Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump: $200 Billion Iran War Funding Request "A Small Price To Pay"; Trump Says He's Not Deploying More Troops But "If I Were, I Certainly Wouldn't Tell You"; WSJ: Trump Told Advisers Some Deportation Policies Went Too Far. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 19, 2026 - 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: --the new episode just came out. It's available wherever you get your podcasts. Or you can watch it right now or listen to the entire episode, at CNN.com/AllThereIs. That's our grief community page. Yes, hope you like it.
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, President Trump is confirming, they are seeking somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 billion for the war with Iran, and why the President argues that's a small price to pay.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, as the war in Iran is sparking fears of a full-blown energy crisis, there is brand-new reporting from The New York Times about a potential divide between the United States and Israel, concerning the ultimate goals of this war, that has other nations fearing a potential disaster.
The veteran reporter behind that piece is going to join me live, in just a few moments with that breaking news.
And this comes tonight, as more U.S. forces are headed to the Middle East. With now here in Washington, the Trump administration is reportedly preparing to ask for $200 billion from Congress for the war.
$200 billion, a number that the President and the Secretary of Defense described this way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So, we want to be sure. And it's a small price to pay to make sure that we stay tippy top.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: It takes money to kill bad guys. So, we're going back to Congress and our folks there to ensure that we're properly funded for what's been done, for what we may have to do in the future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The appeal for more money comes after the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs described the war effort like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. DAN CAINE, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: We have sufficient precision munitions for the task at hand, both on the offense and defense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was March 4th. Here we are now.
And this dollar figure has taken even some Republicans by surprise on Capitol Hill, especially those who remember when the President ran on promises central to his campaign, like these.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We are never going back to a party that wants to give unlimited money to fight foreign wars.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But before the administration can try to convince some skeptical Republicans to approve what they are seeking from Congress, the President is also trying to show the world that the United States and Israel are on the same page when it comes to this war.
That's because there is mixed messaging, from both countries tonight, about what you're seeing here, fireballs and black smoke pouring out of the world's largest gas field, after an attack by -- after an attack by Israeli forces on Iran's South Pars natural gas field. The field is partially owned by Qatar, a major U.S. ally that houses U.S. forces. And it prompted Iran to target other major energy facilities in other Gulf nations.
Now, Israeli officials told CNN initially that the strike was coordinated with the United States.
A U.S. official told CNN that the United States was at least aware of this strike.
But both President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denied those reports tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL: Fact number one: Israel acted alone against the Assaluyeh gas compound.
Fact number two: President Trump asked us to hold off on future attacks, and we're holding out. TRUMP: Yes, I did. I did. I told him, Don't do that. And he won't do that. We didn't discuss. You know, we do -- we're independent. We get along great. It's coordinated. But on occasion, he'll do something, and if I don't like it, and so we're not doing that anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The reason this is such a big deal is because attacks on energy sources mark a pretty big escalation that even as you can hear from the President and his aides, they are still trying to do more to bring down oil prices.
We heard from the Treasury Secretary suggesting potentially lifting sanctions on Iranian oil to boost supply, meaning Iran would get the money from any of those sales, even as the United States tonight is waging a war against Iran.
At home, we've seen why the administration is taking these efforts. The national gas price average tonight stands at $3.88. That's up $0.95 in just the last month.
One thing that could help, of course, would be getting ships moving again through the Strait of Hormuz, that narrow choke point where several oil tankers have been attacked during this war. And today, several European nations and Japan announced that they are ready to help with those efforts.
Today in the Oval Office, we saw the President sitting alongside the Japanese prime minister.
And during a question-and-answer session with reporters, one reporter asked the president why there wasn't more coordination with allies before the war. And the President answered this way.
[21:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: One thing, you don't want to signal too much, you know? When we go in, we went in very hard. And we didn't tell anybody about it because we wanted surprise.
Who knows better about surprise than Japan, OK?
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: Why didn't you tell me about Pearl Harbor? OK?
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: Right?
He's asking me, don't you believe in surprise? I think much more so than us, and we had a surprise and we did.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: I think he also surprised the Prime Minister with those comments.
I want to bring in David Sanger, who is the White House and National Security Correspondent for The New York Times.
And CNN's Global Affairs Analyst, Brett McGurk, who served as the Middle East and North Africa Coordinator on the National Security Council.
I mean, David, beyond that comment, which I think I had probably 20 people in Trump's orbit sent to me, after I had tweeted it out tonight.
On this very real question that the President was facing tonight about the United States and Israel. You have a great new report out tonight that says three Israeli officials briefed on the strike said that the United States was informed before the attack. And then Trump, of course, in his Truth Social last night, suggested that he knew nothing about it and said the United States did not participate.
What happened here?
