Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Says He "Wouldn't Have Wanted" Second Boat Strike; Trump Says He Will Pardon Ex-Honduran President Serving 45-Year Sentence In Drug-Trafficking Case; Noem Calls For "Travel Ban" On Nations Flooding U.S. With "Killers." Aired 9-10p ET
Aired December 01, 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]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: That was a really -- that word caught on like wildfire.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yes, it was a big one. We're still using it to this day.
COOPER: OK. What else? What else we got?
ENTEN: I would also tell you, Oxford is not the only one that puts out a Word of the Year.
COOPER: OK.
ENTEN: Dictionary.com has six-seven. I know--
COOPER: Oh. OK.
ENTEN: Yes, which I looked it up. I have no idea. It was part of a song, basketball videos. But the bottom line is, it makes no sense.
COOPER: Well it doesn't make sense.
ENTEN: It's nonsensical.
COOPER: I'll tell you what it means.
ENTEN: Yes. Thank you.
COOPER: Harry Enten, thanks very much.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, a notable office meeting with the President's national security team just wrapped, as this administration is now facing accusations from some members of Congress of a potential war crime.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, President Trump just finished convening his top national security officials at the White House. The main topic, we are told, is Venezuela. And although the U.S. is not officially at war with that nation, the President has been hinting at U.S. military strikes on Venezuelan soil, he says, in an effort to combat large-scale drug trafficking.
Now, that would be an escalation from the strikes that we've been seeing happening, offshore, in the Caribbean, which tonight are the source of major controversy, here in Washington. The mission in international waters has already killed more than 80 people, whom the Trump administration has declared Narco-terrorists.
But it's one attack in particular that even some congressional Republicans are now questioning. The Pentagon released this footage of a strike on September 2nd. The White House says this was a boat that was smuggling drugs. Hence the strike.
It is the first strike in that incident, video of which the Pentagon has released. But as CNN and others have now reported, over the weekend, two people actually survived that first strike. A second strike was then ordered, killing both of those survivors. The administration has still not released the video of that second strike, and it notably was not included in the video of the first strike that they released months ago.
Today, though, after the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, called the initial reporting, fake news, and the Pentagon declared a report out of The Washington Post, saying the entire narrative was false, the White House press secretary said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: With respect to the strikes in question, on September 2nd, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority.
REPORTER: Does the administration deny that, that second strike happened? Or did it happen, and the administration denies that Secretary Hegseth gave the order?
LEAVITT: The latter is true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, following that message that we heard out of the White House press briefing, where there were a ton of questions on who exactly it was, that authorized this strike, and whether or not when that second strike was authorized, it was clear to this administration that there were two survivors there. Hence the questions about whether or not a war crime was committed here.
Secretary Hegseth posted tonight, this, and there's a line that stood out, where he says that he stood by the admiral who he says, made this call with Hegseth, writing quote, "I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made - on the September 2 mission and all others since." Now, just yesterday, almost three months after the fact, President Trump was asked by reporters about this, and said that he did not actually know that the second strike had happened, and that he was taking the Secretary's word for it when it came to what those orders sounded like.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We'll look into it, but no, I wouldn't have wanted that, not a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine, and if there were two people around, but Pete said that didn't happen.
REPORTER: Does that make you--
TRUMP: I have great confidence.
REPORTER: Do you say there's no second strike?
TRUMP: I don't know. I'm going to find out about it, but Pete said he did not order the death of those two men.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Here's another reason why this is notable tonight, and why the administration was also facing questions about whether their policies on this have changed. Because about a month after the strike that is in question tonight happened, that's when another strike left survivors as well. But those men, those survivors, were actually rescued and then sent back to their home countries.
This is what Secretary Hegseth had to say, though, just a few weeks after that first strike occurred.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: We fight to win. We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our war fighters, to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The administration tonight is facing questions about whether or not that second strike was legal.
[21:05:00]
This comes, after days the President saying those six Democratic lawmakers committed sedition, because they posted that video where they urged troops to disobey any potential illegal orders. As the White House is defending the legality of killing survivors, as they did in the case in question here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LEAVITT: The strike conducted on September 2nd was conducted in self- defense to protect Americans and vital United States interests.
The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict.
Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law.
Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Repeatedly, during the briefing today, the White House, and since, as you noticed in that Pete Hegseth tweet, have pointed to the Admiral here, when it came to this second strike. Not the Defense Secretary himself. We'll have more on that in a moment.
But I should point out, as was noted at the White House briefing today, the Pentagon's Law of War Manual says that it is forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given. And it is also prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors.
To start us off tonight is my congressional source, one of those Democratic lawmakers who urged American troops to refuse any illegal orders. U.S. Navy veteran and Pennsylvania Representative, Chris Deluzio.
And thank you sir for being here.
Obviously, that video generated a lot of controversy from the White House. The President was essentially arguing that y'all were guilty of sedition. When you made that video, was it scenarios like this that you were worried about?
