Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump: Russia Made "Big Concession" By Not Taking Over Ukraine; Trump: Doing Interview With Signal Reporter "Out Of Curiosity"; DNC Gives David Hogg An Ultimatum: Drop Primary Challenges Or Leave Vice Chair Role. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired April 24, 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]
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: --once the funeral for Pope Francis is over, and all the VIPs have left town, the focus will shift onto the Conclave. And the tailors at Gammarelli will have to get into high gear.
Anderson.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Extraordinary room, tradition. Ben Wedeman, thanks.
A programming note. Join us for "THE FUNERAL OF POPE FRANCIS." Our coverage begins, Saturday morning, at 03:00 a.m., Eastern Time. I hope you join me for that.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
President Trump vents behind-the-scenes about it being much harder to end the war in Ukraine than expected, as he sends Vladimir Putin a rare four-letter message.
Plus, the President is sitting down tonight for an interview with the reporter who broke one of the biggest scandals of his second term so far. As CNN is learning more about that push inside the Pentagon to let Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, keep using Signal.
And Democrats tonight are giving one of their own an ultimatum. Stop pushing primary challenges against our incumbents, or give up your job. David Hogg is here to respond.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
And tonight, we have new reporting coming out of our White House team, here at CNN, about how President Trump is privately acknowledging that getting a peace deal in Ukraine is a lot harder than he thought. That frustration has been growing and growing lately, as these campaign promises of solving this in one day are now coming up against the reality of nearly 100 days in office. And on day 94, for example, as we saw today, President Trump's exasperation was directed not at President Zelenskyy as much, but at President Putin himself, after Russia unleashed that ferocious attack in Kyiv overnight. With Trump responding this morning, and I'm quoting him now, "Vladimir, STOP."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That seemed like a slightly different message, a personal message. What is your level of frustration with President Putin?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I didn't like last night. I wasn't happy with it. And we're in the midst of talking peace, and missiles were fired. And I was not happy with it. That's what I meant.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The President, telling my colleague, Jeff Zeleny there, that Putin needs to stop his bombing campaign. And that comes after months of questions that the President has faced about what concessions he thinks need to be made from both sides, in this war.
And time and time again, he has made clear what Ukraine needs to give up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What concessions would you like to see?
TRUMP: Oh, I don't want to just tell right now. But I can tell you that NATO you can forget about.
I told them that I want the equivalent like $500 billion worth of rare earth.
REPORTER: Will he have to make concessions, President Putin?
TRUMP: Yes, he will, he will. He's going to have to.
We've been discussing with Ukraine, land, and pieces of land that would be kept and lost.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The President, as you heard just there at the end, has been decidedly less direct about what it is that Russia needs to give up. Today, he revealed what he says he believes is Russia's big concession.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What concessions has Russia offered up thus far to get to the point where you're closer to peace?
TRUMP: Stopping the war. Stopping taking the whole country. Pretty big concession.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: So the President there, saying just not taking over all of Ukraine is what Russia has to do here, calling that a pretty big concession.
Now, despite the President's rebuke today of what Putin did overnight, he did say that he still believes the Russian leader is serious about getting a peace deal, ultimately here.
That comes as several diplomatic sources are telling CNN that U.S. allies are expressing alarm at the framework of what that peace plan may look like, given so far, it has heavily favored Russia, even as the President has said that he is not playing favorites here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I have no allegiance to anybody. I have allegiance to saving lives, and I want to save a lot of lives, a lot of young people's, mostly young people. It's the war. It's the soldiers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: U.S. allies have said they agree with the President when it comes to saving lives. But they say they think this proposed deal sends a dangerous message to Putin. Do what you want and get rewarded for it in the end.
So what are our allies to the U.S. going to do about this, or the United States as allies? Listen to what the NATO Secretary General told us today, at the White House, following his Oval Office meeting with the President.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Here at the White House today, the NATO Secretary General emerged from a meeting with President Trump, calling it a good meeting, and denying reports that he was here to urge White House officials not to pressure Ukraine into a deal, into accepting a deal that favored Russia. And also was asked about this notion of whether or not President Putin actually wants peace.
[21:05:00]
MARK RUTTE, SECRETARY GENERAL, NATO: Very good meeting with the President and with his team, with Secretary Rubio, and Secretary Hegseth, and Mike Waltz, the National Security Advisor. Obviously, we discussed Ukraine. But the main emphasis of the meeting was on the NATO Summit coming up in The Hague.
And we are really all very excited about the fact that we will see a NATO which is spending so much more on defense, particularly European and Canadian side, more and more, making sure that we equalize with what U.S. is spending. COLLINS: Is it accurate to say -- is it accurate to say that you urged U.S. officials not to pressure Ukraine into accepting a peace deal that favors Russia?