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE & NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUTHOR, "NEW COLD WARS": Well, what happened here was that, once again, Israel and the U.S. seem to have different agendas about how it is that they are conducting this war.
You saw it a week or so ago, when the Israelis struck some oil sites outside of Tehran, because they wanted the scene in Tehran of that awful black smoke and so forth. And the President asked them not to go do that.
Then the President made a big deal of the fact that when attacking Kharg Island, U.S. forces avoided hitting the oil infrastructure and just hit defense facilities. So his message there was, We want to be able to keep that infrastructure, so when this war ends we can get oil flowing again.
And how did the Prime Minister respond? By turning around and hitting what is basically one of the world's largest fields, it's an offshore field, for natural gas.
And again, the President had tweeted out or Truth-Social-ed out in the middle of the night that he didn't want this done, and then followed that up today.
So, what's going on here? What's going on is that the Israeli strategy is basically to bring about state collapse, as they call it. That's why there have been picking off the leaders of the Iranian intelligence, military and political leadership, and it's also why they're going after the revenue.
And meanwhile, the President wants to calm the oil markets. And so, the last thing he wants to do is see an escalation of attacks by the Iranians, in response to this, throughout the Gulf.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, Brett, how do you see this? Do you see it as a big escalation here?
BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, FORMER MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA COORDINATOR, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: I think there's zero chance that we did not know about that Israeli strike. And we have a very well-coordinated military operation where our planes are flying in close proximity to theirs. This is very well synchronized. Definitely, I would assume mil-mil coordination, military-to-military, and I would suspect the President probably knew what was happening.
I think the objective was to tell the Iranians, We can hold your energy livelihood at risk, therefore you're going to have to open the Straits of Hormuz.
It didn't work. The Iranians responded, I think, very predictively, by going after the energy infrastructure in the Gulf, which caused this big crisis, which led to the President's statement last night.
Look, you go back to first principles, and like the doctrine of strategy, and a leader has to know going into a war what exactly he or she wants to achieve. Because if you don't define it clearly, the objectives tend to be defined for you, as events unfold. That's happening here. Straits of Hormuz, before -- getting that back open, and you have a coalition partner who might have different objectives than you, or more expansive objectives? You can get into a real mission-creep scenario.
David is absolutely right. I think the Israelis would like to see regime collapse, regime change scenario through the use of air power. They have a theory of the case. Go after the Revolutionary Guards, the Basij, and the more nationalist army in Iran called the Artesh, you might shift the balance of power. I think that's highly unlikely to succeed.
And eventually, this will reach a point, where military objectives have been achieved, as the Pentagon defines them, and the President will have to decide whether this keeps going or not. I think that inflection point will come. But I think we're weeks away from that. This has a ways to go.
SANGER: Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, David, what's your sense, though, of how U.S. officials are seeing it, if there are different objectives here between Israel and the United States here as they're coordinating this together?
SANGER: Well, one of the first questions here is, did the President go into this war, thinking he had the same political objectives with Prime Minister Netanyahu or not? And I think he went into it, probably not having fully explored that, just given the speed at which they did this.
[21:10:00] I think if you listen to what the President said on the first evening of the attack, it sounded like he believed the theory that you could collapse the government, and then the people of Iran could rise up and create and create a new state. I'm not sure he believes that anymore, given what he has said.
But he's got some big decisions ahead himself. One of them is whether or not to try to take Kharg Island, which is where the Iranians load up their fuel onto ships. And the second and really hardest one is whether or not he tries to go and retrieve the 440 kilograms, 970 pounds of nuclear fuel that's sitting deep underneath a mountain out there, would be a huge operation.
COLLINS: If he wants to do either of those two things, do you think he'll have to put U.S. troops on the ground?
MCGURK: Yes. You cannot -- you cannot retrieve the highly enriched uranium which is underground in Isfahan without a force. But Isfahan is about 300 miles inside Iran, or in the middle of Iran. That is a highly, highly risky operation. And any, I think, any force on the ground is going to be a high risk.
The theory of the case here is that after a few more weeks of CENTCOM continuous campaign, you will have so degraded the missile and drones that it will be a more permissive environment for ships or for possibly forces. But those decisions, I don't think, have been made.
SANGER: That's right.
MCGURK: I think they're kind of throwing up options, and then they'll have to come within a few weeks of how to actually proceed.
COLLINS: Yes. And as David writes tonight, in terms of -- I thought the way you put in your story was, In Mr. Hegseth's telling, the entire war is playing out according to plan.
You say, Evidence to the contrary bounds.
SANGER: Well, you listen to Secretary Hegseth, and you know, they're hitting every single target.
The problem with the Hegseth approach right now is that we could hit every one of our military targets, take out those missiles, take out those launchers. And yet, the Iranians still have the capacity, through their asymmetrical means, to hit with drones, to hit with remaining missiles, to use cyber.