REP. CHRIS DELUZIO (D-PA): Well, I think what we've seen out of the President is his response, to us stating the law. I mean, of course it's the law that the oath to the Constitution comes first. No service member, whether they're a private or an admiral, can be forced to follow illegal orders. His response to that was to call for our death and arrest, which tells me his regard for the Constitution is something that leaves a lot to be desired.
And coming out of what we've seen today, I don't want to see our service members placed in a position of not knowing whether an order they're given is lawful. Of course, they have to follow lawful orders.
But the kinds of strikes we're talking about, here now in Venezuela, where there are people who are presumably survivors, hanging onto the wreckage of a boat, who are no threat to Americans, hundreds of miles away, now murdered? That's a likely violation of law. We should find out who was involved, who gave what orders, what they knew -- knew what the video was, all of it. This is the exact kind of fact-finding we should be doing in the Armed Services Committee, both House and Senate.
COLLINS: So when the White House says it was done in self-defense, as they did today, what do you make of that?
DELUZIO: Hundreds of miles away from the United States, people clinging on to the wreckage of a boat, who are they putting in danger? To say that you can kill people who are unarmed, as that's the allegation here, again, clinging on to wreckage? It's just outrageous, and this is exactly why we need an investigation.
It'd be easy to say, So and so now violated the law. Let's find out what happened. Let's find out who gave the order. This is bipartisan now, which it should be. These are serious accusations, so we have to investigate this in the Armed Services Committee, both House and Senate. Let's keep this about the facts, and find out who's responsible.
COLLINS: You said it was likely illegal. Is there an explanation that you could get from the administration though, that would make you think otherwise?
DELUZIO: I have a hard time imagining what that could be, because the report here is that you had two survivors who posed no threat to anyone, hundreds of miles away from the United States, clinging on to wreckage. I don't see how there could be an argument that they are posing some imminent threat. Again, in strikes that the Congress has never authorized.
I've had objections in the Biden administration, now in the Trump administration, of presidents using authority that Congress didn't give them, to launch strikes, to exceed the powers of the War Powers Resolution. All of these things together should give the American people great pause and alarm. It's exactly why we need an investigation in the Congress.
COLLINS: You repeatedly heard today, the White House referring to Admiral Bradley -- Admiral Frank Bradley, here, and saying that, it was within his duty, within his responsibilities.
Tonight, the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, tweeted, saying that he has his back, but also making clear that it was his call here, as he did.
Do you believe -- I mean, what do you make of, of how they are pointing to that?
DELUZIO: I want to find out what happened. I think people should be testifying, from Congress, under oath, to tell us exactly what happened.
But I know about Admiral Bradley. Naval Academy graduate, a SEAL, someone who served this country honorably.
There are reports that, I'm sure you know, that Pete Hegseth gave the oral order. Rather than guess, let's find out what happened. Let's find out who gave what orders, and what they knew at the time.
COLLINS: Yes, which the President, I thought, notably was saying -- he calls him Pete. He was saying, Pete told me he didn't do that. He didn't say to kill those two men. I thought it was notable how the President was saying, citing what he said there.
If this did come down, and this did happen, who do you think should be held accountable here? Would it be Admiral Bradley, or would it be the Secretary?
DELUZIO: I think it may turn on who is the most senior person who gave any kind of order here, right? Who knew what the circumstances were? Who knew there were two survivors and ordered it? Let's find out. I don't want to guess. I think the responsible thing for Congress to do is not guess yet. Let's find out. Let's figure out who gave those orders, and let's have accountability.
[21:10:00]
COLLINS: The President just posted a few moments ago, on Truth Social, referring to another lawmaker who was in that video with you, Senator Mark Kelly, and said that, Mark Kelly and the group of unpatriotic politicians were WRONG to do what they did, and they know it. I hope the people looking at them are not duped into thinking that it's OK to openly and freely get others to disobey the President of the United States.
DELUZIO: I think the President should be reminded of some basic facts. He can't expect anyone to follow illegal orders. That's something you'll learn in boot camp, that I learned at the Naval Academy in Plebe Summer, that commanding officers and JAG lawyers train service members for every single day.
Is the President's position, he's going to go prosecute everyone who trains to make sure they know the difference between a lawful and illegal order? It's an outrageous position. He knows it, I'm sure. People around him, I'm sure know it, and they ought to be reminded of that.
COLLINS: And you want -- you're talking about investigations here. Do you believe the administration needs to release the full video with that second strike included?
DELUZIO: I think the Congress for now needs to see it, and I suspect the American people need to see it too.
COLLINS: Congressman, thank you for being here.
DELUZIO: Thank you.
COLLINS: I really appreciate your time tonight.
DELUZIO: You bet.
COLLINS: And as all of this story was unfolding today, at the White House, we sought answers from the Energy Secretary, specifically when it comes to the Venezuelan president, after he accused the administration, Maduro did, of trying to seize Venezuela's oil reserves.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Hi, Secretary Wright. Can we ask you a few questions?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I told you, we don't have time right now.