RUTTE: No, it's not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The Secretary General was also asked there, really, the key question, does he actually think that Putin wants peace here? Has he done anything to show as much? Given the President today, said in the Oval Office, he still thinks that Russia does ultimately want to get to a deal here. Instead, the Secretary General just talked about how long he's known Putin, and said it's a space to watch.
My inside sources are here.
The former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner.
And the former United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Bill Taylor.
It's great to have you both
Ambassador, do you believe Russia not taking over all of Ukraine is a big concession?
WILLIAM TAYLOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Not a concession. It is not at all a concession. However, that is what Putin wants. Putin does want to dominate Ukraine. And no matter what happens on this discussion, the ceasefire, he will continue to look for that, look for ways to accomplish that, as he has since, really, 2008.
COLLINS: And in terms of, with the President's message today about what that looks like, how does that affect Steve Witkoff, going into Russia tomorrow, as he is. I mean, he -- well, he landed there already. He's going into this. I mean, does Putin feel like that's the only thing he has to agree to now?
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Well, first I would say, to the question about whether any pressure is being put on Russia, after this horrific attack on Kyiv, how in the world is Witkoff going to Moscow and meeting with Putin, like nothing has happened?
COLLINS: You think he should call the meeting off?
SANNER: Oh my gosh, yes. This is what every -- what just happened on Wednesday, Rubio and Waltz pulled out of a meeting in London. Why? We're not sure exactly. Maybe because Ukraine wasn't ready to sign something. I don't know.
But here now we're on Friday, after this horrific event, it just gives Putin an absolute green light. Like, he doesn't care if there's a Truth Social comment about, like, Stop, Vladimir. I mean, we're basically saying, Oh, OK, well, we're still on our timeline. Right? And this is kind of ridiculous. It makes us look weak and desperate. COLLINS: So you don't think a message like that from the President today, either on Truth Social, telling him to stop, or what he told Jeff Zeleny, you don't think that breaks through with him at all?
SANNER: No. And I think the points that Peskov is making, that basically they don't agree with what the deal is on the table. No Europeans in Ukraine as peace keepers. And the fact that the President keeps talking about how he's on a timeline. This gives, I think, Putin, an enormous space to operate.
COLLINS: Well, and that comes as President Zelenskyy has been arguing, as I believe he did today at a press conference, that Ukraine is already making a concession by sitting at the table with Russia, because they're being attacked by them. Russia just hit them overnight and killed more Ukrainians. And they're saying, By the fact that we're even willing to sit down with them, is even a big concession from Ukraine here, in and of itself.
TAYLOR: It is a concession, Kaitlan. It is a concession. And President Trump has already given that away as well.
The other big thing that we're threatening, apparently ready to give away, is a recognition that the Russians own Crimea. I'm still hopeful that that's just an idea, a proposal that, in discussions with the Ukrainians, in discussions with Europeans, that the Americans will be convinced this is a bad idea. This is a bad idea.
To give, exactly as Beth said, to give Putin the green light, not just Putin, anyone, the green light, to take territory from your neighbor, and keep it. That's the concession. That's what we would be doing if we recognize Russian claim on Crimea.
COLLINS: How would that be viewed among your former colleagues? I mean, you used to go into the Oval Office and brief the President of the United States. How would something like actually having the United States recognize that go over, do you think?
SANNER: It would be like the day when President Trump said he trusted Putin's word more than the intelligence community. I mean, think that these kinds of things are -- look, our policy, right now, has a couple of assumptions that all these people are going to agree to this.
[21:10:00]
It assumes that the Europeans are going to sign on to this. I don't think that they're going to sign on to recognize Crimea. I don't think they're going to sign on for sanctions relief. I don't think they're going to sign on for reopening Nord Stream 2 pipeline. So this is a problem. This is a bigger problem with the Transatlantic relationship.
COLLINS: And this comes as we're reporting tonight, about this frustration that the President feels that the war didn't end in one day, as he said repeatedly on the campaign trail. And he's privately expressing frustration about how much harder this actually is, to get them to the table, and to ultimately come to an agreement here. What does that say to you about where this could be headed? TAYLOR: It turns out, the President is learning, that making an agreement, getting people to an agreement, who have this diametrically opposed positions, is very hard, takes time. And so the business about one day was never serious. But even the 100 days is not serious.
And I don't think they should be tying themselves to a 100 days. They can take more time. There's nothing magic about April 30. They can take more time. They can take some suggestions from the Ukrainians, take some suggestions from the Europeans, and have another proposal. It's not take it or leave it. It's a discussion. It's a conversation.
COLLINS: Yes.
SANNER: No one in history will look back and say, You didn't do this in 100 days, you are a loser.
They will look back in history at what this agreement is, and what did it do and not do, and how did it position the United States, Ukraine and Europe for the future. That is what the history is going to tell us. And that's what his advisers need to tell the President. Slow down, for your legacy.