So, there's kind of a mismatch, where the Pentagon is using all of its old metrics for a very different new almost a Ukraine kind of war.
COLLINS: Yes.
David Sanger, great reporting in The New York Times tonight. Everyone should read it.
Brett McGurk, great to have your expertise here tonight. Thank you both for being here.
Also joining me tonight is a retired brigadier general and the Army National Guard, who, I should note, flew 44 combat missions in Iraq. Pennsylvania Republican, Congressman Scott Perry.
And thank you, sir, for being here.
Obviously, you are a lawmaker. What's your initial reaction to the Pentagon seeking $200 billion for this war? Is that something you'd vote yes on?
REP. SCOTT PERRY (R-PA): Well, that's the beginning of the -- that's the offer on the table, right? We -- all of Congress, including Republicans and Democrats, are going to want to see the granular details of what that involves. Remember, the administration also asked for $1.5 trillion in military spending to rearm, refit, retool the production lines and so on and so forth. Is this part of that, or is that separate? So, we've got a long way to go. That's the initial offer on the table.
But we have questions that are reasonable, that we will get answered. And we're going to have a say in this thing. So, we're going to -- we're going to work it out. And we understand that oftentimes you come in with something like that at the high point, at the -- you know, you reach for the stars. But then, we settle on something very different than that. So, it's a little premature to determine exactly what that looks like.
COLLINS: OK. So, you want to hear from the administration what they want to spend all of that money on, before you're willing to say whether or not you're voting yes on it. Is that what you're saying?
PERRY: I think most members, like I said, it doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat, we represent our districts, and we understand. We support the -- I support the President, and I support this action. But at the same time, we've got to pay for this. So, how is this going to be dealt with?
I would actually like to see Iran pay for this, whether it's $20 billion or $200 billion, whatever it is. Look, they've been at war with us for 47 years, and it's finally being ended by the President, which is awesome, but it comes at a cost.
And they have resources. They have been siphoning those resources away from their population for those four and a half, five decades. And certainly, they could pay that bill pretty quickly, once things get up and running, and the Ayatollah is no longer in charge. So, I think that's an option that we need to pursue as well.
COLLINS: You want to see whatever this cost the U.S. taxpayer, whatever the Pentagon does come to you and ask for, to be offset by Iran?
PERRY: Well, I think we had to have -- we got to pay for this somehow, right? We don't have endless money. I mean, it doesn't just come with the cost of conflict. I mean, everything in Congress that we pay for, people like me that don't want to bankrupt the country, say, How are we going to pay for this? What are we going to do without so that we can have this? And unfortunately, in Washington, there are very few people that ask that question, which is, How you ended up $38 trillion in debt?
[21:15:00]
But look, like I said, I support the President. We support the action. Iran has to be taken off the equation. We're sick of the terror. We're sick of being -- you know, living under the scourge of potentially nuclear war. We don't want to live like that. But all things come to the cost, so we have to be responsible with how we spend our money.
COLLINS: Yes, the President argued today, when he was asked about the $200 billion, that he said, it's a small price to pay, in his view.
PERRY: Well, look, again, do you want to live with a nuclear-armed Iran threatening to send missiles at any time of the day or night? Nobody wants to live that way. And let's also remember that Iran is responsible for probably over a 1,000 deaths and maybe tens of thousands of deaths and maiming of American service members over these last 50 years. What is that worth?
COLLINS: Yes, well I--
PERRY: I mean, for the soldiers -- yes, go ahead.
COLLINS: The reason I ask is because obviously, to your point, you're someone who has advocated for reduced federal spending during your time here in Washington.
PERRY: Right.
COLLINS: And your colleague, Lauren Boebert, also a Republican, said she's a no, on a supplemental funding, this ask from the Pentagon. She said, I am a no on any war supplemental. I am so tired of spending money over there. And I have folks in Colorado who can't afford to live. And we need America First policies right now.
Do you think that this would be in contradiction with America First policies?
PERRY: Well I think America--
COLLINS: To give $200 billion more to this?
PERRY: I think America First is a safe America and a safe world. And unfortunately, a bunch of our so-called allies aren't willing to help. I mean, they get oil out of the Strait of Hormuz, and their citizens get killed in these things because of terrorist activities by Iran too, so. But I think America First is a world where we can wake up and not have to worry about nuclear rounds impacting in our country on -- or some of our interests around the globe.
So look, as Republicans, we're going to have differences of opinion, that we always do. But we always work them out as well. And I think we can do two things at once here. We can safeguard our country, and, in turn, help safeguard the world, and at the same time, rein in our profligate spending. I think two things are possible at one time. We just -- but it takes -- it takes work, it takes effort, it takes imagination.