COLLINS: Can I ask you, because--
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Guys, guys--
COLLINS: --Maduro -- Maduro wrote a letter to OPEC, saying the U.S. is trying to seize their oil reserves. What has the President said about their oil reserves?
Nothing?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Of course, that came just shortly before the President had that key meeting on Venezuela, inside the Oval Office.
But it also comes, as this scrutiny has been facing them, over these strikes, and as you just heard from the Congressman there, he's a Democrat, but there are also Republicans who want answers to the questions they have about how these strikes went down.
Also today, when I was at the White House, given how this was unraveling today, I placed a call to one of our favorite sources, Barbara Starr, one of the most experienced Pentagon reporters on the beat, who also covered national security for more than two decades at CNN, to see what she thought of what the administration was saying today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: When you heard the White House confirm that there was indeed a second strike on this boat after the first strike, what was your thought on that?
Voice of BARBARA STARR, FORMER CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: For my money, you can't believe anything this current Pentagon really says. So right from the beginning, I didn't find any sources out there who believed that it never happened.
I think one of the big questions is, exactly what happened? The White House is saying that the second strike was authorized, perhaps by Secretary Hegseth. But who actually gave the order to carry it out? Is that person, Admiral Bradley, the head of Special Operations? Is he going to be held responsible?
Call me doubtful, that a four-star head of Special Operations just willy-nilly went out there and fired again. If it's proven that he did and that he was responsible for that order, then the question is, what made him believe that that was a legal order?
It's the real bottom line here, that Trump and Hegseth are sidestepping any responsibility and basically throwing the U.S. military under the bus, if you will. (END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: As we're tracking all the developments here, I want to get perspective tonight from The Atlantic's David Frum, who is joining me here on set.
And it's great to have you.
DAVID FRUM, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Thank you.
COLLINS: Because I think this all big picture. One question that some people have, even if you support this President, is, what -- is it clear to you what their goal is, when it comes to Venezuela?
FRUM: It's not clear to them.
The United States now has the largest deployment in the Caribbean since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Some very large proportion of U.S. naval assets are already there. Aircraft carriers, other resources, all of which are needed elsewhere on the planet.
And we read in the newspapers that with this giant buildup, the President is asking for options. Well, normally, you have the options decided, before you summon all the forces from all over the world, and before you start this campaign of killing, of whatever -- whoever and whatever they are killing.
They've got a train of bad and dishonest decisions here. Drug smugglers, if they are drug smugglers, are not terrorists. They're criminals, if they are criminals. They are certainly not combatants. And blowing up boats is no kind of solution to drug problems in the United States.
The United States has been trying to interdict drugs for now more than half a century, with consistently failing results. Trump thinks, Well, maybe if we have more violence and kill more people, we'll get a better outcome. Maybe if we call them terrorists, when they're just criminals, if they are criminals, we'll get a better outcome. And none of that is true.
COLLINS: Well, one thing that stood out to me is, the White House says we're doing this because of the drug trafficking from Venezuela to the United States. To protect Americans.
FRUM: Yes.
COLLINS: That's been their argument all along.
They also seem to want to see obviously, Maduro out of power. But they made clear that is -- that is their goal -- that is the primary reason for this.
On Thursday, the President announces he's pardoning--
FRUM: Yes.
[21:15:00]
COLLINS: --an actual convicted drug trafficker, the former leader of Honduras, who was accused by prosecutors of trying to funnel brick loads of cocaine into the United States.
FRUM: Do they want--
COLLINS: Does that make sense to you?
FRUM: Do they want Maduro out of power? So Maduro is the authoritarian, dictatorial misgovernment of Venezuela who's inflicted poverty and misery on the people of Venezuela. He's very unpopular. He made the mistake, last year, of allowing what he thought would be a sham election, but he's so unpopular that there was an actual winner, Edmundo Gonzalez.
So the United States, if it wanted Maduro out of power, could work with regional allies. There's a -- there is a legitimate, lawful leader of Venezuela. Work with Colombia and Brazil, next-door neighbors, where the Venezuelan refugees are present in largest numbers. Work with other allies in Latin America to come up with a coherent, cohesive democracy strategy.
I don't think they want Maduro out of power. I think they want some kind of cynical deal with Maduro, and they're trying to intimidate him into giving them one. And that's why they have all these assets there and no plan for how to use them, because they're huffing and puffing with no idea of what happens if Maduro does not panic.
COLLINS: Well, and what if he does panic? I mean, what if -- if he does leave, do you think that's the question is, do they let the leader who won the election govern? Or what does that look like from there?
FRUM: Well, they've sent a very interesting signal with the Hernandez pardon, the former President of Honduras that you mentioned, that President Trump has been on this spree of pardoning all kinds of people who have done heinous things, and there seem to be influence campaigns. I mean, they're sort of telling Maduro, We don't have a problem with criminals, so long as there are criminals. Become one of our criminals, and you could have -- enjoy the protection.