TAYLOR: For your legacy. If it's a bad deal, if he hurries up, if he rushes to something, signs a bad deal? That's not a winner. He's a loser, if that happens.
COLLINS: Ambassador Bill Taylor. Beth Sanner. Great to have you both here.
Up next with us is a Georgia Republican, who served in the Marine Corps, Congressman Rich McCormick, who is also on the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee. So it's perfectly timed here to talk to you tonight.
I wonder, do you agree that, with what we just heard, that potentially the President is rushing into making an agreement that ultimately could hurt his legacy, if he moves too quickly here?
REP. RICH MCCORMICK (R-GA): Well, he's not making the agreement. It's the agreement between Russia and Ukraine, that has to be done. He's trying to put pressure on both of them in different ways.
They both have different motivations. We can make it very hard on Russia through sanctions, through supplying weapons to Ukraine, although that's up on the table right now. And for Ukraine, we can say, Look, if we don't give you weapons, it's going to make it very hard for you to win this war or even fight a defensive war.
But quite frankly, we forget the part that Europe has to play in this too. Remember that Germany has an economy, a GDP that's two and a half times the size of Russia. Combined Europe has a GDP of about $27 trillion compared to Russia's $2 trillion. If Europe decides to get serious about this, they can make it very difficult on Russia, militarily and economically.
But the United States is still the big boy on the block, and we can make this very difficult for either country to continue this war.
COLLINS: Well, yes. And the President said today that there is pressure on Russia. But we haven't seen sanctions, or what you're talking about there.
In terms of the end result here, do you consider Russia not taking over all of Ukraine a pretty big concession?
MCCORMICK: Well, so it really doesn't matter what I think. It matters what Ukraine thinks, and what Russia thinks. When I start supposing, I could tell you exactly how I'd handle this. But that doesn't matter either. I'm not the Commander-in-Chief.
What really matters is getting them to the table, trying to create that stability in that region. All of NATO is watching. The rest of the world is watching. China is watching, when it comes to their position on Taiwan.
We do have a tremendous amount of leverage in this, and we'll play our part. But we're not the only players. And ultimately, it's going to come down to Putin's ego, and Ukraine's claim to their territory that they have historically. And I think this is going to be a very difficult negotiation, but we can facilitate it.
COLLINS: And sure, you're not the Commander-in-Chief. But you're a sitting lawmaker. You're on these committees that are incredibly relevant here. I mean, do you think that Putin views that as a huge concession that he doesn't take over all of Ukraine?
MCCORMICK: Well, when it comes to Putin, he wants to keep the land he's already taken.
I've said very publicly, all along, that I think Ukraine needs to be made whole. The 1994 agreement that we made, when they gave in their nuclear arms to Russia, as part of the deal that we were supposed to actually come to their aid, was something. You sign an agreement, you honor it. NATO agrees. Great Britain. Russia signed that agreement.
I think we could have made it almost impossible to Russia by just supplying the right number of weapons, by putting massive sanctions on them. Combined, Europe and the United States has almost a $50 trillion economy versus Russia's $2 trillion. We could have ended this a long time ago. We talked to the European Supreme Allied Commander. He agreed with that.
But once again, this isn't about -- well, I mean, we haven't followed our wars very well either. Until we had surge capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan--
COLLINS: Yes.
MCCORMICK: --we, as the world power, did very poorly against untrained armies, because we didn't go wholeheartedly. And this is not an easy question to answer.
COLLINS: It sounds like you think the United States should be maybe more -- putting more pressure on Russia right now.
[21:15:00]
MCCORMICK: I do. But, once again, I'm not the Commander-in-Chief, I'm not the sole negotiator. In fact, I'm not even a negotiator.
I've been on the NATO Parliamentary system, and I've come to the table and seen a lot of people who care very much about this. I've seen the NATO, building up their arms, doing their part. I'm excited about that portion. But we have a long ways to go before NATO is doing everything they've agreed to do.
COLLINS: Would you ever be comfortable with the United States formally recognizing Crimea as Russia's?
MCCORMICK: Personally, no. I don't think that that's a good thing, because I don't like what Russia did, to begin with. I don't think we should ever encourage a bad actor in something we'd already negotiated previously. So no, not me, personally. But once again, the world is there watching, and they'll make their own decisions.
COLLINS: Yes, I just think when you -- when you look at that, given Russia illegally seized Crimea. We saw secretaries of state, the last time Trump was in office, CIA (ph), you know. It shows that they're not acting like a great nation. I mean, what do American citizens get out of the United States doing that, if that ultimately happens here? Anything?