And I don't see any reason why the people that started this war, and it's not the United States of America. It's Iran. Let's remember, over a 1,000 service members killed by Iran--
COLLINS: Yes, I just think--
PERRY: --over these 47 years. What are they willing to pay or what should they be made to pay for this terror that they have imposed upon the free world for the last 50 years?
COLLINS: Yes, I understand your argument, but I don't think anyone thinks Iran is actually going to pay $200 billion to offset the cost. And the reason--
PERRY: Well I don't think--
COLLINS: The reason I ask is because--
PERRY: Yes, right now, Iran is not going to pay for it, but -- but under a different paradigm, where the Ayatollah is not in charge, and we have a different system of governance, and that's the terms of the conditions of -- look, Adolf Hitler and--
COLLINS: Right, but of course there's a -- there's a new--
PERRY: --and Mussolini didn't think that those terms were going to exist at the beginning of World War II, either. But that's not how it ended.
COLLINS: Yes, but obviously, there's a new -- the new Supreme Leader is the old Supreme Leader's son, so. And he's described by experts as more of a hardliner.
PERRY: Right.
COLLINS: But the reason I ask about the cost and whether or not you could get behind $200 billion. Obviously, you're someone who's running for reelection. In your home state, gas is $3.82 right now.
PERRY: Yes.
COLLINS: Do you believe that the administration has a good enough plan to bring down those gas prices right now?
PERRY: I'm sure the administration is working on it. I'm sure they're well-aware of it.
None of us, myself included, like paying high gas prices. Unfortunately, the other side of that equation is a nuclear-armed Iran and the killing of American service members for decades to come. What's that worth? I mean, it's easy to say, I don't want to pay a little bit more money.
But somebody straps on a uniform and fights for freedom and safety for America, and we got to consider them as well. And a bunch of these service members have already given their lives, and Iran has taken them.
COLLINS: Yes, and obviously, we've talked about the Fallen members here. Everyone is grateful for their service and the ultimate sacrifice that they have made.
PERRY: Absolutely.
COLLINS: On this front, though, you talk about Iran and what a threat they are, and what a disaster of a regime they are to their people, to the world.
Secretary Scott Bessent said today, the Treasury Secretary, that the U.S. might suspend sanctions on Iranian oil that's already out to sea, amid these high prices. I think some people might say, why would you ease sanctions on a country that the United States is currently at war with? How would you answer that?
PERRY: Well, I would answer that, Do you think that Iran is -- once that oil arrives wherever its destination is, do you think that Iran is getting the check? Do you think they're going to be able to get the money?
COLLINS: Yes.
PERRY: The money is probably going to come to the United States of America.
COLLINS: They are getting the money.
[21:20:00]
PERRY: How are they getting the money? Or is it being wired by China and by India? To what bank in Iran?
COLLINS: Yes.
PERRY: And if there is a bank in Iran--
COLLINS: But--
PERRY: In about 15 minutes, it can be gone.
COLLINS: But that is what's happening. I mean, that is who's buying their oil.
PERRY: Well you say -- you say that -- you say -- yes but that -- that's what you're -- the ships at sea, right, you're saying, the President's considering reducing sanctions for that oil? Because the payment's never going to get to Iran. That's pre-war.
We're into this 20 days, Kaitlan. We're into this 20 days. I mean, everything has changed. We're acting -- you're acting as though we're 20 days ago when Iran was sending this ghost fleet around, in violation of the sanctions, getting paid. That's all different now. Everything has changed. The banking -- so they don't even have an internet in Iran right now.
COLLINS: Well but the leadership does. Obviously they turn it off--
PERRY: You think somebody is going to the ATM? We can't even find--
COLLINS: Yes.
PERRY: We can't even find the supreme -- the so-called Supreme Leader. Is he alive? Does he have a leg? Is he in a coma? We don't know any of these things.
COLLINS: But I don't think that means that they're not getting any of the money from their -- from oil right now. I mean, they turned off the internet for the people of Iran. That's certainly true.
PERRY: Right. Right. Well--
COLLINS: But I think some people might not see the rationale and the reasoning.
PERRY: And look, you're speculating and so am I. But I don't think you can assume -- I don't think you can assume that the terms of sale are the same as they were 20 days ago now.
COLLINS: But do you have any issue with that, I guess, in principle, of easing those Iranian sanctions while the U.S. is at war with Iran?
PERRY: I think the--
COLLINS: Or do you see the logic in that?
PERRY: No, the issue is, is that we are not going to punish the countries that receive the oil, because they're likely going to get it for free, or they're going to pay us for it.
The point is, is Iran is not going to get the money. And even if Iran were to get the money, where are they going to spend it, you know? Russia is not helping them. China is not helping them. And I don't know if anything's much open on the streets right now in Iran. I think people are hunkered down in survival mode right now.