There's a report, I don't know how valid it is, that Maduro offered the Trump administration, Look, if you protect me from democracy, if you allow me to impoverish my people and pillage them, I will give you access to oil. Now, that negotiation, it's not clear how far that went. It's not clear if it was just an offer, a negotiation. But Maduro has taken the measure of Trump, that democracy is not on the agenda for this administration. The next thug in line is.
COLLINS: What's your view of the kind of blame game going around on it, when it comes to who's responsible for the second strike that happened? I mean, the President said yesterday, on Air Force One, that he did not want a second strike. He doesn't support that. But obviously, a second strike happened.
FRUM: To me, it's not a very interesting question, who gave the literal order. If you're the Secretary--
COLLINS: Why not?
FRUM: Because if you're the Secretary of Defense, and you are a responsible leader? It's your building. You protect. You don't throw your people under the bus. Even if it's -- really were true, even if the Admiral in question really were responsible, Hegseth should be saying, I'm in charge. Take me.
And it is an example of just the blow-hard irresponsibility of this man, that he would even consider allowing someone else to take the blame for this action. Even if that person actually did give the order, it should be Hegseth volunteering to be at the front of the line.
COLLINS: David Frum, we will see what happens next. Clearly, Congress wants answers on this as well. Thank you for being here tonight.
FRUM: Thank you.
COLLINS: We have much more on this. As the President is continuing to target those alleged drug boats. One question of course, as we mentioned there, why he's now promising to pardon that convicted drug trafficker. Our best legal sources are here, ahead.
And also tonight, why a federal judge has disqualified another one of the President's handpicked U.S. attorneys.
And what the White House has just revealed this memo about the President's recent MRI scan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What part of your body was the MRI looking at?
TRUMP: I have no idea. It was just an MRI. What part of the body? It wasn't the brain, because I took a cognitive test, and I aced it. I got a perfect mark.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, as the White House is weighing next steps in their campaign to stop drugs from coming into the United States from Venezuela, and accusing Venezuela's president of leading that effort. Officials are also defending the President's pledge to pardon the former President of Honduras. Even though Juan Orlando Hernandez has already been convicted of helping send drugs into the U.S.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: The people of Honduras have highlighted to him how the former President Hernandez was set up. This was a clear Biden over- prosecution. He was the president of this country. He was in the opposition party. He was opposed to the values of the previous administration. And they charged him because he was President of Honduras.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, Hernandez had been sentenced, last year, to 45 years in prison for drug trafficking offenses. An American jury found that he was guilty of conspiring with cartels, to move 400 tons of cocaine through his home country toward the U.S. The Justice Department estimated that that amounts to approximately 4.5 billion individual doses of this drug.
But the President claimed today that many people have told him that Hernandez had been treated very harshly and unfairly, and that it was all set up by the Biden White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The people of Honduras really thought he was set up, and it was a terrible thing. He was the president of the country, and they basically said he was a drug dealer because he was the president of the country. And they said it was a Biden administration setup. And I looked at the facts, and I agreed with them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My legal sources tonight are:
CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig.
And former Justice Department pardon attorney herself, Liz Oyer, who was fired by the Trump administration earlier this year.
And Elie, despite what we are hearing from some officials, about this being a Biden setup. Part of this investigation actually started when the President was in office, the first term, President Trump. Because one of the lead investigators who convicted Hernandez's brother in this scheme, was actually Trump's own former personal attorney, he would go on to be so, Emil Bove, at your former stomping grounds of SDNY.
Do you believe this was over-prosecution, as the administration is putting it?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Not at all, Kaitlan. And the record proves to the contrary.
[21:25:00]
So, if you look back at this case, it was charged by the Justice Department, the Southern District of New York. This individual, Mr. Hernandez, was given a three-week jury trial. The judge, Judge Kevin Castel, I've tried cases in front of him, very experienced, very fair, tolerates no BS from prosecutors, runs a tight, fair trial. He was convicted by a jury. He was then sentenced to 45 years.
He was actually about to have his appeal argument, next week. And I think it's worth noting, Kaitlan, that Hernandez's own lawyers are not even making the kinds of arguments that we just heard from the President. They're not arguing that this was a setup, or politically- driven, or anything of that nature.
So, whoever these Honduran people are, who are making these statements to the President, I'm not sure who they are. But these claims are completely different from what Hernandez is actually claiming in -- or was claiming in court, before the pardon.
COLLINS: Well, one of them actually is Roger Stone, a Trump ally. He's been elevating this case and talking about this, defending the pardon, as he did today.
And Liz. We heard from Republican senator, Bill Cassidy, on this. He tweeted and said, Why would we pardon this guy and then go after Maduro for running drugs into the United States? He said, we should Lock up every drug runner. And he doesn't understand why he is being pardoned.