MCCORMICK: Well, one, the United States is really kind of on the sideline. But realize that Ukraine, as a nation, is a top five country in resources, whether it be titanium, iron, magnesium, aluminum. It's amazing how many. I mean, they have lithium, uranium, grain. They're incredibly wealthy if they were to develop it. So, it could be a benefit to the entire European region, as well as the United States as a trade partner.
But quite frankly, the question is, what is the cost of peace? Ultimately, how many people are you willing to lose? When you're talking about Zelenskyy, and his big decision, are you going to be able to get out of this hole? I don't think so. There is going to have to be some concessions. That's just the reality of it, whether you like it or not. Whether I like it or not is inconsequential. What is peace worth to you, and what are you willing to give up for that?
COLLINS: Yes. But everyone keeps talking about the concessions Ukraine has to make, and Zelenskyy has to make. It's very rare to hear what Putin, who invaded and is striking, as he did last night, what he needs to do.
MCCORMICK: Yes, well, the first thing you need to do is stop killing people. Stop with the invasion. Stop with the bombing. Let's start there, once we get them to the table there.
I don't think we're going to give too many specifics, because you want to have a little bit of wiggle room. Anytime you draw red lines in the sand, negotiations instantly break down. We don't want that. That's why--
COLLINS: Yes.
MCCORMICK: --President Trump was very clear to Zelenskyy, Please don't poke the bear. We need to have as much wiggle room on both sides.
And I understand your point. But I think Putin, right now, is a very proud man. He's done something that I think is egregious and evil. But we don't want to pin him down, so we make this negotiation even more difficult.
COLLINS: Yes, I don't -- I think some people would disagree with that, that he does it regardless of if they're poking the bear or not.
Senator Bill Cassidy wrote, today -- he's a Republican -- Putin doesn't want peace. He's stalled every negotiation and he keeps bombing civilians.
Do you agree with him that Putin does not want peace here?
MCCORMICK: He sure hasn't indicated it so far. I don't think he wants to continue to antagonize all of Europe and the United States. I think ultimately, this will -- it will cause him to fail as a leader, it will cause Russia to fail as a state.
But I think he's used to the meat grinder. He's used to sacrifice. You look what they did in Afghanistan. Look what they've done historically. Look at the Gulag Archipelago with 60 million people dead. This country has a longstanding history of an abusive government with evil intent, killing lots of people. So, I think that's the history of Russia. Unfortunately, until they get better leadership, it's going to continue.
COLLINS: Right. So then why reward Russia by letting them have Crimea and formally saying it's theirs? I mean, I think that's the confusion here, is what Putin is doing is wrong, as you have yourself acknowledged multiple times here. Then, isn't it just rewarding him and saying, Actually what you did, you got what you wanted here, you got more land?
MCCORMICK: There's ideal, and then there's reality. And when you look at it, ideal, I would love to see Russia had never gone in there. We should have taken a harder stance to begin with.
Europe should have been ready. They should have had NATO ready. Ukraine should have been ready. We warned them that this was going to happen, and nobody prepared for it. Ideally, Biden wouldn't have been President, and they wouldn't have invaded in the first place. But that's not the reality. And now, we're stuck with what we have.
And unfortunately, the reality is they're probably not going to get Crimea back. I wish they would, but I don't think that's reality. We have to have some sort of negotiation to stop the war.
And I agree. I don't think Crimea needs to be given up. But I don't think it really matters what I think. It's a matter of what is peace worth to all the countries involved.
COLLINS: I think it does matter what you think. That's how we had you on. Congressman Rich McCormick, great to have you. Thanks for your time tonight.
MCCORMICK: Thanks. Good night.
COLLINS: And given President Trump's opinion of Jeffrey Goldberg, which has been made crystal clear these last few weeks, you might be forgiven for thinking The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief would be blacklisted from the White House. Today, he was actually on the White House campus, doing an interview with President Trump. Why? And what the President had to say about this. Our White House insiders are here, next.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: President Trump took a lot of questions from reporters at the White House today. But it might be his interaction with a journalist, behind-the-scenes, that is more noteworthy tonight.
The President announced, on Truth Social, earlier, that he was sitting down with the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg. Yes, that same Jeffrey Goldberg, who Trump's National Security Advisor, inadvertently added to a Signal group chat with top officials, last month, to talk about a military operation in Yemen, a story that the President was furious about, when it first dropped.
[21:25:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I happen to know, the guy's a total sleazebag. The Atlantic -- The Atlantic is a failed magazine. Does very, very poorly. Nobody gives a damn about it. It gives -- this gives it a little bit of a shot. And I will tell you this that they've made up more stories and -- and they're just a failing magazine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Despite all of that, he sat down with them for an interview today, a coveted slot of the President's time, as he claims he is doing the interview, he said, quote, "Out of curiosity, and as a competition" with himself.
The President said he had been told this piece would be titled "The Most Consequential President of this Century."
Now obviously, we weren't in the Oval Office for that interview today. We'll wait to see what he told The Atlantic.
