, as the Court demanded they do, facilitate his return, they instead suspended the lawyer who told the truth in court.
So, this is a big moment for our Constitution, and the country. Because if you undermine it, take it away, those rights, for one person, you threaten the rights of everybody who lives here.
COLLINS: Yes, and obviously they would disagree with your characterization of it as an abduction.
But I do wonder, given you met with Abrego Garcia, in-person, last week. I know you spoke with his family today. Have they heard any updates? Or what is the latest of their understanding of what's happening with him?
VAN HOLLEN: Well, they haven't gotten any updates.
And one of the issues here is the refusal of the Government of El Salvador to allow Mr. Abrego Garcia to communicate with anybody. Not with his lawyer. Not with his family.
I was the first, and to my knowledge, the only person who he's communicated with since. So, I conveyed to his family, today, for the first time fully, the details of that conversation, how much he missed them, how he said, thinking of them is what keeps him going. But also, we discussed with the family how he has been a -- become a test case, for whether or not the Trump administration will trample over the constitutional rights of others who live here.
COLLINS: And the National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, responded to your visit.
He posted today, I don't know if you've seen this. He said, Don't believe the margarita sipping Senators who care more about protecting criminal illegal immigrants rather than their own constituents. He accuses Abrego Garcia of being a violent gang member, illegal immigrant, and accused domestic abuser who had no right to be in our country.
Of course, we've spoken to the administration about how they are not making the argument about MS-13 in court.
But you told my colleague, Dana Bash, yesterday, that you did not ask Abrego Garcia whether or not he's actually in MS-13. You said, you know what his answer is.
But how do you know if you did not ask him?
VAN HOLLEN: Well, because I know what he's said many times in court, and that's the proper forum for debating this.
And, as we know, the federal district court judge, in this case, said, and I brought it with me again, and I'm going to read it, No evidence linking Abrego Garcia to MS-13 or to any terrorist activity. Period. That has been what Abrego Garcia has been telling the court.
And I would ask you, Kaitlan. Really? If I had come back and said, Oh, I asked him if he was in MS-13, and he said, No, he wasn't? I mean, right? No one's -- that -- the whole point is, this is a conversation that's supposed to happen in court, which is why I've said to Donald Trump to either put up or shut up, in court.
[21:40:00]
And that's true for Mike Waltz, and all of these people. Put up or shut up in court. But in the meantime, you need to respect the court's decision on this fundamental constitutional issue, or you're calling those rights in question for everybody who resides in America.
COLLINS: Yes. Tom Homan, repeatedly, just deferred to the Justice Department, when we asked about why that argument hasn't been made in court filings since they are making it publicly, last week.
I want you to listen. I was in the Briefing Room, last week, when Patty Morin came in. She's the mother of Rachel Morin, who, as you know, was raped and murdered by a fugitive who was in the United States from El Salvador, accused of entering illegally after he was accused of killing another woman in his home country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATTY MORIN, MOTHER OF RACHEL MORIN: To have a senator from Maryland who didn't even acknowledge or barely acknowledged my daughter and the brutal death that she endured, leaving her five children without a mother and now a grandbaby without a grandmother, so that he can use my taxpayer money to fly to El Salvador, to bring back someone that's not even an American citizen.
Why does that person have more right than I do, or my daughter, or my grandchildren?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, she's obviously a grieving parent, who has been through something that is no short of horrific. But what would you -- what would you say to Ms. Morin if you saw her in-person?
VAN HOLLEN: Well, what happened to Rachel Morin was awful. And what happened to the Morin family, it should not happen to any family in America. I mean, nobody should have to suffer like that. I cannot imagine the pain of losing a child.
The killer -- the killer was recently convicted in a court of law. And that's what we use our courts for, to punish the guilty, but also to provide due process for those who are not guilty or have not committed crimes. And so, the issue, in this other case, of course, relates to those due process rights. So I'm -- I was heartened by the fact that Rachel's killer was convicted.
And so, the issue here, as you well know, is the fact that in this other case, the other person, Abrego Garcia's rights, constitutional rights, needs to be respected. It's in courts of law that we punish the guilty, but also provide people with their rights.
COLLINS: And Senator, can I ask you, as you had--
VAN HOLLEN: And I should say -- I should say, at the time -- I did say, at the time, how horrible it was, and how my heart went out to the Morin family. And I also, when the conviction came down, said, This is exactly right. Someone who is guilty needs to be punished.
COLLINS: Senator Chris Van Hollen, thank you for your time tonight.
VAN HOLLEN: Thank you.
COLLINS: And when it comes to court fights tonight, not only is Harvard refusing to back down, the storied university has now just sued the Trump administration over its funding fight. Those details, in this billion-dollar battle, next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, Harvard is now suing the Trump administration to back off from an unprecedented battle that we are watching play out, and that could decide the future of educational independence, government oversight, at one of the nation's most prestigious universities.
With billions of dollars in federal funding and Harvard's tax-exempt status, all hanging in the balance, the School's claiming tonight that the Government, quote, "Cannot -- identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical," science, "technological, and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives."
My legal sources are here tonight.
CNN Legal Analyst, Elliot Williams.
And former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tom Dupree.
Elliot, you've been looking into this 51-page lawsuit, I believe. Were you surprised? And how good of a case do you believe Harvard has here?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think it's not bad, because they've got two big buckets of challenges that often tend to work.
One, the First Amendment. By saying that, The administration is actually targeting our free speech, by trying to tinker with who's in what classrooms, who was hired, those are actually infringements on Harvard's speech.
The other one, and it was smart that they did this, is they went after the procedures. They said that, You should have, if you wished to suspend our funding, you should have given us an opportunity. Statute requires that we had a hearing and provide notice and so on.
Those two things are two pretty strong grounds that tend to win lawsuits.