I mean, you handled pardons for people who have been convicted, obviously, of huge crimes, small crimes. What do you make of this decision?
LIZ OYER, FORMER DOJ PARDON ATTORNEY: This is just a staggeringly unprincipled use of the pardon power. It goes against the President's stated policy objectives, with respect to stopping drug trafficking, and it also defies the ordinary process. It doesn't appear that this individual has even applied for a pardon, let alone been vetted through the ordinary process.
And the nature of the offense, the scope of the drug trafficking that was at issue here, is the type of offense that simply does not get serious consideration for a presidential pardon ever.
This is someone who did a tremendous amount of harm to his own country, as well as to the United States. To pardon a foreign drug trafficker, on this level, on this magnitude of drug trafficking, is really just quite shocking, and I think that a lot of people share Senator Cassidy's criticisms.
COLLINS: Yes.
And Elie, on that front. I mean, obviously one defense that we always hear from Trump officials as well as they say, I mean, the pardon power, it's outright, it's absolute. He can do whatever he wants with it. They point to the pardons that Biden did on his way out of office.
But Elie, I want to ask you about something else. Because we were talking about a former Trump attorney, in this situation, Emil Bove, and what he did with this.
There's also another former Trump attorney who is now serving as the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey. And a judge at a federal appeals court found that she's actually serving unlawfully, they say. That comes after the one -- the ruling we got last week that another U.S. attorney that Trump has put in place, Lindsey Halligan, in Virginia, is also serving unlawfully.
I mean, I think there's a real question here. I mean, I was talking to people today saying, What does this mean as far as the Justice Department and how it operates going forward, right now, as they're facing all of these decisions from appeals court and from judges.
HONIG: Well, Kaitlan, there are now four different U.S. attorneys, or would-be U.S. attorneys, who have been ruled to be serving illegally. There's Alina Habba in New Jersey. There's Lindsey Halligan in the Eastern District of Virginia. And then there's U.S. attorneys in California Central District, where Los Angeles is, and in Nevada. And this is just chaos.
It's unfair, by the way, to the prosecutors who are trying to do their jobs. I mean, I put myself back in these positions. My first question, if I was working in any of these districts, would be, OK, who's the boss here? Who's in charge of this office? Who's signing off on my indictments? Where is the chain of command? My second concern would be, Are my indictments OK?
Now, the decision today against Alina Habba, from the Court of Appeals, I should say, by the way, unanimous decision of two George W. Bush appointees and one Barack Obama appointee, that decision was that Alina Habba is illegally serving and she's disqualified. However, the indictments do not have to get thrown out. So, that's a bit of a sigh of relief for DOJ.
But with Lindsey Halligan, we got a different ruling that those indictments against Jim Comey and Letitia James do have to be thrown out.
So, it's chaos, and it's created by DOJ's inability to comply with the most basic requirements of putting key people in place.
COLLINS: Yes. Even though, I should note, CNN is reporting today, James Comey might be reindicted this week.
HONIG: Right.
COLLINS: When that happens, we will have both of you back here for your thoughts on that as well.
Elie Honig. Liz Oyer. Thank you both for being here tonight.
And up next. What the Homeland Security Secretary told me, as President Trump has been ramping up his immigration crackdown, in the wake of that shooting, a fatal shooting of the National Guardsmen, here in Washington, DC. We'll let you listen to this answer, right after this.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump says that the U.S. pause on all asylum decisions and visas for people from Afghanistan has, quote, "No time limit" to it, suggesting that the restriction could be in place for quite some time, after an Afghan national shot two National Guard members, here in Washington, last week.
20-year-old Sarah Beckstrom died from her injuries on Thanksgiving Day. And 24-year-old Andrew Wolfe, her colleague, who was also shot, is still in serious condition tonight and fighting for his life. Of course, our thoughts and our prayers are with both of their families, as they are dealing with this horrific aftermath.
And in this moment, here in Washington, we've also seen the White House responding, including with President Trump escalating his own efforts to crack down on immigration. His administration has announced that it will reexamine all green cards issued to people from 19 countries that it deems of concern. That includes Afghanistan.
At the White House today, we ran into the Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, and I asked her about what that reexamination process exactly looks like.
[21:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Can I ask you about the vetting process that you're reexamining how the Afghan nationals got into the United States. What is that -- what is reexamining that look like, for y'all?
KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Well, we're going back on all of these folks that have applied for asylum, people that would be traveling to this country, and looking at more information, what -- their social media platforms they may have visited, the communications that they have, biometric information and data that we can collect from them, but also from their government too.
Much of our vetting process, in order to do it well, we have to have cooperation from the government. And if it's a country that doesn't have a stable government, that's difficult to do.
COLLINS: And obviously, he was granted asylum in April during this administration. Do you know when the CIA made that sign-off? Are you looking at that process when he was granted asylum by this administration, specifically?