COLLINS: Yes, I think Russia is--
PERRY: And so, I don't think the regime is going to be headed out for vacation on their new -- the new influx of money from the money that's sold to China or India.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, I think Russia is still helping them. They're helping them target U.S. forces and assets in the region, as you know.
PERRY: Well that's a claim--
COLLINS: But we'll leave the conversation there.
PERRY: --that's a -- that's a claim -- right. That's a claim. But let's not speculate.
COLLINS: Yes, well, I mean, it was -- we heard intelligence officials saying today, they don't take U.S. adversaries at their word, when obviously that was a question, and Russia denied it.
PERRY: Sure. Yes. Right.
COLLINS: Republican Congressman Scott Perry, thank you for joining us tonight. Appreciate your time.
PERRY: Yes, ma'am, thank you. God bless you.
COLLINS: Thanks for joining us.
Up next. We've got our White House insiders here. There's new reporting tonight on an FBI leak investigation into that Intelligence chief who just resigned over this war.
Also, the President's answer to this question from my source, who was in the Oval Office today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: Mr. President, do you intend to lift sanctions on Iranian oil, and do you intend to potentially put U.S. troops or more troops in the region?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: For decades, it has been a diplomatic taboo for U.S. presidents to bring up Pearl Harbor, certainly with the Prime Minister of Japan seated next to them, as they have instead focused on the U.S. alliance with Japan that has been underway since World War II.
Yet today, President Trump did just that, as he was seated next to the Japanese Prime Minister, inside the Oval Office, when he was asked why the United States didn't coordinate better or at all, with its allies, before going to war with Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: One thing, you don't want to signal too much, you know? When we go in, we went in very hard. And we didn't tell anybody about it because we wanted surprise.
Who knows better about surprise than Japan, OK?
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: Why didn't you tell me about Pearl Harbor? OK?
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: Right?
He's asking me, don't you believe in surprise? I think much more so than us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My inside sources tonight are two top White House correspondents.
Shelby Talcott of Semafor.
And Jeff Mason of Bloomberg, who was in the Oval Office during that moment today.
I mean, first off, Jeff, just the look of the Prime Minister Takaichi's face as the President was making that comment.
MASON: Yes.
COLLINS: Initially, when he said, Who knows better about surprise, and then when he really kind of laid out exactly what he was saying there. I mean, what was it like inside the Oval?
MASON: Yes, I mean, super-awkward. And you could see not only the look on her face, but she sucks in her breath and sort of folds into the chair briefly, I think, out of shock that that was the response that he came up with to that question. It definitely was not something she was planning on hearing.
COLLINS: I mean, and a lot of the questions were about Iran.
MASON: Yes.
COLLINS: You talked to the President at one point and asked him about a key question that we have been hearing, and has been a big deliberation for them. And this is what the President told you about sending U.S. forces to Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MASON: Mr. President, do you intend to lift sanctions on Iranian oil, and do you intend to potentially put U.S. troops or more troops in the region?
TRUMP: No, I'm not putting troops anywhere. If I were, I certainly wouldn't tell you. But I'm not putting troops. And we will do whatever is necessary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: What did you -- what stood out to you about his answer? MASON: I mean, he said no. But he also said, If I were going to I wouldn't tell you. And to me, that's a little bit of a mixed message. I mean, he didn't say, I rule it out, that's absolutely not going to happen, this is going to be just an air campaign. And yet, he was also coy about it, which is President Trump's style, particularly on a question like that.
COLLINS: Yes, and we've been having our Hill team ask a lot of Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, how do they feel about this prospect, given the President has allowed that middle ground, saying, I'm not going to do it, but if I was, I'm not going to tell you.
This is what some Republicans, Shelby, on Capitol Hill have said.
[21:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: If there was a deployment of boots on the ground, do you think that Congress needs a separate vote?
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): Yes, I think then we have to go back and look at what the statute requires.
REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): I don't want to put Americans on the ground out there in any shape, form or fashion.
REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX): I think boots on the ground, I think has pretty much been ruled out.
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): I don't believe American boots on the ground are going to be required or a good idea.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I wonder what you make of, of how the White House is hearing comments like that.
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Yes, I mean, I think they're aware that boots on the ground would be certainly viewed by their own party as an escalation. And a lot of Republican lawmakers, who are very much for what the President is doing, are very squishy on the idea of this.
But at the same time, going back to his comments today, the President's comments in the Oval Office today, I also don't think he is entirely ruling out boots on the ground, because we are still hearing from officials that it is an option on the table. We know that President Trump never likes to officially take any options off the table.