It's hard to see, though, how Jeffrey Goldberg didn't ask about the scandal that is still engulfing the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, given it's now been revealed, not just The Atlantic story, that there was one Signal chat, that there were two instances though, in which Secretary Hegseth talked about military plans using Signal.
CNN is now reporting that app, Signal, was installed on his computer inside the Pentagon.
My deeply-sourced White House insiders are here.
NPR's Tamara Keith.
PBS NewsHour's Laura Barron-Lopez.
And the former Pentagon spokesperson himself, Chris Meagher.
Chris, I'm going to get to you in a minute, because I got a lot of questions on how things work at the Pentagon.
But Tamara, just in terms of the President taking this moment to sit down with Jeffrey Goldberg. I kind of read the post, and I was like, Wow. Just given how much he's been trashing him, the National Security Advisor has been trashing him, the press secretary, all of them.
TAMARA KEITH, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NPR: But you know well that President Trump often trashes people, journalists, in public, and then calls them on their cell phones.
So the idea that he would sit down with this journalist is not at all surprising to me. I don't know if he sees it as a challenge or something else, but this is very much in character with President Trump. And I can almost guarantee you that whatever the story says, he will trash it.
COLLINS: And so given that, though, I mean, what does -- it does still say something about the fact that he chose to -- it was there -- to the reporters there, as well, who sat down with him in the Oval Office to talk about this.
It also speaks to the President always tries to, in terms of shaping the coverage, he always does feel, maybe rightfully so, that if he does speak to an outlet or sit down with them, that his argument can at least get across in terms of what that looks like.
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: That's true. And maybe he was enticed by what they said the article was going to be about, which is the consequences or a consequential presidency. And if it's consequential, can be positive or negative. It's not always necessarily positive.
But at least if he's in -- he's talking to them, the people that are writing this article, then you're right, he can get in what he wants to get in. And he enjoys, I think, a bit of the battle, which is what he -- what he forecasted in that tweet.
COLLINS: Yes, he's obviously going to be asked about the Signal debacle that it has turned into. It has grown into this huge story now with the revelation of a second chat. It's also revealed so much of the infighting at the Pentagon that has come, at the same time with this. I mean, does it have a chance to just continue that storyline in a way that maybe the White House doesn't want to?
KEITH: I don't think there's much they can do to stop this storyline from continuing. The leaks coming out of the Pentagon and all of the -- pretty much every good Pentagon correspondent in this country has gotten a different little piece of a story about something involving Pete Hegseth, and his inner circle.
The knives are out, clearly, based on the stories that are coming out, the leaks. The CBS story about the makeup studio, like these are stories that come out when you are in an agency that is, it's rejecting the host.
COLLINS: Yes, the makeup studio was less glamorous, I think, than maybe some people might believe. We saw the picture that the Pentagon posted.
But Chris, you obviously worked there. I just wonder what you make of, one, just this being revived. But the CNN reporting today that it was really becoming one of Pete Hegseth's most trusted advisers, his name is Colonel Ricky Buria, installing Signal on his computer so he can use it, not just on his phone, which is, as you know, hard to use at the Pentagon for no service, but also on his work computer. Is that normal?
CHRIS MEAGHER, FORMER PENTAGON SENIOR SPOKESPERSON: No, it's not normal. This is fairly unprecedented.
I didn't use Signal on any of my devices. We occasionally would use it to schedule meetings or something like that. We certainly did not use it to discuss classified sensitive information on operational details before those operations took place, as it sounds like Pete Hegseth did, not just with people that were part of the National Security Council, but with on chains, with his wife, with his lawyer, with people that have nothing to do with the Pentagon.
So it's extremely concerning. And we're seeing a habit. He's a repeat offender. We don't even know how many of these chats are out there.
COLLINS: But essentially, you had used it for mundane things, logistics, scheduling. So you had used it some. You just hadn't used it in the ways that we do know that where he was texting the other ones (ph).
MEAGHER: Yes, say, I'm -- it's the weekend, and I'm out at the playground with my kid, and I have my personal phone with me. I might get a Signal chat that says, Hey, we're standing up a call to talk about Ukraine this afternoon. That's the sort of stuff I'm talking about.
COLLINS: Yes.
[21:30:00]
MEAGHER: Not, Hey, the jets are about to take off to bomb Yemen, you know? That's all-- COLLINS: What about this reporting from the Associated Press tonight that the Secretary had an unsecured internet line set up in his office, to be able to connect to Signal? How does that typically work in terms of using a government secured internet line, so people can't hack into it?
MEAGHER: I've never heard of anything like this. I think it exists in very limited circumstances, where people have to do investigations, or look at websites that would otherwise be blocked by the Pentagon servers. But it's really unprecedented.