NOEM: We're looking at all the information that was collected. His application was opened under the Biden administration, and all that vetting and processes was done at that time. So that's part of this reexamination that we have to continue to do, is go back and look at what they did, what we can do, and build on it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Not long after that exchange, the Secretary also posted this, saying that she had met with President Trump directly, and that she is recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that's been flooding our nation with killers, leeches and entitlement junkies. She said in all-caps, WE DON'T WANT THEM. NOT ONE.
Joining me tonight are my political sources.
David Axelrod, who was a former senior adviser to President Obama.
And also David Urban, former Trump campaign adviser.
And David Urban, obviously, we have seen ever since last week, Trump officials putting the blame on the Biden administration for the withdrawal of Afghanistan, what that process looked like after. I wonder what you made though. I mean, I -- as we noted there, and she didn't push back on, the fact that he was granted asylum in April of this year, when the Trump administration was obviously in charge.
DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Yes. Look, there's clearly a breakdown in the system. It's very difficult to predict people who are going to be -- who become radicalized. So, that's something that's -- that it's, we see here amongst Americans, people who -- you look at the young man who tried to assassinate the President, or two of the people who tried to assassinate the President, look at them and ask why they were radicalized to do what they did.
I think the bigger question here, though, underlying all this, is, what was -- what was done in Afghanistan? How did he get here so easily? A lot of our Afghan allies deserve to be here, for their support of us during the war. But some of that may have been rushed through. I think it's only fair to ask, what was done in Afghanistan, what was done here, and we take a re-look at that.
And what I think Secretary Noem said is, other countries, that she's correct, we rely on a lot of other countries for their vetting, to do their initial vetting and provide us with information about who these individuals are. And so, I think it's very wise to look at it all.
But look, the system breaks, and we can't allow one, you know, one breakdown, and we have a tragic assassination like happened with these two young--
COLLINS: Yes.
URBAN: --young National Guardsmen.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, it's just devastating for their families, and can imagine how they're feeling tonight.
And Axe, when you look at this, and what the response has been like. That has been the number one response from Trump officials on that. But also, you see what the Secretary is posting tonight, saying they recommend a full travel ban on -- I mean, it's not really clear exactly which countries she's referencing, but she says this.
I mean, in this situation, they would be working with the Taliban, I guess-- DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PRES. OBAMA: Yes.
COLLINS: --in terms of reexamining these. That's why it was -- it's not totally clear what that's going to look like.
AXELROD: First of all, she met with the President. It sounds like he dictated her post, including caps. So that was a tell.
Look, this is a case, based on all the reporting that I've seen, of a guy who was very much part of an elite group that helped U.S. forces there, in some really sensitive assignments. And these Afghans who have been admitted here are people who would be killed, if they stayed in Afghanistan.
He came here, apparently had a tough time adjusting, and did become radicalized, if that's what happened. I mean, we don't really know what his motivation was, but he clearly was unstable. The Trump administration accorded him full status in April. No one apparently knew, and nobody checked, to see what his current status was.
Does that mean that we should just abandon everyone who helped us? I think that has terrible implications for the U.S. in future conflicts, when you may need the assistance of people. And Dave, to his everlasting credit, has served overseas. He understands this. We need the cooperation of people, in these venues, and in these countries. This guy provided it. That's why he was brought here. And things went bad after that.
[21:40:00]
COLLINS: Yes. And obviously, we had talked about the vetting that would happen after that. I mean, that was a parole process where they were brought in under Biden. Asylum is a separate thing that he would have to be looked at for, which is why the question of how the--
AXELROD: Well, yes, but I mean -- I mean it seems like the--
COLLINS: --Trump admin granted them.
AXELROD: Trump administration granted it. On what basis did they grant it? They won't answer that question. Their only answer to that question is, Biden. And they were the responsible party as of January 20th. In April, they made this decision.
COLLINS: Yes.
AXELROD: And it's -- it's an evasion.
COLLINS: Yes. And Secretary Noem said today that they are looking at that. We'll see. I mean, I don't -- I highly doubt they'll point the fingers at their own CIA.
AXELROD: You think -- I think that's a good prediction.
COLLINS: But we'll see what that looks like. AXELROD: Yes.
COLLINS: David Urban, can I ask you? And I know this is off topic from this particular situation right now.
But what we were talking about, at the top of the show, when it comes to the other big story out of Washington today, is the controversy over these strikes and who ordered them. And they keep pointing to Admiral Frank Bradley here. I mean, you saw Karoline Leavitt saying it, The Admiral, The Admiral, The Admiral, repeatedly today. As Hegseth said today, it was his command, as he put in his tweet.
I wonder what you make of that, David?
URBAN: Yes, I think it's -- I think there's going to be a lot more to be -- to come on this subject.