And I think there are some people in the administration who believe that boots on the ground might be necessary in order to achieve the objectives that the President has laid out.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, as all of this is going on, the other issue that has been brought up a few times, certainly on Capitol Hill, is Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence's deputy, who resigned saying the war with Iran did not have an imminent threat like the President has cited, which obviously the President disagrees with.
You have new reporting on what's going on with an investigation that they say was underway into Joe Kent?
TALCOTT: Right. So, we have multiple sources confirming to us that there is an active FBI investigation over allegations that Joe Kent leaked classified information. I think the most notable part of this is all of those sources told us that this was ongoing before his resignation earlier this week.
Now, the key question that we have not gotten an answer to is, why have him on, if there were these allegations, and if there was an active investigation, and--
COLLINS: Like, why would he still have a job?
TALCOTT: Like why would -- why would you still keep him on?
But I'm also told that, you know, I think the FBI is aware of how this kind of looks, right, when this has come out. This has come out after he was really critical of the Trump administration, after he went on Tucker Carlson. And so, they are pushing for the release of some of this evidence sooner rather than later, because their argument is, We do have the evidence to back this up.
COLLINS: But obviously, Jeff, that would come as he was just meeting with Tulsi Gabbard and the Vice President on Monday. He reportedly went and sat down with Susie Wiles, the Chief of Staff. He also said that he did meet with the President before he departed.
I mean that -- for someone to be under FBI investigation for leaking, to put him in the room with top officials would seem odd?
MASON: It certainly raises a lot of questions, absolutely, and they would all know that, if that's the case, that he were under investigation. It's also just fascinating politically, going into CPAC next week, whether--
COLLINS: Which is the conservative conference that will be happening near Washington or--
MASON: It's in Dallas, actually.
COLLINS: Yes, in Dallas, sorry.
MASON: Yes. But it is -- it's the right, it's this conservative group. To see to what extent Joe Kent's departure, is the start of a wave, if there's any kind of a backlash/divide within the MAGA movement or not?
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, we were just talking to Scott Perry. He said he has questions about the $200 billion price tag they're putting on this so far--
TALCOTT: Yes.
COLLINS: --saying Congress will want to have a say in that.
Jeff Mason. Shelby Talcott. Great to have both of you here. It's great reporting. Great questions today.
Up next. When it comes to a full tank and a potentially empty wallet, we're seeing oil prices soaring. The President is suggesting he actually thought they could be worse than what you're paying right now. My political sources will weigh in, right after this.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, we're seeing some cracks among Republicans on Capitol Hill over what to do if the administration does actually come to them and ask for that $200 billion in new funding for the war with Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I support what's needed to ensure that the American people remain safe. So we'll see what that number is. I haven't seen the details.
REP. LAUREN BOEBERT (R-CO): I will not vote for a war supplement.
I am so tired of spending money elsewhere.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I think the original wording was around a $100 billion. So, we need to look at it.
HAWLEY: Let's wait and see what the request amounts to.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Whatever it costs to finish this is worth it.
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): How much is this going to cost? What -- to what extent is the Congress engaged in this? And the answer on most of this is, I don't know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Some people who do know, my political sources.
Former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton, Karen Finney.
And Republican strategist and pollster, Kristen Soltis Anderson.
I mean, that was a lot of, Let's wait and see what the actual invoice says when it comes in.
It wasn't a lot of absolute yeses, and We're definitely going to do this. KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST & POLLSTER: Yes, there are a lot of cross pressures happening within the Republican Party right now.
On the one hand, you have national security conservatives who are not necessarily sad that we're going and trying to be aggressive, militarily, in Iran.
And then you have a lot of the folks, either, the Rand Paul types, who have for a long time been opposed to things like this, as well as some of the new voters that Trump has brought to the party, who are saying, I don't know if I signed up for this. Folks like Joe Rogan, a prominent podcaster, saying, This is not what I thought I was getting.
But you also have now the fiscal element, fiscal conservatives versus those national security conservatives.
[21:40:00]
And so, all of this is creating a really tough situation, made only better by the fact that so many Republican voters just still really trust Donald Trump. And so, that's kind of keeping the party together at this moment that people still don't really want to cross Donald Trump.
COLLINS: Yes, I think the question is, what happens when they have to vote on something.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, SENIOR ADVISER, HILLARY CLINTON'S 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, DNC: Yes.
COLLINS: Because should they bring this supplemental in a few weeks? I mean, this is the first time we'd actually see Congress putting a yes or no vote on the Iran war.
FINNEY: Right. Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, we've heard from some Democrats who say, We're wary of this, because then they're going to see it as a yes, on voting for the war.
But I mean, it means Republicans would have to vote yes or no.
FINNEY: Well, but the -- that's right. But the other cross pressure here is Republicans, like Democrats, will have to go back to their voters and explain, Why the money for this but not Medicaid or not my health care, or why are we doing this instead of lowering prices?