I would just say, the Pentagon is a hard place to use your cell phone, and that's on purpose.
COLLINS: Yes.
MEAGHER: Because cell phones are easy to hack.
We've had 28 Secretaries of Defense who have had no issue communicating in the way that they need to.
Literally, the Secretary of Defense has a guy, walking right behind him, with a backpack full of every communications device the secretary could need, to reach anybody in the world, at any time, day or night, up to and including the President of the United States.
So the idea that he needed to have his personal computer, his personal cell phone in there to communicate, is just like baffling to me, because it's not true. He literally has somebody there who can help him do that communicating.
COLLINS: Yes, that's a good point. Thanks everyone for being here, and great to have you.
Also, tonight, there's a new showdown that is happening inside the Democratic Party. An ultimatum was issued to the Vice Chair, David Hogg. What's he going to say about that? We'll talk to him, directly, next.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As President Trump is approaching his 100th day in office, the Democratic National Committee has a fight on its hands, but not one with the White House necessarily.
Instead, today we saw Ken Martin, who is the head of the DNC, issue an ultimatum to one of his vice chairs, David Hogg, essentially saying, Choose between your leadership role with the committee, or your pledge to challenge Democratic incumbents, that Hogg says are out of touch or ineffective.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEN MARTIN, CHAIRPERSON, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: No DNC officer should ever attempt to influence the outcome of a primary election, whether on behalf of an incumbent or a challenger.
I have great respect for David Hogg. I understand what he's trying to do. As I've said to him, if you want to challenge incumbents, you're more than free to do that, but just not as an officer of the DNC.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now here is what's going on behind-the-scenes. Hogg has pledged to spend millions, funding primary challenges to what he calls asleep-at-the-wheel Democrats, who are in safe seats. The party's chair wants to now change the rules to require national Democratic officials to pledge neutrality in all primaries.
David Hogg is my source tonight. And it's great to have you here.
Because Ken Martin also said that he has no intention of forcing you out. But if this rule, this neutrality pledge, passes, are you going to commit to it?
DAVID HOGG, VICE CHAIR, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, PRESIDENT & CO- FOUNDER, LEADERS WE DESERVE: Look, the reason they have to change the rules right now is because I'm not breaking them.
I ran previously doing this work with Leaders We Deserve, my organization that helps to elect young Democrats to state legislatures and Congress around the country. And I understand what the Chair is saying. However, there have been vice chairs previously who had been involved in primaries. And what is happening here is they're attempting to change the rules, which in effect will force me out of the organization.
And the reason why I'm doing this is because I feel like this is a break-the-glass moment that our party is in, not -- because we are failing -- far too many of our leaders in Congress are failing to meet the moment, right now, where, despite what Donald Trump has done, despite dissipating (ph) people, despite crashing the stock market, despite all the chaos he has ensued, we still have record low approvals. And that is not just going to be something that changes with messaging.
Last cycle, we had $2 billion, and we had a former President who was a convicted felon and attempted to overthrow the government. And people in D.C. continue to act like we can just have the same cast of characters, and not change anything that much fundamentally, and just hope, if we throw a couple $100 million at some frontline districts, things are going to change. And frankly, that is not going to be possible.
There are far too many people in Congress that are failing to meet the moment right now. And we need to do two things at once. We need to challenge the Democrats that are failing to meet this moment in safe districts. And support our frontline members, to get them across the finish line and take back the House. And we can and should do both.
COLLINS: So what happens here? Do you stay on as Vice Chair? Or if they pass this, do you believe that you'd have to leave? HOGG: I believe if they pass this, they're going to remove me. I believe that is what is going to happen. And it's in part because there are people that want to -- they're -- in D.C., they want to do two things at the same time. They want to keep all the same people in their positions of power and maintain the status quo. And they want to win. But the reality is you can't do both of those things. It's not so much a matter of what our message is (inaudible) messengers are.
Let me be clear about this. This is (inaudible) younger candidates. This is about effectiveness. Unfortunately, there are people of all ages. There are young people who suck, there are older people who are great, and vice versa. This is about effectiveness. It's about being -- it's not about being out with the old and in with the new. It's about being--
COLLINS: Yes.
HOGG: --out with the ineffective and in with the effective.
And frankly, if you're doing a good job, you don't have anything to be worried about here. But if this makes you anxious, and you're a member of Congress, maybe you should think about why that is, and how we can step up to meet the moment.
[21:40:00]
Because the reality is here, right now, in order to help combat Donald Trump, we need to be the strongest opposition party possible to him, and we are not that. We need to show the American people that we're not just a party that is against Donald Trump. We are a party that is fighting to use democracy to revive the American Dream and stand up to Donald Trump.
COLLINS: Yes.
HOGG: And we're not doing that anywhere near enough right now. And the best way to do that is to help make sure that everybody knows they're going to be held accountable.