Admiral Bradley, it's my understanding, at the time, was the JSOC commander. He was not the SOCOM commander, as he's now. He was a -- he was a three-star general, Joint Special Operations Command Commander. Not commander of all of Special Operations Command. So he's a tier lower. And I don't even know if he was in charge of that -- at that level.
But listen, I think there's going to be vigorous oversight. You see this from Senator Wicker, Senator Reed. I noted Senator McCormick, this afternoon, said he supported oversight. You see it in the House. I think there's going to be a lot more to come on this.
I think this is -- Admiral Bradley is an honorable man. I agree with Pete Hegseth in that. I'm just not quite sure what occurred. But I guarantee, we're going to find out what happened.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, as Barbara Starr noted, it's one of the first times we're seeing Republicans on Capitol Hill really deeply question the administration -- the Pentagon, over this.
AXELROD: Can I -- can I ask David, a question?
COLLINS: Yes, go ahead.
AXELROD: Because you have served. Is there any doubt in your mind that going back and striking two guys hanging off a boat was violative of law? Does that strike you most--
URBAN: Yes, Axe, I'm not -- it strikes me as wrong as a human. But I'm not a -- you know, I'm not an expert in international law, war -- you know, war of law, kind of situation.
Obviously, there are parallels in the past that has said this is -- it's improper and illegal to do so. I think we have to wait and see. There's going to be a lot of receipts, a lot of tape, a lot of emails, a lot of -- you know, lot to be -- lot to be heard on this subject. So, I'm going to withhold my judgment until it's all in. But I suspect, there'll be a lot more to hear from this, especially if the House flips, you know, flips to become Democrats, next fall. COLLINS: Yes.
URBAN: I don't think this will go away anytime soon.
AXELROD: Shouldn't have to -- it shouldn't have -- we shouldn't have to wait that long.
COLLINS: Yes.
URBAN: Well, no, but Wicker -- but Wicker and Reed have said--
COLLINS: Yes.
URBAN: --they're looking for oversight. So that's in the Senate, bipartisan.
COLLINS: And those are -- of course, Wicker is a Republican there.
To both of my Davids, it's always great to have you, but especially great to have you together. So thank you both.
AXELROD: Thank you.
URBAN: You bet (ph).
COLLINS: Up next here. What the White House said today about the President's MRI. We've been talking about this MRI for so long. Now the White House tells us what part of his body was scanned, after the President said he had no idea which part was scanned.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: It has been nearly two months, since President Trump got an MRI. And tonight, the White House is revealing more details about that scan. As the President's doctor said in a memo, that was issued today, that the focus of the medical imaging, at the heart of this question, was on the President's cardiovascular and abdominal systems, describing the results as perfectly normal.
The new details that come, a day after the President told reporters on Air Force One, he had no idea which part of his body was scanned in the MRI, renewing questions about his health, and why the doctors felt he needed to undergo the test in the first place.
The White House described it as a preventive measure, this afternoon.
But for more on this, I want to bring in Dr. Jonathan Reiner, who was a former Bush administration cardiologist, and Professor of Medicine & Surgery at George Washington University.
Is an MRI preventative, in your view?
DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST, PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE & SURGERY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: No. It's not part of any routine exam for really, any person.
Usually, MRIs are obtained to answer a question. And that's really my question. What I'd like to know is, what were they trying to figure out? What symptom prompted, or what clinical concern prompted, them to do an MRI?
You have to realize that the White House Medical Unit doctors try to minimize the exposure of the President to hospitals. Because every time you bring the Chief Executive to the hospital, it raises these questions, What is going on?
Which is why, over the last 30 years, there's been this tradition of the President going to Walter Reed, or, back then, Bethesda Medical -- Bethesda Naval Hospital, once a year for a, quote, Comprehensive exam. The press and the public are told the status of the President, and then they don't talk about it again for a year.
This is the third time, since April, that the President has had some kind of formal exam. His comprehensive exam was in April. Then there was concern, over the summer, about swollen legs, and that prompted more tests. And now, in October, the President went for what, we were told then, was advanced imaging.
COLLINS: So when you read this memo that came out today--
REINER: Yes.
[21:50:00]
COLLINS: --saying they focused on the cardiovascular system and the abdominal system, and they say, It's standard, that the results were good. You have questions about why that even happened in the first place?
REINER: So, when these -- when these reports are written, they're written in a fashion to provide some detail, so that it's satisfying. It's like having a little bit of a fat in a meal, you think it's a little bit satisfying.
But to me, when I read these reports, I'm trying to understand, what are they not telling us? So--
COLLINS: So, you're looking for what's not in the memo.
REINER: What's not in the memo. So my questions would be, number one, what prompted this? What prompted? This is not a routine preventative exam. Number two, what specific exam -- tests were done?
Dr. Barbabella, the President's physician, even in this memo, didn't spell out the exact kinds of tests. He, again, used the euphemism, advanced imaging. So there's a lot to know that wasn't in this report.
COLLINS: Yes. We'll keep asking those questions.