And we're starting to see that in focus groups, where people are -- even the ones who are supportive of Trump, are saying, I don't understand why this over the priorities we thought we were voting for.
And this is, again, one of the consequences of not trying to make your case to the American people before doing this, to at least give yourself a little bit of room to say, Remember, we told you, this is why we're doing this. Instead of these, as you were just reporting on, these shifting responses about, What we're doing and why we're doing it and why we're there. So, I think that just adds both to the frustration as well as the confusion.
COLLINS: Well, and the President was asked today about gas prices themselves. I mean, speaking of what people are paying beyond health care costs. And he actually said today that he believed that he thought that they would be higher than they actually are right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Everything was going great. The economy was great. Oil prices were very low. Gasoline was dropping to -- I mean, we had $1.99, $1.85. We had great everything.
And I saw what was happening in Iran, and I said, I hate to make this excursion, but we're going to have to do it. And I actually thought the numbers would be worse. I thought that it would go up more than it did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOLTIS ANDERSON: High gas prices are political poison, and that goes back decades, decades. And the higher gas prices go, the more political peril you're in.
FINNEY: Right.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: And I think it's an especially big risk for Donald Trump, because one of the issues, where he has consistently still had majority support or more trust from voters, is keeping gas prices low, energy, energy abundance, American energy independence, all of that. Even for voters who don't like the tweets or other things that he does, that what used to be an issue that was a strength, if people start really feeling the pain at the pump? That's going to take out one of his biggest advantages that he still has.
COLLINS: Yes, they may not be thinking about his tweets, every single day. But people fill up their car multiple times a week usually.
FINNEY: A 100 percent. And you go to the grocery store, and you pay the bills, and you -- so, you're constantly looking at what money is coming out of your pocket and what's not coming back in.
And then, also the sort of lack of compassion, right? That's, Oh, I thought they would have been higher. Well, that doesn't really make people feel better when they're already pinched.
COLLINS: There is one thing -- I mean, and this was happening before the war with Iran. But as America is approaching its 250th birthday, they've been planning a lot of celebrations at the White House.
One thing that they are doing is a commemorative coin. The President's handpicked Commission is doing this. It has the President himself on it. It is front and back. I just want to note that the Commission that was reviewing it said today that they wanted to make it as large as possible. And this is something that hasn't been done since, I think, 1926 when Calvin Coolidge was on the coin. But I just -- I think maybe the cross messaging of that, and gas prices, and what Americans are dealing with, are coming at an interesting time.
FINNEY: Yes. Well, it's coming at a time, again, where people are saying, Why are we doing that, and why are we building a ballroom, when I can't pay my rent and I can't -- and I'm -- and, you know, I mean, I filled up my tank, and it was an extra 30 bucks this week, which I can afford it, but a lot of people can't.
COLLINS: Yes.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: I think it'd be wise to make as much of America 250 about America, and as little about himself as an individual. That would be my strong communications recommendation.
FINNEY: Your lips to God's ears.
COLLINS: Kristen Soltis Anderson. Karen Finney. Great to have both of you here tonight.
Up next. There is still no breakthrough here in Washington. But the Border Czar, Tom Homan, was meeting with a group of bipartisan senators, in hopes of getting a deal on funding the Department of Homeland Security. That's why your airport lines are so long right now. Our Democratic congressional source will join us right after this.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: The Wall Street Journal is reporting tonight that the President has told advisers that some of his own administration's policies on mass deportations have gone too far, and that voters, quote, Don't like the term mass deportation.
Sources are telling The Journal that the President told his advisers he essentially wants to see more attention on arresting, quote, "Bad guys" and less chaos in American cities.
A White House spokesperson told The Journal, Nobody is changing the administration's immigration enforcement agenda.
Of course, this comes after that high-stakes meeting that happened today, between the Border Czar, Tom Homan, who was sent in to replace Greg Bovino, in Minneapolis, when that was happening, and a group of senators today that he met with, to negotiate an end that they hope will happen when it comes to this shutdown over funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
Right now, there is still no deal in sight, and we've seen TSA agents calling out of work because they're not getting paychecks right now. And the department actually says that 10 percent of all TSA agents did not show up nationwide to work today. At Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta, the security wait sometimes stretched to 90 minutes this morning. As travelers at Houston's George Bush Airport waited in line, at times, for three hours.
My Democratic source tonight is Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland.
Congressman, first, what do you make of this Wall Street Journal reporting that the President is saying that the mass deportation pledge, and what that's looking like, is not good messaging, according to what The Journal says.
[21:50:00]
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, the American public has turned very sharply against it, and big majorities of Americans reject the idea that in order to enforce the immigration laws, we need to violate the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment, that we need to shoot people who are exercising their right to speak, or knock down people's doors and break into their houses without a search warrant.