We shouldn't have this idea that if you're just in a position, for a couple of years or decades, that you're entitled to it. Nobody is entitled to their position. We need to make sure that we're handling the conflicts within our party productively, in our safer seats, and this is one way of doing that.
And the reality is, like I said, there is precedent for people previously being involved in primaries, who were vice chairs.
COLLINS: Yes. And David, I'm glad you mentioned--
HOGG: And they are changing this rule now in order to remove me (ph).
COLLINS: I'm glad you mentioned that you're saying this isn't just a generational thing. It's not just going after or trying to help younger members get elected, going after older members. You're saying it kind of depends on each member here. But in terms of how many people that you think you'd want to primary here and help fund challengers. What number would you have -- do you have a target on right now?
HOGG: Currently, we're waiting to see who retires. Obviously, you know -- and part of this, what I would say is it's like -- it's going to be if, in a worst-case scenario, it's going to be a couple dozen people, at least. Because we are here to only go after the people that are truly most epically failing to meet this moment, in the most massive ways possible. And that's what we're focused on.
COLLINS: OK. A couple dozen people.
HOGG: We're also here to help support candidates that are incumbent candidates.
COLLINS: Any names of anybody you'd like to share?
HOGG: Not currently, because we are waiting to see. Our candidates will announce their campaigns when they announce them. And we're waiting to see as well who retires.
COLLINS: One criticism I've heard of this is some Republicans saying, We love watching Democrats fight among themselves. Democrats in disarray, is the joke here in Washington.
Does it concern you that so much of the focus is on Democratic infighting right now, rather than, say, President Trump signing a memo at the White House, this afternoon, targeting ActBlue, with the Justice Department. It's the Democratic Party's main fundraising platform.
HOGG: I think we can and should do both. I think it's important to remember that iron sharpens iron here. And I believe that having the best representatives possible in our safer blue seats is a critical part of winning back the majority.
Because right now, as we saw last election, even with $2 billion that we had, and a terrible former President that we were running against, we still ended up losing. And part of the reason for that is, isn't just because of our messaging. It is because of our messengers. It is because sometimes you can have the best script in the world, but if you have actors that are terrible at acting, it doesn't matter.
And what I would say to the people that are doing that is like people can say that Democrats are in disarray. But the reality is here, we are not a cult, unlike Republicans. We actually have conversations, and we don't excommunicate people just because they don't agree with whoever the strongman is at the top, the way that Donald Trump does. And I think that's one of the things that makes us a great party.
We have a wide variety of views that we represent. But ultimately, we are all working towards the same goal of getting Democrats back to have the House, and make sure that we are supporting the American people.
COLLINS: Will you still continue this effort, even if you leave the leadership position at the DNC?
HOGG: Yes, I will continue this effort, even if I leave the leadership position at the DNC.
COLLINS: OK.
HOGG: It's important for people to know, the vice chair role, unlike James Carville said, is not a paid role. This is a volunteer role that we are in.
COLLINS: DNC Vice Chair, for now, we'll see what happens, David Hogg, thank you for joining tonight.
HOGG: Thank you. If anybody wants to know more about what we do, they can go to leaderswedeserve.com.
COLLINS: Thanks, David.
Up next for us here. Gas, groceries, eggs, all three main topics that people are talking about. The President claims prices on all three of them have dropped. But my economic source is here with a reality check, next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump is claiming that eggs cost a lot less than they actually do. As a lot of Americans are worried still about his trade war, and whether or not it's going to drive up their prices.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Groceries are down. When I was with you two months ago, you were -- you were complaining about eggs. I said, I just got here. They went through the roof, and you couldn't get them. So we just had a big Easter egg hunt at the White House, thousands and thousands of eggs, and the price was down 87 percent. So we did a great job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: 87 percent. If that number stood out to you, it did to us, too. So we looked into it.
What we found was that the latest data actually shows egg prices reached a high, a record high, last month, with the national average being $6.23 for a dozen of large eggs. That's a roughly 26 percent increase since the President and the start of his second term.
And now it's very possible that the April average is lower. We'll find out next May, when the data is published. But if egg prices had actually dropped 87 percent, since the President's return to Office, you'd probably be making omelets or cakes every single meal. That's because eggs would cost $0.65 per dozen. But as the numbers show, that's far from the reality that a lot of Americans are facing when they go to the grocery store still.
My economic source tonight is Jennifer Hillman, who is the former Commissioner at the U.S. International Trade Commission.
And it's great to have you.
[21:50:00]
Because the wholesale price, the national wholesale price, for a dozen large white eggs, was $3.13. That is down from $6.55, as of Friday, when Trump took office on January 20th. That's a decline of about 52 percent. Certainly not the number we're seeing there. And wholesale prices doesn't necessarily translate to what you're paying, or what I'm paying at the grocery store.