COLLINS: Well, and the White House responded tonight, and I'll read part of the quote. They said, "The gravy train of federal assistance to institutions like Harvard, which enrich their grossly overpaid bureaucrats with tax dollars from struggling American families is coming to an end." They say these funds are a privilege, and that they failed to meet the basic conditions required to get that privilege.
What do you make of the White House's position?
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, look, I think the White House is basically saying, Bring it on. We welcome this legal fight. This is a battle that we want to have. [21:50:00]
But look, I agree in large part with Elliot. I think that for one thing, while the constitutional arguments that Harvard is making kind of stir the passions of constitutional lawyers. As a ground-level litigator, I think their procedural arguments may well be the stronger ones.
And Harvard, I do think, was smart to put those in there, basically saying that, Look, if you are going to try to revoke federal funding, you have to jump through certain procedural hoops, which you didn't do. You haven't shown a rational connection between combating antisemitism and revoking the grants. And those are the types of arguments, while they don't quite get the sexy media play at the constitutional arguments, they ultimately can be very persuasive to a trial judge.
COLLINS: But if the White House changes its methods here, and does jump through those hoops, could they ultimately be successful here?
WILLIAMS: Oh, they could. And it's, we've seen this play out in other areas of law, where had they followed the procedures correctly, the first time, they might have won.
But what they've done, once again, is take something that is politically popular with a lot of people. If you look at their statement, they're talking about how much professors are paid, and bureaucrats and so on. And that resonates with many people. But then they took actions that really stepped up to, if not far over what the law would have allowed.
COLLINS: Maybe this doesn't play into this, but I'm curious. I mean, and for people who missed the show, Friday night, we were reporting, from The New York Times, that they basically sent this list of demands to Harvard on accident, the Friday previously. Harvard saw it, responded, thought it was serious, and that's when they came out swinging, saying, We're not going to comply.
But the White House was saying that, essentially, Harvard should have called them to make sure it was a real list.
DUPREE: It was a very peculiar response by the administration. In other words, Check with us to confirm the authenticity of this letter signed by senior government officials.
And look, you can't blame Harvard for taking them at its word. They got this letter. They responded.
But what's interesting is that the White House, instead of saying, That letter was sent in error, we're walking it back. Instead, they basically say, Yes, we're all in on it. And they're going to defend it.
So, it looks like the battle is joined, and they're going to be fighting over this letter. Whether or not it was intentionally sent or not is kind of beside the point now. The battle is joined, and the judge is going to sort it out.
COLLINS: It's just remarkable.
Tom Dupree. Elliot Williams. Great to have you both here. Thank you so much.
Up next for us. A story that you have to read to believe. A brazen thief has just stolen the Homeland Security Secretary's purse, while she was at dinner last night. What was inside, and what this investigation looks like now.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: There's an investigation underway, here in Washington tonight, after the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, had her purse stolen, while she was at a restaurant.
Despite having a Secret Service detail there with her, our Josh Campbell reports that inside Noem's handbag, which was stolen, was her driver's license, medication, apartment keys, passport, a makeup bag, her access badge for the Department of Homeland Security, blank checks and around $3,000 in cash.
A masked white male was seen on a security camera footage that was reviewed by the Secret Service, grabbing her bag before leaving the restaurant here in D.C., last night.
My source tonight is the former Secret Service agent, and CNN Law Enforcement Analyst, Jonathan Wackrow.
Ad it's great to have you here.
Because, I think, essentially, the first thing that I thought, when I read this was how dangerous it is that, that someone does have access to things like the Secretary's access badge for DHS, all this private and personal information about her.
What do you make of where this investigation goes from here?
JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT, CORPORATE SECURITY CONSULTANT: Well, good evening, Kaitlan, and thank you for having me.
I've heard a lot of people say that this is just a crime of opportunity. But in reality, this is a security breach that actually has high consequences, and it needs immediate and further review, by the Secret Service, and DHS, and other law enforcement partners. And if necessary, the Secret Service will need to make operational changes on how they deal with these type of private events, moving forward.
But one thing it cannot be is, it cannot be dismissed as, outright, as just something that's random. And the reason being is because who Kristi Noem is. She's the Secretary of Homeland Security. She's a key member of the administration. But right now, she's a prominent figure in the immigration enforcement process that's ongoing. So, she is at higher risk for targeted threats, both by foreign and domestic actors. And just her public profile alone makes her a symbolic target.
So there's a lot further we need to understand to the situation, both operationally and then from a targeting standpoint. But it all is going to start with apprehending this bag-booster.
COLLINS: Yes, my question was whether or not it's someone who knew who she was, and recognized her as the Secretary, or simply just was stealing her purse, and it was just a theft.
WACKROW: Well--
COLLINS: The question that I kept hearing today that I want to get your thought on is, where was the Secret Service detail, and the fact that someone could get as close as they did to steal her bag, and how much that concerns you tonight?
WACKROW: Yes, it actually concerns me a lot.
Most likely, this is what's referred to as an off-the-record movement. It's really a private, unannounced appointment by the protectee. But the design is limiting the telegraphing of a location of the potential visit for the protectee. So with that, you have a reduced structure. But really, it increases the security demands on the Secret Service, because there's really no advanced coordination with other law enforcement entities.
[22:00:00]
And the key thing here is there's a reduced ability to pre-screen or lock down locations. This is not the President or the Vice President protection. While level of security around the Secretary is significant, we don't typically lock down entire environments, and control environments, like we do with the President. So, the ability to watch everybody that's coming in and out somewhat is limited when you have this OTR structure.
COLLINS: Yes, huge questions about that, and of course, the security risk of having $3,000 in cash on you, a lot of questions.
Jonathan Wackrow, thank you for your time tonight.
And thank you all so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