Dr. Reiner, great to have you as always, to break it down for us.
REINER: My pleasure.
COLLINS: Up next here. It is a story that everyone is talking about in college football, also outside of college football. It is a head coach of one of the top-ranked teams in the country, well, he hit the transfer portal himself to one of his top rivals. Needless to say, there's big-time drama.
And of course, we're going to get thoughts from ESPN's Paul Finebaum, right after this.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, a college football head coach has done what some believe is unthinkable, because the college football playoffs are just a couple of weeks away. But Lane Kiffin is calling it quits from one of the top teams in the nation, Ole Miss, and heading to one of his biggest rivals.
After a win, on Friday, Lane Kiffin led Ole Miss to an 11-1 record, marking their best season, in more than six decades, with a near- certain spot in the playoffs. But then, on Sunday, Kiffin made a choice that seemed inevitable, by that point. He was accepting the new head coaching job at LSU.
This was the scene at the airport, when Ole Miss fans were telling Kiffin, Goodbye, not really nicely, as he boarded the plane for Baton Rouge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (bleep).
(BOOING)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (bleep).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (bleep).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: They were behind the barbed wire, as you can see there.
But just like that, Kiffin, a few hours later, was introduced as the new head coach at LSU.
And this is how he explained his sudden change of heart and that tense moment on the tarmac.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LANE KIFFIN, AMERICAN FOOTBALL COACH: We spent six years there, and that airport scene, and Knox and I driving and people trying to run us off the road, man. And the things they said to us.
(LAUGHTER)
KIFFIN: And then we got here, and we had been here for six minutes and how, We love you, coach, you're the best ever.
(LAUGHTER)
KIFFIN: And we're like, We've only been here six minutes, we haven't done anything for you yet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Joining me tonight is the legendary ESPN college football analyst, Paul Finebaum.
And Paul, you once called Lane Kiffin, the Miley Cyrus of college football. What did you make of what we heard from those Ole Miss fans?
PAUL FINEBAUM, ESPN COLLEGE FOOTBALL ANALYST: Yes, I think I'm going to adjust it to the Kim Kardashian, because Miley Cyrus is actually doing good things these days, Kaitlan.
It's almost impossible to describe to a national audience how chaotic and how Shakespearian this really is. But Lane Kiffin is somebody who has just bounced around in so many different places. He was fired at 31 by the Oakland Raiders. He ended up bouncing back at Tennessee. He left after one year in the middle of the night, taking players and coaches with him, to go to Southern Cal, where he was fired on the tarmac after a loss.
He resurrected his career because Nick Saban gave him a job when nobody would talk to him. Of course, he got fired in Alabama, Kaitlan, as you remember, even though he already accepted another job, but he was not paying attention to the national semifinals, and Nick Saban fired him a week before the title game.
And here we are again. It is not surprising that Lane Kiffin has walked out. But what is surprising is that Ole Miss has waited its entire life. It's been since 1963 that they've been in this position. And on the eve of the college football playoff, what does Lane Kiffin do? What Lane Kiffin always does. He burns down the house that he built, to go to another school that's better, and also the biggest rival of Ole Miss.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, it's hard to turn down $100 million.
FINEBAUM: Yes, but he would have gotten the same contract at Ole Miss.
COLLINS: Yes.
FINEBAUM: And he was also offered the same thing at Florida.
What's interesting, Kaitlan is, a couple of years ago, he almost went to Auburn. He left them at the last second. He wanted the Alabama job, after Nick Saban retired. They didn't call him. And he would have taken any job, and he would have taken the Florida job, last year. That's the problem with Lane Kiffin. He has wandering eyes. He's always looking around. And I'm sure, after this great press conference today, two years from now, if Alabama opens, he'll want that job as well.
COLLINS: Yes. We'll see.
Speaking of Alabama. Hotly debated. Do you think that Alabama should make the playoffs regardless of what happens in Atlanta this weekend?
FINEBAUM: Absolutely, Kaitlan. And if they don't make the playoffs, should they lose to Georgia? Now remember, they've beaten Georgia nine out of the last 10 times, including -- and most of that was under Nick Saban. But if they don't, I will be back here, next Monday, calling for a federal investigation of how Alabama lost out, and I hope you'll be supporting me in that.
COLLINS: Oh, I will 100 -- I'll tell you, right now, we will unequivocally support that.
And I have to ask you, before I let you go, have you made a decision on running for Senate in the State of Alabama yet?
FINEBAUM: I'm not going to give you a political answer, Kaitlan, because I think too much of you. But it has been difficult to concentrate on anything else lately, but Lane Kiffin. So, the answer is no, but hopefully very, very soon.
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: You're only focusing on Lane Kiffin.
Paul Finebaum, as always, it is great to have you. And thank you for joining us. We might see you here, next Monday night. I'll let you know.
FINEBAUM: Back -- book it.
COLLINS: Paul Finebaum, thank you so much.
And thank you all so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