So, we need to enforce the immigration laws, and we need to enforce the Constitution at the same time, and it's very possible to do both.
COLLINS: So, Democrats want reforms in order to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Obviously, though, I mean, no one has been able to come to an agreement so far. Some people say, you are going to have to compromise to get the department running again. I mean, people are waiting in these hours-long waits at airports.
Is there more that Democrats can offer here in hopes of reaching a compromise, in your view?
RASKIN: Well, absolutely. I mean, we've got the solution ready right now, and a discharge petition to go with it, simply to say, First of all, let's take the parts of the government, like Coast Guard, and FEMA, and TSA, that are not part of the debate, and let's fund them immediately. And Speaker Johnson should just come along with the Democrats on that proposal. We should make sure that Americans who work in all those agencies are getting paid.
Then we've got to deal with the problem of ICE, and the fact that American citizens cannot be shot in the face, because they're exercising their First Amendment rights. It's an agency that has been out of control, and the whole country saw it in Minneapolis, and we're seeing it in communities across the country.
So, we want the masks off, we want the cameras on, and we want them, basically, to be treated exactly like police forces are treated all over America. They can follow the law, they can follow the Constitution. And like our local officers, our state officers, like people in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines, they don't need to be masked while they do their work.
COLLINS: But of course, you need Republican votes in order to get the -- at least four Republican votes on this effort so far. I mean, Republicans so far have been resisting this, saying, We're not just going to fund the Coast Guard, we're not just going to fund TSA. We're going to fund everybody if we're going to pass this funding bill.
So, where does that leave Americans? Where does that leave everyone in the middle?
RASKIN: Well, they should engage in some honest negotiation. We should take off the table the things that we agree on. And if you believe that people at TSA should be paid, let's pay them. If you believe people at FEMA and the Coast Guard should be paid, let's pay them. And then, we can resolve our disagreements about what's been taking place with ICE. Obviously, the vast majority of Americans reject the kinds of strongarming, unconstitutional tactics that we've seen on display in Minneapolis.
COLLINS: All of this -- you know, I mentioned Tom Homan being on the Hill today. This shutdown, the partial shutdown started when Kristi Noem was still running the department. I mean, she's there now. But her replacement is about to get confirmed, it looks like.
You're the top ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, and you and your counterpart in the Senate, Dick Durbin, have called on the Justice Department to investigate Kristi Noem for perjury. What do you believe she lied about?
RASKIN: Well, a whole bunch of things.
For example, one thing she lied about was whether or not they were complying with court orders. She repeatedly restated that, that her department was complying with court orders. And yet, we have many judges who are enumerating all of the court orders that were violated.
And in fact, the Department of Justice conceded that it had dishonored more than 50 different court orders, and the judges have been absolutely ballistic about it, saying that they're not only lying in court, but once the court orders come down, they're disobeying them. And she knew that, and she lied about that. That wasn't true.
The $220 million contract. Obviously, she said that she had run it by the President, the President knew about it. President Trump said he didn't know anything about it. So, one of them is clearly lying, and the Republicans should tell us which one of them is lying. But she was under oath, the President hasn't been under the oath.
But even if you give her the benefit of the doubt on that one, there are lots of other things that she said that really just defied the credulity of the committee, and we enumerated all of them.
COLLINS: I mean, the Justice Department said, this is just a political stunt from Democrats and that you all should vote to reopen DHS. What's your reaction to the DOJ?
RASKIN: Yes, well, you might say it's a stunt, except for one sentence in our letter, which is reminding them that the statute of limitations for uttering false statements to Congress and withholding material information from Congress is a five-year statute of limitations. So, you can't lie to Congress and think that you're going to get away with it within one presidential term.
[21:55:00] So, other people in the Trump administration should be aware. Donald Trump, who goes around lying all of the time, should not be their role model here, when they come and speak under oath in Congress. It is a crime to lie under oath, and it's also a crime to lie to Congress, whether or not you're under oath.
COLLINS: Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you for joining us tonight.
RASKIN: Thanks for having me, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: And we'll be right back after this quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As the war with Iran nears a three-week mark, tomorrow night, here on CNN, we're going to host a Town Hall with the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, along with a panel of experts, to answer your questions about the administration's strategy and what might come next in the Middle East.
You'll also hear from Americans, across the political spectrum, about how this war is impacting them and the questions they have for officials.
[22:00:00]
My colleague, CNN's Dana Bash, will moderate that Town Hall with Ambassador Mike Waltz and those experts. You can see the Town Hall, live here tomorrow night, at 09:00 p.m. Eastern. Be sure to tune in.
Thank you so much for joining us here tonight on THE SOURCE.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