JENNIFER HILLMAN, PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN LAW SCHOOL, FORMER COMMISSIONER, U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION: That's exactly right. I mean, it depends on what do the retailers decide to do. I mean, are they going to leave their prices up or not.
And obviously, egg prices are affected by lots of things. Again, we've started to import a lot of eggs, unusually. 1.6 million dozen eggs we imported in January and February. We didn't use to import hardly any at all. Why? Is that going to change? Because, again, tariffs are going to go on even things like eggs. So again, it's not clear how these prices are going to all pan out, if they're affected by so many things.
COLLINS: Yes, it's still a big question.
And also, when it comes to home prices, the President was praising economic data in the Oval Office today, saying this is what it showed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: There was a slowdown, as it relates to home sales in the month of March, the slowest pace since 2009. Is that an economic indicator that concerns you about the broader U.S.?
TRUMP: No, they had very good numbers on housing today. Extremely good numbers. And that's despite interest rates. Because, you know, if you look at what happened, everyone said, Oh, I said I was going to get prices down. I did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Existing home sale prices did drop -- home sales dropped 5.9 percent, last month. What does that say, and how does it play into what the President has been arguing about the Federal Reserve and what they should do?
HILLMAN: Well, again, if you think about it, what the Federal Reserve is trying to do is meet its twin goals, which are to make sure that we have full employment and low rates of inflation.
And yet, if you think about the rest of his policies, particularly his trade policies, his tariffs, what are they doing? They're causing price increases. What are -- and many of them are already starting to also cause job layoffs.
So the Fed is trying to balance a whole lot of different things, not just home sales or home prices.
And if you look at what's the other thing happening here in Washington, on the international side, is the meetings of the IMF and the World Bank. And the IMF put out their forecast this year, and they're saying inflation in the United States is going to be up by an entire percentage point.
COLLINS: Yes.
HILLMAN: That unemployment is going to get worse in the United States, and that economic growth is going to slow very substantially.
COLLINS: So part of that is raising this huge question of what's going on with China, and the trade war negotiations there. Neither side seems willing to blink at this point.
On social media yesterday, they were making fun of the President. And they rebuffed and rejected what Trump said last night, that there are active negotiations between the United States and China. China says that's not true. Now maybe they're lying and trying to put them into a corner.
But I wonder what that says to you about what we heard today, in terms of if any real progress is being made.
HILLMAN: I think it's hard to see how you can say that there's real progress being made, if you have both our own Treasury Secretary Bessent saying, There aren't any negotiations going on, and the Chinese saying, There aren't any negotiations going on.
So, if there is anything happening, it's at a pretty low level. And again, hard to see how you get to somewhere, if both sides are basically not saying there are any effective, actual negotiations.
COLLINS: And so, what does that mean if they don't get anywhere soon?
HILLMAN: I think--
COLLINS: The longer it goes, how much worse does it get?
HILLMAN: Again, it just is going to depend on whether President Trump is willing to unilaterally back down on these 145 percent tariffs on China without a specific deal.
COLLINS: Yes. Jennifer Hillman, great to have you as always. Thanks for breaking all that to our viewers.
HILLMAN: Great to be here. Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next here. We have a look at the President's term so far in office as he's approaching his 100th day, its impact. That's ahead. [21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Next week will mark President Trump's first 100 days back in office. And within those 100 days, the President has moved quickly to issue a record number of executive actions, impacting immigration, the economy, empowering Elon Musk as the theoretical head of DOGE, though not on paperwork.
This week, on "THE WHOLE STORY WITH ANDERSON COOPER," Abby Phillip takes a look at 100 days of Trump, his executive orders, the administration's legal challenges, and also the impact of the President's decisions on Americans.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Morale is low in the federal government. People don't know when the next round of terminations are going to happen, and that's causing a considerable amount of anxiety.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): One of the architects of Project 2025, now a Trump appointee, has said anxiety is the goal.
RUSSELL VOUGHT, DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET: We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning we want them to not want to go to work.
PHILLIP (on camera): What is the reasoning behind not just firing federal workers, but also making their lives difficult, anxiety- ridden, and uneasy?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't feel pleasure, like, by people losing their jobs. But the reality is, is government got too big, and you can't put that burden on the American taxpayer.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Be sure to tune in to see that and more. This all-new episode of "THE WHOLE STORY WITH ANDERSON COOPER," airs this Sunday, 08:00 p.m., Eastern and Pacific, only here on CNN.
Thanks for joining us.
Speaking of, "CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
[22:00:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight. The President pitches a fit, as the polls, all of them, tell a story of American angst with him.
Plus, Donald Trump tries to make two plus two equal five. The President brags housing is booming, when the numbers show it going bust.
Also, should you have to prove your citizenship to cast a ballot? A judge delivers his vote--
